MARTA could be a lot smarter by not allowing alcohol promotion on its property. The scientific evidence is clear that exposing youth to alcohol ads inclines them to drink earlier, and if they already drink, to drink more.
Policies restricting alcohol advertising to limit youth exposure are evidence-based and produce a great return on investment for public health and safety. The costs of binge and underage drinking fall largely on the government, taxpayers and the health care system, and government should not encourage or increase those costs.
Alcohol Justice is a national nonprofit organization with more than 27 years of experience working to reduce alcohol-related harm caused to individuals and communities. We promote evidence-based public health policies and organize campaigns with diverse communities and youth against the alcohol industry’s harmful practices.
In June, Alcohol Justice and Public Citizen sent a letter to MARTA CEO Keith T. Parker, strongly urging him not to expand alcohol ads or sell naming rights to stations. Until now, alcohol ads on MARTA have been restricted to bus shelters, billboards and other outdoor displays. But a well-publicized “pilot program” outlined the agency’s desire to sell more ads on its buses and trains and in rail stations, and to possibly sell station-naming rights.
While to some it may seem not taking alcohol ad dollars might be leaving money on the table, the truth is that increasing alcohol ads on MARTA will produce a bad return for public health and safety. A “Bud Light Lime-A-Rita Five Points Station” is not a good idea. Here’s why:
Research shows that as alcohol-marketing tactics become more commonplace in everyday life, they significantly influence youth attitudes, creating an environment that promotes underage drinking. In fact, each additional dollar spent on alcohol advertising raises the number of drinks consumed by 3 percent. Other research shows reductions in alcohol advertising could produce declines in drinking rates, particularly among youth.
In our recent national report, “These Bus Ads Don’t Stop for Children: Alcohol Advertising on Public Transit,” we exposed how revenue from alcohol ads accounted for less than 1 percent of annual operating revenue from the agencies that reported.
In Georgia, estimates placed the medical and lost productivity costs from underage drinking at approximately $663 million in 2010. Additional costs from pain and suffering and reduced quality of life increased the toll to $1.4 billion.
MARTA has projected 2014 revenue from alcohol ads at $500,000, split 50/50 with the advertising agency handling the ad placement. Considering that in 2012 MARTA logged nearly 135 million passenger trips, even more individuals will be exposed to ads placed on the outside of buses and trains and at rail stations.
Alcohol companies and advertisers will be the only winners. Youth and their families will be harmed, and the cost of that harm will negate any marginal increase in revenue.
Instead of expanding its alcohol advertising, MARTA can and should join with other major metropolitan areas including Seattle/King County, Honolulu, Massachusetts Bay, Miami-Dade, San Diego, San Francisco and Philadelphia to ban alcohol advertising on transit property. Los Angeles bans alcohol ads on bus benches and is drafting a more comprehensive transit ban as you read this.
Please help us stop the spread of inappropriate messaging on alcohol consumption to more of our public spaces. The alcohol industry’s unhealthy marketing schemes should never be enabled by any public agency.
Go to www.alcoholjustice.org and take action by respectfully urging MARTA's chief executive officer that instead of expanding alcohol ads on the system, MARTA should ban them from all of its property. When it comes to alcohol advertising on public property, that is the only policy to achieve a positive return for public health and safety.
