Alcohol sponsor ban to cost Australian sport $300m

[God-King Dean]

Becks > Coronas.

 

[Lambretta]

Yes, banning alcohol advertising in sport will work, because 16 year old girls downing numerous bottles of tart fuel every Friday night, really give a f**k which beer sponsers cricketers or Rugby League.

:faceslap:

Unless these morons have been paying attention, kids drink so much because sniffer dogs make it too hard to carry drugs around.

If they were really worried about kids drinking, they'd worry a little less about them dumping pingers and punching cones.

;-)

 

[perverse]

Becks > Coronas.

i love you.

 

[muznik]

This is crazy and has a real good chance at back firing.

They have already ditched tobacco advertising & now looking at alcohol.

Who steps in to fill the sponsorship void ?....

The Banks .... oh that's right we are having a Global Financial Crisis..
but wait what about the major car companies... oh that's right see above, they are just trying to stay afloat.
Kellogs ... havent they reduced their sponsorships in the last few years?
McDonalds, KFC, Coke, Pepsi.. who wants to bet these same people will go after them next?

What will the same wowsers, who blame lack of responsible parenting on advertising, do when we have an even greater population of overweight kids running around because the major organised sports have crumbled due to lack of sponsors?

I grew up watching the Winfield Cup, Benson & Hedges cricket and cheering Peter Brock in The Marlboro Holden Dealer Team but have never taken up smoking. Because it had no influence. My vice in life is a few beers, the brand I drink (Carlton Premium Dry) doesnt even sponsor any sport AFAIK.

Its called taking responsibility for your own choices. F*** O** these pollies who think its their job to do it for me.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

your intentions are misplaced.

Its a cycle. The ads are at the start of the cycle....dad sinking a carton on saturday is the end (these days usually with mum), and the kids are left wondering why they won't play ball with them. Or more likely, the kids are roaming the streets, thanking their lucky stars they are free of mum and dad and understanding they always have alchohol to "fall" back to, as if it helps.

I actually think its all very pathetic. Alchoholics self-medicate. Even people out at clubs are stepping beyond the boundaries of having fun into self-medication. Can't chat up girls unless you are drunk? Can't have a good time? Or high....

Whats more is that people these days have all those stupid stickers on their cars like bundy rum or jim beam ones, XXXX or victoria bitter, that proclaim the owner of said sticker is a "frequent enough" user of the product to warrant him displaying the fact to the world.

Now tell me, do you want a society where the first thing you know about a person is that they "love" sinking a particular beer/spirit as often as possible? If you look a bit deeper you will see that they show this behaviour to their kids, and instill the same "self-medication" principles that they probably tend towards.

And btw, alchohol is marketed at those weak-willed, quick-fix-seeking people. Yes, its ok to have fun in a social setting, but all too often, people use alchohol to hide dark things or inadequacies - and they tell their children to do the same by their actions.


Ban alchohol adverts now.

What a load of tripe. Advertising is about brand awareness, do you honestly think any "alcoholic" is not going to purchase any alcohol because they DID NOT see an ad on TV? Do you want people to stand out the front of a bottle shop with signs saying "This shop is not here, it's a figment of your imagination, move along" ?

Alcohol when drunk moderately there is no problem, and no amount of advertising is going to influence that. Cigarettes are entirely different, they have a deadly influence whether it be one or a million consumed. Things like Red Bull can be far more dangerous and are marketed to children.

We are becoming so sterile as a society telling each other what others can and can't do. I'm lucky if I consume 3 or 4 beers in a month, yet even I think this is ridiculous. Education about alcohol is the key, not banning advertising.

Comparatively we have one of the toughest alcohol regimes in the world in regards to restriction of sale, taxes and limits on advertising as it stands. Tougher enforcement on responsible service of alcohol would be a far more effective way of controlling consumption, but that would cost the government too much to implement, whereas something like this costs them virtually nothing but will achieve virtually nothing. All that said, I would support a rise in the drinking age to 19 or even up to 21 for the fact that too many youngsters are still too immature to handle the effects, as well as getting your license and being able to drink in the same year are never a good combination

 

[perverse]

it's ridiculous. just another example of people not willing to take responsiblity for themselves and their own. i smoke... i drink... but if i die of lung or liver cancer... i recognise that it's my own doing. it's kind of scary in a way... because it's exactly these lines of thinking that lead us to a nanny state situation... if we arn't in one already.

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

Welcome to the peoples republic of australia, where you will be told what to eat, drink, read and watch.

But isn't this what advertising is already doing?

I don't know what to think. On the one hand I agree with the social cost that the government is trying to prevent but on the other, I don't want to live in a nanny state where we can't except responsibility for our own actions. Oh yeah and Rudd's a tool.

 

[myanonymoususername]

I like the way you left Tooheys New off your list. I agree.

New is sh*t too. It wasn't left out intentionally.

 

[Jason Maher]

your intentions are misplaced.

Its a cycle. The ads are at the start of the cycle....dad sinking a carton on saturday is the end (these days usually with mum), and the kids are left wondering why they won't play ball with them. Or more likely, the kids are roaming the streets, thanking their lucky stars they are free of mum and dad and understanding they always have alchohol to "fall" back to, as if it helps.

I actually think its all very pathetic. Alchoholics self-medicate. Even people out at clubs are stepping beyond the boundaries of having fun into self-medication. Can't chat up girls unless you are drunk? Can't have a good time? Or high....

Whats more is that people these days have all those stupid stickers on their cars like bundy rum or jim beam ones, XXXX or victoria bitter, that proclaim the owner of said sticker is a "frequent enough" user of the product to warrant him displaying the fact to the world.

Now tell me, do you want a society where the first thing you know about a person is that they "love" sinking a particular beer/spirit as often as possible? If you look a bit deeper you will see that they show this behaviour to their kids, and instill the same "self-medication" principles that they probably tend towards.

And btw, alchohol is marketed at those weak-willed, quick-fix-seeking people. Yes, its ok to have fun in a social setting, but all too often, people use alchohol to hide dark things or inadequacies - and they tell their children to do the same by their actions.


Ban alchohol adverts now.

I don't drink at all, and even I think it's a stupid idea and you're a douche for defending it.

 

[Surely]

But isn't this what advertising is already doing?

I don't know what to think. On the one hand I agree with the social cost that the government is trying to prevent but on the other, I don't want to live in a nanny state where we can't except responsibility for our own actions. Oh yeah and Rudd's a tool.

No advertising is just promoing a particular brand. Saying you cannot advertise, or mandatory internet filtering and the like is censorship.

The social cost is more than covered by the revenue raised through taxes on the products. They make a sh*tlload out of it actually, if they didn't then they would ban it.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

But isn't this what advertising is already doing?

I don't know what to think. On the one hand I agree with the social cost that the government is trying to prevent but on the other, I don't want to live in a nanny state where we can't except responsibility for our own actions. Oh yeah and Rudd's a tool.

Hard liquor is taxed at 48% from memory, + GST.

It's in place for that very reason, and the government still make a fortune off the taxes.

Advertising will only affect what brand people choose to drink, it won't affect the actual amount of consumption. The alcopops tax was a perfect example of it, they jacked up the price of RTD's by 30% and RTD's sales dropped by 15% but hard liquor sales jumped 20%.

I'm all for trying to control the binge drinking mentality we have as a society, but this is not the solution, it's just a bandaid in an attempt to make the government look like they are making an effort.

 

[Pierced Soul]

it's ridiculous. just another example of people not willing to take responsiblity for themselves and their own. i smoke... i drink... but if i die of lung or liver cancer... i recognise that it's my own doing. it's kind of scary in a way... because it's exactly these lines of thinking that lead us to a nanny state situation... if we arn't in one already.

unfortunately a lot of idiots dont take repsonsibility like you do.

think about advertising of a different product. why does the company advertise? to sell more product. If advertising didnt work they wouldnt do it.

the govt isnt saying dont drink, they're actually just saying we believe the culture we have needs to be addressed and part of that is not having alcohol ads on tv all the time.

will it reduce the sale and consumption of alcohol? in theory it should if you think about what i said above regarding advertising.

from a social perspective i think its a good step, and sports will just have to adapt and find other revenue streams. i cant remember what happened when cigarette advertising was banned but id aresay they said it would have been the detah of sport then as well.

they're not saying dont drink, they're just not advertising it

 

[Firey_Dragon]

unfortunately a lot of idiots dont take repsonsibility like you do.

think about advertising of a different product. why does the company advertise? to sell more product. If advertising didnt work they wouldnt do it.

the govt isnt saying dont drink, they're actually just saying we believe the culture we have needs to be addressed and part of that is not having alcohol ads on tv all the time.

will it reduce the sale and consumption of alcohol? in theory it should if you think about what i said above regarding advertising.

from a social perspective i think its a good step, and sports will just have to adapt and find other revenue streams. i cant remember what happened when cigarette advertising was banned but id aresay they said it would have been the detah of sport then as well.

they're not saying dont drink, they're just not advertising it

It may reduce sales of a certain brand. However, everyone knows of alcohol, its effects and where to get it. That is something advertising cannot influence.

So if someone is watching tv and sees an ad for VB, then goes down the bottle shop wanting some beer? Will he buy a VB, well the ad may persuade him. If there is no advertising does it stop the bloke from going down the bottle shop wanting some beer? No.

 

[Marshall_magic]

Becks > Coronas.

You are awesome

 

[Parra]

It may reduce sales of a certain brand. However, everyone knows of alcohol, its effects and where to get it. That is something advertising cannot influence.

So if someone is watching tv and sees an ad for VB, then goes down the bottle shop wanting some beer? Will he buy a VB, well the ad may persuade him. If there is no advertising does it stop the bloke from going down the bottle shop wanting some beer? No.

That new VB ad is pretty good

 

[Parra]

A great blast from the past http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OgsnZr6_7k

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

In reguards to PBB's post *raises hand*

These are better

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuBeUTDPb_k&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yldJ5bJ1YMg&feature=related

 

[Mr Angry]

Recommendations rarely make government policy.

Not too worried.

 

[ozbash]

Recommendations rarely make government policy.

Not too worried.

hmmm, dunno about that.

All policys started out as recommendations..

good move by Mr Rudd imo, I mean, do we really need the booze companies blood money ?

Used to be the Winfield Cup, now the Telstra Premiership.
No sleep lost and definitely a cleaner image...

hang on, :roll:

 

[Mr Angry]

Whilst I agree OZ, there are thousands of recommendations and very few get there.

Rudd is a poli, this will cost many votes, won't happen.