Abstract
Background
Rates of childhood overweight and obesity are rising across most low and middle-income countries (LMICs), including Indonesia, the largest country in Southeast Asia. Marketing of unhealthy food and beverages to children is a key driver, yet evidence on digital marketing strategies used in LMICs remains scarce. This study examines the techniques used to advertise unhealthy food and beverages to children on social media in Indonesia.
Methods
We retrieved 295 ads on three social media platforms (Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter) from 20 food brands with the highest market share in Indonesia across four food categories (snacks, processed foods, soft drinks, and fast food). Marketing techniques used in the ads were coded based on a pre-developed codebook outlining techniques often used to target children and assessed qualitatively through content analysis. The healthfulness of the products advertised was also evaluated, based on the WHO nutrient profile model for Southeast Asia.
Results
The ads analysed employed frequently marketing techniques used to target children. The most common marketing techniques across the three platforms were the inclusion of social media features (21.3%), branded products (19.6%), emotional cues and appeal of fun (10.1%), images of children, teens, or adults (9.0%) and special offers (6.6%). Notably, 85% of the brands analysed promoted at least one food unsuitable for marketing to children based on the WHO model.
Conclusions
Food and beverage brands in Indonesia purposely and frequently employ various techniques on social media to target children with ads for food and beverages that, based international nutritional standards, are unsuitable for promotion to this age group. This represents a threat to the nutritional status, health, and well-being of Indonesian children, and calls for stricter regulations on the marketing of these products in the country.
Keywords: Childhood obesity, Nutrition, Unhealthy food marketing, Social media, Indonesia
Background
Childhood overweight, obesity, and related non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are on the rise globally, with particularly concerning trends in Southeast Asia [27]. In Indonesia—the largest country in the region—as of 2023, 19.7% of school-age children (5–12 years) and 14.3% of adolescents (13–18 years) were affected by overweight or obesity, along with 37.8% of adults [29]. This increasing prevalence of childhood obesity is alarming due to the well-documented immediate health risks and the heightened likelihood of long-term physical, psycho-social, and behavioural consequences [28, 38].
The rapid shift toward unhealthy dietary patterns has been identified a major driver of rising childhood obesity in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), including Indonesia [11]. While evidence suggests a strong retention of traditional diets in Indonesia, there has also been an increase in the consumption of foods high in fats, salt, and sugar, including packaged ultra-processed foods, as well as a shift towards increased consumption of ready-made meals outside the home [10, 11, 12]. National data indicate for instance that 96.7% of Indonesian children aged 5–19 do not meet the recommended five daily portions of fruits and vegetables, while 54.6% consume at least one sugar-sweetened beverage each day [29]. This shift is strongly influenced by environmental factors, as Indonesia’s food environments have become increasingly obesogenic [10, 45]. This includes the rise in fast food outlets and ‘modern’ retailers such as convenience stores, increased exposure to unhealthy food marketing, and lack of related regulations [45].
Marketing is among the most powerful drivers of unhealthy food consumption among children and adolescents [25, 34] and has a well-established role in promoting childhood obesity [42]. The influence of marketing has been amplified by the rise of digital marketing, especially on social media [46], which has transformed how unhealthy foods are promoted to children. With over four billion users globally [16], social media platforms offer extensive reach and immersive, interactive content that is easily accessible to children (UNICEF [43, 44, 50]. Studies suggest that digital marketing, including social media ads, may have a stronger influence on children than traditional media [4]. Due to their developing cognitive abilities, children are less able to recognise the commercial intent of advertisements, making them particularly susceptible to their influence [42, 43, 50]. As of 2023, Indonesia had an estimated 167 million social media users, representing 60.4% of the population [23]. Although disaggregated data specifically for children’s social media use is limited, available statistics indicate that teenagers are the most frequent internet users among all age groups, with an internet penetration rate of 99.1% among those aged 13–18 in 2021–2022 [13]. This highlights a heightened risk for Indonesian children, who are likely exposed to significant volumes of unhealthy food marketing online.
Despite the significant role of digital marketing in promoting unhealthy diets, regulatory action has been slow in many countries, including Indonesia [32]. Most existing regulations focus on traditional media, such as television, while digital channels—including social media—remain largely unregulated [37]. Additionally, current regulations rarely address the full impact of marketing on children. Marketing exerts its influence primarily through two channels: 'exposure,' or how frequently and widely children encounter advertisements, and 'power,' referring to the creative strategies and techniques used to make these products more appealing [19]. While regulations often target exposure, they seldom address the power of marketing techniques, limiting their effectiveness in reducing unhealthy food consumption [19].
In this context, our study presents new evidence on the marketing techniques used through digital channels to promote unhealthy food products to children in Indonesia. Furthermore, while the article is specific to Indonesia, it also provides relevant evidence to other countries that might share some socioeconomic and cultural characteristics—such as other middle-income countries undergoing rapid shifts towards unhealthy food environments.
Overall, the study has two main objectives: 1) to analyse the marketing techniques employed to promote unhealthy foods on social media platforms and identify those particularly influential on children’s food choices; and 2) to assess whether the advertised products comply with the WHO nutrient profile model for Southeast Asia, which outlines criteria to determine whether food products are suitable for marketing to children. Our findings aim to support the development of more nuanced and effective regulations to reduce children's exposure to unhealthy food marketing, contributing to broader policy actions to counter the rising rates of overweight, obesity, and related NCDs in Indonesia.
Methods
We conducted a qualitative content analysis on a sample of social media advertisements for unhealthy food products disseminated across platforms frequently used by children in Indonesia, to assess their contents for the presence of marketing techniques identified in the literature as effective in targeting children and influencing their food choices. Additionally, we performed an assessment of the advertised products for compliance against the nutritional content standards set by the WHO Nutrient Profile Model for Southeast Asia, to identify products unsuitable for the marketing to children. Data were collected by the lead researcher (IG) between October 2022 and January 2023, and analysed from January to May 2023 by IG, with input from DC and ACP.
A multi-step process was employed to select and analyse 295 ads from 20 food and beverage brands in Indonesia (Fig. 1). First, three social media platforms—Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter—were chosen for analysis, as they are among the most widely known and used platforms globally [14], including in Indonesia [36]. Specifically, according to a survey by Deakin University and UNICEF [15], Facebook (77%) and Instagram (82%) were among the top 3 most frequently used social media platforms by Indonesian adolescents. A total of 80 brands were initially selected, representing approximately 50% of the market share in Indonesia across four ultra-processed food categories (snacks, processed foods, soft drinks, and fast food), based on Euromonitor data [18].
Fig. 1.
Study design flowchart
Next, the official social media accounts for each brand were identified on all three platforms, and an average follower count across the platforms was calculated for each brand. Eight brands were omitted because they primarily focus on promoting and selling drinking water. One additional brand selling alcoholic beverages was also excluded, as these products generally do not target children, and their consumption is relatively low in Indonesia, a majority Muslim country [41].
From the remaining 71 brands, the 20 with the highest average number of followers across the three platforms were included in the analysis, representing roughly 20% of the market share in Indonesia. For each of these 20 brands, the five most recent posts on each of the three platforms, as of the day of data collection, were analysed. In total, 295 posts were assessed using a codebook detailing 12 recognised marketing techniques that target children. This codebook was based on a well-tested and established framework [3, 21], adapted followingan extensive literature review (Table 1). For ads containing text in other languages, we translated them into Bahasa Indonesia via Google Translate to accurately interpret their meaning. Various ad formats, including short video clips such as Instagram "reels," were also included in the analysis.
Table 1.
| Marketing Technique | Definitions | |
|---|---|---|
| A | Social media features | The ad contains features specific to social media platforms, such as stickers, geotags that show the picture's location, the possibility of tagging other users, and the use of hashtags |
| B | Interactive tools | The ad include features that encourage viewers to interact with the post, such as asking for likes, comments, and retweets |
| C | Celebrity endorsements and cross-promotions | The ad features cross-promotions with celebrities, other brands, specific events (e.g., the World Cup), and more |
| D | Branded products (e.g., Sprite can) | The ad prominently displays the product and the brand or its logo in the post, excluding items that are marketed without a logo. For example, a croissant shown with the brand logo, not just by itself |
| E | Holiday themes | The ad incorporates themes related to holidays celebrated by viewers, such as Christmas, Eid, and other cultural holidays, excluding non-official holidays like days of the week, birthdays, or certain store reward days |
| F | Nutrition and health Claims | The ad includes claims, phrases, or pictures related to nutrition, fitness, and health, highlighting the product's benefits for health and wellness or demonstrating its nutritional value |
| G | Special offers | The ad presents premium offers that appeal to users, including buy one get one free, special discounts, special sizes, and additional rewards on special days |
| H | Promotional characters | The ad features promotional characters, such as animals, cartoons, or other nonhuman characters, with a focus on targeting children |
| I | Images of children, teens, or adults | The ad includes images where people's faces are visible, excluding instances where only arms, hands, or other body parts are shown without the face |
| J | The theme of "taste" | The ad includes words, phrases, or pictures that convey the idea of the product's taste and appeal to viewers. For example, using walnuts in the ad to depict the walnut flavour of the coffee or including the word "delicious" in the ad |
| K | Emotional cues and appeal of "fun" | The ad features words, phrases, or pictures that create the emotional feeling of "fun" for viewers and associate a sense of "fun" or "happiness": with the marketed product. The ad may also incorporate short quizzes or games |
| L | The words "child" or "kid" appear in the post | The ad features the words "child" or "kid" anywhere in the post |
Finally, the nutritional quality of the advertised foods was evaluated according to the WHO Nutrient Profile Model for Southeast Asia [48]. The model provides an objective framework for categorising foods according to their suitability in a healthy diet, helping to define which foods are appropriate for advertising to children to promote overall dietary quality. The model sets nutritional criteria across five categories: total fat, saturated fat, total sugar, sodium, and energy [48]. Nutritional information for the advertised foods was sourced from the brand's official website, or when unavailable, from other health and wellness websites that offered data on the nutritional composition of the same or similar products, and then compared to the model.
Results
Techniques by platform and food category
All marketing techniques were found across the three social media platforms at similar frequencies (Table 2). The most common techniques included social media features (21.3%), branded products (19.6%), emotional appeals focused on fun (10.1%), images of children, teens, or adults (9.0%), and special offers (6.6%). Techniques less frequently observed included the use of terms like "child" or "kid" in the ads (1.9%) and health and nutrition claims (2.1%).
Table 2.
Marketing techniques by social media platform
| Technique | All platforms N (%) | Facebook N (%) | Instagram N (%) | Twitter N (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social media features | 231(21.3) | 82 (21.6) | 87 (23.1) | 62 18.7) |
| Interactive tools | 75 (6.9) | 25 (6.6) | 27 (7.2) | 23 (7.0) |
| Celebrity endorsements and cross-promotions | 64 (5.9) | 24 (6.3) | 26 (6.9) | 14 (4.3) |
| Branded products | 213 (19.6) | 74 (19.5) | 69 (18.4) | 70 21.2) |
| Holiday themes | 60 (5.5) | 22 (5.8) | 17 (4.5) | 21 (6.3) |
| Nutrition and health claims | 23 (2.1) | 7 (1.8) | 10 (2.7) | 6 (1.8) |
| Special offers | 72 (6.6) | 25 (6.6) | 18 (4.8) | 29 (8.8) |
| Promotional characters | 51 (4.7) | 15 (4.0) | 17 (4.5) | 19 (5.7) |
| Images of children, teens, or adults | 98 (9.0) | 40 (10.6) | 28 (7.5) | 30 (9.1) |
| The theme of “taste” | 68 (6.3) | 24 (6.3) | 28 (7.5) | 16 (4.8) |
| Emotional cues and appeal of fun | 110 (10.1) | 33 (8.7) | 45 (12.0) | 32 (9.7) |
| Words “child” or “kid” | 21 (1.9) | 8 (2.1) | 4 (1.1) | 9 (2.7) |
| Total | 1086 | 379 | 376 | 331 |
More marked differences were observed in the use of the marketing techniques across the four food groups analyzed—fast food, snacks, packaged food, and soft drinks (Table 3).
Table 3.
Marketing techniques by food category
| Technique | All categories N (%) | Fast food N (%) | Snacks N (%) | Processed foods N (%) | Soft drinks N (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social media features | 231 (21.3) | 64 (22.3) | 52 (18.8) | 46 (18.5) | 69 (25.3) |
| Interactive tools | 75 (6.9) | 18 (6.3) | 26 (9.4) | 21 (8.4) | 10 (3.7) |
| Celebrity endorsements and cross-promotions | 64 (5.9) | 8 (2.8) | 19 (6.9) | 14 (5.6) | 23 (8.4) |
| Branded products | 213 (19.6) | 61 (21.3) | 59 (21.3) | 45 (18.1) | 48 (17.6) |
| Holiday themes | 60 (5.5) | 14 (4.9) | 19 (6.9) | 18 (7.2) | 9 (3.3) |
| Nutrition and health claims | 23 (2.1) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (0.7) | 13 (5.2) | 8 (2.9) |
| Special offers | 72 (6.6) | 49 (17.1) | 8 (2.9) | 12 (4.8) | 3 (1.1) |
| Promotional characters | 51 (4.7) | 13 (4.5) | 16 (5.8) | 16 (6.4) | 6 (2.2) |
| Images of children, teens, or adults | 98 (9.0) | 10 (3.5) | 31 (11.2) | 16 (6.4) | 41 (15.0) |
| The theme of “taste” | 68 (6.3) | 19 (6.6) | 16 (5.8) | 20 (8.0) | 13 (4.8) |
| Emotional cues and appeal of fun | 110 (10.1) | 26 (9.1) | 29 (10.5) | 16 (6.4) | 39 (14.3) |
| Words “child” or “kid” | 21 (1.9) | 5 (1.7) | 0 (0.0) | 12 (4.8) | 4(1.5) |
| TOTAL | 1086 | 287 | 277 | 249 | 273 |
Differences were more notable across the four food groups analysed—fast food, snacks, packaged food, and soft drinks (Table 3). For fast-food brands, the three most prevalent techniques included social media features (22.3%), branded products (21.3%), and special offers (17.1%). Snack brands used branded products (21.3%), social media features (18.8%), and images of children, teens, or adults (11.2%). Processed food brands primarily used social media features (18.5%), branded products (18.1%), and interactive tools (8.4%). For soft drink brands, social media features (25.3%), branded products (17.6%), and images of children, teens, or adults (15.0%) were most common.
All four food categories commonly employed social media features and branded products as their top techniques. The presence of images of children, teens, or adults was the third most frequently used for soft drinks and snacks, while interactive tools ranked third for processed foods. Health and nutrition claims were absent from fast-food ads but appeared in other categories (2.1%). The term "child" or "kid" was missing in snack ads but present in other categories (1.3%). Overall, the proportions of each technique were comparable across food categories, with similar distributions of the techniques across all four groups.
Nutritional content analysis of advertised foods based on the WHO Nutrient Profile Model
Out of the 20 brands analysed, 17 (85%) promoted at least one product deemed unsuitable for advertising to children, with most exceeding WHO nutrient thresholds, indicating unsuitability for child-targeted marketing (Table 4).
Table 4.
Nutritional analysis of the advertised products against WHO Nutrient Profile Model requirements for Southeast Asia [48]
| Nutritional requirement (limit) | Food groups covered | # food brands promoting at least one product in this category | # food brands exceeding WHO Nutrient Profile thresholds (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total fats | Confectionery, bread and baked products, cereals, milk and dairy-based drinks, frozen dairy-based desserts and edible ices, pasta, noodles and similar products, fresh and frozen meat, poultry, game, fish, and seafood products, processed meat, sauces, dips, dressings and more | 13 | 10 (76.9) |
| Saturated fats | Composite foods (prepared foods), fats and oils, fat emulsions, and processed fish and seafood products | 4 | 4 (100%) |
| Total sugar | Confectionery, cereals, fish-based ready-to-eat foods, juices, water-based flavored drinks, coffee, coffee substitutes, tea, herbal infusions, frozen dairy-based desserts and edible ice, curded dairy-based desserts, composite foods (prepared foods), solid-form soybean products, and Sauces, dips, dressings and more | 12 | 11 (96%) |
| Sodium | Fine bakery wares, bread and ordinary bakery wares, cereals, potato, water-based flavored drinks, cereal, grain, tree nut-based beverages, frozen dairy-based desserts and edible ices, curded dairy-based desserts, cheese and analogues, composite foods (Prepared foods), fats and oils, and fat emulsions, pasta and noodles and like products, processed meat, poultry and game products, processed fruits and vegetables, solid-form soybean products, sauces, dips, dressings and more | 9 | 7 (77%) |
| Energy | Curded dairy-based desserts, frozen dairy-based desserts and edible ices, fish-based ready-to-eat savories, and potato Cereal or starch-based savories, Fine bakery wares, and Confectionery | 4 | 4 (100%) |
Discussion
In today’s digitalised world, social media marketing presents a novel avenue for unhealthy food promotion, creating new challenges alongside traditional advertising. This study provides novel insights into how persuasive marketing techniques are used to target children in Indonesia via social media.
How do common marketing techniques influence children’s food choices?
Prior studies have shown that online food marketing can significantly impact children's consumption of unhealthy foods. For instance, an Australian study found a direct association between online food ads and higher consumption of unhealthy foods among children [5]. In the UK, children exposed to influencers displaying unhealthy snacks on social media were more likely to consume similar products [9]. Research suggests that even adults struggle to distinguish sponsored from unsponsored content online, making children particularly vulnerable to these targeted ads [31]. A survey conducted among Indonesian adolescents in [26] found for example that one third (28%) of the respondents reported being influenced by ads seen on social media in their purchase of unhealthy food products [26].
Our findings indicate that food brands in Indonesia frequently employ persuasive techniques on social media that are known to influence children’s food choices. "Social media features"—unique engagement methods such as hashtags, geotags, and location tags—were among the most frequently used techniques [3]. Studies suggest this technique can successfully raise brand awareness and in turn, help advertisements achieve a broader reach [7].
Another prominent technique observed in this study was the use of "emotional cues and appeal of fun," particularly by soft drink brands. This technique employs positive emotions as cues to engage audiences with the brand and its products, a historically popular approach in food marketing, especially when targeting children [51]. Studies of TV advertisements have shown this technique in use in 86% of food ads during children's morning programming [2]. Available evidence indicates that positive feelings and emotional arousal after exposure to such marketing are linked to increased unhealthy food consumption among children, making this technique especially concerning in advertisements aimed at young audiences [40].
"Special offers" was another widely used marketing technique, with advertisements promoting discounts, such as “buy one get one free,” percentage-based discounts, free toys, or giveaways to attract consumers [3]. This technique is effective as perceived price fairness often enhances consumer perception of the food quality, brand, or restaurant [1]. Among children, studies show that such tactics can also promote brand loyalty [3]. This technique was particularly prevalent among fast-food brands, aligning with international evidence. For instance, McDonald’s frequently used special offers in Instagram ads promoting unhealthy foods via social media in LMICs, where they accounted for 40% of its advertisements, compared to 14% in high-income countries [6]. The high degree of influence that this technique can exert is also evidenced by a recent survey conducted among Indonesian adolescents, with 31% of Indonesian of the respondents citing specifically promotions as a key reason for choosing unhealthy foods in their daily routine [15].
Food marketing in Indonesia fails to meet public health standards, threatening children’s health
The food environment, encompassing all physical, economic, political, and socio-cultural contexts that shape a population’s food access, choices, and health, is a critical factor in public health [8, 33]. Recently, this environment has become increasingly digital in all its facets, reshaping food marketing, sales, and purchasing norms to influence food choices, preferences, and consumption [20].
Our findings show that the digital food environment in Indonesia presents significant health risks to children. A high proportion of food brands analysed in this study marketed at least one product classified as unsuitable for children by the WHO Nutrient Profile Model for Southeast Asia, with many products exceeding maximum thresholds for saturated fats, sugar, sodium, and caloric content. These findings are in line with studies from other countries, such as Mexico, where digital marketing frequently promoted foods high in nutrients associated with negative health effects, based on the Pan American Health Organization Nutrient Profile Model [39]. Similarly, in Lebanon, 79% of foods marketed digitally did not meet the WHO Nutrient Profile Model for the Eastern Mediterranean region [30].
Globally, food companies have remarkable economic power and reach, spending millions annually on marketing. For instance, in 2020, McDonald's—one of the world’s most recognisable fast-food brands—spent $1.62 billion on US advertisements alone [35]. When such significant marketing fails to align with public health standards, it poses a clear threat to children's rights to safe, healthy nutrition and to protection from exploitative marketing practices.
Tighter regulations must be in place: how this research fits into the current regulatory environment
Few countries globally have implemented robust regulations limiting unhealthy food marketing to children [37], and existing policies are often ineffective. Importantly, current regulations mostly cover children's TV programming, with limited oversight over digital, online, and mobile platforms [37]. For instance, in the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has banned "host-selling," where characters endorse products directly within children’s programming, yet similar "promotional character" techniques remain under-regulated in digital ads [31]. Moreover, while restrictions commonly target promotional characters, sponsorships, and celebrity endorsements, limits on "special offers" and health and nutrition claims remain rare [37].
In Indonesia, some regulations exist but suffer from insufficient monitoring and enforcement, with frequent non-compliance by food and beverage companies [45]. For example, the Indonesian FDA (BPOM) is tasked with monitoring the distribution and marketing of processed foods, including compliance with existing regulations that prohibit ‘misleading’ food advertisements targeting children and the promotion of unhealthy eating patterns [45]. However, enforcement remains weak, and violations persist, particularly in digital and social media spaces. The regulation also restricts the advertisement of infant formula in mass media, yet aggressive marketing tactics remain widespread, as evidenced by frequent breaches of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes [17].
Additionally, while Indonesia’s food law links nutrition policies with the goal of achieving balanced diets, there is no public procurement policy aligned with the national food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs) or a nutrient profiling system (NPS) to guide food marketing regulations. The 2014 update of the FBDGs, a key reference for promoting healthy diets, failed to incorporate measures limiting children's exposure to food and beverage marketing [45]. This regulatory gap, coupled with inadequate oversight and increasing digital marketing violations, highlights the need for stronger, more comprehensive policies to protect Indonesian children from unhealthy food marketing and address the growing burden of obesity in the country.
On a positive note, global experiences show that regulations can be effective in restricting unhealthy food marketing through various approaches. In Denmark, food marketing targeting children across all media, including digital channels, is monitored through an open forum where public complaints are reviewed. The Danish Food and Drink Federation reviews these complaints and can require companies to modify their ads, successfully influencing brand promotions in seven out of ten cases since its inception [47]. Similarly, Nigeria mandates that all digital ads undergo vetting before publication, and non-compliance carries legal consequences [47]. Voluntary self-regulation by beverage companies has been attempted in the past but has shown little impact on unhealthy food marketing, suggesting the need for mandatory, government-led regulations [37, 45]. Recent surveys from Indonesia further show strong public support, particularly from parents, for stronger regulations to curb unhealthy food marketing to children [26].
Unhealthy food marketing has been documented as a prime example of commercial determinants of health (CDOH), or activities originating in the private commercial sector that affect people's health. Young people are especially vulnerable to the impact of CDOH due to existing economic, social, and racial inequities [49]. Therefore, private sector actors, particularly food and beverage companies, must be held accountable to prevent harmful practices that negatively affect the health of vulnerable youth, in Indonesia and globally. Failure to do so can have mounting negative health impacts. For example, the widespread marketing of breastmilk substitutes globally—a practice for which comparatively a larger evidence base is available—has been linked with worsening early childhood nutrition indicators, including reduced adoption of optimal breastfeeding practices [22].
Implementing comprehensive policies for unhealthy food marketing faces challenges, such as limited political will, resources, and the influence of food and beverage companies [24]. Furthermore, digital marketing transcends national borders, requiring international cooperation [47]. Nonetheless, recent calls by the WHO and UNICEF for ambitious policies offer a framework for progress, recommending that policies be mandatory, based on a government-accepted nutrient profile model, broad enough to prevent circumvention, and specifically designed to limit marketing's reach and impact on children [49]. High-quality evidence on food marketing practices, such as this study provides, is essential to inform and implement more effective regulations for children's health.
Limitations and future research directions
We identify three key limitations to our study. First, the study analysed the five most recent ads across three platforms per brand. Ads posted on the same date may have used similar techniques, particularly in series-based promotions, which could inflate the frequency of certain techniques. However, as this study aimed to identify the overall prevalence of persuasive techniques rather than their exact frequency, this limitation does not detract from the findings.
Second, potential coding bias may have influenced results, as coding was conducted by a single researcher. To address this, two additional researchers independently coded a subset of ads, with consistent results across coders. Additionally, the coding process was grounded in a comprehensive literature review and a well-defined codebook with objective criteria, mitigating, though not eliminating, the risk of bias.
Third, the analysis focused on ads posted directly by brands to their followers, potentially underrepresenting children's exposure to paid or sponsored ads from the same brands. However, as the study examined brands with large market shares and significant followings, the contents of the ads likely reflect much of the digital content that children encounter.
Future research could investigate optimal regulatory approaches to improve the food environment for children, identifying priority food categories for regulation and evaluating the feasibility and impact of banning certain marketing techniques. Additional studies could also explore how specific techniques influence children’s behaviour, dietary patterns, and health outcomes, as well as the potential public health benefits of regulating these practices. In addition, this study examined the 20 most-followed brands, focusing on the most influential ones. Future research could explore a broader range of food brands to better understand the full impact of marketing on children, including niche brands and those with smaller followings.
Conclusions
While many purchasing decisions for children are made by their parents, children increasingly influence food choices, particularly through online exposure to food advertisements. The frequency and nature of these ads shape children’s perceptions of food and can have a profound impact on consumption. This study provides a snapshot of persuasive marketing techniques used by food brands in Indonesia to promote unhealthy products via social media, revealing a high prevalence of strategies that could drive unhealthy consumption among children. Notably, most ads failed to meet WHO standards, promoting products classified as unsuitable for children. Given marketing’s powerful influence on children’s food choices, this study calls attention to the urgent need for policies that address unhealthy food marketing, including digital media, and for robust monitoring and enforcement of existing regulations to safeguard children’s health and nutrition.
Acknowledgements
IG, ACP, AF, FW, and DC are affiliated with UNICEF. The opinions and statements in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent UNICEF’s position. We thank Roland Kupka (UNICEF Regional Office for Asia-Pacific) and Mamadou Ndiaye (UNICEF Indonesia) for their review of an earlier version of the manuscript.
Authors’ contributions
As the principal researcher, IG designed the study, collected the data, and composed the manuscript. DC supervised the project and contributed significantly to the conceptualisation and review of the article. Both DC and AP supported parts of the data collection process. MM, JG, AF, FW, ES, EWM, and FN all reviewed and provided valuable feedback to the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
The datasets used in the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study does not involve human participants.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Bassey F. O. (2014). The Effect of Perceived Price Fairness on Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty. Emu.edu.tr.https://i-rep.emu.edu.tr/xmlui/handle/11129/1780.
- 2.Batada A, Seitz M, D. Wootan M. G. & Story M. Nine out of 10 Food Advertisements Shown During Saturday Morning Children’s Television Programming Are for Foods High in Fat Sodium or Added Sugars or Low in Nutrients. J Am Diet Assoc. 2008;108(4):673–8. 10.1016/j.jada.2008.01.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Bragg M. A. Pageot Y. K. Amico A. Miller A. N. Gasbarre A. Rummo P. E. & Elbel B. (2020). Fast food beverage and snack brands on social media in the United States: An examination of marketing techniques utilized in 2000 brand posts. Pediatric Obesity 15(5).10.1111/ijpo.12606. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 4.Bragg M, Lutfeali S, Greene T, Osterman J, Dalton M. How Food Marketing on Instagram Shapes Adolescents’ Food Preferences: Online Randomized Trial. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(10): e28689. 10.2196/28689. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Baldwin HJ, Freeman B, Kelly B. Like and share: associations between social media engagement and dietary choices in children. Public Health Nutr. 2018;21(17):3210–5. 10.1017/s1368980018001866. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Cassidy O, Shin HW, Song E, Jiang E, Harri R, Cano C, Vedanthan R, Ogedegbe G, Bragg M. Comparing McDonald’s food marketing practices on official Instagram accounts across 15 countries. BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health. 2021;4(2): e000229. 10.1136/bmjnph-2021-000229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Celuch K. (2021). Original Article Hashtag usage and user engagement on Instagram: The case of #foodfestivals. Journal of Physical Education and Sport ®(JPES) 21(2) 966–973.10.7752/jpes.2021.s2120.
- 8.Chen P.-J. & Antonelli M. (2020). Conceptual Models of Food Choice: Influential Factors Related to Foods Individual Differences and Society. Foods 9(12).10.3390/foods9121898. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 9.Coates AE, Hardman CA, Halford JCG, Christiansen P, Boyland EJ. Social Media Influencer Marketing and Children’s Food Intake: A Randomized Trial. Pediatrics. 2019;143(4): e20182554. 10.1542/peds.2018-2554. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Colozza, D., 2022. A qualitative exploration of ultra-processed foods consumption and eating out behaviours in an Indonesian urban food environment. Nutrition and Health, pp.2601060221133897–2601060221133897. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 11.Colozza D, Avendano M. Urbanisation, dietary change and traditional food practices in Indonesia: A longitudinal analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2019;233:103–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Colozza D, Wang Y-C, Avendano M. Does urbanisation lead to unhealthy diets? Longitudinal evidence from Indonesia. Health Place. 2023;83: 103091. 10.1016/j.healthplace.2023.103091. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.DataIndonesia. (2022). Remaja Paling Banyak Gunakan Internet di Indonesia pada 2022. Avaialble at: https://dataindonesia.id/internet/detail/remaja-paling-banyak-gunakan-internet-di-indonesia-pada-2022.
- 14.Datareportal. (2023). Global Social Media Stats. DataReportal – Global Digital Insights; Kepios.https://datareportal.com/social-media-users.
- 15.Deakin University & UNICEF. (2023). Investigating adolescents' food-related behaviours: Survey findings from three countries in East Asia. https://wordpress-ms.deakin.edu.au/healthyfoodretail-eastasiapac/wp-content/uploads/sites/298/2023/11/Consumer-Survey_Adolescents_FINAL.pdf
- 16.Dixon, S. (2023). Number of social media users worldwide from 2017 to 2027. Statista.https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/.
- 17.Durako S.J. et al. (2016) ‘In-Country Assessments of BMS Companies Compliance with the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes’, 3129(301).
- 18.Euromonitor International. (2022). Euromonitor International | Strategic Market Research, Data & Analysis. Euromonitor.com. https://www.euromonitor.com/.
- 19.Finlay A. Robinson E. Jones A. Maden M. Cerny C. Muc M. Evans R. Makin H. & Boyland E. (2022). A scoping review of outdoor food marketing: exposure power and impacts on eating behaviour and health. BMC Public Health 22(1).10.1186/s12889-022-13784-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 20.Granheim, S. I., Løvhaug, A. L., Terragni, L., Torheim, L. E., & Thurston, M. (2021). Mapping the digital food environment: A systematic scoping review. Obesity Reviews, 23(1).10.1111/obr.13356. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 21.Jenkin G, Madhvani N, Signal L, Bowers S. A systematic review of persuasive marketing techniques to promote food to children on television. Obes Rev. 2014;15(4):281–93. 10.1111/obr.12141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Jones A, Bhaumik S, Morelli G, Zhao J, Hendry M, Grummer-Strawn L, Chad N. Digital marketing of breast-milk substitutes: a systematic scoping review. Current Nutrition Reports. 2022;11(3):416–30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Kemp, S. (2023). Digital 2023: Indonesia. Datareportal. Available at: https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2023-indonesia.
- 24.Linn S, Novosat CL. Calories for Sale: Food Marketing to Children in the Twenty-First Century. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 2008;615(1):133–55. 10.1177/0002716207308487. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Lioutas, E. D., & Tzimitra-Kalogianni, I. (2014). “I saw Santa drinking soda!” Advertising and children’s food preferences. Child: Care, Health and Development, 41(3), 424–433.10.1111/cch.12189. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 26. Lobstein, T., & Brinsden, H. (2020). Obesity: missing the 2025 global targets. World of Obesity: London, UK.
- 27.Lwin MO, Malik S, Ridwan H, Au CSS. Media exposure and parental mediation on fast-food consumption among children in metropolitan and suburban Indonesian. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2017;26(5):899–905. 10.6133/apjcn.122016.04. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Ministry of Health – RI. (2024). Indonesia Health Survey 2023.
- 29.Nasreddine, L., Taktouk, M., Dabbous, M., & Melki, J. (2019). The extent, nature, and nutritional quality of foods advertised to children in Lebanon: the first study to use the WHO nutrient profile model for the Eastern Mediterranean Region. Food & Nutrition Research, 63(0).10.29219/fnr.v63.1604. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 30.NYU. (2022, November 18). Food Marketing and Research on Kids Lacks Government Oversight [Review of Food Marketing and Research on Kids Lacks Government Oversight]. https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2022/november/food-marketing-and-research-on-kids-lacks-government-oversight.html.
- 31.Pomeranz JL, Mozaffarian D. Food Marketing to — and Research on — Children: New Directions for Regulation in the United States. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 2022;50(3):542–50. 10.1017/jme.2022.92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Rideout K. Mah C. & Minaker L. (2015). Food Environments: An Introduction for Public Health Practice. https://www.ncceh.ca/sites/default/files/Food_Environments_Public_Health_Practice_Dec_2015.pdf.
- 33.Smith R, Kelly B, Yeatman H, Boyland E. Food Marketing Influences Children’s Attitudes, Preferences and Consumption: a Systematic Critical Review. Nutrients. 2019;11(4):875. 10.3390/nu11040875. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Statista. (2021). McDonald’s Corporation advertising spending in the United States from 2009 to 2020. https://www.statista.com/statistics/192159/us-ad-spending-of-mcdonalds/.
- 35.Statista. (2022). Most used social media platforms among users in Indonesia as of February 2022. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1343136/indonesia-most-used-social-media-platforms/.
- 36.Taillie, L. S., Busey, E., Stoltze, F. M., & Dillman Carpentier, F. R. (2019). Governmental policies to reduce unhealthy food marketing to children. Nutrition Reviews, 77(11), 787–816. https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article-abstract/77/11/787/5536919?redirectedFrom=fulltext. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 37.Thaker VV, Osganian SK, deFerranti SD, et al. Psychosocial, behavioral and clinical correlates of children with overweight and obesity. BMC Pediatr. 2020;20:291. 10.1186/s12887-020-02145-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Théodore FL, López-Santiago M, Cruz-Casarrubias C, Mendoza-Pablo PA, Barquera S, Tolentino-Mayo L. Digital marketing of products with poor nutritional quality: a major threat for children and adolescents. Public Health. 2021;198:263–9. 10.1016/j.puhe.2021.07.040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.The World Bank. Total alcohol consumption per capita (liters of pure alcohol, projected estimates, 15+ years of age). 2020. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.ALC.PCAP.LI.
- 40.Toledo MVJB, Florêncio TMM, Do GLP, Carmo P, Franco M, Martins PA, Clemente APG, Santos CDL, de Vieira M, F. A. & Sawaya A. L. Long-Lasting Effects of Undernutrition. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2011;8(6):1817–46. 10.3390/ijerph8061817. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.UNICEF. (2021a). Policy brief: marketing of unhealthy foods and non-alcoholic beverages to children.https://www.unicef.org/media/116691/file/Marketing%20restrictions.pdf.
- 42.UNICEF (2021b). Growing Up in a Connected World: Understanding Children’s Risks and Opportunities in a Digital Age. UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti, Florence, Italy.https://www.unicef-irc.org/growing-up-connected.
- 43.UNICEF (2021c). Sweet-sounding adverts that leave a sour taste: social media marketing of unhealthy food to children in East Asia and Pacific. UNICEF, Bangkok. https://www.unicef.org/eap/media/9631/file/Social%20media%20marketing%20to%20children%20-%20Quilt%20Report.pdf.
- 44.UNICEF. (2022). Landscape analysis of overweight and obesity in Indonesia. Jakarta, Indonesia. https://www.unicef.org/indonesia/media/15481/file/Landscape%20Analysis%20of%20Overweight%20and%20Obesity%20in%20Indonesia.pdf.
- 45.UNICEF. (2023). Key barriers to unhealthy food marketing regulations. Global Survey Results of 24 countries. https://www.unicef.org/media/134731/file/Global_Food_Marketing_Survey_Report.pdf.
- 46.Whiting A. & Deshpande A. (2016). Towards Greater Understanding of Social Media Marketing: A Review. Journal of Applied Business and Economics 18(4) 82–91.http://www.na-businesspress.com/JABE/DeshpandeA_abstract.html.
- 47.WHO. (2012). A framework for implementing the set of recommendations on the marketing of foods and non-alcoholic beverages to children. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/80148/9789241503242_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
- 48.WHO. (2021). WHO nutrient profile model for South-East Asia Region https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/253459#:~:text=A%20nutrient%20profile%20model%20does. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 49.World Health Organization. (2023). Commercial determinants of health. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/commercial-determinants-of-health.
- 50.WHO and UNICEF. (2023). Taking action to protect children from the harmful impact of food marketing: a child rights-based approach. Geneva: World Health Organization and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240047518.
- 51.Wicks JL, Warren R, Fosu I, Wicks RH. Dual-Modality Disclaimers Emotional Appeals and Production Techniques in Food Advertising Airing During Programs Rated for Children. J Advert. 2009;38(4):93–105. 10.2753/joa0091-3367380407. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets used in the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.