Article,
SARFT pulls all commercials at two TV stations
danwei.org, (June 20070623)
Abstract
This week's chengyu is 杀鸡儆猴 - "killing the chicken to warn the monkeys,"
or punishing one individual as a warning to others.
That's the general public perception of SARFT's order revoking the
right of two local TV stations to broadcast commercial advertisements.
The two stations, one in Ningxia and another in Gansu, had repeatedly
ignored requests from the Administration to pull medical ads and
misleading infomercials. Ningxia's station has replaced its commercial
ads with PSAs about combating piracy and promoting family planning.
Gansu's station is not broadcasting any ads at all right now.
But they're certainly not the only ones that have been violating the
rules; many observers feel that SARFT is just making an example out
of two insignificant stations to convince everyone else that things
have gotten serious. The administration has been tightening its truth-in-advertising
rules through series of regulations and clarifications issued over
the past year or so. One key notice, jointly issued with SAIC last
August, banned five categories of ads: weight-loss, breast enlargement,
and height increase products, and all drugs and medical equipment.
Some local stations replaced late-night medical ads with infomercials
for watches, but for many, things did not change at all. Friday's
Mirror reported that even after the ban in Ningxia and Gansu, local
stations in some areas were still broadcasting prohibited commercials.
Why? It's all about money. According to the Mirror, only the top five
cable channels have filled all of their advertising slots; of the
remainder, 70% of ad time remains unsold. Late-night TV time sells
for as little as 1000 yuan a minute or less on local TV; when a company
buys up huge chunks of time with questionable infomercials, many
stations figure it's worth the risk, particularly because the authorities
haven't really followed through on their regulatory threats in the
past.
Translated below are a number of (mostly skeptical) opinions on SARFT's
action. In the China Economic Times, Zhou Chengxiong, head of the
Academic Research Department at Peking University's Institute of
Cultural Industry, identified four reasons why local stations risk
defying SARFT in their advertising practices:
First, local TV stations must make a living. Because of continual
changes in SARFT and local policies, many local TV stations and channels
are finding it ever harder to survive. Reasons include: CCTV is too
strong, all of its stations cover the whole country, and the national
authorities consciously or unconsciously limit competition between
CCTV and local stations; Many local stations have restrictions placed
on their own programming and their broadcast times, so their revenue
space is compressed....
Second, punishment of violators has been ineffective. Though SARFT
has repeatedly issued all sorts of regulations to local stations,
it has never taken effective steps to punish violators...
Third, local protectionism serves as a bodyguard for violating stations.
We have not seen a single local TV station leader receive any punishment
from the local party or government for violating advertising broadcast
regulations. This emboldens local TV stations in their broadcast.
Local TV station heads eat from the bowl of the local government,
so there is nothing that SARFT can do to them. Although TV stations
are not administrative organs, their position is not inferior to
some parts of the government, for they are not only the voice of
the government but one industry within developed by the local economy.
For this reason, when local stations violate regulations, the local
government typically will not carry out any punishment. When the
state government issues punishment, the local government will try
any means possible to protect the station, and some punishments have
a hard time sticking.
Fourth, there is insufficiently strict oversight of TV stations. We
can see that the current punishment of local TV stations comes from
the State Administration; the existence of local protectionism means
that the local radio and TV authorities cannot oversee and punish
local TV stations. There are several thousand stations of all levels
across the country; SARFT has just several hundred civil servants,
and even if they all neither slept nor ate, there would still be
no way for them to oversee all of the country's stations.
In Beijing Business Today, Fu Kai tried to give SARFT the benefit
of the doubt:
For a TV station, advertising makes up practically its entire economic
resources. Revoking the right to broadcast commercials is tantamount
to death by a thousand cuts. It hurts, and you've got to keep producing
programs and paying salaries while your income is gone. SARFT's really
going to great lengths here.
However, I discovered when reading the Notice that these two TV stations
received such "cruel punishment" today because several months ago
they had ignored SARFT's warnings and punishments. I can't help but
wonder - will this "banning order" really be carried out in full?
At the same time, I also noticed that SARFT has previously issued
a whole series of rules regarding the broadcast of advertisements,
not directed just at the two stations in Ningxia and Gansu, but at
the whole nationwide audience. But there's been no shortage of time
to watch ads for "miraculous cures" and ästonishing breakthroughs."
Particularly in the late-night hours every day, programming on cable
channels all over is surprisingly identical. Looking at SARFT's rules,
it appears that not a single ad should be able to be broadcast.
Perhaps killing these two "chickens" won't be enough to scare all
of the "monkeys," if the "chickens" can truly be killed this time.
Nevertheless, we still welcome the murderous intent that has exploded
out of SARFT this time.
The Qingdao Financial Daily argued that the monkeys ought to be killed
along with the chickens:
Bluntly point, prior instances of SARFT cleaning house ultimately
fell into a "crying wolf" pattern: a lot of bluster, and an insubstantial
order sent down. The Notice on Rectifying Radio and TV Medical Information
Services and TV Shopping Programs issued jointly by SARFT and SAIC
took effect on 1 August, 2006, and it clearly stated: broadcasters
that violated the regulations would be temporarily deprived of their
right to air commercials. But after the Notice was released, out-of-line
ads maintained their same crazy pace, continuing the same all bark
and no bite result as in times past. Ten months later, SARFT finally
made good on its promise, and carried out the punishment of revoking
two stations' right to air commercials. In one light, this should
not be taken as an act of desperation.
To some degree, the two stations refused to mend their ways precisely
because the practice of airing the prohibited ads was so common -
"the law can't punish everyone," so they thought their chances were
good. All TV stations are equal, so since everyone has violated the
regulations, then the ones who are punished ought to be all of those
violators. Execution of the law does not just choose easy targets,
and it doesn't just make examples. There's no reason to treat these
two small, non-influential TV stations as "chickens," first killing
them and then giving a warning to the "monkeys" so that they have
an opportunity to mend their ways. This is unfair.
Of course, there are so many violators that it is entirely appropriate
for punishment to be given to some first and others later. So we
anticipate that the order to halt commercials at these two TV stations
is just the start of an ädvertising storm," rather than its conclusion.
An op-ed at Great Wall Online asked "What happens when SARFT orders
a halt and things don't halt?":
This writer noticed that this is a ban issued by SARFT alone. Prior
to this, what happened after the bans issued jointly by SARFT and
SAIC? Yunnan and other satellite TV viewers can still see Cheng Fangyuan
and Hang Tianqi as guests on ads for "Maximum Organ" bust enhancing
system; the two of them will tell you in all certainty that the bust
enhancement effect is higher than 98%, the safety coefficient is
100%, and in general, all foreign women use Maximum Organ. And another
time, Jiang Shan, on Guangzhou TV's movie channel, continued to ask
viewers: why don't you drink calcium plus zinc syrup? Calcium and
zinc supplements together - two for the price of one. And the actress
Shi Ke exclaims on Jiangsu TV: "Flowers and Dream" combines whitening
with blemish-removal - a success the first time you use it.
The notice previously issued by the two organizations when they joined
hands had these results, so what will the results be when SARFT goes
it alone to issue punishments?
...
In the past, the Shanghai Administration for Industry and Commerce
launched an across-the-board overhaul - all medical ads that had
star endorsement were banned. SAIC declared five types of advertising
content illegal, and ads for health products and drugs that featured
stars fell into the scope of the "hard strike." These are all stringent
measures; now with one word SARFT has called a complete halt and
has cut off the financial avenue for these two TV stations - is it
feasible? No mechanism for implementing punishments, no mechanism
for finding accountability, no linkage with the normal operation
of the stations and the performance records of the people in charge
- just an order to halt. I fear success will be difficult.
And a QQ reader picked up by Tencent urged SARFT to be fair:
Look at what TV stations are playing today: News! TV series! Variety
shows! What's left? Most of it is ads! And the majority of those
are commercial ads! If you take away their commercial ads, then how
can they play programs? (even though I detest ads myself.)
As for the stations' broadcast of illegal ads, I think that if you're
going to rectify things, then the majority of TV stations across
the country will have to stop broadcasting. Actually, it's enough
for the TV stations to strengthen the effectiveness of their advertising
oversight and editing, and then ad agencies and the companies should
adopt a responsible attitude toward consumers. But there's really
nothing wrong with SARFT's actions. At any rate the common people
are the victims, and advertisements to a large degree influence the
common people's outlook. However, if you're going to rectify things
then the whole thing needs to be rectified. You shouldn't mess around
with local TV stations. You should take action against the fake advertisements
on CCTV first and cut them all.
UPDATE (2007.06.26): SARFT issued an order lifting the advertising
ban at the two station at midnight on 25 June. (link)
Links and Sources
Mirror via CE (Chinese): Two provincial TV stations ordered to be
overhauled; other local station still airing prohibited ads
http://www.ce.cn/cysc/gg/gdxw/200706/22/t20070622_11893439.shtml
China Economic Times (Chinese): Why are TV stations so bold?
http://www.jjxww.com/show.aspx?id=6092&cid=42
Qingdao Financial Daily (Chinese): Fairness is important in halting
TV commercials
http://news.a.com.cn/News/Infos/200706/22364700568.shtml
Great Wall Online via People Online (Chinese): What happens when SARFT
orders a halt and things don't halt?
http://opinion.people.com.cn/GB/5900108.html
Beijing Business Today (Chinese): Can SARFT really scare the monkeys
by killing a chicken?
http://www.bbtnews.com.cn/mainland/channel/22253.shtml
Tencent (Chinese): Netizen's comment
http://news.qq.com/a/20070622/002804.htm
Image from The Beijing News
