Woolley Marketing: To ban or not to ban advertising?

If Elon Musk’s mantra of allowing free speech were to become real, you could advertise anything, anytime, and anywhere.

But the Peter Parker (aka Spiderman) principle says that with great power comes great responsibility. Therefore, we have rules and regulations for advertising. Governments impose some, and some are self-regulated. But with increasing groups requesting—or in many cases demanding—advertising bans on everything from alcohol or gambling to sugary soda drinks, what is the real purpose of banning advertising?

The most famous examples of advertising bans are tobacco and nicotine. Medical research established the link between tobacco smoking and death in the 1960s, with the World Health Organisation (WHO) reporting that last year, eight million people were killed by tobacco, with 80% of smokers living in low and middle-income countries.

Australia is seen as a leading example of acting on tobacco-related illnesses, with active smokers reduced by more than 60% in the last 30 years and a corresponding decrease in smoking-related illness and death. But we should remember this result was not due to an advertising ban alone.

The government also legislated to ban sponsorship, added a significant tax burden, restricted distribution, removed displays at points of sale, and made drastic changes to the packaging to remove all branding and add health warnings, as well as undertaking extensive public advertising campaigns to change societal perceptions of smoking.

The issue with tobacco/nicotine is that it is a physically addictive drug, like opioids and other controlled substances, which are heavily regulated and typically banned from advertising and promotion.

Now there are proposals to further ban the advertising of sugary drinks, sodas, or soft drinks. The basis of this is a controversial article in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, which claims that sugar may be as addictive as cocaine and a gateway to alcohol and other addictive substances.
 

 

The UK introduced a ‘sugar tax’ in 2018, with research showing that nearly half of manufacturers reformulated their products (lowered the sugar level) to avoid the tax. And in 2019, Singapore became the first country to introduce an advertising ban on sugary drinks. However, unlike the UK, Philippines, and Thailand, they have not introduced a sugar tax. Nevertheless, they have introduced labelling laws to communicate the sugar content on packaging and at points of sale. The reported impact is a drop in the sugar levels of the products, and again, manufacturers reformulated the products to get past the ban.

But it is not just sugar and nicotine to which humans can be addicted. There are three types of addiction medically categorised: physical (nicotine, alcohol, drugs), behavioural (food, gambling, sex, shopping), and impulse control (kleptomania, pyromania).

Certainly, physical and behavioural addictions are areas attracting the medical community, and therefore government interest in addressing these issues. We have seen bans and restrictions placed on advertising for everything from alcohol and gambling to adult products and dating apps and services somewhere in the world.

But if there is community consensus on addressing these issues, it is proven that a multi-action approach, such as we have seen with tobacco and nicotine, is infinitely more effective than an advertising ban alone.

While banning advertising and promotion can be highly visible, addressing all four Ps of marketing, including pricing (via taxes), placement (via distribution), and the product itself (regulating changes in product formulation to minimise harm), is infinitely more effective.

This is even more true today, when 70% of global media spending is on digital advertising and promotion. Unlike traditional media channels such as broadcast television, radio, out-of-home, and print media, digital channels are becoming much harder to regulate and control.

Also, in the digital era, governments of all stripes may increasingly struggle to enforce advertising bans, but that doesn’t mean they should abandon the effort to protect public health and safety.

Instead of relying solely on restrictive measures, it might be time to rethink our reflexive instinct to ban the advertising of products we see as causing harm. What if we incentivise healthier choices and promote transparency instead?

Or, more radical still, what if we leverage the power of digital technology to reach consumers with messages that encourage wellbeing and not just consumption?

 

---

Woolley Marketing is a monthly column for Campaign Asia-Pacific, penned by Darren Woolley, the founder and global CEO of Trinity P3. The illustration accompanying this piece is by Dennis Flad, a Zurich-based marketing and advertising veteran.