Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Geuze

Deleted User wrote: »

Raising the price of alcohol will do **** all.

There are many countries that have far cheaper drink than us that drink less. It's a cultural issue.

Correct.

The cheapest 50cl cans of beer are 29c in Germany.

They have low unemployment, and very low youth unemployment.

odyssey06

Leroy42 wrote: »

Let's see. Do we take your anecdote as proof or look to the millions spent on advertising each year as proof.
Even you agree that you succumb to advertising by changing from your usual to Guiness on the brand created Arthur's day.
It has everything to do with advertising, unless you want us to believe you happened upon Arthur's day by yourself

Proves nothing in relation to overall alcohol consumption versus Guinness consumption.
Arthurs day was about the music for me Snow Patrol had a lasting effect. Having to drink Diageo products in the venue did not.

Leroy42

odyssey06 wrote: »

Proves nothing in relation to overall alcohol consumption versus Guinness consumption.
Arthurs day was about the music for me Snow Patrol had a lasting effect. Having to drink Diageo products in the venue did not.

OK, you keep telling yourself that. All the evidence is that advertising works, both in driving attitudes and driving products.

But because you are apparently immune then that means that everyone is?

odyssey06

Leroy42 wrote: »

OK, you keep telling yourself that. All the evidence is that advertising works, both in driving attitudes and driving products.
But because you are apparently immune then that means that everyone is?

I dont know what your statement means in the context of this thread.
You repeat the mantra advertising works and repeating it to yourself over and over.
It is irrelevent.
Nobody succumbs to advertising, whatever that even means. They respond to it or they do not but it is their agency which ultimately determines if the product succeeds on its own right.

There is nothing wrong with Guinness advertising. There is nothing wrong with having a Guinness everyday. Even on Arthurs Day.
What matters is what you do when you have that Guinness. Billboards near schools have nothing to do with that.

The current nonsense from the government does not speak to that.
We need to normalise moderate responsible drinking and denormalise those alcohol related behaviours that have negative social consequences.

MUP and all the other stuff proposed by the government are a step backwards to what is needed.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Let's see. Do we take your anecdote as proof or look to the millions spent on advertising each year as proof.

Even you agree that you succumb to advertising by changing from your usual to Guiness on the brand created Arthur's day.

It has everything to do with advertising, unless you want us to believe you happened upon Arthur's day by yourself

You need proof. I don't. I completely believe Odessey.

I watch the Heineken Cup but would rather sparkling water to a pint of the stuff.

The effect of advertising is over stated.

Leroy42

The very fact you know the brand that uses the tournament to advertise debunks your own point.

Again, many on here seem to be thinking that because they personally do not think they are influenced (and in reality they are, maybe that not particular product but in many others ways) that that somehow proves that advertising has no impact.

But even if we agree on that flawed premise then then opens up the question as to why you care if advertising is curtailed. It is simply a complete waste, as 'proven' by your own stories, so what loss is it.

Maybe if the government force these companies to stop wasting on these millions on advertising then they can reduce their prices!

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

The very fact you know the brand that uses the tournament to advertise debunks your own point.

Again, many on here seem to be thinking that because they personally do not think they are influenced (and in reality they are, maybe that not particular product but in many others ways) that that somehow proves that advertising has no impact.

But even if we agree on that flawed premise then then opens up the question as to why you care if advertising is curtailed. It is simply a complete waste, as 'proven' by your own stories, so what loss is it.

Maybe if the government force these companies to stop wasting on these millions on advertising then they can reduce their prices!

That opinion would have carried more weight if you weren't referring to Heineken.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

That opinion would have carried more weight if you weren't referring to Heineken.

I'm sorry I don't get what you are trying to point out.

How would the opinion have carried more weight if he/she was not referring to Heineken

cadaliac

Advertising works just fine. To a point.

Yes, statistically you can prove or debunk that it has an effect/no-effect on children. That isn't really the point of this thread, is it?

The thread is MUP and how idiotic that is.

Yes the advertising within 200m (or whatever) from a school is (imo) equally as idiotic, but I can see that the Gov have to be seen to be doing something.


Instead of tackling alcoholic people and the consequences to their families, and their surroundings they decide just to up the price of drink. Making an already poor alcoholic even poorer rather than tackle the issue at hand.

The whole advertising issue gets people going as it is yet another failure to tackle this issue and a half arsed attempt to provide politicians ammunition to defend questions during election time debates. Nothing of real substance to tackle alcoholism in Ireland.

Fr Tod Umptious

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I'm sorry I don't get what you are trying to point out.

How would the opinion have carried more weight if he/she was not referring to Heineken

"The very fact you know the brand that uses the tournament to advertise debunks your own point."

Heineken. One of the most recognizable and largest beer brands in the world, and the tournament in question is called The Heineken Cup.

elperello

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I don't think MUP is a good solution.

But I have no problem with the advertising changes.

Even though both get lumped together, they are mutually exclusive in my opinion.

Well at least we agree on MUP.

Like you I thought the advertising part of the Bill did not affect me and I concentrated on the MUP which definitely will.

I have now studied the advertising section and I think it is full of virtue signalling nonsense. I strongly suggest that the measures proposed in relation to ads near schools etc. are not soundly based on empirical evidence. Furthermore I don't think they will do anything to reduce underage drinking.

Of course it is wrong for children to drink. The best way to prevent them is parenting and application of the laws already in place. Parents need education and support and the Gardai and courts need to do their job.

Leroy42

[Deleted User] wrote: »

"The very fact you know the brand that uses the tournament to advertise debunks your own point."

Heineken. One of the most recognizable and largest beer brands in the world, and the tournament in question is called The Heineken Cup.

Have you asked yourself why they are one of the worlds best known brands?

Are people simply born knowing Heineken?

Seriously, there are plenty of studies, research, books etc written which show the influence that advertising has. For your point to be valid one has to accept that almost every business has been conned for years.

Which do you think is more likely? That the likes of Heineken review the effects of advertising spend on their profits and can see the value or that you are right and all these businesses simply like wasting money.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Have you asked yourself why they are one of the worlds best known brands?

Are people simply born knowing Heineken?

Seriously, there are plenty of studies, research, books etc written which show the influence that advertising has. For your point to be valid one has to accept that almost every business has been conned for years.

Which do you think is more likely? That the lists of Heineken review the effects of advertising spend on their profits and can see the value or that you are right and all these businesses simply like wasting money.

Yes, advertising works in that it gets the name of the product or brand out there. I never suggested otherwise. However, I refute the claim that I am more likely to buy it or drink it because of its advertising.

I walk past Dell every day on my way to work, there is a big billboard saying Dell that I see twice a day. Number of Dell computers in my home? Zero.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, advertising works in that it gets the name of the product or brand out there. I never suggested otherwise. However, I refute the claim that I am more likely to buy it or drink it because of its advertising.

I walk past Dell every day on my way to work, there is a big billboard saying Dell that I see twice a day. Number of Dell computers in my home? Zero.

Again you are using anecdotal experiences to try and make general statements.

As the other poster has pointed out, why do drinks companies spend so much on marketing if does not work ?

I work in a pub on and off.
Over the past year or so plenty of people have said to me "oh I think I'll try a pint of the Rockshore"

Why is that do you think ?

elperello

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Again you are using anecdotal experiences to try and make general statements.

As the other poster has pointed out, why do drinks companies spend so much on marketing if does not work ?

I work in a pub on and off.
Over the past year or so plenty of people have said to me "oh I think I'll try a pint of the Rockshore"

Why is that do you think ?

From my experience of pubs most customers tend to stick to their favoured tipple.

That's part of the reason why drink companies spend on advertising, they want to change a drinker over to their brand.

Your customer trying the pint of Rockshore had already decided to have a pint so there was no extra drink sold just a different brand.

odyssey06

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Again you are using anecdotal experiences to try and make general statements.
As the other poster has pointed out, why do drinks companies spend so much on marketing if does not work ?
I work in a pub on and off.
Over the past year or so plenty of people have said to me "oh I think I'll try a pint of the Rockshore"
Why is that do you think ?

Did they ask for a Kaliber or a Guinness light?
If marketing 'works', why is history littered with failed marketing campaigns?
Marketing makes people aware of the product. If you've never heard of the product, you are hardly going to purchase it. You will try the product but then the product stands or fails on its own merits.

And if they'd never heard of Rockshore they would have bought beer X instead. That's why drinks companies spend so much on marketing.

How do you know they came into the pub to order a Rockshore and would not have entered the pub were it not for the Rockshore ad?
And the only part that is relevant to the current topic is whether the Rockshore ad meant that their drinking incurred negative social consequences.
Quoting the size of marketing budgets and "marketing works" mantras does not speak to that but re: this thread it is the only relevant point.

odyssey06

odyssey06 wrote: »

Did they ask for a Kaliber or a Guinness light?
If marketing 'works', why is history littered with failed marketing campaigns?
Marketing makes people aware of the product. If you've never heard of the product, you are hardly going to purchase it. You will try the product but then the product stands or fails on its own merits.

And if they'd never heard of Rockshore they would have bought beer X instead. That's why drinks companies spend so much on marketing.

How do you know they came into the pub to order a Rockshore and would not have entered the pub were it not for the Rockshore ad?
And the only part that is relevant to the current topic is whether the Rockshore ad meant that their drinking incurred negative social consequences.
Quoting the size of marketing budgets and "marketing works" mantras does not speak to that but re: this thread it is the only relevant point.

And that's why the restriction on exposing children to the product is a good idea.

You said it
"If you've never heard of the product, you are hardly going to purchase it."

Crock Rock

I've massively reduced my alcohol intake because although I'm only in my late 20's, I have high blood pressure because of a medical condition and alcohol obviously increases blood pressure.

I only have a few tipples one day a week (if even that) and I have't been even tipsy in a long time.

I make homebrew, this last batch I made was even alcohol-free.

I hate being treated like a recalcitrant child by a nanny-state.

odyssey06

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And that's why the restriction on exposing children to the product is a good idea.
You said it
"If you've never heard of the product, you are hardly going to purchase it."

If we banned car advertising, kids growing up may not not what a Ford is to the extent they know brands today, but they know what a car is.
So no this is a not a good idea it is a totally wrong headed idea in every respect.

We were drinking alcohol before marketing and billboards were invented.
We will continue to do so despite this nanny state nonsense.
There is nothing wrong with drinking alcohol. Banning these billboards won't make the smallest iota of difference to whatever negative social impacts alcohol can have in this country.

MadYaker

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And that's why the restriction on exposing children to the product is a good idea.

You said it
"If you've never heard of the product, you are hardly going to purchase it."

You think it's possible to prevent young people discovering that alcohol exists? How would that even be possible?

Kermit.de.frog

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

What's the situation with the stricter alcohol rules and minimum pricing?

When are they due to come in to force?

Feel like been hearing about it for years.

wonga77

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

Minimum pricing doesnt appear any closer now really.
We're going to be into silly season soon where certain franchises are selling slabs, multipacks and vodka, whiskey etc for below cost price just to get people in the door. The publicans will do well out of it for sure as they can stock up on spirits far far cheaper than what they usually would pay

odyssey06

odyssey06 wrote: »

If we banned car advertising, kids growing up may not not what a Ford is to the extent they know brands today, but they know what a car is.
So no this is a not a good idea it is a totally wrong headed idea in every respect.

We were drinking alcohol before marketing and billboards were invented.
We will continue to do so despite this nanny state nonsense.
There is nothing wrong with drinking alcohol. Banning these billboards won't make the smallest iota of difference to whatever negative social impacts alcohol can have in this country.

Again I have to ask how does the restriction on advertising around schools affect someone like yourself who is (I assume) an adult ?

Back in the early 2000s laws were changed to allow pubs open until 12:30am on Thursday, Friday and Saturday

But a few years later Thursday was reverted to 11:30pm due to high levels of absenteeism

Now I did not like that because I enjoyed staying in the pub until 12:30am on a Thursday.
It had a direct affect on me

But advertising restrictions don't and probably never will.

MadYaker

MadYaker wrote: »

You think it's possible to prevent young people discovering that alcohol exists? How would that even be possible?

I don't think that

But what I do think is reduced visibility (advertising, sponsorship ect) will lead to reduced levels of consumption

I just did some searching and found this
https://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_projects/2004/action3/docs/2004_3_16_frep_a4_en.pdf
I'm not sure of the source so it could be argued that it is biased in someway or another.
Anyway this few lines caught my attention (Page 41)

One relatively large study looked into connections between children’s awareness
of alcohol advertising and their knowledge and beliefs about drinking (Grube
1995; Grube and Wallack 1994). The students’ awareness of alcohol advertising
was ascertained through presentations of a series of still photographs taken
from television commercials for beer, with all references to the product or brand
deleted. The children were asked if they had seen each advertisement and, if
so, to identify the product being advertised. Children who were more aware of
advertising had increased knowledge of beer brands and slogans as well as more
positive beliefs about drinking. Although attempts were made to account for the
possibility that prior beliefs and knowl­edge could affect the children’s awareness
of the advertising, it is still possible that the relationship is due to children who
hold more positive beliefs about drinking being those who are more aware of
advertising.

odyssey06

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Again I have to ask how does the restriction on advertising around schools affect someone like yourself who is (I assume) an adult ?

Not sure why you have to ask?
This is part of a legislative 'theme', aspects of which do have the capacity to affect me.

Besides, citizens are allowed to have an opinion on goverment proposals and legislation even those that may not directly affect them. We can be partial and impartial.

MadYaker

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I don't think that

But what I do think is reduced visibility (advertising, sponsorship ect) will lead to reduced levels of consumption

I just did some searching and found this
https://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_projects/2004/action3/docs/2004_3_16_frep_a4_en.pdf
I'm not sure of the source so it could be argued that it is biased in someway or another.
Anyway this few lines caught my attention (Page 41)

How old are you? Kids don't watch TV anymore. The government can't control what gets advertised on the internet. I'm not sure how effective any sort of advertisingh ban would be. It's like it's in our genes.

MadYaker

MadYaker wrote: »

How old are you? Kids don't watch TV anymore. The government can't control what gets advertised on the internet. I'm not sure how effective any sort of advertisingh ban would be. It's like it's in our genes.

Obviously the point of the piece I quoted has gone way over your head

But that's not surprising really, we have posters here who think that advertising and marketing don't work so you are in good company.

Children who were more aware of
advertising had increased knowledge of beer brands and slogans as well as more
positive beliefs about drinking

The advertising used in the research was TV, it was mid '90s.

But I going to go out on a limb and guess that advertising regards of media would have pretty similar outcomes i.e more aware of advertising = increased knowledge of beer brands + more positive beliefs about drinking.

And by the way no one is suggesting an advertising ban, just restricted advertising around areas with high density of children, e.g schools.

Reputable Rog

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Obviously the point of the piece I quoted has gone way over your head

But that's not surprising really, we have posters here who think that advertising and marketing don't work so you are in good company.



The advertising used in the research was TV, it was mid '90s.

But I going to go out on a limb and guess that advertising regards of media would have pretty similar outcomes i.e more aware of advertising = increased knowledge of beer brands + more positive beliefs about drinking.

And by the way no one is suggesting an advertising ban, just restricted advertising around areas with high density of children, e.g schools.

I deal regularly with the Department of Educaton and their reps tell me that they think this legislation is bonkers, they never asked for it and further more they never requested ‘no fry zones’ near schools.
Clearly a couple of obsessed politicians out of control.

KrustyUCC

wonga77 wrote: »

Minimum pricing doesnt appear any closer now really.
We're going to be into silly season soon where certain franchises are selling slabs, multipacks and vodka, whiskey etc for below cost price just to get people in the door. The publicans will do well out of it for sure as they can stock up on spirits far far cheaper than what they usually would pay

Why do you think it's below cost price selling?

It's certainly cheaper than other times of the year but I don't think the supermarkets are making loses even at €1 a can etc

elperello

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Why do you think it's below cost price selling?

It's certainly cheaper than other times of the year but I don't think the supermarkets are making loses even at €1 a can etc

Not that it matters because whatever price we buy drink at is a function of the market.

The retailers do a deal with the distributors/manufacturers and when they have all done their sums and reached their targets we chose to buy or go elsewhere.

MUP is doing away with all that and introducing a false floor to the market below which the price cannot go.

The Government get to feel virtuous, the retailers and manufacturers/distributors get to divvy up an extra source of revenue and we are goosed.