Consultation on Restricting Alcohol Advertising and Promotion: Analysis of responses

9 Television and radio advertising (Q28 and Q29)

9.1 Section 12 of the consultation paper addressed television and radio advertising. It provided information on the 'reach' of both television and radio, and highlighted television in particular as a highly visible marketing channel that attracts significant advertising spend each year. Currently, television and radio advertising is co-regulated by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and Ofcom. The ASA enforces the UK Code of Broadcast Advertising (the BCAP Code) which is drawn up and regularly reviewed by an industry committee. This prohibits alcohol advertising during programmes aimed at or likely to appeal to children. However, as outlined in the consultation paper, other countries have taken different approaches in prohibiting all alcohol advertising on television and radio or introducing time-based restrictions on such advertising. Additionally, the consultation paper noted that the Scottish Government may not have the necessary powers to implement restrictions on this type of advertising; thus, it may need to work with the UK Government in taking forward any new restrictions in this area.

9.2 The consultation asked two questions on this issue, seeking views on a prohibition on alcohol advertising on television and radio, and time-based restrictions.

Question 28:Do you think we should explore prohibiting alcohol advertising on television and radio completely (e.g. like Norway or Sweden)? [Yes / No / Don't know]

Question 29: Do you think we should introduce a watershed for alcohol advertising on TV and radio (e.g. like Ireland)? [Yes / No / Don't know]

Prohibiting alcohol advertising on television and radio (Q28)

9.3 Question 28 asked for views on whether the Scottish Government should explore prohibiting alcohol adverting on television and radio, as has been done in other countries such as Norway and Sweden. Table 9.1 shows the following:

• Overall, around a fifth of respondents (22%) thought that the Scottish Government should explore prohibiting alcohol advertising on television and radio completely, whilst three-quarters (76%) thought they should not. The remaining 3% selected 'don't know'.
• Organisations (27%) were more likely than individuals (21%) to support such a prohibition. Organisations (70%) were less likely than individuals (76%) to oppose a prohibition in this area.
• All public health and third sector organisations (100%) agreed that the Scottish Government should explore prohibiting alcohol advertising on television and radio. By contrast, almost all retail and hospitality organisations (100%), alcohol producers (94%), advertising and media organisations (88%) and events and sporting organisations (83%) disagreed with this approach. Other organisation types were divided in their views on this issue with 39% agreeing and 52% disagreeing.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

9.4 In addition, 428 CAMRA 1 campaign respondents and 90 CAMRA 2 campaign respondents indicated that they did not support a complete prohibition on alcohol advertising on TV and radio.

9.5 It should be noted that respondents did not answer the question about whether a ban on alcohol advertising on television and radio should be 'explored' (as was set out in Question 28); rather, they simply gave their views about whether or not they supported a complete ban.

Support for prohibiting alcohol advertising on television and radio

9.6 Those in favour of a ban on alcohol advertising on television and radio included all public health and third sector organisations, most academic organisations, some local authorities and public bodies, as well as one in five individuals. These respondents argued that:

• Alcohol advertising on radio and television in particular is extremely widespread and very effective, and leads to a high degree of exposure among all groups of the population – including children and young people, those whose use of alcohol is problematic, and those in recovery. Alcohol brands spend a higher proportion of their marketing budgets on TV advertising compared with other types of product brands, and the return on investment of this expenditure is high. This level of investment suggests that alcohol advertising on TV is successful in generating demand and increasing consumption of advertised brands.
• A ban on advertising on radio and television needs to cover not just the adverts themselves, but also the sponsorship and product placement which takes place within programmes, including in those which air at peak times and are seen as 'family programmes', and which contribute so much to the 'normalisation' of alcohol.
• A ban on television and radio advertising is necessary to protect children and young people and reduce harm, and it was reported that children and young people have also called for alcohol advertising on television (and radio) to be reduced (or banned completely).
• Although there are regulations in place to cover radio and television advertising, new measures are required to address gaps in the current system which are exploited by the industry. For example, the ASA does not regulate broadcast footage of imagery arising from sporting events and Ofcom has no remit over sports sponsorship deals.
• A complete ban would be useful in creating a 'level playing field' for all alcohol companies. Small businesses do not have access to (large) marketing budgets which means they cannot advertise on TV in the same way as big companies do.
• A complete ban on radio and television advertising would be fairly straightforward to enforce; this was contrasted with restrictions – or indeed a ban – on social media and other digital marketing channels which it was thought would be much more difficult to achieve.
• Bans on alcohol advertising on radio and television in Norway and Sweden have been successful in reducing alcohol-related harm.

9.7 A small number of respondents in this group said that:

• Further work should be carried out to establish the merits of a complete ban, and that this should take account of any evaluation of the Norway / Sweden bans, before drawing any conclusions.
• Podcasts and downloads should also be included in the ban.

Opposition to prohibiting alcohol advertising on television and radio

9.8 Respondents who opposed a ban on alcohol advertising on television and radio –including advertising and media organisations, alcohol producers, music and culture organisations, retail and hospitality organisations and most individual respondents – made the following arguments:

• A ban on alcohol advertising on television and radio would make no difference to alcohol consumption and the extent of alcohol-related harm in Scotland.
• A ban would damage the (economic) health of both the UK broadcasting sector (which must compete with well-funded global technology platforms) and the alcohol industry (by limiting its ability to reach potential customers and compete in a global market).
• There are strict codes of conduct already in place. Respondents mentioned specific rules which they followed (e.g. rules 19 and 32 of the BCAP Code, and aspects of the Ofcom regulations) and said that there are sanctions in place if a breach of the regulations occurs.
• The evidence quoted in the consultation paper about the links between exposure to radio and television advertising and alcohol was not correct, and not a valid representation of the current situation. Instead, respondents quoted a range of sources which they said demonstrated that (children's) exposure to alcohol advertising on television has decreased substantially over the last 10 years or so. Moreover, respondents disagreed with the portrayal of the 'success' of the bans introduced in Norway and Sweden – which, according to these respondents, have not led to any decrease in alcohol consumption.
• The introduction of a ban would require agreement by the UK Government (as acknowledged in the consultation paper). Respondents thought that this was unlikely to be forthcoming, and, in any case, they did not support a UK-wide ban on alcohol advertising on television and radio.
• Scotland's current legislative powers apply only to Scotland's domestic broadcasters. There would be severe practical difficulties associated with having two separate regulatory regimes within the UK. This would be unworkable, confusing for the public, discriminatory, and would distort competition. For example, if a ban was applied to STV with signal limited to Scotland, then this would be discriminatory. These respondents also:
• o Expressed scepticism that there was a technical mechanism / solution currently available to achieve this ban, and
• o Said that regional opt-outs would have wide-ranging planning implications as well as commercial hurdles to overcome.

9.9 Two other substantive points were made:

• It is increasingly the case that people watch television programmes on 'catch up' and streaming services. Some of these options can allow advertising to be excluded from viewing. Thus, the implication behind the question (that people watch TV live when programmes are originally scheduled) is an increasingly out-of-date proposition.
• No impact assessment has been undertaken to determine the effects on TV and radio stations of reduced revenue resulting from a possible ban on alcohol advertising. Some respondents asked how these sectors would replace the lost revenue from the prohibition of alcohol advertising.

A watershed for alcohol advertising on TV and radio (Q29)

9.10 Question 29 asked for views on whether the Scottish Government should introduce a 'watershed' – that is, time-based restrictions – for alcohol adverting on television and radio, as has been done in other countries such as Ireland and Estonia. Table 9.2 shows the following:

• Overall, two-fifths of respondents (40%) thought that the Scottish Government should introduce a watershed for alcohol advertising on TV and radio, while roughly half (53%) thought they should not. The remaining 7% selected 'don't know'.
• Levels of agreement with the proposition were lower among organisations (36%) than individuals (41%). Levels of disagreement with the proposition were higher among organisations (57%) than individuals (52%).
• A large majority of public health and third sector organisations (82%) agreed that the Scottish Government should introduce a watershed for alcohol advertising on TV and radio. By contrast, between two-thirds and three-quarters of retail and hospitality organisations (77%), alcohol producers (73%) and advertising and media organisations (65%) disagreed with this approach. There were mixed views among events and sporting organisations, with 41% agreeing, 45% disagreeing and 14% saying 'don't know'. A third of other organisation types (33%) agreed with the suggested approach, while 56% disagreed.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

9.11 The pattern of responses to this closed question was different to the patterns seen at other questions in the consultation. In particular, the percentage of respondents in favour of a watershed (40%) was substantially higher than the percentage in favour of restrictions in the other settings described in the consultation.

9.12 Table 9.2 shows that responses to the closed question were fairly evenly split between those who said they supported the introduction of a watershed for alcohol advertising on TV and radio (40%) and those who said they did not (53%). However, respondents' comments suggested little enthusiasm for the introduction of a watershed in either group. Thus, the figures in this table should be treated with caution.

9.13 In addition, Table 9.2 shows that a relatively high proportion of respondents answered 'don't know'. Many of these respondents did not comment further. Some of those who did comment noted a lack of knowledge ('not our area'), or uncertainty about the issue ('possibly', 'might be OK'). In other cases, respondents indicated that this could be an acceptable compromise. This latter point was made both by those who supported and those who did not support the introduction of a watershed, as set out at paragraphs 9.15–9.18 below.

9.14 To a large extent, those who supported and those who were opposed to the introduction of a watershed simply restated (some of) the views they had already discussed in relation to Question 28. These are recapped briefly below.

Support for the introduction of a watershed

9.15 Those who said they supported the introduction of a watershed comprised two main groups as follows:

• Respondents who were in favour of a complete ban on alcohol advertising on TV and radio, but (reluctantly) agreed that if a complete ban was not adopted, then a watershed could provide a (very limited) degree of protection, particularly for young children. This was the position of many public health and third sector organisations as well as a range of individuals.
• Respondents who thought that no (further) restrictions to alcohol advertising should be introduced but said that if Scottish Government was to pursue further restrictions, then a watershed would be the 'least worst' option. This was the position of non-public health organisations, as well as a range of individuals.

9.16 A third (smaller) group of respondents simply said that the introduction of a watershed would be 'OK' or 'fine' or that it made sense to bring alcohol advertising into line with other broadcast rules in relation to (for example) swearing or violence.

Opposition to the introduction of a watershed

9.17 In general, whichever view respondents took in relation to the introduction of a complete ban on alcohol advertising on TV and radio, those who expressed opposition to a watershed were not convinced that introducing a watershed would be effective. This was because the way that TV (and radio) services are watched (or listened to) now, means that the time constraints of a watershed are not relevant and would have little or no practical effect. (See the analysis of Question 28 above.) Programmes are not necessarily watched 'live' and can be accessed at any time of the day or night (on 'catch up'). Respondents in both groups also thought there was a risk that a watershed might increase the concentration of alcohol advertising after the watershed. This kind of effect was judged to be negative by both groups.

9.18 Respondents who were in favour of a complete ban on alcohol advertising on TV and radio also thought that a watershed might help reduce the exposure of young children, but would not help older children or those in recovery.