• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Bill tries to turn down TV commercials' volume

J

JayR

From the News-Press:

Bill tries to turn down TV commercials' volume

There's a fascinating bill just beginning to work its way through the current Congress. It's H.R. 1084, better known as the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act.

You read that right. Someone is finally trying to limit how loud commercials can be.
Click to expand...

Our economy is in the toilet, yet they find time for this?

Amazing!

Don't get me wrong. I don't like it when commercials blast my living room as I'm watching tv, but the timing of this bill is way off.
 
After all the years I've heard the he-said/she-said stuff about are-ads-really-louder or it's-the-fault-of-the-network/station-if-there's-any-blame-at-all...*ugh* I gave up LONG ago and just started keeping my remote handy for such times when any ad (or channel, in my current case) might be louder. There are SO many other things that Congress could tackle (that will probably get a certain thread closed, but I won't suggest anything in particular) besides this.
 
"Too Loud" simply means "I didn't wanna hear that one".
Some people will complain that they couldn't hear it, because it was their favorite spot...and wasn't loud enough.
 
OK, as much as I agree with your anti-government sentiments, this is one I'd actually like to see succeed!

For years, broadcasters have been feeding viewers a line about how commercials are not broadcast at a louder volume than the show they're watching. While technically true, it's absolutely false when it comes to what you actually hear. Commercials are usually recorded with sound that has every level cranked up as far into the red as you can go without distortion. Meanwhile, programming volume goes up and down - but isn't normally recorded that way. The net effect is that you're blasted out of your seat whenever there's a break.

No, I don't like this government's over reaching into everything. But, this one is a pet peeve of mine that I would enjoy seeing addressed.

Now, if only they can make a law against those annoying animated promos infringing over the show that I'm watching! :mad:
 
The sponsor should have included radio in that bill as well.

Nothing like having your 'favorite' car dealer come blasting in with audio overload and high compression. Those commercials have two effects on me:

1) Immediately hit the 'change station' button.
2) Resolve NEVER to do biz with that dealer in my lifetime.
 
As much as I hate those LOUD commercials, the Gov't SHOULD NOT get involved in this one. It's not their place, and they should have better things to do. Don't we have enough Bullsh*t laws on the books now as it is?
 
landtuna said:
The sponsor should have included radio in that bill as well.

Nothing like having your 'favorite' car dealer come blasting in with audio overload and high compression. Those commercials have two effects on me:

1) Immediately hit the 'change station' button.
2) Resolve NEVER to do biz with that dealer in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The worst offender in the San Francisco Bay Area is Weatherford BMW ("DISCOVER THE WEATHERFORD DIFFERENCE!!"). Their commercials are recorded at a much higher volume and the announcer yells. To top it off, they'll run the commercial twice during a break with another commercial or two in between, so you get blasted twice.

You'd think a dealer selling high-end European cars would avoid the hard-sell approach, and show a little more class. If I ever do decide to spend $10,000 too much for a new car, it will not be at that dealer.
 
"Ads aren't REALLY louder; it's a varying rate of audio compression." ::)
Such technical mumbo jumbo to try to cover up the obvious.
 
Its just SLOPPY production. Why? Because its cheaper to have someone with no experience load spots than someone that understands audio compression makes things louder, but it just doesn't show up like that on meters. A simple solution is to teach these alleged production people to LISTEN and load spots in at a consistent level,,,, but then they might have to have some talent and skill
 
LowPayDJ said:
As much as I hate those LOUD commercials, the Gov't SHOULD NOT get involved in this one. It's not their place, and they should have better things to do. Don't we have enough Bullsh*t laws on the books now as it is?
Click to expand...

Agreed. I can't stand loud commercials and I tune out just as soon as I hear one. Totally ineffective for the advertisers. Unfortunately, a bill of this type reeks of a First Amendment violation. It would be overturned in a heartbeat.
 
I'm guessing it would be possible, if the FCC has the inclination, to have the stations "voluntarily" comply with some sort of standard.
 
Does anyone actually dub spots anymore? Direct digital importing is more like it. So the client/production house effectively controls the levels
 
A few years ago (in the analog days), we put a ten dB attenuator in the output of our "commercial machine".
All we accomplished, was losing sponsors.

Maybe the Government should just ban audio on all spots. Do it with captions. ;D
 
whitfm said:
LowPayDJ said:
As much as I hate those LOUD commercials, the Gov't SHOULD NOT get involved in this one. It's not their place, and they should have better things to do. Don't we have enough Bullsh*t laws on the books now as it is?
Click to expand...

Agreed. I can't stand loud commercials and I tune out just as soon as I hear one. Totally ineffective for the advertisers. Unfortunately, a bill of this type reeks of a First Amendment violation. It would be overturned in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

I think that you'd flunk the bar exam if that's your understanding of the First Amendment. More likely that something like the un-Fairness Doctrine would be challenged on those grounds than this proposal to limit the volume level on ads (to the same relative level as general programming).

No one proposes to limit commercial speech with such a proposal - it's a matter of setting guidelines for the variance of audio levels. Has nothing to do with freedom of speech - that's more of a content argument. Nowhere in the 1st Amendment does it give Billy Mays the God given right to blow out your eardrums while you're trying to watch The Simpsons.

Again, I am not someone who expects government to do everything for everyone - but the production houses have gotten out of hand with the levels on spots. Depending on the channel, some of them will blast you out of your chair. That's wrong and, at the minimum, the FCC certainly has the authority to regulate technical standards for broadcasting.

By the way, I'd love it if you could do spots with captions only! ;D

But I doubt that sponsors would bolt from TV because their ads have to be at the same volume as everything else. The fact that kenglish's station's sponsors bolted implies that they are aware of this abuse and expect to get away with it somewhere else. Remove that temptation and they're not going anywhere. After all they still need to sell their goods.
 
BRNout said:
I think that you'd flunk the bar exam if that's your understanding of the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

Really? And what do you have to back up such an assertion? No, I doubt that I could pass the bar exam, but I'm not a lawyer. I'm a communicator.

The courts have dealt with audio levels in one case--Ward v. Rock Against Racism. In it, the city of New York was granted power to control audio levels at concerts, but only because the guideline they instituted was "narrowly tailored to serve governmental interests" in that the sound was violating noise standards in nearby residential areas (see the O'brien test).

So what governmental interest, O beacon of law knowledge, would you attribute to a law that seeks to limit the volume of content that can ALREADY be limited through the use of, oh, I don't know, THE MUTE BUTTON?!

Would this mandate also apply to shout caps? 'Cause I hate dealing with dummies. Especially on a four-day work week. ::)
 
The courts have dealt with audio levels in one case--Ward v. Rock Against Racism. In it, the city of New York was granted power to control audio levels at concerts, but only because the guideline they instituted was "narrowly tailored to serve governmental interests" in that the sound was violating noise standards in nearby residential areas (see the O'brien test).
Click to expand...

Um, before this gets bounced to the TIO board, I think you (whitfm) were a little harsh in your rebuttal to BRNout especially when you consider the fact that you failed to demonstrate how the proposed regulation of audio levels constitutes a First Amendment issue. If that was your closing summation and you were my legal counsel, I'd be moving for a mistrial.
 
dmargalotti said:
Um, before this gets bounced to the TIO board, I think you (whitfm) were a little harsh in your rebuttal to BRNout especially when you consider the fact that you failed to demonstrate how the proposed regulation of audio levels constitutes a First Amendment issue. If that was your closing summation and you were my legal counsel, I'd be moving for a mistrial.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize this was a trial. I thought this was a message board.

The point being that, upon referencing the O'brien test--which has clearly been adapted to instances other than symbolic communication (its original intent), this proposed regulation obviously does not meet the standards of the test. Thus, so long as the content or manner of dissemination does not violate FCC regulations, it is protected under the First Amendment. What we're dealing with here is the perception of loudness, not actual loudness. The former is protected by the First Amendment.
 
I think the FCC already has regulations in place in regards to commerical volume. They just are not enforced.

I remember in the early 90's when this was a huge problem. Particularly indies like then WGNX (now CBS WGCL) Atlanta would deliberately raise the volume on all commercials. The problems today with commerical loudness are nowhere near what they were back then. This bill just makes it a congressionally mandated requirement that this be enforced.

As for technical matters...something can be installed at the master control end to regulate volume levels. You can also adjust the volume of the computer file with the commercial as well (how easily this is done depends on what software is being used). How a commercial is produced should be no issue. The technology is there to fix the problem.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom