1-REVIEW THE CASE
The case reviews the criticism and prohibitions faced by the alcohol industry. From 1919 to total banning of the consumption of alcohol and on its sales in the USA, the case discusses the actions of the anti-alcohol groups and their influence on the alcohol business and industry. The pulling of the alcoholic drinks Spykes, and Wide Eye from the market by its manufacturers and the reasons behind it is discussed. The case shows both perspectives; the one with concerns over alcohol advertising targeted at the minors and of the alcohol industry perspective for the need of free speech and advertising for their business.
2-BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON ISSUES
The issue highlighted in this case represents the concerns of the parents and anti-alcohol groups like Centre for Science in the Public Interest, Marin Institute, and Project Extra Mile on the advertising of the alcohol industry targeted at minors. On the other hand, it also represents the concerns of the industry on their right to advertise their products to capture the new market. They argued that the criticism is biased and not realistic. The company Anheuser-Busch is specifically targeted in the case depicting its launch and pulling out of their product Spykes (Reals). The issue arose when spirits makers backed from their long-standing policy against advertising and started advertising rigorously on cable channels, and other mediums.
3-UPDATED INFORMATION ON CASE
The case of Anheuser-Busch stops sales of Spykes years ago; the little-flavored malt with caffeine and ginseng faced opposition from the anti-groups of alcohol consumption in the minors. They claimed that the marketing and packaging of Spykes are targeted at young generations. The teenage girls are appealed towards it as it looks like nail polish; however, it is now argued that even with all the criticisms and bad mouthing for the drink, the company shut it down for other reasons. It never made the required sales that were needed to compensate for the criticisms (NBC News). Thus, as far as the shutting down of Spykes is concerned, the company shut it because few people bought it than expected (Dent).
4-WRITTEN REPORT- ALCOHOL ADVERTISING
a-Overview of the Case
The case highlights the tug war between the alcohol industry and the anti-alcohol groups. The alcohol industry has been the target of criticism from the very beginning. It underwent complete ban on its sales in the US and from the time-to-time banning of their products, and advertisements. There are many perspectives presented in the case. The anti-alcohol consumptions groups scrutinized companies of the alcohol industry for their products, advertising, and ingredients used regarding any false influence on the general public and specifically on underage. The case opens by showcasing the event of Spykes, its marketing, the criticisms that it’s faced and then it’s pulled off. Spykes, the caffeinated malt beer coming in small shots was criticized for aiming at underage consumers. The company claims that they do not have any aim of targeting the underage market, but the ingredients like caffeine and other emotional appeals tend to be similar to its market of over 21 year age group. Thus, it claims, the advertising leaks are genuinely unintentional. However, after profound criticisms, Spykes was shut down by the company. Later on, another company marketed Wide Eye, which was also banned for its false claims, misleading advertising, and unsafe caffeine by the FDA. The case showcases the urge of the alcohol industry to market to exercise their right to speech as per first amendment. However, with various rejected outcries for complete bans, the Hudson case is considered as the benchmark for testing the commercial speech.
b-Major Stakeholders and Positions
Anheuser-Busch: The seller of Spykes, claims the ban on their caffeinated malt beer as unfounded criticisms and unrealistic. They think the bans are unrealistic, and no research has shown any consequences of their advertising to be related to high consumption.
Anti-Alcohol consumption groups: These groups together advocate the prohibition and regulating of the alcohol industry for safeguarding their underage society. They blame the alcohol industry for social problems, and their misleading campaigns and harmful products.
Constellation Brands: Owner of the caffeinated malt beer “Wide Eye” which was first questioned and then banned by FDA for having unsafe amounts of caffeine. They claim that the consumers are portrayed not as stupid as being able to understand the consequences of their decision by anti-groups, which they claim the consumers are not.
FDA: The Food & Drug Administration has the responsibility and authority to approve the used ingredients in alcohol drinks for the cause of assuring safety.
Supreme Court: The Court, as per the law, regulations exercised under federal law, listens to the claims of both the anti-groups and alcohol companies and rules out. The Hudson case is the example which shows the testing of the four-part commercial speech freedom.
Alcohol industry: The alcohol industry is the stakeholder around which this case revolves. They claim that the society should consider them as any other industry and gives them the right to advertise and market their products as their free speech right gives it to them. They claim that the right to decide if the product is healthy or not healthy should be given to the consumers.
Consumers: Consumers are another important stakeholder, their health is the concern of the anti-alcoholism groups, whereas their entertainment, and choices are represented by the alcohol industry.
c-Stakeholder’s influence on Business, Society & Government
Business
All the mentioned stakeholders have their influence on the business of the alcohol industry. It is depicted in the case of Spykes and Wide Eye, who were forced to shut their sale because of the concerns of the stakeholders. The consumer choice for increasing or decreasing consumption affects the business for the alcohol industry. The regulations by the FDA affect the business as mentioned in the case of Wide Eye.
Society
The society gets influenced by the stakeholders. The businesses running like alcohol companies tend to advertise and persuade the society to consume more liquor for increasing its revenues. These advertisements and consumptions affect the society. So does the concerns of anti-alcoholism groups. Similar is the influence of the bans imposed by the Supreme Court, by FDA.
Government
The government of USA tends to get influenced by the stakeholders represented in the case in the form of bringing amendments, passing bills, and enforcing regulations to safeguard the concerns of the consumers, businesses, and groups alike. Even with all the perspectives, the government usually plays the role of a silent watcher, responding only when the groups, consumers, and industries call for action.
d-The Right Side
I think that the anti-alcoholism groups, although to blunt and strict about their overall concerns was right in this case. They represented the concerns of all the parents who watched their underage sons and daughters get influenced by the advertisements of alcohol beverages and were thus positioned to become future consumers. They raised right concerns regarding the misleading advertisement and targeting of the underage market. The amount of the alcohol in these liquors was also higher which was also rightly criticized (Consumer Affairs).
e-My Point of View
I think I would not have claimed for a complete ban on the caffeinated malt drinks. The restrictions should have been enforced on its advertising for the underage and the regulation of any marketing leakage. Moreover, I would have asked, the alcohol companies to remove caffeine from their drinks as it was unsafe, and this would have solved the problem for both ends. Caffeine is the ingredient which attracted the younger generation, thus it would not confuse the product being marketed to the underage market.
Conclusion
Thus, it can be concluded that there is a need for thorough consideration of both the alcohol industry and the consumers’ perspectives. The government and regulating authorities should deem into the needed research and effort for devising a framework which will safeguard the interests of both parties.
f-Case Questions
QUESTION 1: Why Spykes and Wide Eye bad products? Do you think they were marketed in objectionable or misleading ways? Do you think companies should be allowed to market other caffeinated alcoholic beverages?
The consideration and judgment of the Spykes and Wide Eye as bad products can be done based on different perspectives. From the overall market performance, it seems that it wasn’t much of a bad product, as it was performing pretty well regarding enough sales. However, from corporate parents, yes indeed it was. Furthermore, they mislead the consumers into accepting the drinks as healthier as and more entertaining than the other regular beers. Also, it targeted the younger underage market, which in the wrong (Menstuff.Org). The marketing statement of Wide Eye was also found to be misleading and false. As for the marketing of the caffeinated drinks are concerned; I think they should be allowed to market it but with some restrictions and governing bodies regulating and checking their compliance with it (The Irish Times).
QUESTION 2: Do alcoholic beverages companies fulfill their ethical duty to be informative and truthful in advertising? Do they generally uphold their ethical duty to minimize potential harm to society from underage drinking?
The alcohol industry has always remained under fire of the critics. From their prohibition to shutting down of caffeinated malt beers, the alcohol industry has faced the criticisms groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Food and Drug Administration, and Centre for Science in Public Interest. Like any other company, alcohol selling companies need to advertise their products as well. They do that to make their potential consumers informed about their products. We can look at it from all three perspectives; the consumers, the company, and the critics. The company perceptive is mentioned. The consumers want to consume it because it’s their habitual purchase or a favorite. The critics will judge it for all the oppositions. The right thing would be to look at it from the perspective of their ethical duty.
Industry claims that it is their right to advertise while following some needed voluntary regulations and restrictions. It is also protected by the law of the First Amendment. It protects the industry from banning and prohibitions on its advertising claims. As per the ethical doctrines, the rights are backed by duties. Thus, advertisers who claim first amendment rights need also to fulfill their duty. The advertisers are needed to fulfill their duty. It has been, the case shows, often breached by the industry. The FA notice to alcohol companies for showing that “caffeine is safe” was not withstood by the companies showing their false claims. They also must accept the responsibility for their advertising consequence, which they do not accept. The claim that alcohol consumption was raised in the minors through their advertising were not accepted by Spykes owners.
QUESTION 3: Are some beer, wine, or spirits ads misleading? What examples can you give? What is misleading in them? Do some ads contain images and themes that go too far in appealing to an audience under the legal drinking age? Can you give examples?
The advertising is of two types; one is informational advertising, the second is persuasive advertising. Although both of these advertising intend to persuade the buyer to buy its products, however, the persuasive advertising can be dependent on emotional appeals. In markets where consumers cannot differentiate products from their different features because they seem to switch easily with their similar characteristics, brands tend to use it (Kasim, Omar and Razak). It is targeted to achieve brand loyalty and also for the sake of keeping the new entrants away from the market. The alcohol industry follows this advertising tactic because of their need to associate with the consumers. They tend to depict different lifestyle choices, through their characters, images and various slogans. Their advertising campaigns do not feature characteristics of their product, but emotional appeals for associating with the consumers looking for such choices. This as critics see it can be considered misleading. The example of such misleading ads can be of Polygamy Porter and Miller Lite. These ads conveyed a misleading message of high consumption. The slogan of “Taste Great-Less Filing” attempts to mislead the consumers on low calories of their drinks and making it look the healthier option. Another example is that of Budweiser Super Bowl commercial of 2014 (Venutolo).
QUESTION 4: Do you believe there is a need for more restriction on alcohol advertising? If so, what limits are needed? Explain how a ban or any restrictions could meet the Central Hudson guideline.
The banning or prohibition of alcohol advertising depends on the matter of opinion. While some believe that a complete ban should be exercised, there is little possibility of it survives the court test. As per the attacks on the tobacco advertising, the advocates of alcohol advertising bans also follow the same aim of protecting underage from influencing from these advertisements. The Kennedy Bill is a classic example which advocates such concerns encompassing all the wishes of their advocates. However, the bill was opposed and did not come to a vote. However, some of the ideas might be interesting. In the Central Hudson case of the Supreme Court, the four-part test for the commercial speech was set (United States. Federal Communications Commission). Aligning with the four-part test; following restrictions can be imposed;
- Prohibition of alcohol advertisements within 1000 feet of schools, within video games, in films or on billboards.
- No images should be allowed in the advertisement, only black and while text should be allowed for publications with more than 15% of underage readers.
- No broadcasting of ads between 7:00 am to 10:00 pm.
- Promotional items with alcohol name have to be prohibited
- For college campuses, the complete prohibition of using any advertisement of alcohols, except the use of product name and prices in its publications
These restrictions are all aligned with the four-part test of commercial speech mentioned in Central Hudson case.
Work Cited
Consumer Affairs. “Anheuser-Busch Condemned for Pushing Alcohol-Heavy Spykes “Liquid Lunchables“.” Consumers Affairs. Consumers Affairs, 4 May 2007. Web. 11 March 2018. https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/04/spykes.html.
Dent, Bryan. “The Demise of Spykes.” Brutal Hammer. Brutal Hammer, 6 May 2015. Web. 11 March 2018. https://brutalhammer.com/the-demise-of-spykes/.
Kasim, Azman, et al. Proceedings of the International Conference on Science, Technology and Social Sciences (ICSTSS) 2012. Springer, 2014.
Menstuff.Org. “Take Action – Get this Product Off the Market! “Men Stuff. Men Stuff, 1 December 2017. Web. 11 March 2018. http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/spykes.html.
NBC News. “Anheuser-Busch to stop making Spykes.” NBC News. NBC News, 7 May 2007. Web. 11 March 2018. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18729123/ns/business-us_business/t/anheuser-busch-stop-making-spykes/#.WqPmNh1ua01.
Reals, Tucker. “Anheuser-Busch Pulls “Spykes“.” NBC News. NBC News, 18 May 2007. Web. 11 March 2018. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/anheuser-busch-pulls-spykes/.
The Irish Times. “Should alcohol advertising be banned?” The Irish Times. The Irish Times, 9 April 2007. Web. 11 March 2018. https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/should-alcohol-advertising-be-banned-1.1200994.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record: A Comprehensive Compilation of Decisions, Reports, Public Notices, and Other Documents of the Federal Communications Commission of the United States, Volume 29, Issue 7. The Commission, 2014.
Venutolo, Anthony.” Super Bowl commercials 2014: Watch the ads here.” NJ. NJ, 2 February 2014. Web. 11 March 2018. http://www.nj.com/super-bowl/index.ssf/2014/02/super_bowl_commercials_game_ads_2014_watch_sb48.html.
+447462439809