I was a little annoyed the other day to read in the LA Times an article highly critical of the Gates Foundation. Under the heading “A Times Investigation” the reporter’s focus was on the types of investments that the Gates Foundation makes with its nearly $66 billion endowment. The jist of the article was that some of the financial investments that the Foundation was making “undercut” the good works of the Foundation itself. As part of the reporter’s case against the investment practices of the Foundation, the Foundation’s investment in Diageo was cited. Somehow, it is implied, an investment in Diageo undercuts the good works of the foundation. At no point is it explained in the article why this inference should be viewed as true. It is merely stated as a fact.

Certainly there’s no mention of the millions of dollars that Diageo spends against its Water of Life program, nor the tens of millions it spends in responsible drinking campaigns - both facts which seem to undercut the premise of the reporter’s point. Interestingly, neither was there any sort of mention of what sort of investments the parent company of the Times makes, not to mention what sort of advertising the LA Times accepts. In fact, I wonder if one were to go to the LA Times web site to read the aforementioned article what sort of advertising they might find.

After working the issue of how flavored beers are classified for a few years now, I find, unfortunately, that most of what I read about the issue is incorrect.  Journalists making obvious mistakes, such as how these products are manufactured.  Worse yet, they seem to swallow whatever the anti-alcohol advocates feed them, and do not do their own research.  Imagine my surprise when I read the following article that asks the questions that deserve to be, but as of yet, have not been asked by the media establishment.  I was even more surprised to learn that it was a college paper, the University of California, San Diego.  I applaud the author for his research into this subject and his unbiased approach.  I can only hope that he takes it with him where ever he lands after college.

Flipping channels last weekend I came across one of the newest and most popular reality TV shows - The Girls Next Door - about the lives of Hugh Heffner’s three live-in girlfriends - Holly Madison (25), Bridget Marquardt (31) and Kendra Wilkinson (21).  The episode happened to be filmed the day of a Captain Morgan Original Spiced Rum print ad photo shoot.  Although all three of Heff’s lady friends were to be included in the shoot, ultimately, only two could participate when it was revealed that the Diageo marketing code required all models and actors involved in our advertising to be at least 25 years of age. 

Much to her chagrin, Kendra, the tomboy of the group, is only 21 and would not be allowed to participate in the shoot.  Although she voiced her disappointment and frustration several times - the crew stuck to their guns and stuck by the Diageo marketing code.

As a Diageo employee I hear a lot about our marketing code and how it is the toughest in the industry. By happenstance, I was able to see the policy at work and so did hundreds of thousands of other consumers watching that show. Though it may seem a minor thing to some, it made me proud that our company goes to such lengths to ensure that their marketing practices are above reproach. Though Miss Wilkinson participated in another modeling opportunity later in the episode, the message of the Captain’s commitment to responsibility came through loud and clear. Be responsible. Captain’s Orders!

It’s pretty frustrating when some of the most “reputable” scientific institutions in our country lead us astray…and then, when their methodology is debunked, they correct themselves…but they do so very quietly. 

Case in point: The American Medical Association published an erroneous survey in March 2006 about underage drinking claiming that girls were drinking excessively on college spring break tours.  A shocking finding…if it were true. 

The study was a non-random Internet poll of volunteers.  And of those volunteers, only about 27% had even BEEN on spring break! Nevertheless, the Associated Press jumped on it without even a question as to the validity of the methodology and proceeded to run a story on the “findings” shortly after the release of the study. 

 Fortunately, we have watchdogs out there like the American Association for Public Opinion Research and Mystery Pollster that caught this study and exposed the AMA for their deceptive findings. Though the AMA eventually modified its release, the amendments were hardly publicized and, of course, garnered MUCH less attention then the initial study.

You may be asking yourself why I’m writing about this in January of 2007, nearly one year later.I’ll tell you why: the drama goes on. 

The Columbia Journalism Review and the AP have been bickering over the AP’s role in perpetuating this bogus study on the pages of the Review.  Last month, the CJR wrote a “dart” criticizing the AP’s “delayed reaction and impaired judgment” on this study.  The latest chapter unfolds in the January/February issue in which the AP responds in a Letter to the Editor (which, unfortunately, isn’t available online) to the CJR’s criticism of how the AP handled the situation.

I’m not going to get into all of the details of the mud-slinging, but the point I want to make is that here we not only have a case of a special interest organization using dubious data to further its own agenda, but we also have an example of the AP, one of the most preeminent news wires in this country, adding fuel to the fire.

I don’t want to blame the individual reporter or bureau that issued the story because I think this is really a larger issue that I’ve seen in assorted news organizations across the country.  As budgets are cut and staffing is reduced, we - the consumers of news - are often the victims of misinformation.    

Have you ever wondered what goes through the minds of people that feel so strongly on an issue that they just make things up? The world is full of well-intentioned folks who just can’t look at an issue and dispassionately articulate the facts.

Now comes the Chicago Tribune with an article about the “Top 10 Dubious Data List,” a fascinating collection of outrageous misinformation that during 2006 was laid before the public. Not surprisingly to those of us who have been in the alcohol business for longer than 10 minutes, some of the most outrageous, egregious “dubious” honors center on alcohol. Now don’t get me wrong, there are problems with irresponsible use of alcohol and lots of people in the industry, in not-for-profits, and in the government, are working hard to combat them. But hey, why can’t these characters just tell things straight?
Read on:

Low and behold, a number of the past year’s top media fabrications listed in the “Top 10 Dubious Data” list concerned alcohol and underage drinking. Take a look:

• “The media gushed over an AP report that “all but confirm[ed] what goes on in those `Girls Gone Wild’ spring-break videos:” young women blacking out from drinking, having sex with more than one partner and so forth. Actually, the American Medical Association study was a non-random Internet poll of volunteers, of which only 27 percent had been on spring break.”

• “The Wall Street Journal misreported that teenage girls increased alcohol consumption more than 30 percent from 1999 to 2004. The study’s mistake was that it treated, for example, a 6-ounce glass of alcohol the same as an ounce of alcohol mixed with 5 ounces of orange juice. U.S. government studies show that binge drinking by college-age women has remained steady since 1980 and daily drinking has been declining since 2002.”

• “Forbes and The New York Times bit on a study by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, which claimed that the alcohol industry reaped almost $50 billion, or half its revenue, from underage drinkers. To buy that, you have to believe that teen drinkers consume as much as all adult drinkers combined, and that half of all teens consume more than 1,000 drinks a year, or almost three daily.”

Three cheers to the Chicago Tribune for getting out the facts. We need more reporters and news organizations to ask better questions before they just publish whatever these guys have to say. They sure ask me lots of questions!

If you want any detail on any of these three studies, just let me know. And, as always, anyone associated with any of the three items mentioned is welcome to post a response, a defense, an apologia right here at www.NoBullBar.com
guy

It is not everyday that I go out of my way give one of our competitors a pat on the back, but I want to commend Anheuser-Busch for backing a new law taking effect this year in California that will allow free beer tastings at restaurant and bars. Of course, the necessary limits will be placed on these free samplings but this is a great way for our customers to try new products.

While our wines and spirits have been sampled by consumers for a number of years, I think it simply makes sense that beer has all the same opportunities , especially since all alcohol drinks, when served with a standard size serving (12 oz beer, 5 oz wine, 1 and 1/2 oz spirits), contain the same amount of alcohol. There is no reason beer should be discriminated against. Diageo has a number of great-tasting drinks in the beer category including Guinness, Red Stripe and our flavored malt beverages like Smirnoff Twisted V and Smirnoff Raw Tea.  I’m glad to see that adult consumers in the  State of California can try some of our great brands for the first time in bars and restaurants thanks to this law. …and they can try some of A-B’s great brands too!

I’m all for providing consumers with choice and variety and I’m thrilled that Californians can now experiment a little more with their beers! 

Cheers!

guy

Loyal readers of NoBullBar.com know that CASA has a long history of playing fast and loose with the facts.  And just last week, Susan Foster showed that they’re at it again.

She was quoted in the New York Daily News saying, “’We’re seeing an increase in rates of drinking to get drunk” among teens.

Sounds terrible!  And it would be…if it were true.

Susan based her comments on The National Youth Risk Behavior Survey conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services, a federal agency that is a part of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.  The study was conducted from 1991-2005 with a representative sample of 9th trough 12th grade students throughout the United States. 

It found NO CHANGE in episodic heavy drinking from 1991 to 2005.  In fact, they found a DECREASE from 1997 to 2005 in heaving drinking behavior and the trend was consistent when they looked at lifetime alcohol use, current alcohol use and use of alcohol on school property.

Susan, CASA: I encourage you to join us in being part of the SOLUTION.  It’s about time you stop twisting the facts to support your political agenda.

As always, we invite Susan to post her comments on why she distorts these and other facts right here on www.NoBullBar.com

Cheers!

guy

How many times have you said it?

How many times have you heard others say it?

“They’re just teenagers.”  Or, “Kids will be kids, it’s all part of growing up.”

What am I talking about?  Parents and other adults who view underage/teen drinking as little more than a right of passage that little can or really should be done to curtail.

Unfortunately, still far too often, some of these parents end up being “innocent” bystanders as their children fall victim to an incident (and often are seriously injured or even killed) in which alcohol was a major factor.

I live in CT and for the past couple of years have watched a debate unfold in the State Legislature that, this year, finally culminated with enactment of the so-called House Party law that provides for fines and penalties for children caught possessing alcohol on private property and for the parents/adults who condone it.

The amazing thing was that it took so long for this rather simple effort at deterrence to become law.  Years of debate about privacy rights, the ability of an adult to allow otherwise illegal activity … so long as it was within the confines of their private property. Fears of overzealous law enforcement officials who would immediately overstep their bounds if given this new tool to fight underage drinking … and the list of so-called arguments went on … and on … and on.

If an adult kills a child (or anyone for that matter) in a drunk driving accident we – rightfully – call for the most severe penalties to be imposed.

When a child is killed two weeks before graduating from High School because of an accident involving alcohol we call it (again, rightfully) an avoidable tragedy.

When children drink alcohol we immediately blame those who manufacturer and sell it, calling them reckless and irresponsible.

But when we say we want to penalize adults who knowingly and willfully allow underage drinking in their homes we have to wring our hands and debate “privacy rights.”

There are still far too many states out there that have not even taken this limited action to give local law enforcement officials a much-needed tool to fight underage drinking.

Were it not for the fact that so many parents still harbor the view that “it’s okay, as long as they do it in my house” we might not need these laws in the first place … but we do, and we need them now.

Look for yourself.�� Many government agencies, state driver�?Ts manuals, and consumer groups all tell the same thing �?’ a standard drink of either beer, wine or spirits has the same amount of alcohol.�� This is clearly indicated in the New York State driver�?Ts manual:

Different types of drinks do not affect you differently. It is the amount of alcohol you consume, not whether it is in beer, wine or wine cooler, or liquor, that raises your BAC and lowers your driving ability. These drinks contain about the same amount of alcohol - 1�? ounces of liquor, 5 ounces of wine, 12 ounces of beer, and 12 ounces of wine cooler. None is “safer to drink” than the others. Whether through brewing, fermenting, or distilling, this alcohol will have the same chemical characteristics even though the taste is different.

There is something else that people will agree on.�� A breathalyzer can�?Tt tell what kind of beverage alcohol a person drinks.�� If one person drank a beer, glass of wine or shot of spirits �?’ an equivalent amount of alcohol �?’ and blew into a breathalyzer, the only information that could be discerned is the amount of alcohol in that person�?Ts system.

The tax rate on distilled spirits is almost three times the rate on table wine and over two times the rate on beer.�� So, why is it that equivalent amounts of alcohol in different forms are not taxed at the same rate?�� The discrepancy in the relative tax rates of these products just furthers the misperception that spirits are hard liquor and that beer is the drink of moderation.�� In the breathalyzer tube, it is all the same �?’ alcohol.
Don�?Tt be fooled.�� Spirits aren�?Tt harder than beer or wine, just more concentrated, and a standard serving of each contains the same amount of alcohol.�� There is moderate behavior not a beverage of moderation.�� Maybe if the respective taxes were more in line, the equivalent nature of these products would be clearer.