Going

Beyond Downstream Social Marketing: The Case of “Jamie’s

Food Revolution”
Marı́a José Montero-Simó and Rafael A. Araque-Padilla

Abstract

Until the mid-1990s, much of the focus in social marketing was on individual behaviour change, the so-
called downstream social marketing. In recent years, scholars have proposed a broadening of social
marketing’s horizons beyond the individual to attempt to influence those that help shape the determinants
of human behaviour, namely, the structural and immediate social environment. This broad- ening
highlights the necessity to go upper stream in search of the causes of social problems (upstream social
marketing).

This case study addresses how a more comprehensive social marketing approach can be applied. To do
that, “Jamie’s Food Revolution” campaign is analysed. This campaign looks for engaging different agents in
an attempt to take into account their role in the change and push governments to improve their food and
nutrition policies. This campaign offers us a good example for examining the potential of an upper stream
social marketing approach to address a social problem.

Learning Objectives

• Differentiate between down and upstream social marketing. Understand what is meant by moving
upstream in social marketing.
• Recognize how important it is for social marketers to think beyond the individual and to ask
themselves what kind of causal behaviours should be changed.
• Understand that regardless of the person whose behaviour you are trying to change, the same basic
social marketing principles are applied.

Introduction

Childhood obesity is one of the most serious public health challenges of the twenty- first century. The
problem is global and steadily affects many low- and middle- income countries, particularly in urban
settings. The prevalence of childhood obesity has increased at an alarming rate. According to the World
Health Organization (WHO), the number of overweight or obese infants and young children (aged 0–5
years) has increased from 32 million globally in 1990 to 41 million in 2016. In the WHO African Region
alone, the number of overweight or obese children increased from four to nine million over the same
period. The vast majority of overweight or obese children live in developing countries, where the rate of
increase has been more than 30% higher than that of developed countries. If current trends continue, the
number of overweight or obese infants and young children will increase globally to 70 million by 2025.
Without intervention, obese infants and young children will likely continue to be obese during childhood,
adolescence and adulthood.

Overweight and obese children are likely to stay obese into adulthood and more likely to develop non-
communicable diseases, such as diabetes and cardiovascular diseases, at a younger age. However,
overweight and obesity, as well as their related diseases, are largely preventable. Prevention of childhood
obesity therefore needs to be a high priority. The WHO Member States in the 66th World Health Assembly
have agreed on a voluntary global non-communicable disease target to halt the rise in diabetes and obesity.

In the case of the UK, the situation is worrisome. Children and adults in the UK lead the numbers of
overweight individuals in Europe: there are seven thousand amputations a year due to diabetes suffered
by three million people. Two out of three adults are overweight, and one in four adults suffers from obesity.
To the point, the problem is serious enough that different initiatives have recently been launched to try to
remedy the problem of obesity. One of those campaigns constitutes the content of the case that is presented.

A necessary starting point to understand the case is analysing what typical British families eat and what is
influencing their choice of food and drink. According to The Food Foundation report (The Food Foundation
2016), typical British families have four members: two adults, a primary school-age child and a secondary
school-age child. These families have a total household income between £37,000 and £52,000, the middle-
income band in the UK in 2013. Approximately 1.5 million families of four members in the UK have an
income at or below this level. Parents in these typical families are administrators, teachers, health
professionals and builders.

Starting with national data sets, primary data collection, secondary sources and key informant interviews,
the cited report outlines three main findings:

1. The diets of typical British families now pose the greatest threat to their health and survival. None
of the UK family members meet all seven dietary standards that directly protect their health. Two-
thirds of their calories come from highly processed foods, many of which are low in fibre and high
in fat, sugar or salt (HFSS). Adults are eating too much red and processed meat. The diets of
children are particularly concerning: 47% of primary school children’s dietary energy comes from
HFSS foods, 85% of secondary school children are not eating enough fruit and vegetables, more
than 90% are not eating enough fibre, and all are eating too much sugar. Families are spending
nearly one-fifth (18%) of their money on food, throwing much of the food away (equivalent to six
meals per week), and not receiving value for their money.
2. Many factors in the food environment prevent UK families from eating healthy:
• Food and drink advertising reaches UK family members, including children, through
multiple channels. Adverts for prepared convenience foods and confectioneries account
for 60% of food advertising spend.
• There is an abundance of food conveniently available to UK family members. The number
of places to eat out has increased by more than 50% in the last 10 years, and the single
largest category is quick-service restaurants (QSRs), which typically sell less-healthy
meals.
• Promotions cause people to buy one-fifth more than they otherwise would. Supermarket
and eating out promotions are biased towards unhealthy foods.
• Healthy choices within the UK family’s popular product categories are lim- ited. Only 5%
of items in four product lines bought by typical families (ready meals, breakfast cereals,
bread and yoghurts) have low levels of fat, saturated fats, sugar or salt.
• Labelling is confusing due to inconsistent use of traffic lights, no consistency in the use of
portion sizes, continued use of display until and sell by dates and inconsistency between
nutrient claims and traffic lights.
• School meals offer children protection from all these factors during the school day and
during term time, but uptake is only high among infants for whom the meals are free.
3. The balance of prices of their food is wrong, tipping them even further towards unhealthy diets.
Healthier foods are three times more expensive than HFSS foods as a source of dietary energy, and
the price difference is growing. QSR meals, which tend to be less healthy, are £10 cheaper on
average than meals in pubs, restaurants and hotels.

In summary, the children in the UK typical family have very poor diets; one in three children is overweight
and obese, with all the concomitant psychological and health consequences, and a growing number are
even experiencing type 2 diabetes in adolescence. These children are tomorrow’s parents and the future
workforce. If nothing else, changes in the food system must be done to help ensure that they can eat more
healthily.

Case Development

As a response to the challenges above, Chef Jamie Oliver (of The Naked Chef) launched a cross-platform
campaign called Jamie’s Food Revolution.1 Currently, the Food Revolution is an ongoing, global campaign
of the Jamie Oliver Food Foundation and its partners at the Good Foundation to provoke debate and inspire
positive, meaningful change in the way we access, consume and understand food. From food education
programmes delivered at a local level to national and interna- tional campaigns that influence policy on key
issues, the campaign aims to revolu- tionize the way people feed themselves and their families.

The project tries to involve different stakeholders—families, schools, hospitality industry and policy
makers—in a joint effort to discuss the solutions that could provide children with access to good, fresh,
nutritious food for generations to come. This project has established four main objectives:

1. Food education. Good food education enables people everywhere to develop a better, more
understanding and balanced relationship with food.

2. Nutrition. Ensuring that children have access to good, nutritious food is vital to helping them grow up to
be healthy and happy.

3. Food waste. Globally, we waste enough food to feed the world’s hunger four times over. Food waste is
not only immoral but also unnecessary.

4. Our planet. To sustain nutritious food for now and for the future, we need to care for the planet that
produces it, linking individuals, food and the environment to create a sustainable, healthy food system on
both commercial and domestic levels.

The Strategy: A Multi-stakeholder Approach

A. Working with Families

The project promotes initiatives at different levels, from education at home to support for campaigns:

1. Campaigning for better school food policies and standards. Change can start at home simply by
learning to cook a few nutritious meals and passing those new skills onto friends and family. For
example, the initiative invited families to obtain downloads such as the ones shown below and to
join their “kids’ Food Truth gang”. Additionally, it is possible to check out Jamie’s Food Revolution
breakfast recipes.
2. Raising awareness through social media, blogging and recipe sharing. For example, one can sign
up and receive all the latest news straight to his/her inbox and share on social media.
3. Fundraising and supporting Jamie’s projects or starting a new initiative.
4. Choosing something that excites and inspires. Local groups and local ambassadors should be able
to get started and be acquainted with the current events and campaigns in a local area.
5. Proposing new initiatives. One does not have to just stick to these exact actions. If people have
other ideas or are already working on other initiatives, they are invited to let the project know.

B. Schools as a Change Agent

Through Jamie Oliver’s Kitchen Garden Project, primary school teachers are empowered to integrate
growing and cooking into the school day. By teaching children about food, where it comes from, how to
cook it and how it affects their bodies, resources and recipes equip children with the knowledge and
confidence to cook from scratch. The work also extends to secondary schools through Jamie’s Home
Cooking Skills, a BTEC (Business and Technology Education Council)- accredited programme.

These resources are also available online through the Food for Life schools and early-year programmes.
This means that one can access both programmes’ high- quality resources for a single subscription, giving
even more support to bring food education to life as well as the support needed to take the first steps to a
whole-school approach to food.

Food for Life is an award programme that provides resources, support and guidance to help schools and
nurseries provide freshly prepared, nutritious lunches, make lunchtimes a positive part of the day, and give
children and parents the opportunity to learn how to cook, grow food and understand where their food
comes from.

Through the programmes, schools can achieve awards that demonstrate their commitment to children’s
health to the wider world. Schools can work to meet criteria at the bronze, silver and gold levels, while
nurseries and children’s centres apply for a single tier award.

C. Influencing Food Hospitality

Since 2002, Jamie Oliver’s Fifteen restaurant in London has trained more than 164 young adults to
become chefs. Today, 80% of graduates are still in the hospitality industry. Building on this success—and
continuing Jamie’s mission to add more new chefs to the industry—his apprentice programme will now
be in action across all of Jamie’s 46 UK restaurants, including Fifteen London.

The Jamie Oliver Restaurant Group is composed of all Jamie’s restaurant brands: Jamie’s Italian, Jamie’s
Italian International, Barbecoa, Fifteen, Union Jacks, Jamie Oliver’s Diner, Jamie’s Pizzeria, Jamie’s Deli and
The Jamie Oliver Cookery School. Each brand has its own culture and values based on Jamie’s approach to
life. These brands inspire everything from the way the staff interact with guests and teammates to how
managers develop their staff.

D. In Search of Political Action

In lobbying the UK government to introduce a strong and robust multisectoral childhood obesity strategy,
together with medical experts and professionals, Jamie Oliver launched a six-point plan to tackle childhood
obesity in the UK. He works with partners all over the world to raise awareness and pressurize
governments and businesses to become serious about making sure children have access to the right food.
This plan details a range of proposed policies, initiatives, incentives and community-based interventions,
which together try to create a powerful tool to change the way children access and consume food and drink:

1. Sugary Drink Tax: To pressurize the government into bringing a sugary drink levy. The revenue will be
invested in health initiatives and food education.

Recent results from the Carbohydrates and Health Report (Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition
(SACN) 2015) show that soft drinks are the largest single source of sugar consumption for school-age
children and teenagers. The sugges- tion of an introduction of a 20 p levy per litre on all sugary soft drinks
could not only drive down consumption but also raise revenue of up to £1 billion per year. The UK
government should also be encouraging food manufacturers to show sugar content in teaspoons on their
products, with the aim of this labelling to eventually become mandatory throughout the EU.

2. Sugar Reformulation: Mandatory targets to reduce excessive sugar in all products and penalties for non-
compliance.

A soft drink levy will kick-start the task of reducing childhood obesity levels, but in the long term, food
reformulation is needed. The government must ensure that all food available for purchase in the UK is as
healthy as possible as soon as possible. A compulsory long-term programme to reformulate all food and
drink products with excessively high levels of sugar must be put in place. A compulsory strategy must be
pursued since the voluntary Responsibility Deal between gov- ernment and industry, conceived 5 years ago
in an attempt to improve public health, failed. Ultimately, penalties should be imposed on any food
companies that fail to meet the targets.

3. Fair Marketing: A ban on food advertising targeted at children and cutting the promotion of sugary
products.

The affordability and marketing of food need urgent attention, and policies to reduce the cost of healthy
foods are required. Regulations should be put in place to promote healthier choices and limit the quantity,
frequency and amount of time that food and drinks that are high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) can be
promoted.

The introduction of a buy-one-get-a-reduction-on-another scheme for healthier food products should be

implemented, and supermarkets should be encouraged to provide on-premises cooking classes for
customers, with government grants for in-store kitchens. Supermarkets should be incentivized to work
more closely with organizations such as FareShare (which has estimated that food waste could provide 800
million meals for British people living in poverty) and FoodCycle, so that nutritious food can be made more
available to people on lower incomes.

Restrictions on the types of food businesses allowed to set up near schools should be put in place to limit
the unhealthy choices available to children. The saturation of HFSS food in corner shops and the checkout
aisles of supermarkets must also be addressed.

4. Clearer Labelling: Mandatory and clear on-pack sugar information, such as traffic light labelling, in
addition to restrictions on portion sizes for confectionary and sugary drinks.

Both the SACN and WHO have published guidelines recommending that everyone should consume far less
free sugar daily, but current EU-governed labelling legislation around sugar is not proving adequate.
Product labels do not currently differentiate between the quantity of natural sugar in a product and any
free sugars (sugar found in honey, syrups and fruit juices as well as refined sugar added to the product by
the manufacturers). It is therefore extremely difficult for consumers to judge how well they are keeping to
the SACN and WHO guidelines. In addition, front-of-pack traffic light labelling should be made mandatory,
and restrictions on portion sizes should be legislated, where appropriate.

5. School Food: Access to healthy food at school for all children, prioritizing food education in schools.

The project considers that it is every child’s human right to learn about real food, where it comes from, how
it affects their body and how to cook it. The ongoing delivery of the actions in the UK government’s School
Food Plan is vital and should be made compulsory for all schools. Free school meals should be made
available to all families, and school food standards must apply to packed lunches, with guidance from the
Department of Health and Change4Life. Other suggestions include the following. To further build on the
success of the School Food Plan (Ofsted), school inspections must report on how schools ensure children
are eating well and leading active lifestyles. Basic nutritional training must be embedded in all teachers
training, and educational programmes must be offered to parents, parents-to-be and healthcare workers—
particularly doctors, midwives and health visitors. Out-of-term clubs would be a great opportunity for
children who might otherwise go hungry during the holidays to receive cooking lessons, using donated
food that might otherwise be destined for the landfill.

6. Education: Clear national guides on what nutritious daily meals look like, practical resources for both
parents and teachers and better consistency between the classroom and home.

Parents should be armed with the tools to help their children be the healthiest they can be. One way of
doing so is by extending the National Child

Measurement Programme (NCMP) in schools. The NCMP currently measures the weight and height of
children in the reception class and again in year 6. Ideally, it should be implemented from preschool years
and then annually throughout primary school so that early signs of obesity can be identified and
preventative measures put in place, where required. It is extremely important that such a programme is
sensitively run so that it does not lead to an increase in eating disorders among children and young people.
Expertise on this matter should be sought so that the NCMP leads to only positive outcomes for young
people.

Conclusions

This case shows us the power and creativity of social marketing to tackle complex social problems, such as
childhood obesity. In these situations, social marketers must adopt a broader perspective of intervention.
They have to be concerned with changing the social context in which individuals make decisions about their
behaviour, going beyond individuals’ behaviour, “moving upstream” and recognizing that there will be
occasions when this strategy will provide more effective and efficient social marketing solutions. All levels
of intervention are needed if social marketing is going to move from isolated behaviour change to ongoing
social change (Hastings 2008).

Regardless, upstream social marketing involves the adaptation and application of marketing and other
approaches to change the behaviour of decision makers and opinion formers, which alters the structural
environment and has a resultant positive influence on social issues (Gordon 2013). One author used a
metaphor to illustrate this broader perspective of intervention in social marketing:

Some bystanders on a riverbank notice a person swept up by the river’s current and clearly in trouble. One shouts: Why don’t you
know how to swim?; a second offers swimming lesson coupons; and fortunately, a third jumps in and pulls the drowning person out.
Over time, more and more people float down the river in trouble. Researchers take demographic profiles of these people. The whole
effort proves very expensive. Some who are saved end up falling back in. Eventually there are so many in the river, it is impossible to
save them all. Too many were falling in. The growing group that hung around the river finally got the bright idea that perhaps they
should look upstream to see why so many people were falling into the river in the first place. Once they got upstream, they found all
kinds of signs saying things like: Jump in. It’s fun. Don’t worry. The endorsers on the ads were attractive role models. The few signs
urging caution could hardly be seen. When these river marketers were criticized, their answer was that they felt it was the
responsibility of each individual to know his/her own swimming abilities. It was up to the family to teach their kids. Some of the
investigators present agreed and decided to work toward better swimming curricula in the schools and greater family involvement.
But others thought that the real problem was the upstream environment. They argued that the signs should be taken down and that
commercial free speech was not deserving of the same protection as political speech. Others worked for counter advertising that
might alter the environment. Still others thought that, although the marketing and advertising environment was a problem, it might
be wise to look even further upstream. They found that there were large parts of the population in specific areas that were sliding
into the river. These were the areas where there was high unemployment, racism, lack of education and economic opportunity, and
limited access to health care. The story concludes with the argument that these latter upstream factors are the ultimate source of
public health problems and that it is critical to link these problems with downstream conditions. (Goldberg 1995)

Undoubtedly, the more we keep going upstream, the more stakeholders are involved, the more difficult it
is to bring changes and more necessary it is to appeal to different strategies of action. However, otherwise,
a focus on only individuals’ behaviour without paying attention to the causal conditions is not enough to
influ- ence rooted social habits.

Working at different levels implies identifying the key stakeholders and under- standing how the different
factors influencing a social problem are related. In this line, it is crucial to count on a good analysis of the
situation. Jamie’s Food Revolu- tion project has been supported by scientific reports, such as The Food
Foundation Project, which brings stronger rationales to the proposed strategies.

The wider focus of upstream social marketing requires applying the social marketing concepts and
strategies to different stakeholders, which must be consid- ered as not only target adopters but also
intermediaries in many cases. For example, the hospitality industry could be a target adopter when a
change in their products or promotion practices is needed to obtain social change; however, at the same
time, it is an intermediary as long as it can play a key role in raising awareness of healthy food habits in
families (e.g. involvement in public campaigns or the use of commu- nication strategies to inform and
educate).

Finally, the design of proposals for decision makers and opinion formers is usually more controversial than
actions trying to change an individual’s habits. Unfortunately, changing structural causes is not an easy task
because there are diverse intermingled interests. The search for influence upstream requires a long- term
approach, continuous public debates, refining of proposals, searches for the support of other social agents
and a great dose of patience and persistence.

Discussion Questions

1. Explain how Jamie’s Food Revolution project has sought to go upstream in search of greater
effectiveness in social change.
2. How have the basic social marketing strategies been applied to influence the diverse behaviours
to be modified?
3. In your opinion, which key stakeholders (families, schools, industry, govern- ment) have been the
most weakly addressed in the project? Propose some possible actions for them.
References

Goldberg, M. E. (1995). Social marketing: Are we fiddling while Rome burns? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(4), 347–370.

Gordon, R. (2013). Unlocking the potential of upstream social marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 47(9), 1525–1547.

Hastings, G. (2008). Social marketing. Why should the devil have all the best tunes? Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann (Elsevier).

Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN). (2015). Carbohydrates and health report. Norwich: The Stationery Office.

The Food Foundation. (2016). FORCE-FED. Does the food system constrict healthy choices for typical British families? London.
https://foodfoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/ The-Food-Foundation-64pp-A4-Landscape-Brochure-AW-V32.pdf