Has Regulation of Alcohol Brands Gone Too Far? The ASA V BrewDog

Online, July 31, 2013 (Newswire.com) - Alcohol brands have long been conscious of the need to tread carefully with naming, marketing and promotion of their brands. The industry's own self-regulatory code overseen by the Portman Group has long defined what is, and what isn't acceptable.

With the sector constantly in the spotlight over binge drinking and long term effects of consumption, many brands have willingly complied to ensure that they avoid unwarranted attention from the media and anti-drinking lobbyists. More recently, the UK's Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) expanded its remit to include digital marketing and brand websites.

Last week it upheld a single complaint against Scotland's BrewDog. The iconic brewer had been taken to task over its use of offensive language on the home page. The brand itself didn't formally respond to the ASA although it was noted that the offensive copy had been replaced.

The judgement raises several questions:

- How far can brands now go in creating a personality that appeals to drinkers when the risks of apparently alienating consumers are so high?

- Should the advertising regulator cover brands' own websites? After all, complaining about an ad that appears in print, on a news website or at the cinema is one thing. The complainant hasn't chosen to see the ad at that location.

- Website visitors don't arrive by accident so should the brand be able to talk directly to its own customers, shareholders and brand advocates?

- Just how enforceable are these regulator judgements in the digital space?

CitySuppers latest post ponders this and whether the regulator has gone too far.