Alcohol marketing: how to regulate? A comparative analysis Research team Prof. Tom Decorte Marieke Vlaemynck, PhD In cooperation with VAD and Univers Santé Universiteitstraat 4, 9000 Gent

Table of contents 1. Background & methods 1.2 Research questions 1.3 Methodology 1.4 Analysis 2. Preliminary results & discussion Universiteitstraat 4, 9000 Gent

1.1Background A public health perspective... Longitudinal as well as experimental studies indicate exposure to alcohol marketing is associated with drinking problems (Jernigan, 2017) Alcohol marketing as one of the three best buys for an evidence-based policy (WHO, 2011; 2017) Tax increase Restricted access to retailed alcohol Ban on alcohol advertising Alcohol use results in a plethora of avoidable medical, psychological and social harm, damaged lives and early deaths (Hastings & Angus, 2009; Anderson et al., 2012; WHO, 2014)Meanwhile, over the years, the marketing for alcohol has grown (Jernigan, 2001). “bb”: cost-effective measures to for reducing harmful alcohol use Universiteitstraat 4, 9000 Gent

Goal of the project: “Developing an evidence-based (alternative) regulation system for alcohol marketing in the Belgian context, with special attention for the specific cultural and social practices and the context-bound implications and limitations” Policy debate is situated at the international level Illustration: current discussion about amending the Audio-Visual Media Services Directive “Self-regulation or co-regulation gives countries the most flexibility to adopt measures that fit to their situation” MS can adopt more rigorous measures if they want to As well as at the national level: Body of literature is not translated into a national policy strategy Illustrated by the recent discussions about an Alcohol Plan Universiteitstraat 4, 9000 Gent

1.2 Research questions How is the marketing for alcohol regulated in Belgium? How is the marketing for alcohol regulated in other (6) European countries? What are the pros and cons of each of the (alternative) regulation systems? Which marketing regulation system can be considered as a "best fit design" for Belgium taking into account the specificities of the Belgian context and the views of all stakeholders involved? Universiteitstraat 4, 9000 Gent

1.3 Methodology Literature review Part I : Overview of alcohol regulations in Belgium Complemented by informal exploratory interviews Complemented by a quantitative media analysis Part II: European cases: study of empirical research into regulatory frameworks of France, Finland, Netherlands, Norway, Poland and UK Literature review – part I: Overview of alcohol marketing regulations in Belgium: empirical research surrounding the theme of alcohol marketing; (grey) literature on the Belgian regulatory framework; assessment of enforcement in Belgium; analysis of cases evaluated for compliance (2010-2016) Literature review – part II: European cases: study of empirical research into regulatory frameworks in six other European countries (Finland, France, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, UK); description the existing models in detail focusing on advantages and disadvantages in each regulation system; start of development of ‘evidence-based’ criteria for effective alcohol marketing regulations Exploratory interviews : goal: further develop ‘evidence-based’ criteria for effective alcohol marketing regulations (De Bruijn et al., 2012) (WP 3); guided by the results of the literature review; 15 – 20 (inter)national experts; face-to-face or through Skype Universiteitstraat 4, 9000 Gent

Next step: In-depth expert interviews (approx. 20 – 25) Goal: Identify and understand stakeholders’ perceived needs + explore views on and experiences with challenges of different models of regulations (Neale et al., 2005; Rhodes, 2000) Standardised small-scale questionnaire follows each in-depth interview Goal of the interviews: Identify and understand stakeholders’ perceived needs + explore views on and experiences with challenges of different models of regulations (Neale et al., 2005; Rhodes, 2000) In cooperation with the subcontractors (VAD vzw and Univers santé asbl). Who? Government representatives (e.g. Flemish Minister of Media, Federal Minister of Public Health), organisations that evaluate the current regulation (e.g. JEP), professional associations (e.g. of Flemish Brewers) Goal of questionnaire: Goal: effectiveness of content restrictions, volume restrictions and supporting regulatory system. Developed in cooperation with subcontractors Universiteitstraat 4, 9000 Gent

1.4 Comparative analysis Evidence-based criteria (de Bruijn, 2012): Volume restrictions: limiting total exposure Content restrictions: addressing the ‘message’ Supporting regulatory framework: effective sanctions, pre-screening, independent advisory committee, transparent, effective complaint system, broad support, comprehensive, legal backstop, continuous monitoring Universiteitstraat 4, 9000 Gent

Table of contents 1. Background & methods 2. Preliminary results & discussion 2.1 Belgian context? 2.2 Volume restrictions 2.3 Content restrictions 2.4 Supporting regulatory framwork Universiteitstraat 4, 9000 Gent

2.1 Belgian context? Belgian context: Exploratory media analysis “Belgium has a ‘beer culture’” Exploratory media analysis News paper articles (1147 French as well as 446 Dutch) Period: 2012-2017 Key words: alcohol + health Unesco  Universiteitstraat 4, 9000 Gent

Alcohol use was described mainly in a negative way Key themes (> 20%): Physical damages (mostly traffic related) Harm reduction/prevention/aid/projects striving towards reduction of alcohol use Place of alcohol in a healthy life style Other topics: alcohol use by celebrities sale of alcohol beer culture alcohol marketing Universiteitstraat 4, 9000 Gent

2.2 Volume restrictions Goal: restrict total exposure Belgium: Type of medium: not through free samples Target group: limiting the location of ads (e.g. social institutions) + defining a ‘public’: not aimed at pregnant women, ‘minors’ (limited) time ban: “not five minutes before or after a TV-show primarily aimed at minors” Belgium: an ‘alcoholic drink’, meaning all beverages containing at least 0,5% alco Cases: All alcoholic beverages above 1,2% (e.g. Different regulations for ‘strong’ and ‘low’ alcohol beverages (e.g. Finland) Universiteitstraat 4, 9000 Gent

Cases: substitution effects “Complete” ban (e.g. Norway: internet?) Type of product: strong alcohol is stricter regulated than weak alcoholic drink (e.g. Poland) Target groups: defining a ‘public’ (e.g. 25% of audience is minor (e.g. Netherlands)) More comprehensive time ban (e.g. Netherlands, U.K.) substitution effects Universiteitstraat 4, 9000 Gent

2.3 Content restrictions Goal: address the message Belgium: Alcohol ads should not... (AVMSD, 2010): Depict minors consuming alcohol Link alcohol use with... enhanced physical performance or driving; social or sexual success; therapeutic qualities (e.g. sedative or stimulant) Portray immoderate consumption in a positive way Universiteitstraat 4, 9000 Gent

Cases: Remark: difficult to enforce Legal framework versus subjective indicators E.g. humour (e.g. Finland): depends on perception of public Formulate in a positive way? (e.g. France) Other content regulation: sportive success (e.g. Netherlands) What about sponsorship? Belgian premier football league “Jupiler Pro League” Universiteitstraat 4, 9000 Gent

2.4 Regulatory framework Discussion: self regulation vs statutory regulation Belgium: self-regulation code and an “Alcohol plan” Arnoldus covenant (2013) Alcohol plan (2017): “every alcohol ad on TV and radio aimed at minors needs to be screened beforehand by the Jury for Ethical Practices” Type of ban = regulatory framework Statutory Regulatory On the 12th of May a self-regulation code between the alcohol industry, consumer organisations and the government was adopted. There have been attempts to give this code a legal base, for instance by proposing to add them to art. 7bis of the Consumers Law of January 24 1977, but up to now these attempts failed (see further in the discussion of the Belgian case). The partners of the self-regulation code, further referred to as the covenant, are the alcohol industry (represented by the Belgian Federation for Wine and Spirits and the Belgian Brewers Federation), a trade organisation (Fedis), hotel-restaurant-pub organisations (Patron Federation of Professional Restaurant holders, Fed.Ho.Re.Ca Brussels/Wallonia/Flanders), the Jury for Ethical Practices considering Advertisements and consumers organisation (OIVO and Testaankoop). The original code was renewed on 25th of January 2013 and signed by the Belgian Brewers federation, the Belgian Federation for Wine and Spirits, COMEOS, the federations of hotel-restaurants-bars, consumers organisations (OIVO, Testaankoop) and the Minister of Public Health, Laurette Onckelinx. The changes took effect as of the 25th of April 2013. Universiteitstraat 4, 9000 Gent

Statutory regulation (e.g. Norway, Finland) Cases: Statutory regulation (e.g. Norway, Finland) Self regulation exclusively (e.g. Netherlands) UK: co-regulation: legal backstop to self regulation framework role of the industry? Universiteitstraat 4, 9000 Gent

Issue: effective complaint system Belgium: complex system: three separate organs Jury for Ethical Practices (Dutch language): Easy access (through Internet, but also through mail and phone), low key (forms, a lot of explanation), anonymous complaints Consumers, consumer organisations, sociocultural unions, professional federations or policy officers Transparent: complaints are publicly available as well as follow-up For free Quick follow-up Universiteitstraat 4, 9000 Gent

Cases: Pre-screening and copy advice Continuous monitoring Belgium: on request => except if “aimed at minors” standard practice (e.g. UK) Continuous monitoring Belgium: no monitoring at all Attempts at European level mainly stay within boundaries of projects (e.g. AMMIE) Issue: obtaining data Universiteitstraat 4, 9000 Gent

Issue: effective sanctions Belgium: case: Jury for Ethical Practices No remarks Change content or stop putting a specific advertisement out there Precautionary remarks not in form of censorship but ‘suggestions’ Right to appeal Universiteitstraat 4, 9000 Gent

Cases: Question: “Do sanctions act as deterrent?” Suspension during proceedings (e.g. France) Avoid “after the facts”  especially in case of digital marketing Fines (e.g. Poland, France)? Belgium: no fines Amount? Universiteitstraat 4, 9000 Gent

Thank you for your attention Contact details: Marieke Vlaemynck Universiteitstraat 4 9000 Ghent Marieke.Vlaemynck@ugent.be Universiteitstraat 4, 9000 Gent