Consultation on Restricting Alcohol Advertising and Promotion: Analysis of responses

6 Brand-sharing and merchandise (Q14–Q18)

6.1 Section 9 of the consultation paper considered restrictions on alcohol-branded merchandise. The consultation paper outlined the importance of branding to successful marketing, and the extensive use of 'brand-sharing'– that is, the use of known brand names and identifiers on other products (low or no alcohol drinks, food, clothing, household items, etc.) – to promote alcohol drinks by increasing brand visibility. The consultation paper also referred to research that indicated links between the ownership of alcohol-branded products and susceptibility to drinking among young people and alcohol consumption among older people.

6.2 Prohibiting alcohol-branded merchandise would, thus, provide an additional way of reducing the visibility of alcohol brands. The consultation paper included four questions on options for restricting alcohol-branded merchandise. A fifth question asked about whether restrictions should also be applied to low or no alcoholic drinks.

Question 14: Do you think that we should prohibit the sale of alcohol-branded merchandise in Scotland? [Yes / No / Don't know]

Question 15: Do you think that we should prohibit the free distribution of alcohol-branded merchandise in Scotland? [Yes / No / Don't know]

Question 16: What, if any, exceptions do you think should there be to prohibiting the sale or distribution of alcohol-branded merchandise?

Question 17: What, if any, other restrictions do you think should be considered on the use of alcohol brands on non-alcohol products?

Question 18: Do you think that any potential alcohol marketing restrictions should apply to low or no alcoholic drinks products, where these carry the same brand name, or identifiable brand markings, as alcoholic drinks? [Yes / No / Don't know]

The sale of alcohol-branded merchandise (Q14)

6.3 Question 14 asked respondents if they thought that the sale of alcohol-branded merchandise should be prohibited in Scotland.Table 6.1 shows the following:

• Overall, 15% thought that the sale of alcohol-branded merchandise should be prohibited in Scotland, while 82% thought it should not. The remaining 3% selected 'don't know'.
• Levels of agreement with the proposition were higher for organisations (23%) than individuals (13%). Correspondingly, levels of disagreement were lower for organisations (73%) than individuals (84%).
• All but three of the public health and third sector organisations (95%) thought the sale of alcohol-branded merchandise should be prohibited. By contrast, almost all alcohol producers (98%), retail and hospitality organisations (94%) and advertising and media organisations (95%) disagreed with this approach. Most events and sporting organisations (83%) also disagreed. Among other organisation types, 43% agreed and 57% disagreed.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

6.4 In addition, 428 CAMRA 1 campaign respondents indicated that they did not support a prohibition on the sale of alcohol-branded merchandise in Scotland.

Support for prohibiting the sale of alcohol-branded merchandise

6.5 Almost all public health and third sector organisations, most academic organisations, and one in eight individuals said the sale of alcohol-branded merchandise should be banned. The arguments in favour of a ban were that:

• The alcohol industry uses branded merchandise in highly creative and well-honed ways which are designed for maximum impact. Branded merchandise extends the cultural influence of alcohol and has the effect of normalising (and approving) alcohol as 'positive, aspirational and commonplace'. Branded merchandise can be seen everywhere (e.g. in schools and people's homes) and all population subgroups are exposed to it on a regular basis. Moreover, the World Health Organization has identified 'prevention of the alcohol industry's influence on social norms' as a key purpose of comprehensive restrictions.
• Branded merchandise is essentially 'free advertising' as any owner of an item of branded merchandise becomes, by default, a 'walking advert' for the brand. Branded merchandise is therefore an integral part of alcohol marketing, and is used to recruit consumers, revive brands, build profits, and increase consumption.
• Branded merchandise conveys messages successfully and builds associations and connections in the same way that the tobacco industry used to do. Branded merchandise can reinforce positive attitudes and increase brand loyalty, which can lead to increased alcohol consumption. In addition, branded merchandise has a 'long shelf life' (longer than the shelf life of the alcohol itself) and its influence is therefore long lived.
• The impact of branded merchandise on children and young people is of particular concern. Respondents said there is evidence that:
  • The relationship between owning branded merchandise and the (hazardous) drinking behaviour of adolescents and young adults is stronger than that for other forms of alcohol marketing (including advertising).
  • Young people who own alcohol-branded merchandise are more likely to drink now and in the future.
  • Branded merchandise reaches children and young people through a wide range of school and family activities, social occasions, sports events, etc. Use of these items are perceived by children as signalling approval for drinking.
• Branded merchandise can act as a trigger for those in recovery, or those who are vulnerable to alcohol-related harm.
• Comprehensive restrictions in relation to branded merchandise, as suggested by the Alcohol Marketing Expert Network and others, would reduce exposure to, and engagement with, alcohol; any exceptions would provide scope for displacement / harm and should therefore be avoided.

Opposition to prohibiting the sale of alcohol-branded merchandise

6.6 Almost all organisational respondents – apart from public health and third sector organisations and academic organisations – and most individuals said the sale and distribution of alcohol-branded merchandise should not be banned. Respondents in this group made a range of arguments as follows:

• The provision of branded merchandise is a key component of Scotland's global reputation and success as a tourist destination. Branded merchandise – especially merchandise available at distilleries and breweries – enhances the visitor experience and allows visitors to share their experience more widely. In addition, branded merchandise is a way to support the alcohol trade without being involved in alcohol consumption itself.
• Banning the sale of branded merchandise will make no difference to people's decisions about what – and how much – alcohol to consume. The proposal is disproportionate and will have a highly negative impact on the economy. Introducing a prohibition will have knock-on impacts (through supply chains) for other businesses (blankets, candles, bags, gin tea, whisky cheese, etc.). There has been no economic assessment of this policy approach.
• It does not make logical sense to prohibit the sale of branded merchandise in settings where the 'user' or 'consumer' has already accepted that the context of their purchase is related to alcohol / the alcohol industry. In circumstances where someone is, for example, (i) a trade customer, or (ii) a visitor to a distillery or brewery, or is (iii) socialising in a pub, (iv) browsing an alcohol website, or (v) shopping in the alcohol section of a store, then there is an assumption that the individual has already accepted that alcohol is being sold and that branded merchandise may be available.
• There are provisions in place to regulate the sale of branded merchandise and to prohibit the use of branded gift packs, etc.
• The profit margin on alcohol products is low, so the sale of merchandise is an important revenue stream, particularly for some (small) producers.
• The evidence quoted in relation to young people is questionable. In particular, the evidence for the use of branded merchandise among 11- to 19-year-olds is largely based on the wearing of replica football club shirts featuring an alcohol sponsor. Removal of the alcohol sponsor from these shirts could easily be done – and does not require a general ban on the sale of branded merchandise.
• A blanket ban could result in an increase in counterfeiting / third-party selling of branded merchandise in high streets and elsewhere. This could result in an increase in criminal activity and fraud, which would be a highly negative outcome.

6.7 As can be seen from Table 6.1, a very high proportion of individuals (84%) said they were opposed to a ban on the sale of alcohol-branded merchandise. These respondents frequently expressed their views in strong language saying that the proposal was 'ridiculous', 'laughable' or 'preposterous'. Their comments particularly focused on (i) the damage to Scotland's 'brand', and to the tourism industry, (ii) the negative impacts on jobs, especially for small businesses, (iii) the disproportionate nature of the ban, and (iv) their scepticism (often expressed as disbelief) that a ban would have any impact on reducing alcohol consumption.

6.8 A point raised occasionally by organisational respondents was that it does not seem logical to allow someone to buy (for example) a bottle of whisky or a bottle of beer with a branded glass, but to prohibit them from buying the glass on its own. In addition, since beer in particular has a relatively short shelf life, it makes more sense for a visitor or tourist seeking to buy something to remind them of an experience to buy a branded t-shirt or cap rather than the alcohol product itself.

6.9 Finally, although respondents (both individuals and organisations) said they were opposed to a prohibition on the sale of alcohol-branded merchandise, they did often emphasise that the sale of alcohol-branded merchandise should not be targeted at children and young people (or those under the age of 18). This point is returned to in the analysis of Question 16 below.

The free distribution of alcohol-branded merchandise (Q15)

6.10 Question 15 asked respondents if they thought that the free distribution of alcohol-branded merchandise should be prohibited in Scotland.Table 6.2 shows the following:

• Overall, a fifth of respondents (20%) thought that the free distribution of alcohol-branded merchandise should be prohibited in Scotland, while three-quarters (74%) thought it should not. The remaining 6% selected 'don't know'.
• Levels of agreement with the proposition were higher for organisations (25%) than for individuals (20%). Levels of disagreement were lower for organisations (69%) than for individuals (74%).
• Almost all public health and third sector organisations (97%) thought the free distribution of alcohol-branded merchandise should be prohibited. By contrast, almost all alcohol producers (93%) disagreed with this approach. Most events and sporting organisations (77%), retail and hospitality organisations (89%) and advertising and media organisations (89%) also disagreed. Around half of other organisation types (44%) agreed, and half (50%) disagreed.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

6.11 In addition:

• 428 CAMRA 1 campaign respondents indicated that they did not support a prohibition on the free distribution of alcohol-branded merchandise in Scotland.
• 67 Publicans campaign respondents answered 'no' in response to Question 15.

6.12 It should be noted that some respondents questioned the meaning of the phrase 'free distribution'. They suggested that many people who receive 'free' items are actually paying for them – through membership of an organisation, for example.

Support for prohibiting free distribution of alcohol-branded merchandise

6.13 The vast majority of public health and third sector organisations, most academic organisations, and one in five individuals said the free distribution of alcohol-branded merchandise should be prohibited. To a large extent, the arguments made in support of a ban on the free distribution of alcohol-branded merchandise mirrored those discussed above in relation to the sale of alcohol-branded merchandise and are not repeated here. It was common for respondents to simply say 'see my previous answer' or 'see my answer to Question 14'.

6.14 However, respondents who provided distinct comments at Question 15 were particularly concerned about situations in which children and young people in particular, but also those in recovery from alcohol harm or any other vulnerable groups, could be given alcohol-branded merchandise free of charge.

6.15 In particular, respondents said that:

• Free promotional merchandise often ends up in the hands of children and young people – even if it is not initially targeted at them. The recipient then becomes the advertiser of the product – this means that children become alcohol brand ambassadors which is highly inappropriate.
• Young people are particularly vulnerable to these products which can form part of an 'alcohol normalisation process' which starts at a young age. For example, being given a whisky shot glass could represent a cultural rite of passage for a young person when they turn 18, or on their graduation from school.
• These items may have disproportionate impacts on disadvantaged households where there is a greater need for, and / or greater use of the items (clothing, bags, etc.) carrying the branding.
• Free items have a potentially wider reach than products that are for sale.

Opposition to prohibiting the free distribution of alcohol-branded merchandise

6.16 Almost all other respondents (both organisations and individuals) said the free distribution of alcohol-branded merchandise should not be prohibited.

6.17 The arguments against a prohibition on the free distribution of branded merchandise again mirrored, to a large extent, those described above in relation to Question 14 (on the sale of branded merchandise) and are not repeated here. As has already been noted (see above), it was common for this group to simply say 'see my previous answer' or 'see my answer to Question 14'.

6.18 There was one exception to this. Respondents argued that the free distribution of branded merchandise can help to offset costs for both staff and businesses. For example, (i) alcohol-branded clothing may be provided free for workers and staff, thus saving businesses from buying expensive uniforms and (ii) the free provision of items such as alcohol-branded glassware for a hotel, or alcohol-branded outdoor furniture for a pub, can help reduce operating costs.

6.19 Furthermore, some businesses currently donate (their own) alcohol-branded products to local charities or to community events (for example, by offering them as rewards in local competitions, 'lucky dips' or fairs). This helps to promote the visibility of local businesses. Respondents said that these kinds of contributions are particularly important for raising the profile of small businesses in economically challenging times.

6.20 It was common for respondents in this group to explicitly say that any free distribution of alcohol-branded merchandise should not be targeted at children and young people (respondents mentioned in this respect 'kids', 'children', 'those under 18', 'those under the legal drinking age', or 'those under 25'). Examples mentioned in this regard included child-sized caps and clothing; use of branded merchandise by influencers, sportspeople, and celebrities; or distribution at or near schools or places where young people meet. It should be noted, though, that some respondents specifically said that, as far as they were aware, no targeting of this kind was currently taking place.

6.21 Less commonly these respondents also said the free distribution of merchandise should not be directed towards 'vulnerable groups', 'disadvantaged groups' or 'those in recovery'.

6.22 Some respondents in this group emphasised that so-called 'free distribution' is, in the main, offered to trade customers only. These people are already aware they are in an alcohol setting, so banning this seems disproportionate and unnecessary.

6.23 In addition, respondents argued that there was no relationship between, for example, being given a free branded golf umbrella and deciding to purchase a particular alcoholic drink. Things like golf brollies, etc. do not affect buying decisions.

Exceptions to restrictions on alcohol-branded merchandise (Q16)

6.24 Question 16 asked respondents for their views on any exceptions if restrictions on alcohol-branded merchandise were to be introduced.

6.25 The comments at this question suggested some confusion among respondents about whether they were being asked about 'exceptions to allowing' or about 'exceptions to prohibition'. Thus, some respondents said 'all' when they meant 'none' and others said 'none' when they meant 'all'. In addition, respondents did not always refer specifically to alcohol-branded merchandise. Furthermore, the comments made at this question were not clearly differentiated between those who wished to see a ban on the sale and (free) distribution of alcohol-branded merchandise and those who did not. Because of this, the following section does not differentiate between those two groups.

6.26 The main points respondents made in relation to any exceptions to the restrictions were that:

• There is a case to be made for allowing exceptions for any branded merchandise which carries (i) health advice or (ii) a positive message about sensible drinking or responsible behaviour in relation to alcohol.
• If exceptions are to be allowed, then these should be defined clearly, listed, and set out in regulations / legislation to limit the scope for interpretation and avoidance of restrictions.
• There could / should be exceptions for situations where the provision of branded merchandise helps to offset operating costs (for example, glassware, ice buckets, staff clothing, food products, outdoor furniture provided to the hospitality trade). This was particularly important for businesses that had a small turnover, or were under severe pressure.
• There could / should be exceptions for trade customers (who are themselves part of the alcohol industry), or for any business that promotes Scotland and Scottish products.
• There could / should be exceptions for places where alcohol is consumed – distilleries, pubs, bars, clubs, alcohol sections of retail stores, etc. People in such places have made an informed choice to be there, and should be allowed to purchase (or to accept for free) alcohol-branded merchandise. Some respondents noted that licensed premises, alcohol manufacturers and wholesalers are exempted from the ban on the sale and distribution of alcohol-branded merchandise in Ireland.

Restrictions on using alcohol brands on non-alcohol products (Q17)

6.27 Question 17 asked respondents for their views on what other restrictions, if any, should be considered on the use of alcohol brands on non-alcohol products.

6.28 In their comments, some respondents referred to 'brand-sharing' – that is, the scenario whereby a company brand comprises both alcohol and non-alcohol drinks products. The comments relating to brand-sharing are discussed in the analysis of Question 18 (below).

6.29 Beyond that, respondents simply used their comments at Question 17 to reiterate points they had already made in relation to Question 15 or 16 (for example about the inclusion of brands on staff clothing, casual clothing, furniture, bags, umbrellas, etc.).

Low or no alcohol drinks products (Q18)

6.30 The final question in this section addressed the branding of no or low alcohol (NoLo) drinks.^[16] The consultation paper highlighted the rapidly growing NoLo drinks sector and the lack of evidence on how such drinks are consumed (e.g. in addition to, or as a substitute for, alcoholic drinks) and their potential impact on levels of alcohol harm. However, such products often use the same branding as alcoholic drinks (i.e. those with an ABV greater than 1.2%) produced by the same company. The consultation paper also explained that some aspects of the UK's current advertising code applies to some NoLo products, while countries that have already introduced greater restrictions on alcohol marketing have taken a variety of approaches to this issue.

6.31 Question 18 asked for views on whether any future restrictions on alcohol marketing in Scotland should also apply to NoLo drinks that share branding or brand identifiers with alcoholic drinks. Table 6.3 shows the following:

• Overall, around a fifth of respondents (18%) thought that any potential alcohol marketing restrictions should apply to NoLo drinks products that carry the same brand name, or identifiable brand markings, as alcoholic drinks, while around three-quarters (77%) thought they should not. The remaining 5% selected 'don't know'.
• Levels of agreement with the proposition were similar for organisations (22%) and individuals (17%). Levels of disagreement were also similar for organisations (73%) and individuals (78%).
• Among organisations, 89% of public health and third sector organisations agreed with this proposition. By contrast, almost all events and sporting organisations (93%), retail and hospitality organisations (95%) and advertising and media organisations (95%) disagreed. A large majority of alcohol producers (89%) also disagreed. A third of other organisation types (32%) agreed, while roughly two-thirds (63%) disagreed.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

(1 respondent selected 'no' and 'don't know' in response to this question. This response is not included in the table.)

6.32 In addition:

• 428 CAMRA 1 campaign respondents indicated that they did not support restrictions on the advertising and promotion of NoLo drinks.
• 67 Publicans campaign respondents answered 'no' at Question 18.

6.33 The following points in relation to the analysis should be noted:

• In slight contrast to other topics, there was a small group of public health and third sector organisations who answered 'don't know' to this question. This is discussed further below, following the discussion of the views of the two main groups of respondents who answered 'yes' or 'no' (see paragraph 6.39).
• Both those in favour and those against the introduction of marketing restrictions for NoLo products acknowledged that the evidence base for the use and effects of these products (and of their advertising and marketing) was at an early stage, and population level data on the topic was currently very limited. Respondents said this meant that their views were provisional and might change as more evidence came to light. It would be important to monitor these effects going forward.
• Responses from both those in favour and those against restrictions often referred to the concept of 'brand-sharing' (sometimes also called 'alibi marketing' or 'brand marketing'). In this context 'brand-sharing' meant using a brand – primarily known as an alcohol brand – on products that are not alcoholic drinks. This may involve the use of a brand name, insignia, logos, colours or other identifiable markings of a brand.

Support for marketing restrictions for low and no alcohol products

6.34 The arguments in favour of marketing restrictions for NoLo products, which were made mainly by public health and third sector organisations were that:

• Marketing of NoLo products may have a range of harmful effects including (i) acting as a trigger to those in recovery, (ii) introducing children and young people to tastes and brands that they would not otherwise be exposed to, and (iii) acting as a 'gateway' to the consumption of alcoholic drinks.
• Consumers can find it difficult to differentiate between alcohol-free and alcoholic products using the same (alcohol) branding. In addition, the marketing of NoLo products may encourage consumers to drink NoLo products, not as a substitute for alcoholic drinks, but in addition to alcoholic drinks.
• Brand-sharing is a very powerful marketing technique which provides an indirect way of marketing alcohol products and undermines the potential of NoLo products to contribute to harm reduction.
• The alcohol industry must be prevented from using brand-sharing to circumvent (existing) restrictions on the marketing of alcohol products and to undermine the objectives of existing legislation.

6.35 These respondents noted that other countries (e.g. Ireland, Norway and France) have banned this type of marketing and they called for Scotland to follow suit. These respondents also thought that:

• All products in the range 0% to 1.2% ABV should be covered by the ban.
• NoLo products are adult products and should not be available in any settings where children and young people are present.
• It would be important to learn about the impacts of marketing and brand-sharing from other contexts – in particular, in relation to vaping (as a substitute for cigarettes) and sugar-free drinks (as a substitute for sugary drinks).

6.36 Occasionally it was suggested that an exception to the ban on marketing for NoLo products should be made for 'stand-alone' brands (i.e. NoLo brands that are not linked to an alcohol brand) sold in alcohol settings.

Opposition to marketing restrictions for low and no alcohol products

6.37 The arguments against marketing restrictions on NoLo products were made by alcohol producers, advertising and media organisations, events and sporting organisations and retail and hospitality organisations as well as by most individuals. This group of respondents said that:

• Reinforcing brands that produce healthier alternatives (i.e. adopting 'brand-sharing') is a key step in encouraging uptake. NoLo products have a place in changing the culture around alcohol (for example, by allowing non-drinkers and drinkers to mix in an alcohol setting, helping those who are trying to reduce their alcohol consumption, and keeping drivers more safely within legal alcohol limits).
• NoLo products have been developed in response to consumer demand. This is a positive trend which the Scottish Government should be supporting. If marketing restrictions are introduced, these will stifle investment and innovation, and disincentivise further development of the sector.
• The marketing messages relating to NoLo products are informative, and promote informed choice.
• Some companies produce only NoLo drinks. These companies would also be affected by any restrictions. It is not practical to allocate separate space in shops for NoLo producers who brand-share with alcoholic drinks and those who do not.

6.38 These respondents also argued that (the presentation of) the evidence in the consultation paper in relation to NoLo products is misleading and incorrect. It relies on the use of non-peer reviewed studies, including those carried out by campaign groups. Respondents said that, in fact:

• NoLo drinks are bought mainly by adults who want to decrease their alcohol intake.
• The concerns about effects on children and young people are unfounded. NoLo products are already regulated by industry codes (the spiritsEurope regulations were specifically mentioned in relation to NoLo products), which means that advertising of these products is not aimed at children and young people (i.e. those under 18).
• The relationship between sales of NoLo products and sales of alcohol products is weak. The NoLo market is distinct, and there is no evidence that alcohol brands that also promote NoLo products increase alcohol sales.
• NoLo products do not act as a 'gateway' to the consumption of alcoholic drinks; on the contrary, brand-sharing is the gateway to NoLo products (e.g. through messaging such as 'If you like our beer, but want to cut down on alcohol, try our 1% brand').

Views of public health and third sector organisations who said 'don't know'

6.39 As noted in paragraph 6.33 above, a small minority of public health and third sector organisations answered 'don't know' at this question. These organisations were ambivalent about the development of these products and whether their marketing should be restricted. They said there was currently a high degree of uncertainty about the evidence base for the impacts of these drinks – respondents could see that these types of products were 'here to stay' but they were unsure whether they would prove in the long run to be beneficial (by offering a less harmful alternative) or harmful (by acting as a 'stepping stone' to alcohol, or by causing confusion due to the difficulties of distinguishing these products from their alcoholic alternatives).