ESPNcricinfo has reported that Ten Cricket received a show cause notice from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB), seeking an explanation as regards the beaming of intrusive advertisements during the live telecast of the recent India-South Africa series. “A show-cause notice has been sent to Ten Cricket channel regarding the violation of Rule 7 (10) of the Advertising Code as prescribed in the Cable Television Networks Rules 1994 which provides ‘all advertisement should be clearly distinguishable from the programme and should not in any manner interfere with the programme viz, use of lower part of screen to carry captions, static or moving alongside the programme,’” Raghu Menon, the secretary of the MIB, told ESPNcricinfo. “The channel has been asked to show cause within seven days of the notice as to why action in accordance with the provision of the Uplinking Guidelines and Section 20 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 should not be taken against it.”
While the Internet (read ESPNcricinfo and Smoke Signals, to name a few websites/blogs) has been pretty vocal in raising the issue of “intrusive advertising” in the last few days, the panacea that has been suggested by the guilty in the broadcasting industry is worse, to say the least. Sample this statement made by Atul Pande, CEO of Sports Business, Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited: “A possible solution for the current problem was a premium fee paid by the consumer for ad-free coverage; England and Australia follow a similar model.“We are more than happy to give an ad-free feed at a higher price. If there is a customer who wants to look at uninhibited watching of a cricket event, and he is willing to pay a price for it we are more than happy to provide a service. We need to get a license expeditiously for that kind of a service, and we should be able to price it the way we want to price it. It’s like any other premium service; if the customer is prepared to pay a premium price for it, he gets a premium service.” How can Mr. Pande reconcile his argument with Rule 7 (10) of the Advertising Code? Why is the consumer being asked to pay for what is a legally mandated obligation? And how on earth is ad-free viewing a “premium service”?
I am inclined to sympathise with the commercial rationale offered by Mr. Pande for the ad-clutter. “Given the status of rights fees for most of the Indian tours you’ve got broadcasters trying to generate as much revenue as possible. It’s possibly leading to a clutter of advertising across all channels because they have to also monetise the property. The underlying principle is that there is a significant amount of pressure to monetise Indian cricket events, and the monetisation structure is such that there is pressure to generate money through ad sales.” However, there is an equally strong argument that can be thrown back, which is “Too bad Mr. Pande, but that is an inherent business risk which Ten Cricket and every broadcasting channel knows of and such is the environment that these channels have chosen to operate within. So the rules cannot be bent (at the cost of the consumer) to make your business risk-free.” Either broadcasters chose to wait for the Indian sports market to diversify beyond cricket (and be picky and choosy about cricket properties till then) or they risk making losses on marquee cricket properties in the short-term while hoping that an element of rationality sets into the market.
Subjecting the viewers to intrusive advertising or to a fee-based model for clutter-free feed are not viable options. One is unviable, strictly from a legal perspective and the other is unviable, from a consumer perspective.
Incidentally, I am not sure whether the Government would actually go the whole hog and ban a channel for “intrusive advertising”. Section 20 (1) Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 reads as follows: “Where the Central Government thinks it necessary or expedient so to do in public interest, it may prohibit the operation of any cable television network in such areas as it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.” Lets assume instances of intrusive advertising occur during the ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 games. Can and will the Courts and the Central Government be brave enough to prohibit the operation of ESPN, Star Cricket and Star Sports in India?! That would be the ultimate litmus test for law enforcement agencies in India!!
About the Author:
Amrut Joshi is the Founder of Gamechanger Sports Ventures (www.gamechangerindia.com). He can be contacted at amrut@gamechangerindia.com.
