Jean Coussins, chief executive of The Portman Group, defends the trade watchdog against criticisms levelled by The Publican's Ben McFarland.
A few months ago, thePublican.com ran a piece which included the following positive statement: "Although The Portman Group has no statutory powers, it is almost impossible for a company to successfully market any product that is believed to be unacceptable by the code." (Click hereto view the article in full).
So why the change of heart? Do we still bite, or only bark? Is The Portman Group shortchanging the industry? And what more could the industry be doing itself to show that it practises what it preaches when it comes to social responsibility?
Readers must look beyond the headlines to find the real success story of self-regulation. Our annual Code of Practice report for 2002 recorded 12 complaints, eight of which were upheld (compared with four upheld out of eight complaints in 2001).
But the most significant number (strangely overlooked by Ben McFarland) is the 150-plus requests we had for advice in advance of a product being launched onto the market, or about a promotional initiative to support a brand.
We are rightly pleased that the industry is grasping the message that prevention is better than cure. Here were 150 potential problems for the industry that didn't happen, precisely because we do offer the pre-launch advice which Ben mistakenly believes the absence of a statutory system precludes.
Complaints under the code are the tip of the iceberg of the self-regulatory system we operate. The work which helps to make it so effective is less visible because it is confidential.
We run a company training programme for product development and marketing teams. Responsible drinks producers will make sure they invest in the time for this training, as well as seeking pre-launch advice routinely, in order to save themselves the embarrassment, cost and damage to brands and company reputation which could result from a complaint.
A self-regulatory system cannot, by definition, force anyone to do something. But the respectable level of compliance the industry has established flows from a clear understanding by producers and retailers alike that it is in their own interests to have an effective, efficient system of self-regulation. Legislation would be far more expensive, time consuming and confrontational.
We are able to get a product off the shelves within three months of the panel's decision. Under a statutory system, decisions against products would almost certainly be appealed to the ultimate authority and take years of lining lawyers' pockets on the way!
Another advantage of self-regulation is that we are able to respond flexibly to industry innovation. Legislation wouldn't work that way. In 2002 when several companies began to produce or plan for so-called alcoholic energy drinks (described by one journalist as "legal amphetamines") we were able very quickly to get Office of Fair Trading approval for a new rule to stop this questionable innovation in its tracks.
The third edition of the code comes into force on March 1, following an extensive consultation process across the industry. It's a tougher cookie than its predecessor and extends producers' responsibilities to promotional activity such as sponsorships and branded merchandise, as well as clarifying certain rules and bringing in new ones in line with the advertising codes.
What more is needed? Surely not a larger, statutory hammer to crack a smaller nut? It is not the instrument of self-regulation that needs any more fine-tuning at this stage but the performance of the industry - including the licensed trade - in whose interests we operate the code.
The Portman Group is unique. No other industry has established an organisation dedicated to promoting social responsibility with such vigour. But if we are to continue acting in the industry's interests, keeping unnecessary regulation at bay, the industry needs to provide us with a track record to shout about. We can't make it up. We have to be able to show the government real compliance, real responsibility.
So if the industry is feeling vulnerable, don't shoot the messenger at The Portman Group. Get cracking yourselves with responsibility ads, designated driver promotions, proof-of-age kits in every bar and "Don't Do Drunk" campaign materials in every pub loo. And make sure yours isn't the pub we have to report to the licensing authority for continuing to stock a product found in breach of the code.
Toothless? I don't think so.
The history
The Portman Group was set up in 1989 with the purpose of promoting sensible drinking and helping to prevent alcohol misuse. Its supporting companies include Bacardi-Martini, Bulmers, Coors Brewers, Diageo, Enterprise Inns, Interbrew UK, Pernod Ricard, Pubmaster, Scottish & Newcastle and Six Continents.
In 1996, in response to fierce criticism of the marketing of "alcopops", The Portman Group launched its Code of Practice on the naming, packaging and merchandising of alcoholic drinks. The aim is to ensure that all alcoholic drinks are promoted in a socially responsible manner and only to those over 18.
A year later, the code was reviewed and a second edition was launched under which The Portman Group was given greater "teeth" to enforce the decisions of the Independent Complaints Panel through Retailer Alert Bulletins, making it nigh on impossible for licensees to stock products in breach of the code until they had been appropriately amended.
In 2000, the emergence of alcoholic "energy" or "stimulation" drinks caused concern and The Portman Group prohibited claims by producers that alcohol could enhance mental or physical performance.
The latest amendment to the code was introduced last year, and is due to come into force on March 1. It clamped down on irresponsible promotions, sponsorship deals, websites and branded merchandise such as toys and clothing by alcoholic drinks producers.
Jean Coussins said: "The code has been a very effective piece of self-regulation for the past six years. We have swept over 60 products off the market because their design appealed to children or encouraged anti-social behaviour.
We have got rid of products with pictures of illegal drugs on the label, products in containers shaped like bullets, test tubes, syringes and ice-pops, and drinks named after kids' cartoon characters.
"Now we are plugging another regulation gap and extending the code to wider promotional activity. For example, teddy bears and other children's toys bearing alcoholic drinks branding will not be acceptable. Neither will brand websites that encourage dangerous drinking games.
"We have also tightened up the rules on products' naming and packaging. Alcoholic drinks masquerading as foodstuffs, such as jellies or iced shapes, will have to comply with the code's requirements, as will draught drinks.
"In line with the rules on advertising, alcoholic drinks will no longer be able to be packaged or promoted in a way which suggests bravado, sexual or social success or popularity."
As well as bullets, syringes and test tubes, products such as Bullshit Ale, Jealous Lover Potion and Scream'n Beaver have all ended up on the marketing scrapheap following intervention by The Portman Group.
Pictured: The Portman Group promotes sensible drinking: it forced cider-based PPS Hard Core to change its packaging according to its code.
Have your say
Do yo