Were Spykes and Wide Eye Bad Products?

Were Spykes and Wide Eye bad products? Do you think they were marketed in objectionable or misleading ways? Do you think companies should be allowed to market other caffeinated alcoholic beverages?

SOLUTION

Spykes and Wide Eye were innovative products. Spykes was an effort by Anheuser-Busch to compete for younger drinkers increasingly attracted to novel distilled spirits products. Wide Eye, a caffeinated schnapps beverage was an example. Both sought to capitalize on market trends including caffeination, sweet and fruity flavors, and unconventional ingredients such as ginseng, guarana, and ginkgo biloba. Sales of products in the caffeinated alcoholic beverage category were growing and several dozen brands had appeared. These were “good” products in the sense that they fulfilled consumer needs.

The very traits that made Spykes, Wide-Eye, and the others “good” in the market stigmatized them among antialcohol crusaders. Features that attracted young drinkers such as inviting flavors, small containers, large containers, garish container labels, and Web sites with adolescent themes and imagery were red flags. The use of caffeine was another red flag. Its stimulant action was said to mask impairment for inexperienced drinkers. In short, anything that made this new alcoholic beverage alluring to its target audience was damning to antialcohol groups.

Soon caffeinated alcoholic beverages were demonized in the media. Politicians attacked their manufacturers and passed laws restricting or prohibiting their use. In 2009 the Food and Drug Administration sent letters to 27 companies asking them to explain why caffeine was a safe ingredient in their products. Then in 2010 the agency sent letters to four manufacturers saying they had failed to show that caffeine was a safe ingredient and it was recommending that consumers avoid them. The companies were given 15 days to respond before the agency sought a court order to stop the sale of their caffeinated products. All four discontinued their products or reformulated them without caffeine.

Reason magazine described the assault on these drinks as a “moral panic” brought on by “the guardians of public health and morals” who were offended by their “popularity among young partiers.” It pointed out that mixing caffeine and alcohol is an old custom. Adults drink coffee cocktails and pour whisky or liqueurs into after-dinner coffee. The only thing offensive about Spykes, Wide-Eye, and Four Loko, it argued, was their marketing to young adults who were condescendingly taken as especially innocent and reckless.

So were Spykes, Wide-Eye, and the others “bad” products? Based on their overall market performance the answer is no. Based on the consequences for their corporate parents the answer is yes. Anheuser-Busch, Constellation Brands, Phusion Projects, and other companies were subject to considerable criticism followed by regulatory action and, ultimately, the need to discontinue or reformulate brands. For those who are critical of youth alcohol consumption they were “bad” products because their social impact was said to be negative. Their abuse was associated with rapes, assaults, drunken driving, and fatal accidents.

Should the companies be allowed to market other caffeinated alcoholic beverages? In practice they will not because the Food and Drug Administration opposes them. However, the main problem is not caffeine in beverages. It is marketing imaginative products to youthful drinkers. When Phusion Projects removed the caffeine from Four Loko and remarketed it attacks continued. Four Loko comes in sweet flavors and is sold in colorful 23.5 ounce cans. Critics call it “blackout in a can,” “cocaine in a can,” and even “killer in a can.” Its marketing is said to encourage underage drinking. Although it no longer contains caffeine, its days may be numbered. Similar attacks have been mounted on Blast, a new fruit-flavored malt beverage from Pabst that contains 12 percent alcohol by volume and comes in a 23.5 ounce can. It has been derided by attorneys general from several states as a “binge in a can.” There is a perennial war between product innovation and social standards enforced by the antialcohol coalition.