Dossier D.C.: Not Just Kids Stuff

By Nora FITZGERALDWhen the Center for Media Education talks, the FTC listens Once mocked as a left-wing agitator, the center for media Education has been vindicated. Since CME's inception in 1991, ad lobbyists have tried to ghettoize the Washington, D.C.-based organization as comprised of socialist policy wonks conspiring to destroy cherished American icons--everyone from Tony the Tiger to Wile E. Coyote.The industry, however, is grudgingly viewing CME, a nonprofit group 'dedicated to improving the quality of electronic media,' as a legitimate, even influential force. The Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission take the organization's reports seriously. And the small think tank is having an impact on several debates that will affect the broadcast industry and advertising, such as violence on children's television shows and privacy issues relating to alcohol and tobacco Web sites.What is CME? It began as the mom-and-pop operation of Kathryn Montgomery, author and former media professor at UCLA, and her husband, Jeff Chester, social worker and PBSdocumentarian. In the early '90s, they debuted on the political stage with a report attacking the Children's Television Act, legislation that mandated educational programming for youth.The current act, finalized into law this year, was strengthened by the FCC, in part, as a response to CME's report. The act now fosters far more rigorous rules than the original, which had allowed stations to label The Flintstones, The Jetsons and Leave It to Beaver as'educational programming.' The new law states that every TV broadcaster has to provide three hours of weekly educational programming beginning Sept. 1. Stricter guidelines means The Jetsons are out, The Discovery Channel is in.Despite its influence, CME's emerging muscle was seen as a fluke, and, in truth, some industry lobbyists still label it as a troublemaker. Others are reconsidering that status.Some lobbyists said they presumed that CME was a 'front organization,' funded by what they dub left-of-center groups. Major funders include the Carnegie Corp. and the John D. and Katherine T. MacArthur Foundation, a major funder of PBS. 'My understanding is there are three or four folks over there,' says Jeff Becker, vice president of alcohol issues for the Beer Institute. 'So often you get the few who presume to speak for the many.' Becker adds that the CME principals are 'getting money from people who do not like our Web sites.'Becker is referring to CME's most recent report, a scathing look at alcohol and tobacco Web sites and their alleged appeal to children. The day after its release, The New York Times splashed the results on page one. The principal findings: Major alcohol beverage companies, and to a lesser extent, tobacco companies, are aggressively advertising on line in a manner that is a threat to youth.CME offered myriad examples, such as the Cuervo J.C. Roadhog adventure, an interactive ride with a cyber-rodent who pilots through a landscape of empty Cuervo bottles; branded merchandise; and free giveaways, including hip clothing, rock music clips, screen savers and screen wallpaper; the promotion of what CME calls 'bridge drinks,' sweet mixtures that are more appealing to novice drinkers; virtual communities and chat rooms like Secondhand Smoke: The Big Lie.'People misunderstand us,' says Kathryn Montgomery, president of CME. 'We're not out to eliminate advertising, and we're not prohibitionists. We're really focused on children.' She said her group is trying to launch a public debate about the way advertising is evolving, especially when it comes to advertising to kids.Last year, CME developed a report on children's privacy issues on line ('Dossier D.C.,' May 6, 1996). The report claimed that children's privacy is being invaded on the Internet--some Web sites can't be accessed until a child fills out a personal survey first--and that inappropriate relationships are set up with Tony the Tiger and Power Rangers. The FTC is currently looking at the privacy issue; moreover, a series of public comments were held in mid-April. During this period, interested parties, including industry representatives and trade groups, aired their feelings to the FTC on specific issues. The FTC has scheduled hearings on children's privacy issues in June.'The last two reports (CME) has done that we've been involved in have been very good,' says Lee Peeler, associate director of advertising practices at the FTC. 'With respect to children's privacy, we were surprised by how much data collection is going on (by advertisers),' he says, noting, 'CME has gotten people in the legal community to translate factual findings into FTC legal analysis. That's helpful.' Peeler wouldn't comment on whether the FTC will pursue regulation of the alcohol and tobacco Web sites; he would only admit that the CME report was 'being taken seriously.'In fact, access to the FTC, coupled with the organization's findings, has forced lobbyists to take a harder look at CME. 'Kathryn Montgomery has brought increased professionalism to CME in the last year,' says John Kamp, vice president of government relations for the American Association of Advertising Agencies.'Everybody has the same goal, which is to protect kids,' says Dan Jaffe, vice president of government relations for the Association of National Advertisers. 'We just want to make sure those goals are met without damaging the legitimate interests of advertisers to communicate to children and their parents.' Stay tuned.News & Notes: Advertising lobbyists have been reluctant advocates for the tobacco industry for years, but now that tenuous partnership could go up in smoke as RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp. and Philip Morris Cos. hold furtive talks with the federal government. The negotiations include almost total immunity from lawsuits in return for key concessions: FDA oversight of the tobacco industry and print and billboard advertising bans.Ad lobbyists say they aren't worried that the tobacco industry might agree to curtail advertising--and cigarette advertisers alone spend $450 million a year. 'The right to advertise is not on the top of the tobacco industry's list,' says Hal Shoup, executive vice president of the 4A's. 'They're trying to save hundreds of billions of dollars in their own industry.'Tobacco companies have traveled this road before. In 1970, they agreed to a TV ad ban. They also agreed to carry a warning from the Surgeon's General's office on cigarette packs in return for certain concessions: a government assurance that the FTC would regulate the sale, distribution and advertising of tobacco--as opposed to local and state authorities.Still, the ANA, AAF and 4A's are pursuing their lawsuit, claiming that the FTC, not the FDA, has jurisdiction over tobacco, and that banning advertising is an infringement of their First Amendment right to commercial speech.Ironically, tobacco companies may yield the battlefield to the ad industry, which will carry on the fight. Copyright ASM Communications, Inc. (1997) ALL RIGHTS RESERVED National

Brand Marketing

Dossier D.C.: Not Just Kids Stuff

Adweek Staff

About

Subscriptions

Events

Publications

WORK SMARTER - LEARN, GROW AND BE INSPIRED.

Subscribe today!

Adweek Staff