Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Some ambiguities were well connected with the AMSD One of them was the temporality status of telepromotion: 12 minutes or beyond? George Chirita Director.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Some ambiguities were well connected with the AMSD One of them was the temporality status of telepromotion: 12 minutes or beyond? George Chirita Director."— Presentation transcript:

1 Some ambiguities were well connected with the AMSD One of them was the temporality status of telepromotion: 12 minutes or beyond? George Chirita Director ARCA

2  One way to obtain this result was to allow the advertising content merge in a non-invasive way with the editorial content. Therefore, product placement and telepromotion were pushed forward...  The first, by a clear definition and the second, by removing the daily time limit for advertising

3 In 1993, Mr Pinheiro, the Commissioner for audiovisual at that time, insisted to clarify that: "Telepromotion", as I have clearly acknowledged, is a form of advertising which is lawful in principle and subject to all the provisions on advertising contained in the Directive. It is not accurate, therefore, to say that, by definition, telepromotion" is incompatible with the Directive.

4  Stephan Loerke, director of WFA:"Too much advertising kills advertising and undermines its effectiveness”  telepromotion supports the program / there is no time presure on the audience  "Normally a telepromotion is done by the TV channel and the agency is not involved. You see things that contradict the essence of the brand. The style of the show can overshadow the brand positioning and damage the brand.“  The program’s brand can provide image for products  The telepromotion can be a useful format, suited to a product that needs more explanation than a traditional spot provides

5

6  Clear definition:  telepromotions are a form of television advertising based on the interruption of studio programmes (especially game shows) by slots devoted to the presentation of one or more products or services, where the programme presenters momentarily swap their role in the games in progress for one as "promoters" of the goods or services which are the object of the advertising presentation.

7  28. Hourly duration. It is worth reminding that teleshopping spots fall under the hourly and daily limits set by Article 18 of the Directive. In contrast, in its previously mentioned second report on the application of the Directive, the Commission has reminded that telepromotions that are other forms of advertising, fall under the daily limits provided by the Directive. It follows from Article 18(2) of the Directive that the proportion of telepromotion spots (like teleshopping and advertising spots) within a given clock hour shall not exceed 20 %. However, the Article does not apply to telepromotion which is not presented in the form of spots but during a programme. When broadcast in that manner, following the case law of the Court, telepromotion must be regarded as another form of advertising. It follows that the rules on the hourly duration of advertising which apply to "advertising spots" and "teleshopping spots" are not applicable to telepromotion(30).  29. Article 18(1) of the Directive on the authorised daily duration of advertising and teleshopping is applicable to telepromotion spots and programmes. However, Article 18(2) of the Directive on the maximum hourly duration of television advertising does not cover telepromotion presented during a programme.

8  Everything is clear:  The time line for non-spot telepromotions does not ends at the 12 minutes hourly limit.  It ends at the daily time limit!!!

9  Joined Cases C-320/94, C-328/94, C-329/94, C- 337/94, C-338/94 and C-339/94, known as  RTI CASE

10  Since it appears from the wording of the first question and the observations made before the Court that 'telepromotions' are forms of publicity which, by reason of their method of presentation, last longer than spot advertisements, they may, in principle, benefit from the option introduced by Article 18(1) of the directive of increasing the percentage of transmission time devoted to advertising.  It follows from the above that the directive, and in particular Articles 1(b) and 18 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the expression 'forms of advertisements such as direct offers to the public' in Article 18 is used in the context of the Community rules, with regard to the possibility of increasing maximum advertising  time to 20% of daily transmission time, by way of example. Consequently, it may also cover other forms of promotion, such as 'telepromotions' which, like 'direct offers to the public', require more time than spot advertisements on account of their method of presentation.

11  Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 and in particular Articles 1(b) and 18 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the expression 'forms of advertisements such as direct offers to the public' in Article 18 is used in the context of the Community rules, with regard to the possibility of increasing maximum advertising time to 20% of daily transmission time, by way of example. Consequently, it may also cover other forms of promotion, such as 'telepromotions' which, like 'direct offers to the public', require more time than spot advertisements on account of their method of presentation.

12  One of the main achievements of the directive was claimed to be the abolition of the daily duration limit for advertising.  !  !!  !!!  What happened soon after AMSD was adopted?

13  The Audiovisual Media Services Directive states in recital 59 that “the daily limit should be abolished”. In fact, if we should still have a 12 minutes hourly limit for all forms of advertising, that meant that we will still have a daily limit resulting by the addition of all 24 individual hourly limits - i.e. 288 minutes per day, i.e. 20% of the daily time. This could violently contradict the statement on the abolition of the daily limit, which was strongly emphasised as one of the main features of the new directive, in all documents accompanying the audiovisual media services directive.

14  This is why we have to look for exemptions from the hourly limit rule in order to be sure that some forms of advertising manage to escape this hourly limit and benefit of the “abolition of the daily limit”. The logic is simple: if the hourly limit applies with no exemptions, then there is no abolition of the daily limit. So, let us look for such exemptions…

15  Actually, the directive states in Article 18.2 that the hourly limit “shall not apply to announcements made by the broadcaster in connection with its own programmes and ancillary products directly derived from those programmes, sponsorship announcements and product placements”  However, the mentioning of sponsorship seems senseless, since, according to the definitions in article 1, sponsorship is nor television advertising, neither teleshopping, but audiovisual commercial communication. Therefore, sponsorship could not be an exemption to a rule which is dedicated specifically to television advertising spots and to teleshopping spots. This is why, in that respect, paragraph 2 of article 18 seems to be rather a useful redundant reminder, but not at all effective in setting up exemptions.

16  As for the announcements on own programs or ancillary products, those were so far neither under the daily limit, nor under the hourly limit provisions. This is why we can not talk about an abolition of the daily limits for those kinds of announcements.  What still remains as a real issue is only the mention of the exemption of product placement from the hourly limit. Consequently, only the product placement can benefit of the abolition of the daily limit. But, obviously, nobody intended so far to count the minutes of product placement, neither by hour, nor by day – in any event, this is practically impossible. On the other hand, product placement is not an advertising spot, therefore is a meaningless to emphasise that the hourly time limit does not aply, since it aplies only to advertising spots.

17  Telepromotion, together with some ‘other forms of advertising’, as said in the European Court wording, is the exemption we are looking for.  Since we find a valid exemption for the hourly limit, then the abolition of the daily limit becomes effective.

18  Two simple questions were addressed to the commission:  1. “Does the maximum hourly duration of television advertising rule cover also non-spot telepromotion presented during a programme?”  And:  2. „The answer for this question is also valid in the case of “other forms of advertising?”

19  We got a letter from the commission signed by Gregory Paulger, the general director of media directorate with very clear answers for our two questions:

20  “non spot telepromotions which cannot be considered as advertising spots as characterised above but are intrinsecally longer form of advertising due to their content and way of presentation, should not be subject to the 20% hourly limit of transmission time provided for in article 18 of AVMS Directive. This answer is also valid in case of other forms of advertising”  Answer-of-Mr-Gregory-Paulger-on- questions-from-ARCA.doc Answer-of-Mr-Gregory-Paulger-on- questions-from-ARCA.doc

21  The most important item for our issue in that court decision is the mention made in point 27  27 As regards telepromotion, the Commission states that its action is directed only against telepromotion spots. This sets the Court rulling against Spain strictly at the level of spot telepromotions. The Court decision was not dealing with non-spot telepromotion

22  These have a brief duration, approximately one minute, which cannot be regarded as a duration significantly longer than that of conventional advertising spots. Further, telepromotion spots have the characteristic of being ‘stock announcements’ which, while they may be associated with a particular programme, because of the presence of certain actors and particular visual elements, are entirely independent of those programmes. Further, they are broadcast in advertising breaks and, like conventional advertising spots, are designed to be re-broadcast, as they very frequently are.  If we list the antonyms of the words defining the characteristics of spot telepromotions in the above wording of the court, we have the description on non-spot telepromotions.

23  To be integrated in the program, and not autonomous  To be produced by the broadcaster as part of his program  To be not stock products, designed to be rebroadcast  To be not broadcasted during advertising breaks  The duration is not relevant, but usually lasts longer than advertising spots  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDRI2ViNH Xc

24  European Group of Television Advertising (Association of Television And Radio Sales Houses) issued in the guide “Understanding the AVMSD - Practical guidelines on the implementation of the Audiovisual Media Service Directive”

25 .  TELEPROMOTION duration IS NOT LIMITED in the following EU contries:  Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, czech republic, Estonia, Finlanda, Irland, Italy, Lituania, Luxemburg, Olanda, Poland and Spain

26

27  Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Holland, Poland and Spain.

28


Download ppt "Some ambiguities were well connected with the AMSD One of them was the temporality status of telepromotion: 12 minutes or beyond? George Chirita Director."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google