Examination of Witnesses (Questions 720-736)
13 NOVEMBER 2003
MRS CILLA
SNOWBALL, MR
BRUCE HAINES
AND MR
ANDREW BROWN
Q720 Jim Dowd: Well, yes, the Code
of Advertising Practice.
Mr Brown: The Code of Advertising
Practice is drawn up by the industry. There are three parts to
the self-regulatory system. There is CAP (the Committee for Advertising
Practice) which draws up the code—which, incidentally, I
chair. There is the Advertising Standards Authority, which is
independent of the industry, which is the adjudicatory part. It
adjudicates on consumer complaints—and actually on business
to business, but, on complaints it receives, it makes adjudications
based on the code that the industry has drawn up. The ASA is independent
of the industry. It is funded via a levy of one-tenth of 1%, £1
per £1,000, on all—well, most—non-broadcast advertisements.
That is the way it works. The Committee of Advertising Practice
consists of the 17 trade associations that make up the non-broadcast
sector.
Q721 Jim Dowd: Seventeen?
Mr Brown: Yes. Well, you have
posters, regional press, national press, magazines, cinema, advertisers,
agencies, direct marketing, sales promotion . . . When you add
them all up, they come to 17.
Q722 Jim Dowd: They are just the
media, surely.
Mr Brown: No, it is not. Advertisers
are there, advertising agencies are there, they all have trade
associations. The way it works is that all members or company
members of the trade associations that make up CAP are committed
to abiding by the adjudications made by the ASA. So the media
will not run an advertisement against which an adjudication has
been made. That is the way the system polices itself. The adjudication
is made against the advertiser, the advertisement is withdrawn
and no media will accept that advertisement for reappearance.
That is the way it works. Persistent offenders are not a big problem.
With the poster medium, which is the nearest you get to broadcast
in non-broadcast, so to speak, if people are trying to flout the
rules persistently, then they will insist upon pre-clearance prior
to putting posters up, so you tackle it before the advertisements
ever appear. But most advertisers are embarrassed. It normally
happens every Wednesday morning on the Today programme
or the eight o'clock news, there will be an announcement of that
week's adjudications from the ASA.
Q723 Jim Dowd: Is there competition
to feature in that slot?
Mr Brown: No! And if you are the
agency that has produced the advertisement that has embarrassed
the client, you also have rather a difficult conversation.
Q724 Jim Dowd: So it is all through
the ASA.
Mr Brown: Yes, the role of the
industry is to fund it but ensure it is independent, and to draw
up the code.
Q725 Jim Dowd: Finally, one of the
think tanks came up with the idea of a tax on the advertising
of snacks and soft drinks. We have even had evidence or a submission
during the course of this inquiry from others saying that there
should be a general tax on sugar and fat. What is your individual
and collective reaction to that comment?
Mr Haines: It is primarily a question
to address to my client rather than to me. I produce advertising—not
anything with a high fat or sugar content. But, in principle,
I would say that they would rather find other ways of helping
this debate.
Q726 Jim Dowd: That is a no, then!
Mr Haines: I would say that is
a no.
Mr Brown: I will be more explicit:
No. I do think it is very difficult to start making judgments
about what products should be taxed disproportionately. It seems
to me unjust. We start from the position that there is no such
thing as unhealthy food, only unhealthy diets. If somebody is
going to start saying food is unhealthy, then I think the question
has to be asked: Should that food be allowed to be sold in the
first place? I certainly think distorting the market by taxing
is inappropriate. I do think there is an issue at stake, which
we have touched on, which is: How can budgets be raised to deal
with the advertising and marketing of things like fresh fruit
and vegetables? I think that is an issue. But I do not think you
do it by punishing parts of the business; I think you actually
have to look at the structures of that part of the business. The
Milk Marketing Board ended up with a budget, the Meat and Livestock
Commission ended up with a budget. You can look at generic sectors
and see what lessons could be applied, and whether there were
points in the supply chain where money could be raised from that
sector.
Q727 Jim Dowd: With tobacco, clearly
there is no physical health benefit. There may be psychological
benefits to tobacco, but there are no health benefits, so that
would fall within your category. But alcohol does not. Alcohol
in moderation is actually quite good for you, and yet that is
taxed and taxed prohibitively.
Mr Brown: It is. I agree with
that.
Q728 Jim Dowd: You are saying it
should not be. You are saying there is no such thing as bad food,
just bad diet. You could say the same about alcohol. Alcohol in
moderation is reasonable.
Mr Brown: I would say that.
Q729 Jim Dowd: It is only excess
of alcohol that is bad for you.
Mr Brown: Yes. It is the misuse
of alcohol which is of damage to individuals and society.
Q730 Jim Dowd: What is the difference
in terms of whether it should be taxed or not?
Mr Brown: Alcohol has always been
subject to an excise duty. What other things are subject to excise?
Q731 Mr Jones: Salt used to be.
Mr Brown: Was it? Of course it
was.
Q732 John Austin: Bring back the
salt tax.
Mr Brown: I come back to the point
that I think somebody is going to have to decide what kinds of
products should be taxed. In that sense, I think that is a very
difficult position.
Jim Dowd: So it is down to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer.
Q733 Mr Burns: Gordon won't do it.
Mr Brown: I think it is absolutely
the wrong way to go. I think there is an issue that needs to be
addressed and let's address it. There must be enough money in
the system to be able to help do it. Making judgments and punitive
decisions about certain types of product, I think, is not the
right way to go.
Mrs Snowball: May I? I think a
tax would be disproportionate because there already is tax on
these kinds of products. They are already subject to VAT. I think
a further tax would be not only disproportionate but for consumers
that would be taxing them on their right to choose. It would be
a tax on choice.
Q734 Jim Dowd: We do that with cars.
Mrs Snowball: But this would be
a double tax. There already is VAT on these products, so it would
be saying: We are applying a further levy.
Mr Brown: Cars and drink and tobacco
are options in society. Food and drink are not. They are necessities.
Q735 Jim Dowd: That is part of the
issue we are dealing with. A stable diet is, that is true, but
what we are talking about is obesity, which is way beyond a stable
diet.
Mr Brown: Yes, I agree.
Chairman: Do any of my colleagues have
any further questions.
Mr Amess: Just one.
Chairman: Mr Amess, good morning. It
is good to see you.
Q736 Mr Amess: This may be very embarrassing,
because of course it may have been asked. If at the end of our
Inquiry the conclusion that we reach is there is pretty much a
crisis facing us all, and someone second or third-hand from the
Government rings up one of you good people and says, "Right,
we are going to invest in this big time. We want your agency to
embark upon this campaign. It has to be a start/stop message,"
is that going to be a problem for you with your existing clients,
or would you be happy to take their business?
Mrs Snowball: Me first, Bruce!
We would see absolutely no conflict. We would support it wholeheartedly
and so would our clients. We would be right there.
Mr Haines: And I would fight her
for it!
Mr Brown: That is why I am sitting
in the middle!
Chairman: All right. Could I thank you
for a very interesting session. One or two of you mentioned coming
back to us on specific points. We hope you will do that pretty
soon. We appreciate your co-operation. Thank you very much.
* Note: The advertisement itself complied with the
code.
| 
