| By Peter Rice
A recent rapid review of evidence on alcohol marketing and advertising by Public Health Scotland has found that such marketing is pervasive and persuasive, and exposure to ads drives alcohol-related harm, including in children and young people.
The review was commissioned after a consultation on restricting alcohol marketing found what the then minister diplomatically called “a divergence of views” with two camps. Organisations involved with alcohol marketing, e.g., alcohol producers and sporting and arts organisations who received sponsorship, were content with the status quo. Organisations concerned with health and wellbeing argued for a comprehensive approach to protect children and those in recovery, and to reduce harms across the population. The 10 Year Health Plan for England includes a commitment to “tackle alcohol consumption by introducing new standards for alcohol labelling,” so it looks like the linked issues of alcohol labelling and marketing are firmly on the UK alcohol policy agenda.
Alcohol marketing on the political agenda
The issue of alcohol marketing arose at a delicate time in Scottish politics. Nicola Sturgeon, a long serving First Minister with a track record of support for interventions in the alcohol market to reduce harm had resigned in February 2023. Her successor, Humza Yousaf had won a close-run leadership contest. One of his first moves was to announce a “reset with Government’s relationship with business.” Part of the reset was to postpone any action on alcohol marketing restrictions pending further consideration, and the Public Health Scotland review was a key element of that consideration.
Public Health Scotland (PHS) were tasked with examining the published evidence on exposure to alcohol marketing and the impact of that exposure in different marketing channels. In addition to the impact on the general population, evidence was sought on the impact on young people and on hazardous and harmful drinkers. The review also looked at evidence of the impact of marketing restrictions. The main focus of PHS’s work was on promotional measures which could be implemented by the Scottish Government, e.g., outdoor and public space advertising, and sponsorship of sports and events. TV and radio broadcast and online regulation, including social media, are regulated by the UK Government. While price is an important part of the marketing mix, the Scottish Government have already established pricing policies such as minimum unit price and a multibuy discount ban. The alcohol licensing system also provides a process for regulating place of sale.
What did the review find?
Research on the extent of exposure was primarily focussed on children and young people, who had been identified as the main group of concern in the many years of discussions on marketing in Scotland. The evidence reviewed found frequent, often daily exposure to alcohol marketing, including to young people. There were many routes of exposure including sponsorship of sport and branding on merchandise as well as traditional advertising in print, radio and TV, ads on public transport, online, and near schools.
The review found that assessing the impact of marketing restrictions was difficult because these were often employed alongside other policy measures, such as action on price and availability. For example, the comprehensive marketing ban in Norway since 1975 was introduced alongside limited hours of sale, sales promotions, and effective alcohol taxation. The country’s strong record in limiting alcohol harm is therefore likely to be due to the synergistic effect of a range of actions, of which marketing regulation is one.
The effects of marketing exposure on levels of consumption and harm from alcohol is the most frequently contested issue between health and industry linked groups. Representatives from the alcohol industry generally argue that marketing does not increase consumption, but rather encourages consumers to switch brands, provides an information service on new products (especially from small producers) and has no impact on levels of harm. Critically, the PHS review did not support this. Studies using a range of methodologies, in many countries, looking at various marketing methods, consistently suggested that marketing increased consumption including among young people. Reports published by the advertising industry themselves revealed that advertisers claimed and presented evidence that various campaigns increased consumption by recruiting new drinkers, encouraging new drinking occasions and targeting people who are already heavy drinkers. This undermines the claim that the main impact advertising is on “brand switching” where one brands gain is another’s loss. In fact, marketing increases the overall market, including through appeal to heavy drinkers, who are crucial to profitability.
The role of alcohol labelling
The UK is one of many European countries who do not require information on nutritional content, ingredients or health risks on alcohol products. This exemption only applies to products under 1.2%, hence the curious situation where there is more information on no and low alcohol versions than on the master brand for heavily advertised beers. Some producers do use health orientated messages in marketing, such as ‘low carb’ or ‘low sugar,’ popular in the fast-growing category to push these products towards younger people. Specific health information, such as the labels informing consumers of the risks of liver disease, cancer and drinking in pregnancy due to be introduced in Ireland, has been found to reduce positive reactions to marketing and perception of risk of harm. This health information labelling had more impact than the ‘please drink responsibly’ message favoured by alcohol industry bodies.
The need for regulation
A review of self-regulatory codes found that violations were common, and so tight regulatory approaches are necessary. However, even in countries which regulate contextual advertising (e.g., beautiful people in beautiful settings) such as France, have found that implementing these regulations requires careful design of the law and close monitoring to prevent marketers finding loopholes.
Alcohol companies often use practices such as ‘alibi marketing’ or ‘surrogate marketing’ to get around current or potential regulations. Alibi marketing describes practices where brands are not mentioned, but associated imagery such as distinctive print style or colour is used, and surrogate marketing refers to instances where no and low alcohol versions of a major ‘master’ brand are promoted instead of their alcoholic counterpart. Examples are the use of recognisable brand characteristics in sports stadiums and positioning no-low alcohol marketing outside designated alcohol sales areas in stores.
What next?
The overarching message from the PHS review is clear: alcohol marketing increases consumption across the population including in young people and heavy drinkers and so is very likely to increase risk and harm.
So, what happens now? Since the review was commissioned, Humza Yousaf has since been replaced as First Minister by John Swinney, with a new team of Health Ministers. Opponents will work hard to make alcohol marketing regulation a highly contentious issue, as they have done so consistently in alcohol policy. Although polling shows that a clear majority of the UK public support marketing restrictions in public spaces, at sports and arts events and in cinemas, action on marketing has been seen in the past as a political risk, and this perception is driven by the activity of industry linked organisations.
There is a political choice to be made, especially considering the forthcoming Holyrood election in May 2026. But the issue of alcohol marketing will not go away. Look out for what the manifestos say.
Written by Dr Peter Rice, Chair of the Institute of Alcohol Studies.
All IAS Blogposts are published with the permission of the author. The views expressed are solely the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of the Institute of Alcohol Studies.