Congress Passes Act to Lower Volume on Commercials

[bicker]

THANK YOU. That was precisely my point. But, I'm not surprised that Bicker with his need to fairly and consistently put other people down with pseudo-superior intelligence, by overly complicating things with techno-babble, couldn't understand that was what I was saying.

If you don't understand the details of the issue, then please don't blame me for the fact that I do. This is technology - technology that I spent my first career intimately involved in the design and implementation of. I know you want the issue to be simply. It isn't.

Regardless, your comments in this regard are a personal attack, and are therefore inappropriate.

 

[bicker]

I sometimes do sound work while producing videos. I'm not sure how they'll make this work. "Volume" isn't as simple as most people think it is. For example, let's say that the regulate peak volume to be a signal at 0db. If I want my commercial to stand out, I'll compress the dynamic range (the difference between the quietest and loudest parts) and increase the gain on the entire thing. It won't have any parts louder than the TV show you were just watching, but it will seem louder because the entire thing will be about as loud as the loudest parts of the TV show.

Even though your comments were "technobabble", they were right on-target.

 

[BunsenH]

Please indulge this tangent to satisfy my nostalgic curiosity.

Weren't record albums made to some standard (RIAA?) so that they all had the approximate volume when played back on various equipment? Is there a similar standard for television programming (shows and commercials)?

Also, who controls the volume level differences between sources (DVD, DVR, live TV, etc.? If I don't adjust the volume down after watching a DVD, I scare the dog!

 

[mickeysgal]

I'm so glad to see my tax dollars being used to tackle the real problems in America. This is a day that will go down in history, no longer will the American people be subjected to loud annoying commercials while trying to relax during their favorite TV show. I'll be able to tell my grandchildren that I was there when they passed that law, its a day this proud America will never forget

 

[Planogirl]

So some of you are saying that the screaming announcer going on about some sale on cars can't be stopped? I personally detest that loud invasive voice and it was nice to hope for a moment that he could be toned down.

 

[PrincessKsMom]

Actually, it's sad that it takes and act of congress to get something like this changed. You'd think the millions of complaints about it would prompt advertisers to comply, since pissing off your potential customers is never a good idea.

 

[FireDancer]

We have a simple solution at our house. We never watch anything when it is broadcast. Then we skip all of the commercials during playback. I'm always amazed that the commercial system still functions because I would have thought everyone would be doing this by now. I guess a lot of people aren't as bothered by commercials.

That is exactly what I do. Even if I am watching something live at the first commercial break I will pause it long enough to build up some pad so I can skip future commercials.

 

[bicker]

I think eventually everyone will adopt this approach, and of course, therefore, commercials as we know them today will be utterly worthless. Clearly, they're going to have to find some different way of invasively presenting offers to those viewers who will be inclined to make purchases based on being "sold to", and find some different way of getting their money from the rest of us.

 

[sbell111]

I'm so glad to see my tax dollars being used to tackle the real problems in America. This is a day that will go down in history, no longer will the American people be subjected to loud annoying commercials while trying to relax during their favorite TV show. I'll be able to tell my grandchildren that I was there when they passed that law, its a day this proud America will never forget

Congress acts on tons of issues. Some of them are huge issues while others are tiny ones. Still, we expect our representatives to move these issues along. Thankfully, debate on TV volume and the like doesn't take up very much (any?) time. As a bonus, working together on these small issues fosters communication and cooperation on larger ones.

 

[bicker]

Thankfully, debate on TV volume and the like doesn't take up very much (any?) time.

No kidding! I suspect the 'debate' resembled those inanely populist Nextel commercials, including one where they had a legislature where everyone was firefighters, passing laws in seconds, as if there were no complexities nor counter-considerations associated with anything. Presenting that kind of Pollyanna view of societal decision-making is a gross disservice imho, and probably does lead to some truly impotent laws, as is probably the case this time.

 

[Carly_Roach]

Regardless, as pp indicated, the commercials that probably annoy you today already comply with the standard that their peak volume must not be greater than the peak volume of the surrounding programming. Yet you're still annoyed, showing that the simple approach you outlined will be of no use in addressing your concerns.

Actually, I'm not typically annoyed by commercials. I subscribe to the DVR method of watching TV:

We have a simple solution at our house. We never watch anything when it is broadcast. Then we skip all of the commercials during playback. I'm always amazed that the commercial system still functions because I would have thought everyone would be doing this by now. I guess a lot of people aren't as bothered by commercials.

That is exactly what I do. Even if I am watching something live at the first commercial break I will pause it long enough to build up some pad so I can skip future commercials.

Exactly. Any program DH and I want to watch the night it comes on are DVR'd and started maybe 20-25 minutes after they begin so we can zap the commercials.

We don't mind...it gives us time to change into our jammies, make popcorn, mix a drink, finish up an email, etc. Then we sit down to be entertained when WE want to be entertained, not when the TV tells us it's time to be entertained.

I just mentioned that about the decibel experiment in passing. I'm not going to get into some argument about it because it's not that big of a deal to me. I just happen to notice the loud commercials when DH falls asleep on the couch during a football game and doesn't immediately turn the TV down.

 

[Carly_Roach]

If you don't understand the details of the issue, then please don't blame me for the fact that I do. This is technology - technology that I spent my first career intimately involved in the design and implementation of. I know you want the issue to be simply. It isn't.

Regardless, your comments in this regard are a personal attack, and are therefore inappropriate.

Um....I hate to say this but I think you attacked Imzadi first, Bicker. Putting the word 'sorry' in front of an insult doesn't make what you said any less insulting, nor does your constant talking down to the rest of us like you know everything about everything and we're these little commoners who shouldn't be listened to because you have all the answers.

Sorry but that's ridiculous...

I've never known Imzadi to be someone whom insults another person at will like some posters here, but I can't blame him/her for lashing out because it seems lately that your trademark pomposity has been overflowing more than usual. I know I've been insulted by your remarks more so in the past few days and it seems Imzadi finally reached his/her boiling point as well.

Maybe your volume/volumn needs to be turned down?

 

[Jennasis]

I was unaware that this was even a problem.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Even though your comments were "technobabble", they were right on-target.

I'll defer to your expertise in this area.

So some of you are saying that the screaming announcer going on about some sale on cars can't be stopped? I personally detest that loud invasive voice and it was nice to hope for a moment that he could be toned down.

They might be able to make some improvements, but I don't think you'll find any lasting satisfaction.

Let's assume that they regular the maximum volume of commercial. An obnoxious advertiser would make every moment of their add right at the maximum volume, so it would seem louder than the surround material. If they regulated average volume, obnoxious advertisers would use bursts of loud sounds with quieter bits in between. You might be able to come up with some overall perceptual measure that factors in lots of stuff to generate an apparent loudness index that could be regulated, but I'm not sure how that would work.

Even if they did manage that, I think you'd see advertisers find other ways to get their messages noticed. They might use sounds that we are attuned to pay attention to - babies crying, people in distress, horns honking and tires screeching, or other annoying attention getters like that. It's probably not a hopeless battle, but it would be something like fighting spammers or virus writers - whatever you do, they'll try to counter.

I think eventually everyone will adopt this approach, and of course, therefore, commercials as we know them today will be utterly worthless. Clearly, they're going to have to find some different way of invasively presenting offers to those viewers who will be inclined to make purchases based on being "sold to", and find some different way of getting their money from the rest of us.

The landscape is already evolving. People are paying to stream videos without ads. Advertisers are paying to have their products prominently placed in shows.

One promising development is that advertisers are gathering a lot more information about their customers and using that to target ads better. While I'm annoyed by ads for products that I have no interest in, I am less bothered by ads for stuff that I care about. That's why the ads in magazines I read are more interesting that the ads on TV. It's also why the Google ads or Amazon suggestions and so much more useful. Who knows, maybe they'll start injecting different ads for each viewer of a show.

Congress acts on tons of issues. Some of them are huge issues while others are tiny ones. Still, we expect our representatives to move these issues along. Thankfully, debate on TV volume and the like doesn't take up very much (any?) time. As a bonus, working together on these small issues fosters communication and cooperation on larger ones.

I actually like it when Congress spends lots of time on trivial issues. In my state, our legislature meets only for a relatively short period every other year. I prefer this approach to having a very active legislature that is active almost continuously. Their spending time on honorary resolutions, TV volume, and other stuff that has a negligible impact takes away time that they could be spending on things with a negative impact. I guess it boils down to whether you'd rather them doing more or less of the "important" stuff. For me, I like less.

 

[sparklynails23]

Foreclosures are ridiculously high. Unemployment is through the roof. Chinese currency is again being manipulated. But hey, at least commercials are quieter. Priorities. Priorities.

 

[sbell111]

Foreclosures are ridiculously high. Unemployment is through the roof. Chinese currency is again being manipulated. But hey, at least commercials are quieter. Priorities. Priorities.

You know,the government can actually work on more than one topic at a time.

I seriously doubt that this bill took away from any time that Congress could have been working on that other stuff (even if you believe that it is Congress' place to deal with that stuff).

 

[luvmy3]

Congress acts on tons of issues. Some of them are huge issues while others are tiny ones. Still, we expect our representatives to move these issues along. Thankfully, debate on TV volume and the like doesn't take up very much (any?) time. As a bonus, working together on these small issues fosters communication and cooperation on larger ones.

Since C.S Lewis says it so much better than I ever could,

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good
of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may
at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good
will torment us without end for they do so with the approval
of their own conscience."

 

[C.Ann]

Great news! Even when not "dozing off" they're startling!!

 

[bicker]

Um....I hate to say this but I think you attacked Imzadi first, Bicker.

No: I wrote, "Sorry but that's ridiculous." I attacked what she wrote. Not her. I would never attack her.

I've never known Imzadi to be someone whom insults another person at will like some posters here

I agree, which is why I was so shocked.

 

[bicker]

You might be able to come up with some overall perceptual measure that factors in lots of stuff to generate an apparent loudness index that could be regulated, but I'm not sure how that would work.

And again, neither do the experts at the FCC... and they've been trying to figure that one out for decades.

Even if they did manage that, I think you'd see advertisers find other ways to get their messages noticed. They might use sounds that we are attuned to pay attention to - babies crying, people in distress, horns honking and tires screeching, or other annoying attention getters like that.

Or perhaps using voices or voice manipulations that are scientifically proven to be more invasive. Either that or turn to the video: Flashing parts of the video might become more common.

It's probably not a hopeless battle, but it would be something like fighting spammers or virus writers - whatever you do, they'll try to counter.

And remember that there is punishment waiting for us if we're successful: The entertainment we want is paid for based on how effective the commercials are at selling products and services. If we make commercials less effective, then our entertainment will have to be paid for some other way. I can tell you, first-hand, as an investor in the industry, that if those companies become less profitable because they cannot command as much money for advertising, then I'll dump my holdings in those companies like a hot potato, perhaps redirecting it into pharmaceuticals.

That's what television viewers are up against: We're going to pay for our entertainment one way or another. There is no free lunch. Pick your poison.

The landscape is already evolving. People are paying to stream videos without ads.

Yes, and keep in mind that that service is just in its infancy. It will evolve, toward either a more subscription-based revenue model (i.e., you'll start paying more and more and more over time to have access to VOD and/or online streaming from online services), and/or a healthier commercial-based revenue model (i.e., commercials embedded in the stream, that you cannot skip over anymore, because with streaming the service provider has more control than with programming you record on a DVR).

Advertisers are paying to have their products prominently placed in shows.

Yes it is done well in some cases, and not-so-well in other places. However, note that it is really just a bonus: I mentioned, above, the subscription-based model and the commercial-based model. There is viable product-placement-based model. What are they going to do? Composite-in Frodo Baggins sucking down a Coca-Cola next time they show Lord of the Rings on television? Even for non-period pieces, product-placement is only of limited use: They can't make the advertiser pay again two years later when the episode is rerun. Perhaps the product placed isn't even on the market anymore, or has changed its visual identity, so it wouldn't make sense to try to charge for a second viewing even if they could do it.