Kids' TV faces new Net restrictions
Anne
Broache
CNet News.com - January 24, 2007
CNN can promote its advertisement-laced online
presence however it likes during broadcasts, but new
federal rules mean TV channels like Nickelodeon that
cater to children no longer enjoy the same freedom.
The Federal Communications Commission decreed that
during shows geared toward children age 12 and under,
cable and broadcast operators may not display addresses
for Web sites that contain any links to commercial
content. The rules took effect on January 2.
Never mind that recent visits to
NickJr.com and
Noggin.com, online properties of kid networks,
turned up more advertisements for Tylenol cold medicine
and Nissan minivans than for anything youth-targeted.
And some child advocacy groups would argue that many
kids' television shows amount to program-length
commercials for the toys and edible goodies endorsed by
their stars.
"The entire new media landscape is one immense
personalized ad targeted at kids," said Jeff Chester,
director of the advocacy group
Center for Digital Democracy, which has pressed the
FCC to extend children's TV programming rules to the
Internet.
The new rules came about because regulators were
concerned that some broadcasters were using children's
programming as a billboard for addresses to Web sites
"established solely for commercial purposes"--and thus
sneaking around federal law. Under the 1990
Children's Television Act, every hour of children's
programming may contain only 10.5 minutes of advertising
during weekends and 12 minutes on weekdays.
The nameless
example the FCC cited was a Web site address displayed
"in a crawl at the bottom of the screen." (PDF) In
its view, "including the display during program material
converts that program material into commercial matter,
just as a host telling children to race to their local
toy store would."
A 2004 version of the FCC's rules prompted outcry
primarily from the advertising, cable and broadcast
industries, which argued the restrictions violated their
First Amendment rights. The final product, adopted last
September, arose from an agreement from the four major
broadcast networks, three major children's cable
networks (Nickelodeon, Disney and Cartoon Network), and
a coalition of advocacy groups called the Children's
Media Policy Coalition.
The practical effects of the final rules remain to be
seen. At the moment, no one is accusing the networks of
failing to comply. A few hours of recent Nickelodeon and
Disney Channel viewing turned up no sign of the
companies' Web site addresses during programming time,
although they appeared in some ads and promotions
seemingly viewed by the same audience.
Under the new rules, that's permitted. In general,
any addresses for sites with commercial content can be
displayed so long as they're against the networks'
allotted advertising minutes and "clearly separated"
from show content.
The rules also permit the display of addresses for
"noncommercial" Web sites during actual show broadcasts.
Sites fit that bill if they offer "a substantial amount
of bona fide program-related or other noncommercial
content," aren't primarily intended for commercial
purposes, clearly label commercial content, and don't
link directly to e-commerce sites or other pages with
commercial material.
That means Nickelodeon wouldn't necessarily have to
redesign its Nick.com home page if it wanted to
broadcast the Web site address to its young viewers,
even though the site on a recent visit turned up at
least four ads and more than one link to an e-commerce
shop selling branded paraphernalia. The popular network
would have a number of other options for promoting its
Web site, including simply relegating it to display
during commercial breaks.
The situation has perplexed some children's
advocates. "It's left major loopholes for advertisers
and marketers to target kids," said
Susan Linn, a psychologist and co-founder of the
advocacy coalition
Campaign for A Commercial-Free Childhood.
A Nickelodeon spokeswoman declined to comment on the
channel's practices except to say it was "in
compliance." Representatives for the cable and broadcast
industries and other major children's networks,
including ABC Disney, did not grant interview requests.
The new FCC rules also attempt to include the
Internet in what were once only TV-oriented restrictions
on using children's characters to endorse merchandise.
Existing rules prohibit TV channels from running ads
that use so-called "host selling" during commercial
breaks adjacent to children's shows that feature the
same characters. For instance, if Company X makes Winnie
the Pooh its spokesman for a brand of candy, networks
can't air Company X's ad during commercial breaks during
programs starring the golden cartoon bear.
Some said that approach, whether directed at TV or
the Internet, misses the mark.
If Sponge Bob Square Pants is on myriad products,
including junk food and junk toys and clothing and
wallpaper or whatever, then the program itself is a
program-length commercial for those products," Linn
said.
She and others said they viewed the rules as only a
first step in protecting children from what they
consider excess commercialization. They said they'd like
to see the FCC impose a ban on so-called "interactive"
advertising, a technique they fear will take hold in the
future.
"We don't want kids to be able to click on a Web
address or on a specific character from the television
screen and be transported to a commercial Web site,"
said Patti Smith, a representative from the
California-based advocacy group
Children Now, which helped to negotiate the final
rules. "This type of advertising would violate the FCC's
rules about the separation between program and
advertising content."
That issue has already attracted attention in
Congress. Last summer, a U.S. Senate panel unanimously
adopted an amendment to a
massive communications bill that proposed requiring
broadcasters and cable operators to "prevent
interactivity" in commercial messages aired during
children's programming. The amendment's sponsor, Sen.
John Rockefeller (D-W.V.), has not decided whether to
reintroduce that bill but hopes to hold hearings this
year, a spokeswoman said.
The idea is sure to encounter renewed resistance from
the advertising industry, which
has accused the policy's supporters of "stifling the
development of new technologies and innovative forms of
programming even before they exist."
It's unclear what steps the FCC might take next. FCC
Commissioner
Jonathan Adelstein, a Democrat, acknowledged in a
statement (PDF) last year that some parts of the
rules "are not models of regulatory clarity and
certainty" or were too scaled back. Agency spokesman
Clyde Ensslin said there are no immediate plans to issue
any clarifications to the current rules, and any
inquiries are being handled on a "case by case" basis.
What remains is "a quiet-before-the-storm period,"
said
Tarah Grant, a McLean, Va.-based attorney with the
firm Hogan & Hartson. "The rules are now effective, but
the FCC hasn't begun investigating complaints for
alleged violations."