Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

1131132134136137305

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 14,930 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Not all of us agree that social engineering is a good thing. Your posts are predicated on the idea that the government should be trying to push people towards one kind of lifestyle or another instead of leaving people alone to make their own life choices. Not everyone agrees with that and many of us are diametrically opposed to it.

    Yea I agree that there are certain libertarian types out there you don't like government restrictions

    But alcohol is known to be a problem, it's a fact that it causes health problems, emotional problems, domestic violence problems, etc etc.

    So why not curtail the visibility of it in areas with high density of children, e,g, schools.

    We already restrict where and when and too whom it can be sold.

    In your opinion should those restrictions be removed also ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,077 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    The mural is a piece of advertising because the brand owner is actually paying the building owner to have it there

    Regardless of who painted it it's a piece of advertising not a piece of public art.

    I have passed it many times, it's presence or otherwise does not bother me.

    I have not read the legislation so I don't know if it allows unbranded "advertising"(oxymoron I know) or not.

    A unbranded image would of course not have the same subliminal effect on children as a branded one would have but it would still be promoting alcohol so yea it would be equally damaging

    I would hold that the fact that it was painted by two local artists and was an expression of their imagination qualifies it as art.

    Have a read - http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/24/section/14/enacted/en/html#sec14

    Bizarrely if it was actually on a pub it would be legal. As we know our legislators don't want to upset the VFI or LVA.

    An unbranded image could well be legal.

    In any case it is very unlikely that a pint of black porter is an appealing image to underage drinkers. A can of whatever they can get behind a bush is more likely in my experience


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,381 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    I have been drenched in Guinness advertising since forever. Soaked.
    Even had a few Guinnesses on Arthurs Day...
    And yet... I hardly ever touch the stuff.
    Nothing to do with advertising or price.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,442 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    I have been drenched in Guinness advertising since forever. Soaked.
    Even had a few Guinnesses on Arthurs Day...
    And yet... I hardly ever touch the stuff.
    Nothing to do with advertising or price.

    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    You have got it confused. The government is trying to stop commercial entities from pushing people into choosing their product.

    The government are not stopping anybody (of legal age) from drinking. We are still free to make whatever choices we want, but less influenced by those looking solely to profit.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,144 ✭✭✭✭cj maxx


    Can anyone post a photo of this art/ad. I gather it someone with a pint of stout ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,650 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    The most effective anti-tobacco and anti-alcohol measure ever introduced for the "young people of Ireland" (patronising term or what) was the invention of prepaid mobile phone credit.
    Now I had no idea about the difference between Major and Rothmans and not did I care, but I knew what to ask for when I went into that shop.

    I knew what to ask for aged 9 because my teacher told me to get him twenty Carroll's No.1 in the shop :eek: I still knew it was a stupid thing to smoke and I never did. Oh and the shop gave them to me no questions asked.

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?



  • Registered Users Posts: 33,650 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    Charming.

    Well anyone who accepts what the government spouts in the name of protecting our children from the daemon drink is a moron in mine.

    Especially when what they're really up to is trying to look after their publican friends (and many of them are publicans themselves.)

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,761 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    Was up north last weekend. Jaysus we do get shafted here for booze :(


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,705 ✭✭✭✭Hello 2D Person Below


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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,930 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Especially when what they're really up to is trying to look after their publican friends (and many of them are publicans themselves.)

    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,442 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    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?
    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.
    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.
    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,900 ✭✭✭cadaliac


    cjmc wrote: »
    Can anyone post a photo of this art/ad. I gather it someone with a pint of stout ?

    Previous page - on one of the posts.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,992 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Yeah, because thats what I said! How do you go from curbing advertising on alcohol to stopping all advertising?

    I know it's not what you said. I'm trying to work out why advertising to improve awareness of one brand over others is bad when it comes to alcohol and acceptable when it comes to everything else.
    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.

    I'm not disputing advertising works. I'm disputing the fact it works to make people start doing something to begin with, rather than just choose one brand over another. With the vaping example, do people really think it's cool? Anyone I know who vapes took it up as an alternative to smoking, not because an advertisement told them it's cool.
    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.

    I started drinking because my friends were and because I grew up in the middle of nowhere where there was very little else to be doing. These days there are more alternatives for young people, which is great, and might be part of why we're seeing alcohol consumption going down in young people.
    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.

    I have no issue at all with any of what you mention for dealing with problem drinkers or illegal drinking. I do have an issue with attempts to increase the price or limit advertising for drinking. The former has an impact on low to moderate drinkers who are doing no harm, and the latter has a negative effect on a very profitable industry which creates plenty of employment - something I think should be encouraged.
    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.

    The difference is the former examples are designed to deal with problem drinking (a good thing), while the latter has more of an impact on moderate drinking (IMO, a bad thing).
    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.

    Who are the alcohol companies targeting, and why is it a problem?


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,381 ✭✭✭✭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.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,442 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,381 ✭✭✭✭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.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)





  • 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,442 ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Advertisement


  • 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,930 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,900 ✭✭✭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.




  • 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,077 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,442 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    "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 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,930 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    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 ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,077 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27,381 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    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.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



Advertisement