Consultation on Restricting Alcohol Advertising and Promotion: Analysis of responses

5 In-store alcohol marketing (Q11–Q13)

5.1 Section 8 of the consultation paper covered in-store marketing of alcohol. The selling of alcohol in shops in Scotland is currently regulated through the licensing system. Any shop wishing to sell alcohol must have a licence, issued by the local licensing board, which places restrictions on the way alcohol is displayed and promoted. In particular, it requires alcohol to be displayed for sale in a single area in a shop, which is agreed as part of the licence conditions for individual premises. However, these arrangements still allow the promotion of alcohol in shops via placement – including through the use of end-of-aisle or window displays. The consultation paper presented evidence that demonstrates (i) a high level of awareness of alcohol advertising in shops among children and young people and (ii) the impacts of in-store marketing on people in recovery. The consultation paper put forward possible measures that might reduce the visibility of alcohol in shops. These included restrictions on how and where alcohol can be displayed and promoted in shops, as well as the introduction of 'structural separation'. Three questions sought views on these options.

Question 11: Do you think that we should further restrict the visibility of alcohol in retail environments? [Yes / No / Don't know]

Question 12: Do you think we should consider structural separation of alcohol in Scotland to reduce the visibility of alcohol in off-trade settings (e.g. supermarkets)? [Yes / No / Don't Know]

Question 13: How do you think structural separation of alcohol in Scotland could operate? (e.g. with barriers, closed display cases)

Visibility in retail environments (Q11)

5.2 Question 11 asked respondents if they thought that steps should be taken to reduce the visibility of alcohol in shops. It was noted that this might include restricting window displays, restricting the use of mixed alcohol and non-alcohol aisles, prohibiting aisle-end displays, redefining alcohol display areas, and / or covering alcohol displays behind till areas.

5.3 Table 5.1 shows the following:

• Overall, a fifth of respondents (21%) thought that the visibility of alcohol should be further restricted in retail environments, while three-quarters (76%) thought it should not. The remaining 3% selected 'don't know'.
• Organisations (27%) were somewhat more likely than individuals (21%) to support steps being taken to reduce the visibility of alcohol in shops. By contrast, individuals (77%) were more likely than organisations (71%) to oppose such measures.
• All public health and third sector organisations (100%) thought that the visibility of alcohol should be further restricted in retail environments. By contrast, almost all alcohol producers (97%) and retail and hospitality organisations (95%) disagreed with this approach. Most events and sporting organisations (73%) and advertising and media organisations (69%) also disagreed. Around half of other organisation types (48%) agreed, and around half (52%) disagreed.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

5.4 In addition, 428 CAMRA 1 campaign respondents and 90 CAMRA 2 campaign respondents indicated that they did not support further restrictions on the visibility of alcohol in retail environments.

Support for restricting the visibility of alcohol in retail environments

5.5 There was a great deal of commonality in the points made by most respondents – public health and third sector organisations, but also small numbers of respondents from the 'other organisation types' category and one in five individuals – who favoured restricting the visibility of alcohol. The following main views were expressed:

• The in-store environment provides an important setting for product marketing and promotion. Respondents cited research studies that show a link between in-store marketing and purchases, including impulse purchases, and consumption.
• The current high visibility of alcohol and alcohol marketing in shops has the effect of normalising purchase and consumption. It also means that vulnerable groups, including children and young people and those at risk of harmful drinking, are exposed to high levels of marketing when shopping.
• Action to reduce the visibility of other harmful products including tobacco and foods that are high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS foods) has shown that such measures can have a positive impact on consumer behaviour.
• There is public support for change in this area. Respondents cited recent survey findings from Scotland and the UK for this. They also cited work with children and young people, and those recovering from alcohol harm which explored the impact of alcohol visibility in shops on these vulnerable groups.
• Other countries – including Ireland, Canada, Finland and Sweden – already have various arrangements in place that limit the visibility of alcohol in general retail environments, and Scotland should follow suit.

5.6 Broadly speaking, respondents in this group favoured an approach which ensured that alcohol products and alcohol marketing were seen only by those who came into a shop with the intention of purchasing alcohol. Organisational respondents said this approach was in line with the recommendations of the Alcohol Marketing Expert Network. Respondents argued that this would reduce exposure and brand awareness among vulnerable groups as well as among the general population. Some also said this could have a positive impact on health inequalities, given the high density of shops selling alcohol in disadvantaged areas.

5.7 There was, thus, widespread support among this group for restrictions on (or the banning of) window, aisle-end and check-out displays of alcohol, the use of mixed aisles and any form of in-store marketing, including within alcohol areas. There were also calls for alcohol to be located away from other food or essential products – for example, at the back of shops – or away from areas used for queuing for checkouts, and for products to be covered during non-sale hours. Respondents also expressed support for covered behind-the-counter storage – individuals in particular argued that alcohol should be treated like tobacco in this respect – and for structural separation (this latter option is discussed in relation to Questions 12 and 13).

5.8 Respondents who were generally in favour of reducing the visibility of alcohol in retail environments made a number of additional common points, arguing that:

• Any measures introduced should apply to NoLo products as well as alcohol products. This would prevent 'alibi marketing' whereby drinks companies can promote alcohol brands via non-alcohol and low-alcohol products using the same or recognisable elements of a well-known alcohol brand. However, there was also an alternative view that NoLo products should NOT be covered by any restrictions to ensure they were easily accessible as an alternative to alcohol. (See Chapter 6 for further discussion of marketing restrictions of NoLo products.)
• This was an area in which the Scottish Government had the necessary devolved powers to act. Respondents further pointed out that the Scottish Government had already used its powers to reduce the visibility of tobacco products in retail environments by requiring them to be stored behind the counter, hidden from view, and is planning on taking action on the in-store promotion of high fat, sugar and salt products.^[13]

5.9 Respondents expressing more limited support for restricting the visibility of alcohol included a small number of organisational respondents from the advertising, alcohol producer, sports and events and retail and hospitality sectors as well as individuals. These respondents offered a mix of views, including, for example:

• Support for some restrictions (e.g. window and aisle-end displays, and mixed aisles) with a view to reducing visibility among children and young people in particular, but opposition to other measures such as behind the till covered storage and structural separation measures (as discussed at Questions 12 and 13 below).
• Support for restrictions, but with measures tailored to particular retail settings – respondents offering this view often said that the restrictions should apply differently to small shops and large shops / supermarkets.

5.10 Some expressed support for placing current voluntary arrangements on a statutory footing or called for any restrictions to be developed in collaboration with the retail sector.

Opposition to restrictions on the visibility of alcohol in retail environments

5.11 Those opposed to further restrictions on the visibility of alcohol in retail settings included organisations of all types, apart from public health and third sector organisations, as well as most individuals. Again, there was a great deal of consistency in the views expressed. Overall, there was a widespread view amongst this group of respondents that restrictions of the type proposed were disproportionate to the scale of the issue, unjustified by the evidence, and would impact unfairly on the vast majority of adults who drank responsibly and should be free to purchase a legitimate and legal product. Respondents generally made one or more of the following points in explaining their views:

• The aim of alcohol marketing – including in-store marketing – is to influence brand choice rather than to increase purchases and consumption. It was particularly important to new brands and small local brands. Restrictions on in-store marketing would have a disproportionate impact on small and local alcohol producers and new products and, correspondingly, would favour big established brands, and would ultimately reduce choice for consumers.
• The measures would be difficult and costly to implement, and the administrative and financial burden of doing so would fall on retailers at a difficult time following the COVID pandemic, the ongoing cost-of-living crisis, and the challenges of responding to other Scottish Government policies such as minimum unit pricing for alcohol and the introduction of a proposed deposit return scheme for drinks containers.^[14] Some were also concerned that the measures would result in a reduction in income from alcohol sales which would be damaging for businesses.
• The measures under consideration would have a disproportionate effect on smaller or more specialist retailers with less scope to implement the proposed measures, or to absorb any associated direct or indirect costs. Some businesses may become unviable, while others would have to pass costs on to customers. Any resulting shift of alcohol purchasing to supermarkets would reduce consumer choice and likely lead to an increase in low-cost high-volume alcohol sales.
• The Scottish Government had not provided convincing evidence for the proposals, and how they would bring about any change in behaviour regarding alcohol purchasing and consumption. In relation to young people, in particular, respondents cited evidence (research evidence and anecdotal evidence) that this group of consumers was far more likely to be given alcohol by family and friends in the home than to purchase it in a shop, and more likely to be influenced in their drinking behaviour by parents and peers than industry marketing. Respondents were also critical of (i) a perceived lack of evaluation of current arrangements and regulations, and (ii) the lack of a detailed cost-benefit analysis for the proposals, given the significant impact they would have on retailers and others linked to the drinks industry.
• Existing arrangements were sufficient. The sale and promotion of alcohol in retail environments was already highly and effectively regulated via local licensing boards, legislation and voluntary codes. Additionally, the advertising, alcohol and retail sectors were already operating responsibly and working positively, on a voluntary basis, to tackle problem and under-age drinking. Respondents highlighted funding of local Community Alcohol Partnerships,^[15] initiatives delivered via the Scottish Alcohol Industry Partnership, and ID schemes such as Challenge 25. However, some respondents suggested the need for strengthening or greater enforcement of current regulations, and a willingness to work with the Scottish Government on this.

5.12 Additionally, respondents frequently said that the vast majority of people drank moderately, and that measures to reduce the visibility of alcohol would impact on, or cause inconvenience for, responsible drinkers without helping those at risk of harmful drinking. They also suggested that the measures could 'de-normalise' alcohol consumption, and increase the attraction of a 'hidden' or 'forbidden' product to young people.

5.13 Individuals largely echoed the points made by organisational respondents. They were, however, also likely to see this as a matter of personal freedom and responsibility – suggesting that restrictions in this area would be seen as being part of the 'nanny state'.

5.14 Respondents, retailers in particular, went on to highlight specific issues associated with each of the measures discussed in the consultation paper.

• Window displays: Comments from respondents suggested that many had interpreted this option as requiring windows to be obscured to prevent passers-by seeing alcoholic products within the shop. Respondents saw two main issues with this. Firstly, they raised community safety concerns: they suggested that obscured windows could (i) prevent staff from seeing people behaving suspiciously outside the shop prior to entering (e.g. in relation to preparing to make a purchase for someone under the age of 18), and (ii) make staff inside feel vulnerable if they could not be seen by passers-by. Secondly, they noted concerns about the impact on customer experience. This issue was raised with regard to more specialist shops and those targeting the tourist market in particular, with respondents arguing that it was important that such shops could use window displays to attract customers and that customers felt welcomed and comfortable about entering.
• Covered behind-the-counter storage: Respondents commonly argued that the size of individual alcohol products and the extended ranges generally carried by individual shops made covered behind-the-counter storage impractical. On this point, they often drew comparisons with tobacco products which are smaller in size and more limited in range. Respondents also noted the extra staffing that might be required to deal with customers buying alcohol if it were located behind the counter. Respondents often said that covered behind-the-counter storage would prevent customers being able to browse freely and make an informed and personal choice from the available products – something that respondents said customers enjoyed doing and was important to the ambience of more specialist shops. They argued that choice would instead be dictated by factors such as price, product type, and strength, and would favour already well-known national or global brands at the expense of new, local or more specialist brands, thus having a negative impact on consumer choice.
• Mixed aisles and end-of-aisle displays: Respondent said that smaller shops may not have the shelf space to dedicate whole aisles to either alcoholic or non-alcoholic products, or to remove alcoholic products from aisle-end display areas. Some also said that the options in the consultation paper did not take account of more specialist businesses (including gift shops) where alcohol and other products are placed on central display units or open shelving around the shop, rather than in regular 'aisles' as would be found in supermarkets and general stores.
• Location of alcohol display areas: Respondents drew attention to the fact that shops were often required to place alcohol near the front of the store in order to meet the community safety objective within the licensing system. This arrangement helped staff monitor the alcohol area and deterred shoplifting. Placing alcohol in a less prominent area of the store (e.g. at the back) would make this monitoring much harder and undermine this objective.

5.15 There was a range of calls for particular types of retailers – specialist shops, shops and visitor centres targeting the tourist market, shops linked to breweries and other alcohol production sites, duty free shops, small shops, etc. – to be exempt should further restrictions be introduced.

Implications for licensing boards

5.16 Finally, a range of respondents (including some licensing and regulatory bodies) noted that the introduction of measures to reduce the visibility of alcohol in retail environments would have implications for local licensing boards who would have to implement any new restrictions as part of the licence application process. Specific queries were raised about whether currently licensed premises would have to submit new applications. These respondents also highlighted the difficulty of producing a legislative framework that covered all possible retail environments, and the discretion that boards would have in applying the framework to any particular situation.

5.17 With regard to structural separation in particular (see below), respondents suggested that this would also place a burden on local authority planning and building control services, which would have to consider potentially thousands of applications related to changes proposed for individual stores.

Structural separation (Q12 and Q13)

5.18 Questions 12 and 13 addressed the option of structural separation of alcohol in shops, as recently introduced in Ireland. This would involve keeping alcohol products physically separate from non-alcoholic products – for example, by placing such products in a designated area of the shop accessed via barriers, or in closed storage units. Question 12 asked for views on the introduction of such restrictions in Scotland, and Question 13 asked about how this could operate.

5.19 Table 5.2 shows the following:

• Overall, a fifth of respondents (19%) thought that consideration should be given to structural separation of alcohol in off-trade settings, while more than three-quarters (76%) thought it should not. The remaining 5% selected 'don't know'.
• Levels of agreement with the proposition were higher among organisations (25%) than individuals (18%). In addition, levels of disagreement were lower among organisations (69%) than individuals (77%).
• Almost all public health and third sector organisations (95%) thought consideration should be given to structural separation. By contrast, almost all alcohol producers (94%) and retail and hospitality organisations (96%) disagreed with this approach. Most events and sporting organisations (63%) and advertising and media organisations (71%) also disagreed. Other organisation types were divided on this issue with 41% agreeing and 59% disagreeing.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

5.20 In addition, 428 CAMRA 1 campaign respondents indicated that they did not support structural separation to reduce the visibility of alcohol in off-trade settings.

Support for structural separation

5.21 Structural separation was supported by almost all public health and third sector organisations, small numbers of other types of organisations and some individuals. These respondents largely repeated points made at Question 11 in explaining their support for this option saying, for example, that structural separation would be an effective way of reducing the visibility of alcohol in shops, would help de-normalise the purchase and consumption of alcohol and would protect (and was supported by) vulnerable groups while not impinging on the rights of adults who wished to buy alcohol.

5.22 Again, respondents emphasised the importance of Scotland learning from the experience of other countries. They said that evidence from other countries showed structural separation to be effective, while Ireland had recently introduced structural separation as part of its Public Health Act 2018.

Views on the operation of structural separation

5.23 Some respondents offered views about how a structural separation policy might be put into practice. Organisations tended to make general suggestions, saying that (i) guidance should be provided, (ii) a set of principles should be developed to guide the implementation of structural separation based on the premise that alcohol should only be visible to those intending to make a purchase, and (iii) there should be flexibility in the approach adopted in individual stores in following the guidance or meeting the principles.

5.24 Among individuals, some favoured a flexible approach which took account of different types of shop and allowed sufficient time for implementation. Others, however, offered a wide range of comments on what they thought structural separation should involve. Most comments focused on the option of separate areas. Suggestions included, for example, the use of completely separate rooms; the partitioning of discrete areas; the installation of barriers at the end of shop aisles; the use of open doorways, plastic curtains, or solid doors; one-way systems; and dedicated tills. Less often, respondents commented on the option of closed cabinets. Those that did generally saw this as a less practical arrangement.

Opposition to structural separation

5.25 As shown in Table 5.2, those opposed to structural separation included most alcohol producers, events and sporting organisations, retail and hospitality organisations, and advertising and media organisations. Organisations in the 'other organisation types' category were divided on this issue. These respondents often repeated comments made in response to Question 11 in relation to the visibility of alcohol in retail settings. They made the following additional points in relation to the specific question of structural separation, with most comments focusing on the option of creating separate areas for alcohol within stores:

• Structural separation would impose a significant financial burden on retailers. Respondents noted the likely high costs of installing structural separation – either creating separate areas or installing closed cabinets. Some retail organisations put forward estimated figures which they said were based on their experiences of making adjustments to meet forthcoming HFSS display regulations in England and regulations relating to alcohol display in Ireland. They also explained that, in addition to costs related to planning and making the required physical changes, costs would also be incurred in relation to (i) applying to the local licensing board for revised licences, (ii) extra staffing to supervise separate areas or control access to closed cabinets, and (iii) lost revenue as a result of a reduction in floor space for other products.
• Structural separation was not practical other than in big supermarkets. Respondents commonly stated that many smaller stores did not have the space to accommodate a separate alcohol area, or closed display units. Any requirement to do so would impact on the space available for other products and would potentially threaten the viability of small local stores, including those in rural areas. They also highlighted the difficulty of implementing structural separation in particular types of 'non-standard' retail environments – including, for example, those targeted at the tourist market where the sale of alcohol may be a small but important part of the business.
• Structural separation would not be effective in reducing alcohol consumption or addressing alcohol-related harm. Respondents did not believe that structural separation would have any impact on alcohol purchasing and consumption, and that those who were intent on buying alcohol would still do so. Respondents cited the experience of other countries (including Australia) as evidence that the measure would not achieve its aims. Some retail and hospitality respondents in particular argued that it would be helpful to await the evaluation of the newly introduced measures in Ireland before taking similar action in Scotland.
• Structural separation could impact on community safety and safety at work. Respondents argued that structural separation would make the monitoring and supervision of alcohol product areas much harder. Additionally, respondents suggested that requiring staff to work in a separate area away from the main shopfloor could raise issues of workforce safety.

5.26 Individuals made similar points to organisations but were particularly likely to describe this option as 'draconian' or 'extreme'; as impacting on moderate drinkers; and as drawing attention to and increasing the attraction of alcohol. Individuals also raised two more specific points:

• They highlighted the difficulties that separate alcohol areas would cause for adults who wished to buy alcohol while out shopping accompanied by children. Some organisations also made this point.
• They expressed concern that structural separation measures (such as aisle-end barriers) could cause access issues for disabled customers. Some respondents who answered 'don't know' at the closed part of the questions also raised this issue.

Views on the operation of structural separation

5.27 Some respondents who answered 'no' at Question 12, indicating that they did not favour the introduction of structural separation nevertheless commented at Question 13. For the most part, respondents in this group repeated views stated at earlier questions in this section expressing opposition to reducing the visibility of alcohol in general or introducing structural separation in particular. Those commenting more specifically on the implementation of structural separation made the following points:

• Some respondents (organisations and individuals) argued that such requirements, if they were to be introduced, should take account of different types of retail environments – for example, large stores / supermarkets, small stores, or 'specialist' or independent stores. There were specific suggestions that small stores and duty-free retailers (with their focus on non-domestic adult consumers and premium products) should be exempt from any requirements. Some in the retail and hospitality sectors highlighted the fact that Ireland's legislation had exempted small stores from this requirement.
• Other respondents (including those from the advertising / media sector and the retail and hospitality sector) offered more mixed views, arguing that structural separation would be 'better than a total ban' or was a possible course of action but 'not a priority'. Some also said that, while there was a case for structural separation, it would 'do more harm than good'.

5.28 Finally, some respondents regarded Question 13 as a 'leading' or 'biased' question, arguing that it assumed agreement with the option of structural separation.

Other comments on alcohol retailing

5.29 Respondents offered a range of other comments relevant to alcohol retailing. One alternative option raised both by respondents for and against the measures proposed in the consultation paper was that of restricting alcohol sales to separate alcohol-only stores as was done in some countries including Canada, some Scandinavian countries and Australia. Most of those advocating this approach were individuals. However, some respondents from the alcohol producer, and retail and hospitality sectors occasionally expressed a degree of support for this option, with one respondent suggesting that existing independent alcohol shops in Scotland should be used for that purpose. Other respondents noted their opposition to such an approach or cautioned that their knowledge or experience of this approach elsewhere suggested that this could lead to bulk buying.

5.30 There were also occasional suggestions for:

• Prohibiting supermarkets from selling alcohol but allowing it in other stores, with one retailer arguing that this would reduce the power of the big supermarkets in setting (low) prices
• Restricting the types of alcohol that could be sold in general stores
• Prohibiting those under 18 from entering specialist alcohol stores
• Reducing the number of shops selling alcohol
• Increasing the age for purchasing alcohol from 18 to 21.