Advertising is a pervasive influence on children and adolescents. Young people view more than 40 000 ads per year on television alone and increasingly are being exposed to advertising on the Internet, in magazines, and in schools. This exposure may contribute significantly to childhood and adolescent obesity, poor nutrition, and cigarette and alcohol use. Media education has been shown to be effective in mitigating some of the negative effects of advertising on children and adolescents.
INTRODUCTION
Several European countries forbid or severely curtail advertising to children; in the United States, on the other hand, selling to children is simply “business as usual.”1 The average young person views more than 3000 ads per day on television (TV), on the Internet, on billboards, and in magazines.2 Increasingly, advertisers are targeting younger and younger children in an effort to establish “brand-name preference” at as early an age as possible.3 This targeting occurs because advertising is a $250 billion/year industry with 900 000 brands to sell,2 and children and adolescents are attractive consumers: teenagers spend $155 billion/year, children younger than 12 years spend another $25 billion, and both groups influence perhaps another $200 billion of their parents' spending per year.4,5 Increasingly, advertisers are seeking to find new and creative ways of targeting young consumers via the Internet, in schools, and even in bathroom stalls.1
THE EFFECTS OF ADVERTISING ON CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS
Research has shown that young children—younger than 8 years—are cognitively and psychologically defenseless against advertising.6–9 They do not understand the notion of intent to sell and frequently accept advertising claims at face value.10 In fact, in the late 1970s, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) held hearings, reviewed the existing research, and came to the conclusion that it was unfair and deceptive to advertise to children younger than 6 years.11 What kept the FTC from banning such ads was that it was thought to be impractical to implement such a ban.11 However, some Western countries have done exactly that: Sweden and Norway forbid all advertising directed at children younger than 12 years, Greece bans toy advertising until after 10 pm, and Denmark and Belgium severely restrict advertising aimed at children.12
ADVERTISING IN DIFFERENT MEDIA
Television
Children and adolescents view 400 00 ads per year on TV alone.13 This occurs despite the fact that the Children's Television Act of 1990 (Pub L No. 101–437) limits advertising on children's programming to 10.5 minutes/hour on weekends and 12 minutes/hour on weekdays. However, much of children's viewing occurs during prime time, which features nearly 16 minutes/hour of advertising.14 A 30-second ad during the Super Bowl now costs $2.3 million but reaches 80 million people.15
Movies
A 2000 FTC investigation found that violent movies, music, and video games have been intentionally marketed to children and adolescents.16 Although movie theaters have agreed not to show trailers for R-rated movies before G-rated movies in response to the release of the FTC report, children continue to see advertising for violent media in other venues. For instance, M-rated video games, which according to the gaming industry's own rating system are not recommended for children younger than 17 years, are frequently advertised in movie theaters, video game magazines, and publications with high youth readership.17 Also, movies targeted at children often prominently feature brand-name products and fast food restaurants.18 In 1997–1998, 8 alcohol companies placed products in 233 motion pictures and in 1 episode or more of 181 TV series.18
Print Media
According to the Consumer's Union,19 more than 160 magazines are now targeted at children. Young people see 45% more beer ads and 27% more ads for hard liquor in teen magazines than adults do in their magazines.20 Despite the Master Settlement Agreement with the tobacco industry in 1998, tobacco advertising expenditures in 38 youth-oriented magazines amounted to $217 million in 2000.21
The Internet
An increasing number of Web sites try to entice children and teenagers to make direct sales. Teenagers account for more than $1 billion in e-commerce dollars,22 and the industry spent $21.6 million on Internet banner ads alone in 2002.23 More than 100 commercial Web sites promote alcohol products.23 The content of these sites varies widely, from little more than basic brand information to chat rooms, “virtual bars,” drink recipes, games, contests, and merchandise catalogues. Many of these sites use slick promotional techniques to target young people.23,24 In 1998, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (Pub L No. 105–277) was passed, which mandates that commercial Web sites cannot knowingly collect information from children younger than 13 years. These sites are required to provide notice on the site to parents about their collection, use, and disclosure of children's personal information and must obtain “verifiable parental consent” before collecting, using, or disclosing this information.25
MARKETING TECHNIQUES
Advertisers have traditionally used techniques to which children and adolescents are more susceptible, such as product placements in movies and TV shows,26 tie-ins between movies and fast food restaurants,18 tie-ins between TV shows and toy action figures or other products,7 kids' clubs that are linked to popular shows, and celebrity endorsements.27 Cellular phones are currently being marketed to 6- to 12-year-olds, with the potential for directing specific advertisers to children and preteens. Coca-Cola reportedly paid Warner Bros. Studios $150 million for the global marketing rights to the movie “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone,”28 and nearly 20% of fast food restaurant ads now mention a toy premium in their ads.29 Certain tie-in products may be inappropriate for children (eg, action figures from the World Wrestling Federation or an action doll that mutters profanities from an R-rated Austin Powers movie).
Children's advertising protections will need to be updated for digital TV, which will be in place before 2010. In the near future, children watching a TV program will be able to click an on-screen link and go to a Web site during the program.30 Interactive games and promotions on digital TV will have the ability to lure children away from regular programming, encouraging them to spend a long time in an environment that lacks clear separation between content and advertising. Interactive technology may also allow advertisers to collect vast amounts of information about children's viewing habits and preferences and target them on the basis of that information.31
SPECIFIC HEALTH-RELATED AREAS OF CONCERN
Tobacco Advertising
Tobacco manufacturers spend $30 million/day ($11.2 billion/year) on advertising and promotion.32 Exposure to tobacco advertising may be a bigger risk factor than having family members and peers who smoke33 and can even undermine the effect of strong parenting practices.34 Two unique and large longitudinal studies have found that approximately one third of all adolescent smoking can be attributed to tobacco advertising and promotions.35,36 In addition, more than 20 studies have found that children exposed to cigarette ads or promotions are more likely to become smokers themselves.37,38 Recent evidence has emerged that tobacco companies have specifically targeted teenagers as young as 13 years of age.39
Alcohol Advertising
Alcohol manufacturers spend $5.7 billion/year on advertising and promotion.40 Young people typically view 2000 beer and wine commercials annually,41 with most of the ads concentrated in sports programming. During prime time, only 1 alcohol ad appears every 4 hours; yet, in sports programming, the frequency increases to 2.4 ads per hour.42,43 Research has found that adolescent drinkers are more likely to have been exposed to alcohol advertising.44–50 Given that children begin making decisions about alcohol at an early age—probably during grade school50 —exposure to beer commercials represents a significant risk factor.46,50 Minority children may be at particular risk.51
Drug Advertising
“Just Say No” as a message to teenagers about drugs seems doomed to failure given that $11 billion/year is spent on cigarette advertising, $5.7 billion/year is spent on alcohol advertising, and nearly $4 billion/year is spent on prescription drug advertising.52 Drug companies now spend more than twice as much on marketing as they do on research and development. The top 10 drug companies made a total profit of $35.9 billion in 2002—more than the other 490 companies in the Fortune 500 combined.53 Is such advertising effective? A recent survey of physicians found that 92% of patients had requested an advertised drug.54,55 In addition, children and teenagers may get the message that there is a drug available to cure all ills and heal all pain, a drug for every occasion (including sexual intercourse).41
Food Advertising and Obesity
Advertisers spend more than $2.5 billion/year to promote restaurants and another $2 billion to promote food products.56 On TV, of the estimated 40 000 ads per year that young people see, half are for food, especially sugared cereals and high-calorie snacks.29,57 Healthy foods are advertised less than 3% of the time; children rarely see a food advertisement for broccoli.58 Increasingly, fast food conglomerates are using toy tie-ins with major children's motion pictures to try to attract young people.59 Nearly 20% of fast food ads now mention a toy premium in their commercials.29 Several studies document that young children request more junk food (defined as foods with high-caloric density but very low nutrient density) after viewing commercials.60–63 In 1 study, the amount of TV viewed per week correlated with requests for specific foods and with caloric intake.61 At the same time, advertising healthy foods has been shown to increase wholesome eating in children as young as 3 to 6 years of age.64
Sex in Advertising
Sex is used in commercials to sell everything from beer to shampoo to cars.65 New research is showing that teenagers' exposure to sexual content in the media may be responsible for earlier onset of sexual intercourse or other sexual activities.66,67 What is increasingly apparent is the discrepancy between the abundance of advertising of products for erectile dysfunction (ED) (between January and October, 2004, drug companies spent $343 million advertising Viagra, Levitra, and Cialis)68 and the lack of advertising for birth control products or emergency contraceptives on the major TV networks. This is despite the fact that 2 national polls have found that a majority of Americans favor the advertising of birth control on TV.69,70 Ads for ED drugs give children and teens inappropriate messages about sex and sexuality at a time when they are not being taught well in school sex education programs.71,72 Research has definitively found that giving teenagers increased access to birth control through advertising does not make them sexually active at a younger age.73–80
ADVERTISING IN SCHOOLS
Advertisers have slowly but steadily infiltrated school systems around the country. The “3 Rs” have now become the “4 Rs,” with the fourth R being “retail.”83,84 Ads are now appearing on school buses, in gymnasiums, on book covers, and even in bathroom stalls.85 More than 200 school districts nationwide have signed exclusive contracts with soft drink companies.86 These agreements specify the number and placement of soda-vending machines, which is ironic given that schools risk losing federal subsidies for their free breakfast and lunch programs if they serve soda in their cafeterias. In addition, there are more than 4500 Pizza Hut chains and 3000 Taco Bell chains in school cafeterias around the country.87
There is some good news, however. In May, 2006, the nation's largest beverage distributors agreed to halt nearly all sales of sodas to public schools and sell only water, unsweetened juice, and low-fat milk in elementary and middle schools. Diet sodas would be sold only in high schools.88
School advertising also appears under the guise of educational TV: Channel One. Currently available in 12 000 schools, Channel One consists of 10 minutes of current-events programming and 2 minutes of commercials. Advertisers pay $200 000 for advertising time and the opportunity to target 40% of the nation's teenagers for 30 seconds.89 According to a recent government report, Channel One now plays in 25% of the nation's middle and high schools81 and generates profits estimated at $100 million annually.89
CONCLUSIONS
Clearly, advertising represents “big business” in the United States and can have a significant effect on young people. Unlike free speech, commercial speech does not enjoy the same protections under the First Amendment of the Constitution.90 Advertisements can be restricted or even banned if there is a significant public health risk. Cigarette advertising and alcohol advertising would seem to fall squarely into this category, and ads for junk food could easily be restricted.91
One solution that is noncontroversial and would be easy to implement is to educate children and teenagers about the effects of advertising—media literacy. Curricula have been developed that teach young people to become critical viewers of media in all of its forms, including advertising.92–94 Media education seems to be protective in mitigating harmful effects of media, including the effects of cigarette, alcohol, and food advertising.93–96
RECOMMENDATIONS
Pediatricians should become familiar with the methods that advertisers use to target children and adolescents.
Pediatricians should only subscribe to magazines that are free of tobacco and alcohol advertisements for their waiting rooms (eg, Good Housekeeping has refused to carry tobacco ads since 1952).
Pediatricians should counsel their patients to limit total noneducational screen time to no more than 2 hours/day,97 which will limit exposure to advertising of all kinds.
Pediatricians should write letters to advertisers if they see inappropriate ads and should encourage parents to do the same (letters can be addressed to the Children's Advertising Review Unit, Council of Better Business Bureaus, 845 Third Ave, New York, NY 10022).
Pediatricians should work with community groups and local school boards to implement media education programs that teach about the effects of advertising on children and adolescents. The federal government should help underwrite the cost of establishing and disseminating such programs.
Pediatricians should work with parents, schools, community groups, and others to ban or severely curtail school-based advertising in all forms.
Pediatricians should work with parent and public health groups to:
ask Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to limit commercial advertising on children's programming to no more than 5 to 6 minutes/hour, which would decrease the current amount by 50%;
ask Congress to implement a ban on cigarette and tobacco advertising in all media, including banners and logos in sports arenas;
ask Congress to restrict alcohol advertising to what is known as “tombstone advertising,” in which only the product is shown, not cartoon characters or attractive women;
ask Congress to implement a ban on junk-food advertising during programming that is viewed predominantly by young children;
ask Congress to increase funding for public TV—the sole source of high-quality, educational, noncommercial programming for children;
advocate for confining ads for ED drugs to after 10 pm. The American Academy of Pediatrics has always strongly endorsed the advertising of birth control on TV. There is now considerable evidence that birth control advertising could lower teen pregnancy rates even further while having no impact on rates of teen sexual activity.79 However, when birth control advertising is so rare on prime time TV, it makes no sense to allow ED drug advertising that may confuse children and teens about human sexuality and make sexual activity seem like a recreational sport.
ask Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to prohibit interactive advertising to children in digital TV; and
ask Congress to convene a national task force on advertising under the auspices of the Institute of Medicine, the National Institutes of Health, or the FTC. This task force would discuss the nature of the current problem and the current research and would propose solutions toward limiting children's exposure to unhealthy advertising, including the funding of future research. The task force would include representatives from the toy industry, the fast food industry, and the advertising community, as well as pediatricians, child psychiatrists and psychologists, and public health advocates.
Pediatricians, together with the American Academy of Pediatrics Media Resource Team, should work with the entertainment industry to ensure that the advertising of violent media to children does not occur, that product placements in movies and TV do not occur, that the dissemination and enforcement of the individual industries' own rating systems is facilitated, and that advertising for contraceptives is more widely disseminated on network TV.
COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, 2006–2007
Donald L. Shifrin, MD, Chairperson
Ari Brown, MD
Bernard P. Dreyer, MD
Kenneth R. Ginsburg, MD, MSEd
Regina M. Milteer, MD
Kathleen G. Nelson, MD
Deborah Ann Mulligan, MD
LIAISONS
Michael Brody, MD
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Brian Wilcox, PhD
American Psychological Association
CONTRIBUTOR
*Victor C. Strasburger, MD
AAP Section on Media
STAFF
Carolyn Kolbaba
Veronica Noland
All policy statements from the American Academy of Pediatrics automatically expire 5 years after publication unless reaffirmed, revised, or retired at or before that time.
Lead author
Comments
Implications of Erectile Dysfunction Commercials During TV Sports on Male Youth Sexual Activity
A recent policy statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Communication in the December 2006 issue of Pediatrics has rightfully underscored the pervasive negative influence that advertising has on children and adolescents, such as the early onset of sexual activity and intercourse.(1) The harmful effects of media advertising and media consumption on children and adolescents have been known for some time, (2 3 4 5 6) including reports, position papers, and policy statements written by the American Medical Association,(7) the American Psychological Association,(8) the Center for Disease Control,(9) and from the Surgeon General. (10) The purpose of this commentary is to raise two questions relevant to the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Communication policy statement pertaining to erectile dysfunction (ED) commercials being viewed by youth. First, the implications of ED commercials during televised sporting events on male youth sexual behavior. Second, to underscore the problematic aspects of the “family- hour” social policy suggested by the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Communication.
Televised Sports and ED Advertising: Implications on Male Youth Sexual Activity
ED television commercials are peppered throughout sport television programming. At a superficial level, it would appear that marketing ED medications during televised sport programs makes sense for the simply fact that so many men watch sports. In fact, David Pernock, senior vice President for GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), explicitly stated that ED commercials linked to National Football League (NFL) games is a strategy to help men talk openly to their doctors about erectile dysfunction without feeling awkward. (11) Further, pharmaceutical companies have purposely used sport to send their message of male sexual power and erectile performance. For example, GSK and Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corp. signed a sponsorship deal with the NFL, which gives them exclusive rights to market the ED drug Levitra to an estimated 120 million viewers (in which they paid an estimated $6 million dollars to the NFL). (12) In particular, these ads use head-to-head competition (like sport) to underscore that Levitra is better than Viagra because it helps users achieve erections faster (16 minutes versus 30 minutes for Viagra) and has longer staying power. (13) There is no denying that some men do not feel comfortable when they have ED problems and that drug intervention is important when there is a real medical need. However, I suspect there is a much deeper and even sinister side to such superficial thinking. As Schor has underscored, adult oriented products (e.g., Budweiser Beer) are purposively marketed to children and adolescents to develop envy so that when old enough these youth are commercialized/socialized toward buying adult products.(14)
The troubling aspect for me is that millions of children and adolescence observe (implicitly and explicitly) sexual activity while watching ED commercials, which provide early expose to sexual content and the possibility of early onset of sexual activities and intercourse. (15 16) As Rounds and Ormsby have underscored, sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are a significant health problem facing adolescents in the United States.(17) These researcher, summarizing differing research studies, highlight that (1) forty-eight percent of the estimated 18.9 million new STI cases in 2000 were among young peopled aged 15-24, (2) seventy four percent of all reported Chlamydia infections in 2000 were among young people aged 15 to 24, (3) half of the HIV infections in the United States were among young people aged 15 to 24, and (4) that the United States still has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancies among developed countries.
To understand the hidden messages of sexual activity in ED commercials I pay special attention to the advertisements that are aired on television during the regular sporting events and programs that I typically watch (with my three sons!). In one Viagra commercial a voice states “Remember the one who couldn’t resist a little mischief” while the man is gazing at black bras, panties, and negligee in a store window. Another Viagra advertisement uses phallic imagery, which has NASCAR driver Mark Martin racing and revving his race car – pistons pounding up and down – symbolic of sexual power. Enzyte commercials also use symbolic phallic imagery to mock men who have erectile dysfunctions (e.g., a man holding a limp garden hose with a trickle of water coming out – implying that he doesn’t use Enzyte) and to illustrate how Enzyte helps men develop larger and more powerful penises (e.g., long golf clubs, limos, and very tall glasses of ice tea). While watching ED commercials I find it interesting how of the many side effects of ED drugs, it is the side effect of a four hour long erection that is most emphasized (e.g., the first, last, or only side effect mentioned). I believe that this is a reversal technique in which a side effect is communicated in a false way to underscore a potential benefits – the ability to maintain an erection for an incredible long duration of time. For example, Healy underscored how early marketing of Prozac that highlighted that it had weight-reducing side effects helped Prozac become a popular anti-depressant– especially among women.(18)
A Problematic Aspect of the “Family-Hour” Social Policy
The overall recommendations presented by the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Communication are useful and pragmatic (e.g., ask Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to limit advertising toward children, implement media literacy programs). However, the Committee on Communication’s recommendation to not air ED commercials until after 10:00 p.m. is somewhat problematic. Potter underscored that television “family-hour” public policies (e.g., adult hours after 10:00 p.m.) are unsuccessful because even as late as 11:00 p.m. children and adolescents are watching television in large numbers. (19) Potter highlighted that immediately after “family hours” the number of youth who continue to watch television drops by only twelve percent – leaving approximately 10.8 million youth watching television. Further, by 11:00 p.m. nearly 3.2 million children and 3 million adolescents are still watching television. As such, not airing ED commercials until after 10:00 p.m. might have a small effect on children and adolescents (ten to twelve percent). However, a better approach would be to eliminate advertisements and television programming that has implicit and explicit sexual messages.
To this end, I think a better policy would be for the American Academy of Pediatrics (and other allied health, youth, and human service profession) to petition or partner with the Federal Communications Commission to regulate the sexual content of ED commercials (and similar drug advertising which has a sexual activity dimensions). For example, ED advertisements could be developed for television in a manner that provides medical and health information without any mention of sexual activity (e.g., black bras, phallic imagery) or the side effect of a four hour erection (this can be communicated by medical doctors in practice). Unlike other countries which regulate child and youth advertising, American social policy regarding children/adolescent and advertisement has a shameful history of government who consistently protects industry over the well-being of youth by letting industry create self-regulating policies (e.g. television rating system). As such, a partnership between the American Academy of Pediatrics with the Federal Communications Commission to regulate advertising to children and adolescents, including the sexual content of ED commercials, would be a positive step forward in helping children and adolescents in the United States.
References
1. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Communication. Children, adolescents, and advertising. Pediatrics, 2006; 118 :2563-2569
2. Kirsch SJ. Children, Adolescents, and Media Violence: A Critical Look at the Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2006
3. Schor JB. Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture. New York: Scribner; 2004
4. Paik H, Comstock G. The effects of television violence on anti- social behavior: A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 1994; 21 :516- 546
5. Anderson CA, Bushman BJ. Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and pro-social behavior: A meta analytic review of the scientific literature. Psych Sci., 2001; 12 :353-359
6. Grossman D. On Killing: The Psychological Costs of Learning How to Kill in War and in Society. New York, NY: Little Brown and Company; 1996.
7. American Medical Association. Physician’s Guide to Media Violence. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 1996
8. American Psychological Association. Violence and Youth: Psychology’s Response. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1993
9. Centers for Disease Control. Position Paper for the Third National Injury Conference: Setting the National Agenda for Injury Control in the 1990’s. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services; 1991
10. Surgeon General’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior. Television and Growing Up: TheIimpact of Televised Violence [Report to the Surgeon General, U.S. Public Health Service]. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1972
11. Gannon J. Bayer GlaxcoSmithKline banking on NFL ads to boost sales of Viagra competitor. Post Gazette. July 31, 2003. Available at: www.post-gazette.com/pg/03212/207374.stm. Accessed December 5, 2006
12. Gannon J. Bayer, GlaxcoSmithKline banking on NFL ads to boost sales of Viagra competitor. Post Gazette. July 31, 2003. Available at: www.post-gazette.com/pg/03212/207374.stm Accessed December 5, 2006
13. Gannon J. Bayer GlaxcoSmithKline banking on NFL ads to boost sales of Viagra competitor. Post Gazette. July 31, 2003. Available at: www.post-gazette.com/pg/03212/207374.stm. Accessed December 5, 2006
14. Schor JB. Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture. New York: Scribner; 2004
15. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Communication. Children, adolescents, and advertising. Pediatrics, 2006; 118 :2563-2569
16. Brown JD, L’Engle KL, Pardun CJ, Guo G, Kenneavy K, Jackson C. Sexy media matters: Exposure to sexual content in music, movies, television, and magazines predicts black and white adolescents’ sexual behavior. Pediatrics. 2006; 117 : 1018-1027
17. Rounds KA, Ormsby TC. Health policy for children and youth. In: Jenson JM, Fraser MW, eds. Social Policy for Children and Families: A Risk and Resilience Perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2006 : 131-165
18. Healy D. Let Them Eat Prozac: The Unhealthy Relationship Between the Pharmaceutical Industry and Depression. New York: New York University Press; 2004
19. Potter WJ. The 11 Myths of Media Violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2003
Conflict of Interest:
None declared
The Statement Stands!
I'm not quite sure I understand why Dr. Rosen is on such a reference warpath here. I can assure him -- and your readers, and the AAP -- that the references are all quite legitimate. I live in Albuquerque, and reference my local paper frequently. A week after publication, it is virtually impossible to find any given article online. The ABQ Journal does not have a very user-friendly SEARCH engine. The articles are legitimate, Dr. Rosen. Please keep your insinuations to yourself. Ellen Goodman is a legitimate source, a Pulitzer-prize winner author, and I referenced her appropriately in the article. Yes, perhaps 3,000 ads a day is only her estimate. So what? What if it's only 2,000 ads a day? Would that make a difference? As for my "changing titles" of articles and "exaggerating numbers," I should probably think about suing you for libel. Citing references from the popular press and media is not quite like citing references from the scientific literature; yet when writing about the media, such references are absolutely appropriate and necessary. As for the many objections to the policy statement's conclusions: (1) A number of studies have found that pharmaceutical ads have resulted in a dramatically increased number of requests by patients for exactly those drugs advertised. (2) The statement about erectile dysfunction drugs is based on common sense, not any scientific study. Even if we could find a bunch of parents of 5 year-olds who would let us beam a dozen ED ads at their kids and ask what they thought, no IRB would approve such research. We are simply pointing out the hypocrisy of airing ads that make sex seem recreational while not airing ads for birth control products. There are now 6 or 7 peer-reviewed studies showing that making birth control available to teens (and think of the media as one way of doing that) does NOT increase their sexual activity but DOES increase their use of birth control. All of the above references are in the scientific literature, Dr. Rosen. Please don't call me and ask me for them, or write another comment that I made them up. Find them yourself!
Conflict of Interest:
None declared
serious errors, uncorroborated statistics
December 10, 2007
To the editor,
I have noted some serious errors in the citations, as well as uncorroborated statistics, in the policy statement “Children, Adolescents, and Advertising” published in the December issue of Pediatrics. The errors may affect the overall mission of the statement.
Indeed, the thesis of the policy statement is that, “Advertising is a pervasive influence on children and adolescents.” The statement quantified that “pervasiveness” by stating, “Young people view more than 40,000 ads per year on television alone…” It goes on to state that, “The average young person views more than 3,000 ads per day on television, on the Internet, on billboards, and in magazines.”
The statement further makes some quite significant and broad recommendations regarding the advertising industry, based upon these numbers.
However, the facts, and indeed, the cited sources of the facts, are dubious.
These dramatic statistics led me to investigate the citations.
Citation number 2 (Goodman E. Ads pollute most everything in sight. Albuquerque Journal. June 27, 1999:C3) and Citation number 5 (Span P. Marketers hang on affluent teen-agers' every wish. Albuquerque Journal. June 27, 1999:C3) did not appear in the Albuquerque Journal according to the assistant librarian of the Journal, a reporter, and an editor.
When I called Dr. Strasburger, lead author of the policy statement, and brought this up to him, he replied, “This was an AP article.” He could not explain the erroneous citation, and the fact that no one at the Albuquerque Journal could find it.
I asked him for citation number 5, and he could not provide it to me.
The article in citation 2 was written by syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman, appeared August 12, 2001, in the Boston Globe. The correct title of the article is “NAMING RIGHTS - AND WRONGS”. It is about two parents who put the naming rights to their son out on two Internet auction sites.
In the article, Ms. Goodman mentions, “The kid who couldn't become an ad will be confronted by them. The half-million-dollar baby will be assaulted by some 3,000 ads a day. He'll be the target of a $250 billion ad industry with 900,000 brands to sell.”
I called Ms. Goodman, and asked for the source of the 3,000 number. Her assistant referred me to an internet research page which cites a variety of sources which provide a broad range of numbers of ads a child might see each day (the age range, types of ads are not denoted). (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=56750).
Indeed, it cites numbers anywhere from 247 commercials a day to 3,000. As well, this statistic was meant for the average American who deals with the internet, reads the newspaper, magazines, listens to the radio, sees billboards etc., and receives emails with advertisements; it was not considering the average American child, of unspecified age.
Dr. Strasburger confirmed to me he did not vet Ms. Goodman’s numbers.
Regarding the 40,000 number, the source is citation number 13, Comstock G, Scharrer E. Television: What's On, Who's Watching, and What it Means. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1999.
In that same year, 1999, Dr. Strasburger himself wrote an article, “Children, Adolescents, and the Media: Issues and Solutions” [http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/103/1/129#B28], where he states that the number of ads we watch are only 20,000 a year. That 20,000 number is obtained from the previous version of this policy statement, “American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Communications Children, adolescents and advertising. Pediatrics 1995; 95:295-297.
Even if one considers a difference in viewing habits between 1995 and 1999, did children double the number of TV ads they see annually in that time period? And why did Dr. Strasburger choose to use a higher number for the arguments in the policy statement, from an outside source, rather than his own? Why did he not at very least state the reasonable range and include his very own number he published that very same year?
These points are important, because again, they are the premise of the policy statement.
Indeed, there are arguably laudible positions Dr. Strasburger, et. al., make in this most recent policy statement. The positions on tobacco, alcohol, and ads in schools would be difficult to counter. It would be incorrect to discard all the positions based on what is at least shoddy fact checking (he used Ms. Goodman’s article as a citation because he told me, “ I like her as a journalist”), and at worst, an intentional changing of data and sources.
In a zealous effort to “push the envelope”, did Dr. Strasburger change titles of articles and exaggerate numbers? (It’s possible that Ms. Goodman’s article was re-titled elsewhere, in another source, but I have not been able to locate it; it could be argued he should have used the original title in the citation). Is it policy of the AAP to use statistics quoted by a newspaper columnist, unvetted, as a premise for a position statement? Are these indeed evidence that this position statement is not based on data, or a validation of all the problems with advertising as noted in the statement, but rather, a forwarding of the authors’ personal agendas?
This is poor journalism at best, and certainly unworthy of such an important document by the AAP.
As well, this statement, which the AAP promoted with a press conference, is designed to forward policies such as mandating the curtailing of ads to children. For example, it wants to end erectile dysfunction ads before 10pm, but would allow condom ads at any time. There is nowhere in the statement direct or even indirect evidence of the specific danger of these erectile dysfunction ads to children; it also gives a free pass to condom ads (one might consider the Trojan ad showing a teen boy in bed with two girls is inappropriate for young viewers). Was there a blanket statement made, both against erectile dysfunction drugs and for prophylactics, with no science, or indeed, common sense behind the arguments?
Also, the statement argues in sum that all pharmaceutical ads are to blame for illegal drug use? How is that connection made?
What ads are problematic? Fedex ads? Ads for toys with a strong learning or dexterity component? Healthy snack ads? The statement does not delineate. It merely says that “too much” is bad. And “too much” is not defined.
Given the false citations, the incorrect and exaggerated numbers, and the un-based arguments, I would submit that this policy statement should be reconsidered, and at least re-written. Sadly, many good arguments (ie for tobacco ad control) are lost in what was not only an overreach, but also a statement that is at best unscientific, and at worse, factually incorrect.
The AAP’s gripe is with an irresponsible use of media. The AAP itself used the media, in a press conference, to forward this very statement. Indeed, the story got many media “hits”. I would submit, perhaps the AAP is guilty of the same irresponsible use of media.
Maybe the authors should go back to the drawing board, use sound science as the premise for a revised statement, focus on the true areas of advertising that are valid issues, and not forward what some might consider a McCarthy-era like vendetta against an entire advertising industry.
Conflict of Interest:
None declared
Response to (1) Being overly idealistic and (2) Too much regulation
As the lead author of the AAP's statement on Advertising, please allow me to make a few comments: (1) Yes, of course we are being idealistic. Isn't that our job? The relatively "small" AAP going up against Madison Avenue? Maybe we can accomplish something, maybe we won't; but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying. (2) When $250 billion a year is spent on advertising in the U.S. -- more than twice the amount spent by the 2nd-place country (Japan) -- isn't it time to stop blaming parents for their kids' responding to such ads? (3) When children's health comes into conflict with capitalism, guess who wins? Regulation is absolutely necessary in a free society to protect the rights and public health of those who are unable to speak (or vote) for themselves. In addition, the First Amendment does not protect business or commercial speech to the same extent that it protects Free Speech. The Supreme Court has ruled that commercial speech can be regulated IF THERE IS A COMPELLING PUBLIC HEALTH INTEREST IN DOING SO. Doesn't that apply to junk food, alcohol advertising, and tobacco advertising?
Conflict of Interest:
None declared
excessive regulation
Conflict of Interest:
None declared
Reining ads is utopian idea; parental control is supreme
Advertising is a modern invention of today's materialistic society. If people do not publicise products available in the market, the manufacturers do not earn enough. If the manufacturer does not prosper, he cannot send provide decent education and a respectable lifestyle to his children. The latter obviously means access to newspapers, television and computers. So can anyone keep advertisements away from children?
It is too idealistic to expect that Paediatric Society recommendations, government regulations and protest letters to magazine editors would minimise the impact of advertising products targeting children. Although all these efforts are necessary, the basic necessity of parents to bring up their child with the right ideas cannot be discounted. Let the child see the advertisement but make him mature enough to reason out whether it is right for him or her to use the product.
While lawmakers debate with the legal issues and paediatricians examine the medical angle, the parents need to have a watchful eye on the child as he leafs through magazines or browses the internet.
Conflict of Interest:
None declared