Dr. Herb Clark
Part 1 of a two-part series
The stigma many attached to so-called hard liquor was the main reason the industry voluntarily agreed to refrain from radio and television advertising. They knew then it was harmful.
Picture this: It’s a weeknight evening after a long day at work. You come home, order some take-out, and fall back onto the couch for some late-night entertainment. The commercial break begins and a Bud Light advertisement appears, followed by a Jim Beam commercial.
You think nothing of it – they’re just promotional ads. But one of those two ads was banned from television for nearly 50 years. Liquor companies self-imposed these bans on their businesses. Crazy, right?
Here’s how it went down: The first ban went into effect in 1936, just three years after the United States broke free of its 13-year-long Prohibition. Liquor companies were finally getting back on their feet.
At the same time, the number of households that owned radios and televisions was constantly growing, and companies were anxious to take advantage of these resources to advertise their merchandise. However, producers of liquor were afraid that Prohibition could return. Anxious to keep the U.S. from another dry spell, liquor producers gathered together to agree on industry practices and concluded that keeping their products off the air would help them.
It’s also important to note that at this time political parties had more power than the industry. As a result, the government was able to regulate marketing.
Beer and wine producers, however, did not reach the same sentiment, believing that their products would still benefit from advertising and continued to utilize the marketing resources at hand. Consumers began to believe that drinking liquor was much worse than consuming beer or wine.
By the 1990s, liquor companies knew that something had to change. There was a large swing in power – the industry had more money and was able to maneuver more political power.
Seagram was the first company to try to get rid of the ban, and the first step was educating consumers on the fact that a serving of liquor is substantially less than that of beer or wine – a mere 1-1.5 ounces. Liquor producers also understood that national broadcasting would be a big jump after a ban of almost five decades, so focusing on smaller audiences in target consumer cities would be ideal.
Liquor companies decided to attach their label to everything on TV and radio. There was not a sporting event held that did not promote some type of alcohol.
Predictably, there was a backlash. Many anti-alcohol groups protested the end of the ban, claiming the commercials were dangerous for the nation’s younger population. Campaigns such as the “Just Say No” Act took effect; even President Bill Clinton spoke of reinstating the ban on liquor advertisements. However, far from hurting sales, the publicity ended up benefiting, resulting in double-digit sales.
So next time you’re in front of your TV and see a celebrity-driven alcohol commercial or sexy model promoting some international vodka brand, realize that this wasn’t always the norm, then pour yourself a glass to celebrate – though no more than 1.5 ounces, of course.
When you have a product that kills 3 million people a year worldwide and is carcinogenic – a carcinogen is any agent that promotes the development of cancer – and it is associated with more than 200 disease and injury conditions in the human body, you need to do a lot of marketing. Alcohol marketing must groom the next 3 million customers.
Dr. Herb Clark of Murphy is an expert in the field of addiction with 33 years of experience. He served on the N.C. Professional Practice board, adjunct professor for two universities and was a U.S. Marine serving 25 years, through two wars and three conflicts traveling the world, seeing the effects of addiction firsthand worldwide. Send questions or comments to him at hypno321@hotmail.com.