Search results

The purpose of this article is to question the misplaced efforts to curb alcohol abuse through “responsible” drinking messages from the alcohol industry, asking how responsible this strategy really is.

This article cites published research that calls into question the effectiveness of “responsible” messages, particularly those that situate the problem of alcohol abuse within drunk driving and underage drinking without addressing heavy consumption. Examples of “responsible” messages are drawn from websites of three major beer companies.

Problems with “responsible” drinking are identified, including the fact that such messages place the problem within the user rather than the product. “Responsible” messages also give permission to drink heavily as long as underage and driving is not involved. “Responsible” drinking messages enable drinkers to shift responsibility to others, which gives carte blanche to binge drinking.

There is little doubt that “responsible” messages are effective public relations tools that enhance the image of beer companies, but serious doubts exist regarding their ability to prevent alcohol abuse.

Questioning the effectiveness of these messages puts pressure upon the industry to develop strategies that do a better job of addressing the realities of alcohol abuse.

The misguided effort to change the smoking behavior of college students using the same anti‐smoking messages created for young teens apparently stems from the misplaced marketing belief that ads designed to prevent young teens from smoking can also effectively encourage college‐student smokers to quit. When college students were asked to respond to current anti‐smoking messages, non‐smokers championed the anti‐smoking cause while smokers responded with defiance, denial, and other counter‐productive behaviors. These studies show that persuading legal‐age young adults to quit would require new message strategies which show greater respect for the individual, greater support for the effort in quitting, and ways to counter faulty logic.

The purpose of this article is to probe three explanations for the difficulty that cigarette smokers have in quitting: the addictive nature of the product; the failure to deliver messages with effective quit strategies; and the resistance to enacting smoking bans in bars and restaurants. It aims to argue that the latter two issues result in misplaced marketing.

This article examines data from published research, interviews with smokers who have successfully quit, and government statistics to have a clearer picture of the issues.

Smokers are exposed to anti‐smoking messages created to discourage youth from starting to smoke, but smokers seldom encounter smoking cessation messages that offer realistic quit strategies. Instead, too many messages offer overly simplistic solutions. Furthermore, smokers in many states continue to find smoking permitted in bars – a place that typically triggers the desire to smoke due to associations between drinking and smoking. Arguments favoring smoking bans have concentrated on the health benefits to those who want to avoid second‐hand smoke but have neglected to address the added benefits to smokers.

Creators of messages can focus more specifically on successful quit strategies, and legislators can add a compelling argument for banning smoking in bars and restaurants.

The article calls for an end to misplaced thinking that leads to ineffective campaign message strategy and resistance to smoking bans for bars and restaurants.

Notes that research has shown that advertising efforts to promote social causes rarely reach meaningful levels of effectiveness. Points out that while the media provide the right emotional climate for advertising messages that encourage consumption, it follows that the media provide the wrong environment for messages that discourage consumption or other behaviors. Concludes that money spent might best be redirected to other prevention efforts that more directly accompish the social progam’s goals.

This article aims to stimulate discussion of how the advertising of brands affects the product category by creating generic demand.

The article outlines the author's personal viewpoint.

Although greater emphasis has been given to generic advertising's effect on brands, there is evidence that brand advertising can stimulate generic demand.

The article takes the discussion of the issue to a different level.

The article not only explores ways of increasing generic demand, it also provides theoretical explanations for how it can occur.