ISBA: Advertisers square up for battle

He said it was time to 'take a stand' against the tightening regulation of TV ads, and claimed that rules such as those on advertising foods high in fat, salt or sugar to children were 'naive, simplistic and counterproductive'.

Howell called on the government to harness the power of advertising rather than resort to 'futile and damaging' ad bans. 'Instead of letting politicians censor commercial messages, we need to show advertising can be a force for good,' he said.

However, the most scathing attack on the escalating advertising restraints came from Tim Bell, chairman of Chime Communications, who warned that some of the UK's best-known brands will disappear unless marketers take action to prevent further restrictions on advertising.

Lord Bell called on the industry to unite against additional strictures, claiming that consumers should be allowed to 'make up their own minds'. He added that the fashion for controls on ads would ultimately be extended to cars, air travel and energy consumption.

'If we don't take action, fabulous brands that spent millions building their reputations will disappear overnight,' the Tory peer said. 'We can't allow this to happen.'

Bell added that the industry's current stance was in-effective. 'Having meetings with ministers is not the solution,' he said, urging advertisers to work together to create 'outreach campaigns' to boost their corporate social responsibility (CSR) credentials. 'Politicians will tell you that advertising bans work,' added Bell. 'They are liars.'

The session was also a chance for other panellists, including Kraft Foods vice-president and area director Ben Clarke, and ASA Council member Baroness Coussins, to advocate the use of advertising to convey positive messages and innovation. Clarke said advertising was an essential driving force behind the expansion of Kraft's product range. 'Innovation that comes from the impetus to sell more products is sometimes portrayed as parasitic and exploitative of society, but it can also be a great force for good,' he added.

  ASA chairman Lord Smith's reaction:  'Advertisers and their agencies have their business programme largely right when it comes to tackling the issues surrounding advertising. The debate about food and drink advertising is not going to go away, but the medium is an easy target. Price and availability are playing their part [in both obesity and alcohol issues], but there has to be a range of measures, including some advertising restrictions, to tackle the problem. Commercial broadcasters also have a responsibility to create and air regular and attractive health messages through programming. 'I understand why Lord Bell said what he did, but to a certain extent it's misguided. The industry must maintain a dialogue with the government and needs to stick to doing three things. First, it needs to act and be seen to be acting responsibly. Second, the industry needs to do as much as it can to promote healthy lifestyle messages. Third, and contrary to what Tim Bell says, it must continue to sit down and communicate with government.' Lord SmithChairman, Advertising Standards Authority, and former secretary of state for culture, media and sport 

Unintended consequences of advertising ban

• Increased consumption might result from greater price competition over ad-banned products, thereby exacerbating any 'problem'.
• Food and drink manufacturers may switch marketing activities to less-regulated media (such as the internet).
• Incentives to innovate to produce healthier food and drinks might be reduced.

Are ad bans effective?

• No clear-cut relationship.
• Any impact is small; maximum 2% variance.
• Parental diet, price, meal habits and exercise have a far greater impact (98%).
• No reduction in obesity where children's ads are banned.
• Source: ITV/Frontier Economics

Are advertisers doing enough to tackle tougher advertising restrictions? Have your say.