Similar to previous studies that investigated marketing by Big Food and Big Alcohol on social media [25,26], we conducted a content analysis of the public accounts on social media platforms of leading alcohol brands, unhealthy (ie, energy-dense and nutrient-poor) food and beverage brands, and their parent companies. Content analysis is “a research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from texts (or other meaningful matter) to the contexts of their use” [27]. All COVID-19-related posts were retrospectively extracted in June 2020 for a 4-month time period during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia, with data collected between February 1 and May 31, 2020. During these 4 months, various actions to limit the spread of COVID-19 were implemented in Australia, including public health orders to stay at home. As this research only involved analysis of publicly available social media accounts, institutional ethics approval was not required.

We selected the top five brands in Australia and their parent companies across the following categories: (1) confectionery, (2) snacks, (3) soft drinks, (4) quick service restaurants (QSRs), (5) food delivery services, (6) beer, (7) wine, (8) spirits, (9) ready-to-drink (RTD) alcoholic beverages, (10) alcohol retailers, and (11) alcohol delivery services (see Multimedia Appendix 1). These Australian brands were selected based on Australian market share (ie, sales) [28].

Some of the top five of RTD alcoholic beverage and spirit brands overlapped (eg, Jim Beam had an RTD alcoholic beverage and a spirit in the top five), and some of the top five bottle shops and alcohol delivery companies overlapped (eg, Dan Murphy’s was in top five of both categories). We combined these categories when presenting results. Brands that did not sell ultraprocessed foods and beverages according to the NOVA classification [29], such as dairy brands, were excluded and replaced by the brand with the next largest market share.

We selected brands’ and companies’ official public accounts on the following social media platforms, where available: Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter. These four social media platforms were chosen for the following reasons:

We sampled the social media accounts that were most likely to target Australian audiences. Therefore, only the Australian accounts of brands were included. Parent companies, on the other hand, are often global entities with multiple brands in their portfolio and often did not have a local social media presence in Australia. If this was the case, international accounts were selected, where available. Occasionally, brands and parent companies used the same accounts (eg, Arnott’s, Lindt, and Uber Eats), in which case the data were only captured in the brands analysis. Finally, we excluded social media accounts that had not been active during the prior 12 months (ie, since February 1, 2019).

For each social media platform, we collected data on the number of followers, the total number of posts, and details of COVID-19-related posts that brands and companies shared using their public social media accounts. The date of these posts, the product marketed, and number of likes, views, and shares—at least one week after sharing the post—were recorded in a standardized template.

COVID-19-related posts were included if they directly or indirectly referred to the COVID-19 pandemic or issues pertaining to COVID-19 (see Figure 1), such as lockdown and social distancing. Indirect marketing included posts where the only relationship to COVID-19 was the addition of hashtags (eg, #workfromhome, #quarantinecooking, and #quarantini).

Only official brand- and company-generated posts on their social media accounts or channels were included in our analysis. For Facebook, we collected posts and reposts, including photos, videos, and events; for Instagram, we collected posts, pinned stories, and hashtag promotions in account bios; for YouTube, we collected videos; and finally, for Twitter, we collected tweets and retweets. We did not include user-generated content. For all four social media platforms, we collected the number of followers or channel subscribers (see Table 1).

We developed a coding framework based on an initial analysis of COVID-19-related posts by a subset of brands in our sample. Three investigators identified COVID-19-related themes used in social media posts by the top brand and company in each category. These initial themes were discussed with the research team in order to develop a coding framework that could be applied across all sampled social media accounts. The framework continued to develop iteratively as additional themes were identified in the data (see Table 2).

Three researchers extracted and coded the social media posts. Every individual post was independently extracted and coded by one researcher (RB or JB), and a subsample (20%) of all posts by the top brands in every product category was cross-checked for consistency of data extraction and coding by a third researcher (FM). Discrepancies in data extraction and coding were discussed between researchers and, where necessary, through consultation with a fourth researcher (KB) until consensus was reached. Because there were very few discrepancies in coding, we did not continue this process for the remaining brands. Similarly, any unclear posts and how these should be coded were discussed between the three coders and the senior member of the research team (KB) throughout the analysis.

Once all the COVID-19-related posts had been identified and coded according to the framework, we calculated the frequency with which each COVID-19-related theme was used by each brand and company and across product categories (see Table 2).

After excluding brands and services without Australian accounts in Australia, 42 brands were included in the analysis. Table 3 shows that most brands had low or no activity on YouTube and Twitter (<20 posts over 4 months), with a few exceptions such as Jimmy Brings on YouTube (24 posts; 0% COVID-19 related) and Domino’s on Twitter (24 posts; 38% [9/24] COVID-19 related). The number of account followers (see Table 1) shows that brands generally have the greatest social media followings on Facebook and Instagram. For example, McDonald’s Australia had 80,537,000 followers on Facebook, 156,000 on Instagram, 23,000 on YouTube, and 33,000 on Twitter.

Most brands (33/42, 79%) posted content that related to the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 916 COVID-19-related posts out of 2796 posts (32.8%) were identified. Engagement by followers in terms of likes, shares, and views was substantial and varied greatly between brands and type of content (see Table 3), with more active accounts generating more interactions, in general, as did videos regardless of platform. The product categories with the highest proportions of total posts related to COVID-19 were bottle shops and alcohol delivery (231/619, 37.3%), QSRs (353/915, 38.6%), food delivery (52/142, 36.6%), beer (86/226, 38.1%), spirits and RTD alcoholic beverages (34/121, 28.1%), and wine (83/261, 31.8%) (see Table 3). COVID-19-related marketing activity was very low or nonexistent for brands within the snacks and soft drink categories. Arnott’s was the most active in its category (ie, snacks), with 18 COVID-19-related posts on Facebook and Instagram (18/92, 20%) across the 4-month period.

Specific brands that were most actively posting COVID-19-related content were Domino’s and Dan Murphy’s, with both brands posting more than 100 COVID-19-related posts across the four social media platforms (Domino’s: 231/623, 37.1% of total posts; Dan Murphy’s: 119/253, 47.0% of total posts) during the 4-month period.

The analysis of COVID-19-related posts (n=916) identified a broad range of themes used, with often more than one theme used per post, in particular when posting video content. Table 4 shows that, across all brands, the themes most consistently used were (1) isolation activities, which included suggestions and activities for people to do at home while in isolation (eg, cocktail recipes by BWS, online trivia nights organized by Dan Murphy’s, and virtual parties by Domino’s), and (2) community support.

The theme isolation activities was particularly prominent among alcohol brands as well as bottle shops and alcohol delivery services (combined), with 40% to 64% of all COVID-19-related posts from alcohol categories using this theme. The proportion of COVID-19-related posts that used the theme trading and events updates was greatest for bottle shops and alcohol delivery services (70/231, 30.3%). Home delivery and take away–themed posts were frequently used by bottle shops and alcohol delivery services (73/231, 31.6%) and food delivery services (35/52, 67%), but they were also used by QSRs (197/353, 55.8%) and wine brands (30/83, 36%).

Over a third of all posts from brands representing establishments where food is handled by staff used the hygiene and contact free theme, such as QSRs (143/353, 40.5%) and food delivery services (17/52, 33%). This often included a mention of safe food handling practices and hygiene standards, an emphasis on contact-free delivery or pickup, and physical distancing requirements in stores (see Table 2 and Figure 2).

Brands also used the theme applauding health staff and essential workers for their efforts during the pandemic (QSRs: 43/353, 12.2%) or making donations to charity or other organizations (spirits and RTD alcoholic beverages: 6/34, 18%; wine: 9/83, 11%; QSRs: 34/353, 9.6%). Approximately 5% to 10% of COVID-19-related posts across almost every category referred to the products helping people cope with isolation by creating a sense of normality or of the consumer deserving a treat in difficult times (see Table 2).

A total of 16 out of 28 parent companies (57%) were excluded from the analysis, either because the brand and parent company used the same social media account (10/16, 63%) or because the parent company did not have a social media account (6/16, 38%). All 12 parent companies included in the analysis posted content that related to COVID-19. International parent companies such as Yum! Brands (n=194 posts), Unilever (n=133 posts), Mondelez (n=76 posts), and local Australian parent company Coca-Cola Amatil (n=70 posts) were most prolific in posting COVID-19-related content during the 4-month period under analysis. Of all COVID-19-related posts by parent companies across all social media platforms (n=783 posts), 54.7% (428/783) were on Twitter and 31.2% (244/783) were on Facebook (data not shown).

Table 5 illustrates the most frequently used themes for COVID-19-related posts by parent companies. For almost all product categories, the theme community support was highly prevalent, often expressed using hashtags such as #InThisTogether and #StrongerTogether. The donations theme was also frequently used across all categories. This could refer to financial donations to support relief organizations and hospitality staff funds or product donations, such as sanitizing products and food. For example, Mondelez posted that they donated US $20 million worth of chocolate and snacks globally, mainly to health care workers and food banks. The donations theme was often combined with other frequently used themes, namely applauding health staff and essential workers. For example, a Mondelez Facebook post showed a photo of health workers with Oreos and Tang—orange, powdered drink mix—in their hands (see Table 2).

Posts relating to production and supply of hand sanitizer were also frequently made by parent companies that were in the business of distilling (eg, alcohol companies) or manufacturing of sanitizing products, such as soaps and bleach. These companies also often provided health advice in terms of how to clean and sanitize to prevent spread of COVID-19 (see Table 2).

The prevalence of COVID-19-related posts that provided mental health advice was highest among alcohol companies, mainly through reposting videos from DrinkWise—the Australian alcohol industry’s social aspect organization—featuring a celebrity doctor warning about the use of alcohol as a coping mechanism for stress during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Some companies posted specifically to support their business or trading partners (see Table 2). Finally, 23% of confectionery companies’ posts (Mondelez and Nestlé) aimed to reassure consumers that the company was doing everything it could to maintain the “essential” food supply chain, often shown in behind-the-scenes videos of production and supply chains (see Table 2).

This is the first comprehensive and systematic analysis of the nature and extent of COVID-19-related online marketing by major alcohol and unhealthy food and beverage brands and their parent companies. We demonstrated that during a 4-month period (February to May 2020) of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia, 79% of the top 42 alcohol and unhealthy food and beverage brands as well as all 12 parent companies posted content related to COVID-19. Approximately one-third of social media posts by brands were COVID-19 related, and the number of likes, views, and shares indicate that engagement was substantial. Australian QSRs, alcohol brands, bottle shops, and food and alcohol delivery services were the most active in posting COVID-19-related marketing during this time. While brands in the snack, confectionery, and soft drink categories were relatively less active with regard to the number of COVID-19-related posts, their parent companies were often more active. COVID-19-related social media posts most commonly related to isolation activities, particularly for alcohol brands, with approximately half of all posts using this theme. Two other common COVID-19-related themes for both brands and companies were community support, positioning themselves as “in this together” with consumers, and applauding health staff. Parent companies also frequently posted about CSR activities, such as donations of money, food, or hand sanitizer.

Our results support and extend evidence from the marketing literature that businesses often employ cause marketing on social media platforms to improve public perception of their brand over the long term [23]. We found that parent companies, in particular, frequently posted about their CSR initiatives, such as financial donations to support relief efforts; manufacturing and/or donation of hand sanitizer by alcohol companies; donating soaps and sanitizing products, such as by the snack company Unilever; and donating chocolates, such as by the confectionery companies Mondelez and Nestlé. Communicating CSR initiatives has been shown to increase positive public attitudes to alcohol and unhealthy food brands and legitimizes their consumption [31]. Such marketing not only increases sales, but creates a fertile environment to loosen current regulations or resist further regulation of the industry, as these companies are seen as “part of the solution” [31]. For example, the industry body Alcohol Beverages Australia recently called on governments to minimize “regulatory and tax burdens” in response to the impacts of COVID-19 policies on sales [32]. Providing “health advice” in relation to avoiding contraction of COVID-19 (eg, how to wash hands) and messages related to responsible consumption of alcohol was another strategy frequently used by parent companies. While these may be viewed as health promotion messages, there is evidence to suggest that this type of messaging, when propagated by the alcohol industry, actually reinforces the idea that high levels of alcohol consumption are normal [33].

Another common reason for cause marketing is to increase immediate sales and business returns by aligning with trending topics. Our results indicate that in order to effectively engage consumers, many brands and services referred to COVID-19 in their social media posts to make themselves part of the zeitgeist, for example, by providing fun isolation activities, health and hygiene advice, and claiming “we’re all in this together.” Additionally, we found that food and alcohol delivery services, QSRs, and bottle shops responded to the rapid changes in consumer practices during the COVID-19 pandemic (eg, buying take away instead of going to restaurants). Their posts often used COVID-19 themes related to health and safety procedures, such as contact-free pickup and delivery of food and alcohol and hygienic preparation of meals. The success of this marketing and the accompanying technological advancements in online sales is illustrated by bank card data showing that Australians spent 46.2% more in bottle shops in the week ending on May 22, 2020, compared to the same week in 2019, while spending in pubs and hotels plummeted (63%) [34]. Given that the social media accounts included in our analysis each had thousands, or often hundreds of thousands, of followers, large numbers of people are likely exposed to these posts, making social media posts a very efficient form of (unpaid) advertising.

“COVID-washing” of social media posts by Big Food and Big Alcohol is propagated to ultimately further increase sales and consumption of their unhealthy products and is in direct contrast with the goal of “building back better” from COVID-19 [35]. Alcohol consumption and unhealthy food and beverage consumption are both major risk factors for excess weight gain and obesity, which in turn are risk factors for comorbidities and mortality from COVID-19 [4]. Reducing population levels of alcohol and unhealthy food consumption will not only protect against the ongoing threat from COVID-19 and other pandemics in the future but is also vital for maintaining physical and mental health during pandemics and associated times of restricted movement. Regulating the marketing of these unhealthy products is an important step toward achieving this public health goal.

Our study did not capture posts from smaller brands and companies. However, this is the first study to comprehensively describe the nature and extent of “COVID-washing” on social media platforms. A strength of our analysis is that we systematically captured all posts on social media platforms from the top brands (n=42) and parent companies (n=12), by market share, in Australia across a 4-month period during the COVID-19 pandemic. While examining all food and alcohol posts from social media platforms would provide a more accurate indication of COVID-19 marketing breadth, it would miss the depth that we were able to capture by focusing on the largest brands and companies. Another limitation of this study is that it only included publicly available marketing on four social media platforms and has missed posts on other social media platforms, including those where young people, who are more vulnerable to the effects of marketing, are active, such as Snapchat and TikTok. Our initial scoping of posts by the brands and companies included in our study suggested that the brands and companies under analysis did not have public accounts on these social media platforms; however, further work is required to better understand how these social media platforms are used by alcohol and food companies to engage consumers, including during times of crisis. A further limitation is that we were unable to determine from our analysis what the reach and actual exposure levels to these posts were. This information is only available to the marketers. However, the number of followers of active brand accounts and the level of engagement with COVID-19-related posts suggest that reach was quite high. Finally, this study only captured a portion of the marketing material created by these brands. We included public posts on official brand and company accounts, but not user-generated content, which is now an integral part of brands’ and companies’ marketing campaigns (eg, the use of influencers). We also did not capture paid advertisements, as companies are unlikely to post ads on their public pages. Thus, the practices we have identified may well be much more extensive and culturally embedded than what we describe here. It is important that future studies are designed to monitor both covert and overt marketing techniques.

“COVID-washing” by Big Food and Big Alcohol is both common and concerning. Brands and companies have strategically designed their marketing campaigns to positively align with the COVID-19 pandemic to increase brand loyalty and sales and potentially to influence and oppose regulation. This is problematic, as consumption of alcohol and unhealthy foods are directly or indirectly associated with poorer COVID-19-related outcomes; they also negatively impact physical and mental health beyond the pandemic. The implementation of comprehensive regulations to restrict unhealthy food and alcohol marketing, as recommended by the World Health Organization [36,37], is particularly acute in the COVID-19 context and is urgently required to “build back better” in a post-COVID-19 world.