Harold Mitchell – banning booze from sport sponsorship won’t work, and I should know
Australia’s most influential media buyer Harold Mitchell has made a powerful intervention into the debate on alcohol and advertising, revealing that although his mother and a brother were alcoholics, he believes banning booze brands from sports sponsorship would make no difference.
In an article for the Sydney Morning Herald, Mitchell discusses the Federal Government’s attempts to introduce new alcopops legislation and the efforts by Family First politician Steve Fielding to target alcohol brands’ sponsorship of sport. The boss of Mitchell Communications Group writes:
“Taking alcohol out of sport will make no difference to how much people drink. Secondly, major sports will be left in an extremely difficult position because they have a belief from the highest levels of government that there will be no move against alcohol sponsorship.”
Mitchell, was says in the piece that he has not drunk for more than 40 years, concludes:
Well said, Harold.
The argument for banning alcohol sponsorship of sport is as fallacious as fat kids being due to Macca’s advertising.
However, that won’t stop it from becoming a tabloid cause célèbre.
Surely a slight conflict of interest here for Harold and The Mitchell Comms Group?Don’t they own most of Stadiamedia?, I’d guess there’s a fair amount of alcohol revenue to be had for that business.
Synik,
You’re right to question Harold’s motives.
Two things go in Harold’s favour though; being who he is in media means that he has potential conflicts everywhere; he beds his argument in personal experience, not economic impact.
I dare you to say to Harold’s face that his comments are financially motivated…
Bad logic. Same argument was made as to why there should be no tobacco advertising.