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."