Glen Szczypka¹, Melanie Wakefield, PhD², Sherry Emery, PhD¹, Yvonne Terry-McElrath, MSA³, Frank J. Chaloupka, PhD¹, Henry Saffer, PhD⁴, and Brian Flay, DPhil¹. (1) Health Research and Policy Centers, University of Illinois at Chicago, 850 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 400, Chicago, IL 60607, 312 996-1388, szczypka@uic.edu, (2) Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Control Research Institute, The Cancer Council Victoria, 100 Drummond Street, Carlton, Victoria, 3053, Australia, (3) Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Survey Research Center, Room 2341, 426 Thompson Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-2321, (4) National Bureau for Economic Research, 365 Fifth Avenue 5th Floor, New York, NY 10017-5405

During the 1990s, televised anti-smoking advertising was central to several state tobacco control programs, including California, Massachusetts, Arizona, Oregon and Florida. By 2002, anti-smoking advertising was present in 30 other states. In addition, American Legacy (2000), Philip Morris (1998), and Lorillard (1999) as well as pharmaceutical company advertising for nicotine replacement therapy and Zyban (broadcast for some years) also contributed to overall anti-smoking ad exposure. Using television ratings data from 1999 to 2002, this paper will compare and contrast the amount of exposure that television audiences received from advertising broadcast by state/national tobacco control programs, pharmaceutical companies (NRT, Zyban) and tobacco companies (youth smoking prevention; corporate image advertising). Exposure activity will be reported within each state and contain indices of potential exposure for television households (Gross Rating Points) and teens 12-17 years old (Targeted Rating Points). Commercial ratings data were acquired from Nielsen Media Research and represent the top 74 markets. The data show increased exposure to anti-tobacco advertising through 2002 and reflect the increase in the number of state sponsored campaigns. There was considerable variability in exposure to advertisers across states, although the national campaigns of American Legacy, Philip Morris, Lorillard and the pharmaceutical companies, produced more similar cross-state exposure. Exposure to advertising sponsored by tobacco and pharmaceutical companies often outweighed exposures to tobacco control agency advertising. To the extent that corporate-sponsored advertising messages might undermine or otherwise diminish those of tobacco control agencies, these findings provide cause for concern for public health efforts to prevent youth from smoking.

Learning Objectives: This paper will describe the amount of exposure that television audiences received from anti-smoking advertising across the United States from 1999-200