Discussion
cancer, sports-related alcohol, SD, Cancer
CANCER, SECONDARY, EVENT, CANCER
Findings from the present study indicate that counter-advertising exposing alcohol sponsorship and harms has potential to bolster public support for policies to restrict sports-related alcohol marketing, diminish beliefs supportive of alcohol industry marketing and enhance negative views of alcohol companies and their marketing practices. These effects were observed in comparison to both a control ad and a counter-ad highlighting the social harms of excessive alcohol consumption, indicating that it was the specific emphasis on exposing the questionable logic of allowing alcohol companies to promote their product to children during sport that made the counter-ad exposing alcohol sponsorship and harms impactful.For the four assessed policies to restrict sports-related alcohol marketing, the counter-ad exposing alcohol sponsorship and harms succeeded in boosting support by at least 16% points compared to the control ad and at least 12% points compared to the alcohol harms counter-ad. This is notable given that a previous study gauging public support for 14 alcohol control initiatives across seven countries (Australia, Canada, China, India, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States) found that support for policies restricting alcohol advertising and sponsorship was typically lower than support for policies related to product labelling and consumer education [Across the whole sample, the highest level of support among participants was for the policy framed around protecting children (i.e., a ban on alcohol advertising during sporting broadcasts at times when children watch TV), a finding that aligns with past research showing that proposed alcohol control measures that aim to protect young people are better supported by adults than measures targeting the general population [The counter-ad exposing alcohol sponsorship and harms was effective at dampening specific beliefs supportive of alcohol industry marketing practices, heightening specific beliefs opposing alcohol industry marketing and making participants view alcohol companies less favourably overall. The effect size for this counter-ad detracting from the belief that alcohol companies should be allowed to sponsor sport because their products are legal was particularly large, with percentage point differences of over 20% compared to both the control ad and the counter-ad exposing alcohol harms. These observed shifts in participants’ alcohol industry beliefs in response to seeing counter-advertising exposing and critiquing industry marketing practices are in line with results from a naturalistic experiment where exposure to a movie denormalising the tobacco industry (Assessment of participants’ cognitive and emotional responses to their assigned counter-ad indicated that the counter-ad exposing alcohol sponsorship and harms was perceived as more relevant, thought-provoking and educational (i.e., teaching them something new) than the counter-ad exposing alcohol harms, and also tended to elicit greater surprise and worry. This may reflect participants having had minimal to no prior exposure to public health messages highlighting alcohol industry manipulation tactics, with (to our knowledge) only one previous Australian campaign having used this approach (i.e., Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education’s “Alcohol Truth” social media campaign) [Some study limitations should be acknowledged. First, we only tested a single example of a counter-ad exposing industry marketing practices that in addition to drawing attention to the alcohol industry’s use of sport sponsorship to promote alcohol to children also included mention of a long-term alcohol harm (i.e., cancer) that did not feature in the counter-ad exposing alcohol harms. While this was done to provide context as to why Cancer Council was advocating for the removal of alcohol sponsorship from elite sport, it is not possible to disentangle to what extent the primary (i.e., industry targeting alcohol marketing to youth through sport sponsorship) and secondary (i.e., link between alcohol and cancer) messages of the counter-ad each contributed to the effects we observed. Experimental studies testing multiple examples of counter-advertising exposing alcohol industry practices (including ones without secondary messages) in comparison to other styles of counter-advertising (including ones that focus solely on cancer as a long-term alcohol harm) could provide insight into the features of alcohol counter-ads that most contribute to effectiveness in garnering support for policy change. Second, as this was a naturalistic experiment based around the NRL State of Origin series, our sample was restricted to sport spectators who intended to, and then did watch an event where alcohol sponsorship is typically prominent. An average of 66.29 min (SD = 7.62) of alcohol marketing (including sponsorship) was observed during the two hours of televised coverage of each State of Origin game in 2012 [Key strengths of the current study include the addition of short exposure tasks that ensured participants received a minimum of four exposures to their assigned counter-ad over a week (i.e., two during the baseline survey and at least two subsequent tasks) to better mimic an actual mass media campaign, and the use of a professionally produced, broadcast-quality counter-ad exposing alcohol sponsorship and harms developed following formative research with the target audience.