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]

-wife just mutes them all.

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

 

[Nords]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[TromboneAl]

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.

I see commercials that intrude all the way up to the midpoint of the screen, along with distracting moving graphics (like someone dancing).

I saw one (TBS) in which a bird flew all the way to the top of the screen -- I thought it was part of the show I was watching.

 

[Emeritus]

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?)

1) Free speech rights only apply to content, not time place and manner.

2) I've written noise regulations , it's no harder than anything else. We do peak and average and sustained peak etc.

 

[M Paquette]

I've written noise regulations , it's no harder than anything else. We do peak and average and sustained peak etc.

You'd be amazed at how obnoxious a noise can be, without coming close to breaking a simple peak, sustained peak, or average (Fast or Slow, A or C weighted, etc) limit. Narrow band pink noise, spectral sweeps, ring oscillators, and such are crude examples. If you can write a regulation, someone else will dissect it and find a way to meet the letter of the law while still implementing their intent. This is just the sort of regulation that will trigger an acoustic arms race. Advertisers want to grab the viewer's attention.

There are already limits on the peak 'loudness' of TV audio as transmitted. These happen to be technological limits. Some of the 'loud ads' simply use range compression to push more of their audio closer to the peak level. A sustained peak or slow weighted average limit might affect ads using this specific strategy, but Bronco Bob's Used Car Emporium and Hook Shop will just find another gimmick to get you to look up from your newspaper.

If there is a regulation, and money can be made by working around that regulation, then a workaround will be developed. Take a look at recent regulations and laws regarding credit cards, bank fees, campaign reform, or any number of other well intended changes that happened to interfere with someone's cash flow.

 

[Emeritus]

You'd be amazed at how obnoxious a noise can be, without coming close to breaking a simple peak, sustained peak, or average (Fast or Slow, A or C weighted, etc) limit. Narrow band pink noise, spectral sweeps, ring oscillators, and such are crude examples. If you can write a regulation, someone else will dissect it and find a way to meet the letter of the law while still implementing their intent. This is just the sort of regulation that will trigger an acoustic arms race. Advertisers want to grab the viewer's attention.

There are already limits on the peak 'loudness' of TV audio as transmitted. These happen to be technological limits. Some of the 'loud ads' simply use range compression to push more of their audio closer to the peak level. A sustained peak or slow weighted average limit might affect ads using this specific strategy, but Bronco Bob's Used Car Emporium and Hook Shop will just find another gimmick to get you to look up from your newspaper.

If there is a regulation, and money can be made by working around that regulation, then a workaround will be developed. Take a look at recent regulations and laws regarding credit cards, bank fees, campaign reform, or any number of other well intended changes that happened to interfere with someone's cash flow.

Sure , Ive also worked on minimum noise requirements (e.g. fire alarms) I've even, long ago worked on noise warning labels for blind nearly deaf people

When you write this type of regulation it has two parts . one only requires enforcement, the other requires an adjudicatory hearing.

E.g. you prohibit noise " which though in technical compliance with the regulation exhibits the general invasive characteritic of the prohibited noise" The defendant gets an adjudicatory hearing and if the regulator finds it too noisy, they get a cease and desist order. Standard Administrative procedure act stuff.

for example DOT can go after both unsafe cars and cars that violate safety standards. Unsafe cars get an adjudicatory hearing. violations get an enforcement hearing.

 

[M Paquette]

Sure , Ive also worked on minimum noise requirements (e.g. fire alarms) I've even, long ago worked on noise warning labels for blind nearly deaf people

When you write this type of regulation it has two parts . one only requires enforcement, the other requires an adjudicatory hearing.

E.g. you prohibit noise " which though in technical compliance with the regulation exhibits the general invasive characteritic of the prohibited noise" The defendant gets an adjudicatory hearing and if the regulator finds it too noisy, they get a cease and desist order. Standard Administrative procedure act stuff.

This should be interesting. Remember that you are dealing with advertising, where a specific ad might be in play for at most several days. By the time that adjudicatory hearing happens, the ad will have been off the air for months to years. Cease and desist? Soitanly, yer honor! Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck!

I particularly like that this falls back ultimately to the "Yeah, but I know it when I hear it" process. "Please note that the complaint was lodged by a person using a Pioneer YSR-701K receiver, which is known to excessively expand the audio range by several decibels." There are many 'moving parts' between the recording studio and the listener's speakers. That provides plenty of room for finger pointing and argument. (It's all billable hours, though, so I don't mind.)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. This sort of regulation is doomed to fail, or at least provide a really nice living to people familiar with the issues.

Advertising can continue to be obnoxious without fear of any real impact.

Anyone notice the ads now being put in-line in TV shows and movies? The 60 second product demo for voice navigation in the detective's car? Actors setting down their sodas and turning the can so the label faces the camera?