Football Anyone?

Blog Post 3

Excerpt from: Page 70 CHAPTER 3: Strategic Communication: Does Client Advocate Mean Consumer Adversary? CASE 3- B Tailgate Approved? The Rise and Fall of the Fan Can ERIN SCHAUSTER University of Missouri

“Near the end of the summer of 2009, Anheuser- Busch ( AB) launched a unique Bud Light promotion, just in time for football tailgating season. The promotion consisted of beer cans color- coordinated to coincide with school colors from 27 colleges nationwide. Aside from color palettes identifiable to specific colleges, Bud Light cans were void of reference to college names, logos, or school mascots. Examples of product packaging can be seen at the promotional Web site, www.tailgateapproved.com. According to Anheuser- Busch spokesperson Carol Clark, the promotion was planned to coincide with the launch of football season and baseball playoffs. Timing was an important tactic, which was developed in part to revive the suffering sales of the company’s flagship brand, Bud Light. During the first two years of the 2007 deep recession, sales of the nation’s biggest beer brand declined for the first time in 27 years. The Fan Cans were a voluntary promotion for beer wholesalers and nearly half opted in, according to Anheuser- Busch’s Carol Clark. With half of AB’s wholesalers distributing promotional cans, college campuses and college towns became the new promotional distribution grounds for Bud Light just in time for tailgating season. The high levels of participation initially appeared to underscore acceptance within college markets nationwide. However, it didn’t take long for college administrators to notice. Many pro-tested the promotion and those comments were reported as news in the LA Times and by the Associated Press.” 

When I finished reading CASE 3-B Tailgate Approved? The Rise and Fall of the Fan Can by Erin Schauster, I realized that by defining my ethical standards I am also refining my career options. Knowing that I have a professional code of conduct will obviously have an impact on my professional decisions, but it will also influence my application process by narrowing my pool of potential employers. 

I reviewed many Codes of Ethics, philosophic and industry created, that could be used to evaluate the “Fan-Can Advertising” case study.  Going through the process, I found much to consider.

The ancient Greek’s definition of ethics stated that the determination of “good” needed to be applicable to both the individual and society.  Today, when scrutinized, an ethical decision or position must be morally justifiable, defensible, and explainable.  Additionally, the choice must be universal in its reasoning and application.  These philosophic stances, combined with the Beer Institute’s Ethical Codes in Advertising and Marketing, provide ethical criteria aplenty to use in assessing the issue.  However, it is also appropriate to note that the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) and the American Advertising Federation (AAF) both provide clear definitions and guidelines for making decisions related to ethical issues. 

With this overwhelming level of evaluative criteria, what does the individual do when faced with a dilemma?  Do I choose one?  Hybridize and combine philosophies?  Ignore them all and go on my gut?  At the end of the day, these ethical codes don’t appear completely helpful in determining whether to Anheuser-Bush’s “Fan-Can” advertising campaign is defensible.  So, I think that there must be a “Golden Rule” level to this particular case study that can surmount or synthesize the checklist for ethical decision-making.  I think I will default and use the “Do No Harm” position as my guide.

Anheuser-Bush, using a shrewd marketing strategy, identified individual audiences and tailored their advertising to those markets.  On the surface, this appears to be nothing more than a well-designed marketing campaign for legal consumers of their products.  In reality, it is a thinly veiled strategy to appeal to a younger, more vulnerable, less discerning audience, consumers who are too young to enter a bar.  This campaign goes against industry Codes of Conduct for Advertising and Marketing and their own stated code that is an adopted version of the original code.  A portion of The Beer Ethical Codes in Advertising and Marketing states:

“3. Brewers are committed to a policy and practice of responsible advertising and marketing. As a part of this philosophy, beer advertising and marketing materials are intended for adult consumers of legal drinking age. Advertising or marketing materials should avoid elements that appeal primarily to persons under the legal drinking age. Advertising and marketing materials appeal primarily to persons under the legal drinking age if they have special attractiveness to such persons beyond their general attractiveness for persons above the legal drinking age.

a. In considering whether beer advertising and marketing materials appeal primarily to persons under the legal drinking age, Brewers should take into account the following elements among others:

• Symbols • Language • Music • Gestures •Entertainers or celebrities

•Cartoon characters •Groups or organizations

i. Placements made by or under the control of the Brewer in magazines, newspapers, on television, on radio, and in digital media in which there is no dialogue between a Brewer and user, may only be made where at least 71.6% of the audience is expected to be adults of legal drinking age. A placement will be considered compliant if the audience composition data reviewed prior to placement meets the percentages set forth above.”

Anheuser-Bush defends their position and connects it to their stated ethical code.  In the case study it is explained,

 “Anheuser- Busch agreed to drop the program within any college market that requested it. However, the company through its spokesperson insisted that its decision was not due to any agreement with the claims of irresponsible advertising. Anheuser- Busch maintained that it had neither infringed on any rights nor contributed to a socially irresponsible program. According to the firm’s Customer Relationship Group, the promotion was neither college- specific nor team- specific, and the only correlation to sports was the promotion’s launch time. Instead, the campaign was a promotion for the brand in general. Anheuser- Busch promotes a high level of corporate social responsibility. At www.beeresponsible.com, which is also linked to the tailgate promotional Web site, the consumer is told, “ Our message on college campuses is clear. If you’re 21 and older and choose to drink, please drink responsibly. If you’re under 21, respect the law; don’t drink.” Despite abandoning some college markets, the promotion continued to run through summer into fall in some markets with continued promotional support online.

Again, at face value, this supports compliance to the code of ethics.  But, there are two other points to make which diminish the validity of this position.  The first are the statistics about underage drinking, provided by The Center for Disease Control (CDC), and the second are the markets chosen by Anheuser-Bush to further their campaign.  I have included a segment of the “Center for Disease Control (CDC) Fact Sheet - Underage Drinking” document to quantify what most of us already know.

“Center for Disease Control (CDC) Fact Sheet - Underage Drinking

Alcohol use by persons under age 21 years is a major public health problem.

1 Alcohol is the most commonly used and abused drug among youth in the United States, more than tobacco and illicit drugs.

2.Although drinking by persons under the age of 21 is illegal, people aged 12 to 20 years drink 11% of all alcohol consumed in the United States. More than 90% of this alcohol is consumed in the form of binge drinks.

3 On average, underage drinkers consume more drinks per drinking occasion than adult drinkers.

4 In 2008, there were approximately 190,000 emergency rooms visits by persons under age 21 for injuries and other conditions linked to alcohol.

Drinking Levels among Youth

The 2009 Youth Risk Behavior Survey5 found that among high school students, during the past 30 days

•                42% drank some amount of alcohol.

•                24% binge drank.

•                10% drove after drinking alcohol.

•                28% rode with a driver who had been drinking alcohol.

Other national surveys indicate

•                In 2008 the National Survey on Drug Use and Health reported that 28% of youth aged 12 to 20 years drink alcohol and 19% reported binge drinking.6

•                In 2009, the Monitoring the Future Survey reported that 37% of 8th graders and 72% of 12th graders had tried alcohol, and 15% of 8th graders and 44% of 12th graders drank during the past month.7”

It is interesting to note that the ethical stance promoted by Anheuser-Bush is undermined by the medium and markets used to carry the message. Their primary methods of advertising are through the World Wide Web and social media.  Although the age of users of social media has risen, the type and volume of use varies significantly by age.  According to recent studies, young adults, 18-22 years old, access and respond to social media at a significantly higher rate than their adult counterparts.  One example is shown in this chart, for 2010, reflecting Facebook status updates.  During a day, 31% of 18-22 year olds will update their Facebook status compared to 19% of 23-35 year olds, 10% of 36-49 year olds, and 3% for Facebook users over 50 years of age.  Even more significantly, in a week’s time, over 75% of all 18-22 year old Facebook users will update their status compared to 56% of 23-35 year olds and 38% of 36-49 year olds and 15-19% for users over 50. 

These statistics matter when evaluating the media, marketing, and advertising campaign because Anheuser-Bush’s actions contradict their claims of ethical and defensible marketing aimed at consumers of a legal age. Why do they use these methods of sharing information?  It is always the audience.  In this case, a target audience that is below the legal drinking age.  Even more disturbing, are the statistics not noted in the PEW report, those of social media and alcohol consumers under the age of 18.

So where does this take me in my search for professional standards?  Universal or relative standards remain in agreement on this case study.  The marketing of alcohol to underage consumers is wrong and it is done by an industry, in this case one company, overtly and subtly, while the corporation espouses a position of social responsibility.  On the personal level, it is repugnant, and as a professional, I realize that I wouldn’t be able to work for Anheuser-Bush.  I would not feel comfortable promoting their products using the methods currently employed.

As a final note, the essay indicated that the success of this marketing method is unknown.  Again, actions and statistics reflect the unstated truth.  Beer sales increased and Anheuser-Bush now has an annual $50 million dollar, six-year, contract with the NFL.  What are they going to do? They are going to sell team-specific beer cans in each region.  I would venture to say that the test marketing on college students was a success.  No company would spend $300 million dollars on advertising if they weren’t guaranteed a positive return on their investment.