A little over a week ago I published an entry about the extreme ad saturation while watching Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets on the ABC Family channel (a problem not restricted to this one movie or network by any means). During the last 1½ hours of the movie I noted down the ad times and durations - there was 30 minutes worth of ads and just under 1 hour worth of movie during that period. I mentioned at the time that there should be a law against that much advertising. I've since found out that there actually is a law, and it appears the network was breaking that law - and not for the first time.

Federal regulations stipulate that children's programming may contain no more than 10½ minutes of advertising per hour on weekends and 12 minutes per hour on weekdays. The movie in question was screened on a Sunday evening and would certainly be classed as children's programming - the fact the the channel itself is called ABC Family only further supports that. The total advertising during the the last hour alone was 20 minutes worth, almost double the legal limit.

An article in the Washington Post dated 22nd October 2004 reports that the FCC (federal communications commission) fined both the Nickelodeon and ABC Family networks for a total US$1.5million for - you guessed it - advertising violations.

Viacom acknowledges that Nickelodeon violated that regulation nearly 600 times over approximately 10 months, representing the equivalent of 1,021 extra 30-second ad spots. As part of its settlement, Viacom agreed to reduce Nickelodeon's ad inventory by the same 1,021 spots of 30-second duration over the next 10 months. I have my doubts that they did.

FCC regulations also prohibit a network from running ads for products associated with the programming being aired - in other words, you can't run a commercial for a SpongeBob SquarePants doll or video during a telecast of the 'SpongeBob SquarePants' cartoon series. Viacom reported that by its own estimate it violated that rule about 145 times during the same inquiry period. By its own estimate? Yeah ok, whatever.. we can probably double that figure then, heh.

ABC Family says it unintentionally placed ads for associated products in programming during 31 half-hour telecasts between July 2003 and July '04 - again, by their own estimate. You could be pretty safe in assuming that their estimate was a very conservative one.

Nickelodeon said in a statement that it was "extremely upset" to discover that it had exceeded its allotted commercial time (yeah I'm sure) and blamed "human errors and computer system problems that occurred in our commercial logging systems."

An ABC Family spokeswoman said in a statement that the error was the result of a computer traffic system "that did not read for notations regarding special children's advertising restrictions."

I see. And over a year later that is still a problem is it? Yeah right.

ABC Family added, "We derived no economic benefit from the error, as these commercials were never sold for placement in related shows."

Now that made me laugh. Nice one. Let's look at what I think she's really saying here: there was no additional charge for the commercial spots being placed in related shows (normally they charge more if an ad is aired during a related program on non-children's programming time - it's illegal to do it during children's programming), but you can pretty much guarantee there was still the normal advertising revenue generated, despite her deviously trying to insinuate there was no income at all without actually saying it. If there really was no income whatsoever generated, then that's exactly what she would have said, loud and clear.

The problem here is obvious - a slap on the wrist and a US$1million fine by the FCC is far outweighed by the revenue generated by the illegal advertising. How much so? Try this on for size:

Highly-watched programs can command rates in the millions of dollars. For example, a single 30-second spot during the 2005 Superbowl sold for US$2.4 million. Commercials during less-watched programs are more affordable, but the cost of those commercials may still run in excess of US$100,000 per 30-seconds.
source: Gaebler Ventures / Walker Sands Communications.

When you're looking at that kind of money, it seems pretty obvious that this 'accidental' infringement of FCC regulations is no accident at all - and really, to make the same 'accident' 1,021 times in a 10 month period, and then continue doing it a year later after being fined for it? Reality check.

Being conservative and putting in a figure of say US$50,000 per 30-second slot as opposed to the US$100,000 stated above, Nickelodeon's additional 1,000+ 30-second spots over 10 months amounts to over US$50million in advertising revenue, and that is purely for the time slots, not the making of the commercial. Going on the US$100,000 price tag quoted above, that total figure derived from illegal advertising now becomes US$100million. Does anyone seriously think a US$1million fine is going to make the slightest bit of difference in deterring these corporate giants from continuing with their illegal advertising saturation? Hell no.

If the FCC wants the networks to actually respect the law, then the networks should be fined at least the total amount of revenue generated from all the advertising that exceeded legal limitations, and then an additional fine imposed that is substantial enough that the network concerned won't risk trying it again in the hope that they don't get caught.

As it stands, the network execs must be laughing all the way to the bank, and the FCC gets a tidy little income to ligitimize their existance, and it is you and me, the people who pay for this service, that suffer for their corporate greed. Disgusting isn't it?

If you've noted similar excessive advertising, note down the times and report it to the FCC - you're paying for the network service - time to let these big network corporates know that they have certain responsibilities to their clients - we are, after all, the only reason their businesses exist.