BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

Twenty four references to liquor were included in Super Liquor Sportsnight which was broadcast on TVOne between 10.30–11.30pm on 5 July 1999.

On behalf of the Group Against Liquor Advertising (GALA), the Complaints Secretary (Cliff Turner) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast contravened the guideline which set a limit of references to liquor in an hour long programme to 20. Accordingly, he wrote, the broadcast breached the standard which required that the saturation of liquor promotions be avoided.

Acknowledging that 24 liquor promotions had been broadcast, at least in some regions, TVNZ upheld the complaint. Nevertheless as some of the references were brief and would not have given the impression that liquor promotions were preponderant, TVNZ declined to take any further action.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s lack of action having upheld the complaint, on GALA’s behalf, Mr Turner referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority upholds the complaint that having upheld the complaint as a breach of standard A1, the broadcaster’s subsequent action was insufficient. It imposes an order for costs to the Crown in the sum of $500.00.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. In this instance, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

On behalf of the Group Against Liquor Advertising (GALA), Complaints Secretary Cliff Turner complained to TVNZ about the number of liquor promotions in Super Liquor Sportsnight broadcast on TVOne at 10.30pm on 5 July. During the hour long programme, he wrote, he counted 12 visual sponsorship credits for Super Liquor and eight verbal credits. In addition, there had been four liquor advertisements broadcast during the commercial breaks. A total of 24 liquor credits, Mr Turner concluded, breached the number allowed in one hour (20) by the guidelines to the Promotion of Liquor Code of Broadcasting Practice.

TVNZ assessed the complaint against standard A1 of the code which reads:

A1  Saturation of liquor promotions, separately or in combination, must be avoided.

It also took into account guideline 2 of the Code. It provides;

2. As a general guideline, broadcasters will avoid creating the impression that liquor promotions dominate the viewing or listening period if no more than one brief liquor promotion including a name association or sponsorship credit (not exceeding six seconds), is broadcast every three minutes averaged over the    duration of the viewing or listening period. A simultaneous visual and verbal mention will count as two mentions.

TVNZ acknowledged that the broadcast breached the guideline and, accordingly, upheld the complaint. However, it continued, it regarded it as a "technical breach", and gave the following explanation for this opinion:

We note the liquor references in the programme were often extremely brief, and that the term "Sportsnight" was used frequently on graphics and in dialogue in preference to "Super Liquor Sportsnight" with the intention of removing any impression that liquor promotions were preponderant.

We do not believe that any objective view of this programme could find that it represented "a saturation of liquor promotions" as stated in the standard. We note that "saturation" is defined as a "degree of exposure which gives the impression that liquor promotion is dominating the viewing or listening period" and we simply do not believe that to have been the case in this final episode of Super Liquor Sportsnight.

Moreover, TVNZ advised that two of liquor commercials were regional advertisements viewed only in the Waikato and Palmerston North.

When he referred GALA’s complaint to the Authority, Mr Turner expressed concern that TVNZ had disregarded the Authority’s earlier decisions on which the guideline was based. He wrote:

This is the third complaint that TVNZ has upheld about the Super Liquor Sportsnight programme. Rather than express some degree of contrition TVNZ has claimed that there was only a technical breach on this occasion.

In its response to the Authority, TVNZ acknowledged the breach but maintained that it was "a technical breach". It wrote:

It is our view that no impartial viewer of this hour-long programme would conclude that "liquor promotion was dominating the period", which is the definition given to "saturation" in the programme code. The requirement of standard A1 is to avoid saturation.

In reply to Mr Turner’s comment on its attitude, TVNZ stated:

Further we reject any implication that we are treating the regulation with any disdain. On this occasion a specific reason can be given for the small excess of liquor references. As is explained at the beginning of the programme, the co-host was not the usual presenter. Sports presenters by years of habit brought about by sponsorship contracts have become used to linking a sponsor’s name with the programme title on virtually every occasion. The unfamiliar co-host used up a number of the "Super Liquor" references in the first few minutes in his references to Super Liquor Sportsnight before he could be stopped by the programme director.

In his final comments on GALA’s behalf, Mr Turner noted that the guideline included a definition of "saturation". That set the standard, he wrote, not what TVNZ believed was "the reaction of the impartial viewer". He also maintained that the stand-in host should have been advised of the rules relating to references to liquor, and disputed TVNZ’s description that there was a "small excess", as the excess amounted to 20%.

The Authority’s Findings

TVNZ acknowledged that the broadcast breached standard A1 of the Promotion of Liquor Code as guideline 2 of the Code had been contravened. The Authority observes that the guideline, unlike nearly all the other broadcasting standards, lays down a prescriptive requirement.

TVNZ accepted that the standard had been breached, and the Authority’s task is to determine whether the action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient.

The Authority notes TVNZ’s submission that it considered the breach to be of a technical nature, and that the broadcast was the final episode of Super Liquor Sportsnight. Nevertheless, the Authority observes that TVNZ is well aware of the requirement of standard A1, and that as recently as 19 August 1999, the Authority imposed a penalty of costs to the Crown of $500 in respect of each of the broadcasts of Super Liquor Sportsnight on 10, 17 and 24 May as they also breached standard A1.

The Authority concludes that a similar penalty is appropriate on this occasion.

For the above reasons, the Authority upholds the complaint that the action taken by Television New Zealand Ltd, having upheld the complaints that the broadcast of Super Liquor Sportsnight on 5 July 1999 breached standard A1 of the Code for the Promotion of Liquor, was insufficient.

The Authority imposes the following order.

Order

Pursuant to s.16(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Authority orders Television New Zealand Ltd to pay costs of $500.00 to the Crown in respect of the broadcast within one month of the date of this decision.

The Order shall be enforceable in the Wellington District Court.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
23 September 1999

Appendix

The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1. GALA’s Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 6 July 1999

2. TVNZ’s Response to GALA – 20 July 1999

3. GALA’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 22 July 1999

4. TVNZ’s Report to the Authority – 30 July 1999

5. GALA’s Final Comment – 10 August 1999