Pouring rights contracts between universities and beverage companies: Provisions related to scientific research.

Pouring rights contracts between universities and beverage companies are common and grant companies the exclusive right to serve, sell, and market specific beverages on campuses. In exchange, universities receive financial payments and other incentives. At the same time, beverage industry-sponsored research at universities has increased. Pouring rights contracts may include provisions that allocate funds for or place limitations on scientific research. In this cross-sectional study, we assessed whether pouring rights contracts contained provisions that allocated funds for or placed limitations on scientific research. From 2019 to 2020, we obtained contracts through requests under public records laws from US universities (public, 4-year, ≥ 20,000 students) with contracts active 2018-2019. Of the 143 requests, 6 did not have contracts and 9 declined to provide contracts. Our final sample included 131 contracts from 124 universities in 38 states. Thirty contracts (22.9%) referenced research (18 Coke; 12 Pepsi). Three contracts (2.3%) included provisions that made direct grants or gifts of research funding, 3 (2.3%) permitted the university to acknowledge funding from competitors, and 26 (19.8%) allowed for research using beverages from competing companies. Given increases in industry-sponsored research, the absence of provisions that made direct grants or gifts of research funding suggests that sponsorship of research is occurring through other mechanisms. Additionally, universities must be able to acknowledge funding and conduct research on any beverage and should not need permission via contract provisions to do so. Future studies should consider practical implications of these provisions in pouring rights contracts and assess whether they facilitate or hinder research.

Incentives and penalties tied to sales volume in contracts between beverage companies and public universities in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether and how beverage companies incentivize universities to maximize sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) sales through pouring rights contracts. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of contracts between beverage companies and public U.S. universities with 20,000 or more students active in 2018 or 2019. We requested contracts from 143 universities. The primary measures were presence of financial incentives and penalties tied to sales volume. RESULTS: 124 universities (87%) provided 131 unique contracts (64 Coca-Cola, 67 Pepsi). 125 contracts (95%) included at least one provision tying payments to sales volume. The most common incentive type was commissions, found in 104 contracts (79%). Nineteen contracts (15%) provided higher commissions or rebates for carbonated soft drinks compared to bottled water. CONCLUSIONS: Most contracts between universities and beverage companies incentivized universities to market and sell bottled beverages, particularly SSBs. Given the health risks associated with consumption of SSBs, universities should consider their role in promoting them.

Are Students Paid to Market Sugar-Sweetened Beverages to Peers? A Review of University Pouring Rights Contracts.

Background: Many university students regularly consume sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), which are associated with obesity and related chronic diseases. Moreover, students are strongly influenced by both their peers and product marketing. Our exploratory study examined pouring rights contracts between universities and beverage companies, focusing on provisions establishing campus/brand ambassador positions and marketing/merchandising manager positions whose jobs are to market SSBs on campus. Methods: For this cross-sectional study conducted in late 2020, two independent coders reviewed 131 pouring rights contracts between Coca-Cola or Pepsi and 124 unique public universities with 20,000 or more students enrolled. Contracts were active in 2018 or 2019. Results: Twenty-six contracts (20%) contained provisions specifically establishing either campus/brand ambassador positions (n = 16), marketing/merchandising manager positions (n = 7), both (n = 1), or unclear language related to these positions (n = 2). Thirteen contracts (10%) required that the position be filled by a current student. The objectives for both types of positions included increasing revenue and driving beverage sales. When stated in the contracts (n = 5), the payments allocated for these positions ranged between $5,000 and $10,000 per year. Conclusions: Given the association between SSBs and obesity and other related health outcomes, combined with the influence that peers and product marketing may have on adolescents' and young adults' attitudes toward consumption of these beverages, universities should be more transparent when these provisions are included in their pouring rights contracts and should carefully consider whether it is appropriate for these contracts to include funding for students to market SSBs.

Marketing of sugar-sweetened beverages to youth through U.S. university pouring rights contracts.

Child-targeted marketing can influence children's food preferences and childhood consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) is associated with negative health outcomes in both childhood and adulthood. This study explores how beverage companies are using pouring rights contracts (PRCs) with U.S. public universities to market SSBs to youth under 18 years of age. We obtained 139 PRCs (64 Coca-Cola, 67 Pepsi, 8 Gatorade) from 132 universities between June 2019 and August 2020. Each contract was coded by two reviewers who extracted quotes relevant to youth-targeted marketing activities. Twenty-two contracts in our sample (16%) contained a total of 25 provisions related to youth-targeted marketing. Nearly all youth-targeted marketing provisions (n = 24 of 25) were tied to university athletics. Most provisions (n = 19) described the marketing of specific beverages or involved the use of brand names that are also beverages (e.g., "Gatorade," "Coca-Cola"). Fifteen contracts included advertising or support for youth summer camps; five contracts allowed the beverage company to sponsor free experiences for children at university athletic events; three contracts allowed advertising at high school athletic events hosted at university facilities; and two contracts established programs for "underprivileged" or "disadvantaged" youth. Five contracts acknowledged that their provisions may be affected by laws or self-regulatory policies that limit advertising to children. Beverage companies should reconsider marketing to youth through PRCs, universities should carefully consider PRCs with youth-targeted provisions, and the government should further regulate and prevent youth-targeted marketing.