Sweets success for parents

Pester power is dead. Or at least it is giving way to calm negotiation over the fraught subject of money and gifts.

While the spectacle of strident children demanding ever-more expensive videos or games from their harassed parents continues to give nightmares to anyone obliged to visit a toy shop, the recession has apparently taken its toll even on the tiniest consumers.

According to exclusive research by Pam Leaper and Frances Morgan, whose Family Research Panels provided the centrepiece for last Wednesday’s Advertising & Marketing To Children conference – run in association with Marketing Week – the tightening of purse-strings by parents has forced down the spending plans of a whole generation of children.

While kids can and do continue to exert a major influence over what the family buys, mothers in particular are more cautious about giving children money, especially if there have been no prior discussions on how the cash will be spent.

Their findings are backed by the recent Wall’s Pocket Money Monitor which reports a fall in weekly pocket money and a dramatic decrease in odd-job earnings for schoolchildren, with a 22 per cent slide in wages for paper-rounds, or dog-walking.

But while official “income” is on the wane, children can expect to get more impromptu handouts from grannies or aunties, presently up by 11 per cent according to the Walls survey.

The Family Research Panel found that 40 per cent of mothers did not give any pocket money to children aged between four and 11, while those that did give it frequently waited until eight or even older to begin.

With many items that were traditionally bought by children themselves – sweets and crisps, for example – now being bought as part of the weekly shop, parents are taking a far greater degree of control over what their children consume.

While Leaper believes that the new strictness over money can be directly related to the recession, she believes that there is also a strong desire to teach children about money management, including the importance of saving.

With job insecurity a reality for many parents, children are encouraged not only to look to the future, but also to avoid buying anything that their parents perceive as rubbish.

But however strict a parent is over discretionary spending, how real is the battle between parents and children at the point of sale, the place at which even the strongest-willed mother is tempted to cave in to her querulous toddler?

It seems that many parents would now rather shop for child-targeted products such as crisps, cereals or yoghurts without the “help” of their kids. Better that than an unseemly scuffle at the checkout as Junior attempts to do his own last-minute shopping.

A recent poll suggests that 80 to 90 per cent of children only occasionally, or “never” accompany their parents on such shopping trips.

But even for those parents who deliberately exclude children from supermarket ram-raids, their influence is tangible. Thirty per cent of mothers say that they “always allow” their children to specify which crisp or snack brands they buy, whether they actually accompany them or not.

Another battle for parents and young children is the relative value of money.

While under-fives generally have no idea of what things cost, by eight, they are starting to understand that a regular 5 treat is considerably different to a major purchase of, say, 50.

Yet according to The Family Research Panels study, even older children are generally less aware of prices than might be imagined.

The wild guesses included the 13 per cent of five to eight-year-olds who said that a can of soft drink cost 3 or more and the 25 per cent of eight to ten-year-olds who thought trainers cost less than 10.

While pester power still tends to be used for low-value items such as sweets, most sensible children will either offer to pay for expensive, non-fmcg goods out of their “earnings,” or will resign themselves to waiting for Christmas or the next birthday.

Increasingly, children say that it isn’t even worth trying to overcome parental resistance; some of the mothers stressed that in their households “no” means “no”.

So having first come up with a brand that becomes a must-purchase item for children, how do marketers ensure that it stays at the top of the list?

Rafael McDonnell, the brand manager for Walkers Snack’s Monster Munch, explained how his 16-year-old brand had been reinvented for Nineties consumers.

Launched in 1978, both the brand and its cuddly TV monsters became firm favourites within months of their release, particularly among the six to eight-year-olds who comprised the chief target.

The same monsters continued to appear throughout the Eighties while the advertising reiterated the theme of Monsterland, where there were no irritating adults to say no to Monster Munch.

But by the early Nineties, children had begun to see the friendly monsters as dated. The pace of change in the kids market, says McDonnell, “was in danger of catching the brand napping”.

As it examined the brand and its purchasers, Walkers Snack Foods found that the age profile was much older than it had expected, with a large proportion of sales coming from the teenage age group.

A Mega Monster Munch product in foil packaging was launched for these older consumers and a more adult “Flamin Hot” flavour was developed.

But what to do with the main brand’s loyal consumers – still only between six and 12 years old, but more sophisticated than their brothers and sisters had been at the same age.

Mindful of other brands that had successfully made the transition from Seventies to Nineties – Sugar Puffs, Raleigh Bikes and Nike for example – Walkers reinvented the Monster for the Nineties, making it less cuddly, but more exciting and energetic than the original had been.

The relaunch, with Beefburger replacing Roast Beef and a new Spaghetti Sauce flavour, was unveiled in January this year and so far, sales have exceeded all expectations.

First quarter results are up 50 per cent on the previous year and brand awareness among children and mothers is at its highest for two years. McDonnell claims it is the brands core proposition that has enabled it to survive fads and fashions.