Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Fr Tod Umptious

odyssey06 wrote: »

Brand recognition. It's about directing spending from A to B. We don't need advertising budgets to drink. There is no relationship between overall alcohol consumption and advertising \ marketing budget on same. The country was awash with spirits in the 1820s and nary an morketing executive in sight.

Look at all the non-stout alcoholic Guinness products launched with big budgets to great fanfare over the last 30 years... Guinness Black, Guinness Light... Guinness could have sponsored every sporting competition known to man, those products would still have died a quick death.
And yet the non-Guinness named Hop House 13 is doing well...

So Deagio have been wasting millions for years on advertising?

odyssey06

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

So Deagio have been wasting millions for years on advertising?

Well they certainly wasted millions on Guinness Black and Light, both in advertising and production! I don't think sales of Guinness would be affected in the slightest if Guinness didn't sponsor the All Irelands and it was sponsored by Bank of Ireland. But the salaries and jobs of marketers in Guinness would be.
And if the millions spent on sponsoring the All Irelands as Guinness was so important, why did Hop House 13 succeed where other Guinness branded lagers failed? Brand recognition will only get you so far.

I'm sure when Molson launched in the Irish market, they spent money on establishing brand recognition. Let's say they spent 1 million. People tried it instead of Miller or Coors light or whatever and either liked it or didn't. Throwing another million at it won't shift the likes or dislikes. Probably what matters more is shelf space in retailers and tap space in pubs.

But would either of those millions lead to an increase in alcohol consumption? I don't see it.

facehugger99

odyssey06 wrote: »

You give the government cart blanch to interfere here, it's only a matter of time before they interfere in something that does bother you. And posh boys like Simon Harris just love interfering in things, anything to avoid facing up to the mess he's making of the hospitals.

Eh?

I expect the Government to legislate appropriately for the betterment of its citizens and society - that's what I'm paying them for.

Not sure what your 'posh boys and puritans' rant was about but I enjoyed it nonetheless.

odyssey06

facehugger99 wrote: »

Eh?

I expect the Government to legislate appropriately for the betterment of its citizens and society - that's what I'm paying them for.

Not sure what your 'posh boys and puritans' rant was about but I enjoyed it nonetheless.

Posh boys (Simon Harris etc) and puritans (the Alcohol Aware brigade)... in alliance with the publicans of the Licensed Vintners... it's a stitch up of the ordinary punter 's wallet wrapped in the language of prohibitionists.

I don't believe in a government that is trying to create "better" citizens, whatever that means.
Simon Harris is doing such a crap job with the HSE I really don't want to see the damage he would do if he tried to produce a better citizen.

As Thomas Jefferson said:
“Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.”

Leroy42

odyssey06 wrote: »

Well they certainly wasted millions on Guinness Black and Light, both in advertising and production! I don't think sales of Guinness would be affected in the slightest if Guinness didn't sponsor the All Irelands and it was sponsored by Bank of Ireland. But the salaries and jobs of marketers in Guinness would be.
And if the millions spent on sponsoring the All Irelands as Guinness was so important, why did Hop House 13 succeed where other Guinness branded lagers failed? Brand recognition will only get you so far.

I'm sure when Molson launched in the Irish market, they spent money on establishing brand recognition. Let's say they spent 1 million. People tried it instead of Miller or Coors light or whatever and either liked it or didn't. Throwing another million at it won't shift the likes or dislikes. Probably what matters more is shelf space in retailers and tap space in pubs.

But would either of those millions lead to an increase in alcohol consumption? I don't see it.

Are you really trying to suggest Marketing doesn't work?

Explain Apple? Explain Dyson? There are plenty more. You are kidding yourself if you think marketing has no effect.

Guiness don't advertise on sport events simply because of the exposure. They already have that. Its about brand awareness, linking of Guinness to a particular event. If the team do well, Guinness is part of that memory. Young kids become familiar with the name, so will at least try it when they are older.

In a crowded marketplace one of the big issues is trying to get noticed. Many products don't fail because they are bad, just they simply don't get the exposure or the critical mass.

Movies are the perfect example. Music is another example. You think Britney etc get to the top just on pure talent? Its marketing.

odyssey06

Leroy42 wrote: »

Are you really trying to suggest Marketing doesn't work?

Explain Apple? Explain Dyson? There are plenty more. You are kidding yourself if you think marketing has no effect.

No one's explained Guinness Black, seeing as we're talking about alcohol and the post was specifically about Guinness sponsoring sports. If marketing budgets are the be all and end all, how could a product backed with mega bucks by Guinness fail. We're not mindless drones, and my general point is that marketing will only get you so far. Marketing is about brand recognition and product awareness.

But seeing as you ask, did anyone buy a Dyson who didn't already own a vaccum cleaner? Did they buy two? A Dyson and a comparable Vax? I don't think so.

Similarly does the advertising millions of Guinness mean people buy 2 Guinness instead of 1 Beamish? Or does it just mean people buy a Guinness instead of a Beamish?

The Apple situation is completely different, they are launching entirely new products to the market. They had to get people to buy an iPod who otherwise may not have had anything comparable.

I'm not interested in whether marketing means Guinness sells more than Beamish. What's relevant is whether the Guinness marketing budget means more beer in total is sold to any appreciable extent that the government needs to get involved. My answer is no.

odyssey06

Leroy42 wrote: »

Movies are the perfect example. Music is another example. You think Britney etc get to the top just on pure talent? Its marketing.

You're creating a strawman between "just on pure talent" and "its marketing", as if there is no interaction between the two. The marketing money follows the talent and the appeal of the output of that talent.

If marketing was all that mattered, why would some Britney songs and albums do better than others even though in fact the later albums probably had more marketing budget? Marketing plays a big role in what songs get into the public's awareness and onto the radio, after that the songs themselves have to take over the heavy lifting.

The Rape of Lucretia

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

There are rugby union internationals on in November

The Guinness series is a session with four rounds. The first pint is out of town. Then its back to Dublin, for a pub crawl for three more pints, one after the other, including meeting up with old friends, particularly the middle one for a pint of the black stuff with the all blacks, and there will be a good crowd out. Enjoying themselves responsibly.

Leroy42

The very fact that you can still remember Guinness Black means that the marketing worked. Why else would you remember such a short lived and badly received product?

But you still think of it? Guinness is something that you think about, the brand is in your consciousness. That is the point of it. You can be sure that plenty of people tried Guinness Black when it came out. That they didn't like it is not the fault of marketing, it can only do so much, but as you accepted Apple have made people feel that they need something that they didn't even know they needed.

The very best marketing is the unconscious type. That Dyson are the best suction bagless vacuums. That Ryanair are the cheapest. Doesn't mean they get everyone to buy them, but they get everyone to think about them.

I don't like Guinness, but I sure as hell know about it. I sure as hell would tell foreign visitors to try it.

But, really, if we are down to arguing about whether marketing works then this is pointless. Whether you personally accept that it works (and maybe you are one of the few that it has no effect on) is not really the point. It works. Yes in some markets it is about market share, but it is also very much about new customers. It is not aimed at you, they already have you, it is aimed at the new drinkers. Those not currently drinking, or only drinking a little.

ohnonotgmail

facehugger99 wrote: »

Eh?

I expect the Government to legislate appropriately for the betterment of its citizens and society - that's what I'm paying them for.

Not sure what your 'posh boys and puritans' rant was about but I enjoyed it nonetheless.

in this instance the government are legislating for the betterment of vintners. Any other benefits are purely incidental.

elperello

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

in this instance the government are legislating for the betterment of vintners. Any other benefits are purely incidental.

That may be part of their rationale but I am not sure this Bill will work out well for publicans in the long run.
Their business model is selling alcohol which is now officially called out as a carcinogen.

Doctor Jimbob

elperello wrote: »

That may be part of their rationale but I am not sure this Bill will work out well for publicans in the long run.
Their business model is selling alcohol which is now officially called out as a carcinogen.

It's not part of the rationale, it's the entire rationale. The relevant text has been posted several times in this thread.

odyssey06

Leroy42 wrote: »

The very fact that you can still remember Guinness Black means that the marketing worked. Why else would you remember such a short lived and badly received product?

But you still think of it? Guinness is something that you think about, the brand is in your consciousness. That is the point of it. You can be sure that plenty of people tried Guinness Black when it came out. That they didn't like it is not the fault of marketing, it can only do so much, but as you accepted Apple have made people feel that they need something that they didn't even know they needed.

The very best marketing is the unconscious type. That Dyson are the best suction bagless vacuums. That Ryanair are the cheapest. Doesn't mean they get everyone to buy them, but they get everyone to think about them.

I don't like Guinness, but I sure as hell know about it. I sure as hell would tell foreign visitors to try it.

But, really, if we are down to arguing about whether marketing works then this is pointless. Whether you personally accept that it works (and maybe you are one of the few that it has no effect on) is not really the point. It works. Yes in some markets it is about market share, but it is also very much about new customers. It is not aimed at you, they already have you, it is aimed at the new drinkers. Those not currently drinking, or only drinking a little.

It didnt work in the real world. The product died a quick death. If thats a marketing success it shows how limited is the effect marketing can have if its not pushing against an open door. So it is not something we as a society should be concerned about to the extent of legislating against it.

Everyone was a new drinker once. And we had new drinkers before marketing. No one goes from teetotaller to knocking back the pints cos Guinness sponsors a rugby match.

In the context of this thread marketing by individual drinks companies does not lead to any appreciable impact on overall alcohol consumption. Its intent is redirection from brand A to B.

And I personally am highly dubious about whether specifically marketing by sponsoring events by an established brand leads to redirection.

elperello

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It's not part of the rationale, it's the entire rationale. The relevant text has been posted several times in this thread.

Ok leaving aside the question of whether it's part or entire what do you think the long term effect will be on the pub trade?

Hotblack Desiato

facehugger99 wrote: »

I expect the Government to legislate appropriately for the betterment of its citizens and society

Naive in the extreme.

Hotblack Desiato

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

It's won't but higher pricing is a barrier to entry, which will affect the next generation of drinkers.

As far as teenagers are concerned, making alcohol more difficult or expensive to obtain just increases the allure.

"This is the thing they really don't want us to have!!! even though we know they all drink"

Teenagers can't be fooled. Teenagers can smell the hypocrisy a mile off.

Doctor Jimbob

elperello wrote: »

Ok leaving aside the question of whether it's part or entire what do you think the long term effect will be on the pub trade?

There's no question of whether it's a part or entire. It's entire.

I think the long term effect will be insignificant, people are moving away from drink in this country regardless of what legislation is being brought in.

weldoninhio

odyssey06 wrote: »

Well they certainly wasted millions on Guinness Black and Light, both in advertising and production! I don't think sales of Guinness would be affected in the slightest if Guinness didn't sponsor the All Irelands and it was sponsored by Bank of Ireland. But the salaries and jobs of marketers in Guinness would be.
And if the millions spent on sponsoring the All Irelands as Guinness was so important, why did Hop House 13 succeed where other Guinness branded lagers failed? Brand recognition will only get you so far.

I'm sure when Molson launched in the Irish market, they spent money on establishing brand recognition. Let's say they spent 1 million. People tried it instead of Miller or Coors light or whatever and either liked it or didn't. Throwing another million at it won't shift the likes or dislikes. Probably what matters more is shelf space in retailers and tap space in pubs.

But would either of those millions lead to an increase in alcohol consumption? I don't see it.

100%. In my local I drink either O’Haras pale ale or 51st State. I drink them because I like them. I’ve never seen an ad for either.

Reputable Rog

weldoninhio wrote: »

100%. In my local I drink either O’Haras pale ale or 51st State. I drink them because I like them. I’ve never seen an ad for either.

I like to buy cans of Macardales or bottles when available. I've never seen an ad for it barr a beermat in a pub in Dundalk many years ago.

Leroy42

weldoninhio wrote: »

100%. In my local I drink either O’Haras pale ale or 51st State. I drink them because I like them. I’ve never seen an ad for either.

So how did you end up trying it the first time?

Do the bottles not have labels on them. Is there not a sign in the taps for them?

They might not have undertaken the more traditional advertising but they certainly undertook advertising, and it clearly worked on you.

The very fact that you are prepared to pay the same price for a local product that costs probably a €1 to produce is another result of marketing.

You may not want to admit that you have been affected by marketing but we all are.

raze_them_all_

weldoninhio wrote: »

100%. In my local I drink either O’Haras pale ale or 51st State. I drink them because I like them. I’ve never seen an ad for either.

You have though. They ain't hidden. Behind a bar, they are on the taps, all bright and lit up, beer mats with its name are all ads

weldoninhio

Leroy42 wrote: »

So how did you end up trying it the first time?

Do the bottles not have labels on them. Is there not a sign in the taps for them?

They might not have undertaken the more traditional advertising but they certainly undertook advertising, and it clearly worked on you.

The very fact that you are prepared to pay the same price for a local product that costs probably a €1 to produce is another result of marketing.

You may not want to admit that you have been affected by marketing but we all are.

The barman said “We’ve a new beer in, do you want a sample”. I said “OK” and that was it. I don’t think Evan was paid by O’Haras to give me a small taste. He’s done the same with any new beer they get, most recently (last night) with the unpasteurised Heineken, which was ok, but not for me.

Fr Tod Umptious

Leroy42 wrote: »

So how did you end up trying it the first time?

Do the bottles not have labels on them. Is there not a sign in the taps for them?

They might not have undertaken the more traditional advertising but they certainly undertook advertising, and it clearly worked on you.

The very fact that you are prepared to pay the same price for a local product that costs probably a €1 to produce is another result of marketing.

You may not want to admit that you have been affected by marketing but we all are.

I think a better question would be

"What did you drink when you first started to drink regularly in pubs or from the off licence or supermarket?

Was it O'Hara's pale ale or was it one of the bigger brands we see splashed over sports, TV, billboards etc?"

weldoninhio

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I think a better question would be

"What did you drink when you first started to drink regularly in pubs or from the off licence or supermarket?

Was it O'Hara's pale ale or was it one of the bigger brands we see splashed over sports, TV, billboards etc?"

It would depend on what they have. Not all pubs in my town have O’Haras, so I sometimes drink Guinness, sometimes Carlsberg, sometimes Heineken, sometimes Hophouse. I’ve no other go to beer. In off licences I generally try what’s new.

badtoro

Simple solution, make your own!

The Rape of Lucretia

weldoninhio wrote: »

100%. In my local I drink either O’Haras pale ale or 51st State. I drink them because I like them. I’ve never seen an ad for either.

You have still been taken in by the advertising though. Only a very clever indeed paradoxical yet effective one.
There is always a market segment (in all goods, not just alcohol) that looks to reject the mass market brands and feed a sense of exclusivity, superiority, 'rebel' or individual, distinctiveness, or higher discernment.
One strategy in the cultivation of these segments is indeed non advertising.
Attracting customers who seek out the different, and maintaining a sense of specialist, or being only for those 'in the know'.
And hence it being alluring for its customers to like such a product and develop a taste or preference for them.
O'Hara's and 51st State have done will with this strategy.
Its a delicate balance though and needs careful judgement by the brand managers not to kill the golden goose, by making the market too big - which can kill them off. Or if sustained, leaving room for the next 'niche' product development.
Marketing is clever stuff.

weldoninhio

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

You have still been taken in by the advertising though. Only a very clever indeed paradoxical yet effective one.
There is always a market segment (in all goods, not just alcohol) that looks to reject the mass market brands and feed a sense of exclusivity, superiority, 'rebel' or individual, distinctiveness, or higher discernment.
One strategy in the cultivation of these segments is indeed non advertising.
Attracting customers who seek out the different, and maintaining a sense of specialist, or being only for those 'in the know'.
And hence it being alluring for its customers to like such a product and develop a taste or preference for them.
O'Hara's and 51st State have done will with this strategy.
Its a delicate balance though and needs careful judgement by the brand managers not to kill the golden goose, by making the market too big - which can kill them off. Or if sustained, leaving room for the next 'niche' product development.
Marketing is clever stuff.

So not marketing is marketing?? You’re full of brown stuff (and I don’t mean Guinness)

JohnnyFlash

That O’Hara’s Pale Ale is lovely tack when you are sinking 7 or 8 of them, but it leaves me with an arse like Rudolf’s nose the next morning.

McMurphy

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

You have still been taken in by the advertising though. Only a very clever indeed paradoxical yet effective one.
There is always a market segment (in all goods, not just alcohol) that looks to reject the mass market brands and feed a sense of exclusivity, superiority, 'rebel' or individual, distinctiveness, or higher discernment.
One strategy in the cultivation of these segments is indeed non advertising.
Attracting customers who seek out the different, and maintaining a sense of specialist, or being only for those 'in the know'.
And hence it being alluring for its customers to like such a product and develop a taste or preference for them.
O'Hara's and 51st State have done will with this strategy.
Its a delicate balance though and needs careful judgement by the brand managers not to kill the golden goose, by making the market too big - which can kill them off. Or if sustained, leaving room for the next 'niche' product development.
Marketing is clever stuff.

OHaras is available in pretty much every offlicense you go into, from the local corner shop to OBriens or Tesco, you'll usually find it. Even Aldi do their own version (OSheas) which is made by the very same company (Carlow brewing) - so I would drop the exclusivity nonsense if I where you.

Mass marketing doesn't have a patch on taste buds, people know what tastes good, what tastes crap, what is quality and what is a hangover in a bottle.

Apart from that, I can't remember the last time I even seen an ad for OHaras on tv or print, whereas bud/Heineken etc are never off the box.

Or are you saying OHaras (never heard of the other stuff) are extremely clever at the marketing by not actually marketing?

Or are you just spouting from ones hoop?

Leroy42

Its fine. You dont get impacted by marketing and marketing has no impact.

That would go against all the psychological evidence, all the billions spent every year on marketing by companies across all markets and products type, and all the examples of Apple, Dyson, BMW.

But you are probably right.