Efficacy of film and computer game classification categories and consumer advice a comparative analysis of public opinion

Classification and rating systems

1. Australia

The Australian Classification Board applies the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Act), the National Classification Code and the Classification Guidelines (the Guidelines). Classification categories for films and computer games are as follows: G, PG, M, MA 15+, R 18+, X 18+, and Refused Classification (RC). Classification categories for publications are as follows: Unrestricted, Category 1 Restricted (cannot be sold in Qld), Category 2 Restricted (cannot be sold in Qld), and Refused Classification (RC).

A comprehensive outline of the Australian classification system has been provided at Appendix A.

2. New Zealand

The New Zealand Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) is government agency established under the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 (FVPC Act). Classification categories are as follows: G, PG, M, R13, RP13, R15, RP16, R16, R18, and R.

A comprehensive outline of the New Zealand classification system has been provided at Appendix A.

3. United States

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is an industry-run scheme that is not enforced by law and is administered by the Classification & Ratings Administration (CARA). Films can be exhibited without a rating although the majority of cinemas refuse to exhibit non-rated or NC-17 rated films. Classification categories for films are as follows: G, PG, PG13, R, and NC-17.

The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) assigns rating for computer games and apps to assist American parents in making informed choices. The ESRB is a non-profit, industry-funded body and includes a rating system that provides guidance about age-appropriateness, content, and interactive elements. It also has a self-regulatory role where it enforces industry-adopted advertising guidelines and helps ensure responsible web and mobile privacy practices under its Privacy Online program. ESRB was established in 1994 by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA). Classification categories are as follows: EC (Early Childhood), E (Everyone), E10+ (Everyone 10+), T (Teen), M (Mature), AO (Adults Only).

A comprehensive outline of the US classification system has been provided at Appendix A.

4. United Kingdom

The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) is an industry-funded body. Classification decisions are based on Guidelines that are updated regularly and reflect the current views on film, DVD and video game regulation. Classification categories are as follows: U (Suitable for all), PG, 12A, 12, 15, 18, and R18.

The BBFC rates theatrically released films, and rates videos and video games that forfeited exemption from the Video Recordings Act 1984, which was discovered in August 2009 to be unenforceable until the act was re-enacted by the Video Recordings Act 2010.  Legally, local authorities have the power to decide under what circumstances films are shown in cinemas, but they nearly always choose to follow the advice of the BBFC.

A comprehensive outline of the UK classification system has been provided at Appendix A.

5. Canada

The classification of computer games is the responsibility of the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) Canada. Classification of films is the responsibility of provinces in Canada and each has its own legislation. For home video purposes, the Canadian Home Video Rating System provides general categories, which are differentially adopted across provinces. Classification categories for films are as follows: G, PG, 14A, 18A, R, and A.

6. Europe

The Interactive Software Federation of Europe (ISFE) are representatives for the video game industry on a European policy level. It aims to protect the industry and its employees against the threat of piracy and they also promote the industry-run Pan European Game Information (PEGI) ratings system. PEGI classification categories are as follows: 3, 7, 12, 16 and 18.

A comprehensive outline of the PEGI classification system has been provided at Appendix A.

7. Ireland

The Irish Film Classification Office (IFCO) is responsible for examining and certifying all cinema films and videos/DVDs distributed in Ireland. IFCO is a statutory body that is administered under two acts; the Censorship of Films Act, 1923 and the Video Recordings Act, 1989. The aim of IFCO is to provide the public (in particular, parents) with a modern and dependable system of classification that protects children and young persons, has regard for freedom of expression and has respect for the values of Irish society. Classification categories are as follows: G, PG, 12A, 15A, 16, and 18.

A comprehensive outline of the Irish classification system has been provided at Appendix A.

4. Public awareness and understanding of classification categories and consumer advice

   1. Overview of findings

• 
  Awareness and understanding of classification categories and markings amongst the Australian community was comprehensively assessed via representative quantitative research in 2002 (AC Nielsen, 2002), 2005 (Galaxy Research, 2005), and 2007 (Galaxy Research, 2007). These studies showed:
  
  • 
    High unprompted and prompted awareness of film and computer game classification categories and markings; and
    
  • 
    Moderate understanding of film and computer game classification categories and markings, with confusion most commonly observed for mid-level classifications.
    
• 
  Quantitative and qualitative research has further suggested that the Australian publics’ understanding of the consumer advice that accompanies classification markings is moderate (see for example Urbis Keys Young, 2004; Galaxy Research, 2007). Key areas of concern are as follows:
  
  • 
    The public appears to have a confused and often incorrect comprehension of the term ‘Themes’, which is included in selected consumer advice (e.g. Supernatural themes, Drug themes).
    
  • 
    The relationship between classification markings and consumer advice is poorly understood, with evidence suggesting that the public are not clear on whether consumer advice is based on standards operating in each classification category, or whether there is a wider framework that all advice fits into.
    
• 
  International studies have provided further evidence that film and computer game consumers find mid-level classifications to be the most confusing, especially when similar labels are used across multiple categories (see for example Colmar Brunton & NZ OFLC, 2011; 2011a; IFCO, 2013).
  

2. Awareness of classification categories – Australia

Unprompted awareness of the classification categories applied to films and computer games was last comprehensively assessed via a telephone survey undertaken by Galaxy Research in 2007 (Galaxy Research, 2007). This survey included 1,516 interviews with a representative sample of Australian community members aged 15 years or older¹. The results of this survey, which were reported to the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department through the Classification Decisions and Community Standards 2007 Report, showed high awareness of classification categories, with 93% of surveyed film consumers indicating that they were aware that films carry classifications and 89% of surveyed computer game consumers indicating that they were aware that computer games carry classifications. Amongst film consumers who spoke a language other than English at home, three in four (75%) indicated that they were aware that there are classification categories for films. Reported awareness was lower amongst 15-17 year olds (85%) when compared to those aged 18 years or older (94%).

Other notable findings from this survey included the following:

• 
  Unprompted awareness of individual categories amongst film consumers was very high, with nine in 10 consumers (90%) able to name (or imply knowledge of), unprompted, at least one correct classification category.
  
  • 
    The classifications that rated the highest mentions were the G (69%), PG (71%), and M (64%) classification categories.
    
  • 
    Only 23% of consumers were able to name the MA 15+ classification and only 12% were able to name the R18+ classification; however, implied knowledge of these categories was moderate (59% for MA 15+; 66% for R 18+).
    
  • 
    The X18+ classification was named correctly or near correctly by 18% of consumers – this low result is not surprising given that restrictions on sale limits opportunities for exposure to items in this classification category.
    
• 
  Upon prompting, 99% of consumers reported being aware of at least one film classification category, with 96% aware of the G classification, 97% aware of PG, 95% aware of M, 94% aware MA15+, and only 51% aware of X18+.
  
• 
  Unprompted awareness of classification ratings amongst computer game consumers was high, with eight in 10 consumers (80%) able to name, unprompted, at least one correct classification.
  
  • 
    The classifications that rated the highest unprompted mentions were the G (57%), PG (56%), and M (54%) classifications.
    
• 
  Prompted awareness was high for all four computer game classifications current at the time of surveying, with 93% of computer game consumers aware of the G classification, 88% aware of the PG classification, 91% aware of the M classification, and 88% aware of the MA 15+ classification.
  

Large surveys measuring awareness and understanding of film and computer game classification categories amongst the Australian public were undertaken in February 2002 (AC Nielsen, 2002)² , and June 2005 (Galaxy Research, 2005)³. Consistent with the results of the most recent survey undertaken by Galaxy Research (2007), these studies suggested that prompted awareness of the categories/ markings used to classify films is very high: only 3% of respondents indicated that they were unaware of any symbols in 2002 and less than .05% indicated that they were unaware of any symbols in 2005. There was also a significant increase in levels of awareness for the classification symbols used for computer games between 2002 and 2005: 64% of respondents indicated that they were aware of the G classification symbol in 2005 (compared to 28% in 2002), 42% indicated that they were aware of the G8+ symbol (compared to 20% in 2002), 55% indicated that they were aware of the MA 15+ symbol (compared to 25% in 2002), and 47% indicated that they were aware of the MA 15+ symbol (compared to 20% in 2002).

Awareness of classification markings has also been assessed by non-government organisations in Australia. For example, as part of the recent Digital Australia 2014 (DA14) survey undertaken by Bond University for the Interactive Games and Entertainment Association (IGEA), an unweighted sample of the general public was asked about their level of familiarity with computer game classification labels.⁴ Reported familiarity was mixed, with 57% of respondents indicating that they are ‘quite’ or ‘completely’ familiar with Australian determined markings and 43% indicating that they are either ‘vaguely’ or ‘not at all’ familiar with the markings.

3. Understanding of classification categories – Australia

Public understanding of film classification categories was assessed both in the survey undertaken in February 2002 (AC Nielsen, 2002) and the survey undertaken in June 2005 (Galaxy Research, 2005). In contrast to awareness, reported understanding of film classification categories was moderate, with significant variation observed across symbols. Most notably, both studies concluded that a significant portion of consumers were confused about the difference between M and MA 15+ classifications. For example, in 2005 almost half of respondents who reported being aware of the MA 15+ classification interpreted the symbol as meaning ‘Recommended for mature audience’, suggesting little understanding for the stricter conditions that apply to this classification. This conclusion is further supported by the results of the stakeholder consultation undertaken by the ALRC for the review of classification and censorship, through which a number of contributors suggested that the public did not fully comprehend the difference between the M and MA 15+ categories. These contributors proposed that public understanding could be improved either through changes to the classification categories and consumer advice, or through a consumer education campaign.

Evidence from the surveys undertaken in 2002 (AC Nielsen, 2002) and 2005 (Galaxy Research, 2005) further suggest that the Australian public are confused about the meaning of the R 18+ and X 18+ symbols. For example, in the 2005 survey only around half of respondents (including consumers and non-consumers) successfully interpreted the R 18+ symbol as meaning that the product is restricted to an audience aged 18 years and over. In addition, 18% of respondents incorrectly assumed that films rated X 18+ contain violence. In the case of both the R 18+ and X 18+ ratings, respondents who made errors in interpretation most commonly assumed that the symbol indicated that the film was ‘suitable’ for adults aged 18+, rather than legally restricted. While it is not directly stated in the Classification - Content Regulation and Convergent Media report, it is possible to infer that understanding of the R 18+ or X 18+ symbols could be also be improved through an update of the classification categories/consumer advice, or through a program of community education.

4. Understanding of consumer advice – Australia

As outlined in the Classification - Content Regulation and Convergent Media report, ‘consumer advice’ refers to the words that appear alongside the classification symbols. Consumer advice is designed to give specific information about the content of the film/ computer game – examples include ‘Strong violence’ or ‘Moderate course language’. The Classification Act currently required the Classification Board to provide consumer advice for all films and computer games it classifies, with the exception of content classified G (for which consumer advice is optional) and RC (for which consumer advice is unnecessary, as it is illegal to sell, exhibit, or otherwise distribute this content).

Evidence has consistently suggested that the Australian publics’ understanding of the consumer advice that accompanies classification symbols is limited (see for example Galaxy Research, 2007; Urbis, Keys and Young, 2004). Most notably, the public appears to have a confused and often incorrect understanding of the term ‘Themes’, which is included in selected consumer advice (e.g. Supernatural themes, Drug themes). For example, only around one in four film consumers interviewed for the Classification Decisions and Community Standards 2007 study were able to provide, unprompted, an accurate or near-accurate definition of the term ‘Themes’, and only 7% gave specific example of themes.

Qualitative research undertaken by Urbis Keys Young (2004) further noted public confusion about the relationship between classification symbols and consumer advice (p.34):

Panellists were not always clear on whether consumer advice is based on standards operating in each classification category, or whether there is a wider framework that all advice fits into. To illustrate, some people did not know that ‘Medium Level’ depends on the acceptable standards within each classification range, and that the impact of ‘Medium Level Violence’ varies according to the classification of the film or game in question.

It should, however, be noted that despite the confusion noted above, community members have consistently expressed a preference for consumer advice via both qualitative and quantitative research (see for example Galaxy Research, 2007; Urbis Keys Young 2004; 2012; see also Chapters 5 & 6, below). For example, participants in the 2004 Community Assessment Panels generally agreed that consumer advice is useful, with many expressing a desire for it to be more detailed and descriptive. Stakeholders consulted as part of the ALRC review of classification and censorship were also broadly supportive of the maintenance of consumer advice; however, many noted that a reassessment of terminology was required. Some industry submissions which expressed concern about changing the classification categories also pointed to consumer advice as the preferable mechanism for improving the clarity of classification information.

5. Noteworthy findings from comparable jurisdictions

General awareness of classification and rating systems varied considerably across the jurisdictions examined:

• 
  As part of a survey of the general public undertaken by TNS Media for the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) in 2004⁵, respondents were asked to indicate how often they noticed the classification of a film or video or DVD before deciding whether the watch it. Forty per cent of respondents indicated that they always check the classification, 43% indicated that they sometimes check the classification, and 17% indicated that they never check (BBFC & TNS Media, 2005).
  
• 
  The Interactive Software Federation of Europe (ISFE) runs the Pan European Game Information (PEGI) computer game rating system, and commissions periodic research into Europeans’ understanding and perceptions of the system. The results of the most recent survey revealed that while unprompted awareness of the PEGI scheme was limited – 52% of gamers and 44% of non-gaming parents had some awareness of the system – prompted recognition of the classification symbols was moderate, with 75% of gamers and 55% of non-gaming parents indicating that they recognised at least one symbol (GameVision, 2010).⁶
  
• 
  The US Federal Trade Commission (US FTC) regularly undertakes reviews and produces reports (entitled Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children) for the United States Congress on industry practices in the motion pictures, music, and games industry (e.g. US FTC, 2007; 2009). Among numerous other topics, these reviews assess the effectiveness of industry-run age rating systems. For the 2007 and 2009 reports, the FTC carried out an ‘undercover shopper’ survey to assess the extent to which retailers were abiding by the rating labels assigned by industry-run groups such as the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB, for games) and the Classification and Rating Administration (CARA, for films). In 2007, the FTC also surveyed parents and children to assess their familiarity with and use of games ratings (US FTC, 2007)⁷.
  
  • 
    Nearly nine in ten parents (87%) and three quarters of children (75%) indicated that they were aware that the ESRB rating system (compared to 61% of parents and 73% of children in a comparable survey undertaken in 2000).
    
  • 
    Three quarters (75%) of parents claiming familiarity with the computer game rating system correctly indicated that the system includes both an age rating and content descriptors (up from 53% in 2000).
    
  • 
    Half of parents claiming familiarity with the computer game rating system named, unaided, three ESRB ratings (E, T, or M).
    
• 
  The 2011 research Understanding the Classification System: New Zealanders’ Views concluded that awareness of the New Zealand classification labels was near universal, with only .04% surveyed members of the general public indicating that they had never seen the labels (Colmar Brunton & NZ OFLC, 2011)⁸.
  

Research undertaken in comparable jurisdictions has provided further evidence that film and computer game consumers find mid-level classification to be the most confusing, especially when similar labels are used across multiple categories (see for example Colmar Brunton & NZ OFLC 2011, 2011a; IFCO, 2013). For example, a recent survey of the New Zealand public undertaken by Colmar Brunton for the OFLC suggested that understanding of the M classification among New Zealanders is limited, with only 61% of respondents correctly labelling this classification when faced with three possible definitions (Colmar Brunton & NZ OFLC, 2011)⁹. Nineteen per cent of respondents incorrectly selected ‘Only people 16 years and over can watch the film’ and 15% incorrectly selected ‘People under 16 years can only watch the film with parents or guardians’. The results of this survey further suggest that understanding of the New Zealand RP classification is limited: slightly over two thirds of respondents correctly classified the RP13 and RP16 as meaning that people under 13 or 16, respectively, cannot view the film without an accompanying parent or guardian. This finding was supported by the results of a recent qualitative study with the New Zealand public (Colmar Brunton & NZ OFLC, 2011a, p.19):

Participants felt RP was not as ‘clear cut’ as other classifications in terms of what sort of content to expect, and who it was suitable for. It was described as something of a ‘grey area’.

Confusion about the exact definition of mid-level classifications has also been observed amongst the general public in the UK and in Ireland. Qualitative research undertaken for the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) in 2009 found that attitudes to and comprehension of the newly introduced 12A classification category were mixed, with some participants confused about the necessity and meaning of the classification (Hardie, Goldstone, & Slesenger, 2009, p.34):

I don’t understand what the differences are. I am completely confused really.

(Male with children aged 5-12)

It doesn’t make sense. What’s a PG then?

(Male with children aged 5-12)

In the Film Classification – Parental Attitudes 2013 survey final report, the IFCO noted that level of parental understanding of individual ratings – especially with regard to 12A and 15A categories – has been an area of habitual concern for the Office.¹⁰ With this concern in mind, parents were asked to outline their understanding of the 12A film classification rating. Only 63% of parents provided the following accurate definition of the 12A classification – suitable for those aged 12 and above, but parents/ guardians can accompany younger children if they deem the material appropriate (IFCO, 2013).

Finally, recent qualitative research undertaken with the movie-going public (including parents, non-parents, and youths aged 12-18 years) for the Government of Alberta, Canada by Leger Marketing concluded the following (Leger Marketing, 2009):

• 
  While the age limits for the G and R rating were clearly understood by movies-going adults, this participant group was less certain about the restrictions for the PG, 14A, and 18A ratings.
  
• 
  Similar to the adult group, movie-going youth were able to name the ratings used in Alberta but were unclear on the age restrictions assigned to the PG, 14A, and 18A ratings.
  

5.