"New" alcohol advertising codes do not go far enough, writes Patrick Kenny.
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children Mary Harney picked an opportune time two weeks ago to announce the launch of the "new" voluntary codes to restrict alcohol marketing activities. Those who face the challenge of avoiding the remains of someone else's Christmas office party as they gingerly walk on our footpaths are presented with ample evidence of the need for decisive action to tackle our alcohol problems.
The proposed regime revolves around four specific codes dealing with the different media in which alcohol may be advertised - cinema, television, radio and outdoor. They primarily deal with protecting those under 18 from alcohol advertising. While this is a laudable aim, it ignores the reality that many of our societal alcohol problems do not come from the minors in our midst - twenty and thirty-somethings are as likely to binge drink as their teenage counterparts. It is simply wrong to assume that alcohol advertising stops working when we reach 18.
The "new" codes substantially reflect current practice. The need for all ads to be pre-vetted by Central Copy Clearance to ensure compliance with the Advertising Standards Authority has been standard practice for more than two years. As Fintan O'Toole reported in this newspaper last week, most of the "new" code on cinema advertising was copied word for word - errors included - from a lobbying letter sent by Carlton Screen Advertising to the Government two years ago. Yet this is only part of the story.
The "new" code appeared in its entirety - including the errors highlighted by O'Toole - in a 2004 document produced by the Institute for Advertising Practitioners. A plagiarism investigation would immediately ensue if such cutting and pasting were uncovered in any educational institution.
In a sense it is hard to blame the alcohol industry for favouring a voluntary code over more stringent legislative measures. That's their job. One might, however, have expected those charged with the health of the nation to be equally effective in doing theirs.
Yet there is surely something odd about the industry's rejection of an outright ban on advertising. They consistently maintain that advertising doesn't increase consumption and instead simply encourages switching between brands. If this was so, a ban on advertising would guarantee continued dominance by the major brands. If there was no advertising their competitors would be almost competitively impotent and dominant market leadership would be all but guaranteed into the future. The millions of euros spent annually on marketing could be saved and put to other use.
This of course does not reflect reality - the most powerful marketers are also the most vocal in calling for the continuance of self-regulation, precisely because they recognise advertising's strong link with consumption levels.
It is true that the research evidence on the link between advertising and consumption is inconclusive and will probably always remain so due to methodological difficulties. For example, numerous studies have found that young people who are aware of, and familiar with, alcohol advertisements are more likely to drink alcohol. It is just incredibly difficult to prove that the liking of ads leads to drinking and not the other way around. At the very least there is a two-way relationship. It is simply counterintuitive to everything we know about marketing to suggest that it will not increase consumption.
Much has been made of the codes' restrictions on ad placement. For instance, no billboards will be placed within 100 metres of school entrances, there will be no wrap-around ads on taxis and buses and there will be no more mesh building banners with alcohol ads. The suggestion that such new restrictions will help reduce alcohol consumption or protect young drinkers from alcohol-related harm is based on an extremely naïve understanding of how advertising works.
One single, discreet alcohol advertisement will not affect alcohol consumption levels, though in certain defined circumstances one ad could affect brand choice. Rather, consistent exposure to the socially exciting lifestyles portrayed in almost all alcohol ads will, over time, regularise alcohol consumption and create social acceptability for young people's drinking.
Marketing budgets will not be reduced even if alcohol marketers have to restrict some of their current activities - these budgets will simply be redirected towards other, less regulated media. The two most obvious options are enhanced internet marketing and sports sponsorship, two areas that receive absolutely no attention in the new codes. It is unlikely that this omission is accidental, and it is hard to reconcile this glaring omission with the codes' detailed concern in other areas.
However, marketing is only one element of a complex social mix, and, while the profession has special responsibilities, it is an easy scapegoat that allows the rest of society off the hook.
The Christmas excess of parents, the media glorification of the Christmas office party and alcohol-fuelled New Year's celebrations will probably do much more to condition young people's drinking habits than exposure to alcohol ads.
Closing down McCoy's pub in Fair City and removing alcohol from our entertainment programmes would likely go a long way towards creating greater social responsibility around alcohol. In the absence of action to reduce alcohol's social role in our culture, removing ads from bus shelters, while a laudable start, will have little long term impact.
* Patrick Kenny is a lecturer in marketing in the Dublin Institute of Technology.