Australia needs to better regulate alcohol marketing in films

Abstract

Due to the introduction and increasing popularity of mobile devices and streaming services (free and subscription), people are watching more films than ever before. For example, over half of survey respondents agreed that they would be more likely to consume television via streaming services than traditional television, and many Australians are now subscribed to multiple streaming services [1]. These streaming services have changed how we watch films, as we now have millions of minutes at our fingertips. On Netflix alone, over 5000+ titles are available to choose from; this would take a person over 4 years of continuous viewing to watch it all [2, 3].

The increase in film viewing also means that people see more alcohol than ever before. Evidence indicates that streaming services contain more alcohol imagery (including incidental portrayal of alcoholic beverages and alcohol consumption as well as alcohol marketing in form of product placement and branding) than traditional broadcast television [4]. A study of the top 100 US box office movies from 1996 to 2009 found that alcohol brand appearances trended upwards and 62.8% of movies rated for youth audiences included a brand appearance [5].

Many studies, including literature reviews [6-9], have demonstrated the impact of exposure to alcohol and alcohol marketing in the media, on the initiation and progression of alcohol use and risky drinking. These links have been replicated across populations and study designs and types of media (e.g., social media, music) [10, 11]. This led Sargent and Babor [9] to the conclusion that there is a causal association between alcohol marketing and drinking (particularly drinking onset and binge drinking) among youth. Unfortunately, Australia's current regulation is ill-suited to protect viewers, especially minors, from alcohol brands and marketing in films [12].

Alcohol marketing in films is mainly ‘self-regulated’ in Australia under the Alcohol Beverages Advertising Code (ABAC) for Responsible Alcohol Marketing, a scheme funded and administered by the alcohol industry [13, 14]. Unfortunately, due to a fundamental conflict of interest, such industry self-regulation of alcohol marketing tends to be extremely ineffective in controlling marketing and preventing exposure. The ABAC Responsible Alcohol Marketing Code governs ‘marketing communications’ in all media and does cover product placement in films, but not generic references to alcohol or unbranded imagery. The ABAC Code also only governs the conduct of members of the ABAC Scheme, which includes a limited group of alcohol producers and retailers in Australia. This is a major problem with the Scheme: the ABAC Code does not apply to producers who are not members of the Scheme; filmmakers who include references to alcohol in films; or broadcasters or streaming services.

The ABAC Code purports to create responsibility for preventing underage exposure to alcohol marketing. It prohibits alcohol marketing that has ‘strong or evident appeal to minors’. It also restricts marketing in programs or content that is ‘primarily aimed at’ minors or where less than 75% of the audience is adult [13]. Provisions such as these probably should have some bite in relation to alcohol imagery in child-oriented films. But industry often argues around these types of rules by saying that its content is not primarily aimed at minors but is for general adult and child audiences [15].

The ABAC code also holds that marketing communications should not demonstrate that alcohol consumption contributes to or causes personal, sexual, financial, or other forms of status success [16]. This rule has been interpreted very restrictively, with breaches only found where there is a manifest causal connection between the consumption of alcohol and a form of success. A scene in a movie showing people at a bar, drinking branded beers, and laughing with friends would not breach the rule because the drinking of the beers would be considered incidental, and not a contributor to, the ‘social success’ seen in the scene. The ABAC Adjudication Panel has stated that ‘the [ABAC] Code assumes that its [i.e., alcohol] use is normal …’ [17] and has been clear that ‘[t]here is no requirement that alcohol be marketed in a “balanced” manner, i.e., that negative consequences from misuse be referenced as well as brand attributes’ [18]. By disproportionally presenting alcohol use as a positive, normative behaviour, the industry is failing to convey the long-term, risk-associated consequences for alcohol use [19].

The other major issue with the ABAC code is that there is no capacity for proactive monitoring of alcohol marketing. The ABAC scheme is complaints-based so unless viewers bring concerns to the scheme, there is no action taken against offending marketing. There are also no sanctions for alcohol industry actors who offend the ABAC code [9, 20].

Taken together, there are inadequate controls in place to protect against the alcohol industry's marketing of alcohol products as part of the content of films. Industry self-regulatory schemes, such as the ABAC code, bind a very limited number of alcohol producers and retailers. Such schemes also lack exacting rules and independent monitoring and enforcement mechanisms that are necessary to ensure protections against marketing-related alcohol content in films.

One good model for improving Australia's regulation of alcohol marketing in films can be found in the Commonwealth Government's legislation to control tobacco marketing. The model does not involve a ban on tobacco imagery in films per se, which could be perceived as unduly impeding freedom of expression [21]. Rather, the Australian model, which was first introduced in 1992 and was recently updated with the passage of the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act 2023 (Cth) [22], now restricts all publishing (through any means of communication) of ‘tobacco advertisements’ and ‘tobacco sponsorships’, with this approach serving to curtail much branded tobacco advertising in films seen in Australia. Smoking is still seen in films screened in Australia because the law makes some allowance for ‘artistic works’.

Although the tobacco model would not, if adapted to alcohol, eliminate all alcohol imagery from films, it would be a desirable step to limit the appearance of a very significant amount of branded alcohol content in films broadcast or streamed in Australia and close the self-regulatory loopholes of the ABAC code. The recent strengthening of the legislative restrictions on tobacco advertisements and tobacco sponsorships—and the extension of some of these restrictions to e-cigarettes—demonstrates that it is possible to design and implement legislation to control harmful product advertising. Such reforms for alcohol are well overdue, but unfortunately there has been—and continues to be—little appetite for such changes among the political parties in Australia.

Each author certifies that their contribution meets the standard of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.