Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Fr Tod Umptious

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

Fr Tod Umptious

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.

Fr Tod Umptious

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.

Fr Tod Umptious

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.

KrustyUCC

Exactly which is what is above what FG was originally meant to be doing

5.3 Keeping Communities Vibrant

Supporting Irish Pubs: Fine Gael recognises the importance of the Irish pub for tourism, rural jobs and as a social outlet in communities across the country. We will support the local pub by banning the practice of below cost selling on alcohol, particularly by large supermarkets and the impact this has had on alcohol consumption and the viability of pubs.

http://www.michaelpidgeon.com/manifestos/docs/fg/Fine%20Gael%20GE%202011.pdf

wonga77

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

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

There are many off licences and retailers that simply cant even buy drink for their own businesses as cheap as what some supermarkets are selling it at. Add in the vouchers, ie. spend over €50 and get €20 off etc and supermarkets are definitely taking a hit. Maybe not the supermarket owners themselves but certainly the franchise owners. Its a cheap ploy to get people into stores and hope they fill their trolleys with other items with a decent markup.
Thats why shortly you will see hennessys for €25 instead of €40, various whiskeys for 10 or 15 quid cheaper than normal etc. Retailers dont generally make 10 or 15 quid profit on a bottle of spirits

Suckit

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Exactly which is what is above what FG was originally meant to be doing

5.3 Keeping Communities Vibrant

Supporting Irish Pubs: Fine Gael recognises the importance of the Irish pub for tourism, rural jobs and as a social outlet in communities across the country. We will support the local pub by banning the practice of below cost selling on alcohol, particularly by large supermarkets and the impact this has had on alcohol consumption and the viability of pubs.

http://www.michaelpidgeon.com/manifestos/docs/fg/Fine%20Gael%20GE%202011.pdf

So Fine Gael think that the way to get people in to the pubs is by keeping the prices high in the off licences???????

KrustyUCC

wonga77 wrote: »

There are many off licences and retailers that simply cant even buy drink for their own businesses as cheap as what some supermarkets are selling it at. Add in the vouchers, ie. spend over €50 and get €20 off etc and supermarkets are definitely taking a hit. Maybe not the supermarket owners themselves but certainly the franchise owners. Its a cheap ploy to get people into stores and hope they fill their trolleys with other items with a decent markup.
Thats why shortly you will see hennessys for €25 instead of €40, various whiskeys for 10 or 15 quid cheaper than normal etc. Retailers dont generally make 10 or 15 quid profit on a bottle of spirits

Maybe the small end retailers can't sell drink as cheap as that but the major retailers can drop the prices like you say and still not be selling below cost price due to bulk savings

Even with these so called savings drink isn't cheap in this country

KrustyUCC

Suckit wrote: »

So Fine Gael think that the way to get people in to the pubs is by keeping the prices high in the off licences???????

Yup true that

Also that suggestion was not in the health part of their manifesto so this thing about MUP being about health is BS as well

Suckit

https://www.drinksindustryireland.ie/ireland-2nd-in-eu-for-highest-alcohol-excise-tax/

Ireland EU’s 2nd highest alcohol tax
September 5, 2018
€12 on every bottle of whiskey goes straight to the Exchequer as does 80 cents on every glass of wine and 55 cents on every pint of lager.

In contrast, France charges just one cent on a glass of wine and 14 EU member states including Italy, Germany and Portugal, charge no excise on wine whatsoever.

In Germany, a pint of lager served in a German pub comes with a small excise levy of just 5 cents and excise on a bottle of spirits bought in a French off-licence is less than €5 and less than €3 in an Italian off-licence.

Ireland’s levy on cider is double that of the UK per hectolitre of product – €94.46 vs €45.51...

....In addition to excise tax, VAT is also charged on alcohol at a rate of 23% – and VAT is levied on both the original price plus the excise tax itself....

....The Big 4 – Finland, Ireland, Sweden and the UK – comprises EU member states with disproportionately high alcohol excise tax compared to other countries in the bloc.

The country with the fifth-highest alcohol excise tax, Estonia, has a rate almost 50% lower than Ireland’s and 33% lower than the last country in the Big 4, the UK.....

F34

Just heard on the news that the ***** are going to try and bring this in, early in the new year.

elperello

I heard our bete noire Mr Eunan McKinney of Alcohol Action Ireland on the radio today.
He actually denied that moderate drinkers will pay more for their drink of choice under MUP.
According to him we all drink premium drinks anyway so it won't affect us.

various artistes

F34 wrote: »

Just heard on the news that the ***** are going to try and bring this in, early in the new year.

Simon clearly saw that the current/ recent 48 cans for 40 quid in Centra and Tesco were not in keeping with the republic of rent/ insurance.

My 48 cans are still in the boot since last Saturday, just in case Simon was worried I hadn't the self control not to drink them in work on Monday.

KrustyUCC

elperello wrote: »

I heard our bete noire Mr Eunan McKinney of Alcohol Action Ireland on the radio today.
He actually denied that moderate drinkers will pay more for their drink of choice under MUP.
According to him we all drink premium drinks anyway so it won't affect us.

I love the way that was the last word as well

Sure if the price of a can goes up and somebody only drinks one can then it won't affect moderate drinkers lol

Great logic from McKinney

various artistes

elperello wrote: »

I heard our bete noire Mr Eunan McKinney of Alcohol Action Ireland on the radio today.
He actually denied that moderate drinkers will pay more for their drink of choice under MUP.
According to him we all drink premium drinks anyway so it won't affect us.

I drink Tuborg cans because its slightly lower alcohol content (4% compared to 4.3 percent) might make all the differnce sobering up to drive the next afternoon.

Also because it's generally cheaper.

I drink them typically only on a Friday or Saturday, usually about 12- 14 cans in a night.

Essentially never drink during the week as I get older, routinely go two or occasioaally three weeks without a drink.

**** off Eunan and **** off Simon you nerd.


Is there a list anywhere of which TD's voted against this bill?

Any chance of a FF government repealing it?

listermint

KrustyUCC wrote: »

I love the way that was the last word as well

Sure if the price of a can goes up and somebody only drinks one can then it won't affect moderate drinkers lol

Great logic from McKinney

You'd put money in him being in here. There's a few here making the same nonsense argument

elperello

KrustyUCC wrote: »

I love the way that was the last word as well

Sure if the price of a can goes up and somebody only drinks one can then it won't affect moderate drinkers lol

Great logic from McKinney

I don't mind paid lobbyists doing their job but it's a bit much when they stray into that sort of transparent nonsense.

I wonder where his career will take him next.

Atlantic Dawn

So glad that the biggest single problem in the country is now being taken care of with such priority given to it :rolleyes:

KrustyUCC

elperello wrote: »

I don't mind paid lobbyists doing their job but it's a bit much when they stray into that sort of transparent nonsense.

I wonder where his career will take him next.

He's ridiculous and none of the presenters will ever pull him up on it

MUP will affect everybody who buys any drink that was under the MUP

Stormont def won't be fixed by January and I doubt FG want to bring in MUP before an election or lose exchequer funds from cross border shopping

KrustyUCC

Cheap as peanuts? lol

We have some of the most expensive alcohol in Europe as it stands