KFWB airing informercials

[John McNary]

I cannot believe what I heard this Sunday morning.

KFWB replaced its news with infomercials.

Not only that, the station presented paid material in the guise of news.

A fake call-in show starring some breathless mortgage broker, taking obviously-staged, prerecorded and scripted phone calls, was aired between 7-8 a.m.

Not only that, these segments of informercials were sandwiched in between actual news, traffic and weather segments.

It was pathetic.

These "call in" segments were obvious commercials, but were not identified as such.

Some of the segments were eight minutes long, and newscast material both preceeded and followed the advertisements. Repeat: the mortgage pitches were not identified as commercial material as the station went into and out of news programming.

I was shocked.

At 7:59 the last segment ended, and only then did the announcer say that the preceeding program was a paid commercial and did not reflect the views of KFWB.

It was a clear fraud on the listening public.

It was clearly a paid series of commercials masquerading as news.

It was an obvious violation of the public trust and of FCC regulations.

And the denials of KFWB management in this forum several weeks ago were a lie to us.

 

[John McNary]

Andy Ludlum, last October:

We are NOT airing any block programming infomercials. There are no plans now and none in the future. When we pulled our Dodgers' offer mid-September we recommitted to what we've done for 35 of the last 40 years, which is ALL NEWS, ALL THE TIME.

Mr. Kramer's post about weekend traffic is something we are very aware of. It is very important to me that KFWB be absolutely dependable -- that you know what you are going to get 24/7. As a news guy -- I'm happy to have an opportunity to showcase our product without inconsistencies.

I've been with the station 10 years -- and while I'm biased -- I don't think we've sounded brighter and sharper than we do now. And so contrary to the All Access post -- I've added 3-4 minutes of news to every hour. You'll now hear more minutes of news on KFWB than any other commercial news station.

Hopefully this is just the "beginning" of something better.

Andy Ludlum
Program Director
KFWB NEWS 980

 

[davideduardo]

I
It was a clear fraud on the listening public.

It was clearly a paid series of commercials masquerading as news.

It was an obvious violation of the public trust and of FCC regulations.

And the denials of KFWB management in this forum several weeks ago were a lie to us.

If there were "long commercials" in regular programming and the name of the advertiser, either company or product, was in the commercials, then sponsorship identification rules were complied with. There is no onter requirement of a legal nature in the rules.

Many stations do similar things... they do short infomercials (about the length of a stopset) within an hour or half hour, all for the same client. As long as the sponsorship rules are complied with, they are not in violation of the rules.

From The Public and Broadcasting on the FCC website:

Sponsorship Identification. Sponsorship identification or disclosure must accompany any material that is broadcast in exchange for money, service, or anything else of value paid to a station, either directly or indirectly. This announcement must clearly say that the time was purchased and by whom. In the case of advertisements for commercial products or services, it is sufficient to announce the sponsor's corporate or trade name, or the name of the sponsor's product (where it is clear that the mention of the product constitutes a sponsorship identification).

What is, then, wrong with these commercials?

 

[John McNary]

David, as I stated:

They were 8 minutes long and they were NOT disclosed to be paid content before or after they ended ... except for the mention at the end of the final segment. That announcement, by the way, followed a :60 commerecial for the product, not at the conclusion of the program segment.

All of the rest of the segments began and ended without any announcement that they were paid content. Worse, they were disguised as actual programming.

They were legally worse than video news releases, whoch the FCC has also cracked down on: VNRs are handout tapes, and news operations are not paid to use them. Here, a fake news program was aired and CBS was paid.

David, please do not confuse this issue with your general defense of anything that any radio operation does.

This was a clear violation of FCC rules. It is arguably a case of fraudulent advertising, as claims were made that are very likely false and misleading.

Most importantly, it is a grave violation of the station;'s trust, and of Mr. Ludlum's pledge to his listeners.

If you arguje that shady practices like this are the industry norm, Mr. Eduardo, than your industry should hang its head in shame.

But they are not legal. Do you want a bet?

 

[John McNary]

If there were "long commercials" in regular programming and the name of the advertiser, either company or product, was in the commercials, then sponsorship identification rules were complied with. There is no onter requirement of a legal nature in the rules.

No, they were not complied with. The paid segments began and ended without any announcement that there was a sponsor. The program host mentioned his company, all right, but he did not say that it was paying for the program until the end of the last segment.

The station went in and out of the advertsisng segments and presented news and traffic mixed in.

Many stations do similar things... they do short infomercials (about the length of a stopset) within an hour or half hour, all for the same client. As long as the sponsorship rules are complied with, they are not in violation of the rules.

What is it you don't understand? These fake-news segments were EIGHT MINUTES LONG. They were not identified during the segments, before ther segments or after the segments with any announcement that they were sponsored material.

Except: after the last segment ended, a 60-second spot for the same mortgage firm aired, and THAT spot was identified as a paid announcement. The call-in segments that masqueraded as programming were NEVER identified as paid programming.

Let's take the FCC rule:

Sponsorship Identification. Sponsorship identification or disclosure must accompany any material that is broadcast in exchange for money, service, or anything else of value paid to a station, either directly or indirectly.

Not done by KFWB on any of the segments aired between 7:10 and 7:58.

This announcement must clearly say that the time was purchased and by whom.

Not done by KFWB.

In the case of advertisements for commercial products or services, it is sufficient to announce the sponsor's corporate or trade name, or the name of the sponsor's product (where it is clear that the mention of the product constitutes a sponsorship identification).

Not done by KFWB.

[q]What is, then, wrong with these commercials?[/q]

What is wrong with these commercials is that KFWB sold its editorial voice, a violation of trust to the listener, and a clear violation of FCC rules.

KFWB did an illegal, unethical and shameful act.

 

[John McNary]

David, you neglect to quote other parts of FCC policy. Such as the May 2005 public notice on VNRs, which are a less-insidious extension of paid program-length ads:

"These rules are grounded in the principle that listeners and viewers are entitled to know who seeks to persuade them with the programming offered over broadcast stations and cable systems.

"For the reasons noted in this Public Notice, and as provided for in the statutory provisions and in the Commission’s rules, whenever broadcast stations and cable operators air VNRs, licensees and operators generally must clearly disclose to members of their audiences the nature, source and sponsorship of the material that they are viewing."

VNR violations mean the stations haven't been paid for the material, a far less serious offense than paid material disguised as programming.

 

[John McNary]

If there were "long commercials" in regular programming and the name of the advertiser, either company or product, was in the commercials, then sponsorship identification rules were complied with. There is no onter requirement of a legal nature in the rules.

No, they were not complied with. The paid segments began and ended without any announcement that there was a sponsor. The program host mentioned his company, all right, but he did not say that it was paying for the program until the end of the last segment.

The station went in and out of the advertsisng segments and presented news and traffic mixed in.

Many stations do similar things... they do short infomercials (about the length of a stopset) within an hour or half hour, all for the same client. As long as the sponsorship rules are complied with, they are not in violation of the rules.

What is it you don't understand? These fake-news segments were EIGHT MINUTES LONG. They were not identified during the segments, before ther segments or after the segments with any announcement that they were sponsored material.

Except: after the last segment ended, a 60-second spot for the same mortgage firm aired, and THAT spot was identified as a paid announcement. The call-in segments that masqueraded as programming were NEVER identified as paid programming.

Let's take the FCC rule:

Sponsorship Identification. Sponsorship identification or disclosure must accompany any material that is broadcast in exchange for money, service, or anything else of value paid to a station, either directly or indirectly.

Not done by KFWB on any of the segments aired between 7:10 and 7:58.

This announcement must clearly say that the time was purchased and by whom.

Not done by KFWB.

In the case of advertisements for commercial products or services, it is sufficient to announce the sponsor's corporate or trade name, or the name of the sponsor's product (where it is clear that the mention of the product constitutes a sponsorship identification).

Not done by KFWB.

What is, then, wrong with these commercials?

What is wrong with these commercials is that KFWB sold its editorial voice, a violation of trust to the listener, and a clear violation of FCC rules.

KFWB did an illegal, unethical and shameful act.

 

[davideduardo]

"If there were "long commercials" in regular programming and the name of the advertiser, either company or product, was in the commercials, then sponsorship identification rules were complied with. There is no onter requirement of a legal nature in the rules. "

No, they were not complied with. The paid segments began and ended without any announcement that there was a sponsor. The program host mentioned his company, all right, but he did not say that it was paying for the program until the end of the last segment.

If the segments were "stopset length" thet were just commercials... long spots, not programs. In any case, there is no requirement in the rules to say the name of the sponsor at the beginning and end, only to make sure it is clear who the sponsor is within the duration of the spot. Coke and McDonalds spots do not say, "this is a commercial for McDonalds" (or Coca Cola) at the start.

The station went in and out of the advertsisng segments and presented news and traffic mixed in.

Hmmm. Isn't that what all stations do... provide content such as music and news and talk and sports, and then go to content? Most of us try to avoid like the plague saying, "now, here are the commercials" and that is not illegal, immoral or fattening.

What is it you don't understand? These fake-news segments were EIGHT MINUTES LONG. They were not identified during the segments, before ther segments or after the segments with any announcement that they were sponsored material.

Sponsor ID is complied with if, in the course of the commercial, the name of the company or its product is mentioned. The sponsor ID rules are to prevent "If you are buying a car, be sure to wait till next Tuesday when the best car in America is introduced." In other words, teasers, where there is no brand or sponsor clearly mentioned... If the name of the client is in the spot... and 8 minutes is a spot... they are legal.

Except: after the last segment ended, a 60-second spot for the same mortgage firm aired, and THAT spot was identified as a paid announcement. The call-in segments that masqueraded as programming were NEVER identified as paid programming.

They don't have to be. There is no "paid program" rule, just sponsor ID is regulated. Most stations that do long spots or paid programming put such notices on only to protect themselves legally in case the advertiser is sued for something. I'ts not required.

Let's take the FCC rule:

Sponsorship Identification. Sponsorship identification or disclosure must accompany any material that is broadcast in exchange for money, service, or anything else of value paid to a station, either directly or indirectly.

Not done by KFWB on any of the segments aired between 7:10 and 7:58.

This announcement must clearly say that the time was purchased and by whom.

Not done by KFWB.

No, the rule does NOT say that spots must say the time was purchased. It only says that any paid announcements must be identified as to who the sponsor is. Reread the rule. A paraphrase is that "if you get money or anything of value for a spot, it must say who the spot is for. If the spot names the advertiser or his services or goods, the rule is complied with.

[/quote]In the case of advertisements for commercial products or services, it is sufficient to announce the sponsor's corporate or trade name, or the name of the sponsor's product (where it is clear that the mention of the product constitutes a sponsorship identification).

Not done by KFWB.[/quote]

If the name of the advertiser or its service was said in each segment, they are legal. "And if you call Dutch Bank right now, you can lock your rate" is a sponsor ID, just like "Here are the specials at KMart this week" identify the advertiser.

[What is wrong with these commercials is that KFWB sold its editorial voice, a violation of trust to the listener, and a clear violation of FCC rules.

If the sponsor name was in each segment, they have done all that is required. There is no rule on violation of trust, and they violated no FCC rules.

KFWB did an illegal, unethical and shameful act.

Sez U. Remember how you posted dozens of times that Crawford and KBRT were responsible for the Catalina fire? Turns out the only party being held responsible is the rigger, not Crawford.

Take up precision instruments or advanced math if you like, because broadcast law is not your forté.

 

[John McNary]

If the segments were "stopset length" thet were just commercials... long spots, not programs.

They were not stopset length, they were 8 minutes long. And they were disguised as program material.

In any case, there is no requirement in the rules to say the name of the sponsor at the beginning and end, only to make sure it is clear who the sponsor is within the duration of the spot.

Not correct. Sec. 73.1212 says that "When a broadcast station transmits any (commercial) matter ...
the station, at the time of the broadcast, shall announce that such matter is sponsored"

This was not done by KFWB, which aired 8-minute-long infomericals masquerading as news, followed by real news, followed by 8 more informercial minutes, followed by news, for an hour. At no time, except at 7:59, was this announced as paid matter, and only after an actual spot separated the informercial from the announcement.

Coke and McDonalds spots do not say, "this is a commercial for McDonalds" (or Coca Cola) at the start.

No, because they are separate from the program materal. Program material, if sponsored, must be labelled as such.

Sponsor ID is complied with if, in the course of the commercial, the name of the company or its product is mentioned.

Not correct. The name of the company must be announced as ther sponsor, not merely of the company. You are confusing regulations of commercial spots with regulation of paid programming.

There is no "paid program" rule, just sponsor ID is regulated.

The rule itself, § 317: "All matter broadcast by any radio station for which any money, service or other valuable consideration is directly or indirectly paid, or promised to or charged or accepted by, the station so broadcasting, from any person, shall, at the time same is so broadcast, be announced as paid for or furnished, as the case may be, by such person.”

This was not done by KFWB.

No, the rule does NOT say that spots must say the time was purchased. It only says that any paid announcements must be identified as to who the sponsor is. Reread the rule.

I did. It says that informericals shall be announced as paid programming at the time they are broadcast.

KFWB did not. Your misunderstanding of this basic federal rule notwithstanding, the fact is that KFWB aired informercials without annoucning them as sponsored programs.

A paraphrase is that "if you get money or anything of value for a spot, it must say who the spot is for. If the spot names the advertiser or his services or goods, the rule is complied with.

Wrong. It says the sponsorship shall be announced at the time it is broadcast.

I will not address your personal comments.

 

[Big E]

Regardless of the content of any station, you cant take the information as an absolute truth, even NEWS stations. Commercials are the life line of radio, as any one here in the biz can attest. Commercials are many things, cheezy, badly produced, over played definetly, but unethical?, maybe the sales people that sell them. In any case your on losing side. Send a letter or an email to some one who might care and get over it. ;D

 

[davideduardo]

They were not stopset length, they were 8 minutes long. And they were disguised as program material.

Stopsets are 6 to 8 minutes long today. There is no FCC rule on stopset length.

In any case, there is no requirement in the rules to say the name of the sponsor at the beginning and end, only to make sure it is clear who the sponsor is within the duration of the spot.

Not correct. Sec. 73.1212 says that "When a broadcast station transmits any (commercial) matter ... the station, at the time of the broadcast, shall announce that such matter is sponsored"

Naming the sponsor or the sponsor's product or service complies with the sponsor ID requirement. Just because the spot was longer than 60" does not mean it is not a commerical. It's subject to the same sponsor ID as a 10" commercial... name the advertiser or its commercial product. And they did, by your own admission.

73.1212 does not determine any differences between spots and programs, as the rules apply equally to any paid for broadcast material. Most stations play it safe by putting extra sponsor IDs on, but that is not required.

This was not done by KFWB, which aired 8-minute-long infomericals masquerading as news, followed by real news, followed by 8 more informercial minutes, followed by news, for an hour. At no time, except at 7:59, was this announced as paid matter, and only after an actual spot separated the informercial from the announcement.

In other words, they did more than was required. Good for them, they made sure anyone listening understood.

Coke and McDonalds spots do not say, "this is a commercial for McDonalds" (or Coca Cola) at the start.

No, because they are separate from the program materal. Program material, if sponsored, must be labelled as such.

There is no rule about how commercials are produced, and there is no rule about "keeping it separate from the program material" since you can put commercials of any style anywhere in an hour. The long spots complied with sponsor ID, and that is all that is needed.

Sponsor ID is complied with if, in the course of the commercial, the name of the company or its product is mentioned.

Not correct. The name of the company must be announced as ther sponsor, not merely of the company. You are confusing regulations of commercial spots with regulation of paid programming.

The rule is clear. The name of the sponsor and/or its product must be in any spot of any length. If they named the mortgage bank or broker by name or by an owned product name, then the ad complies with the rule.

There is no "paid program" rule, just sponsor ID is regulated.

The rule itself, § 317: "All matter broadcast by any radio station for which any money, service or other valuable consideration is directly or indirectly paid, or promised to or charged or accepted by, the station so broadcasting, from any person, shall, at the time same is so broadcast, be announced as paid for or furnished, as the case may be, by such person.”

Actually, the relevant part of the rule is

"(f) In the case of broadcast matter
advertising commercial products or
services, an announcement stating the
sponsor’s corporate or trade name, or
the name of the sponsor’s product,
when it is clear that the mention of the
name of the product constitutes a
sponsorship identification, shall be
deemed sufficient for the purpose of
this section and only one such announcement
need be made at any time
during the course of the broadcast."

If each long commerical identified the client or sponsor as described once, it is a legal sponsor ID and nothing else is required. By "same time" the FCC means "inside the commercial" but that can be anywhere by interpretation. It does not have to be at the very beginning or it would say so.

No, the rule does NOT say that spots must say the time was purchased. It only says that any paid announcements must be identified as to who the sponsor is. Reread the rule.

I did. It says that informericals shall be announced as paid programming at the time they are broadcast.

KFWB did not. Your misunderstanding of this basic federal rule notwithstanding, the fact is that KFWB aired informercials without annoucning them as sponsored programs.

Read the paragraph above. If the sponsor is named once in the broadcast, that is sufficient to meet the rule. The word "infomercial" appears nowhere in the rule, in fact. Sponsored material is sponsored material, and the rule applies equally. The only exception, with more extensive rules, is for political advertising.

A paraphrase is that "if you get money or anything of value for a spot, it must say who the spot is for. If the spot names the advertiser or his services or goods, the rule is complied with.

Wrong. It says the sponsorship shall be announced at the time it is broadcast.

And it was. By naming the sponsor or its product in each spot. Hoist on your own petard here, mate.

I will not address your personal comments.

I made no personal comments. I stated that your interpretation of the law on the Catalina matter was wrong, as subsequent events have shown. You are misinterpreting the FCC rules now, and you are also wrong. Again, I suggest you focus on something you know about. Most of us in broadcasting have taken seminars, legal briefs from our counsel, etc., etc., so we can settle such issues. We deal with sp0onsor ID every day, and seldom make a mistake. I don't think that, in LA, there has been a violation by any station for decades.

 

[John McNary]

According to you, David, radio is perfect.

"We seldom make a mistake."

Noted.

But the fact is the program director promised right here that no such programming would go out on 980.

And as a frequent listener I feel it was a betrayal of trust.

KFWB stopsets are never 8 minutes long, and if your stations' are then that reflects on your company and how little it views its listeners and sponsors without any further comment needed.

Can the rest of us ever have a discussion here without a corporate radio guy barging in and monopolizing the conversation ?

 

[dustintv]

Forget the whole "is it an FCC violation" stuff.The fact that KFWB is supposed to be all news 24/7 station airing infomercials speaks for itself! If I thought KYW's "we're live on the air...sometimes" situation is bad, this is worse and completely pathetic. I wonder if sister station KNX was expected to pick up the slack.

 

[davideduardo]

Forget the whole "is it an FCC violation" stuff.The fact that KFWB is supposed to be all news 24/7 station airing infomercials speaks for itself! If I thought KYW's "we're live on the air...sometimes" situation is bad, this is worse and completely pathetic. I wonder if sister station KNX was expected to pick up the slack.

These "mini-infomercials" are essentially a whole stopset sold to a single client. In case you did not notice, there is news and traffic in between the mini informertials. I don't see the difference in 5 to 8 minutes sold to one account and a stopset sold, in its entirety, to one client.

 

[davideduardo]

But the fact is the program director promised right here that no such programming would go out on 980.

And as a frequent listener I feel it was a betrayal of trust.

KFWB stopsets are never 8 minutes long, and if your stations' are then that reflects on your company and how little it views its listeners and sponsors without any further comment needed.

Can the rest of us ever have a discussion here without a corporate radio guy barging in and monopolizing the conversation ?

8 minute spots are spots. Programs, by folks actually in radio, would be programs of 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 60 minutes length. What we have here is the length of a long stopset, not a show. Call them mini-infomericals, call them spots or whatever, they still allow for program content in between.

Whethere KFWB normally does not have 8 minute stops is immaterial. The fact is that they are selling all the commercial time in an hour to one client, instead of many. That is no big deal. By the way, most stations rund two stops an hour, with anything from 11 to 12 minutes up to 16 minutes in total per hour in those two stops. That includes the spots, promos and other stopset content... so 6 to 8 minutes per stop is pretty normal across the US.

And this board is open to everyone. Calling someone "corporate" is hardly an insult; 99% of all stations are corporate owned. The first station I owned in 1964 was corporate owned; to do it any other way is foolish.

"And" #2: you don't win arguments by telling a person you disagree with that he is unwelcome in an argument. That's just an admission of having a defective argument, which is true in this case.

 

[SuperRadioFan]

8 minute spots are spots. ................ Whether KFWB normally does not have 8 minute stops is immaterial. The fact is that they are selling all the commercial time in an hour to one client, instead of many. That is no big deal. By the way, most stations run two stops an hour, with anything from 11 to 12 minutes up to 16 minutes in total per hour in those two stops. That includes the spots, promos and other stopset content... so 6 to 8 minutes per stop is pretty normal across the US.

I don't listen to KFWB very much and its true, you give them 22 minutes they'll give you etc etc .... I guess their TSL is not very high but their cume is better. Anyway my two cents is that KFWB probably plays as many commercials per hour as any other big time LA station, only they don't seem to play more than two commercials in a row. That way they intersperse news, sports, traffic, and weather in between spots. The most valid point is IMO they claim (since the Dodgers games are gone) that they are All News All the time. Their audience EXPECTS that, David!! Are they getting it?

 

[nmoore6676]

According to you, David, radio is perfect.

"We seldom make a mistake."

Noted.

But the fact is the program director promised right here that no such programming would go out on 980.

And as a frequent listener I feel it was a betrayal of trust.

KFWB stopsets are never 8 minutes long, and if your stations' are then that reflects on your company and how little it views its listeners and sponsors without any further comment needed.

Can the rest of us ever have a discussion here without a corporate radio guy barging in and monopolizing the conversation ?

I don't have a dog in this fight but I would say that the best procedure rather than getting into a fight with David is to document, preferably with time annotated air check recordings and careful paper logs and submit it all to the FCC for review. Since it is a bureaucracy your work will likely go into the big round file but you will feel better by having voiced your opinion.

To be truthful I gave up on KFWB years ago, which is a shame as it was my first place to turn to for news, especially if I had just felt a larger than normal jolt of my floor. But I have found other sources for news and I miss them but C'est la vie. Adding infomercials is just another rung on their descent ladder going into the bottomless pit that AM radio is sadly becoming.

 

[davideduardo]

I don't listen to KFWB very much and its true, you give them 22 minutes they'll give you etc etc .... I guess their TSL is not very high but their cume is better. Anyway my two cents is that KFWB probably plays as many commercials per hour as any other big time LA station, only they don't seem to play more than two commercials in a row. That way they intersperse news, sports, traffic, and weather in between spots. The most valid point is IMO they claim (since the Dodgers games are gone) that they are All News All the time. Their audience EXPECTS that, David!! Are they getting it?

What difference is there if one person buys all the commercal time and it is used in blocks in an hour or whether there are 18 or 20 one minute spots spread around the hour?

I don't like the idea of doing more than a minute or two at one time for one client, as it gives the impression of a non-stop informercial, but if they want to get revenue on a tough to sell daypart, that works. The news and traffic are there, aren't they? For listening pleasure it sucks, I immagine, but they are likely hurting for revenue.

Let's all remember that we are in tough economic times. Revenues in radio are down, and for an older demo station like KFWB it is even harder as the big mortgage and refi category is nearly all gone and the automotive in SoCal is way off so they are looking at alternative revenue streams. Expect to hear more of this, too.

 

[John McNary]

What difference is there if one person buys all the commercal time and it is used in blocks in an hour or whether there are 18 or 20 one minute spots spread around the hour?

The difference is that KFWB misled its listeners.

The difference is that a series of 8-minute fake-news programs ran, unidentified as commerical material, and surrounded on both sides by actual news coverage.

The difference is that Andy Ludlow, the program director, personally assured us this would not happen.

Let's all remember that we are in tough economic times. Revenues in radio are down, and for an older demo station like KFWB it is even harder as the big mortgage and refi category is nearly all gone and the automotive in SoCal is way off so they are looking at alternative revenue streams. Expect to hear more of this, too.

So that makes it OK?

Sorry, Mister Corporate radio. You're wrong.

And I think it is wrong when anyone hogs the board with an "everything is all right - radio is perfect - we know what we are doing and you the mere listener must be an idiot for disagreeing with me" attitude.

"Adding infomercials is just another rung on their descent ladder going into the bottomless pit that AM radio is sadly becoming."

That is what people think of your industry knowledge, David. Perhaps your listeners are stupid enough to think an 8-minute stopset is good radio, I am not.

 

[SuperRadioFan]

You make some good points, John. Remember the days when if you wanted to hear the sports scores, you just had to tune in to 980 or 1070 at :15 and :45 and you would get what you expect !!??