Please write response to the 2 classmates responses listed below. Responses should be at least 150 words. Elana wrote: Were Spyke and Wide-Eye bad products? Justify your answer.Both Spyke and Wide-Ey

Please write response to the 2 classmates responses listed below. Responses should be at least 150 words.

Elana wrote:

Were Spyke and Wide-Eye bad products? Justify your answer.

Both Spyke and Wide-Eye were alcoholic beverages that contained caffeine in them. The caffeine made the beverage have added addictive properties. This makes it more likely for people to become addicted to the product. Having just one drink of either Spyke or Wide-Eye is probably not bad though it usually led to people drinking more than they usually do and it would cause them to become more cognitively impaired then they would have normally become. So I do believe that it is a bad product because it will likely cause harm to either the person or others. 

Do you think these products were marketed in objectionable or misleading ways? Explain your answer.

The products were marketed slightly misleading. The caffeinated beverages were marketed as a boost of energy, rather than a drink that will give you a boost as well as cognitively impair you.  Their slogan was "When you party with the world’s first caffeinated schnapps it’ll seem like the rest of the world is sleepwalking through life.” This can give people the false impression that they will have all this energy after drinking the beverage. But is in not just like an ordinary energy drink, it also contains alcohol, which impairs your judgement and delays your overall response. 

If you were in charge of marketing Spyke and Wide-Eye, what approach would you have taken to promote the products, while mitigating the adverse publicity associated with them?

If I was in charge of marketing Spyke and Wide-Eye I would advertise it as a new drink option. "Tired of your average alcoholic beverage, try the new, fun, exhilarating and exciting Spyke/ Wide- Eye." This slogan would be reaching out to people who already drink, ideally adults over the age of 21. This slogan would broadcast that this a new and exciting product. 

Do you believe there is a need for government to place more restrictions on alcohol advertising? Why or why not? If so, what limits are needed and how would any restrictions that you propose meet the Central Hudson guidelines?

Based on all of the readings, I believe that there enough restrictions on alcohol advertisements. I believe that whether or not alcohol is advertised under aged children are going to be drinking. They are going to get their hands on alcohol from home or other locations due to social pressures, its just the cool thing to do. Advertisement just helps some people select which alcohol will be their poison. 

Reference: 

Steiner, J., Steiner, G. (2012). Business, Government, and Society: A Managerial Perspective, 13th Edition. [MBS Direct]. Retrieved from https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/#/books/1260364224Rep

Anthony wrote:

Were Spyke and Wide-Eye bad products? Justify your answer.

Spyke and Wide-Eye was not necessarily bad products, it should be fun, new, and the item was made as a feature of the organization's battle to appeal to "21 to 30-year-old" consumers. However, it was deceiving to clients trying to have them believe that caffeine infused alcohol would enable them to stay more wakeful and caution while drinking. The drink was Anheuser-Busch's attempt to remain pertinent and capitalize from the alcohol market the reality was they were losing the market to refined spirits. (Steiner and Steiner, 2015). The organization was clearly attempting to give its clients an item that spoke to their tastes. So as I would see it I don't think the item was awful.

Do you think these products were marketed in objectionable or misleading ways? Explain your answer.

Despite the fact that I feel that Spyke and Wide-Eye were not a bad products; the truth of the matter is Anheuser-Busch's publicizing effort pointed out undesirable negative attention to Spykes. In attempting to pull in the more youthful market by utilizing their sweet flavors, and the absence of age-check I do think there promoting was misleading. (Steiner and Steiner, 2015) Given these impacts, I trust it was reckless for Spykes to showcase the item the way they did, particularly since caffeinated drinks are so well known with adolescents and youthful grown-ups.

If you were in charge of marketing Spyke and Wide-Eye, what approach would you have taken to promote the products, while mitigating the adverse publicity associated with them?

On the off chance that I were accountable for the promoting for these products, the approach that ought to be taken is what the products are for, rather than making them conspicuous and alluring, they ought to be name properly and advertised appropriately to the correct group of customers. Rather than naming them has juice, or caffeinated drinks I would state it as a mild alcoholic product and express that when taken in vast sums it has an indistinguishable impacts from some other alcoholic item.

Do you believe there is a need for government to place more restrictions on alcohol advertising? Why or why not? If so, what limits are needed and how would any restrictions that you propose meet the Central Hudson guidelines?

Personally, I don't think we require more restrictions on alcohol advertising by the government, regardless of whether they change the limitations, I for one don't figure it would stop the underage drinking issue. I think now days so as to motivate young people to comprehend consciences, they should be instructed properly, much the same as all the tobacco advertisements we see, or even the texting and driver, were are they drinking and driving or the drinking underage commercials that are educating teenagers. So no I don't think we require more limitations, we require better training.

References

Steiner, J. F., & Steiner, G. A. (2012).Business, Government, and Society: A Managerial Perspective, Text, and Cases (13th ed.). New York, New York: McGraw Hill

Please label students name by responses.