Debra Goldman's Consumer Republic

No one could blame the folks at NBC if they found themselves in need of a good stiff drink last week. Nor were they the only ones likely to kick back an adult beverage or two to commemorate the network's abandonment of its plan to air ads for distilled spirits. The beer interests might have poured themselves a few cold ones to celebrate their escape—for the moment, at least—from congressional scrutiny of their TV advertising practices. Magazine publishers could be excused for lifting a highball to the quashing of network encroachment on one of their most reliable ad categories. I wouldn't even be surprised if the good people at Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who were so effective at fanning the outrage of the public and Congress, took a socially responsible sip of champagne to mark their victory over the network. Let us assume—as few observers did—that NBC, in its attempts to open up the distilled spirits category, was sincere in wanting to protect the young while making an honest living selling a legal product to an adult audience. Why did the efforts to create a halo of social responsibility around a revenue-driven business decision fail so miserably? Consider, for example, NBC's daunting list of "thou shalt nots" for spirits ads. No jocks or celebs or spokescharacters with youth appeal in the ads. No associating the product with adult empowerment, glamour, sexual prowess, attractiveness, social status, enhancement of relationships, personal achievement or relief from stress. What's left? Too bad we never got a chance to see if Guinness UDV's agencies could have made lemonade from this bushel of lemons and still honor the network's rules. It would have been tough. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that one spot featured babes sitting at a bar—over-30 babes, of course, per NBC's strictures. Let's further assume that these women had—as they surely would in an ad like this—glossy hair, beautiful faces and knockout bodies in clingy clothing. Would this not associate spirits with "attractiveness," and therefore be in violation of the guidelines? Surely what NBC meant is that hard-liquor ads could not make ex plicit appeals to its list of forbidden hot buttons. But implicit appeals such spots can and must make—because that's what advertising does. Not that it would have mattered, according to another of NBC's arguments, this one familiar to anyone who has followed the tobacco advertising wars. To wit, there is no reason to prohibit spirits advertising because research shows such advertising doesn't work. At best, such ads may affect brand preference, but they have no impact on consumption, nor do they promote abuse. Again, for argument's sake, let's concede this point. If so, why did anyone at NBC believe that ads that discourage consumption succeed any better? What was the rationale—besides the obvious economic one—behind requiring spirits marketers to run months of ads warning of the evils of drinking too much if advertising has no impact on how much people drink? Like content guidelines bound to be violated in spirit and scheduling restrictions that failed to restrict, such an argument opened NBC to charges of bad faith. In its attempts to create political cover, all the network achieved was to endorse the principles of those who say the media bears responsibility for protecting consumers from stuff that could be bad for them—and then to show how ineffectual such protections can be. Although it's impossible to envision at present, someday NBC or another network might once again try to open its airwaves to the hard stuff. Should one be brave enough—or dumb or greedy enough—to try, I would suggest another approach. Forget all the public relations posturing, which did no good anyway, and just put the damn spots on the air in appropriate time slots, as other TV outlets have already done. Throw down the gauntlet, take the heat, let the public-interest groups and outraged legislators do their best to stop you, and see if their efforts pass legal muster. The fact is, even as the forces calling for advertising restrictions win the ears of the nation's legis lators, they get creamed in the nation's courts. Since the mid-1990s, virtually every major court battle over the issue has ended in a vindication of advertising's First Amendment rights. Is there a network out there with the stomach for that level of controversy? Highly doubtful. Until there is, the "voluntary" ban on distilled spirits ads on network TV will remain in force.

Brand Marketing

Debra Goldman's Consumer Republic

Debra Goldman

About

Subscriptions

Events

Publications

WORK SMARTER - LEARN, GROW AND BE INSPIRED.

Subscribe today!

Debra Goldman