Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

If commercial entities pushing people into choosing their product is a bad thing, do you think all advertising should be banned? If you do, fair enough.

Yeah, because thats what I said! How do you go from curbing advertising on alcohol to stopping all advertising?

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I think it's unlikely that advertising has any significant effect on making people drink in the first place. I started drinking cheap cider in fields with my mates. In college I drank whatever lager happened to be cheap or on offer. I think most people are in the same boat.

What you happen to think isn't really the standard, or me for that matter. Advertising works. We know this because of multiple studies, the millions of Euros spent each year, and simply look at the value of brands. Part of advertising is to normalise a product. Make vaping cool is the most recent example. It terms of products like alcohol, it attempts to make it cool, and fun and get make sure that peoples opinions are backup up. And it clearly works.

And why did you start drinking? Instead of doing something else. Sure your peers, parents, friends etc had a major role (society in general) but being surrounded by the names, the brands, keeps it at the forefront of peoples thinking.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Increasing the price would have more of an effect, but thats just going to drive people to a)illegal sources, as has happened with cigarettes or b)brewing their own.

Yeah, I agree. Pricing on its own won't solve anything in part for the reasons you have shown. Thats why it needs a combined effort, and that is where adjustments to the advertising regime come in.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

As others have said, young people are drinking less and less anyway. Do we really need government intervention here? If we do, I think education is surely a better option than lazy options like increasing price or banning advertising. I know I've cut down my drinking since reading up on it, I'm sure plenty others would do the same.

Education is ongoing and should be increased. Garda dealing with drunks, fines for publicans serving underage of intoxicated patrons. More severe penalties for drunk driving, less acceptance of alcohol as a diminishing in crimes. All these can help reduce the acceptance of alcohol within society.

But all of these can work in conjunction with advertising restrictions, it is not a case of either or. We have seen the dramatic reduction in cigarette smoking and part of that is undoubtedly down to a reduction in the visibility of the product.

And again, you lose nothing. You can still buy the product, consume it. All the advertising restrictions are taking about is setting standards on alcohol companies on who they should be targeting.

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.

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 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.

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!

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

[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.

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 ?

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.

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?

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

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.

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 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 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 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

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

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.....

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.

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

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

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

Cheap as peanuts? lol

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