Alcohol Sponsorship

Ispeakthetruth

There is currently a move, certainly being pushed by Roisin Shorthall, to stop alcohol sponsoring sporting events. In this country we have some of the most stringent laws and the prices we pay in both licensed premises, offlicenses and supermarkets are far higher than countries such as Germany, France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal (to name but a few) also the aforementioned do have a much broader choice of alcoholic beverages and even sell spirits in petrol stations. I just don't understand it, with all our laws and our this that and the other we still have the biggest problems with the abuse of alcohol. If sponsorship is taken from sporting events, what effect will it have only detriment to sporting competitions?

Nodin

Ring added that the evidence from the State of the Nation's Children report
showed that proportion of young people not drinking before the age of 18 was
growing, despite the era of saturation TV coverage of events sponsored by drinks companies. The reverse had been the experience in France where drinks sponsorship was banned.

http://www.rte.ie/sport/other-sport/2013/0327/378700-alcohol-sponsorship-crucial-claims-sports-chiefs/

Rather bizarre notion, given the above. It has the reek of 'Look = We're Doing Something' to it.

Cody Pomeray

^^That's correlative. That could mean anything.

Very balanced study on the link here from the Oxford Journal Alcohol & Alcoholism.

http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/content/45/5/470.full.pdf

From the abstract:

Results: At follow-up, logistic regression demonstrated that, after controlling for confounding variables, involvement with alcohol marketing at baseline was predictive of both uptake of drinking and increased frequency of drinking. Awareness of marketing at baseline was also associated with an increased frequency of drinking at follow-up.

Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate an association between involvement with, and awareness of, alcohol marketing and drinking uptake or increased drinking frequency, and we consider whether the current regulatory environment affords youth sufficient protection from alcohol marketing.

I can't believe someone paid money for that study.

It basically says "marketing works".

hatrickpatrick

God almighty I despise Roisin Shorthall with a firey passion words can't describe.
This is never going to work. I mean for example, what are you going to do about the Heineken Cup exactly? Ban it from being shown in Ireland? Try to pixelate out all the Heino logos without disrupting coverage of the rugby matches? Ban commentators from referring to it as such?
This is bollocks. Deal with problem drinkers by actually punishing anti social behavior instead of throwing out suspended sentences for people who misbehave while pissed. The usual Irish solution of a blanket ban or a blanket policy of price rises will do f*ck all except piss everyone off.

Ispeakthetruth

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

God almighty I despise Roisin Shorthall with a firey passion words can't describe.
This is never going to work. I mean for example, what are you going to do about the Heineken Cup exactly? Ban it from being shown in Ireland? Try to pixelate out all the Heino logos without disrupting coverage of the rugby matches? Ban commentators from referring to it as such?
This is bollocks. Deal with problem drinkers by actually punishing anti social behavior instead of throwing out suspended sentences for people who misbehave while pissed. The usual Irish solution of a blanket ban or a blanket policy of price rises will do f*ck all except piss everyone off.

I concur. I also agree that Roisin Shorthall can only be described with sentiments leading to a ban from boards.ie

Fratton Fred

IIRC, banning tobacco sponsorship would mean that snooker and F1 were certain to go bust.

Pete_Cavan

Sports events are generally social occasions which I enjoy with friends or family. As with many other people, I often enjoy a few drinks at social occasions. In relation to sport, this can take the form of meeting in the pub before/after attending the match, watching the match in a pub or buying a few beers to drink while watching the match in a house. Sponsorship has nothing to do with it. The thing which often prevents me from drinking before/during/after a match is when I am playing sport myself the next day (the thought of letting your team mates down is one of the most effective ways to stop people from drinking I have ever seen). Removing alcohol sponsorship will only reduce the funding available to sporting organisations to provide the facilities etc. to allow people to play these sports. Even if other companies come in to replace, the competition and therefore sponsorship money is reduced.

Does alcohol sponsorship of sporting events influence my choice of drink? Possibly, I drink what I like the taste of but I do not claim to be totally immune to the effects of advertising.
Does alcohol sponsorship of sporting events influence my choice to drink? Absolutely not.

I dont really have an issue with minimum prices for alcohol tbh but I think this proposal is ridiculous.

p1akuw47h5r3it

I also think the proposals are nonsense. Alcohol advertising does not make you start drinking, it simply makes you aware of one brand over another.

But what i really don't understand is why cultural and arts events are excluded. All that will happen is Alcohol companies will advertise at cultural events, arts events or buy naming rights to concerts/festivals. We'll be seeing Rihanna playing in the 02 in association with a host of alcohol companies. People, especially young people and teenagers who watch sporting events are more than likely to play those sports or have an interest in fitness. The same can't be said for concert goers or cultural enthusiasts imo.

The proposals are a waste of time. I, like others, also have serious amount disdain for Shorthall.

oscarBravo

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Alcohol advertising does not make you start drinking...

Interestingly, that seems not to be the case according to the health policy analyst that pops up on Drivetime on a regular basis.

Manach

I enjoy watching rugby, especially the Heiniken Cup, but as a non-drinker it never cross my mind to take up the habit.
Given that traditionally Sport has only had minimum State oversight this seems to be more creeping oversight of non-State bodies (offhand base on Law and Sport book) - especially as if this stream of sponsorship is checked then the State becomes the paymaster. A paymaster which studies have shown that the Minister of Sport (from various governments) constituency always gets more funding per capitia than other areas.

Cookie_Monster

Fratton Fred wrote: »

IIRC, banning tobacco sponsorship would mean that snooker and F1 were certain to go bust.

F1 now a days is all about cost control and blah blah blah, they need to bring back ciggie sponsoring so there can be outrageous levels of funding again and decent development and removal of engine and part multi race life spans.

p1akuw47h5r3it

oscarBravo wrote: »

Interestingly, that seems not to be the case according to the health policy analyst that pops up on Drivetime on a regular basis.

And?

How many people started drinking because they saw an ad for it on tv? Did you?

oscarBravo

DanDan6592 wrote: »

How many people started drinking because they saw an ad for it on tv?

I don't know. Sara Burke (I couldn't think of her name earlier) described a detailed study that showed a correlation between increased exposure to alcohol advertising and an increased likelihood of starting drinking (among those who didn't drink) or increasing consumption (among those who did).

I'll try to find the study she was citing, but in the meantime, you can have a look at this one:

Conclusion
data from prospective cohort studies suggest there is an association between exposure to alcohol advertising or promotional activity and subsequent alcohol consumption in young people.

JustinDee

Explain how a country with comparatively fewer regulations on alcohol sponsorship (Ireland) experiences lower consumption in alcohol (as per CSO stats on www.cso.ie) while a country like Norway with price-control, govt monopoly on general sale and no advertising or sponsorship for alcoholic brands experiences the opposite, is fighting a losing battle against smuggling and cross-border shopping of alcohol products and sees increased consumption of alcohol amongst its population.

oscarBravo

JustinDee wrote: »

Explain how a country with comparatively fewer regulations on alcohol sponsorship (Ireland) experiences lower consumption in alcohol (as per CSO stats on www.cso.ie) while a country like Norway with price-control, govt monopoly on general sale and no advertising or sponsorship for alcoholic brands experiences the opposite, is fighting a losing battle against smuggling and cross-border shopping of alcohol products and sees increased consumption of alcohol amongst its population.

Is that intended as a rebuttal of the report I linked?

JustinDee

Don't answer if you don't want to. Maybe somebody else will. I'm interested in what can be said about it.

oscarBravo

JustinDee wrote: »

Don't answer if you don't want to.

Answer what?

Can you outline the methodology you used to compare Ireland with Norway, controlling for factors other than alcohol advertising? Or - again - are you attempting to offer a cherry-picked example as a rebuttal of a scientific study?

We all know smokers who have lived to their nineties; that doesn't mean smoking doesn't reduce life expectancy.

My argument was with the assertion that "alcohol advertising doesn't make you start drinking". I mentioned a study, and linked to another, that indicate that alcohol advertising is indeed a factor in whether people start drinking. So far all I'm seeing in response is anecdotes about elderly smokers.

BluntGuy

DanDan6592 wrote: »

How many people started drinking because they saw an ad for it on tv? Did you?

This is a bit of a weak line of argument. How many times have you consciously gone out and bought or done anything, just because you saw it on TV? Probably very little, if at all.

hatrickpatrick wrote:

Deal with problem drinkers by actually punishing anti social behavior instead of throwing out suspended sentences for people who misbehave while pissed.

Anti-social behaviour is only one of the problems caused by excessive drinking. Many, if not most people who excessively drink do not engage in anti-social behaviour. In my experience, I think people have a skewed idea of what an "excessive" amount to drink is, and studies and polls seem back this up again and again. It seems to me there is a broad recognition of our society's alcohol problem, but a lack of realisation that many of us are contributing to the problem ourselves. We see our own drinking as normal.

Your suggestion also seems to be a rather reactive measure, and while it's not an either/or, surely it's better to stop people drinking excessively in the first instance?

JustinDee

oscarBravo wrote: »

Answer what?

Can you outline the methodology you used to compare Ireland with Norway, controlling for factors other than alcohol advertising? Or - again - are you attempting to offer a cherry-picked example as a rebuttal of a scientific study?

We all know smokers who have lived to their nineties; that doesn't mean smoking doesn't reduce life expectancy.

My argument was with the assertion that "alcohol advertising doesn't make you start drinking". I mentioned a study, and linked to another, that indicate that alcohol advertising is indeed a factor in whether people start drinking. So far all I'm seeing in response is anecdotes about elderly smokers.

There's nothing anecdotal about such a comparison. Anecdotal is slipping a "we all know smokers who have lived til very old" etc into the conversation.

The CSO's own statistics show an decrease in alcohol consumption in the Republic of Ireland, since 2000 in particular.
In Norway, the institute of public health (Folkhelseinstittutet), a government funded health body, is where to start as well as their Ministry of Health headed by Jonas Gahr Stoere, who have launched a second national action plan on alcohol and drug abuse in the past year which looks further into the effect of their rising alcohol consumption on employment and industry (sick days increasing particularly on Mondays and Fridays, black market alcohol, smuggling of alcohol), mental health and general health. The WHO report on Norway's situation can be found on www.who.int. Another study on alcohol problems in family life in Norway can be found here.

Don't forget about Norway's Nordic neighbour, Finland or their Scandinavian neighbours, Sweden and Denmark. Why the increases despite what is in place?
How does a country with such stringent policies on availability, cost and promotion of alcohol-related products see a rise in consumption each year?

oscarBravo

JustinDee wrote: »

Why the increases despite what is in place?

Are you going to tell us why, or keep asking a rhetorical question? Are you claiming that there's an inverse correlation between alcohol advertising and alcohol consumption, or are you continuing to use anecdotal evidence to attempt to refute a scientific study?

How does a country with such stringent policies on availability, cost and promotion of alcohol-related products see a rise in consumption each year?

I don't know. How?

JustinDee

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you going to tell us why, or keep asking a rhetorical question? Are you claiming that there's an inverse correlation between alcohol advertising and alcohol consumption, or are you continuing to use anecdotal evidence to attempt to refute a scientific study?

I didn't give you anything anecdotal. I asked you a question as to why stringent policies fail in a country, namely Norway. The govt programme I mentioned attempts to explain a number of causes of increasing alcohol consumption.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't know. How?

Precisely. You don't know, and judging by what you post are not willing to look at anything put to you that lies contrary to your stance on the matter.

Cody Pomeray

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you claiming that there's an inverse correlation between alcohol advertising and alcohol consumption

It's not necessary to believe there is an inverse correlation to oppose the ban; it is perfectly possible that there is a small correlation but no causal link.

The correlation that has been established so far is quite a small one in fairness, and the causal evidence is weak.

It strikes me as incredible that anyone could think marketing suddenly stops working in respect of alcohol advertisement, when we know it works everywhere else. But there is more to alcohol advertisement than in sports.

And anyway, the question is how much of an effect it realistically has on alcohol consumption. The alcohol and Alcoholism study suggests the link is smaller than the link between alcohol consumption as a base point, alcohol consumption by the mother, alcohol consumption by friends.

There is certainly a link, but it needs to be established that (i) it is a causal link and (ii) that this causal link is so substantial that banning alcohol advertisement would be a proportionate response.

hfallada

Advertising works. Look at tobacco. 90% of smokers start before the age of 18 and even through cigarette companies spend billions on adversting and can't get smokers to switch brands. What does that tell, that the advertising targets children to get them to smoke their brands.

Im a teenager and we had to pick our favourite ad and discuss it in 4th year English class. About 80% of students picked alcohol related ads as their favourite adverts. Meaning drink ads do affect children.

But if the government had allowed the bar/cafe style bar like in Paris. We probably wouldnt have the heavy drinking we have now

oscarBravo

JustinDee wrote: »

Precisely. You don't know, and judging by what you post are not willing to look at anything put to you that lies contrary to your stance on the matter.

I didn't express a stance on the matter. I took issue with the bald assertion that alcohol advertising doesn't encourage people to start drinking, or to drink more. That's simply not something that can be stated as a fact, because it's quite likely not true.

Now, I've linked a study done by scientists who set out to try to determine whether or not alcohol advertising has an influence on how much people drink. You've come up with some anecdotal evidence, which you have heatedly denied is anecdotal, while refusing to explain how your methodology is superior to that used by actual scientists doing actual science.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, or to whom, but asking rhetorical questions to which you don't know the answers yourself isn't proving much of anything to me.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

It's not necessary to believe there is an inverse correlation to oppose the ban; it is perfectly possible that there is a small correlation but no causal link.

The correlation that has been established so far is quite a small one in fairness, and the causal evidence is weak.

It strikes me as incredible that anyone could think marketing suddenly stops working in respect of alcohol advertisement, when we know it works everywhere else. But there is more to alcohol advertisement than in sports.

And anyway, the question is how much of an effect it realistically has on alcohol consumption. The alcohol and Alcoholism study suggests the link is smaller than the link between alcohol consumption as a base point, alcohol consumption by the mother, alcohol consumption by friends.

There is certainly a link, but it needs to be established that (i) it is a causal link and (ii) that this causal link is so substantial that banning alcohol advertisement would be a proportionate response.

Sure. All of which makes a lot more sense than baldly claiming that alcohol advertising has no impact on how much people drink, because Norway.

JustinDee

Considering the consequences on sport were investment in it to be abolished from the sector in question, it is up to those insisting on legislation and far more stringent regulation on alcohol vending, promotion and consumption to prove that these measures will work for the better.
That isn't "heated" nor were the programmes and findings I pointed out to you or mentioned "anecdotal".

RandomName2

Lynx sponsorship should be banned as it promotes substance abuse.

I find people who encroach the freedom to sell or advertise a particular product in reality want it banned outright.

BluntGuy

RandomName2 wrote: »

Lynx sponsorship should be banned as it promotes substance abuse.

Utterly disingenuous comparison, and you know that.

I find people who encroach the freedom to sell or advertise a particular product in reality want it banned outright.

Who are these people? I don't see a clamour for outright alcohol banning, yet most of us agree with restrictions on alcohol.

Cody Pomeray

BluntGuy wrote: »

Who are these people? I don't see a clamour for outright alcohol banning, yet most of us agree with restrictions on alcohol.

Does public opinion matter?

If so, public opinion is reported at 46-42 against a ban in advertising at sporting events.

RandomName2

BluntGuy wrote: »

Utterly disingenuous comparison, and you know that.

How? Aerosols are well known as being used for substance abuse. Lynx adverts advertise aerosols all the time.

What's that? They don't in any way suggest that people should use aerosols for substance abuse? Well I haven't seen many adverts for alcohol suggesting that people should becomes drunks or dangerously pissed. If you are saying that we must "protect" the public from exposure to alcohol adverts we must also protect them from other adverts which may similarly endanger them.

BluntGuy wrote: »

Who are these people? I don't see a clamour for outright alcohol banning, yet most of us agree with restrictions on alcohol.

Same sort of people who claimed that they merely wanted to protect people from second hand smoke, and we are now at the stage where you can't even see cigarettes in shops; never mind the noises being made about banning smoking in parks and on beaches. I'm not beating the drum for the tobacco industry btw, never smoked in my life; but I've noticed the creepy way that they have been attempting to get rid of smoking altogether.

I'd say Rosin Shorthall is no fan of drinking at all, and the sports sponsorship is just the first of many milestones on the road.

BluntGuy

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Does public opinion matter?

If so, public opinion is reported at 46-42 against a ban in advertising at sporting events.

I said most of us agree with restrictions on alcohol, not specifically against advertising at sporting events and presented evidence for this. However, there is no major clamour for alcohol to be banned. I was asking who the people are that are calling for an outright ban.

RandomName2 wrote: »

How? Aerosols are well known as being used for substance abuse. Lynx adverts advertise aerosols all the time.

What's that? They don't in any way suggest that people should use aerosols for substance abuse? Well I haven't seen many adverts for alcohol suggesting that people should becomes drunks or dangerously pissed. If you are saying that we must "protect" the public from exposure to alcohol adverts we must also protect them from other adverts which may similarly endanger them.

(1) Do we have an endemic solvent abuse problem? Do 58% of Lynx users engage in harmful use?

(2) There are studies, clear evidence, that have been referred to previously in this thread showing a relationship between alcohol advertising/sponsorship and increased consumption, and abuse of alcohol. Can you present such for aerosol advertisement and solvent abuse?

(3) You don't have to be a drunk or "dangerously pissed" to be abusing alcohol.

You seem to want a blanket way of looking at it, such that every product that could possibly cause harm is treated the same way. This inevitably leads to absurdity. I suggest, we look at everything individually and consider the pros and cons. Cigarettes and alcohol are incredibly dangerous products, they cause huge social and health problems, the cost of treating them to the taxpayer is enormous. Is solvent abuse costing us billions a year? Is Lynx a product, when used "normally", still carries a large number of health risks? Is misuse of Lynx arguably almost inherent to our culture? Associated with a good time, with socialising? I'm sorry but they're not remotely comparable.

Same sort of people who claimed that they merely wanted to protect people from second hand smoke, and we are now at the stage where you can't even see cigarettes in shops; never mind the noises being made about banning smoking in parks and on beaches. I'm not beating the drum for the tobacco industry btw, never smoked in my life; but I've noticed the creepy way that they have been attempting to get rid of smoking altogether.

I don't really see what's so bad about trying to get rid of smoking altogether. Not that anything close to a full-scale ban is on the table. Such a ban would be unlikely to pick up much traction.

I'd say Rosin Shorthall is no fan of drinking at all, and the sports sponsorship is just the first of many milestones on the road.

There's nothing to suggest a full-scale ban is on the table or will be any time soon.

Cody Pomeray

BluntGuy wrote: »

I said most of us agree with restrictions on alcohol, not specifically against advertising at sporting events

I know, but I wasn't accusing you of having commented on sporting events.

You brought up public opinion.
This indicates public opinion carries some weight in your mind.
Public opinion is 46-42 against banning alcohol advertising in sport.

I don't see how you can attempt to raise public opinion in one line of argument, and dismiss it in the next; to do so is incoherent.