Expert answer:The has a two part requirement. Step 1 is below and Step 2 is attached. Read the material regarding the history and regulation of alcohol
advertising found on pp. 538–548 of the text. Also read the article,
Diageo; Study Finds Self-Regulation of Alcohol Advertising
Is Working , and watch this Milton Freidman interview: Milton Friedman-Regulation in a Free Society.Step 1: Please respond to the following questions:Were Spyke and Wide-Eye bad products? Justify your answer.Do you think these products were marketed in objectionable or misleading ways? Explain your answer.If you were in charge of marketing Spyke and Wide-Eye, what approach
would you have taken to promote the products, while mitigating the
adverse publicity associated with them?Do you believe there is a need for government to place more
restrictions on alcohol advertising? Why or why not? If so, what limits
are needed and how would any restrictions that you propose meet the
Central Hudson guidelines?
step_2.docx
diageo__study_finds_self_regulation_of_alcohol_advertising_is_working.docx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Explain whether you agree or disagree with the following responses regarding the need for government
to place more restrictions on alcohol advertising. Answer does not need to be lengthy : 50 -100 words
Position 1:
Were Spyke and Wide-Eye bad products? Justify your answer.
I do not think they were bad products. I do not think these products were created with the intent
on targeting teenagers. They just wanted something new, with energy drinks sales on the rise
they tried to combine the two. Just because teenagers like energy drinks does not mean that
adults do not drink them either. However, I do not think the effects of mixing alcohol and
caffeine are a wise idea at any age though. “Studies confirm this. A professor in Florida, for
example, found that patrons in a college bar district who consumed alcohol mixed with energy
drinks were three times more likely to leave a bar highly intoxicated and four times more likely
to drive home” Steiner, 2012). However, it is up to the person drinking to be responsible.
Do you think these products were marketed in objectionable or misleading ways? Explain
your answer.
I think Wide-Eye might have been a tad misleading with claiming to keep people more alert,
they did however remove that. Spyke though advertised as “Try it as a shot. Spice up your beer.
Invent a new cocktail. Mix two or more together for a new flavor” (Steiner, 2012). This clearly
markets the product as alcohol, not much emphasis about it being an energy drink. They were
looking to target 21-30 year olds, not teenagers. They use music mixes, ringtones, and
screensavers which sure might interest 16-18 year olds, who also might like the same thing 21
year olds like. The age difference is not that big. They were looking for young adults, not
teenagers.
If you were in charge of marketing Spyke and Wide-Eye, what approach would you have
taken to promote the products, while mitigating the adverse publicity associated with
them?
If I was in charge of the promoting the products, I would make sure they do not look anything
like energy drinks. I would make sure there were no claims of being more alert when drinking.
This is dangerous as people might think they are more alert than they are and possibly drive.
Do you believe there is a need for government to place more restrictions on alcohol
advertising? Why or why not? If so, what limits are needed and how would any restrictions
that you propose meet the Central Hudson guidelines?
This reminds me of cigarettes advertising. How it is no longer in televisions ads or in magazines.
However, people still smoke. You can put more restrictions on advertising but it will not stop
people from underage drinking. “First, ads are not the cause of alcohol abuse. As noted, studies
fail to show that advertising increases consumption. So commercials and billboards cannot be
blamed for car accidents, teen suicides, sexual aggression, spousal abuse, binge drinking, and
alcoholism. Second, antialcohol groups assume the public is too stupid to decide responsibly.
The idea of curbing ads is condescending. Consumers are intelligent and skeptical. They are not
duped by the association of alcohol with attractive images. Third, the beer, wine, and spirits
industries have voluntary codes to regulate advertising behavior. The policies in these codes are
extensive and specific” (Steiner, 2012)
Position 2:
•
Were Spyke and Wide-Eye bad products? Justify your answer.
I don’t believe that these products were really bad, but more they were not marketed correctly.
Many people mix alcohol with Red Bull© and enjoy it responsibly. I think if Anheuser – Busch had spent
a little more time in the branding of their product, it would have been received better by adults.
However, marketing to minors was a bad idea.
•
Do you think these products were marketed in objectionable or misleading ways?
Explain your answer.
It appears that Wide-Eye was very misleading in the way it was advertised, insinuating that a
person would be more alert drinking their product, (Steiner & Steiner, 2012)even though it contained
alcohol. Spykes was just, plain and simple, not marketed in a way that would have promoted the
product to its full potential.
•
If you were in charge of marketing Spyke and Wide-Eye, what approach would you
have taken to promote the products, while mitigating the adverse publicity associated
with them?
I think my first step would have been to try and create more of a responsible adult idea for the
consumer. If the companies had been more honest and transparent about these products, it is possible
that they would have been very successful for these businesses. While marketing to a younger
generation is a good idea, making these products available to minors is just a bad idea, which had
nowhere to go but down.
•
Do you believe there is a need for government to place more restrictions on alcohol
advertising? Why or why not? If so, what limits are needed and how would any
restrictions that you propose meet the Central Hudson guidelines?
I don’t believe that the government needs to place any more restrictions on alcohol advertising.
Unfortunately, minors will always have access and information about alcohol, and not because of the
advertisements they see. There are other adults in their lives that may inadvertently influence them in
their decision to consume alcohol. A study of state-level alcohol control laws in the United States
suggested that partial alcohol advertising bans might actually increase alcohol consumption through
substitution. According to The National Academies, “bans on spirits advertising were associated with
increases in beer consumption”. (Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility, 2004). So it
appears that more restrictions placed on alcohol advertising may oppose what the government may be
trying to restrict.
Diageo; Study Finds Self-Regulation of Alcohol Advertising is Working
Author: Anonymous
Publication info: Marketing Weekly News ; Atlanta (Aug 28, 2010). ProQuest document link
Abstract: […] the FTC found that the “current 70 percent baseline standard has helped to ensure that
alcohol advertising is not disproportionately directed to those below the legal drinking age, as
recommended by the Surgeon General’s Call to Action [to Prevent and Reduce Underage Drinking].”
Links: Request this item through ILL, Check Full Text Finder for Full Text
Full text: 2010 AUG 28 – (VerticalNews.com) — A study conducted by CAMY, the Center for Alcohol
Marketing and Youth, released earlier this week, found a dramatic reduction in the exposure of youth to
alcohol advertising in magazines. From 2001 to 2008, exposure dropped by an impressive 48%,
demonstrating that the industry’s practice of self-regulation and commitment to advertising exclusively
in publications with an audience that’s at least 70% age 21 or older is working. CAMY’s study also found
that there is virtually no alcohol advertising in publications with under-21 readership greater than 30%.
Guy L. Smith, Executive Vice President of Diageo stated: “This study conducted by CAMY – one of the
most outspoken opponents of the beverage alcohol industry in this country – confirmed what we already
know to be true: self regulation works and fewer people underage are being exposed to alcohol
advertising today than ever before.” CAMY’s study is consistent with the Federal Trade Commission’s
(FTC) most recent inquiry into alcohol advertising. The FTC found “high levels of compliance” with the
alcohol industry’s voluntary placement standard that advertising materials should be placed only where
70% of the audience is reasonably expected to be 21 years of age or older. In that report, the FTC said it
was not recommending a change in the 70% 21+ demographic standard. Further, the FTC found that the
“current 70 percent baseline standard has helped to ensure that alcohol advertising is not
disproportionately directed to those below the legal drinking age, as recommended by the Surgeon
General’s Call to Action [to Prevent and Reduce Underage Drinking].” (FTC Report, p. 27,
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/06/alcoholrpt.shtm) There has been considerable study of the impact of
alcohol advertising but no study has been able to demonstrate that alcohol advertising causes underage
drinking. More than a decade ago, Diageo proactively moved to restrict its advertising to publications in
which 70% of the audience is age 21 and older. In 2003, the Beer Institute and the Distilled Spirits
Council of the U.S. also adopted the 70% standard. Smith continued, “Underage drinking is a complex
problem, and one that cannot be cured – or caused – by advertising. At Diageo, we have zero tolerance
for underage drinking, and that’s why we abide by one of the most stringent marketing codes in the
industry. If we have any chance of ending underage drinking – and I believe we do – we all need to work
collaboratively toward a solution-oriented approach. Research has conclusively proven that the most
effective deterrent to underage drinking is parents talking with their children about alcohol.” CAMY,
formerly affiliated with Georgetown University and now with Johns Hopkins University, has published
numerous reports critical of industry self-regulation. However, some of CAMY’s over-reaching
methodology has itself been criticized by authoritative organizations, including the Federal Trade
Commission. (FTC Report, p. 32-33, http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/06/alcoholrpt.shtm) Keywords:
Advertising, Diageo, Economics, FTC, Federal Trade Commission. This article was prepared by Marketing
Weekly News editors from staff and other reports. Copyright 2010,
Marketing Weekly News via VerticalNews.com.
Subject: Alcohol use; Marketing; Liquor industry;
Company / organization: Name: Federal Trade Commission–FTC; NAICS: 926150;
Publication title: Marketing Weekly News; Atlanta
Publication year: 2010
Publication date: Aug 28, 2010
Publisher: NewsRx
Place of publication: Atlanta
Country of publication: United States
Publication subject: Business And Economics–Marketing And Purchasing
ISSN: 19442424
Source type: Trade Journals
Language of publication: English
Document type: Expanded Reporting
ProQuest document ID: 744722602
Document URL:
http://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/744722602?accountid=3783
Copyright: (c)Copyright 2010, Marketing Weekly News via NewsRx.com
Last updated: 2010-08-19
Database: ProQuest Central
Diageo; Study Finds Self-Regulation of Alcohol Advertising Is Working
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.
Read moreEach paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.
Read moreThanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.
Read moreYour email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.
Read moreBy sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.
Read more