You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Research papers
Movies with smoking make less money
  1. Stanton A Glantz1,
  2. Jonathan R Polansky2
  1. 1Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
  2. 2Onbeyond LLC, Fairfax, California, USA
  1. Correspondence to Professor Stanton A Glantz, Professor of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143-1390, USA; glantz{at}medicine.ucsf.edu

Abstract

Objective To determine the relationship between presence of smoking in films and total box office receipts.

Methods Regression analysis of box office receipts as a function of film rating, production budget, year of release and presence of smoking for 1232 films released in the USA between 2002 and 2010.

Results R-rated films made, on average, 87% (95% CI 83% to 90%) of what PG-13 films of similar smoking status made and smoking films made 87% (95% CI 79% to 96%) of what comparably rated smoke-free films made. Larger budget films made more money. There was no significant effect of release year or G/PG rating compared with PG-13-rated movies.

Conclusions Because PG-13 films without smoking (median $48.6 million) already make 41% more money at the box office than R-rated movies with smoking (median $34.4 million), implementing an R rating for smoking to remove it from youth-rated films will not conflict with the economic self-interest of producer-distributors.

  • Advocacy
  • environmental tobacco smoke
  • economics
  • environment
  • advertising and promotion
  • tobacco industry
  • qualitative study
  • marginalised populations
  • industry public relations/media
  • industry documents

https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050023

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Funding This work was supported by the Legacy Foundation. The funding agency played no role in the selection of the research question, the conduct of the research or preparation of the manuscript. SAG is American Legacy Foundation Distinguished Professor in Tobacco Control.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.