Again, when did they STOP permitting "brought to you"? That's the phrase I remember from countless network TV shows in my youth. In fact, there are several complete NFL games posted on YouTube (been there for some time, too, and I wonder why they're allowed to stay up) from the early 1970s, and there's our old friend "brought to you" again, right before the requisite litany of breweries, automakers, shaving supply makers and television manufacturers.
-
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
"Brought to you by....."
- Thread starter Stanislav
- Start date
Again, when did they STOP permitting "brought to you"? That's the phrase I remember from countless network TV shows in my youth. In fact, there are several complete NFL games posted on YouTube (been there for some time, too, and I wonder why they're allowed to stay up) from the early 1970s, and there's our old friend "brought to you" again, right before the requisite litany of breweries, automakers, shaving supply makers and television manufacturers.
It's not a "when did they" thing. In the late 60's broadcasters began to change how they identified their sponsors.
According to this broadcast law blog, the FCC doesn't accept "brought to you by..."
https://www.allaboutadvertisinglaw....ertising-rule-sponsorship-identification.html
"The Sponsorship ID Rule is fairly straightforward: if a broadcast station charges or accepts (or is promised) any money, service, or other valuable consideration in exchange for airing a piece of programming, then the broadcaster must disclose – at the time of the broadcast: (1) that the programming is “sponsored,” “paid,” or “furnished,” and (2) the identity of the sponsor."
When did it change? It could have changed in the 96 Act. Or it could be a reinterpretation of existing rules. It really doesn't matter when it changed.
https://www.allaboutadvertisinglaw....ertising-rule-sponsorship-identification.html
"The Sponsorship ID Rule is fairly straightforward: if a broadcast station charges or accepts (or is promised) any money, service, or other valuable consideration in exchange for airing a piece of programming, then the broadcaster must disclose – at the time of the broadcast: (1) that the programming is “sponsored,” “paid,” or “furnished,” and (2) the identity of the sponsor."
When did it change? It could have changed in the 96 Act. Or it could be a reinterpretation of existing rules. It really doesn't matter when it changed.
Is there a loophole that allows sports play-by-play broadcasts to be "powered by" some brand of motor vehicle or group of motor vehicle dealers, as in the New York examples I gave earlier?
That's a good question. I hear that said a lot, and those words are not included in the guidelines. So I suspect they're getting different legal advice.
Yep, and I just saw someone make an illegal left turn.
I've been involved with attorneys regarding "brought to you by" and "powered by" and they cite 47 C.F.R. § 73.1212(f) which is mentioned in your link.
Ordinary television commercials for goods and services – especially short form ads (e.g., 10- and 30-second spots) – generally satisfy the Rule without need for a specific disclosure if the ad mentions the sponsor’s corporate or trade name, or the name of its product, and “it is clear that the mention of the name of the product constitutes a sponsorship identification.” 47 C.F.R. § 73.1212(f). In other words, the commercial nature of ordinary product ads is usually obvious, and the identities of their sponsors are usually equally obvious
In other words, if the sponsorship is done by an obviously commercial entity, then sponsor identification is implicit and thus legal.
This is the case with many traffic report sponsorships that are merely "... a service of Southern California Ford Dealers" or the like.
Last edited:
Years ago there was a Colonial Chevrolet in Wilmington, DE that also used a modified Dinah Shore jingle. Apparently that spot never made it onto YT (I just did a search)
ixnay
I wonder how legal "[nombre de la programa] es presentado por [nombre del sponsor]" is.
I can still remember Karla Martinez on the teen magazine "Control" on Univision (she's now on UNIV's "Despierta America") pitching thus: "'Control' es presentado por Pepsi. Es Pepsi. Por Burger King. A tu manera. Y por Maybelline New York [sans slogan]." All delivered low key.
ixnay
All are established brand names, and the rule is clear that sponsor identification is implicit if a known brand mentions its name.
"Es presentado por" is the same as "... is presented by.."
The sponsor ID rule is particularly intended to prevent advocacy ads or political ads that do not identify who is paying for them. It is also intended to prevent teaser campaigns that don't name the product.
But if "Pampers" is used as a product name in an ad, it is not necessary to say "sponsored by Proctor & Gamble" at the end.
As long as the audience understands who is trying to convey a sales or political message, the rule is fulfilled.
Companies like P&G might want to do this however to better establish their global brand.
There is no reason to confuse the brand. Products sell on their own merit, not the name of the manufacturer and mixed branding is detrimental to that effort in most cases.
P&G has no need to "establish" its brand. Its products are generally #2 or #2 in their market segment and the brands have been carefully marketed and protected.
- Status