A new study has intensified the conflict between the food police and food marketers. Thomas Robinson of Stanford University School of Medicine has found that McDonalds’ marketing is highly effective. Young children ages 3 to 5, were presented with two identical samples of food. One sample was wrapped in plain paper while the other was in McDonald's paper. The children were more likely to indicate the food labeled McDonald's "tastes the best."

The investigators' interpretation of this finding is dazzling. According to Robinson, the children's preferences illustrate one of the pernicious effects of marketing. Robinson does not restrict his definition of marketing to television commercials. Marketing includes a vast array of child influences including "an older sibling's co-branded toy" or "a parent's hankering" for fast food. He states that his research adds "evidence to support recommendations to regulate or ban advertising or marketing of high-calorie, low-nutrient foods and beverages, or all marketing, that is directed to young children."

Popular news organizations have been eager to run with this story. Lindsey Tanner of the Associated Press wrote that the research "powerfully demonstrates how advertising can trick the taste buds of young children."

How are the food marketers responding to the charges? Emily Bryson York of Advertising Age chastises McDonald's for not fighting back. She does not question that the results are troublesome but doubts that the research was done right. She suggests that the study is flawed because of a small sample size, because young kids would automatically prefer food wrapped in colorful paper, and because it was conducted by "a group with an obvious agenda."

But what did the study really find? The investigators tested a total of 63 children, most of whom regularly eat at McDonald's. Each child was exposed to five trials of food tasting—hamburger, chicken nuggets, french fries, milk or apple juice, and carrots. A trial consisted of placing two samples of food that differed only in how they were adorned - either in McDonald's paper or in a plain wrapper. The research assistant asked the child which is from McDonald's. Children who answered incorrectly or did not respond were informed that the branded food was from McDonald's. Each child was then instructed to take a bite of the foods and indicate if they taste the same or one "tastes the best." The McDonald's-branded food was most likely to be preferred in four of the five trials. Only the hamburger did not prevail.

Children in the research act much as adults would in the same situation. Attitude toward the brand counts for a lot when physical differences between food samples is small.

Now consider what is happening from the child's perspective. He or she is motivated to answer the question accurately. The two foods are, by design, very similar physically, so the child has to look for something to break the tie. The McDonald's branding is the most obvious, easiest cue for solving the problem. “I have had good experiences with McDonald's previously, and I will use that in my judgment.” Notice that the child's rational response is different from advertising "tricking the taste buds." McDonald's has not nefariously manipulated the child. Instead the youngster has appropriately used the most relevant information available—his or her opinion of McDonald's—to answer a difficult question. If anything, the experimenters themselves were manipulative, asking the children to spot a difference in taste that, if the experimental design were successful, did not exist.

Note also that the children in the research act much as adults would in the same situation. Imagine yourself tasting similar foods and trying to decide which you preferred. You would almost certainly factor in the source of the food. That is precisely why when real taste tests are performed the participants are not told what the brands are.

Suppose we were to replicate the Stanford study with adults. What is likely to happen is that adults who have positive associations with McDonald's would prefer the McDonald's wrapped food. By contrast, adults who despise McDonald's would be more likely to say that the unbranded food tastes better. By the way, the young children of McDonald's rejectors might act similarly to their parents. Your attitude toward the brand counts for a lot when physical differences between food samples is small.

The correct interpretation of the Stanford research is that when confronted with an ambiguous taste test young children will rely on familiarity and experience in making judgments. This does not suggest that McDonald's actions are depraved, nor does it support "regulating or banning marketing directed at children."

It appears that the investigators' motivation is to influence public policy—to have the government intervene heavily in what foods get on children's plates. But the argument doesn’t hold up, once the study itself is brought into focus.

Barry A. Liebling is the president of Liebling Associates Corporation in New York—a boutique management consulting firm specializing in marketing, marketing research, and organizational analysis.

Image credit: Photo by flickr user subflux.