Science first, communication second. A prequel to the Food and Brand Lab episode

The Food and Brand Lab at Cornell University, led by Brian Wansink (@BrianWansink) caused quite some academic turmoil these recent weeks. This contrasts sharply with the media turmoil usually generated by this lab's research. A series of academic social media posts and a critical article target the lab's inferior methodology and old school approach to rendering null-effects into (a set of) publishable papers. In this post, I want to give my account of a previous similar situation that I had with the same lab in 2012. I think the take-home-messages of this post are the following. First, I want to claim that the recent controversy fits within a longer tradition that pertains to this lab (but maybe also a large part of their discipline) and this just shows that a science revolution for reproducible findings is not a matter of a few years. Second, I do think that given previous criticism on their work, it is astonishing that it has not improved to some extent. Researchers should be more responsive to how the field reacts to their work. Third, the case seems to demonstrate a troublesome trend where labs and universities tend to invest more in PR than in research methodology and ethics. Although I am an enthusiast of science communication, we should not neglect the order in these words: science-communication. "Science first, communication second"

Empty pledges on food websites targeting children. A persuasive mark study.

Food manufacturers worldwide have typically adopted self-regulation when it concerns their targeting of children. In the EU, this resulted in the EU pledge that has seen some changes and more strict regulations in recent years. These more recent versions also include websites. The EU pledge members also monitor their compliance and this is a supposedly independent study. The results of that monitoring study are summarized as " a high level of member companies’ compliance with their commitments, as well as a significant change in the balance of food advertising to children in the EU towards options that meet common nutrition criteria" (p. 19). Of course, many of these producers typically have lean websites simply listing their catalogue, without a lot of marketing added.

Sample website from a corporate perspective. Little marketing involved

We also did a study to evaluate existing food websites targeting children. Rather than starting with the food producers, we started from the websites that are advertised to children (on food packages that often refer to campaign websites, online games etc.). In a study focusing on Belgium and the Netherlands, our results were much less rosy.
Marketing features were used on each website. Of all the foods these websites advertised, the vast majority (i.e. 88.5%) were unhealthy. A lot of the websites did actually not directly relate to the pledge members although these members represent a majority of food production. However, and this might be most unexpected, pledge members did not stand out with less marketed websites or websites advertising healthier food.

Sample website from a child's consumer perspective: a marketed advergame

More info on the article (International Journal of Health Promotion and Education) here and a full read here

Happy Birthday, New Coke (°March 23, 1985)

Tuesday April 23rd of 1985 the Coca-Cola Company launched New Coke. This still remains one of the major cases in the marketing literature. It often ranks first in all-time lists of marketing fails (such as on marketwired, or in Matt Haig's book Brand Failures). Apart from the obvious failure (for the short version, see below; for the longer version, see Wikipedia), I think it is also a good demonstration of the intangible part of brand value, which I will explain below.

Portion cues in food packaging: Implicit seduction

Ever wondered about the adequate portion size of a glass of soda or juice? A bowl of cereals? Or spreads for your sandwich? Maybe you do think about this from time to time, maybe you don't. Chances are, however, that cues around you have implicitly seduced you (they "nudged" you) to have a certain portion size because they set anchors on which you rely to make your own choices. One such cue could be provided by social comparison: you tend to derive information from what others do. For instance, you'll take a bit more than a smaller person or somebody you know to be dieting. These are quite valid cues. But we are also surrounded by biased cues on food packaging. Next time you open the fridge or you're sitting at the breakfast table, you better take a good look and then think about this post.

Food advertising and pledging not to target children

I wrote a commentary on the topic, following the Belgian Pledge of main food advertisers not to target children under 12 anymore. The commentary appeared on the blog of the KU Leuven Institute for Media Studies [in Dutch]: http://instituteformediastudies.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/kinderreclame-en-ongezonde-voeding-de-belgian-pledge/

Food plating preferences and academic peer review

I recently wrote a letter to the editor of Acta Paediatrica, commenting on an earlier published article. That original article investigated an interesting intervention parents can easily do at home to increase their children's liking of food platings, as such potentially increasing their appetite. That original article, by Zampollo, Griffin, Wansink and Shimizu, can be read here.

There are, however, a few issues with the statistics and the interpretation of these statistics, as I explained in the commentary, which can be found here.