The main issue is that alcohol promotion can make drinking look normal, fun and strongly connected to sport, celebration and social success. This becomes controversial when children and teenagers are exposed to that messaging, or when alcohol harms are downplayed.

• it can normalise drinking as part of everyday life
• it can increase youth exposure to alcohol brands
• it can make alcohol seem more harmless than it really is
• sport and event sponsorship can strengthen the alcohol = lifestyle connection

• Dan Murphy’s has faced criticism over alcohol advertising that was seen as too visible to children, showing how even large retailers can attract complaints.
• Bundaberg Rum has long been a classic example in alcohol marketing debates because strong branding and mascots can make alcohol more memorable and appealing.
• Great Northern, VB and other beer brands have been heavily promoted around Australian sport and outdoor culture, helping build huge brand awareness.
• The Australian Open has often been criticised by health groups because alcohol promotion remains visible around a major family-friendly sporting event.
• Cricket Australia previously had the long-running VB sponsorship, which ended in 2017, showing that alcohol and sport links can be challenged and changed.
• After the end of the VB cricket deal, health groups argued sport should move further away from alcohol-linked branding.
• Baseball Australia announced a booze sponsorship ban across national and junior levels in 2019, showing that some sports have actively moved away from alcohol promotion.
• NRL and other codes have been criticised for heavy alcohol ad exposure during major broadcasts, especially when children are part of the viewing audience.
• Alcohol sponsorship in sport can help businesses reach huge audiences fast, but it also creates some of the strongest backlash because it links drinking with success, fun and athletic identity.

• Philip Morris and British American Tobacco cannot market cigarettes in Australia like normal consumer brands.
• their cigarette packs must follow plain packaging rules, meaning logos, colours and branding power are stripped back.
• this means tobacco firms cannot rely on packaging as a mini advertisement in the way soft drink, chocolate or fast-food brands can.
• retailers such as supermarkets, convenience stores and tobacconists face strict display and compliance rules when selling tobacco products.
• unlike alcohol or fast food, tobacco companies cannot use mainstream sport sponsorship to build positive brand associations.
• tobacco advertising bans have made it much harder for tobacco businesses to build brand awareness through TV, print and outdoor ads.
• Australia’s plain packaging laws became globally famous, showing how government can directly weaken a business’s branding strategy.
• the same tougher direction has now extended to vapes, which means businesses in the nicotine space face even tighter control.
• this makes tobacco the clearest example of a product where public health concerns have overridden normal marketing freedom.

The issue with fast food marketing is not that the product is illegal. The issue is that heavy promotion can normalise unhealthy eating, especially when children are targeted through characters, toys, offers, sport, apps and frequent public exposure.

• children may be influenced by branding and promotions
• unhealthy food can be normalised as an everyday choice
• convenience and value may be promoted over nutrition
• constant advertising can shape long-term eating habits

• McDonald’s is a clear example of a fast-food business that benefits from massive brand awareness through advertising, apps, promotions and sport-linked exposure.
• KFC is strongly linked with the Big Bash League, making it one of the most discussed examples of junk-food sponsorship in Australian sport.
• Hungry Jack’s uses heavy price promotions, meal deals and app-based offers to drive repeat purchases and store traffic.
• Domino’s uses constant digital promotion, value deals and app offers, showing how fast-food brands keep demand high through ongoing promotion.
• McDonald’s sponsorship of junior sport has been criticised by health advocates who argue that sport should not be used to normalise unhealthy food to children.
• the AFL’s McDonald’s sponsorship has triggered backlash from parent groups who see the partnership as socially irresponsible.
• KFC branding in cricket has been heavily criticised because children watching the BBL are repeatedly exposed to junk-food logos and messaging.
• Cancer Council WA has publicly pushed back against unhealthy food sponsorship in sport, especially where children are involved.
• fast-food advertising on buses, train stations, billboards and digital spaces means brands can reach huge audiences, but this also increases criticism when children are heavily exposed.
• for businesses like McDonald’s, KFC and Hungry Jack’s, promotion is highly effective for sales and market share, but it also keeps them at the centre of public debate about obesity and child-targeted marketing.