Consultation on Restricting Alcohol Advertising and Promotion: Analysis of responses

8 Online marketing (Q21–Q27)

8.1 Section 11 of the consultation paper covered online marketing. The online environment provides an additional and growing marketing opportunity for alcohol brands. The consultation paper highlighted the increasing expenditure on online advertising and the huge potential to reach consumers, including children and young people, through this channel. It identified three main forms of online marketing: owned media (branded websites and social media channels), paid media (including advertising via pop-ups and banners on other websites and social media channels and posts by social media 'influencers') and user-generated content (postings and the sharing of postings by consumers on their own social media platforms).

8.2 The consultation included a series of seven questions on possible restrictions to various aspects of online marketing.

Question 21: Do you think we should restrict alcohol branded social media channels and websites in Scotland? [Yes / No / Don't know]

Question 22: What, if any, exceptions do you think there should be to prohibiting alcohol branded social media channels and websites in Scotland?

Question 23: Do you think we should restrict paid alcohol advertising online in Scotland? [Yes / No / Don't know]

Question 24: What types of paid alcohol advertising do you think should be covered by any restrictions?

Question 25: What, if any, exceptions do you think should there be to restricting paid alcohol advertising online?

Question 26: Do you think we should restrict alcohol companies from sharing promotional content on social media (e.g. filters, videos or posts) – whether this is produced by them or by consumers? [Yes / No / Don't know]

Question 27: What, if any, exceptions do you think there should be from restricting alcohol companies from sharing promotional content on social media (e.g. filters, videos or posts) – whether this is produced by them or by consumers?

8.3 This chapter presents an analysis of respondents' views on the possible introduction of restrictions on branded social media channels and websites, paid online marketing and the sharing of promotional content. However, it should be noted that there was a great deal of overlap in the comments made at the questions in this section. In order to minimise repetition, the chapter is structured as follows:

• The first three sections (paragraphs 8.5–8.33) present views for and against restriction for each form of online marketing. However, while some points are discussed fully in the first section on Question 21, they are not repeated in detail in relation to subsequent questions.
• Two subsequent sections then draw together all comments on (i) coverage and exceptions for all forms of online marketing (paragraphs 8.34–8.42), and (ii) the frequently raised issue of the global nature of the alcohol industry and the internet (paragraphs 8.43–8.48).

8.4 It should also be noted that across this set of questions, it was not always clear if the respondents were expressing support for government / legislative action, or for action by alcohol companies, advertisers, or the corporations that run online platforms.

Alcohol-branded social media channels and websites (Q21)

8.5 The consultation paper highlighted the use of digital media owned by alcohol brands for marketing purposes. This takes the form of branded websites and social media channels. It cited research from the UK and US that found that, despite age restrictions on some platforms, such content could be seen by children and young people.

8.6 Question 21 asked respondents if they thought that there should be restrictions on alcohol-branded social media channels and websites in Scotland. Table 8.1 shows the following:

• Overall, around a quarter of respondents (24%) thought that alcohol-branded social media channels and websites in Scotland should be restricted, whilst almost three-quarters (72%) thought they should not. The remaining 5% selected 'don't know'.
• Levels of agreement with the proposition were similar for both organisations (28%) and individuals (23%). Levels of disagreement with the proposition were also similar for both organisations (69%) and individuals (72%).
• Almost all public health and third sector organisations (97%) agreed that alcohol-branded social media channels and websites in Scotland should be restricted. By contrast, almost all alcohol producers (97%) and retail and hospitality organisations (91%) and around three-quarters of events and sporting organisations (73%) and advertising and media organisations (72%) disagreed with this approach. Around half of other organisation types (48%) agreed with the suggested approach, and around half (48%) disagreed.

8.7 In addition, 428 CAMRA 1 campaign respondents and 90 CAMRA 2 campaign respondents indicated that they did not support restrictions on alcohol-branded social media channels and websites in Scotland.

8.8 Note that some of the points made by respondents in their comments were relevant to other forms of online marketing (i.e. paid advertising and the sharing of content) but are covered here to provide coherence in terms of the arguments being made.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Support for restricting alcohol-branded social media channels and websites

8.9 Those who expressed support for restrictions on branded social media sites – mainly public health and third sector organisations, academic organisations, and local authority and public bodies, and some individuals – generally made a number of inter-related points in their responses:

• Online marketing has proliferated over recent years, and has extensive reach, including to children and young people. It is a particularly concerning form of marketing because of (i) the scope to target particular consumers, (ii) the ability to include instant purchasing by following a single click, (iii) the increasing amount of time that people spend online and the continuing shift to online shopping, and (iv) the blurred line between official marketing and user interaction, and the ability of users to share content which further increases the reach and impact of any marketing activities.
• Current regulation is not adequate – in particular, it is easy to circumvent age restrictions on social media platforms and websites.
• Research has established the prevalence of exposure to online alcohol marketing among children and young people, and the link between exposure and alcohol consumption. With regard to other vulnerable groups, studies and personal testimony show how online marketing is regularly directed at those in recovery, and the impact that this has on them.

8.10 Respondents said that there was support for restrictions on this form of marketing – among groups such as children and young people, and those in recovery as well as among the wider public – and presented evidence for this. They also said that action in this area was in line with recommendations made by the Alcohol Marketing Expert Network and the positions of international bodies such as the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child and the World Health Organization.

8.11 Nevertheless, some respondents in this group acknowledged that restrictions in this area would be difficult to implement and enforce because of the global nature of the internet and the alcohol industry. The issue of the Scottish Government's power to act in this area was also raised. (These points are covered further at paragraphs 8.43 to 8.48.)

8.12 Those indicating support for restrictions included a small number of advertising and media organisations, and sports and events organisations. Where comments were offered, these respondents tended to focus on the issue of age restrictions and the perceived inadequacy of current online age-verification systems for protecting children and young people. Some thought that social media companies should do more on this issue. (These points are covered further at paragraphs 8.43 to 8.48.)

Opposition to restricting alcohol-branded social media channels and websites

8.13 Respondents opposed to restrictions on branded social media and websites (both organisations and individuals) set out one or more of a series of connected points:

• Online channels are key for brand marketing and any restrictions would have a significant impact on alcohol-related businesses. Respondents particularly highlighted the importance of online marketing for new, small and more specialist businesses given its relatively low cost and its wide reach.
• Online alcohol marketing is already covered by existing industry-level and in-house regulatory codes, with strict provisions already in place for protecting children and young people.
• Those in the industry are committed to responsible marketing and are already working together to improve self-regulation of online marketing. Respondents from the advertising and alcohol sectors, in particular, highlighted work that the International Alliance for Responsible Drinking was pursuing with social media companies to improve age-related access, and collaborative work with Ofcom relating to video sharing platforms. Respondents who were opposed to restrictions on branded social media and websites often expressed full support for age-related restrictions on online marketing, and some said they would be happy to see further tightening of restrictions in this area. However, they said that this would be better achieved via efficient and flexible self-regulation involving industry partners rather than legislation.
• The evidence presented on exposure to online marketing among young people did not demonstrate a significant issue that needed to be tackled. In particular, some respondents argued that 'age faking' was not a major issue and challenged the interpretation and relevance of some of the evidence presented. They highlighted other evidence such as Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) research which they said had shown generally low exposure to alcohol marketing and good practice among advertisers. In terms of company websites, respondents argued that these were of limited interest to children and young people, and would generally only be sought out by those (adult) consumers with a specific interest in a product or company, or in making a purchase.
• Online marketing, arguably, offers advantages over other forms of marketing in terms of ensuring responsible advertising because of age restrictions in place on major social media platforms, and the ability to target adverts at particular groups (adults rather than children and young people) using algorithms and 'age-gating' or age verification of various forms.^[17] It was also noted that users could block or avoid sites they did not wish to see. It was thus less likely that vulnerable groups, including children and young people, would see online marketing more often than other forms of marketing. Therefore, restricting online marketing had the potential to do more harm than good if it simply resulted in a shift to other less targeted forms of marketing.
• The global nature of the drinks industry and the internet means that unilateral Scottish Government restrictions would be impractical and of limited value. They would simply disadvantage Scottish drinks producers, given that consumers would still be able to see marketing produced by companies based elsewhere. (This point is covered further at paragraphs 8.43 to 8.48.)

8.14 Respondents opposed to restrictions on alcohol-branded social media and websites often saw this as an issue of personal freedom and were concerned about what they saw as a form of censorship and government 'over-reach'. They said that individuals could choose not to visit sites or social media channels, and that parents and carers had a role in educating children about alcohol and online activity, and in supervising their use of the internet.

8.15 Thus, respondents in this group often described possible Scottish Government action in relation to restricting online alcohol marketing as unreasonable, unnecessary, and / or unworkable.

Paid alcohol advertising online (Q23)

8.16 The consultation paper also addressed the use of paid online advertising by alcohol companies. Such advertising is covered by the current ASA regulatory system which states that alcohol adverts should not be targeted at under-18s. Despite this, research cited in the consultation paper suggested that paid online advertising is not always effectively targeted solely at those aged over 18. Furthermore, the sharing of devices and accounts, the false reporting by users of their age, and the unreliability of interest-based targeting^[18] mean that under-18s may be exposed to such advertising. Additionally, adults vulnerable to alcohol harm are exposed to such content.

8.17 Question 23 asked respondents for their views on introducing restrictions on paid online advertising of alcohol. Table 8.2 shows the following:

• Overall, a quarter of respondents (25%) thought that paid alcohol advertising online in Scotland should be restricted, whilst almost three-quarters (71%) thought it should not. The remaining 5% selected 'don't know'.
• Levels of agreement with the proposition were similar for organisations (28%) and individuals (24%). Levels of disagreement with the proposition were also similar for both organisations (69%) and individuals (71%).
• All public health and third sector organisations (100%) agreed that paid alcohol advertising online in Scotland should be restricted. By contrast, almost all retail and hospitality organisations (96%), alcohol producers (94%), advertising and media organisations (84%), and events and sporting organisations (78%) disagreed with this approach. Around half of other organisation types (48%) agreed with the suggested approach, and around half (48%) disagreed.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

8.18 In addition, 428 CAMRA 1 campaign respondents and 90 CAMRA 2 campaign respondents indicated that they did not support restrictions on paid alcohol advertising online in Scotland.

Support for restricting paid online advertising

8.19 Respondents who commented at Question 23 often reiterated or referred back to comments previously made at Question 21. Thus, respondents who were in favour of restrictions on paid online advertising said that online advertising had extensive reach, that current self-regulation was inadequate or ineffective, and that further restrictions were important to reduce exposure to alcohol marketing among children and young people, those at risk of harmful drinking, and the wider public.

8.20 Respondents commenting more specifically with regard to paid advertising made the following points:

• Online marketing is designed to optimise reach and impact via careful placing (and timing) of adverts, and to trigger sales, supported by the inclusion of 'buy now' buttons.
• Unsolicited adverts (including pop-up adverts) have a significant effect on those in recovery and blocking adverts is not always effective in preventing all unwanted adverts from appearing when an individual is online. Respondents giving this view included those with experience of harmful drinking.
• The algorithms used to target adverts are not effective in ensuring children and young people are not exposed to marketing. Likewise, the age-gating of websites is not sufficiently robust and can be circumvented by young people. Further, this data-driven approach to online marketing could lead to adverts disproportionately targeting those who drink more (including those in recovery).
• Individuals do not give consent to exposure to unsolicited adverts – some characterised this as invasion of privacy and a human rights issue.
• Countries such as Sweden, Estonia and Finland had already legislated on this issue.

Opposition to restricting paid online advertising

8.21 Respondents who were opposed to restrictions on paid online advertising reiterated previously stated views that current arrangements were sufficient, that producers and advertisers were committed to responsible practice, and that the global nature of the alcohol industry meant that any unilateral Scottish Government restrictions would be unworkable, of limited value, and damaging to Scottish drinks producers. They also disputed that the available evidence demonstrated problems with current regulatory arrangements or a clear link between exposure to online marketing and drinking behaviour.

8.22 Respondents in the alcohol producer and advertising / media sectors, in particular, described approaches that (i) made use of technological options for targeting digital paid media at those over 18, (ii) ensured that adverts appeared only on appropriate websites / platforms, or (iii) ensured that the use of online influencers was carefully controlled and monitored. Respondents also noted that consumers are able to block adverts, and that parents have a role in educating and supervising their children's online activity.

Sharing promotional content on social media (Q26)

8.23 The sharing of promotional content includes the production of content with the aim of encouraging users to 'like' and 'share' it on social media, and the sharing of consumer-generated content (e.g. written posts, photos, videos). The consultation paper highlighted research that indicates the participation of young people in online alcohol marketing campaigns, and the use of social media by young people to associate themselves with alcohol brands. It also highlighted action taken by Finland to restrict content sharing on social media.

8.24 Question 26 asked if alcohol companies should be restricted from sharing promotional content in Scotland – whether it is produced by them or other users. Table 8.3 shows the following:

• Overall, around a fifth of respondents (22%) thought alcohol companies should be restricted from sharing promotional content on social media, while around three-quarters (72%) thought they should not. The remaining 6% selected 'don't know'.
• Levels of agreement with the proposition were similar for both organisations (26%) and individuals (21%). Levels of disagreement with the proposition were also similar for both organisations (70%) and individuals (72%).
• Almost all public health and third sector organisations (94%) agreed that alcohol companies should be restricted from sharing promotional content on social media. By contrast, almost all alcohol producers (98%) and retail and hospitality organisations (96%) disagreed. Around three-quarters of advertising and media organisations (80%) and events and sporting organisations (71%) also disagreed with the suggested approach. Half of other organisation types (50%) agreed, and half (50%) disagreed.

8.25 In addition, 428 CAMRA 1 campaign respondents and 90 CAMRA 2 campaign respondents indicated that they did not support restrictions on alcohol companies sharing promotional content on social media.

8.26 Respondents' views on the proposal to restrict the sharing of promotional content are discussed below. The summary presented here focuses on points specific to the sharing of content and does not repeat more general points made at earlier questions.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Support for restricting the sharing of content on social media

8.27 Respondents who supported restrictions on the sharing of alcohol-related content on social media made the following points:

• This type of low-cost activity was often a key part of an overall marketing strategy which amplified and extended the reach of brand campaigns. It aimed to both engage existing customers and attract new customers, particularly those in younger age groups.
• Companies have less control over the onward sharing of company-produced content or user-generated content (which could glamourise alcohol or depict risky behaviour in consuming alcohol).
• Leaving the sharing of content unrestricted would create a potential loophole if other types of company-led online marketing were prohibited.

8.28 Some respondents cited evidence of the extent to which young people actively engage with alcohol-related social media, and research which showed a link between engagement with user-generated promotion and risky drinking behaviours.

8.29 Respondents often expressed support for the approach adopted in Finland where alcohol companies are not permitted to use content originally uploaded by consumers or create content specifically intended for consumers to share. However, some queried whether there was evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of such an approach.

Opposition to restricting the sharing of content on social media

8.30 Respondents (organisations in particular) who were opposed to restrictions on the sharing of promotional content generally made one or more of the following points:

• This form of marketing was already adequately covered by existing regulatory arrangements. Some respondents did, however, acknowledge that care was needed in managing activity of this type. Some alcohol producers and advertising and media organisations provided details in their responses of the specific approaches they took to regulating this type of activity. This included monitoring user-generated content and ensuring it met the same standards as company produced content, removing inappropriate content (some said this was done within 48 or 72 hours), and ensuring that content capable of being shared carried a 'Forward Advice Notice'.
• This type of marketing was important for building a relationship with consumers in a positive way – generally with an already engaged audience – and was particularly important to small independent producers, given its low cost. Some of those making this latter point identified themselves as being involved in this sector.
• There was no evidence that the sharing of content in this way contributed to the harm caused by alcohol.
• Further restrictions on the sharing of user-generated content by alcohol companies were unlikely to have much impact on reducing exposure among young people given existing age-related restrictions. Such restrictions would also not prevent individuals from sharing their own alcohol-related social media content. There was also a view that restrictions would have a limited impact because brand-initiated sharing often attracted limited levels of participation.

8.31 Both organisations and individuals expressed concern that the measures under consideration implied restrictions on the use of social media by private individuals. Respondents saw this as an attack on personal freedom; they also thought such restrictions would be impossible to enforce.

8.32 However, some respondents in this group said they were unclear about what this proposal would entail. Others raised specific queries related to, for example, which parts of the industry would be affected (alcohol producers, retailers, hospitality venues, etc.), and whether restrictions would affect the sharing of (i) customer reviews (noted as an important cost-effective form of marketing for small businesses) and (ii) recipes and other information posted on alcohol websites.

8.33 Finally, respondents in this group questioned the value of adopting the approach taken to this issue in Finland. They highlighted what they saw as a lack of relevance given the very different contexts of Finland and Scotland, and the lack of evidence that the approach taken had been successful.

Coverage of and exceptions to restrictions (Q22, 24, 25, 27)

8.34 Separate questions asked respondents for their views on the coverage of and exceptions to potential restrictions on the various forms of online marketing considered in the consultation (Questions 22, 24, 25, 27). There was a lot of commonality in the views expressed. Thus, this section presents an overview of the points raised across all four of these questions.

Views of those broadly supportive of restrictions

8.35 In relation to each form of marketing, it was common for respondents who supported restrictions to say that there should be no exceptions. These respondents (mainly public health and third sector organisations and some individuals) repeated points made in respect of other forms of marketing – that this approach (i) avoided loopholes and / or the shifting of advertising spend to unrestricted forms of marketing, (ii) would provide best protection for children and young people and other vulnerable groups, and (iii) would provide the greatest clarity for industry and the easiest approach for monitoring and enforcement. With respect to online marketing in particular, they also said that allowing no exceptions was the best option given the extent of online alcohol marketing and fast-changing nature of the online environment.

8.36 There was a widespread view that restrictions should cover influencer and celebrity marketing (an issue specifically raised in the consultation paper), and the provision of free products or services to such individuals. Additionally, there were occasional mentions of the need to tackle advertising in online games, hidden advertising in social networks, product placement and viral content. It was also suggested that third-party (e.g. supermarket) sites should offer the option of hiding alcohol-related products and turning off alcohol-related marketing.

8.37 However, other respondents in this group suggested that there should be exceptions related to:

• Alcohol company websites and social media: Respondents noted that these provide information and a channel for communication (including in relation to customer feedback and complaints).
• Alcohol retail websites and pages: Respondents thought this would be reasonable, given that consumers would have to actively search for such sites. However, they stressed the importance of robust age controls. Some suggested that there should be no proactive marketing on such sites and that health warnings should be included.
• Trade / industry and specialist consumer websites and channels: Some suggested that access to these should be restricted to registered users.

8.38 Individuals in particular suggested a wide range of other exceptions for online marketing based on product and organisation type – for example, they commonly suggested exceptions for small independent or specialist / premium alcohol producers, and businesses targeting the tourism and overseas markets. Less often, respondents suggested exceptions for websites / social media linked to clubs and societies, events such as beer festivals, events with alcohol sponsorship, and NoLo products.

8.39 Some in this group also suggested that adverts or online platforms with a focus on responsible drinking, and prevention and treatment of alcohol harm, should be treated as exceptions.

Views of those broadly opposed to restrictions

8.40 Respondents who were broadly opposed to restrictions did not often comment in relation to coverage and possible exceptions. Instead, they restated their overall position that current regulation was adequate, that there should be no further restrictions and that exceptions were, therefore, not required. Those who did comment on exceptions for any potential restrictions generally made similar suggestions to those made by respondents who supported restrictions (see paragraphs 8.35–8.39). Additionally, in a few cases, individuals suggested that any new restrictions might focus on the content, size, or style of online adverts. A 'watershed' restricting targeted alcohol advertising to evening hours was also suggested.

8.41 Occasionally respondents raised issues related to the rationale and practicalities of any restrictions on online advertising, suggesting, for example, that any new restrictions should be based on extensive evidence, or should focus on areas where clarity and enforcement were most likely to be achieved.

An age-based approach to coverage and exceptions

8.42 Among both those who supported restrictions on online advertising, and those who did not, some respondents (individuals in particular) supported restrictions and exceptions based on age. Respondents said, for example, that any restrictions should focus on online spaces aimed at under-18s, or that channels targeting over-18s (or incorporating age-gating or some form of 'opt-in') should be treated as exceptions.

The global nature of the alcohol sector and the internet

8.43 An issue raised both by respondents who supported and those who opposed restrictions on online marketing was that of the global nature of the alcohol sector and the internet, and the challenges this presented for the design, implementation, and enforcement of any restrictions. Respondents of all types raised the following common points:

• The global nature of the drinks industry and the internet means that many sites and channels accessible in Scotland originate outside Scotland, or outside the UK.
• Global tech companies play a crucial role in developing, implementing and monitoring regulatory and safeguarding arrangements for web-based platforms.

8.44 Respondents also often noted that telecommunications policy is a reserved matter, which may mean that the Scottish Government's scope to act unilaterally in this area is limited.

8.45 Respondents thus sometimes queried what action the Scottish Government could take in this area and how effective it would be. Respondents with different views on whether restrictions should be introduced expressed contrasting concerns about this.

8.46 Those supportive of online marketing restrictions were concerned that Scottish-based companies would simply move their operations elsewhere, and / or that consumers (including young people) would continue to be exposed to alcohol-related marketing from companies outwith Scotland that were unaffected by the restrictions. These respondents called on the Scottish Government to work with the UK Government in developing a co-ordinated approach to this issue. Some also argued that this was an issue that needed a global approach. Some suggested that the World Health Organization could take a lead, building on work already done in relation to tobacco and unhealthy foods. Others also said any action the Scottish Government was able to take could send a positive message and set a direction of travel for others to follow, and that the Scottish Government should continue to advocate for an international framework to address this issue.

8.47 In contrast, those opposed to online marketing restrictions either queried the value of the Scottish Government taking action or said that any action to restrict such marketing would put Scottish companies at a disadvantage compared to their international brand competitors. Some respondents, including licensing and regulatory bodies, suggested that restrictions in this area might be contrary to UK-wide competitions law. Respondents in this group highlighted the importance of working collaboratively with the big tech companies on this issue and urged the Scottish Government to work with their UK counterparts to take this matter forward.

8.48 Some respondents, including advertising and media organisations, alcohol producers, and retail and hospitality organisations in particular, felt that there should be greater onus on global tech companies to take responsibility to improve online regulation and safeguarding arrangements.