Liquor Control Board ads remain contentious issue
To government watchdogs, not all public dollars shelled out for advertising are created equal.
When the state spent $5.8 million to promote Pennsylvania tourism last year, it met with barely a whisper from lawmakers.
But when it was revealed the state Liquor Control Board spent that amount to tout its wines and spirits, critics howled.
Now a Cumberland County lawmaker wants a disclaimer on LCB ads.
“I find the PLCB ads to be particularly troublesome, because if you see them when they come on TV ... it just says ‘Fine Wine and Good Spirits,' ” said state Rep. Stephen Bloom, R-Carlisle. “It doesn't say ‘Pennsylvania state government.' For me, that's a particularly troubling instance of Pennsylvania taxpayers probably not realizing they paid for that ad.”
The LCB, however, said its customers pay for the advertising through liquor sales.
The LCB and its supporters say advertising products sold in its more than 600 stores — it posted sales topping $2 billion — is good business.
“We are competing for people's limited discretionary income with other retailers,” said LCB spokeswoman Stacy Kriedeman.
A 30-second television commercial that aired last spring touted Chairman's Selection wines, highly rated but limited quantity wines sold at deep discounts.
“Choosing wine can be confusing,” the male voice-over said as bottles of wine slid into view. “Relax. Choose a Chairman's Selection wine from PA Wine and Spirits stores.”
A print ad that ran in newspapers was headlined “Wine Without the Worry” and pictured four Chairman's Selection wines, their prices and a smartphone-scannable code for more details.
Records show the LCB spent $620,944 buying airtime for TV advertising and $606,886 in magazines and newspapers in 2012-13. Digital billboards and signs cost $135,000. The figures don't include commission and creative development fees paid to Bala Cynwyd-based Harmelin Media.
For Republicans who want to turn the LCB's operations over to private industry, advertising to promote alcohol sales shows the agency's inherent conflict of interest with regulating sales and educating consumers, said Steve Miskin, spokesman for Majority Leader Mike Turzai, R-Bradford Woods.
That conflict does not exist in other state agencies, Miskin said.
State-store revenue pays for LCB advertising, liquor law enforcement and drug and alcohol programs. The money also funds educational programs, some aimed at young people, who critics say might be negatively influenced by LCB ads.
And the agency makes annual lump-sum payments to the state's general fund, which amounted to $80 million last year.
Pennsylvania and Utah are the only states that monopolize the wholesale and retail sales of wines and spirits.
Vickie Ashby, spokeswoman for the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, said the agency does not advertise because state law bars it from promoting alcohol consumption.
Wine and liquor sales in Utah, where the majority of residents are Mormon and generally don't drink alcohol, generated about $346.8 million in 2012-13.
“It's really perverse, advertising to promote drinking and gambling,” said Nathan Benefield, director of policy analysis for the conservative Harrisburg-based Commonwealth Foundation. “Government shouldn't be in these kind of businesses in the first place.”
Ads that promote the state's lottery have not received as much criticism.
Records show the state Department of Revenue spends more than six times as much as the LCB to advertise the lottery, posting about $36 million in ad spending for the 2012-13 fiscal year. That includes more than $2.6 million in commissions to the Pittsburgh-based ad agency MARC USA.
Lottery ads tout instant games, multistate jackpots and senior programs funded by proceeds.
State Rep. Joseph Markosek, D-Monroeville, says the state is in the business of selling alcohol and lottery tickets, so it has to do what's necessary for profitability.
“We need to act like a business when it comes to some of the techniques businesses use to increase their profits, i.e., advertising,” he said.
But Bloom makes a distinction between LCB and lottery advertising. He said lottery ads say “Pennsylvania” and feature the keystone-shaped logo, leaving little doubt about who paid for them.
Lottery records show that in 2012-13, the agency spent about $4.3 million on TV commercials promoting jackpots and instant lottery games and about $2.6 million extolling the benefits of the senior programs paid for by lottery sales. Nearly $6 million went to ads on billboards and bus shelters.
Those figures do not include commission or production costs.
Fans at Pittsburgh Steelers or Philadelphia Eagles games might notice a bright yellow sign that says “Play to Win!” with logos of eight games, including Mega Millions and Cash 5, atop the Pennsylvania Lottery logo. The lottery spent about $5.6 million on sponsorships such as signs and program ads at community and sporting events.
Advertising spending “is a fraction of sales, a fraction of profits for senior programs,” said Elizabeth Brassell, spokeswoman for the Revenue Department. “We believe it's an invaluable tool to get to that sales and profit.”
Beyond products, state agencies spend public money to advertise public benefit programs, voter referendums and state laws.
“You can't live in a bubble. You have to advertise and promote,” said Audrey Guskey, associate professor of marketing at Duquesne University. “You have to stay in the face of consumers. It's part of who we are as a society. It's part of being successful as a business.
Kari Andren is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Add Kari Andren to your Google+ circles.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Schools closed after state police ambush suspect reportedly sighted nearby
- Sheriff’s sale delayed for historic Conneaut Lake Park
- Sentencing in Johnstown car wash parking lot slaying delayed
- Supreme Court justices taunt each other over pornographic emails
- Corbett asks appointee to step down in email scandal
- Drug-tracking bill headed to Pa. governor’s desk
- Pennsylvania school performance scores stuck in limbo
- Attorneys want ‘Kids for Cash’ figure’s windfall frozen
- Customers rarely utilize right to cancel a contract