Alcohol advertising

July 16th, 2012 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Lees-Galloway had drafted a series of amendments to the Bill that he would put up when it came back to the debating chamber for a clause by clause debate, which was expected this month.

They included restricting advertising around schools, early childhood centres and at all but R18 films, and prohibiting advertising discounts.

acknowledged many organisations relied on alcohol sponsorship, just as many once relied on tobacco sponsorship, he said.

“That is why I want to take this moderate approach to consider the viability of this option and to plan a smooth implementation should it go ahead.”

Lees-Galloway also wanted alcohol sponsorship phased out the same way tobacco sponsorship was phased out.

I’ll come to the amendments in a second, but I think banning alcohol sponsorship would be a draconian move, and unjustified.

THE PROPOSED CHANGES:

- Remove alcohol advertising on posters or billboards within 300m of schools and early childhood centres.

I don’t have a problem of removing within a fair distance of schools. ECEs is a bit over-board – I don’t think three year olds look at billboards much – and more practically an ECE can move about anywhere – unlike schools which tend to be in a fairly fixed location.

Remove alcohol advertising in cinemas unless the film screening is R18

This is an effective ban in all movies. When is the last time an R18 showed? I have some sympathy for the notion thought that one shouldn’t advertise in films targeted for kids. Maybe a lower threshold though?

Prohibit television advertising of alcohol before 9pm.

Sounds reasonable.

Prohibit using price in alcohol advertisements except in catalogues. Prohibit advertising discounts on alcohol, including in catalogues.

This one has some merit. Brand advertising I do not have a problem with, but advertising that promoted very cheap alcohol does cause issues. But one has to be careful how far you go. Making happy hour illegal can be taking things too far.

Establish a “Alcohol Advertising Reform Committee” with the health and justice ministries which would include the Health Promotion Agency.

Not sure we need a committee, but an issue with alcohol advertising is that the only penalty for breach of an ASA code on alcohol advertising is you have to pull the advertisement. This I think encourages some advertising which does breach the code. It is worth looking at having some sanctions for code breaches.

Tags: , ,

34 Responses to “Alcohol advertising”

  1. backster (2,000 comments) says:

    Tobacco sponsorship was abolished but as I recall at tremendous cost to the Government which had to step in to fill the void eventually leading to the ludicrously expensive NGO we currently have. The whole proposition reeks of unnecessary socialist controls.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Graeme Edgeler (3,216 comments) says:

    This is an effective ban in all movies. When is the last time an R18 showed?

    Kick Ass was the last one I saw. And it was awesome.

    The Raid earlier this year was R18. Saw 3D a couple of years back (and the other Saw films, I suspect. The acclaimed Ryan Gosling film Drive, and Rambo 4 were both also R18.

    [DPF: Kick Ass was awesome. Have watched it many times. Did not realise it was R18]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    “prohibiting advertising discounts.”

    So, consumers must visit every liquor establishment to determine where they can get a good deal?

    - No more advertising in the mail from liquor stores?
    - No liquor pricing in the supermarket flyers?
    - No signage outside the liquor store, or in the window, advising what is on special?
    - No email/web content from the likes of winesale.co.nz advertising their deals?

    That would impose real additional cost on consumers – time and money. Seems excessively draconian.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. MT_Tinman (2,790 comments) says:

    You must do what we tell you, when we tell you.

    You we have only your best interests at heart.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Pete George (21,806 comments) says:

    Prohibit using price in alcohol advertisements except in catalogues. Prohibit advertising discounts on alcohol, including in catalogues.

    As per bhudson: - No email/web content from the likes of winesale.co.nz advertising their deals?

    That would effectively rule out any online shopping? That sounds over the top.

    I often check current prices and research wines online, but then buy at the supermarket.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Manolo (12,624 comments) says:

    Fucking nanny statists!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:


    “The whole proposition reeks of unnecessary socialist controls.”

    Agreed. It’s not that these proposals are extreme or highly unreasonable, but on what basis will any of this achieve anything at all?

    Take advertising to kids for instance which, on its face, seems very reasonable given alcohol is intended for adults. But regardless would restricting such advertising have any effect? Do we really think that kids live in this bubble such that they do not realize that alcohol is widely consumed by adults and that adults appear to like it, and it is associated with parties and having fun? That’s the real reason kids, or more precisely teenagers, are interested in it. Advertising merely distinguishes certain brands, it does not create the demand for alcohol out of thin air and removing advertising for children will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to change the underlying reality that alcohol is a part of our society and widely consumed for recreation. It will not do anything to change a teenagers awareness of alcohol and their curiosity. It will not stop them sneaking into your alcohol cupboard and pinching some of it if you’re not looking. If you don’t want them to do that then it is up to you, as a parent, to do the parenting and to enforce rules and to punish bad behaviour. Perhaps put a lock on your liquor cabinet if need be.

    Politicians need to stop doing things just for the sake of appearing to do something. Not every problem is fixable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    Weihana,

    Lees-Galloway will be calling for plain packaging shortly…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. mpledger (428 comments) says:

    Little kids do “read” signage and are pretty good at picking up logos. You only have to be on a bus with little kids and go past a big M to know that. And my daughter when she was 3 could tell that a letter addressed to her was from the zoo because of the logo on the envelope.

    Although, to be fair, Zoos and MacDonalds have a different meaning/benefit to three year olds than alcohol.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    DPF,

    Brand advertising I do not have a problem with, but advertising that promoted very cheap alcohol does cause issues. But one has to be careful how far you go. Making happy hour illegal can be taking things too far.

    What’s the distinction? Happy hour is a price promotion that you enjoy? :)

    I don’t think pricing causes issues. People cause issues. Deal with the people causing issues, leave everyone else alone. Not that I don’t support a tax on alcohol to cover government expenditures related to alcohol, but I don’t support raising prices for the sake of raising prices.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. big bruv (12,352 comments) says:

    Get used to it guys…more than likely Labour will be back in less than three years and then it will be back to having the bastards control our life’s.

    Only…this time it may well be worse, the dirty stinking Green scum will be a part of the government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. PaulL (5,775 comments) says:

    1. 300m of schools. 300m is quite a long way. Seems unnecessarily long – one third of a kilometer. Many schools are near shopping centres – so those shopping centres can have no advertising?
    2. Cinemas. Meh. Who goes to the cinema still? Surely there are bigger fish to fry – all this will do is further reduce the viability of movie theatres
    3. TV advertising. Isn’t there already a ban? Is that before 8pm – so this is just making it an hour later?
    4. Prohibit advertising price. So no longer can you know what it costs to buy a dozen cans of your favourite? And nobody can have a “special” on alcohol? Stupid
    5. Another committee? Which will be loaded with idiots who think that govt is the answer to everything, and make recommendations that are hard to ignore? No thanks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    mpledger,

    Although, to be fair, Zoos and MacDonalds have a different meaning/benefit to three year olds than alcohol.

    Of course. It’s meaning is one of three things: yummy food (in the opinion of a three year old), toys that come with the food, playground to play on after the food is consumed. If this reality didn’t exist then it doesn’t matter how many big yellow M’s there are, it wouldn’t be of much interest to children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. PaulL (5,775 comments) says:

    Weihana: can we have a subsidy on alcohol to cover the benefits of alcohol? You know, the first 2 glasses of red with a meal should be subsidised due to health benefits, the next 2 neither subsidy nor tax, then every glass beyond that point an increasing tax?

    My point being that next we’ll be taxing scissors because some people run with them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. OTGO (457 comments) says:

    >Establish a “Alcohol Advertising Reform Committee” . Oh yes we must have a committee. A committee that has our best interests at heart so that they may save us from ourselves. I am so over the gummint being in my life to throttle back any enjoyment I might get out of simple pleasures such as alcohol, a fast car, a 100k salary, a nice house with a swimming pool, a fireworks night with my kids with bangers etc.
    Just. Stay. Away. From. Me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Pete George (21,806 comments) says:

    Big Bruv – the vote on all of this will be in parliament this month, so the next government may not do anything.

    It’s been reported that National will have a conscience vote on the purchase age only. Labour will have a conscience vote on all. Greens will tell their MPs how to vote on all. Maori Party are pro much tighter restrictions, they have their own SOPs on the bill.

    The purchase age could go any way. But I can’t see Dunne voting for the draconian advertising restrictions, so that should deal with that (presuming National will bloc vote with him) – as long as John Banks or any of NZ First (uncommitted so far as far as I know) or any Labour MPs vote against the advertising changes..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    big bruv (10,441) Says:
    July 16th, 2012 at 3:04 pm

    Get used to it guys…more than likely Labour will be back in less than three years and then it will be back to having the bastards control our life’s.

    As opposed to Peter Dunne controlling our lives? :)

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7284599/New-law-Drugs-must-be-proved-safe-for-sale

    This is all politicians do. They have to continuously come up with idiotic ideas to justify their existence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Pete George (21,806 comments) says:

    Weihana – do you think an unproven drugs should be able to be freely sold in New Zealand? Whether the contents are known or not?

    Recreational drugs were the most uncontrolled substances that could be sold, which was ridiculous.

    And, ironically, Dunne gets criticised most for NOT restricting alcohol sales more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    PaulL,


    Weihana: can we have a subsidy on alcohol to cover the benefits of alcohol?

    Sounds fair enough to me though I’m not sure whether they are significant compared to the costs. But on the other hand, alcohol is a vice singled out for taxation whilst many other vices go unnoticed. Do we tax overeating? Do we tax laziness? Do we tax sleeping around with strangers and getting HIV?

    Perhaps instead of giving the money to an ever-expanding government we could leave the money in the hands of the consumer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    Pete George,

    Weihana – do you think an unproven drugs should be able to be freely sold in New Zealand? Whether the contents are known or not?

    Honestly, no I think all psychoactive substances should be regulated to some extent. My problem is not that Dunne has turned people away from synthetic cannabis and back to the real stuff. My problem is that Dunne is motivated by the same prohibitionist ideology that created the problem in the first instance. The “legal highs” are trying to mirror the effects of illegal highs. Instead of trying to stomp on something that is a direct consequence of prohibitionist idiocy, the government needs to address the reality of the failed war on drugs and the harm prohibition causes.

    And, ironically, Dunne gets criticised most for NOT restricting alcohol sales more.

    Fair enough in my view. It’s his hypocrisy that is most annoying. It’s ridiculous being sanctimonious about “legal highs” whilst exempting alcohol which does far more harm than any legal high. It’s also hypocrisy to criminalize medical marijuana (or marijuana in general) when he has used it himself and is only in the position he is because he escaped criminal penalty thus enabling his political career. The same goes for Obama. I’m sick of these hypocrite politicians who do something, get away with it, then preach about how it should still be a crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Nookin (2,887 comments) says:

    We also need to ban alcohol or in any publication:
    1. Within 1 km of any drug and acohol rehabilitation clinic:
    2 Within a prescribed distance of any Methodist Church
    3. Within 1 km of any place used for AA meetings
    4. likely to be read by anyone who might abuse alcohol
    5. in any pub where people are likely to drink it!

    There. That might fix the problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Pete George (21,806 comments) says:

    6. No advertising or drinking in Bellamy’s.

    Or maybe that should be 1. and scrap the rest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Nookin (2,887 comments) says:

    I think, leave it in Bellamy’s. If it wasn’t in Bellamy’s it would be out in the community. It doesn’t do any damage in Bellamy’s because it only operates on active brain cells. It provides employment for taxi drivers (except in the case of Andrew Williams). It helps sustain foliage (in the case of Andrew Williams). It keeps them out of the House. It provides a variation on the game “Where’s Wally” , ie “What did Winston say??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. pct (19 comments) says:

    How about deal with the people that have the alcohol problem – leave the rest of us alone.

    Drink & drive – lose your licence & car on the second offence.
    Alcohol caused health issues – pay for your own medical expenses
    Benefits by voucher – redeemable on food only.
    etc
    etc

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “…Only…this time it may well be worse, the dirty stinking Green scum will be a part of the government….”

    Your spot on with this big bruv – they’re atheists – just like you! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. wiseowl (574 comments) says:

    Control freaks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. wat dabney (3,455 comments) says:

    The left’s assault on free speech continues. The state will not allow you to read or see certain material (remember it is you suffering the censorship here far more than any advertiser.)

    Gauleiter Lees-Galloway says he knows what is best for you better than you know yourself.

    The state must censor what you see and read for your own good. And this fucker Lees-Galloway says he is the man to decide what you are allowed to see.

    The ego of this disgusting little worm is exceeded only by the contempt he displays for the rest of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    This is all politicians do. They have to continuously come up with idiotic ideas to justify their existence.

    Hence the existence of”State assets”……assets to those who comprise the state….liabilities to those taxed to support them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Brian Smaller (3,915 comments) says:

    Ian Galloway Lees is a fuckwit. Why shouldn’t some booze shop be able to tell me how much they are going to sell me a bottle of whiskey for in their advertising crap that gets shoved through my letter box? I wish all those control freak wowsers would fuck off and die. Target alcohol related crime and leave the rest of us alone. Pricks.

    Disclosure: I am drinking a glass of Talisker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Manolo (12,624 comments) says:

    I wish all those control freak wowsers would fuck off and die.

    Very well said.
    Change from Islay to Speyside and your sentence is even truer!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Nigel Kearney (747 comments) says:

    Talisker is from Skye not Islay. But I agree Speyside single malts are better.

    I also agree that responsible drinkers of all ages should be left completely alone. Any change must affect only those individuals who harm others or whose drinking creates health or ACC costs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. tristanb (1,133 comments) says:

    Prohibit television advertising of alcohol before 9pm.

    DPF: “Sounds reasonable.”

    Say what?!

    No it doesn’t! Get this – kids know alcohol exists. They may have even seen their parents with it. Seeing an ad for a wine sale when you’re stuck watching the 6pm news does not turn kids into alcoholics.

    Is there some sort of “Biggest Killjoy” competition going on in parliament at the moment? Are Peter Dunne and Lees-Galloway vying to take the title away from Jim Anderton?

    How about we get a special designation on our drivers licences that states whether want to be immune from the government’s nannying. Those who want the government to take responsibility for their lives can have an “L” on their licence – this means they pay an additional tax at the liquor store and are not able purchase alcohol at a supermarket – then everyone’s happy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. calendar girl (1,108 comments) says:

    DPF: I’m depressed that there is no principled position that you are prepared to take on this issue, and indeed on multiple issues like it. Your only real concern is to argue the practicality or possible excess involved in any particular proposal.

    You may call it pragmatism. But it’s a sad day when lefties put up propositions inimical to fundamental principles of free speech and / or private enterprise, and all National Party opinion leaders (like yourself!) can do is nibble around the edges of this pathetic micro-management of our lives.

    Please use your skills and your communication channel to challenge the blue side that, without sound principles, so-called governance has no valid purpose. This alcohol / tobacco charade has gone on forever, achieving little other than providing greater justification for politicians to tax selected, legal consumer products excessively.

    If politicians have the courage of their convictions, let then prohibit both alcohol and tobacco from production, sale or use in NZ society. That will fix all the perceived ills that they are said to generate (Yeah, right!). But at least we would see the rare sight of Parliament acting on principle for a change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Brian Smaller (3,915 comments) says:

    @Calendar Girl – well said.

    Talisker is from Skye not Islay. But I agree Speyside single malts are better.

    The Talisker was a gift. I don’t look a gift whiskey in the mouth, no matter where it comes from.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.