spots vs enhanced underwriting

[Ai4i]

We question the difference in effectiveness between "more info @" and "visit", "is @" vs "go to", and "can be reached @" vs "call".
We prefer the softer sell and don't like to be told what to do.
Comments?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I'm sitting here trying to figure out if I know anybody (other than FCC lawyers, etc) who parses the language that closely. A lot of people get bent out of shape because they perceive a certain tone of voice in what someone says to them.

This artificial "Berlin Wall" of language has been created in trying to define some things to be commercially paid talk, and some things to be "graciously acknowledging the friends who give us a helping hand".

Some day we will work out a better understanding of how we deal with commercial radio vs. non-commercial radio and we will look back on the past few years with laughter.

For now laughter does not come easily on the topic.

 

[88.9 Miracle]

Yes it's no way near laughter, but rather paranoia! We have to have sponsors and underwriters in order to obtain operating capitol, but we do not want to get fined in the process. The rules for enhanced underwriting are never black and white but rather up for interpretation. Unfortunately my interpretation does not matter, it is the FCC's interpretation that matters because they write the fines. I would always simply stay away from VERBS, period.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Yes it's no way near laughter, but rather paranoia! We have to have sponsors and underwriters in order to obtain operating capitol, but we do not want to get fined in the process. The rules for enhanced underwriting are never black and white but rather up for interpretation. Unfortunately my interpretation does not matter, it is the FCC's interpretation that matters because they write the fines. I would always simply stay away from VERBS, period.

It's typical of how things work when rules and regulations are written by government bureaucrats. The most common response after attempting to follow government regulations is, "What are we doing here, and why are we in a handbasket?"

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

It's typical of how things work when rules and regulations are written by government bureaucrats. The most common response after attempting to follow government regulations is, "What are we doing here, and why are we in a handbasket?"

There are days when I chafe about the verbiage that is extruded by the mechanism we call bureaucracy. But that is their task. They by the definition of the word "bureau" are given the job of reducing policy to finite written words. We wail and caterwaul as though ONLY government can be so degenerate as to produce bureaucratic rules. We gingerly tiptoe over and around all the written policy our companies (as in free enterprise) establish that when you open your eyes, consist of equally bureaucratic thinking.

There cannot be a policy that is enforceable if it is not reduced to writing which is not squishy and spongy.

In fairness to our friends who populate the FCC and other agencies: where does this verbiage come from? Have you paid attention to "Notice of proposed rule-making" announcements. Companies pay their lawyers to submit sugfgestions which often include proposed wording.

As Pogo has often been quoted: "We have met the enemy.... and he is US."

One of the reasons the verbiage about commercials vs enhanced endorsements does not get cleaned up is because those people most affected (not for profit public radio) operate in a thin-edge finance situation and don't feel they have the ability to push back and get things changed.

We have to hope for people in n-f-p radio to become a bit more pushy.

 

[88.9 Miracle]

I'm with you and I'm ready. Who else wants to work to get things changed? It giong to take 20 years so we'd better get started now!

 

[Ai4i]

The original question was about comparitive effectiveness, but what changes would the two of you like to see ???

 

[Dancerev889]

We question the difference in effectiveness between "more info @" and "visit", "is @" vs "go to", and "can be reached @" vs "call".
We prefer the softer sell and don't like to be told what to do.
Comments?

Honestly, I think the listener gets it either way. Here's the info and heres the contact info. When we do our underwriting we do get very creative with everything except the contact info. I get concerned with verbs and adjectives

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

We question the difference in effectiveness between "more info @" and "visit", "is @" vs "go to", and "can be reached @" vs "call".
We prefer the softer sell and don't like to be told what to do.
Comments?

Honestly, I think the listener gets it either way. Here's the info and heres the contact info. When we do our underwriting we do get very creative with everything except the contact info. I get concerned with verbs and adjectives

Being cautious about verbs in the copy is probably a good starting point in trying to define what is permitted and what is not. But SOME verbs are apparently acceptable. VISIT our web site seems to be a phrase that is acceptable.

I don't have any of the regs or other documents pulled out of my storage today, but I think I remember "call to action" being one way the regulators have tried to define what is not legal. A "call to action" to buy this delightful used car now sale priced at $4,900 is apparently one of the mental pictures they establish.

But if a main street retailer has just completed a remodeling project of the store and runs an endorsement with copy saying: "We invite all listeners to visit our location and see how convenient our displays have become." Is that a forbidden "call to action"? VISIT is a verb. Would a lawyer call that a passive verb rather than an active verb?

 

[Ai4i]

I do not believe I have heard "visit" much (don't tell me where to visit).
We more typically hear those three magic words, "more information @"

 

[Talk_Dude]

We question the difference in effectiveness between "more info @" and "visit", "is @" vs "go to", and "can be reached @" vs "call".
We prefer the softer sell and don't like to be told what to do.
Comments?

Who is the "we" you're talking about who questions effectiveness? What sort of product are you thinking of? If my company runs a chain of restaurants, I don't want people asking for information, I want them coming into my restaurants. If I'm selling insurance, then I want people to visit my website or call me. In any case, passive voice is never as effective as active voice. Active voice only sounds like one is being told what to do if the tone of voice and inflection makes it sound imperative. With the right tone of voice and inflection, the most blatant order will still come across as a suggestion. That's why voice performers deserve the money they make. Mastering the subtleties of voice communication requires a great deal of both talent and training/experience. One cannot simply break it down into something as simplistic as you've attempted.

 

[DG]

...But if a main street retailer has just completed a remodeling project of the store and runs an endorsement with copy saying: "We invite all listeners to visit our location and see how convenient our displays have become." Is that a forbidden "call to action"? VISIT is a verb. Would a lawyer call that a passive verb rather than an active verb?

Depends on whom the lawyer is representing!

;D

NPR itself ran a nation underwriting spot several years ago for a new drug hitting the market. I forget which it was exactly, but the tagline at the end of the spot was "See your doctor". That created a hailstorm from the affiliates fearing it to be a call to action, but NPR ran it past the FCC and they were fine with it. Evidently, the FCC felt that "seeing your doctor" was the best way to obtain additional information about the product.

Go figure...

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

NPR itself ran a nation underwriting spot several years ago for a new drug hitting the market. I forget which it was exactly, but the tagline at the end of the spot was "See your doctor". That created a hailstorm from the affiliates fearing it to be a call to action, but NPR ran it past the FCC and they were fine with it. Evidently, the FCC felt that "seeing your doctor" was the best way to obtain additional information about the product.

I use a term in describing content of commercials and it would transfer over to endorsements. Rather than a "call to action" my term would be "call to transaction".

I once worked for a very shrewd small town broadcaster. His term was "price and item" commercials. If you came in with image copy, institutional copy, he would send you back for some "prie and item" copy. His philosophy was very simple. When people walked in and said "Where is that drill for $19.95 you advertised on the radio?" that repeat sales of advertising would continue. Run the typical 1960s copy about "We're nice people at Joe's Hardware who will treat you with courtesy.".... very few comments would say anything about "show me one of the nice people. This was small towns. No surveys. No ad agencies.

So I would propose that the very first question to be asked when reviewing announcements for use on an LPFM or NCE would be: "Is a specific transaction proposed in this copy?" If YES, start over. If NO or "I don't recognize one"... then proceed to more sophisticated logic just to be sure.

If the stations that live or die by staying within the boundaries of the "Enhanced Endorsement" concepts will start using this language over and over, even when communicating with the FCC, it might result in new opinion letters or regulations that are more user-friendly.

 

[MattParker]

On the public radio stations to which I listen, the spots are getting longer (30 seconds is now typical), and they are even resorting to let the client do his own spots (in commercial radio, always the sign of a bad - or desperate - sales rep).

Giving a web address or phone number and telling the listener to go/call for more information sounds like a call to action. Even in commercial commercials, very few spots overtly ask for the order. At the same time, how effective is a web address or phone number in a medium to which most people are exposed while driving their cars and (hopefully) not able to act on it immediately (even to the point of writing it down)?

 

[Ai4i]

Who is the "we" you're talking about who questions effectiveness?

We are the royal plural because I am the nineth letter of the alphabet and you are the twenty first letter!

We speak as a listener not liking to be told what to do, but offered an option to check information if we choose to do so.
If you do not like the softer sell approach, do not advertise on the stations that we listen to.
Other, less discerning listeners who love being screamed at are out there.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Who is the "we" you're talking about who questions effectiveness?

We are the royal plural because I am the nineth letter of the alphabet and you are the twenty first letter!

We speak as a listener not liking to be told what to do, but offered an option to check information if we choose to do so.
If you do not like the softer sell approach, do not advertise on the stations that we listen to.
Other, less discerning listeners who love being screamed at are out there.

Did you forget to take your meds?

 

[Ai4i]

Did you forget to take your meds?

Forgetting is such a dreary concept.
"Did you REMEMBER to take them" would have been the more positive approach.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Did you forget to take your meds?

Forgetting is such a dreary concept.
"Did you REMEMBER to take them" would have been the more positive approach.

So, your answer is, "Yes".