In the next five weeks alone, two Commonwealth government senate committees, one house of representatives committee and an Australian Communications & Media Authority review are expected to hand down recommendations, anyone of which would have a substantial impact on Australia's media landscape.

The regulatory threats to the industry range from a tightening of hours and type of events in which alcoholic beverages can be advertised on free-to-air television, to restrictions on the way products are sold to children.

However, these pale into insignificance compared to the demands of some well-organised and funded activist groups.

The marketing industry stands accused of everything from the sexualisation and exploitation of children, to the over-exuberant marketing of alcoholic beverages contributing to social breakdown and individual misery.

High-profile groups such as The Parents Jury - which receives Victorian state government funding - openly advocate the banning of all marketing of manufactured food products to children in all forms. Ultimately, it is the current system of industry self-regulation of advertising standards that is under threat.

How the industry responds and whether it can garner enough support to maintain the existing limited self-regulation ,will be a major ICSI. There is little doubt that anti-advertising activists are better funded and organised than ever before and a new government in Canberra is listening. According to the Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) executive director Collin Segelov, pressure on the industry in relation to food and alcohol marketing has been building for several years - in particular since the Obesity Summit in NSW in 2000. However the change of government in Canberra seems to have accelerated matters and the industry needs to defend its position if it is to avoid greater regulation.

"Australia is also being seen as something of a test case for other places in the world, where similar accusations are being levelled and a change in government might initiate a similar "re-examination around the regulation of the industry: Segelov says. "While we have to recognise that community standards are never static, and as an industry we have to respond, government regulation doesn't work for us, the economy, or, ultimately, the changes some of the activist groups seek.”

In relation to the obesity issue, McCann Worldgroup CEO and Advertising Federation of Australia board member Chris Mort says the early responses of the industry include the creation of the “Jo Lively" campaign.

Inspired by the success of the “Life Be In It” campaigns of the 1970s and '80s, the advertising industry-sponsored Jo Lively campaign attempted to show that advertising could also have a positive impact on the nations eating habits and fitness.

Mort says the McCann Erickson created and AANA-Sponsored campaign was first shown about five years ago, but has recently been back on air.

However, Mort admits that Jo Lively's attempts to get couch potatoes everywhere to “Eat Well, Play Well, Live Well” was limited by it being community service funded and aired only on space donated by television networks, magazines or newspapers.

“I can't remember a time when advertising has been as under attack as in the past 12 months,” Mort says. “But these attacks have been building for six or seven years and I think the industry has been responding in the best way it can.”

The AANA is taking the lead in the defence of self-regulation, organising a loose coalition of marketing, advertising and media groups known as the Advertising, Marketing & Media Industry Forum.

This coalition is not only seeking a coordinated approach to government inquiries concerning the industry, but is also trying to engage and, where appropriate, debate some of the activist groups that are calling for greater regulation.

This has included a review by the AANA of the Advertising to Children Code and a Food & Beverage Advertising Code based on international standards.

AANA chairman and Nestle marketing chief Ian Alwill says the standards set by the industry should reflect community standards and adapt to changing media technology.

“The review has taken note of widespread community concerns, particularly around the sexualisation of children and the portrayal of body image, and we have responded accordingly,” Alwill says.

The resulting changes announced in mid-April - to precede the ACMA review on television advertising to children to be released in June - included the extension of the definition of advertising to include other marketing communications; a prohibition against the sexualisation of children; a prohibition against “pester power”; a requirement that commercial messages to children be distinguishable from editorial or program content and a requirement that parental consent is given before personal information is offered.

However, much to the frustration of Segelov and others in the industry, the announcement of these changes was greeted negatively by some of the lobby groups commenting in the media, even though the same lobby groups had been consulted and substantially accommodated in the new code.

For example, a day after the AANA Advertising to Children code changes were announced, Elizabeth Handsley of Young Media Australia told The Sydney Morning Herald that the code was a “toothless tiger” and she could  not think of a single existing campaign that would be affected by the proposed changes.

Segelov says such criticisms were levelled even though Young Media Australia had been closely consulted during the review and some of the standards were specifically introduced at its request.

“It is greatly frustrating that some of the lobby groups do not display the same ethical standards that they demand of us,” Segelov says. "In some cases, we are dealing with people who simply don't like advertising of any sort and there is little room for compromise.”

Segelov says the industry will never stop talking to any group, but some lobby groups are far from representative of the majority of the public- as is shown by the small number of complaints received about advertising through the Advertising Standards Bureau.

Some of the most active lobby groups can trace a lineage to the long fight against all forms of tobacco marketing in Australia, with the Australian Cancer Council and the Cancer Council of NSW among the most active fundraisers and campaigners against food advertising.

The Coalition on Food Advertising to Children, Young Media Australia and the Parents Jury all receive funding from the Cancer Council and jointly undertook the Cancer Council NSW marketing campaign called “Pull The Plug” on children's television advertising, in addition to well-funded lobbying. The Cancer Council of NSW produces a monthly newsletter, titled Junk Food Injunction, and provides a spokesperson for The Parents Jury.

The Cancer Council defends its involvement in the advertising to children debate on the grounds that food marketing contributes to obesity, and obesity to a number of life-threatening cancers.

According to Segelov, in the battle against cancer and improving community health standards the lobby groups have unqualified support of the AANA, but he rejects the notion that increased regulation of what can be advertised, and when, will achieve this goal.

"It is a myth that advertising is unregulated: he says. “We are extremely regulated. When more regulation is imposed by government it simply shifts the problem.

“Let’s also remember what our industry contributes to the economy and socially. We have recent economic studies that show just how closely linked the whole economy is to the performance of advertising and media. Excessive restrictions will prevent this.”

However, there is some doubt that this message is getting through to Canberra. It was a point of considerable angst for many in the industry that nobody - past or present from advertising was invited to Prime Minister Rudd’s 2020 ideas summit other than ex-advertising millionaire Phillip Adams.

Industry stalwart and Mitchell Group Chairman Harold Mitchell, who had very strong links to the Howard Government, lamented the lack of industry representation at the 2020 summit in his column in The Australian.

“It has been carefully chosen, of course, with agreed balance between states and sexes, but in this great balancing act I could find only one advertising person, past or present,” Mitchell wrote. “That says something about our industry and its standing in the community.”

However, Mitchell also recognized that the advertising industry has had strong links to ALP state governments and federal governments of the past and there's no reason to assume the Rudd government is unsympathetic to commercial media.

Segelov agrees and points out that the Rudd government is far closer to the UK's New Labour model of progressive politics, making it less ideologically driven and more open to industry self-regulation rather than applying a heavy hand of legislation.

“Marketing and advertising lies at the core of business investment and regulation can only distort that in ways that can be difficult to predict,” Segelov says.

For example, the current ACMA review of free-to-air television advertising of food products to children cannot examine how children are being marketed to online, on pay TV or any other media. Segelov says that any regulation emerging as a result of the review would carry the real danger of pushing unethical pitches to children online where it is far harder for regulators to get control.

It may also make pay TV more attractive to advertisers where they might have greater freedom.

This problem has not escaped the attention of activist groups such at The Parents Jury and Young Media Australia, which have called for an extension of the ACMA review 10 cover all broadcast media and the internet. That this has ignored the extension of the definition of advertising in the new AANA Advertising to Children Code has offered some indication of how aggressively some groups are prepared to play.

One industry Insider, who declined to be named, says some of the lobby groups are in favour of any restriction on marketing available, while continuing towards the ultimate goal of restricting all advertising by big business.

“It is a similar strategy to that used to restrict tobacco. You take many small steps over a long time to achieve a goal that at first appears unacceptable to anyone.”

In the battle for hearts and minds, the AANA has to overcome a perception that it represents the largest “junk” food and alcoholic beverage manufacturers in Australia and will stop at nothing to protect its right to exploit markets against the interest of the community.

It may be that the decision by lan Alwill - who is Australasian marketing chief for Nestle, one of the largest manufactured food marketers in the world - to announce his resignation as chairman of the AANA in favour of a non-food marketer, might help address this.

Segelov says a new chairman will be announced later in the year, but in the meantime, the AANA will continue to lead the industry and will keep an open dialogue with the community.

“It is not just a matter of avoiding regulation, it is also a matter of maintaining standards in line with those of the community. As with elsewhere in the world, ultimately it comes down to a right of free speech.

“We've spent the past 60 years defending free speech and, in total, we represent a commercial media industry in Australia valued at over $30 billlon,” Segelov says. “We're not going to give up now.”