Alcohol Advertising at Boston Subway Stations: An Assessment of Exposure by Race and Socioeconomic Status

Abstract

Objectives. We investigated the frequency of alcohol ads at all 113 subway and streetcar stations in Boston and the patterns of community exposure stratified by race, socioeconomic status, and age.

Methods. We assessed the extent of alcohol advertising at each station in May 2009. We measured gross impressions and gross rating points (GRPs) for the entire Greater Boston population and for Boston public school student commuters. We compared the frequency of alcohol advertising between neighborhoods with differing demographics.

Results. For the Greater Boston population, alcohol advertising at subway stations generated 109 GRPs on a typical day. For Boston public school students in grades 5 to 12, alcohol advertising at stations generated 134 GRPs. Advertising at stations in low-poverty neighborhoods generated 14.1 GRPs and at stations in high-poverty areas, 63.6 GRPs.

Conclusions. Alcohol ads reach the equivalent of every adult in the Greater Boston region and the equivalent of every 5th- to 12th-grade public school student each day. More alcohol ads were displayed in stations in neighborhoods with high poverty rates than in stations in neighborhoods with low poverty rates.

Excessive alcohol use is the third-leading lifestyle-related cause of death in the United States.¹ Immediate health risks include unintentional injuries,² violence,^2,3 risky sexual behaviors,^4,5 miscarriage and stillbirth among pregnant women,^6,7 fetal alcohol syndrome,⁷ and alcohol poisoning.⁸ Long-term health risks include neurological,^9,10 cardiovascular,^11,12 and psychiatric problems,¹³ as well as an increased risk of cancer,^12,14 liver disease,^12,15,16 and pancreatitis.^12,17,18 Excessive alcohol use is also linked to a variety of social problems, including increased unemployment¹⁹ and frequency of violent crime and incarceration.^20,21 Drinking among underage youths is increasing.^22–25 Excessive alcohol use also has economic consequences. Alcohol-related health care utilization (e.g., motor vehicle crashes, fires), productivity losses, social welfare (e.g., food stamps), and criminal justice cost the United States an estimated $184.6 billion in 1998 alone.^12,26

Alcohol advertising has historically been linked to increased consumption of alcohol in youths,^25,27–31 and a more recent study also shows an increase in consumption by adults.³² These data come from studies of advertising in a variety of media, including television, music video, public transit, and outdoor advertising.^25–31 Alcohol is disproportionately advertised in low-income neighborhoods^33,34 and in neighborhoods with a high proportion of racial and ethnic minorities.^32,34–36

Studies have shown that people of color experience poorer health outcomes and shorter life expectancies than do Whites.³⁷ Individuals of lower socioeconomic status also have been found to have higher morbidity and mortality and more risk factors for heart disease and stroke than do people of higher socioeconomic status.³⁸ Minorities are more likely to live in poverty, which exacerbates the negative consequences of alcohol use.³⁹ Because racial and ethnic minorities and individuals of lower socioeconomic status are at a higher risk for poor health and have been identified as targets of alcohol advertising, it is critical that advertising policies change to protect these disadvantaged groups. Hackbarth et al. suggest that reducing alcohol consumption among disadvantaged groups through community intervention, such as banning alcohol advertising, would be one way to eliminate such health disparities.³⁶

In 2007 Kwate et al. determined that Black neighborhoods in New York City had more advertising space than White neighborhoods and that these spaces were disproportionately used to market alcohol and tobacco products.³⁵ However, they did not find a significant relationship between median income and ad density, which suggests that relative affluence did not protect Black neighborhoods from targeted outdoor advertising.

Advertising on public transportation has received little attention in the literature. In 2007, a report issued by the Marin Institute documented the advertising practices of 20 public transit agencies nationwide. The report found that 2 major cities, Boston, Massachusetts and New York City, lagged far behind other cities that had policies in place to protect children from alcohol advertising.²⁵ Chicago, Illinois; Los Angeles, California; San Francisco, California; Washington, DC; and other places explicitly prohibit alcohol advertising on public transit systems. For example, San Francisco imposes a $5000 per day fine for violating advertising policies.²⁵ By contrast, the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA), which serves the Boston area, has no such restrictions against alcohol advertising, although it claims to prohibit all “adult-oriented goods and services.” The MBTA bans advertising that features tobacco, violence, or nudity because they are considered inappropriate for viewing by minors.²⁵ It is disturbing that one of the largest cities in the United States has not yet adopted stricter policies to protect its riders from potentially harmful alcohol ads.

In 2009, Nyborn et al. studied the frequency of alcohol advertising on MBTA train cars and found that alcohol advertisers were able to reach the equivalent of nearly half of all transit passengers each day.⁴⁰ These data showed that roughly 315 000 people, or 11% of the entire adult population in the greater Boston area (Suffolk, Middlesex, and Norfolk counties; total 2008 population = 2 841 374⁴¹) may be exposed to alcohol ads on the MBTA train lines alone. However, that study focused on ads on moving trains and did not consider the frequency of alcohol ads at train stations and how this frequency might differ between neighborhoods. We expanded the focus to include train stations to investigate whether alcohol advertising targeted particular socioeconomic or racial/ethnic groups.

We aimed to (1) quantify exposure to alcohol advertising at MBTA train stations among adults in the greater Boston area and among Boston public school students in grades 5 to 12 and (2) compare the frequency of alcohol ads in different MBTA train stations to determine whether minority or poor populations were disproportionately exposed.

METHODS

The MBTA is the fifth-largest mass transit system in the nation, serving the Greater Boston region as well as 175 cities and towns in Massachusetts.⁴² The system consists of rapid transit trains, streetcars, buses, commuter rail trains, and ferries. The rapid transit and streetcar routes serve 6 lines (Blue, Red, Green, Orange, Silver, and Mattapan high speed). The Blue line is a short rapid rail train line serving 12 stations, and the Green line is a 4-branch streetcar line serving 66 stations. Of these 66 Green line stations, 53 are above ground and 13 are below ground. The Red and Orange lines are underground rapid transit lines; the Red line serves 22 stations (excluding connector service), and the Orange line serves 19 stations. Approximately 525 023 people pass through these stations each weekday (M. Dullea, MBTA, personal communication, July 22, 2009).

Sample and Procedures

We focused on the train and streetcar stations located in the 3 counties that compose the Greater Boston area: Norfolk, Middlesex, and Suffolk. All stations on the Blue, Green, Red, and Orange lines, excluding commuter rail and connector stations, were part of the analysis (n = 113). A group of 3 data collectors visited all of these stations over the course of 3 consecutive days in May 2009 to assess alcohol advertising in each station. Alcohol ads were included in the study if they were visible upon entering the doorway or turnstile of the station and were on fixed MBTA property. We did not include ads on the exterior or interior of the trains or on the exterior of MBTA station buildings.

We determined interrater reliability through a pilot data collection survey. Three data collectors visited the same 3 stations within 72 hours of one another and compared the number of observed alcohol ads. We performed an interrater reliability analysis with the κ statistic to determine consistency among raters during the pilot survey and again on a subset of data from the official data collection period.

Measures

Sample characteristics.

We collected data on the number of alcohol ads, type of alcohol advertised (beer, wine, spirits, alcopops, or other), alcohol brand name, size of ads (small, medium, large, or extra large), and description (e.g., slogan, images, and race and gender of models) of each ad. Data collectors took a photograph of each ad and used identical data collection forms for each station.

Demographics.

We collected data on the percentage of racial/ethnic minority residents and the percentage of residents living below the poverty level (as defined by the US Census Bureau in 2000) in the vicinity of each MBTA station. We gathered these data, categorized by census tract, from the 2000 census and 2009 American Community Survey.⁴¹ We used these data to determine the demographic characteristics of transit passengers who started their commute at a given station.

We then used these demographic data to categorize each station as either low minority (< 23% of the population in the surrounding census tract was non-White) or high minority (≥ 23% of the population in the surrounding census tract was non-White). For the second comparison, we categorized each station as either low poverty (< 10% of the population in the surrounding census tract was living at or below the poverty line) or high poverty (≥ 10% of the population in the surrounding census tract was living at or below the poverty line). We based the thresholds for categorization (23% and 10%) on the mean percentages for the 3 counties. Therefore, for example, a station categorized as high minority was a station in a neighborhood in which minority representation was equal to or higher than the average percentage for the 3 counties.

We then compared the stations' racial/ethnic categories to calculate the average number of alcohol ads found among the grouped stations. We conducted the same comparison for the poverty categories.

Gross impressions.

In advertising terminology, a gross impression is the single potential viewing of an ad. For a single ad located in a subway station, the number of gross impressions generated by that ad on a typical day is the total number of subway riders who use that station during a typical day (because every single person may potentially view that ad). Thus, to calculate the total number of gross impressions generated by all of the alcohol ads in a subway station in a typical day, the number of ads is multiplied by the number of subway riders who use that station during a typical day. Gross impressions provided an approximation of the number of times alcohol ads were viewed at each station.

We calculated gross impressions by multiplying the average ridership at a station by the number of alcohol ads at the station and then multiplying by 2. We chose to multiply by 2 to account for the assumption that each transit passenger must enter as well as exit a station when riding the train 1 way. Because the ridership data only reflected the number of entrances at a given station, multiplying by 2 provided a reasonable estimate of station exposures, assuming each entering passenger was likely to exit the same station on a return trip later in the day.

Gross rating points.

The number of gross impressions provides a sense of the total number of people exposed to an ad, but it does not indicate the proportion of the target population that views an ad because it does not account for population size. Gross rating points (GRPs) are a standard measure used to estimate the percentage of a target population reached by ads.⁴³ The advertising industry calculates this figure with the total population of interest, not simply the population that is exposed to the ad. GRPs are calculated by dividing the total number of gross impressions for an ad by the number of individuals in the population of interest and multiplying by 100. A GRP of 100 means that a single ad reaches the equivalent of 100% of the population on a given day. It does not necessarily mean that every individual in the target population sees 1 ad. It could also mean that 50% of the population sees 2 ads, 25% of the population sees 4 ads, and so on. A GRP of 100 indicates that there were enough advertising impressions to expose 100% of the population to 1 advertising impression. Advertisers want their ads to have the highest GRPs possible, and the GRPs desired by the advertiser often determine the pricing of ads.

Gross rating points among Greater Boston adults.

For our analysis, the target population included all adults in the greater Boston area, represented by the total population of the 3 counties served by the MBTA system. Thus, we calculated the number of GRPs among Greater Boston adults by dividing the total number of gross impressions generated by alcohol ads at the MBTA stations by the combined population of the 3 Greater Boston counties and multiplying by 100.

Gross rating points among Boston public school students.

Our target population was all Boston public school students in grades 5 to 12. We calculated the number of GRPs among these students by dividing the total number of gross impressions generated among public school student commuters at the MBTA stations by the total number of public school students in grades 5 to 12 and multiplying by 100. We used the estimated average number of public school commuters in the target age range on a typical weekday from Nyborn et al.,⁴⁰ who used Boston public school ridership data provided by the MBTA.⁴⁴ We only analyzed stations within the city limits, where Boston public school students might start their commute. To calculate the GRP for our target population, we used the number of Boston public school students in grades 5 to 12 from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.⁴⁵

We also calculated gross impressions and GRPs to compare stations in high- and low-minority neighborhoods, as well as stations in areas with higher and lower rates of poverty.

RESULTS

The interrater reliability was 100% (κ = 1) during both the pilot survey and the main data collection period. The total number of alcohol ads throughout MBTA train stations was 196. All alcohol ads observed in the MBTA stations were for beer or spirits. The brands represented in the train stations were Heineken, Corona, Coors, Amstel, and Absolut. Beer ads (n = 149) were approximately 3 times as prevalent as ads for spirits (n = 47).

Ad Distribution by Brand and Demographic Characteristics

At the time of data collection, Coors was running a station domination campaign in Kenmore Station, which we determined by the presence of 57 Coors ads inside the station. Kenmore station was in an area with low racial/ethnic minority representation and high poverty rates. In light of the domination campaign in Kenmore Station, as well as many other factors that might affect ad placement at the station, such as proximity to Fenway Park and to neighborhoods with large college student populations, we removed it from the station groupings and placed it in a category of its own.

Coors ads were twice as prevalent and Absolut ads were more than 3 times as prevalent at low-minority as at high-minority stations. Heineken ads were 3 times as prevalent, Coors ads were more than 3 times as prevalent, and Absolut ads were almost 3 times as prevalent at high-poverty as at low-poverty stations (Table 1).

TABLE 1.

Average Number of Alcohol Ads per Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Station, by Brand and Neighborhood Demographic Characteristics: Boston, 2009

	Type of Neighborhood Surrounding Station
Alcohol Ads	Low Minority,a No.	High Minority,b No.	Low Poverty,c No.	High Poverty,d No.	Kenmore,e No.	Total Ads, No.
Brand
Heineken	19	17	9	27	0	36
Corona	0	1	0	1	0	1
Coors	34	16	12	38	57	107
Amstel	4	1	3	2	0	5
Absolut	36	11	12	35	0	47
Type
Beer	57	35	24	68	57	149
Spirits	36	11	12	35	0	47
Total	93	46	36	103	57	196

^aPopulation in census tract was < 23% non-White.

^bPopulation in census tract was ≥ 23% non-White.

^c< 10% of population in census tract was living below federal poverty line.

^d≥ 10% of population in census tract was living below federal poverty line.

^eKenmore Station was analyzed independently because of its geographic proximity to Fenway Park and neighborhoods with high populations of college students, as well as the presence of a station domination campaign for Coors beer at the time of the study.

Table 2 shows the alcohol ad distribution at the stations in the sample by race/ethnicity and by poverty level. Stations with low racial/ethnic minority representation had twice as many alcohol ads (n = 93) as did stations with high racial/ethnic minority representation (n = 46); stations with high poverty rates had almost 3 times as many alcohol ads (n = 103) as did stations with low poverty rates (n = 36).

TABLE 2.

Distribution of Alcohol Ads at Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Stations by Demographic Characteristics: Boston, 2009

	Type of Neighborhood Surrounding Station
	Low Minority,a No.	High Minority,b No.	Low Poverty,c No.	High Poverty,d No.	Kenmore,e No.	Total, No.
Ads	93	46	36	103	57	196
Stations	61	52	31	81	1	113
Ads/station, average	1.52	0.88	1.16	1.27	NA	1.73
Ad size
Small	82	42	25	99	40	164
Medium	11	4	8	7	0	15
Large	0	0	0	0	10	10
Extra large	0	0	0	0	7	7

Note. NA = not available.

^aPopulation in census tract was < 23% non-White.

^bPopulation in census tract was ≥ 23% non-White.

^c< 10% of population in census tract was living below federal poverty line.

^d≥ 10% of population in census tract was living below federal poverty line.

^eKenmore Station was analyzed independently because of its geographic proximity to Fenway Park and neighborhoods with high populations of college students, as well as the presence of a station domination campaign for Coors beer at the time of the study.

The average number of alcohol ads was lower in high-minority (0.88) than in low-minority (1.52) stations (Table 3). By contrast, stations with high rates of poverty had a higher average number of alcohol ads (1.27) than did stations with low rates of poverty (1.16).

TABLE 3.

Alcohol Ad Exposure on Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Trains for All Commuters: Boston, 2009

	Type of Neighborhood Surrounding Station
	Low Minority,a No.	High Minority,b No.	Low Poverty,c No.	High Poverty,d No.	Kenmore,e No.	Total, No.
Weekday ridership/station, average	4 320	4 958	3 985	4 857	8 025	4 646
Alcohol ads, average	1.52	0.88	1.16	1.27	57	1.73
Gross impressions/df	689 356	445 825	205 588	929 593	457 425	3 185 212
Gross rating pointsg	47.1	30.5	14.1	63.6	31.3	109

^aPopulation in census tract was < 23% non-White.

^bPopulation in census tract was ≥ 23% non-White.

^c< 10% of population in census tract was living below federal poverty line.

^d≥ 10% of population in census tract was living below federal poverty line.

^eKenmore Station was analyzed independently because of its geographic proximity to Fenway Park and neighborhoods with high populations of college students, as well as the presence of a station domination campaign for Coors beer at the time of the study.

^fCalculated by multiplying the no. of transit passengers on a given weekday by average no. of ads.

^gCalculated by dividing gross impressions/D for each study population by the total no. of people in the target audience for that population, then multiplying each quotient by 100.

Gross Rating Points

Greater Boston population.

Alcohol advertising at MBTA subway stations generated a total of 3 185 212 impressions on a typical day. We divided these impressions by the total population of the greater Boston area (2 924 889)⁴¹ and then multiplied by 100, resulting in an estimate of 109 GRPs among the Greater Boston population on a typical day (Table 4).

TABLE 4.

Alcohol Ad Exposure at Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Stations: Boston, 2009

Population	Weekday Ridership, Average No.	Alcohol Ads per Station, Average No.	Gross Impressions per Day, No.	Gross Rating Points, No.
Total	525 023a	1.73	318 5212b	109c
Boston public school students in grades 5–12	9 615d	2.36	45 383e	134f

Note. Combined populations of Suffolk, Middlesex, and Norfolk counties totaled 2 924 889.⁴¹ The student sample size was n = 33 776.

^aM. Dullea, Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority, personal communication, July 22, 2009.

^bCalculated by multiplying the ridership at each station by the no. of ads displayed at that station, then multiplying by 2. The total gross impressions/d is the sum of the gross impressions for each station.

^cCalculated by dividing the gross impressions/d by the total no. of people in the Greater Boston population and multiplying each quotient by 100.

^dNyborn et al.⁴⁰

^eCalculated by multiplying the no. of student passengers on an average weekday by the average no. of ads/station within the Boston city limits, then multiplying by 2.

^fCalculated by dividing the total gross impressions/d for student commuters by the total population of Boston public school students in grades 5–12.

Station types.

The GRP data by station type is provided in Table 3. According to the MBTA, on a typical weekday in 2008, 525 023 commuters used the train system. Disaggregated by station type, the average weekday ridership per station was as follows: low-minority stations, n = 4 320; high-minority stations, n = 4 958; low-poverty stations, n = 3 985; high-poverty stations, n = 4 857; and Kenmore, n = 8 025. The gross impressions per day varied significantly by station type: 689 356 at low-minority stations, 445 825 at high-minority stations, 205 588 at low-poverty stations, 929 593 at high-poverty stations, and 457 425 at Kenmore.

GRPs were greater for stations in neighborhoods with low racial/ethnic minority representation (GRP = 47.1) than for stations surrounded by high-minority neighborhoods (GRP = 30.5) and greater for high-poverty (GRP = 63.6) than low-poverty stations (GRP = 14.1; Table 3).

Boston public school students.

Among MBTA stations within Boston's city limits, the average number of alcohol ads viewed was 2.36. On a typical weekday, 9615 public school students in grades 5 to 12 commuted to school via MBTA.⁴⁰ We multiplied student commuters by ads per station, then multiplied by 2 to capture the beginning and end of each commute, which produced an estimate of 45 383 gross impressions per day. By dividing the estimated gross impressions per day by the number of total Boston public school students enrolled in grades 5 to 12 (n = 33 776) and multiplying by 100, we calculated an estimated 134 GRPs for alcohol ads in a typical day among 5th- to 12th-grade Boston public school students (Table 4).

DISCUSSION

Our study expands on the 2009 report by Nyborn et al. that analyzed alcohol ads on or in MBTA train cars in greater Boston. We found that alcohol advertising in MBTA subway stations exposed the equivalent of every adult in the greater Boston region to an average of 1.09 alcohol ads every day and the equivalent of every Boston public school student in grades 5 to 12 to an average of 1.34 alcohol ads per day. To put these values into context, GRPs of 109 for adults and 134 for youths suggest that alcohol advertising exposure achieved through subway stations alone in 1 day was more than 3 times as great as the exposure that would be achieved among the Greater Boston population through airing a Super Bowl commercial (32 GRPs),⁴⁶ and more than 14 times as great as the exposure that would be achieved among Boston youths from the same Super Bowl commercial (9.5 GRPs).⁴⁷ These results showed how effective MBTA advertising was in exposing adults and youths to alcohol advertising.

We found that alcohol was more heavily advertised in distinct Boston neighborhoods with high rates of poverty than in neighborhoods with low rates of poverty, suggesting that alcohol advertising targeted low-income communities. This is important because the populations of these neighborhoods are already at an increased risk for poorer health,^37,38 and imbalanced targeting of these vulnerable populations is counterproductive to the goal of reducing health disparities—especially in light of the known influence of alcohol advertising on consumer behavior.^25–32

Limitations

We did not collect data on alcohol advertising at bus stops or on buses. Many low-income neighborhoods rely on bus service. Consequently, we may have greatly underestimated alcohol advertising exposure. We conducted our study during baseball season. The high ad density at Kenmore might have been attributable to the station's location near Fenway Park.

We did not study the correlation between alcohol ad density and station proximity to colleges and college housing. The greater Boston area is home to many colleges and universities. For instance, the area near Kenmore Station had a high concentration of college students, and this may explain its high ad density. Because we did not assess the college-aged population in each census tract, we are unable to rule out the possibility that the disproportionate level of alcohol advertising in areas with populations of low socioeconomic status is explained by marketing to college students. Future studies should specifically account for the proportion of college students living in each census tract.

Conclusions

Our findings demonstrate that public transportation in an urban area serves as an efficient media vehicle by which alcohol advertisers can heavily expose school-aged youths and low-income groups. In light of the health risks associated with drinking among youths and low-income populations, as well as the established link between alcohol advertising and alcohol consumption among both youths and adults, the state of Massachusetts should consider eliminating alcohol advertising on its public transit system.

Other cities and states that allow alcohol advertising on their public transit systems should also consider eliminating this advertising to protect vulnerable populations, including underage students, from potentially extensive exposure.