BUD (the King of Beers)

Quote: JimRockford

It wasn’t a question about ethics. My point is this. In a market with such stiff competition between brands, there is little reason for a company to waste money on ads meant to make beer more socially acceptable, benefiting themselves and their competitors equally. The purpose of beer ads on TV is to take market share.

Well that is part of the problem, advertising is (virtually always) more focused on expansion than ethics (which normally is not a huge issue except when it comes to addicting and harmful products.)

But, it 100% does make it more socially acceptable, the more ads on TV the more normal a product seems. This is one reason liquor ads which are even more alarmingly becoming more common, are dangerous (and the industry used to self-restrict out of respect.)

That is why I know my answer does not make sense (I would also never have that position for a product I found so distasteful,) but in a hypothetical where I had full control for a day that is where I would shift the funding.

Market share can be helped by less advertising for major companies. I know I keep going back to cigs (but it is relevant for this point too), Reynolds (Camel) and Phillip Morris (Marlboro) both supported bans on advertising because they knew Marlboro and Camel are brands so ingrained that they can't be canceled (for lack of a better term,) so advertising bans tend to expand market share of the 1-3 largest companies and gobble out the smaller companies. Because let's be real, everyone knows what Bud Light is, they do not need to advertise anymore than Marlboro does.

I don't have a massive problem with taking market share, but when it comes to alcohol and cigarettes, there are more considerations than "stock price" that society needs to factor.

Quote: JimRockford

It wasn’t a question about ethics. My point is this. In a market with such stiff competition between brands, there is little reason for a company to waste money on ads meant to make beer more socially acceptable, benefiting themselves and their competitors equally. The purpose of beer ads on TV is to take market share.

That depends on the product. From time to time a new type of product comes out. For beer it is usually some kind of flavoring to appeal to more women. Now no, the ad is not to make it more "socially acceptable." Beer has been socially acceptable since ancient Egypt. But some people are not so keen on the taste. So if you mask the taste you can get more new users.

So yes, you do advertise to increase the market.

Quote: Gandler

I don't have a massive problem with taking market share, but when it comes to alcohol and cigarettes, there are more considerations than "stock price" that society needs to factor.

If people do not want to drink or smoke they do not have to. That is all "society" needs to worry about.

Quote: AZDuffman

That depends on the product. From time to time a new type of product comes out. For beer it is usually some kind of flavoring to appeal to more women. Now no, the ad is not to make it more "socially acceptable." Beer has been socially acceptable since ancient Egypt. But some people are not so keen on the taste. So if you mask the taste you can get more new users.

Agreed, but the product I’m talking about is beer.

Quote: AZDuffman

If people do not want to drink or smoke they do not have to. That is all "society" needs to worry about.

Not at all, because both substances are highly addictive with long term ramifications, and both products prosper by getting people hooked young.

If you want no regulations with ads where does it end? Can we go back to a world where Bud and Marlboro sponsor School sporting events? Can cigarettes buy out all the spots are children shows again?

I suspect even the most complete free market person would have limits on adverts (especially regarding children.)

Quote: Gandler

Not at all, because both substances are highly addictive with long term ramifications, and both products prosper by getting people hooked young.

If you want no regulations with ads where does it end? Can we go back to a world where Bud and Marlboro sponsor School sporting events? Can cigarettes buy out all the spots are children shows again?

I suspect even the most complete free market person would have limits on adverts (especially regarding children.)

When did cigarettes buy out children's shows? Why would you advertise to people who cannot buy?

Beer is not addictive let alone "highly addictive."

I have zero problem with Bud or Marlboro sponsoring college events.

I don't know about anyone else's impression, but hanging out with someone who drinks beer daily in a sufficient amount...well, there is just a constant state of listening to stupid conversations even if there is never any total drunken episodes occurring. I don't think they know it either.

Quote: AZDuffman

When did cigarettes buy out children's shows? Why would you advertise to people who cannot buy?

Beer is not addictive let alone "highly addictive."

I have zero problem with Bud or Marlboro sponsoring college events.

Through the 1960s kids shows had tobacco ads. Early TV was basically produced by tobacco companies (it was the main source of advertising dollars.)

Alcohol is definitely both additive and highly addictive. It is generally rated in the top 5 most addictive drugs in the world.

And, if your primary rating is raw numbers of addicts, it is close to the top (drugs that are legal tend to have the most addicts, alcohol, nicotine, etc....)

College is a different beast than high school (you have to be an adult to go to college -yes you can technically go below 18 if parents sign for your loans and sign you up for classes, but it is effectively for adults-) But, as far as I know, they can donate to colleges (I am not sure about college sports.) But, you always hear of different tobacco funds that get discovered trying to make large donations under inconspicuous names for certain features at various colleges, and then it becomes a scandal and the college has to give the money back (or cancel the deal.) I think public outrage on its own will prevent colleges from most major alcohol and tobacco deals. But, there is not a blanket rule in place to my knowledge (which for colleges could be easy, because the Feds can tie a lot of rules to the threat of cutting off student lending support.) But, I do agree broadly that colleges should have more leeway than High Schools for various questionable sponsors (and if they are totally private with no ties to Fed aid they can do whatever they want.)

I think most people agree that tobacco and alcohol are morally questionable, and that restrictions on advertising are appropriate for what are recreational drugs. I am a huge supporter of marijuana legalization, but I would lose my mind if I started seeing pot adverts in public places.

Quote: Gandler

Through the 1960s kids shows had tobacco ads. Early TV was basically produced by tobacco companies (it was the main source of advertising dollars.)

A quick google search here is ambiguous. Fred Flintstone hawked Winston, but "The Flintstones" was NOT a kid's show.

Quote:

Alcohol is definitely both additive and highly addictive. It is generally rated in the top 5 most addictive drugs in the world.

No, and no. No more addictive than something like sugar.

Nobody ever dies from sugar withdrawal.

https://www.rehabspot.com/drugs/10-most-addictive-substances-earth/