almost nothing

Not dead yet

Thinkbox, the guys responsible for marketing commercial TV in the UK, issued their first Topline Telly report the other day. You can find it here... Download thinkbox_tv_snapshot_2006.ppt 

There's encouraging news in it with respect to TV viewing, but I'm not sure that some of it isn't a little rose-tinted. Because now the times really are a-changing, it's crucial that we understand what is actually happening to the general public's TV consumption. So I thought I'd try to get to the bottom of two of their key findings.

Open up the document and have a look at slide 5, which makes the point that people are being exposed to 3% more commercial impacts in 2006 vs 2005 and 8% vs 2004. This clearly sounds likes good news, but when you move to the next slide it reveals that we're watching slightly less telly than we used to. (Comparing 2006/5 vs 2004.) So the increased impacts could be a function of one or more of the following: maybe people are seeking out the ads they're so enthusaistic about them (and then again...), we could be watching more of the channels that are loaded up with ads, conceivably we're watching at times when there are more ads on air, possibly, even, there are now more ads on TV, or maybe there's some other reason that I can't think of at the moment. Analysis of the BARB panel ought to be able to separate out these different factors.

The next thing that looks encouraging is slide 19. Here we can see data apparently running counter to those I've directed you to before from Richard H. But there are a couple of caveats. First the sample size - as I understand it there are only 130 people on the BARB panel who have a PVR, making the data a little shaky. Second, I don't think the data is longitudinal. In other words, I believe that Thinkbox have drawn attention to the fact that people with PVR's are more likely to be heavy TV viewers (that's why they invested their cash in a TV wactching machine) and are therefore are more likely to be exposed to commercials. Not exactly a break-through finding, and more importantly possibly leading us to conclude that we should be celebrating the arrival of PVR's rather than worrying about them.

Of course I may be wrong, and I hope I am, but I thought I'd send a link to this post to Thinkbox and see what they say.

Someone's listening

I've received a sort of satisfactory response to my question about the volume at which ads are broadcast from Geoff Russell, the IPA secretary and director for media affairs. I've posted his comments below, but in short it seems like there maybe some new regulation in the pipeline. I only hope someone is still watching TV when the consultation paper turns into action...

You may be interested to hear that BCAP (Broadcasting Commitee of Advertising Practice) is about to issue a consultation paper in this area.

Clearly it is in no-one's interest to upset viewers by making commercials excessively loud - and I am sure that you know that there are rules in this context, with the ASA actually censuring broadcasters when they believe a break has been significantly louder than the surrounding programming.

Having said this, we are all aware of occasions when ads do seem to come over as particularly strident.

In fact, between 1 September 2005 and 1 December 2006, the ASA received

245 viewer complaints about the perceived high sound levels of TV advertisements. Viewers supplied transmission details in 43 cases and, of those, 11 were felt likely to have breached rule 6.9 of the BCAP TV Code.

This is clearly not a large figure given the '000's of commercials likely to have been transmitted during this period, but it is nevertheless something which needs to be looked at.

As indicated, at present, volume in commercials is governed by rule 6.9 of the BCAP Code.

This currently states:

6.9 Sound levels in advertisements

"Advertisements must not be excessively noisy or strident. Studio transmission power must not be increased from normal levels during advertising.

Note:

The peak level of sound at the studio output should not exceed +8dBm.

To ensure that the subjective volume is consistent with adjacent programming, whilst also preventing excessive loudness changes, highly compressed commercials should be limited to a Normal Peak of 4 and a Full Range of 2*4 (measured on a PPM Type IIa, specified in BS6840:

Part 10, Programme Level Meters). A fairly constant average level of sound energy should be maintained in transitions from programmes to advertising breaks and vice versa so that listeners do not need to adjust the volume. A perceived loudness meter may be useful where sound levels might cause problems."

BCAP is aware that broadcasters with otherwise excellent records of compliance with the BCAP TV Code have been found in breach of rule 6.9 on more than one occasion.

According to them, this indicates that the existing rule is leading to confusion among broadcasters; particularly regarding an uncertainty about what constitutes an appropriate sound level for a TV advertisement

- other than (and here it gets technical!) somewhere between PPM 4 /

+0dBm or lower (for highly-compressed advertisements) and PPM 6 / +8dBm

(the peak level of sound at the studio output).

It may be then that the present rule relies too heavily on perceptions of "loudness", rather than providing an objective method for measuring the loudness levels of the broadcast output.

Given this, BCAP has proposed to revise the current rule to provide greater certainty for broadcasters - while maintaining the consumer protection afforded by the existing regulation.

However, while this might mean that advertisements should not peak over the normal subjective loudness levels of programmes, it may not be possible to eradicate entirely the effect of advertisements seeming louder if they are aired during a programme with mostly quiet content (such as a period drama with extended sections of softly-spoken dialogue) than if they are aired during a programme with a mostly loud content (such as motorsport).

In a nutshell - what this all means is:

- we recognise that there is an occasional problem in this area

- no-one is deliberately doing it

- steps are being taken to address it.