See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/6537961

The influence of product packaging on young people's palatability rating for

RTDS and other alcoholic beverages

Article in Alcohol and Alcoholism · December 2006

DOI: 10.1093/alcalc/agl113 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

33 719

4 authors, including:

Peter Gates Jan Copeland

Macquarie University UNSW Sydney
64 PUBLICATIONS 2,108 CITATIONS 228 PUBLICATIONS 9,519 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Paul Dillon
UNSW Sydney
43 PUBLICATIONS 2,192 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Peter Gates on 03 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Alcohol and Alcoholism Advance Access published January 31, 2007
Alcohol & Alcoholism Page 1 of 5
doi:10.1093/alcalc/agl113, available online at www.alcalc.oxfordjournals.org

THE INFLUENCE OF PRODUCT PACKAGING ON YOUNG PEOPLE’S PALATABILITY

RATING FOR RTDs AND OTHER ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
PETER GATES1, JAN COPELAND1, RICHARD J. STEVENSON2 and PAUL DILLON1
1
The National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, The University of New South Wales, Australia and 2Macquarie University, Australia

(Received 14 November 2006; accepted 14 November 2006)

Abstract — Aims: To investigate the influence of product packaging of ready to drink (RTD), or pre-mixed drinks, and other alcoholic
and non-alcoholic beverages on the palatability ratings of adolescents and adults. Respondents were interviewed at their own schools or
a campus of the University of NSW. The experiment tested palatability ratings in blind and non-blind conditions with a selection of 12-
to 30-year-old Australians (140 adolescents and 210 adults) from seven private schools across NSW and students from the University of
NSW and Macquarie University. Methods: Beverage palatability was measured utilizing an interval ratio scale from 1 to 7 before and
after packaging was presented. Views on whether the beverage packaging was designed to appeal to the participant were also analysed.
Results: In general, the alcoholic beverage packaging was thought to be designed to appeal more to adults and palatability ratings sig-
nificantly increased in the non-blind conditions. In contrast, the Bacardi Breezer packaging was especially palatable to younger partici-
pants. Conclusions: Although most alcoholic beverage packaging was not of particular appeal to adolescents, some RTD beverages
may be appealing more to adolescents. Unlike other alcoholic products, the difference in palatability ratings for the Bacardi Breezer,
from blind to non-blind conditions, was greater for younger participants.

Downloaded from http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on May 31, 2013

INTRODUCTION focusing attention on product brand through the use of an
appropriate colour, size, language, and picture while increas-
Alcohol advertising has been shown to influence the drinking ing product availability. A recent UK case study on the effects
patterns and behaviours of Australian adolescents. Exposure of packaging found that as individual preferences become
to alcohol advertising and product packaging is associated more complex and diverse, packaging becomes the major
with increased intentions to drink and is predictive of early means of product branding (Hill and Tilley, 2002). Packaging
onset of alcohol consumption (Grube and Wallack, 1994; also provides a more permanent impression of product brand
Garfield et al., 2003; Ellickson, Collins, et al., 2005). The to the consumer (Casswell, 2004).
influence of product branding and packaging may have par- RTD alcohol is a beverage made with a spirit or wine base
ticular relevance when investigating ‘ready to drink’ (RTD) and a non-alcoholic drink, served in a pre-mixed package
beverages as the packaging of RTD drinks and non-alcoholic (Food Standards Australia and New Zealand, 2004). The
drinks such as sports and soft drinks are very similar Australian Divisions of General Practice (ADGP) has drawn
(MacKintosh et al., 1997). The majority of research inves- attention to the similarities between the packaging of RTD
tigating alcohol advertising focuses on television advertise- beverages and other soft drinks by presenting them with the
ments. There is relatively little research relating to the labels disguised demonstrating the difficulties in telling them
influence of RTD packaging on adolescents’ drinking apart (ADGP, 2003). In an associated news release the
behaviour and consumption patterns (Ellickson et al., 2005). ADGP chair described RTDs as a ‘serious threat to the health
Although alcoholic beverages are allegedly not marketed and well-being of the community’. Further, MacKintosh et al.
towards under-age drinkers, teenage exposure to Australian (1997) suggest that the RTD drinks are likely to be small and
alcohol advertising has been described as ‘significant and portable facilitating their illicit consumption among under-age
increasing’ (Carroll and Cramer, 1996; Casswell, 2004). In a drinkers.
New Zealand-based longitudinal study of 10–17 year olds The increasing purchasing power of young people is begin-
(n = 500) it was found that liking a particular beer brand before ning to effect consumer targeting strategies (Hill and Tilley,
reaching the age of 18 years contributed to the likelihood 2002). Marketing with effective brand design has been shown
of being a heavy drinker (Wyllie et al., 1998). In 2002, the to elicit important purchasing cues to consumers as young as
Australian alcohol industry spent 1.9 billion dollars on such 12 years (Achenreiner and John, 2003). Currently, there is
advertisements (the majority of which placed on television) some concern that RTD beverages are using marketing strat-
(Centre on Alcohol Marketing and Youth, 2004). However, egies that parallel non-alcoholic beverage advertisement
from American sales data, an estimated three to four times (Austin and Hust, 2005) and may appeal to a younger market
this amount was spent on point-of-sale promotions and pack- (Jackson et al., 2000). The Bacardi Breezer, by way of exam-
aging (TNS Media Intelligence, 2003). Point-of-purchase ple, is typically drunk from the bottle allowing opportunity for
marketing is increasingly important to sales and currently brand identification, and uses its brand to communicate qual-
plays a leading role in marketing campaigns (Schlossberg, ity by utilizing the trademark bat symbol and sophistication
1990; Prone, 1993). Lamb et al. (1999) suggest that the most through the elevated price (Jackson, 2000).
effective means of attracting attention to a product is by Given the increasing concern surrounding RTD alcohol
products; it is surprising that there is little research on the
effects of packaging on young consumer’s palatability ratings
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed at: Peter Gates, The
National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, The University of New South
for a range of alcoholic beverages. This paper focuses on
Wales, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia Tel: +61 9385 0269; Fax:+ 61 9385 the impact of packaging on alcoholic and non-alcoholic bever-
0222; E-mail: [email protected] age palatability. Of interest in particular is (i) whether the

The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Medical Council on Alcohol. All rights reserved
Page 2 of 5 P. GATES et al.

packaging of a variety of alcohol products, including RTD Jim Beam Bourbon—James B. Beam Distilling Co.,
alcohol, is thought to be designed to appeal to younger con- Kentucky, USA).
sumers, and (ii) the effects of a product’s packaging on palat- (ii) RTD’s (Watermelon Bacardi Breezer—Bacardi & Co.,
ability ratings between blind and non-blind conditions and for Bahamas, Caribbean, Chocolate Vodka Mudshake—
participant’s of differing age. Independent Distillers, UK, and Jim Beam Bourbon and
As the intention of alcoholic product packaging is to be Coke—Jim Beam Brands Co., USA)
more appealing to adults, it is expected that as age increases (iii) Soft drinks (Raspberry Fanta—Coca-Cola Co., NSW,
the appeal of RTD packaging, and those of the other alcoholic Australia, Coca Cola—Coca-Cola Co., NSW, Australia).
products, will increase as measured by the relevant palatability (iv) Milk drink (Moove Chocolate Milk—Dairy Farmers,
ratings. The opposite relationship is predicted between age NSW, Australia).
and palatability ratings for the non-alcoholic drinks. (v) Tooheys New Beer—Tooheys New Pty Ltd, NSW,
Australia.
(vi) Jacobs Creek Chardonnay—Orlando Wines, Barossa
Valley, South Australia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS (vii) Yeos Wintermelon Tea—YHS Pty Ltd, Senoko Way,
Singapore (a sweet, novel beverage to control for novelty
Participants among naı̈ve drinkers).
A convenience sample of 350 participants was recruited, 70
in each of five age groups (12–13, 14–15, 16–17, 18–23, and
24–30 years) spread evenly by gender. The entry criterion The base spirits were made up to the same percentage of
included being aged between 12 and 30 years, absence of med- alcohol content as their respective RTD, e.g. Bacardi was

Downloaded from http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on May 31, 2013

ication or relevant physical or emotional disorder, residence in prepared to give an alcohol concentration of 4.9%. The experi-
the Sydney metropolitan areas, and fluency in English. Ado- ment consisted of two components; blind tasting, followed by
lescent participants in the first three age groups (<18 years) non-blind tasting. Participants wore colour distorting goggles
were recruited from government and non-government schools and the beverage was served without identifying clues.
across Sydney. Adult participants (>18 years) were recruited Blinded participants smelt, sipped, and spat a 10 ml sample
by general newspaper advertisements, fliers, and word of of each of the set of beverages. Orange juice, a sucrose solu-
mouth. tion, and citric acid were utilized first to ensure the partici-
pants were using the palatability rating scales appropriately
following that the 12 stimuli were presented randomly. After
Materials each tasting the participant was asked to rate how they liked
Participants completed the interview in four different sections: the drink and if they tasted alcoholic content using common
firstly, the screening sheet, followed by response booklet, methodology in the preference field (e.g. Cardello et al.,
questionnaire, and breath analysis. 2000).
The screening sheet was used to ensure the participant did The second component, the non-blind testing, was identical
not have any infections or medications that may react with in all respects except the participants (i) were shown the pack-
alcohol and were between 12 and 30 years old and had paren- aging of the drink and not blinded in any way and (ii) after
tal consent (if under 18 years). repeating the ratings from blind tasting, were asked if they
The response booklet allowed for judgements on how thought the packaging was designed to appeal to them.
much the participants liked or disliked each drink, if they Following this, the questionnaire and breath analysis was
had ever drunk anything like it before, it’s alcoholic content, conducted.
and finally, if they could name the drink and the age range
and gender of those who would like the drink. Experiences Data analysis techniques
and attitudes about alcohol use were then collected in the The data in this study was analysed using SPSS (version 12.0).
questionnaire prior to a breath analysis to ensure no alcohol After confirming the data was normally distributed using
was swallowed during testing. descriptive statistics; the relationship between beverage
palatability rating scales, thoughts on packaging, and particip-
Procedure ant gender and age (as a continuous variable) were explored.
Univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized on
Once appropriate institutional ethical approval was gained, palatability ratings. Binary logistic regression was utilized in
and consent given (by participant and parent for adolescents), the case of packaging questions. In interpretation of these
participants were tested at their school, while adult partici- analyses, significant relationships were taken at P < 0.05.
pants were tested at NDARC. At the completion of the inter-
view the participants were thanked and received $AU30
(if over 18 years) or two movie tickets (if under 18 years) as
RESULTS
a contribution to travel and related expenses.
The experimental drinks were chosen to represent the
The 350 participants were mainly (94.3%) Australian born,
most popular RTDs, alcoholic beverages, and non-alcoholic
with most of the sample (67.1%) having had alcohol before,
beverages in NSW as listed below.
initiated at a mean age of 13.6 years.
(i) Spirits (Superior Bacardi—Bacardi & Co., Puerto Rico, A binary logistic regression was utilized on the non-blind
South America, Smirnoff Vodka—Smirnoff Co., USA, data to determine if age or gender were significant predictors
 INFLUENCE OF PRODUCT PACKAGING ON YOUNG PEOPLE’S PALATABILITY RATING Page 3 of 5
Table 1. Binary regression depicting the relationship between thinking the A univariate ANOVA on the mean difference in non-
beverage packaging was designed to appeal, and participant age alcoholic beverages utilizing age and gender as independent
95% variables was conducted. Of the non-alcoholic drinks, it was
–2 Log Odds Confidence found that the mean difference was significantly predicted
Beverage likelihood ratio interval P value b* by the participants’ age for Coke [R2 = 0.03, F(1,346) =
Coke N/A N/A N/A P = 0.1 N/A 10.43, P < 0.002], Fanta [R2 = 0.08, F(1,347) = 26.77,
Fanta 194.9 0.9 0.8–0.9 P < 0.001 0.2 P < 0.001], and chocolate milk [R2 = 0.03, F(1,347) = 10.77,
Chocolate milk 301.5 0.9 0.8–0.9 P < 0.001 0.2 P < 0.002] such that drink palatability was less appealing
Wintermelon tea 357.7 0.9 0.9–1.0 P < 0.03 0.1
Bacardi 380.5 1.2 1.1–1.2 P < 0.001 –0.2*
when presented with packaging by 0.05, 0.07, and 0.05 units,
Vodka 340.0 1.3 1.2–1.4 P < 0.001 –0.2* respectively, for every increase in age by 1 year. Gender was
Bourbon 407.6 1.1 1.0–1.1 P < 0.03 –0.1* not found to predict the mean difference scores for the non-
Breezer N/A N/A N/A P = 0.1 N/A alcoholic drinks. Thus, the hypothesis that younger partici-
Mudshake N/A N/A N/A P = 1.0 N/A pants would be more particularly influenced by the packaging
Bourbon and coke 395.9 1.1 1.0–1.1 P < 0.008 –0.1*
Beer 380.7 1.1 1.0–1.1 P < 0.04 –0.1* of non-alcoholic drinks was supported.
Wine 351.0 1.2 1.1–1.2 P < 0.001 –0.1* With the exception of vodka [R2 = 0.03, F(1,347) = 12.19,
P < 0.002], beer [R2 = 0.05, F(1,339) = 13.15, P < 0.001],
*Negative results indicate that participants were more likely to think the and the Bacardi Breezer [R2 = 0.02, F(1,346) = 7.69,
packaging was designed to appeal to them as their age increased.
P < 0.007], the mean difference of the alcoholic drinks was
not typically predicted by participant age. For the vodka and
of whether or not a participant thought a particular beverage beer, drink palatability were higher in the non-blind condition
packaging was designed to appeal to them. The ‘unsure’ by 0.07 and 0.06 units, respectively, for every increase in age

Downloaded from http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on May 31, 2013

response on thoughts on packaging appeal was excluded by 1 year. Thus, there was only partial support for the hypothe-
(number of exclusions was dependent on the beverage, mean sis that the alcoholic beverages would have a greater effect on
10.5%, SD = 3.3) from the analysis leaving only the ‘yes’ older participant’s palatability ratings. Palatability ratings for
and ‘no’ responses. In the case where both age and gender the Bacardi Breezer, however, were significantly lower in
were significant predictors a second model with their interac- the non-blind condition 0.05 U for every increase in age by
tion was explored. 1 year. Thus, contrary to expectancies, the Bacardi Breezer
Age was found to be a significant predictor of whether packaging was making the beverage less appealing with age.
participants thought a particular beverage packaging was In the same model, gender was found to be a significant
designed to appeal for almost every beverage. The signifi- predictor of the mean difference for beer only [R2 = 0.05,
cance and results of these tests are presented in Table 1. F(1,339) = 13.15, P < 0.001] such that male participants rated
These results support the hypothesis that younger partici- the drink as more palatable than females in the presence of the
pants would consider the packaging of non-alcoholic products packaging. However, an ANOVA model investigating the
to be designed to appeal to them and older participants mean difference ratings for beer including the predictors of
consider the packaging of alcoholic products to be designed age, gender, and their interaction showed no significant find-
to appeal to them. Responses on packaging design for the ings for age (P = 0.112), gender (P = 0.902), or their inter-
Coke (P = 0.08), Bacardi Breezer (P = 0.08), and Mudshake action (0.659). Thus, the above results were not dependent
(P = 1.0) did not vary with participants’ age. Thus, for these on participant gender.
beverages the hypothesis was not supported. A univariate ANOVA was utilized to determine if a
In the same model, the bourbon (odds ratio = 3.0, 95% CI = participant who thought the packaging of a beverage was
1.9–4.7, P < 0.001), beer (odds ratio = 3.5, 95% CI = 2.2–5.7, designed to appeal to them tended to like that beverage more
P < 0.001), and Bourbon and Coke (odds ratio = 3.7, 95% CI = than a participant who did not have this view, regardless of
2.3–5.9, P < 0.001) packaging was thought to be designed their palatability rating on taste alone. The non-blind pala-
to appeal to them by significantly more male participants. In tability ratings were analysed using ‘yes’ and ‘no’ responses
addition, Bacardi Breezer packaging was thought to be on packaging appeal and the blind palatability ratings as
designed to appeal by significantly (odds ratio = 0.4, 95% independent predictor variables.
CI = 0.2–0.8, P < 0.02) more females. The interaction For each of the beverages, the non-blind palatability rating
between age and gender was not found to be significant for was predicted by views on package appeal even when control-
beer (P = 0.1), bourbon (P = 0.7), Bourbon and Coke (P = ling for non-blind palatability ratings. The results of this anal-
0.5), or the Bacardi Breezer (P = 0.1). Thus, the results on ysis are presented in Table 2 below for each beverage. Thus,
the predictor of participant age (presented in Table 1) were the hypothesis that a participant who thought the packaging
not dependent on participant gender. of a beverage was designed to appeal to them tended to like
the same beverage more than a participant who did not hold
The effect of beverage packaging on palatability ratings that view was supported.
The difference between the mean palatability ratings between
blind and non-blind conditions reflects the effect of observing
a beverage’s packaging. This difference is, hereafter, referred DISCUSSION
to as the mean difference. Where the mean difference is
positive the ratings are higher in non-blind testing, hence This paper reports that, with the exception of some RTD
packaging is making the beverage more appealing and preparations, the alcoholic drink packaging was thought to
vice versa. be designed to appeal and was associated with an increase in
Page 4 of 5 P. GATES et al.
Table 2. The relationship between non-blind palatability ratings and wine, were viewed to be designed to appeal to adults and
thinking the beverage packaging was designed to appeal controlling for palatability ratings increased when the packaging was pre-
blind palatability ratings
sented. The opposite relationship was observed for the non-
Beverage R2 F statistic P value b* alcoholic products which appealed to adolescents. However,
Coke 0.04 F(1,328) = 10.22 0.003 –0.7* support was given to the concerns that some RTD alcoholic
Fanta 0.41 F(1,330) = 15.14 0.001 –0.8* product packaging, specifically the Bacardi Breezer (and the
Chocolate milk 0.28 F(1,319) = 35.96 0.001 –0.8* similarly appealing Mudshake), are marketed with packaging
Wintermelon tea 0.51 F(1,279) = 11.33 0.002 –0.6* that appeals to adolescents. Those under 18 years considered
Vodka 0.21 F(1,307) = 32.74 0.001 –1.0*
Bacardi 0.24 F(1,306) = 13.29 0.001 –0.6*
the Breezer to be designed to appeal to their age group.
Bourbon 0.39 F(1,312) = 21.83 0.001 –0.8* Further, for this product when packaging was revealed, pala-
Mudshake 0.36 F(1,308) = 24.84 0.001 –0.8* tability ratings increased disproportionately for adolescents
Breezer 0.29 F(1,309) = 5.61 0.02 –0.5* in comparison to adults.
Bourbon and coke 0.50 F(1,311) = 25.93 0.001 –0.8*
Wine 0.52 F(1,300) = 11.06 0.002 –0.6*
Beer 0.55 F(1,295) = 25.26 0.001 –0.8*

*Negative results indicate that the beverage non-blind palatability is found to REFERENCES
be higher if a participant thought the packaging was designed to appeal to
them, controlling for blind palatability ratings.
Achenreiner, G. B. and John, D. R. (2003) The meaning of brand
names to children: a developmental investigation. Journal of
palatability ratings for older participants. Similarly, for the Consumer Psychology 13, 205–219.
majority of non-alcoholic drinks, the packaging was thought Austin, E. W. and Hust, S. J. (2005) Targeting adolescents? The con-

Downloaded from http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on May 31, 2013

tent and frequency of alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage ads in
to be designed to appeal and was associated with an increase magazine and video formats November 1999–April 2000. Journal
in palatability ratings for younger participants. For most bev- of Health Communication 10, 769–785.
erages a participant’s gender was not associated with their Australian Divisions of General Practice (2003) Ready to Drink?
views on, and reactions to, beverage packaging. The appeal Alcopops and Youth Binge Drinking. Australian Divisions of
of packaging was positively related to palatability ratings. General Practice Ltd. Manuka, ACT.
Cardello, A., Schutz, H., Snow, C. et al. (2000). Predictions of
This observation was found to be independent of the palatab- food acceptance, consumption and satisfaction in specific eating
ility ratings from blind tasting. situations. Food Quality and Preference 11, 201–216.
There were some notable exceptions to these findings Carroll T. and Cramer, P. (1996) Advertising of Alcoholic Beverages
amongst the group of alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages in Australia: Expenditure and Exposure, 1991–1995. Department
of Human Services and Health, Sydney.
under analysis. The Bacardi Breezer packaging was found Casswell, S. (2004) Alcohol brands in young people’s lives:
to be appealing to the majority of participants of any age and new developments in marketing. Alcohol and Alcoholism 39,
this was especially the case if the participant was female. 471–476.
However, analysis on the effect of packaging on palatability Centre on Alcohol Marketing and Youth (2004). Youth Exposure to
ratings showed that older participants were actually less Alcohol Ads on Television, 2002: From 2001 to 2002, Alcohol’s
Adland Grew Vaster. The Center on Alcohol Marketing and
likely to find the Breezer more appealing in the presence of Youth, Washington DC.
the packaging. This was inconsistent to the general finding Duffy V. B., Cain, W. S. and Ferris, A. M. (1999) Measurement of
that alcoholic beverages have a bitter taste. These factors sensitivity to olfactory flavor: application in a study of aging
suggest that this alcohol packaging is disproportionately and dentures. Chemical senses 24, 671–677.
Ellickson, P. L., Collins, R. L., Hambarsoomians, K. et al. (2005)
appealing to younger participants. This finding is consistent Does alcohol advertising promote adolescent drinking? Results
with past research on the appeal of pictures, such as the from a longitudinal assessment. Addiction 100, 235–246.
bat symbol on the Breezer, and colours of the beverage, like Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (2004) Draft Assessment
the brighter colours on Breezer bottles, to adolescents Report Proposal P271 Liqueur Definition. FSANZ, Canberra.
(Jackson, 2000). Garfield, C. F., Chung, P. J. and Rathouz, P. J. (2003) Alcohol adver-
tising in magazines and youth readership. The Journal of the
This study focused on the effect of packaging but asked American Medical Association 289, 2424–2429.
only a single question on whether the participants thought Grube, J. W. and Wallack, L. (1994) Television beer advertising
that beverage packaging was designed to appeal to them. A and drinking knowledge, beliefs, and intentions among school
further limitation is that only people aged from 18 to 30 years children. American Journal of Public Health 84, 254–259.
Hill, H. and Tilley, J. (2002) Packaging of children’s breakfast cereal:
were included in the study and the full market for alcoholic manufacturers versus children. British Food Journal 104,
beverages, such as the spirits, which are said to be designed 766–777.
for an older market, were not tested. However, this age Hummel T., Barz, S., Pauli, E. et al. (1998) Chemosensory event-
range was chosen as it represented participants of varying related potentials change with age. Electroencephalography and
degrees of taste maturation, where it was considered a parti- clinical neurophysiology 108, 208–217.
Jackson, M., Hastings, G., Wheeler, C., et al. (2000) Marketing
cipant over 30 years would have a decreased sensitivity alcohol to young people: implications for industry regulation
to taste (Joseph et al., 1995; Hummel et al., 1998; Duffy and research policy. Addiction 95, 597–608.
et al., 1999). Jackson, N. (2000) ‘Operation beer bottle’: A Report on the Use of
Bylaws in New Zealand to Control the Possession and Consump-
Conclusion tion of Intoxicating Liquor in a Public Place. May. Crown Public
Health, Christchurch.
The present study investigated the effects of packaging for a Joseph C., Stevens, L., Cruz, A., et al. (1995) Taste sensitivity and
range of non-alcoholic and alcoholic beverages. The packag- aging: high incidence of decline revealed by repeated threshold
ing of most alcoholic products, including spirits, beer, and measures. Chemical Senses 20, 451–459.
 INFLUENCE OF PRODUCT PACKAGING ON YOUNG PEOPLE’S PALATABILITY RATING Page 5 of 5

Lamb, C. W., Hair, J. F. and McDaniel, C. (1999) Marketing, 5th edn. Schlossberg, H. (1990) Effective packaging ’talks’ to consumers.
South Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, Ohio. Marketing News 6–7.
Mackintosh, A. M., Hastings, G. B., Hughes, K. et al. (1997) Adoles- Taylor Nelson Sofres (2003) TNS Media Intelligence. Taylor Nelson
cent drinking-the role of designer drinks. Health Education 6, Sofres, New York.
213–224. Wyllie, A., Zhang, J. F. and Casswell, S. (1998) Responses
Prone, M. (1993) Package design has stronger ROI potential than to televised alcohol advertisements associated with drinking
many believe. Marketing News 13. behaviour of 10–17 year-olds. Addiction 93, 361–371.

Downloaded from http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on May 31, 2013

View publication stats