→ Media
Shut Up!
| Tue Oct. 13, 2009 9:33 AM PDT
Disagreements about healthcare policy or cap-and-trade emission auctioning are all well and good, but if we're going to yell at each other about something, shouldn't we yell about TV ads that yell back at us? Over at his blog, Berin Szoka provides a libertarian laundry list of reasons why the government shouldn't enact rules that regulate the audio volume of TV commercials. Here's one of them:
I understand that most users probably do wish that commercials probably weren’t so loud. But, this very fact, combined with the ease with which users can now skip all commercials (36% of U.S. homes have a DVR), creates a pretty powerful incentive for the TV industry to self-regulate the volume level of advertising. “Noisy or strident” advertising is just another example of the “tragedy of the commons” at work: Absent any rules, every individual advertiser has an incentive to jack up the volume in order to attract attention, and doing so will probably work up to a certain point of increased annoyance by the user. But collectively, such ads hurt all advertisers because they increase ad blindness, ad deafness, and/or outright commercial skipping.
The same dynamic plays out on the Internet, where flashing, blinking, bouncing, strobing dancing ads really drive users nuts and make them turn to tools like AdBlock Plus and Flashblock — which is why ad networks like Google have policies that implement their own “time, place and manner” rules out of pure self-interest. Such rules are useful and valuable. They benefit advertisers, consumers and the ad network alike, because there exists a basic harmony of interests between them: annoying ads don’t really benefit anyone in the long-term. Do we really want government bureaucrats making these decisions instead?
Yes. Yes I do. You see, blaring TV commercials have been an obvious and fixable problem for several decades and no "basic harmony of interests" has yet manifested itself.1 This suggests to me that it never will unless the industry is pressured into doing it. Plus there's this: the industry has been promising to enact voluntary standards off and on for years, but oddly enough, they never seem to make any progress unless Congress starts making threatening noises about doing it for them. Since I expect this state of affairs to last approximately forever, I would be delighted to see Congress call their bluff and just pass a bill setting out some reasonable standards.
This comes via Peter Suderman, who agrees with Szoka and is therefore now my sworn enemy.2 Nothing personal, of course, just business. However, I did learn something new from him. Namely that "there are various technological solutions from companies like Dolby and SRS that help keep TV volumes on a more even keel." Really? I didn't know that. But click the links and judge for yourself. This technology doesn't appear to be very widespread yet, and I suspect that managing volume at the source is a better approach anyway (especially since the most annoying ads are deliberately engineered to be annoying). Still, it's better than nothing since neither the industry nor Congress has made much progress over the years.
But does it work? Does anyone out there have one of these wonder devices? What's the skinny?
1A shortcoming, by the way, that's made worse by the artistic decisions of certain shows. The worst for me is 24, which I have to crank up in order to hear the hoarse stage whisper that Kiefer Sutherland affects in his Jack Bauer role. The ads are loud even at the best of times, but they're really loud when you've already turned up the volume just to hear the show itself.
2This is an issue, like the Do Not Call registry, that transcends politics. I don't really care whether volume regulations are liberal or conservative or trample the Bill of Rights or whatever. I just want the noise to stop. If it takes jackboots to stop it, then so be it.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
Background noise on TV
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 10:05 AM PDT.
Has anyone else noticed that on many TV programs, the background noise during the program itself is often so loud that it drowns out the dialogue or at least makes it necessary to turn the volume up in order to hear the dialogue? My wife and I find this very annoying.
I like loud ads
Submitted by Horatio Parker (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 10:16 AM PDT.
They remind me to mute.
I mute all commercials. I know it sounds tin-hattish, but ads manipulate your unconscious.
the mute button
Submitted by Urk (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 10:20 AM PDT.
is the regulator at our house. We always mute the TV when it goes to commercials. I'm not one to favor libertarian solutions to most problems (because lots of them don't work on the problems that libertarians claim they will solve) but this seems to work fine for us. Not only does it keep commercials from shouting at us, but in a general, overall way it keeps us in charge of the TV and not the other way around.
Public domain
Submitted by Epiplexed on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 10:20 AM PDT.
If I understand correctly, broadcasters don't own the airwaves -- they're public property, but administered by the FCC (under what some view as a sweetheart deal, but the point remains). Just construct the regulation as a limit on broadcasting, rather than a limit on ad creation ("You can make it as loud as you want -- you just can't broadcast it"). I can see the point of the libertarian argument on this, but I can't see how this kind of restriction is different, in principle, from bans against broadcasting taboo language, etc. The public owns the bandwidth, not the advertisers, and to the extent the FCC is representing a valid public interest, it's setting restrictions on what advertisers can do with someone *else's* property.
it's been around a while
Submitted by Dave in IL (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 10:23 AM PDT.
My Magnavox was advertised with commercial-reduction technology, from SRS, I believe. In 1995.
Sort of worked for a while, but I'd still like them quieter.
The FCC does already
Submitted by uh_clem (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 10:28 AM PDT.
The FCC does already regulate the audio volume of TV, and has since the inception of broadcast TV. With analog TV, the maximum modulation of the audio carrier was 25khz - no louder. With the switch to digital, there are only so many bits, so just as with a CD there's a maximum full-scale loudness.
The rub here is that actual volume is not the same as perceived volume and there are various ways of making something sound louder without the sound waveform actually having a higher amplitude. Can the gov't regulate this? Good luck - it's hard to even define beyond "I know it when I hear it" .
While I grew out of my libertarian phase in my teens, I have to side with the quote above, although for the reason that such regulation is technically impractical, rather than that it's not a good idea.
Why don't you just hit
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 10:36 AM PDT.
Why don't you just hit 'mute' during the commercials? Are the commercials worth watching and listening to if they're at normal volume? Not to me.
Because not all of us want to
Submitted by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 9:24 PM PDT.
sit riveted to the TV with remote in hand all the time, for heaven's sake. There's almost nothing on TV that's worth that kind of devoted attention to the exclusion of all else. The TV in this house is on mostly while we're doing something else-- cooking dinner, cleaning, writting blog comments, etc.
Then why is it on at all?
Submitted by reason (not verified) on Wed Oct. 14, 2009 2:32 AM PDT.
Why do you need background noise at all then? Take up reading and talking to one another instead.
Don't know how well it
Submitted by Simplicio on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 10:46 AM PDT.
Don't know how well it worked, but I had a friend who set up his TV to use the increased volume of commercials to allow his computer to recognize them and edit them out of recorded shows.
Seems like if that technology becomes wide spread enough, advertisers will have a reason to lower their volumes.
Ugh
Submitted by Matt D (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 10:55 AM PDT.
Glibertarianism in action: venerate the status quo the instant anyone suggests government reforms.
Worse than that
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Oct. 14, 2009 3:46 AM PDT.
Venerate a marketplace solution (DVRs) available to the well-to-do, and let the poor suffer.
It's the same thing they do with pop music.
Submitted by Dave Fried (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 11:03 AM PDT.
Basically, they distort the waveform towards the maximum amplitude value as much as possible without (badly) distorting the sound. It's not perceived as qualitatively different, just louder and more present (and has the added effect of cutting through background noise).
This is good for music over the radio or off of a CD/MP3 because you can play it in a noisy environment and still listen, but then, the enhancement is all at the same level and you just turn the volume to what you want it to be. For TV, since most shows don't do it, it makes it impossible to balance - basically, commercials are going to be as loud as the *loudest* sound in the show, so the entire commercial is as loud as the peak of that one explosion or gunshot.
It's also kind of hard to regulate, since what you're dealing with is a mathematical distortion of the sound rather than an increase in amplitude past some hard limit that can be set. You could define an algorithm to test for excessive manipulation, but that's a heck of a lot more work to do in legislation (and could have a lot of unexpected negative side effects - remember DMCA?). You'd almost *have* to sic a regulatory body like the FCC on it.
The libertarian mindset in a nutshell
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 11:07 AM PDT.
I have nothing against Mr/Ms Szoka, but I do find this amusing. As far as I can tell, this argument is: "Loud ads will annoy people, and cause them to stop watching. This gives broadcasters an incentive to voluntarily limit ad volume. Therefore, no regulation is necessary".
That's nice, but it doesn't engage even tangentially with the reality that
- ads are in fact annoyingly loud
. If your reasoning leads you to conclude Q, and not-Q turns out to be true, then there must be a problem with your reasoning.
Muting commercials
Submitted by Melissa (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 11:16 AM PDT.
The problem with this is that you have to keep your eyes on the damn screen to know when to un-mute.
So what I do is crank the volume down to barely audible, read the newspaper or do the dishes, and crank the volume back up when I hear my show resuming.
All in all, I agree with Kevin -- I don't see why the government can't fix this with a rule.
Dave is right. Except for
Submitted by brent (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 11:19 AM PDT.
Dave is right. Except for the "good for music over the radio or off of a CD/MP3" part.
It's the compression, not the loudness. Compression sucks. Even for music over the radio or off of a CD/MP3. It hurts the ears even when you turn down the volume.
Why would watch you anything
Submitted by Chicounsel (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 11:40 AM PDT.
Why would watch you anything on live TV when you can DVR it and then skip all the commericals when you watch it at your convenience?
well, not owning a DVR or
Submitted by Urk (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 11:46 AM PDT.
well, not owning a DVR or paying for DVR service would be one reason...
Self regulation assumes a
Submitted by J. Frank Parnell on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 11:52 AM PDT.
Self regulation assumes a certain amount of enlightened self interest - that's why it rarely works.
I refuse to believe one can't come up with a simple measurement that effectively expresses loudness. Yes I know about spectral density and all that, but we don't need a perfect measurement, just one that stops the ads from being so damned loud.
I'm sure the networks
Submitted by Matt D (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 12:25 PM PDT.
I'm sure the networks already employ all sorts of technologies to ensure that their own programming is at a consistent volume, cuts to live reports are normalized, etc. The same thing just needs to be applied to commercials.
Due to spectral density,
Submitted by B on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 1:04 PM PDT.
Due to spectral density, unforeseen constructive sonic waveforms, and quantum tunneling in auditory neurons it is absolutely impossible to maintain TV audio volume more stable than 2 or 3 orders of perceived loudness. This is simple physics and is the main reason that people fall to the floor grabbing their heads randomly during movies and TV news broadcasts.
Heh heh. Quantum tunneling
Submitted by Trippp on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 3:45 PM PDT.
Heh heh. Quantum tunneling in auditory neurons.
Good one.
I think there is overlap due to a phase shift from an adjacent universe. An adjacent, LOUD universe.
This is a sign
Submitted by Sam Penrose (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 12:45 PM PDT.
Dear Kevin,
When ever you notice something wrong with TV, remind yourself: "I will be happier if I watch less TV." Then turn it off and do something else.
Cheers,
A Friend
I seem to recall a 3-decibel rule
Submitted by Quiddity who can't login as Quiddity (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 1:11 PM PDT.
I recall reading, many years ago, that there was a limit to television commercial such that they couldn't be more than 3 decibels louder than the program material.
Anybody else familiar with that?
Yes, but...
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 1:26 PM PDT.
...it's 3 decibels louder than the loudest sound in the show. So if someone screams for an instant, or there's a car crash, the commercial can be 3 dbs louder than that.
it's called "AdBlock" and
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 1:18 PM PDT.
it's called "AdBlock" and the "mute" button. use them regularly to prevent insanity;)
Anyone who uses the terms
Submitted by Jimmy125 (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 1:24 PM PDT.
Anyone who uses the terms "industry" and "self-regulate" in the same sentence is either an idiot or an asshole.
I mean, seriously, what's with Libertarians: after the last 2 years, don't they understand that touting industry self-regulation makes them ridiculous laughingstocks?
I would (and do) just opt out.
Submitted by dr2chase on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 2:29 PM PDT.
Don't watch. Don't even bothering checking to see it doesn't suck. You almost certainly have better things to do with your time.
And you should mention to your advertisers that they have failed to self-regulate their Flash ads, and at least one (probably more) of your readers don't see them anymore, and never will again. Your Libertarian writer is an idiot -- this is a commons problem, without mutually agreed upon binding regulations, someone will defect, and cause viewers to react by opting out and/or blocking. It is in no individual advertiser's self-interest to unilaterally self-regulate, so they won't.
Pity me. My wife is deaf in
Submitted by Trippp on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 3:47 PM PDT.
Pity me. My wife is deaf in one ear, so the volume is already too high, and she doesn't let me near the remote.
I leave the room and comment here.
I just want the Free Credit Report Band
Submitted by Paul Camp (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 5:43 PM PDT.
to die a flaming horrible death.
They can make that one as loud as they damn well please.
actually, Tv doesn't suck at
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 10:03 PM PDT.
actually, Tv doesn't suck at all. that's just something nerdy liberals say all the time to make themselves feel great that they went gardening or played guitar instead of watching even though those things don't qualify as doing something productive at all. good channels include (most of which are now in HD): smithsonian, A&E, PBS, Disover and Discovery HD Theatre, many sports channels, TLC, animal planet, history, etc. you're definitely missing out if you don't watch tv. it can absolutely be as informative as NYT.com, etc.
It has gone full circle, you
Submitted by Tiago Silva (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 11:13 PM PDT.
It has gone full circle, you know?
Ads have been loud for such a long time that TV shows are also heavily compressed to match as much as possible the loudness of ads.That's why backgrounds are so loud in some shows, although cost cuts that have shows being shot on any location available instead of a studio or a backlot are also helping.
Of course, ads then just found another gear...
The Dolby loudness measurement system seems to correlate pretty well with auditory response, and it is supposed to leave a code in the show or ad commanding the *receiver* (oh yes, it has to be supported by your equipment) to control the volume to match. It'll never fly.
Why not just insist all adds are silent?
Submitted by reason (not verified) on Wed Oct. 14, 2009 2:39 AM PDT.
Well,
it would promote literacy.
Of course the greatest irony
Submitted by Saam Barrager (not verified) on Wed Oct. 14, 2009 9:08 AM PDT.
Of course the greatest irony is the fact that many economists cite Advertising as representing a real life Prisoner's Dilema situation. Advertising ultimately reduces a company's net revenue, so oligopolies have a strong incentive to cartelize to minimize advertising expenses.
Except that this is illegal.
So they therefore choose the next best option which is to respond to the spending of the other parties, which causes them to lose revenue and buy up more advertising.
Mute is My Friend
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Oct. 14, 2009 8:08 PM PDT.
I mute all commercials and surf the net until the show comes back on. As for background noise blocking out dialogue, I think it is partly economics. I know a lot of shows used to shoot first, then have the actors go into the studio and dub over the voice work to improve it. Now I think a lot of them, due to budget/time constraints, go with whatever sound they get directly on set. Often poor quality, depending on what is going on in the scene.
replica iwc watch
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Nov. 6, 2009 7:29 PM PST.
ies Omega Speedmaster Reduced Replicas and now often Cartier Santos 18kt Yellow Gold and Steel Automatic Mens Watch W20072X7 replicas feature calls in Complicated Timepieces duplicate Belize, Roatan, and Tag Heuer 2000 Aquaracer Two-Tone Ladies Watch WAF1420.BB0814 the purpose-built port Chopard Happy Sport Diamond Ruby Love Heart 18kt White Gold Steel Pink Ladies Watch 27/8945-421 of Costa Maya, Tag Heuer Kirium Ladies Watch WL1311.BA0708 Mexico. Following are Longines Istituto Idrografico R. Marina imitation some of the Travel Clock duplicate top attractions for Franck Muller imitation kids in the replica Rado Western Caribbean ports Longines BelleArti Ladies Watch L25010833 replicas of Georgetown, Grand copy iwc watch Cayman; Ocho Rios replica watch or Montego Bay, Rolex Oyster Perpetual Yacht-Master 18kt Gold Mens Watch 16628 Jamaica; Cozumel and replica Tissot Costa Maya, Mexico; Michele replicas Belize City, Belize; replica watch market Cartier Santos Two-Tone 18kt Yellow Gold and Steel Automatic Ladies Watch W20057C4 replicas Jacob & Co. imitation Longines Dolce Vita Mens Watch L5.655.4.71.6
replica iwc watch
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Nov. 6, 2009 7:31 PM PST.
ies Omega Speedmaster Reduced Replicas and now often Cartier Santos 18kt Yellow Gold and Steel Automatic Mens Watch W20072X7 replicas feature calls in Complicated Timepieces duplicate Belize, Roatan, and Tag Heuer 2000 Aquaracer Two-Tone Ladies Watch WAF1420.BB0814 the purpose-built port Chopard Happy Sport Diamond Ruby Love Heart 18kt White Gold Steel Pink Ladies Watch 27/8945-421 of Costa Maya, Tag Heuer Kirium Ladies Watch WL1311.BA0708 Mexico. Following are Longines Istituto Idrografico R. Marina imitation some of the Travel Clock duplicate top attractions for Franck Muller imitation kids in the replica Rado Western Caribbean ports Longines BelleArti Ladies Watch L25010833 replicas of Georgetown, Grand copy iwc watch Cayman; Ocho Rios replica watch or Montego Bay, Rolex Oyster Perpetual Yacht-Master 18kt Gold Mens Watch 16628 Jamaica; Cozumel and replica Tissot Costa Maya, Mexico; Michele replicas Belize City, Belize; replica watch market Cartier Santos Two-Tone 18kt Yellow Gold and Steel Automatic Ladies Watch W20057C4 replicas Jacob & Co. imitation Longines Dolce Vita Mens Watch L5.655.4.71.6
Tiffany Earrings replica
Submitted by Tiffany Earrings replica (not verified) on Sun Nov. 8, 2009 11:41 AM PST.
UGG Sundance
UGG Ultra Short
UGG Ultra Tall
UGG Tasmina
replica Tiffany Earrings
replica Tiffany Necklaces
replica Tiffany sets
replica Tiffany Accessories
Rolex Air-King replica Rolex
Submitted by Rolex Milgauss replica (not verified) on Fri Nov. 13, 2009 9:25 PM PST.
Rolex Air-King replica
Rolex Datejust II replica
xxx replica
Rolex Submariner replica
Yachtmaster replica
Rolex Day-Date II replica
Rolex Daytona replica
Rolex Explorer replica
Rolex GMT replica
Rolex Sea-Dweller replica
Rolex Day Date replica
Rolex Masterpiece replica
Rolex Milgauss replica
ugg boots uk
Submitted by ugg boots uk (not verified) on Mon Nov. 16, 2009 11:32 PM PST.
Eliminating the need for the extra trouble to wear ugg boots uk 、ugg boots sale, in the extreme sports, look for happiness in life, with Christian Louboutin and nike sb showed off your tall body, do not worry about being laughed at, dancing new style Christian Louboutin shoes、ugg boots london and ugg boots sale. The flavor of life that is colorful, there are Classic tall boots 、ugg sale、ugg london and nike dunk also used fear to creep away money from your pocket Mody ? Love beauty, you might even love Christian Louboutin Boots。
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
