There is a lack of evidence to support an alcohol advertising
ban, a new Institute of Economic Affairs report reviewing the
academic literature finds.
-
Advertising bans have no significant effect on the overall
demand for alcohol
-
Alcohol industry advertising expenditure has no relationship
with drinking levels
-
Between 1991 and 2001, alcohol advertising fell by 10.8% in
Britain, but alcohol consumption rose by 15.8%
-
Advertising increases the sale of individual brands but does
not increase total sales
-
Gold standard Cochrane Review in 2014 found no robust
evidence to support an alcohol advertising ban
As the Scottish government goes "back to the drawing board" on
severely limiting alcohol advertising, a new report from the free
market think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) finds
that the evidence does not support restrictions.
Public health campaigners have long insisted that alcohol
advertising bans could help reduce sales and, by implication,
associated harm. But Alcohol Advertising: What
does the evidence show? highlights the lack of
evidence that advertising bans decrease drinking.
In 2014, a Cochrane Review – widely considered the ‘gold
standard’ of evidence in health policy – similarly found that
“There is currently a lack of robust evidence for or against
recommending the implementation of alcohol advertising
restrictions.”
For example, three Canadian studies, based on advertising
restrictions in British Columbia, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan,
found no effect on consumption. A 2010 cross-sectional study from
17 OECD countries between 1975 and 2000 similarly found
“advertising bans do not reduce alcohol demand”.
Report author and Head of Lifestyle Economics at the IEA,
Christopher Snowdon, says alcohol producers pay for advertising
to persuade drinkers to switch from rival products, not to
increase overall consumption. Accordingly, economic studies have
tended to find a lack of association between advertising spending
levels and consumption across countries, which are likely driven
by cultural factors. A study of alcohol advertising in the USA,
for example, concluded that “brand-level spirits advertising
results only in brand switching and does not increase the size of
the spirits market.”
Studies favourable to restrictions have tended to ignore
confounding factors or been replete with biases – like cultural
differences, measurement problems, and selection and recall bias.
For example, studies that show heavier drinkers report viewing
more alcohol advertising are likely examples of ‘reverse
causation’.
Without robust evidence that banning advertising reduces
consumption, Snowdon concludes that state intervention is
unjustified.
Report author and Head of Lifestyle Economics at the IEA,
Christopher Snowdon:
“The claim that banning alcohol advertising would reduce the
amount of alcohol-related harm in society has remarkably little
evidence to support it. Advertising affects the market share of
individual brands, but the amount of money spent on alcohol
advertising has no effect on alcohol consumption overall. This is
how advertising works in every other mature market, and it would
be a surprise if alcohol were any different.
“Strident claims from anti-alcohol campaigners about advertising
should be taken with a pinch of salt. This evidence review found
that only a few high-quality studies have looked at this issue,
and the evidence is, at best, mixed. A ban on alcohol advertising
would certainly not be an evidence-based policy."
ENDS
Download: Alcohol Advertising: What
does the evidence show? [PDF]
