February 7, 2005

By Rebecca Gladden

This week, the American Medical Association website (amednews.com), featured an opinion piece entitled, "NASCAR and Alcohol Promotion: Gentlemen, Stop Your Engines."

The editorial's subtitle reveals the writer's position: "The auto racing circuit and others participating in the aggressive marketing of liquor toward youths must reverse course."

NASCAR's acceptance of so-called "hard liquor" sponsorships has been a source of controversy since the sudden reversal of it's time-honored ban last year.

In June 2004, NASCAR President Mike Helton discussed a request by alcohol mega-distributor Diageo to sponsor Roush Racing's #99 car: "Although we understand the sponsorship situation with the #99 entry," Helton said, "it is very unlikely at this time that we would change such a long-standing policy for this instance."

Nevertheless, just five months later, the sport's sanctioning body reversed itself and decided to allow distilled beverage sponsors.

"We felt the time was right to allow distilled spirits companies into NASCAR," Helton explained. "Attitudes have changed, and spirits companies have a long record of responsible advertising."

Although attitudes hadn't really changed significantly between June and November, NASCAR responded to criticism by insisting that any hard liquor advertising would be, in Mr. Helton's words, "strongly grounded in responsibility."

I'm not sure how they intend to imbue a giant Crown Royal decal on the side of a racecar with "responsibility", but it should be fun to watch them try.

The AMA column contends that, "NASCAR fans are intensely loyal to the sponsors of the sport, and of their favorite drivers." This is true to a point, but fans are not brainwashed droids incapable of independent thought. Many factors enter into a purchasing decision, including whether an item is a good value, performs as advertised, is recommended by a trusted friend or advisor, and perhaps most importantly, fulfills an existing need.

This is not to negate the effect of motorsports ads on consumers. With sponsorships for the big teams running upwards of $20 million a year, there is a room full of stockholders for every sponsor company demanding to see a return on their investment, and a room full of accountants creating bar graphs and pie charts as proof.

In other words, sponsor ads work.

The AMA article contends, "... Nextel got a growth spurt from NASCAR fans after it paid to sponsor the series' championship trophy. It's hard to imagine that hard-liquor sponsors would not see a similar boost."

The initial premise may be true, but the corollary is not particularly relevant to the issue of underage drinking. For one thing, owning a cell phone is by and large a legal activity. Underage drinking is not.

My sense is that most NASCAR fans who signed on with Nextel had already been cellphone users to some degree. They may have switched cell phone brands or service providers, but people use cellphones because they are convenient, make life easier, and are valuable in an emergency.

The goal of sponsorship is not necessarily to persuade consumers to purchase products that they do not want or need; the objective is brand recognition, brand choice, and brand loyalty once the decision to purchase has been made.

If you want a soda, choose Pepsi over Coke. If you want a beer, choose Budweiser over Coors. If you need hardware, choose Home Depot over Lowe's. Chances are, you're not going to get a fan to go to the doctor and ask for Viagra unless he needs it - no matter how big a Mark Martin fan he is. But if the need should arise, Viagra's sponsorship may influence a fan to request it over competing brands.

The concern raised by the AMA and others is whether NASCAR's alcohol policy will encourage underage drinking, not whether a teen will switch from Jim Beam to Johnny Walker. As the article states, "The hard-liquor-ad-festooned autos sends younger viewers a mixed message of fast cars, famous racers and drinking ..."

At issue is the core question: Why do teens drink?

According to The National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center, an organization sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other Federal agencies, many factors enter into the complex problem of underage drinking. The organization's website ( www.safeyouth.org) lists a number of risk factors for teen drinking, including:

• A history of aggressive, antisocial, or impulsive behaviors, restlessness, or easy distractibility in childhood;

• Mental or emotional problems such as anxiety or depression;

• A family history of alcoholism;

• Positive parental attitudes toward drinking;

• A home environment where teens do not receive adequate emotional support, are not monitored, face harsh or inconsistent discipline, or experience hostility and rejection;

• Association with peers who drink or view underage drinking as acceptable;

• And, a history of witnessing or experiencing physical abuse, sexual abuse, violent victimization or similar traumas growing up.

Underage drinking is a multifaceted problem with multiple etiologies. While advertising may be a contributing factor, it is not the cause.

In their study, "Alcohol Advertising and Alcohol Consumption by Adolescents," researchers Henry Saffer and Dhaval Dave performed a detailed economic analysis on the matter and drew some interesting conclusions. While they felt that advertising contributes to the problem of teen drinking, they concluded that, "complete elimination of alcohol advertising could reduce adolescent monthly alcohol participation from about 25 percent to about 21 percent." That's a 4 percent decline if all alcohol advertising was eliminated.

Perhaps of greater interest is their assertion that doubling the prices of alcoholic beverages (primarily beer and liquor) would reduce underage drinking by a whopping 28 percent.

For the record, I don't believe anyone under the age of 21 should drink, nor should they be encouraged to drink. But NASCAR has had beer sponsorships for many years, and teens are more likely to drink beer than hard liquor because of its lower cost and easier accessibility. As most teens know from their high school health or driver's education courses, a can of beer has roughly the same alcohol content as a shot of hard liquor, and will get you just as drunk.

Ultimately, anyone concerned with NASCAR's alcohol sponsorship policy would be better served focusing on the underlying societal issues that contribute to teen drinking.

Attacking liquor may be quicker, but it won't solve the problem.

The thoughts and ideas expressed by this writer or any other writer on Insider Racing News, are not necessarily the views of the staff and/or management of IRN. Although we may not always agree with what is said, we do feel it's our duty to give a voice to those who have something relevant to say about the sport of auto racing.

You Can Read Other Articles By Rebecca

---

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital

Finding cures for children with catastophic
illnesses through research and treatment

---

Music City Motorsports!
Free Shipping On Orders Over $50.00


return to top

---

---

---

---