Search

BACKGROUND: Exposure to alcohol advertising and sponsorship through elite sport is associated with harmful use of alcohol. Owing to strong financial and cultural ties between alcohol and sport in Australia, policy action to restrict alcohol sport sponsorship is unlikely to occur without strong public support for change. This study tested whether exposure to counter-advertising exposing industry marketing of harmful products-a technique shown to be effective in tobacco control-promotes higher support for policy change and less favourable beliefs about the alcohol industry among sport spectators. METHODS: A sample of 1,075 Australian adults aged 18-49 years who planned to watch an National Rugby League (NRL) State of Origin series game, featuring prominent alcohol sponsorship, was recruited through an online panel and randomly assigned to one of three conditions: control (neutral advertisement); counter-advertisement exposing alcohol harms; counter-advertisement exposing alcohol sponsorship and harms. Participants completed a pre-test questionnaire and viewed their assigned counter-advertisement multiple times in the 5-7 days before the NRL game. Within four days of watching the game, participants completed post-test measures. RESULTS: Compared to both the control advertisement and the counter-advertisement exposing alcohol harms, participants who viewed the counter-advertisement exposing alcohol sponsorship and harms were significantly more likely to indicate support for each of four policies aimed at restricting sports-related alcohol marketing, including the complete removal of alcohol sponsorship from sport (51% vs. 32% and 37%). They were also significantly less likely to agree with statements such as "alcohol companies should be allowed to sponsor sport since their products are legal" (39% vs. 63% and 60%) and significantly less likely to report liking alcohol companies in general (38% vs. 59% and 54%). There were no significant differences in policy support or

Background: Unhealthy foods are promoted heavily, through food company sponsorship of elite sport, resulting in extensive exposure among young adults who are avid sport spectators. This study explores the effects of sponsorship of an elite sporting event by: (A) non-food brands (control), (B) unhealthy food brands, (C) healthier food brands, or (D) an obesity prevention public health campaign on young adults' brand awareness, attitudes, image perceptions, event-sponsor fit perceptions, and preference for food sponsors' products. Methods: A between-subjects web-based experiment was conducted, consisting of four sponsorship conditions (A through D) featuring three product categories within each condition. Australian adults (N = 1132) aged 18-24 years were recruited via a national online panel. Participants viewed promotional videos and news stories about an upcoming international, multi-sport event (with sponsor content edited to reflect each condition), completed a distractor task, and then answered questions assessing the response variables. Regression analyses were conducted to test for differences by sponsorship condition on the respective outcome measures. Results: Compared to the control condition, unhealthy food sponsorship promoted higher awareness of, and more favourable attitudes towards, unhealthy food sponsor brands. Unhealthy food sponsorship also led to greater perceived event-sponsor fit and transfer of perceptions of the sporting event to the unhealthy food sponsor brands, relative to the control group. Exposure to sponsorship for healthier foods produced similar sponsorship effects for healthier food sponsor brands, as well as prompting a significant increase in the proportion of young adults showing a preference for these products. Obesity prevention campaign sponsorship promoted higher campaign awareness and perceived event-sponsor fit, but did not impact food attitudes or preference for unhealthy versus healthier foods. Conclusion: Findings suggest

BACKGROUND: Unhealthy foods are promoted heavily, through food company sponsorship of elite sport, resulting in extensive exposure among young adults who are avid sport spectators. This study explores the effects of sponsorship of an elite sporting event by: (A) non-food brands (control), (B) unhealthy food brands, (C) healthier food brands, or (D) an obesity prevention public health campaign on young adults' brand awareness, attitudes, image perceptions, event-sponsor fit perceptions, and preference for food sponsors' products. METHODS: A between-subjects web-based experiment was conducted, consisting of four sponsorship conditions (A through D) featuring three product categories within each condition. Australian adults (N = 1132) aged 18-24 years were recruited via a national online panel. Participants viewed promotional videos and news stories about an upcoming international, multi-sport event (with sponsor content edited to reflect each condition), completed a distractor task, and then answered questions assessing the response variables. Regression analyses were conducted to test for differences by sponsorship condition on the respective outcome measures. RESULTS: Compared to the control condition, unhealthy food sponsorship promoted higher awareness of, and more favourable attitudes towards, unhealthy food sponsor brands. Unhealthy food sponsorship also led to greater perceived event-sponsor fit and transfer of perceptions of the sporting event to the unhealthy food sponsor brands, relative to the control group. Exposure to sponsorship for healthier foods produced similar sponsorship effects for healthier food sponsor brands, as well as prompting a significant increase in the proportion of young adults showing a preference for these products. Obesity prevention campaign sponsorship promoted higher campaign awareness and perceived event-sponsor fit, but did not impact food attitudes or preference for unhealthy versus healthier foods. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest

Background: Unhealthy foods are promoted heavily, through food company sponsorship of elite sport, resulting in extensive exposure among young adults who are avid sport spectators. This study explores the effects of sponsorship of an elite sporting event by: (A) non-food brands (control), (B) unhealthy food brands, (C) healthier food brands, or (D) an obesity prevention public health campaign on young adults' brand awareness, attitudes, image perceptions, event-sponsor fit perceptions, and preference for food sponsors' products. Methods: A between-subjects web-based experiment was conducted, consisting of four sponsorship conditions (A through D) featuring three product categories within each condition. Australian adults (N = 1132) aged 18-24 years were recruited via a national online panel. Participants viewed promotional videos and news stories about an upcoming international, multi-sport event (with sponsor content edited to reflect each condition), completed a distractor task, and then answered questions assessing the response variables. Regression analyses were conducted to test for differences by sponsorship condition on the respective outcome measures. Results: Compared to the control condition, unhealthy food sponsorship promoted higher awareness of, and more favourable attitudes towards, unhealthy food sponsor brands. Unhealthy food sponsorship also led to greater perceived event-sponsor fit and transfer of perceptions of the sporting event to the unhealthy food sponsor brands, relative to the control group. Exposure to sponsorship for healthier foods produced similar sponsorship effects for healthier food sponsor brands, as well as prompting a significant increase in the proportion of young adults showing a preference for these products. Obesity prevention campaign sponsorship promoted higher campaign awareness and perceived event-sponsor fit, but did not impact food attitudes or preference for unhealthy versus healthier foods. Conclusion: Findings suggest

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based policies encouraging healthy behaviours are often strongly opposed by well-funded industry groups. As public support is crucial for policy change, public health advocates need to be equipped with strategies to offset the impact of anti-policy messages. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effectiveness of theory-based public health advocacy messages in generating public support for sugary drink/alcohol policies (increased taxes; sport sponsorship bans) and improving resistance to subsequent anti-policy messages typical of the sugary drink/alcohol industry. METHODS: We conducted a two-wave randomised online experiment assigning Australian adults to one of four health policies (sugary drink tax; sugary drink industry sports sponsorship ban; alcohol tax; alcohol industry sports sponsorship ban). Within each health policy, we randomised participants to one of five message conditions: (i) non-advocacy based message about the size and seriousness of the relevant health issue (control); (ii) standard pro-policy arguments alone; (iii) standard pro-policy arguments combined with an inoculation message (forewarning and directly refuting anti-policy arguments from the opposition); (iv) standard pro-policy arguments combined with a narrative message (a short, personal story about an individual's experience of the health issue); or (v) standard pro-policy arguments combined with a composite inoculation and narrative message. At time 1, we exposed participants (n = 6000) to their randomly assigned message. Around two weeks later, we re-contacted participants (n = 3285) and exposed them to an anti-policy message described as being from a representative of the sugary drink/alcohol industry. Generalised linear models tested for differences between conditions in policy support and anti-industry beliefs at both time points. RESULTS: Only the standard argument plus narrative message increased policy support relative to control at time 1. The standard ar