Consultation on Alcohol Advertising on Television
Mr Andy Wilson
Content and Standards
OFCOM
Riverside House
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London SE1 9HA
24 September 2004
Dear Mr Wilson
Consultation on Alcohol Advertising on Television
We welcome the opportunity to respond to your above consultation on behalf of our members who together constitute over 90% of music publishers in the UK.
Under-age drinking and alcohol abuse by young people is unquestionably a matter of great concern to society today and we fully endorse the introduction of measures which will address this problem effectively. It follows that any toughening of the existing rules on advertising alcohol which will ameliorate the problem is to be welcomed. Some obvious measures which we trust OFCOM is considering would include, for example, restrictions on the scheduling of such advertisements to after 9 pm and requirements to have on screen warnings that alcohol is not suitable for people under 18 to the extent that these provisions do not already apply.
However, the extent to which the rules are toughened at the cost of other stakeholders should be proportionate to the actual impact that the rules will have on the problem at hand, particularly in the light of the paper's acknowledgment that peer pressure and the family environment are far more significant influencing factors than advertising alcoholic products.
Our comments on the Consultation Paper are limited to the proposed additional rules covering "youth appeal" and in particular the proposal to preclude "music or styles of music which are likely to be popular with children and teenagers" (Rule 11.8.2(1) and note (d) and Question 10 in the Consultation Paper) as this is the aspect on which our members are best qualified to comment.
We believe that whilst the over-arching direction to advertisers that advertisements "must not appeal particularly to people under 18" could be strengthened in the manner set out in the body of the draft Rule 11.8.2(1), we do not believe that precluding music with "youth appeal" from advertisements for alcoholic products will necessarily have any effect on the drinking patterns of children and young teenagers. At best music can only make a commercial more memorable; it does not determine the message. It is the personality, the script and the visuals which project the message of the commercial and which are most likely to influence viewers. Furthermore, the Consultation Paper acknowledges that appeal does not necessarily equate to influence. So even where the music used might appeal to young people, they will not necessarily be influenced by the commercial.
Notwithstanding the tenuous connection between the music used and the influence of the commercial, the application of such a provision gives rise to the following very practical considerations:
The appeal of music is a very personal and subjective matter. How does one decide that a particular song appeals to someone under 18? What objective criteria are to be applied and who is qualified to decide the issue? It is worth pointing out that experience to date in making any kind of distinction along these lines has proved that it is almost impossible to do. It has challenged those within the music industry itself. It has also resulted in some curious decisions by external regulators such as RTE in Ireland where similar rules apply.
Fashions in and attitudes to music change constantly and so to try and legislate for the appropriateness or otherwise of a piece of music in this context is unworkable.
There is a danger that the rule could inadvertently have a more far reaching effect than is expected and apply to a much broader range of music than might be intended. Music which may be aimed at an older audience may well also appeal to younger people too. Music spans the generations and it is not always possible to isolate music that appeals to a particular age group, other than possibly pre-school children.
Any attempt to ring-fence certain music as suggested is more likely to encourage an unhealthy sport in trying to get round the rules by placing music which actually does appeal to young people but which somehow slips through the regulatory net, so defeating the objective.
Given that the Government is not proposing to ban the advertising of alcohol products but rather is willing to allow it to continue subject to certain constraints, we suggest that advertisers and those who provide music for commercials should have the freedom to make an appropriate and responsible music selection within those limitations. It is then for OFCOM to decide whether the commercial as a whole satisfies the main objective of not appealing to young people.
It should be understood that the composers and songwriters (writers) signed to music publishers take a very keen interest in how their music is used and in the products with which it is to be associated. They generally retain ultimate control over the licensing of their music into commercials and it is quite common for a writer to refuse to allow any use of his or her music to be associated with products or messages they consider to be offensive. Alcohol is one of the products most commonly objected to.
In conclusion we would urge that it is neither appropriate nor proportionate to preclude "music, or styles of music, which are likely to be popular with children and teenagers" from television advertisements for alcohol and that draft Note (d) to Rule 11.8.2(1) should therefore be deleted.
Yours sincerely
SARAH FAULDER