Alasdair Forsyth
Co-app: Anne Ellaway (MRC), Researcher: Neil Davidson (GCU)
The 36 th New Directions in the Study of Alcohol conference
Saturday, May 25 th 2012, Llandindrod Wells, Powys, Cymru

•
– Hereafter refereed to as ‘ the pilot ’
•
– Highlighted need for photo recording visual methods
•
– Found gradient with neighbourhood deprivation

Scotland in miniature

• The pilot interviews found that far from being unscrupulous
operators (e.g. ‘blatantly’ selling alcohol to under-18s), local shopkeepers took steps to prevent such issues in their community and were often victims of alcohol-related violence
and anti-social behaviour themselves.
• Despite being conducted in ‘Averagetoun’, a local deprivation
level gradient in alcohol-related problems was suggested.
• However the sample was small in scale, limited in terms of socio-
economic neighbourhoods, and focused on crime/disorder.
• A larger study needed (e.g. at city level) to see if these findings are generalise-able, and to focus on shop servers’ harm reduction strategies and their views on alcohol policy efficacy
(i.e. a shift in research focus towards public health & social policy).

(2007-2012)
1. Continued rising salience of the off-trade in UK alcohol sales
(the recession, pre-loading, pub closures etc.)
2. Continued marketplace dominance of the superstores (i.e. the 4 majors) and concerns over their deep price discounts
(e.g. selling alcohol as a ‘loss leader’).
3. Demise of the designated off-sales chains (e.g. First Quench
[Threshers, Bottoms Up, Victoria Wine, The Local etc. ] in 2009)
4. Developments in alcohol control policy (being pioneered in
Scotland by Holyrood [now SNP majority] Government)
5. New directions in alcohol research > off-trade

(2007)
Alcohol outlets
(including 618 offsales) in Glasgow
City are most concentrated in some of the city’s most deprived and most affluent areas.
They are also at their fewest in some other equally deprived and affluent city neighbourhoods .
These 618 off-sales were to provide the baseline for the current ARUK research project.

(2009)
Alcohol Promotion?
Harm reduction?

• To explore how alcohol problems and sales vary between social
contrasting neighbourhoods (deprived v non-deprived) from the
point-of-view a (neglected) local expert group – the sellers!
• To investigate shop servers’ experiences of alcohol-related
problems and how they reduce harm at point-of-sale.
• To canvass off-sales shopkeepers views at a time of great change in the drinks marketplace and alcohol policy.
• Give shop servers a voice
“Sometimes it’s very, very hard. You get stressed out. The government is not here to stand in the shop and see what it’s like, the hassle and the abuse that we get when we
refuse to serve them, you know?” (Deprived area)

• Qualitative: interviews were conducted with a sample of offsales servers (n=24) working in the most and least deprived parts of Glasgow (a city with the highest levels of alcohol problems in UK)
• Quantitative: survey using, single-sheet, self-complete questionnaires hand-delivered to all licensed community shops in the city (a follow-up postal reminder was sent to non-responders) .
• A control sample postal survey of similar unlicensed shops and 12 interviews with unlicensed (non/deprived) shop servers were also conducted.
Although this was an exploratory study, it was hypothesised that alcohol issues would be most salient in deprived neighbourhoods, where the problems faced by off-sales servers would be greatest

• Socially contrasting communities were defined by using the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD 2009) total deprivation (SIMD) score
– The SIMD ranks Scotland’s 6505 ‘Data Zones’, on various indicators to produce a total deprivation (SIMD) score
– Data Zones are drawn to take account of local neighbourhood characteristics and geographical boundaries (median pop = 769) to be representative of homogenous communities
– The highest SIMD scoring 20% of Data Zones (Quintile 1) are considered as Scotland’s deprived neighbourhoods (around half of
Glasgow’s Data Zones are Quintile 1, allowing the city to be evenly geographically divided into deprived v non-deprived neighbourhoods)
– We ranked Glasgow’s 694 Data Zones according to total SIMD, and cross-tabulated these with the 618 off-licenses (and also SIMD indicators for Data Zone crime and alcohol hospitalisation rates)

• Licensed community shops defined from the database of 618 off-licenses obtained from Glasgow city council (as of 2007)
– This database had been used in the earlier MRC research, thus providing a baseline to look at off-sales closures in the city since that time
– Only local shops (offering counter service) were included
– Supermarkets (with a row of checkouts) and service stations, wholesalers, department stores, gift shops, caterers etc. were excluded
• The hand delivery method meant that the 618 licenses on the database could be accurately audited for sample eligibility (i.e. if they were [still] trading as community off-sales).
• The most deprived licensed premise on the list was one of Glasgow’s two main football team’s stadium gift shop!
• The 2 nd most deprived on the list had ceased trading and the premise was lying vacant (part of the Haddow’s chain)

Deprived shop location
Non-deprived
For reasons of anonymity double the number of shops are shown as was interviewed

n Most Deprived
SIMD Quintile
Highest Alcohol
Hospitalised quintile
Total Licenses (2007)
Excluded
Supermarkets
Other premises
( comprising: 5 department stores,
18 gift shops, 6 chemists,
2 bookies, 11 service stations,
23 caterers and 23 wholesalers)
618
172
84
88
312 (50.5%)
76 (44.2)%
35 (41.7%)
41 (46.6%)
Non-applicable (ceased trading, merged, demolished, non-off-sales)
131 65 (49.6%)
Refused (one designated chain) 44 32 (72.7%) **
Eligible shops (43.9% of the
2007 baseline database)
271 139 (51.3%)
Survey respondents [52.8%] 14 4 69 (48.3%)
Interviews (includes 10 nonresponds: tot. participants=153)
24 n=12 [50%]
349 (56.5%)
95 (55.2%)
42 (50.0%)
53 (60.2%)
75 (57.3%)
35 (75.9%) ***
144 (53.1%)
75 (52.4%) n=11
Highest Crime quintile
357 (57.8%)
112 (65.1%) *
54 (64.3%)
58 (65.9%)
76 (58.0%)
31 (70.5)
138 (50.9%) ***
68 (47.8%) # n=14
Chi-square variance from total licences * p > 0.05, ** p > 0.01, ** * p = 0.001
Chi-square variance from eligible shops # p = 0.05

The 131 non-applicable address comprised:
87 ‘ceased trading’, 29 trading as non-off sales, 13
‘demolished’ & 2 ‘merged’
Of 87 premises ceased trading since 2007:
Most were designated off-sales, including 62 which had been part of chains (e.g. 43 Haddows)

Sometimes named after owner or local area (or nameless) such as:
“Forsyth Licensed Grocer”
“Llandindrod Off-sales”
Sometimes part of a ‘symbol group’
(e.g. Spar, Londis,
Lifestyle Express,
Keystore, Nisa, etc.

Lickert scale: ‘none’, ‘few’, ‘many’ ‘most’, ‘all’
• Three-quarters (n=108, 76.1%) of survey respondents believed
that ‘most’ or ‘all’ of their customers were ‘locals’ who lived in walking distance of their shop. Only 6 (4.2%) stated ‘few’ or ‘none’ were.
• Only seven (5.0%) respondents stated that ‘most’ or ‘all’ of their
customers were ‘destination shoppers’ (i.e. from other areas), with the bulk of shops (n=123, 87.2%) reporting ‘few’ or ‘none’.
• This pattern did not vary between shops located in deprived areas
(SIMD quintile 1 data zones) and shops in (other) non-deprived areas!
– nor did amount of ‘passing trade’ between contrasting community shops
– deprived area shops reported significantly less ‘tourists or students’ (86.7% :
43.8% ‘few’ or ‘none’) compared to shops in other areas [p = 0.000]
• Deprived area servers reported knowing significantly more of customers well (i.e. by name or age) than non-deprived [68% : 52% p=0.001]

• “We know everyone, we know everyone’s names so we’re ok now, we’re established here now, we’re alright here. When we first came in they never knew you. It is just like everywhere; when they don’t know you they think they can take you for a ride, basically.
When you get to know who is who they are ok with you.” (Deprived area)
• “They [under-agers] used to come but I know everybody now in this area. Because I know their actual age, their mum and dad as
well, they don't bother trying it [purchasing alcohol] now.”
(Deprived area)
Having a stake in the community is likely to influence frequency of experiencing
problems, especially in deprived areas (where more customers are known well).
Employing local people (e.g. mothers) as serving staff also advantageous.

‘ never’, ‘rarely’ ‘monthly’, ‘weekly’, ‘daily’
No differences were found between off-sales in deprived or nondeprived neighbourhoods reported frequency of:
• Drunk customers (47.6% ‘weekly’ or ‘daily’)
• Under-agers (42.7% ‘weekly’ or ‘daily’)
• Verbal abuse (41.0% ‘weekly’ or ‘daily’)
• Shoplifting (35.7% ‘weekly’ or ‘daily’)
• Physical attack / robbery (n=1 ‘weekly’ or ‘daily’ [53.1% ‘never’] )
– Though most (58.1%) felt the law did not adequately protect them
However levels of under-agers and physical attack did significantly reduce by % of customers known well (i.e. name & age) [66% : 55%
‘rarely’ under-18s p=0.01 and 64% : 54% ‘never’ attack /robbed p>0.05]
This was not the case with drunk customers (the biggest problem)

Security (e.g. grill cages) affected ‘shoplifting’ frequency
• “CCTV saved this shop.” (Deprived area)
When you say ‘CCTV saved this shop’, what do you mean ? [researcher]
“Stopping the shoplifting and also they don’t give us the hassle because they know that the CCTV is in here and they be catched in
the camera, that’s why they do behave sometimes.” (deprived area)
Local behavioural norms affected incidence of ‘verbal abuse’
• “Here it is perfectly acceptable to have an argument and the rest of the customers won’t bat an eyelid. However, I imagine if you go into a shop in the city centre and start that. The other customers would be like, ‘what? The shopkeeper was like that? I'm not going back into that shop’. Here it’s like, ‘no bother mate, I'm glad you
stood your ground’ and that’s it; they’ll be back in the next day.”
(Deprived area)

• “You can’t sell someone that is under the influence of drink or drugs, we legally can’t, but no-one is ever going to understand
that. [We’ve] got a job to do but they just see ‘that bad person is stopping me from getting what I want and I'm going to show
my anger’.” (Deprived area)
• “I was in hospital for six months because I refused to serve someone. The person was too drunk and I was closing up so I said ‘no’. I then got bashed to hell by baseball bats by eight people. I could have served them and broken the law and not been done in, but I obeyed the law which says I cannot serve
anyone who is too drunk.” (Deprived area)
Local customer awareness or approval of the laws concerning sales to intoxicated persons differed from those concerning sales to under-18s.

• “I'm always drumming it into the boys [male staff] especially that if we were ever to lose our licence it would have a massive impact on our business. The two most vital components to our business are the post-office and an off-license. If either of those were to go it would have a huge impact which is why I'm always drumming it in, constantly reminding them to check I.D., check I.D. If you ever feel intimidated then get us involved, but do not sell for the sake
of it.” (Non-deprived area)
• “People know that nowadays you need to have your I.D. to get served in an off-license. They're cottoning on to that fact and
seem to be heeding it.” (Deprived area)
Although unpopular (when customer known to be over 18), ‘Challenge 25’ policy had raised awareness of the law and reduced ‘blatant’ under-18 purchase.

• “Here, if you knock somebody back, they're arguing left, right and centre, contesting the fact that they're old enough, whereas people that do the test purchase just go, ‘ok, fine, thank you’ and
walk out the door. If that happens, you know.” (Deprived area)
• “I think shopkeepers are getting clever and they know what a test purchase is and they know for a start that if you walk into my shop and I've never seen you in that shop before and you ask for alcohol, right? You can tell what a customer wants and what a customer likes so straight away they’ll know that is a test purchase, so they’ll ask if you have any I.D., to which you have to
say no, then they’ll [the police] come in and say ‘you’ve passed it’.
It’s that easy to bend the rules.” (Deprived area)
Test purchases seen as catching out the novice not the savvy operator.

• “They won’t go hiding around corners and all that, that’s not the way they do business round here; it’s right outside your front door basically. You would have to be pretty naive to not know it was
going on. You can’t do that [go outside the shop], you would just get a barrage of abuse; bottles getting launched at the shop door, cars getting vandalised, and all that. It’s not worth the hassle,
seriously.” (Deprived area)
• “You can spot it sometimes though when a regular customer comes in you know what they normally buy. Like, if they only ever buy Tennent’s Lager and they're buying Tennent’s but also two
bottles of Buckfast [tonic wine], a bottle of cider, you can spot it.”
(Deprived area)
Knowing customers habits (and local ‘red flag products’) was a safeguard.
Supermarkets felt not to have the ability to perform such Third Party Policing.

• “See that woman that came in earlier? She bought that cider for her man. He is probably drunk; he’s got a bad drinking habit, so they send people, adults, family members. They don’t come in
themselves.” (Deprived area)
• “We had a lady who, not your typical alcoholic maybe; she was coming in and buying champagne and £20 bottles of wine everyday but she did start coming in pretty drunk, she would get a
little lary [aggressive] with the other customers, bumping into things, knocking things over and eventually we had to bar her.
That was more for her own sake than any problems she was
causing us.” (Non-deprived area)
Both deprived and non-deprived area shop servers had experience of problem
drinkers, but the nature (seriousness) of these problems differed [support for more qualitative research?]. But is this difference down to poverty or price?

Some shopkeepers already doing their own minimum pricing
• “…we tend to keep our prices up to keep the idiots away, right? […]
We tried that [cheap drink] in the past and we thought, ‘you know what? This isn’t worth the hassle, so you know what let’s put the
prices [up] and keep the idiots [away], that’s the best way to do it’.”
(Deprived area)
• “Minimum pricing for alcohol, I agree with that but only in a
business sense. It would stop them [major supermarkets] putting in the big offers and taking the business away from the
convenience stores, because clearly we cannae [can’t] match that.
It’s no for a health thing that you’re actually doing it for, and again
I think politician are chasing the wrong hare there, you know what
I mean? It’s a question of cosmetic stuff for them, you know? It
won’t affect anything.” (Non-deprived area)

• A majority (n=85, 59.9%) of survey respondents stated they
were in favour of MUP, (n=52, 36.6% were against the policy with n=5, 3.5% stating they did not know [ no such option was provided one the questionnaire ])
• There was no significant differences in support for MUP between deprived and non-deprived area shop servers.
• Overall support for MUP was significantly more likely to be for
‘business’ reasons and significantly less likely to be for
‘social/health’ reasons (chi-square= 4.374 & 5.983, both p > 0.05)
• There were no differences nor in reasons (either ‘business’ or
‘social/health’) for support / not supporting MUP between respondents serving socially contrasting neighbourhoods.

(survey)
• Reasons in favour or against MUP comprised:
– For Business = 45 (affect supermarkets = 31, level playing field = 18, help small retailer = 7, not affect sales = 3, other business reason = 1)
– For Social = 23 (help Scotland’s alcohol problem = 8, less under-agers = 6, less drunk customers = 5, reduce consumption = 3, other social reasons = 4)
– Against Business = 21 (not affect supermarkets = 6, affect small retailer = 5, help supermarkets = 5, not affect sales = 4, harm profits = 3, other business reasons = 3)
– Against Social = 25 (not help Scotland’s alcohol problem = 12, not reduce consumption = 4, more shop theft = 4, affect responsible drinker = 4, affect the working class = 4, harm the economy = 2, other social reason = 1)
• Most (78.3%) of respondents felt businesses like theirs were under threat from the major supermarkets [the corresponding figure in the unlicensed sample was 97.7%]

There was no difference between deprived and non-deprived area participants in how reliant their business was on alcohol sales, overall
• 61.5% said they could not survive without a licence
• 30.8% said they could survive ‘with difficulty’ (e.g. cost jobs)
• 7.7% said they could survive ‘easily’ without alcohol sales
– Only 9.9% had considered stopping (half due to licensing hassles)
– Even shops in which alcohol was a small % of sales felt reliant on drink
• “They come to buy alcohol, they buy the paper, buy the milk, soap, cigarettes. When they come to buy the cigarette they must have their can of beer. When they come to the Post Office they get their
can. It is all interconnected.” (Deprived area)
There was no difference in proportion of sales which were alcohol products between deprived and non-deprived area shops, around
half (48.5%) overall, however what these sales constituted differed
(e.g. as measured by self-reported best selling drinks brands)….

(best selling drinks brands)
Ordinary Beer (ale / lager) TOTAL (n) Deprived Non-deprived MUP (50p)
ANY
#1 Tennent’s Lager
#4 Budweiser
Stella
Carling
Carlsberg
Other named brands
Unspecified / Mixed brands
70.4% (100) 71.6% (48)
85
26
11
2
45
14
1
1
2
7
10
0
0
3
Super Lagers
ANY *
Tennent’s Super
Other / Mixed brands
TOTAL (n)
4.9% (7)
6
2
Deprived
9.0% (6)
6
1
69.3% (52)
40
12
10
1
2
7
7
Non-deprived
1.3% (1)
0
1
?
?
n/a (4pk) n/a (4pk) n/a (4pk)
MUP (50p)
+£1.13 (4 pk)
Chi-square variance deprived v non-deprived * p > 0.05, ** p > 0.01, *** p > 0.001
# = top five brand overall

(best selling drinks brands)
Ordinary (table ) Wine
ANY **
Blossom Hill
Echo Falls
Prosecco
Own label
Other named brands
Unspecified / mixed brands
TOTAL (n) Deprived Non-deprived MUP (50p)
25.4% (36) 13.4% (9) 36.0% (27)
6 4 2 +£0.01 (btl)
5
3
2
0
3
3 n/a (btl)
2
5
22
0
0
4
2
5
18
Fortified Wines
ANY
#3 Buckfast Tonic Wine
MD 20/20
High Commissioner
TOTAL (n) Deprived Non-deprived MUP (50p)
24.6% (35) 28.4% (19)
34 19
5 4
2 1
21.3% (16)
15
1
1
? (but no!)
?
?
Chi-square variance deprived v non-deprived * p > 0.05, ** p > 0.01, *** p > 0.001
# = top five brand over all

(best selling drinks brands)
Ordinary (amber ) Cider
ANY
Strongbow
Magners
Other named brand
Unspecified / mixed brands
TOTAL (n)
17.6% (25)
17
2
2
5
Deprived
17.9% (12)
8
1
2
2
Non-deprived MUP (50p)
17.3% (13)
9
1
0
£0.68 (4 pk) n/a (4 pk)
3
White Ciders
ANY **
#5 Frosty Jack
Pulse
Other named brand
Unspecified / mixed brands
TOTAL (n)
17.6% (25)
21
4
2
1
Deprived
26.9% (18)
14
4
1
1
Nondeprived
9.3% (7)
7
0
1
0
MUP (50p)
? (but yes!)
Chi-square variance deprived v non-deprived * p > 0.05, ** p > 0.01, *** p > 0.001
# = top five brand over all
?

(best selling drinks brands)
Vodka
ANY
#2 Glen’s
Smirnoff
Other named brand
Unspecified / mixed brands
TOTAL (n)
38.7% (55)
48
10
1
4
Deprived Non-deprived MUP (50p)
40.3% (27) 37.3% (28)
25 23 £1.84 (btl) n/a 4
0
0
6
1
4
Other (non-vodka) spirits
ANY *
Whyte & McKay
Other named brand
Unspecified / mixed brands
TOTAL (n)
9.2% (13)
2
8
3
Deprived Non-deprived
3.0% (2)
1
1
0
14.7% (11)
1
7
3
Chi-square variance deprived v non-deprived * p > 0.05, ** p > 0.01, *** p > 0.001
# = top five brand over all n/a

Cheaper alcohol products (by ABV) such as white cider or super-
lager were more likely to be best sellers in deprived areas (does this mean more alcohol is sold here?)
More expensive brands (with relatively high ABV) such as table wine and non-vodka spirits were more likely to be best sellers in
non-deprived areas (does this mean more profit per unit?)
Two respondents said a mix of everything (i.e. no best seller), two
said it depended upon what was on offer/deal, and one claimed
(unspecified) alcopops was a best seller!
Tennent’s Lager was a best selling brand at a majority (59.9%) of all the responding shops. It sponsors Scotland’s largest pop music
festival ( T in the Park [the UK’s 2 nd largest after Glastonbury] ) and
Glasgow’s 2 main football teams [ at the time of writing ].

• “I go into ASDA and get packs of it [Tennent’s Lager]. They're
secondary wholesalers.” (Deprived area)
• “ASDAs, they don’t want a single can they want volume to be moved, same with the Sunday trading. It’s all geared up for ASDA and Tescos, the whole licensing is geared up for them, it’s no for us. If you look at it 30 years ago before the ASDA and Tescos took to do with drink, right, was there a problem with binge drinking and binge culture? Why? How did it all of a sudden appear? That’s where we’re all going wrong and the booze prices are too cheap, walking into ASDA and they've got all these mad offers on. See
when they buy 60 cans, or 45 bottles of Bud [Budweiser lager],
they cannae [cant] stop till they finish them.
That’s where the problem lies.” (Deprived area)

No significant difference between deprived and non-deprived area shop servers in how serious a problem they thought alcohol use
was in Scotland, with around one third (28.0%) thinking it was
‘exaggerated’, a third (33.3%) ‘underestimated’ and a third (38.7%) stating it was ‘neither’ [this was not the case found in the unlicensed survey]
• “I just think we drink far too much sometimes. You can go to
Spain, you can to go Italy and they have 5, 6 glasses of wine with their dinner but you don’t see anybody half naked running about
the streets with knives and this kind of stuff.” (Deprived area)
Shop servers in deprived areas reported more alcohol problems
locally, with 22.7% saying their neighbourhood was ‘not as bad’ as most of Glasgow compared to 42.5% non-deprived (18.2% and 5.5% respectively said their area was ‘worse’ [ chi-square p=0.01] )

• “I'm a business man, end of the day business is business and it doesn't matter who you sell to as long as they are over the age.
Social aspect is not my problem, as shopkeeper mine’s is just to make money other than to kids. I'm not there to tell Joe Bloggs
‘you can’t drink’. I've got a licence for them to buy drink so my aim is to make business and at the end of the day make money and if I
was in a deprived area I still would sell alcohol.” (Non-deprived area)
• “Someone who has never touched it before comes in and buys a
bottle of three litre Frosty Jack [white cider] every single day now and you can just see, his face, his dress, his smell, everything about him completely changed. Sometimes you feel like you want to counsel them, or something like that. You want to help them out because you’re like, ‘please, can you not have this anymore?’ I can’t get him out of my head. …that was in the course of about six
or seven months I saw him just go down hill.” (Deprived area)

(for cigarettes)
“ 20 Richmond Superkings… […shop worker’s name]? Gee [give] us those ones, whatever the fuck their called; the ones that are blue. I've been in jail so anything will dae [do] me. I'm running oot [out] of money here. My wee brain.
[pays and receives cigarettes] Thank you, thank you very much.
[referring to the researcher]
You can talk, I won’t bother you .” (Customer, deprived area shop)
No bother [to customer].
Do you have deals on the alcohol? (researcher) […..]
“ Eh! Deals on the spirits? I just came fae [from] ASDA and thank fuck I go to
ASDA instead of here.
” (customer) – “What have you got then?” (shopkeeper)
“ My vodka ” (customer) – “What one? (shopkeeper)
“ Glen’s.
” (customer) – “How much was it?” (shopkeeper)
“ I’ll show you the receipt; £12 and, for my litre ” (customer)
[without looking at receipt] “£12.99.” (shopkeeper)
“ for my litre .
” (customer) - “£12.99. That’s £1 difference.” (shopkeeper)
“ £1 difference, aye [yes ]! See? You and your deals. ” (customer)
“That’s ASDA price [slogan]” (shopkeeper)
“ Aye, that’s why I went to fucking ASDA !
” (customer)

“ How much would you ask for them?
” (Customer) [further interruption by customer who bought cigarettes, who now pulls a 4 pack of Tennent’s Lager from her ASDA bag]
“£4.” (shopkeeper, Deprived area)
“ [for] Four can [ s] ? £3 fae [from] ASDA .
” (customer)
“That just shows you; superstores are making more people turn into
alkies like her! She’s alcoholic, ain’t you?” (shopkeeper)
“ I'm an alcoholic, I will admit that, but I go there for my food as well, obviously .” (customer)
“But mainly your booze.” (shopkeeper) “ Naw [No].” (customer)
“What’s your food? Bread?” (shopkeeper ) [inspects inside ASDA bag]
“ He’s walked round .” (customer)
“She’s got a bottle of [Glen’s] vodka, lemonade and for food she just got bread!” (shopkeeper)

This study adds a missing piece of the alcohol research / policy jigsaw, as it ties place of off-trade alcohol sales to the place home consumption, which cannot be achieved by monitoring of supermarket receipts, customs or industry data.
• Alcohol problems affect all communities (although these might be more severe in deprived neighbourhoods)
• Knowing customers is crucial to harm reduction implementation. (Can the supermarkets match this?)
• The main problem experienced by alcohol servers was drunken customers
(not under-agers as anticipated) and this was often from their regulars who
presented no problems while sober.
• Test-purchases are easily circumvented and less effective in a ‘Challenge 25’ regime. Proxy-buying switches emphasis to from licensed seller to the buyer.
• Cheaper brands (and limited choice) were more a feature of deprived areas.
How will this change post MUP? (e.g. Frosty Jack, the brand most associated with deprivation could rise from c£3.50 to £11.50 per 3 litre bottle!)

• The relationship found between alcohol problems and deprivation was not a strong as expected. Why?
– Perceptual differences over problems?
– More harm reduction in place at deprived area off-sales?
• The public need to be aware of the law concerning sales to the
intoxicated person (and accept this as they do under-18 law)
– Who would support an awareness campaign (the drinks industry?)?
– Similar considerations on proxy buying (not just for under-18s)
• Comparable off-sales research should be conducted post-MUP
– To see if small retailers benefitted (at expense of major supermarkets)
– To see if non/deprived area shops affected (perhaps adversely)
– To see what brands are best sellers (e.g. Frosty Jack v Buckfast)
– What are affected brands USP when price is fixed (music sponsorship) ?
– How do retailers market alcohol if less price leverage ( healthy alternatives)?

Project Final Report (Alcohol Research UK)
Davidson, N. W., Forsyth, A.J.M. & Ellaway, A. (2012) Shop servers' experience of alcohol-related issues and interventions in socially contrasting neighbourhoods
Alcohol Education Research Council (AERC) report:
Forsyth, A.J.M., Davidson, N. & Lennox, J.C. (2007) An investigation into the environmental impact of off-license premises on residential neighbourhoods
MRC research publication:
Ellaway, A, Macdonald, L., Forsyth, A.J.M. & MacIntyre, S. (2010) The socio-spatial distribution of alcohol outlets in Glasgow city. Health & Place, 16: 1, 167 - 172.
Forthcoming book chapter:
Forsyth, A.J.M. (2012) Bar-room Approaches to Prevention. In McMurran, M. (Ed.)
Alcohol-Related Violence: Prevention & treatment. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell