A new report released by Alcohol Concern explores the role of the Portman Group in the self-regulation of alcohol marketing and promotion, urging the Government to review the current "ineffective" framework as part of its forthcoming national alcohol strategy.
The Portman Group's Independent Complaints Panel adjudicates on complaints against the naming, packaging and promotion of alcoholic drinks in the UK according to its ‘Code of Practice’, which aligns with the relevant codes developed by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).
The Alcohol Concern report, based on an analysis of 12 years of decisions made by the Portman Group’s Independent Complaints Panel, argues that panel's decision making process has been inconsistent, with decisions often based on opinions rather than firm evidence. Further, it claims the Portman Group lacks accountability and there are no processes to review or appeal decisions, whilst the organisations exact purpose is not clear.
The Portman Group is reportedly funded by eight member alcohol companies, including drinks giants Diageo and AB InBev, who make up more than half of the UK alcohol market and has advocated the role of the industry in alcohol policy and self-regulation to support responsible drinking, including setting up Drinkaware in 2004.
Packaging Vs media advertising: different regulatory domains?
In a blog on the new report, Alcohol Concern Wale's Andrew Misell argues that a 'more fundamental problem' exists with the current system given the Code only covers alcoholic drinks packaging and some sponsorship arrangements, but doesn't cover retail promotions, or regulate broadcast, print or online advertising. This means 'each of the various regulators look at all these pieces in isolation, meaning that none of them is seeing the full picture. Overall, it doesn’t make for great regulation.'
The report concludes that 'in light of the scale and potential impact of alcohol marketing across society, its regulation would be better served by a fully independent body that is subject to much greater levels of public accountability and scrutiny'. It claims this would improve 'the consistency of decision-making, more explicitly apply research evidence to the mechanisms of marketing influence, and operate more robust appeals processes.' The report also states that self-regulation is not appropriate to the alcohol market because 'the goals of tackling the detrimental social impacts of irresponsible alcohol marketing are by definition often in conflict with the goals of alcohol marketeers'.
Code specifics
On the issue of prohibiting marketing activity that has 'a particular appeal to under-18s', the report identifies a number of issues in the interpretation and application of the Code. For instance, if marketing is deemed to appeal to adults as well as under-18s, it may not be considered to have particular appeal to under-18s, whilst the rulings did not appear to account for the variation in the appeal to different young people and the likelihood of some being attracted to products that may convey maturity. As such, the report states:
The Portman Group or any other regulatory body operating in this area needs to demonstrate a clear understanding of the relationship between age, aspiration and the appeal of brand imagery. It needs to move beyond the assumption that underage drinkers are only attracted to childish imagery and consider how appeal to youth often requires the depiction of young adulthood.
The Code states promotion or marketing activity should not in any way 'suggest any association with sexual activity or sexual success'. The report however states that whilst sexual imagery 'rarely appears on major drinks companies’ drinks packaging, it features in 'other elements of the marketing mix' such as television advertising, online content, and promotional events which fall beyond the scope of the Code. It concludes 'a more nuanced, and evidence-based, model of how sexual success is implied or
indicated in marketing is required for this element of the Code to be effectively applied'.
Other issues are raised by the report including the apparent subjectivity by which decisions are made. Whilst decisions are made by independent panel members, it raises questions over the scope of evidence upon which these are judged and based upon. For instance it highlights that the Portman Group states that the Panel 'will determine its own procedures' and 'will not be bound by any enactment or rule of law relating to the admissibility of evidence in legal proceedings'. For example, when deciding the parameters of 'moderate drinking', 'it is for the Panel to make its own assessment as to what those parameters are, and whether or not the packaging of a particular product encourages (whether directly or indirectly) the exceeding of those parameters'.
The report also raises questions over how smaller producers fare compared with the larger member companies, stating 'companies that are not members of the Portman Group are much more likely to be the subject of complaints than its members, and that those complaints are much more likely to be upheld', though recognised there may be reasons for this other than any deliberate bias. Some smaller companies have however publicly attacked the Portman Group, notably BrewDog who has had several of its products ruled against. Other issues include the actual 'voluntary' nature of the code and implications for adherence, as well as who the Portman Group may be accountable to.
A future for self-regulation?
With minimum pricing dominating alcohol policy debates in recent years, specific attention to the undoubtedly complex issue of marketing regulation may have been comparatively low profile. However in 2017 the journal Addiction published a special issue on the the subject, reporting that the evidence increasingly supported 'a relationship between marketing and consumption, and that existing regulations are often circumvented or are ineffective in achieving their key goals.' In 2014 Alcohol Concern called for statutory regulation of alcohol marketing and have highlighted other issues such as the effect of marketing methods such as brand stretching on young people.
The Portman Group however have recently consulted on the Code and published an apparent response to the Alcohol Concern report from its Chief Executive John Timothy. In it Timothy states the Portman Group is 'open and transparent in the way we operate and regulate', and that 'a complaint can be submitted by anyone and it only takes one to trigger an investigation'. He states making the regulation of alcohol marketing statutory would result in 'a slower and less efficient system' which would burden the taxpayer. The response though also includes contested claims such as the Responsibility Deal's removal of one billion units and the role of local partnerships as central to reducing alcohol harms.
Whether the forthcoming alcohol strategy may offer any change of tack on the Government's approach to self-regulation and the role of the industry remains to be seen, albeit it may have little immediate political incentive to do so. Either way, the issue of the role of alcohol marketing and its regulation will remain a future objective for health groups to see officially reviewed.
Comments