Much has been made of Anheuser Busch's (NYSE: BUD) new "premium malt beverage" product called Spykes. Critics allege that the drink's small (easy to hide) size, colorful packaging, and caffeine are designed to attract underage drinkers. Of course the company denies the charge, but numerous groups are still calling for legal action. While I really am not familiar enough with the product or alcohol marketing to comment on this specific case, my issue is this: It is unethical for companies to consciously market their products to people who shouldn't buy them. Spykes draws inevitable comparisons to the Joe Camel ads of the 1990's, but here are some of the less obvious parallels:
-
Predatory lenders luring in college students with credit card offers they don't understand, and mortgage brokers sticking lower-income people with subprime mortgages when they would have been better-served with one of the federally-subsidized programs. PeachDirect offers luxury items to college students on installment with exorbitant interest rates.
-
Hungry-Man's thousand-calorie breakfast, which contains 231% of the recommended daily value for cholesterol in one serving. So the recommendation is that you consumer 2.3x as much cholesterol at breakfast as you should during that entire day. No one should eat this product, and companies shouldn't market products that are by definition bad for you.
-
Several years ago, The Illinois lottery put up a billboard in a poor Chicago neighborhood with the slogan, "This could be your way out." Of course, people should never gamble with money they can't afford to lose. If you're poor, you by definition can't afford to lose money. It's wrong for anyone, most of all the government, to prey on society's least fortunate.
These are just a few of the examples that come to mind when I think of companies marketing to people who shouldn't buy their products. Can you think of others?
Nuclear power is on the comeback trail
Apple backs AT&T in continuing spat with Verizon
Closing Bell: The recession is still over, still... do you feel it?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-01-2007 @ 9:29AM
Andrew said...
First of all, there is a free speach issue here. If a product is legal, the manufacturer has a right to market it - it's up to consumers to decide whether they want to buy it. People are not idiots, they can decide for themselves. For example, the Hungry Man breakfast must have the nutrition information on the side of the box, so the consumer knows full well what they are getting into.
As for your originial point regarding the beer. I think it's a smart strategy for alcohol companies to maket to the 18-21 year old crowd. First of all many of them drink alcohol anyways, and second, if you want to build a brand name for yourself it's best to start young. Look at McDonalds - they are quite successful at marketing themselves and building their brand in children's minds. I hope this is a successful business venture for Anheuser Busch and makes money for their shareholders.
5-01-2007 @ 10:54AM
joe said...
Someone needs to grow up a bit !! These sorry ass bleeding hearts would just about pick anything apart.My God , it's just a fad.Years ago A/B marketed "hoppin' gator" ,a beer/Gatorade combo.Let the caffinated beer alone and whine to the oil companys!!!That's where we need the assistance!
5-24-2007 @ 7:15PM
Nick Lorts said...
Regarding the Spykes issue.The product was intended
for use in the on premise segment,where people of legal age meet.The small bottles you refer to were sold in tubes of 4 in the off premise limiting
single serve cnsumption.It was discontinued as a result of flat sales.I would ask that there be even handedness in reporting this.Investigate how many liquor companies produce the same item and packaging(Smirnoff Minis).6- 8oz 4 packs of Wine that are mostly sold in stores
making it an easy target for under aged drinkers.It was an easy to single out Anheuser-Busch.Tell me any other industry leader who invests more time and resources into educating the public about responsibility.Every wholesaler is required to invest in the CA&E program in their markets.Consumer Alcohol and Education.Dont fault
marketing for lack of parental involvement.Bottom line.If your child can get this kind of product maybe the parent had better start asking why and not who.Thanks for allowing my views and opinions.
Nick