news you can use

Public doesn't mind condom ads

Thursday, 26 July 2001 17:19 (ET)

Survey: Public doesn't mind condom ads
By MICHAEL RUST, UPI Think Tank Correspondent

WASHINGTON, July 26 (UPI) -- Baseball. Beaches. Beer. Condoms.
Don't laugh. This may become part of the normal American media vision presented to television viewers.
A study released in June by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation says that American television viewers do not find condom advertising repugnant, or even titillating. The study reports that the advertising, banned for many years on network television, is quite acceptable to most Americans and does not affect their attitudes toward networks, programming, or products.
The survey of 1,142 adults found that 71 percent of Americans favor allowing condom ads on television, with 37 percent saying the ads should be allowed to air at any time, and 34 percent saying they should be shown only during selected times, such as after 10 p.m.
Twenty-five percent of the respondents said condom ads should not be shown at all on TV.
The study found that Americans ages 18-49 are significantly more likely to favor condom ads on TV, with 82 percent of them saying the ads should be allowed completely. Sixty percent of those 50 years old and older favor the advertising.
Of course, this isn't what everyone wants to see on his or her television.
"I would like to see more creative programming that doesn't include illicit sex," says Heather Cirmo, communications director of the Family Research Council, a Washington think tank geared to social conservatives.
The survey also shows strange nuances in shifting public attitudes.
In a comparison of support for advertising for different products, the survey reports that more people oppose beer advertising on television -- 34 percent -- than condom advertising.
"This research indicates that long-held concerns at some networks about the impact of condom ads may be outdated," says Victoria Rideout, vice president and director of the Program for the Study of the Entertainment Media and Health at the Kaiser Family Foundation in Menlo Park, Calif.
Sources at the foundation say much of the opposition to condom ads among television executives was not based on moral grounds, but instead on the negative reaction they assumed such ads might generate.
Rideout said the survey shows such fears are misplaced.
"Adults favor condom advertising by a margin of nearly three to one," she said. "Even viewers who object to them find that when they see a condom ad, it doesn't change how they feel about networks, particular shows, or the other advertisers."
This is a crucial point for advertisers more interested in selling a product than making a social point. A "dial test" used in the survey, similar to those used by television networks to test TV shows, found that using a scale of 0 for very negative reaction to 100 for a very positive reaction, viewers in the study gave an ad for Trojan condoms an average score of 52.
This median score was very similar for other products, such as the allergy drug Allegra, which received a score of 50; Toyota Camry, which scored 52, and Sears, which scored 51.
One scholar says such results, while not surprising, are irrelevant to the constitutional questions involved.
Robert Levy, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington, says a recent Supreme Court ruling has reiterated the idea that government's only clear interest in regulating commercial advertising comes when the ads are false or misleading.
"If they're not false or misleading, then the rule is the government has to have a significant interest in the regulation," says Levy. "The regulation has to advance the interest and it can't be any more extensive than necessary in advancing the interest."
And the government's interest in stifling condom advertising is not apparent to the libertarian scholar.
"I don't know what the interest is here," says Levy. "We have condoms protecting against disease, we have condoms protecting against unwanted pregnancies. We have people who have the ability to turn televisions off if they don't want to see these condom ads.
"So it escapes me as to what grounds the government would even assert it has for regulation."
But Cirmo, of the conservative FRC, doesn't argue against the ads on legal grounds. She cites a recent study released by the National Institutes of Health, which reported that condoms are not reliable protection for women against a number of diseases, including genital herpes, syphilis, and gonorrhea. The study reported far greater effectiveness in preventing disease among men.
"So if we do have condom ads on television, is Trojan going to tell us, that 'Hey this is safe sex -- but,' and have all these caveats afterward?" she says. "We have been at the understanding for 30 years that the condom, a little piece of latex, is the means to having a safe sex life, which is not true."

Copyright 2001 by United Press International

Design copyright Scars Publications and Design. Copyright of individual pieces remain with the author. All rights reserved. No material may be reprinted without express permission from the author.

Problems with this page? Then deal with it...