* Adrian Tame * From: Sunday Herald Sun * November 08, 2009 12:00AM
TV viewers are being short-changed on their favourite shows, with networks flouting advertising time limits.
A Sunday Herald Sun survey of TV ads between 7pm and 10pm over three weeks found stations consistently exceeded prescribed limits on the amount of advertising they put to air.
The Government's regulatory body, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, sets limits between 6pm and midnight of 13 minutes of commercials per hour.
But every one of more than 20 popular, prime-time programs surveyed exceeded those limits - some by as much as six minutes per hour.
With prime time advertising costing up to $40,000 per minute, the extra commercials represent rich yields for the channels.
Program content between advertisements was as short as four minutes and the same ads were repeated throughout programs, sometimes in the same ad break.
Julie Flynn, CEO of Free TV Australia said advertising was an essential element of the business of commercial broadcasters allowing them to fund their programming.
"Free to air TV is the most regulated media platform in the country, and there are detailed rules on advertising time limits," she said.
Legislation dealing with TV advertising is complex and vague, but complaints from viewers are rising.
ACMA spokesman Donald Robertson said that for the authority to act against a TV station exceeding the limits, a viewer would need to make a written complaint to the station and refer it to ACMA if they were not satisfied with the response.
In 2007-08, 25 complaints were made to ACMA about advertising time limits. None was upheld.
Other complaints were made about the loudness of adsnot be louder than adjacent programs.
Mr Robertson said certain categories of advertising, such as community service announcements, were not included in the 13 minutes per hour of permitted "non-program material".
A proposed code of practice is being developed by industry body, Free TV Australia. It is understood to include a plan to exclude station promotions as commercial advertising.
Ms Flynn said broadcasters worked hard to achieve a balance between the interests of viewers and advertisers.
-------[end of article]----------
Methinks that Ms Flynn is a tad loose with the truth here. The networks' primary goal is to secure advertising and to maximise revenue. What the viewers want is secondary to this. All they need to do is to work out how to keep them watching, so that they watch the adverts.
As for the "code of practice" it's meaningless. CoPs aren't like regulations struck under an Act of Parliament (ie. law). They are little more than formal guidelines that the participants of the scheme, whatever it is, may or may not wish to abide by.
There needs to be regulations and ones that ACMA can enforce. FreeTV Australia, despite its claim about its industry being "heavily regulated", has had a bloody good run to date. It gets to pick the cream out of sporting events, gets to hog them, too. It also gets first dibs at most commercial television programs as well. If it was as regulated as pay television was it'd be screaming blue bloody murder.
> * Adrian Tame > * From: Sunday Herald Sun > * November 08, 2009 12:00AM
> TV viewers are being short-changed on their favourite shows, with networks > flouting advertising time limits.
> A Sunday Herald Sun survey of TV ads between 7pm and 10pm over three weeks found > stations consistently exceeded prescribed limits on the amount of advertising > they put to air.
> The Government's regulatory body, the Australian Communications and Media > Authority, sets limits between 6pm and midnight of 13 minutes of commercials per > hour.
> But every one of more than 20 popular, prime-time programs surveyed exceeded > those limits - some by as much as six minutes per hour.
> With prime time advertising costing up to $40,000 per minute, the extra > commercials represent rich yields for the channels.
> Program content between advertisements was as short as four minutes and the same > ads were repeated throughout programs, sometimes in the same ad break.
> Julie Flynn, CEO of Free TV Australia said advertising was an essential element > of the business of commercial broadcasters allowing them to fund their > programming.
> "Free to air TV is the most regulated media platform in the country, and there > are detailed rules on advertising time limits," she said.
> Legislation dealing with TV advertising is complex and vague, but complaints > from viewers are rising.
> ACMA spokesman Donald Robertson said that for the authority to act against a TV > station exceeding the limits, a viewer would need to make a written complaint to > the station and refer it to ACMA if they were not satisfied with the response.
> In 2007-08, 25 complaints were made to ACMA about advertising time limits. None > was upheld.
> Other complaints were made about the loudness of adsnot be louder than adjacent > programs.
> Mr Robertson said certain categories of advertising, such as community service > announcements, were not included in the 13 minutes per hour of permitted > "non-program material".
> A proposed code of practice is being developed by industry body, Free TV > Australia. It is understood to include a plan to exclude station promotions as > commercial advertising.
> Ms Flynn said broadcasters worked hard to achieve a balance between the > interests of viewers and advertisers.
> -------[end of article]----------
> Methinks that Ms Flynn is a tad loose with the truth here. The networks' primary > goal is to secure advertising and to maximise revenue. What the viewers want is > secondary to this. All they need to do is to work out how to keep them watching, > so that they watch the adverts.
> As for the "code of practice" it's meaningless. CoPs aren't like regulations > struck under an Act of Parliament (ie. law). They are little more than formal > guidelines that the participants of the scheme, whatever it is, may or may not > wish to abide by.
> There needs to be regulations and ones that ACMA can enforce. FreeTV Australia, > despite its claim about its industry being "heavily regulated", has had a bloody > good run to date. It gets to pick the cream out of sporting events, gets to hog > them, too. It also gets first dibs at most commercial television programs as > well. If it was as regulated as pay television was it'd be screaming blue bloody > murder.
I wonder how much revenue they raise from newsbreaks and program promotions. They're part of the show now there is so much.
Numero Neuf wrote: > In 2007-08, 25 complaints were made to ACMA about advertising time limits. None > was upheld.
And when you do complain, and they don't uphold your complaint, they don't provide details of their analysis, they just provide their conclusion.
Which reminds me, I've really got to get round to making a complaint to the Ombudsman about the ACMA's failure to provide a transparent response to my complaint to the ACMA where I provided considerable detail (spreadsheet analysis and recording of the offending transmission), and they just basically said "Nup".
Numero Neuf wrote: > Methinks that Ms Flynn is a tad loose with the truth here. The networks' primary > goal is to secure advertising and to maximise revenue. What the viewers want is > secondary to this. All they need to do is to work out how to keep them watching, > so that they watch the adverts.
Yes. Still, their strategy looks a bit strange sometimes. They trim their imported material (somtimes rather crudely) to make space for station promos. This seems calculated to annoy viewers rather than keep them watching, and I doubt they pay for their imports based on the number of minutes actually broadcast.
> Which reminds me, I've really got to get round to making a complaint to > the Ombudsman about the ACMA's failure to provide a transparent response > to my complaint to the ACMA where I provided considerable detail > (spreadsheet analysis and recording of the offending transmission), and > they just basically said "Nup".
Of course, they have always been there to look after the broadcasters interest, even writing letters of support to the newspapers in the past. (remember Alan Jones' mate :-(
IF you want anything done you will need to pay a far bigger bribe Sylvia :-)
> Numero Neuf wrote: > > Methinks that Ms Flynn is a tad loose with the truth here. The networks' primary > > goal is to secure advertising and to maximise revenue. What the viewers want is > > secondary to this. All they need to do is to work out how to keep them watching, > > so that they watch the adverts.
> Yes. Still, their strategy looks a bit strange sometimes. They trim > their imported material (somtimes rather crudely) to make space for > station promos. This seems calculated to annoy viewers rather than keep > them watching, and I doubt they pay for their imports based on the > number of minutes actually broadcast.
And with so many people having PVR's these days, who bothers to watch the ads or promo's anyway? Why waste an hour a day on that crap if you don't have to?
Mr.T wrote: > "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message > news:00546561$0$8180$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com... >> Numero Neuf wrote: >>> Methinks that Ms Flynn is a tad loose with the truth here. The networks' > primary >>> goal is to secure advertising and to maximise revenue. What the viewers > want is >>> secondary to this. All they need to do is to work out how to keep them > watching, >>> so that they watch the adverts. >> Yes. Still, their strategy looks a bit strange sometimes. They trim >> their imported material (somtimes rather crudely) to make space for >> station promos. This seems calculated to annoy viewers rather than keep >> them watching, and I doubt they pay for their imports based on the >> number of minutes actually broadcast.
> And with so many people having PVR's these days, who bothers to watch the > ads or promo's anyway? > Why waste an hour a day on that crap if you don't have to?
Waste an hour a day? That would be three hours of television watching.
We struggle to find an hour a day in total to watch those shows that we've recorded because we want to watch them. The stuff tends to accumulate until the next flood of repeats.
> > And with so many people having PVR's these days, who bothers to watch the > > ads or promo's anyway? > > Why waste an hour a day on that crap if you don't have to?
> Waste an hour a day? That would be three hours of television watching.
Yep, that's about the national average last time I saw figures. I'd be under that of course, *because* I skip the garbage. In fact the average figure has probably dropped now for the same reason.
Mr.T wrote: > "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message > news:00546561$0$8180$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com... >> Numero Neuf wrote: >>> Methinks that Ms Flynn is a tad loose with the truth here. The networks' > primary >>> goal is to secure advertising and to maximise revenue. What the viewers > want is >>> secondary to this. All they need to do is to work out how to keep them > watching, >>> so that they watch the adverts. >> Yes. Still, their strategy looks a bit strange sometimes. They trim >> their imported material (somtimes rather crudely) to make space for >> station promos. This seems calculated to annoy viewers rather than keep >> them watching, and I doubt they pay for their imports based on the >> number of minutes actually broadcast.
> And with so many people having PVR's these days, who bothers to watch the > ads or promo's anyway? > Why waste an hour a day on that crap if you don't have to?
They turn the ads into a viewing experience by taking up so much time and combining them with newsbreaks and promos. Some ads look as if they are meant for part of the viewing experience the way they are produced.
Sylvia Else wrote... > And when you do complain, and they don't uphold your complaint, they > don't provide details of their analysis, they just provide their conclusion.
Yeah, just read your note in the Herald-Sun about that.
As I posted in aus.legal you must have a lot of free time to go to the trouble that you did.
>> And when you do complain, and they don't uphold your complaint, they >> don't provide details of their analysis, they just provide their conclusion.
> Yeah, just read your note in the Herald-Sun about that.
> As I posted in aus.legal you must have a lot of free time to go to the trouble > that you did.
It's not a reasonable conclusion. All you can infer is that I considered this a more worthwile use of some of my free time that other things that I could have used it for instead.
The posting on aus.legal about my free time was under the name Marts.
> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message > news:006ee618$0$1494$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com... >> > And with so many people having PVR's these days, who bothers to watch > the >> > ads or promo's anyway? >> > Why waste an hour a day on that crap if you don't have to?
>> Waste an hour a day? That would be three hours of television watching.
> Yep, that's about the national average last time I saw figures. I'd be under > that of course, *because* I skip the garbage. In fact the average figure has > probably dropped now for the same reason.
> As always, YMMV.
WTSF the average is 3 hours watching a DAY ?
JHCOAS :-(
Googles says thats about right, crikey, I would have thought an hour a day average was heavy . And still they can't cram enough ads in ?
> > "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message > >news:006ee618$0$1494$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com... > >> > And with so many people having PVR's these days, who bothers to watch > > the > >> > ads or promo's anyway? > >> > Why waste an hour a day on that crap if you don't have to?
> >> Waste an hour a day? That would be three hours of television watching.
> > Yep, that's about the national average last time I saw figures. I'd be under > > that of course, *because* I skip the garbage. In fact the average figure has > > probably dropped now for the same reason.
> > As always, YMMV.
> WTSF the average is 3 hours watching a DAY ?
> JHCOAS :-(
> Googles says thats about right, crikey, I would have thought an hour > a day average was heavy . > And still they can't cram enough ads in ?
> JFHFCOAFS :-(
How on earth can people justify spending an hour a day watching tv? I'm flat out finding the time to spend 8 to 10 minutes each day posting here and upgrading my popular blog.. I only dream of having a spare hour to do these sort of things. People need to work harder.
> They turn the ads into a viewing experience by taking up so much time > and combining them with newsbreaks and promos. > Some ads look as if they are meant for part of the viewing experience > the way they are produced.
Fine if that's what you like, but not my idea of a "viewing experience"! Some people actually watch the KAK ad show, or David and Kim's ad show I guess. Then of course there are the shows of the "worlds best ads" type. But the only one that has anything to do with ads that I watched was the "Gruen Transfer".
> Googles says thats about right, crikey, I would have thought an hour > a day average was heavy . > And still they can't cram enough ads in ?
As I said, because they cram so many ads in *was* part of the reason people watch too much TV. *2 hours* of program takes 3 hours if you watch commercial TV in real time. People are probably watching just as long these days though, on their big flat screen TV's, (why else would you buy one?) but I bet they are watching less ads because of the high rate of PVR and DVD usage now.
|
