Jump to comment:

• Response to Tim Ambler, Adam Smith Institute
  Nathan Critchlow
  Published on: 9 April 2019
• Awareness of alcohol marketing
  Tim F Amler
  Published on: 15 March 2019

• Published on: 9 April 2019

  Response to Tim Ambler, Adam Smith Institute

  • Nathan Critchlow, Researcher Institute for Social Marketing

  Dear Editors,

  We note the comment from Tim Ambler (Adam Smith Institute) on our recent article about alcohol marketing exposure among 11-19 year olds in the UK. We thank him for his interest in the research and compliments regarding the data.

  We note the mutual interest in the topic given his previous roles as joint managing director for International Distillers and Vintners (now part of Diageo PLC) and self-reported involvement in the launch and marketing of a range of alcohol brands, both in the UK and internationally [1-3].

  We make several brief remarks in response:

  1) Throughout the paper, we only refer to an association between alcohol marketing and either consumption or susceptibility. It is not claimed that the analysis demonstrate a causal or directional effect, as is suggested in the comment. We are also transparent in the summary of strengths and limitations at the start of the article (which also features on the web page of the paper) and again in the discussion about the constraints of cross-sectional research to determine causality.

  2) Although the discussion suggests that further examination of the UK’s current self-regulatory system may be required, given the constraints of the research design, we limit these suggestions to reducing marketing exposure for an age-restricted product. This argument is valid based on the data presented, given that they show alcohol marketing exposure among young people under the minimum legal...

  Show More

  Dear Editors,

  We note the comment from Tim Ambler (Adam Smith Institute) on our recent article about alcohol marketing exposure among 11-19 year olds in the UK. We thank him for his interest in the research and compliments regarding the data.

  We note the mutual interest in the topic given his previous roles as joint managing director for International Distillers and Vintners (now part of Diageo PLC) and self-reported involvement in the launch and marketing of a range of alcohol brands, both in the UK and internationally [1-3].

  We make several brief remarks in response:

  1) Throughout the paper, we only refer to an association between alcohol marketing and either consumption or susceptibility. It is not claimed that the analysis demonstrate a causal or directional effect, as is suggested in the comment. We are also transparent in the summary of strengths and limitations at the start of the article (which also features on the web page of the paper) and again in the discussion about the constraints of cross-sectional research to determine causality.

  2) Although the discussion suggests that further examination of the UK’s current self-regulatory system may be required, given the constraints of the research design, we limit these suggestions to reducing marketing exposure for an age-restricted product. This argument is valid based on the data presented, given that they show alcohol marketing exposure among young people under the minimum legal purchasing age. Any inference as to whether this would directly reduce alcohol consumption and higher drinking in current drinkers, or susceptibility in never drinkers, has been made at the reader’s discretion. It is not an argument put forward in the paper.

  3) Related to the above, the comment uses quotation marks which imply that the paper does claim that reducing alcohol marketing exposure would reduce “consumption and higher risk drinking in [young] current drinkers and susceptibility in never drinkers”. As outlined, this is not an argument put forward in the paper. The comment does quote alcohol consumption behaviours that are measured and reported in the study, but paraphrasing/prefixing this with the term ‘would reduce’ does not represent the arguments put forward in the paper.

  4) In the paper, any reference to a directional link between alcohol marketing and consumption in the wider literature is supported by references to systematic reviews of longitudinal research, a method that can infer a degree of causality. For simplicity, these references are repeated below [4,5].

  5) As alluded in the comment, we agree that marketing operates on more sophisticated levels than simply initiating a behaviour, either in this context of otherwise. Other goals may include increasing market share (i.e. brand switching) or reinforcing behaviours developed through other intrapersonal or interpersonal determinants. All of these other potential outcomes are still clearly of interest for varied reasons.

  Regards,
  Dr. Nathan Critchlow (on behalf of the authors)

  [1] Adam Smith Institute. Tim Ambler. https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/uncategorized/tim-ambler-23845 (accessed 3rd April 2019).

  [2] Pearson. Tim Ambler. http://www.pearsoned.co.uk/bookshop/author.asp?item=10071293 (accessed 3rd April 2019).

  [3] Sage Publishing. Tim Ambler. https://www.sagepub.com/hi/cab/author/tim-ambler (accessed 3rd April 2019).

  [4] Anderson P, de Bruijn A, Angus K, et al. Impact of alcohol advertising and media exposure on adolescent alcohol use: A systematic review of longitudinal studies. Alcohol Alcohol 2009;44(3):229-243.

  [5] Jernigan DH, Noel J, Landon J, et al. Alcohol marketing and youth alcohol consumption: A systematic review of longitudinal studies published since 2008. Addiction 2018;112(S1):7-20.

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  All affiliations and details of the authors are reported in the manuscript.

  • Back to top
• Published on: 15 March 2019

  Awareness of alcohol marketing

  • Tim F Amler, Senior Fellow Adam Smith Institute

  The authors address an important area with valuable data. Although the front page makes it clear that only correlation (or association) is claimed, the conclusion goes much further and suggests that the data supports the view that curtailing drink marketing would reduce "consumption and higher-risk drinking in current [young] drinkers and susceptibility in never drinkers".

  However, it has long been established that users of products and brands are more likely to be aware of marketing for those products and brands than those who are not. The authors of this conclusion, regrettably, fall into the elementary confusion between correlation and causation. Of course usage and marketing awareness will be correlated, as this paper shows, but that says nothing about causality. Indeed causality could even run the other way, namely consumption causing consumers to pay attention to the marketing. It is a little surprising that this conclusion was approved by the reviewers.

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top