By Allyce Bess
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, December 18, 2003
Reprinted with permission.

Alcohol marketers face a conundrum: how to market to 21-year-olds without influencing teenagers. While critics have said for years that the alcohol industry deliberately targets teens, the industry says its advertising is not only lawful, but also not a significant factor in kids' decisions about drinking.

"We could turn off every television set in America, and we would have done zero to fight underage drinking," said Francine Katz, vice president of corporate communications for Anheuser-Busch Cos. "When you ask youths what their primary influences are, they rank advertising dead last."

Now, a sweeping lawsuit accuses several market leaders in the alcohol industry of engaging in a "long-running, sophisticated and deceptive scheme" to capture the "hearts and wallets" of young consumers before they can drink legally.

Filed last month in Washington on behalf of a plastic surgeon living there, the suit seeks class-action status as well as compensation for parents whose children drink. It also seeks a ban on advertising found to target underage consumers on behalf of a separate class of parents, whose children are exposed to the advertising.

St. Louis-based Anheuser-Busch is not among those named in the suit.

But the suit alleges that companies, including Bacardi Ltd., Coors Brewing Co. and Heineken NV, are making billions of dollars a year in unlawful revenue by using cartoons depicting juvenile behavior and paying for product placements in movies disproportionately seen by people who are younger than 21.

Other companies named in the suit include Diageo PLC, which makes Captain Morgan brands of rum and is the world's largest producer of alcoholic drinks, and Mike's Hard Lemonade Co.

"It presents an excellent beginning for a broadening series of litigation attacks on the marketing of alcoholic beverages," said George Hacker, director of the Alcohol Policies Project of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group in Washington that has accused the industry of irresponsible marketing. "I think it's well-crafted, well-reasoned and, conceivably, well-financed."

Alan Howard, a professor at St. Louis University School of Law, doubts that the suit will succeed. He points to a Supreme Court ruling in 2001 that found a Massachusetts regulation, which would have banned tobacco advertising near school playgrounds, unconstitutional.

The Straus & Boies lawsuit criticizes liquor companies for advertising in magazines such as Spin and Stuff. But banning alcohol ads from those publications might be a First Amendment violation, Howard said. "That's going to be the punch line."

Alcohol is highly visible these days. Commercials for hard liquor are proliferating on cable television, and beer companies are warring over carbohydrate-conscious consumers.

In recent years, a flood of flavored, malt beverages has entered the market. It was those beverages, dubbed "alco-pops" by critics that spurred Congress this year to commission studies from the Federal Trade Commission and the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies on a possible link between advertising and underage drinking.

The institute, a health-policy advisory center, found that underage drinking is a public health problem that costs the nation $53 billion a year.

Janet Evans, an attorney with the Federal Trade Commission, was chief author of the FTC's report, issued in September. It did not find fault with the industry, but it raised concerns about how many underage people might be exposed to alcohol ads.

"There could well be a spillover effect," Evans said in an interview. "It's hard to believe you'd develop (an ad) campaign for 21-year-olds without having an effect on 19- or 20-year-olds."

Around the time the FTC issued its report, the Beer Institute and the Distilled Spirits Council, both trade groups, vowed that their members would limit advertising to outlets where only 30 percent of the potential audience is underage, down from a previous 50 percent standard. Katz said Anheuser-Busch advertises only in outlets where 25 percent of the possible audience might be underage.

Heineken, Coors and Bacardi said their marketing is responsible. A spokesman at Heineken USA Inc. said the company contributes to efforts that limit underage drinking.

Katz said Anheuser-Busch and its wholesalers have spent about $430 million since 1982 to combat underage drinking. Over the years, A-B has developed commercials and print ads - separate from its regular advertising - urging retailers to check IDs, promoting designated-driver programs and encouraging parents to talk with children about the dangers of underage drinking. Still, without listing specific examples, the lawsuit even goes after those types of efforts, which it says are "in truth, designed to have, and in fact do have, the opposite effect."

Regardless of the merits of the suit, advocacy groups say the link between marketing and underage drinking is still an open question.

"The issue for the industry when it comes to advertising ... is: are they doing all they can to restrict their appeal to an underage audience?" said Jim O'Hara, executive director of the Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth at Georgetown University, which keeps an archive of alcohol advertisements and tracks where they are placed.

"The message of this lawsuit ... is that by not providing leadership, the industry has brought it on itself," O'Hara said.

Questions

1. According to this article, what is the main problem faced by alcohol companies when it comes to advertising?
2. Do you agree or disagree that alcohol ads designed for 21-year-olds might also appeal to teens? Why or why not?
3. List four arguments used by the alcohol industry to prove that they don't intentionally target young people.
4. List the reasons why the lawyers and advocacy groups believe alcohol companies are intentionally influencing young people.
5. According to this article, alcohol companies consider it reasonable to market their products in films, shows and magazines where one-quarter to one-third of the audience is underage. Do you think this is acceptable? Why or why not?
6. Professor Howard thinks this lawsuit won't be successful because it violates American First Amendment rights – the rights that permit freedom of speech. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms also includes freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression as a fundamental freedom. Do you think alcohol advertising – even advertising that may encourage young people to drink – would fall under the rights of freedom of expression? Explain your answer.
7. "The issue for the industry when it comes to advertising ... is: are they doing all they can to restrict their appeal to an underage audience?" What measures might the alcohol industry take to ensure that young people aren't influenced by their ads?
8. In this article, there is much debate about whether or not the drinking behaviour of young people is influenced by alcohol advertising. Do you agree or disagree that alcohol advertising influences a young person's decision to drink? Provide reasons in your answer.