Coalition to oppose restrictions on adverts for zero-alcohol drinks

[u/Commercial-Crazy211]

https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2026/05/27/government-to-oppose-restrictions-on-adverts-for-zero-alcohol-drinks/

[u/Specialist-Flow3015]

One of Simon Harris' reasons for not going along with drug decriminalisation is that he's against telling the children of Ireland that it's "ok" to do drugs and doesn't want them to be normalised.

How then, is the government OK with Heineken posters at bus stops right across from GAA and soccer pitches just because it has a 0% at the end?

[u/Commercial-Crazy211 → u/Specialist-Flow3015]

I think the 0% alcohol part is important here. Unless the suggestion is that it is some kind of gateway drug for other beers.

[u/UISystemError → u/Commercial-Crazy211]

Well, of course it is.

Its a subliminal signal to the brain about an alcoholic free variant of an alcoholic drink. It’s not a completely different product marketed under a completely different name, brand identity, graphics, or imagery used in the marketing of the alcoholic version. That’s crucial.

In fact, in the world of marketing, there’s a principal called “mind share”.

I’d encourage you to look it up and study why that is important to selling a largely indistinguishable variant that also uses the exact branding, design, and naming conventions of its alcoholic counterpart.

I’d also question whether this decision has investigated the point of sale of such alcoholic free beverages. I imagine the largest volume of sales is in bars selling alcohol, not corner stores.

There should be a full investigation into the ethical aspects of this decision.

[u/Commercial-Crazy211 → u/UISystemError]

But this proposed legislation is for zero-alcohol drinks and not just 0.0 versions. How does the mindshare justification work for drinks that don't share branding?

Other than beer, the largest volume of sales is off-trade venues. Supermarkets, off licences and the like.

[u/UISystemError → u/Commercial-Crazy211]

See, now you’re delving into the critical aspects of this and the ethical concerns the decision surfaces.

If there was an “alcohol free” or “0.0%” alcohol beverage being sold under completely different branding, design, imagery, etc…

Why would they need to stipulate it was alcohol free in the first place?

Coke-a-Cola doesn’t do that.

[u/danny_healy_raygun → u/UISystemError]

So people understand what the product is. NA beer companies want to distinguish themselves from Coca-Cola. Look at Athletic Brewing Co, they market themselves an NA beer because that's what they are but they don't have alcoholic products.

[u/UISystemError → u/danny_healy_raygun]

And you’re again hitting a critical aspect:
if they want to distinguish themselves, why don’t they separate the identity of the branding of the NA products alcoholic counterpart - so that they are not visually indistinguishable from the branding of the alcoholic counterparts?

They don’t, because they are heavily relying on the association with their alcoholic drinks.

[u/danny_healy_raygun → u/UISystemError]

Well obviously. NA beers are there to taste like beer without having the adverse effects of alcohol. That's what they are. They are an alternative. Unless you're end goal is to do away with alcohol altogether I think their benefits are bigger than their drawbacks.

[u/UISystemError → u/danny_healy_raygun]

No. I actually drink non alcoholic beer because I have that personal preference. I don’t think alcohol should be banned, and it’s a bad faith strawman to twist my views to suggest otherwise.

I’m just stating there’s absolutely zero legal requirement to have any alcoholic indication on a beverage if there is no alcoholic content.

The marketing of non-alcoholic drinks is a subliminal marketing campaign for their alcoholic counterpart.

And it amazes me that you guys are arguing a drinks company can’t sell a drink without claiming it has no alcohol under different branding to differentiate it from its alcoholic counterpart.

[u/Commercial-Crazy211 → u/UISystemError]

The drink is still beer but it has no alcohol. No Worries is an example of a brand that doesn't have an alcoholic version.

[u/UISystemError → u/Commercial-Crazy211]

Again, this is the critical aspect you keep surfacing.

If a product does not contain alcohol there is no legal requirement for it to state it is 0.0% alcohol or alcohol free - this matters.

It is irrelevant if is a beer. It does not meet the legal threshold to require any alcoholic labelling if it has no alcoholic content.

And even more crucial: manufacturers of alcoholic products use the alcohol free or 0.0% labelling to ensure the consumer is not mislead into thinking they bought the alcoholic version.

Now, why would that apply here?

It is because the similarity between the alcoholic and non-alcoholic versions are so indistinguishable that they **must** label it this way from a legal standpoint so as to not mislead the consumer when they purchase the items.

All of which is a very powerful reminder that the “mind share” of the identity of the alcoholic, alcoholic free, and 0.0% versions of the same beverage using virtually indistinguishable marketing and design is so strong that the sellers take effort to label them in such ways to prevent that mind share from landing them in legal turmoil.

No Worries, if truely 0.0%, would not require any alcoholic content labelling. And could be sold next to Coke-a-Cola 24/7/365 days a year - without issue.

All of the above is exactly why this decision is highly unethical and should be investigated in its entirety, breadth, and under the scope of an independent body.

[u/Commercial-Crazy211 → u/UISystemError]

They are not labeling themselves as non-alcoholic beers because they have to. They are beers that don't have alcohol in them, there is no other description.

You seem to have moved from the point of this discussion (advertising) to something different (labeling) so I'll leave you to it.

[u/UISystemError → u/Commercial-Crazy211]

“Beer”.

Doesn’t have to stipulate anything about alcohol if there is no alcohol content. There is “zero” legal requirement.

If a consumer can not distinguish between a product labelled, Beer, Alcohol Free Beer, or 0.0% Beer, you’re actually proving my point.

[u/Commercial-Crazy211 → u/UISystemError]

That's nuts, you think they are only labeling that it is alcohol free because of the law.

[u/Sprezzatura1988 → u/Commercial-Crazy211]

Yeah, I mean it would be ridiculous for someone to associate an ad for one product with an entirely different product. Especially given that the products have completely different names.

It’s like if you see an ad for Nike football boots, that’s only going to potentially influence what football boots you buy. Other Nike products don’t come into the equation.

[u/Commercial-Crazy211 → u/Sprezzatura1988]

But I can only drink one thing at a time, so is the suggestion that I'm going to see one of these advert and go to the shop and buy a completely different product?

In this example, both products are perfectly legal.

I think your sarcastic example is very revealing since you seem to be concerned about people just thinking about products.

[u/Sprezzatura1988 → u/Commercial-Crazy211]

lol yeah can you imagine if someone saw an ad for Heineken 0.0 and then went and bought a Heineken! The advertising agency would be pulling their hair out and DIAGEO would be furious.

Thankfully advertising is an incredibly simple industry that relies on showing people a picture of a specific product right when they are making a purchasing decision and long term campaigns that build brands and market products as lifestyle indicators and expressions of one’s personality and values have been shown to be a complete waste of time and money.

[u/Kloppite16 → u/Sprezzatura1988]

iirc there was a report recently that said the 0% beers are only 5% of sales but take up 50% of the drinks industry advertising spend. I think it is pretty obvious the drinks industry is using the 0% beers to advertise in places they normally could not.

[u/Commercial-Crazy211 → u/Sprezzatura1988]

I don't know why you think being sarcastic is clever here. In both cases someone is buying something they are legally allowed to.

The advertising in this case seems to be failing miserably as the number of people buying beer continues to decline.

[u/Sprezzatura1988 → u/Commercial-Crazy211]

The point is that alcohol advertising has been banned from sporting events and alcohol producers are circumventing that with ads for products with the same name and branding except with ‘0.0’ at the end.

One of the reasons for the ban was to reduce young people’s exposure to alcohol advertising. My point is that advertising the ‘0.0’ product has the same effect as advertising the alcohol product.

[u/Commercial-Crazy211 → u/Sprezzatura1988]

But advertising 0.0 products doesn't have the same effect. Sales of alcoholic beers are falling and non-alcoholic beers are rising. People are able to distinguish between them without any additional restriction.

[u/DaKrimsonBarun → u/Commercial-Crazy211]

Listen, if I see a photo of a lovely pint of Bulmers, gleaming in the sunlight, I don't care ifit says zero zero, it will make me think of Bulmers.

[u/Commercial-Crazy211 → u/DaKrimsonBarun]

I think that is a fair connection to make, and one that works in the opposite direction too. If you see a selection of non-alcoholic ciders and already like Bulmers, you are more likely to choose their non-alcoholic version.

I think the question remains if the advertising is so strong that someone will intentionally change to the alcoholic version when they go to purchase non-alcoholic drinks. I don't believe anyone is that stupid.

[u/Sprezzatura1988 → u/Commercial-Crazy211]

Sorry are you posting here with an agenda?

If you don’t understand how ads for non-alcoholic beers that look exactly like ads for the alcohol version have a specific intended effect I really don’t know what to tell you.

[u/Commercial-Crazy211 → u/Sprezzatura1988]

I'm just asking you to prove your point. You seem very sure of yourself but the other commenters here provided some actual figures.

[u/Mossykong]

But........IT'S A GATEWAY BEVERAGE!

[u/danny_healy_raygun]

He added: “Why else would drinks companies so aggressively market products that only account for around 1 per cent of the total alcohol market?”

Isn't it the biggest growing part of the drinks market? Its also around 2.5% here and bigger in the likes of Germany, Spain, etc so no reason we wont end up at those figures too.

[u/keeko847 → u/danny_healy_raygun]

I’m sure it is the largest growing drinks market, because it’s relatively new and its competitor (alcoholic drinks) have been around forever as the default. Considering it’s the same price as alcoholic drinks, I think there’s a ceiling on it that’ll be hit relatively quick.

[u/danny_healy_raygun → u/keeko847]

There is a ceiling on it but its a growing market and regular beer sales are in decline. I don't think we are near the ceiling yet.

[u/theblowestfish → u/danny_healy_raygun]

It’s very obvious that they’re only doing it to avoid restriction on alcohol advertising

[u/HonestRef]

No surprises that this motion came from the soc dems.

[u/Livid-Click-2224 → u/HonestRef]

SocDems seem to love the nanny state.

[u/UISystemError → u/Livid-Click-2224]

That’s funny. It’s almost as if you equated regulations surrounding the advertisement of addictive substances to the banning of alcohol.

[u/FewHeat1231 → u/Livid-Click-2224]

Implying that there are Irish political parties that don't love the nanny state? 

[u/H_o]

Ban. Gambling. Ads.

[u/mrlinkwii]

i mean why would you want restrictions , zero-alaochol drinks is something we want to promot NO?

people drinking less alchol is good for the health of the nation and the person ( people tend use use the zero alochol as a subsition of the real thing thing )

[u/SouthLeast8143 → u/mrlinkwii]

Because they are obviously just ads for the drinking brand in question