Should alcohol ads be banned from sport, as mooted in Australia? D&AD's Tim Lindsay presents the case against

This defence broke apart on the rock of tobacco advertising. Legal or not, society decided that the healthy medium of sport should not be used to promote products that were indisputably injurious to health, consumed in moderation or not. This led eventually to a general ban in most developed countries, followed by further anti-smoking legislation. By and large the majority of advertising agencies, populated as they are in the main by concerned and ethical people, agreed.

Those of you who have been on a negotiation course will be familiar with the concept of ‘elk-steaking’. It’s a metaphor – don’t throw chunks of elk off the back of the sledge in the belief that this will satisfy the wolf pack chasing you. It won’t. The wolves want the whole elk. Tobacco looks like an unavoidable elk-steak.

Many other ad categories are now under attack, the argument being generally that corporate profit-seeking and persuasive marketing are causing a tsunami of health and other problems resulting in huge and unnecessary burdens on health services and taxpayers. Fast and processed food, sugary drinks, alcohol are all fingered. And of course it won’t stop there. Energy, automotive, lending and gaming are all in line.

What are the strengths of the anti-argument? Well no one argues that ignorance and poverty can lead to bad diet and subsequent bad health. Sugar is the new fat. Alcohol consumption can certainly be linked to health and social problems, as well as a range of other ills. And advertising is about creating desire for the industry’s products with attendant increases in usage and per capita consumption. So should the link between sport and alcohol be broken, as is currently being proposed in Australia?

Here’s another generalized line of defence. Our industry is already enormously regulated – content, target audiences, day part, claims, comparisons – all these and much more are either covered by legislation or – in our enviable UK system – rigourously self-policed. There’s very little scope for falsehood or hucksterism and when something does slip through the net it’s jumped on quickly, to the general approval of the industry. Advertising has to be very sneaky if it wants to be anything other than ‘legal, decent, honest and truthful’.

So should the connection between sport and alcohol be severed in the interests of the Aussie viewing population. Is their well-being threatened by a bit of shirt sponsorship and beer advertising? Here are some reasons why it might not be a good idea.

Moderate consumption of alcohol, unlike tobacco, is not known to carry with it serious health risks. Most people consume moderately most of the time.

These people – or some of them at least – enjoy watching sport. While (apparently but a little surprisingly) 67 per cent of Australians favour a separation of sport and alcohol, they may not also favour higher match day, TV subscription and even drinks prices – all of which will occur as a consequence of the withdrawal of funds from sport and audiences from brands. Professional sport is to a large extent funded by TV rights and brand sponsorship.

Professional sport is entertainment. As fans we watch it for the thrills, spills, skills and spectacle. Separating alcohol sponsorship, promotion and advertising from the equivalent of Roman circuses seems, how shall I put this? A bit po-faced? A little Puritan? A bit nannyish?

This may sound a bit pretentious, but there’s a cultural loss inherent in this ban. Traditionally alcohol advertising, perhaps especially beer, has produced some of the finest campaigns and executions ever. We all have our favourites, but Stella Artois ‘Last Orders’ is in my top three favourite ads of all time. Agencies are hard pressed financially and in terms of opportunities to create memorable work. This ban would increase those pressures.

I’m not qualified to comment on the issues caused by excessive alcohol use in Australia or anywhere else; or indeed to delve into the financial and other consequences of another source of funds for sport - and advertising agencies - being closed down. The argument I would make however is that a lot of these debates are driven by people with an anti-advertising agenda, citing evidence taken from the edge of reason – the tiny percentage of people who consume otherwise non-harmful products in harmful quantities. Those people pay a price. It seems scarcely fair that the rest of us have to as well.