THE ALCOHOL INDUSTRY NOT AFTER MINORS
Does the alcohol industry target minors in advertising? If you’re in the industry, the most likely answer would be a hurried “no” and change of topic, especially to a journalist like myself. But those of us in the alcohol trade press see things differently, more fairly perhaps, while the larger media often jumps on the issue and paints alcohol companies in a dim light with screaming headlines accusing the industry. It makes for a good villain, I suppose. The truth is, trade groups such as the WSWA, DISCUS and NBWA along with suppliers and wholesalers work very hard on regulatory issues, which includes funding committees that work solely on restricting and monitoring advertisements (just look a the Stop Act.)
Then why is it that organizations such as the Center for Alcohol Marketing and Youth (CAMY) claim that alcohol manufacturers target youth in advertising? In 2005 the group reported that over half of spending on beer and spirits ads that ran from 2001 to 2003 showed up in publications with a disproportionate readership among those ages 12 to 20, especially among girls. The findings were covered by publications such as the New York Times and the Boston Globe
However, in the July issue of Contemporary Economic Policy, there was an article that showed very different results in the issue of youth-targeted alcohol advertising. Jon Nelson, professor emeritus of economics at Penn State, challenged the long held view with research that found that alcohol advertisers did not, in fact, target youth. Researchers at George Mason University – Rebecca Goldin and Trevor Butterworth of STATS.org – conducted a study taking a closer look at Nelson’s findings:
“According to Nelson, the most influential factors for where ads are placed in magazines are cost and size of circulation and not the percentage of young readers. Apart from a United Press International wire story, no media organization reported the study in the United States, despite deep concern about under-age drinking, its causes and remedies. Are the media at fault for ignoring this study? The question can only be answered by comparing CAMY’s approach with Nelson’s.” (WSD did cover Nelson’s research.)
The study pointed out that CAMY’s youth demographic, 12-20, includes the young adult, college-aged group of 18-20 which is “difficult to avoid when ‘intentionally’ targeting people aged 21 and over.” CAMY also fails to mention, according to STATS, that alcohol companies do not advertise in magazines specifically meant for teens, such as Seventeen and YM, and that the magazines CAMY specifically refers to are not primarily written for minors.
“In most cases, more than 80 percent of their readership is of legal drinking age,” said the study, and not meant for kids.
Nelson’s research also found that the “proportion of young readers among the readership did not make much difference. The influential factors were the size of the audience (not just how many people bought the magazine, but how many actually read it), and how much an ad costs per 1,000 copies in circulation.”
The main point of Nelson’s research and the study conducted at George Mason University, is that, and I quote, “we should move away from accusing the advertising industry of plotting to get kids involved with alcohol before they’re 21.”
“Either way, we cannot have an informed, rational, and productive conversation about underage drinking if the media only cover one side of the story. It’s a cliché in this kind of discussion to use the word “sober” in some wry way; but without sober evaluation of the social science data by reporters, how are we ever going to arrive at public policies that will actually work?”
Then why is it that organizations such as the Center for Alcohol Marketing and Youth (CAMY) claim that alcohol manufacturers target youth in advertising? In 2005 the group reported that over half of spending on beer and spirits ads that ran from 2001 to 2003 showed up in publications with a disproportionate readership among those ages 12 to 20, especially among girls. The findings were covered by publications such as the New York Times and the Boston Globe
However, in the July issue of Contemporary Economic Policy, there was an article that showed very different results in the issue of youth-targeted alcohol advertising. Jon Nelson, professor emeritus of economics at Penn State, challenged the long held view with research that found that alcohol advertisers did not, in fact, target youth. Researchers at George Mason University – Rebecca Goldin and Trevor Butterworth of STATS.org – conducted a study taking a closer look at Nelson’s findings:
“According to Nelson, the most influential factors for where ads are placed in magazines are cost and size of circulation and not the percentage of young readers. Apart from a United Press International wire story, no media organization reported the study in the United States, despite deep concern about under-age drinking, its causes and remedies. Are the media at fault for ignoring this study? The question can only be answered by comparing CAMY’s approach with Nelson’s.” (WSD did cover Nelson’s research.)
The study pointed out that CAMY’s youth demographic, 12-20, includes the young adult, college-aged group of 18-20 which is “difficult to avoid when ‘intentionally’ targeting people aged 21 and over.” CAMY also fails to mention, according to STATS, that alcohol companies do not advertise in magazines specifically meant for teens, such as Seventeen and YM, and that the magazines CAMY specifically refers to are not primarily written for minors.
“In most cases, more than 80 percent of their readership is of legal drinking age,” said the study, and not meant for kids.
Nelson’s research also found that the “proportion of young readers among the readership did not make much difference. The influential factors were the size of the audience (not just how many people bought the magazine, but how many actually read it), and how much an ad costs per 1,000 copies in circulation.”
The main point of Nelson’s research and the study conducted at George Mason University, is that, and I quote, “we should move away from accusing the advertising industry of plotting to get kids involved with alcohol before they’re 21.”
“Either way, we cannot have an informed, rational, and productive conversation about underage drinking if the media only cover one side of the story. It’s a cliché in this kind of discussion to use the word “sober” in some wry way; but without sober evaluation of the social science data by reporters, how are we ever going to arrive at public policies that will actually work?”
posted at 3:39 PM
<< Home