New Law Totally Bans Alcoholic Beverage Ads In All Media

[PREM-R]

Children from anti-alcohol networks gather at the Public Health Ministry yesterday to give moral support to Public Health Minister Mongkol Na Songkhla who has pushed forward the alcohol-advertising ban that will be announced today.

Source: The Nation - 17 October 2006

Check the 'head gear' of the anti-alcohol children - Muslims, of course they are anti-alcohol!

[womble]

And what do they know at that age?

Only what adults tell them, they probobally can't even read the signs and don't really understand what they are doing.

There are definatley some powerful people pushing an agenda here, they had power when Thaksin was there and they have power now, I wonder who it could be???

[steveromagnino]

If they say ban all advertising as it relates to alcoholic beverages, then fine. If they say only people 25 and older can make mature, rationale decisions about consuming alcoholic beverages, then fine. However, when they combine the two, they are saying that Thai citizens, 25 and over, are still too immature enough to make rationale decisions concering their consumption of alcoholic beverages and the government must step in to save this older age group by banning all related advertising.

This is a rather ugly value judgement being made by the government about the maturity of its citizens aged 25 and over. In addition, I highly doubt that alcoholic advertisements are heavily weighted in a mature adults decision as to whether to drink or not to drink. It may be heavily weighted in the 25 and over age group's decision as to whether to consume Heineken over Chang, but not to switch from drinking Coke to Chang.

1. Have you considered who sees mass advertising e.g. billboards? there is no way to restrict outdoor advertising to 'just people over 25' even though a liquor company might pretend they are only targeting people over 25 (as the cigarette industry has shown, what is said and what they do are two different things)

2. A large number of people over 25, particularly people in the provinces appear to have significant alcohol related problems; however to tax heavily would have them up in arms, so initially, I can understand that restricting promotion of the products will be one step in reducing brand image and also in reducing consumption. I've studied marketing science, i have seen with my own eyes both sides of the 'does advertising increase sales' as my uncle was the head of a major brewery (since bought out). He was perfectly aware that advertising and promotion could increase category size, and since then I have seen a University of Auckland study that proved much the same thing in supporting advertising restrictions in NZ. There are a number of statistical techniques that can be used for this, and while there are many studies that state otherwise, most have either methodology problems or have defined things specifically enough to be able to get the answer they want (and are usually sponsored by liquor companies - for an example of the techniques possible to manipulate data, do some searching on some studies for/against gun control, using almost the same data you can get convincing answers that guns increase/decrease murder rates).

Almost any ad agency, if you asked what they could acheive for most products would walk a client through something like the AIDA model (which doesn't stand up to scrutiny, but is a useful framework); people get awareness for something, they get interested, they have some desire to do something about it and then they take action. The advertising won't just make someone jump up and buy something, but everytime McDs is pumping out TV ads, it is slowly creating a brand image in a person's head, that going to this magical place is secure, fun, good times, great taste, they own the rights to 'good nutritious food', a happy clown and so on. They are aware that kids are eating this all up, and they essentially get someone hooked at a young age. Now if you are going to try to convince me that McDs is only engaging in 'convincing someone to eat their burgers instead of KFC' then I would want to see proof of this. Ditto for coke.

Now, those ads are mostly aimed at children (even though supposedly they are not). So are McDs or Coke fundamentally different to a liquor company? Not really, there are some factors stopping people from drinking, but at a certain age, almost every teenager wants to try all these things that make them more adult...where do you think that comes from? A combination of advertising and below the line communication, combined with the reality of the world around them. Teenagers therefore aren't immune to adveritising. So is there some magic age when adults suddenly are immune?

If that is the case...then why would the success of the RTD drink business (almost worldwide) have occurred without the equivalent drop in alchoholic consumption of beer and other drinks? THe reason is that those RTDs e.g. bicardi breezer are aimed at a new market that historically in many countries did not previously drink. According to a couple of my friends overseas in this market, it is also aimed at the jailbait category, but they cannot be on the record saying that.

Let's see what APB (Heinekin in Thailand I think) says about India:

Mr Koh elaborated, "The obvious attraction of the Indian market is its size and growth. The beer market has been growing at a compounded rate of over 7% annually and it is expected to accelerate, as deregulation gains momentum across the Indian states. The beer market is also anticipated to grow strongly on the back of a growing young and affluent middle class. Our investment in AUBL places APB in a good position to ride on the economic growth of India."

To get that growth (which is net new growth) you need marketing. My whole job depends on this belief (although not in the liquor industry). If we look at the success of 100 Pipers, a 3 (or could be 5) year scotch; using marketing and advertising and a lot of pretties, they have been able to become the biggest 100 Pipers market in the world; and when it is priced at 300b compared to what people were previously drinking e.g. Red, Black, then people either are spending less, or drinking more. My money is on the second one. And without advertising, it is mighty hard to disrupt the market with a new product like this; securing distribution, locations to serve the drink and so on.

Therefore...it stands to reason that advertising and promotions increase overall market size of alchohol; it allows launches of new products e.g. RTDs; it can increase consumption per person e.g. pretties saying buy 2 get the 3rd one free; and it of course can also cause brand switching.

There is a problem for liquor consumption in THailand. I am all for taxing the cr*p out of alchohol as is the case with wine; however given that:

- currently the importers of spirits underpay tax already through transfer pricing

- the people who would be hardest hit would be rural and they already are worried that their gravy train is over

- that tax rates already went up for the smaller size mekong type products

- counterfeit and grey market liquor market exists

I cannot see that they will be able to implement a tax increase; therefore ad restrictions and enforing age limits in clubs are a viable option. Note that it used to be an age limit free fior all, and that one stuck (with the approval of most Thai people incidentally).

I disagree with 25, and doubt that will stay for long. However ad restrictions have been on the drawing board for a while.

The losses to the economy? To who? Those poor rich ad and media executives? They'll be fine. The breweries will sell a bit less, but that money will go into something else. The pretties can probably mostly even keep their jobs; watch as beer singha and beer chang will suddenly have pretties promoting their soda water.

And all that money not spent on liquor, which will be a cumulative growing amount (if this regime stays) will end up (hopefully) not invested in the lottery or booze. It will end up being invested in business, education of their kids, healthcare and generally paying for things that are more important than getting hammered.

A step in the right direction IMHO, but a step just far too far. 25?! Crazy.

[Old Man River]

FDA moves to ban alcohol ads

Public Health Minister Mong-kol na Songkhla yesterday said research showed the ban on ads for alcoholic drinks should reduce youth consumption of alcohol by about 24 per cent a month.

If the bill passes into legislation, the minimum age for people able to purchase alcoholic drinks will rise from 18 to 25 years.

Source: The Nation - 17 October 2006

There it is above. Two innocent statements, but when combined have you questioning what really is going on? Why is the new Public Health Minister saying that the ban on alcohol ads should reduce youth consumption of alcohol by about 24% per month when he knows that the youth consumption of alcohol will be reduced to zero following the under age 25? This doesn't make sense. Is there something that I am missing.

[Axel]

Just love it!

And let's join the -25 with a big CHEERS.

[Heng]

it is slowly creating a brand image in a person's head, that going to this magical place is secure, fun, good times, great taste, they own the rights to 'good nutritious food', a happy clown and so on. They are aware that kids are eating this all up, and they essentially get someone hooked at a young age. Now if you are going to try to convince me that McDs is only engaging in 'convincing someone to eat their burgers instead of KFC' then I would want to see proof of this. Ditto for coke.

Now, those ads are mostly aimed at children (even though supposedly they are not). So are McDs or Coke fundamentally different to a liquor company? Not really, there are some factors stopping people from drinking, but at a certain age, almost every teenager wants to try all these things that make them more adult...where do you think that comes from? A combination of advertising and below the line communication, combined with the reality of the world around them. Teenagers therefore aren't immune to adveritising. So is there some magic age when adults suddenly are immune?

Are you saying that drinking Regency has no correlation to getting set up with a gold leafed luk krung model who can walk on water?

[Jai Dee]

Banning of alcohol advertisement

Mr. Manit Arunakul (มานิตย์ อรุณากุล), Acting Secretary-General to the Food and Drug Administration, commented that the banning of alcohol advertisement will help reduce the increasing number of drinkers. As a result from the meeting conducted with all entrepreneurs and representatives of the public and private sectors, most of the participants agreed with the 24-hour banning of alcohol advertisement except for printed matters or live broadcasts from foreign countries.

As for the ban on the sale of alcoholic drinks to people under 25, Mr. Manit explains that the matter is contained in the Non-Drinkers Protection Act, which does not relate to the advertisement ban issued by the FDAl.

According to him, research shows advertising ban may not contribute much to the reduction of drinkers' number, but it helps protect those who never drink alcohol from being lured into drinking.

The ban helps save 18 percent of non-drinkers, which is a satisfying figure.

As for drinkers, they may continue drinking or drink less because they felt being watched by the society.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 17 October 2006

[Old Man River]

Banning of alcohol advertisement

Mr. Manit Arunakul (มานิตย์ อรุณากุล), Acting Secretary-General to the Food and Drug Administration, commented that the banning of alcohol advertisement will help reduce the increasing number of drinkers.

According to him, research shows advertising ban may not contribute much to the reduction of drinkers' number, but it helps protect those who never drink alcohol from being lured into drinking.

The ban helps save 18 percent of non-drinkers, which is a satisfying figure.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 17 October 2006

Thanks Jai Dee for posting this as it is at least from someone who has taken into account both the ban on ads and the raising of the drinking age, although it seems Mr. Manit is basing these decisions on informal meetings and unverifiable statistics.

Does anyone know what study concluded that baning alcohol ads will save 18% of non-drinkers aged 25 and over from starting to drink alcoholic beverages in Thailand? Or, does anyone know if this was a study from another country whose legal age to drink is much younger than 25%?

[Old Man River]

Banning of alcohol advertisement

Mr. Manit Arunakul (มานิตย์ อรุณากุล), Acting Secretary-General to the Food and Drug Administration, commented that the banning of alcohol advertisement will help reduce the increasing number of drinkers.

According to him, research shows advertising ban may not contribute much to the reduction of drinkers' number, but it helps protect those who never drink alcohol from being lured into drinking.

The ban helps save 18 percent of non-drinkers, which is a satisfying figure.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 17 October 2006

Thanks Jai Dee for posting this as it is at least from someone who has taken into account both the ban on ads and the raising of the drinking age, although it seems Mr. Manit is basing these decisions on informal meetings and unverifiable statistics.

Does anyone know what study concluded that baning alcohol ads will save 18% of non-drinkers aged 25 and over from starting to drink alcoholic beverages in Thailand? Or, does anyone know if this was a study from another country whose legal age to drink is much younger than 25%?

Check that. The end of the last sentance should read "much younger than 25?", not 25%.

[Heng]

From a channel 3 newsbit last night.... looks like they are also going to cancel the anti-drinking campaign commercial with the old poor person drinking 'sa toh/lao kao' (the kind you can get in 7-11 for about 25 Baht a bottle) saying "getting poorer, more stressed, more drunk... getting poorer, more stressed, more drunk..." because studies have shown that the anti-drinking commercial is actually increasing 'sa toh/lao kao' sales. Age regardless, there is a huge demographic out there that is obviously highly susceptible to influence by the media.

[Old Man River]

From a channel 3 newsbit last night.... looks like they are also going to cancel the anti-drinking campaign commercial with the old poor person drinking 'sa toh/lao kao' (the kind you can get in 7-11 for about 25 Baht a bottle) saying "getting poorer, more stressed, more drunk... getting poorer, more stressed, more drunk..." because studies have shown that the anti-drinking commercial is actually increasing 'sa toh/lao kao' sales. Age regardless, there is a huge demographic out there that is obviously highly susceptible to influence by the media.

Heng, none of this personally impacts me, but it just seems that raising the drinking age to 25 is enough. The rest is overkill by a non-elected government. From what I understand, media normally does influence choice from one competing product to another (shifting market shares), but is much less effective on growing a mature market (although it may have some impact, as your example above). Still, the government is telling us that baning advertising will reduce the number of first time drinkers in the 25 and over age group by 18%. Maybe it is true, but where did this figure come from?

By the way, the articles in this morning's papers said that instead of spending the estimated THB 2 billion on advertising each year, the alcohol beverage industry is expected to use the money they are saving by cutting their prices. In other words, instead of creating advertising jobs for Thai's and sponsoring charitable events, they are expected to use this money to make it easier for the poor people to afford their products.

[steveromagnino]

Are you saying that drinking Regency has no correlation to getting set up with a gold leafed luk krung model who can walk on water?

I was equally gutted when I purchased Buddy broadband and two hot chicks didn't come into my living room and 'yahk bpen buddy khun na ka hihihihih (girly laughing)'

I was also almost jumping off the Chao Phraya Bridge when I got a one to call phone card, and suddenly was not able to say things like:

' I want vegetabun' and 'it is a function of the percentage'

In fact, that ad for 1 to call is my single most favourite ad for pointing out the problems of advertising. Because it is total <deleted>.

That said, I still buy beer and have a fancy mobile phone, in the dim hope that hot chicks will be attracted to me (there was a great Nokia ad about this).

Everyone thinks advertising works on other stupid people but not them. I guess I can admit I am stupid. That is what I am told ;-)

[Old Man River]

Are you saying that drinking Regency has no correlation to getting set up with a gold leafed luk krung model who can walk on water?

I was equally gutted when I purchased Buddy broadband and two hot chicks didn't come into my living room and 'yahk bpen buddy khun na ka hihihihih (girly laughing)'

I was also almost jumping off the Chao Phraya Bridge when I got a one to call phone card, and suddenly was not able to say things like:

' I want vegetabun' and 'it is a function of the percentage'

In fact, that ad for 1 to call is my single most favourite ad for pointing out the problems of advertising. Because it is total <deleted>.

That said, I still buy beer and have a fancy mobile phone, in the dim hope that hot chicks will be attracted to me (there was a great Nokia ad about this).

Everyone thinks advertising works on other stupid people but not them. I guess I can admit I am stupid. That is what I am told ;-)

You are at least 25 right? If so, then shouldn't you have the right to watch the advertising and then make up your own mind?

It is sad to say, I guess, but one of the main things I miss while watching UBC is the commercials I used to complain about in the US.

[PREM-R]

It was also suggested last evening (Monday) that it will no longer be allowed for Chang and Singha to advertise their water/soda products on TV using their traditional logos. I suppose they will rebrand the "soft" drinks and continue. I wonder how this will impact on football in Thailand, I have yet to see a team turn out for Thailand that has not had the Chang logo prominently displayed on it.

[womble]

Alcoholic-Beverage Control Bill Rejected

The Cabinet Tuesday sent back the Alcoholic-Beverage Control Bill for further discussions among relevant authorities.

The bill is designed to impose many restrictions on alcoholic-beverage sales, including a ban on people under 25 years old age to buy the alcoholic drinks.

According to the bill, discounts and promotional gimmicks for the sale of alcoholic beverages will also be banned.

An informed source said the Cabinet extensively debated on how to implement control measures with proper balance. It also raised questions as to how to identify which person is at least 25 years old of age, which will allow them to buy alcoholic drinks legally.

The Cabinet has assigned the Education, Commerce, Industry, Social Development and Human Security ministries to send their representatives for further discussions on the bill.

The Nation

Looks like there may be some concessions, my guess is they will drop the over 25 thing and possibly print media advertising.

I reckon a blanket ban on TV and Radio will go ahead.

Much better now that all relevant departments will debate this rather than just the health ministry.

Will sence prevail????

[Shan]

I guess that a sensible thing to do would be to make the age 20, same is that for becoming an adult. Advertising on TV coud be restricted to late hours only. Say after 22.00 hours. Still checking 20 is difficult too and how many smaller shopkeepers will bother.

[womble]

It's not difficult to check age, thats a really lame excuse, every Thai by law is supposed to carry an ID card, so how hard is it to make them show that for proof?

I'd say there's been some serious lobbying by the alcohol Industry in the last week or two.

"Advertising on TV coud be restricted to late hours only. Say after 22.00 hours."

That is already the case, no advertising before 10pm.

Edited October 17, 2006 by womble

[Heng]

From a channel 3 newsbit last night.... looks like they are also going to cancel the anti-drinking campaign commercial with the old poor person drinking 'sa toh/lao kao' (the kind you can get in 7-11 for about 25 Baht a bottle) saying "getting poorer, more stressed, more drunk... getting poorer, more stressed, more drunk..." because studies have shown that the anti-drinking commercial is actually increasing 'sa toh/lao kao' sales. Age regardless, there is a huge demographic out there that is obviously highly susceptible to influence by the media.

Heng, none of this personally impacts me, but it just seems that raising the drinking age to 25 is enough. The rest is overkill by a non-elected government. From what I understand, media normally does influence choice from one competing product to another (shifting market shares), but is much less effective on growing a mature market (although it may have some impact, as your example above). Still, the government is telling us that baning advertising will reduce the number of first time drinkers in the 25 and over age group by 18%. Maybe it is true, but where did this figure come from?

By the way, the articles in this morning's papers said that instead of spending the estimated THB 2 billion on advertising each year, the alcohol beverage industry is expected to use the money they are saving by cutting their prices. In other words, instead of creating advertising jobs for Thai's and sponsoring charitable events, they are expected to use this money to make it easier for the poor people to afford their products.

OMR, none of this personally impacts me either. It's academic. I don't think the gov't is trying to imply (or more accurately believes) that this method will be surgically effective. It's just the message that they are trying to get across to common folks (that this will be for their own good).

Regarding those articles, I recall the same 'no win' arguments being used to to keep ThaiBev from going public in Thailand. It's just the powers that be -in this case, the folks on the pro-advertising and status quo side- trying to create an argument that common folks (if you don't spend money on this, you will instead be able to do this) can relate to. In the end, all that they are trying to get across (IMO) is: if they advertise they will increase their market share, if they don't advertise, they will increase their marketshare. So you may as well keep things the way they are because you are better off if we increase our marketshare with advertising.

In reality, they can cut their prices whenever they want (if they can't, that means they admit that advertising in fact creates demand/market growth that they can't afford to lose) to increase their marketshare. And of course just because it (advertising poison) creates jobs doesn't mean it's essential to society.

[Plus]

Beer consumption has skyrocketed in Thailand in just about five years. How can one think that endless advertising of Chang and the rest had nothing to do with it?

Companies look not only in market share, but in market's overall growth, too. They create new segments, reposition their brands, market to new audience etc.

Advertising ban WILL have an effect, but probably unexpected one - urban middle classes will drink slightly less overall but A LOT less comparing to lao kao drinkers.

More sensible solution would be weening people off strong alcohol to less dangerous drinks, like beer with low alcohol content, even wine. Governemnt should be managing the problem, outright ban is too blunt a weapon.