Measuring youth exposure to alcohol marketing on social networking sites: challenges and prospects.

Original Article

Measuring youth exposure to alcohol marketing on social networking sites: Challenges and prospects David H. Jernigana,*, and Anne E. Rushmanb a Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Room 292, Baltimore, Maryland, 21218, USA. b

Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Room 288, Baltimore, Maryland, 21218, USA.

*Corresponding author.

Abstract

Youth exposure to alcohol marketing has been linked to increased alcohol consumption and problems. On relatively new and highly interactive social networking sites (SNS) that are popular with youth, tools for measuring youth exposure to alcohol marketing in traditional media are inadequate. We critically review the existing policies of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube designed to keep branded alcohol content away from underage youth. Looking at brand and user activity on Facebook for the 15 alcohol brands most popular among US youth, we found activity has grown dramatically in the past 3 years, and underage users may be accounting for some of this activity. Surveys of youth and adult participation in alcohol marketing on SNS will be needed to inform debate over these marketing practices. Journal of Public Health Policy (2014) 35, 91–104. doi:10.1057/jphp.2013.45; published online 28 November 2013 Keywords: alcohol; advertising; internet; youth; self-regulation

Introduction Alcohol use is the leading cause of death and disability for persons between the ages of 15 and 24 in every region of the world except the Eastern Mediterranean.1 Alcohol sales total close to US$1 trillion dollars per year globally,2 and alcohol advertisers are among the top 10 advertisers in numerous less-resourced countries around the world.3 At least 14 longitudinal studies have found exposure to alcohol marketing linked to earlier initiation of drinking and increased consumption

© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 0197-5897 Journal of Public Health Policy Vol. 35, 1, 91–104 www.palgrave-journals.com/jphp/

Jernigan and Rushman

among young people.4 Studies in multiple countries have also found young people disproportionately exposed to alcohol advertising compared to adults.5,6 Studies of young people and alcohol advertising have thus far focused primarily on exposure to marketing through traditional media such as television, radio, and magazines. However, more time spent by consumers of all ages on the internet has increased marketers’ attention to this medium.7,8 Recent reports have sounded an alarm about increased alcohol marketing activity in digital media.9–11 Two studies looked at alcohol-related content in digital social media, with both concluding that this content contributes to the normalization of drinking among youth.12,13 However, there has been little systematic research attention to youth exposure to alcohol marketing in digital media. We examine youth exposure to alcohol marketing in digital social media: what protections are in place to guard against youth exposure and how effective they are likely to be. What are the critical next steps in a public health research agenda if the field is to keep up with industry innovation in marketing practices?

Internet Audience Measurement and the Growth of Social Media In the internet’s first major commercial incarnation, now known as ‘Web 1.0’,14 advertisers built websites with branded content such as downloadable music, videos, and screensavers, on-line games, drink recipes, and ‘virtual bars’ to keep users engaged.9 Traditional and online advertising pointed users to the websites, and third-party companies such as Nielsen and comScore could provide information on web traffic both to the websites and to the on-line advertising pointing to them. Over time innovations in ‘Web 1.0’ permitted development of new forms of ad-buying, such as pay-per-click, where advertisers paid only for the number of times a user actually clicked on the ad (often taking them to the brand website), interstitials (ads that had to be clicked on before one could access a site or element of a site), interactive pop-ups, and overlays (ads that take over an entire page). Independent ad networks formed to ‘serve’ these ads to users across the web, using techniques like contextual, behavioral, or geographic targeting to tailor the ad being delivered to the user’s own behavior

92

© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 0197-5897 Journal of Public Health Policy Vol. 35, 1, 91–104

Youth exposure to alcohol marketing on SNS

on the web. These techniques serve an ad to a web user based on keywords or other content on the site the user is visiting (contextual), information the ad server has about what other sites the user has visited (behavioral), or the user’s geographic region. On television, an ad will appear in a particular market during a particular program or time of day (daypart), and third-party firms such as Nielsen can supply information on when the ad played and demographics of the audience at that time. On the web, however, data on who actually sees these ads are available to the ad network and the advertiser, but not to third parties wishing to purchase it for monitoring purposes. In addition to these ‘Web 1.0’ innovations, ‘Web 2.0’ has added a set of complexities for measuring youth exposure. ‘Web 2.0’ – the world of social media – is by definition interactive: rather than simply communicating information about products to the user, communication in these social media is bi-directional.14 In digital social media like Facebook or YouTube, market research firms like Nielsen can provide demographic information on web traffic to a site as a whole, but not to a page within the site, for instance, an alcohol-branded Facebook page. The page owner and Facebook have access to these data, but they are proprietary and not accessible to third-party sources. Thus, the techniques used to measure youth and adult exposure on television15 are not feasible in measuring that exposure in digital media. Monitoring potential or actual youth exposure is thus increasingly challenging as the web evolves. Through social networking sites (SNS), an alcohol brand can upload its own content and users can also upload their own content to the brand’s profile. Users can then interact with both brand- and user-generated content, posting, for instance, alcoholbranded videos they like to their own Facebook pages, or putting them up on YouTube and then using Twitter to alert their followers about them. These interactions further promote the content and have the potential to make it ‘viral’, through users promoting the marketing content to each other. This leverages traditional advertising messages by allowing consumers to become brand ambassadors themselves by ‘liking’ (clicking ‘like’ on the Facebook page), commenting on, and sharing digital marketing content. Since their inception nearly a decade ago, three common SNS have shown staying power in the digital space: Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. We focus on these three. Having started in 2004, 2005, and 2006, they have established user bases of over a billion active


93


users,16 a billion users every month,17 and 500 million active users,18 respectively.

Assessing Youth Exposure to Alcohol Marketing on SNS Around the world, governments are trying to figure out how to regulate internet marketing in the age of Web 2.0. Russia recently banned all alcohol marketing originating from sites inside Russia.19 The Australian Medical Association has called for a ban,20 as did an editorial in the BMJ, describing internet marketing of alcohol as ‘simultaneously more powerful and less controllable’ than traditional advertising.21 As of this writing, the Finnish parliament is considering banning all use of games and contests in alcohol advertising, including those on SNS, often designed to increase user engagement. US residents spend the bulk of their time online on Facebook, including 17 per cent of all time on the internet via personal computers22 and 83 per cent of the time spent on SNS.23 More teens than adults are on social networks: 77 per cent of teens are on Facebook and 24 per cent use Twitter; 82 per cent of teens use some kind of social network, compared to 67 per cent of adults.24 Furthermore, two news stories from 2011 raised the concern that many of these teens may be on Facebook with a false age. According to the magazine Consumer Reports, 7.5 million of the 20 million teens who accessed Facebook in the past year were under age 13 (the minimum age for establishing a Facebook account), and 5 million were under age 10.25 The New York Times reported data from comScore that same year showing that 3.6 million of Facebook’s users were children under age 12.26 Youth exposure to alcohol marketing in social media is only a concern, though, if there is substantial alcohol marketing activity there. Government regulators and health advocates have traditionally used spending levels as a proxy for marketing activity, and in the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issues regular reports on tobacco marketing spending across a range of domains, and less frequently reports on spending on alcohol marketing. The most recent of these reports found alcohol companies spent less than 2 per cent of their reported marketing expenditures – under $60 million – on internet advertising in 2005.27 More recent figures are not available, although news reports on specific brands or companies indicate that spending has grown rapidly. For instance, in 2011 Beam Global Spirits and Wine planned to spend

94



35 per cent of its media budget on marketing in digital media, up from only 6 per cent in 2009.28 However, spending levels are not an accurate measure of activity in social media, because marketing in this arena is much less expensive than in traditional media. Rather than guess at the level of marketing activity, we began in 2011 to analyze the extent of alcohol marketing on SNS by doing ‘brand scans’ of activity on Facebook. Initially, research assistants manually went to the most active alcohol Facebook pages and counted numbers of fans, ‘likes’, user comments, and user- and brand-generated posting of photos and videos. Using this methodology, and with data from a pilot study identifying the 15 alcohol brands most consumed by youth in the United States,29 we estimated that by January 2012, these brands had amassed more than 15 million Facebook fans, and generated 172 million impressions on Facebook.30 News reports suggested that alcohol companies were pioneers among all advertisers in social media. Brown-Forman announced in 2009 that it was shifting all media spending for Southern Comfort out of traditional media completely and into on-line venues like Facebook, Pitchfork, and Hulu. According to Advertising Age, this decision came because of the brand’s ‘tight focus on the youngest legal-drinking-age consumers’.31 Another Brown-Forman brand, Jack Daniels, in 2011 became the first alcohol brand to buy advertising on Twitter.32 Diageo, in September 2011, announced a $10 million deal with Facebook, and became a member of their ‘client council’ of leading marketers; the agreement gave the company early access to Facebook features and consultancy so that, as a Diageo spokesperson put it, ‘we are not only fan collecting but that they are actively engaged and driving advocacy for our brands’.33 Heineken also announced a substantial agreement with Facebook to buy ‘consulting and early access to new products’; Heineken previously announced it had agreed to advertise on Google platforms such as YouTube ‘in return for consulting, audience targeting, and joint research projects’.34 To assess the impact of these agreements on activity on alcoholbranded SNS, and as a substantial improvement over earlier methodologies, we licensed the CrowdTangle Discovery App (Crowdtangle, Inc., Baltimore, MD, USA) that automates monitoring of Facebook activity. Following 15 brands found most popular among US young people (ages 13–20) in a recent national survey,35 CrowdTangle permitted us to track and measure both brand activity in terms of posts to their pages, and user engagement in the forms of posting,


95


liking, and sharing done by users of these brand pages. Posting means a brand or user has added an original piece of content directly to the brand’s page, such as a comment, photo, or a video. When a user ‘likes’ a brand on Facebook, he or she alerts a portion of his or her list of Facebook friends of that brand preference. And when a user ‘shares’ on Facebook, the user enters directly into the marketing chain, becoming an ambassador for the brand by sharing its content across his or her Facebook network. As Table 1 shows, brands popular with US young people vary in their ability to generate user responses, but some have been very successful. The table lists the brands in order of their popularity among youth. As of March 2013, Bud Light and Heineken had inspired the most user activity on their Facebook pages in terms of posts of original usergenerated content (photos, videos, links, and status updates), followed by Budweiser, Jack Daniels, and Smirnoff Vodka. As Figure 1 shows, user posts to these pages remained rare until 2009, and then began increasing rapidly, particularly for leaders Bud Light and Heineken, in 2011. Likes and shares for these five brands have risen even more rapidly

Table 1: Brand and user activity on alcohol-branded Facebook pages, 15 most popular alcohol brands among US youth, total as of March 2013 User responses to brand posts Alcohol brand Bud Light Smirnoff Ice Budweiser Smirnoff Vodka Coors Light Jack Daniels Corona Mike’s Captain Morgan Absolut Heineken Bacardi Blue Moon Bacardi Silver Jose Cuervo

Brand posts

Posts

Likes

Shares

Comments

1342 362 1008 1189 790 1425 1149 962 1779 709 1893 1185 788 318 809

77 478 3400 34 065 15 504 12 349 28 434 12 918 6635 13 382 4009 67 742

9 879 694 180 101 7 382 487 2 978 769 2 748 851 5 939 341 1 024 756 208 123 1 510 221 572 192 2 283 646 882 671 458 125 75 614 1 535 704

797 601 23 394 700 136 252 321 167 896 751 594 90 322 15 380 163 675 79 977 306 345 50 494 21 024 3825 134 727

263 926 12 128 209 474 190 502 141 565 279 237 46 158 39 472 147 280 21 229 123 709 52 282 38 552 5951 110 409

6631 657 2963

Source: Crowdtangle, 2013.

96



Figure 1: Cumulative user-generated Facebook posts by brand, selected alcohol brands most popular among youth, United States, November 2007 – March 2013. Source: Crowdtangle, 2013.

12,000,000 BUD LIGHT BUDWEISER 10,000,000 SMIRNOFF VODKA JACK DANIELS 8,000,000 HEINEKEN 6,000,000

4,000,000

2,000,000

March-13

December-12

June-12

September-12

March-12

December-11

June-11

September-11

March-11

December-10

June-10

September-10

March-10

December-09

June-09

September-09

March-09

December-08

June-08

September-08

0

Figure 2: Cumulative ‘likes’ by brand, selected brands most popular among youth, United States. Source: Crowdtangle, 2013.

recently. Figures 2 and 3 show that for both of these, growth took off in 2012, as these brands became more adept at generating greater user engagement in alcohol marketing on Facebook.


97


900000

BUD LIGHT BUDWEISER SMIRNOFF VODKA JACK DANIELS HEINEKEN

800000 700000 600000 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000

February-13

December-12

August-12

October-12

April-12

June-12

February-12

December-11

August-11

October-11

April-11

June-11

February-11

December-10

August-10

October-10

April-10

June-10

February-10

October-09

December-09

June-09

August-09

0

Figure 3: Cumulative facebook ‘shares’ by brand, selected brands most popular among youth, United States. Source: Crowdtangle, 2013.

SNS Protections against Youth Exposure Examination of the policies for Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter showed gaps in ensuring that alcohol brand content restricted to audiences above the legal purchase age does not reach underage users. Each site differs in how accessible alcohol content is to users without an account and the process and information necessary to create an account. Some Facebook content has no restrictions; other content is restricted to those logged in; and some content is restricted to those logged in above a certain age. To search, view, or like an official alcohol brand page, a user must have a Facebook age of at least 21 in the United States, and users above 21 cannot share Facebook content that is age restricted with persons under 21. If the same content is accessible via another network such as YouTube or Twitter, it is likely that underage persons can access it (see below). To join Facebook one must create an account, which requires an email address and birthday. Facebook then uses this birthdate and the user’s location to set parameters on the content the user may access. Because of the large number of young people who joined Facebook with false

98



ages, it is possible that millions of underage individuals can access alcohol content on Facebook despite the existing age restriction. A cursory examination of content (user-generated photos) on alcohol brand Facebook pages found numerous user-uploaded photos depicting drinkers whose ability to purchase alcohol legally would likely be questioned based on their appearance. Twitter allows users to create profiles from which they can share messages, ‘tweets’, of 140 characters or less. They are then able to ‘follow’ other users (subscribe to and receive all of their tweets) and obtain followers who will receive the user’s tweets. Depending on privacy settings, a user’s tweets can be viewed by only his or her followers or by the general public. If a user allows tweets to be public, no login is required to view the material. When tweets are privacy-protected, a user must be a follower to be able to view or interact with the tweets. Twitter’s privacy policy states that the site does not collect information from users under 13 years of age and deactivates the profile if users are discovered to be under age 13, but when an individual establishes a profile on Twitter the site does not request a date of birth. Since July 2012, software has been available through Twitter for alcohol brands to ask for age verification before users can follow their tweets and interact with their brands. Because Twitter does not require age information at the creation of an account, age-restricted profiles must obtain age verification before a user can follow and interact with the brand’s Twitter profile. This age verification process is much like those on alcohol brand webpages, where users must enter a birthdate to show that the user is over the legal purchase age. Our own exploration of alcohol-branded Twitter feeds found none of them using any external age verification method. Once a user has provided age information to one brand, that information automatically transfers to other agerestricted feeds that the user seeks to follow. All content, including tweets and pictures, is accessible to all users regardless of age whether or not they are following the brand – simply by searching out the content on Twitter. Thus users of all ages can view all of the material on the official Twitter pages of alcohol brands. YouTube is a video-sharing platform; users can establish accounts to upload, view, and comment on videos. Users can create a YouTubespecific account, or login using an existing Google account. Similar to Twitter, users can view some content without a login while other content requires it. YouTube requires a birthdate when users create their accounts; the site then uses this age to verify access to user pages and


99


content. All alcohol brand accounts, or ‘channels’, are age-restricted. There are several loopholes that make the content created and uploaded by the alcohol brand companies accessible to underage viewers. Users of any age not signed in to an account can easily access alcohol brandcreated videos by searching for them separately from the official brand channels, through links from other pages, or through unofficial pages where another user has posted the video. Thus, on all of these SNS, with varying levels of ease, it appears that underage users can access alcohol content. We have found no alcoholbranded sites using any kind of age verification from a third party; they all rely on the individual user to report accurate information. Such age verification software exists – one leading vendor states on its website that its software is being used by internet gaming companies, a leading tobacco manufacturer, movie studios, and ‘on-line alcohol retailers and marketers’.36 In 2007, Anheuser-Busch experimented with creating its own promotional channel on the web, titled ‘BudTV’. It required users to submit their name, age, and zip code so the company could verify their ages. At the time, 21 state attorneys general criticized the company for not doing more: ‘We feel strongly that since you are creating the programming and controlling the internet-based network, not just advertising on it, you have a higher responsibility to ensure that youth are not exposed to the marketing on your site’.37 We are not aware of any publicly available or accessible source that can provide data on the numbers of underage SNS users accessing this content.

Next Steps for Public Health With no reliable source for demographic information about traffic on SNS, and with growing evidence of the influence of alcohol marketing on youth drinking behavior, it may be necessary for the public health field to collect this critical information. Public health authorities could conduct or commission surveys of young people and adults to assess their exposure to and participation in alcohol marketing on SNS. In the United States, the chief regulator of alcohol advertising, the Treasury Department’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), ruled in a recent circular that alcohol-branded SNS pages and channels are advertisements, subject to the agency’s regulatory requirements; ‘any information or images posted to a fan page by an industry member, including content created by a third party and reposted by an

100



industry member, is part of the fan page and therefore considered to be part of the advertisement’.38 TTB further indicated that the circular is not all-inclusive, and that the agency would continue to observe alcohol industry SNS activities and take action on a case-by-case basis (Thomas Hogue, personal communication, 13 June 2013). How responsible alcohol companies are for content posted to their SNS sites by users is a central issue. The companies cannot police the content of internet users creating unofficial branded sites; they do have jurisdiction over activities on their own brand pages and channels, as well as use by others of their trademarked images and content. Usergenerated content – photos, videos, comments and so on – that ‘lives’ on a brand’s page is at least intuitively part of the brand’s advertising, and brands are responsible for monitoring the content and for regularly taking down materials that violate voluntary marketing standards, including deleting photos that clearly depict or are uploaded by underage users. Our ease in accessing potentially problematic user-generated content and then returning to that same content on the brand pages over time suggests that brands may not be removing this content consistently. The US FTC monitors unfair or misleading business practices in the marketplace, and under this authority is currently investigating alcohol industry SNS activity. Although initially limited to privacy concerns regarding collection of user data from SNS, public health groups and state attorneys general encouraged the FTC to broaden its investigation to include how alcohol companies verify user ages before allowing them onto alcohol-branded SNS, how frequently they monitor and remove problematic content from the sites, whether companies have a pre-approval process in place for posts to their sites, and how they police use of their trademarked material by bloggers and other third parties in social media. In a letter to the FTC in 2011, the attorneys general (the leading law enforcement officers) of 24 US states and territories warned of ‘a “brave new world” of marketing that will expose millions of American youth to alcohol advertising messages on their cell phones and computers while at the same time taxing regulators’ capacity and understanding’. They urged the FTC not to rely solely on industry assurances of responsibility, but rather to gather the facts necessary for an independent assessment of what regulatory oversight is appropriate.39 The findings presented in this article suggest that increased and improved surveillance


101


of alcohol industry activities in digital media is critical for protecting public health.

About the Authors David H. Jernigan, PhD, is an Associate Professor, advised the World Health Organization and the World Bank, and was principal author of WHO’s first Global Status Report on Alcohol and Global Status Report on Alcohol and Youth. Anne E. Rushman is a Master’s student at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Health Policy and Management and a research assistant at the Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth.

References 1. Gore, F.M. et al (2011) Global burden of disease in young people aged 10–24 years: A systematic analysis. Lancet 377(9783): 2093–2102. 2. Jernigan, D. (2012) The Size of the Global Alcohol Market and Its Penetration in the African Region. Brazzaville: WHO African Regional Office. 3. Global Marketers 2011. (2012) Database on the Internet, http://adage.com/datacenter /globalmarketers2011/ – 37, accessed 9 September 2013. 4. Anderson, P., De Bruijn, A., Angus, K., Gordon, R. and Hastings, G. (2009) Impact of alcohol advertising and media exposure on adolescent alcohol use: A systematic review of longitudinal studies. Alcohol and Alcoholism 44(3): 229–243. 5. Jernigan, D.H. (2011) Framing a public health debate over alcohol advertising: The center on alcohol marketing and youth 2002–2008. Journal of Public Health Policy 32(2): 165–179. 6. De Bruijn, A., van den Wildenberg, E. and van den Broeck, A. (2012) Commercial Promotion of Drinking in Europe: Key Findings of Independent Monitoring of Alcohol Marketing in Five European countries. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Dutch Institute for Alcohol Policy (STAP). 7. Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2013) Trend Data (Adults). Washington DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, http://www.pewinternet.org/Static-Pages/Trend-Data-(Adults)/Whos-Online .aspx, accessed 15 July 2013. 8. Rideout, V.J., Foehr, U.G. and Roberts, D.F. (2010) Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation. 9. Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth. (2004) Clicking with Kids: Alcohol Marketing and Youth on the Internet. Washington DC: Health Policy Institute, Georgetown University. 10. Chester, J., Montgomery, K. and Dorfman, L. (2010) Alcohol Marketing in the Digital Age. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Media Studies Group. 11. European Centre for Monitoring Alcohol Marketing. (2009) Alcohol Advertising in New Media: Trends in Alcohol Marketing. Utrecht, The Netherlands: European Centre for Monitoring Alcohol Marketing.

102



12. Nicholls, J. (2012) Everyday, everywhere: Alcohol marketing and social media-current trends. Alcohol and Alcoholism 47(4): 486–493. 13. Griffiths, R. and Casswell, S. (2010) Intoxigenic digital spaces? Youth, social networking sites and alcohol marketing. Drug and Alcohol Review 29(5): 525–530. 14. Cormode, G. and Krishnamurthy, B. (2008) Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. First Monday 13(6), http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2125/1972, accessed 15 July 2013. 15. Jernigan, D.H. and Ross, C. (2010) Monitoring youth exposure to advertising on television: The devil is in the details. Journal of Public Affairs 10(1–2): 36–49. 16. Fowler, G.A. (2012) Facebook: One billion and counting. New York City: Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443635404578036164027386112.html, accessed 15 July 2013. 17. Rogowsky, M. (2013) Here’s looking at YouTube, kid: Eight years, one billion users, and really just getting started. Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2013/03/21/hereslooking-at-youtube-kid-8-years-one-billion-users-and-really-just-getting-started/, accessed 15 July 2013. 18. Koetsler, J. (2012) Twitter reachers 500 M users, 140 M in the US. San Francisco: Venturebeat, http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/30/twitter-reaches-500-million-users-140-million-in-the-u-s/, accessed 15 July 2013. 19. Korotun, L. (2012) Russia to ban alcohol ads. Moscow: The Voice of Russia, http://english.ruvr .ru/2012_07_05/Russia-to-ban-alcohol-ads/, accessed 17 July 2013. 20. Cann, L. (2013) Push by health advocates to ban alcohol advertising online to protect children. Perth: Perth Now; [cited 16 July 2013]; available from: http://www.perthnow.com.au/ news/western-australia/push-by-health-advocates-to-ban-alcohol-advertising-online-to-protectchildren/story-fnhocxo3-1226671885275, accessed 16 July 2013. 21. Hastings, G. and Sheron, N. (2013) Alcohol marketing: grooming the next generation. British Medical Journal 346: f1227. 22. The Nielsen Company. (2012) State of the Media: The Social Media Report 2012. New York: The Nielsen Company, http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/newswire/2012/social-media-report2012-social-media-comes-of-age.html, accessed 15 July 2013. 23. comScore. (2013) US Digital Future in Focus 2013: Key Insights from 2012 and What They Mean for the Coming Year. Reston, VA: comScore. 24. Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Cortesi, S., Gasser, U., Duggan, M. and Smith, A. (2013) Teens, Social Media, and Privacy. Washington DC: Pew Research Center. 25. Consumer Reports. (2011) That Facebook Friend Might Be 10 Years Old and Other Troubling News, http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2011/june/electronics-compu ters/state-of-the-net/facebook-concerns/index.htm?loginMethod=auto©rightYear=2013, accessed 16 July 2013. 26. Richtel, M. and Helft, M. (2011) Facebook users who are under age raise concerns. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com. New York: New York Times, http://www .nytimes.com/2011/03/12/technology/internet/12underage.html?pagewanted = all, accessed 15 July 2013. 27. Federal Trade Commission. (2008) Self-regulation in the Alcohol Industry: Report of the Federal Trade Commission. Washington DC: Federal Trade Commission. 28. Schultz, E.J. (2011) Corking alcohol ads to youth in the digital age. New York: Advertising Age, http://adage.com/article/news/alcohol-ads-greater-scrutiny-digital-age/149213/, accessed 20 August 2013. 29. Siegel, M., DiLoreto, J., Johnson, A., Fortunato, E. and DeJong, W. (2011) Development and pilot testing of an internet-based survey instrument to measure the alcohol brand preferences of US youth. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 35(4): 765–772.


103


30. Kanakamedala, K. and Jernigan, D. (2012) Alcohol marketing in digital and social media: Results and implications of brand scans. American Public Health Association, 31 October, San Francisco, CA. 31. Mullman, J. (2009) Southern comfort pours entire media budget into digital. Advertising Age. 29 July. 32. Marshall, J. (2011) Jack Daniel’s is first spirits brand to buy Twitter ads. Clickz Marketing News & Expert Advice, http://www.clickz.com/clickz/news/2046786/jack-daniels-spiritsbrand-twitter-ads, accessed 22 March 2012. 33. Bradshaw, T. (2011) Facebook strikes Diageo advertising deal. London: Financial Times, http:// www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d044ea24-e203-11e0-9915-00144feabdc0.html, accessed 15 July 2013. 34. Schultz, E.J. (2011) Heineken strikes deal with Facebook: ‘Consequential’ new pact is for consulting, product access. New York: Advertising Age, http://adage.com/article/digital/ heineken-strikes-deal-facebook/231433/, accessed 14 July 2013. 35. Siegel, M. et al (2013) Brand-specific consumption of alcohol among underage youth in the United States. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 37(7): 1195–203. 36. Integrity. (2013) Integrity: Instant global ID and age verification – Our Clients. Washington DC, http://integrity.aristotle.com/our-clients/, accessed 29 September 2013. 37. Mullman, J. (2007) Attorneys general of 21 states lash out at Bud.tv age checks. New York: Advertising Age, http://adage.com/article/digital/attorneys-general-21-states-lash-bud-tv-agechecks/115068/, accessed 29 September 2013. 38. US Department of the Treasury Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. (2013) Use of Social Media in the Advertising of Alcohol Beverages. Washington DC: US Department of the Treasury, http://www.ttb.gov/industry_circulars/archives/2013/13-01.html, accessed 16 July 2013. 39. Shurtleff, M.L. et al (2011) RE: Alcohol Reports, Paperwork Comment; Project No. P114503. A Communication from the Chief Legal Officers of the Following States: Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wyoming, http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/ alcoholstudy2011-pra/00071-58515.pdf, accessed 8 September 2011.

104


Copyright of Journal of Public Health Policy is the property of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Exposure of children and adolescents to alcohol marketing on social media websites.

Investigation of user behavior on social networking sites.

Social networking sites: a clinical dilemma?

Aversive Peer Experiences on Social Networking Sites: Development of the Social Networking-Peer Experiences Questionnaire (SN-PEQ).

Social Networking Sites and Addiction: Ten Lessons Learned.

Social networking and online recruiting for HIV research: ethical challenges.

Online social networking sites and mental health research.

Influence of a multidimensional measure of attitudes on motives to use social networking sites.

Commentary on Morgenstern et al. (2014): As channels for alcohol marketing continue to increase, so will alcohol marketing receptivity and youth drinking.

Social networking sites: an adjunctive treatment modality for psychological problems.

First comes social networking, then comes marriage? Characteristics of Americans married 2005-2012 who met through social networking sites.

Measuring social reactions to female survivors of alcohol-involved sexual assault: The Social Reactions Questionnaire-Alcohol.

Romantic relationship stages and social networking sites: uncertainty reduction strategies and perceived relational norms on facebook.

Ophthalmology on social networking sites: an observational study of Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.

Emerging adults' use of alcohol and social networking sites during a large street festival: A real-time interview study.

The Effect of Loneliness on Social Networking Sites Use and Its Related Behaviors.

Exploring the role of parents and peers in young adolescents' risk taking on social networking sites.

Food marketing to youth: serious business.

Psychological risk factors of addiction to social networking sites among Chinese smartphone users.

Utilizing social networking sites to promote adolescents' health: a pragmatic review of the literature.

Promoting positive psychology using social networking sites: a study of new college entrants on Facebook.

Youth exposure to alcohol advertising on television in the UK, the Netherlands and Germany.

Social Networking Technology Use and Engagement in HIV-Related Risk and Protective Behaviors Among Homeless Youth.

Internet Alcohol Marketing and Underage Alcohol Use.