Distillers Want A Few Good, Stiff TV Commercials

I don’t know whether this nation’s hard liquor industry will ever be successful in convincing TV networks that booze ought to be promoted over the airwaves like wine and beer.

In fact, I’m not so sure the controversial move by network executives to air hard liquor ads would be wise at this time in our country, given all the drug problems that won’t go away.

But liquor companies surely make a strong fairness argument. They say distilleries - not vintners or breweries - are getting the short end of the stick when it comes to getting their product advertised on television today.

The distillers are right. Beer ads are so commonplace on television right now that some commercials, featuring cute little frogs on lily pads and precocious mice on treadmills, are more popular than their human counterparts.

TV wine ads haven’t done too badly either. As couch potatoes have learned from all those commercials we’ve seen over the years, no decent bottle of wine will be consumed before its time.

That says a lot about how far we as consumers have come in accepting alcohol-related ads that purport to be harmless, if not mildly entertaining and amusing.

Admittedly, I’m having a difficult time trying to understand this inconsistent advertising policy by broadcasters, who have been operating laudably under a self-imposed hard liquor advertising ban for 50 years. That goes back to a period when television was still in its infancy and the medium still was searching for its niche.

Since then, however, the television industry has grown considerably, has traveled light-years technologically and is making tons of money through televised beer and wine spots. But not from high-octane booze commercials. Not then. Not now. And not in the foreseeable future.

Consequently, anyone - inside or outside of broadcasting - who believes wine or beer is any less potent than the 90-or-higher-proof stuff is, in my most fervent view, living in a fantasy world and oblivious to the truth.

Sure, suds and fermented grapes carry an appearance of less alcohol, keeping a lot of people - through slick and effective advertising - on the payroll of television stations at the same time.

But try explaining that to the family of loved ones who have become permanently disabled or have been killed in a traffic accident because some so-called less potent can or bottle of beer or wine just happened to be an accessory at the wheel.

Networks and major market television stations are struggling hard with the issue of hard liquor advertising today.

About 50 stations in various markets are pushing the self-imposed ban aside, opting to carry the controversial liquor spots instead. Seagram Co. and Hiram Walker & Sons have become the principal buyers of the TV spots.

I don’t think there’s much doubt the voluntary ban the liquor industry has imposed on itself for the past half century was a good move. But these are different times, with different approaches - for different purposes.

The bottom line in this capitalistic society is to get the most for any legally established product, using the most powerful advertising medium known to man. And that’s television, which advertisers figured out long before now is the key to the success of their business ventures, without limits or government interference.

President Clinton is right to ask the broadcasting industry to continue its voluntary ban on liquor ads, just as Federal Communications Commission Chairman Reed Hundt was right the other day in Las Vegas at the National Association of Broadcasters conference to nudge television executives toward a similar liquor ad policy to protect the nation’s youth.

While neither policy really addresses the issue of advertising fairness for hard liquor interests, it’s tough to criticize any group or individual with an anti-drinking approach.

Including television itself.

xxxx

The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = Fred Davis Washington State University