That you can just maybe see on high definition giant TVs. And even then you have time to read less than half the words.

Did the people who made these those words law, feel like they did their job when they clearly didn't? Either rescind the law or make the words bigger. And why hasn't this been discussed before?

lol

"Call in the next 15 minutes to get your free gift". 95% of people believe they are saying that you won't get it if you call in 20. Not because they are stupid but because common language in these situations almost always means that. But here it doesn't. And commercials are CONSTANTLY doing that. Making statements that are technically correct to avoid getting in trouble but are CLEARLY designed to mislead. I would have thought that Warren would have been on their case (along with that fine print issue.) Their are a lot worse examples than the one I mention but until I can think of a perfect one I won't mention any to avoid incurring the wrath of you know who.

It's saturday night and I'm drinking but I think one thread about commercials is probably enough for now.

I dunno well named, I'd be happy to have an entire forum of QVC inspired hot takes imo

If it was determined scienctifically that the font, text size and duration on screen employed to announce the fine print was actually comprehensible by 50.1% of viewers, would it be ok?

Can't rescind the law bec it's meant for consumer protection by requiring full disclosure of all of the facts. The current law is vague so we get a block of fine print that can't be read unless you can somehow freeze your screen.

On radio you will hear that disclosure spoken very, very fast so that the advertiser who thinks the law applies to them is in compliance. I think that requiring a similar disclosure on TV would be good. Or you could make them like the commercials for drugs where, seemingly, half of the commercial informs you why you should NOT take the drug.

Or you could require the disclosure part to be large and up long enough for the average person to read but I think that's bad bec ppl won't read it anyway and the advertiser has to pay for a longer commercial.

This is peculiar to the US and its legal system. In a country like Spain ruled by administrative law rooted in Roman and Napoleonic civil codes, in which there is no independent civil legal system, this sort of thing doesn't happen because it is understood as a fraud against the law, and the state itself can intervene directly to remedy the harm against the consumer. In the US it has to be someone directly harmed who makes the legal complaint, and the legal system has to take that party seriously, and that doesn't happen because the fraud is perpetrated by a powerful, monied commercial entity.

look at all the pushback on trying to get a law passed so pharma companies just have to put the true price of their drugs on the screen.

money buys laws.

My understanding was that the text on the screen and/or the super fast voice was a compromise to allow companies to advertise drugs directly to the public

Comes under a whole area of law commonly known as 'small print', which you don't appear to have heard of. Democratic legislatures require that certain terms and conditions are stated, but, due to the necessary number of words involved, the law doesn't require that the terms and conditions are spelt out in big letters or, in aural narration, that they are spoken dramatically at great length by one of the bass-voice actors who do movie trailers, because in any case that just wouldn't work. The principle of caveat emptor abides.

I agree with sklansky

I am against over regulation in general but if we are going yo have regulatory laws they need to be complied with in a sensible manner

yes, this is much better than the old Politics forum.

Quality and quantity are lower, but so is the whining. With regard to the thread topic, weak as it is, pretty much any solution will just create some additional work-arounds, and people are always quite clever at following the letter of the rules, without following the spirit of the rules when it serves their needs.

Go UK while the usa yells at clouds

https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/artic...tv-ads/1519643