This article was written for Spiritz, India’s most widely read alcohol industry magazine. I contribute a monthly column called Booze Abroad and the article is reprinted with their permission.

Booze Abroad

Breaking the Ban on TV Advertising in the US

Liquor industry has always worked under restriction on ATL advertising- either self-imposed or imposed upon. This prohibition leads to interesting and innovative ways to communicate about the brands to the consumers. Here is an interesting case study of using the media vehicles to promote a brand while prohibition loomed large in US.

friend and I were The restrictions today are also broadcast medium outlet audience watching a sports voluntary but limited to after composition must be at least 71.6 event on TV and 10:00 PM for TV and content per cent over legal drinking age, he looked at me dependent for radio. Above all, the which is 21 years of age throughout with surprise as the US. A a ad came In my view, any restrictions – on. “Hey, wait a minute,” he said, voluntary or imposed – on liquor “I thought it was against the law remain hypercritical, in as much as for liquor to advertise on TV in the and beer (mainly) do not face States.” comparable constraints in the US. My answer -- it never was against But that, my friends, is the story. the law. The ban on radio and television advertising for spirits The history behind (liquor) was voluntary and self- the ban imposed by the industry. In the When Prohibition in the US ended, mid-1990s, as head of marketing the distillers at the time got together for the US at Seagram Spirits and and set standards and practices to Wine, among my responsibilities avoid the reoccurrence of that event. and accomplishments was to break Between the do’s and don’ts, they the ban. voluntarily decided to ban radio

1414 the world of liquor March 2012 This article was written for Spiritz, India’s most widely read alcohol industry magazine. I contribute a monthly column called Booze Abroad and the article is reprinted with their permission.

advertising. When television came Enter marketing along, the self-imposed ban applied Usually marketing and public affairs to that medium as well. folks aren’t always on the same page. Meanwhile the wine and beer In this case, ending the voluntary Arthur Shapiro people did not feel the need nor did ban was a strong second item on they want to follow suit. the respective agendas -- more than spending was a fraction of just one of So over the next 50 to 60 years enough for an alliance. the major beer companies. people began to believe that 1) the The situation was complicated. From a brand-building standpoint, ban was a law and 2) spirits were The Seagram above the line (ATL) I really didn’t care about national characterized as “hard” while wine budget could not sustain a full-scale TV. I had neither illusion about, nor and beer were not. foray into broadcast advertising. In interest in, sponsoring the Super By the mid-90s this legacy hurt fact, total liquor industry advertising Bowl or some other mega event. Beer spirits in a number of ways. From marketing is based on mass appeal a marketing standpoint, access to and efforts. Spirits marketing is about important brand building media was reaching the correct (albeit smaller) denied. More painful, the hard vs. soft audience effectively. That meant our perception led to a lack of equivalency ultimate efforts needed to center on among alcohol types, particularly in local or cable TV and spot radio. the area of federal excise taxes, with The only way to accomplish these liquor taxed the most. objectives was to swing for the fences Seagram fought the tax and go for an end to the voluntary equivalency problem in a number ban. of ways. The most important was to promote the idea that a drink The challenges is a drink and 1.5 oz. of spirits is The first order of business was to equivalent to 12 oz. of beer and 5oz. approach other spirits manufacturers of wine. Despite the accuracy and informally and through DISCUS acceptance of this claim, it wasn’t (Distilled Spirits Council of the US). easy to get the message across. Even None of them initially were ready or print media was reluctant to run ads willing to step up to the plate. Thanks containing this concept. to the clout the public affairs executive Another effort aimed at TV had with the Seagram family and involved the introduction of Seagram The most important management, it was decided that we mixers (soft drinks). While it got the would do it alone. name across, the benefits were limited was to promote the Interestingly, not every one among to those brands carrying the name management was in love with the and it addressed the equivalency issue idea that a drink idea of adding Radio and TV to the only in part. Besides, it was a back spending mix. Lots of reasons – fear door approach to changing consumer is a drink and 1.5 of change, concern about increased and government perceptions. “How spending and, my personal favourite, can you claim to be equivalent oz. of spirits is “How do we know it will benefit our when they (wine and beer) are on brands?” Duh. Now we had a two front TV and you’re not? You’re more equivalent to 12 oz. war, breaking the ban and making than alcohol, you’re hard liquor.” dozens of presentations to show The public affairs people wanted of beer and 5oz. of that broadcast advertising works. more direct efforts to change the Ah, the power of fear of change. situation. wine (See the side bar story)

the world of liquor 15 March 2012 This article was written for Spiritz, India’s most widely read alcohol industry magazine. I contribute a monthly column called Booze Abroad and the article is reprinted with their permission.

Booze Abroad

Beware the media buyers While I never worked as a media buyer, throughout my career I’ve had many occasions to work with and manage the people responsible for placing advertisements in publications and on the air. In effect, these are the folks who work for an ad agency or media buying company and negotiate the rates. Too often, these buyers are myopic and push for formulas that do not always take into account the quality of the audience reached nor sound business practice. While it may have changed and perhaps doesn’t apply all over the world, I have found media buyers often tend to be enslaved by the cost per thousands (CPM) and lose sight of the forest for the trees. At Seagram, we had our own in-house media buying department. But, when it came to the break-the-ban wars, they were either missing in action or got in the way. As our efforts to get on the air progressed we had many defeats (“I can’t run your ads now but maybe at a later time”) and a few cherished victories. Breaking the ban was not enough; we needed a sustained presence on television. Among our allies was a cable program called The . Given the go ahead, the strategy This was perfect for us -- the audience was older, no issues with under was simple. It was called the “crawl age drinkers, affluent, sophisticated and premium quality drinkers. strategy” as in, we will slowly It was an ideal setting for and The Glenlivet. We even and quietly crawl into broadcast. sponsored a program on golf tips. No fanfare, no hoopla, no press One day the owner of the media company called and hesitantly conference, just do it – buy the space asked to see me. This could only mean a problem, since the usual and slowly expand from market to approach was to go through the media department. market before anyone notices and, by After exchanging pleasantries, I could see that the gentleman was the time they do, it will have been a agitated and it didn’t take long for him to blurt it out. Our esteemed fait accompli. media department had cut The Golf Channel from the new budget. Ha! When we started to crawl, we Considering they were the 2nd or 3rd station to take our ads, I was must have been wearing noisemakers partly perplexed and partly very angry. because the country heard us the very next day after the initial effort. On the spot, I called one of the buyers and asked about it. “I understand that we’ve cut The Golf Channel from the plans,” I politely Will you take our ads? asked. “How come?” Objectives, plans, authorization and “Well,” came the reply, “they are too expensive.” strategy in place, we needed a partner “What are you talking about?” I asked. – a broadcast media company or “Their CPM is twice as high as XYZ channel.” station that would run our ads. Our “Tell me,” I asked, “does XYZ take our advertising?” ads, by the way, were entertaining “No, they don’t,” was the answer. and humorous, very tasteful and “So if I got this straight…we are dropping one of the few channels effectively got our message across in who will take our ads because their cost per thousand is higher than a a low key manner. channel which will not take our ads. Is that correct?” Finding a media partner was He said, rather sheepishly, “I didn’t look at it that way…just extremely difficult. The explicit compared costs.” reason given was “I love the idea and They were put back on the schedule immediately. could use the new source of revenue but I don’t want to be the first to break

16 the world of liquor March 2012 This article was written for Spiritz, India’s most widely read alcohol industry magazine. I contribute a monthly column called Booze Abroad and the article is reprinted with their permission.

the voluntary ban… come see me the voluntary ban was Crown The Indian Ban on ATL after someone else breaks the ice.” Royal, a premium Canadian Activity Such courage. But, who can blame whiskey with a strong following It is not my place to comment on them? In the game of “follow the in the South and especially Texas. the Indian restrictions on alcohol money” there was not enough in The crown jewel in our portfolio, advertising. I don’t know enough it for them to justify the risk. the brand had a long pedigree and about the history, how the restrictions Additionally, I suspect that was known for its understated, came about and, simply put, it’s none there was a deep fear of losing clever and wry humor. of my business. beer revenue or otherwise being Here is an example from the But I can’t help it. punished if they accepted our print advertising: A ban on alcohol advertising ads and helped to break the ban. The ad we developed for makes no sense to me on many levels. All that managed to do, was to TV followed this same style. Government enjoys the revenue embolden us further. derived from the sale of these products In the midst of the battle yet, takes the posture that it likes the and out of the clear blue sky, I money so long as you don’t speak of received a phone call from one it publicly. of our distributors. He knew of a Second, do those who support the small local TV station, an affiliate ban actually believe that advertising of NBC in Corpus Christi, Texas will coerce people into drinking? It’s that wanted liquor ads on his naïve to assume that, in this day and station. Despite the fact that his age, advertising is that powerful. Guess audience was overwhelmingly what, sports fans? Social media, which teetotalers, the owner wanted governments cannot (and should our ads to run. Maybe it was the not) control, has far more impact on potential revenue, perhaps it was people’s behavior. his sense of fairness and the belief What advertising does is to promote that alcohol is alcohol, possibly It showed two dogs (elegant one brand over another. If you are it was his belief in free speech, Weimaraners) graduating from going to drink, then choose my brand whatever… we were on the air in dog obedience school. One dog on the basis of how I present myself to June 1996. came out holding a diploma in you, the drinking public. On the air its mouth and the voiceover said In those countries that permit ATL The brand we had chosen to break “obedience school graduate”. The spending for alcohol, an additional other entered holding a bottle benefit has been derived – the of whiskey by the advertising of responsible drinking drawstrings of the purple bag. messages and practices. In this case the voiceover said, At the same time and despite all of “valedictorian”. Throughout the the aforementioned, I fully recognize ad, the background music was that if advertising were permitted, “pomp and circumstances”. there would be an increase in the The ad ran over a weekend in costs associated with marketing and June 1996 and the reaction was way selling of some brands. Some brands beyond my expectation. It made would benefit and some brands would the front page of newspapers and suffer. the TV news people had a field day with the story. I gave dozens That’s why they call it free of interviews and had more than enterprise. my “15 minutes of fame”. So

the world of liquor 17 March 2012 This article was written for Spiritz, India’s most widely read alcohol industry magazine. I contribute a monthly column called Booze Abroad and the article is reprinted with their permission.

Booze Abroad

that President Clinton, in his What advertising Father’s Day address to the nation, was going to call for the liquor does is to promote industry to revert to the ban. Recognizing this as a political one brand over move in an election year and in consideration of the financial another. If you are and other support Seagram had given the President, management going to drink, decided to stay the course and continue to run the ads. Ignoring then choose my the President is in the province of the very rich or very stupid. brand on the basis I was also informed that I was to be interviewed by a TV network of how I present to tell our side of the story and, in effect, offer a rebuttal. What? I’m myself to you, the supposed to disagree with the President on national TV. Are you drinking public. In kidding me? No way have I come much for the “crawl-on-the-air” out of this looking anything less strategy. those countries than a fool. There is a chronology of events The PR folks and I decided that from 1996 on, by the Center for that permit ATL if we were going to do this – and Science in the Public Interest we had no choice, management (CSPI), and here’s how they spending for was adamant – I would stick to a reported it. (CSPI is a well known carefully worded script and not anti-alcohol group.) alcohol, an deviate one iota. To the chagrin of June -- Seagram airs an ad for the interviewer, I had three things Crown Royal Canadian Whiskey additional benefit to say and no matter what I was on KRIS-TV, an NBC affiliate in asked I stuck to those three things. Corpus Christi, Texas, breaking a has been derived After a while, the interviewer gave long-standing, voluntary industry up, the piece was cut short and my ban on broadcast liquor ads. The – the advertising rambling stayed the course of the ban had been in effect for 60 years main issues – alcohol is alcohol; on radio (since 1936) and 48 years of responsible why wine and beer are not liquor; (since 1948) on television. Local the ban was voluntary and right and national groups protest; Rep. drinking messages for its time; and, something Kennedy and more than a dozen about freedom of speech. No co-sponsors introduce the “Just and practices. counter attack on Clinton, no Say No Act” (HR 3644) to ban overt disagreement, no ranting liquor ads on radio and television and raving, just the facts and to maintain status quo. President our story. It made for a poor Clinton (in a Saturday radio rebuttal interview but avoiding a address) asks industry to go back confrontation was a good career to the ban. move. Sure enough, I was informed One of the lessons I learned

18 the world of liquor March 2012 This article was written for Spiritz, India’s most widely read alcohol industry magazine. I contribute a monthly column called Booze Abroad and the article is reprinted with their permission.

is that the broadcast news media Beer marketing The anti-alcohol forces continued want a story at any price, the more to shout about our sinfulness but to provocative the better. Without is based on mass no avail. One group even went so media training and preparation, far as to accuse us of deliberately one can easily allow good judgment appeal and efforts. attempting to subvert American to succumb to the stoplight and the youth into the perils of demon rum ego. In other words, be careful not Spirits marketing via the dogs and graduation. In to step on any portion of your own their view, the dog with a bottle of anatomy. is about reaching booze was valedictorian and this was our attempt to show how The aftermath the correct (albeit drinking leads to success! Give me There was, and still, is a happy a break! ending. At Seagram, we not only smaller) audience As to the other spirits companies stayed the course, but also expanded who avoided participation at the our TV efforts to three different effectively outset, they not only jumped on Crown royal advertising executions the bandwagon but a few claimed and ran them through local affiliates the effort as their idea. Success has of the networks and on Cable. More many parents. brands were added to the mix. The Even the doubters among my initial objective of radio advertising management became believers and that was tied into promotional broadcast advertising became a activity was met and exceeded. focal point of national and regional As to the brand itself, the news brand building efforts. coverage and press about the TV Today, after 10:00 PM on some ads resulted in incredible double- content appropriate television digit growth for Crown Royal. As programs, it is not at all unusual the coverage unfolded, wherever to see liquor ads. Lots of them.This the story ran the ad was shown. In includes national network TV. effect, we paid a fraction for the But, please don’t ask me to assess amount of coverage and exposure the quality of the ads. That’s a whole we received. Not the intent of the other matter. effort but a nice dividend. www.boozebusiness.com

the world of liquor 19 March 2012