As the nation tries to shake off the remaining ill effects of a drink-fuelled Christmas and New Year, so too the alcohol industry is waking up to a headache. Just two years after the rules governing its advertising were tightened, the pressure is growing once again for further curbs on the sector's marketing.
The media carries reports almost daily covering the binge-drinking problem afflicting the UK. Alcohol charities are clamouring for greater restrictions on advertising, and health secretary Patricia Hewitt recently fired a shot across the industry's bow by demanding swingeing tax increases on alcopops. The subject of marketing restrictions has also been broached at a European level.
If Ofcom's review of food advertising to children, which resulted in harsher restrictions than expected, is anything to go by, the drinks industry's status quo is far from guaranteed. As with food, alcohol brands are facing a growing band of lobbyists calling for tighter strictures. In September, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs demanded curbs on alcohol advertising and sponsorship. Last month, meanwhile, Alcohol Concern approached the All Parliamentary Group on Alcohol Misuse, seeking a pre-watershed ban on all alcohol advertising.
It remains to be seen whether the industry has done enough to safeguard itself from such action. In October it was granted a temporary reprieve from legislation when the European Commission rejected a ban on alcohol advertising and sports sponsorship in its 'Communication on reducing alcohol-related harm in Europe'.
This suggests that Brussels is shifting toward a greater belief in the power of self-regulation as an alternative to legislation, according to Nick Johnson, partner and head of advertising and sponsorship at law firm Osborne Clarke. 'Historically, codes of practice were a classic way for industry to fend off the threat of potential legislation. Now Brussels is spearheading initiatives to introduce codes, which is something of a role- reversal,' he says.
While Johnson does not believe that the industry is in any imminent danger of being hit by legislation, he stresses that it does need to engage with national government as well as Brussels to ensure the self-regulatory codes do enough to appease the authorities. As the option of a tighter self-regulatory code being forced upon the industry remains, demonstrating that the current system is working is vital.
Ofcom last tightened the code of practice for alcohol advertisers in January 2005 after consultation with the industry; a nine-month period of grace followed to allow marketers to adapt. These rule changes relate primarily to the content of ads, rather than when and where they can be aired. For example, they ban ads that link alcohol with sexual success or feature people who appear to be under the age of 25.
This has led some brands to axe TV ads or embark on more conservative campaigns. Bacardi Breezer, for example, ran an ad in 2004 featuring a young man recalling a night out during which he rode a horse through a pub. The ad, which would not have passed muster under the tightened code, was withdrawn and the brand split with ad agency McCann Erickson, stating that it was unable to agree a creative platform after the Ofcom change. The brand has not appeared on TV since.
Carling, meanwhile, adopted a tamer style in its advertising. In November it launched a £14m campaign featuring footage of a flock of starlings in flight, marking a departure from the potentially code-flouting ads traditionally favoured by lager brands, centred on laddish behaviour.
Naturally, all brands claim to be leading the way in terms of responsible advertising. But there have been some high-profile examples of big names falling foul of the rules. Diageo, for example, had a series of ads for its Smirnoff Ice brand banned by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) because the characters who featured in the campaign were found to appeal to under-18s (see box below).
At the time, Kate Blakeley, head of social responsibility for Diageo GB, said: 'We wholeheartedly disagree with the ASA that the campaign violated the code. We have concerns for future advertisers on the precedents set by the decision.' She added that pre-clearance was sought and granted, by the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC). Beverage Brands says it did the same for an ad for WKD which was subsequently banned by the ASA, highlighting an apparent disparity between what the two organisations deem acceptable.
Blakeley cites Diageo's three-stage process of vetting ads to adhere to the regulations as evidence of its commitment to responsible marketing. She adds that the Smirnoff Ice ads did not attract one consumer complaint, and that advertisers are at the mercy of how the ASA interprets the rules. Diageo is so aggrieved that it is now in the midst of an independent review.
Lambrini also has a history of run-ins with the advertising watchdog. In 2004, before the code was tightened, it ran a campaign around the Grand National, which was banned because of its use of sexually suggestive straplines such as 'I love a man with a powerful beast between his legs'. Lambrini was told to contact the ASA's copy advice team prior to preparing further executions, but this didn't stop it running into trouble again in 2005. Its £2m 'Fun in the sun' campaign featured three girls winning a hunky male model as a prize at a fairground. Before the ads broke, Lambrini was instructed by the ASA to replace the model with an 'unattractive, overweight, middle-aged, balding' man because its original format would have linked the brand with seduction and sexual success.
The brand's owner, Halewood International, expressed its annoyance at what it described as the ASA's over-zealous interpretation of the rules. It said: 'We're not sure (the ASA) are qualified to decide for the nation who's sexy and who's not ... perhaps the ASA people should take a look in the mirror before they decide they've got the rulebook on sexual prowess.'
The ASA is quick to defend itself against criticism of the regulations and their clarity. 'The codes are clear enough and they are drawn up by the drinks industry itself,' says ASA spokesman Matt Wilson. He adds that if the industry feels the codes are not sufficiently clear, it has no one to blame but itself, as the ASA merely polices them. Wilson describes the WKD and Smirnoff Ice cases as litmus tests that enabled brands to observe the way in which the stricter rules would be interpreted.
With pressure groups ready to pounce at any sign of irresponsible marketing, alcohol firms are acutely aware that they must be seen to act in accordance with the regulations. Kate Coleman, public affairs manager for The Wine and Sprit Trade Association, insists the industry is committed to making the code work. 'There is an understanding of the codes in the industry and a desire to meet their letter and spirit. When the rulings against WKD and Smirnoff Ice were made, the industry was taken aback as it takes its role very seriously,' she says.
If the future of self-regulation is to be secured, one potential problem area is retailing. Supermarkets, which insist on high levels of discount and promotional activity, have attracted as much criticism as manufacturers.
Indeed, in a submission to the Office of Fair Trading, made during the summer, the UK's biggest brewer, Scottish & Newcastle, accused the supermarkets of fuelling irresponsible drinking through their low pricing policies.
This is a view echoed by Pat Brazzier, founder of global market research firm PASH Beverage Research. 'With supermarkets, the whole store has become an off-licence that happens to sell food,' he says. 'There is a high percentage of alcohol brands everywhere and these shouldn't be merchandised in the same way as jam or eggs.'
Brazzier points out that the third edition of The Portman Group's Code of Practice - effective from 1 March 2003 - omits the section on responsible merchandising, present in the previous two editions. In this regard, he claims that self-regulation is not working. 'The Portman Group offers only a code, not a law, and no one listens to it,' he says.
Not surprisingly, the retailers, like the manufacturers, all claim to have responsible marketing policies. Coleman believes they are doing a lot of work on responsible drinking for which they are not receiving any credit. 'Promotions on price are a legitimate part of the business,' she adds.
This may be the case, but it leaves the industry open to attack. Moreover, as manufacturers and retailers try to shift the blame onto one another, they should bear in mind that ever tougher challenges lie ahead. Hewitt's calls for a hike in the tax on alcopops may have been rejected by the Treasury, but the issue will undoubtedly resurface. The EC, meanwhile, will inevitably be making noises in the next year as it sets up its Alcohol and Health Forum to discuss good practice in terms of marketing, selling and serving drinks (see box above right).
Against this backdrop, The Portman Group is set to publish a revised edition of its code of practice either in the spring or summer, having last reviewed it in 2001. This will involve a consultation across the industry, giving alcohol firms the chance to prove that they are committed to responsible marketing.
One issue flagged for consideration is whether the current rule concerning sexual success is appropriate. The Portman Group believes the rule works well, but some brands have argued it is too harsh. Another area up for review is whether the code should prohibit the encouragement of rapid drinking, which could prevent spirits such as tequila and sambuca, which tend to be drunk as 'shooters', being promoted.
Alcohol brands will also be forced to examine labelling policies, with the government keen to use labels and bar founts to encourage sensible drinking. The Department of Health is already consulting on the matter with the industry. It has so far refused to give any pointers as to possible recommendations, but it is unlikely that the situation will remain as it is now.
'We are working with the alcohol industry to develop a range of sensible-drinking messages and unit information that can be displayed on alcoholic drinks labels, at the point of sale and in drinks promotions, on a voluntary basis,' said a Department of Health spokeswoman. She added that the introduction of such labelling is expected within the next 12 to 18 months.
There is still plenty to do to prove that the existing self-regulatory regime can work, whether this is done through complying with existing ad codes or being seen to co-operate with government initiatives. 'Binge drinking remains a political hot topic,' confirms the ASA's Wilson.
Alcohol marketers must therefore tread carefully. The year ahead will be play a crucial part in determining whether the industry can stave off further regulation.
BRAND: Young's Bitter
DATE OF BAN: 11 January 2006
Why was it banned? These poster ads by agency BANC Communications used the strapline 'This is a ram's world'. By depicting the ram as the centre of attention and an object of interest for several women, the ads breached the Ofcom rules that alcohol brands must not be associated with social success or with seduction.
BRAND: Disaronno
DATE OF BAN: 22 February 2006
Why was it banned? The ASA ruled this Disaronno cinema ad by Lowe Pirella showing a woman suggestively putting an ice cube in her mouth linked the brand to seduction. The ad was approved by the Cinema Advertising Association and rated 'U' by the British Board of Film Classification, but the ASA's copy advice team had warned it was likely to breach the code.
BRAND: Smirnoff Ice
DATE OF BAN: 27 September 2006
Why was it banned? The ASA ruled against a series of ads created by Bartle Bogle Hegarty, featuring Eastern European characters Gorb and Uri, an ex-member of an Icelandic band. The ASA ruled that Uri's characterisation as an amusing celebrity and the work's slapstick humour would make him appeal strongly to, and become a cult figure with, the young.
BRAND: WKD
DATE OF BAN: 27 September 2006
Why was it banned? Two WKD ads created by Big Communications were censured by the ASA. The first showed two men playfighting their way to the fridge to get a bottle of WKD. The second depicted a shopkeeper wielding a pricing gun at two male shoppers. The ASA said the ads' humour was juvenile and that they employed themes likely to appeal to adolescents.
TIMELINE REGULATION
Apr 1996: The Portman Group introduces a Code of Practice for the naming and packaging of alcoholic drinks.
Mar 2004: Tony Blair launches the Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy to end irresponsible marketing.
Jan 2005: The rules governing alcohol advertising are tightened by Ofcom.
Jun 2006: The Anderson Report, funded by the European Commission, proposes that sponsorships by alcohol brands as well as TV and cinema advertising should be phased out.
Sep 2006: The Government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs calls for a ban on TV ads for alcohol, cinema ads around films for under-18s and sponsorship of music or sports events watched by young people.
Oct 2006: Health secretary Patricia Hewitt demands an increase in tax on alcopops. The European Commission sets out its 'Communication on reducing alcohol-related harm in Europe'.
Dec 2006: Alcohol Concern presents its case to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Alcohol Misuse for a pre-watershed ban on alcohol advertising.
TIMELINE - THE FUTURE
Jan 2007: The Portman Group's public consultation on its code of practice ends this month; the revised edition of the code will be published in the spring/summer.
Jun 2007: EC plans to have set up the Alcohol and Health Forum by June (see box right).
Oct 07-Apr 08: DoH expected to implement changes to product labelling.
ESSENTIALS - OFCOM RULES
In January 2005 Ofcom tightened the rules governing alcohol advertising, following a consultation with the industry. Many of the rules existed in the previous code, but the overhauled guidelines created a far tighter regulatory regime.
BRANDS MUST NOT
- Suggest that alcohol can contribute to popularity or confidence.
- Link alcohol with daring, toughness, aggression or anti-social
behaviour.
- Suggest success of a social occasion is dependent on alcohol.
- Link alcohol with sexual activity or success.
- Suggest alcohol can overcome problems.
- Show or encourage immoderate drinking.
- Suggest that other members of a group will buy further rounds of
drinks.
- Link drinking with the use of dangerous machinery.
- Use people who are, or appear to be, under 25.
- Show alcohol being drunk at work.
- Make claims about health, fitness or weight control.
- Use themes, personalities, music, dance, clothes, language, cartoons,
rhymes, animals, animations or sports that are likely to appeal to the
young.
- Show immature behaviour or practical jokes.
- Use a medium that will reach an audience in which the proportion of
under-18s is 25% or more.
ESSENTIALS - EC LEGISLATION
Last October the European Commission (EC) published its 'Communication on reducing alcohol-related harm in Europe'. Proposals under consideration included a ban on TV and cinema advertising and sponsorships by alcohol brands, an increase in excise duty and changes to labelling, all of which followed the publication of 53 recommendations in the Anderson Report, commissioned by the EC, last June.
However, it opted for a softer approach that does not include legislation at European level and which will be 'complementing national strategies'. The upshot is likely to be that self-regulation in the UK will continue. Nonetheless, the EC will continue to take an interest in the marketing of alcoholic drinks. It plans to set up a body called the Alcohol and Health Forum by June, which will discuss good practice on selling, serving and marketing alcohol as well as the way its image is conveyed in the media. It will also fund projects that contribute to reducing alcohol-related harm.
MEASURES IDENTIFIED INCLUDE
- Action to improve consumer information on products, at point of sale
and in the workplace.
- Action to better enforce age limits for selling or serving alcohol.
- Education of young people and adults.
- Introduction of a lower or zero blood-alcohol concentration limit for
inexperienced and professional drivers.
- Enforcing counter-measures against drink-driving.
.jpg)
.jpg)