110 likes | 263 Views
S TATE FILM SUBSIDIES and TOBACCO. State t axpayers bankroll the biggest recruiters of new teen smokers. W hat you can do about it. Onbeyond LLC p resents to OSH Media Network, 12/17/09 . Smoking in movies k ills in real life. Documented evidence that tobacco industry
E N D
STATE FILM SUBSIDIES and TOBACCO State taxpayers bankroll the biggest recruiters of new teen smokers. What you can do about it. OnbeyondLLC presents to OSH Media Network, 12/17/09
Smoking in movies kills in real life. • Documented evidence that tobacco industry • has collaborated with Hollywood for decades. • Exposure to on-screen smoking accounts for • more than a million smokers 12-17 nationwide. • PG-13 films delivered two-thirds of tobacco • impressions to film audiences last year.
41 states subsidize smoking on screen.
41 states subsidize smoking on screen. • $830 million in taxpayer subsidies for smoking • films — 60% of all film subsidy grants. • $500 million for kid-rated movies with smoking. • More than half of states spend more on film • subsidies than on tobacco control ($830 million • vs. $719 million in 2009).
Make that money talk. • Taxpayers are important stakeholders in the film • industry, financing about 25% of production budgets. • MPAA has spent years creating a bidding war • among states, loosening rules, boosting subsidies. • Putting commonsense conditions on state subsidies • will leverage change in kid-rated tobacco content.
Ask yourself… • Would taxpayers give away hundreds of millions • of dollars to the tobacco industry to put cigarette • commercials back on TV? • Should taxpayers give away hundreds of millions • of dollars to the film industry to promote smoking in • movies that circulate for decades on TV, in theaters, • on DVD, the web…?
#1 |Make future kid films with smoking ineligible for subsidy. HOW IT WORKS Three-quarters of states already disqualify film productions for content reasons. Add one sentence disqualifying future youth-rated films with smoking. Like the proposed R-rating, creates a market disincentive for film producers to include smoking in films designed for the youth market.
#2 |Require applicants to certify no tobacco pay-offs. HOW IT WORKS State film commissions already require legally- binding affidavits from applicants. Add one that says there are no agreements related to tobacco. Gives the studio a powerful incentive to make sure the production and distribution chain is free of tobacco industry influence.
Start by asking simple questions… • Have coalition members write letters of concern • to the state film office and cc: higher officials. • Propose the two remedies and request details of • subsidiesdistributed so far. • Unsatisfactory responses should trigger letters to • diverse policy makers and the media.
Put the major studios on notice. • Credible, visible activity in a dozen or more states • will be reported back to the studios by the MPAA’s • local lobbyists. • Complicating or conditioning these valuable • subsidiesraises the “cost” of tobacco in kid-rated films. • Added to other pressures, low-cost activity on state • film subsidies can tip the film industry on tobacco.
Find out more about $1.4 billion in state film subsidies…and tobacco. Best place to start > smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/actnow/subsidies To talk with > Jono Polansky Stan Glantz OnbeyondLLC UCSF 415-453-9369 415-476-3893 jono@onbeyond.com glantz@medicine.ucsf.edu