|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IT’S almost midnight and you are watching a nail-biting murder mystery on television. Since everyone in the house is sleeping, you have kept the volume really low so that you do not disturb the rest of the household. The screen keeps you entirely absorbed — the murderer has sneaked into the heroine’s house with the intent to kill her and then suddenly the television volume goes up sharply and you jump out of your chair. Well, it is not the sound of a gunshot, but that of a commercial promoting some product. Afraid that you might wake up the entire household, you quickly reach for the remote to keep the volume down. I am sure you have guessed by now, what I am getting at — the high decibel at which television advertisements are aired. I do not know how we managed when television sets came without the remote. But today, we use the remote not so much to surf the channel but to bring down the volume of the commercials that come between programmes. And I am sure you will agree with me that the loud volume of the advertisements is very irritating and so is the need to constantly keep the volume down whenever an advertisement is aired. According to one estimate in the United States, consumers use the remote as many as eight times in an hour to control the volume. Suppose there are four commercial breaks in between a programme running for an hour, first you use the remote to bring down the advertisement volume when it begins. Once the commercial break is over, you have to again increase the volume, so that you are able to hear the programme clearly. Certainly not a pleasant task and well lead to stress. This is not a phenomenon that is peculiar to India or Indian channels. This is a worldwide practice. The world over, consumers have been expressing their anger and resentment over noisy television commercials. In the initial years, the electronic industry in North America and Australia responded to consumer concerns with new gadgets that claimed to dull, mute or delete noisy advertisements. But none really succeeded, giving rise to louder demands for laws and regulations to curb shrill television advertisements. Some countries have investigated into the cause of the loudness and have come up with measures to bring down the volume of advertisements. In August last year, the Italian Government said it would impose financial penalties on networks that violated the law against loud TV advertisements. "We need to stop television advertising that raises its voice," said the communication minister. The statement followed findings that some networks played advertisements at a volume that was 50 per cent higher than the rest of the programmes. In Australia, following the large number of consumer complaints, the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) investigated (in 2001) the cause of the problem and found that the loudness was on account of advertisers using techniques such as ‘compressing’, ‘equalisation’ and ‘limiting’ in the sound recordings. Following this, the Commercial Television Industry Codes of Practice was revised to include a code aimed at ensuring that advertisements did not sound louder than adjacent programmes. Now the ABA is enforcing the code, which says, firstly, that commercials must not be excessively noisy or strident; secondly, licensees (broadcasters) must do everything reasonably possible to ensure that commercials do not sound louder than adjacent programming; and thirdly, studio transmission must not be increased from normal levels during programme breaks. The code also provides that a person submitting a commercial to a television channel should certify that all requirements of the Operational Practice Note on Loudness of Advertisements concerning compression, limiting and equalisation have been met. In March 2005, for example, the ABA found a broadcaster guilty of violation of the code. The channel had not ensured, before broadcasting the advertisements, that the relevant requirement in relation to the loudness of advertisements had been met. Further, the channel had not responded to the consumer complaint about loud television advertisement, within 30 days as required. Nor had it advised the complainant that he might refer the matter to the ABA if not satisfied with the response of the broadcaster to his complaint. Following the ABA’s preliminary report, the channel not only had to apologise to the consumer and the ABA, but also give an undertaking that before accepting any advertisement in future, it would ensure that it complied with the code. It would also ensure that the staff, including new recruits, were trained adequately to comply with the code. Consumers in India too need to demand similar measures to protect their interest.
|
||
|
|
||
