Table 5.
t Test results comparing the proportions of 4–12-year-old children and 13–17-year-old adolescents in audiences seeing HEFSS ads v. non-HEFSS ads aired on Chilean television, based on presence of prevalent marketing strategies, during two random composite weeks across April–May 2016 from the four broadcast and four cable channels with the largest youth audiences
| Marketing strategy | Mean % of 4–12-year-olds in audience | Mean % of 13–17-year-olds in audience | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-HEFSS ads | HEFSS ads | t value | Non-HEFSS ads | HEFSS ads | t value | |
| Regulated strategies | ||||||
| Presence of children | 11·8 | 16·7 | −11·7 *** | 5·7 | 7·5 | −12·0 *** |
| Animated characters | 16·4 | 20·2 | −4·9 *** | 6·8 | 8·6 | −6·7 *** |
| Celebrities | 8·5 | 9·0 | −0·70 | 5·0 | 4·7 | 0·89 |
| Promotional gifts or incentives | 9·7 | 13·1 | −2·8 ** | 4·8 | 8·3 | −6·7 *** |
| Childhood life references | 14·3 | 24·0 | −11·0 *** | 6·5 | 9·4 | −9·6 *** |
| Non-regulated strategies | ||||||
| Happiness/entertainment | 10·3 | 15·9 | −5·5 *** | 4·6 | 7·4 | −7·7 *** |
| Taste/smell/texture | 13·8 | 21·0 | −7·9 *** | 6·1 | 7·5 | 4·5 *** |
| Nutrition/weight control/health | 16·6 | 13·8 | 2·2 * | 6·2 | 5·7 | 1·1 |
| Sex/romance | 11·1 | 15·4 | −2·7 ** | 6·3 | 7·8 | −2·3 * |
| Deregulated consumption | 9·7 | 21·1 | −6·1 *** | 5·2 | 9·0 | −4·9 *** |
| Sales promotions | 10·0 | 10·2 | −0·36 | 5·1 | 4·9 | 0·75 |
| Total across all strategies | 11·8 | 16·7 | −11·7 *** | 5·7 | 7·5 | −12·0 *** |
HEFSS, high in energy, saturated fats, sugars and/or salt.
Statistical comparisons are made within rows only and are between HEFSS v. non-HEFSS ad audience composition, based on t tests adjusted for unequal variances based on Levene’s test for equality of variances. Differences considered statistically significant based on Bonferroni correction of α = 0·004 based on twelve tests (twelve most prevalent marketing strategies). HEFSS ads, n 2146; non-HEFSS ads, n 4278.
P≤0·05
P≤0·01
P≤0·001.