Congress outlaws loud commercials

[harley]

As some of you might be aware, I'm pretty much against creating new laws. I think we have too many already, and most of them result in either unintended consequences or selective enforcement. However, I think I mught be in favor of this one.

Senate votes to turn down volume on TV commercials - Yahoo! News

I would think it would be a positive thing for the advertising industry and their clients to quit making commercials so obnoxious (volume, not content. No controlling that ). It was those incredibly loud commercials that first caused me to get a VCR, then a DVR, so I could skip the commercials. But if they aren't so loud I sometimes let them play, although I usually read something on the laptop while they play. But if it's loud and obnoxious I'll either mute (realtime) or FF (DVR). I'd be interested to hear what the unintended consequences of this one might be.

[ziggy29]

I'm not so much against this per se, but golly, don't they have far more important things to do than regulate the volume of commercials?

[Payin-the-Toll]

My understanding is that both houses passed a bill against this, but they have to reconcile their bills, so it may still be a while before it becomes law. -wife just mutes them all.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Payin-the-Toll -wife just mutes them all.

Same here, which pretty much makes this "issue" a mute point as far as I'm concerned.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 I'm not so much against this per se, but golly, don't they have far more important things to do than regulate the volume of commercials?

If this is how well they do the unimportant things, then are you sure you want them to start tackling the important things?

Now that they've adjourned to campaign for re-election consult with their constituents, I wonder how many of them will apply this law's principles to their media content.

[Martha]

Well, the FCC as regulator could have done something about this problem years ago but always just threw up its hands and said "it's too hard." This is the legislature's message to the FCC.

[IBWino]

While I agree that there are more important things that congress should be doing, I'm happy to see something finally being done about this. Most commercials seem to be louder than the program they interrupt, but some nearly blow me out of my chair. I agree with Martha that the FCC should have addressed this.

[M Paquette]

It won't work. No matter what set of regulations are specified, they'll be a set of mechanical limits of some form; peak loudness, or loudness integrated across some time window, or similar things that can be converted to a meter reading. Advertisers, wanting their commercials to stand out in some way, will simply adapt. The loudness integrated over a time window might be met, for example, with most of the window relatively quiet, but a really loud short noise in the middle. Blipverts. Or, they might play games with spectral distribution, which would be really annoying.

Worst case, they'll complain the regulation and law interfere with their free speech rights. (Yes, corporations have free speech rights. Remember the 'money is free speech' cases?)

[donheff]

I hope Congress squashes the commercials. About time. As to better things for them to do, forgeddaboudit. With a 60% Senate requirement to get a 50% vote heard they can never get anything important done. Gridlock will likely be even worse after November.

[Birdie Num Nums]

Now if they would only outlaw those extremely obtrusive lower-right TV channel logos! I refuse to watch channels such as Lifetime for just this reason alone--its logo taking up almost 10% of the screen, it seems.

[Bimmerbill]

I agree Birdie! I was watching Motorweek on HDTheater and they kept flashing "You are watching HDTheater" on the screen and it kept covering all the stats of the cars (base price, 0-60 etc). PITA!

[Rustic23]

For me, this comes under the category of you should not create a federal to get rid of things you don't like! There are several commercials that seem to be louder than others. I mute them and try to make a mental note not to purchase their product. If everyone did that, that would solve the problem.

[Koolau]

We all complain about congress and other elected officials (I know I do). But, typically, they only do what (at least they think) we want them to do. How many times have you heard someone say "The gummint needs to DO something about that." Heaven help us when they DO, but "we" asked for it in most cases. Not defending them, just sayin....

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha Well, the FCC as regulator could have done something about this problem years ago ...

I agree (but am mostly ignorant of the inner workings of regulators versus Congress). IMO, Congress micro-manages far too much. Details like this should be left to a regulatory agency, or the free market (not totally applicable in this case, since they are using public airwaves). If Congress doesn't think the agency is doing its job, they should fix that, not regulate around it.

I do listen to radio fairly regularly, to catch up on news/views/events while I'm puttering around the house. The #1 reason for me to turn it off is the umpteenth time I hear the same annoying commercial (content is annoying, not volume). What's the point - they make money getting me to listen, and then I turn them off because of the thing they try to make money from? And some of the PSAs are the worst - sometimes 'clever' on the first or second listen, downright annoying on the 13th listen.

-ERD50

[SunsetSail]

Quote:

Originally Posted by harley I'd be interested to hear what the unintended consequences of this one might be.

Advertisers don't think that people will buy as much of their product/service if the commercials aren't as loud. Advertisers will stop spending as much money on commercials. The value of commercial slots will go down. Content providers will make less money. The quality and selection of content will go down, and/or cable/satellite charges will go up.

Years ago I had a motorola 19 inch tube tv with a feature that made the volume consistent regardless of the channel or commercial or whatever. It wasn't perfect, but it worked pretty well. It is interesting that this was never implemented as a ubiquitous feature in other TVs to satisfy consumer demand, but that Congress feels the need to mandate it through law.

I don't like loud commercials, but not nearly as much as I dislike Congress telling me that loud commercials are bad for me and preventing me from having the freedom to subject myself to them if I so desire.

[Rustic23]

We pay approx. $93,000,000 a year in salary to our representatives plus benefits. I think there is a h3ll of a lot more they could do with their time than TV commercials! If that, and the health care bill, which they were just doing what the people wanted is the best they can come up with, maybe they should be like the Texas legislature and only meet once every two years!

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 We pay approx. $93,000,000 a year in salary to our representatives plus benefits. I think there is a h3ll of a lot more they could do with their time than TV commercials!

Hey, give 'em a break! They're working on doing away with the BCS and a lot of other important 'stuff'...

[donheff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SunsetSail Years ago I had a motorola 19 inch tube tv with a feature that made the volume consistent regardless of the channel or commercial or whatever. It wasn't perfect, but it worked pretty well. It is interesting that this was never implemented as a ubiquitous feature in other TVs to satisfy consumer demand, but that Congress feels the need to mandate it through law.

It doesn't sound like they are mandating anything like that. No manufacturer has to do anything. They are simply telling the advertisers to stop an obnoxious practice, like telling them not to insert subliminal ads.

[SunsetSail]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donheff It doesn't sound like they are mandating anything like that. No manufacturer has to do anything. They are simply telling the advertisers to stop an obnoxious practice, like telling them not to insert subliminal ads.

I guess I wasn't clear. My point is that it is interesting that Congress decided to pass a law as a solution when the solution could easily be manufactured into a product but consumer demand wasn't sufficient for manufacturers to put it into the product.

I really hate blister wrap packaging. Should Congress pass a law to ban it? Would I be willing to pay 10%, 25% or 50% more for a product because the packaging isn't strong enough to handle overseas shipping and the manufacturer has to raise the price to account for the damaged goods or re-packing costs at the destination? I think the one of the OP's points was that Congress doesn't really seem to think through the consequences of laws it passes.

[harley]

Personally, this is the kind of thing I think Congress should be spending their time on. No matter what they decide, nobody will get shot or thrown in jail.

I am a free marketeer, so my true stance is in agreement with those who say note the loud advertisers and avoid their products. I also agree with the ones who are annoyed by the TV logos. I think Netflix and pay per view and streaming video will punish those clowns too, over time.

Still it's nice to see our legislators working at a level they are qualified for. I feel fully secure in the knowledge that they are experts on noise. I wonder how many of them have read this bill?