Ban ads? Advertising's critics need to provide evidence instead of rhetoric

Sadly, in lieu of evidence-based arguments, we are fed lofty rhetoric masquerading as fact. What’s worse is these are often incorrect assumptions. At its simplest, for example, they say that “ads are the root cause of [insert public health issue of choice] and must be banned”.

Worryingly, these views are often espoused by medical practitioners, who I’d prefer to follow the evidence. I can see why. It's far easier to restrict the actions of advertisers then actually do something meaningful that might mean looking closer to home!

Take the latest clarion call from doctors, this time the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, no less, pushing for pre-watershed bans on TV ads for foods high in saturated fats, sugar and salt. While its ‘Annual Weigh In’ includes some sensible solutions to the UK’s worsening obesity epidemic, involving education, access to nutrition and exercise, it still can’t resist banging the “if-in-doubt-ban-ads” drum. Evidence be damned. Perhaps it should consider the reasons why it finds that “no progress [has been] made despite further calls for this by Action on Junk Food Marketing”?

Phalanxes of medical professionals seem quite prepared to abdicate their own responsibilities and sign up to campaigns calling for ad prohibitions to help the UK reduce its expanding waistline, or squeeze the cork back in the collective bottle of alcohol abuse. We have even heard experts conflate the ill-effects of sugar with those of tobacco. But a one-size-fits-all solution cannot be applied to all serious, public health issues.

On the now-retired Daybreak sofa, I recently stated that there is no ‘junk food’, only ‘junk diets’, a point I made in response to the rationale behind the Action on Junk Food Marketing coalition’s calls to ban HFSS ads before the watershed. A chocolate bar is not inherently unhealthy. Neither is a packet of crisps or a can of fizzy drink. But if that’s all one eats, then of course there will be a point where it poses a health problem. The same would also be true of carrots, cheese or soya beans. Balance is the key.

Similarly, alcohol is not inherently ‘bad’, if consumed in moderation and by adults. But just as there will be some that say the ad rules don’t go far enough, there are others who think our rules too Draconian. The recent and well-publicised flak that the Portman Group caught for doing its job shows how hard it is to get the balance right. But it also demonstrates that self-regulation has teeth, that it takes its role to promote responsible drinking seriously and isn’t afraid to ruffle feathers.

In the same way great care is taken to protect children, ads must also comply with strict rules. But banning alcohol ads, for example, is not the silver bullet campaigners espouse. If only it was! Look at France or Norway where an absence of alcohol advertising has not prevented an increase in drinking; or Italy where consumption has fallen despite abundant alcohol ads. No, like obesity, alcohol abuse is affected by various deeply entrenched socio-economic, behavioral issues that go deeper than the ads we may see on telly or our tablets.

Some ad critics I have faced on radio and TV argue that if ads bear no impact on our food and drink consumption then why do advertisers bother with them? My rejoinder is that ads do work, but not in the way you assume advertisers want them to. For example, does an alcoholic drinks manufacturer want to waste money targeting ads at a demographic too young to legally purchase its product? No. It wants to claim its share of an increasingly competitive market, which, in our society, does not include children.

It’s the same thing with HFSS products. One only has to look at the huge leaps forward in reducing calorie content advertisers have made. For these forward-thinking companies, doing anything less is simply bad business.

Advertising does have immense power, of course. Look at the powerful campaigns in the 80s and 90s that helped the government and NGOs punch through the public consciousness together to raise awareness of the serious ill-health associated with smoking and, before that, HIV. But anti-advertisers need to be careful not to disrespect the progress that advertisers have made in making the strict UK self-regulatory system the best in Europe.

Spurious attacks will not engender collaboration, which is a shame because together we could achieve so much more.