That is correct.

Even though the sign itself doesn’t primarily appeal to minors, it is a reasonable assumption that more that 30% of the audience will be under LPDA due to the placement clearly visible from the playground across the street. Blue Chill and the bar owner should find an alternative place for this new sign to limit visibility from, the school and the schoolyard.

Unfortunately Anna failed to follow this advice.

Click here to watch the outcome.

This is not correct

Even though we always strive to reach our target audience in our marketing and advertising, not primarily reaching the target group in itself is not a violation of our Responsible Marketing Code unless the advertising primarily appeals to minors or more than 30% of the audience exposed is under LPDA. For more information see principle 1 “We do not primarily appeal to minors” and principle 2 “We actively restrict exposure of our branding to minors”.

This is not correct.

Even though we always have to advocate drinking responsibly and driving responsibly, just placing advertisement and branding next to a road is not a violation of the Responsible Marketing Code.

See Principle 4 “We advocate drinking responsibly, driving responsibly and general safety”.

This is not correct

Even though outdoor advertising needs to have a clear responsible drinking message, there is no requirement to dedicate 10% of real estate to this message.

See Principle 4 “We advocate drinking responsibly, driving responsibly and general safety”