January 20, 2000

Dear Chief Executive:

We were, of course, delighted to hear that Kroger will be putting Cosmopolitan behind "blinder racks." (Kroger letter enclosed, along with articles from the Cincinnati Enquirer and Cincinnati Post.)

Whatever one may think about the wisdom (or lack thereof) of Cosmo's "hot sex" tips for adults, I think most adult Americans would agree that these tips are not suitable reading material for children.

Undoubtedly, similar sex messages can be heard on TV every evening. But two wrongs don't make a right; and, in theory, parents can pull the plug on their children's TV watching. Many parents, however, must take or send their children to your supermarkets.

There is also the question of whether "family oriented" supermarkets should behave differently from the most irresponsible elements of our nation's entertainment media. Wouldn't you agree that they should?

I will add that it is not our position that no magazine with the word "sex" on the front cover should ever be openly displayed at checkouts. We recognize that there are legitimate issues involving human sexuality and that articles dealing with such issues can be promoted on the front covers without pandering to prurient interest.

We recognize that in some cases the cover "bark" may be worse than the article's "bite." In other words, some cover headlines may be more offensive than the content of the articles they luridly promote. But for those who don't purchase the magazines, it is the covers, not the content, that confront them and their children.

While we commend Kroger for putting Cosmo behind blinder racks, we do not understand why its new display policy is apparently limited to Cosmo. We find it hard to believe that Cosmo is the only magazine with raunchy cover headlines currently on display at Kroger checkouts.

For example, as I see it, in a typical month the Glamour cover is just as bad (or, almost as bad) as the Cosmo cover. On occasion, other women's magazines also put bold, lurid "hot sex" tip promos on their front covers.

Just because some "women's magazines" appear bent on making their front covers as lurid, racy, explicit and indecent as they possibly can, does not mean your stores must provide them with an unimpeded "open forum" at checkouts to display their wares. Covering the raunch is not "censorship." It's responsibility.

We hope you agree and adopt a policy to put all magazines with lurid, sexually provocative cover headlines behind blinder racks, if you display them at your checkout counters. [While we do not relish the thought of raunchy magazine covers openly displayed elsewhere in your stores, it is usually easier to avoid looking at individual covers when magazines are unobtrusively displayed parallel to a main aisle. At checkouts, customers are a captive audience; and whether standing in line or passing through, they will find it difficult to avoid looking at the covers. That's why magazines pay a premium to be there.]

You might ask yourself whether you would invite a group of neighborhood children (and, perhaps, your own children or grandchildren) to a party in your home and then require them to walk through a gantlet of the same magazines now openly displayed at your checkouts in order to enjoy your hospitality.

If you wouldn't feel comfortable doing so -- or if you fear the children's parents wouldn't -- you should reconsider your stores' display policy. It is the responsible thing to do.

Sincerely,

Robert Peters
President

P.S. To our knowledge, most supermarkets do not sell at checkouts the new breed of "men's" magazines that also promote lurid "hot sex" tips on their front covers. Clearly, the same policy that applies to "women's magazines" should also apply to these so-called "men's" magazines.