Uvek rejects SRG's "dream job" recourse
In the Swiss television program «Traumjob,» the SRG violated legal sponsorship and advertising regulations by engaging in surreptitious advertising for a hotel.
In the Swiss television program "Traumjob", SRG violated the legal sponsorship and advertising regulations. The program made surreptitious advertising for a hotel. This is the conclusion reached by the Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications (DETEC). It has rejected the SRG's appeal against a corresponding ruling by the Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM) in its entirety. The trigger for the Bakom ruling was the episode of "Traumjob" broadcast by SF on May 1, 2005. In it, the group of eliminated applicants received an overnight stay including dinner at the Hotel Victoria-Jungfrau in Interlaken as a "consolation prize". To illustrate this, a longer film sequence was shown in which the candidates could be seen inside the hotel. However, Bakom criticized the fact that the hotel was insufficiently declared as a sponsor by simply thanking them in the credits. The
The SRG lodged an appeal against this assessment with DETEC. The Hotel Victoria-Jungfrau was not a sponsor of "Traumjob" as the hotel had not made any payment to SRG, explained SRG. Although there was no formalized sponsorship agreement, the SRG did not have to pay anything for the services provided by the hotel to the candidates, according to the DETEC. As the indirect financing of a broadcast also falls under the sponsorship provisions of the RTVA, the hotel should have been explicitly identified as a sponsor. Furthermore, the film sequence crossed the line into advertising, the Uvek shares the opinion of Bakom. The RTVA's ban on surreptitious advertising was therefore violated.
The SRG lodged an appeal against this assessment with DETEC. The Hotel Victoria-Jungfrau was not a sponsor of "Traumjob" as the hotel had not made any payment to SRG, explained SRG. Although there was no formalized sponsorship agreement, the SRG did not have to pay anything for the services provided by the hotel to the candidates, according to the DETEC. As the indirect financing of a broadcast also falls under the sponsorship provisions of the RTVA, the hotel should have been explicitly identified as a sponsor. Furthermore, the film sequence crossed the line into advertising, the Uvek shares the opinion of Bakom. The RTVA's ban on surreptitious advertising was therefore violated.
