The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; 2057; Children + TV Ads

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. The medium I work in, and you`re watching -- television -- seems to feature a lot more in the news these days. For example, the Justice Department today urged the Federal Communications Commission to conduct a full investigation of network television; the purpose would be to see if the three commercial networks are financially so powerful that they crush the freedom of their local affiliates. Well, we`ll see what happens on that one. But there are a number of what you might call "social issues" involving television, and we want to look tonight at one that has a lot of people very upset -- the effect on children of TV commercials. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: There are two major happenings on the children-and advertising front this week, one here in Washington, the other in Boston. In Washington the Federal Trade Commission is into its second of seven weeks of hearings on how advertising affects the food we eat.

One of the major focuses has been the special influence TV commercials play on children and how they, in turn, dictate by browbeating and other methods the diets of their entire family. Some 90 witnesses are scheduled to appear before the hearings are finished and the FTC decides on some possible new guidelines for food and nutrition advertising. The Boston event was a conference, and reporter Steve Nevas of WGBH in Boston covered it. Steve?

STEVE NEVAS: Jim, this is the sixth year that Action for Children`s Television has held a national meeting, and the people who are here are a big, part of the story here are dozens of commercial broadcasting executives from networks and station groups, and in newly large numbers this year we`ve seen the makers of products for children. That they have come at all attests the apparent influence of this organization, because ACT lists among its goals a total ban on commercials in programming designed for young audiences. The makers of products for children, their advertising agencies and the broadcasters will in some cases say they are here in Boston if only to know their adversaries; but behind that seems to me, at least, a grudging respect for ACT, its roles -- part that of consciousness raiser, part pressure group operating at the federal level. There has been a great deal of talk at this conference, talk about self regulation of children`s television by broadcasters vs. tougher government measures, and- talk about whether the ratings game is or is not in the public interest. Some of the conferees have been heard to complain that they`ve heard it all before and that now they`d like to see some fresh plans for action. Much of what this meeting has grappled with involves the commercials in children`s programming, and many here argue that without the commercials and the pressures they bring on program designers the programs themselves would be different. With me is the president of ACT, Peggy Charren. Mrs. Charren, what`s so bad about the commercials we see, for example, in weekday afternoon and Saturday morning programs for children?

PEGGY CHARREN: If you spend a lot of time watching children`s television, you realize that there`s just two kinds of things that we sell to children in this country: highly sugared foods, and toys that are poorly designed and cost a lot of money. And we don`t think that that`s fair, and we think the commercials mislead the children to think that this is the kind of food they should eat, and these are the kind of toys they need to have friends and to be happy.

NEVAS: Well, now, what new, specific evidence do you have to back these claims up?

CHARREN: We never felt you needed much new evidence; we think the fact that advertisers spend over $400 million a year selling to children is proof enough that they`re moving product through using the child as a surrogate salesman. And since the Federal Trade Commission-exists to eliminate advertising that`s misleading and unfair, we think we have a good case.

NEVAS: Wait a minute. You said that because the advertisers spend $400 million a year that is proof enough how does that prove that these products are bad for children?

CHARREN: Oh, we don`t mean that. We mean that proves that the advertising is working. We know that the FDA has said that sticky sugar between meals harms children`s teeth, that it causes cavities; and there`s a Milky Way commercial on television right now on children`s programming that says, "At work, rest or play, Milky Way. All day, Milky Way. Now, if that isn`t sticky sugar between meals, what is it?

NEVAS: Many of the broadcasters and the advertisers at your conference this week have been saying more research is needed.

CHARREN: The industry tends to say more research is needed all the time, because while we`re doing research they figure we`re not making rules. ACT agrees that research is always a nice thing to have. Most of the research in advertising is proprietary with the agencies that use it to figure out how to better pitch products to children. But we think that while the research is going on you have to make rules, and that`s why we`ve gone to two regulatory agencies for rules on children`s advertising.

NEVAS: And what is the status of that series of actions you have taken with the government?

CHARREN: Well, the last one worked. We went to the Federal Trade Commission asking for a rule about vitamin advertising directed to children. We started this campaign in 1971 and managed to get the three companies then selling vitamins off the air -- actually, it was voluntary then. The last campaign that we got involved in was 1975, and it was because Spider Mean Vitamins were pitching their product to kids, and we got a consent order out of the Federal Trade Commission that we think is a significant plus in trying to make change in children`s advertising.

NEVAS: That consent order in the Spider Man case -- what effect did it have on other cases and other efforts you were making to try to persuade advertisers to change their advertising pitch? CHARREN: Well, it just happened in August, but there`s some wonderful language in that consent order that separates the child from the adult as a television consumer. It says that children are vulnerable and that they can`t be treated the same when it comes to advertising on television. And this is what ACT has been saying since 1970; it`s nice to have the Federal Trade Commission saying it along with us...

NEVAS : Okay. We`ll be back in a few minutes. Let`s go to New York and Robert MacNeil.

MacNEIL: One man with the perfect qualifications on the other side of the fence in this business is Melvin Helitzer. He was advertising director of the Ideal Toy Company for seven years, and for the past 15 years he has run his own advertising agency, Helitzer Advertising, Incorporated, which specializes in marketing for young people. Mr. Helitzer, you`ve been in this business professionally for many years. Do you share any of Ms. Charren`s anxieties?

MELVIN HELITZER: I share the goal that she has, that children are a special group, that they need special consideration. We have child labor laws; we should consider them as a very special group.

The people in advertising for children are parents, they have citizen responsibilities along with everybody else. Where we differ -and I can only speak for myself, of course -- with Peggy and with ACT is her request to abolish all advertising to children. We`re against this because we don`t think it`s fair, we don`t think it`s constitutional, and we see no long- range objective in doing that. Advertising to children should be ethical., it should be honest, and above all, it should not misrepresent.

MacNEIL: The advertising industry, through the Better Business Bureau, has its code of children advertising guidelines, and I see that things, for instance, are listed in here as "unreasonable expectations of product quality or performance should not be simulated, either directly or indirectly, by advertising." That is one of the things that comes up repeatedly when there are complaints about this advertising. If there are no problems about it, why does the industry itself continue to find advertisements which it considers offensive?

HELITZER: Let`s first admit that there were problems. Without any self- regulation, about ten to fifteen years ago, before ACT was founded, there was a good deal of misrepresentation of children`s advertising on TV; and it`s unfortunate that the harm that was caused ten to fifteen years ago has left this residue of similar complaints today -- even though they no longer exist. Words like "Go ask your mommy to buy you...." or It`s only one dollar down," or toys and foods and many other products that are truly misrepresented. That no longer takes place, and I would suggest that many of the complaints run about ten to fifteen years ago regarding the actual language or the intent. There are several self-regulatory bodies, one particularly, the TV Code Office of the National Association of Broadcasters, and second, the National Advertising. Review Board, which does post-television work, which makes manufacturers, which makes advertisers, substantiate the claims that they do in their commercials. I would also suggest that some of the problems that we are facing today are really directed at the product, and not at advertising; that the parents` attempt to criticize, as Peggy just said, toys that break or sugared cereals, or anything that`s overpriced -- they`re really criticizing the product, and not advertising. But it`s an easy fall guy to get at, advertising.

MacNEIL: But can you in the advertising business slough off any responsibility for the product that you`re pushing?

HELITZER: We`re responsible to see that advertising does its job -- that`s an opportunity for manufacturers to publicize the availability of their product. If the product is no good, it should not be permitted to be manufactured, first. If the product is worthwhile -and in terms of the buying public, that`s a decision -- then it certainly should be permitted to be advertised.

MaCNEIL: You mentioned self-regulation; let`s take a look at how self- regulation has been accomplished lately. You brought along a commercial that was rejected by the National Association of Broad casters` TV Code Office before it ever got on the air. Let`s look at that.

NARRATOR: This is a song for all you parents about a little girl who loves to take a bath since she found...(singing) Rub-a-Dub Dolly, Rub-a-Dub Dolly -- Dolly who bathes when children do; taking a bath can be lots of fun, `cause two in the bathtub is more fun than one, Rub-a-Dub Dolly, Rub-a-Dub Dolly -- soap her and suds her and then they`ll see -- Rub-a-Dub Dolly, Rub-a-Dub Dolly -- see how much fun a bath can be!

CHILDREN`S CHORUS: Rub-a-Dub Dolly, Rub-a-Dub Dolly...

see...

NARRATOR: Children can bathe with her, then they`ll

CHILDREN`S CHORUS: Rub-a-Dub Dolly, Rub-a-Dub Dolly...

NARRATOR: See how much fun a bath can be. (Speaking.) Rub-a-Dub Dolly is watertight and soakproof. By Ideal.

MacNEIL: Well, what did the Code Office object to in that one?

HELITZER: That particular commercial had a number of objections. One was that the folksinger, who played the part of the mother as well as the storyteller, was not typical of a mother; and therefore, before the commercial could go on the air we had to eliminate our folksinger either as a storyteller or as a mother. The second was -- and this is an earlier version of that commercial -- any child in the bathtub using water had to be supervised by a mother, and we had to put scenes in of a mother watching the child and helping her take a bath. And that, by the way, I completely agree with. Another criticism which we did not -- and we fought; we were able to win -- is some of the references. One was the line in the commercial, "Two in the bathtub is more fun than one," and there was actually an attempt by the censors -- and this is one of the dangers, I think, of censorship -- that they`re personifying a very capricious attitude based upon their own, infrequently, psychological hangups; that the term "two in the bath tub is more fun than one" was really pornographic and encouraging children to take a bath with somebody else.

MAcNEIL: This is really irrelevant to what we`re talking about, isn`t it -- that sort of objection. Can we go back to the things that you actually did change? There were things the NAB didn`t like in that commercial, and you agreed to change them. Let`s take a look now at the revised version and see what changes were made:

NARRATOR: This is a story about a little girl who loves to take a bath since she`s found... (singing) Rub-a-Dub Dolly, Rub-a-Dub Dolly, play with her in the bath with you. Taking a bath can be lots of fun, `cause two in the bathtub is more fun than one. Rub-a-Dub Dolly, soft, pretty Dolly, soap her and suds her and then you`ll see, you and your Dolly, Rub-a-Dub Dolly, see how much fun a bath can bel

CHILDREN`S CHORUS: Rub-a-Dub Dolly, Rub-a-Dub Dolly, you`re lots of fun the whole day through. Taking a bath or here in mar arms...

NARRATOR: Rub-a-Dub Dolly, I love you.

ANNOUNCER: Rub-a-Dub Dolly is soft, watertight and soakproof; comes complete as shown. By Ideal.

MacNEIL: Mr. Helitzer, do you think that was an effective and necessary bit of self-regulation in the industry?

HELITZER: Yes; I believe in self-regulation. I believe in a dialogue between professionals -- those representing the stations and the networks, and the advertising agencies and the manufacturers -- in discussing a problem. We did, as you could see, end the commercial with a five-second beauty shot so it was very clear what the purchase was. We did put the mother in the commercial; we did take out the folksinger; we did add supervision in the bathtub. We did a number of things which I think improved the commercial, but it was on self-regulation between the professionals, and certainly not a government agency with censorship coming in to tell you what it is that they insisted upon doing.

MacNEIL: Yeah. Peggy Charren, in Boston, could I have your reaction to that:

CHARREN: Well, we think that the showing of that commercial demonstrates one of the most difficult problems that a consumer group has in trying to make change, and that is to get a hold of what the industry knows. We had a panel at our conference that featured about ten commercials; it was very difficult to get hold of ten commercials that showed the kinds of problems ACT is worrying about, which were not really the problems in that kind of a doll. We tried to get Kenner`s Smash `Em Up Derby, and we couldn`t get that commercial -- Kenner said they didn`t think it was an appropriate form to show that message; they`d rather show it to our children on Saturday morning, but not to .a conference at Harvard to discuss commercial excesses. Now, if I made a toy where the goal of the toy was to smash up two cars -- one of them, in fact, on the cover was a little Volkswagen that must have driven a lot of Volkswagen owners a little sick when they looked at the cover with the doors flying off. And the kind of commercials that we showed at our conference were very difficult to get hold of because they didn`t look like this commercial, with the mommy and the baby. When you make a toy like Bullet Man, like Hasbro is doing, you don`t really want to put it up for public scrutiny, and I would have loved to bring something like that to this forum on public television, but I don`t have a copy of the commercial; and the ones that we had at our conference I was afraid to bring with us because I was afraid I`d get sued.

MacNEIL: Mr. Helitzer -- reply to that?

HELITZER: There are commercials today on the air which people can criticize. None of the commercials that Mrs. Charren has discussed I personally had anything to do with, but I criticize commercials all day long; I`m a professional, and we criticize our own work and we criticize other people`s work. What we`re talking about is not a criticism -- where talking about censorship, we`re talking about abolition -- and these are very serious problems, and not so frivolous as whether the owners of Volkswagens are harmed by the fact that there`s a toy Volkswagen that is used on some play environment. We believe in the interests of children; we believe that adults and professionals should be aware of the need to protect children. But we are against, completely, government censorship or abolition of commercials on television

MacNEIL: What do you think about Mrs. Charren`s point that if the industry is not ashamed of the commercials it makes, it could make them available to have them discussed?

HELITZER: I was at the panel -- and privileged, by the way, invited by Mrs. Charren to be on the panel yesterday, and I was delighted to do so. What some of the companies objected to was the make-up of the conference, that it wouldn`t be a fair opportunity to both discuss the use of the product, the commercials, and to discuss it as I`ve had a chance to show you tonight,, a commercial made before self-regulation and after self- regulation. If Mrs. Charren had wanted those commercials, whether they were the ones representing the advertisers of cereals or toys, and had invited the principals of either that company or the advertising agency to come before that group at Harvard and to discuss it, I think she would have gotten quite a different reaction.

MacNEIL: Okay, thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: The Federal Trade Commission, of course, is the government agency with the primary responsibility for monitoring and policing advertising of all kinds, and Margery Smith is the acting director of the FTC`s Bureau of Consumer Protection. What`s your view of how well self-regulation is working in this particular field?

MARGERY SMITH: I think self-regulation has a role here when it is backed up by the government. I think self-regulation can be more flexible, it can provide a faster turnaround; the government is often under the burden of bureaucratic and legal processes that self regulation does not have. On the other hand, self-regulation is dominated by the industry, and we have to look, as a government agency, to make sure that it is fulfilling its role and we are fulfilling our role in seeing that advertising to children is not false, misleading or unfair to them.

LEHRER: Well, doesn`t the fact that the government has to apply muscle, though, immediately do away with the fact that it is self-regulation? If you come in -- if the FTC comes in, and says, "Hey, fellas, that`s a lousy commercial, and you`re distorting this, that, and the other thing," that`s not self-regulation, that`s the government putting the heat on, isn`t it?

SMITH: That happens when self-regulation breaks down, and it has been known to break down.

LEHRER: Where does it mainly break down, in this specific area, based on your experience -- in the specific area of children`s television commercials?

SMITH: As Mrs. Charren said earlier, the Federal Trade Commission investigated and brought a case against the advertising of Spider Man Vitamins; that is an area which was subject to self-regulation, presumably, and it failed to keep these advertisements off the air. These were advertisements to children to take vitamins using a hero-figure, someone with superhuman characteristics who children could be led to believe they would be able to achieve these characteristics if they took vitamins.

LEHRER: But in this case the original complaint was not brought by the FTC, though; it was brought to the attention of the FTC by Mrs. Charren`s group, isn`t that right?

SMITH: Mrs. Charren`s group alerted us, that`s right.

LEHRER: What kind of things do you do on your own -- what kind of policing? Do you have people watching television tonight, say, and watching commercials and logging down various things?

SMITH: We do have people who monitor television, network television particularly, on a weekly basis. We are given the story boards from television ads and we review them to see whether they are false and misleading. We do this both for children`s television advertising and for adult advertising. We have a different standard for children; it`s clear that children do not have the same capabilities of understanding advertising that adults do.

LEHRER: Do you feel that your agency has the proper tools to function effectively in this area, or do you think there should be new laws, or what`s your basic feeling on that?

SMITH: No, I believe we have functioned very well in this area. It is a difficult area. We recognize the special status of children -- we have long recognized the special status of children on the-other hand we also recognize that television, for the most part, is a commercial enterprise. Children`s programs are brought to us through commercials, through the business and sponsorship.

We are in a position of deciding, when we decide an ad cannot be run, we are having an impact on a commercial enterprise; that is a consideration, and so are the considerations of protecting children.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: To come back to this point about whether self-regulation will do it all or whether you need the intervention of government or other people - - would you be where you are today in the industry if ACT weren`t out there raising-hell, and if the FTC weren`t stepping in, as in the case of the Spider Man thing2 Don`t you need this to help you with your self- regulation, to goad you along the way?

HELITZER: I can only answer that as an individual. I think ACT is doing an excellent job; I`m delighted that any citizen group can form for pressure, regulations or any reason and get the attention that Mrs. Charren and her group have gotten. Yes, they are a conscience, and therefore they`re good. The FTC has done an excellent job of working with manufacturers and encouraging them -- and in some cases even threatening them -- that government regulation could be a possibility if they didn`t help to clean up their own act. So

I think that both government and public pressure are part of our governmental system and good, but I don`t think that censorship and abolition of commercials are good. Now, there are two other things, if I can just mention, that might help. One of them is to make the chief executive officer of each advertiser personally responsible for the advertising, just as he`s personally...

MacNEIL: This is morally, within the industry, you mean.

HELITZER: Right. And secondly, I think a much more fair rotation of purchase of children`s commercials on children`s shows would help to make the quality of the show better -- there wouldn`t be the rating war there is now to Just use cartoons of violence because we know that they are the most popular. And thirdly, I think the parents should be aware that they have the power in their own hands in 90 days to eliminate this problem, if they only did two things: One, turn off the television set when they don`t want their children to watch; and two, say no when they don`t want their children to have a certain product.

MacNEIL: Okay, that`s what you and the industry think should be done. Mrs. Charren, in Boston, what more do you think needs to be done?

CHARREN: First of all, I`d like to say that Mr. Helitzer suggested these three things at the ACT conference on a panel right next to me this morning, and we heartily endorse all his suggestions. I want to point out that he was the representative for Ideal Toys for eight years and Ideal was one of the companies that wouldn`t give us commercials for the program, so we did try to have representation from the industry at the conference. The real problem is that it is less censorship to have no commercials for children than to have only some; you need somebody sitting there saying, "Yes, you can sell this product. No, you can`t sell that product; because he is indeed right that most of the problem is the product. In this country we sell our worst foods to children, and we sell our worst toys to children, on television. Now, if that`s true, it seems easiest to get rid of all the advertising as the simplest way of dealing with the censorship problem. And if there is no advertising on children`s television, then the broadcaster is free to design programs that meet the needs of children; and we find it fortunate that broadcasting has never been so profitable, because since the broadcasters have a license to use the public airwaves to serve the public interest, we thought if they`re serving the public interest of children then they could be doing their job in a first-rate way.

NEVAS: We heard one suggestion at this conference which might be an alternative to abolishing advertising in children`s programming, and that was to abolish the` ratings in those blocks where children`s programming is seen. I wonder what Mr. Helitzer thinks about that.

HELITZER: If I understand the question, it`s the recommendation that I made yesterday at Harvard-in which ratings for children`s programming did not receive the prominence -- they were not sold on a rating or a popularity basis; they were sold as a block, so that when you bought a commercial you bought it sometime during the 8:00 to 12:00 Saturday morning, or sometime between 4:00 and 6:00 Monday to Fridays and the advertiser was not concerned about the quality of the program -- it was left to the broadcaster to put on the best quality.. Just as we`re not concerned about the newspaper or magazine format, we shouldn`t be concerned about just popularity.

MacNEIL: I see. Can we get a word from Ms. Smith in Washington about the suggestion that all commercials be banned from children`s television?

SMITH: I think the way it is right now, we have chosen -- Congress has chosen -- that most television shall be commercially supported; most television is not publicly supported by tax money. In that circumstance I think we have to expect commercials to be run during children`s hours as well as adult hours. I don`t think an absolute ban would have the impact that Mrs. Charren would like; I think it might end up that we don`t have any children`s programs at all.

I would like to see a self-regulatory effort by the industry which includes consumer people as well. I don`t see why we don`t have something which has a review panel for advertising which includes industry members and consumer members.

MacNEIL: I think we have to leave it there, Ms. Smith. Thank you very much in Washington, Jim. Steve and Ms. Charren in Boston, and you, Mr. Helitzer, in New York. Jim Lehrer and I will be back on Monday evening. I`m Robert MacNeil. Good night.