Consultation on Restricting Alcohol Advertising and Promotion: Analysis of responses

11 The content of advertisements (Q32–Q34)

11.1 Section 14 of the consultation paper covered issues related to the content of advertisements. It outlined current regulations under the Advertising Standards Authority's (ASA) Codes. These prohibit marketing that (i) links alcohol with sexual success, enhanced confidence or popularity, positive personal relationships or successful social events, and / or (ii) includes content that is 'particularly' or 'strongly' appealing to children. The consultation paper noted that such rules are open to interpretation. It also noted research that suggested young people are less attracted to neutral information-based advertising than lifestyle-based advertising, and highlighted the approach taken in Estonia where alcohol advertising must adhere to a list of permitted characteristics and design features.

11.2 The consultation asked three questions regarding possible restrictions on the content of alcohol advertisements.

Question 32: Do you think that the content of alcohol marketing in Scotland should be restricted to more factual elements? [Yes / No / Don't know]

Question 33: Do you think we should only allow alcohol marketing to include elements set out in a list, like in Estonia? This would mean all other elements not on the list would be banned from adverts. [Yes / No / Don't know]

Question 34: Do you think that content restrictions like the Estonian model should be applied to all types of alcohol marketing? [Yes / No / Don't know]

Restrictions on the content of alcohol marketing (Q32)

11.3 Question 32 asked respondents if they thought the content of alcohol marketing in Scotland should be restricted to more factual elements. Table 11.1 shows the following:

• Overall, around a fifth of respondents (22%) thought the content of alcohol marketing in Scotland should be restricted to more factual elements, while almost three-quarters (70%) thought it should not. The remaining 8% selected 'don't know'.
• Levels of agreement with the proposition were similar for both organisations (24%) and individuals (22%). Levels of disagreement with the proposition were also similar for both organisations (69%) and individuals (70%).
• Around three-quarters of public health and third sector organisations (78%) agreed that the content of alcohol marketing in Scotland should be restricted to more factual elements. By contrast, a large majority of retail and hospitality organisations (93%), alcohol producers (89%) and advertising and media organisations (82%) disagreed with this approach. Around a fifth of events and sporting organisations (17%) agreed and 52% disagreed. A third of other organisation types (32%) agreed and 58% disagreed.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

11.4 The perspectives of respondents who agreed and those who disagreed are explored in more detail below. Respondents who answered 'don't know' generally expressed views that aligned with those of respondents who answered either 'yes' or 'no' at Question 32 – or they expressed mixed or uncertain views, or said this question was outside the remit of their organisation. An analysis of these comments is not presented separately.

11.5 It should be noted that around a fifth of public health and third sector respondents (10 out of 59) answered 'no' to this question. As explained in paragraph 11.15 below, most of these respondents were not in favour of the types of content restrictions described in the consultation paper, but instead wanted a more comprehensive ban on alcohol advertising. The figures shown in Table 11.1 should therefore be treated with caution.

Support for restricting the content of alcohol marketing to factual elements

11.6 Respondents who answered 'yes' at Question 32 included (mainly) public health and third sector organisations, some organisations in the 'other organisation types' category, and one in five individuals. These respondents commonly made several points:

• Alcohol marketing is used by the industry to 'construct social norms and perceptions' in relation to alcohol – to create positive feelings and attitudes towards a brand and to reinforce 'a false narrative' that drinking alcohol is glamorous, fun, and sociable.
• The marketing of alcohol products seeks to make the product appealing and attractive to specific groups.
• Alcohol marketing does not depict the reality of the harms caused by alcohol.

11.7 Restricting the content of alcohol marketing to more factual elements would address these issues. It would reduce the appeal of alcohol advertising and weaken the link between positive feelings towards brands and consumption. This would not only benefit children and young people and people in recovery, but also the general public (including higher-risk drinkers).

11.8 However, most public health and third sector organisations, some individuals, and the academic organisations and licensing bodies included in the 'other organisation types' category said that they would prefer a comprehensive ban on alcohol marketing as this would provide the greatest protection from exposure to marketing. Restrictions on the content of marketing would only be relevant if a comprehensive ban were not put in place.

11.9 Some respondents in this group cited population surveys that have found public support for restricting the content of alcohol marketing to factual elements only. They also said a large majority of the public support the inclusion of health warnings on alcohol products. Others commented that current regulation of the content of alcohol marketing messages to reduce their appeal to children has had limited impact in the UK.

11.10 As Table 11.1 shows, 8 organisations associated with the alcohol industry answered 'yes' at Question 32 (out of the 123 that answered this question). Five of these (3 alcohol vendors / importers and 2 brewers) provided further comments to explain their views. Some of these organisations suggested that alcohol marketing could be more appropriately used to (i) educate people how best to enjoy their products responsibly, and (ii) persuade customers to 'drink less, but better' (i.e. quality not quantity). They thought that being able to convey the facts about drinks without the 'lifestyle marketing spiel' would enable companies to get this message across more clearly. They also suggested that a more fact-based approach would be fairer for smaller, more quality-focused producers who cannot afford big marketing campaigns. However, one respondent in this group also commented that the existing guidelines / codes of practice on alcohol labelling and advertising already addressed many of the factual elements listed in the consultation paper.

Content of factual elements

11.11 Respondents who supported restricting the content of alcohol marketing to factual elements repeatedly suggested that these must include relevant health warnings similar to those introduced in Estonia, France, Sweden and Ireland. (Individual respondents often commented positively on the Estonian model, specifically.) There was also a view that all health messaging should be developed independently of the alcohol industry.

11.12 There were specific suggestions that (i) information about ingredients and nutritional content should be included, and (ii) any advertising that positively connects alcohol products to cultural heritage should be restricted.

Opposition to restricting the content of alcohol marketing to factual elements

11.13 Respondents who answered 'no' at Question 32 comprised most alcohol producer organisations, most retail and hospitality organisations, most advertising and media organisations and a large majority of individuals. This group also included a small majority of events and sporting organisations and organisations in the 'other organisation types' category. This group repeatedly made the following points:

• The content of alcohol marketing is already strictly regulated, and the overwhelming majority of businesses want to ensure they are advertising their products responsibly.
• Restricting alcohol marketing to purely factual statements would reduce alcohol to a 'mere commodity' and undermine centuries of Scottish creativity and brand-building.
• Restricting content would have a negative impact on Scotland's creative sector and on the ability of distilleries and breweries to distinguish themselves from their competitors and / or to market themselves as tourism destinations.
• This restriction would have a disproportionate impact on small start-up distillers and brewers that are trying to establish their brands and grow their businesses – putting them at a disadvantage compared to their competitors in other parts of the UK and abroad.

11.14 Respondents in this group explained that a lot of resource is invested in creating a brand and establishing the uniqueness of a product. It is important to be able to explain to consumers the heritage, provenance, and particular qualities of a brand. Restricting alcohol marketing to purely factual statements would undermine the major effort by the sector and the Scottish Government to grow the sector. Respondents from the advertising and media sectors said that, of all the measures discussed in the consultation paper, this one was likely to be the most damaging to the alcohol sector and the livelihoods it supports – while achieving little benefit for alcohol dependent people.

11.15 As Table 11.1 shows, 10 public health and third sector organisations answered 'no' at Question 32 (out of the 59 that answered this question). Those that provided comments to explain their response said that they would prefer a comprehensive ban on alcohol marketing and promotions. These respondents thought that restrictions like those introduced in Estonia would permit the alcohol industry to continue to advertise the name and brand of the product, thus enabling awareness of the name / brand to persist even after marketing is restricted to factual elements only. Some noted that the factual elements permitted by the Estonian restrictions do not include information about alcohol-related harms. This group thought that if marketing is to be permitted, then the dangers of consumption (impact on health, finances, family, etc.) and advice on where to go for help and support should also be included together with other factual elements.

Restrictions based on a list of permitted elements (Q33)

11.16 The consultation paper explained that, if Scotland followed the Estonia model, the content of adverts would be restricted to a list of permitted elements and design features (e.g. name of product, alcohol volume, where the product is made). Adverts would not be able to include any elements not set out in the list.

11.17 Question 33 asked respondents for their views about whether this type of model should be used in Scotland. Table 11.2 shows the following:

• Overall, around 1 in 6 respondents (16%) thought alcohol marketing should only be allowed to include a list of permitted elements, while three-quarters (75%) thought it should not. The remaining 9% selected 'don't know'.
• Levels of agreement with the proposition were similar for both organisations (18%) and individuals (16%). Levels of disagreement with the proposition were also similar for both organisations (73%) and individuals (75%).
• Around two-thirds of public health and third sector organisations (65%) agreed that alcohol marketing should only be allowed to include a list of permitted elements. By contrast, a large majority of retail and hospitality organisations (95%), alcohol producers (92%) and advertising and media organisations (88%) disagreed with this approach. More than half of events and sporting organisations (58%) and other organisation types (60%) disagreed.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

(1 respondent selected 'yes' and 'don't know'. This response is not included in the table)

11.18 It was very common for organisations and individuals to repeat points at Question 33 which they had made at Question 32 (see above) or to simply say 'see my response to Question 32' or 'see above'.

11.19 To summarise, those who answered 'yes' often said they would prefer a comprehensive ban on alcohol marketing because this would offer the greatest protection to people by preventing exposure to marketing in the first place, and that content restrictions would only become relevant if comprehensive restrictions were not put in place. Should content restrictions on alcohol marketing be put in place, they should include health warnings, nutritional information, and details of how to get help with an alcohol problem.

11.20 Those who answered 'no' usually said that the content of alcohol marketing is already strictly regulated, and that restricting alcohol marketing to a list of purely factual statements would undermine centuries of Scottish creativity and brand-building, and have negative impacts on Scotland's creative sector, distillers and brewers. A quarter of public health and third sector organisations also answered 'no'. Most (though not all) of these did so because they wanted greater (rather than fewer)restrictions (see paragraph 11.26 for details). The figures shown in Table 11.2 above should therefore be treated with caution.

11.21 The discussion below focuses on new points made at Question 33 by those who supported and those who opposed a list-type approach to restrictions on alcohol marketing. Other views regarding a list-type approach are discussed at the end of this section.

Support for a list-type approach

11.22 Additional points made by those who answered 'yes' at Question 33 were that:

• For implementation purposes, it will be easiest to state what is allowed and be clear that anything noton the list is illegal, rather than attempt to list what is not allowed.
• A respondent from Sweden reported that there have been difficulties in Sweden in enforcing this type of legislation for online marketing due to the 'fast nature of communications' and the challenges for digital platforms in removing potentially illegal content. For this reason, again, it was suggested that a comprehensive ban on all alcohol marketing would be a more effective policy – particularly for online marketing.
• If this type of measure were to be effective, it would need to be introduced across the whole of the UK.
• If this type of measure is introduced in Scotland, it should be evaluated to assess its impact in a Scottish context.

11.23 Very occasionally, individual respondents endorsed the elements permitted by the Estonian model (as set out in the consultation paper), suggesting that this type of approach would be preferable to a complete ban on all alcohol marketing and also preferable to the 'lifestyle promotion' that is often currently used in alcohol marketing. However, there was also a question about what the impact of this type of approach had been in Estonia and in other countries that used it.

Opposition to a list-type approach

11.24 The main additional theme in the responses from those who answered 'no' at Question 33 was to query (or challenge) the appropriateness of approaches used in Estonia as a model for restrictions on alcohol advertising in Scotland. Respondents said, 'Scotland is not Estonia' and that 'Scotland should not aspire to be like Estonia'. It was noted that Estonia does not have a world-leading spirit that is exported around the world.

11.25 Respondents also repeatedly asked what effect the Estonian approach has had, and why this information was not provided in the consultation paper. According to some respondents in this group, the Estonian approach has been shown to be ineffective and damaging to their alcohol industry. Some cited evidence that alcohol consumption and alcohol-related deaths in Estonia have, in fact, risen since the introduction of restrictions on the content of alcohol advertising. Two of the public health organisations in this group also noted the lack of evaluation evidence from other countries to support this type of approach in Scotland.

11.26 However, most of the public health and third sector organisations that answered 'no' at Question 33 thought a comprehensive prohibition of alcohol advertising would be preferable to restrictions on the content of advertising. Some in this group also thought an Estonia-style approach would (i) continue to allow the name and brand of the product to be advertised, which they objected to and (ii) not include information about alcohol-related harms, which they wished to see.

Other views on a list-type approach

11.27 Most of those who answered 'don't know' in response to this question (or who did not answer the closed question) asked about what effect this type of approach had had in Estonia. A few others made the following points:

• One respondent discussed current restrictions on the content of alcohol marketing as set out in Section 3 of the Portman Group's Code of Practice on the Naming, Packaging and Promotion of Alcoholic Drinks, and suggested these could be evaluated for their impact.
• One respondent suggested that the approach adopted in Estonia had been a 'compromise' due to a 'lack of political will to implement a full ban' on alcohol marketing. This respondent said that the Estonian list-type approach had allowed alcohol companies to continue to promote their products through certain media channels. This was seen to be politically acceptable but, in the view of the respondent, was not as effective as a complete ban would have been in reducing alcohol-related harm.
• It was suggested that if content restrictions on alcohol marketing were to be implemented in Scotland, then further consultation on the specific list would be required – and that this should include engagement with children and young people.

Coverage of restrictions based on a list of permitted elements (Q34)

11.28 Question 34 asked respondents if they thought restrictions on alcohol marketing such as those from Estonia should be applied to all types of alcohol marketing. Table 11.3 shows the following:

• Overall, around 1 in 6 respondents (16%) thought content restrictions like the Estonian model should be applied to all types of alcohol marketing, while three-quarters (75%) thought it should not. The remaining 8% selected 'don't know'.
• Levels of agreement with the proposition were similar for both organisations (20%) and individuals (16%). Levels of disagreement with the proposition were also similar for both organisations (72%) and individuals (76%).
• Around three-quarters of public health and third sector organisations (70%) agreed that content restrictions like the Estonian model should be applied to all types of alcohol marketing. By contrast, a large majority of retail and hospitality organisations (93%), alcohol producers (92%), and advertising and media organisations (88%) disagreed with this approach. Around two-thirds of events and sporting organisations (61%) also said they disagreed with the approach, while a third of this group (35%) selected 'don't know'. Other organisation types were split between those who agreed (40%) and those who disagreed (60%).

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

11.29 Respondents largely repeated at Question 34 views previously expressed at Questions 32 and 33 or they simply said, 'see my previous response'. Few specifically addressed the question of whether content restrictions (like the Estonian model) should be applied to all types of alcohol marketing. Those who did address the question often repeated points made in relation to other types of marketing. Specifically, those who answered 'yes' said that:

• For restrictions on the content of alcohol marketing to be effective, it is important that they apply across all promotional activities.
• The greater the number of exemptions, the greater the likelihood of diminishing returns from the restrictions: alcohol companies will be able to shift their marketing to unrestricted activities, and the impact on consumers – in terms of reducing the visibility of marketing – will be reduced.

11.30 Those who answered 'no' said that:

• It would be 'too extreme', 'too harsh, or 'too restrictive overall' if content restrictions were applied to all types of alcohol marketing.
• It would not be possible to block all alcohol marketing in Scotland – including through restrictions on the content of marketing. It is unlikely to be feasible to enforce such restrictions on companies not based in Scotland. Therefore, restrictions are likely to have the primary effect of harming Scottish businesses, without achieving the desired health outcomes.