No stigma button - NCADD
    The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence fights the stigma and the disease of alcoholism and other drug addictions.
Facts and Information
What's New Affiliates Communications Contribute Facts History Links News Press Room Programs Publications Site Map NCADD Home

BRIEFING PAPER: COUNTER-ADVERTISING


The influence of alcoholic beverage advertising:

  • An alcoholic beverage industry sponsored poll of parents found that 73% of respondents believed that alcoholic beverage advertising is a major contributor to underage drinking. (Century Council, 1990)

  • Watching beer commercials on television increases the expectations of children that they will be beer-drinkers as adults. (AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 1990)

  • 56% of students in grades 5 to 12 say that alcohol advertising encourages them to drink. (Scholastic/CNN survey, 2/90)

  • "Alcohol advertisements overwhelmingly associate drinking with positively valued activities and consequences such as romance, sociability, and relaxation and create a climate in which drinking is presented as normal, appropriate and benevolent. More subtly, the use of alcohol is linked to happiness, wealth, power, prestige, sophistication, success, maturity, athletic ability, virility, romance, creativity, sexual satisfaction, and other positive images. Adolescents who are heavily exposed to advertising were more likely to agree that drinkers possess valued characteristics such as being attractive, athletic or successful." (US Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1994)

  • A survey of children ages 9 to 11 demonstrated high rates of recognition and recall of both the brand name and product associated with television commercials featuring the Budweiser frogs, even when compared to commercials and characters from children's programming (ie Tony the Tiger, Smokey Bear and "Mighty Morphin" Power Rangers). (Trauma Foundation, Center on Alcohol Advertising, 1996)



Why public service advertising and industry-sponsored "moderation messages" are inadequate to educate the public about alcoholic beverages:

  • "Public service advertising competes for space with other forms of advertising on television and elsewhere. Traditionally, PSAs for radio and television stations have been broadcast free, in part to satisfy stations' community service obligation. Lacking funds to mount large media campaigns, the public health community has depended on the willingness of editors and producers to present PSAs. Since the deregulation of the broadcast industry during the 1980s, however, fewer PSAs have aired. In addition, recent corporate network buyouts have put more focus on profit and less on public service. Less public service time is available because stations want to sell all available time. At the same time, more groups are submitting PSAs. With increased competition for spots, some stations are airing as few as 10 per cent of the PSAs they receive." ("Advertising Health: The Case for Counter-Ads, Public Health Reports, November-December 1993)

  • Partnership for a Drug-Free America, the nation's largest producer of public service advertising, does not include alcohol in its mandate; the Advertising Council, the nation's second largest producer, includes only drunk driving prevention among its roster of current campaigns.

  • In 1990, Anheuser Busch had a $459 million advertising budget; it spent $15 million, or only 3%, on its "Know When To Say When" campaign advertising "moderation." (The Milbank Quarterly, 1992)


Support for counter advertising:

  • "Counter advertising [to prevent or delay drinking among young people] represents a reasonable strategy . . . to be effective, it must compete with commercial alcohol advertisements in terms of quality, interest, and frequency of exposure. Equal time requirements or the dedication of alcohol tax funds for the production and airing of health messages may be necessary to achieve these goals." (American Journal of Public Health, 2/94)



The success of counter advertising in reducing use of tobacco:

  • In November 1992, residents of Massachusetts approved a ballot petition (Question 1) that increased the tax on each pack of cigarettes from $.26 to $.51 beginning January 1, 1993, and requested that the legislature spend the proceeds on tobacco control and health education. The Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program (MTCP), administered by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH), was established in response to the approval of the petition. In October 1993, MTCP initiated a statewide mass-media antismoking campaign. In early 1994, the program began funding local boards of health and school health and other youth programs to promote policies to reduce public exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and to restrict youth access to cigarettes. Efforts also included support to health education programs, primary-care providers, and other services to help smokers quit. Through June 1996, MTCP expenditures totaled $116 million, including $43 million for the mass-media campaign. To assess the effects of the excise tax increase and the antismoking campaign on cigarette smoking in Massachusetts, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and MDPH analyzed data about the number of packs of cigarettes taxed per capita and the prevalence of cigarette smoking during the period preceding (1990--1992) and following (1993--1996) implementation of the ballot petition. This report summarizes the findings of the assessment and compares trends in cigarette consumption (i.e., purchases) in Massachusetts, in California (where a voter-mandated cigarette tax increase in January 1989 funded a statewide antismoking campaign that began in April 1990), and in the 48 remaining states and the District of Columbia combined. The findings suggest that the number of packs of cigarettes taxed per capita declined substantially in Massachusetts after implementation of the ballot petition. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, "Cigarette Smoking Before and After an Excise Tax Increase and an Antismoking Campaign, 11/8/96)


Potential funding sources for counter advertising:

  • Although standard servings of distilled spirits, wine and beer all contain the same amount of ethanol, currently these alcoholic beverages are taxed at different rates by the federal government: $.11 per oz. of ethanol for wine; $.14 for beer; and $.28 for spirits. (US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Eighth Special Report to the US Congress on Alcohol and Health, 1993)

  • Adjusting alcohol taxes for inflation since 1970 and equalizing the tax rates on beer, wine and distilled spirits would yield $23 billion in new revenue the first year and $117 billion over five years. (National Alcohol Tax Coalition, 9/94)

  • A modest "dime a drink" tax increase on beer and wine, with an adjustment of distilled spirits taxes to this level, would generate nearly $4 billion in new revenue the first year and $23 billion over five years (National Alcohol Tax Coalition, 9/94)
11/96

NCADD logo - National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence
 National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Inc.
244 East 58th Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10022
phone: 212/269-7797   fax: 212/269-7510
email: national@ncadd.org   http://www.ncadd.org
HOPE LINE: 800/NCA-CALL (24-hour Affiliate referral)