Time for an Ad Break?
In the wake of the recent debates between The Portman Group and Scottish beer producers Orkney Brewers and BrewDog, and a new set of guidelines for alcohol advertising, Tods Murray LLP looks at the relationship between alcohol and the way it is promoted.
The way in which we advertise alcoholic products has recently attracted some headlines. Two brands in particular, Skullsplitter and Speedball, came to the fore following review by industry watchdog The Portman Group, with the former escaping reprimand but the latter failing the litmus test. And, as recently as 3 February, the Scottish Government announced that a new deal in relation to sponsorship had been reached with the alcohol industry.
It should perhaps be realised at the outset that the Portman Group's remit extends to the naming, packaging and promotion of alcoholic drinks – this does not include television advertising, which is separately monitored by the Advertising Standards Agency.
In the case of Skullsplitter, the complainant believed that the product's name and labelling implied violence and that consumption of the drink could lead to the same. The prouct itself is an award winning ale, named after Thorfinn Hausakluif, the seventh Viking Earl of Orkney, where the drink is brewed. The complainant was a management consultancy organisation called PIPC, employed by the Portman Group to conduct an audit of its own code. Orkney MP Alistair Carmichael tabled a motion in the House of Commons to protect the brand and in the end, the complaint was not upheld; the name could be attributed to the heritage of the company and geographical location, and any violent imagery was "historical" and not likely to invoke associations with modern day violence.
The other headline grabber is Aberdeenshire's BrewDog, which has had no fewer than four products under investigation in recent months. Three of the four were cleared, but a fourth, Speedball, fell foul of the Code, although it seems to have been specifically marketed in order to provoke the Portman Group.
I have read various comments from the trade who consider the Portman Group toothless, and merely pursuing a "political correctness" agenda, rather than addressing real issues with alcohol. The Portman Group has no statutory footing and its enforcement mechanisms amount to "naming and shaming" and having signatories to the code agree not to stock offending products or remove offending promotional materials. However, it should be noted that non compliance may, in the post 2005 Act landscape, materialise in the form of premises licence reviews instigated by the Portman Group itself or, more likely, alcohol charities perhaps seeking to convince licensing boards that certain conditions should be imposed or that trade should be restricted in some way.
The alcohol industry is not the only one under fire. Ladbrokes recently fell foul of ASA for two TV adverts; in one case with a man tying raw bacon and sausages to his wetsuit, donning a seal costume and diving into shark infested waters, and in the other a skydiver for whom it is suggested a crisp-packet was used as a parachute. In both cases an inference is made that they meet with a grisly demise. The adverts were clearly tongue in cheek but the ASA ruled that, following just one complaint, the adverts linked gambling to excessive risk taking and reckless behaviour.
The Portman Group has in fact shown signs of the common sense approach. In what may be termed the "Curious Case of Dorothy Goodbody", an alcohol charity complained that the packaging of Dorothy Goodbody's Wholesome Stout, which contains a cartoon illustration of an attractive blonde with revealing legs and ample cleavage, was "sexually suggestive" by hinting at a lack of undergarments and therefore associated the product with sexual success. The complaint was rejected and I think there was some force in the brewer's observation that the complainant had let their imagination get the better of them.
Scotland has its problems with alcohol abuse and there should be a code preventing advertising which could appeal to children, or in some way encourage irresponsible drinking. But a steadying whiff of common sense should also be applied, and what should not be encouraged is allowing those with specific agendas to purposely seek out problems where there are none.
It will be interesting for readers to note the source of complaints received by Portman. Of the decisions available on their website from 2005 to present, around 26% were instigated by the Portman Group's own audit; around 21% were from alcohol related charities; 21% from individuals (including publicans); and about 31% from other organisations including brewers, manufacturers, suppliers and trade bodies representing the alcohol industry.
It is clear from these figures the vast majority of retailers are "on board" when it comes to guidelines over advertising; they are not reticent in flagging offenders from within their own ranks. I would suggest therefore that the real concern of many licensees is not the existence or necessity of these codes or guidelines, but instead the recent sense of zealous militancy from other organisations. These may themselves simply be grasping the nettle as nu-temperance becomes more and more prevalent in the body of policies emanating from both Holyrood and Westminster.
For further information, contact a member of our Hospitality and Leisure Team