APHA 2009, Part 2: A Slipped DISCUS

Something curious occurred at a scientific session at the American Public Health Association (APHA) conference in Philadelphia this past Tuesday.

Big Booze decided to drop in.

The session – entitled Alcohol and Tobacco Advertising Aimed at Youth:  Effective Policy Solutions - featured the following presentations:

- Dr. Pamela Ling reported on the frequent presence of alcohol imagery and behaviors in tobacco advertising.

- Michele Simon of the Marin Institute discussed Marin’s report on the Distilled Spirits Industry Council (DISCUS) complaint process.

- Elizabeth Rhoades discussed a content analysis of alcohol advertising with injury-related messaging in youth-oriented magazines from 2003-2007. (Her advisor, Dr. David Jernigan of the Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth, was also present and answered some questions.)

- Scott A. Fleming presented on a study of alcohol kiosk sales and advertising on the streets of Russian cities.

Individually, each presentation was compelling.  Taken together, they painted a damning portrait of industries intent on marketing products in ways that damage human health.

Then the fun started.

Near the end of the session (during Q&A), a woman sitting near the front announced that she was from the “distilled spirits industry” and that her industry had been mischaracterized.

(The woman was later identified as Monica Gourovitch, PhD, Senior Vice President of the DISCUS “Office of Scientific Affairs.”)

Dr. Gourovitch insisted that the DISCUS process was very fair and thorough.  She also maintained that the “Be Careful” Goldschläger ad campaign (referenced in Ms. Rhoades’ presentation) had been summarily withdrawn and that the cost of doing so was punishment enough.

Predictably, she offered no factual information to demonstrate the effectiveness of the DISCUS self-regulatory scheme.  She did not address the hard fact that ads placed by companies that did not have a seat on the DISCUS Code Review Board were 3 times more likely to be found not in compliance than ads placed by Board companies (per the Marin report, pg. 6).  Nor did she counter what session participants saw with their own eyes – that many spirits ads feature blatantly sexual themes, yet somehow do not violate the “relies on sexual prowess or sexual success as a selling point” or “depicts promiscuity or sexually lewd images or language” provisions of the DISCUS “code.”

Moreover, it was she who was mischaracterizing the Goldschläger campaign.

Unfortunately for her, she didn’t anticipate that the individual who actually filed the complaint (i.e., me) would be sitting in the session. (See also here, here, and here.)

Needless to say, I did not appreciate an alcohol industry hack playing fast and loose with the truth.

As I reminded her, after that campaign was “voluntarily withdrawn,” in 2003 (a PR face-saving maneuver), it took a good deal of follow-up to ensure that Diageo abided by its own measly promises.  The campaign billboards were still up in San Diego (among other locations) after the campaign was supposedly terminated, as were campaign rack cards.

And does anyone believe that the world’s largest liquor company (with revenues of over $16 billion in 2008) was chastened by the withdrawal of a campaign for one of its secondary brands?  And, as both Simon and Jernigan had pointed out earlier, by the time most complaints are processed, the typical ad campaign has already run its course.

Clearly, any legitimate process has to have some type of actual sanction to ensure compliance.  Anything less is a farce.

But perhaps the most interesting question here is:  What on earth was DISCUS thinking?

The presentations at the APHA are, largely, for professionals and by professionals.  Most of the attendees were either members of the APHA Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drugs (ATOD) Section, or active in the addiction field.

These are not individuals who will have their minds changed about the “responsibility” of the liquor industry based on a couple of sentences from an industry pseudo-scientist.

Or was the intention to somehow intimidate the presenters?  If so, it failed.  Rest assured, Michele Simon and David Jernigan have faced far more potent criticism than the flaccid objections raised by Dr. Gourovitch.

It does make sense that DISCUS would sneak someone in to keep tabs on two of their sharpest (and most effective) critics.

But the decision of DISCUS to inject itself into the proceedings came off as creepy and a little desperate.

Regardless, I did appreciate the opportunity to talk back to an industry that causes so much harm while striking a “responsible” pose.