Don't blame booze ads for the abuse of alcohol

By NICKI STEWART*

In a dialogue article Harold Coop, of the Group Against Liquor Advertising, identified such advertising as the main cause of excessive use of liquor by the young. After 10 years of television advertising and with the review of liquor advertising on TV and radio early next year, it is vital that the debate on the moderate and responsible use of liquor is not over-simplified.

Abuse of liquor by any group is not acceptable, so any input into its discouragement is welcome. The danger, however, is that simplistically blaming advertising could prove counter-productive by diverting attention from the real issues of education and the role of the family in establishing behavioural norms.

And because the claims fly in the face of the facts. Liquor advertising does not lead to increased consumption. Per capita consumption of beer, the most regularly advertised alcoholic beverage, has moderated every year since the first television beer advertisement in 1992.

Statistics New Zealand figures show that in 1992 New Zealanders consumed an average of 102.4 litres of beer a head. In the latest March year, the figure was 78.8 litres, a decline of 23 per cent over the decade.

Interestingly, pre-mixed, ready-to-drink beverages, the category most commonly blamed for inciting excessive drinking by youth, are rarely advertised on television.

Companies invest in advertising not to expand the overall size of the market in which they operate, but to increase the brand preference for their product. Whether it is beer or shampoo, the same applies. I am yet to see a shampoo advertisement, for example, that aims to encourage more New Zealanders to have clean hair.

Like any product, alcoholic beverage brands that are advertised successfully tend to have increased sales, but this growth is at the expense of other brands. To claim otherwise suggests a fundamental misunderstanding not only of how advertising works but of the psychology of the young.

Anyone in advertising knows that under-25s are more impervious to advertising messages than any other group. They have grown up in the media age, bombarded by commercial images since before they could walk. They are highly sceptical - cynical even - about hype and mass-market advertising.

To suggest that advertisements for a particular brand encourages them to drink to excess is patronising to the young and out of touch with their reality.

The reality today, as it has always been, is that youngsters most want that which is out of reach. Curiosity - and the notion of forbidden fruit - have been a defining characteristic of young people since Adam and Eve.

The most worrying trend in this regard - which opponents of liquor advertising too readily overlook or maybe do not understand - is the surge in the growth of illicit drug use by young New Zealanders.

A key reason for this disturbing trend is that its underground nature - its very prohibition - gives it cache.

This surge has nothing to do with age limits because there are none; it is unacceptable and illegal at any age. Equally, it has nothing to do with advertising because there isn't any.

There is a direct correlation between the degree to which a society accepts alcoholic beverages as a normal part of everyday life and the society's maturity and moderation in its use of liquor.

There is evidence of this worldwide, including northern Europe where the ability to promote alcohol is more restrictive than anywhere else on the continent, yet there are high levels of abuse of liquor by youth.

Look, also, at New Zealand, where well-meaning but socially immature legislative developments such as 6 o'clock closing led to flagrant abuse of liquor and binging.

And just as a mature society is defined by its ability to agree to acceptable societal norms, so, too, are industries within that society. Indeed, given the liquor industry's position in our society, it is more incumbent on it to be sensitive to those norms than virtually any other.

This is why New Zealand has among the strictest regime of pre-vetting for liquor advertising in the world, and why a board member of the Beer, Wine and Spirits Council was asked to address the International Medical Advisory Group conference on the self-regulation of alcohol at the group's annual conference in Brussels in October.

What interests the world most about our liquor advertising regime is not only its stringency, but that it was developed by the industry itself. It is in the industry's interest, as much as that of society, that antisocial behaviour is not promoted.

In this respect, it is worth outlining how advertisements are vetted before airing. Before any advertisement is shot, an independent procedure known as LAPS (liquor advertising pre-vetting system) assesses the content to ensure it meets necessary standards of taste and decency. Assuming the commercial is approved for production by LAPS, it must also pass the scrutiny of the Television Commercial Approvals Board.

Once it has gone to air, an advertisement may still be withdrawn because of a successful complaint from the public to the Advertising Standards Complaints Board. This voluntary process is adhered to, and funded by, the advertisers and media.

Interestingly, the level of complaints received by the complaints board about liquor advertisements has declined from 75 in 1992 (accounting for 47 per cent of all complaints received that year) to just 15 (4.5 per cent of complaints) a decade later.

Such stringent surveillance - and its results - represents world best practice, and to blame advertising for the behaviour of a small minority lacks credibility. More dangerously, it deflects focus from the real issue - the need for education about the use and role of liquor in a mature society.

* Nicki Stewart is chief executive of the Beer, Wine and Spirits Council.