Wednesday, October 25, 2006

So, what do you think, should the name justify the pulling of the product?


DALLAS — Convenience-store operator 7-Eleven Inc. is telling franchises to pull a high-caffeine drink from its shelves because of the product's name: Cocaine.

The company acted after getting complaints from parents of teens, who are a big part of the drink's target audience.

"Our merchandising team believes the product's name promotes an image which we didn't want to be associated with," said Margaret Chabris, a spokeswoman for 7-Eleven.

Cocaine comes in red cans, with the name spelled out in what are meant to resemble lines of white powder.

According to the label, each 8.4-fluid ounce can contains 280 milligrams of caffeine — more jolt than a cup of coffee, a can of Coca-Cola or the leading energy drink, Red Bull — but no cocaine.

The drink is made by Redux Beverages of Las Vegas, which markets it as "The legal alternative."

Hannah Kirby, the company's managing partner, said 7-Eleven stores didn't account for many sales of the drink. It hit shelves in New York and California in August and is now available in more than a half-dozen states, mostly in mom-and-pop convenience and liquor stores.

12 comments:

Scott said...

The man who taught me how to sail when I was 13 years old owned a boat named “Angel Dust”… I never had any desire to try the stuff.

Martin said...

You know they have those anti drug commercials about how there's never a wrong time to tell your kids to stay away from drugs, well here you go. Daddy says to little Jimmy: hey son, you know should stay away from the real cocaine cause it could really fuck your life up and waste all your money. Now don't drink anymore of that crap cause your 16 and all that caffeine will screw up your growth
No,so instead of the parents telling little jimmy they don't want him drinking that shit, either because they don't like the name or because it's got way too much caffeine in it for kids, or telling him that this drink and real deal cocaine are very different, they bitch and get it pulled. My response to those parents: SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Scott said...

I agree spending time with your children as apposed to spending the same time getting things banned seems a lot more affective.

dad-e~O said...

in poor taste, I think yes. but regulating morality is not the store (or the gov'tments) job. It's a parents

Anonymous said...

Ok, so I think it is time you all know that I have a conservative side. The conservative, I-am-a parent-and-teacher side of me says, wow that was a truly assinine name to use and the producers of that beverage are sorely lacking in any common sense. Time with kids is great. Parental guidance is great; but our kids live in a media and marketing saturated world and spend much more time out of thier parents immediate presence than in it. The fact is, to make cocaine seem frivilous and socially acceptable is not a good thing. To have kids make the analogy that lots of caffine is kinda the same feeling as cocaine, (which is not a far-off presumption) makes cocaine not only seem more appealing, but also less dangerous and less of "a big deal". I can just see the advertising campaigns all over TV, mags, & billboards if this product did well extolling the virtues of the consumption of "cocaine" and "be cool, drink cocaine" look at the pretty people in the club dancing and making mixers with "cocaine". PLEASE!!! I am glad that if the makers cannot exhibit any sense of social conscience, the sellers can. We restrict marketing of pornography, of cigarettes, of rated R movie tickets, etc,. etc. because we have deemed them "bad influences" or somehow harmful to our kids, I see no problem with a store choosing not to markert a product they perceive to be inappropriate. Would we be equally upset if they decided to pull Hustler or Playboy? Probably not.

Sickboy said...

I agree with PJ 100%

dad-e~O said...

good point D'
but it doesn't take a village.. it takes common sence, and a scence of responsibilty. It is trully incredible what kids pick up form the TV. but does that mean we should eliminate TV, where do you draw the line.
Aren't you the one who used to boycott Blockbuster cause they inforced their morality/religion on their cliental.

Anonymous said...

Good memory PJ, but again, that is a personal choice. That is what makes capitailm capitailsm. We all have choices. That includes vendors and distributors. It was their choice not to market "ubgodly" material, and my choice to not frequent them anymore as a result (I still don't), just as it is 7/11s choice not to sell cocaine, a choice with which i agree and will say "YAY 7/11." But to say parnets, who are consumers should not be able to voice there opinion or choose to make it known they won't be doing business with 7/11 if they continue to market it is, to me, extreme, and to act as though the marketing of such products will have no social impact, to me, is naive. In terms of the TV analogy, I monitor what my kid watches and don't have cable, but I am not silly enough to think he doesn't see it other places or that it doesn't influence him because I am parent and I say bad. Parents CAN'T do it on their own, it does take a village.

Scott said...

Maybe we should consider banning some books as well.

Scott said...

I guess what I am really getting at is I think it is good thing to have an example of right and wrong so close to the surface and so easily identifiable. So much other nastiness is so carefully hidden in our culture and its artifacts.

Sickboy said...

I hate it takes a village and BIllary Clinton.

OK, Im done.

dad-e~O said...

I think I see your point D' "congrats to 7/11 for making a decision not just about money" and "I will continue to spend my hard earned money in your establishment because of it".
OK?
i can agree with that.