CHOICE membership

Morality in Advertising & Marketing

The article following isn’t about putting alcohol kj on display but it is still I think important to protest against the message alcohol producers are trying to elicit with this “new” product… It is so closely linked to what softdrink looks like in bottles you would be right to have suspicions about the aim of doing this:

Wrong is wrong and no matter how you try to rationilise this behaviour just to increase profits is getting obscene eg like AMP and Banks.


100% right to question marketing this product in this packaging and with this strategy.

Drinking responsibly is to not make a game or competition out of it.

Hopefully you don’t keep these new brewed drinks in the fridge with the lemon squash bottles!

Hopefully the industry thinks so too! There is an election on the way.

Fruit ciders are easily consumed in quantity.

A whole range of “Sweet” wines flooded our local market when the drinking age was lowered from 21 to 18, bottle shops proliferated and pub trading hours in many states including Queensland were liberalised. Sunday trading etc.

back then though

  • a bottle of beer always looked like every other bottle of beer,
  • a bottle of wine always looked like every other bottle of wine,
  • and a flagon of wine looked, well, just like a big bottle of wine.
    A cask was only just a wine cask and Golden Gate did not taste like fruit juice.

I have no issue with the PET packaging, as many parts of the world also bottle beer in similar bottles. Many people also use soft drink PET when home brewing beer.

What is important is the labelling and its restricted availability…like any alcoholic drinks.


… as long as restricted availability doesn’t impinge on ‘privacy’ and ‘freedom’ (yeah - we just like to think we have them). Where I live, anyone who purchases alcohol must present government issued photographic ID which is scanned and looked up in the government system and compared against known offenders (they call it the banned drinkers register). If you pass, they will sell you alcohol - never a problem for me, I don’t have a ‘history’ on file. In addition, bottle shops and drive throughs (usually) have police in attendance who will ask for photo ID and where you are intending on consuming the alcohol you intend to purchase - the likelihood of being stopped and questioned is directly proportional to how much light your skin absorbs. I haven’t been stopped in a couple of years.


Seems pretty Shonky to me :lemon:


Alcohol producers are opposed to the introduction of pregnancy warnings on labels.

Sounds reminiscent of the tobacco industry’s tactics when plain packaging and warining labels were introduced on tobacco products.

Never let customers’ health get in the way of profits.

Thin edge of the wedge if you are in marketing or a producer. When the moral obligation of acknowledging possible risks to pregnancy gets approval. There is a long list of other morally or socially unacceptable risks arising from abuse or excessive consumption of alcohol. All could deserve equal recognition and prominence on the labels.

It’s a very different message that has been put compared to the fine print that accompanies similar advertising, drink in moderation, gamble responsibly, Etc.

Kogan got a slap on the wrist, well they lost a Court case re their EOFY advertising and that they ramped prices up and then took the advertised discount off the upped prices. No figure on the fine yet and I am going to go out on a limb and say that the ACCC will looook (a long look) for only the fine and there will be no compensation sought for those who were affected.


They aren’t opposed to the labelling, but to the colours. The argument is that some labels don’t use red ink in its production or use label paper other than white. These changes may impact on a minority of alcohol producers and possibly the more boutique wine producers which often have labels to make them stand out from the crowd.

1 Like

The warnings will now be mandatory.