How do advertising, marketing and the media shape what people choose to eat?
Analyse how food marketing, advertising and the media influence food choice, including the marketing of foods to children
Marketing and the media shape food choice through advertising, packaging, placement and social media. Much of it promotes energy-dense foods, and the marketing of these foods to children is a particular concern.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
You need to analyse the ways marketing and the media influence what people eat, and consider the issues this raises, especially the marketing of unhealthy foods to children.
How marketing influences food choice
Food companies use many techniques to shape demand:
- Advertising across television, online and outdoor media builds awareness and desire.
- Packaging and branding use colour, characters, claims and design to make a product appealing and trustworthy.
- Pricing and promotions such as discounts, bundles and meal deals make some foods cheaper and more attractive.
- Product placement puts items at eye level, near checkouts or in prominent displays to prompt impulse buying.
- Celebrity and influencer endorsement transfers a person's appeal onto a product.
- Social media spreads food trends, sponsored content and targeted advertising based on user data.
Because these techniques work on emotion, habit and convenience, they can lead people to choose foods they did not plan to, often energy-dense products rather than fresh whole foods.
The media and food trends
Beyond paid advertising, the media shapes food culture through cooking shows, news, diet trends and social media content. This can be positive, raising awareness of healthy eating, or misleading, spreading fad diets and unverified claims. A key skill is judging whether food information is evidence based or marketing dressed up as advice.
Marketing food to children
The marketing of unhealthy foods to children is a particular concern. Children are still developing the ability to recognise persuasion, so they are easily influenced by cartoon characters, toys, games and bright packaging. Brand preferences formed early can persist into adulthood, and children also influence family purchases, sometimes called pester power.
Because of this, there is debate about regulating food advertising to children, for example limiting advertising of high-sugar and high-fat foods during children's viewing times. Supporters argue it protects health; critics raise concerns about industry freedom and effectiveness. This is a good issue to evaluate from more than one side.
Why this matters
Marketing is one of the strongest social influences on food choice, linking the personal and economic factors covered elsewhere in Topic 3. Being able to analyse marketing critically helps explain real dietary patterns and supports balanced evaluation of issues such as advertising regulation, which examiners often ask about.
Digital and targeted marketing
Modern food marketing has shifted heavily towards digital and targeted channels, which raises new concerns. Social media platforms collect data on what people watch, search and buy, so advertisements can be aimed at very specific groups, including young people, at the exact moments they are most likely to respond. Influencer content blurs the line between a genuine recommendation and a paid promotion, making it harder for viewers to recognise advertising. Sponsored posts, branded games (advergames) and unboxing videos can reach children directly on their own devices, outside the reach of traditional television advertising rules.
This matters for evaluation because it shows that regulating one channel, such as children's television, may simply push marketing to less-regulated platforms. A strong response recognises that the influence of marketing is now spread across many channels and that effective responses need media literacy and broad regulation, not a single rule.
In short, marketing and the media shape food choice through advertising, packaging, pricing, placement and social media, often promoting energy-dense foods, and the marketing of these foods to children raises particular health and regulation concerns.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of SACE Board exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
SACE 20222 marksLess than 1% of children aged 2 to 3 years consume their recommended daily intake of vegetables and legumes/beans. Identify one media campaign and explain how it helps families ensure that children consume their RDI of vegetables and legumes/beans.Show worked answer →
One mark for naming a real media campaign, one mark for explaining how it works.
A strong example is the Go for 2 and 5 campaign. It is a government media campaign using television, print and online advertising to promote eating two serves of fruit and five serves of vegetables each day (1 mark).
It helps families by raising awareness of how much fruit and vegetables children need, using a simple, memorable message, and by giving practical serving ideas. This encourages parents to offer more vegetables and legumes at meals, increasing the chance children reach their RDI (1 mark).
Other accepted campaigns include LiveLighter or state-based healthy eating campaigns, explained the same way.
SACE 20214 marksEvaluate the argument that advertising of unhealthy foods to children should be more strictly regulated.Show worked answer →
Four marks need both sides and a justified judgement.
For regulation: children cannot easily recognise persuasion, so they are vulnerable to characters, toys and bright packaging; early brand preferences can last into adulthood; and most advertised foods are energy-dense, contributing to childhood obesity (about 2 marks).
Against, or limits: industry argues advertising supports business and consumer choice, parents also influence choices, and bans may simply shift marketing to less regulated platforms such as social media, reducing their effect (1 mark).
Judgement: on balance the health vulnerability of children justifies stricter regulation, but it works best combined with parental education and controls across all media, not television alone (1 mark).