# in the Alcohol Industry > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Aftc%3A91ea08bee1213e67 ## Record - **Collection:** Agency decision - **Document type:** Agency decision ## Text Self-Regulation in the Alcohol Industry Report of the Federal Trade Commission June 2008 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION1 William E. Kovacic Pamela Jones Harbour Jon Leibowitz J. Thomas Rosch Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Report Contributors2 Janet M. Evans, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Division of Advertising Practices Phyllis Marcus, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Division of Advertising Practices Mary K. Engle, Associate Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Division of Advertising Practices Research Assistance James Hilger, Bureau of Economics, Division of Consumer Protection Edward Roeger, Bureau of Economics, Division of Consumer Protection Micah B. Burger, Bureau of Economics, Division of Consumer Protection Alexi Charter, Bureau of Economics, Division of Consumer Protection 1 The Commission vote to issue this Report was 4-0, with Commissioner Harbour concurring in part and dissenting in part. Commissioner Harbour’s statement is attached to the Report. 2 With special thanks to Dawne Holz, Division of Consumer & Business Education, for formatting this Report for publication. Self-Regulation in the Alcohol Industry Table of Contents Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i I. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A. Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 B. Scope of the Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 C. The FTC and Alcohol Industry Self-Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 II. Study of Industry Self-Regulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 A. Supplier Background Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 B. Advertising and Promotional Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Response Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Traditional Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Outdoor Advertising. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Sponsorships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Expenditures to Help Others Promote Alcohol Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Telemarketing, Mail, and Digital Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. Spring Break. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Product Placement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. Cross-Category Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 C. Advertising Placement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1. Placement Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2. Placement Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3. Motor Sports Promotions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 D. External Review of Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1. Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2. External Review Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3. Review Board Decisions and Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 III. Youth Alcohol Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 IV. Analysis and Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A. Placement of Advertising. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 B. Internet Advertising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1. Supplier Sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2. Online Alcohol Sales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3. Advertising on Third-Party Sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 C. Other Digital Advertising. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 D. Sponsorships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 E. Product Placement in Films. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 F. Expenditures to Help Others Promote Alcohol to Consumers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 G. External Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 H. Youth Alcohol Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 V. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Federal Trade Commission Endnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Exhibit A: Order to File Special Report Exhibit B: We Don’t Serve Teens Week (2007) Participants and Promotional Materials Exhibit C: Beer Institute Internet Buying Guidelines Exhibit D: DISCUS Internet Buying Guidelines Self-Regulation in the Alcohol Industry Executive Summary Underage alcohol use is a widespread problem with significant health and safety consequences. This is the third Federal Trade Commission report on efforts by the alcohol industry to reduce the likelihood that alcohol advertising will target youth, by its placement or content. This report provides data about how industry members allocate promotional dollars; data on compliance with the industry’s advertising placement standard (requiring that at least 70 percent of the audience for advertising consist of adults 21 and older); analysis of external review of advertising complaints; and an update on the FTC’s “We Don’t Serve Teens” campaign. The report is based on the responses to Special Orders issued to twelve major alcohol suppliers, comments submitted in response to two Federal Register notices, and discussions with a wide range of stakeholders. It provides alcohol supplier data in an aggregate or anonymous fashion. Allocation of promotional expenditures and related self-regulatory efforts. The Special Orders directed the suppliers to report 2005 expenditures in 22 categories; the suppliers also described efforts to reduce the likelihood that expenditures would be targeted to those below the legal drinking age (“LDA”). The data provided by the suppliers show that about 42 percent of promotional funds are used for television, radio, print, and outdoor advertising; about 40 percent are used to help wholesalers and retailers promote alcohol to consumers; about 16 percent are used for sponsorships; and the final 2 percent are directed to other efforts, such as Internet advertising, other digital promotions, and product placement. It appears that the suppliers keep self-regulatory responsibilities in mind as they engage in promotional efforts, even in cases where the self-regulatory codes do not expressly apply. Nevertheless, as described below, the Commission recommends improvements in standards and practice. Compliance with the 70 percent placement standard. Prior to 2003, the industry codes permitted placing advertisements in media where as little as 50 percent of the audience was composed of adults and did not specify any placement protocol to support this standard. Between 2000 and 2003, at the Commission’s recommendation, the alcohol industry modified its self-regulatory codes to require suppliers to check reliable audience composition data before placing an ad and to make a placement only if that data showed that, historically, at least 70 percent of the audience consisted of adults 21 and older. The Special Orders required the companies to describe their placement practices, and to provide data showing the composition of the audience (that is, number and percent of persons below and above the LDA) for each individual television, radio, magazine, and newspaper advertising placement disseminated in the first six months of 2006. i Federal Trade Commission The responses showed that the suppliers directed their media buyers to follow the steps set forth in the self-regulatory codes, and to conduct periodic after-the-fact audits to determine whether the placements had, in fact, met the 70 percent standard. Advertising placement can be an uncertain process, as it relies on data about past audiences to predict the future. Nevertheless, more than 92 percent of all television, radio, and print advertising placements for which data were available had an LDA audience composition of 70 percent or better when they ran. Further, about 97 percent of total alcohol advertising “impressions” (that is, individual exposures to an advertisement) were due to placements that met the 70 percent target, as placements that missed the target were concentrated in media with smaller audiences. In the first half of 2006, more than 85 percent of the aggregate audience for the twelve suppliers’ advertising consisted of adults above the LDA, although some individual companies’ aggregates were a few points lower. External review of advertising. Self-regulation is most effective when an advertiser’s internal mechanisms for fostering code compliance are supplemented by a system in which another entity provides consistent, impartial, objective, and public resolution of disputes about whether a particular practice violates code standards. Per earlier FTC recommendations, the three major industry trade associations now have systems for external review of complaints about code compliance. In 2006, the review boards considered twenty-six complaints. Trade association members complied with review board conclusions in all cases where the review board determined that a member had violated the code. Underage access to alcohol. Restrictions on teen access to alcohol are a proven way to reduce teen drinking. The FTC developed the “We Don’t Serve Teens” (“WDST”) program to provide parents and other responsible adults with information about the importance of restricting teen alcohol access. A wide range of public and private entities, including federal and state government representatives, consumer groups, the advertising industry, and the alcohol industry, joined the Commission in 2007 to spread the word, “Don’t serve alcohol to teens. It’s unsafe. It’s illegal. It’s irresponsible.” Analysis and recommendations. It is evident that the twelve major suppliers have engaged in good faith efforts to respond to the FTC’s earlier recommendations, implementing the 70 percent placement standard for print and broadcast media and adopting systems of external review. The Commission believes that additional steps can be taken to reduce the likelihood of targeting those under the legal drinking age, as follows: OO Advertising in traditional media. The 70 percent placement standard is consistent with the 2000 census data, showing that approximately 70 percent of the American public is 21 or older. The industry has been largely successful at meeting the 70 percent ii Self-Regulation in the Alcohol Industry standard, and, as a result, more than 85 percent of the audience for alcohol advertising placed by the twelve suppliers in the first half of 2006 consisted of persons 21 and older. Thus, the Commission does not recommend a change in the 70 percent standard at this time. Individual suppliers should consider aggregate audience composition when making placements, however, and the trade associations should consider the results of the 2010 Census, when they become available. Further, the Commission has identified practices that will facilitate better advertising placement management, potentially increasing the proportion of placements that meet the 70 percent target. These include: XX XX trade association adoption of consistent and transparent systems for interpreting demographic data; regular training of company personnel about audience composition data, including training by the trade associations on practices calculated to increase compliance with the placement standards; XX XX OO “hands on” management of media buyers; and maintenance of records that reflect actual buys and show the source of postplacement demographic data. Internet advertising. (1) Supplier sites. Suppliers who operate websites to promote their brands should use neutral age-entry screens, complemented by tracking tools to prevent minors from back-clicking to change their birth date once they realize that they have been blocked from an alcohol company website based on their age. (2) Online alcohol sales. Sites that sell alcohol should use age-verification technologies to ensure that alcohol is not shipped to underage purchasers. (3) Advertising on independent sites. The suppliers generally applied an informal 70 percent standard when placing advertising on independent sites, and the wine industry’s 70 percent standard applies to all media, including the Internet. In the course of this study, the Commission staff recommended that the codes of the beer and distilled spirits industries be modified to extend the 70 percent placement standard to Internet advertising, and to include buying guidelines for Internet advertisements. OO Other digital advertising. Other digital advertising currently accounts for only a small fraction of expenditures, but is likely to grow in importance over the coming years. As alcohol marketing efforts expand into new digital areas, such as email and mobile marketing, it is important that suppliers continue to expand their age-screening and verification processes. iii Federal Trade Commission OO OO OO OO OO Sponsorships. All self-regulatory codes should specify a 70 percent placement standard for sponsorship of events. Product placement in films. The Commission recommends that suppliers work with film producers to incorporate available demographic data into the analysis of prospective product placements, and place only in films that the producer has a goodfaith belief will meet the 70 percent standard. Expenditures to help others promote alcohol. These expenditures are subject to the existing placement and content provisions of the codes, and are regulated at the state and federal levels. The Commission will continue to monitor this aspect of alcohol marketing, but it does not appear that additional self-regulatory provisions are needed now. External review of complaints. The Commission recommends that all of the trade associations accept online complaints, competitor complaints, anonymous complaints, and complaints about non-member advertising. Youth access to alcohol. The Commission continues to encourage all stakeholders concerned about underage alcohol use to support social responsibility efforts, such as WDST, that are designed to reduce youth access to alcohol and the subsequent alcoholrelated injury. Commission commitment to ongoing monitoring. Historically, the Commission has relied on informal inquiries and periodic major studies to monitor self-regulation. The Commission is now implementing a new monitoring system. Each year, the Commission will send compulsory process orders to between two and four suppliers, including smaller suppliers, seeking information about advertising and marketing practices, systems used to prevent deceptive and unfair marketing, and compliance with self-regulatory guidelines. This procedure will allow the Commission to appraise the industry’s response to this report’s recommendations; evaluate alcohol marketing efforts in new media; and consider efforts to reduce the likelihood that alcohol advertising in such new media will target youth. iv Self-Regulation in the Alcohol Industry I. Introduction A. Background Underage alcohol use is a persistent problem, giving rise to concerns about youth exposure to alcohol marketing. This is the third FTC report on activities related to alcohol and youth, including the status of alcohol industry initiatives to reduce the likelihood that alcohol advertising will target youth.1 This report provides, for the first time, significant data about how industry members allocate their promotional dollars, and information about self-regulatory efforts related to these expenditures. The report also provides comprehensive information about compliance with the voluntary advertising placement standard adopted by the alcohol industry in 2003, and analyzes the status of external review of advertising complaints. Finally, it provides an update on the FTC’s “We Don’t Serve Teens” campaign to reduce underage access to alcohol from social sources. This report is based on the responses to Special Orders issued to twelve major alcohol suppliers, public comments submitted in response to two Federal Register notices,2 and discussions with a wide range of stakeholders. Exhibit A is a copy of the Special Order issued to the alcohol suppliers. B. Scope of the Problem Underage drinking is a leading public health and social problem in the United States, associated with the three leading causes of death among youth – unintentional injury, homicide, and suicide. A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) paints a disturbing picture of the risks associated with youth drinking. These include driving after drinking; riding with a driver who has been drinking; sexual activity and pregnancy of self or partner; tobacco use; interpersonal violence; consideration of or attempt at suicide; and use of marijuana, cocaine, or inhalants.3 Binge drinkers are even more likely to engage in these risky behaviors.4 There also is a relationship between academic problems and drinking.5 In 2007, about 16 percent of 8th graders, 33 percent of 10th graders, and 44 percent of 12th graders reported drinking in the past thirty days.6 Although current teen drinking levels are unacceptably high, they have declined substantially over time, as shown in Figure 1.7 Once youth start to drink, they are likely to report engaging in drunkenness or binge drinking (defined as the consumption of 5 or more drinks on the same occasion), as shown by Figure 2.8 Teens drink a wide range of alcohol types, including beer, distilled spirits, wine, and flavored beverages.9 1 Federal Trade Commission Percent of High School Students Reporting Alcohol Use in the Past 30 days, Long-term Trends Figure 1 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 8th Grade 10th Grade 12th Grade Source: The Monitoring the Future study, the University of Michigan. Recent federal efforts reinforce the conclusion that underage drinking is an issue of national importance. The Sober Truth About Preventing Underage Drinking Act (“STOP Act”), signed into law in 2006, called for a focused national effort to reduce underage drinking,10 including a “coordinated approach to prevention, intervention, treatment, enforcement, and research.”11 The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Prevent and Reduce Underage Drinking (“Call to Action”), issued in 2007, called for reduced societal acceptance of underage drinking, delay of drinking initiation, and reduction of negative consequences related to youth drinking.12 It emphasized that alcohol use must be understood in the context of adolescent Figure 2 development, taking into account Levels of Binging and Drunkenness Among Teens Who Drink the processes of maturation, the influence of social systems, and individual characteristics.13 70% 66% 65% 65% 58% 60% 54% 50% C. The FTC and Alcohol Industry SelfRegulation 40% 35% 30% 20% 10% The three major alcohol supplier trade associations – the Beer Institute (“BI”), the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (“DISCUS”), and the Wine Institute (“WI”) – have adopted voluntary advertising and marketing codes (hereafter referred to collectively as the “codes” and individually as “BI Code,” “DISCUS Code,” or “WI Code”).14 The codes contain provisions relating to both the content and the placement of marketing efforts. The FTC’s two prior alcohol marketing studies, published in 1999 and 2003, evaluated compliance with, and the appropriateness of, alcohol industry voluntary self-regulatory guidelines designed to reduce the likelihood that alcohol advertising will, by its content or placement, target consumers below the legal drinking age. The 0% 8th Grade 10th Grade Got Drunk, Past 30 Days Source: The Monitoring the Future study, the University of Michigan. 2 Binged, Past 2 Weeks 12th Grade Self-Regulation in the Alcohol Industry 1999 Report identified a number of promising practices relating to advertising placement and content and external review of complaints about compliance with code provisions.15 The 2003 Alcohol Report announced that, at the Commission’s recommendation, the industry had adopted improved standards for where advertising could be placed, requiring that at least 70 percent of the audience for each advertisement consist of adults 21 and over, based on reliable data. The 2003 Alcohol Report also noted that one segment of industry had improved external review of code compliance; the Commission encouraged the other industry segments to adopt systems for external review of complaints, particularly complaints about underage appeal of alcohol advertising.16 After 2003, the Commission continued its active monitoring and review of alcohol advertising and compliance with the self-regulatory guidelines. The FTC staff worked with industry trade associations and individual companies to facilitate compliance with the new 70 percent advertising placement standard and to encourage improvement in external review of compliance. Following media stories about promotions for drinking games, the FTC staff worked with the trade associations to facilitate rapid adoption of code provisions to prohibit such practices. In March 2006, the agency announced the initiation of this study.17 In January 2007, following completion of the process set forth by the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Commission issued Special Orders to the twelve alcohol suppliers that were identified by public sources as the top spenders on alcohol advertising in “measured media” (television, radio, print, and outdoor advertising) in 2005.18 See Exhibit A. The Special Orders required submission of: contact information and other background data (Specification 1); advertising expenditure data (Specification 2); advertisement placement data (Specification 3); and information on external enforcement mechanisms (Specification 4). In addition, the staff requested that the suppliers and the trade associations submit substantial additional information that would “flesh out” the responses to the Special Orders. The Commission’s findings are set forth below. II. Study of Industry Self-Regulation A. Supplier Background Information19 In 2005, the twelve suppliers that received Special Orders sold over 2.4 billion cases of alcohol,20 representing about 73 percent of U.S. alcohol supplier sales by volume in 2005. Their pre-tax sales revenues were approximately $30.8 billion.21 They sold 1,133 brands or brand 3 Federal Trade Commission extensions, including 246 wines, 169 beers, 659 distilled spirits, and 59 alternative beverages (such as premixed cocktails and flavored malt beverages). B. Advertising and Promotional Expenditures The FTC’s 1999 Alcohol Report had estimated, based upon marketing documents provided for a few brands, that measured media expenditures might account for only one-third of alcohol brand promotional budgets. The Special Orders directed the twelve suppliers to report the dollar amount they expended during the calendar year 2005 on the advertising, merchandising, or promotion of beverage alcohol products in the United States in 22 categories.22 The purpose of the request was to identify generally what kinds of marketing efforts the suppliers engage in, so that the Commission could evaluate the extent to which current selfregulatory provisions address these efforts. In addition to providing expenditure data, the companies provided examples of programs supported by expenditures, particularly expenditures in lesser-known categories, and described efforts to reduce the likelihood that such expenditures would be targeted to those below the legal drinking age (“LDA”). 1. Response Summary The companies reported just over $3 billion in advertising and promotional expenditures in 2005, presented below in descending order of prevalence:23 4 Self-Regulation in the Alcohol Industry Table 1 Industry-wide Allocation of Advertising and Promotion Expenditures Category % of Total Industry Expenditure Amount Spent (in Thousands) Minimum % of Company Expenditure Maximum % of Company Expenditure Television 25.97% $825,915 1.43% 36.48% Other Point-of-Sale Advertising and Promotions 18.84% $599,105 0.00% 53.17% Sponsorship of Sporting Events, Sports Teams, or Individual Athletes 10.95% $348,340 0.26% 20.71% Promotional Allowances 7.49% $238,200 0.00% 58.87% Specialty Item Distribution 7.02% $223,423 0.17% 27.56% Retail Value-Added 5.99% $190,481 0.00% 13.43% Outdoor 5.62% $178,795 2.99% 12.96% Public Entertainment: Not Sports Related 5.07% $161,301 0.73% 13.45% Radio 5.01% $159,504 0.00% 12.24% Magazine 4.36% $138,784 1.00% 13.47% Supplier-Sponsored Internet Sites 1.08% $34,501 0.05% 2.35% Newspaper 0.91% $28,815 0.22% 1.96% Other Internet Sites 0.77% $24,498 0.00% 2.78% Transit 0.41% $13,109 0.00% 1.35% Direct Mail 0.30% $9,464 0.00% 2.99% Product Placements 0.11% $3,398 0.00% 0.82% Other Digital 0.06% $1,797 0.00% 0.17% Telemarketing 0.02% $684 0.00% 0.14% Spring Break Promotions 0.02% $482 0.00% 0.06% 100.00% $3,131,13024 Sports and Sporting Events 26.33% $837,335 0.00% 45.80% Social Responsibility Programs and Messages 3.50% $111,219 0.00% 5.31% Total Reportable Cross Categories 2. Traditional Media Traditional advertising on television and radio and in magazines and newspapers accounted for just over 36 percent of expenditures. The self-regulatory codes of the three trade associations specify that ads should be placed during radio and television programming or in print media only if at least 70 percent of the audience is reasonably expected to consist of persons of legal drinking age and older (“LDA adults”).25 The BI and DISCUS codes – which govern the 5 Federal Trade Commission practices of the twelve suppliers evaluated during this study – include buying guidelines that identify appropriate demographic data to consider when making television, radio, and magazine purchases.26 Part II.C of this report evaluates industry compliance with this standard. 3. Outdoor Advertising Outdoor advertising (such as billboards) represented about 5.6 percent of expenditures. Transit advertising (such as ads at bus stops and other transportation facilities) represented about 0.4 percent of expenditures. The BI Code and the DISCUS Code specify that outdoor stationary advertising may not be located within 500 feet of elementary and secondary schools or places of worship; the WI Code does not address the placement of outdoor ads.27 4. Sponsorships Sponsorships accounted for 16.3 percent of expenditures. Two-thirds of these funds were directed at sponsoring sports events (e.g., football, baseball, or auto racing), sports teams, and individual athletes.28 The other third was directed to non-sports events, such as sponsorship of concerts and comedians. The BI Code provides that advertising and marketing is prohibited at any event where “most” of the audience is expected to be below the legal drinking age; the DISCUS Code requires that 70 percent of the audience for sponsored events consist of LDA adults; and the WI Code requires that advertising not “use entertainment or sports celebrities having a particular appeal to persons” below the LDA.29 If sponsored events are carried on television or radio, the promotions also are subject to the code placement provisions applicable to advertising in those media. 5. Expenditures to Help Others Promote Alcohol Products Suppliers rarely sell alcohol directly to consumers; instead, they sell to wholesalers (also known as distributors), who in turn sell to retailers. Retailers fall into two categories. They may serve alcohol for immediate use “on premise,” as in the case of restaurants, bars, and sports stadiums. Or they can sell product for use “off premise,” as in the case of liquor, grocery, and convenience stores. Several of the categories identified in the Special Orders sought information about supplier expenditures to help wholesalers and retailers promote their products to consumers. Nineteen percent of expenditures were devoted to the other point-of-sale (“POS”) category, meaning expenditures by suppliers to produce promotional materials used by retailers engaged in either on-premise or off-premise sales. POS expenditures fell into three general categories. The first was inexpensive items such as temporary signs of all sizes, display racks, table tents, 6 Self-Regulation in the Alcohol Industry coasters, and napkins. The second was permanent or semi-permanent materials such as neon signs, branded furniture, lighting, and mirrors. The third was promotional events, such as product tastings and bar nights, intended to promote brand trial. In most cases, POS promotional items are installed by a wholesaler, rather than the supplier. The specialty item and retail value-added categories represented 13.2 percent of expenditures. Specialty items include items other than alcohol that are distributed to consumers at retail; examples are branded clothing or glassware. Retail value-added refers to promotions where a consumer gets a free alcohol or non-alcohol item with a purchase, such as a free bottle of wine or a bottle opener. Promotional allowances represented 7.5 percent of expenditures. Promotional allowances are funds provided by a supplier to its wholesalers or, infrequently, to retailers. Wholesalers use these funds for a variety of purposes, including the purchase (from the supplier) of POS materials, installation of POS materials at retail, the purchase of local advertising, and the conduct of local marketing programs. Some suppliers provide lump-sum grants to wholesalers in advance; others reimburse the wholesaler for money actually spent. The suppliers appear to keep self-regulatory provisions in mind when providing assistance to local marketing efforts. One supplier stated: We require a distributor to propose . . . a promotional program to our local sales or marketing employees for approval. We require our employees to fully evaluate the program to ensure compliance with local regulations, [the self-regulatory code], as well as compliance with [the supplier’s] internal marketing code. Often our local employee will involve the Legal Department if there are any questions or concerns. Similarly, if the local promotion involves media purchases, all purchases must be pre-cleared with [the supplier’s director of media services] . . . . In addition, in states where we have contracts with our distributors, we require the distributor to abide by the applicable [self-regulatory codes]. Many of these expenditures are subject to provisions of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (“FAA Act”), and implementing regulations thereunder, designed to preserve retailer independence from suppliers and wholesalers.30 In addition, the states heavily regulate retailers’ acceptance and use of POS, specialty and retail-value-added items, and promotional allowances from wholesalers and suppliers.31 7 Federal Trade Commission 6. Internet Internet promotions represented only 1.9 percent of expenditures; this likely reflects the relatively low cost of Internet marketing, rather than its potential reach. Just over half of the funds dedicated to Internet marketing supported company-sponsored sites; the remainder was directed to promotions on other sites. a. Company-Sponsored Sites In the case of company-sponsored sites, the Commission previously recommended that companies limit access to those users stating that they are over 21, for example, by entering a birth date indicating an age of 21 or older to gain admission.32 It also recommended that sites featuring content likely to have strong appeal to minors, or that permit alcohol purchases online, consider use of age-verification technologies, i.e., systems that instantly compare the consumer’s personal information to electronic databases of government and commercial information, to verify that the identified consumer is 21 or older.33 The twelve companies that received the Commission’s Special Orders operate 223 websites to promote their brands.34 Of these, 197 websites require the user to input his or her date of birth to gain entry to the site; if a user indicates an age under 21, the site will prohibit access, often redirecting the browser to a consumer education website.35 Another ten company-operated websites require the user to certify that he or she is 21 or older (by checking a box). Finally, sixteen company-operated websites do not screen for age in any manner. One alcohol company uses age-verification technology on a company-owned site. In February 2007, Anheuser-Busch launched an online entertainment network, Bud.TV (www. budtv.com). The company is using an age-verification system to limit entry to the site.36 b. Online Alcohol Sales Four of the suppliers that received the Commission’s Special Orders operate websites that offer consumers the ability to purchase alcohol online, either directly from the company, or by linking to a third-party alcohol vendor. In response to Commission recommendations, these companies now all either employ age-verification technologies in connection with online sales or perform a similar check after the potential purchaser has phoned or faxed in his or her personal information. 8 Self-Regulation in the Alcohol Industry c. Advertising on Independent Sites Alcohol suppliers also advertised widely on independent sites. In 2006, the self-regulatory codes applied to Internet advertising but did not specify a 70 percent placement standard or include an Internet buying guideline. Nonetheless, most individual companies advised the Commission that they followed a 70 percent standard for placing advertising on independent sites. They made placement decisions in light of a site’s demographic data for the prior two or three months, as measured by one or both of two Internet data measuring services.37 For websites not so measured, several companies required third-party verification that the target site met the 70 percent placement standard; another assumed that websites based on magazines or television programs shared the demographics of the magazine or program at issue. In addition, some prominent websites used filtering mechanisms to direct alcohol ads only to users whose registration information identified them as being 21 or older.38 7. Telemarketing, Mail, and Digital Communications Three categories of expenditures reflecting communication with individual consumers – telemarketing, direct mail, and other digital advertising – accounted for 0.4 percent of expenditures. Telemarketing, according to suppliers, referred to use of “on hold” messages when consumers call a company, either for general inquiries or in connection with sweepstakes (some states require a 1-800 number for sweepstakes). Direct mail – either U.S. mail or electronic – as reported by suppliers, was used to communicate with consumers who joined a product club. Other digital advertising consisted of email and text messaging communications with customers; only consumers who consented to such messages were included in the promotions. Suppliers used a variety of means to reduce the likelihood of communicating with those under the legal age. One supplier maintained a database of registered users who opted-in to receive emails; it used an outside contractor to conduct age verification and eliminated from the database those not verified to be 21 or older. Another supplier required that consumers seeking to send text messages “voting” on the appearance of an advertising campaign first enter their date of birth; if the date of birth showed the consumer to be less than 21, the vote was rejected. A third supplier sent emails to website visitors who had entered a date of birth showing that they were LDA adults to gain entry to the site, who thereafter opted-in for email communications. Several companies’ forward-to-a-friend campaigns required that the email recipient connect to the company’s websites through a gateway page that screened for the recipient’s age. Finally, one company’s digital marketing policy sought to limit transfer of advertising content to underage users by creating content that could not be copied (e.g., through right-clicking and using the “save as” feature); this company also included statements in close proximity to the 9 Federal Trade Commission downloadable advertising content, prohibiting the sharing of such content with persons under the legal drinking age. 8. Spring Break Spring break promotions represented 0.02 percent of expenditures. According to the Special Order responses, spring break activities were limited to licensed retail establishments; materials supplied for these activities included special bar signs and branded product give-aways. 9. Product Placement Product placements accounted for 0.1 percent of expenditures. A product placement most often consists of making product or other branded items available for use as props in movies or television programs. Less often, suppliers have provided cross-promotional support for films, in the form of advertising, website development, and specialty item distribution. Product placements on television are treated in the same manner as advertising on television, that is, they are appropriate only if the available data supports the conclusion that at least 70 percent or more of audience members will be LDA adults. In the case of films, suppliers advised that product placement decisions have been made on a case-by-case basis, based upon review of the proposed script.39 10. Cross-Category Analysis a. Sports and Sporting Events Suppliers estimated, from across the previously identified categories, that 27 percent of all promotional expenses were directed to sports and sporting events. This includes expenditures to sponsor teams or events as well as the placement of advertising during sports programming. Three percent of supplier expenditures were made in connection with college sports. The BI Code permits marketing on college campuses or at college-sponsored events if permitted by the school.40 DISCUS and WI prohibit marketing on college campuses.41 b. Social Responsibility Programs and Messages The Special Orders required the suppliers to estimate expenditures to support social responsibility programs and messages. The expenditures reported in this category could, but did not necessarily, duplicate expenditures reported in prior categories (such as television and 10 Self-Regulation in the Alcohol Industry print ads). On average, suppliers reported that an amount equal to about 3.5 percent of 2005 promotional expenditures were dedicated to these efforts.42 C. Advertising Placement The placement provisions of the BI Code and the DISCUS Code include a protocol, as well as a placement standard. They require the companies to check audience composition data before placing an ad, and permit a placement only if specific demographic data identified in the buying guidelines show that 70 percent or more of the audience has, over the past six months to a year (depending on the medium), consisted of LDA adults.43 The responses to the Special Orders provided information about the extent to which industry adopted procedures consistent with the placement provisions, as well as whether they were successful in attaining an LDA audience composition of 70 percent or higher when the advertisement actually ran. 1. Placement Procedures It appears that all twelve of the suppliers made good-faith efforts to implement the protocols described in the codes. They directed their media buyers44 to review the available demographic data before placing ads, and to place ads only if the data showed that the audience historically met the 70 percent standard.45 Before placing in television, the suppliers directed their buyers to consider the syndicated demographic data for the past six months for the program in which the advertisement would appear, except in the case of small cable networks, where data were available only for three- to six-hour dayparts. Before placing on radio, they directed the buyers to consider the audience composition data for the past six months for the standard daypart in which the advertisement would appear. Before placing in magazines, the suppliers directed the buyers to consider the most recently published syndicated data about the audience for that publication; if the publication was not measured by a syndicated data source, the suppliers relied on other data, as identified in the codes. If a supplier learned that a magazine’s readership fell below the 70 percent standard, it would stop advertising in that magazine, or place ads only in a special “21 plus” edition of the publication.46 Some suppliers also considered other factors when placing ads, to reduce the likelihood of reaching an underage audience. For example, most directed magazines not to place ads in issues that featured underage persons on the cover; others prohibited ads on wrestling or animated programs on television. Some of the suppliers purchased advertising as much as a full year in advance; in such cases, suppliers and media buyers generally re-reviewed data before the placement actually occurred. If updated data showed that the audience had changed, the outlet was placed on a “no-buy” list until it came into compliance.47 11 Federal Trade Commission 2. Placement Results The preceding paragraphs discussed the procedures that the companies followed, and the data they considered, before making a placement. The Special Orders required the companies also to provide data showing the composition of the audience (that is, number and percent of persons below and above the LDA) for each individual television, radio, magazine, and newspaper advertising placement that occurred in the first six months of 2006.48 The combined data for the twelve suppliers are summarized in Table 2, below. Table 2 Summary of Placement Data Column A: Placements That Met Target Column B: Impressions From Placements That Met Target Column C: Proportion of Aggregate Audience 21+ All Ads 92.50% 97.12% 86.22% Television 93.94% 97.45% 85.68% Radio 92.04% 95.11% 88.12% Newspapers 99.77% 100.00% 91.80% Magazines 98.51% 98.99% 86.34% Targeted Ads: African American 94.17% 96.86% 87.99% Targeted Ads: Hispanic 92.85% 94.35% 83.30% First, the Commission evaluated what percentage of the twelve suppliers’ placements met the 70 percent target, industry-wide. As shown in Column A of Table 2, 92.5 percent of all television, radio, and print advertising placements for which data were available hit the 70 percent target, that is, had an LDA audience composition of 70 percent or higher.49 This included about 94 percent of television advertisements, 92 percent of radio advertisements, 99 percent of newspaper advertisements, and 98 percent of magazine advertisements. Among placements that did not meet the 70 percent target, most (about two-thirds) had an LDA audience of 60 percent or higher. Second, the Commission evaluated “impressions” data; impressions are the number of persons exposed to an ad. Some programs and print media have large audiences and thus result in many advertising impressions, whereas others have small audiences and result in few impressions. For example, an advertisement on a local radio or special interest cable network generally will result in far fewer impressions than an advertisement shown on national network television. 12 Self-Regulation in the Alcohol Industry Column B in Table 2 shows what proportion of the suppliers’ advertising impressions results from placements that met the 70 percent target. Overall, about 97 percent of total alcohol advertising impressions were due to advertising placements that met the 70 percent target, including about 97 percent of television impressions, 95 percent of radio impressions, and nearly all newspaper and magazine impressions. Further, less than 0.6 percent of impressions occurred as a result of advertising with less than a 60 percent adult audience. Column C in Table 2 shows the percentage of the aggregate audience for alcohol ads that was composed of persons 21 and older (as opposed to underage persons) (“aggregate LDA composition”). Overall, about 86 percent of audience members for the measured advertising was 21 or older. Further, among individual suppliers, the aggregate LDA composition ranged from a low of 83.2 percent to a high of 87.8 percent. The Commission also collected data about advertising targeted to African-American or Hispanic audiences.50 Among placements targeted to African-American audiences, 94 percent met the 70 percent target, and among placements targeted to Hispanic audiences, 92.8 percent met the 70 percent target, as shown in Column A. More than 87 percent of the audience for African-American-targeted advertising, and more than 83 percent of the audience for advertising targeted to Hispanic audiences, was composed of persons 21 or older, per Column C. Further, among individual suppliers, the aggregate LDA composition ranged from a low of 82.8 percent to a high of 100 percent for ads targeted to an African-American audience, and from a low of 78.8 percent to a high of 89.1 percent for advertising targeted to a Hispanic audience. 3. Motor Sports Promotions Concerns have been raised about alcohol advertising and promotions related to the National Association of Stock Car Auto Racing, or NASCAR, given recent statements by NASCAR that this sport is highly popular with youth.51 The Special Order responses confirm that several suppliers sponsor motor sports teams or events, or advertise during motor sports programming. The Commission’s study shows that nearly all (98 percent) of motor sports programs on which alcohol advertising appeared in the first half of 2006 had a 70 percent or higher LDA audience; in the aggregate, about 92 percent of the audience for these programs was composed of LDA adults.52 According to available data, the audience attending NASCAR events is 85 percent above the LDA.53 13 Federal Trade Commission D. External Review of Compliance 1. Background To increase the effectiveness of self regulation, prior Commission reports recommended supplementing suppliers’ internal mechanisms for fostering code compliance with an external system for resolving disputes about whether a particular advertisement violates the code.54 The Commission recommended that such a system: (1) be impartial and objective; (2) be public; and (3) apply standards consistently.55 Specification 4 of the Commission’s Special Orders directed the companies to provide detailed information about the status of third-party review, including information about complaints reviewed by the BI, DISCUS, or WI review boards in 2006.56 The Commission considered the responses in light of public comments asking that: (1) the Commission evaluate whether industry members comply with review board recommendations; (2) industry members be barred from the review boards, in order to eliminate bias in industry’s favor; and (3) fines be assessed for code violations, in order to increase deterrence.57 2. External Review Procedures The DISCUS review board is made up of senior member company representatives. It also has an Outside Advisory Board that is available to break a tie when the review board cannot reach a majority decision.58 DISCUS will consider complaints filed by consumers or competitors about advertising of any member’s spirits, wine, and beer brands, as well as about advertising for non-members’ spirits brands. DISCUS will consider complaints lodged anonymously. The DISCUS website, www.discus.org, contains the DISCUS Code, buying guidelines, information about the outside advisory board, and the decisions of the review board, which are published semi-annually. It does not permit complaints to be filed online, however. The Wine Institute adopted third-party review in September 2005. The WI requires that complaints about wine advertising be reviewed first by an internal panel of association officers. If this committee finds that an advertisement violates the WI code, the vintner may elect to have the advertisement reviewed by an independent third-party reviewer.59 The WI website, www. wineinstitute.org, contains the text of the WI Code, a flowchart outlining the complaint review process, and information on how to file a complaint. It also states that findings of the review process will be published on the WI website. The WI considers complaints about WI member products only. The WI will consider complaints by competitors, but it will not take anonymous complaints. 14 Self-Regulation in the Alcohol Industry The Beer Institute implemented its external review system in February 2006. The fivemember BI review board is comprised wholly of non-industry personnel, drawn from the advocacy, legal, and marketing communities.60 Under the BI’s review process, complaints are first considered by the relevant brewer; complainants who are dissatisfied with the brewer’s response may then file a formal complaint with the BI review board. The BI website, www. beerinstitute.org, contains the text of the advertising code and buying guidelines, decisions of the review board, and the review board’s annual reports.61 The site’s homepage contains a clearly labeled, prominent link to this information. The BI permits online complaint submissions (the other trade associations do not); the BI’s website contains the online form, as well as a downloadable print-and-send complaint form. The BI does not accept anonymous complaints. The BI accepts complaints about non-member company advertising, and sends them to the non-member company for its consideration; to date, no complainant has asked for further consideration of a non-member’s advertising by the BI review board. The BI does not accept competitor complaints.62 3. Review Board Decisions and Compliance In 2006, the review boards of the three industry trade associations considered a total of twenty-six complaints alleging that suppliers had violated the placement or content provisions of the codes. The results are shown in Table 3, below:63 Table 3 External Review - 2006 Complaints Considered Decisions Adverse to Advertiser (#, %) Company Compliance with Review Board Decision (#, %) –Complaints about member ads 12 4 (33%) 4 (100%) –Complaints about non-member ads 10 8 (80%) 6 (75%) Beer Institute 4 64 0 not applicable Wine Institute 0 65 not applicable not applicable Total 26 12 (46%) 10 (83%) DISCUS As shown in Table 3, the review boards agreed with the complainants in 12 of the 26 cases (46 percent). In all cases where the complaint pertained to advertising by a member of the trade association at issue, the member complied with the review board decision. Additionally, in 75 percent of cases involving non-members, DISCUS was able to persuade the advertiser to comply with the findings of the DISCUS review board. 15 Federal Trade Commission III. Youth Alcohol Access Limiting youth access to alcohol is demonstrated to be effective in reducing and preventing underage drinking and drinking-related problems.66 Experts attribute the substantial long-term reductions in teen drinking depicted in Figure 1 of this report to the adoption, in the 1980’s, of laws limiting alcohol purchases to persons 21 and older.67 Indeed, teen drinking rates have declined along with teen perceptions that alcohol is easily available to them.68 Today, most teens who drink alcohol obtain it from social sources (from older friends or siblings, at parties where adults are present, or by taking it from their own homes, or those of friends, with or without permission),69 although older adolescents may also obtain it from commercial sources.70 In its 2003 Alcohol Report, the Commission stated that the availability of alcohol to teens could only be reduced by changing adult attitudes about teen use.71 The Institute of Medicine and the Surgeon General also called for increased attention to youth access to alcohol and a change in adult attitudes about youth drinking.72 In October 2006, the Commission launched the “We Don’t Serve Teens” (“WDST”) consumer education program, spreading the message, “Don’t serve alcohol to teens. It’s unsafe. It’s illegal. It’s irresponsible.” WDST is a government program targeted to parents and other responsible adults. The WDST website, www.dontserveteens.gov, summarizes the available data about teen drinking rates and risks, provides links to state drinking age laws, and describes efforts parents can undertake to protect their children from alcohol-related harm. The site rebuts common assertions about teen drinking – such as the pervasive myth that European teens drink less than American teens.73 The materials on the website – including public service announcements (“PSAs”) for television, radio, and print media – are available in English and Spanish, free of charge. Following the launch, public and private partners identified on the website helped deliver the WDST message to a broad range of constituencies. In September 2007, the Commission sponsored WDST Week, designed to dramatically heighten awareness of the program by concentrating PSAs and media events in a short period of time. The Commission obtained substantial help in this effort. The alcohol and advertising industries disseminated thousands of WDST PSAs across the nation, on billboards, radio, and television, and in magazines and newspapers.74 National print media including Time, U.S. News and World Report, Newsweek, Good Housekeeping, and Travel & Leisure featured WDST ads. On radio, the WDST message was delivered by PSAs featuring state attorneys general and FTC personnel (in both English and in Spanish). On television, the WDST message was delivered via a television ad, also available in both English and Spanish, that can be seen on the WDST website. In seventeen states, state attorneys general participated in WDST press conferences that 16 Self-Regulation in the Alcohol Industry also featured law enforcement, state alcohol regulators, consumer groups, and industry members; these events generated numerous follow-up articles about the importance of limiting teen access to alcohol in local media.75 Further, in the weeks and months before the press events, alcohol industry members worked to deliver WDST retail materials (including cold case clings and lapel pins for sales staff) to tens of thousands of retail outlets nationwide.76 A complete list of 2007’s WDST Week participants, and examples of the print and billboard PSAs, are attached as Exhibit B. WDST Week generated more than 1.1 billion advertising impressions for the WDST program, with a market value of over $9 million. IV. Analysis and Recommendations A. Placement of Advertising Alcohol suppliers devote a substantial proportion of promotional expenditures to traditional television, radio, and print media advertising.77 The suppliers have implemented the placement procedures – including the review of available audience demographic data before making placements and the conduct of periodic post-placement audits – that were added to the codes in 2003. Further, the post-placement data show that more than 92 percent of the placements met the 70 percent target when they ran and more than 97 percent of impressions were due to advertisements that met this target.78 Advertising placement relies on historical data to make decisions about the future. Some placement shortfalls – instances when the audience turns out to be different than expected – are likely to be unavoidable, given the nature of the available data. First, audience composition can change unexpectedly due to programming modifications or competitive factors. In the case of television, national audience demographic data are updated at least monthly and companies can adjust their purchases frequently. Radio data, however, are updated only twice per year, and magazine data are updated only once per year.79 As a result, advertisements placed on radio and in magazines may run for many months before a company learns of the need to modify a placement. Second, audience composition data consist of statistical projections from surveys of samples of media users. In the current environment, many media compete for the attention of viewers. In the case of niche media – such as local radio, local television, and small cable networks – the sample from which audience share is projected can be very small.80 This produces “bounce,” which is defined as “a change in station ratings from one [ratings] book to the next that is the result of a sampling error rather than any real change” in audience demographics.81 Indeed, the 17 Federal Trade Commission study data showed that network television advertisements, where the sample sizes are larger, were far less likely to miss the 70 percent target, as compared to local station advertisements.82 Bounce appears likely to have contributed to some of the shortfalls seen in the 2006 radio and television data. Upcoming technological improvements in radio83 and television84 audience measurements may, over time, produce improvements in the placement process. The Commission believes, however, that placement management difficulties also contributed to the shortfalls seen in the 2006 data, as described in Part II.C.2, above. In the course of the study, there were instances when data submitted by the suppliers were flawed; the Commission therefore required the submission of corrected and additional data.85 It appeared that some company personnel did not understand the audience composition data well enough to evaluate the data critically and identify potential problems. These kinds of problems may be avoided in the future with minor improvements in the placement system, as discussed further below. Some stakeholders have urged the Commission to recommend changes in the placement standard. Two alternative proposals have been put forward. The first proposal calls for limiting advertisements to media where 85 percent of audience members twelve and older are above the legal age (hereafter, the “85 percent baseline standard”).86 Others have recommended that the industry adopt a 75 percent LDA baseline standard for television, radio, and print advertisements, coupled with a minimum aggregate average LDA audience composition of 85 percent per brand and medium (“75 percent baseline/85 percent aggregate” standard), consistent with a commitment made by Beam Global Spirits and Wine (“Beam Global”) in 2007.87 The Surgeon General’s Call to Action did not call for a change in the placement standard but emphasized that the placement of alcohol advertising, promotions, and other means of marketing should not disproportionately expose youth to messages about alcohol.88 A change in the placement standard would require the suppliers to modify their advertising plans. If a 75 percent baseline standard had been in place in 2006, it would have required the suppliers to relocate about 12 percent of their placements.89 An 85 percent baseline standard would require more significant modifications.90 Proponents of the 85 percent baseline standard argue that under the current regime, youth are disproportionately exposed to alcohol advertising – that is, they argue that, per capita, youth see more television, radio, and print alcohol advertising than do adults. In support of their argument, they rely on an analysis that purports to compare alcohol advertising “gross rating points” (“GRPs,” a measure of advertising exposure) reaching youth and adults. The proponents’ own data, however, appear to show that the primary audience for alcohol advertising is of legal 18 Self-Regulation in the Alcohol Industry drinking age. For example, under the current 70 percent placement standard, young LDA adults see more alcohol advertising than do youth.91 Further, as proposed, the 85 percent baseline standard would prohibit alcohol advertisements in media where more than 15 percent of audience is aged 12 to 20, but it would permit an unlimited number of children ages 2 to 11 to be in the audience. Such an approach does not appear sufficiently protective of young children.92 Of course, a change in the baseline standard is intended to reduce underage impressions. It is unclear, however, that this is an assured result. Advertising expenditure and placement decisions are a function of numerous factors, including decisions by existing suppliers to introduce new brands or increase their budgets for existing brands, as well as decisions by new entrants to engage in advertising; indeed, each year, several hundred new alcohol brands are introduced in the United States, sometimes accompanied by significant advertising and marketing support.93 Further, the placement standards apply to individual placements; they do not and cannot control the total level of alcohol advertising and promotional expenditures that occur. If the standard were raised, an advertiser seeking to reach a certain number of young LDA adults94 could (subject to budget constraints) run advertisements on a greater number of programs. Even if each of the programs met an 85 percent standard, total underage exposure could increase. An effective alcohol self-regulatory guideline should be designed to prevent industry members from targeting youth without undue restriction of avenues for marketing to the legitimate adult audience.95 The 70 percent standard is grounded in the 2000 census data (showing that approximately 70 percent of the U.S. population is 21 and older).96 Despite the placement shortfalls identified previously, when the audience data for television, radio, and magazine advertisements disseminated by the twelve suppliers were aggregated, more than 85 percent of the combined audience during the time period for which data were collected consisted of LDA adults; each individual company’s advertising reached at least an 83 percent LDA adult audience. Thus, it appears that the current 70 percent baseline standard has helped to ensure that alcohol advertising is not disproportionately directed to those below the legal drinking age, as recommended by the Surgeon General’s Call to Action. Recommendation. Upon consideration of the record – including the comments received during the study, the placement data, the potential costs and benefits of a modified standard, and the risk of unintended adverse consequences – the Commission is not recommending a change in the baseline placement standard at this time. The Commission does, however, recommend that individual suppliers consider aggregate audience composition (that is, what percent of the overall alcohol advertising audience, aggregated across placements, is of legal age) when making placements.97 Further, the Commission urges the trade associations to consider the results of the 2010 Census, when they become available.98 19 Federal Trade Commission Finally, the Commission has identified practices that will facilitate better management of placements consistent with the self-regulatory codes. These include: OO OO OO OO adoption by the trade associations of consistent and transparent systems for interpretation of the demographic data;99 regular training of company personnel about audience composition data, including training by the trade associations about practices calculated to ensure compliance with the placement standards; “hands on” management of media buyers; and maintenance of records that reflect actual buys and show the source of post-placement demographic data. Such changes are essential to facilitate a level playing field, improve the media buying process, and increase the integrity of self-regulatory codes. B. Internet Advertising As discussed in Part II.B.1, above, Internet promotions represented less than two percent of company marketing expenditures in 2005. Nonetheless, these expenditures may grow substantially over time, as they have for other industries. 1. Supplier Sites In the 2003 Alcohol Report, the Commission recommended that supplier sites require visitors, at a minimum, to input their date of birth to gain entry to the site, and deny entry if a user indicates an age under 21.100 The three industry codes require age screening on companyoperated Internet sites.101 The Commission’s survey of sites operated by the twelve suppliers revealed that about 88 percent of the websites promoting the companies’ alcohol brands required consumers to enter their birth date, and denied entry to consumers identified as younger than the LDA.102 Only four percent of the alcohol company websites surveyed included a check-box age certification; seven percent did not screen for age at all. Recommendation. As the Commission has advised in the children’s online privacy arena,103 website operators should be mindful of the potential for underage consumers to falsify their ages, and take care to install effective age-screening mechanisms. In addition to including a neutral age entry screen on all sites promoting alcohol brands, alcohol companies should consider using tracking tools to prevent minors from back-clicking to change their birth date once they realize that they have been blocked from an alcohol company website based on their 20 Self-Regulation in the Alcohol Industry age. In addition, the Commission reiterates its admonition that companies avoid online content that is likely to appeal to minors. When such content is unavoidable, companies should consider instituting age-verification, as recently used by Anheuser-Busch, rather than simple screening mechanisms.104 2. Online Alcohol Sales Only a minority of the suppliers in this study engaged in online alcohol sales; the suppliers who engaged in such sales have adopted age-verification technologies. The Commission does not have data showing the extent to which suppliers and other industry members who were not a part of this study engage in direct shipping of alcohol. Online alcohol sales are an important means of competition for small vintners whose brands are not widely distributed by wholesalers, but present special concerns about youth access to alcohol. The WI code recommends, but does not require, that member websites employ third-party age verification, and has an arrangement with a third-party vendor to provide age-verification services to WI members who choose to use it.105 Major delivery companies have adopted special provisions for shipment of alcohol, including conspicuous labeling and an adult signature requirement to ensure that the recipient of alcohol shipments is an LDA adult;106 some states mandate use of these systems.107 Recommendation. The Commission recommends that companies engaged in online alcohol sales use procedures to ensure that alcohol is not shipped to underage purchasers.108 3. Advertising on Third-Party Sites Alcohol suppliers advertised widely on independent sites and, as previously noted, they have generally applied an informal 70 percent placement standard when making placements on such sites. Further, the WI code already applies a 70 percent standard to Internet placements. With the advent of readily available and apparently reliable Internet audience demographic data, it is appropriate for BI and DISCUS also to adopt a formal self-regulatory guideline for this medium. Recommendation. In the course of this study, the Commission staff recommended that the BI and DISCUS codes be modified formally to extend the 70 percent baseline placement standards to Internet advertising, and to adopt specific buying guidelines for Internet advertisements.109 BI and DISCUS adopted such guidelines; they are attached to this report as Exhibits C and D. DISCUS’s Internet/Digital Buying Guidelines, effective January 1, 2008, apply to all paid and unpaid advertising placements made by or under the distiller’s control. DISCUS’s guidelines specify that distillers use a consistent syndicated audience measurement tool as 21 Federal Trade Commission their primary data source; advertisements are to be placed based on a site’s most recent threemonth unique audience average. For unmeasured sites, distillers must obtain an independent demographic survey based on the most recent three-month unique audience site average. Alternatively, if a site incorporates a registration mechanism, the distillers may limit advertising placements to a site’s registered users who are of the legal drinking age. Distillers also may direct advertisements to registered users age twenty-one and above on sites that do not otherwise meet the placement standard. DISCUS’s guidelines direct companies to conduct post-placement audits of Internet advertising placements, and to take appropriate corrective measures, as soon as is practicable, when a placement does not meet the placement standard. BI’s new Internet Buying Guidelines, effective for placements made after January 1, 2008, apply to all paid and unpaid placements on third-party websites. When a single purchase is made for advertisements on multiple websites, the placement standard and the buying guidelines apply to each website independently. The BI’s guidelines require brewers, in most instances, to use a consistent, recognized, Internet audience measurement source to make advertising placement decisions. Placements are deemed appropriate when the unique audience of monthly visitors for the two most recent consecutive monthly reports prior to placement meets or exceeds the 70 percent standard. For new or unmeasured websites, brewers may use audience composition data for sites that appear to be in the same category and have similar content. Brewers also may direct advertising placements to websites that are able to restrict dissemination of advertisements to registered users who are of the legal drinking age. Finally, brewers must conduct postplacement audits of actual placements on measured websites at least twice each year. These new guidelines are flexible, taking into account the evolving nature of the Internet audience measurement services. Because Internet audience data are readily available on an upto-date basis, the Commission urges companies to monitor their Internet placements frequently, and to take immediate action to pull, or otherwise adjust, advertisements that do not comply with the placement standard. C. Other Digital Advertising Other digital advertising, too, will likely grow in importance over the coming years. Recommendation. As alcohol marketing efforts expand into new digital areas, such as email and mobile marketing, it is important that suppliers continue to expand their age-screening and verification processes, as well. Using currently available technologies, such as directing emails or text messages only to persons who have opted-in to a registered 21+ database, or using third-party age-verification services to eliminate from a company’s marketing databases persons 22 Self-Regulation in the Alcohol Industry not verified to be above the legal drinking age, suppliers can reduce the likelihood that alcohol advertising will be directed to an inappropriate audience. D. Sponsorships Sponsorships are a common vehicle for promoting alcohol. Currently, however, the BI and WI codes do not articulate a 70 percent placement standard for events. Recommendation. The Commission recommends that the BI and WI codes be modified to apply a 70 percent placement standard for sponsorship of events, as well as placements in print and broadcast media. E. Product Placement in Films The general standards for placing advertising on television also apply to product placement in television programs. Product placement in movies, however, presents a more difficult subject for self-regulation because it is difficult to predict, when a movie is being produced, what its ultimate audience will be. In 1999, the Commission recommended that companies make product placements only in films that would be rated “R” or “NC-17” or, if unrated, had a mature theme.110 This standard has not proved entirely satisfactory. Some companies placed alcohol products in films expected to have an “R” rating, only to learn later that the producer modified the film to obtain a “PG-13” rating. More importantly, movie ratings may not relate well to the age of film attendees.111 As a result, it does not appear that a film’s expected rating is a workable way to gauge the appropriateness of product placements. The suppliers reported that they consider product placements in film on a case-by-case basis, in light of the proposed script. Some companies considered demographic information about past films as part of this process. Currently, there are three filmgoer demographic databases, including one that surveys audience members ages two and older, and another that surveys audience members twelve and older. Although these data relate to films that have already been released, they may also be informative regarding the likely audience for future, similar films. Recommendation. The Commission recommends that industry members work with film producers to incorporate available audience demographic data into the case-by-case analysis of prospective product placements, and place only in films that the producer has a good faith basis for believing will have an audience consisting of at least 70 percent LDA adults. 23 Federal Trade Commission F. Expenditures to Help Others Promote Alcohol to Consumers The supplier submissions reveal that efforts to assist others to promote alcohol play a significant role in alcohol marketing. Combined expenditures for point-of-sale, retail-valueadded, specialty items, and promotional allowances accounted for 26 percent of expenditures by the twelve suppliers included in this study. These expenditures are subject to the existing placement and content provisions of the self-regulatory codes. Moreover, it appears that these efforts are regulated at the federal and state level. While the Commission will continue to monitor this aspect of alcohol marketing, it does not appear that additional self-regulatory provisions are necessary at this time. G. External Review Much progress has been made to improve external review since the Commission’s 2003 Alcohol Report. By the close of 2006, all three segments of the alcohol industry had established frameworks for consideration of complaints about alcohol advertisements. Public comments have urged that industry members be barred from the review boards to eliminate a bias in industry’s favor, and that fines should be assessed for code violations to increase deterrence.112 Although the Commission will continue to monitor this issue, it does not appear that such changes are currently necessary. The BI’s review system is the only one that is fully comprised of outside experts. It is not clear, however, that the presence of company representatives on the review boards inherently biases the complaint process in industry’s favor. DISCUS’s review board, composed solely of industry members, rejected alcohol advertisements more often than did the Beer Institute’s review board.113 In 100 percent of cases where the DISCUS review board found that a DISCUS member had committed a code violation, the advertiser took responsive action. The only two instances where the advertiser failed to respond involved non-member companies. Recommendation. Certain changes are likely to increase the usefulness and reach of the complaint review process. Currently, only BI allows complaints to be submitted online.114 The Commission recommends that DISCUS and WI also accept online complaints. Active consideration of advertising by non-member companies, as has been done by WI and DISCUS on occasion, substantially increases awareness of and compliance with the self-regulatory codes, particularly by new alcohol marketers. Permitting competitor complaints makes the system more vigorous, as it does not rely solely on consumers to identify problems. Finally, permitting complaints to be submitted anonymously facilitates complaint submission by persons who might otherwise shy away from the process. 24 Self-Regulation in the Alcohol Industry H. Youth Alcohol Access Although legal drinking age laws have substantially reduced teen drinking since their adoption in the 1980s, too many teens still drink, as shown by Figure 1. Reduced teen access to alcohol is essential to further progress on this point. Public education and law enforcement are both critical to this effort. Advertising has undeniable power to shape public opinion and consumer behavior. The Commission’s “We Don’t Serve Teens” program brings the power of advertising to bear on the issue of teen access to alcohol. It has benefitted from the support of federal government departments, many state regulators, the advertising community, and consumer groups, as well as the alcohol industry. Recommendation. The Commission continues to encourage all stakeholders concerned about underage alcohol use to support social responsibility efforts, such as WDST, that are designed to reduce youth access to alcohol and the consequent alcohol-related injury. V. Conclusion The Commission has promoted self-regulation of alcohol marketing to reduce the likelihood that such marketing will, by its content or placement, target those under the LDA. The Commission has recommended self-regulation in a variety of contexts.115 A well-constructed self-regulatory regime has advantages over government regulation. It conserves limited government resources and is more prompt and flexible than government regulation, given the substantial time required to complete an investigation or to adopt and enforce a regulation. Finally, self-regulation is an appropriate response to concerns about the impact of alcohol advertising on youth, in light of protections provided by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.116 The Commission continues to believe, therefore, that alcohol industry selfregulation must play a prominent role in addressing concerns about alcohol marketing and youth. The Commission looks forward to the industry’s adoption of its recommendations. The government also has a role, however. Over the past decade, the Commission has actively monitored self-regulation within the alcohol industry, both formally and informally. Ongoing outreach and studies such as this one have allowed the Commission to evaluate compliance with code provisions and to make recommendations for improvement, when appropriate. These efforts have helped inform the Commission’s recommendations, and ultimately resulted in the adoption of code provisions containing an improved placement standard (including a protocol for making placements); a requirement that suppliers conduct periodic internal audits of past placements; and systems for external review of complaints about compliance with code provisions. 25 Federal Trade Commission Having completed the current study, the Commission will implement a new system for monitoring alcohol advertising self-regulation. Each year, the Commission will send compulsory process orders to between two and four suppliers, seeking information about advertising and marketing practices, systems used to prevent deceptive and unfair marketing, and compliance with self-regulatory guidelines. This procedure will allow the Commission to appraise the industry’s response to the recommendations contained in this report. It also will permit the Commission to evaluate alcohol marketing efforts in new media, and to consider efforts to reduce the likelihood that alcohol advertising in such new media will target youth. In the past, the Commission’s alcohol industry monitoring has focused primarily on the practices of the largest suppliers, an approach that may have suggested that smaller companies were immune from scrutiny. Future inquiries will include small as well as large suppliers. The Commission believes that this new monitoring system will support the self-regulatory efforts of the three trade associations. 26 Self-Regulation in the Alcohol Industry Endnotes 1. The prior two studies are: FTC, Alcohol Marketing and Advertising (Sept. 2003), available at http://www. ftc.gov/os/2003/09/alcohol08report.pdf (“2003 Alcohol Report”), and FTC, Self-Regulation in the Alcohol Industry (Sept. 1999), available at http://www.ftc.gov/reports/alcohol/alcoholreport.shtm (“1999 Alcohol Report”). 2. The Federal Register notices were published in March and October 2006. See Federal Trade Commission, Agency Information Collection Activities, 71 Fed. Reg. 11,659 (Mar. 8, 2006), available at http://www. ftc.gov/os/2006/03/P064505ProposedInfoRequeststoBeverageAlcoholManufacturers.pdf; and Federal Trade Commission, Agency Information Collection Activities, 71 Fed. Reg. 62,261 (Oct. 24, 2006), available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2006/10/P064505frnotice_inforeqalcoholads.pdf. The public comments, submitted in response to the notices, are posted on the FTC website at http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/ beveragealcoholadvertise/index.shtm and http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/alcoholmanufacadstudy/index.shtm. 3. J.W. Miller et al., Binge Drinking and Associated Health Risk Behaviors Among High School Students, 119 Pediatrics 76-85 (2007), available at http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/119/1/76. 4. Id. 5. Experts disagree, however, whether it is youth drinking that leads to academic failure, or academic failure that increases youth drinking. CDC’s study concludes that drinking increases the likelihood of academic failure, citing data showing that students who report receiving “mostly A’s” are three times more likely to be nondrinkers than binge drinkers; those who report receiving “mostly D’s or F’s” are more likely to be binge drinkers than nondrinkers. Id., Table 3. On the other hand, researchers with the Monitoring the Future (“MTF”) project at the University of Michigan looked at long-term data and concluded that academic failure occurs prior to and predicts teen drinking. See J.G. Bachman et al., The Education-Drug Use Connection: How Successes and Failures in School Relate to Adolescent Smoking, Drinking, Drug Use, and Delinquency (2007); Press release, University of Michigan, Early School Success Protects Against Teen and Young Adult Drug Use (Oct. 4, 2007), available at http://monitoringthefuture.org/pressreleases/jgbpr04oct07.pdf. 6. L.D. Johnston et al., Monitoring the Future National Results on Adolescent Drug Use: Overview of Key Findings (2007) (“2007 MTF Results”), at Table 3, available at http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/ data/07data/pr07t3.pdf. 7. 2007 MTF Results, supra note 6, at Figure 14, available at http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/data/07data/ fig07_14.pdf. The 2007 MTF Results show that, as compared to 1996, alcohol use by 8th graders has declined by 39 percent; use by 10th graders has declined by 17 percent; and use by 12th graders has declined by 12 percent. 2007 MTF Results, Table 3, available at http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/data/07data/pr07t3.pdf. Some have suggested that this decrease is due only to changes in drinking by boys, but data show that drinking by teen girls has also decreased. Specifically, between 1996 and 2007, drinking rates for 8th grade girls dropped from 25.8 percent to 16 percent; for 10th grade girls, the rate dropped from 38.3 percent to 33.3 percent; and for 12th grade girls, the rate dropped from 46.9 percent to 41.4 percent. See L.D. Johnston, P.M. O’Malley et al., Demographic Subgroup Trends for Various Licit and Illicit drugs, 1975-2006 (Monitoring the Future Occasional Paper No. 60), at Tables D-64-66, available at http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/occpapers/ occ67.pdf; L.D. Johnston et al., Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975–2007, Volume I: Secondary School Students (2008, forthcoming) (NIH Publication No. to be determined), Table 4-7. 8. 2007 MTF Results, supra note 6, Tables 3 and 4, available at http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/data/07data/ pr07t3.pdf and http://www.monitoringthefuture.org//data/07data/pr07t4.pdf. 27 Federal Trade Commission 9. Teens reported using the following kinds of alcohol in the 30 days prior to participating in the 2007 MTF survey: Grade Beer % Spirits % Wine % Wine Coolers % Flavored Alcohol % 8 12.2 n/c n/c n/c 12.2 10 24.4 n/c n/c n/c 21.8 12 36.6 34.1 14.1 12.7 29.1 n/c= information not collected L.D. Johnston et al., Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975–2007, Volume I: Secondary School Students (2008, forthcoming) (NIH Publication No. to be determined), Tables D-75, D-76, D-77, D-81, D-83, D-85, D-86, D-87, D-89. MTF also surveys alcohol use by older teens and adults. It reported that in 2006 (the most recent year for which data are available), 24 percent of study participants ages 19-30 reported drinking flavored alcohol beverages in the past 30 days and 56.8 percent reported drinking them in the past year. L.D. Johnston et al., Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975–2006, Volume II, College students and adults ages 19–45 (NIH Publication No. 07-6206) (2007), Figure 4-1, available at http://monitoringthefuture. org/pubs/monographs/vol2_2006.pdf (page 103 of 326). 10. Sober Truth On Preventing Underage Drinking Act, Pub. L. No. 109-422, 120 Stat. 2890 (Dec. 20, 2006), available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_ laws&docid=f:publ422.109. Among other things, the STOP Act directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to issue two reports to Congress each year. The first is a report on federal efforts to reduce underage drinking, including identification of evidence-based best practices to prevent underage drinking and treat those who need help as a result of youth drinking. Id. at Section 2(c)(1)(F). The second is a report on state laws and programs to prevent youth access to alcohol. Id. at Section 2(c)(2). 11. Id. at Section 2(b)(1). 12. Department of Health and Human Services, The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Prevent and Reduce Underage Drinking (2007) at 1-27, available at http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/underagedrinking/ calltoaction.pdf. 13. Id. at 75. 14. Wine Institute Code of Advertising Standards, available at http://www.wineinstitute.org/initiatives/ issuesandpolicy/adcode/details; Beer Institute Advertising and Marketing Code, available at http://www. beerinstitute.org/BeerInstitute/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000000384/2006ADCODE.pdf; Distilled Spirits Council of the United States Code of Responsible Practices for Beverage Alcohol Advertising and Marketing Guideline, available at http://www.discus.org/responsibility/code/read.asp. 15. 1999 Alcohol Report, supra note 1. 16. 2003 Alcohol Report, supra note 1, at 11, 13. 17. See supra, note 2. 18. The Commission identified the companies based on publicly available data regarding measured media spending by alcohol companies in 2005. See Adams Beverage Group, Adams Beer Handbook 2006, at 126 (2006); Adams Beverage Group, Adams Liquor Handbook 2006, at 233 (2006); Adams Beverage Group, Adams Wine Handbook 2007, at 122-30 (2007). The companies that received the Special Orders (and examples of their brands) are: Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. (Budweiser, Busch, Michelob, and Rolling Rock beers, Bacardi Silver flavored malt beverage) Miller Brewing Co., Inc. (Miller, Icehouse, and Foster’s beers) 28 Self-Regulation in the Alcohol Industry Molson Coors Brewing Co. (Molson, Coors, and Killian’s beers) Heineken USA, Inc. (Heineken and Amstel Light beers) Diageo North America (Smirnoff vodka, Jose Cuervo tequila, Guinness beer, Beaulieu Vineyards and Sterling wines, Smirnoff Twist flavored malt beverages) Bacardi U.S.A., Inc. (Bacardi rums, Bacardi pre-mixed cocktails, Grey Goose vodka) Pernod Ricard USA (Chivas Regal, Beefeater, Mumm and Perrier-Jouët wines) Brown-Forman Corp. (Jack Daniels, Southern Comfort, Fetzer and Bolla wines) Constellation Brands (Corona and St. Pauli Girl beers, Robert Mondavi and Inglenook wines, Black Velvet whiskey, ChiChi’s pre-mixed cocktails) InBev USA (Stella Artois, Bass, and Beck’s beers) Absolut Spirits Company, Inc. (Absolut vodka) Beam Global Spirits & Wine, Inc. (Jim Beam bourbon, Sauza tequila, Gilbey’s gin, and DeKuyper cordials; at the time the study commenced, Beam also owned several wine brands, since sold). 19. In response to comments, Specification 1(d) required the suppliers to provide data regarding the demographics of persons under 21 located in the U.S. who have tasted, used, or purchased the company’s brands. See Exhibit A, Specification 1(d). The request called for data prepared or received by them on or after January 1, 2003 and excluded publicly available data, such as data published by the government or advocacy groups. One of the twelve suppliers possessed data that technically fell within the scope of the request; it was in the form of summary survey data on behaviors and habits of panels of 26,000 to 78,000 consumers, in which fewer than 3 percent and more often less than .01 percent of participants (depending on the survey company and the year) were under 21. All data were provided in an anonymous aggregate form; the company received no information on individual consumers. In some cases, the company received data sets that included information on consumers aged “18-24” or “18-34,” as well as older age breaks; it was not possible, however, to extract from this information any data that were specific to alcohol purchase, tasting, or use by 18-20 year olds. As of 2007, data on consumers under 21 will no longer be provided to the company at issue. None of the other suppliers that received Special Orders had information responsive to this specification. 20. For the purposes of this report, a “case” is 9 liters or 2.25 gallons. 21. Consumer expenditures to purchase alcohol are substantially more than this, given price mark-ups at the wholesale and retail levels, as well as taxes. Retail sales in 2005 were $92.5 billion for beer, $58 billion for distilled spirits, and $26 billion for wine. Adams Beverage Group, Adams Beer Handbook 2007 (2007) at 189. 22. See Exhibit A, Specification 2 and Appendix A. 23. It was not always possible for suppliers to precisely allocate expenditures as set forth in Specification 2. For example, differences in company accounting systems and promotional item labeling sometimes meant that items destined for retail outlets could be classified as non-sports public entertainment events, other point of sale, or specialty items. In addition, expenditure data were often incomplete for brands that had changed ownership. 24. Because some expenditures were reported in more than one category, the sum of the categories is higher than actual total expenditures ($3.18 billion versus $3.13 billion). 25. BI Code, ¶ 3(c); DISCUS Code, Responsible Placement, ¶ 3; WI Code, ¶ 3.4. 26. BI Code, Buying Guidelines, available at http://www.beerinstitute.org/BeerInstitute/files/ccLibraryFiles/ FILENAME/000000000441/ADCODEBUYINGGUIDELINES2006.pdf; DISCUS Code, Demographic Data/ Advertising Placement Guidelines, available at http://www.discus.org/pdf/DemographicGuidelinesRevised306.pdf. 27. BI Code, ¶ 11; DISCUS Code, Responsible Placement ¶ 7. 28. Part II.B.10.a of this report provides additional information about sports sponsorships. 29. BI Code ¶ 3(e); DISCUS Code, Responsible Placement ¶¶ 4, 5; WI Code, ¶ 3.8. 29 Federal Trade Commission 30. See FAA Act, 27 U.S.C. §§ 205(b) (tied house provision) and (c) (commercial bribery provision), available at http://www.ttb.gov/trade_practices/tied_house.shtml and http://www.ttb.gov/trade_practices/commercial_ bribery.shtml and 16 C.F.R. §§ 6.81-84, 91-93, 95, 98, 99, 101(b) & 102. 31. A partial list of such state laws and regulations follows; the laws or regulations may also be complemented by other advisory information such as opinion letters or decisions. Alabama: Ala. Admin Code r.20-X-6.12, -7.01(f) & (g), -7.03(c) & (d), -7.11, -8.03, -8.04, -8.06, -8.07. Alaska: Alaska Stat. § 04.16.015. Arizona: Ariz. Stat. § 4-243(B)(2) & (3); Ariz. Comp. R. & Regs. 19-1-206, -210, 19-1-226(A)(1), (B)(3) & (M). Arkansas: Ark. Code § 3-5-104; Ark. ABC Reg. §§ 1.79(1), 2.28(4), (6), (10), & (13), 3.17. California: Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 23363.1 & .2, 23386, 23790.5, 25503.2, .5, .6, .8, & .27, 25611.1, 25612.5; Cal. Code Reg. tit. 4, div. 1, §§ 52 & 106(c), (d), (e), (i), & (j). Colorado: Col. Rev. Stat. § 12-47-901; Col. Liq. Reg. §§ 47-100, -316, -320, -322(B), & -416. Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-20; Conn. Agencies. Reg. §§ 30-6A32a, -A33, -A40, & 30-6-B21. Delaware: Del. ABCC Rules 2, 15, 27. District of Columbia: D.C. Code § 25-735(c), -736(c) & (d); D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 23, §§ 903, 904. Florida: Fla. Stat. §§ 561.42(1), (11), (12), & 565.17; Fla. Admin. Code § 61A-1.010, -4.018; Ind. Bull. 97-09 & 99-05. Georgia: Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 560-2-2.06, .16, .28, .45, .48, .55, & .58, r.560-2-3.36. Hawaii: Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 281-42(a)(3), (4), & (8), 281-42(c), 281-85; Hon. Liq. Reg. § 3-84-85.1; Maui Liq. Reg. § 08-101-109. Idaho: Idaho Code §§ 23-313, -1033; Idaho Liq. Reg. 15.10.01 at §§ 004.17, 004.19, 021.8; 021.11 to 021.15; 022.02. Illinois: 235 ILCS Ch. 5, para. 6-6; see also ILCC Trade Practice Policies 2, 3, 9, 10 & 25. Indiana: Ind. Code § 7.1-1-3-16(f); Ind. Admin. Code tit. 905, r.1-5.2-1 to r.1-5.2-10, -12, -14, -15, & -17. Iowa: Iowa Code § 123.186; Iowa Admin. Code r.185-16.1; 16.3 to 16.5, 16.9(123), 16.10(123), 16.11(123) to 16.16(123). Kansas: Kan. Stat. § 41709(b); Kan. Admin. Regs. §§ 14-10-1(a), 14-10-6, 14-10-8, -10, -11(b), -12 to -14. Kentucky: Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 244.240, .250, .260, 244.461, .590, & .804, Ky. Admin. Reg. §§ 1:070; 1:090; 1:100, 2:005. Louisiana: La. Admin. Code tit. 55: VII, § 317(B), (C). Maine: 28-A M.R.S.A. §§ 708(5), 708-A; Me. Liq. Regs. §§ 3.3, 4.13(A), 7.10 to 7.14, & 15.3, .4. Maryland: Md. Code [Alc. Bev.] Art. 2B, §12-104; Md. Code Regs. §§ 03.02.05.04, .05, .08, .10, & .13. Massachusetts: Mass. Liq. Reg. §§ 2.03, .06(8), .08, & 4.03(h). Michigan: Mich. Admin Code r. 436.1035, .1313, .1315, .1317, .1319, .1321, .1323, .1325, & .1329. Minnesota: Minn. Stat. §340A.308, 340A.5071; Minn. R. 7515.0300(5)-(7), 7515.0760(2), (3). Mississippi: Miss. Code § 671-77; Miss. Liq. Reg. Subpart 01, Ch. 12 §§ 101-03. Missouri: Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 311.070.3 to 311.070.5, 311.070.7 to 311.070.9, and 311.355. Montana: Mont. Code § 16-3-241, 16-3-244; Mont. Admin. R. §§ 42.11.205, 42.11.243 to 42.11.245, 42.11.111, 42.11.251, 42.13.211, and 42.13.221. Nebraska: Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 53-123.02, 53-168; Neb. Admin. R. & Regs. §§ 237-6-001, -002, -016. Nevada: Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 369.485, 597.225. New Hampshire: N.H. Rev. Stat. §§ 179:28-:31(II), 179:44; N.H. Code (Admin. R.) (Liq. Comm.) §§ 402.02 -.04, 405.0 -.05, 508.09, 508.10. New Jersey: N.J. Rev. Stat. §§ 33:1 to 43(b); N.J. Admin. Code tit. 13, §§ 2-24.2, .5-.7, .11, 2-23.16, 2-24.5, 2-24.11. New Mexico: N.M. Stat. § 60-8A-1(B) (3); 15 NMAC 10.5.1 at § 11.3.4 to 11.3.6; 11.3.7; N.M. Rev. Stat. §§ 60-6A-4 to -7. New York: NYCCRR, tit. 9, 83.1 to 83.4, 85.15, 86.1 to 86.5, 86.8, .9, .12-.16, and .17; N.Y. [Alco. Bev. Cont.] Law § 101-b(3)(a). North Carolina: 4 N.C. Admin. Code 2S.1006, .2S.1010 to 2S.1012, 2S.1020, 2T.0101(2), .2T.0712, 2T.0713, 2T.0716. North Dakota: N.D. Cent. Code § 5-01-11; N.D. Reg. §§ 81-12-01-10, -11. Ohio: Ohio Rev. Code § 4301.22; Ohio Admin. Code §§ 4301:1–32, -43(A), (B), -44, -45, & -46(D). Oklahoma: Okla. Stat. tit. 37, §§ 534-36, 537(B)(3); Okla. Liq. Reg. §§ 45:10-3-24, -25. Oregon: Or. Code §§ 471.398, .400-01, & .750(2); Or. Admin. R. 845-006-0350, 845-013-0001 (3), (4), (5), 845-013-0010, -0025, -0030, -0040, -0050, -0060, -0075, -0090(3)(c), 845-015-0165(3)(a), -0175, -0177. Pennsylvania: 47 Pa. Stat. §§ 4-305(a), 4-493, 4-498; 40 Pa. Admin. Code §§ 5.30, 5.32(h), 13.42, 13.43, 13.51-.53, 13.81, 13.201, & 13.211. Rhode Island: R.I. Gen. Laws § 3-7-4.1; R.I. Liq. Regs. 1(d), 13, 29, 36. South Carolina: S.C. Code §§ 61-6-1035, -1540, -1560, -1640, -2980, 61-9-940. South Dakota: S.D. Regs. §§ 64:75:04:10, 11, 13, 14. Tennessee: Tenn. Code §§ 57-3-404, 57-3-406; Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. §§ 0100-3-.06, -3-.14, 0100-6-.03. Texas: Tex. [Alc. Bev.] Code §§ 52.01, 102.02, 102.07; Tex. Admin. Code tit. 16, §§ 45.101; 45.106, 45.109, 45.112, 45.113, 45.117, 45.120. Utah: Utah Code § 32A-12-603(4). Vermont: Vt. Liq. Regs.: Advertising, §§ 1, 5, 7; Wholesale Dealers and Certificate Holders and Vt. Manufacturers §§ 9, 15. Virginia: 3 VAC 5-20-20, -30, -60 -90. Washington: Wash. Rev. Code §§ 66.28.010(2), 66.28.040, 66.28.045, 66.28.155; Wash. Admin. Code §§ 314-52-040, -080, -085, -090, & -113. West Virginia: W.Va. Reg. §§ 175-1-2.19, -2.21, -5.1.3, -5.4.1, -5.4.5, -5.4.6, & 176-1-7. Wisconsin: Wis. Stat. § 125.33. Wyoming: Wyo. Stat. § 12-5-403; Wyo. Admin. Code Ch. 20, § 8. 32. 2003 Alcohol Report at 17. 30 Self-Regulation in the Alcohol Industry 33. Id. at 18. These systems rely on data in electronic records containing consumer information (including date of birth), such as voter registrations, court filings, license applications, auto and property transaction records, motor vehicle violation header records, and credit headers. 34. The companies operate an additional six websites providing corporate information (e.g., financial information, annual reports, and corporate contact information) that were not considered for the purpose of this analysis. 35. However, if the user subsequently attempts to re-enter the site by providing a birth date showing him to be of legal age, the websites generally do allow entry; most websites neither permanently nor temporarily barred (e.g., through use of a “cookie”) underage users from entering a different, older, age. 36. Further, users may not back-button during that web session in order to attempt to reenter the Bud.TV site with a different, older, age. 37. Currently, two primary services measure Internet audience demographics, Nielsen/NetRatings (NNR), and comScore Media Metrix (comScore). They use differing data collection technology and different sampling approaches. In some cases, one will report that a website has a 70 percent or greater legal age audience, but the other will not. The Media Rating Council, a media and advertising industry trade association responsible for accrediting audience measurement services, is auditing the NNR and comScore systems. 38. Concerns have been raised about alcohol ads on social networking sites, given the popularity of these sites with teenagers. MySpace carries alcohol ads, but under a long-standing policy, now codified in a January 14, 2008 agreement with 49 state attorneys general, the site does not deliver them to registered users who have stated that they are under 21 years of age. See Joint Statement on Key Principles of Social Networking Sites’ Safety, appendix A, at 2, available at ago.mo.gov/newsreleases/2008/pdf/MySpace-JointStatement0108.pdf. Unregistered users are assumed to be below the LDA and alcohol ads are not delivered to them. MySpace does not independently verify age information; however, the MySpace/Attorney General agreement calls upon the site to organize an industry-wide Internet Safety Technical Task Force aimed at finding and developing online identity authentication tools. Id. The social networking site Facebook currently does not accept advertising from alcohol companies in the United States. See Facebook Advertising Guidelines, Part 7 (“Content Restrictions”) (“We do not accept advertising referencing, facilitating or promoting . . . Liquor, beer, or wine. . .”), available at http://www.facebook.com/ad_guidelines.php. The site does accept such advertising in other countries. 39. The BI Code specifically provides that product placement should not be made where the primary characters are under the legal drinking age or the primary themes are, because of their content or presentation, especially attractive to persons below the legal drinking age beyond the general attractiveness such themes have for persons above the legal drinking age. BI Code, ¶ 12. 40. BI Code, ¶ 10. 41. DISCUS Code, Responsible Placement, ¶ 6; WI Code, ¶ 3.5. 42. The 2003 Alcohol Report provides information about some of these responsibility efforts, at notes 69-72. 43. BI Code, Buying Guidelines, available at http://www.beerinstitute.org/BeerInstitute/files/ccLibraryFiles/ FILENAME/000000000441/ADCODEBUYINGGUIDELINES2006.pdf; DISCUS Code, Demographic Data/ Advertising Placement Guidelines, available at http://www.discus.org/pdf/DemographicGuidelinesRevised306.pdf. 44. One company owns its media buyer. 45. The available television demographic data provide information about viewers ages two and older. Currently, the available radio data provide information about listeners age 12 and older, although the service that provides such measurements is in the process of introducing a new technology that will measure listeners six and older in some markets. See note 83, infra. Newspaper demographic data are available for readers 18 and older. Finally, two syndicated sources, Mediamark Research, Inc. (“MRI”) and Simmons Research, provide magazine demographic data. Syndicated audience composition data are available only for magazines that are willing to pay to be included in the audience measuring survey. Data on the composition of audience members ages 31 Federal Trade Commission 12 and older are available for only 80 national magazines; these data are updated once per year. Data on the composition of the audience 18 and older are available for many more magazines, but these data are of limited utility for the purpose of measuring what percentage of a magazine’s audience is below the legal age, unless they show in a convincing manner that the magazine skews to an older (for example, predominantly 30+) audience. The companies did not advertise in teen-targeted magazines, such as Teen Vogue and Cosmo Girl. 46. These special editions, not available on newsstands, typically are sent only to subscribers 21 and above. In addition, DISCUS member ads do not appear in school library subscription editions of Newsweek, People, Sports Illustrated, Time, and U.S. News & World Report. DISCUS, Magazine Special Binding Initiative, available at http://www.discus.org/pdf/MAGAZINE_SPECIAL_BINDING_INITIATIVE_description.pdf. 47. The suppliers also conducted periodic, after-the-fact audits of a random portion of past placements to verify that they met the 70 percent target; if not, they took corrective action as required by the BI Code at ¶ 3(c) and the DISCUS Code, Responsible Placement ¶ 3. 48. Special Orders, Section 3(B) and Appendix A.II (instructions). The order required submission of quarterly average data for television and radio, and annual average data for magazines and newspapers. For example, for a television placement made in February 2006, the companies were ordered to provide data showing the average audience composition data for that program, in that time slot, for the quarter that spanned January 1-March 31, 2006. 49. The Commission’s analysis is based on placements for which complete demographic data (including both the absolute numbers of audience members younger than 21 and 21 and older, plus audience composition percentages) were provided. The syndicated data services cover only major media; they do not, for example, measure the audiences for radio stations in numerous small markets, for local magazines, or for small cable networks such as hotel television. Further, even for television and radio markets that are measured, the syndicated data sources will not provide an audience estimate if the number of apparent viewers falls below a particular threshold. If impressions data were not provided, the Commission could not include the placement in its analysis. 50. This analysis was conducted in response to comments asking whether the suppliers’ minority-targeted advertising complied with the 70 percent placement standard. See the Commission’s October 24, 2006 Federal Register notice, supra note 2, at 62,263 and 62,265. 51. Letter to Deborah Platt Majoras from George A. Hacker, Alcohol Policies Project, Center for Science in the Public Interest (“CSPI”) (July 13, 2005). 52. Data provided are for advertising on NASCAR, CASCAR (NASCAR’s Canadian counterpart), Craftsman Truck, and Formula 1 racing television programs. 53. Data provided by ESPN Sports Poll, a service of TNS Sport. 54. 1999 Alcohol Report at 14-15; 2003 Alcohol Report at 9. 55. 2003 Alcohol Report at 9. 56. See Exhibit A, Specification 4. 57. See comments of the Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth (“CAMY”), the National Association of Attorneys General Youth Access Committee, and Ziming Xuan, available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/ alcoholmanufacadstudy. 58. DISCUS’s Outside Advisory Board currently is comprised of Joan Z. Bernstein, former Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection; Constantine W. Curris, President of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities; and Richard Glitter, former Vice President of Advertising Standards and Program Compliance for NBC. In addition to serving as a tie-breaker for code review deliberations, the outside advisory board also provides guidance about Code implementation and, if requested, provides confidential nonbinding guidance to DISCUS members about draft advertising copy. 32 Self-Regulation in the Alcohol Industry 59. If the internal committee cannot agree on whether a violation has occurred, the committee may refer the question to a separate and independent third-party reviewer. 60. The current BI review board members are Rory Davis, former Executive Vice President, National Association of Broadcasters; William Cunningham, PhD, Professor of Marketing, University of Texas at Austin; Gloria Rodriguez, President and CEO, Comunicad, and past chairwoman, National Hispana Leadership Institute; and Paul G. Summers, former Attorney General, State of Tennessee. 61. The BI review board published its first annual report, detailing advertising complaints considered in calendar year 2006, on January 31, 2007. See Beer Institute’s 2006 Annual Report, available at www.beerinstitute.org/ tier.asp?bid=284. 62. In addition to participating in the BI review process, Heineken USA has an independent complaint review process. Established in December 2004, Heineken’s independent review board is comprised of three members with experience in advertising, alcohol regulation and policy, and adolescent behavior. Complaints about Heineken’s marketing activities are first forwarded to this review board, each member of which independently considers the matter. In 2006, Heineken referred complaints about two advertisements to its review board, which recommended that no action be taken in either instance. Heineken communicated the board’s decision in writing to both complainants, informing them that if they were dissatisfied with the decision, they were free to submit a formal complaint to the Beer Institute’s review board. 63. In July 2007, the WI wrote to the Walt Disney Company regarding its plans to market a wine with the name Ratatouille, in connection with the release of the company’s G-rated animated film of the same name. Although Disney was not a member of the WI, the organization cited provisions of its Code prohibiting advertising with a particular appeal to persons below the legal drinking age and the use of cartoon characters that are predominantly popular with children. Disney decided not to distribute the product. See “Costco Pulls Ratatouille Wine: Plans for Cartoon-character-inspired Wine Label Shelved After Suggestions That the Wine Could Be Attractive to Minors” (July 31, 2007), available at http://www.winespectator.com/Wine/ Features/0,1197,3921,00.html. 64. In March 2006, an advocacy organization submitted a complaint to the BI about a brewer’s ad that ran during the 2006 Super Bowl. Because the advertiser had ceased running the ad by the time the complaint was received, the BI review board declined to consider the complaint. At the recommendation of the Commission staff, BI subsequently modified its complaint process so that complaints about discontinued advertisements are not automatically barred from review board consideration. Under the modified procedures, complaints about discontinued advertisements will be considered unless the brewer notifies the BI review board that it had permanently discontinued dissemination of the ad more than 30 days prior to receipt of the complaint and took all reasonable steps to withdraw the ad from the marketplace. 65. The WI received two complaints about wine advertising in early 2007 but no review occurred because the complaints related to non-member brands. 66. National Research Council, Institute of Medicine, Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility 163 (2003) (“IOM Study”). 67. See, e.g., A.C. Wagenaar, Effects of Minimum Drinking Age Laws: Review and Analysis of the Literature from 1960 to 2000, J. Stud. Alcohol, Supplement No. 14, 206, at 219 (2002); H.D. Holder, Supply Side Approaches to Underage Drinking: An Assessment of the Scientific Evidence (2003); IOM Study, supra note 66, at 458-89. 68. See 2007 MTF Results, supra note 6, at Figure 14, available at http://monitoringthefuture.org/data/07data/ fig07_14.pdf. The press release accompanying the 2007 MTF Results noted that reported alcohol availability rates have declined most significantly among 8th graders. In 1996, 75 percent of 8th graders thought they could get alcohol if they wanted some, but by 2007 the number had fallen to 62 percent. MTF, Overall, Illicit Drug Use by American Teens Continues Gradual Decline in 2007 (Dec. 11, 2007), at 5, available at http:// monitoringthefuture.org/pressreleases/07drugpr.pdf. 69. See M.O. Hearst et al., “Who needs liquor stores when parents will do? The importance of social sources of alcohol among young urban teens,” 44 Prev. Med. 471 (2007) (sixth to eighth graders who drank alcohol 33 Federal Trade Commission reported getting it from parents, older teens, other adults, or by taking it from a home without permission); American Medical Association, Teen Drinking Key Findings (2005), available at http://www.alcoholpolicymd. com/pdf/poll_080805.pdf (reporting that in survey by Teenage Research Unlimited of youth 13 to 18, two out of three said it was easy to get alcohol from their own home without a parent being aware of it; one out of four teens reported that they had been at a party where teens were drinking in front of a parent); DISCUS, Underage Alcohol Access (2003) (reporting that survey by Teenage Research Unlimited showed that 65 percent of 10- to 18-year-olds who drank in the past year got alcohol from family and friends). See also IOM Study, supra note 66 at 168 (according to the IOM, parties, friends, and adult strangers are the most frequent sources of alcohol among college students and older adolescents). Given that teens most often obtain alcohol from an intermediary source (rather than directly from a retail outlet), it is unclear the extent to which they have the ability to choose a particular type or brand. Their alcohol use may be based on availability. 70. The IOM reported that use of commercial sources appears to be much higher among college students, in urban settings, and where possession and purchase laws are relatively weak or unenforced. IOM Study, supra note 66, at 169. 71. 2003 Alcohol Report at 23-24. 72. IOM Study, supra note 66, at 116-17, 170; Call to Action, supra note 12, at 39. The STOP Act requires an annual survey of state efforts to reduce underage alcohol access, including underage alcohol access from commercial and social sources. STOP Act, supra note 10, Section 2(c)(1)(F). 73. Data show that European teens have high levels of alcohol use and intoxication. See National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Alcohol Research and Health, Vol. 28, No. 3 (2004/2005) “Scope of the Problem,” at Figure 2, available at http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh283/111-120.htm. 74. Press events were coordinated by The Century Council in sixteen states, and by Students Against Destructive Decisions in one state. No entity has provided funds to the FTC in connection with the WDST program. 75. See, e.g., AG Launches “We Don’t Serve Teens Week,” WFMZ-TV News, Sept. 18, 2007, available at http://wfmz.com/view/?id=151957; Editorial, “Don’t Serve Teens Week” Emphasizes Responsibility, Sept. 13, 2007, available at www.battlecreekenquirer.com (in “archives” for “2007” search “We Don’t Serve Teens”); AG Hood Spot Tells Adults to Stop Giving Minors Alcohol, SunHerald.com, Sept. 11, 2007, available at http://www.sunherald.com/news/breaking_news/story/139706.html; S. Israelsen, Letting Teens Drink is Illegal, Parents Warned, Deseret Morning News, Sept. 8, 2007, available at http://deseretnews. com/article/1,5143,695210966,00.html; State: NC Wine Distributors Launch Statewide Campaign Against Underage Drinking, Lincoln Tribune, Oct. 20, 2007, available at http://www.lincolntribune.com/modules/ news/article.php?storyid=7262. 76. The Century Council, Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America, and American Beverage Licensees, and their members, were involved in delivery of program materials to retail outlets. 77. See, supra, Part II. 78. Again, this analysis addresses only the placements for which complete data were provided, as described in note 49, supra. 79. Magazine data for the portion of the audience that is eighteen or older are updated twice per year, but the critical data on magazine readers ages twelve to seventeen are updated only annually. 80. According to Alan Wurtzel of NBC Universal, “The sample sizes now are so small for some of the niche cable networks that if only one regular viewer happens to go on vacation, it could significantly affect the ratings.” See D. Bauder, “Nielsen to Triple TV Sample,” Sept. 27, 2007, quoting Alan Wurtzel of NBC Universal, available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070926/tv-nielsen-expansion/. Changes in consumer use of media, including use of TiVo and other time-delay technologies, have resulted in disputes about the proper way to measure audiences. D. Leonhardt, “Bar the Door. TV Ads Want Your TiVo,” N.Y. Times, May 17, 2006, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/17/business/media/17leonhardt.html?ex=1305518400&e 34 Self-Regulation in the Alcohol Industry n=e0ce9a4bad830abd&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss. The syndicated measuring services are working to adopt improvements in radio and television survey technology, including movements away from the diary system of audience measurement, and toward electronic systems, that are calculated to address these problems. These changes include tripling the size of the national TV sample and use of electronic people meters in additional local TV markets. See D. Bauder, supra. For additional information about audience composition measurements, see notes 82 and 83, below. 81. J.G. Webster, Ratings Analysis: The Theory and Practice of Audience Research (2005), at 217. 82. About 2.4 percent of advertisements shown on national television missed the 70 percent target; by contrast, 6.5 percent of advertisements shown on local television missed the target. Currently, the national television audience projections, as well as projections for audiences in the top 20 percent of local markets, are based on data from electronic “people meters” that are kept on top of television sets. In most local televison markets, however, audiences are estimated based on paper diaries sent out four times a year during “sweeps” periods that usually occur around February, May, July, and November. The diary system relies on consumers’ recollections about media use and has been criticized as unreliable. Further, the diary surveys do not measure the local audience for programs (such as specific sports events) that appear only outside the sweeps periods. It is for this reason that the DISCUS and BI buying guidelines previously have recommended that suppliers refer to national audience composition data, where available, when making decisions on the placement of local television advertising. In the course of this study, it was clear that some companies nonetheless had relied on local data when national data were available. This likely contributed to the number of local placements that appeared to miss the 70 percent target. For additional information regarding audience samples, see Nielsen Media, Products and Services, “National Audience Sample” and “Local Audience Samples,” available at http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/ portal/site/Public/menuitem.4f84194d341befbc3a81e810d8a062a0/?vgnextoid=e3f6da86b0715010VgnVCM1 00000880a260aRCRD. 83. The company that measures radio audience composition is in the process of replacing a diary-based measuring system with portable “people meters” that will permit monthly radio demographic data on audience members ages six and older in major markets. Radio audience demographics traditionally have been calculated based on responses to written diaries that rely on consumer recollections about media use. A new portable people meter (PPM) system will use a passive device to trac [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Aftc%3A91ea08bee1213e67. Public record. Not legal advice.