Booze ad ban: SA will lose out on R5.7bn
Fin24

Booze ad ban: SA will lose out on R5.7bn

2013-09-16 23:33

Cape Town - A proposed ban on alcohol advertising will result in a loss of R4.3bn for sports development and cost the broadcast media R1.4bn, said the Industry Association for Responsible Alcohol Use.

It charged on Monday that the health department made it impossible for the alcohol industry to make input on a proposed ban on alcohol advertising.

"We have made numerous efforts to meet with the department to present our proposals to no avail," said the Industry Association for Responsible Alcohol Use.

It said it recognised the harm caused by alcohol abuse, but urged the government to consider the economic implications of the control of marketing of alcohol bill.

In its current form, the bill bans all forms of alcohol advertising and sponsorship.

The legislation would result a loss of R4.3bn for sports development and would cost the broadcast media R1.4bn in lost revenue if it was adopted in its current form, it said.

Harmful

Restricting marketing on liquor will not only harm the industry, but will also have a ripple effect on the economy, the SA Chamber of Commerce and Industry said in August.

"Restrictions on marketing will not only have negative consequences for an important South African industry, but will also have a ripple effect on businesses in other areas such as the advertising, retail and hospitality industries," Sacci CEO Neren Rau said in a statement.

In June, Econometrix senior economist Rob Jeffrey told The Times that the ban would make little difference in the fight against alcohol abuse.

Jeffrey said his research revealed that there was no statistical relationship in South Africa linking advertising spending and alcohol consumption.




Comments
  • Mark Paul Oberholzer - 2013-09-16 23:55

    don't think that banning alcohol advertising will help. look at cigarettes for example. never mind what happened when alcohol sales were banned during prohibition times. a drinker will drink and a smoker will smoke. why waste all the potential revenue and increase unemployment further.

      Jon Low - 2013-09-17 00:50

      Smoking rates among new entrants (teenagers) is nearly 40% lower than a decade or so ago when tobacco ads were allowed. The ad ban isn't aimed at people already in the habit -- it's aimed at non-user kids who might just pick up the habit with a bit of advertising lure. So regular boozers may happily go on boozing -- nobody's trying to stop them.

      Konstabel Koekemoer - 2013-09-17 16:42

      With the advertising ban it becomes more important to compete on price and so the R5.7 billion saved in advertising and sponsorship will most likely be used to discount products ... so people will get more booze for their money.

  • Jabu Javas - 2013-09-17 00:09

    Only an idiot would drum up such a stupid idea.

  • Jinxie - 2013-09-17 00:21

    So I guess the government will foot the bill for all our athletes and sports stars? Pfffft ... Yeah right! No sponsorships, no sport!

      Jon Low - 2013-09-17 00:53

      Same was said when cigarette ads were banned -- no Team Gunston Race Cars, no Rothmans July, no John Player Special Lotus F1 cars or Marlboro McLarens... The gap is soon filled by other sponsors -- Red Bull, Shell, etc.

      Mark Paul Oberholzer - 2013-09-17 01:03

      fyi jon, if you want to be consistent, http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/energy-drink-dangers-red-bull-named-in-21-fda-reports/5970

      Jon Low - 2013-09-17 04:06

      And when energy drinks are proven to cause the social harm that booze does it too might be hit with an ad ban.

      Brendan Keith Shaw - 2013-09-17 04:56

      Jon, that's because the cellphone industry took up the slack. Gees you clearly like the proverbial ostrich with your head in the sand

      Patrick Starkey - 2013-09-17 07:07

      The pool of sponsorship money is definitely not a bottomless pit. That's the same attitude our government has with taxes, there is always more !

  • Shades - 2013-09-17 00:38

    Just ban the advertising in any and every form. So what if it costs billions .....chase down the hundreds of millions in fraud, bribery, corruption, unaccounted for and unauthorized spending and we'll be right back in track.

      Jon Low - 2013-09-17 00:55

      Way off-topic.

  • Jon Low - 2013-09-17 00:45

    So what? Advertise cheese or furniture or corkscrews instead. Tobacco ads were stopped and the sky didn't fall. Booze ads must go too, in spite of industry exaggeration and alarmism.

      Brendan Keith Shaw - 2013-09-17 04:49

      Jon, at about the same time as the ban on tobacco advertising, the cellphone industry was on the rise, therefore that took its place. If this bill is allowed to go through, what will take it's place? Can all these people, it's estimated about 12000 jobs lost, come knocking on your door for a job and food when they have to go hungry at night?

      JohnBlock - 2013-09-17 05:36

      But current policies are job creation, not job cuts? I say legalize all adverts, drinks, sex, drugs & hospital drips. Start regulating substances, tax all substances, we need to see some positive growth. We need some economic stimulation. Most of all with our major unemployment rate, we need jobs.

      Logic Dictates - 2013-09-17 05:57

      Yes furniture sponsors will take over . The Castle Rugby championship will next year be known as The House & Home Rugby Championship. !!!" Yet alcohol sales will not be less

      Jon Low - 2013-09-17 09:14

      And as one advertiser leaves the market another one always comes along to take their space.

      Jean Smith - 2013-09-17 09:40

      Um .... how much cheese must you be able to sell to warrant both the advertising and the sponsorship ...

      Logic Dictates - 2013-09-17 10:19

      Jon this debate will always go both ways. Just like you say industry exaggeration , i can say you are exaggerating , as the minority bash their wives , drive recklessly etc.

      Daniël Malan - 2013-10-15 02:58

      So deluded, damn.

  • Maretha Mineur - 2013-09-17 00:48

    Motswaeledi cannot fix the corruption and ineptitude in the Health Department and hospitals. So he has now rather decided to turn his sights on destroying the economy with idiotic laws.

  • Jon Low - 2013-09-17 01:00

    "In June, Econometrix senior economist Rob Jeffrey told The Times that the ban would make little difference in the fight against alcohol abuse. Jeffrey said his research revealed that there was no statistical relationship in South Africa linking advertising spending and alcohol consumption." Well, that means the booze merchants are totally wasting their money on adverts and they might as well pocket all this cash to boost their profits then? Marketers are rational people -- they don't splash out millions expecting to get no return on their ad-spend. If you believe they do, your "research" is bogus.

      Mark Paul Oberholzer - 2013-09-17 01:14

      Jon, to get a return on marketing spend their marketing does not need to be aimed at creating more drinkers but rather impact on which brand existing drinkers choose.

      Logic Dictates - 2013-09-17 02:38

      John do you save a copy of your response to any article relating to this topic , as i have read this words before. The market for the purpose of BRAND AWARENESS , pay attention then you will see nando's and kfc do the exact same thing.

      Jon Low - 2013-09-17 04:47

      Break the branding and boozers can still booze their favourite brand -- just as what smokers do now.

      Logic Dictates - 2013-09-17 05:28

      Would you mind pointing out your problem with the marketing of alcohol. While considering for a minute how many job will suffer. But since we are on a roll here , why not ban fastfood ads seeing as cholesterol kills a thousand times more people than alcohol will ever do. Why not ban ads on filling stations as gas emissions cause global warming. Deoderant ads should also be banned as it also contain harmful chemicals. mmmmm actually why not ban marketing in S.A , as i can continue all day long.

      Kenneth Maimane - 2013-09-17 07:48

      i dont agree with rob,it would make a difference.many people quit smoking after the ban was effected and the warnings on the packs.

      Jon Low - 2013-09-17 09:18

      People who eat fast-foods don't go an bash their wives, neglect their kids or endanger other road users. Alcohol is a hugely socially-destructive product, not just bad for the user.

      Logic Dictates - 2013-09-17 10:14

      You are clearly not seeing the bigger picture in relation to fast food etc. And you don't need to be under the influence to abuse your wife or drive reckless.

  • Phoofolo Lebo - 2013-09-17 03:22

    It wont make a difference... But people will losse jobs! Thats it. Nyaope it had never been advertised... But it destroying life of young people and its most selling drugs.

  • Thapelo Mokomele - 2013-09-17 03:47

    Firstly, what reason is being given to ban the Ad of alcohol anyway.. Sometimes when it comes to making Laws the can change things we don't do that, instead we waste time and money on stupid ones like this. #what a Drag!!

  • Black B.E.E Diamond - 2013-09-17 05:56

    Best ads in tv. Enough said. And banning ads will only result in job losses, not a reduction in drinking. How stupid does our govt think we are. I think they're the most creative ads on tv yet I am not an alcoholic.

      Black B.E.E Diamond - 2013-09-17 05:59

      Drugs like nyope and weed aren't advertised yet people are still addicts.

      Rivashan Lee Sakaran - 2013-09-17 06:46

      The Heineken adverts are still the best for me by far

  • Stinky Spice - 2013-09-17 06:01

    Ban all advertising, it's lame

  • Linda Dladla - 2013-09-17 06:01

    this is clear evidence that most of the current governments minister dont know their work and they are decapacitated, imagine calling for a ban on alcohol as a means of promoting health issues. The minister should have said that the government can no longer provide teenage mothers with child grants and that anybody who becomes infected with AIDS/HIV will also not receive grants. The government should abolish child pregnancies and Ban pregnant school girls from school, this will eventually detere many girls from falling/ being victims of early pregnancy. The health minister should go back to the drawing board and he must be sober minded.

  • Logic Dictates - 2013-09-17 06:05

    I love how this 'brilliant' government is always pointing fingers at the private sector for not doing their duty (sic) in creating jobs. Yet as soon as they create jobs , the MUPPETS at the top finds a way to destroy it. It also doesn't help to try and educate the public on the harms of alcohol abuse when every second week another minister or MP gets arrested for driving under the influence. I wonder if they ACTUALLY think before they talk.

      Amelia Viljoen - 2013-09-17 07:12

      No, a weak mind does not cause alcholism and neither does advertising. Please educate yourself about alcoholism before making such a comment.

      Daniël Malan - 2013-10-15 03:04

      So what causes alcoholism then? Adverts? Tell that to people in rural areas with no media access.

  • Amelia Viljoen - 2013-09-17 06:11

    The country loses this money already. Alcohol abuse costs us millions in productivity, health care, the far reaching effect it has on families, crime. People won't stop drinking but they might become better informed. Alcohol use is always associated with being 'cool' in the media. Let them start advertising the realities of alcohol use and abuse and the sales will also drop. People thinking that to drink always remains a choice have never dealt with alcoholism.

      Logic Dictates - 2013-09-17 06:34

      Marketing of alcohol does not cause alcoholism , a weak mind does.

      Jon Low - 2013-09-17 09:23

      Like with any addictive substance, no new user ever PLANS for their consumption to spiral out of control into addiction. "It won't happen to me."

  • Lwandile Mabusela - 2013-09-17 06:22

    Easy if they pass on this bill and you loose such money then you must retrench thousands and thousands of employees then the government will have the responsibilty of employing those.

  • Sipho Simon Mogale - 2013-09-17 06:29

    With many damages the alcohol has done I don't think money is important than morals they said like this regarding cigarretes but we still survive and drinking on sunday must be banned also

      Logic Dictates - 2013-09-17 06:32

      hmmm what's wrong with DRINKING on a Sunday ? And the government will NEVER succeed on banning drinking on a Sunday.

      Sipho Simon Mogale - 2013-09-17 07:33

      People will have no blue Monday or so called hangover

  • Vivian Harris - 2013-09-17 06:29

    Why also say SA?...its the corrupt, greedy ANC fatcats and their cadres that will lose out on filling their pockets. Joe public don't benefit from the advertising.

  • Thoko Khanya - 2013-09-17 06:47

    Bannig alcohol adverts won't stop people from drinking. We have to look at the cause of the problem. And its not advertisement.

  • Kabelo Kgakatsi - 2013-09-17 06:49

    the media already influenced south Africans,e.g=Give that man a bell.etc

  • Richard Scully - 2013-09-17 06:50

    Exactly what the cigarette manufacturers said before they were banned, but another advertiser always takes over

      Sipho Simon Mogale - 2013-09-17 07:36

      True... Without Black Label we will survive

      Jon Low - 2013-09-17 09:25

      Nobody's banning your beer. Or the ciggies. They're only banning the ADVERTS.

  • Zukisa Msudukwa - 2013-09-17 07:07

    Educate minds of people and leave ad alone

  • Jacques Steffen - 2013-09-17 07:18

    Great, now it will give some other companies the chance to do some sponsoring/advertising.

  • George Manuel Lopez - 2013-09-17 07:30

    It's not advertising that makes one want to drink but the will to.our government are so stupid as they don't have the mental capacity to think about the consequences of the rules they try make.they can't understand it.when you put one incompetent black or white guy in power it affects millions upon millions be because they don't have anything else to do than act stupid.going to take evolution for the black man to intellectually stand on par with the whites.unfortunately it's a fact we got to deal with and we hope and can only hope that we half way there

  • Allie Millenium - 2013-09-17 07:35

    This ban is only a move to cripple the already dying economy. It is just a stupid legislation our useles board shouldn't have thought. If passed only job loses and crime increase will be the only results. Alc abuse is a choice and not advertisement. I were once a heavy drinker but now I drink one or two beers when I feel like drinking. This guys are acting as if someone puts a gun to a persons neck and say "you must buy a beer because you are watching this advert". Those of us who are unemployed we know that its their doing that stop jobs. They are only there to make sure every one looses a job because only their families must eat

  • Allie Millenium - 2013-09-17 07:35

    This ban is only a move to cripple the already dying economy. It is just a stupid legislation our useles board shouldn't have thought. If passed only job loses and crime increase will be the only results. Alc abuse is a choice and not advertisement. I were once a heavy drinker but now I drink one or two beers when I feel like drinking. This guys are acting as if someone puts a gun to a persons neck and say "you must buy a beer because you are watching this advert". Those of us who are unemployed we know that its their doing that stop jobs. They are only there to make sure every one looses a job because only their families must eat

  • Vicki Malatse - 2013-09-17 07:38

    I wonder if they are gonna ban kfc ads,I mean to me the health effects are the same#lol

      Jon Low - 2013-09-17 09:27

      Nobody beats up his wife/ neglects his job because they're under the influence of KFC.

      Carel Smit - 2013-09-17 11:50

      Nobody beats up his wife under the influence of niccotene either the cig's add ban was purely a health issue so Vicki's point is valid...

  • Thembalethu Mdumane KaNtoyanto - 2013-09-17 07:40

    Ads doesn't influance ppl to drink, why most youth drink?? Its bcz they dnt have anything to do on weekend, back in the days we used 2 play sports at schools n weekends now the current government burned sports at school n youth r found to b idle the whole day n end up drinking .

  • Kenneth Maimane - 2013-09-17 07:40

    if apartheid never existed and we live in a civilised country i would agree with them.car accidents,stabbings,shack fires and rape would come down if the ban was imposed.i would ban the whole industry

  • Chris Clark - 2013-09-17 07:56

    Take a percentage of the NPBT and allocate to a trust,i.e Unesco to improve education . Restrict the hours of the liquor outlets , close at 1300 Saturday and re open 1200 Monday , yes I know this will open to illegal outlets . No liquor outlets within 3.5 kilometers of a University or Secondary school . A supervisor demands to see ID before selling alcohol ,Happens in New Zealand . To set an example all state functions be alcohol free , Fruit juice and cordials only, the savings to an education trust . No Bars or alcohol in government or municipal dining rooms . Then think about the advertising ban .

      Colin Murray - 2013-09-17 11:35

      Seeing is believing and feeling is the naked truth. Could you ever imagine an ANC get together without truck loads of "Johnny Blue"? The government are the worst offenders.

  • J Tham Mcthebz - 2013-09-17 08:02

    s.a is a religious country so this alcohol ad ban minus one problem.

      Logic Dictates - 2013-09-17 09:04

      mmmmm in what why is alcohol ads affecting religion ?

      Daniël Malan - 2013-10-15 03:08

      They drank wine in the Bible, which is religion, fool.

  • humbulani.radzilani.9 - 2013-09-17 08:13

    The ban is not gonna change anything. Try more to educate youth about the dangers of alcohol and unhealthy foods.

  • jungleboy - 2013-09-17 08:26

    Some booze adverts are so in your face. It will be a pleasure not to watch enless stupid ads.

  • Ian Huntly - 2013-09-17 08:28

    What utter clap trap, we had the same BS reasons why cigarette advertising should not have been banned, and I still see sports heavily sponsored, now from a wider more ethical industry segments. Something will always step into the gap, the coverage is just too good not to miss.

  • Interesting - 2013-09-17 08:29

    Really? News to me.

  • Jo Davies - 2013-09-17 08:35

    Has anyone bothered to do the research as to whether or not advertising plays a role in drinking? Until this is done, I cannot see the point of banning ads. I didn't start drinking because of the ads, as far as I am concerned. I wonder how many people did?

      Jon Low - 2013-09-17 09:31

      Ads helped to make booze seem "normal". That eases your entry into the consumption market, as it once did with smokes.

  • Jo Davies - 2013-09-17 08:37

    Completely agree. Most sensible comment this morning

  • Arial Sharons - 2013-09-17 08:43

    You dont have to do any research,common sense must prevail,

  • goyougoodthing - 2013-09-17 08:59

    I'd prefer them to ban fast food advertising... much worse than alcohol!

      Jon Low - 2013-09-17 09:32

      Bash the wife under the influence of a chickenburger? I don't think so.

  • Chez Kri - 2013-09-17 09:21

    The same thing was said when cigarette advertising was banned and what do you know.....we all survived!! Ban alcohol advertising NOW! We will survive that too.

  • Jean Smith - 2013-09-17 09:34

    Someone here mentioned "cool, professional and seductibe advertisement". Uhhh ... don't believe this makes people abuse alcohol - they gonna do it anyway - our good old dagga is not advertised and how many people "abuse" that? Don't think the ban on cigarette smoking was all that effective either (banning in shopping malls and restaurants had a greater effect). At any rate, the "abusers" don't drink those "cool" drinks - they can't afford it - it's the plonk that gets their vote. Can this country afford to loose the money?? Maybe a couple of hundred might be swayed not to buy into the alcohol drinking because they are not being seduced by adverts, but will it balance the loss in revenue and the fact that most sport will simply dry up for lack of funds?? The big picture .........

  • Omar Botha - 2013-09-17 09:44

    Alcohol is never the root of the problem, and should not be banned. Rather ban GMO foods that harm people

  • Craig Lott - 2013-09-17 11:02

    Helloooo. SA going to lose billions?? Tell us about the billions that are lost each year to alcohol induced carnage on our roads, hospital bills for kidney and liver damage, and the detrimental socio economic impact of alchol induced violence on south african woman and children. Let's face it alcohol and sport should'nt even be on the same page.

      Jenelle Kruger - 2013-09-17 12:08

      Agree totally!

      Daniël Malan - 2013-10-15 03:09

      That will still continue. Common sense?

  • Colin Murray - 2013-09-17 11:21

    Rather ban mini bus taxis, this would save the country billions. The owners/drivers don't pay tax so nothing to loose.

  • Alex Richards - 2013-09-17 12:16

    Thats great, no advertisements for alcohol!!!!! I would probably never drink again??? No TV advert to force me to drink!!!!

  • Seiso Mohlala - 2013-09-17 12:46

    A ban on alcohol ads will not only reduce the cash the govt splashes on buying food for votes, but will fail to reduce binging in the same way a ban on cigarette smoking failed to get rid of the habit.

  • Kathy Faifer - 2013-09-17 14:49

    Just make alcohol an aggravating circumstance in a court sentence and zero alcohol limit for driving a motor vehicle on a public road.

  • Jenelle Kruger - 2013-09-17 15:44

    My earlier comment was deleted! Wonder why??????

  • Karl Reed - 2013-09-17 15:58

    We can't keep putting the lives of our people in danger because we are afraid of the economic ramifications, the economy needs a radical shift anyway. If even one life can be spared at the cost of R5,7bn (in revenue) then we haven't lost anything at all.

      Daniël Malan - 2013-10-15 03:10

      Joy, more poverty, more crime, no?

  • Samukelo Mseleku - 2013-09-17 17:33

    There is no merit to this solution. There for a lot of jobs will be lost but I also agree with this,to allow other companies to market and advertise their businesses. In-house advertising will be a solution. People won't stop drinking no matter what the price.

  • Sipho Shabalala - 2013-09-17 23:01

    Same as saying we must start a war to boost the arms manufacturing industry.

  • pages:
  • 1
  • 2