It’ll be interesting to see how this one plays out: the British Medical Association has issued a report calling for a ban on all alcohol advertising, including sports and music event sponsorship.
They’re looking to slow rising consumption with the ban, plus some other government mandates: mandatory minimum pricing scheme, reduction of licensing hours for both on-premise and off-premise sales, reducing the density of alcohol outlets, etc.
The focus is on young people (defined in the report as under 25), even though they admit that the entire nation is essentially in its cups most of the time. And that treating alcohol-related conditions costs the National Health Service up to $5B per year.
While I don’t dispute the social and financial costs associated with the kind of drinking that results in piles of vomit outside pubs every night, I have to wonder what they’re talking about when they refer to how cheap it is there. Unless they’ve lowered the prices considerably in the past three years, drink is definitely not the most cost-effective way of numbing your brain. (That would be reality TV shows.)
Plus—it’s unclear that the linchpin of their plan to dry out Britain, a ban on alcohol advertising, would have much of a positive effect. According to the Australian Association on National Advertisers (admittedly not an unbiased group), multiple studies by apparently legitimate and respected researchers would seem to indicate that advertising bans have little or no effect on actual, you know, consumption of alcohol.
Naturally various trade associations are rushing to the defense of the status quo. I particularly love the Wine and Spirit Trade Association’s dire prediction that a ban would “threaten the livelihoods of thousands of people working in the media, advertising, television” and other industries.
Kind of the argument used to prop up GM and Chrysler.
No comments:
Post a Comment