Consultation on Restricting Alcohol Advertising and Promotion: Analysis of responses

4 Outdoor marketing (Q8–Q10)

4.1 Section 7 of the consultation paper considered a potential prohibition on alcohol marketing outdoors, in public spaces and on vehicles. It described the range of different settings for outdoor marketing and cited research evidence on the exposure of children and young people to such marketing. It noted that the current self-regulatory codes do not limit outdoor marketing other than in relation to specific locations relevant to children and young people such as schools. It went on to outline the approach taken to restricting outdoor marketing in other countries and suggested that this type of action could be an option for Scotland to reduce the exposure and impact on both adults and children and young people.

4.2 The consultation asked three questions on this issue, seeking views on (i) a prohibition on outdoor marketing, (ii) the coverage of any such prohibition and (iii) any types of marketing that should be excepted, should such a prohibition be introduced.

Question 8: Do you think we should prohibit alcohol marketing outdoors, including on vehicles, and in public spaces in Scotland?[Yes / No / Don't Know]

Question 9: What do you think should be covered by a prohibition on alcohol marketing outdoors, on vehicles and in public spaces?

Question 10: What, if any, exceptions do you think there should be to prohibiting alcohol marketing outdoors, including on vehicles, and in public spaces in Scotland? Why?

Prohibiting outdoor marketing (Q8)

4.3 Question 8 asked for views on whether outdoor alcohol marketing should be prohibited in Scotland. Table 4.1 shows the following:

• Overall, around a fifth of respondents (22%) thought that alcohol marketing outdoors should be prohibited in Scotland, while three-quarters (75%) thought it should not. The remaining 3% selected 'don't know'.
• Levels of agreement with the proposition were similar for both organisations (24%) and individuals (21%). Levels of disagreement with the proposition were also similar for both organisations (74%) and individuals (76%).
• All public health and third sector organisations (100%) agreed that alcohol marketing outdoors should be prohibited. By contrast, almost all alcohol producers (95%) and retail and hospitality organisations (97%) disagreed with this approach. Most events and sporting organisations (89%) and advertising and media organisations (89%) also disagreed. Among other organisation types, 43% agreed and 52% disagreed.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

4.4 In addition:

• 428 CAMRA 1 campaign respondents and 90 CAMRA 2 campaign respondents indicated that they did not support restrictions on alcohol marketing outdoors.
• 67 Publicans campaign respondents answered 'no' in response to Question 8.

4.5 Two further follow-up open questions asked respondents for views on how a prohibition on outdoor alcohol marketing might operate. Question 9 asked respondents what types of marketing should be covered if outdoor marketing were to be prohibited, while Question 10 asked for views on any exceptions from such a prohibition.

Support for prohibiting outdoor marketing

4.6 Respondents in favour of prohibiting outdoor marketing included all public health and third sector organisations, some respondents in the 'other organisation types' category (mainly academic and licensing and regulatory bodies), and one in five individuals. Respondents in this group offered a broadly consistent set of reasons for their views. They noted:

• The constantly visible, highly pervasive and indiscriminate nature of outdoor marketing, its massive audience, and the fact that those exposed to it – including children and young people and those at risk of or recovering from harmful drinking – had no choice in the matter. Children and young people in particular were noted as disproportionately high users of public transport and other public spaces where marketing is displayed. Responses often contained views and testimony from children and young people and those in recovery about their experiences of being exposed to outdoor alcohol marketing and the effect this had on their lives.
• The significant expenditure committed to outdoor marketing by alcohol producers and the thought given to placing adverts in order to achieve maximum exposure.

4.7 It was also common for organisational respondents in this group to cite research studies which they said showed (i) high levels of awareness and recall of outdoor advertising among young people, (ii) links between exposure to outdoor marketing near schools and young people's intention to use alcohol, and (iii) the impact of outdoor marketing on those with experience of alcohol harm.

4.8 Thus, respondents argued that a ban of this kind would have a major impact on reducing exposure to alcohol marketing among children and young people, and among those at risk of or recovering from harmful drinking. It would also help to 'de-normalise' alcohol use in society. It was suggested that a ban of this type could be more effective than other measures such as banning events and sports sponsorship.

4.9 Some respondents also argued that the constant exposure to outdoor marketing (something which people generally could not choose to avoid) undermined people's right to health and wellbeing. As such, they said that outdoor marketing should be prohibited 'on human rights grounds'.

4.10 Respondents in this group also said the following:

• Current codes on the placement of outdoor marketing disallowing the advertising of alcohol to audiences comprised of more than 25% children and young people did not adequately protect children and young people.
• Other countries including Ireland, Estonia, Lithuania, Sweden, and Australia had introduced restrictions on outdoor marketing of alcohol.
• There was public support for introducing restrictions of the type proposed, as well as support among children and young people, and among those in recovery from alcohol harm.
• Prohibiting outdoor marketing would be in line with the recommendations of the Alcohol Marketing Expert Network.
• The Scottish Government has the power to act in this area and should therefore do so.

Support for limited restrictions

4.11 It was common for respondents who expressed support for prohibiting outdoor marketing to say this should be a 'comprehensive' ban. However, comments from other respondents – including a small number of respondents from the alcohol producer, advertising / media, and sports and events sectors and individuals who ticked 'yes' at Question 8 – indicated varying degrees of support for restrictions of a more limited form. For example, they suggested these might focus on the targeting of children, the use of specific locations, or the advertising of specific drinks. These views are discussed further at paragraphs 4.30–4.35.

Opposition to prohibiting outdoor marketing

4.12 Those opposed to prohibiting outdoor marketing included organisational respondents of all types (apart from those in the public health and third sector category) and a large majority of individuals. These respondents often described the proposals as 'extreme' or 'disproportionate'. They made the following main points in explaining their views:

• They did not believe the available evidence showed (i) a link between outdoor marketing and harmful drinking, or (ii) any clear benefits of restrictions on outdoor marketing, and did not think the Scottish Government had presented a strong or conclusive case for a ban in this area.
• They believed the current regulations and restrictions (via self-regulatory codes and guidelines and the licensing system) were proportionate and effective and that advertising agencies and other businesses generally act responsibly in planning and designing marketing campaigns. In particular, they pointed out that licensing laws already prohibit advertising within 200m of premises selling alcohol, and that codes already regulate against advertising in areas frequented by children (schools, leisure centres, etc.). Respondents said that changes in outdoor marketing could be achieved via local planning and licensing systems, and by working to strengthen existing regulatory codes. Some indicated a willingness to work with the government to address any concerns, and to strengthen and improve the current arrangements.
• They highlighted the disproportionate impact a ban on outdoor marketing would have on small independent alcohol producers – who would be unable to advertise their products or to use their own assets (vehicles and buildings) to do so.

4.13 Individuals disputed that advertising encourages consumption or harmful drinking behaviours in general, and often offered their own experience as evidence in this regard. Responses from this group also focused on the negative impacts restrictions on outdoor marketing would have for their (own) business.

4.14 Finally, those from the media and advertising sector in particular made a number of additional points. They (i) queried how effective a ban on outdoor advertising could be when this form of marketing accounted for a very small proportion of advertising spend, (ii) suggested that such a ban would simply shift the advertising spend to other channels, and (iii) said that a ban would mean a potential drop in billboard rent and rates for local authorities. (Note, also, that one advertising / media organisation said that prohibiting outdoor marketing, as the least targeted form of marketing, would be acceptable.)

Concerns about the implementation of a ban on outdoor marketing

4.15 Many of the more detailed comments from respondents focused on functional, incidental or temporary marketing or signage, including that with a limited local audience. For example, respondents expressed concerns about or sought clarity on the implications of any prohibition of outdoor marketing for:

• External signage at or near pubs, hospitality venues, shops and production sites
• External signage at or near distilleries and drinks-related visitor centres
• Indoor settings visible from outdoors
• Branded items (umbrellas, perimeter barriers, etc.) in outdoor hospitality areas (this issue was raised by some licensing and regulatory bodies)
• The use of brand names within the names of hospitality and other venues
• Signage and advertising for outdoor events and festivals, including farmers' markets, and beer and drinks festivals – which might include brand names
• Signs directing people to alcohol-related venues and attractions.

4.16 There was a general view that it would be difficult to define the limits of what was classed as outdoor marketing. Some called for clarity on this.

4.17 Respondents repeatedly highlighted the cost to businesses of removing or changing outdoor signage, or replacing branded items such as outdoor barriers and umbrellas if they were included in a ban.

4.18 They also emphasised the importance of this type of outdoor marketing for the success of businesses, attractions and events. This was seen as particularly crucial for drawing in visitors and building a customer base in more rural areas where a local alcohol producer might be a major employer and a key factor in attracting visitors. It was further suggested that any requirement to remove such signage would lead to a loss of character on local high streets and town centres.

4.19 There was also some discussion about the use of liveried vehicles. In addition to raising issues related to costs and the impact on their ability to promote their business, respondents also raised practical issues, related to cross-border travel. They queried how any ban would apply to vehicles travelling between Scotland and other parts of the UK, and the effect this would have on competition between Scottish and non-Scottish brands.

Support for limited restrictions

4.20 In a few cases respondents who were broadly opposed to prohibiting outdoor marketing indicated areas where they thought further restrictions might be applied if a ban were introduced. These points are covered at paragraph 4.30–4.35. In particular, respondents expressed support for putting some aspects of the current arrangements, particularly those relating to the targeting of children, on a statutory footing.

Coverage and exceptions (Q9 and Q10)

4.21 Questions 9 and 10 sought views on the coverage of and exemption to a prohibition on outdoor marketing. There was a great deal of overlap in the comments made at these two questions and so the views expressed are reported together in this section.

4.22 Those commenting at these questions included those who indicated support for a ban at Question 8 and those who indicated opposition. However, it should be noted that most respondents who opposed a ban on outdoor marketing did not engage with the detail of the questions. Instead, they repeated their opposition to a ban and their reasons for this position, emphasising in particular that current self-regulatory arrangements are adequate. Some said the questions were leading as they assumed support for a ban. The views of this group are covered in the section above and are not discussed further here.

4.23 Among those who did engage with the questions, respondents either (i) (re)stated their support for a 'comprehensive' ban on outdoor marketing and explained what they thought such a ban should entail, or (ii) offered suggestions for a wide variety of more limited or targeted bans on outdoor marketing. Both of these positions are discussed below.

Support for a comprehensive ban on outdoor marketing

4.24 As indicated above, those in favour of banning outdoor marketing generally sought a comprehensive ban covering all marketing in all public spaces and all places visible from public spaces (e.g. advertising sited on private property, such as on the side of a brewery or in a beer garden, that is visible to passers-by on the public road). There was a view that 'legislation that designates all outdoor and public spaces as alcohol-marketing-free spaces will be more effective than listing specific instances where alcohol marketing should be banned'. As such, these respondents did not wish to see any exemptions.

4.25 Respondents in this group rejected the idea of a ban based on places associated with children and young people as impractical and inadequate in reducing exposure, given that children's lives were not restricted to such places.

4.26 Some who said they favoured a comprehensive ban nevertheless commented on what they thought a ban should cover. In terms of location, respondents mentioned the following, largely repeating the examples given in the consultation paper of where outdoor marketing may be displayed:

• Bus stops / train stations, vehicles – including trains, buses and taxis (inside and out)
• Community / leisure centres, sport centres and grounds, parks, libraries and museums
• Public service premises such as NHS / council properties
• Shopping centres and precincts
• Roadside and motorway areas
• Licensed premises (outdoor areas in pubs, hotels and restaurants) including exteriors of breweries and alcohol production facilities.

4.27 Respondents mentioned billboards and signage (electronic and non-electronic), as well as branded merchandise and clothing as types of marketing that should be covered by a ban.

4.28 In terms of products, some emphasised the importance of including no and low alcohol (NoLo) drinks in the ban. They cited the experience of Ireland where adverts for alcoholic brands had been replaced by adverts for NoLo products with the same branding following the introduction of Ireland's Public Health (Alcohol) Act 2018. (See also the views expressed in relation to NoLo products in Chapter 6.)

4.29 In terms of content, respondents suggested a ban should cover references to alcohol producers, retailers or suppliers, brands and industry bodies; as well as the use of logos, fonts, colours, words or catch phrases or images characteristically associated with an alcohol brand or alcohol consumption.

Support for a more limited or targeted ban on outdoor marketing

4.30 Some respondents expressed support for a more limited or targeted approach. These respondents included both those who supported and those who opposed a ban on outdoor marketing at Question 8. Among this group, some (organisations in particular) restated their opposition to a prohibition on outdoor marketing but set out their views on coverage and exceptions should a ban be introduced.

4.31 Most commonly, respondents in this group called for a ban to be designed to limit exposure among and appeal to children and young people and, in some cases, other vulnerable groups.

4.32 Respondents mainly discussed this in terms of location and called for the coverage of any ban to be targeted at spaces associated with children and young people – schools, playgrounds, early years premises, youth sport and leisure centres. Some specified that the ban should apply within 100m or 200m of such spaces. It was noted that the current self-regulatory codes already covered spaces of this type. Other locations mentioned less often included (i) travel and transport related spaces such as buses, trains, bus shelters, taxis, pedestrian paths, and (ii) public service and health service-related premises such as government buildings, hospitals and rehab centres. Some respondents expressed a similar view in terms of exceptions, stating that any areas with mainly adult footfall or not geared to children should be exempt from a ban.

4.33 Occasionally, respondents in this group discussed the type of marketing or the type of products that might be covered by a ban. For example, they called for it to be limited to billboards and other graphic or large-scale advertising, with functional signage and commercial vehicles excluded from the ban (see paragraph 4.15 for examples of the types of signage mentioned in this context), or for it to be targeted at alco-pops or other drinks which could appeal to children and young people.

4.34 Additionally, respondents put forward a very wide range of comments (often brief in nature) on coverage and exemptions. These comments (mainly from individuals but also from some organisations) often called for the inclusion or exclusion of specific locations or forms of marketing. However, they generally aligned with one or more of the overall views that (i) exposure among and appeal to children and young people and other vulnerable groups should be limited, (ii) functional signage and commercial vehicles should be exempt, (iii) restrictions should differentiate between small local businesses and other businesses, and (iv) locations and premises specifically linked to the alcohol trade (for example, a distillery, brewery, or pub) should be exempt.

4.35 Finally, there were calls for specific exemptions for (i) airports and ferry terminals, given their very specific markets and largely non-domestic adult customer bases, and (ii) NoLo products.