BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary The Steinlager Finest Tries competition was broadcast on One World of Sport at about  5.55pm on 25 September 1993.  Entrants were required to rank the five tries screened in  order of skill. The Secretary of the Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor (GOAL), Mr Turner,  complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the broadcast breached a number of  standards in the Codes applicable to liquor promotion and liquor advertising.  In  particular, he alleged that the three verbal and seven visual references to "Steinlager"  during the item breached the prohibition on the saturation of liquor promotion. On the basis that the item contained sponsorship credits which were incidental to the focus  on the rugby, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint.  Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision,  Mr Turner on GOAL's behalf referred the saturation aspect of the complaint to the  Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons given below, the Authority declined to uphold the complaint. Decision The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read the  correspondence (summarised in the Appendix).  As is its practice, the Authority has  determined the complaint without a formal hearing. The Steinlager Finest Tries competition was broadcast on One World of Sport at about  5.55pm on 25 October.  It showed footage of five recent tries being scored which entrants  were required to rank in order of skill.  The winner's prize was a trip to England and  Scotland to watch some of the games during the All Blacks' forthcoming tour. On GOAL's behalf, Mr Turner (the Secretary) complained to TVNZ that seven visual and  three verbal references to "Steinlager" in the three minute item amounted to the  saturation of liquor promotion in contravention of the Programme Standards for the  Promotion of Liquor.  He also complained that the item breached some standards in the  Advertising Standards Authority's Code for the Advertising of Liquor.  Which standards  were breached, he continued, depended on whether the promotion was a sponsorship  advertisement or a liquor advertisement.  In view of the Broadcasting Standards  Authority's Decision No: 87/92, he maintained that it was a sponsorship advertisement. The Broadcasting Amendment Act 1993 has been passed since Decision No: 87/92 was  issued.  Pursuant to that legislation, complaints about "advertising programmes" must now  be dealt with by the Advertising Standards Complaints Board (ASCB) while complaints  about all other programmes are the Broadcasting Standards Authority's responsibility.   The Authority was advised by TVNZ that the Finest Tries competition segment was devised  and broadcast by TVNZ.  The reference to "Steinlager" was included, it continued, as an  acknowledgment of that company's sponsorship of rugby in accordance with the  agreement between Lion Breweries and TVNZ.  "Steinlager" had not, the Authority was  assured, purchased the slot during which the segment was broadcast.  Following the  definition of an "advertising programme" included in the Broadcasting Amendment Act  1993, TVNZ maintained that the reference to "Steinlager" was therefore a sponsorship  credit.  Thus, pursuant to the definition, the Authority is not responsible for the contents  of the credit (an ASCB matter) but is responsible for the material to which the credit  applies. GOAL complained to TVNZ under the standards which it then understood to be applicable  to the broadcast in view of Decision No: 87/92.  It is necessary for the Authority to  comply with the subsequently enacted legislation and, taking into account the revisions,  GOAL's complaint raised one matter which continues to be the Authority's concern.  That  matter is the alleged saturation of liquor promotions.  Standard A1 of the Broadcasting  Standards Authority's Programme Standards for the Promotion of Liquor reads: A1 Saturation of liquor promotions, separately or in combination, must be  avoided.  In addition, liquor advertisements shall not be broadcast  consecutively in any one break. "Saturation" is defined in the standards as follows: "Saturation" refers to a degree of exposure which gives the impression  that liquor promotion is dominating that viewing or listening period. The other matters complained about, which are now solely the ASCB's responsibility and  which it has agreed to deal with, refer to standards 11.f and 11.g of the ASA Code for  Liquor Advertising.  They prohibit the use of sponsorship credits which imitate liquor  advertisements and require that the sponsor's name be mentioned only briefly. The Authority would observe that the test imposed by the phrase "may briefly mention or  portray" in standard 11.g of the ASA Code For Liquor Advertising requires a more detailed  examination of the components of the item complained about than does a consideration of  the "saturation" criterion under standard A1. In response to the saturation aspect of the complaint, which is the Authority's  responsibility, TVNZ argued in its reply to GOAL that the Steinlager Finest Tries insert's  emphasis was on the rugby and that the sponsorship credits and ground signage  containing liquor promotion were incidental.  In its correspondence with the Authority,  TVNZ referred to the definition of "saturation" and maintained that the entire  programme, One World of Sport which ran for more than two hours, was the relevant  viewing period. On GOAL's behalf, Mr Turner referred to some earlier decisions in which the Authority  accepted a commercial break as a discrete viewing period and argued that the "Steinlager  Finest Tries" insert was analogous. The Authority's task was to decide whether the seven visual references and three verbal  references to "Steinlager" in less than the three minute period during which the Finest Tries  competition was shown amounted to saturation of liquor promotions.  In the video tape it  received from TVNZ, there were only two verbal references - not the three claimed by  GOAL - but it accepted that there could well have been another announcing the insert  before the tape of the item viewed by the Authority. Although there was some liquor signage around the grounds when some of the featured  tries were scored, the Authority decided that they were so few in number that they could  be dismissed under the provision in the standards which accepts that liquor promotion  over which the broadcaster has little control will appear from time to time.  This is  acceptable so long as such exposure is minimised as occurred on this occasion. In deciding the saturation complaint, the Authority noted its recent previous decisions  (Decision Nos 151/93 - 155/93 dated 18 November 1993) when it ruled that some  named sports programmes breached the prohibition on the saturation of liquor promotion  "as more than one liquor promotion was broadcast every three minutes when measured  over the entire programme". In view of those decisions and the parties' submission, the Authority's first task was to  define the viewing period.  As the broadcast complained about was part of a sports  programme which featured rugby, the Authority initially considered whether the entire  programme in excess of two hours was indeed the viewing period.  However, taking into  account its earlier decisions in which it has accepted a commercial break as a viewing  period, the Authority decided that the Steinlager Finest Tries insert was a clearly distinct  item which could be described as a discrete "viewing period" within the definition. As a result of the ruling, the Authority then considered whether the rule which allowed  one liquor promotion in sports programmes every three minutes had been contravened by  this item where there had been nine, and possibly ten, liquor promotions in less than three  minutes. The Authority decided after examining the broadcast that the references to "Steinlager"  during the Steinlager Finest Tries competition did not amount to saturation in  contravention of standard A1. The Authority reached that conclusion because the item involved a rugby competition  which required the viewer's active participation.  In concentrating on the scoring  movements featured, the viewer was less likely to focus on the surrounding visuals and  verbal mentions.  This fact, it believed could be contrasted with the decisions in which the  Authority has laid down the one-promotion-in-three-minutes guideline.  On those  occasions, the Authority was considering the screening of liquor promotions during  replays or player profiles - items which could well be less absorbing and which specifically  interrupted the continuous sequence of play.  On this occasion, the item required viewers  to rate specific scoring movements and the Authority concluded that a guideline which  applied to the broadcast of entire games, or at least to large sections of them, was not  applicable.   Accordingly and although the matter was marginal, the Authority concluded that because  liquor promotion was not obtrusive and did not dominate the segment, it did not on  balance amount to saturation. For the above reasons, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint. Signed for and on behalf of the Authority Iain Gallaway Chairperson 17 February 1994

---

Summary

The "Steinlager Finest Tries" competition was broadcast on One World of Sport at about 5.55pm on 25 September 1993.  Entrants were required to rank the five tries screened in order of skill.

The Secretary of the Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor (GOAL), Mr Turner, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the broadcast breached a number of standards in the Codes applicable to liquor promotion and liquor advertising.  In particular, he alleged that the three verbal and seven visual references to Steinlager during the item breached the prohibition on the saturation of liquor promotion.

On the basis that the item contained sponsorship credits which were incidental to the focus on the rugby, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint.  Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Turner on GOAL's behalf referred the saturation aspect of the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declined to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix).  As is its practice, the Authority has determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

The "Steinlager Finest Tries" competition was broadcast on One World of Sport at about 5.55pm on 25 October.  It showed footage of five recent tries being scored which entrants were required to rank in order of skill.  The winner's prize was a trip to England and Scotland to watch some of the games during the All Blacks' forthcoming tour.

On GOAL's behalf, Mr Turner (the Secretary) complained to TVNZ that seven visual and three verbal references to "Steinlager Finest Tries" in the three minute item amounted to the saturation of liquor promotion in contravention of the Programme Standards for the Promotion of Liquor.  He also complained that the item breached some standards in the Advertising Standards Authority's Code for the Advertising of Liquor.  Which standards were breached, he continued, depended on whether the promotion was a sponsorship advertisement or a liquor advertisement.  In view of the Broadcasting Standards Authority's Decision No: 87/92, he maintained that it was a sponsorship advertisement.

The Broadcasting Amendment Act 1993 has been passed since Decision No: 87/92 was issued.  Pursuant to that legislation, complaints about "advertising programmes" must now be dealt with by the Advertising Standards Complaints Board (ASCB) while complaints about all other programmes are the Broadcasting Standards Authority's responsibility. 

The Authority was advised by TVNZ that the Finest Tries competition segment was devised and broadcast by TVNZ.  The reference to Steinlager was included, it continued, as an acknowledgment of that company's sponsorship of rugby in accordance with the agreement between Lion Breweries and TVNZ. Steinlager had not, the Authority was assured, purchased the slot during which the segment was broadcast.  Following the definition of an "advertising programme" included in the Broadcasting Amendment Act 1993, TVNZ maintained that the reference to Steinlager was therefore a sponsorship credit.  Thus, pursuant to the definition, the Authority is not responsible for the contents of the credit (an ASCB matter) but is responsible for the material to which the credit applies.

GOAL complained to TVNZ under the standards which it then understood to be applicable to the broadcast in view of Decision No: 87/92.  It is necessary for the Authority to comply with the subsequently enacted legislation and, taking into account the revisions, GOAL's complaint raised one matter which continues to be the Authority's concern.  That matter is the alleged saturation of liquor promotions.

Standard A1 of the Broadcasting Standards Authority's Programme Standards for the Promotion of Liquor reads:

A1 Saturation of liquor promotions, separately or in combination, must be avoided.  In addition, liquor advertisements shall not be broadcast consecutively in any one break.

  "Saturation" is defined in the standards as follows:

"Saturation" refers to a degree of exposure which gives the impression that liquor promotion is dominating that viewing or listening period.

The other matters complained about, which are now solely the ASCB's responsibility and which it has agreed to deal with, refer to standards 11.f and 11.g of the ASA Code for Liquor Advertising.  They prohibit the use of sponsorship credits which imitate liquor advertisements and require that the sponsor's name be mentioned only briefly.   

The Authority would observe that the test imposed by the phrase "may briefly mention or portray" in standard 11.g of the ASA Code For Liquor Advertising requires a more detailed examination of the components of the item complained about than does a consideration of the "saturation" criterion under standard A1.

In response to the saturation aspect of the complaint, which is the Authority's responsibility, TVNZ argued in its reply to GOAL that the "Steinlager Finest Tries" insert's emphasis was on the rugby and that the sponsorship credits and ground signage containing liquor promotion were incidental.  In its correspondence with the Authority, TVNZ referred to the definition of "saturation" and maintained that the entire programme, One World of Sport which ran for more than two hours, was the relevant viewing period.

On GOAL's behalf, Mr Turner referred to some earlier decisions in which the Authority accepted a commercial break as a discrete viewing period and argued that the "Steinlager Finest Tries" insert was analogous.

The Authority's task was to decide whether the seven visual references and three verbal references to Steinlager in less than the three minute period during which the "Finest Tries" competition was shown amounted to saturation of liquor promotions.  In the video tape it received from TVNZ, there were only two verbal references – not the three claimed by GOAL – but it accepted that there could well have been another announcing the insert before the tape of the item viewed by the Authority.

Although there was some liquor signage around the grounds when some of the featured tries were scored, the Authority decided that they were so few in number that they could be dismissed under the provision in the standards which accepts that liquor promotion over which the broadcaster has little control will appear from time to time.  This is acceptable so long as such exposure is minimised as occurred on this occasion.

In deciding the saturation complaint, the Authority noted its recent previous decisions (Decision Nos 151/93–155/93 dated 18 November 1993) when it ruled that some named sports programmes breached the prohibition on the saturation of liquor promotion "as more than one liquor promotion was broadcast every three minutes when measured over the entire programme".

In view of those decisions and the parties' submission, the Authority's first task was to define the viewing period.  As the broadcast complained about was part of a sports programme which featured rugby, the Authority initially considered whether the entire programme in excess of two hours was indeed the viewing period.  However, taking into account its earlier decisions in which it has accepted a commercial break as a viewing period, the Authority decided that the "Steinlager Finest Tries" insert was a clearly distinct item which could be described as a discrete "viewing period" within the definition.

As a result of the ruling, the Authority then considered whether the rule which allowed one liquor promotion in sports programmes every three minutes had been contravened by this item where there had been nine, and possibly ten, liquor promotions in less than three minutes.

The Authority decided after examining the broadcast that the references to "Steinlager" during the Steinlager Finest Tries competition did not amount to saturation in contravention of standard A1.

The Authority reached that conclusion because the item involved a rugby competition which required the viewer's active participation.  In concentrating on the scoring movements featured, the viewer was less likely to focus on the surrounding visuals and verbal mentions.  This fact, it believed could be contrasted with the decisions in which the Authority has laid down the one-promotion-in-three-minutes guideline.  On those occasions, the Authority was considering the screening of liquor promotions during replays or player profiles – items which could well be less absorbing and which specifically interrupted the continuous sequence of play.  On this occasion, the item required viewers to rate specific scoring movements and the Authority concluded that a guideline which applied to the broadcast of entire games, or at least to large sections of them, was not applicable. 

Accordingly and although the matter was marginal, the Authority concluded that because liquor promotion was not obtrusive and did not dominate the segment, it did not on balance amount to saturation.

For the above reasons, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
17 February 1994