FCC approves quieter commercials
A new rule says ads can't be louder than the programs they accompany. But is the regulation really needed?
The Federal Communications Commission unanimously passed a rule Tuesday that says commercials can't be louder than the programs they accompany.
Congress gave the agency authority to shush those commercials last year when it passed the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act to address the situation. The FCC's rule takes effect one year from now.
It's taken the government 45 years to tackle the problem, and people were passionate about it. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said Tuesday that his commission has received thousands of complaints about loud commercials, according to Bloomberg.
Still, CALM is one of the most unnecessary bits of legislation ever passed by Congress. It solves a "problem" that really didn't need solving. If people don't like a commercial, they can always change the channel or lower the volume if it's too loud. Moreover, loud commercials are among the least offensive forms of advertising out there. The subtle, softer forms of advertising are far more worrisome.
Take product placement, which has skyrocketed over the past few years. Some popular shows have thousands of brand "occurrences." For instance, when the cast of the hit A&E reality show "Pawn Stars" gets hungry, they head to their neighborhood Subway. That was quite a coup for Subway because its brand was seamlessly integrated into the show.
"Extreme Makeover:Home Edition" is chock full of product placements for Sears Holdings (SHLD), Ford (F) and countless other brands. Fox's "American Idol" is clever about brand integration by placing the judges' Coca-Cola (KO) logo glasses in plain view of the camera. It even has contestants shoot commercials for Ford.
The merger between brand marketing and content is nearly complete. At times it's difficult to know when one begins and the other ends. It makes me pine for loud TV commercials because at least you knew what was what.
I believe Mr. Berr is way off the mark with his comment about this being a problem not needing solving. I can deal with product placement and make decisions for myself, but who feels like reaching for the remote every time a commercial comes on. It is very annoying to be watching a show you enjoy only to be bombarded with a commercial that is obviously louder than the show.
Its about time this was dealt with. Its just a shame that it take an act of congress to make it happen.
Unnecessary legislation? Really? I find that anytime I am bombarded by noise above(and I am saying way above) the level I set for my listening pleasure it is not unnecessary at all. So basically I am supposed to grab my remote every 4-6 minutes of a program and lower the volume and then back up to where I can hear the program. You are an idiot sir. And I say that with the utmost respect for you as a person.(who must not watch television,...ever) It really should have been unnecessary because it should have never been allowed in the first place.
As consumers we have less power now than we ever have and I guess we have to legislate to be heard. Absolutely the dumbest **** way to operate but thats what we have. Welcome to the USA (network) sic.
..and the cable companies could "sound balance" as one comment suggested. But they advertise on tv too and they say..turn it up to tv video and sound editors :)
As in Congress..the ones who should be responsible and step up to the plate ..are the very ones causing it.
Many people sleep with the TV on, either because they dozed off or because a family member turned it on when they were already asleep. If the main program is a movie with soft dialog and soft music, the volume may have been turned up to 50% of maximum to be audible. When that commercial break comes and "crazy mack" starts yelling out his used car deals that is a rude awakening indeed.
What I would like for the FCC to do is to crack down on false advertising. Case in point: Maybelline's "Falsies" Mascara, shows a woman crunching up a package of false lashes while saying "no more false lashes needed," or something like that. But EVERY WOMAN in that commercial is wearing false eyelashes! That is wrong. And, does Sara Jessica Parker REALLY use the products she promotes (insert name of other celebrities promoting products)? If not, I think it should state at the bottom of the ad that this person does not use these products, services, whatever. I call all of that lying, short and simple. And the car ads with the print so small you can't read it, plus there's no time to read it - it should be as big as all other print in the commercial. Let's get lying and deception out of commercials. Now that makes sense to me.
When I was at NBC I saw advertisers tell the editing dept to turn it up when they were viewing a new commercial for approval. Some just wanted it a little louder ot catch your attention and some want it to Slam You so you couldn't avoid hearing it. The station editor/sound man would do it because the advertisers demanded it. And since the news "is brought to you by..." it is all about the bucks and nothing about what is good, right, or about the news. If it isn't on the three or four national/international news stories they all ( the big three networks and then some ) download from Reuters, Ap and IP, there would be local news and the truth when they could dig some up, instead of stories designed to sell coffee. That's why when you channel surf during the news..they are all about the same story, just a slightly different video or copy. Sell cars, yes..sell the truth...hmm.
In this case, and rarely elsewhere, the feds got it right. Nothing less would have stopped it. But...they gave the weasles a year to "cut that out".
Gee...Now that's putting your foot down.
Jonathan Berr, you are an idiot! Imagine watching a made for TV movie in surround sound and having to either change the channel or lower the sound every time a commerical comes on. I for one am thrilled with piece of legislation. The government finally got something right! Other countries have already implemented this rule.
Product placement is a non issue. We've become so used to it that I really don't think anyone ever notices anymore. So what if the Idol judges have Coke glasses in plain view, I still drink Pepsi. Product placement has NEVER had any affect on my buying patterns.
The sooner the legislation to quiet commericals is implemented the better. Then my husband won't have to pick me off the ceiling every time a commerical cuts into my viewing pleasure!
The part of the article that says loud commercials is not a problem, just turn the volume down is nuts. Who wants to reach for the remote every 5 to 7 minutes. Some shows have a low volume so you turn it way up. Then a commercial comes on and blasts you out of the room. It is really aggravating to have to constantly be running the volume up and down. Hurray for the new law, but what took you so long and why do we have to wait a year. Just do it! - Oops, that sounds like a subliminal commercial.
Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.
The stock is expensive and the guidance is weak -- not an appetizing combination.
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
Top Stocks provides analysis about the most noteworthy stocks in the market each day, combining some of the best content from around the MSN Money site and the rest of the Web.
Contributors include professional investors and journalists affiliated with MSN Money.
Follow us on Twitter @topstocksmsn.