OT: U.S. TV Commercial Rules

Butch Moore wrote on 9/4/2013, 10:09 PM
Here's what were doing:

We've produced a 60 second cable (ad insert) commercial for a local company. The premise is that of a live "whistle stop" press conference. From the viewers perspective, it appears to be a true, live press conference until the final ten seconds where the advertiser is clearly identified (insurance agent). The commercial will air on cable only and not over-the-air broadcast. All actors have been compensated.

Are there rules that prescribe disclosure in cable advertising for paid actors, scenes that could be interpreted as real, etc?

This thing looks so real...it's creating questions. Any guidance or comments?

Comments

musicvid10 wrote on 9/4/2013, 10:14 PM
Deliberate deception goes against recommended practices; perhaps if you were able to link the spot so we could look at it and share impressions?
TheHappyFriar wrote on 9/5/2013, 6:14 AM
There's no guidlines, but there's lots of very deceptive commercials in the way they get your attention. Most like this just put a tiny unreadable line in the bottom that says "dramatization".

Trust me, nobody will be fooled after the first time.
Kimberly wrote on 9/5/2013, 7:56 AM
This has been done before. Notably in 1938 by Orson Welles and Columbia Broadcasting System . . .

As long as your commercial does not invoke a similar consequences to that broadcast, my thoughts as a humble consumer say you should be fine.

Regards,

Kimberly
Butch Moore wrote on 9/5/2013, 9:30 AM
Fortunately, there's nothing controversial or deceptive about the subject matter. It's simply a method to present information in a question and answer format.

I think a simple "Dramatization" line at the bottom will suffice.

As a broadcaster for over 30 years, I, too, had to review local commercials for their content. The greatest offenders were usually sales gimmicks that were actually lotteries, which are illegal in our state. Common sense is usually the best barometer.

More and more, I'm finding local advertisers are pushing the envelope of integrity and decency to get their message heard. And what is acceptable in one medium may not be for another. For example, a Bar & Grill commercial was recently returned to us by a cable company because it did not comply with standards set by ESPN for broadcast on their channels. The issue was simply pouring a drink into a glass..easily fixed and everyone is happy.

The difference in standards for over-the-air, cable and internet often creates a conundrum as to what is allowable, acceptable and in good taste.

Thanks for everyone's comments!
musicvid10 wrote on 9/5/2013, 10:20 AM
Are you able to post a link to the spot, or should we treat the discussion as mainly hypothetical?
gpsmikey wrote on 9/5/2013, 10:55 AM
The funny part of deceptive advertising is the legal side of it - you should see the advertising for lawyers on TV - they specialize in "meeting the letter of the law but being useless" - try reading the half screen of very fine print in the 3 seconds they show it on TV. Clue - try reading from the bottom first where they actually put the useful information about what is wrong with the claims :-) They all seem to have teams of the lawyers finding the best way to skirt around what they are saying as fact. The big bold text telling you how it is going to cure all your ills, make a real man out of you etc while in the fine print, it says "not evaluated by the FDA and is not intended to diagnose, treat or cure any illness" - just the opposite of what the big bold flashy print and "dramatizations" are showing. Only a lawyer can help guide you through that narrow path between presenting the truth and telling them how they will all be fine after using this product.

mikey
TheHappyFriar wrote on 9/5/2013, 1:21 PM
Those messages about the FDA are there there because certain things aren't checked by the FDA because they don't need to. Nothing necessarily deceptive. Some things legally require a disclaimer by law, irregardless how honest the commercial is.

I'm frequently reminded of the older TV show that was about testing to see if TV commercials were true or false. IE was a car really as smooth as the commercial shows, did a gadget really do this, etc. Very neat.
earthrisers wrote on 9/5/2013, 6:14 PM
...and do you remember back to the REALLY OLDEN DAYS (1950s, maybe 1960s) when advertisers never mentioned competing brands by name, but always compared themselves to "Brand X"?
Then was a long-time wave during which advertisers would compare themselves explicitly to named other brands... and then another long-time wave (still current), in which an advertiser very rarely, if ever, seems even to acknowledge the existence of competing brands.