87°F
weather icon Clear

Beer ads should keep flowing freely

The Super Bowl is the only television event of the year when people are genuinely excited about watching commercials, quieting their friends not during the game, but during breaks. Unfortunately, this American pastime has become a target for activists threatening to ban some of the most iconic ads from the airwaves.

Think back to your favorite all-time ads. Remember “Wassup!,” the Budweiser frogs, or the iconic Clydesdales? Or perhaps the premiere during last year’s game of the company’s “superstitious” commercials or Beck’s singing goldfish.

What do all these ads have in common? A growing number of anti-alcohol activists want them banned from the airwaves.

Several years ago, Alcohol Justice — formerly the Marin Institute — launched its “Free the Bowl” campaign to eliminate alcohol advertising, sponsorships, branding and promotions from the Super Bowl. The campaign has since expanded to the “Free Our Sports” movement to eliminate alcohol advertising from all sporting events.

Joining the chorus are the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and the Center for Alcohol Marketing and Youth, which have been increasingly critical of alcohol-related Super Bowl commercials that could possibly be seen by those under 21, as well as adults of legal drinking age.

The goal of ad bans is simple: Curb alcohol consumption. Seems sensible enough — the less you think about something, the less likely you are to want it. Yet as with many ostensibly health-oriented policies, research shows these bans have little effect on overall drinking rates.

A report on alcohol advertising and marketing practices by the Federal Trade Commission found there is “no reliable basis to conclude that alcohol advertising significantly affects consumption, let alone abuse.” In fact, after Saskatchewan banned advertising, a study concluded that neither the pattern of sales nor total alcohol consumption was affected by the ban. Similarly, eight years after France severely restricted alcohol advertising in 1991, a report to the French parliament concluded there had been no substantive effect on alcohol consumption or abuse.

As to the potential dangers to American children who view alcohol advertisements, there has yet to be a single credible study linking it with increased alcohol consumption among minors. In fact, literature reviews and studies by the NIAAA and the National Institutes of Health found that there is no direct link between alcohol advertisements and underage drinking.

That’s because alcohol advertisements are not intended to convert nondrinkers; rather, they aim to steer drinkers to different types of products than those they currently consume. For instance, a nondrinker is unlikely to pick up a beer just because he saw Miller Lite’s “Great Taste” vs. “Less Filling” girl fight, but one who drinks might choose Miller over a competitor.

Research from the University of Texas also demonstrates that total alcohol consumption does not increase with the rise in alcohol advertisement spending. Although annual alcohol advertising dollars have ranged from $1.4 billion to $2.2 billion over the past two decades, yearly per capita alcohol sales have remained remarkably stable over the past two decades at about 2.5 gallons per adult.

So kick back and responsibly enjoy a beer or two while you watch the big game, and enjoy your favorite ads while you still can.

If the alcohol ad police have their way, you may only have a few more Super Bowls where commercials are as fun as the game.

Sarah Longwell is the managing director of the American Beverage Institute. Learn more at www.thenewprohibition.com.

MOST READ
Don't miss the big stories. Like us on Facebook.
THE LATEST
MORE STORIES