How serious are they?

Last week I posted about the new campaign from Cricket Australia, supported by Fosters, Diageo and Channel 9, called ‘Know when to declare”. While supporting the campaign, I did highlight some of the challenges that a company that profits from selling alcohol faces in being taken seriously selling the healthy drinking message. Last Sunday night on the Beer Show we had Troy Hey, Fosters General Manager-Media and Reputation, on to talk about the campaign. Troy spoke about the campaign and its aims and made good points about the role a business like Foster’s has to play in changing societal perceptions about alcohol. It’s obviously an issue that, at least on some level, the business is serious about.

Then today, I’m strolling through the local bottlo and see the latest promotion for Carlton Mid, Ken’s Bucks. With the tagline, “We made up a man so you can go to his Bucks”.

Google “Ken’s Bucks” and the first return is:'

Now, what is the first thing that you think of when you think of a buck’s party? (Ok, maybe the second..after boobs and before the shaved eyebrows and one-way train tickets). But it’s certainly not moderation or responsible drinking.

To quote comedian Robin Williams out of context, sticking the ‘enjoy responsibly’ logo on a promotion that ties beer with a buck’s night is like trying to stop a Ferrari with a tissue.

A couple of weeks ago, Foster’s national sponsorship manager, Chris Maxwell, admitted the company was wrong to feature David Boon as part of their talking doll campaign because it could be seen promoting binge drinking.

The issue with Boonie is a hard one. He is a great Australian, and he has personally never sought to promote or glamorise his inflight ‘achievement’. As a recent article about it recounted:

When asked a few years ago to discuss it, his blunt reply was: "Never have, never will." When he penned his life story soon after his retirement he didn't even mention it.

But, fairly or not, he will forever be associated with the 52 cans on a flight to London and associating him with a beer campaign is a nudge and a wink in that direction.

In admitting the error, Chris Maxwell said:

"Looking back, we have decided that was the wrong thing to do. We didn't have the foresight to see that this issue was going to be so significant. And in glorifying that behaviour we have added to the issue of the normalisation of binge-drinking in Australia.

''The difference is now we realise we have a responsibility to the community to promote our products in a responsible way. Therefore, we think a lot more deeply about how we use ambassadors, how we use our messages, and the potential impact down the track."

When I put this to Troy, he replied:

The promotion is for midstrength beer, aimed at spending time with your mates with the prize a 5 star accommodation, meal, nightclub entry and grand canyon helicopter and white water rafting adventure.

There’s nothing in the promotion that encourages abuse of alcohol and instead, it plays to the modern incarnation of the bucks party - as the ultimate leave pass for the bloke who finds it tough to get time away to do ‘stuff’ i.e. golf, go-cart racing, fishing, fly to LA and white water raft etc.)

All reasonable, except the competition isn’t called “The Ultimate Leave Pass” competition.

The “Know when to declare” message is a positive one, but it seems to be inconsistent with and undermined by the very same brewery tying a campaign to buck's parties.

What's the first thing you think about when you think buck's nights?

Sip, slop, slap

I have an article in today’s The Punch (complete with the perfect picture to illustrate the concept) arguing that, despite what certain anti-drink campaigners would like to think, having a beer is more like going to the beach than smoking…so cover up and don’t get burnt this weekend.

Let me know what you think.

Roger that.

Last week saw one of the few occasions when I disagreed with Roger Protz. He’s back in form today though with a great post about brewers stirring up the establishment and creating further problems for the brewing industry. Only, this time the problem is with a supposedly craft brewer. I can’t think of any local microbrewers who resort to this type of garbage with the sole intention of promoting themselves and selling their product with little regard for the industry. Though there is this mob of beer marketers who will no doubt come into anti-alcohol sights soon and take the whole brewing industry with them.

I drink responsibly and I don’t want government intervention to interfere with my choice to drink sensibly. However, alcohol does have a potential for harm and care must be exercised in its sale and use. While my libertarian nature wants no regulations because I am responsible, the sad truth is that like many philosophies, it doesn’t take into account human nature or business. Being liberal carries with it some obligation towards restraint, otherwise limits will be imposed by government. Unfortunately, some companies that generate profits from the making and sale of alcohol have exhibited a reluctance to show restraint in their products or pricing in the name of ‘growing the market’ and are making all alcohol a target.

Duty of care

Publicans across Australia will be breathing a sign of relief today. In a fascinating (if you’re into that sort of thing) judgement, the High Court in the case of

C.A.L. No 14 Pty Ltd v Motor Accidents Insurance Board; C.A.L. No 14 Pty Ltd v Scott [2009] HCA 47

has ruled publicans have no general duty of care to protect patrons from the consequences of getting drunk..essentially not duty to protect them from themselves.

It is predictably being hailed as a victory of common sense, which in many ways it is. However, it would also seem to raise considerable problems for the Responsible Service of Alcohol schemes that operate in many states.

The Court found that there is no general duty of care, saying…“outside exceptional cases, which this case is not, persons in the position of the Proprietor and the Licensee, while bound by important statutory duties in relation to the service of alcohol and the conduct of the premises in which it is served, owe no general duty of care at common law to customers which requires them to monitor and minimise the service of alcohol or to protect customers from the consequences of the alcohol they choose to consume.”

While emphasising the “important statutory duties in relation to the service of alcohol”, the also highlighted the problems in policing these laws.

In Queensland the Liquor Act makes it an offence on licensed premises to (my emphasis):

• sell/supply/provide liquor to an unduly intoxicated patron
• allow another person to supply an unduly intoxicated patron with liquor
• allow an unduly intoxicated patron to consume liquor.

In reaching their decision three judges, with whom a fourth agreed, stated (again, my emphasis):

Expressions like "intoxication", "inebriation" and "drunkenness" are difficult both to define and to apply. The fact that legislation compels publicans not to serve customers who are apparently drunk does not make the introduction of a civil duty of care defined by reference to those expressions any more workable or attractive. It is difficult for an observer to assess whether a drinker has reached the point denoted by those expressions. Some people do so faster than others. Some show the signs of intoxication earlier than others. In some the signs of intoxication are not readily apparent. With some there is the risk of confusing excitement, liveliness and high spirits with inebriation. With others, silence conceals an almost complete incapacity to speak or move. The point at which a drinker is at risk of injury from drinking can be reached in many individuals before those signs are evident. Persons serving drinks, even if they undertake the difficult process of counting the drinks served, have no means of knowing how much the drinker ingested before arrival. Constant surveillance of drinkers is impractical. Asking how much a drinker has drunk, how much of any particular bottle or round of drinks the purchaser intends to drink personally and how much will be consumed by friends of the purchaser who may be much more or much less intoxicated than the purchaser would be seen as impertinent. Equally, to ask how the drinker feels, and what the drinker's mental and physical capacity is, would tend to destroy peaceful relations, and would collide with the interests of drinkers in their personal privacy. In addition, while the relatively accurate calculation of blood alcohol levels is possible by the use of breathalysers, the compulsory administration of that type of testing by police officers on the roads was bitterly opposed when legislation introduced it, and it is unthinkable that the common law of negligence could compel or sanction the use of methods so alien to community mores in hotels and restaurants. 

To me they are also saying that it is almost impossible to adhere to the responsible service of alcohol requirements that Governments require them to adhere to.

As the publicans are saying today (as reported in The Australian):

But the AHA and individual publicans hailed the ruling as sending a strong warning to drinkers to take responsibility for their own actions.

Which as a general principal I agree with – people should take responsibility for their own actions. Except that there is a significant section of society that doesn’t. Even though drink driving laws have been around for a generation, there are still f*ckwits around who think nothing of driving with a skinfull. If taking personal responsibility meant that they were the only ones killed by their actions, all would be good. But these people share the roads with me. They are just as likely to kill me or my children as themselves.

I don’t know what the solution is, but it is a lot more complicated than any one of the groups with a vested interest would have us believe. I’ve been doing a of of writing about this lately, soon to be published, that I suspect makes me sound like a wowser or a card carrying anti-alcohol crusader. Believe me, I’m not and I know I’m not because all of this thinking about it is driving me to drink!

Ban glasses?

I have been thinking a lot about drinking lately (as opposed to beer), primarily fuelled by the intensity of the debate about ‘binge drinking’ that has rapidly been deteriorating into farce and hysteria. The most recent example of this came over he weekend when the Courier Mail ran a story headlined, “Woman on assault charges for glassing and punching” after a women threw a glass at a bloke. I don’t mean to make light of it, but is this a ‘glassing’? Call me old-fashioned, but even last week wasn’t a glassing when you would break a glass and slash someone with it, or break it over them cutting them in the process? This story is just a garden variety assault, not the extension of the terror on our modern streets. I’d even settle for that old favourite ‘alcohol-fuelled violence’ over ‘glassing’ in this case. When the media has the bit between its teeth there’s no stopping them…which is why the hotel and alcohol industries need to look carefully at their backyard. Alcohol is a cause célèbre at the moment and every media-worthy incident just sharpens the spotlight on alcohol and pushes the government harder to act – and the government has no ability to act precisely. Anything the government does won’t just affect the worst clubs and pubs, it will affect everyone. This was amply demonstrated when the Federal Government responded to malt-based alcopops by changing the definition of beer. Because one section of the alcohol industry wanted to act in a way that was clearly contrary to the excise laws, the brewing industry has been subjected to a change of the very definition of beer. Of course, it’s not a change that will hurt the big brewers – but it was a chance that will affect the small brewers who don’t have the ability to assay their bitterness or their sugar content, or just face greater compliance costs to prove they meet the requirements.

Returning to the Courier Mail story, forcing pubs to use plastic glasses wouldn’t have prevented this assault I suspect. If she wanted to hit someone, she would just as likely have thrown whatever was in her hand – even a plastic cup, used a pool cue or her bottle of vodka cruiser (I’m guessing here…call it a stereotype, but I’d be willing to bet that most pub assaults by women are caused by alcopop and cheap cocktail drinkers. I can’t remember the last time that a saison or robust porter was implicated in an assault).

Still, I have no real problem with the government mandating the use of plastic in places that have a demonstrable problem with alcohol-related incidents. I don’t think the plastic will do much – there are more problems caused by blokes getting into a fight and kicking each other in the head – but maybe the threat of having to use plastic and the potential loss of business that may come of it will get a subsection of irresponsible publicans to actually enforce the Responsible Service of Alcohol, rather than pour cheap, flavourless alcohol down their patrons throats and count the cash afterwards.