The Rights And Wrongs of College-Colored Beer Cans

Anheuser-Busch, America's largest beer company, decided a while back to market some of its beers by distributing them in select region in cans colored to match the preeminent university in the region. For instance, some beer cans in the Los Angeles area, especially in stores near and on-campus, may be colored blue and gold to match UCLA's university colors. 27 designs made up its "Fan Cans" collection.

anheuser busch fan canssffembeddedprod affiliate56

Whether this boosts drinking among college students is unclear. No study has been done. College students, especially party drinkers, rarely put much thought into the color or shape of beer cans. Anheusar-Busch's effort to create loyalty among college drinkers may have no affect expect creating more colorful beer aisles in supermarkets.

But that does not mean some colleges are not protesting. Several universities have lobbied the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), whose primary mission is to monitor the market for alleged monopolies, to investigate Anheuser-Bushc for possible encouragement of underage drinking. The FTC issued a statement that there is "grave concern" that increased underage drinking may result from such cans and that the company "does not appear to be [engaging in] responsible activity." The logic seems absurd. Underage college students drink frequently, there is no evidence nor would common sense suggest that college-colored cans have any affect, and they are not children to be amused by such ploys. At most, colored cans may shift the consumer preference to Anheuser-Busch beer from, say, Heineken without causing any increased consumption. The logic being presented by the FTC, at the behest, of universities would seem to stand no objective scrutiny of the affect of the cans.

Comments by the Licensing Resource Group, a copyright protection firm which represents all of the colleges lodging complaints, would suggest that universities know this, but are using the convenient pretext of looking out for the best interests of their underage students to advance their monetary interests.

The Licensing Resource Group has complained on behalf of its university clients that Anheuser-Busch is violating the universities' logo protection. But Anheuser-Busch does not use any logos, but merely colors and no institution can, of course, claim copyright protection over use of colors no matter the connection. Universities are always keen on increasing sources of funding, especially during a recession that has led to cuts in state financing; and would like Anheuser-Busch to voluntarily pay royalties simply for use of colors. The company does not for the aforementioned reason that no copyrights issues are at play. Universities know they cannot force Anheuser-Busch to do so, and thus have lobbied the FTC to raise the prospect of preventing Anheuser-Busch from continued selling of colored cans under the innocent pretext of causing harm to underage students. The universities then hope that for fear of losing its right to sell said cans, Anheuser-Busch will start paying undue royalties and the universities will then suspend from their lobbying. Something should be said for the cynical use of regulatory agencies for private gains, which is done by several companies. But that is a topic for another post.

Even if Anheuser-Busch considered the cans worth saving, would it submit to a subtle and inter-mediated intimidation scheme? Ask yourself this: who can employ more influential lobbyists: a multi-billion dollar beer company or cash-starved universities? But the firm has decided that such cans, probably because they have not led to an increase in business, are not worth the lobbying costs and will suspend them where universities have complained.