‘Marketing is not determined by individual consent…’

I write in response to the article by Dr Alex Barker, 'Is it time for a sobering wakeup call around alcohol marketing?' (The Psychologist, December 2024). I found the article thoughtful, constructive, well-researched and compassionate. I write respectfully to express a different viewpoint, and one which is reflected in the Editor's response and the current advertising practice of The Psychologist.

The vast majority of UK adults drink alcohol, and there is no reason to suspect that members of our society represent a different cohort. Advertisements in line with this are likely to be representative of their marketing interests. I am sure that the membership at large is well aware of the dangers of alcohol in terms of addiction and general health hazards. 

This indeed applies to much of what is legitimately experienced and enjoyed in life, where misuse has serious implications for personal and societal health. Another obvious area is that of the obesity crisis (see, for example, Hasse et al., 2020). There is a great potential danger in making decisions that essentially are further restrictions on freedom, and in my view even more so in seeking to be ahead of a putative 'curve'.

It is regrettable that many people, not excluding our own members, are susceptible to behaviours, which for them, may represent serious medical, social and economic risks. This can apply across multiple areas of ordinary marketing. 

It is also to be recognised that our members' ethical, political and philosophical positions vary widely. I grew up in a principled teetotal household, and while that context changed in line with changing cultures within our reference groups, it had to be accepted that we live with the benefits of a free society in a liberal democracy, where it is good for any restrictions on freedom – whether by the state or by our society – to be the least that is consistent with public order and generally agreed social norms and values.

Dr Barker notes that 'there is no safe level of alcohol consumption', but as David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor for the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, has observed, this is not in itself an argument for abstention. As he has noted, there is no safe level of driving, or indeed of living.

Finally, the argument that the society's Code of Ethics is breached is presented as the final and personalised conclusion of a series of propositions – alcohol marketing leads to use, use can lead to addiction, addiction leads to harm, ergo, 'My welfare was certainly not respected by being exposed to harmful marketing which I did not consent to'. 

But marketing is not a field determined by individual consent. Yes, we recognise the dangers of alcohol in society, as we recognise a wide range of other dangers associated with legitimate freedoms, but we go down a very slippery slope in my view if, as a society, we seek to regulate marketing freedoms in this way.

Tommy MacKay 
Chartered Psychologist, Ardoch

Reference

Haase, C.L., et al. (2020). Body mass index and risk of obesity-related conditions in a cohort of 2.9 million people: Evidence from a UK primary care database. Obesity Science and Practice, 7(2):137-147.