Rules and regulations for TV commercials

[Fervent Freyja]

Does anyone happen to know right off if it’s allowable to run a still ad (single image) for 30 seconds straight as a TV commercial in the US? I’ve never seen this. Have any of you?

I tried to look it up but couldn’t find a clear answer. Not very familiar with the rules and regulations for TV commercials. I would think that it’s unallowable, but maybe it’s just that advertisers think that moving graphics are more effective?

Thanks for any answers. I’m curious.

 

[phinds]

Why would it not be allowed? What's wrong with doing it?

 

[Fervent Freyja]

Why would it not be allowed? What's wrong with doing it?

I noticed that a TV that I was passing the other day had frozen in the middle of a commercial. It got my attention and made me stop what I was doing. I ended up buying that product the other day.

It made me wonder if running a still graphic ad with no sound for 30 seconds is allowable. Because if no one else is running that sort of ad, wouldn’t it capture the focus of viewers -since they are accustomed to having a lot of audio and video thrown at them- to abruprly experience audio and video stopping at that ad. I thought it would make them stop and focus on the TV like I did? And so, I thought it might be a good gimmick, but then immediately thought surely if it were good and effective, then others would be doing it? And then thought, if my hypothesis is correct and that type of commercial is good and effective, then they must not be doing it because it’s unallowable?

I know some local and low funded ads usually have a short still image with audio, but they seem to be way less than 30 seconds. So, I concluded it’s likely unallowable? Or maybe not as effective for marketing like I thought? But now that you are giving me some feedback, I realize that it could be allowable. I wasn’t actually watching the TV when it happened. Some people may feel frustration or agitation with the cessation of so much stimulation/think the TV froze and maybe associate the product or service with that negative feeling?

And maybe my hypothesis is wrong and it’s allowable and was found to be ineffective? I couldn’t find any studies on it or anything clear about those rules and regulations in the US and it’s been bothering me that I don’t know the answer to my question. Anyone I’ve asked about my idea around me has brushed me off. Was wondering if anyone here can be my soundboard or point me to where I can find some studies on it.

If my hypothesis is right and it’s an effective type of commercial ad and it’s allowable, I thought it’s slightly possible no one has explored or studied it, even though I want to think that it likely already has been thoroughly explored by the experts. It could be possible that people, marketing and their companies, as well as those in that field, are just accustomed to moving and audio ads and that they just aren’t open to to trying something different. Or that they want to stick with what they know already works.

I think initially there might be some psychology around a still ad with no sound though, with an assumption the company has a lack of resources and associate the product or service with lower value if they don’t see a “show”. Viewers are manipulated into believing the marketed company has value primarily through how much resource they can assume the company must have had to pull off the ad, both spending towards the fancy graphics/affording a good marketing company and whatever resources they used in showing off the product or service. Sure, all that is some valid psychology behind marketing. But, I’m thinking we can find other ways to “get” viewers to associate value with products or services than that. I think we’re at a new low with trusting those sorts of ads- all the fancy footwork and showing off resources is getting old. Maybe simple graphics with clean and truthful statements might appeal to people more? Because there is some psychology to selling customers around the idea that something will work like it claims. Without all the tampering with emotions and the deceptive nature of forcing a viewer to associate buying the product with also buying beauty, health, success, money, and the feelings of happiness that the marketing aims to evoke. Maybe a good marketing strategy is to be direct and truthful about the product/service by offering a simple graphic or small set, with clean statements?

I think it’s possible that some longer running still ads with minimal sound could be aimed to be specifically tailored to allowing (not manipulating) the viewer to access positive feelings, like contentment and peace or acceptance of the here and now, in people (where manipulating emotions/ideas is well known to be a great marketing strategy) and could be an effective type of commercial?

This is a philosophical point for me, because I think that TV commercials and ads (media) in general are cumulatively setting up inaccurate frameworks for younger people in how they value themselves and others. And that cleaner, more true, and reflective of reality ads will help them follow through with better frameworks already in place that shows them how to value (family, friends, community, real experiences, etc). The conflict of different value systems seems to be making people unhappy and unable to reach intrinsic goals like feeling loved, accepted, good enough, or worthy (and it’s all the same goal of validation). I think that people are sensitive to the cumulative effects of TV/media and are now unable to form a truthful framework and perspective that is needed to find that end result of validation.

Marketing companies know that they make the most money by exploiting the human desire for validation by others. Because the person can’t interact and have real experience with the product or service, then it seems like they have to resort to “things” or results like showing off power/resources/success/beauty/image and fancy imagery to try and create a promise that this is how the consumer would feel or be after purchasing. At least that is the intention from what I know about marketing. It’s really skewing with our authenticity meters and I think that many people would be relieved with all the junk being toned down so that we can live our lives. We can’t pick apart which commercials are doing what, but there is a cumulative psychological effect that reinforces the framework with the idea that things and services can help the consumer ultimately acquire the intrinsic validation that other types of media are almost all claiming will help them achieve. I think that watching commercials can effect how a person feels in the moment and part of their day. For sure, watching a commercial after bad experiences with a product or device makes us bristle and tell everyone nearby how they were duped. And some people let it get to them and they won’t stop. Or I’ve noticed another person often announces that they wished they looked like that or could buy that, and I immediately sense a change in mood/thinking directions. Just a few examples of how a commercial affects some people. If we multiply that sort of event by the millions for around 10 minutes at least once a day- that’s a lot of time lost in our society just by remembering and having our moods changed by retelling/dwelling on past bad experiences on a stupid item or anticipating how great our life might be with whichever products or services that captured their focus and energy that day. And so fancy ads that don’t reflect truths/disappoint or force them to work towards purchasing actually counter their initial goals of validation. And marketing that doesn’t reflect truth about their products or services (a frustrating lie to later find) and also so very unrelated to the whole point of a commercial sends the false message that a person can find validation through looking or being this or that way to others.

A product or service should argue with facts and reason- not incorporate totally unrelated universal desires of finding acceptance and validation. What is actually occurring during most commercials skips right over people. In all rationality: my argument is that an ad that is truthful in its claim about the product or service simply needs minimal imagery, little audio, and a few truthful statements. Ads are a form of argumentation themselves. They are selling a point. It’s crossing lines when they bring in imagery aimed to manipulate emotions and core desires that have nothing to do with the product. Featuring a posh and beautiful home/life/family is absolutely irrelevant to selling cat food. How is having a high end car nearby relevant to whether or not you should you should pick up mentos tomorrow? It’s so absurd that intentionally incorporating unrelated elements —whereas, they would lose in formal debate/argumentation on account of numerous fallacies-- has actually become a default strategy and acceptable nowadays! Like, why is that needed to argue that a person should buy a product or service? And why are dirty tactics even allowable? Look at some of the results we’ve had from it. Playing like this and allowing it is causing collective societal harm on many fronts. How many thousands of times have I watched a white supermodel shave her legs with a Venus razor? It’s unnecessary. But collectively with other companies and media can be harmful to young girls, from minorities to disabilities to average girls. Give that girl the specs and results of that razor to sell it. I’ll stop, but I could go and on. I would like to know if my hypothesis that cleaner, still or low stimulation ads -that are objective and truthful as possible are effective in marketing? I’m sure that by not manipulating people that they would lose when compared against current profit. But the initial premise is that the product can sell on its own. The initial standing argument is about the product or service. It’s cheating to introduce elements unrelated to the argument in order to strengthen it.

 

[Astronuc]

Does anyone happen to know right off if it’s allowable to run a still ad (single image) for 30 seconds straight as a TV commercial in the US? I’ve never seen this. Have any of you?

I tried to look it up but couldn’t find a clear answer. Not very familiar with the rules and regulations for TV commercials. I would think that it’s unallowable, but maybe it’s just that advertisers think that moving graphics are more effective?

Thanks for any answers. I’m curious.

The broadcaster or owner of the TV/cable channel sells advertisement slots to anyone who wishes to provide an advertisement. The Federal Communication Commission and Federal Trade Commission make rules about advertising depending on the type of advertising and medium.

Of course, an advertisement is designed to influence the consumer. My personal policy is to ignore advertisements and not to buy anything that is advertised. It's a matter of personal responsibility.

 

[mcastillo356]

Well, I have a Grade in Marketing and Advertising. I chose Advertising and Marketing just because this one is only persuasive, or at last that is the intention.
That choose was rather philosophical: if somebody is always triyng to persuade me in a explicit or implict manner, he is actually an honest person: previsible, known,...
But I was wrong. People (me inclu!ed)
are innocent, ...truly good people that let their feelings, attitudes, friends, make up their minds. Included the media.
Here we are also the same. Me myself must always be careful when I watch TV .
Whether some ad is it legal or not is not the point. I must always be careful with advertising. Justice will take place, whenever it's needed.
Greetings

 

[256bits]

A product or service should argue with facts and reason- not incorporate totally unrelated universal desires of finding acceptance and validation

I guess you could call that an "annoying" ad, that effectively stands out different from the rest.

With so many products to chose from, where will one spend their money.

Not sure what that means for the advertising of the product, where, we can have
- advertising tells a potential consumer that the product is available,
- advertising tells the potential consumer that their product is better than the competitors,
- advertising tells the potential consumer that they will have a more fulfilled life with their product,
- advertising tells the potential consumer that their status in life will improve,
- advertising tells the potential consumer to periodically reflect upon the product,
- etc

So one gets crazy ads, annoying ads, somewhat informative ads, impact ads, ..., in a manner to promote a product.
Wasn't there one company which used to, and maybe still does, puts up controvertial billboards unrelated to anything they sell. They actually were selling their name, and not one particular product.

 

[OCR]

.

...I could go and on. . . . .(on and on ?). . .

You probably could, however, other folks might have certain difficulties with the

on and on scenario. . . . You know. . . never turn down the opportunity of a timely commercial break. .

.