ORIGINAL ARTICLE You wouldn't eat 16 teaspoons of sugar—so why drink it? Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander responses to the LiveLighter sugary drink campaign Jennifer Browne MPH, PhD 1 | Catherine MacDonald MPH 1 | Mikaela Egan B.HltSc 1 | Robyn Delbridge B.Nut & Diet 1 | Alison McAleese B.Sc 2 | Belinda Morley MPH, PhD 2 | Petah Atkinson MPH 3 1 The Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, Collingwood, Vic., Australia 2 Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Vic., Australia 3 Gukwonderuk Indigenous Engagement Unit, Monash University, Clayton, Vic., Australia Correspondence Jennifer Browne, The Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, Collingwood, Vic., Australia. Email: jenniferb@vaccho.org.au Funding information Victorian Department of Health and Human Services Abstract Issue addressed: The reach and impact of the LiveLighter and Aboriginal sugar‐ sweetened beverage (SSB) advertisements among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islan- der adults. Methods: The Aboriginal SSB advertisement launched online in January 2015 and aired on NITV in October/November 2015 as part of the Government‐funded Live- Lighter campaign. The advertisement was developed in Victoria and featured mem- bers of the Victorian Aboriginal community. Another LiveLighter advertisement targeting the general population was broadcast over the same period. Online sur- veys were completed by 150 Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander adults in November/December 2015. Results: Around half of respondents reported seeing either the Aboriginal (47%) or the LiveLighter (56%) SSB advertisement, and the proportion was significantly greater in Victoria (Aboriginal: 60%, LiveLighter: 66%) than other states/territories (Aboriginal: 29%, LiveLighter: 43%). Compared to the LiveLighter advertisement, the Aboriginal campaign was seen to be more believable, to be more relevant and to have an important message for the Aboriginal community (P < 0.001). Participants from Victoria were significantly more likely to identify the sugar content of regular soft drink, compared with those from other states/territories (68% vs 40%, P < 0.001). Sixty per cent of participants who had seen the Aboriginal SSB adver- tisement reported they drank less SSBs compared with 48% of those not exposed, though the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Conclusions: Results suggest the Aboriginal advertisement resonated with Aborigi- nal and Torres Strait Islander people and impacted knowledge about the sugar con- tent of SSBs, particularly in Victoria where the campaign originated. So what? This study highlights the importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islan- der‐led health promotion campaigns and tailoring health messages to the local Abo- riginal and/or Torres Strait Islander community. Received: 23 November 2017 | Accepted: 21 August 2018 DOI: 10.1002/hpja.196 Health Promot J Austral. 2018;1–7. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hpja © 2018 Australian Health Promotion Association | 1