We were amazed this week when we saw that the Department for Children Schools and Families DCSF had appointed a digital media company to run their next campaign to promote their Youth Alcohol Action Plan. The appointed agency will be responsible for web, mobile and social media. All very good.

The Youth Alcohol Action Plan is meant to raise awareness of the social problems caused by underage drinking. Again, all good socially responsible activity.

However, what’s quite surprising to us is that the same company who have been awarded this work – are also the digital agency for an international Vodka brand.

I may be wrong but I would have thought that ethically one couldn’t do both! I’m not particularly blaming the agency here as they quite clearly feel there is no conflict of interest. They certainly don’t hide the fact that they do the Vodka brand work, quite the opposite. Unlike trying to promote two brands of the same product, where one would suggest there is clear conflict of interest, one company would expect exclusive rights on the talent at the agency and would be less than pleased to see them working for a competitor. In this case the ‘competition’ hasn’t been considered. Who’s responsible for that? The DCSF, the agency, a trade body?

Most agencies would not expect to hold the digital account for a major tobacco company and then be asked to run a stop smoking campaign. That’s perhaps a clear case that just wouldn’t make sense. So what’s different about this one? I can only suggest that no-one’s thought about it.

So where do ethics come in when commissioning work, and when pitching for work? Whose call is it?