Alcohol Advertising

RUNNING HEADER:  Alcohol Advertising                                                                               1                                  

ALCOHOL ADVERTISING

BADM605 Summer Session II

Fayetteville State University

Alcohol Advertising                                                                                                                       2                        

     Were Spykes and Wide Eye bad products?  Do you think they were marketed in objectionable or misleading ways?  Do you think companies should be allowed to market other caffeinated alcoholic beverages?  

Abstract

          Caffeinated Alcoholic Beverages (CABs) were premixed beverages popular in the 2000s that combined alcohol, caffeine, and other stimulants. They were malt or distilled spirits-based beverages and they usually had a higher alcohol content than beer.  Spykes, an Anheuser-Busch product is one example.  It was sold as a flavored-malt beverage that was meant to be mixed with beer or other drinks, or consumed as a shot.  It came packaged in colorful bottles and had a 12% alcohol by volume rating and included caffeine and other like substances.  It also came in different flavors such as lime, mango, and hot chocolate (Anheuser-Busch, 2007).  Wide Eye was another example of a CAB.  It was produced by Constellation Brands with similar packaging and content.  Consequently, it was the packaging and the inclusion of caffeine that essentially made these drinks a “bad” product in terms of the market segment it targeted (Alcohol and Public Health, 2017).  

Marketing of CABs

     CABs were heavily marketed in youth friendly media, especially social media which is very misleading in my opinion.   There was youth-oriented graphics and specific messaging that connected the consumption of these beverages with extreme sports and other risky behaviors.   These marketing tactics led the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to warn these two

manufacturers and five others that their drinks could no longer stay on the market in their current

Alcohol Advertising                                                                                                                        3

form.  The FDA stated that it “does not find support for the claim that the addition of caffeine to these alcoholic beverages is ‘generally recognized as safe,’which is the legal standard” (Alcohol and Public Health, 2017).  The FDA had also warned several companies that the caffeine added to their alcoholic malt beverages “is an unsafe food additive” (Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 2010).

     Along with the FDA, there were numerous critics, including more than two dozen nation's state attorneys general, supporting the fact that these characteristics (packaging and inclusion of caffeine) are attractive to underage drinkers (Reals, 2007).   A Connecticut Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal was quoted as saying “Spykes appealed to children in taste, packaging and marketing” (Reals, 2007).  

      Even more objectionable in regards to marketing for alcoholic energy drinks, most alcohol producers do not use traditional marketing tools.   Advertisement by TV and radio commercials is uncommon for these types of drinks.   It is evident that alcoholic energy drinks are targeted at young people for whom friends are very important according to the statement by Suzanne Sierra, communications director Consumer Awareness & Education of Anheuser-Busch.   During an interview with KNTV about the marketing of Spykes: "We know consumers like to discover new things and be the first to share this news with their friends, so we are building interest for Spykes mainly through word-of-mouth," "This is by design to help spread the news for this brand" (Reals, 2007).     For most of these caffeine drinks with alcohol, the Internet and social media was being used as a source of information. These web sites contained an age check, depending on the legal drinking age, which could be evaded easily (Reals, 2007).