Anti-alcohol lobby must up its game

The public outcry over celebrities posting their photos online flaunting beer brands should instruct the authorities to stop playing cat and mouse with alcohol advertisers. 

Stymied by restrictions among the mainstream media channels, the marketers are now using more indirect means – and saving a bundle. Costly TV ads, radio spots and billboards are no longer required when all they need is a photo shared on the social networks or a casual mention by a show-business star with millions of fans. 

Those seeking to halt the promotion of alcohol must now tread the thin line between personal freedom of speech and public behaviour. Like taxation, current curbs on advertising appear to be inadequate to staunch the public’s thirst for booze.

The more indirect advertising that’s become prevalent in recent years can in fact seem overwhelming at times. Despite a virtually comprehensive ban in the mainstream media, there are other ways to promote a brand, and they’re on view every day. They take the form of event sponsorships, strategic “product placement” in films and photos and tie-in advertising. The most recent affront to the anti-alcohol lobby took the form of photos posted on Instagram by actor Pakorn “Dome” Lam and six other celebrities, all holding bottles of beer. 

Anti-drinking groups want these popular stars penalised for contravening Section 32 of the Alcohol Control Act, which prohibits the advertising of booze, including the display of brand names or logos. 

Others argue that the law applies only to the mainstream media, not the social media. The distinction might seem easily resoluble, except that there is indeed a tricky grey area, since text and images uploaded to Instagram and other platforms could be considered personal comment and thus a matter of freedom of speech. 

It’s been suggested that the celebrities should change their network privacy settings to keep their comments out of sight of the general public. This hardly seems practical, however, given the stars’ reliance on massive online followings, and nothing could stop them from accepting every fan as a “friend”, granting full access to their thoughts and their beer photos. And who is to say, anyway, whether a celebrity is actually endorsing the alcohol in the picture (or alcohol use in general), or merely sharing a moment from his envied lifestyle? 

It matters not at all to those who dread the sheer scale of influence attached to public figures. These are people who can transform public attitudes and expectations about alcohol consumption with the briefest of posts on the social media. 

If celebrities alone could be blamed for the increasing alcohol consumption among youth that’s been documented in surveys, then perhaps they could be collectively persuaded to behave more responsibly. Unfortunately, young people are exposed to the “fact” of alcohol wherever they go and wherever they look – a football match, a concert, a movie, even the music videos on YouTube.

Clearly the authorities and anti-drinking groups need to rethink their strategies. Kids no longer sit in front of the TV but are instead hunched over gadgets plugged into the social networks. That’s where they should be encountering the message that booze could ruin their lives, hopefully presented at least as creatively and persuasively as the alcohol adverts. Top-tier celebrities should be brought onboard to assure youngsters that alcohol just isn’t all that cool. 

Obviously laws will have to be revamped to rein in indirect advertising, but, since patrolling the social media and monitoring the stars is impossible, the authorities will have to appeal to citizens’ ethics and sense of responsibility. 

At this stage of the “war on alcohol”, the effort should be “eye for an eye”, matching every clever, amusing, compelling advertising push by the brewers and distillers with an identical counter-offensive.