The Teenage Magazine Arbitration Panel

Would age rating work?

Imposing an age suitability warning would only doubtfully have the desired effect of deterring potential readers. Audience research tells us that young women often choose the titles of their magazines because they identify with the target audience rather than belong to it, so that titles for older girls have aspirational appeal for younger girls. The likely consequences of this for regulation were spelled out by the Luff Bill's opponents. The arguments against the Bill in terms of feasibility were forcibly made by Simon Hughes, Liberal Democrat MP for Southwark and Bermondsey:

"... once we flag up that a magazine is for 17 year olds and above, we create the greatest incentive in the world for 14 and 15 year olds to read it because they always want to see something that is for older people. The clause would, therefore, have the wrong effects...

"We must not end up with an age marking that makes these magazines more rather than less appealing... a health warning on covers would actually increase sales."

Legislation of the type suggested in Luff's Bill then could be counter-productive, tempting young women to read magazines for an older target audience. The second argument mounted by opponents related more to practicality, namely that Luff's recommendations would be impossible to implement. Ministers believed that the suggested requirement in Luff's Bill that publishers should print suitable age limits on covers of magazines would be unenforceable.

"If we say that a publication is unsuitable for youngsters below 15, 16 or even 18 regulation would probably be impossible." - Simon Hughes MP

As a Private Members Bill the Luff Bill was unlikely to become law, not least because its recommendations were seen by many as unworkable. Yet this is not to say that its principles were invalid. If the Bill's objectives are considered worthwhile but not achievable by that mechanism, it follows that some other means of meeting them should be sought. For many, including Luff himself, a voluntary code was preferable to legislation. One of the main purposes of introducing it was, as Luff said, that the possibility of legislation would offer publishers an opportunity to reflect on the issues.

TMAP Research - Role of Teen Magazines in the Sexual Health of Young People

The Luff Bill

Age rating

Editorial balance

Encouraging early activity

'Herding' instinct

Is early sexual activity bad?

Arguements for delaying intercourse

Contraception

Educational role of magazines

Preferred sources of information



			Would age rating work? Imposing an age suitability warning would only doubtfully have the desired effect of deterring potential readers. Audience research tells us that young women often choose the titles of their magazines because they identify with the target audience rather than belong to it, so that titles for older girls have aspirational appeal for younger girls. The likely consequences of this for regulation were spelled out by the Luff Bill's opponents. The arguments against the Bill in terms of feasibility were forcibly made by Simon Hughes, Liberal Democrat MP for Southwark and Bermondsey: "... once we flag up that a magazine is for 17 year olds and above, we create the greatest incentive in the world for 14 and 15 year olds to read it because they always want to see something that is for older people. The clause would, therefore, have the wrong effects... "We must not end up with an age marking that makes these magazines more rather than less appealing... a health warning on covers would actually increase sales." Legislation of the type suggested in Luff's Bill then could be counter-productive, tempting young women to read magazines for an older target audience. The second argument mounted by opponents related more to practicality, namely that Luff's recommendations would be impossible to implement. Ministers believed that the suggested requirement in Luff's Bill that publishers should print suitable age limits on covers of magazines would be unenforceable. "If we say that a publication is unsuitable for youngsters below 15, 16 or even 18 regulation would probably be impossible." - Simon Hughes MP As a Private Members Bill the Luff Bill was unlikely to become law, not least because its recommendations were seen by many as unworkable. Yet this is not to say that its principles were invalid. If the Bill's objectives are considered worthwhile but not achievable by that mechanism, it follows that some other means of meeting them should be sought. For many, including Luff himself, a voluntary code was preferable to legislation. One of the main purposes of introducing it was, as Luff said, that the possibility of legislation would offer publishers an opportunity to reflect on the issues.
	Home News Position statement How to complain Adjudications Annual reports Events Guidelines Research TMAP Research - Role of Teen Magazines in the Sexual Health of Young People The Luff Bill Age rating Editorial balance Encouraging early activity 'Herding' instinct Is early sexual activity bad? Arguements for delaying intercourse Contraception Educational role of magazines Preferred sources of information Empowerment of women The 'dream' ticket Safer sex Conclusions The panel Useful links
	Contact: Kerry Neilson , TMAP secretariat, kerry.neilson@ppa.co.uk, 0207 400 7520

	Teenage Magazine Arbitration Panel (TMAP) 28 Kingsway London WC2B 6JR tel: 0207 400 7520 - fax: 020 7404 4167 - email: kerry.neilson@ppa.co.uk - web: www.tmap.org.uk - Terms and conditions site contact: Kerry Neilson - this site is audited by ABC Electronic -