Rugby - Sponsorship - Alcohol

Larbre34

Yes this is a kneejerk thread due to Guinness being the announced Pro12 sponsors, but I felt we should take that discussion out of the general Pro12 chat?

Larbre34 wrote: »

As the dust settles on Brooksgate I can see all the Joe Duffy hand-wringers moving quickly to the 'booze in sport sponsorship' bandwagon once again. Which will be a pity, as this is an excellent deal for the league, Guinness always does well by its partners. And the Turkish Airlines Pro12 (as was mooted) would just have been wrong.

Other than that Id say, underage drinkers can't hack Guinness, so no worries.

CatFromHue wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/sport/a-sporting-chance-is-it-time-to-get-off-the-booze-and-on-the-ball-30389486.html

The relentless alcohol marketing sinks in much earlier than 14. Other research in Britain of 10 and 11-year-olds shows that children are more familiar with beer brands than they are with brands of ice- cream or cake.

I don't know the ins and outs of marketing but that's quite an amazing statistic. What I do know is that doing 1 thing like banning sponsorship won't solve the problem of binge or underage drinking, there has to be a number of things done at once.

I personally find the reference to the fact that Elite Athletes stay off the booze a bit mental to have to discuss. The sponsorship is for advertising at the 80,000 sitting at the game, or the couple of hundred thousand watching at home. These people are in the main, not elite athletes. They are normal people.

It's a bit like giving out if Domino's sponsored Malcolm in the Middle, and Frankie Muniz was a coeliac.

Do people see this as a big issue? Or is it, as Labre says a bit of a "Talk t' Joe" complaint?

Clareman

I don't see the issue, in fact, I see it as a major coup for the Pro 12 to get Guinness on board, their advertising agency were the ones behind wrapping the building with BOD last year so they clearly have an interest in rugby and will get behind it.

The problem with advertising an adult product with a product that is for all ages is that you run the risk of underage people linking the product with the sport and then falling down a spiral of addiction problems. It's very easy to say "Alcohol is bad, don't promote it", but in that case get rid of all signage outside pubs, get plain labels on products, cut advertising in media, etc. etc. People should be more interested in educating people on the dangers of alcohol rather than just burying their head in the sand.

stephen_n

I find the abdication of personal responsibility tedious, kids are not going to drink Guinness because they sponsor a sport, they are far more likely to be drawn to alcohol because it's all around them growing up. People who don't want to look at their own attitudes towards drink, try and push it back on advertisers and sponsorship. The only beer I ever drank because of it's advertising was Tenants, with the women on the cans, even then it was more because it was cheap. Do people think kids went looking up Rabo Direct because they sponsored the league, I don't think so.

.ak

Binge drinking has absolutely nothing to do with advertising. It's a cultural thing. They advertise alcohol in other countries where binge drinking is not the norm.

former legend

.ak wrote: »

Binge drinking has absolutely nothing to do with advertising. It's a cultural thing. They advertise alcohol in other countries where binge drinking is not the norm.

No .ak, you're way off the mark on this one. Advertising is the devil.

I mean, we banned advertising of cigarettes years ago and that solved the problem, you never see anyone smoking or getting lung cancer any more. Am I right?

.ak

Now that you mention it...

thomond2006

.ak wrote: »

Binge drinking has absolutely nothing to do with advertising. It's a cultural thing. They advertise alcohol in other countries where binge drinking is not the norm.

I'm pretty sure any alcohol advertising has to adhere to pretty strict regulation as it is. There's never a hint of encouragement of binge drinking and all have the Enjoy Alcohol Responsibly warning.

Aside from the financing issue, it's a cop out to suggest that advertising encourages binge drinking. Peer pressure is a far bigger problem than advertising.

(Underage events is of course a different issue!)

.ak

.ak wrote: »

Binge drinking has absolutely nothing to do with advertising. It's a cultural thing. They advertise alcohol in other countries where binge drinking is not the norm.

You are right.

However.

Binge drinking is the norm here, and so people are more sensitive about alcohol, not that advertising has caused this, but we have a greater problem than other countries to begin with, and need to be more cautious about promoting drink.

As a country we have a poor relationship with alcohol so whilst I don't agree with people who are against drinks sponsorship - I wouldn't dismiss them ether.

Some advertising is more about normalising than it is about promoting!

Fr Tod Umptious

I think banning alcohol companies from advertising/sponsoring at sports events is the first step in a long road to marginalize alcohol in this country.

The aim of alcohol sponsorship is not necessarily to convert 24 year old John to Brand A from Brand B, it’s to make 16 year old Jack know that the Brand A exists and this is what the Brand A looks like.

So that when he gets to the age of 18 he can go into a pub and recognize Brand A and ask for it by name.
If by the time he gets to 18 Jack does not know what Brand A or Brand B look like then he is less likely to consume them.

Take the example of cigarettes in Ireland or the past 25 years.

As a youth growing up in the mid 80s,I knew exactly what brands of cigarettes were out there. They were advertised in the newspaper, in The RTE Guide, on shop fronts, on billboards, sports events, and in open view behind the counter in shops.

So when I decided to start smoking I knew what to ask for in the shop.

Consider the situation now.
There is no advertising, no sponsorship, in shops they are out of view, and soon we will have plain packaging.

A smoking tourist coming into the country would be under the impression that cigarettes do not even exist in Ireland

And a youth in 2014 is less likely to take up the habit if they don’t what that the product even looks like.

It’s the same with alcohol, if you reduce the amount of places that the product can be seen then you reduce the product recognition

Dravokivich

I'll never be able to see what the problem is with this. I still hear people slip and refer to the Pro12 as Magners. A business should be able to market their brand and another business should have no issue's with being sponsored/endorsed by them.

If it was McDonalds or Coca Cola would there still be the same outcry on the basis of health awareness?

The big industries in this country tend to revolve around pharma, tech, finance and alcohol. There's little need for pharma and tech to sponsor a league as they aren't generally consumer items. A lot of finance companies are getting tighter with their sponsorships overall. So that leaves the alcohol industry, which has a market in all 4 countries involved in the Pro12, which was an issue for Rabo. It makes sense to reach out to these for a sure bet with sponsorship.

Neil3030

I wonder if kids in England are sneaking off on a Friday night to open a few cheeky Barclays current accounts.

Fr Tod Umptious

Neil3030 wrote: »

I wonder if kids in England are sneaking off on a Friday night to open a few cheeky Barclays current accounts.

Maybe not cheeky ones on a Friday night, but you can bet they will recognize the Barclays brand and possibly open accounts with them when they start banking.

.ak

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Maybe not cheeky ones on a Friday night, but you can bet they will recognize the Barclays brand and possibly open accounts with them when they start banking.

Best username ever.

Riskymove

Dravokivich wrote: »

If it was McDonalds or Coca Cola would there still be the same outcry on the basis of health awareness?

TBH this is a bigger issue for me

I cringe every time I see Kids Rugby sponsored by McDs

stephen_n

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I think banning alcohol companies from advertising/sponsoring at sports events is the first step in a long road to marginalize alcohol in this country.

The aim of alcohol sponsorship is not necessarily to convert 24 year old John to Brand A from Brand B, it’s to make 16 year old Jack know that the Brand A exists and this is what the Brand A looks like.

So that when he gets to the age of 18 he can go into a pub and recognize Brand A and ask for it by name.
If by the time he gets to 18 Jack does not know what Brand A or Brand B look like then he is less likely to consume them.

Take the example of cigarettes in Ireland or the past 25 years.

As a youth growing up in the mid 80s,I knew exactly what brands of cigarettes were out there. They were advertised in the newspaper, in The RTE Guide, on shop fronts, on billboards, sports events, and in open view behind the counter in shops.

So when I decided to start smoking I knew what to ask for in the shop.

Consider the situation now.
There is no advertising, no sponsorship, in shops they are out of view, and soon we will have plain packaging.

A smoking tourist coming into the country would be under the impression that cigarettes do not even exist in Ireland

And a youth in 2014 is less likely to take up the habit if they don’t what that the product even looks like.

It’s the same with alcohol, if you reduce the amount of places that the product can be seen then you reduce the product recognition

And has this stopped kids from smoking? nope

Fr Tod Umptious

stephen_n wrote: »

And has this stopped kids from smoking? nope

I don't have the stats in front of me but I'd imagine the the numbers of kids taking up smoking now is less than it was in the '80s

I'll try and find some research later.

If you have numbers to prove otherwise at hand please supply them

19543261

Well...youth smoking has been down in recent years, whatever you put that to.

As a rugby fan seeing a heavy like Guinness on board has me excited, but perhaps down the line a similar situation to cigarette sponsorship is best. But I agree when it comes to drink the discussion needs to be focused closer to home (i.e. you and I).

“The percentage of children aged 10-17 who report never smoking has increased from 50.8 per cent in 1998 to 73.5 per cent in 2010,” it says.

stephen_n

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I don't have the stats in front of me but I'd imagine the the numbers of kids taking up smoking now is less than it was in the '80s

I'll try and find some research later.

If you have numbers to prove otherwise at hand please supply them

Can you prove that's directly linked to the sponsorship and branding? I'd be very interested to read that research.

There has been a systematic approach to reducing smoking numbers, including the smoking in the work place ban and a strong education lead campaign. There is no such campaign in place with alcohol. There is no effort whatsoever to reduce numbers of drinkers, just the impact of binge drinking, there is no supportable link between sports advertising and binge drinking, it's a cultural and parenting issue, not an advertising one.

Neil3030

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Maybe not cheeky ones on a Friday night, but you can bet they will recognize the Barclays brand and possibly open accounts with them when they start banking.

Which is kind of what sums up the whole debate to me, really.

Kids don't drink because of marketing. They chose what to drink when they drink, because of marketing.

Fr Tod Umptious

stephen_n wrote: »

Can you prove that's directly linked to the sponsorship and branding? I'd be very interested to read that research.

There has been a systematic approach to reducing smoking numbers, including the smoking in the work place ban and a strong education lead campaign. There is no such campaign in place with alcohol. There is no effort whatsoever to reduce numbers of drinkers, just the impact of binge drinking, there is no supportable link between sports advertising and binge drinking, it's a cultural and parenting issue, not an advertising one.

No I can't, but it would be naive to think that the elimination of sponsorship and advertising has not had an effect on smoking habits.

My overall point is that I disagree with drinks sponsorship of sporting events.

Anything that reduces the visibility of alcoholic brands, and particularly events the young people will watch/attend, is a good thing in my opinion.

Fr Tod Umptious

Neil3030 wrote: »

Which is kind of what sums up the whole debate to me, really.

Kids don't drink because of marketing. They chose what to drink when they drink, because of marketing.

And if they are not familiar what brands are out there they may not choose at all.

OldRio

18 years of age and supping Guinness.


No.


The first sentence makes no sense.

19543261

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

No I can't, but it would be naive to think that the elimination of sponsorship and advertising has not had an effect on smoking habits.

My overall point is that I disagree with drinks sponsorship of sporting events.

Anything that reduces the visibility of alcoholic brands, and particularly events the young people will watch/attend, is a good thing in my opinion.

It's difficult finding an alternative sponsorship that doesnt compromise on budget or the all important Coolness Factor.

Ideally it'd be a social brand, not a washing detergent or Turkish planes or something.

Fr Tod Umptious

19543261 wrote: »

It's difficult finding an alternative sponsorship that doesnt compromise on budget or the all important Coolness Factor.

Ideally it'd be a social brand, not a washing detergent or Turkish planes or something.

I totally agree, especially the coolness factor.

All GAA national competitions are now totally drinks free, Guinness were part sponsor of the hurling championship up to a few years ago.

Some of the current and previous (non Irish) sponsors since then have included

Allianz Insurance
Liberty Insurance
Toyota
Ethiad Airlines
Vodafone
Ulster Bank (i.e RBS)
Cadburys

In the FAI the FAI Cup is now sponsored by Ford, and the League Cup sponsored by EA Sports

All pretty major brands, but I'm not sure about the coolness factor.

sydthebeat

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And if they are not familiar what brands are out there they may not choose at all.

nope.. cant see it.

"hey mucker, lets go down the park tonight and get locked"
"hell yeah man, ill get my bro to buy them for us.... what do you want him to get for ya?"

"oh....mmmmm..... i dunno.. what there is"
"ummmm.... jaysus i dont know...."

"tell you what, lets stay in and play fifa instead"
"sound"

thelad95

I always found it ironic that alcohol sponsorship is illegal in France yet children often drink wine with meals.

In a country like Ireland, I think alcohol sponsorship is bad. Then again, most under-age drinkers wouldn't go near Guinness anyway as they don't have the stomach for it.

I'd be much more concerned if it was Tennants, Tuborg, Dutch Gold, Bulmers etc. as younger people are more likely to start drinking these.

Neil3030

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And if they are not familiar what brands are out there they may not choose at all.

Only indirectly, i.e., if the withdrawal of sponsorships and so forth elicits a complete overhaul in Irish society's attitude towards alcohol, which in turn drives behaviour change in young people. I don't see it having any direct effect.

When we were pups, we'd go boozing almost exclusively on Dutch Gold, because it was cheap and we wanted to get pissed. To this day I can't recall ever seeing a single advertisement for the product in any walk of media or life.

The phrase I've underlined is the crux of the problem.

Fr Tod Umptious

Neil3030 wrote: »

Only indirectly, i.e., if the withdrawal of sponsorships and so forth elicits a complete overhaul in Irish society's attitude towards alcohol, which in turn drives behaviour change in young people. I don't see it having any direct effect.

When we were pups, we'd go boozing almost exclusively on Dutch Gold, because it was cheap and we wanted to get pissed. To this day I can't recall ever seeing a single advertisement for the product in any walk of media or life.

The phrase I've underlined is the crux of the problem.

I am fully aware that a drink sponsorship ban is not going to solve problems overnight, or even in the next 10 years, and it alone is not going to solve the problems.

But my central point is that if you reduce the amount of places where alcohol is advertised and visible, especially to young people, then you go some ways to delaying, and possibly preventing, their curiosity in alcohol.

Put it to you this way, I’d feel much more comfortable bringing my kids to a rugby event here the RBS logo was all over the place than to one where the Guinness logo was

OldRio

Well we all as parents do what we think is best for our children.
In my case I pointed out the dangers. Made my children aware. I did not wrap them in cotton wool and hide them from the nastiness of the real world.

But that was my choice. Mine. Not dictated by government legislation.

Dravokivich

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I am fully aware that a drink sponsorship ban is not going to solve problems overnight, or even in the next 10 years, and it alone is not going to solve the problems.

But my central point is that if you reduce the amount of places where alcohol is advertised and visible, especially to young people, then you go some ways to delaying, and possibly preventing, their curiosity in alcohol.

Put it to you this way, I’d feel much more comfortable bringing my kids to a rugby event here the RBS logo was all over the place than to one where the Guinness logo was

It took the smoking ban to really get any traction on it. Everything else was supplementary to it (Hiding in a machine, no branding). Which all it does is cause consumers to be unsure if what they want is available to them.

If we are to blindly accept that there is an issue with drinking in society. We need to examine and sort out what that issue is. It's not the product that's the problem, it's how/why people consume it to such excess.

I honestly think it is an unfair stereotype more than a problem. You can go on about how there's fights and loudmouths and such who are stumbling out drunk at the end of the night. But most people who whip that comment out don't notice or don't want to figure out that this is the minority of people who are out and about and the rest of us only take notice because of the noise around'em. Those people would act the same way sober.

Fr Tod Umptious

OldRio wrote: »

Well we all as parents do what we think is best for our children.
In my case I pointed out the dangers. Made my children aware. I did not wrap them in cotton wool and hide them from the nastiness of the real world.

But that was my choice. Mine. Not dictated by government legislation.

But it does not need govt. legislation either.

The sports bodies themselves can find alternatives to drinks sponsorship.

The GAA have done this for national competitions for the past few years, without the need of any edict from Government

OldRio

Nope. If Guinness want to pump money in. Let them do it.

Dravokivich

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But it does not need govt. legislation either.

The sports bodies themselves can find alternatives to drinks sponsorship.

The GAA have done this for national competitions for the past few years, without the need of any edict from Government

The Pro12 isn't a national competition and multiple sponsors over multiple regions will be an issue with branding and advertising rights for matches involving teams between different regions.

Rabo pulled out (I believe 1 year early?) because there was no market for them in 75% of the unions involved.

Fr Tod Umptious

Dravokivich wrote: »

The Pro12 isn't a national competition and multiple sponsors over multiple regions will be an issue with branding and advertising rights for matches involving teams between different regions.

Rabo pulled out (I believe 1 year early?) because there was no market for them in 75% of the unions involved.

And here is a list of non Irish companies that are sponsoring or have sponsored GAA and FAI competitions

Allianz Insurance
Liberty Insurance
Toyota
Ethiad Airlines
Vodafone
RBS (as Ulster Bank)
Cadburys
Ford
EA Sports

Some pretty big international companies in that list, and none of them from the drinks industry

Dravokivich

I never said they had to be Irish, I gave Irish industry as an example earlier, because I honestly don't know what the major industries are in Scotland, Wales or Italy.

What's needed is a business that is big enough to be able to support sponsoring a competition at the level of the Pro12, which gets exposure for their markets in each Pro12 region.

If both of those conditions don't get fulfilled the sponsorship deal is worthless to the business Pro12 endorses.

conf101

Banning alcohol sponsorship of sports on its own isn't any sort of solution and is just an easy target.

The whole drinking culture in Ireland is messed up and the pervasiveness of booze sponsorship and advertising contributes to that. So if it were banned as part of a much larger and long-term strategy aimed at tackling the drinking problem here then I can't say I'd be against it. As someone already said above, there won't be an instant solution but something instigated now will only see real change 15-20 years down the line.

Neil3030

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I am fully aware that a drink sponsorship ban is not going to solve problems overnight, or even in the next 10 years, and it alone is not going to solve the problems.

But my central point is that if you reduce the amount of places where alcohol is advertised and visible, especially to young people, then you go some ways to delaying, and possibly preventing, their curiosity in alcohol.

Put it to you this way, I’d feel much more comfortable bringing my kids to a rugby event here the RBS logo was all over the place than to one where the Guinness logo was

Well my two cents is that your kids would be far more likely to be influenced by what's in your hand than by what logos are enveloping the ground. If the example you set is sound, no marketing campaign can compete with that.

Not directed at you specifically, i.e., speaking more generally now, but I also have a small gripe with the generational u-turn on the morality of alcohol consumption. Not to trivialise the harm of binge drinking or alcoholism by any means, but I find it a touch hypocritical for one generation to blow off their boozing steam in their early adulthood, only to then don a cardigan and worry about the pervasiveness of marketing and how it might draw the ensuing generation into repeating the precise behaviour they themselves enjoyed previously.

jacothelad

Dravokivich wrote: »

I'll never be able to see what the problem is with this. I still hear people slip and refer to the Pro12 as Magners. A business should be able to market their brand and another business should have no issue's with being sponsored/endorsed by them.

If it was McDonalds or Coca Cola would there still be the same outcry on the basis of health awareness?

The big industries in this country tend to revolve around pharma, tech, finance and alcohol. There's little need for pharma and tech to sponsor a league as they aren't generally consumer items. A lot of finance companies are getting tighter with their sponsorships overall. So that leaves the alcohol industry, which has a market in all 4 countries involved in the Pro12, which was an issue for Rabo. It makes sense to reach out to these for a sure bet with sponsorship.

Obesity is a far, far more serious issue for our health services. While alcohol problems are pretty awful due to binge drinking and also to alcoholism.= the obesity pandemic is affecting far, far more. You can cure a hangover, you can't cure obesity and all the attendant hellish health problems. The sludge served by fast food outlets and the poison that is refined sugars and corn syrup are devastating huge numbers of our people. I wonder are the moves towards blank packaging a precursor to the same happening to 'fast foods' and alcohol. Having no t.v. ads for alcohol in the U.K. hasn't stopped or even slowed the Tsunami of drinking problems. The main problem is the fact that it is far too cheap. Bring the relative price back to what it was in 1960 compared to income. Guinness advertising is usually pretty stellar but I doubt if it makes many people drink it. The prevalence of sugary alcoholic drinks like that blue swill, WKD etc is the problem. Children like it as it tastes like confectionery. The governments of the U.K. and Ireland need to grasp the nettle of these problems but they don't have the courage.

jacothelad

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And here is a list of non Irish companies that are sponsoring or have sponsored GAA and FAI competitions

Allianz Insurance
Liberty Insurance
Toyota
Ethiad Airlines
Vodafone
RBS (as Ulster Bank)
Cadburys
Ford
EA Sports

Some pretty big international companies in that list, and none of them from the drinks industry

I would bet that many of them have share holdings in major drinks company segments of industry.

stephen_n

stephen_n wrote: »

And has this stopped kids from smoking? nope

10 years ago 29% of Irish people smoked, now it's 22%. That is a significant drop. The amount of alcohol consumed in Ireland has also been falling year on year for the last while too, which is a stat that you don't really see published too much.

stephen_n

Sasha Enough Rodent wrote: »

10 years ago 29% of Irish people smoked, now it's 22%. That is a significant drop. The amount of alcohol consumed in Ireland has also been falling year on year for the last while too, which is a stat that you don't really see published too much.

The numbers of smokers overall are dropping, this is more due to the smoking ban, increased education, increased support for for quiting, however your figures do not relate to the levels of younger people taking up smoking, so are not relevant to advertising. Also smoking is not an accurate comparison as there is a clear attempt to reduce the numbers of people smoking, there is no such attempt to reduce numbers drinking alcohol. Overall consumption is dropping due to economic factors, however problem drinking is increasing, so stats can be used anyway you want. I don't see any advertising promoting binge drinking, do you?

freyners

TBH i think those who advocate for a ban are disregarding the biggest problem, there is very little or no education of the dangers of binge drinking in comparison to thinks like smoking/class a drugs etc., whether it is in schools or at home

Going off my own experience trying out alcohol for the first time.

I starting drinking regularly with my mates when I was around 16/17. My parents never banned me from it, never tried to prevent me from having one or two with my mates and often times gave me some cans themselves so they knew what I was drinking and could control it. They warned me plenty of times what would happen if I took the piss and that if I got smashed they would be a lot less understanding. They set boundaries, which through them educating me correctly and actively keeping an eye on me I was happy to go along with. I had a few friends who were the same, parents didnt mind them drinking, oftentimes gave them a few beers to go out with and made sure they came home that night (rather than allowing them to try and disguise how much they were drinking by sleeping it off elsewhere). As I got older I always appreciated my drink but rarely went too far with it. I can count on the number of thumbs I have the times I've blacked out or done something dangerous through drinking. (I've got one thumb free as well)

I had plenty of mates who's parents tried to prevent them drinking or turned a blind eye to it that had 0 control and got dangerously drunk most weekends (only realise this now looking back). What's more they were drinking stuff a lot stronger than beer in big quantities because no-one ever sat down and took the time to explain the dangers. Many of them ended up in hospital with the stomachs pumped/got in fights/nearly killed themselves in traffic/climbing etc.

Point I'm trying to make is prevention never works, look at the war on drugs for proof. Trying to hide or shift blame for the problem (which is what a ban on sponsorship really is) doesn't work either because they will find out despite how well you cover it up. Its when people take the time to explain to kids what drinking is about and what its danger are, and then take the time to actually mind their child when they are going out that kids will grow up with a healthy attitude towards alcohol. People who trying and prevent sponsorship by these companies are really only trying to wash themselves of the responsibility they have towards their kids by blames the companies and not the lack of effort they put into teaching their child. My 2 cents anyways

I agree with everyone who pointed out that McDonalds/Supermacs/Cadbury never get the same stick despite making products that are causing the obesity problem here, which is a far greater threat to young people that drinking is

Fr Tod Umptious

conf101 wrote: »

Banning alcohol sponsorship of sports on its own isn't any sort of solution and is just an easy target.

The whole drinking culture in Ireland is messed up and the pervasiveness of booze sponsorship and advertising contributes to that. So if it were banned as part of a much larger and long-term strategy aimed at tackling the drinking problem here then I can't say I'd be against it. As someone already said above, there won't be an instant solution but something instigated now will only see real change 15-20 years down the line.

The banning/restriction of alcohol sponsorship in sport is only one part of a bigger strategy on alcohol in Ireland
http://www.drugs.ie/features/feature/report_of_the_national_substance_misuse_strategy_steering_group

jacothelad wrote: »

I would bet that many of them have share holdings in major drinks company segments of industry.

Since you brought it up why don't you tell us who have share holdings in drinks companies

I'm not sure what it has to do with anything anyway.

My point is that if you reduce the visibility of the brand then you help towards preventing the problem.

And none of the companies I mention are displaying a alcohol brand.

thomond2006

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

My point is that if you reduce the visibility of the brand then you help towards preventing the problem.

And the evidence for this is?

Reducing the visibility of a brand will only damage the brand, not the "problem". No alcohol advertising encourages the problem. I'd be surprised if any alcohol advertising gets published or broadcast without being screened / pre-approved by the ASAI. Google ASAI and alcohol advertising and you'll see a list of all the rules it has to abide by.

justsomebloke

thomond2006 wrote: »

Reducing the visibility of a brand will only damage the brand, not the "problem".

Take away them having to spend money on sponsorship and advertising and you'll probably actually just increase their bottom line, especially for the established players.

Fr Tod Umptious

thomond2006 wrote: »

And the evidence for this is?

Reducing the visibility of a brand will only damage the brand, not the "problem".

See my earlier example of tobacco

In the 80s tobacco brands were very visible in Ireland, now they are completely hidden.
The numbers of young people starting smoking has also reduced, see post from another poster with details.
Brand visibility, combined with other measures has lead to this reduction.

It's my opinion that if young people are not familiar with alcohol brands then they are less likely to start consuming those brands.

If you think that there is not a single ounce of truth in the above statement then you have your head in the sand.

thomond2006

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

See my earlier example of tobacco

In the 80s tobacco brands were very visible in Ireland, now they are completely hidden.
The numbers of young people starting smoking has also reduced, see post from another poster with details.
Brand visibility, combined with other measures has lead to this reduction.

If you think that there is not a single once of truth in the above statement then you have your head in the sand.

In my opinion brand visibility is way down the list. Associated health problems, passive smoking effects, the indoor smoking ban and the price increase of the products were more important. Then again I don't smoke and therefore never quit so I can't speak for smokers!

I'm not saying there isn't a single ounce of truth nor do I have my head in the sand but I don't think banning advertising is a major solution to the problem. Also from an economic POV you're going down a dangerous road by banning something that contributes to the economy and jobs unless there is significant evidence that alcohol advertising will save money in other areas, like HSE savings from a significant decrease in binge drinking and related medical costs.

It's my opinion that if young people are not familiar with alcohol brands then they are less likely to start consuming those brands.

I think you're defeating your own argument here. Yes they might not consume a particular brand, but they will still consume alcohol if that's what they want to do.

Fr Tod Umptious

justsomebloke wrote: »

Take away them having to spend money on sponsorship and advertising and you'll probably actually just increase their bottom line, especially for the established players.

Well that does not make sense

They don't advertise or sponsor events for the good of their health, if you'll excuse the pun.

They advertise and sponsor because it increases sales and revenue.

And if they can't reach new markets (young people turning drinking age etc etc) then sales go down.

Fr Tod Umptious

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

See my earlier example of tobacco

In the 80s tobacco brands were very visible in Ireland, now they are completely hidden.
The numbers of young people starting smoking has also reduced, see post from another poster with details..
Brand visibility, combined with other measures has lead to this reduction

It's my opinion that if young people are not familiar with alcohol brands then they are less likely to start consuming those brands.

If you think that there is not a single ounce of truth in the above statement then you have your head in the sand.

The "other measures" you leave out here are massive, massive price increases, massively improved education on the dangers of smoking, bans on smoking in public spaces / pubs/cafes etc. These are tantamount to prohibitive in a lot of cases.

I would argue (and be very comfortable doing so) that the weight of responsibility for the reduction which you can attribute to these other measures are orders of magnitude above what removing sponsorship has done.

jacothelad

jacothelad wrote: »

I would bet that many of them have share holdings in major drinks company segments of industry.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The banning/restriction of alcohol sponsorship in sport is only one part of a bigger strategy on alcohol in Ireland
http://www.drugs.ie/features/feature/report_of_the_national_substance_misuse_strategy_steering_group



Since you brought it up why don't you tell us who have share holdings in drinks companies

I'm not sure what it has to do with anything anyway.

My point is that if you reduce the visibility of the brand then you help towards preventing the problem.

And none of the companies I mention are displaying a alcohol brand.

"if you reduce the visibility of the brand then you help towards preventing the problem."

Do you really think the brain dead cretins who go on drunken rampages on our streets give a toss what brand of cheap cider or blue drink the get tanked up on? If you do, you are very naive. It didn't work with banning cigarette and tobacco ads. What worked was a) making them very expensive and b) making it difficult to use in work and in public places. The same would work in relation to alcohol misuse.

"Since you brought it up why don't you tell us who have share holdings in drinks companies".
ALL OF THEM.If you are too lazy to find these things out, I'm not going to help you. Go and look for yourself if you are so concerned. The companies you list are the major shareholders of the drinks industry - i.e. the people who own it. Just because Aviva is an insurance company doesn't mean that is all they do. The profits they derive from us are reinvested in drinks companies, oil companies, arms makers, drug companies. Their sponsorship of sports comes from the profits they make not only on their obvious transactions e.g. insurance but as much or more comes from their investments in booze, armaments, etc companies. Take away their profits from these sources and you take away a huge part of their their ability to sponsor anyone.

The partial ban and increased control over advertising alcohol on t.v. has done nothing to slow the increase in it's availability or it's increasing use and the consequent problems. The real problems are it's relatively cheap cost and the supermarkets making it available at next to nothing for anyone with a trolley.

If a government was serious about tackling the problem - which is caused by a tiny minority of fools who drink on an empty head - they would increase the tax take on it and bring the relative price back to where it was in 1960. They should also tax it by unit so that there is a minimum cost irrespective of what the actual rrp might be. I'm in favour of ever-increasing cost IN LINE WITH INFLATION ONCE THE PRICE IS BACK TO A LEVEL THAT MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR THE MORONIC CLOWNS THAT BESMIRCH OUR COMMUNITIES IN DRUNKEN LEWDITY AND VIOLENCE TO PAY FOR IT but why should the vast majority of sports fans be deprived via a ban on sponsorship because a load of dim witted imbeciles can't control themselves.

justsomebloke

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Well that does not make sense

They don't advertise or sponsor events for the good of their health, if you'll excuse the pun.

They advertise and sponsor because it increases sales and revenue.

And if they can't reach new markets (young people turning drinking age etc etc) then sales go down.

They advertise, cause if they don't someone else will and start eating into their market share. If no company can advertise, nobody knows what alternatives there are and so they just stick with what they know so the established brands will be better off and people themselves will be the advertisers via word of mouth.

Drinking doesn't have the same anti-scoial feelings that smoking does so people will just continue as is. Stopping advertising won't stop that.