MARKETING VIOLENT ENTERTAINMENT

Agency decision

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

TO CHILDREN:

A REVIEW OF SELF-REGULATION AND

INDUSTRY PRACTICES IN THE MOTION

PICTURE, MUSIC RECORDING &

ELECTRONIC GAME INDUSTRIES

REPORT OF THE

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

SEPTEMBER 2000

Federal Trade Commission

Robert Pitofsky,

Sheila F. Anthony

Mozelle W. Thompson

Orson Swindle

Thomas B. Leary

Chairman

Commissioner

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

President’s June 1, 1999 Request for a Study and the FTC’s

Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Public Concerns About Entertainment Media Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Overview of the Commission’s Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Focus on Self-Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Structure of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

II.

THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY SELF-REGULATORY SYSTEM . . . . . . . 4

Scope of Commission’s Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Operation of the Motion Picture Self-Regulatory System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

The rating process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Review of advertising for content and rating information . . . . . . . . . 8

Issues Not Addressed by the Motion Picture Self-Regulatory System . . . . . . . 10

Accessibility of reasons for ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Advertising placement standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

III.

MARKETING MOVIES TO CHILDREN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Marketing R-Rated and PG-13-Rated Films to Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Television advertising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

R-rated films . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

PG-13-rated films . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Trailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Promotional and “street marketing” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

R-rated films . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

PG-13-rated films . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Radio and print advertising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Internet marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Box Office Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Retailing of Movie Videos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

IV.

THE MUSIC RECORDING INDUSTRY PARENTAL ADVISORY

LABELING PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Scope of Commission’s Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Operation of the Music Recording Labeling Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

The labeling process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

The use of the advisory label on packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

“Clean” versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Issues Not Addressed by the Music Recording Labeling Program . . . . . . . . . . 26

Access to important information about explicit recordings . . . . . . . . 26

The placement of an advisory on digital music . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Advertising disclosure and placement standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Recent Changes to the Music Recording Labeling Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

MARKETING MUSIC RECORDINGS TO CHILDREN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Marketing Explicit Content Recordings to Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Print advertising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Television promotions – cable music channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Other television advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Internet marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Street marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Radio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Licensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Retailing of Music Recordings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

VI.

THE ELECTRONIC GAME INDUSTRY SELF-REGULATORY SYSTEM . . . . 36

Scope of Commission’s Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Operation of the Electronic Game Self-Regulatory System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

The rating process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Requirements for packaging, advertising, and marketing . . . . . . . . . 39

Disclosure of rating information on product

packaging and in advertising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Limits on violent content in advertising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Limits on marketing to minors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

VII.

MARKETING ELECTRONIC GAMES TO CHILDREN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Marketing M-Rated Games to Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Print advertising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Television advertising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Internet marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Marketing T-Rated Games to Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Licensing Products Based on M- and T-Rated Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Retailing of Electronic Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

VIII. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Industry should establish or expand codes that prohibit target marketing and

impose sanctions for violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Industry should improve self-regulatory system compliance at the retail level . . . . 55

Industry should increase parental awareness of the ratings and labels . . . . . . . . . . 55

ENDNOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

APPENDIX A:

A Review of Research on the Impact of Violence in Entertainment

Media

APPENDIX B:

Children as Consumers of Entertainment Media: Media Usage,

Marketing Behavior and Influences, and Ratings Effects

APPENDIX C:

First Amendment Issues in Public Debate over Governmental

Regulation of Entertainment Media Products with Violent Content

APPENDIX D:

An Overview of the Entertainment Media Industries and the

Development of Their Rating and Labeling Systems

APPENDIX E:

Entertainment Industry Information Requests

APPENDIX F:

Mystery Shopper Survey and Parent-Child Survey

APPENDIX G:

Third-Party Views and Suggestions for Improvement of the

Entertainment Media Rating and Labeling Systems

APPENDIX H:

Entertainment Media Rating Information and Self-Regulatory Efforts

on the Internet

APPENDIX I:

Television, Print, and Online Demographics

APPENDIX J:

Electronic Game Industry Compliance with Self-Regulatory Code

Requirements to Disclose Rating Information on Product Packaging,

in Advertising, and Online

APPENDIX K:

Application of Antitrust Principles to Voluntary Industry Efforts to

Restrict Marketing and Sales of Entertainment Media Products to

Children

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On June 1, 1999, President Clinton asked the Federal Trade Commission and the

Department of Justice to undertake a study of whether the movie, music recording, and computer

and video game industries market and advertise products with violent content to youngsters. The

President’s request paralleled Congressional calls for such a study. The President raised two

specific questions: Do the industries promote products they themselves acknowledge warrant

parental caution in venues where children make up a substantial percentage of the audience?

And are these advertisements intended to attract children and teenagers?

For all three segments of the entertainment industry, the answers are plainly “yes.”

Although the motion picture, music recording and electronic game industries have taken

steps to identify content that may not be appropriate for children, companies in those industries

routinely target children under 17 as the audience for movies, music and games that their own

rating or labeling systems say are inappropriate for children or warrant parental caution due to

their violent content. Moreover, children under 17 frequently are able to buy tickets to R-rated

movies without being accompanied by an adult and can easily purchase music recordings and

electronic games that have a parental advisory label or are restricted to an older audience. The

practice of pervasive and aggressive marketing of violent movies, music and electronic games to

children undermines the credibility of the industries’ ratings and labels. Such marketing also

frustrates parents’ attempts to make informed decisions about their children’s exposure to violent

content.

For years – over backyard fences and water coolers, on talk radio and in academic

journals – parents, social scientists, criminologists, educators, policymakers, health care

providers, journalists and others have struggled to understand how and why some children turn to

violence. The dialogues took on new urgency with the horrifying school shooting on April 20,

1999, in Littleton, Colorado.

Scholars and observers generally have agreed that exposure to violence in entertainment

media alone does not cause a child to commit a violent act and that it is not the sole, or even

necessarily the most important, factor contributing to youth aggression, anti-social attitudes and

violence. Nonetheless, there is widespread agreement that it is a cause for concern. The

Commission’s literature review reveals that a majority of the investigations into the impact of

media violence on children find that there is a high correlation between exposure to media

violence and aggressive, and at times violent, behavior. In addition, a number of research efforts

report that exposure to media violence is correlated with increased acceptance of violent behavior

in others, as well as an exaggerated perception of the amount of violence in society.

For their part, the entertainment industries have recognized these concerns and taken

steps to alert parents to violent or explicit content through self-regulatory product rating or

labeling programs. Self-regulation by these industries is especially important considering the

First Amendment protections that prohibit government regulation of content in most instances.

The self-regulatory programs of the motion picture, music recording and electronic game

industries each address violence, as well as sexual content, language, drug use and other explicit

content that may be of concern to parents. In keeping with the President’s request, the

Commission focused on the marketing of entertainment products designated as violent under

these systems. In its analysis, the Commission accepted each industry’s determination of

whether a particular motion picture, music recording or electronic game contains violent content;

the Commission did not examine the content itself.

The motion picture industry uses a rating board to rate virtually all movies released in the

United States, requires the age-related rating to appear in advertising and makes some effort to

review ads for rated movies to ensure that their content is suitable for general audiences. The

music recording industry recommends the use of a general parental advisory label on music with

“explicit content.” The decision to place a parental advisory label on a recording is made by the

artist and the music publishing company and involves no independent third-party review; nor

does the industry provide for any review of marketing and advertising. In late August 2000, the

recording industry trade association recommended that recording companies not advertise

explicit-content labeled recordings in media outlets with a majority under-17 audience. The

electronic game industry requires games to be labeled with age- and content-based rating

information and requires that the rating information appear in advertising. Only the electronic

game industry has adopted a rule prohibiting its marketers from targeting advertising for games

to children below the age designations indicated by the rating.

The Commission carefully examined the structure of these rating and labeling systems,

and studied how these self-regulatory systems work in practice. The Commission found that

despite the variations in the three industries’ systems, the outcome is consistent: individual

companies in each industry routinely market to children the very products that have the

industries’ own parental warnings or ratings with age restrictions due to their violent content.

Indeed, for many of these products, the Commission found evidence of marketing and media

plans that expressly target children under 17. In addition, the companies’ marketing and media

plans showed strategies to promote and advertise their products in the media outlets most likely

to reach children under 17, including those television programs ranked as the “most popular”

with the under-17 age group, such as Xena: Warrior Princess, South Park and Buffy the Vampire

Slayer; magazines and Internet sites with a majority or substantial (i.e., over 35 percent) under-17

audience, such as Game Pro, Seventeen and Right On!, as well as mtv.com, ubl.com and

happypuppy.com; and teen hangouts, such as game rooms, pizza parlors and sporting apparel

stores.

Movies. Of the 44 movies rated R for violence the Commission selected for its study, the

Commission found that 35, or 80 percent, were targeted to children under 17. Marketing plans

for 28 of those 44, or 64 percent, contained express statements that the film’s target audience

included children under 17. For example, one plan for a violent R-rated film stated, “Our goal

was to find the elusive teen target audience and make sure everyone between the ages of 12-18

was exposed to the film.” Though the marketing plans for the remaining seven R-rated films did

not expressly identify an under-17 target audience, they led the Commission to conclude that

children under 17 were targeted nonetheless. That is, the plans were either extremely similar to

the plans of the films that did identify an under-17 target audience, or they detailed actions

synonymous with targeting that age group, such as promoting the film in high schools or in

publications with majority under-17 audiences.

Music. Of the 55 music recordings with explicit content labels the Commission selected

for its study, marketing plans for 15, or 27 percent, expressly identified teenagers as part of their

iii

target audience. One such plan, for instance, stated that its “Target audience” was

“Alternative/urban, rock, pop, hardcore – 12-34.” The marketing documents for the remaining

40 explicit-content labeled recordings examined did not expressly state the age of the target

audience, but they detailed the same methods of marketing as the plans that specifically

identified teens as part of their target audience, including placing advertising in media that would

reach a majority or substantial percentage of children under 17.

Games. Of the 118 electronic games with a Mature rating for violence the Commission

selected for its study, 83, or 70 percent, targeted children under 17. The marketing plans for 60

of these, or 51 percent, expressly included children under 17 in their target audience. For

example, one plan for a game rated Mature for its violent content described its “target audience”

as “Males 12-17 – Primary Males 18-34 – Secondary.” Another plan referred to the target

market as “Males 17-34 due to M rating (the true target is males 12-34).” Documents for the

remaining 23 games showed plans to advertise in magazines or on television shows with a

majority or substantial under-17 audience. Most of the plans that targeted an under-17 audience

set age 12 as the younger end of the spectrum, but a few plans for violent Mature-rated games

targeted children as young as six.

Further, most retailers make little effort to restrict children’s access to products with

violent content. Surveys conducted for the Commission in May through July 2000 found that

just over half the movie theaters admitted children ages 13 to 16 to R-rated films even when not

accompanied by an adult. The Commission’s surveys also indicate that unaccompanied children

have various strategies to see R-rated movies when theaters refuse to sell them tickets.

Additionally, the Commission’s surveys showed that unaccompanied children ages 13 to 16 were

able to buy both explicit content recordings and Mature-rated electronic games 85 percent of the

time.

Although consumer surveys show that parents value the existing rating and labeling

systems, they also show that parents’ use and understanding of the systems vary. The surveys

also consistently reveal high levels of parental concern about violence in the movies, music and

video games their children see, listen to and play. These concerns can only be heightened by the

extraordinary degree to which young people today are immersed in entertainment media, as well

as by recent technological advances such as realistic and interactive video games. The survey

responses indicate that parents want and welcome help in identifying which entertainment

products might not be suitable for their children.

Since the President requested this study over a year ago, each of the industries reviewed

has taken positive steps to address these concerns. Nevertheless, the Commission believes that

all three industries should take additional action to enhance their self-regulatory efforts. The

industries should:

1. Establish or expand codes that prohibit target marketing to children and impose

sanctions for violations. All three industries should improve the usefulness of their ratings and

labels by establishing codes that prohibit marketing R-rated/M-rated/explicit-labeled products in

media or venues with a substantial under-17 audience. In addition, the Commission suggests that

each industry’s trade associations monitor and encourage their members’ compliance with these

policies and impose meaningful sanctions for non-compliance.

2. Increase compliance at the retail level. Restricting children’s retail access to

entertainment containing violent content is an essential complement to restricting the placement

of advertising. This can be done by checking identification or requiring parental permission

before selling tickets to R movies, and by not selling or renting products labeled “Explicit” or

rated R or M, to children.

3. Increase parental understanding of the ratings and labels. For parents to make

informed choices about their children’s entertainment, they must understand the ratings and the

labels, as well as the reasons for them. That means the industries should all include the reasons

for the rating or the label in advertising and product packaging and continue their efforts to

educate parents – and children – about the meanings of the ratings and descriptors. Industry

should also take steps to better educate parents about the ratings and labels.

The Commission emphasizes that its review and publication of this Report, and its

proposals to improve self-regulation, are not designed to regulate or even influence the content of

movies, music lyrics or electronic games. The First Amendment generally requires that creative

decisions about content be left to artists and their distributors. Rather, the Commission believes

the industries can do a better job of helping parents choose appropriate entertainment for their

children by providing clear and conspicuous notification of violent content. Industry selfregulation also should support parents’ decisions by prohibiting the direct sale and marketing to

children of products labeled as inappropriate or warranting parental guidance due to their violent

content.

Implementation of the specific suggestions outlined above would significantly improve

the present self-regulatory regimes. The Report demonstrates, however, that mere publication of

codes is not sufficient. Self-regulatory programs can work only if the concerned industry

associations actively monitor compliance and ensure that violations have consequences. The

Commission believes that continuous public oversight is also required and that Congress should

continue to monitor the progress of self-regulation in this area.

INTRODUCTION

President’s June 1, 1999 Request for a Study and the FTC’s Response

On June 1, 1999, following the horrifying school shooting in Littleton, Colorado that

increased public calls for a national response to youth violence, President Clinton requested that

the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice conduct a study of whether the

motion picture, music recording, and computer and video game industries market and advertise

violent entertainment material to children and teenagers.1 Specifically, the President requested

that the study ascertain whether entertainment media products that the industries determine are

inappropriate for children or otherwise warrant a parental advisory due to their violent content

are promoted in media outlets for which children comprise a substantial percentage of the

audience. The President also urged the Commission to examine whether these advertisements

are intended to attract underage audiences. President Clinton’s request paralleled congressional

proposals for such a study.2

In response to the President’s request and Congress’s concerns, the FTC initiated this

study3 to obtain information regarding the three media industries’ self-regulation efforts and

marketing practices.* The Commission’s study is designed to provide information to three

critical groups of decision makers: (1) elected officials and policymakers, including the

President and Congress, who have raised concerns about this issue; (2) the entertainment media

industries, who develop and implement the existing self-regulatory systems; and (3) parents, who

are faced with the challenge of determining what is appropriate for their minor children.

Public Concerns About Entertainment Media Violence

The Columbine High School shooting in Littleton heightened the public’s existing

concerns about violence committed by children.4 Although the rate of violence perpetrated by

young people has declined in the 1990's, the rate for murders committed by youths in the United

States is still substantially higher than in other industrialized countries.5 For the past few

decades, parents, social scientists, criminologists, educators, policymakers, health care providers,

* The Department of Justice provided funding and technical assistance to the FTC for this study,

but did not draft this report or its appendices. The analysis, recommendations, and opinions

expressed in this report and its appendices are those of the FTC, and do not necessarily represent

the positions or views of the Department of Justice.

journalists, and others have struggled to understand how and why children turn to violence.6

Following a plethora of news reports suggesting that the boys involved in the Columbine killings

were immersed in a violent entertainment subculture,7 many observers focused on the teenagers’

exposure to images of violence in entertainment media as a cause of the Columbine murders.8

While the entertainment media received a great deal of blame for youth violence in the

past year,9 most people agree that exposure to media violence alone does not cause a child to

commit a violent act. Although several major public health organizations recently voiced their

shared conviction that the viewing of entertainment media violence can lead to increases in

aggressive attitudes, values, and behavior in children,10 they also have acknowledged that it is not

the sole, or even necessarily the most important, factor contributing to youth aggression, antisocial attitudes, and violence.11 They, and the researchers and advocates who have studied youth

violence, posit that a range of other factors – such as child abuse and neglect, victimization,

bullying, drug and alcohol abuse, exposure to violence in the home, neurobiological indicators,

and low socioeconomic status – can interrelate to cause youth violence.12 Some observers focus

on children’s access to handguns as the cause for the high fatality rates associated with youth

violence in America.13 Others look for cultural explanations.14

Even those who disagree that media violence causes violent behavior, however, concede

that a child’s exposure to violence in the media can be a concern.15 Indeed, by including violence

as a component in developing their parental advisory labeling and rating systems, the

entertainment media have recognized that violence is an issue of societal concern.16 As Thom

Mount, president of the Producers Guild of America, acknowledged after Columbine: “It is not

that violent pictures create more violence, but the constant litany of gratuitous violence is

destructive of the fabric of the culture because it lowers our threshold for sensitivity to the

issue.”17

Overview of the Commission’s Study

Focus on Self-Regulation: For decades, the FTC has recognized the important role that

self-regulation can serve in many industries and has worked with industry groups to develop

sound self-regulatory initiatives, including those involving industry advertising practices.18 A

well-constructed self-regulatory system can be more prompt, flexible, and effective than

government regulation, and can be especially appropriate when government intervention would

raise significant First Amendment concerns. The products studied in this Report % motion

pictures, music recordings, and computer and video games ("electronic games") % are forms of

expression protected under the First Amendment.19 Given that the concerns examined in this

Report stem from the violent content of some of these products, effective industry self-regulatory

responses are even more important and appropriate than in most other industries.

The Commission’s study of the motion picture, music recording, and electronic game

industries focused on the marketing of entertainment products designated as violent under the

self-regulatory systems currently in use by these industries.20 In its analysis, the Commission

accepted each industry’s determination of whether a particular motion picture, music recording,

or electronic game contains violent or explicit content.21

Structure of the Report: This Report examines: (1) the structure and scope of the rating

or labeling system that each industry uses to advise parents that its products contain violent

content that may be unsuitable for children, including whether the system discourages the

marketing or sale of violent products to minors; and (2) the actual practices of companies that

market or sell such violent entertainment to minors in light of these self-regulatory systems. To

answer the President’s questions of whether these products are advertised in media outlets for

which children comprise a substantial percentage of the audience and whether the advertisements

were intended to attract children, the Commission reviewed the entertainment industries’

marketing and media plans and considered their advertising placement strategies. For print and

online advertising, the Commission looked at whether advertising reached an audience of 35% or

more under 17. Consistent with industry marketing and media plans for television, the

Commission looked at advertising placement on those programs ranked as the “most popular”

with the under-17 age group, which includes those with the highest U.S. teen audience.

The Report suggests possible modifications to the existing self-regulatory systems to

improve their utility to parents, guardians, and other care-givers (“parents”) in achieving their

stated goal: to help parents make decisions about which entertainment products their children

should and should not view, listen to, or play. A number of appendices supplement the

information provided in the Report.

Sources: The sources for the Report include documents and other information (including

sample sound recordings, movie previews, electronic game demonstration disks, and magazine

and television advertisements) voluntarily submitted by over 60 companies in the motion picture,

music recording, and electronic game industries, including movie studios, theaters, recording

labels, game developers and publishers, retailers, and media outlets.22 The Report also is based

on voluntary submissions by and discussions with the major media industries’ trade associations

about their (and their members’) self-regulatory efforts.23 Much of the material that the industry

associations and companies submitted in response to the FTC’s requests contained confidential

commercial or financial information under relevant statutes and rules.24 Accordingly, this study

presents certain of the Commission’s findings in anonymous and/or aggregated form. In

addition, a substantial amount of information was provided by interested government agencies,

public health organizations, academics, and parent and consumer advocacy groups,25 as well as

consumers themselves through various surveys and polls including surveys designed and

conducted specifically for this study.26

II.

THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY SELF-REGULATORY SYSTEM

The basic mission of the rating system is a simple one: to offer parents some

advance information about movies so that parents can decide what movies they

want their children to see or not to see.

– Jack Valenti, President of the Motion Picture Association of America27

The Motion Picture

Association of America

15503 Ventura Boulevard

Encino, CA 91436

818.995.6600

www.mpaa.org

The motion picture rating system, which was

established in 1968 as a joint venture between the Motion

Picture Association of America (“MPAA”) and the

National Association of Theatre Owners (“NATO”), is

the longest-running of the self-regulatory systems the

Commission examined. It was crafted following a pair of U.S. Supreme Court decisions

upholding the power of states to regulate children’s access to materials protected by the First

Amendment.28 To curtail a proliferation of local censorship boards, the major film studios and

theaters created a single, nationwide rating system.

Although the system is voluntary, all MPAA member companies have agreed not to

distribute a film without a rating.29 As a result, the vast majority of films are rated. A high

percentage of parents are familiar with motion picture ratings (surveys show more than 90%

awareness30) and a large majority (more than 70%31) find the ratings useful.

Scope of Commission’s Review

In examining the motion picture industry’s self-regulatory program and the marketing of

films to children, the Commission reviewed documents provided by the MPAA and its member

studios; NATO and its member theaters, as well as theater chains that do not belong to NATO;

and publicly available materials concerning the system.

More specifically, the Commission studied the marketing of 44 violent R-rated films and

20 violent PG-13-rated films distributed by nine major studios from 1995-1999.32 In selecting

these films, the Commission chose R- and PG-13-rated movies that the MPAA’s rating body had

determined should receive such a rating at least in part for violence, including films the industry

trade press had referred to as teen or children’s movies. Thus, these 64 films are not a random

sample of all violent R and PG-13 movies produced by the MPAA member studios over the

relevant time period.

The Commission studied “media plans,” which outline where the television, radio, print,

and Internet advertising was placed and describe the target audiences the studios intended the

advertising to reach; promotional reports for many of these films, which detail the vast array of

promotional activities used to generate consumer awareness and interest in a movie; and studio

research conducted on test audiences for the films and their advertising. The studios and the

theater chains also supplied trailer reports detailing which trailers preceded certain features.33

Operation of the Motion Picture Self-Regulatory System

The rating process

The motion picture industry has put in place a formalized rating system (including an

appeals process) that is designed to impose a measure of objectivity and consistency across the

broad array of subjects and styles encompassed by modern filmmaking. Although this system

has been criticized over the years,34 it has remained intact for more than 30 years and is wellestablished with the American public.

The current categories for film ratings, as defined by the MPAA and NATO, follow:

General Audiences - All ages admitted

Signifies that the film rated contains nothing most parents will consider offensive

for even their youngest children to see or hear. Nudity, sex scenes, and scenes of

drug use are absent; violence is minimal; snippets of dialogue may go beyond

polite conversation but do not go beyond common everyday expressions.

Recent examples: Chicken Run; Fantasia 2000

Parental Guidance Suggested - Some material may not be suitable for

children.

Signifies that the film rated may contain some material parents might not like to

expose to their young children – material that will clearly need to be examined or

inquired about before children are allowed to attend the film. Explicit sex scenes

and scenes of drug use are absent; nudity, if present, is seen only briefly, horror

and violence do not exceed moderate levels.

Recent examples: The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle; The Kid

PG-13

Parents Strongly Cautioned - Some material may be inappropriate for

children under 13.

Signifies that the film rated may be inappropriate for pre-teens. Parents should be

especially careful about letting their younger children attend. Rough or persistent

violence is absent; sexually-oriented nudity is generally absent; some scenes of

drug use may be seen; some use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words may

be heard.

Recent examples: Mission Impossible 2; The Perfect Storm; Big Momma’s House

Restricted - Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult

guardian (age varies in some jurisdictions).

Signifies that the rating board has concluded that the film rated may contain some

adult material. Parents are urged to learn more about the film before taking their

children to see it. An R may be assigned due to, among other things, a film’s use

of language, theme, violence, sex or its portrayal of drug use.

Recent examples: Gladiator; Shaft; The Patriot; Me, Myself and Irene

NC-17

No one 17 and Under Admitted.

Signifies that the rating board believes that most American parents would feel that

the film is patently adult and that children age 17 and under should not be

admitted to it. The film may contain explicit sex scenes, an accumulation of

sexually-oriented language, and/or scenes of excessive violence. The NC-17

designation does not, however, signify that the rated film is obscene or

pornographic in terms of sex, language or violence.35

Recent examples: None

Each film assigned a rating other than G also receives a brief explanation for the film’s rating,

e.g., “Rated R for terror, violence and language,” or “Rated PG-13 for intense sci-fi violence,

some sexuality and brief nudity.”

The Classification and Ratings Administration (“CARA”) determines the ratings and

explanations. Qualifications for membership in CARA are parenting experience and no

connection to the film industry. Currently, CARA has 12 members (known as raters), and two

Co-Chairs, all of whom are approved by, and serve at the discretion of, the President of the

MPAA.36

A Policy Review Committee consisting of MPAA and NATO officials sets the rules that

govern CARA procedures. This Committee instructs CARA board members to give each film

the rating that, based on theme, language, nudity and sexual content, violence, drug use, and

“other relevant matters,”37 they think most American parents would consider appropriate for

viewing by children.38 A simple majority vote determines the rating.39

The studio submitting the film can accept the CARA rating, appeal, or edit the film to

achieve a less severe rating. Rating appeals are rare;40 more often, a distributor will edit the film

to achieve a desired rating. However, if a studio chooses to appeal the rating, an Appeals Board

views the film. Unlike the original CARA raters, who have no connection to the film industry,

the Appeals Board is made up of industry members, with MPAA and NATO members

comprising the vast majority of the votes.41 For an appeal to be successful, two thirds of the

Appeals Board must conclude that the rating assigned by CARA was “clearly erroneous.”42

As noted above, violence is one of the factors that CARA members specifically consider

in assigning ratings to the films they review. According to the MPAA, PG-13 films have no

rough or persistent violence, and the existence of such violence will cause a film to be rated R.43

Nevertheless, the Commission’s study of the ratings explanations indicates that CARA often

describes the violence in PG-13 films in terms synonymous with rough and persistent violence,

for example, as “intense,” “strong,” “disturbing,” “brutal,” “graphic,” “shocking,” “non-stop,”

and “pervasive.” These words are identical or similar to words often used to describe violence in

R-rated movies,44 causing some to question the usefulness of the ratings for helping parents

distinguish the amount and kind of violence in PG-13 films from that in R-rated films.45 Parental

uncertainty over the violent content contained in PG-13 films is of concern because, as will be

described in Section III of this Report, these films frequently are marketed to children as young

as six.

Review of advertising for content and rating information

The motion picture industry’s self-regulatory system is the only one of the three examined

by the Commission that includes substantive review and pre-approval of advertising. For a film

to use the MPAA-trademarked rating, all advertising materials for a film, including all television

and radio commercials, print advertising, Web sites, and trailers (previews shown in theaters),

must be approved by the MPAA’s Advertising Administration.46 The Advertising

Administration does not approve advertising for products related to motion pictures, such as

action figures, toys, clothing, or other licensed products.

Review by the Advertising Administration is designed to accomplish two goals. The first

is to ensure the accurate dissemination of the rating symbol in all advertising for a film. MPAA

rules require that a film’s letter rating be displayed in all advertising. The Commission’s review

suggests that the Advertising Administration generally achieves this goal.

The Advertising Administration’s other goal is to ensure that the content of a film’s

advertising, regardless of the film’s rating, is appropriate for even the youngest audience. With

one exception described below, the MPAA requires the Advertising Administration to

disapprove advertising if it would not pass muster with most parents as suitable for young

children; that is, the content of the advertising must be the equivalent of a G-rated movie.47 A

film distributor that disagrees with the Advertising Administration’s decision regarding the

content of an advertisement can appeal the decision directly to the MPAA President.48

The Commission’s review indicates that the Advertising Administration is less

successful at meeting its second goal. Theatrical trailers illustrate the point. The Advertising

Administration approves two types of trailers, which, based on the Commission’s review of

studio media plans, appear to be the first widely disseminated advertisements for a film. The

first type, known as an “all audience” trailer, is for general audiences and can be shown before

any feature film.49 According to the MPAA, “There will be, in ‘all audiences’ trailers, no scenes

that caused the feature to be rated PG, PG-13, R, or NC-17.”50 The second type of trailer is for

restricted audiences and can be shown only before films rated R or NC-17.51

A review of materials submitted to the Commission suggests that, although the

Advertising Administration restricts the material allowed in all audience trailers, it does not

require the studios to remove everything that would cause a movie to be given a rating more

restrictive than G. Trailers are approved by the Advertising Administration and shown in

theaters long before a film is rated; consequently, for these “teaser trailers,”52 the Advertising

Administration has no way to know what will cause the raters to rate a film PG or higher.53 And

CARA raters do not evaluate trailers or other advertising.

The Commission found numerous examples when trailers approved for “all audiences”

contained material that the Advertising Administration’s Handbook says might “engender

criticism by parents.”54 For example, the “all audience” trailer for I Know What You Did Last

Summer contained verbal references to mutilations (references to decapitation and to a person

being “gutted with a hook”) and drug use. A trailer for Scream 2 contained a verbal reference to

mutilation (that a woman had been stabbed seven times) and several visual depictions of violence

against women (women being pursued by a masked, knife-wielding killer).55

Television advertising also is affected when material causing a rating more restrictive

than G is not edited out of an “all audience” trailer. Television commercials for movies generally

are shortened versions of the trailers; they thus may contain some of the same violent material.

Although the MPAA states that “TV spots containing sexual references, violence, blood or

profanity are not acceptable,”56 the Commission’s review shows that the television networks

sometimes require the deletion of certain scenes or restrict the airing of commercials the MPAA

had approved for general audiences because the advertisement is too violent.

Issues Not Addressed by the Motion Picture Self-Regulatory System

Accessibility of reasons for ratings

The MPAA first integrated brief rating explanations – for example, Rated PG-13 for

intense horror sequences – into the rating system in 1990.57 According to the Association, these

explanations are as much a part of the rating as the letter symbol.58 The MPAA sends these

explanations to newspapers for use in movie reviews and to theaters to enable box office

personnel to respond to questions from patrons. The MPAA’s NATO partners have requested

that the studios also place these explanations in advertising,59 but the MPAA does not require this

information in advertising for movies and the studios do not include it in their ads. According to

the MPAA, typical newspaper ads do not contain enough space for the rating explanations to be

legible, given the other information that must be included in the ads.60

Recently, the MPAA and its members announced that print advertising would include a

reference to a Web site, www.filmratings.com, where people can find the ratings explanations

issued for individual films.61 Although a step in the right direction, this approach requires

parents to seek out this important information rather than placing it at their fingertips in the ads

themselves;62 moreover, many do not have ready access to the Internet.63 Further, the Web site

reference is not included in all print ads and is not in advertising other than print ads, such as

television commercials or Web sites promoting individual films.64

Consumer survey evidence suggests that parents want more from the movie rating system.

Although it appears that over 90% of parents are familiar with motion picture ratings and about

75% find the ratings useful,65 some surveys show the system could do a better job of informing

parents about the level of violence in movies. For example, a survey of parents conducted by the

Commission for this Report in May and June 2000 found high satisfaction with the movie rating

system in general but much less satisfaction regarding the information about violence the system

provides: 50% of the parents surveyed said the movie rating system does a fair or poor job of

informing them of the level of violence in a movie, while 48% stated the rating system does an

excellent or good job.66 Similarly, a Gallup poll conducted in June 1999 reported that 58% of the

respondents believed that the movie industry does not provide adults with enough information

about violent content to make decisions about what is appropriate for children, while 40% stated

that it does.67

Parents’ Responses - Movies

Who selects the product?

An adult

An adult and the child together

The child

Who purchases the product?

An adult

An adult and the child together

The child

Parent restricts child's use of the product

Parent is aware of a rating system for the product

How often do you use the rating system?

Some, most, or all of the time

Rarely or never

Are you satisfied with the rating system?

Somewhat or very satisfied

Somewhat or very dissatisfied

How does the rating system do in informing you about violence?

Good or excellent

Fair or poor

21%

78%

60%

36%

90%

91%

88%

11%

81%

17%

48%

50%

Advertising placement standards

The movie self-regulatory system does not have a code of conduct or guidelines regarding

advertising placement or marketing to children. The MPAA’s Advertising Administration

reviews advertising solely for content. Once the MPAA is satisfied that the advertising contains

nothing that “most parents would find offensive for their children to see or hear,”68 it plays no

further role in the marketing of the film.69 Significantly, the motion picture studios, unlike the

electronic game industry, believe that it is appropriate to target advertising for R-rated films to

children under 17 and to target advertising for PG-13-rated films to children under 13, on the

grounds that these ratings are merely cautionary warnings to parents.70 The industry notes,

among other reasons, that, “Many socially and artistically important films have received PG-13

and R ratings because they contain such depictions [of violence],” and that those filmmakers

have the right to draw as much attention to their work as possible – “even the attention of persons

under the age of 17, who are entitled to view such films with the permission and in the company

of their parents.”71

Although the motion picture industry does not have guidelines regarding ad placement, the

major television networks and the theaters do have restrictions or guidelines about where and

when film advertising is appropriate. Documents provided to the Commission suggest that

almost all the major television networks have guidelines governing the airing of commercials for

PG-13 and R films. In general, advertising for PG-13 films is evaluated on a case-by-case basis,

depending on the content of the ad and the film. Half the networks have policies limiting the

airing of ads for R-rated films (e.g., to news and sports programs, or only after 9 or 10 p.m.); the

others evaluate these ads on an individual basis.

For the major theater chains, the prevailing policy, either written or unwritten, is to limit

trailer placement to feature presentations within one rating of the movie being promoted. That is,

the policy allows trailers for R-rated movies to be placed with R and PG-13 features, and trailers

for PG-13-rated movies to be placed with R, PG-13, and PG features.72

Still, as discussed in the next Section of this Report, the Commission found that neither the

television networks’ nor the theaters’ placement restrictions are entirely effective in limiting

children’s exposure to advertising for movies generally rated for older audiences.

III. MARKETING MOVIES TO CHILDREN

Background

A central question the Commission was asked to address in this study is whether violent

entertainment products are being marketed to children. With respect to the film industry, the

answer is plainly “yes.” The Commission’s review indicates that motion picture studios

routinely advertise movies rated R for violence to children under 17 and movies rated PG-13 for

violence to children under 13.

The marketing of a motion picture begins long before the film is rated.73 The studios exhibit

rough cuts of the actual film as well as its core advertisements (trailers, TV commercials, and

print ads) to test audiences, and conduct detailed research on many aspects of the film. Movie

marketers choose audiences for these tests to meet defined demographics, including age

parameters set by the studios. They conduct advertising research to measure the interestgenerating potential of the advertisement, identify the moviegoers most attracted by the

advertisements, and determine the messages conveyed.

Media advertising for a film also begins before the film is rated, or even completed. Six

months to a year before a film opens, teaser trailers appear in theaters and on the Internet.

Television commercials for summer releases may air during the Super Bowl in January.

Newspaper and magazine advertising and outdoor banners also appear months before opening.

Two to four weeks before a film opens, studios may launch a massive media blitz designed to

saturate the marketplace. Because studio research suggests that most moviegoers learn about

new films through television advertising, it is the most important aspect of many motion picture

advertising campaigns.74 The studios also use radio, print, outdoor advertising, the Internet, and

promotional activities to generate interest in a film. During a campaign, studios receive industrywide tracking reports – up to three times per week – measuring the campaign’s success among

various age groups, including children aged 12-17.75

Marketing R-Rated and PG-13-Rated Films to Children

As noted above, the motion picture industry’s self-regulatory system does not restrict the

placement of advertising materials for R and PG-13 films because the MPAA takes the view that

children are appropriate targets for such films, so long as parental accompaniment or guidance is

provided. The marketing documents reviewed by the Commission indicate extensive marketing

– and, in many instances, explicit targeting – of violent R films to children under the age of 17

and of violent PG-13 films to children under 13.

Specifically, the documents show that 35 of the 44 R-rated films studied by the Commission,

or 80%, were targeted to children under 17.76 Media plans or promotional reports for 28 of those

44 films,77 or 64%, contain express statements that the film’s target audience included children

under 17.78 Marketing materials for seven other R-rated films also appeared to be targeting those

under 17, though they did not expressly identify a target audience under 17. The plans for these

seven films were either strikingly similar to the plans that did expressly target those under 17, or

they detailed actions synonymous with targeting that age group (e.g., advertising in high school

newspapers or other publications with majority under-17 audiences, or otherwise promoting the

films in high schools).79

Studio records also indicate that youngsters under the age of 17 were included in some

marketing research activities. Thirty-three of the 44 R-rated films tested either a rough cut of the

film or the film’s advertising on an audience that included teens under 17.80 Although most of

this research was conducted on those 15 and older, research for eight R-rated films included 12year-olds, and research for at least one other R-rated film was conducted on children as young as

10.81

Promoting violent PG-13-rated films to those under 13, while not as pervasive, is not

unusual. Marketing materials for 20 films rated PG-13 for violence revealed that nine, or 45%,

targeted children 11 and younger.82

Television advertising

R-rated films: Studio research shows that most moviegoers, and teens in particular, become

aware of movies through television. Accordingly, studio media plans detail massive television

campaigns. Of the 35 R-rated movies that targeted children under 17, studio media plans

indicate that 26 designed at least part of their television campaign around a target audience

including people aged 12 and above.

The studios repeatedly advertised films rated R for violence on television programs that

were the highest rated among teens or where teens comprised the largest percentage of the

audience.83 The plans sometimes referred to these programs as “teen-oriented.”84 When studios

targeted films to a particularly young audience, they increased significantly the frequency of

advertising on those shows and excluded other programming.85

To reach teenage audiences more effectively, studios target advertising for certain times of

day. Studio marketing materials indicate that the best way to reach younger viewers is to

purchase advertising on local stations – a process referred to as “Spot TV buys” – on weekends,

and during the “early fringe” and “prime access” hours, i.e., after school and before prime-time

network programming begins at 8 p.m.86

The studios advertised violent R-rated movies to children under 17 with cable television

campaigns that were remarkably similar to each other. MTV, with its core demographic of 1224,87 was the largest advertising cable outlet for almost every motion picture the Commission

examined, in terms of both the quantity of ads and the target audience reached. Indeed, the

younger the target audience, the more the studios tended to advertise on MTV. For some of the

movies targeting particularly young audiences, it was not uncommon for a studio to use MTV to

achieve over 50% of its cable audience exposure.88

PG-13-rated films: Seven of the nine PG-13-rated films that were targeted to children 11

and younger were advertised on afternoon and Saturday morning cartoon programs. Marketing

plans also included advertising on the Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon.89

An analysis of the television campaigns for PG-13 films targeting youngsters 6-11 indicates

that many of the television programs popular with teens and used heavily to promote R-rated

movies, also are very popular with children 6-11. As one marketing plan for a PG-13 movie

targeting those 6-11 stated, “Other programs, such as Buffy The Vampire Slayer, WWF and WCW

Wrestling cross over to Children 6-11 and local television buys targeted this group as well.” This

plan also showed that Xena: Warrior Princess – used in advertising for virtually every R-rated

movie the Commission examined – was as popular with children 6-11 as it was with males 1217. MTV is also popular with children 6-11.90 Thus, although the Commission found little

indication that R-rated films were deliberately being marketed to children under 12,91 those

young children nevertheless had substantial exposure to the television advertising for R-rated

films as well.

Trailers

Trailers are a unique form of advertising. Trailer placement is governed by unwritten

agreements between the studios and theaters through their principal trade associations. Studios

do not pay the theaters to show their trailers. Completed features are sent to theaters with one

trailer physically attached; other unattached trailers are sent to the theaters with a request that

they be shown with a particular feature. The MPAA and NATO have agreed to limit trailer

length and to require only that theaters play the attached trailer. Although unattached trailers are

played at the discretion of the theater, the studios exert pressure on the theaters to adhere to their

requests. Studios hire “trailer checkers” to verify that theaters are showing their trailers,92 and

theaters may be concerned that if they do not show the requested trailers, a studio might not book

a future hit feature with them.

In general, theaters do not show trailers for R- and

National Association

of Theatre Owners

4605 Lankershim Blvd., Ste. 340

North Hollywood, CA 91602

818.506.1778

www.hollywood.com/nato

PG-13-rated movies before children’s animated features.

In 1989, NATO passed a resolution stating: “All trailers

shown with a ‘G’ rated film should be compatible

therewith, and theatre owners should be especially

sensitive to this situation to the end that the theatre going

public will be entirely comfortable taking young children to view ‘G’ rated motion pictures.”93

NATO adopted this resolution due to complaints received from irate parents over the strong

content of “all audience” trailers shown at films geared to young audiences. For this reason, the

major theater chains (as discussed above in Section II.C.2) have adopted policies to limit trailer

placement to within one rating of the feature presentation. The net effect of this trailer placement

policy, however, is that previews for R-rated films are shown to audiences containing substantial

numbers of youngsters under 17: trailer requests reviewed by the Commission show that the

studios routinely seek to place trailers (both attached and unattached) for R-rated movies at PG13-rated features, including those PG-13 features the Commission determined were marketed to

children 11 and younger.94

In addition, the theaters appear to grant exceptions to the “within one rating” policy. For

example, trailer check reports reviewed by the Commission show that Star Wars Episode 1: The

Phantom Menace, rated PG, was regularly preceded by trailers for such films as The General’s

Daughter (“Rated R for graphic images relating to sexual violence including a strong rape scene,

some perverse sexuality, nudity and language”), South Park (“Rated R for pervasive vulgar

language and crude sexual humor, and for some violent images”), and The Beach (“Rated R for

violence, some strong sexuality, language and drug content”).95

Promotional and “street marketing”

The studios use a wide array of promotional activities to generate interest in a film.

Although the majority of these activities are directed to a very broad audience, some are directed

to children.

R-rated films: One of the most popular methods the studios used to attract teens to R-rated

films was to distribute free passes to movie screenings and free merchandise related to the film

(such as t-shirts, tatoos, and mini-posters) at places where teens congregate. As one marketing

plan for an R-rated film stated:

[O]ur goal was to find the elusive teen target audience and make sure everyone between

the ages of 12-18 was exposed to the film. To do so, we went beyond the media partners

by enlisting young, hip “Teen Street Teams” to distribute items at strategic teen

“hangouts” such as malls, teen clothing stores, sporting events, Driver’s Ed classes,

arcades and numerous other locations.

Although only one studio described this promotional device in such direct terms, all the studios

that provided details of their promotional activities used this tactic to attract teens.96

PG-13-rated films: Toys, children’s clothing, and fast food appear to be the primary

promotional methods for generating interest in PG-13 movies among children 11 and younger.97

Three studios had licensing arrangements with toy and apparel companies for children’s

merchandise based on violent PG-13 films. Although these agreements are intended to generate

their own revenue as well as to generate interest in seeing a film, the marketing materials

reviewed by the Commission show they constitute an important facet of film promotion.98

Radio and print advertising

Radio advertising, although used less extensively than television, was an integral part of

many advertising campaigns.99 Marketing materials from five of the studios showed that radio

was particularly useful in attracting audiences under 17.100 The studios also used print

advertising to target R-rated movies to teens. Magazines with majority under-17 audiences, such

as Teen, Jump, YM, DC Comics Teen, or Marvel Comics, contained advertisements for numerous

R-rated films.101 In addition, six of the studios used print media distributed exclusively in

schools – Planet Report and/or Fast Times – to advertise R-rated movies. Planet Report is

published by a company that distributes posters and other promotional items to at least 8,000

schools, including high schools and elementary schools.102 Fast Times, a news and entertainment

magazine, is used as a high school teaching aid and often is assigned as mandatory reading to

high school students.103

Internet marketing

The motion picture studios also promote their films by establishing an “official” Web site for

each movie they release. Web sites generally have trailers for the movie available for

downloading and viewing, as well as background information on the film’s cast and creators.

The studios include the address for the official movie site in virtually all print advertising and

also place banner ads on other sites that link directly to the official site. For the R-rated films

that targeted teens, the studios placed banner ads on sites with high teen usage.104

An important feature of the Internet is that it provides another outlet to show trailers for

movies. Before widespread use of the Internet, trailers were limited to theaters. Now, trailers, in

addition to being available on a movie’s official site, also are available on numerous theater sites

and through aggregator sites, many of which are independent from the studios and provide

reviews and information about films.105

The proliferation of trailers online presents some obvious problems: “restricted trailers,”

those with content the MPAA has determined not to be acceptable for “all audiences,” can easily

be accessed by children under 17; in addition, the strong content contained in some “all

audience” trailers is also accessible on the Internet by those under 17. The Commission’s review

found restricted trailers for American Pie and Road Trip posted on official Web sites that can be

accessed as easily as “all audience” trailers by children under 17.106

Box Office Enforcement

As partners in the industry’s self-regulatory system, movie theaters have urged the motion

picture studios to include explanations for ratings in print advertising, and they also play a central

role in trailer placement. Nevertheless, enforcement of the R rating category – ensuring that

patrons under 17, without parental involvement, do not see R-rated films at theaters – remains

the fundamental role of the theater.107 In fulfilling this role, the theaters must strike a delicate

balance between the need for enforcement (including the costs associated with measures beyond

identification checks) and the need to maintain a friendly and welcoming environment.

Despite the official policy that

FTC Mystery Shopper Survey

Movies

children under 17 should not be

admitted to an R-rated movie

(395 Shoppers)

unless accompanied by a parent or

guardian, such children gain access Was Rating Information Posted?

in a variety of ways. They may

purchase a ticket for the film

54%

46%

YES

46%

54%

YES

48%

52%

Was Child Able to Make Purchase?

themselves; have a sibling, friend,

or stranger over the age of 17

purchase it for them; or, in a multi-

YES

Did Employee Ask Age?

theater complex, purchase a ticket

to a PG-13- or lower-rated film and then, once past the ticket taker, go into the auditorium

showing the R-rated picture. In a multiplex theater, meaningful enforcement of the age

restrictions reflected in the MPAA ratings requires that attention be paid at two different places

in the theater: the ticket window and the auditorium entrance.

Material from the eight largest domestic theater chains indicates that they have taken

responsible measures to increase enforcement of the minimum age requirement for the purchase

of tickets to R-rated features since the Columbine shootings. In a June 1999 public

announcement with President Clinton, NATO promised stricter enforcement of the MPAA

guidelines. Specifically, NATO announced that all its member theaters should require, at the box

office, photo identification of unaccompanied young patrons seeking admission to R-rated

films.108

Despite these enhanced efforts, an undercover shopper survey of 395 theaters conducted for

the Commission in May through July 2000 found that just over half of the theaters enforced the

age restrictions at the box office. Theaters refused to sell tickets to R-rated movies to

unaccompanied 13- to 16-year-old children 54% of the time; youngsters successfully purchased

those tickets 46% of the time. The same percentage of theaters that did not admit

unaccompanied children (54%) also posted information about the rating system or theater

enforcement policy. (See Appendix F for details of the “Mystery Shopper” survey.)

NATO has suggested several ways109 theater chains might expand enforcement beyond box

office identification checks: posting ushers to check for proof of age at the doors of features

expected to attract a high proportion of teens; stamping the hands of patrons who have shown

proof of age to the cashier, so they later can be checked for proof of age more easily; and, in

multiplexes, when and where possible, showing similarly rated features in the same area of the

complex.110 The Commission’s review indicates that, to date, the major theater chains have

adopted very few of these suggestions. Four of the eight chains may require further proof of age

by either the ticket taker or an usher posted at the auditorium entrance. The rest rely solely on the

cashier. None of the theaters appears to have implemented NATO’s other suggestions.

Retailing of Movie Videos

Children’s access to violent movies on home video111 differs according to whether the video

is rented or purchased. Parents have significant controls over the videos their children rent

because of limitations established by the major rental outlets. To be eligible for rental privileges,

a customer of a video rental store usually must be 18 and have a credit card, making it difficult

for children to rent videos independent of their parents’ membership.112 Blockbuster Video and

Hollywood Video, the dominant home video membership stores, have responded to parental

concerns by adopting policies that give parents the option to restrict the videos rented by their

children. Under Blockbuster Video’s policy, parents must affirmatively give their consent to

their children’s rental of R-rated movies.113 Hollywood Video’s policy is the opposite: parental

consent to rent R-rated videos is presumed and parents must opt to place restrictions on the

account.114 Another large retail chain follows a discretionary policy: it gives individual stores

autonomy in deciding whether to permit the rental of R-rated movies to minors.115

Although renting R-rated videos usually requires a degree of parental involvement, the direct

purchase of such videos often does not. Home videos are sold at a wide variety of locations,

ranging from specialized video stores and small convenience stores to large discount merchants,

supermarkets, and the Internet. The Commission reviewed the policies of eight major retailers

that sell home videos at traditional “bricks and mortar” stores. Only three of these informed the

Commission that they have policies restricting the sale of R-rated videos to children under 17.

These three retailers also rent videos, and thus may be more attuned to the issue of parental

consent in this area.

All of the online retailers contacted by the Commission116 provide MPAA ratings

information.117 However, these same retailers generally do not have express policies restricting

the online sale of R-rated videos to children. One retailer stated that it relies on the purchaser’s

use of a credit card as a proxy for parental approval. The other retailers did not indicate whether

they do so as well.

IV. THE MUSIC RECORDING INDUSTRY PARENTAL ADVISORY LABELING

PROGRAM

We believe that not all music is right for all ages and our Parental Advisory Label was

created for just that reason. Parents can use the label to identify music that may not be

appropriate for their children and make the choice about when – and whether – their

children should be able to have that recording.

– Recording Industry Association of America118

Recording Industry

Association of America

330 Connecticut Avenue N.W.

Suite 300

Washington, D.C. 20036

202.775.0101

www.riaa.org

The Recording Industry Association of America

(“RIAA”) created a parental advisory program in 1985 in

response to concerns of parent groups about children’s

exposure to music with mature themes.119 Under the

program, music recordings that contain explicit lyrics,

including strong language or graphic references to violence, sex, or drug use, are identified with a

parental advisory label.120

The RIAA describes the parental advisory label as a tool for record companies to use to alert

parents to explicit lyrics.121 The decision to label a recording is made by individual record

companies and their artists.122 RIAA members, as well as non-member companies, use the

advisory.123

Scope of Commission’s Review

In examining the music recording industry’s parental advisory labeling program, the

Commission reviewed documents provided by the RIAA and the National Association of

Recording Merchandisers (“NARM”), as well as publicly available materials. In addition,

because each recording company labels its own explicit-content recordings, the Commission

analyzed documents provided by the major recording companies – BMG Entertainment, EMI

Recorded Music, North America, Sony Music Entertainment, Inc., Warner Music Group, Inc.,

and UMG Recordings, Inc. (Universal) – and their affiliated record companies (together “the

recording companies”) that explain their individual procedures for determining which recordings

need to display the parental advisory label.124

In addition, the Commission studied the marketing

National Association

of Recording Merchandisers

9 Eves Drive, Suite 120

Marlton, NJ 08053

856.596.2221

www.narm.com

plans, advertisements, and advertisement dissemination

schedules for 55 full-length recordings with the parental

advisory label, all of which were top sellers in 1999.125

Because the recording companies could not specify

which recordings received the parental advisory label

due to violent content, as opposed to some other explicit content, these companies produced

materials for top-selling recordings labeled for any reason due to their “explicit” content (which

could include strong language and/or depictions of sex, violence, or substance use).126 Also,

because the RIAA’s label makes no recommendations to parents about the age appropriateness of

recordings with explicit lyrics, the Commission applied the age limit (17) of the movie and

electronic game industry self-regulatory programs to its analysis of whether the recording

industry is marketing explicit-content labeled recordings to children.127

Operation of the Music Recording Labeling Program

The labeling process

The parental advisory label is black and white, measures 1" x 5/8" and says “Parental

Advisory, Explicit Content.”

Unlike the film and electronic game self-regulatory systems, the recording industry labeling

program does not have a rating board to determine which music recordings should display the

parental advisory label. Nor does the RIAA provide standardized procedures or other guidance

as to when a recording should display a parental advisory. Instead, the decision is made by each

company for its own products. According to the RIAA, with about 60,000 recordings released

each year, the artists and recording companies themselves can make the labeling decision most

efficiently. In addition, the RIAA believes that because the parental advisory label is meant to

flag for parents any potentially offensive material, it makes sense for a “sensitive and

sophisticated” labeler at each company to make the labeling decision.128 Therefore, to report on

the labeling process, the Commission reviewed the practices of the five major recording

companies.

According to the recording companies, the decision to label is subjective, and often made on

a case-by-case basis.129 None of the companies has adopted written policies or guidelines

defining “explicit” content in music and none memorializes why a particular recording received

the advisory.130

One company reported that its employees, often in partnership with the artists involved,

make “good faith judgments about what kinds of lyrics and depictions parents might find

offensive, because of racial epithets, vulgarities, curse words, sexual references, violence, and

drug descriptions.” Another company evaluates the content of every recording on the basis of

various factors, including, but not limited to: explicit exhortations of sex, violence, illicit drug

use, or suicide; exhortations of violence against any specific named real person or peace officer;

offensive language generally and use of objectionable words; overall impression, including

generally nihilistic world view, pervasive misogyny or racial/minority stereotyping. “The

ultimate judgment call of whether the content of a recording warrants the [parental advisory

label] is made in light of the message and identity of the artist, the current social climate, and,

perhaps most importantly, straightforward common sense,” the company said.

Documents from the three remaining companies suggest that they evaluate the content of a

recording based on a cursory review of the lyrics. According to these companies, they may

decide to label a recording as soon as they hear a number of expletives on one song, without

listening to an album’s entire content.131 One company explained that because the RIAA system

involves a single label, a more thorough analysis is unnecessary, and that “the process is not

distinctly tailored to differentiate among ‘violent content,’ sex, language, or any other reason as

the basis for stickering.”132

If a company and/or an artist determines that a recording contains explicit content, the RIAA

recommends using the label on the packaging of all cassettes, CDs, vinyl records, and music

videotapes.133 According to the RIAA, the label should measure 1" x 5/8" and should be part of

the permanent packaging under the cellophane shrink wrap, rather than a peel-off sticker.134

The use of the advisory label on packaging

The Commission’s review of the packaging of 55 top-selling CDs that bore the parental

advisory label indicates that the recording companies do not uniformly follow the RIAA’s

suggestions for using the label.135 In one company’s case, 91% of the CD labels met the RIAA

labeling parameters; in another company’s case, none of the CDs – 0% – was labeled according

to RIAA suggestions. The Commission noted the following:

The advisory labels on 27 of the recordings (50%) met the RIAA

recommendations for size, placement, and format.

The labels on 41 of the recordings (75%) were incorporated directly into the CD

packaging; the labels on the remaining 14 CDs (25%) were removable stickers

attached to the CD case.

A total of 10 of the removable stickers provided other information about popular

songs on the CD in and around the advisory, tending to obscure the message on

the advisory.

Twenty-two of the advisories (39%) were smaller than the RIAA’s recommended

size.

In addition, a later review (July 2000) of the labels on 25 current top-selling labeled

recordings also showed that the advisory often is smaller than the RIAA specifies or is a peel-off

sticker.136

“Clean” versions

Although not specifically recommended by the RIAA, the recording companies routinely

create and sell edited or “clean” versions of the explicit-content labeled recordings.137 According

to one recording company, an edited version “provides listeners with the option of purchasing an

artist’s work without the explicit content as identified by [the recording company and] . . .

provides an alternative to retailers and other media outlets that opt not to sell, disseminate or

promote the unedited versions of the stickered recordings.”138 Explicit or unedited versions of

recordings usually outsell the edited version, often by over 10 times.139

In creating an edited version, one company states that it:

often works closely with the artists to determine the necessary changes. In some

recordings any explicit content is simply taken out, while in other instances new lyrics or

sounds are added to replace those in the stickered version. These changes are made on a

case by case basis with the focus centered on the deletion of any explicit content while

making minimal changes to the artistic expression.140

The company further acknowledges that “there remain in the edited versions of the CDs

identified . . . instances of language, situations, and phrases that reasonably might be considered

‘violent’ without distorting standard English usage.” Its justification for leaving such lyrics in

the edited version is “there is also in popular children’s fare (cowboy adventures, military

exploits, fairy tales, cartoons, etc.) a great deal that is similarly ‘violent,’ but for which no one

would advocate special labeling or warning.”141

Creating an edited version is not always feasible, however. According to one company, if the

controversial content is essential to the artist’s message, the recording company may not release

an edited version. The decision to create an edited version, this company said, also “may turn on

the practical consequences of editing. . . .[A]n edited version may not be produced if the editing

process would eliminate the preponderance of the lyrics.”142

Although the lyrics on the two versions may vary, the CD packaging often does not, except

that the explicit version bears the parental advisory label. When the CD packaging itself contains

“explicit content,” the artwork used for the explicit and edited versions may differ.143 Similarly,

when the packaging for both versions lists the songs, the edited versions often replace any

profanity in song titles with asterisks.

Issues Not Addressed by the Music Recording Labeling Program

Access to important information about explicit recordings

The parental advisory label covers a wide range of content, including violence, sex, and/or

drug use, without regard to the fact that some parents may be more concerned with certain types

of explicit content than with others. Although the RIAA agrees that parents need information

about recordings to be able to make intelligent listening choices for their children,144 groups such

as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the National Parent Teacher Association have

expressed concern that the industry’s “one-size-fits-all” approach does not provide enough

information to parents.145

Unlike the motion picture and electronic game rating systems, the label does not provide

reasons for the advisory label or “content descriptors” indicating the nature or the amount of the

explicit content (e.g., strong language or graphic references to violence, sex, or drug use).146

Instead, one advisory covers a broad spectrum of content, including violence and/or sex.

Nor does the label specify the age groups for which an explicit-content labeled recording

may be inappropriate;147 parents of a 7-year-old are given the same advisory as parents of a 12year-old or a 16-year-old.148 Further, the industry does not provide a means for parents to obtain

the lyrics of explicit-content labeled recordings. In fact, the Commission found that out of the 55

labeled CDs that it reviewed, only eight included lyrics for the songs in the packaging. Parental

review of a recording may be hindered because the lyrics on many explicit songs are difficult to

understand without repeated listening.149

Focus groups conducted for the RIAA indicate that parents want a “visible and credible

voluntary labeling program that helps them monitor the music their children purchase.”150

Consumer survey evidence suggests that the current labeling program may not provide parents

with enough information about violent lyrics to help them make decisions about their children’s

listening choices. In a survey conducted for the Commission in May and June 2000, fewer than

half of the parents (44%) surveyed viewed the parental advisory as “excellent” (12%) or “good”

(32%) at informing them about the level of violence in music.151 And although 74% of parents

surveyed reported being “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied” with the parental advisory label,

only 9% of parents who restrict their children’s music mentioned the advisory label when asked

how they decide what music their children can listen to. Of the overall sample of parents, 45%

use the advisory program at least some of the time.152 According to a June 1999 Gallup poll,

74% of the respondents thought that music producers do not provide enough information about

the violent content in lyrics of popular music for adults to make decisions about what is

appropriate for children; 22% thought that the information was enough.153 The same poll found

that 73% of parents believed that the music industry should place restrictions on the sale of

recordings with violent content to children under 18, as well as provide information to the public

about the violent content of recordings.154

Parents’ Responses - Music

Who selects the product?

An adult

An adult and the child together

The child

Who purchases the product?

An adult

An adult and the child together

The child

Parent restricts child's use of the product

Parent is aware of a rating system for the product

How often do you use the rating system?

Some, most, or all of the time

Rarely or never

Are you satisfied with the rating system?

Somewhat or very satisfied

Somewhat or very dissatisfied

How does the rating system do in informing you about violence?

Good or excellent

Fair or poor

11%

55%

34%

37%

28%

72%

77%

62%

38%

74%

14%

44%

40%

The placement of an advisory on digital music

The current labeling program encourages an advisory on explicit music sold in CD, cassette,

or album formats, but not on explicit music that is downloaded electronically and stored as a

computer file (e.g., an MP3 file).155 Internet technology is making music available to a broad

audience,156 and studies show that listening to and obtaining music in a digital format is

increasingly popular with teenagers.157 The recording companies have begun to address the

growing availability of digital music and to create their own systems of digital music

distribution.158 However, no parental advisory labeling program exists for digital music.

Advertising disclosure and placement standards

The RIAA has stated that the explicit content label is a tool designed “to provide a clear

notice to parents to allow them to decide . . . what may or may not be appropriate music for their

children.”159 As noted above, the RIAA program’s single element has been a point-of-purchase

disclosure on the packaging of a CD, cassette, or album (see next section for recently-announced

changes).160 The labeling program has not addressed the advertising of explicit recordings, either

in terms of whether the advisory label should appear in advertising or whether the recording

companies should limit where they place ads for labeled recordings.161

The Commission’s review of the music advertising submitted by the recording companies

and by eight major music retailers shows that, while some ads for explicit recordings display the

advisory, many do not.162 Moreover, when the label appears in advertising, it often is a black and

white blur that is too small for consumers to read, or is obscured by pricing information.

A separate review of recent issues of magazines popular with teens shows that

advertisements for explicit-content labeled recordings rarely display the parental advisory: only

18 (8%) of 234 print ads for labeled recordings displayed the advisory.163 Similarly, a review of

artist, recording company, and music retailer Web sites shows that many of the online

promotions for explicit recordings omit the parental advisory.164

There are a few notable exceptions, however. Some recording company and retailer Web

sites tell consumers about the explicit content of the recordings they are selling through text

disclosures near the promotions. For example, Cash Money Records uses clear text disclosures –

“Explicit Version” and “Clean Version” – directly below pictures of the individual recordings.165

Similarly, Amazon.com regularly includes the warning “EXPLICIT LYRICS” on its Web pages

and in its print advertising.166 This advisory text is often presented in a large, easy-to-read notice.

CDNow.com and TWEC.com also place the term “explicit” next to promotions for labeled

albums and the term “edited” next to promotions for edited albums.167

However, because most advertisements for labeled recordings do not show the advisory

label, parents may not have the notice they need to decide what music is appropriate for their

children to purchase. Most teens and many pre-teens make music purchase decisions without

consulting their parents;168 therefore, advertisements may be parents’ only advance source of

information regarding the music their children are purchasing.

Finally, it appears that the utility of the advisory label as an effective notice to parents has

been diminished by the industry’s lack of guidance on the marketing of explicit-content labeled

music recordings to children. Section V of this Report discusses the efforts marketers have made

to reach children directly and to influence their purchases regardless of the parental advisory

label.

Recent Changes to the Music Recording Labeling Program

In late August 2000, the RIAA recommended revisions to the parental advisory label

program, to be effective October 1, 2000. According to the recommendation, the RIAA now

asks that industry members: 1) use general guidelines, included in the RIAA memorandum, to

determine whether a recording warrants a parental advisory label; 2) adopt a policy that the

parental advisory label or other prominent notice of explicit content should appear in print

advertising for explicit-labeled recordings and that advertising for explicit-content labeled

recordings should not appear in publications, Web sites, or other commercial outlets whose

primary (i.e., 50% or more) market demographic is 16 years of age or younger; and 3) adopt a

policy that the parental advisory label should appear prominently in online retail sites in all stages

of the transaction and that online retail sites should link to the entertainment industry’s Web site,

www.parentalguide.org, where more information on the rating and labeling systems may be

found. Further, the RIAA committed to conducting an annual review of its policies and their

implementation. These are constructive changes that begin to address several of the concerns

outlined above; whether and how they will be implemented is not yet known. This Report’s

analysis of the music recording industry’s self-regulatory program is based on the program in

effect up until September 2000.

V. MARKETING MUSIC RECORDINGS TO CHILDREN

Background

Information submitted by the recording companies shows that they market their explicitcontent labeled recordings at two levels. First, they advertise and market their recordings

directly, assuming responsibility for the design of the materials and the dissemination of the

promotions in a variety of venues, including print, broadcast and cable television, in-store

displays, radio airplay, music videos, “street marketing,” artist appearances on cable music

television programming, and contests on Internet Web sites. Second, they promote music

recordings through cooperative advertising agreements with retailers, wholesalers, and other

distributors of music.169 Marketing efforts often begin several weeks before the release of a

recording and can continue long after.

Marketing Explicit Content Recordings to Children

The Commission’s review of marketing documents indicates that the recording companies

often market explicit-content labeled recordings to a wide demographic, including a significant

under-17 audience. Fifteen of the 55 marketing plans (27%) the Commission studied expressly

identified teenagers as part of the group to which the companies planned on marketing the

explicit recordings. Examples of express statements regarding the recordings’ target audience

include:

“Target audience: Hip-Hop, Crossover, Pop, Male/Female – 14-34"

“Target audience: Alternative/urban, rock, pop, hardcore 12-34"

“target demographic are 15-30 males and females of various ethnic backgrounds who are into

hip hop.”

“the 13-35 year old male demographic; which as we know is our target demo.”

Others more generally discuss promoting explicit recordings to “teens” and distributing materials

at high schools or in popular teen venues.170

Although the marketing documents for the remaining 40 explicit-content labeled recordings

did not expressly set forth the age of the target audience,171 they detailed the same methods of

marketing as the plans that specifically identified teens as a part of their target audience,

including placing advertising in media that would reach a majority or substantial percentage of

children under 17.

Print advertising

The recording companies routinely use print advertising to promote their explicit-content

labeled recordings to children under 17. The marketing materials for 39 out of 55 labeled

recordings (70%) discussed placing ads in magazines with a majority or significant teen audience

(such as Blaze, GamePro, Metal Edge, Right On!, Seventeen, Skateboarding, Thrasher, Vibe, and

YM).172 These magazines have an under-18 readership of between 40 and 80%.173

The recording companies also encouraged and closely tracked the placement in these

publications of feature stories about their artists who had released explicit-content labeled

recordings. The marketing plans for 11 explicit-content labeled recordings indicated that such

features were scheduled to run in publications with a majority or substantial teen audience.

In addition, the Commission reviewed the music advertising in recent issues of nine

magazines with a majority or substantial teen readership audience and found ads for explicitcontent labeled recordings in each magazine.174

Television promotions – cable music channels

Television cable channels that show music videos and other music-related programming

figure prominently in the marketing of explicit-content labeled recordings to children under 17.

The marketing plans almost uniformly discuss airing music videos and placing advertisements

and promotions on three music cable channels – MTV, BET, and/or The Box – all of which

target and reach viewers between the ages of 12 and 34.175

The recording companies’ marketing materials show that these companies often:

advertise the release of labeled recordings during cable music programming;

submit for airplay music videos of songs that appear on labeled recordings;

encourage appearances by the artist on cable music programs; and

arrange promotional activities with cable music channels, such as contests and

special features on the artist.176

In addition, many of the marketing documents discuss securing promotions on specific cable

music programs that appear during popular after-school and early-prime-time shows, such as

MTV’s Total Request Live and Jams Countdown and BET’s Rap City. A review of these cable

programs confirms that advertisements for labeled recordings, and music videos for songs from

these recordings, appear on these channels during after-school and prime-time hours.177

Other television advertisements

The marketing materials for the music recordings placed significantly less emphasis on

network and non-music cable television advertising than did the plans for motion pictures.

Nonetheless, several of the marketing plans indicated that the recording companies intended to

advertise and promote explicit-content labeled recordings on television programs with large

under-17 audiences, such as The Simpsons, South Park, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and various

wrestling programs.178

Internet marketing

The Commission found that Internet advertising and promotion is an integral part of most of

the marketing plans for explicit recordings. There is every indication that the companies will

continue to increase their marketing of labeled recordings over the Internet: as one marketing

plan noted, “Internet marketing and promotions is the wave of the future.” Such marketing

efforts easily reach a young audience,179 and surveys of teens indicate that a significant

percentage of children are listening to music on and obtaining music from Internet Web sites.180

Promoting a labeled recording over the Internet usually involves setting up an artist Web site

or Web page (as part of a recording company site) where consumers can listen to short samples

of songs (audio clips) from explicit recordings.181 These sites link to others, including artists’

sites, and recording company and retail sites, from which recordings can be previewed, ordered,

or downloaded. The recording companies also promote explicit-content labeled recordings

through popular music sites, including mtv.com, bet.com, launch.com, and ubl.com. Several of

the marketing plans for labeled recordings also detailed their use of electronic mail to alert fans

about upcoming releases. Children under 17 constitute a significant percentage of the audience

on these music Web sites.182

Street marketing

Most of the marketing materials the Commission examined included plans to promote

explicit-content labeled recordings through the use of aggressive “street marketing

campaigns.”183 The companies use “street teams” to distribute a variety of promotional materials

at non-traditional venues such as concerts, sporting goods stores, street fairs, and trendy clothing

stores. The promotional materials involved include “coming soon” banners, posters, postcards,

window displays, flyers, cassette and CD samplers, locker posters, key chains, t-shirts, hats,

pencils, baseball cards, CDs, and “scratch and win” promotions.

Street marketing efforts also include outdoor advertising for labeled recordings on billboards,

posters at bus shelters, bus stop benches, buildings, and street poles. Several plans discussed

attaching promotions for the labeled recordings to public buses, ice cream trucks, and shuttle

vans that drive through urban neighborhoods.

In efforts geared specifically to the under-17 audience, several plans discussed distributing

promotional materials for, and playing music and music videos from, explicit recordings in

sporting goods and apparel stores popular with teens, such as Foot Action and Downtown Locker

Room.184 One plan also discussed distributing singles from a labeled recording for play at “Back

To High School” parties.

Radio

Radio is an important medium for reaching the youth market. Many of the marketing

documents the Commission reviewed described plans to seek heavy radio play of singles from

explicit-content labeled recordings on radio stations with a primary audience of 12- to 24-yearolds. These documents emphasized placings ads and other promotions, such as concert ticket

giveaways, album giveaways, and a variety of prize promotion contests, on these stations. In

addition, several of the marketing plans provided for on-air artist interviews on these stations.

Licensing

Like the motion picture and electronic game companies, the recording companies often

cross-market their products through licensing agreements. The companies agree to the use of

songs from explicit-content labeled recordings in other products marketed to teens, such as

movies, video games, and television programs. Several companies licensed songs from labeled

albums for use in R-rated movies that the movie studios promoted to an audience of 12- to 17year-olds. One company licensed music from explicit-labeled recordings for use in PG and PG13 movies.

The recording companies also licensed music from explicit-content labeled recordings for

use in electronic games. One company licensed music from labeled recordings for use on a

“fighting” game rated M (“Mature” audiences) that marketing documents indicated was targeted

to 12- to 24-year-olds. Two companies approved the use of music from explicit-content labeled

recordings on E-rated (“Everyone”) video games. Further, the companies provided agreements

authorizing the use of music from labeled recordings in programs and networks popular with

teens. One marketing plan detailed a cross-marketing effort involving a contest with a clothing

company whose products are “targeted to men and women 12-24,” and also discussed using the

contest as a means to “gather tens of thousands of e-mail addresses.”

Retailing of Music Recordings

Recordings with an explicit content label are sold at specialty music stores, large electronics

retailers, department stores, and on the Internet, among other locations. The eight music retailers

the Commission contacted take a variety of approaches toward selling labeled recordings.185 Of

the six of these music retailers with “bricks and mortar” stores:

Two have company-wide policies restricting the purchase of labeled recordings in

their retail stores by the age of the purchaser. One has a written policy not to sell

any labeled CDs to “children,” which some individual stores within the chain

define as anyone age 17 and under. The other said its policy is not to sell

recordings that display the advisory label to anyone under 13 years of age without

a parent or guardian present.

Three do not place any restrictions on in-store purchases of explicit recordings by

children of any age.

One does not carry recordings with a parental advisory label in its stores, stocking

only the edited versions of these recordings.

Seven of the eight retailers contacted by the Commission sell explicit music on their Web sites;

none imposes any age restrictions on online purchasers of explicit music.

The undercover shopper study

conducted for the Commission

FTC Mystery Shopper Survey

Music

confirms that retail stores rarely

(383 Shoppers)

restrict children from purchasing

explicit-labeled music. In that

survey of 383 music stores,

unaccompanied children ages 13-16

were able to buy an explicit-content

time.

12%

88%

YES

85%

15%

YES

16%

84%

Was Child Able to Make Purchase?

labeled recording 85% of the

186

YES

Was Rating Information Posted?

Moreover, only about 12% Did Employee Ask Age?

of the music stores posted

information about the parental advisory system or about the store’s sales policy regarding

explicit-content labeled recordings.187

VI. THE ELECTRONIC GAME INDUSTRY SELF-REGULATORY SYSTEM

The ESRB rating system is unique because it provides information about both ageappropriateness AND content elements that may be of interest or concern. The ratings

and content descriptors are designed to help parents exercise control over the computer

and video games their children play.

– Entertainment Software Rating Board188

Beginning in the early 1990’s, Congress responded to concern about the violent content in

some electronic games with hearings and legislative proposals. Although no legislation was

enacted, several members of Congress were critical of the electronic game industry for its lack of

a self-regulatory system to rate electronic games.189 In 1994, industry members formed the

Interactive Digital Software Association (“IDSA”) to address this criticism.190 The IDSA, in

turn, created and funded a separate division, the Entertainment Software Rating Board (“ESRB”),

to develop an interactive software rating system to assist parents in their efforts to select

appropriate games for their children.191

The Interactive Digital

Software Association

1211 Connecticut Ave., NW,

#600

Washington, D.C. 20036

202.223.2400

www.idsa.com

The IDSA/ESRB system rates game software

published for all gaming platforms, including cartridgebased and CD-based console systems (such as the

Nintendo 64, the Sega Dreamcast, and the Sony

Playstation, which hook up to a television set) and

personal computer-based systems (such as a Windows-

based PC or a Macintosh). The ESRB’s rating symbol can be found on all console-based video

games and on nearly all personal computer software games.192

The electronic game industry’s self-regulatory system is the most comprehensive of the three

industry systems studied by the Commission. It is widely used by industry members and has

been revised repeatedly to address new challenges, developments, and concerns regarding the

practices of its members. Its requirements are set out in the IDSA’s Advertising Code of Conduct

(“Adcode”), first adopted in 1995, and in the ESRB’s Principles and Guidelines for Responsible

Advertising Practices (“Ad Principles”), which became effective in January 2000.193

Scope of Commission’s Review

To evaluate the electronic game industry’s self-regulatory system, the Commission obtained

information from the IDSA and the ESRB concerning the development and enforcement of the

self-regulatory mechanisms they established for industry members. To assess industry members’

use of those self-regulatory mechanisms, the Commission contacted 11 video and personal

computer game publishers and obtained marketing and media plans for over 200 games194 that

the ESRB had rated as containing violent content, including plans for most of the best-selling

Mature-rated games from the last three years.195

Operation of the Electronic Game Self-Regulatory System

The rating process

According to the ESRB, each electronic game title is

rated by three people who have no ties to industry and

whose identities remain anonymous to industry

members. The rating panel for any given game title is

selected from a pool of more than 200 individuals with

Entertainment Software

Rating Board

845 Third Avenue

New York, NY, 10022

212.759.0700

www.esrb.org

different demographic characteristics; members of the

pool vary by gender, ethnicity, age, and marital and parental status.196 Each three-member panel

rates a game based on materials submitted by the game publisher or developer, typically

videotaped footage of the most extreme portions of the game.197 During this review, each rater

records every instance in which he or she observes a segment of gameplay that qualifies under a

particular content rating category. When at least two of the three raters apply the same rating

category to the same segment of the game, that rating category becomes the consensus rating for

the game.198

The IDSA/ESRB system rates game titles according to five age-based categories: (1) Early

Childhood, or “EC”; (2) Everyone, or “E”;199 (3) Teen, or “T”; (4) Mature, or “M”; and

(5) Adults Only, or “AO.”200 By definition, game titles rated M contain content suitable only for

persons ages 17 and older, and T-rated titles contain content suitable only for persons ages 13

and older. There is also a Rating Pending category (“RP”) to indicate that a game has been

submitted to, but not yet rated by, the ESRB.201 According to the ESRB, nearly 75% of games

have been rated either EC or E, while 19% have a T rating, 7% have an M rating, and less than

1% have an AO rating.202

The current rating icons appear as follows:203

As in the motion picture rating system, a descriptive phrase may be assigned to the letter

rating to indicate content that might be of concern to parents, such as language, sexual themes, or

violence.204 Descriptors reflecting violent content include “Mild Animated Violence,”205 “Mild

Realistic Violence,”206 “Comic Mischief,”207 “Animated Violence,”208 “Realistic Violence,”209

“Animated Blood and Gore,”210 “Realistic Blood and Gore,”211 “Animated Blood,”212 and

“Realistic Blood.”213

The clear majority of games, such as sports and racing games or strategy and puzzle games,

do not contain graphic violence or depict blood and gore. Yet hundreds of games do, and, due to

technological advances,214 it is now possible for the maiming and killing depicted in those games

to be inflicted with a vast array of weaponry and illustrated in graphic, near lifelike detail.215 The

descriptors, however, do not indicate the intensity of violence in a game. All the violence

descriptors but two – “Animated Blood and Gore” and “Realistic Blood and Gore” – may appear

in E-rated games. Games rated T, M, or AO may be assigned any of the violence descriptors.

Although the M-rating may suggest a greater level of violence compared to T- and E-rated

games, the particular game may have received the M-rating for content other than violence (e.g.,

strong sexual content).216 Thus, although the descriptors, when combined with the ratings, do

provide parents with information that is helpful in making decisions as to what is appropriate for

their children,217 the degree of violence may not always be apparent.218

Requirements for packaging, advertising, and marketing

Disclosure of rating information on product packaging and in

advertising

Unlike the film and music industries, the electronic game industry requires the display of

rating icons and, in most cases, content descriptors (e.g., “Realistic Blood and Gore”) on

packaging, in print ads, and online. It also requires television ads to include a voice-over stating

the game’s rating. Specific requirements include:

display of the rating icon on the front of the package and any content descriptors

on the back;

display of the rating icon on all game cartridges, compact discs, and floppy disks;

display of the rating icon and content descriptors219 in print advertisements;

display of the rating icon and a voice-over220 of the rating in televison ads; and

display of the rating icon on game Web sites and on pages where a game “demo”

(an abbreviated version of the game) or trailer is accessed, and display of the

rating icon and content descriptors on product ordering pages.

Although the Adcode expressly includes banner ads221 on Web sites within its very broad

definition of online advertising, it does not require that banner ads contain either rating icons or

content descriptors. Nor does the IDSA Adcode cover ads for products related to electronic

games, such as action figures or other products licensed by game manufacturers.

The Commission reviewed product packaging, recent print and television advertising, and

industry Web sites promoting particular games to assess industry compliance with the disclosure

requirements. This review, described in Appendix J (Electronic Game Industry Compliance with

Self Regulatory Code Requirements to Disclose Ratings Information on Product Packaging, in

Advertising, and Online), found a high level of compliance with the packaging requirements and

with requirements concerning proper visual disclosure of the rating and voice-overs of rating

information in television ads. Industry compliance was mixed, however, with respect to the

requirement to display ratings and content descriptors in print advertising,222 although it appears

that compliance levels are improving. Compliance with the rating disclosure requirements for

industry Web sites was poor. Although most sites complied with the basic requirement to

display the ESRB rating, many failed to display the rating icon on pages where a demo could be

downloaded or viewed, and only a few displayed required descriptors at the point where one

could order a game.

To its credit, the IDSA has taken several steps to encourage industry members to comply

with these requirements. It has contacted many individual game publishers regarding their

noncompliance with the rating display requirements for packaging, print, and television

advertising.223 For packaging violations, the IDSA has asked the violator to place a hold on any

future shipments of games with noncompliant packaging and to distribute stickers containing the

correct rating information for retailers to apply on any packaging already in stores.224 For

advertising violations, the IDSA has generally asked the publisher to avoid future

noncompliance. None of the documents submitted to the Commission revealed an instance when

a violation resulted in a fine or a revocation of the ESRB rating, which the IDSA has the power

to seek.225

Even though most advertisements and packaging comply with the requirements to display

rating information, consumer familiarity with and usage of the IDSA/ESRB system appear to be

low. According to the Commission’s May-June 2000 survey of parents and children, 61% of

parents were aware of a rating system for video games, but only 37% had both heard of and had

more than slight familiarity with the rating system.226 A bare majority of parents who claimed to

be aware of and at least slightly familiar with the rating system said they use the rating at least

some of the time when their children want to play a video game.227 However, just over half of

those parents could correctly state that the rating system provides for both age-based ratings and

content descriptors, and less than half could name a single one of the ESRB ratings unaided or

distinguish the ESRB ratings from rating terminology used in the music or motion picture

industries.228

Other studies have demonstrated similarly low levels of familiarity and use. An ESRBsponsored survey of parents in 1999 found that 45% were aware of the electronic game rating

system, in contrast with 94% of respondents for the movie rating system and 60% for the music

labeling system.229 A 1999 survey commissioned by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that

about 53% of parents reported using ratings on electronic games.230 A smaller survey conducted

by the National Institute on Media and the Family in 1998 suggested a lower level of use, finding

that 40% of parents routinely looked at industry ratings before buying or renting computer or

video games.231

At the same time, the game rating system appears to be helpful to those parents who actually

use it. The Commission’s study found that five in six of those parents who use the video game

rating system at least some of the time when their children want to play a game were “very

satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied” with the rating system.232 Similarly, the Kaiser Survey

reported that about 86% of parents who had used the rating system found it to be “very useful” or

“somewhat useful.”233 Eighty percent of respondents in the ESRB survey who had the

components of the IDSA/ESRB system described to them found the system “very helpful” or

“somewhat helpful.”234

As to violence, the Commission’s survey found that a majority of parents who are at least

slightly familiar with the system believe that the rating system does either an excellent (4%) or

good (50%) job of informing parents about the level of violence in video games.235 In contrast, a

Gallup poll conducted in June 1999 reported that 74% of respondents felt that the electronic

game industry did not provide parents with enough information about violent content to make

decisions about what is appropriate for children, while 20% believed that the information was

sufficient.236 However, respondents in that poll apparently were not screened for experience with

the system.

Parents’ Responses - Games

Who selects the product?

An adult

An adult and the child together

The child

Who purchases the product?

An adult

An adult and the child together

The child

Parent restricts child's use of the product

Parent is aware of a rating system for the product

How often do you use the rating system?

Some, most, or all of the time

Rarely or never

Are you satisfied with the rating system?

Somewhat or very satisfied

Somewhat or very dissatisfied

How does the rating system do in informing you about violence?

Good or excellent

Fair or poor

17%

53%

29%

38%

45%

15%

68%

61%

52%

45%

77%

55%

29%

Limits on violent content in advertising

The IDSA/ESRB system also governs the content of advertising. In the fall of 1999, the

IDSA created the Advertising Review Council (“ARC”) as a separate division of the ESRB.237 In

addition to being given responsibility to enforce the Adcode, as of January 31, 2000, ARC

became responsible for implementing, administering, and enforcing an expanded set of

Principles and Guidelines for Responsible Advertising Practices (“Ad Principles”), which add

new requirements beyond the Adcode to assist companies in providing for “responsible,

appropriate, truthful and accurate advertising.”238 Companies that receive an ESRB rating agree

to comply with the Ad Principles and to cooperate with all of ARC’s reviews, investigations, and

inquiries.239

The IDSA charged ARC with ensuring that industry ads comply with the following four

principles. An advertisement should:

accurately reflect the nature and content of the game and the rating issued;

not glamorize or exploit the ESRB rating;240

be created with a sense of responsibility towards the public; and

not contain any content that may cause serious or widespread offense to the

average consumer.241

With regard to the violent content of ads, ARC will examine, among other things, whether ad

copy includes graphic and/or excessive depictions of violence.242

Because the Ad Principles only recently took effect, ARC’s initial efforts to foster

compliance have focused principally on educating members about their requirements.243

Nonetheless, the Commission’s review of recent ads in game enthusiast magazines shows several

instances of ad copy for M-rated games that might be covered by these Principles, such as an ad

that states, “the huge 15 foot genetically engineered Behemoth rips the cop’s heart out and like a

rag doll tosses his lifeless body across the room” or an ad that promises “more powerful

weapons” and urges gamers to “exercise your trigger finger.”244 It is not clear whether ARC or

the IDSA would consider these examples to violate the letter or spirit of the Ad Principles.

ARC officials expect that compliance with the Ad Principles will be enhanced by the

decision of leading game enthusiast magazine publishers to incorporate the Ad Principles into

their ad acceptance practices.245 It remains to be seen, however, whether the game magazines

will be effective in screening out excessive violence from game ads. In answering a recent letter

from a young reader upset that his parents would not let him buy Resident Evil (an M-rated game

with violence descriptors), the editor for one of the most popular game magazines responded as

follows:

We all know that Resident Evil is gory and violent; in fact, the series is rated “Mature”

by the ESRB – that means appropriate only for gamers 17 and older

. . . end of story. The fact that you own Turok and Quake [both M-rated games with

violence descriptors], but are not allowed to play Resident Evil, indicates that your

parents are somewhat befuddled by video games. . . . Most parents are simply protective

of their kids, however, and yours are probably making a decision with your best interests

in mind. Why not find a pal who has Res Evil and enjoy the classic series that way?246

Limits on marketing to minors

Unlike the movie and music recording industries, the electronic game industry does prohibit

marketing targeted to children under the age suggested in the game’s rating. Since 1995, the

IDSA Adcode has barred industry members from “specifically target(ing) advertising . . . for

entertainment software products rated Teen, Mature, or Adults Only to consumers for whom the

product is not rated as appropriate.”247 According to the IDSA, this provision is intended to

prohibit a company from advertising a game rated Teen or Mature in, for example, the Barbie

Magazine.248 In a 1998 letter, the IDSA emphasized that the “anti-targeting provision is

important to the integrity of the rating system and is meant to ensure that young people are not

encouraged to play games that are not suitable for them.”249 As discussed in the next Section of

this Report, however, nearly all the industry members contacted by the Commission appear to

have targeted their marketing to audiences that include a high percentage of children for whom

the products are rated as not suitable.

VII.

MARKETING ELECTRONIC GAMES TO CHILDREN

Background

Publishers of electronic games rely heavily on print advertising, especially in gaming

enthusiast magazines, and make frequent use of Internet and television advertising to promote

new game titles.250 Other promotional tactics used by one or more industry members include: instore displays at major game and toy retailers;251 the giveaway of sampler or “demo” disks of the

game in popular gaming magazines; the aggressive solicitation of online and print press

coverage, particularly for previews, reviews, and magazine covers; the creation of “official” Web

sites or Web pages for a game title where browsers can learn about the game, view game clips, or

download an abbreviated version of the game;252 the encouragement of electronic chat about the

game on the Internet;253 direct mail and e-mail solicitations; “street marketing” (the distribution

of posters, flyers, and stickers at clubs, music shops, and skateboard shops); the giveaway of

game-related paraphernalia, such as sunglasses, stickers, t-shirts, and key chains; and game

giveaways over the radio.

Marketing M-Rated Games to Children

The Commission’s review of industry documents indicates that nearly all the game

companies contacted have marketed violent M-rated games to children in violation of the IDSA’s

anti-targeting provision. These violations are evidenced foremost by marketing documents for

M-rated games that expressly target children (typically boys) under age 17. This under-17

targeting occurred as late as February 2000, the cut-off date for Commission-requested materials.

The marketing documents provided to the Commission indicate that at least 83 of the 118

violent M-rated games studied (70%) were targeted to children under 17. Sixty of the 118 game

titles (51%) had at least one plan that expressly included children under 17 in the game’s target

audience.254 The incidence of express targeting was much higher for console games (72%) than

for personal computer games (26%).255 Marketing documents for 23 other M-rated games,

though they did not expressly identify children under 17 as the target audience, included plans to

advertise the games in magazines or on television shows with a majority or substantial under-17

audience,256 strongly suggesting that children under 17 were being targeted.

Overall, 10 of the 11 companies contacted by the Commission (91%) produced at least one

marketing document expressly identifying males (denoted by the letter “M”)257 under 17 as the

core, primary, or secondary target of their advertising campaigns for a violent M-rated game.258

In nearly all these instances, males over age 17 were also part of the target audience. Most of the

plans targeting an under-17 audience set age 12 as the younger end of the target spectrum, e.g.,

“M 12-17” or “M 12-24,”259 but two targeted children as young as six and eight.

In several instances, company marketing documents contained inconsistent statements on

whether the game’s target audience included children under age 17. For example, a 1999

creative brief for a violent M-rated game stated, “The ad campaign MUST be targeted to people

over the age of 17. . . . No GUNS or BLOOD should appear anywhere in the ads. . . . Rating

icon to be prominent in all ads.” At the same time, the marketing and media plans for the game

expressly targeted a 12- to 17-year-old audience and planned advertisements in magazines and

during television shows highly popular with younger teens.

Further, while some marketing plans indicated an intent to market M-rated games to an

older audience,260 others targeted under-17 consumers while simultaneously acknowledging that

this practice might conflict with the game’s M rating. For example, a 1997 plan stated, in part:

Although Nintendo 64 purchasers space a large range in terms of age (6-34 years old),

we recommend approaching the middle segment of this group because: [The game] has

an M rating, which 1) may discourage parents from buying the game, and 2) hinder

clearance of a commercial airing in shows primarily for children under 12. However, the

younger the audience, the more likely they are to be influenced by TV advertising . . . .

Therefore, the recommended media target audience is: Males 12-17 – Primary Males

18-34 – Secondary.

In addition, two plans for games developed in 1998 described the target market as “Males 17-34

due to M rating (the true target is males 12-34) who own, or plan to own a PSX machine,” and

“Target: Males 17-34 due to M rating (the true target is M9-34) who own or plan to buy an N64

machine.”261

Aside from express statements targeting an under-17 audience, the marketing documents

show plans262 to place advertisements for M-rated games: 1) in magazines with a majority or

close to a majority under-17 audience; 2) on the television shows most popular with younger

teens; and 3) on Internet sites popular with younger teens.263 The documents also show that the

planned/actual television and print advertising for M-rated games resulted in extensive exposure

to those under age 17 (typically 12-17).264

The following chart provides an overview of the extent to which each of the companies

contacted by the Commission appears to have targeted teens under 17 in their marketing of Mrated games.

Targeting of M-Rated Games to an Under-17 Audience 265

Company

Plans Expressly Target 266 Kids Under 17

Ads in Magazines Majority Under 18267

Ads on Teen T.V. Shows268

n/a

Ads on Web Sites Popular With Teens

269

The companies’ efforts at targeting youngsters under 17 appear to have had some success.

Although only 7% of video games are rated M, a variety of studies and surveys indicate that these

games, despite their “Mature” rating, are quite popular with boys under 17.270 In a survey

sponsored by the Commission, 24% of children between the ages of 11 and 16 included at least

one M-rated game in their list of three favorite games.271 Data from industry surveys in 1998 and

in 1999 indicate that 40% of users of the M-rated games included in those surveys were under

18.272 Information from game data registration from two companies is mixed, however. Data

from one company indicate that for five of its M-rated games, 14% to 67% of the users were 17

and under, while data from another company indicate that for two of its M-rated games, 10% of

the users were under age 18.273

Print advertising

All but two of the companies produced marketing documents containing plans to place ads

for M-rated games in magazines that have a majority under-17 readership. Specifically, nine of

the 11 companies’ marketing documents show repeated plans to place numerous ads for M-rated

games in magazines such as GamePro, Electronic Gaming Monthly,274 Expert Gamer, Tips and

Tricks, and the Unofficial PlayStation Magazine, all of which have a majority (from 54% to

68%) of readers or subscribers age 17 or under.275

The Commission reviewed 18 months (from January 1999 through June 2000) of two of

those magazines – GamePro and Electronic Gaming Monthly.276 This review reveals that 16

industry members, including eight of the companies contacted by the Commission, advertised Mrated games in these magazines. Although one company placed only a single ad, others used

these magazines more frequently, with five IDSA members placing 20 or more advertisements

for M-rated games.277 In fact, the 16 companies collectively placed more than 200

advertisements for M-rated games in these magazines, even though 60% of their readership is 17

and under, indicating broad-based targeting that is inconsistent with the self-regulatory system.278

A breakout of the magazine ads by rating279 is presented below.280

GamePro and Electronic Gaming Monthly

Advertising Composition By Rating

(“Rating Pending” ads are grouped by the rating they later received.)

Rated E

Rated T

Rated M

13%

53%

34%

Television advertising

Game companies also use television advertising to target M-rated games to teen audiences.

Marketing documents set out a long list of televison programs popular with teens ages 12 to 17

on which companies planned to place their advertisements for M-rated games.281 These

programs include The Simpsons, WWF Smackdown, That 70’s Show, King of the Hill, Dawson’s

Creek, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Xena: Warrior Princess, The Wayans Brothers, Hercules: The

Legendary Journeys, Baywatch, X-Files, V.I.P., Smart Guy, and WCW Wrestling.282

Company documents also show plans for frequent ad placements for M-rated games on cable

networks popular with teens: MTV, Comedy Central, Sci-Fi, USA, TBS (wrestling), and TNT

(wrestling). Indeed, at least two companies’ media plans for several M-rated games expressly

singled out programming on these networks because of their “high M12-24 composition” or

because they were “Youth-targeted.”283 A few companies also planned television ads for shows

airing in the afternoon, a time-frame particularly popular with teens.

Internet marketing

Many of the marketing documents describe plans to build game title awareness and generate

sales through promotional efforts on the Internet and, in particular, at Web sites frequented by

younger teens. Ten of the 11 companies (91%) produced marketing documents for M-rated

games showing plans to place advertisements (typically in the form of banner ads) on popular

teen Web sites.284 These included gamespot.com, ign.com, mtv.com, happypuppy.com, and

gamesdomain.com.285 One marketing plan described placing ads at ign.com, gamespot.com, and

mtv.com as a way to target males ages 12 to 25, and referred to mtv.com, in particular, as a

“teen-targeted” site.

Marketing T-Rated Games to Children

Although the Commission’s primary focus was M-rated games, the Commission also

requested marketing documents for some games rated T (Teen) which contain descriptors for

violence, and received information on approximately 85 such games. These documents reveal

several instances in which company plans expressly targeted T-rated games to those under age

13,286 including, in two cases, children as young as six. Overall, however, game companies

appeared to expressly target an underage audience far less frequently for T-rated games than they

did for M-rated games. Six of the 11 (55%) companies produced at least one marketing

document for a T-rated game that listed children under the age of 13 as the primary or secondary

targets of the advertising campaign.287 Of the 41 T-rated games for which marketing or media

plans specified a target age, 10 (24%) games had a plan that expressly included those under 13 in

the target audience.288

In many instances, the planned magazine and television advertising campaigns to promote

these T-rated games looked much like those for many M-rated games, with plans to place ads in

the same magazines and on the same television shows.289 In other instances, the planned

programs and publications skewed younger than those used to market M-rated games. For

example, marketing documents from two companies revealed plans to advertise three Teen

games on either the Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, or both; a large majority of the audience for

these channels is between the ages of two and 11.290 Other plans suggested ad placement on

several print publications popular with young children – DC Comics-Kids, Sports Illustrated for

Kids, Nickelodeon Magazine, and Disney Adventures.291

Licensing Products Based on M- and T-Rated Games

Company documents frequently reference plans to use or license images or characters

from M- or T-rated games in a wide variety of products, including action figures, comic books, tshirts, stickers, key chains, posters, mouse pads, sweatshirts, caps, decals, temporary tatoos, and

hand-held versions of the game. As noted above, the IDSA Adcode does not expressly cover

licensing.

One area that has drawn particular criticism is game licensees’ marketing to children of

action figures based on characters from popular M-rated games.292 Sold in the toy aisles of major

mass merchandisers and in toy stores, these action figures – regardless of the rating of the game

on which the figure is based – are labeled as suitable for children, sometimes as young as four or

five.293 For example, the package for one action figure based on a violent M-rated game states

prominently on the front, “Ages 4 and up.”294 The back of the package invites the reader to

“[j]oin the blood battle” by playing the Nintendo 64 version of the game, which is M-rated. As

an additional incentive to purchase the game, the package offers free game codes for navigating

the M-rated version of the game.

Action figures, however, also may appeal to older collectors, and comic book retailers

catering to adults may stock action figures in the collectibles area of their stores. Several

magazine and Web sites target collectors, with ads offering “retired” action figures at premium

prices.295

Perhaps in response to such criticism, one game company licensor recently adopted a

policy to require its licensees not to advertise, market, or sell products based on M-rated games

to those under 17, and to include on product packaging a statement that such products are based

on an M-rated game. Another major licensee has begun labeling its licensed products that are

based on M-rated games (and R-rated movies) as “Recommended for mature collectors.”296

Retailing of Electronic Games

The ESRB has urged retailers to adopt policies restricting the sale of Mature- and Adult

Only-rated electronic games. In particular, the ESRB’s “Commitment to Parents” program

encourages electronic game retailers to prohibit the sale of computer and video games rated M to

persons under the age of 17 without parental permission, and to refuse to sell games rated AO to

persons under 18.297

To assess the extent of children’s access to violent M-rated games,298 the Commission

contacted 12 retailers and online sellers of electronic games. All of the electronic game retailers

the Commission contacted carry M-rated games;299 a few, however, restrict the types of M-rated

games stocked. For example, one retailer states that it has a policy not to carry M-rated titles that

contain certain content descriptors, including “Realistic Blood & Gore.”300 Another retailer has

opened several stores that do not carry games with mature or adult content in order to cater

specifically to children.301 Most of the retailers contacted do not carry AO-rated games.302

The ESRB indicates that four retailers have agreed to make their best efforts not to sell

games rated “Mature” to children under 17, and that the ESRB is giving each store that

participates a certificate it can post announcing that it has made a “Commitment to Parents.”303

One of these four retailers uses a point-of-purchase cash register system that prompts the cashier,

whenever the bar code for an M-rated game is scanned into the system, either to ask for age

identification if the customer appears to be under 17 or to inform the adult purchaser that the

product is intended for a mature audience.304 A fifth retailer has adopted a policy of not renting

or selling M-rated electronic games to youths under the age of 17 unless parental consent is

given.305

None of the retailers contacted specifically requests age information before completing an

Internet purchase, even where it has policies to verify age for in-store purchases. At least one

retailer relies, instead, on its credit-card-only purchase policies to restrict children from buying

inappropriate games.

The undercover shopper

FTC Mystery Shopper Survey

Games

survey of electronic game retailers

(380 Shoppers)

conducted for the Commission

demonstrates that children under

17 can easily buy M-rated games.

Unaccompanied children ages 1316 were able to purchase these

12%

88%

YES

85%

16%

YES

15%

85%

Was Child Able to Make Purchase?

games at 85% of the 380 stores

visited.306 Except at a few stores,

YES

Was Rating Information Posted?

Did Employee Ask Age?

the teens were not questioned or

asked their age when buying the

games. Even at the four electronic game retailers that the ESRB says have adopted the

“Commitment to Parents” program or other restrictions on selling M-rated games to children

under 17, underaged shoppers were able to purchase an M-rated game 81% of the time (in 64 of

79 stores).307

Recently, the major retailers of electronic games formed their own trade association, the

Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association (“IEMA”).308 At its first “Executive Summit”

in July 2000, IEMA members were asked to enhance their efforts to provide parents with

information about the IDSA/ESRB rating system. Whether those efforts will include increased

attention to checking age identification when selling M-rated products is not yet known.

VIII. CONCLUSION

Members of the motion picture, music recording, and electronic game industries routinely

target children under 17 as the audience for movies, music, and games that they themselves

acknowledge are inappropriate for children or warrant parental caution due to their level of

violent content. The motion picture industry and, until late August, the music recording industry

take the position that targeting children is consistent with their rating and labeling programs; the

game industry does make targeting children a violation of its self-regulatory code, but violations

are widespread. The Commission believes that by targeting children when marketing these

products, the entertainment industries undermine their own programs and limit the effectiveness

of the parental review upon which these programs are based. Moreover, most retailers make

little effort to restrict children’s access to these products with violent content.

For the motion picture, music recording, and electronic game industries, a self-regulatory

program in which the public can have confidence should include: comprehensive ratings or

labels that provide parents with meaningful information about the nature, intensity, and

appropriateness for children of depictions of violence; an accurate and consistent rating or

labeling process with clear standards; clear and conspicuous disclosures of the rating or label –

with related age and content information – on packaging and in advertising; sales and marketing

policies that are consistent with the ratings or labels; industry-wide participation; and

mechanisms to ensure compliance.309

The motion picture, music recording, and electronic game industries should stop targeting

children under 17 in their marketing of products with violent content. All three industries should

increase consumer outreach, both to educate parents about the meaning of the ratings and to alert

them to the critical part the industries assume parents play in mediating their children’s exposure

to these products. Because of First Amendment protections afforded to these products, industry

is in the best position to provide parents with the information they need. Finally, parents must

become familiar with the ratings and labels, and with the movies, music, and games their

children enjoy, so they can make informed choices about their children’s exposure to

entertainment with violent content.

The body of the Report describes the result of the Commission’s survey of marketing

practices. The empirical inquiry, however, inevitably suggests certain conclusions about ways in

which the present system of self-regulation could be improved.

•

Industry should establish or expand codes that prohibit target marketing and

impose sanctions for violations.

The target marketing of R-rated films, explicit-labeled music, and M-rated games to

children under 17 is pervasive, and the target marketing of PG-13-rated films and T-rated games

to children under 12 is common. The Commission believes that these marketing efforts send

children the message that these are movies they should see, music recordings they should listen

to, and games they should play. At the same time, the message inherent in the rating or label –

that the product’s content is inappropriate for children or that it requires a strong warning to

parents – is not adequately conveyed. Marketing directly to children essentially is an end-run

around the parental review role underlying the ratings and advisory labels.

While it comes up short on compliance, the electronic game industry at least

acknowledges that targeting children undermines its rating system; it has crafted a code of

conduct to address this issue. In late August 2000, the music recording industry trade association

recommended that recording companies not advertise explicit-labeled recordings in outlets where

a majority of the audience is under 17. The motion picture industry has no similar code or

guideline. All three industries should institute codes of conduct that:

Prohibit placing advertising for R-rated/M-rated/explicit-labeled products in

media or venues with a substantial under-17 audience.

Prohibit licensees from marketing action figures, toys, and other products

associated with R movies and M games to under-age audiences and require a

disclosure that the product is based on an entertainment product rated R or M.

Provide for no-buy lists of media outlets popular with under-17 audiences

(including school venues, youth-oriented comic books, top teen TV shows, and

younger teen magazines).

Encourage the auditing of ad placement to verify that advertisements are not

reaching a substantial under-17 audience.

Encourage media screening of ads for consistency with these principles.

Provide for the associations to monitor and encourage member compliance with

these policies, and to impose meaningful sanctions for noncompliance.

•

Industry should improve self-regulatory system compliance at the retail level.

Restricting children’s access to R-rated movies, explicit-labeled music recordings, and

M-rated games is an essential complement to all the rating and labeling programs. The industries

should encourage their members, as well as third-party retailers, to:

Check age or require parental permission before selling or renting R-rated/Mrated/advisory-labeled products.

Clearly and conspicuously display the ratings and advisories on packaging and in

advertising, and avoid covering or obscuring them.

Avoid sales of R-rated/M-rated/advisory-labeled products on retail Internet sites

unless they use a reliable system of age verification.

Develop guidelines for the electronic transfer of movies, music, and games.

Without action to address electronic access to these products, the ratings and

advisory label may be of limited value to parents in the future.

•

Industry should increase parental awareness of the ratings and labels.

The industries should expand their outreach programs to parents to facilitate informed

choice and raise awareness and understanding of the ratings, content descriptors, and advisory

labels. They have begun to move in that direction with www.parentalguide.org, which provides

links to the various association sites that have information about each rating or label. In addition,

the industries should:

Clearly and conspicuously display the rating or advisory label and the descriptors

in all advertising and product packaging.

Encourage the media to include rating and labeling information in reviews. This

information often is included in movie reviews, but less frequently is included in

game or music reviews.

Take additional steps to inform parents, especially by including rating and

labeling information in retail stores and on Web sites, where products can be

sampled, downloaded, or purchased.

Implementation of these specific suggestions would significantly improve the present

regimes of self-regulation. The Report demonstrates, however, that mere publication of codes is

not sufficient. Self-regulatory programs can work only if the concerned industry associations

actively monitor compliance and ensure that violations have consequences. The Commission

believes that continuous public oversight also is required, and that Congress should continue to

monitor the progress of self-regulation is this area.

ENDNOTES

1. See Letter from William J. Clinton, President of the United States, to Janet Reno, Attorney

General of the United States, and Robert Pitofsky, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission (June

1, 1999) (on file with the Commission).

2. Legislation calling for the FTC and the Justice Department to conduct such a study was

introduced in both houses of Congress following the Columbine incident. See Amendment No.

329 by Senator Brownback et al. to the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and

Rehabilitation Act of 1999, S. 254, 106th Cong. § 511 (1999); H.R. 2157, 106th Cong. (1999);

145 Cong. Rec. S5171 (1999). In May 1999, the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,

and Transportation conducted hearings on the marketing of violent entertainment media to

children. See Marketing Violence to Children: Hearing Before the Senate Comm. on

Commerce, Science, and Transp., 106th Cong. (1999),

www.senate.gov/~commerce/hearings/hearin99.htm (visited July 30, 2000). Based on those

hearings, in September 1999, the Majority Staff of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary issued

a committee report on this issue. See Majority Staff of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 106th

Cong., Report on Children, Violence, and the Media: A Report for Parents and Policy Makers

(Comm. Print. 1999), www.senate.gov/~judiciary/mediavio.htm (visited July 31, 2000).

3. The FTC has the authority to conduct this study under Section 6 of its authorizing statute, 15

U.S.C. § 46. Section 6(f) of the FTC Act provides that “the Commission shall also have power

. . . [t]o make public from time to time such portions of the information obtained by it hereunder

as are in the public interest; and to make annual and special reports to the Congress . . . .”

4. In the two years leading up to the Columbine tragedy, more than a dozen students or teachers

had been killed in six school-related shootings in Edinboro, Pennsylvania; Richmond, Virginia;

West Paducah, Kentucky; Pearl, Mississippi; Jonesboro, Arkansas; and Springfield, Oregon. See

John Kip Cornwell, Preventing Kids from Killing, 37 Hous. L. Rev. 21, 23 & n.13, 24 (2000);

Sue Anne Presley, Year of Mass Shootings Leaves Scar on U.S.; Sense of Safety Suffers As

Fewer Believe ‘It Can’t Happen Here,’ Wash. Post, Jan. 3, 2000, at A1. After Littleton, school

shootings occurred in several other cities including Conyers, Georgia; Fort Gibson, Oklahoma;

and Flint, Michigan. Id.; see, e.g., David Barboza, Boy 6, Accused in Classmate’s Killing, N.Y.

Times, Mar. 1, 2000, at A14; Fort Gibson Middle School to Resume Classes a Day After

Shooting, www.cnn.com/1999/US/12/06/okla.school.shooting.06/ (visited July 13, 2000).

5. Some observers point out that other Western democracies have significantly lower juvenile

homicide rates than the United States. See Sissela Bok, Mayhem: Violence As Public

Entertainment 7–9 (1998) (evaluating arguments about American culture). Indeed, the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention found that the United States has a teen homicide rate five

times greater than the rate of 25 other industrialized countries combined. See Howard N. Snyder

& Melissa Sickmund, National Center for Juvenile Justice, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999

National Report, at 25 [hereinafter Juvenile Offenders].

Still, the rate of violence perpetrated by young people has actually declined in the 1990’s

and school-associated violent death remains extremely rare. See Juvenile Offenders, supra, at 31

(reporting and analyzing crime statistics collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the

Bureau of Justice Statistics from the Uniform Crime Reports and the National Crime

Victimization Survey). The 1999 report, which contains statistics collected through 1997, is

available at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org. Additional statistics for teen homicide rates through 1998 are

available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bj/homicide/teens.htm. See also Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, Assessing Health Risk Behaviors Among Young People: Youth Risk Behavior

Surveillance System, At-A-Glance 2000, www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dash/yrbs/yrbsaag.htm (visited

June 26, 2000).

See also Lou Harris & Assocs., The Metropolitan Life Survey of the American Teacher,

1999: Violence in America’s Public Schools – Five Years Later: A Survey of Students, Teachers,

and Law Enforcement Officers (May 26, 1999) (noting sizeable decrease in public school

teachers’ and students’ perceptions of amount of school violence between 1993 and 1998, but

reporting sizeable minority’s concerns that school violence would increase in next two years);

Thomas Cole, Ebbing Epidemic: Youth Homicide Rate at a 14-Year Low, 281 JAMA 25 (Jan. 6,

1999); cf. Nancy D. Brener et al., Recent Trends in Violence-Related Behaviors Among High

School Students in the United States, 282 JAMA 440 (Aug. 4, 1999) (reporting decrease among

adolescents in non-fatal aggressive behaviors such as fighting and weapon carrying).

6. See generally Mark H. Moore & Michael Tonry, Youth Violence, in 24 Crime and Justice: A

Review of Research (Michael Tonry & Mark H. Moore eds., 1998); L. Rowell Huesmann et al.,

The Effects of Media Violence on the Development of Antisocial Behavior, in Handbook of

Antisocial Behavior (David M. Stoff et al. eds., 1997).

7. In the days following the Columbine killings, many of the major news outlets featured stories

about Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris’s infatuation with movies, music, and video games that

contained extremely violent content and reinvigorated the public debate about the effects of

violent entertainment media on youth. See, e.g., Steven Levy, Loitering on the Dark Side – The

Columbine High Killers Fed on a Culture of Violence That Isn’t About to Change, Newsweek,

May 3, 1999, at 39; Karen Thomas, Surrounded by Sound and Fury: Whirlwind of Violence,

Hate Sweeps Kids On Line and Off, USA Today, Apr. 22, 1999, at D1.

8. See, e.g., Gregg Easterbrook, Watch and Learn, The New Republic, May 17, 1999, at 22;

Erica Goode, Terror in Littleton: the Motives; When Violent Fantasy Emerges as Reality, N.Y.

Times, Apr. 25, 1999, § 1 at 30. The Commission’s study is concerned only with the marketing

practices of the entertainment media that depict violence, and not with the news media’s

depiction of real world violence.

9. Congressional committees held hearings, issued reports, and considered legislation on

entertainment media violence. See generally supra note 2. Public health organizations such as

the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American

Psychological Association expressed their concerns about the “excessive portrayal of violence in

the entertainment industry.” See American Medical Ass’n, AMA Applauds President’s Call for

Study of Effects of Media Violence Marketing on Children, June 1, 1999 (press release),

www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/1835.html (visited June 30, 2000); see also American

Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Public Education, Media Education, 104 Pediatrics 341–43

(Aug. 1999), www.aap.org/policy/re9911.html (visited June 30, 2000). Parent and media

responsibility advocacy groups renewed their calls for an end to the marketing of violence to

children. See, e.g., S. Robert Lichter et al., Center for Media and Public Affairs, Merchandizing

Mayhem: Violence in Popular Culture [hereinafter Merchandizing Mayhem] (Sept. 1999),

www.cmpa.com/archive/viol98.htm (visited June 30, 2000). And a broad coalition of public

figures (including former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, Retired General H. Norman

Schwarzkopf, several U.S. Senators, religious leaders, actors, psychiatrists, psychologists, and

university professors and other educators) devised an Internet-based Appeal to Hollywood to urge

media leaders to adopt a new voluntary code of conduct for the entire entertainment industry.

Specifically, the signatories to the Appeal to Hollywood called for a code of conduct, broadly

modeled on the National Association of Broadcasters (“NAB”) Television Code, that would:

(1) affirm in clear terms the industry’s vital responsibilities for the health of our

culture; (2) establish certain minimum standards for violent, sexual, and degrading

material for each medium, below which producers can be expected not to go; (3)

commit the industry to an overall reduction in the level of entertainment violence;

(4) ban the practice of targeting adult-oriented entertainment to youth markets; (5)

provide for more accurate information to parents on media content while

committing to the creation of “windows” or “safe havens” for family

programming (including a revival of TV’s “Family Hour”); and, finally, (6)

pledge the industry to significantly greater creative efforts to develop good familyoriented entertainment.

See An Appeal to Hollywood, www.media-appeal.org/appeal.htm (visited June 26, 2000). In the

1980's, the Justice Department challenged, on antitrust grounds, certain unrelated provisions of

the NAB code that would have artificially increased the demand for commercial time. See

United States v. National Ass’n of Broadcasters, 536 F. Supp. 149, consent entered, 553 F. Supp.

621 (D.D.C. 1982). But the Justice Department’s lawsuit did not challenge certain NAB

restrictions on advertising aimed at children. Indeed, in 1994, the Justice Department approved

voluntary television violence guidelines by the Association of Independent Television Stations,

which included a series of parental advisories to be used for programs with violent material. See

Robert Pitofsky, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, Self-Regulation and Antitrust, Remarks

at the D.C. Bar Association Symposium, Washington, D.C. [hereinafter Self-Regulation and

Antitrust] (Feb. 18, 1998), www.ftc.gov.speeches/pitofsky/self4.htm (visited June 26, 2000).

10. See Donald E. Cook, M.D., President, American Academy of Pediatrics; Clarice

Kestenbaum, M.D., President, American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry; L. Michael

Honaker, Ph.D., Deputy Chief Executive Officer, American Psychological Ass’n; & E. Ratcliffe

Anderson, Jr., American Medical Ass’n, Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment

Violence on Children, July 26, 2000 (statement released at Congressional Public Health

Summit), www.aap.org/advocacy/release/jstmtevc.htm (visited Aug. 1, 2000). For a review of

some of the research on the impact of violence in entertainment media on children, see Appendix

A (A Review of Research on the Impact of Violence in Entertainment Media).

11. Id.

12. Researchers funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (“OJJDP”)

of the Department of Justice are studying the characteristics of at-risk juveniles and factors that

contribute to violence committed by or against juveniles. OJJDP reports that “the risk that an

adolescent will become involved in violent offending and/or be a victim of violence varies based

on a number of different factors, including individual characteristics, family characteristics, peer

and school factors, neighborhood environment, and daily activities.” OJJDP, Report to Congress

on Juvenile Violence Research 5 (July 1999) (summarizing results of seven violence studies)

[hereinafter OJJDP Report]. The National Institute of Mental Health (“NIMH”), is also involved

in ongoing research into the causes of youth violence. NIMH is involved in basic research and

clinical studies, and oversees research grants at universities and other institutions, on the causes

of youth violence. For an overview highlighting what is known about risk factors for the

development of aggressive and antisocial behavior from early childhood to adolescence and into

adulthood from a research perspective, see the fact sheet on Child and Adolescent Violence

Research at the NIMH, available at www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/violenceresfact.cfm (visited

Aug. 1, 2000). More data on these factors should be available by the end of this year: the

Surgeon General is currently preparing a report on the various risk factors and developmental

markers that have been connected through epidemiological research with youths between the

ages of 12-18 who commit violent acts. See Opening Remarks by the President in White House

Strategy Meeting on Children, Violence, and Responsibility (May 10, 1999),

www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/1999/5/17/5.text.1 (visited Aug.

14, 2000).

13. See Barry Meier, Terror in Littleton: The Gun Debate; In Renewed Battle Over Weapons

Control, Both Sides Use Attack to Advance Agendas, N.Y. Times, Apr. 26, 1999, at A17; see

also Jill M. Ward, Children’s Defense Fund, Children and Guns: A Children’s Defense Fund

Report on Children Dying from Gunfire in America (Oct. 1999), www.childrensdefense.org. In

its report to Congress, OJJDP reported that firearms were “involved in no less than 80% of the

incidents of each of the [OJJDP-sponsored juvenile] violence studies reporting on this topic.”

OJJDP Report, supra note 12, at 11-12.

14. See Bok, supra note 5, at 7–9; cf. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on

Communications, Media Violence, 95 Pediatrics 949, 951 (1995). Although most researchers

attribute the lower rates of teen homicide in other countries to stricter gun control laws, some

note that other countries place more controls on the media than does the United States. Many

stable industrialized democracies, in the absence of a strong constitutional guarantee of freedom

of expression and First Amendment-like safeguards against censorship, monitor the media and

enforce regulations regarding the advertising and marketing of the media, either directly or

through quasi-governmental bodies. They also employ ratings systems that contain some

similarities to – and some differences from – those currently used by the media industries in the

United States.

15. See, e.g., Jonathan Kellerman, Savage Spawn: Reflections on Violent Children (1999)

(acknowledging that entertainment media violence might cause an adolescent who is already

prone to violent behavior to engage in harmful conduct).

The entertainment media are a particularly important part of youth culture in the U.S.

According to a Kaiser Family Foundation study released in November 1999, which examined

media use among a nationally representative sample of more than 3,000 children ages 2-18, the

typical American child spends an average of more than 38 hours a week – nearly the equivalent

of a full-time workweek – with entertainment media outside of school. The Henry J. Kaiser

Family Foundation, Kids and Media @ The New Millennium: A Comprehensive National

Analysis of Children’s Media Use (1999), www.kff.org. (visited June 26, 2000). Other studies

indicate that children’s use of the media may be even higher. See Appendix B (Children as

Consumers of Entertainment Media: Media Usage, Marketing Behavior and Influences, and

Ratings Effects). Although much of that time is spent watching television, youngsters spend an

average of nearly 10 hours a week listening to music, and nearly five hours a week playing video

games or using a computer for fun. The Kaiser study found that younger teens spend the most

time watching movies, with children aged 8-13 spending three hours per week, and teens ages

14-18 spending one hour and 17 minutes per week at movie theaters. Id. Even more recent data

released in June 2000 by the Annenberg Public Policy Center are consistent with these results.

See Emory H. Woodard, IV & Natalia Gridina, Media in the Home 2000: The Fifth Annual

Survey of Parents and Children 8 [hereinafter Media in the Home 2000] (Annenberg Pub. Policy

Ctr. U. Pennsylvania 2000). These figures highlight the significant role that the entertainment

media – and advertising and promotion for the various media – play in children’s lives.

16. The entertainment media – in part in recognition of their societal role and in part in reaction

to public criticism and events like the Littleton tragedy – have been engaged in an ongoing

process of trying to determine their level of responsibility to American children and parents. See

David Finegan, BMG’s Zelnick: “Increase the Peace” in Media, Hollywood Reporter (Feb. 23,

2000). BMG Entertainment President Strauss Zelnick called for “more industry discussion on

violent ente

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.