October 2009

 

More Problems with Bars

In the context of healthy public policy there is a lot of focus on alcohol advertising from the marketing perspective. However, what sometimes goes unnoticed is the promotion of alcohol consumption from the proprietors of licensed establishments. This may be due to the low number of people that one bar affects compared to the high numbers of people reached via other media channels.

Take two bars as an example of social irresponsibility: Edmonton’s Union Hall and Newcastle’s The Attic. The bars in question are an ocean apart, however they have a very similar social mandate: to not have social mandates. For example, Union Hall has justified the reverse of a cover charge, by paying the customers to enter the licensed establishment. Public health officials, social activist and many more see this as a potentially grave situation.

“The extra money could potentially encourage young people to drink more than they originally intended”, said Michel Perron, CEO of the Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse.

Mr. Peron’s sentiment was echoed by local MADD Canada vice-president Gladys Shelstad, explaining that the bar “has a responsibility to uphold, and part of that is obeying the law and not trying to find ways of getting around it. We’re suppose to be encouraging these young people not to over-drink and here they’re trying to promote it.”

The bar contends that it’s attempting to build brand recognition with patrons during tough economic times. One night early in September, the bar’s capacity was met, resulting in the bar giving away $7,000.00 to customers. Representatives from the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission explained that the bar is not breaking any provincial laws.

The second bar in question, “The Attic”, was to conduct a competition with its customers to see who was the drunkest. The bar staff were to measure the level of intoxication of the patrons with a breath test similar to what police services use for intoxicated drivers. The event labeled “Trashed” and promoted over the internet was cancelled before it commenced as Newcastle City Council and local police were outraged by the promotion.

A local police representative explained of Newcastle that “not all people who drink, do so irresponsibly and not all outlets trade responsibly” .

Various stakeholders in the alcohol control sector see this trend as an irresponsible business practice and are concerned that these actions can have a detrimental effect on the public’s health. Public health’s main issue with this trend is that drinking competitions and free giveaways will entice patrons to drink more than they normally would which can lead to fights, sexual harassment, impaired driving, and possibly fatalities. All of these outcomes involve the enforcement sector.

When the enforcement sector is involved, charges can be laid, fines may be introduced, and restrictions on business practice can be imposed. Additionally, in Ontario, once a bar is labeled “high risk” this bar is given a low classification on a licensing scale called “Risk Based Licensing” enforced by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario. Currently this form of licensing does not exist in Alberta.

If the police are involved and trauma has occurred at the establishment, businesses can be held liable. Shelley Timms of Timshel Law Services explains that the bars in questions are “inviting themselves to a liability nightmare”. Ms. Timms explained that any establishment has a “duty of care” to the public and this duty of care has been supported by Canada all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

When interviewed, Ms. Timms and a representative of the AGCO explained that section 39 of the Liquor License Act (LLA) states that a bar cannot serve someone who is visibly intoxicated. Further, the AGCO explained five common infractions, which include:

• Serving Minors;
• Permitting intoxicated patrons;
• Serving unruly patrons and allowing unruly behaviour/ knowingly allowing narcotics on the premises;
• Overcrowding;
• Serving after hours.

The trend in bar operations exemplified by the two bars above offers numerous challenges to various stakeholders. It is no surprise to say that the enforcement sector has quite a large stake. First, by policing areas with a high proportion of nightclubs and bars, along with AGCO officers enforcing the newly formed Risk Based Licensing, it encourages most owners and operators to abide by the provincial liquor laws. This is however, a costly proposition in terms of both officer time and time away from other crime-related duties. Second, community-based policing adopted in many Ontario regions gives the public a role in informing the authorities of questionable practices that may be overlooked by overworked police officers. Finally, Resident Associations have given a voice to the public by engaging the enforcement sector when appropriate, by winning the voice of local politicians when need be, and by arguing their case to the media when engaged. Resident Associations can be a powerful vehicle for change.

It is important to note that the two bar promotions described in the above narrative did not happen in Ontario. However, if these promotions are seen as a success, Ontario could experience similar issues. It is crucial for public health and enforcement to recognize that one of the promotions “happened” over the internet, where laws are not as defined, and blogs, and other social networking sites blur the lines between “chatter” and illegal alcohol promotion.

Alcohol Advertising on Facebook

Last week the Marin Institute (an alcohol industry watchdog) released an article in the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice investigating the policy practices of alcohol advertising on Facebook and the accessibility of these ads. Facebook is the most popular social networking website on the internet with over 300 million registered users. Of the 300 million users 84% of them identify as being 20 years of age or younger.

In the five years since Facebook emerged on the web, the site has gone from a social networking site mainly for college and university students to a networking site for people from all walks of life. Additionally, over the last five years, Facebook has gone from an advertisement-free website to a website that has a large corporate presence. Naturally, with the move to increase revenue by allowing marketing on the site, alcohol promotion has grown to be a large presence on the site.

Due to the site's move to generate revenue from advertising, Facebook needed to create policies to regulate alcohol advertising. The Marin Institute notes in its paper that the alcohol advertising policy reflects the self-regulation view that currently exists in many jurisdictions.

Unfortunately, due its size, Facebook is unable to monitor their alcohol advertising policy. In addition, private subscribers to the site can manipulate the site so that they are exposed to advertising that is not intended for them by either lying about their age or simply by not inputting their age into the personal information section.

Tthe venues for submitting advertising (pages, groups, etc.) are not limited to corporate sponsorship but rather to anyone or any group of people who have an affinity to the item they are promoting. These pages can include videos, pictures, links to official websites, etc.

The Marin Institute argues that these forms of advertising embrace “true viral marketing” and “blur the line between corporate advertising and user generated content” and contest that “this lack of clarity regarding who’s doing what creates monumental challenges in regulating content.”

To view the recommendations that the Marin Institute have published we encourage you read the report at the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice website.