Skirting FCC's intent?

[LeighNash]

I saw this question posed to the Research Doctor at allaccess.com, and wanted to know how YOU would answer it .

Topic: FCC non-com loop hole?

Question: Dr. Wimmer: Being non-commercial of course means one cannot air advertising for commercial/for profit enterprises. However, stations can air paid spots for other non-profit organizations (credit unions, schools, etc.).

So I've heard of non-com stations that set up a separate non-profit extension of themselves for the sole purpose of being able to purchase ad time on the non-com mother ship. For instance, a concert promoter pays the non-profit extension to promote/publicize a show. In turn, this non-profit extension buys time on the non-com station pimping said concert.

Doesn't that defeat the intent the FCC originally had in mind for non-com stations? Is this seemingly skirting of the rules in place walking on thin ice, or is it perfectly acceptable? - Anonymous

 

[edbeckdotcom]

It is generally acceptable but shouldn't be.

The original intent of non-commercial radio is being ignored by 99% of the non-coms out there. College stations, in general, have too big a signal for their necessary operation. Religious organizations are over-populating translator stations nationwide. Mostly, larger stations have an unfair advantage over smaller stations.

A spot is a spot, whether is comes from the Girl Scouts, EPA, AdCouncil, or McDonald's or Pepsi. It's for-profit/non-profit status is immaterial. The FCC is deciding how stations are funded. I think "non-commercial" means "
no commercials, no paid announcements", period.

Allowing underwritten announcements offers an unfair advantage for larger stations to attract corporate sponsorships. This flies in the face of the original intent of non-com radio use. Why Nexium is sponsoring the NPR news is beyond me....how is that PUBLIC radio?


not anonymous

 

[tpt]

Most of the FCC rulings on commercial content have focused on the message.

If Coca Cola wishes to sponsora half hour of programing and the announcement is "the following program is brought to you by your local Cocal Cola bottler" that's OK; on the other hand Pepsi can't take the next half-hour and have the station run a jingle that says "Pepsi-Cola hits the spot, just a nickle buys a lot," followed by 20 seconds of ad copy for their latest brand of flavored bottled water.

The same rule applies even if the sponsor is a non-profit, a credit union can "underwrite the programing of WXXX Classical 91" but cannot run a 30 second spot suggesting that "if you are employed by the University that runs WXXX, you, too are eligible for a low rate on auto loans, and now's the time to refinance your mortgage, call BR-549."

 

[jegrant]

I have heard one non-profit station running very mainstream-sounding underwriting for a concert promoter (who may or may not be non-profit, but seems to be promoting virtually all the concerts that the station is lending its name to) that almost seems to cross the line. I don't think what they are doing is technically illegal though, because they never explicitly tell the listener to buy tickets; they only inform the listener that tickets are available, and perhaps where they are available, or a number to call to find out more information.

I have heard this station explicitly mention pricing and encourage ticket purchasing in one case - a concert where the proceeds were all going to fund the station's operations. I think this is the one case in which it's perfectly legal.

 

[Ai4i]

The original "enhanced underwriting" experimant specifically disallowed the word, "you". Enhanced underwriting must never include a "call to action". I don't know if this was ever legal, but a local college station used to promote the university bookshop pretty strongly, "...for all your stationery needs...".<P ID="signature">______________
Proud 2 B a pioneering satellite radio subs¢riber
Ai4i is always on the trailing edge of technology
______________</P>

 

[radiomike]

>> So I've heard of non-com stations that set up a separate
> non-profit extension of themselves for the sole purpose of
> being able to purchase ad time on the non-com mother ship.
> For instance, a concert promoter pays the non-profit
> extension to promote/publicize a show. In turn, this
> non-profit extension buys time on the non-com station
> pimping said concert.

Recently, a ruling and admonishment concerning concert promotion at WNCW helped to make this clearer. The FCC does not really care if a non-profit buys the time to promote a commercial venture or not. The business or product is the issue. Technically, underwriting announcements are to acknowledge donations to the station. This has been stretched to allow for longer announcements of acknowledgements of that donation. However, if it is a commercial promoter, his hands are tied. The exception would be if all said proceeds of concert were going to the station. I would believe the above example runs afoul of both FCC and IRS regulations.

 

[radiomike]

> The original intent of non-commercial radio is being ignored
> by 99% of the non-coms out there. College stations, in
> general, have too big a signal for their necessary
> operation.

There was nothing in the ruels to indicate this.

> Religious organizations are over-populating translator stations nationwide.

True. The loophole in the translator rules created this problem.

>Mostly, larger stations have an unfair advantage over smaller stations.

Not necessisarily. It depends on where these stations are and what the format and missions are. There are many smaller stations doing very well, over bigger stations, both commercial and noncommercial, respectively.

> A spot is a spot, whether is comes from the Girl Scouts, EPA, AdCouncil, or
> McDonald's or Pepsi.

Wrong. A spot is a commercial Girl Scouts or EPA is a PSA. Spots are paid for. PSA's are aired without any compensation to the station.

> It's for-profit/non-profit status is immaterial. The FCC is deciding how
> stations are funded. I think "non-commercial" means " no commercials, no
> paid announcements", period.

Well, then you are in the minority. Non-commercial means not airing commercials. There is no FCC prohibition on station fundraising through over the air fund drives, acknowledgement of donations from businesses, or from off air sources.

> Allowing underwritten announcements offers an unfair advantage for larger
> stations to attract corporate sponsorships. This flies in the face of the
> original intent of non-com radio use. Why Nexium is sponsoring the NPR news
> is beyond me....how is that PUBLIC radio?

One could make the case that larger stations have an unfair advantage, in that their signal reaches more people, and therefore, more potential donors. If your station has good programming, and a measurable audience, then you will have businessed interested in donating to your station in support of that programming, so their acknowledgement can be linked with this program. If a local commercial station with horrible programming and does not even get enough listeners to meet the miminum to be in the book, and still gets advertising, then there should be not a problem. Nexium, btw, does not sponsor NPR news. Astra Zeneca donates to NPR, and their acknowledgement lists a product they make. "AstraZeneca, makers of prescription Nexium, 'esomeprazole magnesium'.
Nexium, the purple pill, at purple pill dot com" was the credit. It last aired in 2003.

AZ, ADM, Ford, Pepsi, Joe's Pizza, whatever...like to donate to public radio. It makes sense for their business in terms of Philanthropy and the acknowledgement rings true to potential consumers. Since the government does not fund public radio 100%, then there has to be another way, that is NOT airing a commercial. I believe the short announcement above is far different than the same radio ads that were heard on commercial radio for the purple pill!

 

[network]

> It is generally acceptable but shouldn't be.

Oh geez...here we go. Again.

> The original intent of non-commercial radio is being ignored
> by 99% of the non-coms out there. College stations, in
> general, have too big a signal for their necessary
> operation.

Please prove it. You mean to tell me you are that in the dark when it comes to understanding the mission of a college station???

> Religious organizations are over-populating
> translator stations nationwide.

I agree with another poster: so true.

> Mostly, larger stations have
> an unfair advantage over smaller stations.
Not necessarily

> A spot is a spot, whether is comes from the Girl Scouts,
> EPA, AdCouncil, or McDonald's or Pepsi. It's
> for-profit/non-profit status is immaterial. The FCC is
> deciding how stations are funded. I think "non-commercial"
> means " no commercials, no paid announcements", period.

"Commercial content" has already been decided. A "non-profit" announcement is clearly spelled out what it IS and is NOT to contain. You obviously can't tell the difference between an ORGANIZATION like Girl Scouts, the EPA and the ADCouncil and COMPANIES like McDonald's and Pepsi. It would help to be able to AT LEAST distinguish between the two in order to participate, legitimately, in a discussion.

> Allowing underwritten announcements offers an unfair
> advantage for larger stations to attract corporate
> sponsorships.

Please explain this, too.


? This flies in the face of the original intent
> of non-com radio use.

And that was???

Why Nexium is sponsoring the NPR news
> is beyond me....how is that PUBLIC radio?

Again, it usually helps to understand what you're talking about in order to legitimately participate in a discussion. You clearly do not.

Still.

Is this all you do all the time is complain? If I were a fish, I'd love your posts. They're nothing but bait.

 

[jegrant]

> The original "enhanced underwriting" experimant specifically
> disallowed the word, "you". Enhanced underwriting must never
> include a "call to action". I don't know if this was ever
> legal, but a local college station used to promote the
> university bookshop pretty strongly, "...for all your
> stationery needs...".

Wouldn't that be allowed, though, as long as the college held the license for the station and owned 100 percent of the bookstore? The bookstore would then be considered to be non-profit, and furthermore, even though it might not be proven that all bookstore proceeds directly funded the station, it would be accurate to say they provided some percentage of the station's budget.

Now, if this was a college bookstore owned by a separate for-profit company (as so many seem to be these days), then I would say the station had better be careful about underwriting acknowledgments.

 

[mwebster]

Hmmm. Sounds like non-commercial stations have been following the example of "amateur" athletics (Olympics, NCAA, AAU, et al).

"There was a time for Avery Brundige. The time of William of Orange."
- Howard Cossell


> It is generally acceptable but shouldn't be.
>
> The original intent of non-commercial radio is being ignored
> by 99% of the non-coms out there. College stations, in
> general, have too big a signal for their necessary
> operation. Religious organizations are over-populating
> translator stations nationwide. Mostly, larger stations have
> an unfair advantage over smaller stations.
>
> A spot is a spot, whether is comes from the Girl Scouts,
> EPA, AdCouncil, or McDonald's or Pepsi. It's
> for-profit/non-profit status is immaterial. The FCC is
> deciding how stations are funded. I think "non-commercial"
> means "
> no commercials, no paid announcements", period.
>
> Allowing underwritten announcements offers an unfair
> advantage for larger stations to attract corporate
> sponsorships. This flies in the face of the original intent
> of non-com radio use. Why Nexium is sponsoring the NPR news
> is beyond me....how is that PUBLIC radio?
>
>
> not anonymous
>

 

[uncamark]

> Most of the FCC rulings on commercial content have focused
> on the message.
>
> If Coca Cola wishes to sponsora half hour of programing and
> the announcement is "the following program is brought to you
> by your local Cocal Cola bottler" that's OK; on the other
> hand Pepsi can't take the next half-hour and have the
> station run a jingle that says "Pepsi-Cola hits the spot,
> just a nickle buys a lot," followed by 20 seconds of ad copy
> for their latest brand of flavored bottled water.
>
> The same rule applies even if the sponsor is a non-profit, a
> credit union can "underwrite the programing of WXXX
> Classical 91" but cannot run a 30 second spot suggesting
> that "if you are employed by the University that runs WXXX,
> you, too are eligible for a low rate on auto loans, and
> now's the time to refinance your mortgage, call BR-549."

The only "sell line" that is allowed is the company's established slogan. In other words, Coke can use "Real" and Pepsi can use "It's the Cola" in the copy, but nothing else that's a call to action, comparative or offers pricing information.

I guess that the most infamous use in public radio, the segueing of the "Marketplace" theme into the "GE--We Bring Good Things to Life" jingle, was upheld as a legitimate, established slogan for the company.