Let There Be Beer campaign escapes censure after complaints

The campaign, funded by the Coalition of UK Brewers and supported by CAMRA, SIBA and BBPA, ran two extended adverts fronted by Tim Lovejoy during the programme Sunday Brunch​ on Channel 4, also presented by Lovejoy .

The adverts, shown in August, present Lovejoy highlighting brands of low-alcohol flavoured lagers, including Carling Zest and Foster’s Radler, and demonstrate that beer can be “the perfect companion” to food. On-screen text appears at the beginning, middle and end of the advert, for three seconds at a time, stating: “This is an advertisement” and the Let There Be Beer​ logo is also visible at the beginning and end.

Challenge​

Nevertheless, five viewers challenged whether the campaign was obviously identifiable as marketing communication, with one arguing that its placement during a programme about food and drink with the same presenter meant it could be mistaken for regular programming.

The Coalition of UK Brewers, comprised of ABInBev, Carlsberg UK, Heineken UK, Miller Brands UK and Molson Coors, argued that Sunday Brunch was a live studio-based show and all cooking took place in the Sunday Brunch​ kitchen, not on location, as was the case in the adverts. It added that Sunday Brunch had never featured a drinks item filmed outside of the studio, and drinks items on the show were only ever presented by the drinks expert, never by Lovejoy.

Clearcast, the advertising service, and Channel Four also defended the adverts.

Ruling​

The ASA noted that the combination of the “standard Sunday Brunch​ ‘end of part’ sequence” of music clip followed by titles and jingles, on-screen text stating “This is an advertisement” and the Channel 4 ident advising views to “Stay tuned for a special advertising feature” made it clear to viewers they were watching advertising content.

In its ruling today the ASA said: “We therefore deemed the content and style of the ads sufficiently different from that of the programme for viewers to be able to distinguish between them. Because we considered that the ads were clearly identifiable as advertising material, we concluded that the ads did not breach the Code.”