IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/ctcres/qt4zk2x9sg.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Six months later: Are MPAA's tobacco ratings protecting movie audiences?

Author

Listed:
  • Polansky, Jonathan R.
  • Glantz, PhD, Stanton
  • Titus, MBA, Kori

Abstract

In the six months (May 10-November 10, 2007) since the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) announced that all smoking would be a factor in movie ratings, there has been no substantial change in the percentage of movies with smoking, across rating categories; in the number of tobacco incidents in these films; nor in the estimated tobacco impressions delivered to audiences in movie theaters, compared to the same period in four previous years. Percentage of movies with smoking: Of the movies that achieved “Top Ten” box office ranking for at least a week, released in the six months after the MPAA’s announcement, 65 percent (51/78) featured tobacco including: • 39 percent of G and PG movies (7/18) • 65 percent of PG-13 movies (20/31) • 83 percent of R-rated movies (24/29). The majority (53%, 27/51) of top box office movies with smoking released May 10-November 10, 2007, were youth-rated. Number of tobacco incidents Content analysis of the May 10-November 10, 2007, top box office movie sample finds no substantial difference (i.e., none beyond random year-to-year fluctuation) compared to the previous four years in the number of tobacco incidents in movies, in any rating category. Impact on theater audiences The total number of tobacco impressions delivered by movies with tobacco imagery showed no substantial change since the MPAA policy announcement, compared to the same period in earlier years. MPAA’s use of tobacco descriptors Data from weekly MPAA bulletins, which announce the ratings of films as they are awarded, indicate that eleven of the twenty-seven youthrated, top box office movies with smoking released to theaters in this survey period completed the MPAA rating process after May 10; none of these films received a tobacco descriptor. After its May 10 announcement, the MPAA gave tobacco descriptors to eleven films released during the survey period by independent distributors (non-MPAA members) and to three such films from MPAA member companies; all fourteen of these films were given limited theatrical release or went directly to video. No films containing smoking that were rated after May 10 and then released nationally received tobacco descriptors. The eleven top box office films with smoking assigned a G, PG and PG-13 rating after May 10, but given no tobacco descriptors, have delivered an estimated three billion tobacco impressions to theater audiences in the U.S. and Canada. Conclusion Because ratings are awarded after a film has been completed and the MPAA announced last May that its policy was put into immediate effect, sufficient time has passed to observe any meaningful changes in tobacco exposures from youth-rated films. The lack of discernible change indicates that the MPAA’s approach is a failure.

Suggested Citation

  • Polansky, Jonathan R. & Glantz, PhD, Stanton & Titus, MBA, Kori, 2007. "Six months later: Are MPAA's tobacco ratings protecting movie audiences?," University of California at San Francisco, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education qt4zk2x9sg, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, UC San Francisco.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:ctcres:qt4zk2x9sg
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/4zk2x9sg.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:ctcres:qt4zk2x9sg. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://escholarship.org/uc/ctcre/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.