ONCE the dust settles in respect of the minimum pricing of alcohol, Scottish consumers and those marketing alcohol brands in Scotland will be able to assess how buying patterns have been affected. One question we might ask is whether the alcohol industry can learn from the producers of soft drinks, who have faced a similar dilemma in the face of recent legislative changes.

One of the key assumptions behind the legislation is that price sensitivity—or price “elasticity”, as economists call it—would mean that Scottish consumers spend no more on alcohol in total, and therefore reduce consumption.

Indeed, a number of studies have indicated in other countries that increasing the price of alcohol by 10per cent will typically reduce consumption by 10 per cent.

The proposal that all parties at Holyrood supported can be modelled against reduced hospital admissions, time spent on preventative campaigns and ultimately the number of lives saved.

So, politicians, health professionals and pressure groups such as Drinkaware believe this is a progressive piece of legislation.

An influential advocate of no change has been the Scotch Whisky Association, which argued special status, principally because overseas governments might see this as a green light to tax the product further. Whisky also takes time and investment to mature and therefore is inherently different from, say, gin or vodka, though in this case the producers or retailers aren’t actually being taxed, but rather being banned from low price promotional incentives.

One curious aspect, however, is why more alcohol producers have not adapted products by reducing the ABV (alcohol by volume of their brands as part of a long-term strategy to maintain sales. It’s surprising that other lower strength brands – including whisky-based “spirit drinks” such as Ballantine’s Brasil – haven’t been promoted as substitutes more extensively within Scotland.

Recent changes in the taxation of sugar for soft drinks may present a solution to the alcohol industry in Scotland. Aside from the macho, hard-drinking culture evident in parts of our society, an opportunity has arisen to emulate the strategy employed by Irn Bru, Scotland’s favourite soft drink brand. In measures introduced in January 2018, the price of a two litre bottle of full-sugar carbonated drink was hiked by as much as 48p, while cans increased by 8p. Barr’s, the parent company, took the bold move to amend the age-old recipe in order to reduce the cost of the product to the consumer, maintain margins and simultaneously highlight health issues.

The initial reaction was to apparently incur the wrath of loyal Irn Bru drinkers, many of whom reported that they would stockpile the original produce in advance of the change, or switch permanently to more sugary alternatives. However, just a few months after the change, consumer behaviour has begun to return to normal, with little public relations backlash.

Might the same opportunity be available for the alcohol industry as consumers adapt to health incentives by government?

The beer and cider producers are possibly the most curious cases in their reluctance to actively promote mid-strength brands, with products of around three per cent ABV rarely being promoted in bars or in prominent shelf positions in supermarkets. These mid-strength products were previously the staple within bars – labelled “session” beers or ciders – in the days before high strength alternatives became the norm.

Connoisseurs of particular brands of spirits or beers may argue that taste will be compromised if alcohol content is reduced, yet exactly the same criticism was made of the decision to change the recipe for Irn Bru.

Health professional argue that the units of alcohol in drinks can rapidly accumulate, taking consumers over the (recently reduced) alcohol unit guidelines. Selecting lower strength alternatives means – assuming consumers drink the same number of drinks – that people will drink fewer units of alcohol and thus remain within the guidelines.

Barr’s has a proven innovation record of not only introducing new low sugar brands, but also taking the decision to adapt and promote its flagship brand – a bold decision which will work to its advantage in the longer term. Coca-Cola has taken similar measures.

The health benefits of switching to low alcohol or non-alcoholic drinks are clear. In the short term, people are more likely to sleep better, feel fresher the next day and enjoy a more productive day at work as a consequence. Furthermore, many lighter products are also lower in calories, so weight loss can also be a benefit. Significantly, though, reducing the number of units consumed can help avoid the more drastic long-term effects of excess drinking, including various cancers, mental health impacts, heart disease and high blood pressure.

The alcohol industry, if it follows Barr’s initiative by developing modified alternatives, can show leadership by being part of the solution as opposed to being part of the problem.

* The Author is Programme Leader, BA Business & Marketing, School of Business and Enterprise School, University of the West of Scotland