What To Do About Alcohol Advertising

William Beaver

T he recent announcement by the Distilled Spirits Council that it would end its 50- year-old voluntary ban on radio and TV

advertising was met with much disdain. The Na- tional Association of Broadcasters immediately voiced its disapproval, and the three major net- works promised not to run the ads. FCC chair- man Reed Hundt called the decision “disappoint- ing for parents and dangerous for children” (Beatty 1996). President Clinton compared the alcohol industry to the tobacco companies, and certain members of Congress have promised to hold hearings on the matter.

Reports also indicate that both the beer and wine industries were unhappy about the deci- sion-not only because of the potential for in- creased competition that liquor advertising would bring to an already stagnant market, but also because the decision could increase the threat of more regulation on all alcohol advertising. For their part, the liquor companies maintain that alcohol is alcohol, whether it be a shot, a bottle of beer, or a glass of wine. Hence, they claim, it’s only fair to level the playing field.

Ironically, the decision by the liquor industry to use radio and television has come at a time when the Clinton Administration is trying to im- pose even tougher regulations on tobacco adver- tising. In fact, the entire situation does raise some serious questions. Specifically, should more scru- tiny be directed toward an industry that spends billions of dollars on advertising and promotion and whose products have been linked to some of socic,ty’s more serious problems? (The beer in- dustry alone spends more than $700 million a year on ads, 70 percent of which goes to televi- sion >

Alcohol And Crime

Although alcohol abuse has often been catego- rized as a personal or medical problem, it is, as

What TO Do About Alcohol Advertising

With a rising crime rate among the young and alcohol involved in so much of it, we need to take a serious look at alcohof a&&king on television.

much as anything, a social problem. One can certainly harm oneself by drinking, but the damage that comes from alcohol is often interpersonal in nature. Most of the public seems aware of the prob- lems attributed to driving under the influence. About 20,000 people a year die in alcohol-related crashes. And 40 per- cent of all Americans can expect to be involved in a car accident in which drinking is involved

Such facts have been etched into the public psyche by groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving. On the other hand, the public may be less aware of the ties between alcohol and other serious problems, such as violent crime. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that half of all those imprisoned for murder were under the influence of alcohol when arrested. Seventy per- cent of all fatal adolescent shootings involve drinking. Alcohol is also involved in about 37 percent of rapes and the majority of aggravated assaults. Spousal violence is twice as likely to occur if one of the partners has been drinking.

In researching such findings, J. Roizen (1992) concludes that “the very great proportions of violent acts of all kinds have alcohol present and indeed have intoxicated actors.” Add to this the fact that a third of all property crimes are tied to drinking. Moreover, alcohol-related offenses, though declining, remain the single largest arrest category in the country. In all, the Berkeley Well- ness Center estimates that alcohol causes 100,000 deaths a year and costs U.S. society $86 billion annually.

87

88

Of course, correlation is not causation. Stud- ies often use the phrase “linked to alcohol.” To this day researchers are still unclear about what that exact “link” might be. Nevertheless, there is a growing consensus that alcohol-perhaps more than any other drug-lowers inhibitions and stimulates people to commit antisocial acts.

The Role Of Advertising

The precise role advertising might play in any of this is less than clear-cut. For its part, the alcohol industry, not unlike the tobacco companies, main- tains the purpose of its advertising is to retain product loyalty or to induce people to switch brands-not to lure new customers. But does advertising increase consumption? Some studies do report small but significant relationships be- tween advertising and consumption; many others have found no relationship at all. One Canadian study found that when a %-year ban on alcohol advertising was lifted in Saskatchewan, consump- tion did not increase. However, consumption did shift from liquor (whose ads were still banned) to beer, whose ads became commonplace on the airwaves. Hence, it is fair to say there is no con- clusive evidence that short-term consumption is affected by advertising.

Nevertheless, a major concern persists that alcohol advertising, particularly on television, could have some influence on children. These

“Children exposed to alcohol advertising over a period of years can gain a false impression about drinking (it’s always good!), which becomes purl- of their value system and influences later drinking behavior. M

concerns are not un- founded when one con- siders that the average child in this country watches approximately five hours of TV a day. By the age of 18, televi- sion has been the child’s most persistent activity, except for sleep. It has also been estimated that the typical 1%year-old will have been exposed to 100,000 beer commer- cials. Perhaps this figure should not be surprising when one considers that 77 percent of all bever- age ads on television are

for beer, easily making it the nation’s most widely promoted beverage.

Research also shows that about 90 percent of all teenagers have used alcohol. More than 80 percent drink more than once a week, whereas 30 percent indicate that binge drinking is a regu- lar activity. Even more disturbing was a study of college students (Brannock et al. 1990) that re- vealed that 25 percent of those surveyed could be considered problem drinkers. In fact, the

heaviest consumption of alcohol in American society is by people between the ages of 17 and 24. Put simply, alcohol is the drug of choice for young people, and certainly the one most likely to be abused.

We know, then, that American youth tend to watch a lot of television and consume significant amounts of alcohol. We also know that advertis- ing has not been directly linked to short-term consumption. But could advertising have more long-term impacts? Grube and Wallach (1994) may provide some answers. In conducting 468 interviews with children whose average age was approximately 12 years, they found that children’s beliefs about alcohol were well defined before they began to drink. More important, kids who were more aware of beer advertising displayed more knowledge about ads and slogans, held more favorable views on drinking, and stated that they intended to drink more often as adults than did children who were less knowledgeable. Stud- ies such as these have prompted researchers to conclude that much of what children know about alcohol comes from television. This strongly sug-

gests that TV advertising could certainly play a role in long-term drinking behavior.

Obviously children learn many things from television. But some of what they learn can be at odds with reality. For instance, those who watch a great deal of TV see the world as more violent than it really is. And these assumptions become part of an individual’s broader value system. It follows, then, that children exposed to alcohol advertising over a period of years can gain a false impression about drinking (it’s always good!), which becomes part of their value system and influences later drinking behavior. Of course, what one learns from television can also be strongly reinforced and influenced by peers and the family environment.

Moreover, when one examines the content of ads for alcohol (beer in particular), it is easy to see why young people would be attracted to them. One study of alcohol advertising in tele- vised sports (Madden and Grube 1994) found that 15 percent of the ads used celebrity endors- ers (often athletes or entertainers), while another 37 percent involved either water sports or driv- ing. Although the industry maintains it does not target its products at children, both former U.S. Surgeon Generals Koop and Novello have ac- cused it of doing just that. They have asked the industry to refrain from using cartoons, linking their products with potentially dangerous situa- tions, or using celebrity endorsers who could serve as role models for young people.

Even more troubling are the ties linking youth, crime, and alcohol. The age group with the highest arrest rate is 15 to 24. This is a group that comprises only about 14 percent of the

Business Horizons i July-August 1997

popul;ttion but accounts for 42 percent of all arrests for violent crime and 45 percent of arrests for prcrperty crime. The potential for crime peaks at age 19, then slowly declines. Keeping in mind the high rates of alcohol consumption for roughly the satne age group. plus the fact that about one- half ot all juveniles in some type of correctional facilities were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time they committed the offense, these statistics do give one pause.

Tc ) worsen matters, criminologist John J. DiIulio of Princeton warns that we are facing a .*d~nlog~pllic time bomb” with regard to crime. Over the next decade the adolescent pop~llation will increase by about 25 percent. As a result, DiIulio predicts, the number of juveniles in de- tention will be three times higher than it is today. He also believes that a growing number of these young people are impulsively violent, remorse- less, and unafraid of arrest or imprisonment. They are mhat he calls “super-predators” (Traub 1996).

What To Do

The prospect of a mounting crime rate among juveniles and the fact that alcohol is tied to many of these crimes has prompted DiIulio and others to suggest that increased regulation of alcohol advertising could be socially beneficial. Few have suggested outright bans, as with cigarettes. Rather, more restrained measures are in order, such as restrir,ting ads during the hours children are most likely to watch TV. At the very least, children need to be presented with a more realistic view of drinking-something other than it’s ‘*fun and cool,’ particularly with liquor ads becoming part of thy mix.

I-low might this be achieved? Some have ar- gued that when it comes to potentially ~rnlf~il products, banning ads geared toward children is constitutional on the grounds that children may not be capable of making rational choices. How- ever, tighter government regulations seem un- likely at this point.

Since the 197Os, the Supreme Court has been affording increased protection to commercial free speech on the basis that consumers need infor- mation to make reasonable choices about adver- tised products. Two recent cases before the Court involving alcohol clearly illustrate this trend. In 1995 the Court ruled that a GO-year-old ban pro- hibiting the listing of alcoholic content on labels was unconstitutional. The law, challenged by Coors, had been enacted following prohibition to stop brewers from luring customers by increasing alcol rofic content. Justice Clarence Thomas, in writing for the Court, stated that although he felt banning alcoholic content on labels was legiti- mate, the ban did violate the brewer’s right to free speech. (One could also obviously conclude

that knowing the alcohol content could be of value to consumers.)

Similarly, Rhode Island passed a law prohibit- ing the advertising of liquor prices, which the Court also ruled as Llnconstitutio~ai, largely on the grounds that there was no conclusive evi- dence such bans would have decreased consump- tion. Hence the government had no compelling interest to uphold the ban. Consequently, if tele- vised alcohol advertising is to be restrained, in- creased government regulations are unlikely to provide the answer.

Perhaps the onty possible solution lies within the industry itself. Some would argue that busi- nesses ought to take steps volun- tarily to address the problem out of a sense of social responsibility. If a product is causing harm, the company has a duty to take steps to mitigate that harm. But such an idea, though not beyond the realm of possibility, is un- likely in and of itself to produce the kind of change needed. This is largely because of market conditions. Consider the beer industry. Highly competitive with largely stagnant sales, brewers depend on advertising to differ-

,, The beer industry has shown some winningness to compromise and to comply with demands made by various interest groups. N

entidte their products from one 1

another. Under such circutnstances. a company is not likely to take steps that could conceivably weaken its position.

On the other hand, the beer industry has shown some willingness to compromise and to comply with demands made by various interest groups. In fact, a crucial difference between the tobacco and alcohol industries has been that the alcohol companies have not denied the potential harm their products can cause. Thus, they have probably avoided the kind of backlash experi- enced by the cigarette manufacturers.

Brewers have made a series of public service announcements, most notably Budweiser’s “Know when to say when” and “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk.” All the major brewers contribute to the Century Council, an organi~tion founded by the industry and ostensibly dedicated to reducing drunk driving and underage drinking. On occa- sion the industry has pulled TV ads that have been found objectionable by some. For example, Budweiser canceled the popular Spuds McKenzie promotions for Bud Light after the National Asso- ciation of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counse- lors charged that Spuds not only glamorized drinking but, more important, targeted children. (Interestingly, Grube and Wallach did find that 85 percent of the fifth and sixth graders identified Spuds with Rud Light.) Stroh’s also killed the Old Milwaukee Swedish bikini team ads after a series

What To Do About Alcohol Advertising 89

of protests that claimed the ad promoted a ste- reotypical and degrading view of women.

A pattern has thus been established that, if pressured, the industry will modify its positions to varying degrees. This suggests that if more concentrated and focused efforts are made, the alcohol companies could adjust their current advertising policies. For this to happen, the pub- lic must first be made more aware of the link between alcohol, youth, and crime in much the same way it has come to know the problems associated with drunk driving. Various advocacy groups need to coordinate their efforts. Perhaps the most worthwhile starting point would be to run a series of tefevised public service announce- ments or counter-ads, clearly informing the pub- lic of the dangers involved and the likelihood that things could get worse. Public opinion, it is hoped, would be galvanized, making a response from the industry more likely. This may not be that difficult; several surveys indicate that the public already feels the industry is unethical and is targeting children with its advertising.

The next step would be for interested parties to lay out specific proposals regarding advertising on television, There are several possibilities. More industry-sponsored public service announcements and messages about moderation could be made that not only inform listeners about problems such as underage drinking but also clearly ex- plain the consequences of doing so. As it cur- rently stands, these messages appear infrequently and have been criticized on the grounds that they are ambiguous. What exactly, for instance, does “Know when to say when” mean? One survey of 300 high school and college students (Davidson 1996) revealed that 40 percent interpreted the message to mean it was acceptable for older teenagers to get drunk occasionally.

The industry should also be pressured to use fewer emotional appeals that tie their products to sex or potentially dangerous situations. More ads should be informational, simply telling the audi- ence about the nature and quality of a product. Perhaps the most socially beneficial action would be to limit alcohol advertising on the shows kids are most likely to watch. Fortunately, this task may be easier to accomplish now that the televi- sion industry has developed a ratings system for its programs, based largely on age appropriate- ness. An opportunity is presented for the alcohol industry to clearly demonstrate that it does not target children by agreeing not to run eommer- cials on shows rated appropriate for them.

Congress could play an important role here as well. The Beer Institute, a trade association of U.S. brewers, works with and lobbies Congress on a variety of issues that affect the industry. It has also established an advertising and marketing code for the industry. Members of Congress

should in turn pressure the Institute to incorpo- rate into its code prohibitions against advertising on shows rated appropriate for children. Such. codes are not legally binding, of course, bur some level of conformity can be achieved if vio- lations of the code are made known to the other firms within the industry, which in turn can exert pressure on violators.

In this regard, Anheuser-Busch, makers of Budweiser beer, took a step in the right direction when it announced it would no longer advertise on MTV This was the first time any brewer had publicly announced it would not air commercials on a particular network. Instead, the company will advertise on VIII, a music channe1 with a ‘~predominantly adult viewing audience,” accord- ing to Anheuser-Busch. Although the company gave no reason for its decision, speculation is that the move was in response to the controversy sparked by the liquor industry’s decision to run ads on radio and TV, and also to avoid further criticism that the company targets young people,

P erhaps Budweiser has started a trend that other companies will gradually follow. It is hoped that all of this will eventually

result in children and teens viewing less positive messages about alcohol, thereby gaining a more realistic view of drinking and refraining from doing so. of course, there is no guarantee that more responsible advertising will reduce the social ills associated with drinking. When one considers the costs invohed, however, it seems worth a try. 0

References

“Alcohol In Perspective,” WHlzess Newsletter, University of California at Berkeley, February 1993, pp. 4-6.

S.G. Beatty, “Liquor Industry Votes To Rescind Ban On TV Ads,” W~~~S~~ee~~~~~~~~, November 18, 1796, p. 81.

M. Boot, “Even Tobacco Companies Have The Right To Advertise,” WaOStreetJmwnal, Sept. 11, 1996, p. A16

J.C. Brannock, S.L. Schandler, and P.R. On&y Jr., “Cross-Cultural And Cognitive Factors ExXnined In Groups Of Adolescent Drinkers,“Jourrzal of Drml~ &sues, Summer 1990, pp. 427-442.

D. Fleishman and N. Fleishman, “Beer Ads: FueI For The Drug Bonfire,” The ffuxnanist, November-Decem- ber 1989, pp. 18-19, 38.

G. Gerbner, M. Morgan, M. Gross and N. Signorielfi, “Living With Tefevision: The Dynamics Of The Cultiva- tion Process,” in J_ Bryant and D. Zitlman (eds.), Per- sp&%%s On Me&a Effects (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1386), pp, 17-40.

Business Horizans / July-August 19f)7

N. Glazer, “How Social Problems Are Born,” irhe Public Intere.G, Spring 1994, pp. 31-44.

J.W. Globe and L. Wallach, “Television, Beer Advertis- ing, And Drinking: Knowledge, Beliefs, And Intentions Among School Children,” American Journal Of Public Health. February 1994, pp. 254-259.

S.L. Hwang and P.M. Barrett, “Courts Allows Alcohol Levels On Beer Labels,” Wall Street Journal, September 20, 1995, p. Bl.

P.A. Madden and J.W. Grube, “The Frequency Of Alco- hol And Tobacco Advertising On Televised Sports,” American Journal Of Public Health, February 1994, pp. 297-299.

I. Maitiand, “The Limits Of Business Self-Regulation,” California Management Review, Spring 1985, pp. 132- 146.

C.R. Makowsky and P.C. Whitehead, “Advertising And Alcohol Sales: A Legal Impact Study,” Journal OfStud- ies On Alcohol, November 1991, pp. 555-567.

L.T. Mldanik and W.B. Clark, “The Demographic Distri- bution Of U.S. Drinking Patterns In 1990: Distributions And Trends From 1984,” American Journal OfPublic Health, April 1993, pp. 1218-1222.

“Novel10 Salvo Could Flatten Alcohol Ads,” Media Week. November 18, 1991, p, 2.

C. Oliver, “Strategic Responses To Institutional Pro- cesseh,” Academy Of Management Review, January 1991, pp. 145-179.

T. Riordan, “Miller Guy Life,” ne New Republic, March 27, 1989, pp. 15-16.

M.S. Rosen, “A LEN Interview With Professor Alfred Blumstein Of Carnegie-Mellon University,” Law En- forcement News, April 30, 1995, pp. 10-13.

J. Roizen, “Alcohol And Violence: An Evaluation Of The Evidence From Epidemiological Research,” paper presented at the Working Group On Alcohol-Related Violence, Washington, DC, May 14-15, 1992.

J. Traub, “The Criminals Of Tomorrow,” i’he New Yorker, November 4, 1996, pp. 50-65.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Profile Of Jail Inmates (Washington: Government Print- ing Office, April 1991), p. 8.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization In The United States (Washing- ton: Government Printing Office, October 1992), pp. 53, 58.

U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports 1992 (Washington: Government Printing Of- fice, 1993).

K.L. Wong, “Tobacco Advertising And Children: The Limits Of First Amendment Protection,” Journal Of Business Ethics, October 1996, pp. 1051-1064.

William Beaver is a professor of social sci- ence at Robert Morris College, Coraopolis, Pennsylvania.

What ‘To Do About Alcohol Advertising 91