A press release from The Association for Communication and Advertising (ACA) crossed my desk this week. “ACA is busy standing up and making its mark on behalf of the entire advertising profession, as Government has proposed a ban on all advertising depicting alcoholic products,” it reads.
“Within the principles that the legislation will have to consider are our constitutional rights – and the most significantly affected by the proposed regulation is freedom of speech,” says Odette Roper, CEO of ACA.
Roper also argues that “there is no conclusive evidence that advertising bans have the effect that consumption of alcohol is reduced.”
Well bollocks to the ACA, with apologies to Penguin Books. A presentation hosted by the Royal College of Physicians argues that “7 longitudinal studies have demonstrated an impact of alcohol advertisements increasing young people’s drinking. Acceptance of the impact of advertisements on smoking is based on 9 longitudinal studies. In neither case have there been any longitudinal studies which have shown the converse.”
Another news item from the Colleges’ journal points to a study that shows that 25% of young male deaths and 10% of female deaths in Europe are alcohol related.
The article states: “The WHO conclusion is that increased taxation is the most effective tool (for reducing alcohol related harm), followed by restrictions on promotion and finally, by reducing the availability of alcohol.”
Even if there were no studies that showed that a ban on alcohol advertising reduced consumption there are plenty of studies that do show it increases it. Aha.
Freedom of speech is closely related to other rights. Joel Feinberg suggests that a number of factors need to be taken into account when applying the offence principle, including: the extent, duration and social value of the speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, the intensity of the offence, and the general interest of the community at large.
I don’t believe ACA making a ban on alcohol advertising a free speech issue serves the larger debate on the impact of alcohol misuse on our health and safety.
They rightly argue for the South African context to be taken into account. Violence is already part of every day life across our wide social spectrum. Alcohol misuse exacerbates an already tenuous situation – context indeed.
It makes sense that advertising alcohol products would increase their consumption, or else why do it?
Dunno if I agree with that…
Alcohol advertising is about affecting choice; getting people to migrate brands etc.
It would take an amazing campaign to make someone who wants a bottle of orange juice swap to vodka. But if they were already going to buy vodka A, vodka B might advertise to let them know how crap A is.
So, while it may increase consumption, I would imagine that it would increase a brands consumption, not overall consumption, at least not substantially.
…and that consumption would generally be increased within a market that already drinks. People drink when they reach a certain age (some younger than others;) not because an advert says they must. It may influence their choice of alcohol, but not whether they drink tonight or not…
I say ban alcohol
Here’s another point. It’s illegal to advertise narcotics or prescription drugs … but that has not stopped the huge drug problem we face. Also – advertising doesn’t promote consumption, it gives you the choice.