Bangkok Rock Festival 2007 Cancelled Due To Alcohol Ban

[Virgil]

Thailand turns more and more into America ... but then, in America at least you may still drink.

I don't think that is quite right. I'd say Thailand is becoming more militant and more Muslim. I'd be drawing more parallels with middle-eastern countries than the USA. I've said it since the beginning of the coup - there is an underlying push towards giving the Muslim south autonomy and tightening Thai laws to assist with this.

Now, bow down and face Mecca, you infidel!

Until the good Thai Buddhist sees the light and stands up for his country he will get what's coming to him. My crystal ball shows Thailand being Muslim in my lifetime ....

Virgil, Out!

[Virgil]

If Islamic values tend towards trying to protect life ahead of corporations wealth, then go Islam!

I welcome the kingdoms new leadership in moving us more closer to the values of Islam.

What are you two doing in Thailand then? Perhaps what you're looking for is in Iran?

Virgil, Out!

[gharknes]

When the fag companies were banned out of sports in the UK the negative effects to the sporting events and related industries (advertising, printing etc) were short lived.

The cost to Thailand if a few advertising companies go under and they miss out on a few rock concerts would be a small price to pay IF the ban saves even one life. Around 14,000 people die on Thai roads annually. 80%+ of these deaths are drink related. And that represents only one of the negative effects alcohol has on society.

Less drinking, less puking, less hangovers, less hospital visits, lower insurance, safer roads etc.

A very good news indeed !

Let's wait a few more month, to have other cancelations. And then, maybe, the government will start to understand that they should review their ridiculous face-based decision...

Sponsorship is only the tip of the iceberg... Actually, it's a big economic blow to the advertising and printing industries. That's the main issue.

Less activities, less revenues, less VAT, less taxes, etc.

Face has a price. They will pay it. At no discount.

now that's the stupidest post i've read here yet, advertising has nothing to do with drink driving, perhaps a sponsored campain and some advertising from the drink companies about drinking and driving might be the way to go, I don't think any manufacturing ccompany in the world would support driving while drunk, seperate issues, you think everyone will stop drinking because there are no adds......are you for real.

[pal78]

When the fag companies were banned out of sports in the UK the negative effects to the sporting events and related industries (advertising, printing etc) were short lived.

The cost to Thailand if a few advertising companies go under and they miss out on a few rock concerts would be a small price to pay IF the ban saves even one life. Around 14,000 people die on Thai roads annually. 80%+ of these deaths are drink related. And that represents only one of the negative effects alcohol has on society.

Less drinking, less puking, less hangovers, less hospital visits, lower insurance, safer roads etc.

A very good news indeed !

Let's wait a few more month, to have other cancelations. And then, maybe, the government will start to understand that they should review their ridiculous face-based decision...

Sponsorship is only the tip of the iceberg... Actually, it's a big economic blow to the advertising and printing industries. That's the main issue.

Less activities, less revenues, less VAT, less taxes, etc.

Face has a price. They will pay it. At no discount.

now that's the stupidest post i've read here yet, advertising has nothing to do with drink driving, perhaps a sponsored campain and some advertising from the drink companies about drinking and driving might be the way to go, I don't think any manufacturing ccompany in the world would support driving while drunk, seperate issues, you think everyone will stop drinking because there are no adds......are you for real.

Yes I am. I'm sorry you think it's stupid, but I've researched it and it's possible for you to do the same. Try typing, "arguments for ban on alcohol advertising" in google. You might be able to find a link to some research papers on the subject. One (from a little school called MIT) has data suggesting that if there was a ban on broadcast advertising (only) with no bans on advertising for events etc, then around 3,000 lives would be saved (in the US at the time the study was carried out).

I never said that "everyone will stop drinking", read back to what I did say. Oh wait, I'll just say it again and try and make it clear....

IF the ban saves EVEN ONE LIFE, then isn't that worth inconveniencing a few rockers booze makers and a few advertising firms?

And "adds" is "ad" in this case, short word for advertisement. Also "separate" not "seperate... and "campaign" not "campain". (Sorry, but just check your spelling before you send a post to tell someone else that what they wrote is stupid. And check your facts after that. And then be sure that you read the other person's post properly and try to understand what they were actually saying.

If people drink, they might get drunk... if they get drunk they might drink drive and are then more likely to crash. People who crash are more likely to get hurt or hurt others than people who don't crash. You follow? It's not really rocket science is it?

And advertising products does effect sales, otherwise they wouldn't spend millions of baht on ads would they? So taking the ads away should have a negative effect on sales, right?

Less alcohol sales = less drunks = less drunk drivers = less crashes = less roadkill

I am sure MIT had a much more involved formulation for their conclusions, but I suspect that mine are reasonably accurate.

Edited November 23, 2006 by pal78

[pal78]

If Islamic values tend towards trying to protect life ahead of corporations wealth, then go Islam!

I welcome the kingdoms new leadership in moving us more closer to the values of Islam.

What are you two doing in Thailand then? Perhaps what you're looking for is in Iran?

Virgil, Out!

I think you misunderstand....

I believe dplast was being sarcastic, and I was being contemptuous, and sarcastic in return.

I know where Iran is and have no need to look for it. I'm happy here in Thailand thanks.

[taxexile]

Plus, the advertisements make drink look socially positive. Something that I don't believe it is! Poverty, poor education, lack of work, frustration with life are all problems that are exacerbated by alcoholism. And selling of sex would be harder for many were it not for alcohol.

good points , tobacco and alcohol promotion work subliminally.

i believe the ban to be correct.

i also believe that alcohol sales should not be restricted by hours.

as far as the rock festival goes , the organisers have known for a few months about this ban and should have worked harder to find other sponsors. the cancellation because of the ban sounds like an excuse.

[Thai-Spy]

What's really at issue here is the lack of a mechanism which prevents a high volume of alcohol consumption from turning into a high rate of alcohol abuse. There are after all many countries where a high rate of consumption has few or no negative social consequences.

Neither a Prohibition or a pseudo-prohibitory advertising ban is going to have much effect. What's required is to generate greater economic opportunities and to foster a culture of personal responsibility. Thailand isn't likely to get either any time soon.

[aussimike]

hmm. let's advertise and tax Yaa Baa, let the drug dealers sponsor them! That is good for the revenue department, good for the advertisment industry and good for the drugs dealer. not so good for the young people. Or let's advertise the flash trade. It is all very simple tip of the iceberg or not, people should not always go for the money. It was a good proposal from the Thaksin government which is rightly pursued by the junta.

The application of this new law is entirely appropriate. The solution is simple. They don't have to cancel the event, just trash the calendars or find a different sponsor.

These 'bans' have been in effect in the USA for decades and somehow we still have music festivals, tennis matches and the wide variety of other activities that were formerly supported by liquor, wine and beer promotions.

Get used to it, if you're going to make laws that have already been successfully tested in other countries, then you have to obey them.

Well another educated comment from this member -- I just wonder what would happen to the major international sporting events such as the Grand Prix if Australias Fosters was to stop sponsoring these sorts of events -- "find another sponsor" get real who is going to tip money into these sorts of events if there is no return - and the beer companies are the biggest spender in this area -- i agree in priniciple of controlling underage drinking -- but this is not the way to go = its a local policing matter -

[pal78]

What's really at issue here is the lack of a mechanism which prevents a high volume of alcohol consumption from turning into a high rate of alcohol abuse. There are after all many countries where a high rate of consumption has few or no negative social consequences.

Such as? Name a few countries where you believe this to be true. High rates of alcohol consumption is a sign of alcoholism. Alcoholism is a disease. Don't diseases have negative social consequences?

[Canadianvisitor]

Thailand turns more and more into America ... but then, in America at least you may still drink.

I think this is a departure from Americanisation.

It is actually quite responsible.

I drink like a fish when I do,

but alcohol is by far the most dangeous drug on the planet.

In time there will be other people wanting advertising,

they didn't ban the consumption of alcohol just the adverts right?

It may insult some but the benifits to the people far out wiegh the

advertising buck.

Not everybody drinks, and those that do know what they like.

[hardy1943]

now that's the stupidest post i've read here yet, advertising has nothing to do with drink driving, perhaps a sponsored campain and some advertising from the drink companies about drinking and driving might be the way to go, I don't think any manufacturing ccompany in the world would support driving while drunk, seperate issues, you think everyone will stop drinking because there are no adds......are you for real.

All of those restriction are a pipe dream and a joke and actually increased consumption.

When America had their Prohibition in the 20's alcohol consumption increased by about 20%

THAT IS A FACT

[wilko]

Johnny Walker pulled out with their tourmament....went to Malaysia wasn't....you know I can't even remember what sport it was but several million involved.....

cigarettes have not been fully banned even now from world porting events....FI???......but I think that the power of the alcohol loobby is much stronger than that of tobacco and they are much more engrained/embedded in the world sponsorship game.

[pal78]

Well another educated comment from this member -- I just wonder what would happen to the major international sporting events such as the Grand Prix if Australias Fosters was to stop sponsoring these sorts of events -- "find another sponsor" get real who is going to tip money into these sorts of events if there is no return - and the beer companies are the biggest spender in this area -- i agree in priniciple of controlling underage drinking -- but this is not the way to go = its a local policing matter -

Well, it's more likely that they would find other (maybe not "another") sponsors. Formula One managed the transition away from the tobacco industry in a reasonably short time frame (I believe they announced it mid-season, and it came into effect the following year). I mentioned it before here, the solution to the problem of replacing one big sponsor, is easily solved if you don't try to replace it with another big sponsor. Many smaller companies might be delighted to finally have a chance to stick their name on billboard at the end of the main straight because Fosters aren't hogging the whole show anymore.

F1 cars are sponsored by oil companies, computer companies, red bull, auto makers like Toyota, Honda, Fiat...... etc. There are loads of big companies related to the industry that can offer enough combined support to replace a few very large unrelated ones, or maybe I'm missing the point again, and someone is about to remind me what a central role alcohol consumption plays in the motor sport industry in Australia.

In Ireland the tobacco advertising ban on sporting events was going to "ruin sport in Ireland", "clubs would go bust", the "Benson and Hedges Irish Masters Snooker" would be no more. Well, the latter is true, it's now backed by a bank I believe so the "Benson and Hedges" part is gone but the show runs along just the same.

Life goes on.

[pal78]

All of those restriction are a pipe dream and a joke and actually increased consumption.

When America had their Prohibition in the 20's alcohol consumption increased by about 20%

THAT IS A FACT

First off, this is not "prohibition" in the same context as the American alcohol ban of the 20's and 30's. Since that "prohibition" the word has taken on the baggage surrounding it.

But since you mention 20% increase during that period (I think it ran until '33), then that's nothing compared to the increases in consumption Thailand is experiencing right now, and is trying to combat.

Maybe you think if they plumbed beer directly to peoples homes on a 2 baht a liter metering system that people would drink less.

Secondly, are you suggesting that if companies stop promoting their products that sales will increase?

Actually the opposite is true: They advertise their products to sell MORE.

But if you are right, then you should tell all the companies out there that they are wasting their money and resources on advertising and marketing, maybe even ditch the sales team too. Just focus on making it very hard to buy their products. Maybe set up an underground network, and sell it on the black market. Hire gangs to drive around in black cars knocking over barrels in the competitors places.... and if all that fails, just try and coerce the government into a total ban on whatever it is they are selling. Then sales would sore 20% at least.

Do you even think about what you're typing?

[dominique355]

Does advertisement really cause people to drink (or to smoke)? How can we tell? Did alcohol or tobacoo consumption decrease after a ban on advertising has been enacted?

One fact may help to answer the question. In previous East Germany (GDR), tobacoo advertisement was totally banned. Did fewer people smoke? No! Statistics show clearly that this total ban of tobacco advertisement had no effect whatsoever on the smoking habits of the people. But id does reduce the possibility to change from one brand to another. Well, since there was only one State-owned tobacoo manufacturer in GDR, no problem. So why do governments ban advertising of alcohol and tobacoo? There are no facts supporting their agruments that they want to reduce the consumption. But, they can brag about "doing something" about the problem, even if it has no effect.

[wimster]

Exactly! Also I wonder if even an alcohol sponsor would want to sponsor the festival again, as it lost a TON of money last year. And I think the organizers did not get any bands together anyway. Bunch of losers to use this as an excuse.

as far as the rock festival goes , the organisers have known for a few months about this ban and should have worked harder to find other sponsors. the cancellation because of the ban sounds like an excuse.

[ilyushin]

I know the brands that I like to drink so the advertising ban doesn't affect me. It only affects the Rock Festival and other events. Guess we can go elsewhere to get drunk and and listen to music.

The alcohol laws need changing with the laws to purchase times between 7am-2am and strict minimum age limits of 18-20 years of age to purchase. The existing 10pm TVC is okay, logos of brands seems fine.

A blanketed advertising ban on alcohol isn't the solution to drunk driving. Other messures need to be taken.

Guess they will fuzz out the logos on the team sports during TV broadcasts.

Edited November 23, 2006 by ilyushin

[ccarbaugh]

And even those who were lucky to get the calendar before December 3 need to be careful about how they show it.

"If you hang it on your bedroom wall, that's totally fine," ........

Soooo, I'm in the States until December 18th - how can I get a calendar before December 3rd??????

[LA Don]

There are many many local events both organized and sponsored by the alcohol industry. Some, like Jack Daniels. will take their bottle and golf clubs to a more friendly location - like islamic Malaysia.

I, for one, will miss the concerts and festivals the alcohol industry has put on at Patong Beach. I can't see Pepsi filling the void. Imagine all those food booths without their beer banners.

I would rather they put a little effort into educating the public about responsible drinking rather than trying to hide the bottle from them.

[Crow Boy]

I think a lot of you are missing an important point here. The ban is not to stop people from drinking but to moderate their drinking.

Countries such as Australia have had massive efforts in Random Breath Testing, Advertising efforts to educate people that if they "drink and drive they are a bloody idiot". Add to that legislation to make it mandatory to wear seat belts (front and rear), child restraints, improvements in car handling, speed restrictions, and all backed by hefty fines for breaking the law. Bottom line is that the death toll in Oz has dropped dramatically from the 1970s when Australia enjoyed its international image as a bunch of drunken boofheads who enjoyed a 13 course banquet (12 beers and a pie) on a regular (daily) basis.

I worked in Queensland (Australie) as an Ambulance officer and hate to think of how many people we picked up, scraped up, dragged out of cars because either they were pissed, the driver of their car was pissed, or the driver of the other car was pissed.

If you walk, or cab it to the pub and get blind then as long as you don't turn into an idiot and get restricuted under the "responsible serving of alcohol" legislation you can do what you want.

If you drive and have anything more than 0.05% alcohol in your blood then expect to get busted big time.

This is not Islamic law but Buddhist philosophy - avoid intoxicant, avoid killing, avoid harm.

This government is saying - enjoy alcohol but don't let it destroy your life or someone elses.

Matt

Chiang Mai

[LA Don]

If you really want to save lives in LOS, outlaw motorcycles.

[nikster]

This is so dumb - as it is in any other country that implements such things - advertising does not in my view make people drink, smoke or do anything else - advertising is about persuading people to choose one brand instead of another! If food advertising was banned would it stop people from eating!!!

Alcohol, cigarette and drug abuse and even the selliing of sex are all symptoms of real problems like poverty, poor education, lack of work, boredom and frustration with life in general - until these issues are tackled alcohol and other abuses will be rife even if people end up distilling it themeselves in the backyards. No one has ever succeeded in dealing with this kind of problem with bans.

I might have agreed with you until I saw the Tiger girls.

But seeing the extremely effective advertisement for Tiger, Singha, etc in the form of entire little "beer gardens" being erected in shopping centers and other public places, I have to say: If that doesn't make you want a beer, then what is?

Apart from the bright colors and the pretty girls in very tight dresses, there's also delicious-looking beer jugs with ice inside - it definitely made me want to sit down and order a couple of these. In the middle of the day. While I was doing my grocery shopping.

I bet you $1000 if you did a scientific study on this kind of set-up it would prove without a doubt that this form of advertising increases beer consumption. I am not talking about alcoholics - those will drink no matter what. I am talking about normal people who either don't drink or don't drink much. It caters to teenagers who will see right there in the shopping mall that drinking alcohol is cool.

So if decreased alcohol consumption is your goal, it's not a bad idea to start with advertising.

That said, I see that there are much bigger problems in Thailand in the country here. Most of the fights and accidents here happen under the influence of Lao Kao. Fathers are drinking, grandfathers are drinking, and of course the kids start drinking as soon as they possibly can as well. Most of the men here are basically drunk every night or every other night. This problem goes a little deeper than advertising.

[calibanjr.]

hmm. let's advertise and tax Yaa Baa, let the drug dealers sponsor them! That is good for the revenue department, good for the advertisment industry and good for the drugs dealer. not so good for the young people. Or let's advertise the flash trade. It is all very simple tip of the iceberg or not, people should not always go for the money. It was a good proposal from the Thaksin government which is rightly pursued by the junta.

The application of this new law is entirely appropriate. The solution is simple. They don't have to cancel the event, just trash the calendars or find a different sponsor.

These 'bans' have been in effect in the USA for decades and somehow we still have music festivals, tennis matches and the wide variety of other activities that were formerly supported by liquor, wine and beer promotions.

Get used to it, if you're going to make laws that have already been successfully tested in other countries, then you have to obey them.

Just implementing a law that is successful in another country does not mean it will be successful in the new country. The Bans in the US were phased in gradually. The industries surrounding it were given time to adjust to the new reality.

The idea is sound. The implementation is not.

If anything, alcohol advertising restrictions are EASING in America. Until a few years ago, hard alcohol was not allowed in TV/Radio ads and print ads had limits. In the last few years they went to allowing those fake pre-mix drinks on TV (Jack/Coke and other coolers), now there are ads for Chivas, Tanqueray, whatever.

Edited November 23, 2006 by calibanjr.

[jumnien]

Many people are arguing against the alcohol advertising ban by citing statistics that in Norway and other countries the alcohol consumption rate increased when advertising stopped. This is really an indictment against the effectiveness of advertising and marketing in general. Billions of baht wasted on advertising every year in Thailand to achieve a decrease in consumption over what would have been consumed if no baht were wasted! Or are they coloring their statistics with wishful thinking!

[PhilHarries]

It's been said many times before but I'll repeat it at the risk of being boring.

A substantial proportion of Thailand's drink problem lies with the consumption of lao khaw.

When has any person on this forum ever seen an advertisement for lao khaw?

The truth is that the ban on adverts is going to affect places and publications not frequented by the average lao khaw drinker and the drinks covered are way out of their price range.

The other band of folks likely to be "affected" by the ban are the youth of middle and upper class Thai families. Here, as in the UK, you can put out all the responsible drinking messages you like but you'll find the lights are on but nobody's home.

The logic of the ban on ads runs along the lines of if it was never advertised in the first place there would be no alchohol abuse problem now. Yeah, just like yaa bah.

I apologise for the above statement for it is utter <deleted>. The implication of logic being applied to any legislation in Thailand is laughable at best.

[Tony Clifton]

Tobacco and alcohool companies are the most agressive when it comes to sponsoring. There are other options, ad campaigns have sucessfuly "programmed" people over time to think the opposite.

[nikster]

Does advertisement really cause people to drink (or to smoke)? How can we tell? Did alcohol or tobacoo consumption decrease after a ban on advertising has been enacted?

One fact may help to answer the question. In previous East Germany (GDR), tobacoo advertisement was totally banned. Did fewer people smoke? No! Statistics show clearly that this total ban of tobacco advertisement had no effect whatsoever on the smoking habits of the people.

For a fair comparison, you would have to compare one GDR with tobacco ads, vs. another GDR without tobacco ads. Impossible, of course. But necessary for a fair comparison.

People still smoked - yeah, but you don't know if they would have smoked _even more_ with advertising? Perhaps, if it was really good advertising?! Or maybe they saw Marlboro ads from the west which were forbidden and made the whole thing even cooler - now not just a fag but a symbol of western liberation?

In the old GDR the most effective ban would probably have been an outright endorsement by the government - people would have stopped smoking just to defy the communist dictators.

Anyway, I do know one thing and that is that the beer gardens with girls and ice-cold beer on prominent display definitely have the desired effect on me. And I don't imagine I am alone in that.

[john b good]

When the fag companies were banned out of sports in the UK the negative effects to the sporting events and related industries (advertising, printing etc) were short lived.

The cost to Thailand if a few advertising companies go under and they miss out on a few rock concerts would be a small price to pay IF the ban saves even one life. Around 14,000 people die on Thai roads annually. 80%+ of these deaths are drink related. And that represents only one of the negative effects alcohol has on society.

Less drinking, less puking, less hangovers, less hospital visits, lower insurance, safer roads etc.

A very good news indeed !

Let's wait a few more month, to have other cancelations. And then, maybe, the government will start to understand that they should review their ridiculous face-based decision...

Sponsorship is only the tip of the iceberg... Actually, it's a big economic blow to the advertising and printing industries. That's the main issue.

Less activities, less revenues, less VAT, less taxes, etc.

Face has a price. They will pay it. At no discount.

now that's the stupidest post i've read here yet, advertising has nothing to do with drink driving, perhaps a sponsored campain and some advertising from the drink companies about drinking and driving might be the way to go, I don't think any manufacturing ccompany in the world would support driving while drunk, seperate issues, you think everyone will stop drinking because there are no adds......are you for real.

Yes I am. I'm sorry you think it's stupid, but I've researched it and it's possible for you to do the same. Try typing, "arguments for ban on alcohol advertising" in google. You might be able to find a link to some research papers on the subject. One (from a little school called MIT) has data suggesting that if there was a ban on broadcast advertising (only) with no bans on advertising for events etc, then around 3,000 lives would be saved (in the US at the time the study was carried out).

I never said that "everyone will stop drinking", read back to what I did say. Oh wait, I'll just say it again and try and make it clear....

IF the ban saves EVEN ONE LIFE, then isn't that worth inconveniencing a few rockers booze makers and a few advertising firms?

And "adds" is "ad" in this case, short word for advertisement. Also "separate" not "seperate... and "campaign" not "campain". (Sorry, but just check your spelling before you send a post to tell someone else that what they wrote is stupid. And check your facts after that. And then be sure that you read the other person's post properly and try to understand what they were actually saying.

If people drink, they might get drunk... if they get drunk they might drink drive and are then more likely to crash. People who crash are more likely to get hurt or hurt others than people who don't crash. You follow? It's not really rocket science is it?

And advertising products does effect sales, otherwise they wouldn't spend millions of baht on ads would they? So taking the ads away should have a negative effect on sales, right?

Less alcohol sales = less drunks = less drunk drivers = less crashes = less roadkill

I am sure MIT had a much more involved formulation for their conclusions, but I suspect that mine are reasonably accurate.

And "adds" is "ad" in this case, short word for advertisement. Also "separate" not "seperate... and "campaign" not "campain". (Sorry, but just check your spelling before you send a post to tell someone else that what they wrote is stupid.

Very well put Pal. Some of the posters cannot spell their own name and then come along as experts or at the very least setting out to ridicule those people who put up very valid and considered arguments.

You have made a number of quite compelling reasons as to why alcohol advertising would be no great loss were we not to have it.

And the link between the consumption of alcohol and road traffic accidents (and resulting fatalities) is not open for debate.

You're right on track with your comments.

[Likenitstill]

I think we have all been here long enough to see everyday that the system is so screwed up.

What about everyone being accountable and responsible for their own actions? No more, "the driver of the car has to pay because his vehicle is larger then the motorbike". After all the driver of the bike was inubriated. The more we shelter, isolate and control the less we allow people to make mistakes and learn from them. The curent law enforcement needs to step up to the plate and instill a sense of fear maybe, but banning advertising common....

How about litering? It makes me cringe to see someone carelessly throw their garbage out the window but no one seems to care. Why is it that no one seems to care about people around them and their environment? If they did then perhaps the drinking and driving would stop. Perhaps the loud advertisement on mega speakers would stop, perhaps all the noise polution would stop, maybe even see people yield the right of way to pedestrians on the city streets and stop at red lights.

If an adult so wishes to buy a drink in the aftenoon, so be it if he uses his head and drinks responsibly.

If a youth wishes to purchase then they should be given an ID check and told to wait a couple of years.

[tropo]

I wonder if the huge billboard on the Baiyoke building in Bangkok will go?

Billboard controversy