By  Abhaya Panday


One fine day in 1999 AD, the then His Majesty’s Government decided to ban beer ads on the television. Media reports suggest that it was done under the recommendations of the WHO, the organization which holds immense influence over a poor country like ours. The fact that the same ‘world body’ becomes powerless about the beer ads in countries like the USA is another story altogether. Rumours following the ban also suggested that the decision was made at the behest of a business house which enjoyed monopoly in the country’s beer market. Banning the beer ads on TV would have made it an uphill task for new entrants to increase their market share and thus that ban would have been in the interest of the market leader.

But whatever the reasons, apparent or underlying, that is irrelevant. What is important is to question the basis on which the government of the day chose to impose the ban. And why did the party in power, which brands its ideology as the most scientific and revolutionary, choose to continue the legacy of the ‘old regime’? Had the ‘old regime’ conducted a reliable scientific research on the effects of beer ads on its consumption? Let’s forget about a reliable and scientific research for a moment. Did the government conduct any research at all? Nothing suggests that it did. The decision was arbitrary and arbitrariness has become the founding principle of the state in relation to advertising. The latest example of this arbitrariness is the recent decision of one-door policy for government ads.

Does the Ministry of Information and Communications (MoIC) possess more expertise in appropriating government ads than the other ministries? Evidence of arbitrariness was seen in the recent past when the Insurance Board decided to curb the spending of insurance companies on their promotional activities, thus negatively affecting the advertising industry. Sometime back, the TV commercial I had made for Digital Cable TV was banned by the MoIC without any clear cut policy on comparative advertising and in the absence of an independent and competent regulatory body on advertising. These are just a few examples which highlight the attitude of the state towards advertising.  

Let me get back to the ban on beer ads on television. Was it necessary to impose the ban? I don’t think so. Because the assumption that beer advertising results in the increase of overall consumption is unfounded. First, the objective of any advertising exercise is to influence purchase decisions, not to increase the overall consumption. Moreover, in a product category like alcohol that is already widely consumed- in one form or the other- increasing the overall consumption of alcohol is an objective unworthy of pursuit for an advertiser. From the viewer’s perspective, does watching beer ads on TV help the drinker consume more beer than he/she normally does? Or does it entice a non-drinker to have a pint or more? Is advertising the ‘cause’ or the ‘effect’ of alcohol consumption? If the government believes that advertising is the ‘cause’ then perhaps it overestimates the power of advertising. In that case, the government should let the advertising agencies run the nation and by the sheer power of advertising, they shall eradicate all the evils of society. The fact that commercial advertising is mostly the reflection of the society’s values and aspirations and not the cause puts the power of advertising in the proper perspective.

Whether beer ads actually increase the overall consumption is an issue that has been raised in the US Parliament more than once. In response, the Federal Trade Commission, The Department of Health and a Senate subcommittee have submitted their reports on different occasions. And their findings suggest a clear absence of correlation between beer advertising and beer consumption. A 21-year long study conducted by Texas University also corroborates the findings. And let’s not forget that we are discussing a country whose per capita alcohol consumption is four times more than that of ours. Some countries in Europe have the figures six times as much, yet beer advertising enjoys considerable freedom in those countries. Of course, the content and placement of beer advertising is regulated and that is what we should be doing in Nepal. Lift the ban on beer advertising on TV and regulate the content and placement. Ironically, the government ignored to impose the ban in the print media, probably under the impression that print advertising is less effective than TV advertising.

Is beer drinking good or bad for health? Is moderate drinking medically acceptable or even beneficial? These are medical issues that should be addressed by the medical and health experts. Why do people begin consuming alcohol and, when they do, why do some turn alcoholics? Will we become a better society if we impose a total ban on alcohol? These are different issues altogether. I am neither a medical expert nor a sociologist and nor a psychologist. But as an advertiser, I am led to believe, on the basis of various scientific research conducted in countries where credible scientific  research are produced, that advertising of beer on TV does not promote its overall consumption.

Advertising, in this view, can only influence the choice of the brand. You may choose to drink beer A instead of beer B, having been influenced by the advertisement of A. But it is most unlikely that you will drink more than what the context allows or, as a non-drinker, you will decide to drink beer A without the psychological need. If the government wants to reduce the consumption of beer or alcohol, then it must address the issues surrounding the psychological and social needs that lead to the consumption of beer or alcoholic products in general. Necessity is not only the mother of invention but also consumption.  Kill the enemy, if you can. Don’t kill the messenger.
The writer is an advertising professional.