• by George Simpson , Featured Contributor, June 27, 2008

Georgetown University's Center for Alcohol Marketing & Youth (CAMY)--in a last gasp before imploding, saying naively "We're hoping the government picks up the slack from here"-- issued a report that claims youth exposure to alcohol advertising climbed sharply between 2001 and 2007. The primary culprit, according to CAMY, was cable advertising, particularly on niche channels like Comedy Central, E!, Oxygen, FX and VH1. The alcohol brands most seen by youth, in order, were: Miller Lite (Miller Brewing), Corona Extra (Crown Imports), Coors Light (Coors Brewing), Hennessy cognac (Moet-Hennessy), Guinness (Diageo), Samuel Adams (Boston Beer), Bud Light (Anheuser-Busch), Smirnoff vodka (Diageo), Disaronno amaretto (Bacardi), Miller Chill (Miller) and Mike's Hard Lemonade.

The booze industry trade group Distilled Spirits Council of the United States countered by noting that, in spite of increased cable advertising by its members, "underage drinking is down significantly by all major measures during the same period." Which must make for some very interesting discussions about ad effectiveness between agencies and clients whose spots are running on cable.

Nowhere in the press reports I've plagiarized is there any mention of the fact that in all probability teen viewing of TV of any source and scope has fallen at the expense of a lifestyle built almost entirely around online and mobile. Most of the kids I know who have developed any loyalty to cable shows like "South Park" or net shows like 'Grey's Anatomy" download them and watch them generally without commercial interruption on mobile phones or some iteration of iPod. Teen premium cable favorites "Californication" and "Weeds" don't have ads. In our house, nearly everything is recorded to DVR, and ads run past at 78 rpm if not skipped over entirely.

Alcohol brands emerge as "musts" through word of mouth or in code posted to social sites or in IMs. Often it is an economic decision, with teens even in affluent communities defaulting to the least expensive or easiest to obtain brands. A lot of it is packaging. It is cool to drink a "40," no matter what the brand. When you are binge drinking, brands seem not to matter.

NONE of the brands said by CAMY to be the worst offenders are mentioned by any of the kids I eavesdrop on talking about drinking. It is amazing what you can learn when you are treated as invisible. Of course the soon-to-be-no-more CAMY would argue that exposure to alcohol advertising encourages drinking by glamorizing it. I don't see any marijuana advertising in any medium, yet kids still find their way to pot and are pretty conversant on the various "brands" of ganja out there.

It is not the advertising that is driving teen drinking. Rather, it is, I fear (at least in part) the content they consume. Listen to their music, watch their shows and movies aimed at them, surf their online sites and social pages and you will see that it is all about sex, drugs and rock and roll. No different than every generation for the past 50 years. Yes, some things have changed. Now, the weed is stronger and there are alcoholic beverages disguised as soft drinks or energy drinks.

I don't want my kids to drink. I don't want them to take drugs. But those are my responsibilities, not the booze or cable industries. Have both crossed the line at times? Yes, indeed. But they are not the drivers of teen alcohol and drug use, which are the same as when we were marching against the war in Vietnam and listening to Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young: boredom, peer pressure, foreplay, and temporary escape from pressures that we don't fully appreciate as adults.

You survived it. With any luck, so will your kids.