Alcohol advertising policy in New Zealand
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
New Zealand Drug Foundation
Alcohol advertising policy in New Zealand:
An experiment in industry self-regulation
May 2006
Introduction
The sale of alcohol in New Zealand has been controlled by legislation since 1842. In contrast, the
advertising and marketing of alcohol is left to the industries involved to ‘self-regulate’. Until the
1980s alcohol was not advertising on broadcast media, which were a state owned industry. Television
advertising for off-licensed outlets was first permitted in 1981, followed by sports sponsorship or
corporate advertising by alcohol companies from 1987. These changes occurred in parallel with the
commercialisation of broadcasting, as part of a political programme of deregulation and a reduced role
for the state (EDC 1987; Boston, Martin et al. 1991). From 1992, full alcohol brand advertising was
permitted after 9 pm in exchange for free airtime for alcohol health promotion ads.
A decade later, the industries involved found self-regulation meant they could unilaterally alter this
time restriction. In 2003 the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) brought forward the television
start time for alcohol ads to 8.30 pm, increasing the exposure period by around 20 percent. Media data
for 2002 showed that 26 percent of 10-17 year olds were watched television during this half-hour; the
proportion fell below 10 percent only after 11 pm. The time change was opposed by the Alcohol
Advisory Council (ALAC), the Ministry of Health, the NZ Drug Foundation and other public health
groups. Cabinet ministers were concerned but had no power over this decision, for reasons explored
below.
This paper documents the shift to industry self-regulation of alcohol advertising in the broadcast media
and critiques its effectiveness from a public health perspective. The government’s National Alcohol
Strategy, adopted in 2001, includes the objective of ‘minimising the exposure of young people to
alcohol messages’ and the use of marketing strategies that may cause or contribute to alcohol related
harm. A large body of research shows that alcohol advertising influences the attitudes and drinking
expectations of children and teenagers, and plays an important role in recruiting the industry’s next
generation of heavy young drinkers (see NZDF’s review of research, May 2006). Other research
shows that laws restricting alcohol advertising can contribute to reducing alcohol related harm (Hacker
and Stuart 1995; Hill and Casswell 2001; Babor, Caetano et al. 2003; Saffer and Dave 2003). A study
for the World Health Organization has identified discontinuation of alcohol advertising, together with
a tax increase to raise the price of alcohol, as the most cost effective next steps to reduce alcohol
related harm in this region (Chisholm, Rehm et al. 2004).
If New Zealand’s National Alcohol Strategy is to be effective, the government needs to take back
policy control over alcohol advertising and marketing.Alcohol policy and the conscience vote
Alcohol laws and policies are controversial in New
Zealand, not only because of national and global Discontinuation of on alcohol advertising,
business interests, but because alcohol laws are together with tax increases, are the most cost-
passed on the ‘conscience’ votes of MPs, unguided effective next steps to reduce alcohol related
by party policy. This is the legacy of historic harm in this region.
World Health Organization
battles between the temperance movement and the
liquor trade. In 1894 licensing laws constrained
numbers of alcohol outlets and set limited hours of trading – the policy approach for over a century.
In 1918 a bid for national prohibition failed, but many electorates voted to become a ‘no licence’ zone.
Conscience votes on alcohol legislation allowed MPs to represent their local community’s wishes
despite large industry donations to political parties (Bollinger 1967). This voting practice continues.
Alcohol is a major risk factor for the burden of injury and disease in New Zealand (Connor, Broad et
al. 2005), health is a key issue at every election, yet until very recently political parties have not
considered alcohol when developing their public health policies and platforms. Minority parties are
beginning to respond to alcohol issues in a more consistent way, but the two largest parties remain in
conscience vote mode.
Conscience votes – now sometimes called personal votes – are rationalised by construing alcohol as a
moral issue. This has been extended to other issues with important implications for public health in
today’s society – drugs, prostitution and gambling.
The lack of well-developed party policies on alcohol to shape voting outcomes has made alcohol
legislation something of a Pandora’s box. Parliamentary debates have been informed by more myths
than public health evidence. Last minute amendments – for example, the age exemptions in the 1989
Sale of Liquor Act – have made legislation difficulty to enforce. Parliament has had few opportunities
to debate or vote on alcohol advertising policy at all. The side-stepping of efforts to get this issue
before Parliament is documented below.
Sale of liquor laws proposed by governments and passed by a majority of individual MPs come under
the Department of Justice as matters of business regulation, not public health. There was no official
government statement on alcohol as a policy issue until 1989, when alcohol was included in the New
Zealand Health Goals and Targets (Department of Health 1989). In 1996 National Drug Policy: Part
1, Alcohol and Tobacco prioritised reducing the ‘harms and hazards’ of alcohol use to both individuals
and the community (Ministry of Health 1996, 1998 1998). The National Alcohol Strategy adopted in
2001 gave attention to the ‘supply side’ of alcohol but listed objectives related to responsible
marketing under ‘demand reduction’. These included ‘minimising the exposure of young people to
alcohol marketing messages’, and one of the specific strategies to achieve this was: Resist any
relaxation of the broadcast time constraints on alcohol advertising’ (Ministry of Health 2001)
Two years later, the Ministry of Health and ALAC did indeed resist such a move, providing television
exposure data together with research showing that alcohol advertising influenced the drinking
behaviour of young people. The alcohol, advertising and media industries argued that the 8.30 pm
start time aligned with adult programming and with broadcasting self-regulation in Australia, where
many of the same alcohol ads were used. The Ministers responsible for broadcasting and alcohol
policy were concerned but took no action. Decisions about alcohol advertising had passed out of their
hands, unless the government chose to legislate.
Parallel changes in broadcasting and alcohol advertising
Alcohol advertising in the broadcast media under industry self-regulation resulted from a series of
decisions which were not debated or voted on by Parliament.
NZ Drug Foundation 2Historically, alcohol was not advertised in radio and television. Broadcasting was developed in New
Zealand by a government department, whose in-house rules did not permit alcohol and tobacco
advertising. From 1978 to 1980 this was formalised in a regulation against television or radio ads
mentioning alcohol brands ‘to limit the scope of… advertisements that are designed to encourage
and/or promote the general consumption of alcoholic liquor…’ In the 1970s the government had
begun granting broadcasting licences to private radio stations and in 1987 the first commercial
television channel was licensed. As part of state sector restructuring in the late 1980s (Boston, Martin
et al. 1991), public broadcasting was corporatised and required to return a profit to government.
Changes in broadcasting policy on alcohol advertising ran parallel to this deregulation, corporatisation
and increased private provision, contributing a source of revenue – and a means of marketing alcohol –
that was not previously available. By the 1980s two large breweries dominated the beer and spirits
markets, as well as pub ownership. When liquor licensing was liberalised in 1989, they refocused on
selling their products through off-licensed retail chains, rather than through pubs and clubs1, and
through television advertising. These companies, and more recently their international competitors
and partners, are large clients for the broadcasting, print and advertising industries.
Under the Broadcasting Act 1976, a committee representing the broadcasting sector established rules
that were voluntary but subject to a Broadcasting Tribunal. From 1981, these rules allowed off-
licensed outlets to advertise the availability of alcohol on television and radio without mentioning
brands or prices. In May 1987 approval for alcohol ads on radio was devolved to individual stations.
Alcohol producers were permitted to place corporate or sponsorship advertisements on radio and
television provided no mention was made of alcohol for sale, product qualities or brand names ‘except
to the extent that the brand name is incorporated in or identical with the name of the advertiser’ (BSA
1989). Alcohol producers’ sponsorship advertisements on behalf of sporting or cultural organisations
were not to be broadcast from licensed premises, should not refer to any competition requiring the
purchase of alcohol, and were not to be shown during programmes specifically for children or
adolescents (BSA 1989). The breweries promptly registered subsidiary companies with the same
names as brands (eg. Steinlager). Sponsorship ads associating male sports with alcohol brand logos
were ‘macho and aggressive’ and evaded current rules (BSA 1991). Research showed that young boys
considered these ads were advertising alcohol, rather than sport (Wyllie, Casswell et al. 1989).
From February 1992, alcohol brand advertisements were permitted on television after 9 pm and on
radio in exchange for free broadcasting time for counter-advertisers, such as ALAC and the Land
Transport Safety Authority (Casswell, Stewart et al. 1993; Casswell 1995; Thomson, Bradley et al.
1997). The time restriction did not apply to all alcohol promotion on television. Alcohol brand logos
can appear at the beginning and end of sponsored sports coverage and other programmes at any time
of day.
Alcohol advertising on television quadrupled between 1991 and 1993 (Wyllie, Millard et al. 1996).
By 1997 alcohol industry exposure in all media was around ten times alcohol health promotion
exposure (Hunter Monthly Media Expenditure Analysis 1997). As well as advertising major brands,
radio broadcasts ads for local drinking venues and alcohol outlets, and the line between advertising
text and radio commentary is often blurred (Maskill and Hodges 1997).
In 2000, samples of weekend evening television showed roughly one alcohol health promotion
advertisement for five every alcohol promotion ads. The most ads, and in particular the most ads for
spirits and spirits-based mixed drinks, were on channels targeting younger audiences. With no time
constraints on alcohol promotion through programme sponsorship, in one three-hour period of
weekend afternoon sports coverage included 55 appearances of the Steinlager logo, not counting
‘incidental’ brand signage within the programme itself (Hill 2000).
1
Under the 1962 Sale of Liquor Act, alcohol availability was controlled by limiting hours of trading and requiring any application for new
premises to show ‘community need’. In effect, a liquor licence provided a local monopoly over the sale of alcohol. The Sale of Liquor
Act 1989 liberalised liquor licensing and the number of licensed premises and outlets rapidly doubled.
NZ Drug Foundation 3Efforts to get alcohol advertising before Parliament These changes were controversial. Repeated efforts have been made to bring alcohol advertising under legislative control. Public opposition goes back to the 1973 Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Sale of Liquor. Many submissions called for all alcohol advertising to be prohibited. In response, the industry formed a Committee of Advertising Practice in early 1973 to maintain advertising standards and to encourage self-regulation by the print and advertising industries. Recommendations from the Royal Commission led to the establishing of ALAC by legislation in 1976. Its statutory functions include making recommendations about alcohol advertising and ‘the need to regulate or in any way restrict such advertising’. In the 1980s a Group Opposed to the Advertising of Liquor (GOAL) kept the public profile of this issue high. Surveys in 1983 and 1987 showed more than half the population opposed allowing alcohol advertising in the broadcasting media (Casswell, Stewart et al. 1989). In response to the first alcohol ads on television, backbench MPs tried unsuccessfully in 1980, 1982 and 1983 to get legislative amendments or Private Member’s Bills passed against alcohol advertising on radio and television. The third of these Bills reached the select committee stage before being dropped when the government announced a general review of the alcohol laws (the ‘Laking’ review 1986 and subsequent Sale of Liquor Act 1989). In 1986-1887, three separate policy reviews raised the issue of alcohol promotion. The Royal Commission on Broadcasting and Related Telecommunications stated that rules on programme sponsorship should be as specific as those on advertising and in some cases sponsorships should be prohibited by government. The Ministerial Commission into Violence recommended further investigation of liquor advertising, particularly advertising at sports grounds (Commerce and Marketing Committee 1988; MacKay 1990). Alcohol advertising was included in the terms of reference for the Liquor Review 1986. The committee noted that self-regulation was not worked satisfactorily under the Committee on Advertising Practice and thought alcohol advertising should be controlled, although not by legislation (Laking 1986). Alcohol advertising on television also prompted petitions to Parliament. The first in October 1982, by E. Gale and 14,770 others, called for the discontinuation of all alcohol advertising. The parliamentary committee that heard this petition recommended that the government consider an advertising code to restrict alcohol ads to informing the public of price only, to limit the size of print ads, to require models to be aged over 25, and to require container labels to show absolute alcohol content and carry moderation messages. It also recommended that cinema advertising be treated the same way as broadcast advertising. The government rejected this as ‘a significant change from voluntary self- regulation of advertising in the print media’ by the Committee on Advertising Practice (Commerce and Marketing Committee 1988). In 1988, two further petitions were lodged in response to sports sponsorship advertising on television. One, led by O.H. Sloan and the South Dunedin Baptist Church, called on Parliament not to support new broadcasting legislation that would allow intoxicating liquor to be advertised on radio and television. The second, from GOAL and 14,010 others, called for alcohol advertising to be restricted in the same way as tobacco advertising: that is, no advertising on radio television, cinema and roadside hoardings, with health warnings on alcohol containers. The Commerce and Marketing Committee that heard these petitions allowed submissions from other interested parties and requested reports from the Department of Health, which supported the petitions, from Department of Justice, which deferred to Health, and from the Broadcasting Corporation and Department Trade & Industry which opposed the petitions. The Committee on Advertising Practice and other industry bodies opposing the petitions submitted that the advertising rationale in a static alcohol market was to increase market share rather than overall consumption. They refuted any direct link between advertising and alcohol consumption. Sporting NZ Drug Foundation 4
organisations anticipated serious financial consequences if alcohol sponsorship advertising were discontinued. This, they argued, would deny the liquor industry the opportunity to use its support of sports as a legitimate marketing tool. The Association of Accredited Advertising Agencies reported that over the past six years the total value of alcohol advertising had risen at twice the rate of the Consumer Price Index. Beer advertising increased from $500,000 in 1982 to $4.9 million in 1987, with consumption increasing from 4.82 litres absolute alcohol to 5.12 litres per head of population. The Alcohol Research Unit, University of Auckland, submitted that alcohol advertising shaped attitudes and created a climate that was not conducive to successfully promoting a health goal of moderate drinking. GOAL pointed out that the government’s restrictions on tobacco advertising showed it believed advertising encouraged consumption, and described advertising self-regulation practices at that time as ‘a trade protection device, useless and toothless’. Several submitters provided examples of this. In response to submissions on the ineffectiveness of current industry code, the Committee on Advertising Practice reported it was improving its complaints procedures but had dropped a proposal for sanctioning powers on legal advice that this might contravene the Commerce Act. Prior vetting of ads had led to modifications, but only five advertisements had been submitted to the committee in the previous six months (Commerce and Marketing Committee 1988). In March 1988, during the period of these hearings, the committee established a separate Advertising Standards Council – later called the Advertising Standards Authority – to administer advertising codes of practice. The Commerce and Marketing Committee’s report summarised the health and social issues and opposing marketing-related concerns and recommended that the government review the administration and application of alcohol advertising self-regulation in conjunction with impending changes to alcohol laws (Commerce and Marketing Committee 1988). However, the Laking report had already recommended against legislation on alcohol advertising, as well as proposing a less regulated, decentralised liquor licensing regime. In 1989 a new Sale of Liquor Act liberalised liquor licensing (Hill and Stewart 1996);Hill, 1998 #219;Hill, 1998 #219; Hill, 1996 #856} and a new Broadcasting Act framed the shift towards industry self-regulation of alcohol advertising on television and radio. This broadcasting legislation is discussed in the next section. After full brand advertising was permitted in 1992, a Private Member’s Bill for warning messages on alcohol advertisements and containers got to select committee level where it was buried for some time. The MP finally withdrew it in 1996 after the government announced a review of the Sale of Liquor Act and the eminent release of a National Drug and Alcohol Policy. Alcohol advertising was included in the terms of reference for the 1996 review of the liquor licensing legislation, but submissions on this were not heard. The review committee decided any alcohol advertising issues should be considered at the next ASA review (Advisory Committee 1997). In 1998 the ASA reviewed only the voluntary rules on alcohol advertisement content, however. It was not a review of government policy permitting broadcast alcohol advertising under advertising industry self-regulation. When the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill came before Parliament for its final reading in 1999, a MP proposed a further amendment to prohibit alcohol advertising on television, which was lost 47: 63, and promotion for events or activities on licensed premises intended or likely to encourage excessive alcohol consumption, which was passed (S.154A). Another MP put forward detailed provisions on warning labels for alcohol containers, which was lost. Both MPs belonged to the party in government but their proposals were not taken up by the government minister responsible for the bill. Voting was ‘personal’ rather than by party and at this stage there was little opportunity for debate. These were all longstanding proposals with a great deal of support from the public health sector. Perhaps they would have progressed differently, had alcohol issues been included in the normal processes by which political parties development of their health policies. NZ Drug Foundation 5
The shift to self regulation
In the same year that liquor licensing was liberalised, new legislation on broadcasting was passed.
The Broadcasting Act 1989 established a Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) with responsibility
for programme and advertising standards on all public and private television and radio. One of its
functions is to encourage the development and observance by broadcasters of codes of broadcasting
practice in relation to various matters, including ‘the protection of children’ and ‘restrictions on the
promotion of liquor’ (S.21(1)(i) and (v)).
In the Drug Foundation’s view, two standards in the Broadcasting Act on ‘the protection of children’
and ‘restricting liquor promotion’ (S.21(1)(i) and (v)) should be read together, as well as separately.
The Sale of Liquor Act sets minimum age of purchase to protect children from alcohol related harm,
and the World Health Organisation emphasises the importance of this in its policy recommendations.2
The children to be protected from liquor promotions should therefore be all those below the minimum
purchase age for alcohol, not just those under 12 who are the target audience for children’s
programmes. Media industry data shows high levels of exposure to alcohol ads during evening
television among those aged under 18. More than 10% of 10-17 year olds are still watching at 11 pm.
It was the BSA that brokered the deal that allowed restricted broadcasting of alcohol brand advertising
in exchange for free airtime for alcohol health promotion. When the BSA was established in 1989, it
adopted existing rules related to advertising for alcohol outlets and sponsorships and published these
as a voluntary code (BSA 1989). It then commissioned a report on current practices, followed in 1990
by a public discussion document on alcohol advertising on radio and television3. In consultation with
broadcasters and other stakeholders, the BSA developed a Code on Liquor Advertising in 1991, as
well as a Code on the Promotion of Liquor in Programming (BSA 1989) The BSA’s review report in
August 1991 recommended that alcohol ads featuring brand and price be allowed on radio and
television on strict conditions. This commenced in February 1992, for a trial period of two years with
a review after six months.
The policy decision to allow alcohol brand ads on television after 9 pm did not go before Parliament,
nor was there a Cabinet paper. It was decided by the BSA as an independent statutory agency.
However, the BSA wrote to the Minister of Broadcasting in July 1991 to check that what it was
proposing was ‘consistent with government policy’ (BSA 1992). The Minister told the media that the
matter had been discussed with Cabinet and caucus colleagues (Dominion 12.11.1991).
At the same time, policy papers passed through the Cabinet Committee on Enterprise, Growth and
Employment, recommending to Cabinet that the advertising industry should be granted ‘the
opportunity to become self-regulating’. This was agreed by Cabinet on 26 November 1991.
Responsibility for standards on all broadcast advertising was to be transferred from the BSA to the
ASA, subject to a wider range of views being representing on its complaints committee and the
completion of the BSA’s work developing a Code on Liquor Advertising. The work was signed off in
March 1992 (CAB (92) M10/14). The Cabinet papers noted support for self-regulation in a majority
of submissions on the BSA’s discussion document but also ‘a lack of confidence in the ability of
industry to successfully regulate itself and the advertising industry’s willingness to take account of
public views and concerns’. The Cabinet paper noted a ‘residual responsibility’ of the BSA for any
complaints that fell outside the scope or acknowledged jurisdiction of the ASA and its complaints
board. The longer committee paper documented the BSA’s ‘disappointment’ with the government’s
decision to allow industry self-regulation of broadcast advertising, and its concern that the ASA would
assume not only responsibility for the new alcohol advertising code but for reviewing it after two
years.
2
WHO Global Status Report: Alcohol Policy, 2004; World Health Assembly, Public health problems caused by harmful use of alcohol.
2005, 58th World Health Assembly, A58/18.
3
This discussion document authored by ‘McKay’ is referred to in later documents, but could not be located by the Broadcasting Standards
Authority or by the National Library.
NZ Drug Foundation 6Parliament had no opportunity to debate these decisions on full brand advertising or industry self- regulation of alcohol advertising in the broadcast media. In late 1992 when the Private Member’s Bill for health warnings on alcohol ads and contained came up in the ballot, Parliament voted it through to a select committee where progress stalled. In 1993 Parliament voted to pass a government amendment to the Broadcasting Act to clarify BSA and ASA jurisdiction on complaints (S.21(3)). Complaints about infringements of the Code on Liquor Promotion in Programming were handled by the BSA. From July 1993 complaints about alcohol advertising on radio and television went to the ASA to be handled under its now improved procedure for complaints. The Code on Liquor Advertising that was now ASA’s responsibility included the time restriction on alcohol ads on television, although the BSA’s programming code included a ‘saturation’ rule limiting the number of alcohol ads per commercial break. The effect of the above decisions was that all matters related to alcohol advertising on radio and television passed out of any direct or indirect control by government. The implications of this did not become fully clear until 2003. One other legislative change needs to be noted in regard to the BSA’s status as a statutory entity, as this may have consequences for future options. Until mid-1999 the Broadcasting Act, like other Acts, included a section enabling regulations to be made via Order in Council. Section 82 included sub- sections (a) related to broadcasting fees, (aa) related to fee waivers (b) required television rental firms to keep records and (c) a general provision enabling regulations ‘giving effect to the provisions of the Act and for its due administration’. Such regulation sections are a standard provision in legislative Acts. They may define (narrowly or broadly) specific areas in which regulations may be promulgated but also routinely include a generally enabling clause. When broadcasting fees were dropped, the whole of this section was repeated, including the standard enabling subclause. The repeal was passed in May 1999 effective from 1 July 2000. The repeal of subsection (c) means, most unusually, that there is no current ability to pass Orders-in-Council under the legislation that establishes the legal framework and institutional arrangements that govern public and private broadcasting in New Zealand. The BSA is an autonomous body established by legislation with certain statutory functions. It reports to Parliament and, although autonomous, it does have a relationship with the Minister of Broadcasting in regard to its work, in that the Minister may request it to consider matters of broadcasting standards. The Advertising Standards Authority is a voluntary organisation established by the advertising industry and its media clients. Its processes improved as a result of public scrutiny, the 1991 promise of increased jurisdiction over broadcast alcohol advertising, and the ever-present if weak possibility of regulation by government. The ASA is monitored by the Ministry of Culture and Heritage (previously by the Ministry of Commerce). Monitoring by the Ministry is not a statutory relationship but was part of Cabinet’s agreement to allow self-regulation. The 2003 ASA review report noted support by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs for self-regulation and industry codes of practice as a legitimate policy option to improve standards. However, alcohol is a consumer item with Industry self-regulation considerable adverse impact on public means alcohol advertising health. Based on research evidence, the Ministry of Health has has passed out of consistently recommended the discontinuation of alcohol government control. advertising in the broadcast media. NZ Drug Foundation 7
Reviewing codes, not policies
Alcohol advertising in the broadcast media and industry self-regulation was to be reviewed after two
years. In 1994 ALAC convened a Consensus Development Conference on alcohol advertising on
radio and television to share the findings of seven research projects. The evidence was reviewed by
invited panellists with public health, advertising, media and alcohol industry backgrounds who were
asked to distil a Consensus Statement. They noted that while a considerable number of those present
sought a ban on alcohol advertising on television and radio, the evidence at that time was ‘not
sufficient compelling’ to support this, although there was a need to improve alcohol advertising
practices in a number of ways (ALAC 1994).
That year, the ASA reviewed the Code on Liquor Advertising and its own complaints process. Four
out of seven members of the review committee had media or marketing backgrounds; one had a health
background. The committee considered the evidence from the Consensus Development Conference
and held public hearings in Auckland and Wellington on ‘the desirability or otherwise of the
advertising of liquor on radio and television and, if it were to be advertising, the rules which should
govern advertising’. A total of 1,282 submissions were received, with a large number calling for a
ban. The review team did not recommend this, as ‘the question that could not be answered is whether
advertisements cause or encourage consumers to become heavy drinkers’. The review report
recommended some tightening of the voluntary code, A key dissatisfaction of the public
more publicity about it, research on alcohol advertising health sector with ASA and BSA
and moderation messages, and a further review in three reviews is that they do not provide an
years’ time (Potter 1994). opportunity to review government
policy on alcohol advertising.
This was the last time a review seriously considered
whether or not alcohol advertising should continue in the broadcast media. In 1998 and 2003 the
ASA’s terms of reference focused on code content and ‘any new evidence’ since the previous review –
as if public health perspectives and research evidence expired after one use. Since 1983 ALAC had
recommended discontinuing all alcohol advertising in the broadcast media but in 1998 decided it could
not continue to advocate a ban ‘in the present social and political climate’ (Casswell, Stewart et al.
1989; Evening Post 1998). The Ministry of Health continued to recommend discontinuation of
broadcast advertising as their preferred option in 1998 and 2003. The Alcohol & Public Health Unit,
and other public health organisations all called for discontinuation of broadcast alcohol advertising or
of all alcohol advertising. The Ministry’s 2003 submission noted that the government could consider a
recommendation for a regulatory or statutory prohibition in order to address public health goals,
notwithstanding S.14 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act on freedom of expression.4 The ASA review report
stated it had not sought discussion on this, saw no justification to make such a recommendation and,
despite the Ministry of Health’s view, considered that a total ban on broadcast alcohol advertising
would contravene the Bill of Rights (ASA 2003).
At successive reviews, public health organisations have criticised the ASA’s complaints systems and
code reviews as having insufficiently independence of industry interests. ASA committees were
dominated by members with media and marketing expertise. The 2003 review team included one
person with public health expertise, the Ministry of Health’s Director of Public Health Colin
Tukuitonga.
The key point of dissatisfaction of dissatisfaction with ASA and BSA reviews has been that they do
not provide an opportunity to review government policy on alcohol advertising. After ten years of
self-regulation, it would have been appropriate for government to undertake such as review in 2003.
Instead the code reviews provided an opportunity for the industries involved to realise the extent to
which self-regulation gave them power over policy. The 9 pm time restriction was set by a statutory
4
There are two available but differing legal opinions on alcohol advertising and the Bill of Rights; Chen & Palmer for the Beer, Wine &
Spirits Council 28.9.2000 and Grant Huscroft, McGill Faculty of Law 26.2.1998. There is also a report of the Attorney General to
Parliament that the Sale of Liquor (Health Warnings) Amendment Bill that alcohol container warning labels did not contravene the Bill
of Rights, using arguments that are relevant to a ban on alcohol advertising.
NZ Drug Foundation 8body in line with government policy, but self-regulation meant the ASA could alter this rule to suit the industries involved. Content of the ASA code In 1990 the ASA’s Code for Advertising Alcoholic Beverages for print and other non-broadcast media required ads to be directed to adult audiences, not use ‘heroes of the young’ or portray people aged under 25 (except in family situations that did not suggest they were drinking), not depict or encourage drunkenness or boisterous irresponsible behaviour or exaggerate the pleasures of drinking, not involve vehicles or water sports or other potentially hazardous activities, suggest alcohol would induce a significant mood change or that it was a component of or reward for personal, business, social, sporting or sexual success – all standard components of voluntary codes elsewhere. The codes of broadcasting practice that the BSA was to encourage were required to include, among other things, ‘the protection of children’ and ‘restrictions on the promotion of liquor’ (S.21(1)(e)(i) and (v)). The 1991 Liquor Advertising Rules developed by the BSA were additional to the ASA code covering other media. Television and radio alcohol ads should not employ aggressive themes, particularly in sports, or portray competitive behaviour or exaggerated stereotyped masculine images, or emphasise a product’s strength. The new code restricted alcohol advertising on television by time of broadcast, not type of advertisement. Ads could only be shown between 9 pm and 6 am, and the code referred advertisers to other restrictions on alcohol promotion in programme standards codes ‘including timing, incidental advertising, educational messages and saturation’. The 9 pm restriction did not apply to alcohol sponsorship ads, which could make brief use of a brand or company name or logo and could not appear in ‘programmes particularly intended for children and those under the legal age of alcohol purchase’. That code was passed to the ASA. The 1994 ‘Potter’ review committee blended the BSA’s code for radio and television with the ASA’s code for print and other media into one code for liquor advertising covering all media, released in April 1995. The above themes continued but with successive alternations to wording 1995, 1998 and 2003. ‘Exaggerated stereotyped masculine images’ from the BSA code became ‘unduly masculine themes or behaviour’ in the ASA code. The code addressed ‘implying’ as well as ‘depicting’ and added more detail, particularly on sponsorship ads. The words ‘or is a reward’ were added to the rule against linking alcohol to personal, business, social, sporting or sexual success. In 1998, the rules became broad ‘principles’, each followed by ‘guidelines’. The preamble stated that ads that failed to adhere to guidelines ‘might or might not’ be in breach of the code. An analysis of television ads at that time showed that, despite the guidelines, drinking was associated with exaggerated masculinity and mateship were typical beer ad themes. By 2003, Lion Nathan considered that code interpretations that gave guidelines precedence over principles was a ‘key problem’ (Lion Breweries 2003). Despite the code, spirits ads in the late 1990s favoured ‘boisterous group scenes’ involving ‘careless freedom and abandon’ or swirling drug imagery suggesting ‘a significant change in mood’ (Pankhurst 1998; Hill 1999). In 2002-2003, series of Foster’s and DB ads rewarded good blokes with beer for various acts and achievements. In 2004 a new Jim Beam ad showed a boxer being beaten up rather than change his brand. Exaggerated masculinity continued in Speights ads. These ads all passed through the industry pre-vetting committee. It appears that principles and guidelines are not breeched if it is done with humour. Yet overseas research shows that, while we discuss problem drinking seriously when it is other people’s, when we discuss our own drinking habits we use humour – as a defensive distancing mechanism.(Abrahamson 1998). This conversational pattern is readily observed in New Zealand. NZ Drug Foundation 9
The 2003 review committee added a new principle to the code: to ‘observe a high standard of social
responsibility’. Under this was a new guideline against packaging ‘with special appeal to minors’.
This referred to the National Guideline on the Naming, Packaging and Merchandising of Alcoholic
Beverages. This is a voluntary agreement developed by the alcohol industry and ALAC in response to
international concern about alcopop containers that blur the line between alcoholic beverages and soft
drinks, use symbols or cartoon characters particularly attractive to children and images associated with
mind-alternating drug culture. Also under the new principle is a guideline against ‘offensive,
aggressive or masculine themes or behaviour’, which had previously been a principle.
Content of the BSA code
In the Drug Foundation’s view, two standards in the Broadcasting Act on ‘the protection of children’
and ‘restricting liquor promotion’ (S.21(1)(i) and (v)) should be read together, as well as separately.
The Sale of Liquor Act sets minimum age of purchase to protect children from alcohol related harm,
and the World Health Organisation emphasises the importance of this in its policy recommendations.5
The children to be protected from liquor promotions should therefore be all those below the minimum
purchase age for alcohol, not just those under 12 who are the target audience for children’s
programmes. Media industry data shows high levels of exposure to alcohol ads during evening
television among those aged under 18. More than 10% of 10-17 year olds are still watching at 11 pm.
The 1991 Liquor Advertising Rules developed by the BSA were also additional to, and published
with, the BSA’s Programme Standards for Liquor Promotion on Radio and Liquor Promotion on
Television. This included sections entitled Liquor Promotion: Timing, Incidental Promotion,
Education Messages and Saturation.
The code noted that previous restrictions had been removed subject to agreement by broadcasters that
those who broadcast liquor promotion messages – liquor advertisements, sponsorship advertisement or
programme credits – had a responsibility to ensure that appropriate, credible and professional
messages concerning moderation in consumption and/or the non-alcohol option were broadcast with a
reasonable spread, including peak listening times/prime time for viewing. The code stated:
In the event this standard is not adhered to, the BSA may use its powers to review the code for liquor
advertising and thereby restriction the right of broadcasters to broadcast advertising programmes which
promote liquor.
The 1991 Cabinet decision to allow self-regulation passed responsibility for the alcohol advertising
code and reviews to the ASA. Nevertheless, the opening paragraph of the BSA’s Promotion of Liquor
Programme Code of November 1995 stated:
Broadcasters who broadcast liquor promotions have agreed to make free air time
available for the broadcast of appropriate and credible messages promoting
moderation and the no-alcohol option, prepared and broadcast in accordance with
professional media standards. This on-going commitment is an integral part of the
Advertising Standards Authority rules and the Broadcasting Standards Authority
standards for the promotion of liquor.
The 1991 BSA rules also required broadcasters to minimise liquor promotion that was incidental to a
programme, with four subparagraphs explaining what in particular this meant.
It was recognised that incidental promotion occurs regularly in programmes where broadcasters have little or
no control over the situation. Where broadcasters have control of the situation, e.g. recorded or delayed
broadcasts, they will ensure that this standard is followed in the spirit as well as in the letter.
In regard to programmes sponsored by alcohol advertisers, the BSA warned that if sponsorship rules
were not strictly adhered to, entire programmes could be deemed to be alcohol advertising and subject
to that code. They also required all stations and channels that broadcast alcohol ads, sponsorship ads
5
WHO Global Status Report: Alcohol Policy, 2004; World Health Assembly, Public health problems caused by harmful use of alcohol.
2005, 58th World Health Assembly, A58/18.
NZ Drug Foundation 10or programme credits to also provide ‘appropriate, credible and professional messages about moderation in alcohol consumption’. In 1995 a revised Promotion of Liquor Code set five standards on which any complaints had to be based, followed by more detailed guidelines. These were that broadcasters must avoid ‘saturation’, must not broadcast trailers for alcohol sponsored programmes that have aggressive themes or portray competitive or masculine images in an overdramatic way (the wording of the 1991 code), must ensure incidental promotion of liquor is minimised, must ensure backdrops and props carry no liquor promotions, and make no ad lib comments referring directly or indirectly to alcohol use in any way contrary to the ASA code. Examples of prohibited ad lib comments were ‘those which glamorise liquor, imply it has special properties, or suggest or express approval of or amusement at immoderate consumption’. ‘Saturation’ was defined as a degree of exposure that gives the impression that liquor promotion is dominating that viewing or listening period. Several guidelines dealt with this. Programme content, advertisements, sponsorship advertisements or credits and incidental promotions could all contribute to saturation. It would be avoided if there were no more than one brief mention (less than six seconds) or image for every three minutes within a programme and its commercial breaks, and if more than two liquor advertisements were broadcast in a break and not consecutively. Other guidelines gave examples of where to draw the line on backdrops and apparel. The BSA’s website also hosted a detailed Voluntary Sports Code on Liquor Advertising and Promotion on Television developed in the NZ Sports Assembly in 1993, and continued to do so after the demise of that organisation. Public health groups have put a great deal of time and effort into the industry reviews that fiddling about with these voluntary codes. Much of the code was developed in response to ads which pushed the boundaries of existing rules (Pankhurst 1998). However, code reviews distracted attention from the larger question for government policy: should products that result in so much harm to young people, to New Zealand society and to the global burden of disease and injury be freely promoted on media that come into every home? Self-regulated complaints The 1991 papers to Cabinet noted a ‘lack of confidence in the ability of industry to successfully regulate itself’. Lack of confidence has continued to be expressed in public health submissions to reviews, despite changes to the ASA’s self-regulatory systems. Key improvements have been voluntary submission of ads to a pre-vetting committee to check code compliance, and the inclusion of ‘members of the public’, not just industry representatives, on the ASA’s complaints committee. However, very few of the ‘public’ members appointed have public health expertise or specific knowledge of relevant alcohol research. A report commissioned by ALAC in 1996 acknowledged the improvement of the pre-system, although dissatisfaction with interpretations continued among health and consumer groups (Gray 1996). Like compliance itself, pre-vetting is voluntary. The Beer Wine and Spirits Council pointed out that of seven complaints upheld in 2002, three were ads from the same manufacturer that had not gone through the LAPS system. Another two had not been viewed by the Television Commercials Approvals Bureau, who would also consider whether the advertisements were code-compliant. Realistically there will always be those rogue companies who will not comply with industry accepted self-regulatory systems and may choose to flout the code’, concluded the BSWC (Beer Wine & Spirits Council 2003). This is a problem inherent in self-regulation of any industry. However, the BW&S’s comment appears to apply to the media, including television channels, who accepted the ads. This suggests a system problem, not just a problem of rogue advertisers. Another systems problem (experienced also in Australia) has been slowness in processing complaints, with decisions on appeals taking up to a year (GALA 2004). Ad campaigns are often of short duration for maximum effect, and may be over by the time the ASA decides to apply its main sanction – the agreement of media members of the ASA to discontinue using the offending ad. NZ Drug Foundation 11
An essential component of voluntary codes is complaints by individuals or health and consumer
groups (Gray 1996). The ASA and BSA do not themselves monitor advertising or programmes and
enforce their own codes. These systems rely on the public and voluntary groups to monitor television,
radio and print ads and put in complaints when these appear to infringe the principles and guidelines.
Monitoring is therefore irregular. The 1996 report for ALAC noted the low credibility of the
complaints system among consumer and health groups, who wanted a fully independent monitoring
and review body. They considered that, although the 1995 code changes had eliminated the most
overt examples, sexual and ‘macho’ innuendo continued. They also reported difficulty monitoring
non-advertising forms of marketing such as sponsorships (including sponsorship of editorial space)
(Gray 1996).
Numbers of complaints fell from the mid 1990s and are currently very low.6 Industry submitters to the
2003 review took this as evidence that the system was working well. Alcohol industry submissions
suggested that two groups who monitored ads and lodged the majority of complaints did so because
they were ‘profoundly’ against alcohol advertising, so those complaints should be put to one side
when evaluating the system (Beer Wine & Spirits Council 2003; DB Breweries 2003). The Ministry
of Health thought the fall-off in complaints could reflect low public awareness of the code, as shown
by media industry surveys (Ministry of Health 2003).
Ministry of Health:
In 1995, there were 53 complaints, of which 7 were Low complaint numbers may reflect
successful. The complaints board declined to consider 19 ‘loose’ interpretations of the code by
and did not uphold 20. Five were ‘settled’ by the the ASA.
advertiser. Complaints halved the following year, then
fell still further, with a low of 15 in 2000 and 2001. In 2002, prior to the 2003 review, 7 out of 21
complaints were not accepted; 2 were rejected and all others were either upheld or ‘settled’. That year
556 alcohol ad concepts were approved by the pre-vetting committee, although not all were eventually
used as advertisements (Association of New Zealand Advertisers 2003). Evidence of code
infringements is most easily gathered for print ads. On radio, one complaint a year was received in
1998, 2000 2001 and 2002, which the Radio Broadcasters Association concludes reflects ‘a very, very
low concern’ (Radio Broadcasters Association 2003). In 2004 the ASA complaints board processed
27 complaints under the current Liquor Advertising Code. Of these, 12 were not accepted, 6 were
upheld or settled and 9 were not upheld (ASA 2004).
It is of interest that so many complaints are considered inadmissible by the ASA. This suggests that
the code is inadequate in addressing the concerns of the public, or that the principles and guidelines
are too vague for complainants to judge correctly what ‘might or might not’ be a breech of the code.
Or – as the Ministry of Health told Parliament’s Health Committee (Health Committee 2004) – these
outcomes may reflect ‘loose’ interpretations of the code by the ASA complaints board.
Compliance with the ASA code is, however, irrelevant to a policy objective of reducing the exposure
of young people to alcohol promotion messages which influence them. The code does not address the
ways in which ads depicting young adult lifestyles, and marketing that plugs alcohol into young adult
sports and music, makes drinking is highly attractive to younger teenagers. All the studies that show
the influence of alcohol advertising on children and teenagers’ attitudes to alcohol and drinking
patterns use current compliant ads, not rogue examples.
2003 review of ASA Liquor Advertising Code
The 2003 review covered both the ASA’s Code on Liquor Advertising and the BSA’s Programming
Code on Liquor Promotion. The ASA and BSA codes and submissions were considered separately,
under the overall administration of the ASA. However, most submissions covered both codes, and the
joint process facilitated some shifts between the two codes in matters addressed.
6
This also the case with similar complaints based systems, such as those under the Human Rights and Equal Pay Acts.
NZ Drug Foundation 12The ASA terms of reference stated that the review would take the 1998 review report as its starting
point, and sought to limit submissions and evidence to:
• Changes in social attitudes and public policy since the Barker Report
• The relationship between broadcast advertising and long term liquor consumption trends
• Any new evidence... to justify further restrictions or liberalisation of broadcast advertising.
• Whether the 1998 Code needs amendment.
The second point above focused the review on econometric research, much of which shows mixed
results, rather than the large body of research showing that alcohol advertising influences young
people’s beliefs about alcohol and subsequent drinking behaviour (see NZDF research review;
(Casswell and Zhang 1998; Hill and Casswell 2001; Casswell, Pledger et al. 2002; Babor, Caetano et
al. 2003; NZDF 2003). Submitters were asked leading questions that suggested further liberalisation
of the codes. They were asked whether the ASA code should reflect the 1999 changes to other areas
of alcohol policy (lower minimum age of purchase; beer sales in supermarkets; full trading on
Sundays), whether the codes should be harmonised with Australia’s (fewer time restrictions; different
definition of ‘low alcohol’) and, despite a previous decision by the 1998 review committee, whether
‘heros of the young’ could be used in ads advocating moderate drinking. Leading questions were also
asked about the BSA rule on minimising incidental promotion of alcohol, citing broadcasters’ views
and the pub location of Coronation Street (ASA 2003). It was suggested that there was duplication
on the incidental promotion issue– despite one code relating to programme production and the other to
advertisements.
Submissions on the ASA code from alcohol producers and from advertising, television and radio
organisations called for alcohol advertisements to be screened on television from 8.30 pm as this was
the start of adult programming, during the 6 pm news hour, as news wasn’t targeted to minors7,
between midday and 3 pm on weekdays except school holidays and public holidays, and during live
coverage of sports events and associated programmes. Lion Breweries submitted a new draft code
with the changes (Lion Breweries 2003), which was endorsed by several other industry submissions.
It was argued that alcohol advertisements at these times would be ‘directed at mature audiences’ (DB
Breweries 2003; NZ Television Broadcasters' Council 2003). The Television Broadcasters Council
said the high cost of broadcasting rights for sports coverage had to be recouped from advertising and
programme sponsorships, but the current time constraint on alcohol ads prevented them from selling
ad slots to the alcohol companies who sponsored sports clubs or national and international sports
events. They thought this was unfair in that there were no constraints on alcohol advertising in other
media. The ‘unnecessary stifling’ of heroes of the young was also raised. The Association of NZ
Advertisers argued that advertising built sales volumes and was a means of developing the market,
while alcohol industry submissions maintained that no research proved conclusively that alcohol
advertising increased consumption.
The Ministry of Health wanted action to ‘dramatically reduce’ the exposure of young people to alcohol
advertising, citing increasing consumption by 14-19 year olds and research evidence that linked
advertising to alcohol attitudes, expectancies and consequent drinking patterns. The time had come, in
its view, for the ASA ‘to demonstrate that it can effectively regulate alcohol advertising, so that
alcohol advertising does not impact on young people’. As previously mentioned, the Ministry
recommended discontinuation of alcohol advertising and advised that the Bill of Rights did not
prevent the review committee recommending this or Parliament passing legislation to this effect. It
noted that codes may be irrelevant to the way successful advertising actually works to reinforce the
current drinking culture. Alcohol advertisements could comply with the code and still encourage
young people to drink. If televised alcohol advertising continued, the Ministry recommended that the
start time be pulled back to 10.30 on week nights with no ads on weekends and public holidays. The
Ministry supported the adoption of as many of the following as possible (Ministry of Health 2003):
• discontinue alcohol advertising
• mandatory health messages on alcohol advertisements
• increased counter advertising
7
Around 9 percent of 5-17 year olds watch TV One or TV3 news.
NZ Drug Foundation 13• limit exposure to liquor advertising
• target advertising solely at the populations that may benefit
• strengthen the code.
ALAC opposed further liberalisation of alcohol advertising in the broadcast media. Presenting
industry data on television viewing by teenagers below the age of alcohol purchase, ALAC
recommended pulling back the start time for alcohol ads to 9.30 pm, when many programmes watched
by young viewers ended. A ban on broadcast advertising should be considered, because of the
evidence that alcohol advertising influenced young people. ALAC was concerned about alcohol
sponsorship of sports events and of television programmes, particularly since alcohol sponsored
programmes and trailers for them were not subject to time restrictions (ALAC 2003).
The New Zealand Drug Foundation called for a fundamental review of government policy on alcohol
marketing, including reconsideration of industry self-regulation. They presented a review of research
on alcohol advertising, including statistics studies (and critiques) and studies of young people’s
responses to alcohol advertising and its influence on their drinking behaviour. Alcohol ads after 9 pm
on television were seen by large numbers of children and under-18s, who also saw sports sponsorship
ads at any time. On the basis of this evidence, the Drug Foundation recommended an end to alcohol
advertising in the broadcast media. Serious concerns were expressed about current processes of
industry self-regulation and self-review, as decisions were not independent of industry interests
(NZDF 2003). In the parallel review of the BSA programming code, the Drug Foundation called for
an end of alcohol sponsorship of broadcast programmes (NZDF 2003)
As in previous reviews, and despite the ASA’s limited terms of reference, all the professional and
community-based public health organisations who made submissions called for an end of alcohol
advertising in the broadcast media, or for full prohibition of all alcohol advertising and sponsorship, in
lines with current tobacco policy. The Public Health Association and the SHORE Centre8, who are the
principal New Zealand researchers in the alcohol field, declined to participate in yet another a code
review under the auspices of an industry body with strong vested interests. In an email to the Ministry
of Health, SHORE noted that international attention was now on the issue of youth exposure, rather
than the detail of advertising standards, and they looked forward to an opportunity to contribute to a
government initiated review of policy in this area.
The Inter-Agency Committee on Drugs9 made a brief submission to the review, outlining government
policy on alcohol and requesting a meeting between the review committee and members of the
Ministerial Committee on Drug Policy. The Ministers invited the review committee to meet with them
on two separate occasions in April and in May 2003 as part of review consultations, but these
invitations were declined. The reason appears to be a wish to preserve the independent, self-regulatory
nature of the review. A meeting took place only after the review committee’s report to the ASA was
finalised in July. This rejected proposals to extend alcohol ads to news hours, sports coverage and day
time viewing, but recommended that the start time for televised alcohol ads be brought forward half an
hour (ASA 2003).
The review report stated that this change was largely prompted by the 8.30 start for adult
programming. The committee saw little logic in having two watersheds. It accepted the Television
Broadcasters’ Council advice that this relaxation was unlikely to expose a much larger youthful
audience than at present. The report quotes figures from the Council’s submission – 22 percent of
under-18s watching from 8.30-9 pm and 19% from 9-9.30 pm (para. 8.2) – that do not match the 2002
television industry exposure/ratings data provided by ALAC, which puts the figure at 26 percent.
8
Formerly the Alcohol & Public Health Research Unit, University of Auckland.
9
All government departments and agencies with responsibilities related to alcohol, tobacco and other drug policy or enforcement are
represented on this committee. It reports to the Ministerial Committee on Drug Policy, which comprises all government Ministers with
relevant portfolios. Minutes and research papers are published on www.ndp.govt.nz
NZ Drug Foundation 14You can also read
