Dems and Reps agree on something - TV ad volume

[TithonusSyndrome]

The issue that brought the Senate together

Super-loud TV commercials one step closer to extinction
By Jacqui Cheng | Last updated about 6 hours ago

THOSE OBNOXIOUS TV COMMERCIALS THAT ARE DECIBELS LOUDER THAN EVERYTHING ELSE ARE ONE STEP CLOSER TO BEING ERADICATED IN THE US.

The Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM—get it?) Act has now passed the Senate. Having already been approved by the House of Representatives, the bill now bounces back to the House for one more vote before heading to the president's desk for his signature.

The bill itself is pretty to the point. The CALM Act asks the FCC to come up with regulations so that ads can't be excessively noisy or strident, can't be presented at substantially higher than the program material they are accompanying, and the average maximum loudness cannot be substantially higher than the average maximum loudness of the program they're accompanying.

The FCC already has an informational page on "Program Background Noise and Loud Commercials," which mostly tries to channel viewer wrath towards the TV networks rather than the FCC, but that will likely change soon. The bill was first introduced by Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) in 2009 and has slowly made its way through the House and Senate.

"It's about time we turned down the volume on loud commercials that try to startle TV watchers into paying attention. This is a simple step that will keep ads at the same decibel level as the programs they are interrupting," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), sponsor of the Senate version of the bill. "TV viewers should be able to watch their favorite programs without fear of losing their hearing when the show goes to a commercial."

Alright, so it's not a momentous issue and there are probably gaps in the legislation, but I'm not posting this article out of any interest in TV advertisement volume legislation. What this article prompts me to thinking is whether or not there's any wisdom in the notion that Congress should tackle smaller, less contentious issues as an exercise in restoring dialogue between the parties before moving on to tackle the big ones. I guess this is itself prone to the criticism that a given party is dallying on small-ticket items while the nation is in crisis, and maybe television ad noise is something that we should expect a room full of stodgy old men of all extractions to agree on before going back to business as stubbornly usual, but if tackling big issues isn't going to get anywhere with direct confrontation, then what's there to lose?

Or so goes that argument, at any rate.

[kouchpotato]

That assumes that one party is even willing to negotiate in any meaningful way. There's no point in trying to open a dialogue if the other party is unwilling to compromise, and I don't think Obama should have bothered to compromise jack shit with the social regressives, but unfortunately the blue dogs made that necessary.

I guess what I'm trying to say is it doesn't matter if you agree that a commercial is too loud if the other guy doesn't think that gays deserve equal rights.

[eion]

This got done for 4 reasons

1) Congresspeople are OLD
2) Lots of likely voters are OLD
3) There's not special interest lobby for Ad Volume
4) Nobody gives a shit about it except OLD people

"It's about time we turned down the volume on loud commercials that try to startle TV watchers into paying attention."

Wow Chuckie, way to take a pricpled stand there. What's next, a law requiring all grandchildren to call their grandparents once a week? A joint resolution recognizing the cuteness of puppies?

And they didn't DO anything. They told the FCC to do something.

[RedImperator]

Alright, so it's not a momentous issue and there are probably gaps in the legislation, but I'm not posting this article out of any interest in TV advertisement volume legislation. What this article prompts me to thinking is whether or not there's any wisdom in the notion that Congress should tackle smaller, less contentious issues as an exercise in restoring dialogue between the parties before moving on to tackle the big ones.

Before this thread inevitably goes skipping down moron lane, I thought I'd try to give you a reasonable answer here:

I've heard it said by more than one Washington insider that at least a part of the "fuck you, we're not compromising on anything attitude" on the part of the GOP has its roots way back in the 80's, when the Democratic majority in the House started resorting more and more to procedural games to lock out the minority. So when the election of '94 came around and the Republicans took both houses, you had a very angry majority with little institutional memory of cooperating with the "enemy"--remember, a lot of those new Republican Senators were former Republican Congressmen, so they carried that attitude into the upper house, too. Of course, they turned right around and started pulling the same shenanigans.

Fast-forward 16 years, and you have a Congress largely populated by people who intensely dislike members of the other party. Now, this is far from the only problem: the Republican Party has attempted to block every single thing Obama tries to do because that's their entire strategy for retaking Congress and eventually the White House. But would it have worked in, say, the pre-Watergate days, when members from different parties were close personal friends outside the Capitol and used to working with each other inside? Maybe not. Trying to rebuild trust between individual members by working on small things that everyone likes isn't the worst idea I've ever heard, though I doubt it will be enough.

[Lord of the Abyss]

This got done for 4 reasons

How about one reason? Congressmen of both parties watch television like the rest of us. They can both agree on this one thing, because it affects them personally.

[houser2112]

This got done for 4 reasons

1) Congresspeople are OLD
2) Lots of likely voters are OLD
3) There's not special interest lobby for Ad Volume
4) Nobody gives a shit about it except OLD people

I would dispute 4, since I hate the fact that there can be such disparity between programming and ad volume, and I don't consider myself to be all that old (35). It's not that I'm startled by the loud ads, they just really annoy me. Of course, you can turn down/mute the volume, but I don't really feel like fiddling with the controller if I don't have to. This might even turn out to benefit the advertisers, since I'll be more likely to not turn them off.

[Eleas]

Seconded. Then again, I can't be in the same room as a TV broadcast because, being an ADHD person, I literally can't shut out the noise. The experience is roughly equivalent to being suddenly punched in the head.

[Temujin]

While increased commercial volume has been a pet peeve of mine, and I certainly would like to see it fixed, there are far more pressing issues that should be addressed by Congress first.

Alright, so it's not a momentous issue and there are probably gaps in the legislation, but I'm not posting this article out of any interest in TV advertisement volume legislation. What this article prompts me to thinking is whether or not there's any wisdom in the notion that Congress should tackle smaller, less contentious issues as an exercise in restoring dialogue between the parties before moving on to tackle the big ones. I guess this is itself prone to the criticism that a given party is dallying on small-ticket items while the nation is in crisis, and maybe television ad noise is something that we should expect a room full of stodgy old men of all extractions to agree on before going back to business as stubbornly usual, but if tackling big issues isn't going to get anywhere with direct confrontation, then what's there to lose?

Unfortunately I don't see anything bringing these two sides together. As Red pointed out, to few of the old guard are left from the time where friendship crossed party lines and there is no unifying factor (i.e., Cold War) that could even partially bring both sides together. There's also just too much resentment, bitterness and ideological differences between the parties, even though they are not as dissimilar as is the popular conception. In addition, the conservatives are in an albeit slow, but inevitable decline; and as is usually the case, they are gripping more tenaciously their position and becoming more obnoxiously vocal as they sink into irrelevance. Their whole "Hell No You Can't" no compromise (you make the concession to us) mentality will ensure that the divide just keeps getting wider.

What will be needed is for the GOP to self destruct and either a new reasonably sane party form in it's wake (unlikely considering the mentality off it's base), or the Democratic party to become a super majority party and then fracture into one or more groups.

[TithonusSyndrome]

How about one reason? Congressmen of both parties watch television like the rest of us. They can both agree on this one thing, because it affects them personally.

Alternately, if sufficiently prodded, Repubs could've said that ad volume was just one possible marketing strategy that has contributed to the successes of many companies, and that consumers always have the option of turning down the volume themselves rather than relying on government nannying to do it for them.

It's not as much of a given as it's made out to be; they could've made trouble over this without having to look too far for a pretext.

[Kanastrous]

If I find the ads for something - or the volume at which they're run - obnoxious, I avoid the product. There's almost always an alternative for which the ads are less irritating.

[eion]

Eleas & Houser, I can't remember the last time I saw an ad on TV thanks to DVRs. Young people don't watch TV live anymore. This is a grumpy old person problem, and as Kanastrous and TithonusSyndrome pointed out, this is an excellent place for the market to adjust itself. People don't like loud ads, don't buy those products. I guarantee the ads will change.

If they really wanted to tackle a simple issue on which there is overwhelming bipartisan support they could have repealed DADT.

[Phantasee]

You hip young folks aren't the majority, and you don't count when it comes to voting time.

I watch some tv on tv and I hear those annoying ads all the time. Am I an old people now?

[eion]

You hip young folks aren't the majority, and you don't count when it comes to voting time.

I watch some tv on tv and I hear those annoying ads all the time. Am I an old people now?

you're certainly behind the curve. Television in its current form won't exist in 10-15 years time.

[Phantasee]

No, I'm pretty sure the majority of people still watch tv on their tvs. It might be changing, but it's not that broad of a change yet.

[eion]

But the majority of young people, 18-34, (Also known as the only demographic the Networks care about) do not watch much live TV on their TV.

That 41% number is only going to go up.

[eion]

and by up of course I mean that the number of people not watching live traditional TV will be going up.

[houser2112]

Eleas & Houser, I can't remember the last time I saw an ad on TV thanks to DVRs. Young people don't watch TV live anymore.

If it weren't for my wife, the only live TV I'd watch is NFL broadcasts, and watching sporting events any way but live is lame. I would love to be able to unwatch all the inane crap she insists on watching, though.

[Lord of the Abyss]

How about one reason? Congressmen of both parties watch television like the rest of us. They can both agree on this one thing, because it affects them personally.

Alternately, if sufficiently prodded, Repubs could've said that ad volume was just one possible marketing strategy that has contributed to the successes of many companies, and that consumers always have the option of turning down the volume themselves rather than relying on government nannying to do it for them.

It's not as much of a given as it's made out to be; they could've made trouble over this without having to look too far for a pretext.

But then they personally would still have to put up with the problem. And despite their rhetoric they've never had any problem with the government "nannying" as long as it nannys in their favor.

[eion]

Eleas & Houser, I can't remember the last time I saw an ad on TV thanks to DVRs. Young people don't watch TV live anymore.

If it weren't for my wife, the only live TV I'd watch is NFL broadcasts, and watching sporting events any way but live is lame. I would love to be able to unwatch all the inane crap she insists on watching, though.

Agreed, though most of the limited amounts of sports I watch are international, so unless I want to be up at 4AM I have to watch it time-shifted. And there are emerging ways to watch sports without resorting yourself to slaving to Live TV. As I said, in 10-15 years television won't be recognizable. There will be live community-viewed events like Sports & Breaking News, but the idea of everyone gathering together at the same time to watch a pre-recorded comedy program will be a true rarity. Most people will watch it at their leisure, rather than the second it becomes available.

[Gil Hamilton]

If I find the ads for something - or the volume at which they're run - obnoxious, I avoid the product. There's almost always an alternative for which the ads are less irritating.

The problem is that it doesn't stop them from being aggravating, not because of the product, because of how loud ALL commercials are run at.

Have you ever watched a movie on television? The volume movies are run at on television is considerably less loud than the commercials. God help me if I would forget to mute the TV when the movie went to commercial break, because the result typically is getting an ear drum rupturing burst of sound from the commercial that comes on before the volume can be reduced to a sane level.

Avoiding the product doesn't put pressure on the companies to stop that, which is why legislating against it is a good idea. What's wrong with making a rule that ads can't be significantly louded than the programs they are accompanying?

[Kanastrous]

I wasn't objecting to the rule (although I strongly suspect that processing it was not the very best use of the legislators' time...)

I was mentioning my own preferred approach to dealing with the volume shifts, absent that rule which is not yet in effect.

[Temujin]

I believe there have been some devices you can buy to control the sound of commercials, but I don't know how well they work. And IIRC, I remember hearing about pressure being put on the companies producing these products by some of the big advertisers.

[Kanastrous]

Maybe an automatic pad that kicks in when there's a shift in dB levels coming down the wire? Sounds familiar to me too but obviously not a common retail item.

[Temujin]

Actually, after some searching, I think this is what I was thinking of regarding pressure from the big advertisers: Commercial Skipping

[TimothyC]

I believe there have been some devices you can buy to control the sound of commercials, but I don't know how well they work. And IIRC, I remember hearing about pressure being put on the companies producing these products by some of the big advertisers.

Last year Toshiba started integrating them into 40" and larger LCDs.