Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37563764›Full record

Trial reportAddiction (Abingdon, England)2023

Can counter-advertising dilute marketing effects of alcohol sponsorship of elite sport: A field experiment.

Helen Dixon, Maree Scully, Jeff Niederdeppe, Emily Brennan, Kerry O'Brien, Brian Vandenberg, Simone Pettigrew, Melanie Wakefield

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Helen DixonCancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5365-9605
Maree ScullyCancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Jeff NiederdeppeJeb E. Brooks School of Public Policy and Department of Communication, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7686-1526
Emily BrennanCancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9779-0210
Kerry O'BrienSchool of Social Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Brian VandenbergSchool of Social Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3325-6152
Simone PettigrewThe George Institute of Global Health, Newtown, NSW, Australia.
Melanie WakefieldCancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo test whether showing spectators counter-advertisements exposing alcohol harms alone, or exposing alcohol harms and alcohol sponsorship, before watching an alcohol-sponsored sporting event promotes less favourable post-event attitudes and intentions towards alcohol sponsor brands and alcohol in general.

designOn-line between-subjects experiment.

settingAustralia.

participantsA sample of Australian adults aged 18-49 years who planned to watch an alcohol-sponsored National Rugby League (NRL) State of Origin series game was recruited through an online panel.

interventionsParticipants were randomly assigned to one of three counter-advertising conditions: control (neutral advertisement); counter-advertisement exposing alcohol harms; and counter-advertisement exposing alcohol sponsorship and harms, to view at least four times during the week before watching the alcohol-sponsored sporting event. MEASUREMENTS: Participants (n = 1932) completed a pre-test questionnaire a week before the sporting event. Within 4 days of watching the sporting event, participants completed post-test measures assessing sponsor brand awareness, attitudes and preferences towards the brand, as well as knowledge, attitudes and intentions for alcohol in general (n = 1075).

findingsCompared with the control advertisement, the counter-advertisement exposing alcohol sponsorship and harms promoted higher (6-13%) awareness of sponsor brands, less favourable attitudes towards sponsor brands and drinking beer, lower purchase intentions for sponsor brands (Cohen's d = 0.15, 0.31, 0.27, respectively) and perceived less image-based similarity and fit between the sporting event and sponsor brands (Cohen's d = 0.20 and 0.56). Both counter-advertisements promoted lower perceptions of the appropriateness of consuming alcohol while watching sport (Cohen's d = 0.22 and 0.34), higher awareness of alcohol harms (6-34%) and higher intentions (8-13%) to reduce alcohol consumption than the control advertisement.

conclusionsAt alcohol-sponsored sporting events, counter-advertisements addressing alcohol harms may promote knowledge of harms and intentions to drink less. Counter-advertisements that additionally expose and critique alcohol sponsorship may detract from perceptions of sponsor brand image and intentions to purchase the sponsor's products.

Indexed as

AdvertisingSportsAdultAustraliaBeerHumansMarketingAlcoholcounter-advertisingcounter-marketingfield experimentmarketingsponsorshipsport

Identifiers

PMID37563764
PMCPMC10952974

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.