Blogs

Editor's Blog

MT editor Matthew Gwyther's take on the burning business issues of the day.

Editor's blog: Putting the squeeze on the booze industry   

I’ve been predicting for ages now that booze will replace tobacco as Public Health Enemy Number One – the drinks industry needs to ready itself for a sustained assault in the decade to come. The latest salvo came yesterday, with a call from the British Medical Association for a complete ban on all advertising and marketing of alcohol. The doctors are claiming that alcohol-related damage is especially prevalent among the binge-drinking young and that young people are being ‘thoroughly groomed into a behaviour which is extremely damaging to their health’. (Note the choice of verb which equates booze with predatory paedophiles.) 

As you or I sit down of an evening for a quiet glass or two of Fleurie once the kids have gone to bed, we may feel this assault on our freedom to enjoy a drink is unacceptable. We all know the doctors are unlikely to be satisfied with a ban on marketing, if they were to achieve it. The Doctor State would be even more draconian than the Nanny one. Their ultimate goal is probably prohibition, which would make life a lot less fun.

The problem is the undeniable force of the BMA’s stats: that alcohol-related damage costs employers in England up to £7.3bn, crime and disorder another £7.3bn and healthcare up to £2.8bn. Aside from the costs to the taxpayer of clearing up the mess and paying for liver-transplants, I’d say there’s also a growing revulsion about the anti-social effects of alcohol. The New Age of Austerity may well give them some political traction.

Northern European drinkers just cannot get the idea out of their heads that when beginning an evening with a couple of units, the endpoint of the process has to be to get legless via 23 units more. And it’s not just those teetotallers who have been unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of alcohol-related nastiness that are fed up with the effects of booze madness on everyone else.

I thought that Mayor Boris’s idea, for example, to ban boozing on the tube was a good one. Travelling on the underground is a vile enough experience without some moron wrestling with his demons and spraying his Red Stripe all over you. And as much as I sympathise with the alcoholic derelicts in the local park who piss everywhere and scare the kids, I wouldn’t mind seeing them be forced to consume their Tennants Super somewhere else. I was naïve enough to walk into the convenience store that serves them once and politely suggest that at the end of the day they go round the park benches clearing up the discarded cans. They looked at me as if I’d just urinated all over their floor.

So a few new ideas from the drinks industry, with its £800m a year marketing budget, would not go amiss. They badly need to go beyond paying their annual sub to the Portman Group and trotting out the old chestnut that advertising only shifts brand loyalty. Because if they don’t show willing, they are going to regret it. The doctor’s tourniquet is tightening.


In today's bulletin:

Pick-up in job market adds to recovery hopes
McLaren gambles by branching out into road cars
Dresdner traders demand £30m in bonuses
Editor's blog: Putting the squeeze on the booze industry
Late payers get creative with the truth

Published Sep 09 2009, 12:34 PM by matthew gwyther

All Comments

Tom Wright September 10, 2009
One wonders immediately how the BMA is funded. And whether there are links back to the state, the same sort of links that make many suspicious the charity commission's piling in against the independent schools sector was related to its funding. That's probably paranoia. But I can't help thinking that the government are rubbing their hands with glee as the case for large tax rises on booze gathers pace. Having first liberalised opening times, then killed the pub trade with tax, and so forced us all from the pub to the shop (where drink is cheaper, no-one calls 'time' and the underaged generally find it easier to get served) policy history is at best suspect. As for the maths, its ludicrous. Nowhere are the positives listed - the boost in productivity that comes from celebrating success (or drowning sorrows) at the office party, or the team building that happens over a few (too many) drinks, or the differences that our ironed out outside office hours with a few glasses of wine or a couple of pints. The cost to the state is a myth. Heavy drinkers, just like smokers, as the evidence proves, die younger and save the state billions in care and pensions costs overall, whilst contributing gazillions of pounds in extra tax.
J Potter September 10, 2009
The test for the booze industry is how they tackle the problem of excessive consumption before the government decides too. Penalise the social drinker and the industry collapses; but stop the binge drinker and you protect your industry whilst still making a reasonable profit. The tactics you employ will determine who wins the fight...
 
 

Latest jobs

  • No jobs available at the moment