ISBA hits out at Lords call for CRR removal

The House of Lords has called for the removal of Contract Rights Renewal (CRR), which restricts how much ITV1 can charge advertisers.

/k/o/f/HouseofLordsPic.jpg

The House of Lords Communications Committee recommends that CRR should be replaced with “binding undertakings” from ITV to invest an appropriate proportion of any additional revenues from advertising into creating UK-originated programming and training.

ITV accepted CRR undertakings in 2003 to deal with advertisers’ concerns that the merger of Granada and Carlton could form ITV creating a monopolistic position.

CRR gives advertisers and media buyers the right to renew contracts with ITV with no extra price increases from 2003 levels and includes a system that links the amount advertisers spend to audience share.

The Competition Commission (CC), after a thorough and lengthy industry dialogue, ruled in July there will be no change to the CRR remedy imposed on ITV in 2003.

Culture secretary Jeremy Hunt has previously signalled he would seek to remove CRR and last month said he will “look again” at the regime.

The Lords’ recommendations also include a “short, focused review” of the trading system for television advertising in order for it to become more transparent.

Bob Wootton, director of media and advertising at advertiser body ISBA says advertisers are “disappointed and bemused” with today’s recommendations.

He says: “Investment in quality content is not a direct subsitute for CRR. As advertisers we want a strong ITV, but not in terms of its ability to clobber us. There is no connection.”

UKTV executive director of business of business and operations Julia Jordan says says that the company has always urged a rethink on TV trading practices but that abolishing CRR “in the short term” is not the right course of action as ITV is still “a phenomenally powerful market leader”.

She says: ” CRR should remain in place until such a time that the advertising market has evolved to better capture the full value of the today’s multi platform television medium and if we remove CRR now that removes the incentive for ITV to help lead that advertising revolution.”

An ITV spokesman says: “We welcome the committee’s conclusion that the Contract Rights Renewal rules on the sale of advertising are overly detrimental to ITV and should be abolished.”

The Committee, which began a review of TV trading issues in July , also recommends that all channels should reduce the maximum amount of advertisements shown per hour to seven minutes.

Currently ITV 1, Channel 4 and Channel 5 are permitted a maxium of eight minutes per hour at peak times, with smaller commercial channels allowed an maximum of 12. This could cause a rise in TV ad prices due to supply and demand..

ITV says: “We also welcome the recommendation that the number of advertising minutes per hour should be harmonised down to an average of seven minutes on all commercial channels.”

Wootton says a reduction to ad minutes would disproportionately affect smaller broadcasters and that with less time to fill with adverts on TV, the larger broadcasters will charge advertisers more.

He adds: “If you reduce the supply, if the price does rise, some advertisers and agencies will walk away completely - this could even deflect revenue from bigger broadcasters.

 

Readers' comments (3)

  • Surely, this is a non-issue? I don't know anyone under 50 who still watches TV in real time anyway. Perhaps the avg age in the Lords make it seem like more of an issue than it is outside their Lordships house?

    Everyone I know records programmes on their Sky+ or Freeview/Freesat PVRto watch later, specifically so that they can skip the crap breaks - There may only be 9 mins of ads - but add the trails and puffs and - oh boy, that stuff is so tedious..... and they often cut down the programs to make room for it! THAT is the real issue.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So according to AlanT we should abandon all TV avertising not aimed at the Stairlift generation?

    I think not. That said Alan seems to have a poor understyanding of the business model of commercial TV, so I guess his comment is 'a non-issue'

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Alan T - I would like to clarify your comment because, actually, watching TV 'in real time' and the number of ads watched are doing very well - for every demographic.

    Obviously I can't comment on your behaviour, that of everyone you know, or that of the Lords - but I can give the facts about TV viewing, as measured by BARB.

    Linear TV viewing (watched at normal speed) in the UK reached a record high in 2010 of over 4 hours a day on average, according to the offical figures from BARB.

    Commercial TV accounts for nearly two-thirds of this viewing, so the viewing of ads - at normal speed - has never been higher and is about 35% higher than in 1999 and 23% hgher than 2005. On average, we watch 46 ads each a day (2.6 billion collectively).

    Some ads are, of course, skipped, but only in recorded viewing which represents just 7.3% of all TV viewing (this is, as you might expect, higher in homes with digital recorders, but still only 14% there). BARB does not count any ad unless it is viewed at normal speed, so those that are fast-forwarded are free to advertisers, though clearly there is value in seeing them.

    The assumption that digital recorders are a huge threat to TV advertising has been proven unfounded. Research by Thinkbox (who I work for) and others has shown that viewers with a digital recorder invest in the technology because they enjoy watching TV, not because they militantly want to skip ads. In fact plenty of people, of all ages, love lots of TV ads - so much so they will go online after seeing them on TV and watch them again, recommend them to friends, comment about them on Twitter, or join a Facebook group for them.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory

Related images

Job of the Week

Top Jobs

social+media Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
knowledge+bank