Articles Posted in Advertising

Published on:

By

Anyone who has enjoyed March Madness knows that Lady Luck often intervenes in a team’s journey to the NCAA Final Four. But is getting to the game a literal roll of the dice for spectators too? The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago has recently ruled that a lawsuit can go forward which claims that the NCAA’s ticket sales for the NCAA tournament are an illegal lottery akin to a game of poker or roulette.

Those who run sweepstakes and contests live in fear of having such an accusation leveled against their promotional campaigns. While they know that they must avoid combining the three elements of a lottery: (1) prize, (2) chance, and (3) consideration (such as money), those who are new to the industry can often be heard to say “it’s not like this is real gambling or anything.” Much of the time, the focus is on how to make sure that “chance” or “consideration” (or both) are not present in your promotional game. There is very rarely any debate as to whether there is a “prize,” as there is usually little point to having a promotion without one. Yet, it is that issue which is at the heart of the case against the NCAA. More to the point, the Court seems to have been influenced by the fact that Final Four tickets are highly sought after, so the chance to buy them in and of itself could be a “prize.”

For years, the NCAA has used random selection to determine who will be allowed to purchase tickets to its Final Four basketball games. According to the plaintiffs in this case, to have a shot at scoring a pair of tickets, they were required to pay the NCAA in advance for both the face value of the tickets and a “non-refundable handling” fee of $6-$10. To maximize the chance of being selected, each person could enter up to ten times, submitting the face value of ten tickets plus handling fees, although participants would only be allowed to purchase a single pair of tickets if selected, regardless of the number of entries submitted. After the random selection process, “winning” entrants would receive two tickets and a refund of the face value of the other nine entries, while those who were not selected would receive a refund of the face value of ten pairs of tickets. However, none of the applicants received a refund of the handling fees.

The plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the ticket distribution process is an illegal lottery. They allege that the opportunity to purchase a pair of Final Four tickets at face value is a prize, that the prize is distributed by chance, and that they paid consideration for that chance in the form of the handling fees that were not refunded. From this assessment, the plaintiffs conclude that the NCAA is engaged in illegal gambling in the sale of Final Four tickets.

The trial court initially dismissed the case based on an Indiana court of appeals case, Lesher v. Baltimore Football Club, which held that the Indianapolis Colts were not engaged in gambling when they used a similar ticketing system. In Lesher, however, the handling fees were refunded for all but the tickets that were actually purchased. The Lesher court decided that there was no “prize” involved in the Colts ticket distribution scheme because a “prize” is “something of more value than the amount invested.” Ticket purchasers “invested the price of the tickets and received in exchange either the tickets or the entire amount invested . . . those receiving tickets got nothing of greater value than those who received refunds.” With regard to the NCAA’s ticket sales, though, the Seventh Circuit faulted the trial court for relying on Lesher. According to the Seventh Circuit, the plaintiffs had adequately argued the existence of a “prize” because they asserted that the fair-market value of the NCAA Final Four tickets was much greater than the face value at which the winners had purchased them, and that the plaintiffs had “invested” the handling fees to participate in the random drawing.

While the trial court will ultimately have to decide these issues, the Seventh Circuit’s ruling certainly nudges the trial court in an interesting direction, and the result may expand the definition of what qualifies as a “prize.” This case is a reminder of the importance of structuring promotions with care to avoid the legal morass and potential liability facing the NCAA in this class action lawsuit. Marketers and broadcasters cannot merely rely on doing things the way they were done in the past to protect against lawsuits and prosecution. That approach is, quite simply, a gamble.

By
Posted in: Advertising
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

You may have noticed that more and more television shows these days seem to be including “product placement,” a form of advertising in which a product, corporate logo, or brand name is positioned as a “prop” in a program or is used as an integral part of the story line. We have all seen the prominently displayed Coca-Cola cups placed on the judges table in front of Simon, Randy and Paula during American Idol. And although Apple stated that it made no payment for what seemed like an entire episode of Emmy Award winning Modern Family devoted to the iPad, many in the media and the public wondered if what amounted to a half-hour advertisement for the iPad was legal.

Does the FCC have rules regarding product placement? Are program producers and broadcasters required to disclose placement deals to viewers?

The simple answer is yes. The FCC considers product placement to be “embedded advertising” that is subject to the FCC’s “sponsorship identification” rule. The rule says that if a program producer, broadcast station, or a station employee receives anything of value, directly or indirectly, in exchange for causing material to be broadcast, the sponsorship and the identity of the sponsor must be disclosed on-air.

Congress decided long ago that members of the public have a right to know when someone has paid to have material aired by a TV or radio station. As a result, if a station or network enters into a placement deal, the deal must be disclosed on the air. Undisclosed product placement can amount to illegal payola.

The FCC’s rules and the Communications Act aren’t limited to just requiring that broadcasters make the necessary disclosures. They also require program producers to notify the broadcaster if they have a deal to include any sort of product placement in a program. This allows the broadcaster to then make the necessary on-air disclosures.

More than two years ago, the FCC began considering whether it should adopt more stringent rules on how television programmers and broadcasters let viewers know when “props” in television shows are actually paid pitches made by an advertiser. However, the FCC has not yet resolved the question. The FCC’s proceeding was fashioned as a “Notice of Inquiry,” which means that the FCC will subsequently need to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking before any new rule can be adopted. Because of this, we are not likely to see the matter resolved soon.

While the FCC’s product placement/embedded advertising proceeding is currently in limbo, broadcasters, networks, and program producers need to keep in mind that product placement deals — when not disclosed on-air — violate the FCC’s sponsorship identification rule. The use of product placement in advertising is only going to increase as advertisers respond to a changing industry, including the use of DVRs, online availability of content, and other tools that let viewers skip traditional commercials. When entering into product placement deals, program producers, networks and broadcasters need to remember that the FCC, and not just the public, may be watching.

By
Posted in: Advertising
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

In my recent commentary on the Senate version of the DISCLOSE Act (Senate Disclose Act Bill Raises Serious Concerns For Broadcasters), I highlighted provisions related to the Lowest Unit Charge which had the potential to cause a very significant adverse impact on broadcast station revenues from federal election advertising.

Senator Schumer introduced today a revised version of the DISCLOSE Act. While retaining other campaign finance reform provisions, the new version thankfully eliminates the LUC provisions that were the focus of my concern.

The Act has not yet been passed, and could still be modified either in the Senate or in a Conference Committee with the House. We will continue to monitor the bill and let you know if further attempts are made to reinstate the troublesome LUC concepts.

By
Posted in: Advertising
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

Last month, the House of Representatives passed the DISCLOSE Act (“Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act”), H.R. 5175. The bill responds to the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which held that corporations (and presumably unions and other associations) have a constitutional right to make independent expenditures in election campaigns. The bill would, if it becomes law, impose significant new disclosure requirements related to political expenditures, prohibit government contractors from making campaign expenditures, and ban such expenditures by U.S. corporations owned 20% or more by foreign nationals or which have certain other foreign ties.

The Senate’s companion DISCLOSE Act bill, S. 3295, was introduced on April 29 by Senators Schumer, Feingold, Wyden, Bayh and Franken, and remains pending at this time. The focus of this commentary is on a provision in the Senate bill, but not the House version, that we believe has the potential to have a very significant adverse impact on broadcast station revenues from federal election advertising.

In our previous discussions of the DISCLOSE Act here and here, we pointed out that the Senate bill would allow national committees of any political party (including a national congressional campaign committee of a party) to take advantage of Lowest Unit Charge (LUC) rights previously only available to legally qualified candidates or their official committees. Similarly, it would extend Reasonable Access rights to national party committees which are now only available to federal candidates. In addition, it would effectively make all federal candidate and party committee advertising non-preemptible, regardless of the class of advertising purchased. Stations would also be required to promptly list all requests of candidates and party committees to purchase time on the stations’ web sites.

While troublesome, these and other provisions in the DISCLOSE Act pale in significance, in our view, to the proposed amendment to the LUC provisions of Section 315 of the Communications Act. Under Section 315, as currently in effect, legally qualified candidates for elective office are entitled to receive during specified pre-election periods “the lowest unit charge of the station for the same class and amount of time for the same period” that is then clearing on a station. Under the Senate version of the DISCLOSE Act, federal candidates and party committees (but not state or local candidates) would be entitled to receive the “lowest charge of the station for the same amount of time that was offered at any time during the 180 days preceding the date of use.”

This is troublesome for two reasons. First, the bill eliminates the “same class” and “same period” provisions in current law. Because “class” refers to the level of preemption protection which the advertiser has purchased, federal candidates and committees would be entitled to obtain non-preemptible status while paying rates that commercial advertisers would pay for immediately preemptible spots. Similarly, because “period” refers to the day part or rotation involved, stations could not charge more to federal candidates and committees for the most desirable spot placement – fixed position in prime or drive time – than they charge commercial advertisers for the same length spot that runs in the least desirable time period or rotation – late night or run of schedule (ROS).

Second, the new 180 day look-back provision means that stations will be required to give federal candidates and committees the lowest rate that has run on the station in the past half year, rather than which is currently running on the station. Therefore, if the LUC period occurs during a period of strong advertising demand, or a station has increased its rates due to extrinsic factors, such as improved programming or a format change, the station will still be required to give federal candidates and committees preferential rates that no other advertiser can currently obtain.

We view these provisions, if adopted, as creating a perfect storm for broadcasters. The number of entities entitled to reasonable access and lowest unit charge rights will be greatly expanded. Stations will be required to give non-preemptible access to federal candidates and national party committees in their most desirable time periods at their lowest rates for any advertising. Rather than election years being seen as a period of enhanced revenues for broadcasters, this provision might well cause election years to be viewed as a major drag on station revenues.

For some reason, this proposal to dramatically change the prevailing law has received little publicity in the press or in releases from proponents or opponents of the bill. A little sunshine on this part of the bill appears appropriate.

By
Posted in: Advertising
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

Earlier this week, FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz began the FTC’s final workshop concerning the future of media “How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?” by dismissing as a ” non-starter” any chance that his agency would recommend new taxes to support or “save” journalism. In advance of this workshop, the FTC staff had prepared and released a discussion document entitled “Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism.” One of the goals of the document is to try and save the current newspaper business model by, in part, imposing substantial new taxes on other media, including broadcasters. While the FTC says that the term “journalism” used throughout the document does not mean that that the FTC favors newspapers over broadcasters or other media, a close reading of the draft indicates that newspapers would be the primary beneficiary of the FTC proposals should they be adopted.
Shortly after the release of the document, the FTC issued a statement to the effect that the draft did not reflect a formal intention on the part of the FTC to seek new taxes and that the paper was for discussion purposes only. However, in order to fund the proposals, including those to provide potentially billions of dollars in subsidies and various tax breaks and credits to newspapers, the document proposes that the government institute:

• A 7 percent tax on broadcast spectrum to raise $3 to $6 billion while at the same time relieving broadcasters of their obligation to air “public-interest programming.”

• A 5 percent tax on consumer electronics that “would generate approximately $4 billion annually.”

• A spectrum auction tax “on the auction sales prices for commercial communication spectrum, with the proceeds going to the public-media fund.”

• A 2 percent sales tax on advertising to generate approximately $5 to $6 billion annually” and to change “the tax write-off of all advertising as a business expense in a single year to a write-off over a 5-year period [to] generate an additional $2 billion per year.”

• A 3 percent Internet Service Provider-cell phone tax requiring consumers to pay a tax on their “monthly ISP-cell phone bills to fund content they access on their digital services” to raise $6 billion annually for the FTC’s proposals.

While the FTC’s look to the future of news gathering might be noble, the proposals to raise taxes on broadcasters, consumer electronics, Internet Service Provider customers, and others would undoubtedly increase costs for consumers and businesses alike, not to mention they raise a host of First Amendment and Constitutional questions regarding politicization and governmental interference with a supposedly impartial press.
In the real world, most newspaper publishers recognize that innovation and new business models are the best ways to survive and thrive going forward as opposed to having the government impose harsh taxes on other media in the “robbing Peter to pay Paul” manner envisioned by much of the FTC report. According to press reports, John Sturm, President and CEO of the Newspaper Association of America commented on the FTC report by stating that “We’ve never sought or asked for anything like a bailout” and Rupert Murdoch is on record warning against the FTC proposals and the “heavy hand” of governmental regulation.

Chairman Leibowitz stated that the FTC’s workshops “have always been more about the future of journalism than saving the past.” While the Chairman might be right, the staff report circulating at the FTC would suggest otherwise as many of its proposals are clearly backward looking. Given the stakes and dollar amounts involved, broadcasters, consumer electronics manufacturers, Internet Service Providers as well as consumers should pay close attention to this proceeding as it continues to unfold at the FTC. The FTC plans to issue its final report on the future of media sometime this Fall.

By
Posted in: Advertising
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

I wrote a while back about the Downside of Downsizing, in which I noted an increasing number of calls from broadcasters who had trimmed their staffs to the bare minimum, only to belatedly discover that the remaining employees lacked either the experience or the time to ensure the station’s compliance with FCC and other regulations. This afternoon, the FCC released seven Notices of Apparent Liability announcing the financial damage that taking your eye off the regulatory ball can have.

The seven NALs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) all involved Children’s Television violations, with the proposed fines ranging from $25,000 to $70,000. The FCC’s grand total for the afternoon was $270,000 in proposed Children’s Television fines. While the simultaneous release of the forfeiture orders may be meant to send a message about the seriousness with which the FCC views violations of the Children’s Television rules, the FCC has been working hard on Chairman Genachowski’s watch to clear out backlogs of enforcement proceedings of all types, and it may be that these particular cases are merely the latest result of that effort.

What is certainly not a coincidence, however, is the hefty size of these fines. These NALs appear to confirm a recent FCC trend of imposing heavier fines for a variety of regulatory offenses. While cynics might argue that the government just needs the money at the moment, there does seem to be a concerted effort at the FCC to “update” its fine amounts to make violations sufficiently painful that licensees will not view them as merely a cost of doing business. It is also worth noting that while the seven NALs involve a variety of kidvid violations (exceeding commercial limits, program length commercials, failure to notify program guide publishers of the targeted age range of educational programs, failure to place the appropriate commercial certifications in the public inspection file, failure to publicize the existence and location of the station’s Children’s Television reports), they all have one other feature in common: each of the stations confessed its transgressions in its license renewal application.

In addition to giving no quarter for the licensees having confessed their own sins, the NALs are quite stern in assessing the severity of the violations. Noting that human error, inadvertence, and subsequent efforts to prevent the recurrence of such violations are not grounds for reducing the punishment imposed, the NALs apply a strict liability standard, cutting stations no slack even where the violation was based upon a misapplication of the rule (e.g., assessing compliance with children’s commercial time limits based upon a programming hour (4:30-5:30pm) rather than a clock hour (5:00-6:00pm)), where a program-length commercial was caused by a fleeting and tiny/partial glimpse of a program character during a commercial, or where the program-length commercial was caused by network content.

To be clear, the FCC staked out no new legal ground in these decisions, which for the most part apply existing precedent, and the NALs do indicate that some of the stations involved had over 100 kidvid violations. What catches the eye, however, is not just the size of the fines, but the terse manner in which the violations are listed, the defenses rejected, and the fine imposed, with each NAL noting that the base fine for a kidvid offense is $8,000, but that an upward adjustment is merited in this particular case, with the ultimate amount often appearing to have been plucked out of the air. The impression licensees are left with is that the FCC has lost patience in plowing through the backlog of enforcement cases, and there will be little or no room for error in FCC compliance going forward.

It’s good that the broadcast advertising market has begun to resuscitate, as now would be a good time to rehire those FCC compliance personnel, particularly the ones that prescreen children’s television content.

Published on:

By

5/18/2010
Prepaid “cards, codes and other devices” redeemable solely for telephone services are exempt from a new federal law that goes into effect August 22, 2010. However, if they can also be redeemed for related technology services, these products will (at least in most instances) be subject to provisions restricting fees, prohibiting expiration in less than five years, and imposing strict disclosure requirements if fees are charged or the products expire.

On March 23, 2010, the Federal Reserve Board (“Board”) issued its Final Rule implementing Title IV of the federal Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, which was signed into law by President Obama on May 22, 2009 (collectively, the “CARD Act”). The CARD Act amends the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA), and the Final Rule amends the EFTA’s implementing regulation, Regulation E. It takes effect August 22, 2010. It applies to prepaid card products sold to a consumer on or after August 22, 2010, or provided to a consumer as a replacement for such product. State laws that are consistent with the CARD Act are not preempted, which means the CARD Act provides a minimum floor. State laws that provide greater protection for consumers are not inconsistent with the CARD Act.

The CARD Act restricts most fees and expiration dates on prepaid cards, and requires various disclosures if fees are charged or the products expire. This Advisory, one of several Advisories on the CARD Act, focuses on the exemption for cards, codes and other devices useable solely for telephone services (referred to collectively as “Prepaid Calling Cards”).1 Companies that offer or issue Prepaid Calling Cards may be surprised to learn that if these products are also redeemable for related technology services, they will not qualify for this exemption. All persons involved in issuing or distributing Prepaid Calling Cards should review and potentially revise their disclosures, as well as their redemption policies and procedures.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned various restrictions on political spending by corporations in the Citizens United decision, it set off a flurry of activity in Washington. Many, including famously the President in his State of the Union address, derided the decision as opening the political process to the corrupting influence of corporate cash. Many in Congress promised a swift legislative response to minimize the impact of the Court’s ruling. Regardless of where you stand on the Court’s decision, I have to say I was disturbed by a number of statements coming out of Capitol Hill afterwards which made clear that the speakers had no understanding of the laws already on the books relating to political advertising on electronic media. Some promised to change the law to what it actually already is (although they apparently didn’t know it), and others pointed out “problems” that would result from the Citizens United ruling that current law already prohibits from occurring.

Grandstanding without basis is, however, a well-established Washington tradition, and I presumed that when legislative staffers got together to draft the legislation, they would quickly figure out that these criticisms and unneeded solutions had been off-base. I apparently was too optimistic. Today, Senator Schumer of New York unveiled the Senate version of the legislation (Senate link not yet available) at a news conference on the steps of the Supreme Court. The President publicly applauded the legislation, and the House has promised hearings within a week on its version of the bill in hopes of enacting it quickly enough to govern this Fall’s elections. The DISCLOSE Act (the acronym for “Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections”), as its name indicates, requires ample disclosure when corporations or unions spend money on ads relating to a federal political campaign. Unfortunately, it does not stop there, and attempts to then rewrite political advertising laws contained in the Communications Act of 1934 that were not impacted by the Citizens United ruling. These changes appear to be an effort to require broadcasters, as well as cable and satellite operators, to subsidize the ads of not just candidates, but of their national political parties as well, in an effort to make their ad dollars go farther than those of a corporation exercising its rights under Citizens United.

Setting aside the wisdom or constitutionality of that approach, the rub is that the legislation was apparently drafted in such a rush that aspects of it quite literally make no sense. For example, the relevant section of the bill is entitled “TELEVISION MEDIA RATES”, but it then amends the political advertising provisions of the Communications Act that affect both television and radio. Even if the impact on radio was unintended, the matter is further confused by a requirement that the FCC perform random political audits during elections of at least 15 DMAs of various sizes, and that each DMA audit include “each of the 3 largest television broadcast networks, 1 independent television network, 1 cable network, 1 provider of satellite services, and 1 radio network.”

Similarly, the statutory exceptions to the requirement for providing equal time to a candidate’s opponents when the candidate appears on-air would be amended to exclude certain appearances by a candidate’s representative as a triggering event. However, since only the appearance of a candidate can trigger equal time in the first place, creating an exception for appearances by a candidate’s representative serves no purpose.

Further indicating that the bill is premised on a misunderstanding of the current law, the Reasonable Access provisions of the Communications Act would be amended so that instead of FCC licensees being required to provide federal candidates with “reasonable amounts of time,” they would be required to provide “reasonable amounts of time, including reasonable amounts of time purchased at the lowest unit charge ….” The premise of this change appears to be a lack of understanding that all time sold to a candidate in the 45 days before a primary and the 60 days before a general election must be sold at the lowest unit charge for that class of time. The broadcaster has no discretion to charge anything but the lowest unit charge during that time, making this change pointless as well.

A number of other odd provisions in the Senate version of the bill that would significantly impact media companies (and not just broadcasters) is discussed in an Advisory we issued to our clients earlier today. Two of particularly great concern would drastically reduce the lowest unit charge for political advertising while significantly expanding the pool of entities eligible to receive lowest unit charge. It is worth noting that none of these media-oriented provisions appear to be in the House version of the bill, so hopefully they will be excised from the Senate bill before any harm is done. Regardless, broadcasters, as well as cable and satellite providers, need to be vigilant to ensure that these provisions, if not eliminated outright, are at least heavily modified before any final bill emerges.

Published on:

By

4/29/2010
Several members of Congress led by Senator Schumer and Congressman Van Hollen introduced today the “Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections” Act–the DISCLOSE Act. The House and Senate versions differ, with the Senate version vastly expanding eligibility for Lowest Unit Charge, reducing the Lowest Unit Charge, prohibiting preemption of political ads, and requiring the FCC to perform political audits of broadcasters, cable, and satellite operators.

The DISCLOSE Act is primarily aimed at reversing, to a large degree, the recent 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which the Court held that corporations, and by implication unions, have a constitutional right to make independent expenditures for advertising supporting or opposing the election of political candidates. As we reported in a Client Alert in January of this year, the decision opened the way for increased political advertising by invalidating limits on corporate political ad spending. The decision allows, among other things, corporations (and unions) to purchase airtime at any time to directly advocate for or against candidates for federal elective office. While the decision invalidated limits on corporate spending on political advertisements, it did retain certain disclosure and disclaimer requirements found in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Proceeding Is Important to Electronic Media Content Producers, Television Stations, Advertisers, Educators, Electronics Manufacturers, and Privacy Experts.

On January 13, 2010, the FCC released an Order granting two requests for extension of time to file comments in response to the FCC’s Notice of Inquiry (“NOI”) in its “Empowering Parents and Protecting Children in an Evolving Media Landscape” proceeding. One of the requests was filed jointly by the Association of National Advertisers, the American Advertising Federation, the American Association of Advertising Agencies, the Direct Marketing Association, the Interactive Advertising Bureau, and the Promotion Marketing Association. The second was filed jointly by the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative and the Children’s Advertising Review Unit of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. These parties requested additional time to prepare their comments in light of the numerous issues raised in the NOI and the year-end holidays that fell in the middle of the comment period. The new date for filing Comments in the proceeding is February 24, 2010 and the new date for filing Reply Comments is March 26, 2010.

Continue reading →