Goodbye drink ads?

Is alcohol advertising about to go the same way as tobacco? How will licensees be affected if it does? Adam Withrington reports.

Although it may have seemed innocent enough, Heineken's new TV advertising campaign, starring Goodfellas actor Ray Liotta, is not responsible enough in the eyes of the authorities.

Last month Ofcom, the regulator for television and radio in the UK, told the Dutch brewer to make changes to the £7.5m campaign because it put undue emphasis on the increased alcoholic strength of the beer - which recently changed from 3.4 to five per cent.

In short, Heineken's message was interpreted by customers as: "a stronger beer is a better beer". As a result Heineken has had to make changes to the ad. It has agreed to remove the strapline: "Heineken - we believe in better" from the end of the advert.

This is the tightrope that alcohol companies are now going to have to walk. In July, Ofcom launched a consultation on proposals to tighten up drinks advertising. The consultation period will last until September 24 and, according to Ofcom, if changes to current rules are deemed necessary then they will be introduced in November.

The effect of this announcement has already been seen with satellite channel Eurosport announcing last week that it is to ban all alcohol advertising across its network.

Protecting youngsters​

Ofcom says that drinks industry figures and consumer groups believe the current rules on alcohol advertising do not do enough to protect youngsters.

While these are only proposals and will only affect the broadcast media, people are still worried. There is suspicion that the action taken by Ofcom is the the start of a long journey towards a blanket ban on alcohol advertising. It echoes the decisions taken with tobacco advertising, where a crackdown on television adverts was followed by ever-increasing restrictions, leading to today's total ban.

In 1995 the atmosphere surrounding drinks advertising on television was a lot happier. In that year, the spirits industry lifted a voluntary ban on television advertising that had existed since adverts were first broadcast in 1955. Nine years later there is speculation about a full ban. While it should be stressed that Ofcom's proposals are only going in for consultation and are by no means certain to be set in stone, it is remarkable to see how we have gone from one extreme to the other. Some might dismiss any worries regarding a full ban as an overreaction, but licensees are concerned. Mark Dorber, licensee of the White Horse in Parson's Green, London, said: "A ban sends out dangerous messages about alcohol. We have lost our whole sense of perspective and sense of humour about this. All a ban would do is further demonise alcohol."

Simon Townsend, customer services director of Enterprise Inns, believes a full ban would be like "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut". He added: "It would be a shame because alcohol advertising has stood for the best of that industry - it is innovative, witty and impactful."

Impacting on licensees​

Do all drinks adverts on television encourage youngsters to drink excessively? Even those for real ale? It is unlikely. But if a ban was introduced then the whole industry could suffer.

Other licensees feel pubs could encounter falling sales.

Lee Cash, licensee of the Rose and Crown in Warwick, said: "There could be a big problem for those pubs that are reliant on sales of lager and RTDs for their profits."

However, if you look at what happened to the cigarette sales after the total tobacco advertising ban, then this might not happen (see below).

What is more likely to happen is that a ban will lead to stagnation in the marketplace. There will be little opportunity for new product development and consumers would be left to the brands they know well, and might not be tempted to try anything new.

Industry watchdog The Portman Group has been lobbying for some months for Ofcom to tighten up its interpretation of the code of practice on alcohol advertising. Its reason for doing so is to ensure there is top quality self regulation in the industry, thus preventing any unwanted government intervention.

However, there must be concern that after the consultation period Ofcom might go too far in the other direction. In the same way as the industry must act responsibly, so must Ofcom. Otherwise a ban could do more harm than good.

Pictured: Ray Liotta in Heineken's latest ad campaign.​

Tobacco ads - what happened?​

• Nov 2002​ - The Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act is passed. Despite pressure from health groups, it was decided to phase the act in over a period of three years
• Feb 2003​ - The first phase of a ban is introduced with print and broadcast media, billboards and internet advertising all banned
• Jul 2005​ - The final phase will be implemented with a ban on all international sponsorship (e.g. Formula One racing and snooker).

Getting around the ban​ Up until February last year, while tobacco companies were still allowed to advertise in the print media, they had already been banned from making any television or cinema ads. Tobacco companies got around this by increasing their sponsorship deals in Formula One and organising free giveaways (e.g. in student union bars).

No significant drop in sales​

Sales have not dropped significantly since the ban was introduced.

Oliver Griffiths, director of the Atmosphere Improves Results campaign, said: "In terms of consumption there has been little effect."

Brandshifting​

Mr Griffiths argues that the industry is now worried that consumers will never shift from their current brand. For example, says Mr Griffiths, a brand like Marlboro could be concerned that as it is a young person's brand it will not attract any new consumers and its current users will stick with it all through their lives. This will eventually lead to the decline of the brand.