Ban alcohol advertising? Are they crazy?

The British Medical Association’s call for a blanket ban on alcohol advertising across all forms of UK media will have radical repercussions.

The BMA believes that by preventing drinks companies from advertising their products, either directly or through sponsorship, young people would be less inclined to drink themselves into a teenage stupor, thus alleviating them of the desire to get drunk later in life.

Yet one must wonder how they came to the conclusion that young people are particularly affected by such advertising, which apparently encourages them to binge-drink and stock up on cheap alcopops.

I cannot recall ever seeing an advert that encouraged binge-drinking. In fact, such is the level of regulation the Portman Group has imposed upon alcohol advertising in the UK that companies are barely allowed to even display their products in their adverts, let alone promote them as being fun to drink.

The statistics used by the BMA to highlight its case are also questionable. According to it, 96% of 13-year-olds were aware of alcohol advertising in some form or other. So basically they are saying that 96% of 13-year-olds have watched TV, listened to the radio, used the internet, read a magazine or seen a billboard advert at some time in their life. One has to wonder what the remaining 4% have been doing with their lives.

Professor Gerard Hastings, author of the BMA’s study entitled Under The Influence, seems to place the blame for people’s descent into alcoholism squarely at the foot of the poor companies battling ever-increasing obstacles to promote their drinks products.

He said: “They make a fortune out of people breaking those limits.” He then went even further, saying that ASBOs should “not be slapped on the vomiting teenagers, they should be slapped on the irresponsible marketers”. It’s a particularly one-sided, not to mention unfair, accusation to level at the people behind some quite inspired marketing campaigns. He’s suggesting that people doing an honest job in tough conditions are responsible for the deaths, injuries and other problems encountered by people who are not mature or mentally stable enough to control their drinking.

You know that something must be wrong when even the Portman Group jumps to the defence of the alcohol marketers. Chief executive David Poley said: “The effectiveness of our regulatory work has been recognised by several independent and authoritative bodies. Despite this, doctors dismiss out-of-hand the strict controls.

“They criticise the system while failing in their duty to alert the Independent Complaints Panel to their marketing concerns.

“The BMA is ignoring all evidence that advertising causes brand switching, not harmful drinking. A ban would not improve our drinking culture and could even be counter-productive.

“The University of Sheffield found it would create fiercer price competition which could actually increase overall consumption.”

The report also fails to take into account the disastrous consequences such a ban could have on the lives of thousands of British citizens who earn their living in the drinks industry. It’s not just the marketing departments that would be affected – every level of a drinks company could potentially suffer. Jobs would be lost, houses repossessed and families left homeless.

The report also seems to assume that the industry is doing nothing to promote sensible drinking habits in the UK. Have these people not seen the warnings and anti-binging messages that the industry relentlessly churns out? One has to ask oneself when was the last time any of them saw a drinks advert.

Jeremy Beadles, chief executive of the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, hit the nail on the head when responding to the BMA’s report. He said: “The BMA says that it is not anti-alcohol yet with alcohol consumption falling since 2004 and Britain facing the worst recession since the 1930’s they call for measures that would hit the pockets of millions of consumers and threaten the livelihoods of thousands of people working in the media, advertising, television, not to mention the drinks industry.

“Britain already has amongst the highest taxes on alcohol in Europe.  It should be obvious by now that higher taxation and higher prices don’t curb alcohol misuse.

“The drinks industry is funding a major campaign to change drinking patterns amongst young adults. We believe culture change is more likely to be achieved through long term education and tough enforcement.”

Amusingly, only a few hours after hearing about this report, the Football Association announced a four-year extension to its sponsorship deal with Carlsberg. Hopefully Professor Hastings and friends will soon come to realise that it’s going to be incredibly difficult to force alcohol advertising under.

Alan Lodge, 09.09.2009

What do you think of the BMA’s recommendations? Is alcohol advertising at fault for young people binge-drinking? Do you think a ban on alcohol advertising will maybe become a reality one day? Email your views to debate@thedrinksbusiness.com.

Peter Bowyer, director, Marlborough International (UK) Limited

"I think it sensible to include an analogy with the tobacco industry here and what has happened to that over the last twenty years or so. Initially advertising of tobacco was allowed, then restricted etc. Even then the reasons for the advertising where given as being to encourage the switching of brands rather than to take up smoking, but no-one listened that voice of reason. Now we have a complete ban on smoking.

 
"I am not a fan of smoking but I am an ardent fan of personal liberty. If the BMA are taken seriously by those in power, and of course they will be – because they are seen as serious people and effectively untainted by the commercial aspects of selling products – we will soon be going down the route of an advertising ban on alcoholic products. It will become a social pariah in just the same way as tobacco, and the ultimate destination will be a ban on alcohol consumption in public places, in just the same way as with tobacco. Too ridiculous a concept? It may seem like it at the moment, but I am sure that the ban on smoking would have been seen as ridiculous even only 30 years ago.
 
"I don’t know how to stop this, I am unable to offer a solution apart from the general concept that we should get back to the situation where the individual should be held responsible and accountable for their own actions.  The fact that a small minority choose to consume more alcohol than is good for them does not place any blame on the manufacturer. We don’t yet have the situation where MacDonald’s is being held responsible for the obesity problems in this country, but one can see it happening very soon. The food industry is another large money spinner and therefore a target ripe for additional taxation, either by way of taxes payable on profits or court awards to those who eat too much who will be able to blame that industry from their own personal shortcomings.
 
"Over the last 30 or so years we have developed a culture of blame, aided and abetted by the courts and our House of Commons which is populated to a large extent by those with sympathies to the legal profession, and this has resulted in a complete about turn when it comes to responsibility. The likes of the BMA have taken it upon themselves to fuel a debate which they have no business either starting or becoming involved in. We need less of the Nanny State, we need the Courts to place blame on those who do wrong, rather than those who make their money out of selling things.  Until we get back to a state of reason and responsibility we will find that the Nanny State becomes ever more oppressive, and it cares not how many businesses or jobs it destroys in the process, and even less the effect on the enjoyment of consumption by the public."