Last month, a Croakey post querying the merits of a new product, which has been dubbed “alcopops by the cask”, brought an indignant response from the company involved, Diageo Australia, which said: “…we never target people under the legal purchase age”.
Really?
Perhaps Diageo might like to reconsider this claim in the light of the Johnnie Walker All Star Twenty20 match, which is exposing many children to alcohol advertising, suggests Professor Mike Daube, Director of the McCusker Centre for Action on Alcohol and Youth at Curtin University in Perth.
Mike Daube writes:
Alcohol companies like to claim that they do not promote alcohol to children and young people.
In Croakey of September 29, Bob Rayner, Corporate Relations Director of Diageo Australia, responded to criticisms of Smirnoff alcopops casks claiming, “as a producer, we live up to our responsibility and enforce one of the industry’s most stringent marketing codes which applies to all product development and marketing, and ensures we never target people under the legal purchase age”.
Full page press advertisements for a flagship Diageo brand, the “Johnnie Walker All Star TWENTY20” event, on October 3, seem to belie this claim.
The advertisements feature star cricketers, sporting heroes for children, offering the opportunity to “become a national selector”.
Readers can pick the “Johnnie Walker ACA All Star Aussie Fans” team, which takes on the “Johnnie Walker ACA All Stars” team in a match to be broadcast on Channel 9 in November. The “Johnnie Walker” name features twelve times in the advertisement (with a further credit for Victoria Bitter).
Participants vote through the Johnnie Walker www.t20allstar.com.au website, which is understandably heavy on product promotion, and can be accessed by children. The only constraint appears to be that children cannot participate in a competition to “carry the drinks”.
Children will inevitably be in the audience at the ground and through Channel 9 for the “Johnnie Walker All Star Twenty20” match. This is on a Sunday, starting at the child-friendly time of 4:40pm.
On the basis of previous experience, one can assume that the players and ground will be festooned with promotions for Johnnie Walker, and that the event and brand will be heavily advertised and promoted in all media before and during the game.
Lest there be any doubt that children are envisaged as part of the audience, the advertisement notes that tickets are available “from $20 adult, $10 child, $45 family”.
Perhaps Diageo could explain how children are not targeted by and exposed to promotion for Johnnie Walker whisky through this clever marketing exercise, and how “one of the industry’s most stringent marketing codes” permits this promotion?
Perhaps the key word is target? Minors and children being collateral damage so to speak. Pretty sure this is the same as for almost any sporting event at any time of day or night- there’s an alcohol sponsor, often prominently featured..
Firstly I am writing as one who enjoys a drink, loves going to the cricket and has three sons ( one who is tea total, one who’s idea of a quiet night out is to get totally munted and a third who is underage)
It would seem to me that sports organisation & cricket in particular seem to have a confused view of alcohol.
They want the spectators to spend as much as possible but then complain about the bad behaviou that ensues. This doesn’t excuse the drinkers but it does show the curious attitude of officialdom.
At the WACA we now have nets because a spectator ran on to the ground and tackled a Pakistani player.
The WACA CEO was at great pains to decry the necessity of these nets but said it had to be as the WACA’s international status was threatened (Curious given the riots that have happened elsewhere. I would have thought a single invader was small beer – pardon the pun)
At no time did the CEO mention control of alcohol. The cynic in me wondered if it was the fact that his previous employment included being a senior manager for a brewery had something to do with it.
The premier & the sports minister all supported the WACA but also made no mention of alcohol control.
As I put in my unpublished letter to The West I am sick of people treating sporting events as an excuse to get drunk & then behave despicably. I am also sick of the greed system that happily sells the booze but then doesn’t take responsability for the consequences
hi..
a m David Miller.
Hi.. this is wonderful blog and
wonderful information,given here
====
Getting Out Of Debt
Slightly off topic but related: Big Grog is very active on uni campuses, which tobacco companies also used to treat as prime recruiting grounds. An outfit called Jim Beam on Campus is currently running Oktoberfest alcohol promotions on various campuses, featuring all-day cheap beer in big steins, entertainment, complete with the Jim Beam Party Crew – I am imagining cool guys in shades and gorgeous females in crop tops. Is this not a classic example of exactly the sort of thing governments and licensing authories are supposedly talking about putting an end to in the interest of ‘changing the drinking culture’? The mood is 1960s-fraternity-party-time-warp, complete with sexual stereotyped competitions promising the winner of their ‘win a party’ competition “…non-stop partaaaying, with nothing but tanned, toned co-eds for company.” Students are even being encouraged to get drunk for a good cause: according to their website, those kindly party people at Jim Beam do fundraising events for breast cancer and prostate cancer charities– your classic case of ‘health-washing’.
All of this seems to be exactly the sort of completely gratuitous reinforcement of alcohol-imbued social norms that renders ineffective earnest little messages about not having to drink to have a good time and about the harms of excessive consumption. Probably one of those things that it’s hard to do something about in the public domain without drawing more attention to the promotions themselves, but it’s certainly something that universities themselves should be thinking about and also should be discussed in the context of government discussions about alcohol policy.