Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE PUBLIC HEALTH (Alcohol) Bill hit the news again towards the end of the year, as it finally made a reappearance in the Oireachtas after years of delay.
The alcohol industry has been quite vocal in its opposition to certain measures in the bill, including the restrictions it would place on advertising.
There have been numerous claims and counterclaims from both sides of the debate but, seeing as it’s Christmas time, we thought we’d put one of the more well-known claims to the test.
Claim: “In effect, the iconic Guinness Christmas ad will be banned [under the Public Health (Alcohol) Bill].”
What was said
First of all, to set the scene, here’s the advert in question in full.
That it would be banned was a claim made by lobbyists the Alcohol Beverage Federation of Ireland (ABFI). In September, it said the new rules will have “far-reaching negative consequences for alcohol advertising”.
In a video posted on its Twitter page, it said the following:
The Public Health (Alcohol) Bill contains stringent restrictions on advertising content. These restrictions are disproportionate and will not achieve their aim of reducing harmful drinking.
In effect, the iconic Guinness Christmas ad will be banned. Here is what ad might look like once the Bill comes into force.
It then proceeds to show its representation of what the ad would look like if the alcohol bill comes into effect. It says that no animals or people could be shown, for example.
#PHAB will have far-reaching negative consequences for alcohol advertising #CBLive pic.twitter.com/THqTAM6IOv
— ABFI (@ABFI_Ireland) September 18, 2017
In a later statement sent by the ABFI, it said that the “new laws will mean that adverts showing people, places, animals, storylines and happy scenes will all be banned”.
So what exactly does the law say?
Here’s where it gets tricky.
The section on advertising in the bill is quite small. Here’s what is says: “An advertisement for an alcohol product shall not contain anything other than…. all or any of the following”:
What’s listed there are the things that can go into an advert. This includes a reference to one or more alcohol products, an image or reference to the country and region of origin of the product, the premises where it was manufactured, and the price of the product concerned.
The law says that a “person shall not advertise, or cause to be advertised, an alcohol product unless the advertisement” complies with this section.
So any advertisements for alcohol can only include any or all of the 13 things listed there. And, indeed, animals, people, action sequences (aside from the production process), or storylines are not listed there.
But is the ABFI right about all aspects of the advert? Let’s break it down.
Bit by bit
Let’s say this first, the ABFI does make clear that this is what the ad “may” look like when it omits so many parts of it in the mock-up above.
The first part shows a wide shot of the Custom House in Dublin, from across the Liffey. It then shows a man out walking his dog as snow begins to fall.
On this one, it would appear that the part with the man would certainly have to be omitted.
Just to be clear, the phrase “no people” does not appear in Section 12, subsection (7) of the Public Health Alcohol Bill. That is used by the ABFI, here. When it says “no people” it is effectively drawing attention to the fact that “people” aren’t included in the list of things you can include in an advert.
Then, we have a couple throwing snow at each other. That’s out now, under the new laws, as are the people parting with kind words a few second later.
But what about later on in the ad? It then shows various location scenes. The ABFI says these images would be gone. Like these:
This is open to interpretation, however. The law says an alcohol advert can contain “an image of, or reference to, the country and region of origin of the product concerned”.
Of course, Guinness is made in Dublin, Ireland. So images and references to them would appear to be fine, under the laws.
Another scene shows a pub with a “closed” sign. Again, as it’s clearly an Irish pub somewhere in the country, that may fall under this provision. The ABFI say that it would miss the cut because it features a “storyline” but this is a tricky one, and certainly up for interpretation where the law is concerned.
Taking these parts that would definitely have to be taken out, they add up to approximately 23 seconds of a one minute advert.
Let’s break that down.
Under the interpretation of the law, it’s clear that the following scenes would almost certainly go:
So that’s less than half of the 60-second advert.
And what about those other elements of the advert that the ABFI say would go?
If you were to also exclude these parts of the advert and only include references to Dublin and Ireland (as reference to place of origin) and the end shot of the brewery itself, then around 31 seconds of the advert would be excluded.
By this measure, the shots of the pub would be taken out but is also up for debate on whether that would be banned, as it could be argued that it’s a reference to the place of origin.
So, no matter the interpretation you take, only around half the advert would need to be cut under the new laws.
Legal perspective
TheJournal.ie spoke to some legal experts in the area of media and advertising to get their perspective on the advert and the claims made about it.
Laura Fannin, from Hayes Solicitors, cited the criteria set out in the law for the things that can be included in advertisements and said adverts “can contain any of those things but nothing more”.
“Ads can only contain those very functional things,” she said. “There are certain parts of the advert – such as people and animals – that wouldn’t fall under this criteria.”
On the images of Dublin that appear in the advert, Fannin said that these sections would still be eligible for inclusion under the laws.
She said: “It all depends on how it’s interpreted. On a reading of how the bill is currently drafted, it would appear that references to a place of origin would be allowed.”
On when it would be changed, Fannin pointed out that it’s not like the advert will suddenly disappear if this Bill is enacted.
“It says in the bill that the provisions will come into effect ‘not earlier than three years’ and at a time when the Minister appoints,” she said.
And, as the Public Health (Alcohol) Bill has not exactly been rushed through the Houses of the Oireachtas, it is likely to be well into the next decade before the advert would need to be changed or scrapped entirely if the laws are enacted with the same wording that they have now.
For and against
The merits of an alcohol drinks brand advertising in such a way has been put under the microscope from groups such as Alcohol Action Ireland, which argues that the measures are good for society because the drinks industry will “no longer be able to hijack our every moment, reflect every emotion or share every success” in ads such as the Christmas Guinness one.
The ABFI’s director Patricia Callan, meanwhile, said: “These restrictions will make it extremely difficult for all drinks companies to advertise their products.
In particular, these restrictions are very harmful for small producers and new entrants who have invested heavily in breweries and distilleries across the country, are bringing new products to market and have less brand awareness.
Speaking on a debate in the Oireachtas on the Public Health (Alcohol) Bill, Fine Gael Senator Martin Conway said: “At one stage, the pitch that the lobbyists were making to us with regard to advertising was based on the Guinness Christmas advertisement.
I said frankly at the time that I did not care less about the Guinness Christmas advertisement. They have three or four years to pay people to come up with another creative advertisement to capture the imagination of the public.
Verdict
We asked the Department of Health for its opinion on whether the ad would be banned but it declined to comment.
We contacted the Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland, and here’s what they said: “At this time, the ASAI can only comment on individual queries and their compliance with the ASAI Code. ASAI cannot comment on specific cases, as to do so may prejudice any future case which could be complained about in the future. ASAI will review the provisions of the Code once the bill is enacted.”
So, we took what it says in the laws into account, and also the opinion from legal experts on interpretation of the Bill.
The claim, again, was: “In effect, the iconic Guinness Christmas ad will be banned [under the Public Health (Alcohol) Bill].”
Taking all that into consideration, we rate this claim: Mostly TRUE
As our verdicts guide explains, this means: “The claim is close to accurate, but is missing significant details or context. Or, the best available evidence weighs in favour of the claim.”
The ABFI is careful with its wording here. It says “in effect”. It doesn’t say that the ad will be banned, it says that “in effect [it] will be banned”.
By stripping over 20 seconds from the advert, you are taking away a significant portion of it. It is similarly unlikely that the advert would be repurposed – with the same music and imagery used – and just broadcast without those banned elements.
The ad as it currently exists would not be be allowed to be broadcast once the provisions of the law come into effect.
But to say that it’d be banned altogether is not the case, and some of the elements that the ABFI say would be excluded altogether – shots of the pub etc. – are subject to the interpretation of the law.
TheJournal.ie’s FactCheck is a signatory to the International Fact-Checking Network’s Code of Principles. You can read it here. For information on how FactCheck works, what the verdicts mean, and how you can take part, check out our Reader’s Guide here. You can read about the team of editors and reporters who work on the factchecks here.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Are we for real
@Daithi B: I’m afraid so I just sniffed my armpits and they honk!!
@Bortoli: I stink, therefore I am.
Nanny state legislation by clowns in Dail Eireann.
@Ian Walsh: Sensible legislation supported by most health advocacy groups but being strongly opposed by the alcohol lobby who are more worried about profits than public health. What horror, you won’t be able to get a glass of wine in the hairdresser and Guinness will have to change a 10 year old advert. They also will be hindered from targeting vulnerable groups by their advertising. Remember these shysters aren’t trying to inform you with their adverts, the legislation still allows that, they are trying to persuade or manipulate you. You may be strong enough to resist, although you’ve put the drinks lobby’s hoped for response on a public site, but others arent. There no prohibition, no ‘nanny state’ just a sensible limitation on how and where they can advertise. Doesn’t hurt you and might do some good. The drinks industry hate it so it’s probably a good thing.
@Ian Walsh: it makes them look like they are doing something important and distracts us from real issues affecting our country
@Shane Cormican: can they not just take out the Guinness logo at the end? There’s no actual drink in the ad.
@Joe Harbison:
Well said!
@Joe Harbison: illogical legislation backed by absolutely zero facts or studies, the people supporting it use emotional arguments instead of logical ones
@Ian McNally: it limits how potentially dangerous substances are marketed to vulnerable people for large profits. What sort of evidence are you looking for?
@Gulliver Foyle: so why would they pay for an advert without their products named. Do you understand the concept of advertising
Look how well Prohibition went.. I think they are missing the bigger picture. Ban phones and not alcohol.
@Ciara McCarthy: They are not banning alcohol. Cigarette ads have been banned for years.
When will the FG and FF coalition stop stripping away our rights to think for ourselves. Are we just an army of workers who pay taxes without the ability to make our own judgements and decisions. Are we not sentient self thinking citizens. Big brother is controlling every thought. Where is this going to stop? We see laws being passed in the US and the UK making it illegal to boycott products that are bought from countries that clearly violate U.N. resolutions. Enough if this crap.
@Cal Mooney: Another schill of the very expensive lobbyists brought in by the alcohol industry to protect their profits. What have we learned about the bill so far. Shock horror, you won’t be able to get a glass of wine in hairdressers and Guinness will have to change their self-claimed, ‘iconic’ advert. The purpose is to try to reduce the terrible damage done in this country by alcohol and is supported my almost every health advocacy organization out there. It will not stop you from buying one bottle or can but will stop the drinks industry from targeting vulnerable groups. You’ve just responded like a good consumer, the way the drinks lobby hoped you would.
@Joe Harbison: Ireland is mid table in Europe in alcohol consumption, and getting lower and lower each year. This is a sop to the Vintners to get people into pubs rather than anything else. As proven below in their 2011 Manifesto. They’ve just changed it from a “help the pub” bill to a “health bill”, even though there is zero evidence of MUP having any effect on drinking patterns.
From the Fine Gale Manifesto, Page 26,Sec 5, Community and Rural Affairs.Sub sec. 5.3, Keeping Communities Vibrant.
Supporting Irish Pubs: Fine Gael recognises the importance of the Irish pub for tourism, rural jobs and as a social outlet in communities across the country. We will support the local pub by banning the practice of below cost selling on alcohol, particularly by large supermarkets and the impact this has had on alcohol consumption and the viability of pub
Guinness is good for you.
I’d like to think that our evolution will not be affected by the banning of the Guinness ad but who really knows for sure?
What a load of rubbish and more PC BS . Whatever happened to personal responsibility? A joke
Another decision probably passed in the Dail bar..
Arthur’s Day was nearly a national holiday..ffs,
On the No Locations part, they might not be able to show the beautiful snow covered building. That’s not Dublin, it’s Belfast city hall.
I say might because technically, Guinness is owned by Diageo which is based in London, in the United Kingdom as is Belfast.
So they might get away with that but it’s a grey area.
This is an incredibly short sighted bill that will make zero difference but those behind it will point out that our drinking rate is decreasing as a sign of its success, despite the fact that our drinking rates are decreasing anyway, without any legislation.
@Reuben Gray: Exactly. Their % “target” of decreased drinking in 3 years due to MUP is the exact same as the % that the rate of alcohol consumption is dropping year on year. Its a scam to try to force people out of their homes and into the pubs.
The likes of Diageo couldn’t really give a fiddlers fcuk what they ban. They’ll just employ the best in the advertising industry to come up with something…. and we’ll all know what’s behind the charade. Happy Christmas everyone and enjoy a drink of whatever takes your fancy!!!!
@Paul Linehan: I’m surprised it hasn’t been banned because of using the word black and wishing for white before all of the above bollixology in anyways
@Bortoli: It could be a reference to tar and feathers….
@Paul Linehan: it could?
@Paul Linehan: that was a dutch gold add in the 90,s
@Bortoli: Sorry if there’s any confusion…. It was the name of a stout in ‘many’ days gone by!!!
@Bortoli: “BLACK” now I’ve fukcin said it. B0LL0X to it.
What a crock of shit, don’t even touch that add I’ll break ur bollox, goosebumps and emotional for the Irish, pay our feckin bill in the dail and shut the hell up
Such a load of baloney all this hooha over a legal substance while the government are willing to have injection centres to enable people to take an illegal drug.
Ah here..goodbye the banter of dubs..hello nanny state..jaysus..
fine
Pc in this country has gone totally annaul
Jackasses
Aussie guy got in my taxi yesterday said I’v just been up the Guinness store,Christ he says thats pure shite that porter.King and his lovely clothes came to mind.
There shouldn’t be any alcohol advertising, period. We don’t believe that ‘it’s only about market share’ bullshit from Big Tobacco, so why should we believe it from Big Booze? Every alcohol ad is an encouragement to people to take the drug and a false assurance that it a normal and even admirable thing to do. Every alcohol is a trigger that will send one or more addicted drinkers off the wagon and perhaps to an early grave. All for the profit of Diageo shareholders. We need a Republic of Citizens, not an Empire of Corporations. Rescinding businesses’ right to entice us to a painful and miserable premature death would be a good start.
You can’t “fact check” a subjective statement. Remove the words “in effect” from the claim and then you have an objective statement and the answer would be true.
God no the paymasters won’t like that ……prepare for the phone call and curly finger Leo
Ridiculous guidelines- they are stupid, idiotic, clearly drafted by people who do not live in the real world, they simply can’t tell the difference between this ad and a big orange star sign with 24 cans for €2. The world these malcontents will design for us has nothing or wortth or value in it, it will have incoherent roadmarkings ala Dublins quays, half baked and incomplete bus lanes, ban on every activity, busking, enjoyment and the appreciation of life in all its defects and perfection.
have your say