Density of outdoor advertising of consumable products in NYC by neighborhood poverty level

Abstract

BackgroundTo determine if outdoor advertising density for non-alcoholic drinks, food, tobacco products, and alcohol, is associated with neighborhood poverty or other Census-level characteristics in New York City (NYC).MethodsFrom June – July of 2015, photographs were taken of all street-level, stationary outdoor advertising (posters, stickers, decals, etc.) for consumable products in a sample of 953 NYC retail-dense street segments. Density of product images was analyzed by neighborhood poverty level and other characteristics using multivariate negative-binomial regression.ResultsA total of 16,305 discrete advertisements displaying 50,673 product images were photographed. Total product image prevalence relative to retail density was not significantly higher in high- vs. low-poverty neighborhoods, as hypothesized (OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 0.98, 1.77). However, total product image prevalence was higher in neighborhoods with a higher percentage of Black residents (OR: 1.08; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.12), and for sugary drinks in areas with a higher percentage of adults with <HS diploma (OR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.11, 1.58).ConclusionsProduct images were abundant throughout NYC’s retail-dense areas, with marginally greater prevalence by some Census-level demographics, irrespective of the content displayed.

Disparities in Sugary Drink Advertising on New York City Streets

“…The final sample included 953 retail-dense street segments (Figure 1), 29 which were roughly evenly distributed in low-(301), medium-(315), and high-poverty (337) neighborhoods ( Table 1). The characteristics of sampled segments varied by neighborhood poverty level, both within each borough and across NYC.…”

“…Advertisements were defined as street level (first floor level up to and including any awnings); stationary signs (e.g., posters, digital signs, stickers, and decals; examples shown in Appendix Figure 1, available online) on outdoor structures, such as newsstands, bus shelters, and payphones; and were included if they displayed a product with the intended purpose of promoting that product or type of product (Appendix Table 1, available online, describes the complete inclusion and exclusion criteria). [29][30][31] During canvassing, segments were excluded if there were no stores and retail doorways (thus, not meeting the definition of retail-dense), advertisements were obscured (i.e., segments were at ≥50% covered with scaffolding; the stores and retail doorways were offset from the sidewalk and therefore not visible from the street), or were otherwise inaccessible ( Figure 1). 29…”

“…[29][30][31] During canvassing, segments were excluded if there were no stores and retail doorways (thus, not meeting the definition of retail-dense), advertisements were obscured (i.e., segments were at ≥50% covered with scaffolding; the stores and retail doorways were offset from the sidewalk and therefore not visible from the street), or were otherwise inaccessible ( Figure 1). 29…”

Market strategies used by processed food manufacturers to increase and consolidate their power: a systematic review and document analysis

“…The use of online platforms can be particularly exploitative given that large firms are able to collect and use extensive amounts of personal data from young internet users to deliver behavioural-based precision marketing [ 11 ]. Another vulnerable population group that dominant food companies were shown to target, predominately through outdoor advertising practices, were people living in lower income neighbourhoods [ 13 , 234 ].…”

“…To date, however, the market strategies deployed by processed food manufacturers have received limited attention from the public health community. Most public health research into the market strategies of food companies has focused on the public health implications of marketing, product reformulation, and food labelling [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. However, large firms are known to deploy a wide range of strategies to protect their business models and products from adverse regulation, while simultaneously building and preserving market dominance and profits [19][20][21].…”