|
Schedule of Research on Case Studies On the Effectiveness of Ad Bans 1976 – 2006 |
1. Examined 14-month ban of all alcohol advertising in all media in British
Columbia in 1971 and compared consumption with Ontario, which did not
have a ban. The authors found that the ban had no effect and concluded,
“…both the yearly and monthly analysis of beer, wine or liquor consumption
show no substantial effect of the ban.”
Smart, R.G., Cutler, R.E., 1976. The alcohol advertising ban in British Columbia:
Problems and effects on beverage consumption. British Journal of Addiction 71, 13-21.
2. Examined the impact on consumption of an ad ban of all beer advertising
in the print and electronic media imposed in Manitoba in 1974. A comparison
from 1970 - 1978 was made with Alberta, which did not have a ban. The
study found that the ban had no impact on beer consumption compared with
Alberta and consumption actually increased after the imposition of the ban.
Ogborne, A.C., Smart, R.G., 1980. Will restrictions on alcohol advertising reduce alcohol
consumption? British Journal of Addiction 75, 293-296.
3. Examined 51 US states and classified them into 3 groups regarding
restrictions on the content and placement of alcohol ads in newspapers and
magazines. The groups were - least restrictive, moderately restrictive and
most restrictive. The study found that “advertising restrictions were
unrelated to per capita beer, wine or spirit consumption, to total per capita
consumption or to alcoholism rate.” The authors concluded, “Such
restrictions should be given a low priority among the possible solutions to
problems of restraining per capita alcohol consumption.”
Ogborne, A.C., Smart, R.G., 1980. Will restrictions on alcohol advertising reduce alcohol
consumption? British Journal of Addiction 75, 293-296.
4. Examined the effect of ad bans using a cross-section of 35 US states.
Concluded “…a prohibition on advertising for alcoholic beverages leads not to
a general reduction in alcoholic beverage consumption but rather a shift from
beer consumption to spirits consumption”.
Schweitzer, S.O., Intriligator, M.D., Salehi, H., 1983. Alcoholism: An econometric model of its
causes, its effect and its control, in: Grant, M., Plant, M., Williams, A. (Eds.), Economics and
Alcohol: Consumption and Controls. Harwood, New York, pp. 107-127.
5. Examined per capita consumption of spirits over a 25-year period using a
cross-section of 48 US states and the various ad bans for billboards, exterior
signs and price advertising. Concluded that ad bans “…have been almost
totally ineffective as a deterrent on alcohol consumption . . . [and] the most
anomalous result comes with restrictions on billboard advertising, where
results showed a consistent and fairly large effect in the wrong direction”.
Hoadley, J.F., Fuchs, B.C., Holder, H.D., 1984. The effect of alcohol beverage restrictions on
consumption: A 25-year longitudinal analysis. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 10, 375-401.
6. Examined a cross-section of 50 US states from 1974-78 and the effect of
ad bans for billboards, print price and billboard price on spirits and beer
consumption. Found that allowing billboard advertising decreased spirits
consumption, allowing price advertising increased spirits consumption, no
effect on beer consumption but allowing price ads increased consumption
slightly. The authors concluded that “. . . control laws affecting price have
the greatest impact on consumption . . . [but] the influence of control
measures is small relative to that of sociodemographic and economic
variables that affect consumers’ overall attitudes toward drinking”
Ornstein, S.O., Hanssens, D.M., 1985. Alcohol control laws and the consumption of distilled
spirits and beer. Journal of Consumer Research 12, 200-213.
7. Examined the relationships between alcohol consumption, ad bans and
road fatalities in 48 US states for 1976-1979. Found that ad bans for
billboards and periodicals had insignificant effects on demand and that ad
price bans had a negative effect on consumption. Concluded that “…. the
direct effects of regulation on alcohol sales are relatively small. Regulatory
restrictions have their largest effect via their impact on the number of
outlets”
Wilkinson, J.T., 1985. Alcohol and Accidents: An Economic Approach to Drunken Driving.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Economics, Vanderbilt University.
Wilkinson, J.T., 1987. The effects of regulation on the demand for alcohol. Unpublished paper,
Department of Economics, University of Missouri.
8. Examined the effect of ad bans on per capita consumption of beer, wine
and spirits in a cross-section of 48 US states. Found that ad bans were not a
significant determinate of consumption but that prices, income, tourism,
number of outlets and legal purchase age were significant variables.
Concluded, “…there is no effect on consumption of advertising bans.”
Nelson, J.P., 1990a. State monopolies and alcoholic beverage consumption. Journal of
Regulatory Economics 2, 83-98.
Nelson, J.P., 1990b. Effect of regulation on alcoholic beverage consumption: Regression
diagnostics and influential data, in: Watson, R.R. (Ed.), Drug and Alcohol Abuse Reviews:
Prevention. Humana Press, Clifton, NJ, pp. 223-243.
9. Examined the effect of the termination in 1983 of a 58-year-old ad ban of
all alcohol in all media in Saskatchewan. The ban continued for spirits ads on
radio and television. The study found that the termination resulted in
increased beer sales, reduced spirits sales and no effect on wine. There was
no effect on total alcohol consumption. The authors concluded, “This research
found evidence of an impact of the change in legislation regarding alcohol
advertising in terms of a substitution effect of beer sales for spirits sales.
Advertising does not, however, affect total consumption”
Makowsky, C.R., Whitehead, P.C., 1991. Advertising and alcohol sales: A legal impact study.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol 52, 555-567.
10. Examined ad bans of broadcast alcohol advertising in OECD countries.
The study found that a ban on spirits advertising resulted in higher beer
consumption and a ban of all advertising resulted in higher spirits
consumption. Wine consumption was unaffected by a total ban and
negatively affected by a spirits ban. Bans tend to lead to beverage
substitution. Concluded that the “…the relationships between advertising
bans and consumption of specific types of alcoholic beverages are largely
inconsistent with the notion that bans reduce consumption”.
Young, D.J., 1993. Alcohol advertising bans and alcohol abuse: Comment. Journal of Health
Economics 12, 213-228.
11. Examined alcohol ad expenditure and consumption in France, Germany,
Netherlands, Sweden and UK from 1970 to 1990. Sweden banned all alcohol
advertising in 1979. Found that consumption reduced in all countries during
the period and the four countries without bans were not appreciably different
from Sweden. The authors concluded “…. social forces other than prices and
income were bringing about a strong reduction in demand for alcoholic
beverages, and advertising did nothing to ward off this trend towards
reduced consumption”
Calfee, J.E., Scheraga, C., 1994. The influence of advertising on alcohol consumption: A
literature review and an econometric analysis of four European nations. International Journal of Advertising 13, 287-310.
12. Examined the effect of price ad bans in 16 US states between 1982-1987
on the malt beverages market. The study found “Our empirical results
suggest that local price advertising plays an important role in the competitive
process. Where all sellers are prohibited from conveying price information to
consumers in an efficient fashion, larger firms tend to gain market share at
the expense of smaller competitors, resulting in an increase in market
concentration.”
Sass, T.R., Saurman, D.S., 1995. Advertising restrictions and concentration: the case of malt
beverages. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 77, 1, 66-81
13. This US study examined relationship between consumption and domestic
violence toward children with different variables including billboard bans,
window display bans and price ad bans. Found that there were no
measurable effects of advertising on violence, including billboard bans and
window display bans. It concludes, ”Finally, laws restricting advertising of
beer are shown to be ineffective in reducing violence.”
Markowitz, S., Grossman, M., 1998. Alcohol regulation and domestic violence towards children.
Contemporary Economic Policy 16, 309-320.
14. Examined broadcast ad bans in 17 OECD countries. Found that bans on
the advertising of spirits lead to increased alcohol consumption and higher
motor vehicle fatalities. Wider bans of additional media and beverages were
not consistently related to consumption or abuse. Price was found to be an
important determinant of consumption. Concluded that broadcast bans can
lead to price reductions due to reduced product differentiation and lower
costs, and might therefore increase price competition among producers of
more homogeneous goods. Hence, banning advertising could have the
perverse effect of increasing alcohol consumption.
Nelson, J.P., Young, D.J., 2001. Do advertising bans work? An international comparison.
International Journal of Advertising 20, 270-294.
15. Examined the literature concerning alcohol ad bans. Found that there
was no statistically or material effect of alcohol ad bans, including selective
bans of outdoor media and comprehensive bans of broadcast media and
other print media. Concluded, “At the beverage level, the results are mixed
and suggest that substitution among beverages is a possible effect of a ban.
However, the null hypothesis that advertising bans reduce alcohol
consumption (or abuse) must be rejected. Conceivably, a total ban of all
alcohol advertising and promotion might have some effect on behavior,
although anecdotal evidence for the Soviet Union and the US Prohibition-era
argue against even this extreme result.”
Nelson J.P. 2001, Alcohol Advertising and Advertising bans: A Survey of Research Methods,
Results, and Policy Implications. Chapter 11, Advances in Applied Microeconomics, Volume 10:
Advertising and Differentiated Products 2001
16. Examined restrictive alcohol control policies, including ad bans, in 45 US
states for the period 1982-1997. Found “A restrictive law that applies to only
one beverage (or one form of advertising) can result in substitution toward
other beverages (or other forms of advertising). Allowing for substitution
means that the net effect on total alcohol consumption is uncertain, and
must be ascertained empirically. The study found that monopoly control of
retail sales of spirits reduces consumption of spirits and increases
consumption of wine. The effect on beer is positive, but not statistically
significant.” Concluded that billboard bans “…increase the consumption of
spirits and wine, and reduce the demand for beer. The net effect on total
alcohol demand is positive prior to 1989, and zero thereafter.” With regard
to price ad bans the study concluded “The empirical findings for restrictive
alcohol laws indicate that, first, a ban of price advertising reduces
consumption of spirits and wine, and increases beer consumption. The net
effect of price bans on total alcohol is very small in magnitude.”
Nelson J.P., 2003, Advertising bans, Monopoly, and Alcohol Demand: testing for Substitution
Effects using State Panel Data. Review of Industrial Organization, 22, 1-25
17. A meta-analysis of empirical studies that examine the effect of actual
advertising bans. Broadcast ad bans were found to be ineffective - “In
summary, the cumulative evidence from cross-national studies indicates that
broadcast advertising bans do not reduce consumption. The meta-analysis of
cross-national bans of broadcast advertising provides point estimates of
about -1% for either a partial or a total ban. The effects are small in
magnitude, and neither cumulative estimate is significantly different from
zero.” Billboard ad bans were also ineffective and slightly increased
consumption. “A state billboard ban increased total alcohol consumption by
about 3.8%.” However it also “increases spirits consumption by about
12.5%.” It comments, “This result is highly significant and generally contrary
to expectations.”
Nelson, J.P., Young D. J., 2003, Meta-Analysis of Alcohol bans: Cumulative Econometric
Estimates of Regulatory Effects. Unpublished, ------
www.montana.edu/econ/djyoung/papers/meta_alcohol5.pdf
18. A literature review of studies that examine actual case studies of alcohol
ad bans. Seven econometric studies estimate the relationship between
billboard bans and alcohol consumption in the US. “None of the studies
obtained a statistically significant reduction in total alcohol consumption due
to bans of billboards. In several studies, billboard bans increased spirits
consumption significantly.” There were four studies on broadcast advertising
bans. “The results indicated that bans of broadcast advertising had no effect
on alcohol consumption relative to countries that did not ban broadcast
advertising.”
Nelson, J.P., 2004, Advertising Bans in the United States. EH.Net Encyclopaedia,
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/Nelson.AdBans
19. Examined ad bans in 17 OECD countries from 1975-2000. The study
found that alcohol ad bans do not reduce market demand for alcohol. Over
40-year period have been reasonably stable but there have been dramatic
changes in consumption levels and beverage shares. There has been a
general decline in consumption over the period but the decline has been
greater in countries with “fewer restrictions on alcohol advertising, marketing
and distribution.” Concluded, “Finally, it should be noted that bans of
advertising have existed for many years in some countries, and vary across
countries. Many individuals begin drinking alcohol at an early age. If
advertising influences this decision, it is difficult to see why this behavior is
not reflected in the empirical results for long-standing advertising bans.
Nelson J.P.,2006, Alcohol Advertising Bans, Consumption, and Control Policies in Seventeen
OECD Countries. 1975-2000, Social Science Research Network,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=942647