 |
| Photo @ Seattle Weekly Blogs |
Article Here.
Society says "Innovative? Yes! Can we have it? No!"
Four-Loko? Society says, "Creative People Must be Stopped!"
Article Here.
Society says "Innovative? Yes! Can we have it? No!"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yes, the reactions to this product are quite amazing to me. Drinks like this have been around for a very long time (think Rum and Coke), and yet, this company came along, put it all in one can (caffeine upper and alcohol downer), added some color and flavoring, packaged it in a new way, threw some marketing dollars behind it and is now under a tremendous amount of scrutiny because some college kids went overboard with it (and my assumption is that because of the wild colors, it was easy to determine that FourLoko was the main source of their reason for passing out).
ReplyDeleteFrom what I have heard/read, the company has been 100% compliant with the governing bodies, and yet, they are still facing outrage from society. I guess in this case, the societal constraints are too hard to beat. It seems like creativity and innovation lost in this battle. Sad.
I think this is ridiculous. Putting the two together (as Sparks did many years ago, and now no longer has caffeine for the same reason) was creative. People will do it anyway, and for that matter will continue to do with, but it was a great idea for a company to have it already done for the consumer. In Australia, they have all the premade drinks in a can already, like Bundaburg Rum and Jack Daniels. The scrutiny for college kids going crazy isn’t a new thing because of four loco. It will happen when the drink is gone as college kids will continue to drink.
ReplyDeleteHowever, like you say in class, creative people must be stopped. So Four Loco has to do away with the differentiating factors, such as caffeine and the other 2 ingredients, and back to a normal beverage. Even with this particular product gone, people will continue to mix caffeine and alcohol (Red Bull and Vodka, Liquor and Coke). Just sad that people’s innovations continue to get rejected.
The reason that Four Loko was banned was because the 21 year old college student who died drank two cans before crashing her car into a telephone poll. I have heard stories of 21 year old college students dying in car accidents since the day I could read. This was due to irresponsible behavior, not the drink itself. She must have had some sort of chemical imbalance that did not sit well with the beverage.
ReplyDeleteI was curious to see what the effects were and if a normal person (clearly NOT imbalanced or irresponsible) could handle it. So I took on the challenge. Over Thanksgiving Break, my friends and I went to the gas station and bought out the remainder of Four Loko cans left in the store....the last of a dying breed. It tasted like bad Kool-Aid and was not very appetizing. Other than that, the effects were equivalent to drinking a gin and tonic.
I am starting to wonder if this was just a marketing ploy to bring Four Loko back into the spotlight in consumers minds? It sure worked for us.
Here's an article discussing the phenomena I described above: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/11/18/2010-11-18_partyers_rush_to_stock_up_on_four_loko_before_it_gets_pulled_from_shelves_after_.html
ReplyDeleteEven though this company combined a drink that college students and other young people drink on a regualr basis, they must assume the riska associated with this product. While mixing stimulants and alcohol is customsary among young people, it is still not completely safe. By selling a product that combines these two, Four Loco is not only condoning the mix but promoting it as well. I dont think it is innovative at all and should not be considered such.
ReplyDeleteTo pull a product off the shelves solely due to a few young people's illegal behavior is ridiculous. The company needs to stress the strength of the drink and place a warning that the consumer is not to drink more than one can per day (similar to warnings on Red Bull / Monster cans). While traveling in Europe in 2000 I was first introduced to Red Bull vodka and heard stories that the drink was causing students to overdose when consumed in large quantities and mixed with any additional stimulants. Our country keeps stifling innovation and attempting to dicate what we as consumers should eat and drink. The company should sell the product in a reasonable size (12 oz) if 24 is too strong for the average consumer. There are many alernatives to just simply pulling the product off the shelves. I remember reading an article from the 1990's where spray paint was banned in Chicago due to an increase in grafitti. Banning things is not the answer!
ReplyDeleteI personally think this is not about regulation killing innovation but about having good lawyers or having the balls to fight. I also accept what Krystal suggested about this being a marketing gimmick.
ReplyDeleteIf it can be concluded by conducting randomized trials (a good example is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zvrGiPkVcs) that statistically FourLoko does not have an adverse reaction then the company has a strong argument to sell. After all we do smoke ciggaretts, and we all know how healthy that is.
If I am truly an innovative company I would react to the regulation aggressively by innovating my product. For example, I could lower the caffein level to the point that the trials give a positive response. I could sell the caffein ingredient as a separate product under the same brand. Users can then mix the caffein with alcohol if they want and hence bear the responsibility of the consequences. Lastly, what is wrong with labeling that suggests the negative impact of the product usage. Again, we still consume cigarettes by the tones even when there is strong labeling added to each pack.
This is a very interesting discussion because most people view regulation as a binary response to an innovative idea. I personally do not see it as such , because you can work with regulatory authorities to frame your product.
If your product is innovative it is also your responsibility to work with regulatory authorities to ensure that they have a good understanding about it.
If you look back into history you will find that many people create products that knowingly harm people. They do so for many reasons but the point is that its human nature to act in self-interest. Hence, I am for regulatory bodies that ensure consumer safety. The role of FDA is an interesting discussion that can be the topic for a book.
The bottom line is being innovative does not give you the right to be James Bond 007. Anything and everything you do is still not acceptable because you have responsibilities to society.
Don't blame the drink, blame the fool that got in the car after consuming the beverage. Then again, they are putting other people at risk too and I think this is the underlying issue with the drink.
ReplyDeleteSociety says yes, because society is an idiot.
I think this is a great example of the confusion that society can pull with innovation. I'm sure that Four Loko's market research concluded that mixing caffiene and alcohol was a market need, and they innovated with flavoring, packaging, and distribution to meet that market need. But, now, society has a different stance - that although they wanted this drink, they think it is dangerous. Seems to me like society is fickle. But, I think society has other ways to deal with this issue than cramp innovation. We should not be driving a car when drinking, or not operating machinery when taking medicine, or know the Surgeon General warning when smoking. So, the drink could still be okay for 90% of folks, but with a warning for the other 10%.
ReplyDeleteI agree that a warning label would have been enough of a reaction to this. I think it's pretty ridiculous to ban the drink, especially considering that people have been drinking similar drinks for years and will continue to do so. However, I do also think that this really wasn't that innovative of a product to begin with. As we all said, Sparks has a similar product and people have been drinking redbull and vodka for a long time. I think the company took a trend and attempted to capitalize on it, but I wouldn't say they did anything particularly innovative.
ReplyDeleteThere are always people who want to stop innovation. It just falls to the creative people to find more creative ways to overcome the hurdles..
ReplyDeleteWhat say a partitioned can with two openings? Open both separately, but pour/drink it as one drink? :)
To me, this rides a line that I haven't quite nailed down. Yes, it is a product category that people have been drinking for a while (Sparx, Bud E, Red Bull/Vodka) without any largely known issues or mass criticism. And then Four Loko comes around, stretching the limits of the category, and all of the sudden the category reaches a tipping point that puts pressure on Congress as well as the beverage industry. I do believe Four Loko has become a scape goat, but additionally I am glad that the FDA is out there regulating industry standards. As long as the FDA maintains a balance of letting the market decide what products its consumes (either healthily, un-healthily, right or wrong), along with regulating clean food processing plants and tracking gross, deadly missuses of - I guess what the industry would call - food/beverage innovation.
ReplyDeleteWere the meat packing plants in the early 1900's "innovative?" Yes. Did these creative people need be regulated? Absolutely. Hence the founding of the FDA. Now one could make the argument that after enough people died from eating tainted meat, the market would self-regulate, stop eating their meat, and they would end up regulating themselves anyways. But to what expense? Only after 10 people die? 100? 1,000?
I am not saying that Four Loko is a product that people consume unaware of the risks - in fact, that is mostly its intrigue. However, regulations must exist and companies must play by the rules. After that, let the free market rule.
The libertarian in me hates me for saying this, but this drink should be illegal. A couple of weeks ago I had 2 four-lokos (the 12% from Cali) and this stuff is lethal. I have so many gaps in my memory from that night, which is very unlike me. I can only imagine the effects it would have on a small freshman in college. The FDA has standards to protect our health and they're just doing their job...
ReplyDeleteI'm going to have to second Jonathan's comment. Several weeks ago, I would have argued otherwise. However, in the past two weeks I have had two different Four Loko adventures. I returned to California for Thanksgiving break and procured a stash of the REAL Four Loko (12% as opposed to the 6% they sell here). I drank two in one hour and it was the equivalent of pushing a fast forward button on my life. Thinking this was a fluke I brought back eight bottles to share with my roommates later that week. The Four Loko won again, against all four grown men. In conclusion, even though this product has nothing illegal in it, it poses social problem with our youth.
ReplyDeleteAs an added point for Ilya's point, I feel like there is certain aspect of the mass production of the drink that makes it a potential danger to drinkers. It is surely true that college kids would probably find a substitute within a short time but isn't the regulators responsibility to make sure food and drinks are safe? Making the concoction in your dorm and drinking is one thing and the regulators turning away is another. Innovation is great but should be within the confines of safety.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I must admit that all this talk has me very curious to try it though!
This product has been wildly popular amongst a subset of society - mainly younger people who aren't too concerned about what the stimulants and alcohol are doing to their body. It's good to provide some paramaters to reduce the harmfulness of this beverage. Not all innovations are beneficial to society, but the are nonetheless creative solutions to user needs. The controversy surrounding the drink does make me think twice before drinking it. I think it is a wise business decision to change their ingredient mix.
ReplyDeleteIndeed creativity took a hit with this ruling. The creative product FourLoko will lose all its appeal by changing the "special"/lethal formula. This will inevitably lead to a "New Coke" situation for FourLoko. Rather than laying blame on FourLoko I wonder if we may have missed the mark and could have placed personal blame on those who failed to practice self control. Maybe self control is too much to ask from 18 year olds, so we then turn to the foolishness of those who supplied or sold the FourLoko that created this dibacle.
ReplyDeleteIf we were to place blame on FourLoko I would point to the massive cans. Those must be at least 3 beer's worth of alcohol. Does selling in that size make sense from a business perspective? Could you charge a similar price for a normal size can thus creating an economic decision for consumers.