How Do Infomercials 'fullfill the public interest'?

[landtuna]

This question can apply to both radio and TV but since infomercials appear to be more prevalent on TV it is posted there.

I realize, of course, that all stations need revenue and infomercials provide some (all?) of that revenue. But I am seeing a trend these past years where certain, mostly independents, air a LOT of infomercials - particularly on weekends. And it seems to be increasing rapidly. In my market even the network affiliates are doing it although usually during nighttime and off-hours.

Is there a line in the sand as to how much advertising is reasonable?

 

[cspotrun]

This question can apply to both radio and TV but since infomercials appear to be more prevalent on TV it is posted there.

I realize, of course, that all stations need revenue and infomercials provide some (all?) of that revenue. But I am seeing a trend these past years where certain, mostly independents, air a LOT of infomercials - particularly on weekends. And it seems to be increasing rapidly. In my market even the network affiliates are doing it although usually during nighttime and off-hours.

Is there a line in the sand as to how much advertising is reasonable?

hey!, GO TO BED! if you stay up that late, you deserve to watch The Sham-WOW! Show.

they have to do something, to pay the bills. its either that or "Government Controlled Television"

 

[brian77]

Infomercials have increased dramatically during the past year due to the recession.

 

[mleach]

Infomercials have increased dramatically during the past year due to the recession.

In the case with radio its either that or an effort to keep somebody from being actually on the air so they load up that airshift with informercials or syndication to "help" them take the hint.

believe it or not I have known some radio PDs & GMs over the years who for one reason or another don't have the "heart" to fire someone directly so by loading their airshift with such stuff, they hope that would get them to quit.

 

[BRNout]

This question can apply to both radio and TV but since infomercials appear to be more prevalent on TV it is posted there.

I realize, of course, that all stations need revenue and infomercials provide some (all?) of that revenue. But I am seeing a trend these past years where certain, mostly independents, air a LOT of infomercials - particularly on weekends. And it seems to be increasing rapidly. In my market even the network affiliates are doing it although usually during nighttime and off-hours.

Is there a line in the sand as to how much advertising is reasonable?

Personally, I think that this is a reasonable question - this despite me NOT being an advocate of big government. However, part of the FCC's mandate is that broadcasters are supposed to fulfill the public interest.

I don't see how independents who show nothing but infomercials, radio stations that are totally automated and brokered, and any of EMF's stations (and others of their ilk) are meeting that requirement. The latter is a particular peeve of mine. Buying up local stations, firing everyone, and operating a full-powered satellite that takes nothing but bird feed. An EF-5 tornado could be eating through the downtown of one of their cities of license and the local 20 kw K-Love station will still be broadcasting "Sunshine and Lollipops" and asking for pledges. Those guys essentially take a community's local station and turn it into a zombie. Ask folks in eastern Maine or central New York how much they like it. It's the sort of thing that kills the industry over time.

Of course, being too heavy handed isn't desirable either. For example, some of these proposals which could wind up getting rid of syndication go way too far. Where's the line? I don't know either. But it's clear that some station owners are taking advantage of their licenses in ways that the government agencies which license commercial broadcasts never intended.

 

[vibe]

MAYBE these infomercials are partially the reason why many people have amassed a lot of credit card debt. Impulse purchases late at night etc. It's a known fact that some people combat depression by shopping. Makes them feel good until the bill comes in. I've heard of seniors/elders who have literally filled up their houses with all the junk (oops stuff) they purchased. Kinda like the same sort of problem compulsive gamblers have. Some people get lonely at night and need to talk with someone regardless of the overall cost. They just love to hear themselves on the air bubbling with joy over their latest purchase.
In answer to the original question.. they don't!
The public interest would be filled with programming that show people how to save money by energy conservation, keeping their vehicles in prime working order, monthly tire pressure checks etc. Provide positive information regarding the use and management of household income. I've shown more than a few people how to operate those self service air machines (the holding company is an Aussie Bank). Many of those people drove into the service station/C Store on tires that were literally flat.
Keep in mind that the same message repeateded over and over is a form of brainwashing.

 

[Mark Giardina]

This question has already been answered, but I will repeat it anyways. Infomercials do not fulfill the public interest. All they do is provide additional revenue for commercial and cable television stations.

I'm sorry but if people are willing to shell out good money for cable TV and most of the shows overnight are nothing but Billy Mays and other obnoxious snake oil salesmen and saleswomen, then they either could complain to their cable company, or better yet cancel cable altogether and read a good book.

Ever notice that anything for sale on these ads are almost always close to $19.95 plus shipping and handling? I bet S&H costs around another 30 bucks or so.

 

[NHRadio]

This question has already been answered, but I will repeat it anyways. Infomercials do not fulfill the public interest. All they do is provide additional revenue for commercial and cable television stations.

By themselves, that's true. However, one could make an argument that infomercials provide revenue that a station can use to serve the public (IF the station doesn't go overboard.) The problem is most managers care nothing beyond this quarter's numbers. Everything else, including next quarter, is secondary. I call it the definition of short-sighted. A previous poster said all-infomercial and EMF stations don't serve the public. I couldn't agree more. Let me take it another step...do stations on a bird 24/7 with nothing but an occasional weathercast serve the public interest?

 

[landtuna]

...do stations on a bird 24/7 with nothing but an occasional weathercast serve the public interest?

I think the answer is a qualified 'yes' but only if you consider the whole market. For instance, sat stations serving up talk, music, sports or news do serve a useful purpose. But the market also needs a forum for local news, weather (especially dangerous weather), traffic and emergency information. It is within the total context of the stations serving the specific market that define 'serving the public interest' and not just that of an individual station.

One could argue that commercials, per se, are not of interest to the majority of listeners/viewers the vast majority of the time but they are needed to support the other services which the station provides. Infomercials, however lucrative, are not (given the scam/junk nature of products/services being advertised and the duration of the commercial).

 

[mjlarochelle]

Interesting argument, that infomercials in small doses allow stations to serve the public.

But I don't see how a station broadcasting all infomercials (except for mandatory E/I programming) serves the public interest.

 

[ricksegers]

Infomercials serve the public interest just as much as the crap that passes for TV programming these days. It's not a broadcaster's duty to make sure people don't overload their credit cards buying Sham wows or Matthew Lesko books.

 

[landtuna]

Infomercials serve the public interest just as much as the crap that passes for TV programming these days. It's not a broadcaster's duty to make sure people don't overload their credit cards buying Sham wows or Matthew Lesko books.

The question was not asked in the context of protecting the listener/viewer from illicit/unwise purchases but rather the use of the public airwaves to promote, at length, private industry products.

Comparing infomercials to programming is another topic entirely.

 

[mjlarochelle]

The question was not asked in the context of protecting the listener/viewer from illicit/unwise purchases but rather the use of the public airwaves to promote, at length, private industry products.

Comparing infomercials to programming is another topic entirely.

Arguably, most programming on TV is really thinly veiled advertising in one way or another. News programming can be used to indirectly help advertisers who already are sponsoring programming - for example, some have argued certain disease outbreaks are given disproportionate coverage in the media because it helps pharmaceutical companies wishing to sell vaccines, some of which have questionable effects (such as Tamiflu). In other cases a station might "tone down" negative coverage of a company and just keep the name in there as a free promo for the company - such as the Monsanto coverage on FOX's WTVT in Tampa Bay.

The point is, much programming does not serve the public interest, although I'd rather see the existing programming with weather coverage and local information than infomercials.

 

[briancraig]

Infomercials in the middle of the night don't really bother me, but lately they have been spreading all over the schedule of even major network affiliates.

WKRG, the CBS station in Mobile shows an hour of infomercials from 9 am to 10 am on weekdays which is sad to me for some reason.

Even in major markets, network affiliate stations are often showing infomercials on Saturday and Sunday afternoon when there is no network sports.

I do think that any station that is over a certain amount infomercial should not have "must carry" privilege on cable systems. I would really like to see the FCC change that rule.

 

[Markxxx]

Well a free market works best, provided it is actually free. TV and Radio are NOT by any defintion free markets. If I had a billion dollard, I couldn't open a TV station in Chicago. Why? There are no allocations left. There are only so many stations per market. Pehaps I could buy a TV station? Yes, but that defeats the point, now we're back to the same number of stations, instead of a free market.

The free market will allow people to correct abuses, but if you allow people to compete and stifle competition it HURTS not helps.

You also have a thing called an "effective monopoly." This is where one company is so powerful they actually constrain business. Google and eBay are great examples of this. There is an actual free market there. But Google and eBay are so far ahead in their respective business models that it's nearly impossible to compete with them.

Informercials "serving the public interest" stem from "Home shopping channels" origins. In the early 1990s the FCC ruled that Home Shopping did indeed fill the public interest by providing alternative programing and helping the housebound to shop.

Prior to the FCC regulatations were slowly erroded away by the courts. The FCC used to have simple rules. Later on during the Reagan years, the courts told the FCC it's OK for you to have rules, but you have to have legitimate reasons to back it up.

So for instance the rule that said you can only have 15 minutes of commercials per half hour was discarded. Not because the courts objected, because the court said, unless you can say "WHY it has to be 15 minutes instead of say, 20 minutes/half hour or 10 minutes per half hour, you need to drop the requirement.

So slowly as companies challanged rules, if the FCC couldn't come up with a sound logical reason (in the courts opinion) on their rules, they had to drop them. During the 80s, if you look you'll find the FCC didn't try very hard to find a reason to back any of their rules up.

Now with the way TV works we have little diversity and even when a new start up company comes along we have simply more of the same opinion.

 

[cspotrun]

This question has already been answered, but I will repeat it anyways. Infomercials do not fulfill the public interest. All they do is provide additional revenue for commercial and cable television stations.

By themselves, that's true. However, one could make an argument that infomercials provide revenue that a station can use to serve the public (IF the station doesn't go overboard.) The problem is most managers care nothing beyond this quarter's numbers. Everything else, including next quarter, is secondary. I call it the definition of short-sighted. A previous poster said all-infomercial and EMF stations don't serve the public. I couldn't agree more. Let me take it another step...do stations on a bird 24/7 with nothing but an occasional weathercast serve the public interest?

serving the public interest costs MONEY, and iF they can make money to do that in the middle of the night(when the public interest is better served by SLEEPING) so be it.

 

[searadiofreak]

Isn't the real issue here whether or not the instant revenue from infomercials outweighs the long-term decline in revenue from weaker ratings? Or have we gotten to a point where the ratings during these non-peak hours doesn't fluctuate much between infomericials and whatever else is available to program during these hours? Weekends on most local tv stations is a wasteland anyway, so why not make money? On the other hand, from a viewer standpoint, I would much rather watch an old sitcom, an old movie, etc. during these non-peak hours. I'm afraid the margins today make that an impossibility. It really comes down to a business decison, and unfortunately, that is rarely best for the viewer.

 

[TexasTom]

I do think that any station that is over a certain amount infomercial should not have "must carry" privilege on cable systems. I would really like to see the FCC change that rule.

I tend to favor this approach, as well. Of course it does beg the question as to what the maximum infomercial percentage could be before a station loses "must carry" status. If I were setting the rules, I'd probably set the percentage around 50% maximum for a station's primary programming stream to be elgible for "must carry" status -- and I'd also give a boost to multicast must-carry by giving "must carry" status to subchannels that don't carry more than 25% infomercials.

 

[Madmansam]

Used to be a time when Independents would show nothing but Cartoons, Movies and Syndicated Reruns. And the All Night Hours were usually a MOVIES TILL DAWN type of show. Those Were The Days!

 

[cspotrun]

I do think that any station that is over a certain amount infomercial should not have "must carry" privilege on cable systems. I would really like to see the FCC change that rule.

I tend to favor this approach, as well. Of course it does beg the question as to what the maximum infomercial percentage could be before a station loses "must carry" status. If I were setting the rules, I'd probably set the percentage around 50% maximum for a station's primary programming stream to be elgible for "must carry" status -- and I'd also give a boost to multicast must-carry by giving "must carry" status to subchannels that don't carry more than 25% infomercials.

"Infomercial's" are about as entertaining as a "Reality Show" and i don't see anybody griping about %'s of Reality Shows?, C'mon there are 300 channels on cable, if your LOCAL station is running an infomercial you have 298 OTHER channels to watch. if you want to KILL local TV stations give them a ridiculous regulation like that. they are struggling like any other Local broadcaster, they have to do what they have to do right now to survive, and like you, i'm sure they're not happy about having to run this CRAP.