Testimony

• Ms Patti Miller
  Read statement

  Testimony

  Ms Patti Miller

  Children Now would like to thank the Senate Commerce Committee for holding this hearing today on media ratings. It is a very important topic, especially given the fact that the average American child spends almost six hours a day with media. In fact, children spend more time with media than they spend doing anything else, except for sleeping. There is no question that parents are very concerned about the content to which their children are exposed across entertainment media, especially on television. According to a new Kaiser Family Foundation national poll of parents released last week, six in ten parents say they are very concerned that their children are being exposed to too much sexual content in the TV shows they watch; 53% are very concerned about violent content and 49% are concerned about adult language. I’ve been asked to comment today on whether the existing media ratings systems for the television, video game and motion picture industries are effective in helping consumers discern what is appropriate entertainment for children. But before advocates answer that question, we must first understand the answers to several important questions: 1) Are parents currently using the ratings systems? 2) Can parents depend on the accuracy of the ratings systems? 3) Has the media industry done enough to support ratings systems? 1) Are parents currently using the ratings systems? According to the recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll, about three fourths of parents say they have used the movie ratings, while about half of parents say they have used the music advisories and video game ratings. When it comes to television, half of parents also say they have used the ratings, one in four of whom say they use them often. Unfortunately, many parents still are not familiar with the TV ratings; one in five say that they have never even heard of them. And many parents don’t recognize the content-based TV ratings, with only half able to identify the “V” rating and fewer able to identify the “L” and “S” ratings. 2) Can parents depend on the accuracy of the ratings systems? Sadly, the answer is no. A large number of parents (four out of ten) say that ratings do not accurately reflect the content of the shows ; research confirms their concerns. According to a 1998 Kaiser Family Foundation study, content labels were only applied to one out of five television programs with violence, sexual material or adult language. Further, a National Institute on Media and the Family study found that parents often disagreed with the TV ratings that were assigned to shows for particular age groups. For example, only about one fourth of shows with a TV-PG rating were approved by parents for 8-to12-year-olds and only about one in ten shows with a TV-14 rating were acceptable to parents for 13-to 17-year olds. When it comes to movie ratings, there are serious accuracy issues as well. According to a recent Harvard University School of Public Health study, there has been a significant increase in violence, sex and profanity in films over the last ten years, suggesting that the age-based movie ratings (specifically PG, PG-13 and R) are increasingly lenient. And video games ratings raise concerns as well. A Children Now study found that more than ¾ of games rated “E” for everyone (79%), contained violent content, half of which was significant to the plot. With these kinds of statistics, how can we honestly tell parents that they can rely on the various ratings systems to make informed choices about their children’s media consumption? 3) Has the media industry done enough to support the ratings systems? Again, the answer is no. In order for media ratings to work for parents, the media industry needs to provide accurate and descriptive content information to parents. Children Now believes that the following recommendations should be implemented to ensure that existing media ratings systems are effective in helping parents: a) Provide parents with more descriptive and accurate content-based information Each media ratings system should provide parents with content-based information. Some parents are very concerned about violence; others are more concerned about sexual situations or suggestive dialogue. Children Now believes that content-based ratings are essential as they enable parents to make decisions about what their children see based upon the parents’ own values and preferences. Further, while the age-based ratings seem to be more recognizable to parents, those who have used ratings are twice as likely to say that content-based ratings offer more useful information than age-based ones. b) Increase parental awareness about the TV ratings Currently, the TV ratings are displayed for the first 15 seconds of a show. Instead, broadcasters should display the ratings throughout the course of a show, or at the very least, as some shows are doing, after each commercial break. Broadcasters also should provide parents with more information about the TV ratings through broad public education campaigns that could include public service announcements and making ratings information available in local newspapers. c) Use digital technology to provide more information to parents As television transitions from analog to digital, Children Now believes that broadcasters should take advantage of emerging click-through, interactive technology to provide on-demand ratings information to parents. Parents should be able to click on a TV rating on the screen to find out what it means as well as more detailed information about why it received that particular rating. Children Now believes that by adopting these recommendations, the media industry would take a major step in ensuring that parents have the tools that they need to make informed choices about their children’s media consumption and decrease the need for regulatory action. Media ratings systems can only be truly effective when parents know they are available, know how to use them, and when they provide accurate and descriptive content-based information.

• Mr David Kinney
  Read statement

  Testimony

  Mr David Kinney

  Good morning Chairman McCain, Chairman Brownback, Senators. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am David G. Kinney, founder and President of PSVratings, Inc., as well as the Chair of the Coalition for Independent Ratings Services. The Coalition for Independent Ratings Services brings together five organizations that provide independent ratings. The Coalition members include: · PSVratings, Inc. · Critics, Inc./kids-in-mind.com · Coalition for Quality Children's Media/KIDS FIRST! (CQCM) · Family Style Film Guide; and · Grading the Movies The fact that these independent ratings systems exist and are used by concerned parents and others is evidence of the public’s demand for more information than currently is being provided by the industry’s systems. Executive Summary The Coalition’s goal is to increase dialogue and awareness about the value of independent ratings systems among policymakers and the public at large. To this end, the Coalition recently submitted comments to the FCC’s on its proceeding on the impact of violent programming on children. The Coalition noted its support for an open V-chip, which would allow consumers to access rating systems of their choice, including independent, competitive systems like ours. We plan to participate in the FCC’s Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on interactivity in digital television, to work with partners in the industry towards an open V-chip that could one day allow consumers not merely to block violent programming, but have programming that meets their pre-selected preferences be suggested for family viewing. For instance, the PSVratings system could enable parents to program their V-chip by simply selecting the level of Profanity, Sex and Violence they deem appropriate for their children based upon the individual maturity level and sensitivities of each of their children. My company, PSVratings, is a supplement to industry-based ratings systems such as the MPAA, RIAA, and ESRB systems. I have been asked to come here and testify today on whether the existing ratings systems are effective in assisting consumers in discerning what is appropriate entertainment for their children. To that end, let me emphasize that we are a private corporation that has invested millions of dollars into technology that enables us to fill a void in the marketplace for the data that parents and consumers demand specifically because the existing industry based ratings systems do not, in fact, fulfill the information requirements of parents and consumers. In fact, we have found that parents do not want to be told what the industry thinks is suitable for their children. They want objective information to make that decision for themselves. I have attached our market research to my testimony, in order to be fully responsive to the Committee’s questions on the effectiveness of the industry’s systems. Our solution, called the PSVratings system, provides parents and indeed all consumers with comprehensive, accurate and objective information about the: Profanity, Sex and Violence in media. We use a universally recognized traffic light, color-coded to alert consumer to the level of content in each category. When viewed on our consumers website, called Current Attractions (www.currentattractions.com), consumers can access more comprehensive information about the nature of content in those categories. The PSVratings system offers relevant, content-specific information. Such data can greatly benefit not just the consumer, but filmmakers and studios as well. By clarifying and simplifying the caregiver decision-making process, PSVratings supports the entertainment industry's effort to reach the family audience. Moreover, with this technology-based solution, studios and distributors could have the option of presenting multiple versions of their offerings with various levels of profanity, sex and violence and thus open up additional distribution channels, such as to airlines, after school programs, family restaurants, pediatric offices, etc. The Committee has asked about the scientific process for developing ratings. With algorithms governing over 3,000 descriptor rules, resulting in over 10 million combinations, managed by a board of experts in child psychology and education, the PSVratings system is extremely complex. While the technology behind the PSVratings system is very complex, however, as you can see from the slides, the consumer interface and display of data could not possibly be more user-friendly or simple to use. In response to the Committee’s interest in examining the process for developing ratings, I have included a more detailed description of this sophisticated process in an attachment to my testimony. The Committee has also asked whether a more uniform system for all forms of media is needed. The benefit of PSVratings is that we have developed a system that is universally applicable all media. PSVratings began with a focus on the home video/DVD market both because parents rent and buy more videos than any other market segment and because we were fairly successful at obtaining screeners. We have now expanded to box office releases. With respect to the Committee’s question on systems providing consumers with effective information, our market research demonstrated that consumers ideally would like ratings information before the release day. However, we still cannot provide the public with the information they seek until the end of the first day of release, without prior access to the movie content. There is a great diversity in the nature of the content, even among movies given the same industry ratings. We also are working on video games and music and will soon be providing ratings for these media as well. We have developed the capability to monitor and rate chat rooms in real time, as well as developed a strategy for rating Internet sites and keeping those ratings updated. Finally, we could also apply our system to television if, as previously stated with respect to films, we could gain prior access to such content. Such access would of course be done in a manner consistent with protecting the content producers’ intellectual property rights. The Coalition The Coalition for Independent Ratings Services (“Coalition”) is a coalition of independent ratings service providers, including PSVratings, Inc., Critics, Inc./kids-in-mind.com, Coalition for Quality Children’s Media/KIDS FIRST! (CQCM), FamilyStyle Film Guide, and Grading the Movies. The simple fact that so many competitive systems have developed in the last several years is evidence of consumers' demand for more information to help them determine the suitability of a particular film, TV show, video game, music CD or Internet site for their families. Independent ratings can provide objective information to consumers, because their market incentive is to satisfy consumer demand for effective information. Box office sales research reflects that PG-13 movies garner the highest receipts, so there are strong incentives in the industry to secure a PG-13 rating. Likewise, box office receipts decline with NC-17 ratings, so there is a strong incentive to secure at least an R rating, instead of the economic-impactive NC-17 ratings. Box office receipt figures have a strong impact on additional box office attendance, and later on video distribution receipts. So there is a strong economic incentive to secure ratings that will attract broader audience, regardless of the actual content. In contrast, the independent ratings systems' top priority is to build trust in their product -- objective information about the content of programming. With an independent ratings system, there is no conflict of interest between transparency and revenue maximization. The Coalition’s goal is to increase dialogue and awareness about the value of independent ratings systems among policymakers and the public at large. To this end, the Coalition recently submitted comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s proceeding on the impact of violent programming on children. The Coalition noted its support for an open V-chip, which would allow consumers to access rating systems of their choice, including independent, competitive systems like ours. We plan to participate in the FCC’s Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on interactivity in digital television , to work with partners in the industry towards an open V-chip that could one day allow consumers not merely to block violent programming, but have programming that meets their pre-selected preferences be suggested for family viewing. For instance, the PSVratings system could enable parents to program their V-chip by simply selecting the level of Profanity, Sex and Violence they deem appropriate for their children based upon the individual maturity level and sensitivities of each of their children. The Coalition has already had some policy success working with the FCC to inform consumers of the availability of ratings systems independent of those developed by the industry. The Coalition commends the FCC’s leadership in posting a link to the Coalition’s website on the FCC’s Parents Place page discussing TV Ratings. The Coalition has asked the FTC to likewise post a link to the Coalition on the FTC website page discussing entertainment ratings. Because the FTC covers a broader array of media product, beyond television program and including film and games, the Coalition hopes this Committee might encourage the FTC to likewise post a link to the Coalition – the only coalition organized to represent entertainment ratings providers independent of the industry – and thereby inform consumers of the availability of alternative ratings independent of those developed by content producers. PSVratings, Inc. My company, PSVratings, is a supplement to industry-based ratings systems such as the MPAA, RIAA, and ESRB systems. We are a private corporation that has invested millions of dollars into technology that enables us to fill a void in the marketplace for the data that parents and consumers demand. We have found that parents do not want to be told what the industry thinks is suitable for their children. They want the information to to enable them to make that decision for themselves. I have attached our market research to my testimony, to be responsive to the Committee’s questions on whether the industry’s systems are “effective in assisting consumers in discerning what is appropriate” for their children. Our solution, called the PSVratings system, provides parents and all consumers with comprehensive, accurate and objective information about the Profanity, Sex and Violence in media. We use a universally recognized traffic light, color-coded to alert consumers to the level of content in each category. When viewed on our consumer website, called Current Attractions (www.currentattractions.com), consumers can access more comprehensive information about the nature of content in those categories. The PSVratings system offers relevant, content-specific information. Such data can greatly benefit not just the consumer, but filmmakers and studios as well. By clarifying and simplifying the parent decision-making process, PSVratings supports the entertainment industry's effort to reach the family audience. Moreover, with this technology-based solution, studios and distributors could have the option of presenting multiple versions of their offerings with various levels of profanity, sex and violence and thus open up additional distribution channels, such as to airlines, after school programs, family restaurants, pediatric offices, etc. In fact, the creation, development and management of PSVratings is founded upon the conviction that filmmakers, producers and artists have an important right to express themselves through their creative works. At the same time, PSVratings believes that freedom of expression must be balanced with freedom of information. Consumers have a right to the information necessary to make informed purchase and rental decisions. PSVratings is dedicated to empowering parents, caregivers and consumers to make informed entertainment choices for themselves and their families, by giving them the objective information they need. The PSVratings system makes no judgment of suitability or appropriateness for any given audience or age group. We believe that suitability is an individual choice. We simply provide the comprehensive and objective information to enable consumers to make that choice based on their own individual standards of suitability. Scientific Process for Developing Ratings I happened to have remarked during one of our company meetings a few years ago that in order for the PSVratings system to be as simple as possible for consumers on the front end, it would end up being extremely complex on the back end. That is true. With algorithms governing over 3,000 descriptor rules, resulting in over 10 million combinations, managed by a board of experts in child psychology and education, the PSVratings system is extremely complex. The five steps developed by PSVratings to produce objective media ratings are as follows: 1. The PSVratings Standard is managed by an independent board comprised of child psychiatrists, child psychologists and educators. This group of experts is responsible for the application of ratings to the rules that underlie the PSVratings system. While the ratings values of the PSVratings system are intended only as a guideline as to the levels of Profanity, Sex and Violence in media, consumers can be confident that the guideline is based upon current research on the impact of media on children. Thus, the PSVratings Standard is built upon a foundation of scientific knowledge independent of any commercial interest. 2. Data Capture Specialists are rigorously trained to ‘audit’, as opposed to ‘review’, media and identify all instances of Profanity, Sex and Violence without any judgment or interpretation. Not only do they note the occurrence itself, but they recognize relationship combinations for as many as 15 different character types (man, woman, teen, child, fantasy figure, role model, etc), the relationship(s) between the character types, the consequences of the occurrence, the level of graphic detail and whether it is seen, heard or sensed. 3. Once the Data Capture process has been completed, every element of the information is mapped to any or all of the applicable rules in the PSVratings database. Data Mappers are extensively trained in the process of locating and identifying the appropriate rule(s) from the in excess of 3,000 rules and 10 million rule combinations. In instances in which a situation is encountered for which there is no rule, a new rule will be created and submitted to the PSVratings Standards Board for approval and rating. 4. To ensure data integrity, the entire Data Capture process is basically repeated by the Data Validation department. The Data Validation department, however, works completely independent of the Data Capture department. While Data Capture is dedicated to ensuring comprehensive and accurate capture of data, Data Validation is incentivized to find any possible errors by Data Capture. Data Validation ensures that every instance is captured, every instance is properly reported and every instance is properly mapped. 5. The final step of the PSVratings process, prior to release, is a comprehensive Data Integrity review of every reported and mapped ratings instance. The Data Integrity division operates independent of the Data Development (Data Capture and Data Validation) division. Working with the PSVratings Standards Board, the Data Integrity division has access to the rating of the rules of the PSVratings Standard, but has no ability to go back and change any of the data supplied by the Data Development division. Thus, no individual can influence the rating of an individual media title. Upon approval by Data Integrity of the accurate mapping of all ratings instances, the proprietary technology of the PSVratings system generates a rating based upon a matching of the audit data with the rules of the PSVratings Standard. A Uniform Ratings System The Committee asked whether a more uniform system for all forms of media is needed. The benefit of PSVratings is that we have developed a system that is universally applicable to all media. While PSVratings has itself developed a uniform system, which we believe is more responsive to consumer needs than a plethora of different systems for different entertainment products, PSVratings discourages the Committee from considering a requirement that the industry generally develop a single system. Because of the conflict of interest in the industry between transparency and revenue maximization, PSVratings believe that independent ratings provide helpful competition and objective information that the consumer needs in making decisions about the suitability of a particular program or game for a member of their family. A mandate for a single, uniform system across the industry may very well, if coupled with any legal recognition of that single uniform system, marginalize competitive, independent systems that provide objective information free of any conflict of interest. With respect to PSVratings’ uniform, universally applicable ratings system, we began with a focus on the home video/DVD market both because parents rent and buy more videos than any other market segment and because we were fairly successful at obtaining screeners. We have now expanded to box office releases. With respect to the Committee’s question on systems providing consumers with effective information, our market research demonstrated that consumers ideally would like ratings information before the release day. However, we still cannot provide the public with the information they seek until the end of the first day of release, without prior access to the movie content. There is a great diversity in the nature of the content, even among movies given the same industry ratings. We also are working on video games and music and will soon be providing ratings for these media as well. We have developed the capability to monitor/rate chat rooms in real time, a strategy for rating Internet sites and keeping those ratings updated. We could also apply our system to television if, as with films, we could gain prior access to content. Effective and Reliable Ratings Systems The data provided by PSVratings and other independent systems is useful for a number of audiences including but not limited to: parents making choices for their children; grandparents buying gifts for grandchildren; adults going on a first date or planning double-dates; child advocates, academics, researchers and government agencies doing research; studios analyzing the correlation between box office results and various levels and types of content; and retailers offering value added services for customers. Rating systems that are independent of the content producer can produce more reliable and therefore effective ratings for the above uses than the industries’ own ratings, given the conflict of interest noted above. Conclusion I look forward to working with the Committee and my fellow panelists on implementing solutions that protect children and improve consumers’ experience by providing parents and others with the information they need, while at the same time, protecting freedom of speech and the intellectual property of content producers against piracy. On behalf of the Coalition for Independent Ratings Services and PSVratings, Inc., I thank the Chairmen and the Committee, and their staff, for holding this important hearing.

• Mr Anthony Podesta
  Read statement

  Testimony

  Mr Anthony Podesta

  Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman Brownback and Ranking Member Breaux for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the TV Parental Guidelines Monitoring Board. As the Executive Secretariat of the Monitoring Board, I am grateful for the chance to discuss the TV Parental Guidelines and answer any questions you may have about the television ratings system. The TV Parental Guidelines is a voluntary rating system that gives parents information about the age-appropriateness and content of television programs. Used in conjunction with the V-chip, which is now standard in all TV sets 13 inches and larger, the TV ratings allow parents to block out programming they think is unsuitable for their children. The system is an effective tool to help parents supervise the programming that comes into their homes. Every segment of the entertainment industry was involved in the creation of the TV guidelines, including national broadcast networks; affiliated, independent and public television stations nationwide; cable programmers; producers and distributors of cable programming; syndicators; entertainment companies; and members of the creative guilds representing writers, directors, producers and actors. They all came together to collaborate on the development of the ratings system. As you can imagine, this was no small feat. Led by the Motion Picture Association of America, the National Association of Broadcasters, and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, this first-ever collaboration among the entertainment industry had one clear goal: to devise a TV ratings system that was easy to understand, easy to use, and effective. The industry knew that parents were the primary audience for this ratings system, and its efforts focused on creating a tool that would help parents monitor and supervise what their children were watching on television. After several months of consultation both inside the television industry and with other groups that had an interest in the TV ratings, the industry announced the TV Parental Guidelines in December of 1996. This age-based system had six categories – two exclusively for children’s programming – TV-Y and TV-Y7, and four for general audience programming – TV-G, TV-PG, TV-14 and TV-MA. Each category had a corresponding detailed description of the content that might be found in programming carrying that rating. After a period of public comment, during which parents expressed interest in having more information about the content of programs, the industry agreed to revisit the system to determine how this information could be provided. During the spring and early summer of 1997, industry leaders had extensive discussions not only with parents, but also with national children’s and parents’ advocacy groups as well as medical, religious, and educational groups. Among the groups involved in these discussions were the National Parent Teacher Association (PTA), the National Education Association (NEA), the American Psychological Association (APA), the American Medical Association (AMA), the Center for Media Education (CME), the Children’s Defense Fund (CDF), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Children Now, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP). These groups spent hundreds of hours on this process, and it was important to the integrity of the system that a majority of them supported the final product. The result of these discussions was that television programming would continue to fall into one of the six categories (TV-Y, TV-Y7, TV-G, TV-PG, TV-14, and TV-MA), but that content labels would be added where appropriate. These content labels are FV for fantasy violence, which is used exclusively for TV-Y7 programs; V for violence; S for sexual content; L for language; and D for suggestive dialogue. These last four labels are used in the general audience categories of TV-PG, TV-14 and TV-MA. On July 10, 1997, the revised ratings system was ratified by leading family and children’s advocacy groups, as well as television broadcasters, cable systems and networks, and television production companies. Congress signaled support for the system and agreed to give it a chance to work. And, after accepting public comments on the system, the FCC deemed the TV Parental Guidelines “acceptable” in March of 1998. In addition to coming together to create the guidelines, the industry also devised a process for implementing them. Because of the huge amount of programming involved – some 2,000 hours a day – the industry volunteered to review the programming and apply the guidelines episode-by-episode to avoid blanket ratings for a program that might be accurate one week, but not the next. Today, aside from news, sports, and advertising, everything you see on television has been rated by the industry, and the information is available for parents to use. In order to give parents real-time information about a program’s rating, the ratings icons and associated content symbols – for example, TV PG-V – appear in the upper left-hand corner of the screen for 15 seconds at the beginning of all rated programs. The ratings information is also included in published television listings and appears in electronic program guides. In order to ensure that the TV ratings are applied accurately and consistently, the industry created the TV Parental Guidelines Monitoring Board. When the Board receives widespread and verifiable criticism about a specific program’s rating, it reviews the program and makes recommendations about the appropriate rating to the relevant parties. When the TV Parental Guidelines were implemented, the industry knew that to be effective, parents and others needed to understand what the ratings meant and how to use them. The industry undertook a comprehensive public education campaign that we continue to build on today. Industry trade associations, individual broadcast and cable networks, affiliates, cable operators, and independent television stations have produced public service announcements to educate the public and promote the TV Parental Guidelines and parental controls. Millions of dollars have been spent on public service advertising, and the industry has made substantial investments to update the TV Parental Guidelines website and brochure. The brochure is available in both English and Spanish. In addition, each year, the Monitoring Board hosts a booth at the annual PTA Convention and distributes information on the ratings system. We have seen the results of this public education campaign firsthand. Parents send their questions, concerns, and suggestions about the ratings system to the Monitoring Board. Over the years, we have received more than 2,500 letters, e-mails or phone calls about the guidelines. Virtually all of the negative feedback about the ratings came at the beginning of the implementation process. The positive effects of the industry’s outreach efforts can be seen in the type of feedback we receive. We have not had any recent complaints about how a television program is rated. We know from our own polling and from surveys done by organizations like the Kaiser Family Foundation, that parents find the system helpful. The TV Ratings System was created in conjunction with a broad cross-section of public advocacy groups to provide parents with a useful tool to help supervise the television programming that comes into their homes. We believe it serves that purpose. We understand that educating parents about this system is an ongoing process, and the industry remains committed to playing a continuing role in this process. Chairman Brownback, Ranking Member Breaux, thank you for the opportunity to testify before your Committee on the TV Parental Guidelines. I look forward to answering any questions you may have on the system.

• Mr Jack Valenti

  Former Chairman and CEO

  Motion Picture Association of America
  Read statement

  Testimony

  Mr Jack Valenti

  On behalf of the members of the Motion Picture Association, Inc., I want to express my gratitude to Chairman Brownback and the members of the Subcommittee for convening this hearing. As you may know, this is my first hearing as the President and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America and I am very pleased that the subject covered by my first Congressional hearing in this position is media ratings. I say this because I am not just the head of the Association that gave birth to the most familiar media ratings system on the planet but because I am a father, a grandfather and a consummate consumer of movies who has benefited from the motion picture ratings system for decades. I am very proud to represent the Association responsible for this success story. Today children are often more proficient with technology and consumer electronics than their parents. The media choices facing an average American family are truly staggering in number. The hectic pace of American life can be overwhelming for many parents. For these reasons, advance, cautionary information about entertainment options for children have, in my mind, assumed more importance than ever before. The Motion Picture Association of America takes pride in the fact that the movie ratings system is recognized, familiar and such an engrained part of our popular culture that it is known and recognized by 98% of American moviegoers. Its triumph is owed to its simplicity. It is a common language that every parent speaks and easily understands. A movie rating is included – along with the reasons the rating was selected for that film – in all advertising for films. It is the dominant system for advance cautionary information about movies. This phenomenal success is owed largely to the man sitting next to me today. I realize that Jack Valenti, my predecessor, needs no introduction. He is, as you know, quite literally the father of the 36 year-old movie ratings system. He was instrumental in the development, implementation and continuing oversight of the TV Parental Guidelines. Any Congressional hearing on the issue of media ratings would be incomplete without his participation and insight and I am thankful that he has agreed to continue his leadership of the movie ratings system and share his knowledge with us today. THE VOLUNTARY MOVIE RATING SYSTEM By Jack Valenti HOW IT ALL BEGAN When I became president of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) in May 1966, the slippage of Hollywood studio authority over the content of films collided with an avalanching revision of American mores and customs. By summer of 1966, the national scene was marked by insurrection on the campus, riots in the streets, rise in women's liberation, protest of the young, doubts about the institution of marriage, abandonment of old guiding slogans, and the crumbling of social traditions. It would have been foolish to believe that movies, that most creative of art forms, could have remained unaffected by the change and torment in our society. A New Kind of American Movie The result of all this was the emergence of a "new kind" of American movie - frank and open, and made by filmmakers subject to very few self-imposed restraints. Almost within weeks in my new duties, I was confronted with controversy, neither amiable nor fixable. The first issue was the film "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf," in which, for the first time on the screen, the word "screw" and the phrase "hump the hostess" were heard. In company with the MPAA's general counsel, Louis Nizer, I met with Jack Warner, the legendary chieftain of Warner Bros., and his top aide, Ben Kalmenson. We talked for three hours, and the result was deletion of "screw" and retention of "hump the hostess," but I was uneasy over the meeting. It seemed wrong that grown men should be sitting around discussing such matters. Moreover, I was uncomfortable with the thought that this was just the beginning of an unsettling new era in film, in which we would lurch from crisis to crisis, without any suitable solution in sight. The second issue surfaced only a few months later. This time it was Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, and the Michelangelo Antonioni film "Blow-Up." I met with MGM's chief executive officer because this movie also represented a first - the first time a major distributor was marketing a film with nudity in it. The Production Code Administration in California had denied the seal of approval. I backed the decision, whereupon MGM distributed the film through a subsidiary company, thereby flouting the voluntary agreement of MPAA member companies that none would distribute a film without a Code seal. Finally, in April 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutional power of states and cities to prevent the exposure of children to books and films that could not be denied to adults. It was plain that the old system of self-regulation, begun with the formation of the MPAA in 1922, had broken down. What few threads there were holding together the structure created by Will Hays, one of my two predecessors, had now snapped. From the very first day of my own succession to the MPAA President's office, I had sniffed the Production Code constructed by the Hays Office. There was about this stern, forbidding catalogue of "Dos and Don'ts" the odious smell of censorship. I determined to junk it at the first opportune moment. I knew that the mix of new social currents, the irresistible force of creators determined to make "their" films and the possible intrusion of government into the movie arena demanded my immediate action. Within weeks, discussions of my plan for a movie rating system began with the president of the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) and with the governing committee of the International Film Importers & Distributors of America (IFIDA), an assembly of independent producers and distributors. Over the next five months, I held more than 100 hours of meetings with these two organizations, as well as with guilds of actors, writers, directors and producers, with craft unions, with critics, with religious organizations, and with the heads of MPAA member companies. THE BIRTH OF THE RATINGS By early fall, I was ready. My colleagues in the National Association of Theatre Owners joined with me in affirming our objective of creating a new and, at the time, revolutionary approach to how we would fulfill our obligation to the parents of America. My first move was to abolish the old and decaying Hays Production Code. I did that immediately. Then on November 1, 1968, we announced the birth of the new voluntary film rating system of the motion picture industry, with three organizations, NATO, MPAA, and IFIDA, as its monitoring and guiding groups. The initial design called for four rating categories: G for General Audiences, all ages admitted; M for mature audiences - parental guidance suggested, but all ages admitted; R for Restricted, children under 16 would not be admitted without an accompanying parent or adult guardian; (later raised to under 17 years of age, (and varies in some jurisdictions)); X for no one under 17 admitted. The rating system trademarked all the category symbols, except the X. Under the plan, anyone not submitting his or her film for rating could self apply the X or any other symbol or description, except those trademarked by the rating program. Our original plan had been to use only three rating categories, ending with R. It was my view that parents ought to be able to accompany their children to any movie the parents choose, without the movie industry or the government or self-appointed groups interfering with their rights. But NATO urged the creation of an adults only category, fearful of possible legal redress under state or local law. I acquiesced in NATO's reasoning and the four category system, including the X rating, was installed. So, the emergence of the voluntary rating system filled the vacuum provided by my dismantling of the Hays Production Code. The movie industry would no longer "approve or disapprove" the content of a film, but we would now see our primary task as giving advance cautionary warnings to parents so that parents could make the decision about the movie-going of their young children. CHANGES IN THE RATING SYSTEM We found early on that the M category (M meaning "Mature") was regarded by most parents as a sterner rating than the R category. To remedy this misconception, we changed the name from M to GP (meaning General audiences, Parental guidance suggested). A year later we revised the name to its current label, "PG: Parental Guidance Suggested." On July 1, 1984, we made another adjustment. We split the PG category into two groupings, PG and PG-13. PG-13 meant a higher level of intensity than was to be found in a film rated PG. Over the past years, parents have approved of this amplifying revision in the rating system. On September 27, 1990, we announced two more revisions. First, we introduced brief explanations of why a particular film received its R rating. Since, in the opinion of the Ratings Board, R rated films contain adult material, we believed it would be useful to parents to know a little more about that film's content before they allowed their children to accompany them. Sometime later we began applying the explanations in the PG, PG-13 and NC-17 categories as well. These explanations are available to parents at the theater (by telephone or at the box office), in certain media reviews and listings, and also made available on the MPAA's World Wide Web Home Page on the Internet. This internet address is http://www.mpaa.org. Second, we changed the name of the X category to NC-17:NO ONE 17 AND UNDER ADMITTED. The X rating over the years appeared to have taken on a surly meaning in the minds of many people, a meaning that was never intended when we created the system. Therefore, we chose to reaffirm the original intent of the design we installed on November 1, 1968, in which this "adults only" category explicitly describes a movie that most parents would want to have barred to viewing by their children. That was and is our goal, nothing more, nothing less. We have now trademarked "NC-17:NO ONE 17 AND UNDER ADMITTED" so that this rating symbol and the legend can be used only by those who submit their films for rating. THE PURPOSE OF THE RATING SYSTEM The basic mission of the rating system is a simple one: to offer to parents some advance information about movies so that parents can decide what movies they want their children to see or not to see. The entire rostrum of the rating program rests on the assumption of responsibility by parents. If parents don't care, or if they are languid in guiding their children's movie-going, the rating system becomes useless. Indeed, if you are 18 or over, or if you have no children, the rating system has no meaning for you. Ratings are meant for parents, no one else. The Rating Board does not rate movies on their quality or lack of quality. That is a role left to film critics and audiences. Had we attempted to insert ourselves into judging whether a film is "good" or "bad" or "indifferent" we would have collapsed the system before it began. The criteria that go into the mix which becomes a Rating Board judgment are theme, violence, language, nudity, sensuality, drug abuse, and other elements. Part of the rating flows from how each of these elements is treated on-screen by the filmmaker. In making their evaluation, the members of the Ratings Board do not look at snippets of film in isolation but consider the film in its entirety. The Rating Board can make its decisions only by what is seen on the screen, not by what is imagined or thought. There is no special emphasis on any one of these elements. All are considered. All are examined before a rating is applied. Contrary to popular notion, violence is not treated more leniently than any of the other material. Indeed many films rated X in the past and NC-17 now, have at least tentatively been given the "adults only" rating because of depictions of violence. However, most of the directors/producers/distributors involved have chosen, by their decision, to edit intense violent scenes in order to receive an R rating. HOW THE RATINGS ARE DECIDED The ratings are decided by a full-time Rating Board located in Los Angeles. There are 8-13 members of the Board who serve for periods of varying length. They work for the Classification and Rating Administration, which is funded by fees charged to producers/distributors for the rating of their films. The MPAA President chooses the Chairman of the Rating Board, thereby insulating the Board from industry or other group pressure. No one in the movie industry has the authority or the power to push the Board in any direction or otherwise influence it. One of the highest accolades to be conferred on the rating system is that from its birth in 1968 to this hour, there has never been even the slightest jot of evidence that the rating system has ever deliberately fudged a decision or bowed to pressure. The Rating Board has always conducted itself at the highest level of integrity. That is a large, honorable, and valuable asset. There are no special qualifications for Board membership, except the members must have a shared parenthood experience, must be possessed of an intelligent maturity, and most of all, have the capacity to put themselves in the role of most American parents so they can view a film and apply a rating that most parents would find suitable and helpful in aiding their decisions about their children's moviegoing. As the MPAA President, I take no part in rating decisions, and do not overrule or dissuade the Board from any decisions it makes. No one is forced to submit a film to the Board for rating, but the vast majority of producers/distributors do in fact submit their films for ratings. Any producer/distributor who wants no part of any rating system is free to go to the market without any rating at all or with any description or symbol they choose as long as it is not confusingly similar to the G, PG, PG-13, R, and, NC-17. The rating symbols are federally-registered certification marks of the MPAA and may not be self-applied. The Board Votes on Ratings The Board views each film. Each member present estimates what most parents would consider to be that film's appropriate rating. After group discussion, the Board votes on the rating. Each member completes a rating form spelling out his or her reason for the rating. Each rating is decided by majority vote. The producer/distributor of a film has the right under the rules to inquire as to the "why" of the rating applied. The producer/distributor also has the right, based on the reasons for the rating, to edit the film - if that is the choice of the producer/distributor - and come back to the Board to try for a less severe rating. The reedited film is brought back to the Board and the process goes forward again. Appeal of Ratings A producer/distributor who for any reason is displeased with a rating can appeal the decision to the Rating Appeals Board, which sits as the final arbiter of ratings. The Appeals Board comprises 14 to 18 members who serve terms of varying length. They are men and women from the industry organizations that govern the rating system. They gather to view the film and hear the appeal. After the screening, the producer/distributor whose film is being appealed explains why he or she believes the rating was wrongly decided. The chairman of the Rating Board states the reason for the film's rating. The producer/distributor has an opportunity for rebuttal. After Appeals Board members question the two opposing representatives, they are excused from the room. The Board discusses the appeal and then takes a secret ballot. It requires a two-thirds vote of those present to overturn a Rating Board decision. By this method of appeal, decisions of the Rating Board can be examined and any rating deemed a mistake set right. The decision of the Appeals Board is final and cannot be appealed. WHAT THE RATINGS MEAN G:"General Audiences-All Ages Admitted." This is a film which contains nothing in theme, language, nudity and sex, violence, etc. which would, in the view of the Rating Board, be offensive to parents whose younger children view the film. The G rating is not a "certificate of approval," nor does it signify a children's film. Some snippets of language may go beyond polite conversation but they are common everyday expressions. No stronger words are present in G-rated films. The violence is at a minimum. Nudity and sex scenes are not present; nor is there any drug use content. PG: “Parental Guidance Suggested. Some Material May Not Be Suitable For Children." This is a film which clearly needs to be examined or inquired into by parents before they let their children attend. The label PG plainly states that parents may consider some material unsuitable for their children, but the parent must make the decision. Parents are warned against sending their children, unseen and without inquiry, to PG-rated movies. The theme of a PG-rated film may itself call for parental guidance. There may be some profanity in these films. There may be some violence or brief nudity. But these elements are not deemed so intense as to require that parents be strongly cautioned beyond the suggestion of parental guidance. There is no drug use content in a PG-rated film. The PG rating, suggesting parental guidance, is thus an alert for examination of a film by parents before deciding on its viewing by their children. Obviously such a line is difficult to draw. In our pluralistic society it is not easy to make judgments without incurring some disagreement. So long as parents know they must exercise parental responsibility, the rating serves as a meaningful guide and as a warning. PG-13:"Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some Material May Be Inappropriate For Children Under 13." PG-13 is thus a sterner warning to parents to determine for themselves the attendance in particular of their younger children as they might consider some material not suited for them. Parents, by the rating, are alerted to be very careful about the attendance of their under-teenage children. A PG-13 film is one which, in the view of the Rating Board, leaps beyond the boundaries of the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, or other contents, but does not quite fit within the restricted R category. Any drug use content will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. In effect, the PG-13 cautions parents with more stringency than usual to give special attention to this film before they allow their 12-year olds and younger to attend. If nudity is sexually oriented, the film will generally not be found in the PG-13 category. If violence is too rough or persistent, the film goes into the R (restricted) rating. A film's single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, shall initially require the Rating Board to issue that film at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive must lead the Rating Board to issue a film an R rating, as must even one of these words used in a sexual context. These films can be rated less severely, however, if by a special vote, the Rating Board feels that a lesser rating would more responsibly reflect the opinion of American parents. PG-13 places larger responsibilities on parents for their children's movie-going. The voluntary rating system is not a surrogate parent, nor should it be. It cannot, and should not, insert itself in family decisions that only parents can, and should, make. Its purpose is to give prescreening advance informational warnings, so that parents can form their own judgments. PG-13 is designed to make these parental decisions easier for films between PG and R. R: "Restricted, Under 17 Requires Accompanying Parent Or Adult Guardian." In the opinion of the Rating Board, this film definitely contains some adult material. Parents are strongly urged to find out more about this film before they allow their children to accompany them. An R-rated film may include hard language, or tough violence, or nudity within sensual scenes, or drug abuse or other elements, or a combination of some of the above, so that parents are counseled, in advance, to take this advisory rating very seriously. Parents must find out more about an R-rated movie before they allow their teenagers to view it. NC-17:"No One 17 And Under Admitted." This rating declares that the Rating Board believes that this is a film that most parents will consider patently too adult for their youngsters under 17. No children will be admitted. NC-17 does not necessarily mean "obscene or pornographic" in the oft-accepted or legal meaning of those words. The Board does not and cannot mark films with those words. These are legal terms and for courts to decide. The reasons for the application of an NC-17 rating can be violence or sex or aberrational behavior or drug abuse or any other elements which, when present, most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children. Appraisal In any appraisal, what is "too much?" becomes very controversial. How much is "too much" violence? Are classic war films too violent with scenes of marines storming a beach and slaying hundreds, wounding thousands? Is it the graphic cop killing, the gangster shoot-out, or the slap across the face of a woman that determines "too much"? How much is "blood spilled" to be given emphasis? Where is the line to be drawn between "this is alright" and "this is not alright"? The same vexing doubts occur in sex scenes or those where language rises on the Richter scale, or where behavior not considered "normal" is revealed on the screen. What follows is disagreement, inevitable, inexorable, and oftentimes strident. That is what the rating system has to endure and confront. We understand that. We try to do our level best so that most parents would find our ratings mostly accurate and mostly useful. But, importantly, we urge and implore parents to care about what their children see and watch, to focus their attention on movies so they can know more about a film before they consent to their children watching it. To oversee the Rating Board, the film industry has set up a Policy Review Committee consisting of officials of MPAA and NATO. These men and women set guidelines for the Rating Board to follow, and make certain that the Board carries them out reasonably and appropriately. Because the rating program is a self-regulatory apparatus of the film industry, it is important that no single element of the industry take on the authority of a "czar" beyond any discipline or self-restraint. Advertising and Trailer Policy Film advertising is part of the film industry's self-regulatory mechanism. All advertising for rated motion pictures must be submitted to the Advertising Administration for approval prior to its release to the public. This includes, but is not limited to, print ads, radio and TV spots, pressbooks, videocassette packaging and theatrical and home video trailers. Trailers are an important aspect of the program. They are approved for "all audiences," which means they may be shown with all feature films, or "restricted audiences", which limits their use to feature films rated R or NC-17. There will be, in "all audience" trailers, no scenes that caused the feature to be rated PG, PG-13, R or NC-17. Each trailer carries at the front a tag which tells two things: (1) the audience for which the trailer has been approved, and (2) the rating of the picture being advertised. The tag for "all audience" trailers will have a green background; the tag for "restricted" trailers will have a red background. The color is to alert the projectionist against mismatching trailers with the film being shown on the theater screen. HOW THE RATING SYSTEM IS USED BY THEATER OWNERS AND VIDEO RETAILERS Motion picture theater owners, who co-founded the rating system in 1968, were the first group in the entertainment industry to voluntarily enforce its guidelines. NATO estimates that the majority of the theater owners in the nation observe the rating system. In the mid 1980's, as watching movies on videocassettes at home soared in popularity, video retailers joined theater owners in embracing the voluntary guidelines of the rating system. Parents who relied on the rating system to determine which films their children viewed in theaters found the information provided by the rating classifications equally helpful in home video. To facilitate its use, ratings are displayed on both the videocassette package and the cassette itself. The Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA), which is the major trade association for video retailers in the United States, has adopted a "Pledge to Parents" which strongly endorses the observance of the voluntary movie rating system by video retailers. THE PUBLIC REACTION We count it crucial to make regular soundings to find out how the public perceives the rating program, and to measure the approval and disapproval of what we are doing. Nationwide scientific polls, conducted each year by the Opinion Research Corporation of Princeton, New Jersey, have consistently given the rating program high marks by parents throughout the land. The latest poll results show that 76% of parents with children under 13 found the ratings to be "very useful" to "fairly useful" in helping them make decisions for the movie-going of their children. On the evidence of the polls, the rating system would not have survived if it were not providing a useful service to parents. The rating system isn't perfect but, in an imperfect world, it seems each year to match the expectations of those whom it is designed to serve - parents of America.

• Dr Kim Thompson
  Read statement

  Testimony

  Dr Kim Thompson

  Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you very much for recognizing the important role of media in the lives of children and for inviting me to present my views on the effectiveness of media ratings. As a parent, consumer, educator, and active academic researcher on media content, I welcome the opportunity to comment on: 1 . the effectiveness of the existing ratings systems for video games, television, and motion pictures in assisting consumers in discerning what is appropriate entertainment for their children, 2. the lack of a scientific and research-based process for developing ratings, and 3. the need for a more uniform and reliable ratings system for all forms of media. Over the past several years, my research group at the Harvard School of Public Health has conducted several studies that quantitatively evaluated the actual content of popular media products marketed to children. This work includes rigorous peer-reviewed studies assessing the violent content and depiction of substances in G-rated animated films, violence in E-rated and T-rated video games, a comparison of content and ratings for T-rated video games, and an analysis of movie content and ratings for films released in the last ten years. Each of these studies yielded significant insights including: · Every one of the 74 animated G-rated animated feature films (100%) reviewed contained violence against another character (http://www.kidsrisk.harvard.edu/faqs1.htm).1 · Nearly 60 percent of the 81 G-rated animated feature films reviewed showed characters smoking and/or consuming alcoholic beverages (http://www.kidsrisk.harvard.edu/faqs2.htm).2 · 35 of the 55 (64%) E-rated (for “Everyone”) video games studied contained violence (http://www.kidsrisk.harvard.edu/faqs3.htm), with injuring characters rewarded or required for advancement in 33 games (60%).3 · We observed content that could warrant an ESRB content descriptor in 39 out of 81 games (48%) T-rated (for "Teen") video games for which the ESRB had not assigned a content descriptor, and we did not observe the content indicated by an ESRB content descriptor within one hour of game play for seven games. These games may be a source of exposure to a wide range of unexpected content (http://www.kidsrisk.harvard.edu/faqs4.htm).4 · In the random sample of 81 T-rated video games we played: o 79 games (98%) involved intentional violence, representing 36% of game play time, o 73 games (90%) rewarded or required the player to injure characters, o 56 games (69%) rewarded or required the player to kill, and o we observed 5,689 human deaths for these 81 games, occurring at an average rate of 61 human deaths per hour of game play time (http://www.kidsrisk.harvard.edu/faqs5.htm).5 · Using data from the MPAA and two independent resources that watch the entire released movie and provide consistent and detailed content information to parents (Kids-in-Mind and Screen It!) we demonstrated quantitatively that ratings creep occurred over the last decade, and that today's movies contain significantly more violence, sexual content, and profanity on average than movies of the same age-based rating (e.g., G, PG, PG-13, R) a decade ago (http://www.kidsrisk.harvard.edu/faqs6.htm).6 With today’s children spending more time on average consuming media than in school, the media serve as powerful, pervasive, and persuasive influences in their lives. As the peer-reviewed, science-based research of my group and the studies of other researchers demonstrate, entertainment media represent an important source of exposure for children to messages that may positively or negatively affect their perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Given the important role of the media ratings as the current strategy in our self-regulatory system – a system that gives us all the freedoms to create and to choose media and that reflects values deeply held by all Americans – Congress must ensure that the system works and protects children. Freedom depends on responsibility. Effectiveness of the existing ratings systems Based on my research, I believe that the existing ratings systems provide useful information for parents, but I also see large opportunities for improvement. Parents must currently grapple with an alphabet soup of rating symbols representing inconsistent approaches to rating media. The MPAA provides its age-based rating (e.g., G, PG, PG-13, R) and rating reasons. While the rating reasons provide some information about content and they are far superior to just giving parents the rating alone with no explanation, they do not necessarily tell all parents about all of the types of content that children might experience. The age-based ratings also reflect the relative standards of the anonymous members of a mysterious group and no standardized definitions for content exist. Could the MPAA provide a standard description of what the rating reasons mean so that parents really know what to expect (as intended by the content descriptors used by the ESRB)? Also, since many parents express concerns about the depiction of substances and normalization of substance use in media, could the MPAA provide an indication of whether or not the film includes depiction of substances? In our most recent study, we found that the MPAA mentioned alcohol or drugs in its rating reason for 18% of films, while Screen It! assigned a score above "none" for tobacco and/or alcohol/drugs for 95% of films and above “none” for alcohol/drugs for 93%. What is the harm in providing transparent and consistent information about content so that parents can make their own well-informed choices about what media are appropriate for and with their children? Also, if ratings continue to creep, then parents need to know that they must stay calibrated. Creating standards so that parents know what to expect provides an important opportunity for the industry to help parents and to provide a level playing field for media producers. You can put anything you want into a movie, but that doesn’t mean that you can market it inappropriately to children and expect no consequences. The ESRB system for video games similarly provides an age-based rating (e.g., E, T, M) and also provides content descriptors that the ESRB defines clearly on its website (www.esrb.org). Our studies suggest, however, some inconsistency in the application of these content descriptors and a lack of transparency in how they are assigned. Since the ESRB does not play the games prior to assigning a rating, the ESRB ratings by definition do not reflect full knowledge of the game content and leave raters without the opportunity to experience the full range of content that ultimately gets released in the final game. The ESRB requires game manufacturers to provide examples of the most extreme content, but do they do so? Should parents expect the content descriptors to provide information about all of the types of content in the games, or have the content descriptors now become more like the MPAA’s rating reasons indicating only some of the content? With the information to parents very unclear on this, and parents and kids easily able to observe omissions as they experience actual game play, the ESRB should in my opinion focus more on ensuring the quality of its information and worry less about its advertising. Parents will use a system that they trust and that they find reliable, and perhaps the lack of use of ratings reflects a lack of trust. Television ratings (e.g., TV-Y, TV-Y7, TV-Y7-FV, TV-G, TV-PGTV-14, TV-MA) represent an area that I’ve spent the least amount of time studying as an academic. However, as a parent I can comment that I find it confusing that the same four content designations (V, S, L, D) assigned to the three highest age-based ratings (TV-PG, TV-14, TV-MA) mean different things depending on the age-based rating. Thus, with TV ratings parents must know the age-based rating and what the content designation means for that rating. I appreciate that TV uses some analogous symbols to movies, but why couldn’t all of the age-based symbols used by all three of these media use the same symbols so that parents only need to know one set of these? Also, since individual networks and cable systems each assign their own ratings, should parents expect any consistency here? If parents can’t expect consistency, then should we be surprised if they don’t find the information very useful? Finally, the TV ratings provide no information about substances, something that the MPAA and the ESRB provide. This all comes together with the convergence of media and cross-media marketing. In our studies we’ve noted high-profile media products with inconsistent ratings across media platforms that challenge parents who are trying to use the systems and that in my view undermine the collective authority of the rating boards. For example, we found that the T-rated video game Enter the Matrix game manual contained a $3 rebate toward the purchase of the R-rated movie The Matrix on DVD, which clearly indicates the continued marketing of R-rated violent entertainment to children in spite of the Federal Trade Commission reports efforts to get producers to stop this. (Terminator 3 provides another example where the T-rated game includes discussion by the developers about the how the game provides an extension to the R-rated movie, and the PG-13 rated film The Chronicles of Riddick and M-rated video game The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay provide an example going the other direction.) The bottom line is, we’re already in the next generation of media products, and it’s time for the rating systems to come into this century so that they can be effective tools for today’s parents. Lack of a scientific and research-based process for developing ratings In my view, many of the current problems with the existing systems derive from a lack of a scientific and research-based foundation for providing ratings information. A rigorous system of ratings must begin with some standard definitions that can be used to classify content and to clearly and consistently inform parents. While these definitions and classifying content includes subjectivity, that’s no excuse for not trying to be as objective as possible. Our studies have demonstrated that using consistent definitions can work and provide comparative information, and I believe that it’s time for the industry to start to perform its own content analyses and accurately report the ingredients of its products to consumers. I believe that the industry can better label its products and in doing so help parents make better choices, and that this is required as media continue to push the boundaries and consume more time in the lives of our children. Need for a more uniform and reliable ratings system for all forms of media In late September 2000 Senator McCain chaired hearings related to the first Federal Trade Commission report and asked leaders of the industry about the possibility of creating a universal rating system for media. Four years later we’ve seen no progress from the industry in this regard, and a continued reluctance to even engage in the debate. I believe that it’s time to create the incentives for the industry to act to begin to develop a universal rating system and to improve the reliability of its ratings for all forms of media. I appreciate the important differences between interactive media and non-interactive media, and I still believe that it’s possible to create a better system that will be easier for parents to use and provide more information about content that will help parents and kids make better media choices. It’s time, and I join the call for industry to lead the charge in developing the next generation of media rating systems. In all of my work in this area, I’ve come to appreciate the critical need for more research to further understand and characterize media content and their positive and negative impacts on kids. Americans should realize that we lack a national research agenda on children and media and currently few incentives exist for the academic community to play a significant and much-needed role in this area. In this regard, I urge members of Congress to take up the Children and Media Research Advancement Act (S. 2447) and to ensure that research and high-quality evidence guide our discussions about children and media. Thank you very much again for the opportunity to testify today. References: 1. Yokota F, Thompson KM. Violence in G-rated animated feature films. Journal of the American Medical Association 2000;283:2716-2720. 2. Thompson KM, Yokota F. Depiction of alcohol, tobacco, and other substances in G-rated animated feature films. Pediatrics 2001;107(6):1369-74. 3. Thompson KM, Haninger K. Violence in E-rated video games. Journal of the American Medical Association 2001;286(5):591-598. See related letter at: Journal of the American Medical Association 2001;286(16):1972. 4. Haninger K, Thompson, KM. Content and Ratings of Teen-Rated Video Games. Journal of the American Medical Association 2004;291(7):856-865. 5. Haninger K, Ryan MS, Thompson KM. Violence in Teen-Rated Video Games. Medscape General Medicine 2004(March 11);6(1). (Available at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/468087). 6. Thompson KM, Yokota F. “Violence, sex, and profanity in films: Correlation of movie ratings and content.” Medscape General Medicine 2004(July 13):6(3). (Available at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/480900).

• Mr Dan Glickman
  Read statement

  Testimony

  Mr Dan Glickman

  On behalf of the members of the Motion Picture Association, Inc., I want to express my gratitude to Chairman Brownback and the members of the Subcommittee for convening this hearing. As you may know, this is my first hearing as the President and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America and I am very pleased that the subject covered by my first Congressional hearing in this position is media ratings. I say this because I am not just the head of the Association that gave birth to the most familiar media ratings system on the planet but because I am a father, a grandfather and a consummate consumer of movies who has benefited from the motion picture ratings system for decades. I am very proud to represent the Association responsible for this success story. Today children are often more proficient with technology and consumer electronics than their parents. The media choices facing an average American family are truly staggering in number. The hectic pace of American life can be overwhelming for many parents. For these reasons, advance, cautionary information about entertainment options for children have, in my mind, assumed more importance than ever before. The Motion Picture Association of America takes pride in the fact that the movie ratings system is recognized, familiar and such an engrained part of our popular culture that it is known and recognized by 98% of American moviegoers. Its triumph is owed to its simplicity. It is a common language that every parent speaks and easily understands. A movie rating is included – along with the reasons the rating was selected for that film – in all advertising for films. It is the dominant system for advance cautionary information about movies. This phenomenal success is owed largely to the man sitting next to me today. I realize that Jack Valenti, my predecessor, needs no introduction. He is, as you know, quite literally the father of the 36 year-old movie ratings system. He was instrumental in the development, implementation and continuing oversight of the TV Parental Guidelines. Any Congressional hearing on the issue of media ratings would be incomplete without his participation and insight and I am thankful that he has agreed to continue his leadership of the movie ratings system and share his knowledge with us today. THE VOLUNTARY MOVIE RATING SYSTEM By Jack Valenti HOW IT ALL BEGAN When I became president of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) in May 1966, the slippage of Hollywood studio authority over the content of films collided with an avalanching revision of American mores and customs. By summer of 1966, the national scene was marked by insurrection on the campus, riots in the streets, rise in women's liberation, protest of the young, doubts about the institution of marriage, abandonment of old guiding slogans, and the crumbling of social traditions. It would have been foolish to believe that movies, that most creative of art forms, could have remained unaffected by the change and torment in our society. A New Kind of American Movie The result of all this was the emergence of a "new kind" of American movie - frank and open, and made by filmmakers subject to very few self-imposed restraints. Almost within weeks in my new duties, I was confronted with controversy, neither amiable nor fixable. The first issue was the film "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf," in which, for the first time on the screen, the word "screw" and the phrase "hump the hostess" were heard. In company with the MPAA's general counsel, Louis Nizer, I met with Jack Warner, the legendary chieftain of Warner Bros., and his top aide, Ben Kalmenson. We talked for three hours, and the result was deletion of "screw" and retention of "hump the hostess," but I was uneasy over the meeting. It seemed wrong that grown men should be sitting around discussing such matters. Moreover, I was uncomfortable with the thought that this was just the beginning of an unsettling new era in film, in which we would lurch from crisis to crisis, without any suitable solution in sight. The second issue surfaced only a few months later. This time it was Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, and the Michelangelo Antonioni film "Blow-Up." I met with MGM's chief executive officer because this movie also represented a first - the first time a major distributor was marketing a film with nudity in it. The Production Code Administration in California had denied the seal of approval. I backed the decision, whereupon MGM distributed the film through a subsidiary company, thereby flouting the voluntary agreement of MPAA member companies that none would distribute a film without a Code seal. Finally, in April 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutional power of states and cities to prevent the exposure of children to books and films that could not be denied to adults. It was plain that the old system of self-regulation, begun with the formation of the MPAA in 1922, had broken down. What few threads there were holding together the structure created by Will Hays, one of my two predecessors, had now snapped. From the very first day of my own succession to the MPAA President's office, I had sniffed the Production Code constructed by the Hays Office. There was about this stern, forbidding catalogue of "Dos and Don'ts" the odious smell of censorship. I determined to junk it at the first opportune moment. I knew that the mix of new social currents, the irresistible force of creators determined to make "their" films and the possible intrusion of government into the movie arena demanded my immediate action. Within weeks, discussions of my plan for a movie rating system began with the president of the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) and with the governing committee of the International Film Importers & Distributors of America (IFIDA), an assembly of independent producers and distributors. Over the next five months, I held more than 100 hours of meetings with these two organizations, as well as with guilds of actors, writers, directors and producers, with craft unions, with critics, with religious organizations, and with the heads of MPAA member companies. THE BIRTH OF THE RATINGS By early fall, I was ready. My colleagues in the National Association of Theatre Owners joined with me in affirming our objective of creating a new and, at the time, revolutionary approach to how we would fulfill our obligation to the parents of America. My first move was to abolish the old and decaying Hays Production Code. I did that immediately. Then on November 1, 1968, we announced the birth of the new voluntary film rating system of the motion picture industry, with three organizations, NATO, MPAA, and IFIDA, as its monitoring and guiding groups. The initial design called for four rating categories: G for General Audiences, all ages admitted; M for mature audiences - parental guidance suggested, but all ages admitted; R for Restricted, children under 16 would not be admitted without an accompanying parent or adult guardian; (later raised to under 17 years of age, (and varies in some jurisdictions)); X for no one under 17 admitted. The rating system trademarked all the category symbols, except the X. Under the plan, anyone not submitting his or her film for rating could self apply the X or any other symbol or description, except those trademarked by the rating program. Our original plan had been to use only three rating categories, ending with R. It was my view that parents ought to be able to accompany their children to any movie the parents choose, without the movie industry or the government or self-appointed groups interfering with their rights. But NATO urged the creation of an adults only category, fearful of possible legal redress under state or local law. I acquiesced in NATO's reasoning and the four category system, including the X rating, was installed. So, the emergence of the voluntary rating system filled the vacuum provided by my dismantling of the Hays Production Code. The movie industry would no longer "approve or disapprove" the content of a film, but we would now see our primary task as giving advance cautionary warnings to parents so that parents could make the decision about the movie-going of their young children. CHANGES IN THE RATING SYSTEM We found early on that the M category (M meaning "Mature") was regarded by most parents as a sterner rating than the R category. To remedy this misconception, we changed the name from M to GP (meaning General audiences, Parental guidance suggested). A year later we revised the name to its current label, "PG: Parental Guidance Suggested." On July 1, 1984, we made another adjustment. We split the PG category into two groupings, PG and PG-13. PG-13 meant a higher level of intensity than was to be found in a film rated PG. Over the past years, parents have approved of this amplifying revision in the rating system. On September 27, 1990, we announced two more revisions. First, we introduced brief explanations of why a particular film received its R rating. Since, in the opinion of the Ratings Board, R rated films contain adult material, we believed it would be useful to parents to know a little more about that film's content before they allowed their children to accompany them. Sometime later we began applying the explanations in the PG, PG-13 and NC-17 categories as well. These explanations are available to parents at the theater (by telephone or at the box office), in certain media reviews and listings, and also made available on the MPAA's World Wide Web Home Page on the Internet. This internet address is http://www.mpaa.org. Second, we changed the name of the X category to NC-17:NO ONE 17 AND UNDER ADMITTED. The X rating over the years appeared to have taken on a surly meaning in the minds of many people, a meaning that was never intended when we created the system. Therefore, we chose to reaffirm the original intent of the design we installed on November 1, 1968, in which this "adults only" category explicitly describes a movie that most parents would want to have barred to viewing by their children. That was and is our goal, nothing more, nothing less. We have now trademarked "NC-17:NO ONE 17 AND UNDER ADMITTED" so that this rating symbol and the legend can be used only by those who submit their films for rating. THE PURPOSE OF THE RATING SYSTEM The basic mission of the rating system is a simple one: to offer to parents some advance information about movies so that parents can decide what movies they want their children to see or not to see. The entire rostrum of the rating program rests on the assumption of responsibility by parents. If parents don't care, or if they are languid in guiding their children's movie-going, the rating system becomes useless. Indeed, if you are 18 or over, or if you have no children, the rating system has no meaning for you. Ratings are meant for parents, no one else. The Rating Board does not rate movies on their quality or lack of quality. That is a role left to film critics and audiences. Had we attempted to insert ourselves into judging whether a film is "good" or "bad" or "indifferent" we would have collapsed the system before it began. The criteria that go into the mix which becomes a Rating Board judgment are theme, violence, language, nudity, sensuality, drug abuse, and other elements. Part of the rating flows from how each of these elements is treated on-screen by the filmmaker. In making their evaluation, the members of the Ratings Board do not look at snippets of film in isolation but consider the film in its entirety. The Rating Board can make its decisions only by what is seen on the screen, not by what is imagined or thought. There is no special emphasis on any one of these elements. All are considered. All are examined before a rating is applied. Contrary to popular notion, violence is not treated more leniently than any of the other material. Indeed many films rated X in the past and NC-17 now, have at least tentatively been given the "adults only" rating because of depictions of violence. However, most of the directors/producers/distributors involved have chosen, by their decision, to edit intense violent scenes in order to receive an R rating. HOW THE RATINGS ARE DECIDED The ratings are decided by a full-time Rating Board located in Los Angeles. There are 8-13 members of the Board who serve for periods of varying length. They work for the Classification and Rating Administration, which is funded by fees charged to producers/distributors for the rating of their films. The MPAA President chooses the Chairman of the Rating Board, thereby insulating the Board from industry or other group pressure. No one in the movie industry has the authority or the power to push the Board in any direction or otherwise influence it. One of the highest accolades to be conferred on the rating system is that from its birth in 1968 to this hour, there has never been even the slightest jot of evidence that the rating system has ever deliberately fudged a decision or bowed to pressure. The Rating Board has always conducted itself at the highest level of integrity. That is a large, honorable, and valuable asset. There are no special qualifications for Board membership, except the members must have a shared parenthood experience, must be possessed of an intelligent maturity, and most of all, have the capacity to put themselves in the role of most American parents so they can view a film and apply a rating that most parents would find suitable and helpful in aiding their decisions about their children's moviegoing. As the MPAA President, I take no part in rating decisions, and do not overrule or dissuade the Board from any decisions it makes. No one is forced to submit a film to the Board for rating, but the vast majority of producers/distributors do in fact submit their films for ratings. Any producer/distributor who wants no part of any rating system is free to go to the market without any rating at all or with any description or symbol they choose as long as it is not confusingly similar to the G, PG, PG-13, R, and, NC-17. The rating symbols are federally-registered certification marks of the MPAA and may not be self-applied. The Board Votes on Ratings The Board views each film. Each member present estimates what most parents would consider to be that film's appropriate rating. After group discussion, the Board votes on the rating. Each member completes a rating form spelling out his or her reason for the rating. Each rating is decided by majority vote. The producer/distributor of a film has the right under the rules to inquire as to the "why" of the rating applied. The producer/distributor also has the right, based on the reasons for the rating, to edit the film - if that is the choice of the producer/distributor - and come back to the Board to try for a less severe rating. The reedited film is brought back to the Board and the process goes forward again. Appeal of Ratings A producer/distributor who for any reason is displeased with a rating can appeal the decision to the Rating Appeals Board, which sits as the final arbiter of ratings. The Appeals Board comprises 14 to 18 members who serve terms of varying length. They are men and women from the industry organizations that govern the rating system. They gather to view the film and hear the appeal. After the screening, the producer/distributor whose film is being appealed explains why he or she believes the rating was wrongly decided. The chairman of the Rating Board states the reason for the film's rating. The producer/distributor has an opportunity for rebuttal. After Appeals Board members question the two opposing representatives, they are excused from the room. The Board discusses the appeal and then takes a secret ballot. It requires a two-thirds vote of those present to overturn a Rating Board decision. By this method of appeal, decisions of the Rating Board can be examined and any rating deemed a mistake set right. The decision of the Appeals Board is final and cannot be appealed. WHAT THE RATINGS MEAN G:"General Audiences-All Ages Admitted." This is a film which contains nothing in theme, language, nudity and sex, violence, etc. which would, in the view of the Rating Board, be offensive to parents whose younger children view the film. The G rating is not a "certificate of approval," nor does it signify a children's film. Some snippets of language may go beyond polite conversation but they are common everyday expressions. No stronger words are present in G-rated films. The violence is at a minimum. Nudity and sex scenes are not present; nor is there any drug use content. PG: “Parental Guidance Suggested. Some Material May Not Be Suitable For Children." This is a film which clearly needs to be examined or inquired into by parents before they let their children attend. The label PG plainly states that parents may consider some material unsuitable for their children, but the parent must make the decision. Parents are warned against sending their children, unseen and without inquiry, to PG-rated movies. The theme of a PG-rated film may itself call for parental guidance. There may be some profanity in these films. There may be some violence or brief nudity. But these elements are not deemed so intense as to require that parents be strongly cautioned beyond the suggestion of parental guidance. There is no drug use content in a PG-rated film. The PG rating, suggesting parental guidance, is thus an alert for examination of a film by parents before deciding on its viewing by their children. Obviously such a line is difficult to draw. In our pluralistic society it is not easy to make judgments without incurring some disagreement. So long as parents know they must exercise parental responsibility, the rating serves as a meaningful guide and as a warning. PG-13:"Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some Material May Be Inappropriate For Children Under 13." PG-13 is thus a sterner warning to parents to determine for themselves the attendance in particular of their younger children as they might consider some material not suited for them. Parents, by the rating, are alerted to be very careful about the attendance of their under-teenage children. A PG-13 film is one which, in the view of the Rating Board, leaps beyond the boundaries of the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, or other contents, but does not quite fit within the restricted R category. Any drug use content will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. In effect, the PG-13 cautions parents with more stringency than usual to give special attention to this film before they allow their 12-year olds and younger to attend. If nudity is sexually oriented, the film will generally not be found in the PG-13 category. If violence is too rough or persistent, the film goes into the R (restricted) rating. A film's single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, shall initially require the Rating Board to issue that film at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive must lead the Rating Board to issue a film an R rating, as must even one of these words used in a sexual context. These films can be rated less severely, however, if by a special vote, the Rating Board feels that a lesser rating would more responsibly reflect the opinion of American parents. PG-13 places larger responsibilities on parents for their children's movie-going. The voluntary rating system is not a surrogate parent, nor should it be. It cannot, and should not, insert itself in family decisions that only parents can, and should, make. Its purpose is to give prescreening advance informational warnings, so that parents can form their own judgments. PG-13 is designed to make these parental decisions easier for films between PG and R. R: "Restricted, Under 17 Requires Accompanying Parent Or Adult Guardian." In the opinion of the Rating Board, this film definitely contains some adult material. Parents are strongly urged to find out more about this film before they allow their children to accompany them. An R-rated film may include hard language, or tough violence, or nudity within sensual scenes, or drug abuse or other elements, or a combination of some of the above, so that parents are counseled, in advance, to take this advisory rating very seriously. Parents must find out more about an R-rated movie before they allow their teenagers to view it. NC-17:"No One 17 And Under Admitted." This rating declares that the Rating Board believes that this is a film that most parents will consider patently too adult for their youngsters under 17. No children will be admitted. NC-17 does not necessarily mean "obscene or pornographic" in the oft-accepted or legal meaning of those words. The Board does not and cannot mark films with those words. These are legal terms and for courts to decide. The reasons for the application of an NC-17 rating can be violence or sex or aberrational behavior or drug abuse or any other elements which, when present, most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children. Appraisal In any appraisal, what is "too much?" becomes very controversial. How much is "too much" violence? Are classic war films too violent with scenes of marines storming a beach and slaying hundreds, wounding thousands? Is it the graphic cop killing, the gangster shoot-out, or the slap across the face of a woman that determines "too much"? How much is "blood spilled" to be given emphasis? Where is the line to be drawn between "this is alright" and "this is not alright"? The same vexing doubts occur in sex scenes or those where language rises on the Richter scale, or where behavior not considered "normal" is revealed on the screen. What follows is disagreement, inevitable, inexorable, and oftentimes strident. That is what the rating system has to endure and confront. We understand that. We try to do our level best so that most parents would find our ratings mostly accurate and mostly useful. But, importantly, we urge and implore parents to care about what their children see and watch, to focus their attention on movies so they can know more about a film before they consent to their children watching it. To oversee the Rating Board, the film industry has set up a Policy Review Committee consisting of officials of MPAA and NATO. These men and women set guidelines for the Rating Board to follow, and make certain that the Board carries them out reasonably and appropriately. Because the rating program is a self-regulatory apparatus of the film industry, it is important that no single element of the industry take on the authority of a "czar" beyond any discipline or self-restraint. Advertising and Trailer Policy Film advertising is part of the film industry's self-regulatory mechanism. All advertising for rated motion pictures must be submitted to the Advertising Administration for approval prior to its release to the public. This includes, but is not limited to, print ads, radio and TV spots, pressbooks, videocassette packaging and theatrical and home video trailers. Trailers are an important aspect of the program. They are approved for "all audiences," which means they may be shown with all feature films, or "restricted audiences", which limits their use to feature films rated R or NC-17. There will be, in "all audience" trailers, no scenes that caused the feature to be rated PG, PG-13, R or NC-17. Each trailer carries at the front a tag which tells two things: (1) the audience for which the trailer has been approved, and (2) the rating of the picture being advertised. The tag for "all audience" trailers will have a green background; the tag for "restricted" trailers will have a red background. The color is to alert the projectionist against mismatching trailers with the film being shown on the theater screen. HOW THE RATING SYSTEM IS USED BY THEATER OWNERS AND VIDEO RETAILERS Motion picture theater owners, who co-founded the rating system in 1968, were the first group in the entertainment industry to voluntarily enforce its guidelines. NATO estimates that the majority of the theater owners in the nation observe the rating system. In the mid 1980's, as watching movies on videocassettes at home soared in popularity, video retailers joined theater owners in embracing the voluntary guidelines of the rating system. Parents who relied on the rating system to determine which films their children viewed in theaters found the information provided by the rating classifications equally helpful in home video. To facilitate its use, ratings are displayed on both the videocassette package and the cassette itself. The Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA), which is the major trade association for video retailers in the United States, has adopted a "Pledge to Parents" which strongly endorses the observance of the voluntary movie rating system by video retailers. THE PUBLIC REACTION We count it crucial to make regular soundings to find out how the public perceives the rating program, and to measure the approval and disapproval of what we are doing. Nationwide scientific polls, conducted each year by the Opinion Research Corporation of Princeton, New Jersey, have consistently given the rating program high marks by parents throughout the land. The latest poll results show that 76% of parents with children under 13 found the ratings to be "very useful" to "fairly useful" in helping them make decisions for the movie-going of their children. On the evidence of the polls, the rating system would not have survived if it were not providing a useful service to parents. The rating system isn't perfect but, in an imperfect world, it seems each year to match the expectations of those whom it is designed to serve - parents of America.

• Ms Patricia E. Vance
  Read statement

  Testimony

  Ms Patricia E. Vance

  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear today to present an overview of the ESRB rating system and more broadly discuss the critically important issues surrounding the most effective ways to inform consumers, especially parents, about the content of the entertainment their families consume. Background The ESRB has been in existence for ten years. It was created in 1994 with one central mission: to provide parents and consumers at large with the information they need to make informed computer and video game purchase decisions. Today, we remain extremely proud of the ESRB rating system and the information it provides to parents. Indeed, the Federal Trade Commission and leading policymakers have praised it for its effectiveness and comprehensiveness. The rating system, although voluntary, has been universally adopted by the industry and today virtually all computer and video games sold in the U.S. carry an ESRB rating. In fact, most retailers in the U.S. refuse to stock games that do not carry an ESRB rating. After consulting a wide range of child development and academic experts, analyzing other rating systems, and conducting nationwide research, the founders of the ESRB concluded what parents really wanted from a video game rating system were both age-based categories and, equally if not more importantly, objective and detailed information about what’s in the game. Parents surveyed agreed that a rating system should inform and suggest, not prohibit. Respondents also agreed that the rating system should not attempt to quantify objectionable incidents; instead it should reflect the overall content and objective of the game. The ESRB Rating System Based on the research conducted in 1994, the ESRB rating system was created with two equally important parts: 1) easily identifiable rating symbols, found on the front of game packaging, suggesting the most appropriate age group for each game, and 2) content descriptors, found on the back of game packaging, clearly stating why a game received a particular rating or indicating content that may be of interest or concern. Here’s an illustration of the two parts: . The five ESRB rating categories include: · EC – Early Childhood means the game may be suitable for ages 3 and older, and is specifically designed for young children. · E – Everyone means the game may be suitable for ages 6 and older. E - rated games may contain minimal cartoon-like violence or comic mischief, and are generally appropriate for a wide range of audiences. · T – Teen means that the content may be suitable for ages 13 and older, and may contain violence, limited amounts of strong language, or suggestive themes. · M – Mature means that content may be suitable for ages 17 and older and may contain sexual themes, intense violence, or strong language. · AO – Adults Only means that the product is intended only for ages 18 and over. Over 30 different content descriptors are currently in use. They span various categories of concern to parents, including but not limited to violence, language, suggestive or sexual content, and use of controlled substances As a point of reference, of the 1,176 games rated by the ESRB in 2003, 57% were rated E – Everyone and 32% were rated T – Teen. Games rated M – Mature represented 10% of games rated, with EC – Early Childhood representing most of the remaining 1%. Ratings Creep? Comparing the above data to prior years shows that the E for Everyone category has been declining slightly each year, while the Teen and Mature categories has been gradually increasing. It’s not surprising that there are more Teen and Mature games because over the last decade the core audience for games has steadily aged. In fact, today, the core audience is 18-35 years old and the average age of game players is now 29 years old. Thus, it is perfectly logical to see game publishers create more titles aimed at this older consumer. This upward shift in ratings assigned would refute assumptions that some critics have made about “ratings creep” in our system, since evidence of “ratings creep” would suggest that lower categories are getting larger, not smaller. But, just to be sure, as a test, we recently selected ten top-selling Teen and Mature-rated games from five years ago and ran them through our standard rating process to determine if they would receive the same ratings today. Raters had no idea they were evaluating 5-year old game titles. The results of the test were that all ten games received the same ratings they had originally received. Recent Improvements As we have done periodically since establishing the ESRB ratings system, last year, the ESRB took several pro-active steps to further ensure that consumers are getting the most out of the rating system. One step was to add several new content descriptors to provide greater nuance in several categories. Four new descriptors in the violence category alone were added to the system. A second pro-active step taken was to increase the visibility of the content descriptors on the back of every game box. This was achieved by repeating the rating symbol on the back of the box next to the content descriptors in an authoritative "seal". All games shipped to stores in the last year carry this new "seal". And the third step the ESRB took to increase the effectiveness of the rating system was to add the age "17+" to the M - Mature rating symbol and 18+ to the AO - Adult Only rating symbol, so consumers more clearly understand the specific age range we are suggesting. Senator Joe Lieberman, who has worked closely with Chairman Brownback on issues related to media violence and monitoring the video game industry’s ratings and marketing practices, remarked of these enhancements, “I appreciate the ESRB's ongoing commitment to helping parents make smart choices for their kids. I hope parents will return the favor by making better use of these better ratings, for in the end they have the primary responsibility to protect their kids ….” Rating Process So, what is the process for assigning ratings? In order to have a game certified with an ESRB rating, software publishers fill out a detailed questionnaire explaining exactly what’s in the game. This questionnaire is submitted to ESRB along with actual videotaped footage of the game and relevant supplementary materials (e.g. soundtracks, cheat codes, scripts). The video footage must not only accurately represent the final product as a whole, but it must also show the most extreme content of the game. In the event that the ESRB discovers undisclosed pertinent content that would have affected a rating after a product has shipped, enforcement measures can be taken, including the imposition of significant fines and corrective actions (e.g., re-stickering or recalling product). Once the submission is received and checked for completeness, a minimum of three raters independently view video footage of each game and, for every scene, as well as the overall product, recommend a rating and content descriptors they deem most appropriate. ESRB compares the raters’ recommendations to make sure there is consensus. Usually, the raters agree on an overall age rating and their recommendation becomes final. However, when the raters recommend different ratings, additional raters will review the game in order to reach consensus. Once consensus on a rating is reached, ESRB issues an official rating certificate to the game’s publisher. If a publisher is not satisfied with the rating issued, it may re-submit the game with changes and the process starts anew. In rating a game, raters must consider a wide range of content elements including but not limited to violence, sex, humor, language, and use of controlled substances. There are few hard and fast rules when it comes to rating games. The manner in which a particular act is depicted, the context in which it occurs, the intensity of the image itself, and the degree of player control (unique to our rating system) all can greatly affect which rating category and content descriptor(s) ultimately are assigned to the game. Some have suggested that game ratings be based on a numerical count of particular types of content, such as acts of violence. I cannot say if this would work in other media. But trying to quantify content in an interactive medium when players control the frequency of actions and the events themselves is particularly impractical and pointless. Those who have played or studied video games universally recognize that the element of player control makes the medium and consequently its rating system unique. It is critical to note that ESRB raters have no ties to the industry and are specially trained by us to rate computer and video games. Most ESRB raters have prior experience with children, either as parents, caretakers, or through prior work and education. They are part-time employees of the ESRB, and typically attend one rater session per week. The ESRB strives to recruit raters who are demographically diverse by age (must be over 21), martial status, sex, race, and cultural background to reflect the US population overall. Research In order to ensure that the ratings we assign reflect the standards of average American consumers, we conduct consumer research on an annual basis in ten different markets across the U.S. This research has consistently shown that parents overwhelmingly agree with the ratings that we apply. Peter D. Hart Research Associates, a nationally renowned independent opinion research firm, tests randomly selected video games rated during the prior 12 months with parents of children between the ages of 6 and 17. We show parents clips of actual game footage and ask what rating they would apply. Then, we compare their responses to the actual rating assigned by the ESRB. Last year this research found that parents agreed, or even thought our ratings were too strict, 84% of the time. Parents described the actual ratings as “about right” in 77% of all instances and “too strict” 7% of the time. Ratings issued by watchdog groups like The National Institute on Media and the Family, with whom Chairman Brownback has worked closely over the years, also confirm that ESRB ratings are reliable and, in fact, NIMF’s own ratings agree with ESRB an overwhelming portion of the time. We think that’s pretty good. And we recognize that in a pluralistic society like ours, which encourages and embraces differences among its citizens, no rating system could ever achieve 100% popular consensus. However, it is clear that ESRB ratings are well within the American mainstream, and that’s exactly where we want to be. Other opinion polls conducted by Hart Research show that parents not only agree with specific ESRB ratings, but that 90 percent of them say the ESRB rating system provides the kind of information they need. Moreover, approximately 75 percent say it’s an effective tool that helps parents shield their children from inappropriate game content. Supporting the Hart research is a new survey released by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation last week, which found that among all entertainment rating systems (TV, movies, music, and games), parents found the ESRB ratings to be the most useful, with 91% finding them “somewhat (38%)” to “very useful” (53%). Of course, some have expressed concern about some aspects of the ESRB system. We respect these concerns and have worked hard to maintain a dialogue with any and all persons who care about giving parents accurate ratings information. Like anything else, though, it is important for observers to look beyond the headlines and carefully examine the methodologies of those who have issued studies critical of the ESRB or other systems. For example, the headline of the Harvard press release earlier this year publicizing Professor Kimberly Thompson’s study of Teen games reads, “Ratings of Teen-rated video games do not always fully describe content.” Sounds pretty ominous. But in truth, Professor Thompson concluded that 95% of instances of violence found in games included in the study were properly labeled by the ESRB. In other words, in the category of greatest concern among parents, ESRB content descriptors were applied to virtually all of the 81 games included in the study. The Harvard study also suggested that ESRB was not issuing content descriptors labeling other relevant content. For example, the study stated that a game depicting a character holding a non-lit pipe -- not smoking it – should have a “Use of Tobacco” content descriptor. Here we have an honest disagreement about rating theory and standards. ESRB raters would not have applied a “Use of Tobacco” descriptor in this case because the content was not significant from a contextual standpoint, and characters were not actually smoking. Similarly, unlike the Harvard researchers, we would not apply a “Reference to Alcohol” descriptor if a couple of unmarked bottles appear on a table in a scene. Our consumer research leads us to conclude that neither would most parents. All this said, I have great regard for Professor Thompson and I believe she is committed to helping us enhance the ESRB rating system and we welcome a continuing dialogue with her and others. Universal Ratings The Subcommittee asked that I comment on the issue of universal ratings. Candidly, I have serious concerns about this idea, though I understand its appeal. In the case of video game ratings, I think it is clear that our system is well received and considered effective and easily understood by consumers. Moreover, there is little evidence that consumers are confused by the current media rating systems. What is confusing about a game with a Mature 17+ rating with an Intense Violence content descriptor? It is not complicated or difficult for a consumer today to understand what type of video game they are purchasing. At a minimum, by picking up a box, checking the ratings information and looking at the title, images, screen shots and descriptions right on the packaging, it’s hard to imagine a consumer would not know what he or she is getting. And a recent study by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation confirms that nearly six out of ten parents surveyed think a single rating system is unnecessary. I would also be concerned about whether it is even practical to develop a coherent single rating system that actually does simplify information for consumers. All media are not the same. Motion pictures and television programs usually involve visual depictions of real actors on film in realistic situations; music consists of auditory and occasionally visual elements. Music, film, and TV are passive media. But games are interactive. This element of player control makes games unique among entertainment media and it is not at all clear to me that one could devise a single system that could accurately or effectively capture the different aspects of various entertainment media. Raising Consumer Awareness Hopefully, by now you have a better understanding of the ESRB rating system, how it was developed, how we apply ratings, and what consumers think about those ratings. Now, I want to direct your attention to the extensive efforts we are making to raise consumer awareness and use of the rating system. First, it’s important to define who the “consumer” is. According to a study conducted by the Federal Trade Commission in September 2000, parents are involved in the purchase or rental of games 83% of the time. The ESA has found in similar research that adults make 90% all game purchases. Regardless of the data source used, it is clear that, parents are either involved in or ultimately making the decision about what games their kids are playing an overwhelming majority of the time. Keeping in mind the significant role parents play in making purchase decisions, the ESRB launched a multi-channel consumer marketing campaign in October 2003 featuring the slogan “Ok To Play? – Check The Ratings”. The campaign, composed of a public service announcement (PSA) and a retail partnership program, encourages parents to use both components of the rating system (rating symbols and content descriptors) to determine if a game is appropriate for their family. During the first six months of the campaign’s launch, the print PSA campaign (see attached ad) generated more than 500 million gross consumer impressions. 5 of the top 10 consumer magazines including TV Guide, Better Homes and Gardens, Good Housekeeping, Family Circle, and Ladies’ Home Journal, plus Entertainment Weekly, Redbook, Parents, Working Mother, and Disney Adventures have run the print PSA. More than a dozen top game enthusiast publications have also supported the campaign, and over 20 websites have run an online banner version of the ad. Furthermore, several major national retailers (e.g., Wal-Mart, Toys R Us, EB Games) have included a “ratings legend” that ties into the campaign in their print circulars and catalogues. The second critical part of our consumer awareness campaign is the launch of a unique retail partnership program. The goal of the program was to ensure that when consumers were shopping for computer and video games that they would be educated about and reminded to check the ratings. But rather than send posters or stand-alone brochures to stores that consumers may not notice, we succeeded in getting 12 of the top 14 retailers of games in the US, representing over 85% of all sales, to incorporate ratings education into their in-store display fixtures. All participating retailers, including Wal-Mart, Best Buy and Toys R Us to mention some of the largest, have re-printed and installed new signs for their game displays this year. ESRB has also provided these retailers with training materials for sales associates to learn about the rating system, and signage supporting store policies restricting the sale of Mature rated games (see attached store sign composite). . Since launching the retail partnership program, the ESRB has conducted audits measuring compliance from retailers in displaying “Ok To Play? – Check The Ratings” and store policy signage. The most recent information from last month, which surveyed more than 4,100 store locations from six chains, indicated that 62% of stores were displaying their signs. Recently, the ESRB expanded the retail partnership program to include local independent retailers and cyber café businesses, working closely with the Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA) and iGames to help penetrate these hard-to-reach outlets. We encourage the Chairman, Subcommittee members and Congress to support these efforts to further raise consumer awareness and use of the rating system. Other ESRB Activities On a final note, ESRB work does not begin and end at ratings. In addition to the Rating Board, the ESRB is responsible for the oversight, compliance, and enforcement of industry-adopted advertising and marketing guidelines. This is performed through the Advertising Review Council (ARC) of the ESRB, which publishes the industry’s Principles and Guidelines for Responsible Advertising Practices defining standards for responsible advertising practices, and providing information on enforcement, complaint resolution, appeals, and compliance. Additionally, specific marketing rules are codified in the ESRB Advertising Code of Conduct, addressing everything from the required size of rating icons on game boxes to the audience composition of media vehicles in which M – Mature rated ads may appear. All publishers of games certified with an ESRB rating are legally bound to these marketing guidelines. The ESRB diligently monitors compliance with guidelines and in the event that a game publisher inappropriately labels or advertises a product; the ESRB is empowered to compel corrective actions and impose a wide range of sanctions, including monetary fines where appropriate. In 1999, the ESRB launched the Privacy Online division in order to assist industry companies in the development and ongoing management of the online collection and use of personal information. The FTC endorsed the Privacy Online program as a “safe harbor” under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). The division services companies in the development of privacy policies, ongoing monitoring and enforcement of stated practices, privacy complaint filtering and processing, employee training, and continuing consultation. Closing Statement I hope this testimony provides a clearer and broader understanding of the ESRB than when you arrived today. Thank you for inviting me here today and I’m grateful to have the opportunity to explain what we do and how we do it. We take great pride in our work and the service we provide to parents and other consumers of computer and video games. I look forward to having a constructive dialogue with members of the committee and answering any questions that you may have. Thank you.