The rooster dies as long as he wants to
DRS Ombudsman Otto Schoch Expands His Jurisdiction to Include Advertising
DRS ombudsman Otto Schoch expands his jurisdiction to include advertisingBy Luca Aloisi A psychiatry head physician complained about a TV commercial for Radio DRS. Not, as was to be expected, with the Fairness Commission, but with ombudsman Otto Schoch. Legally, the spot does not violate the law. Nevertheless, Schoch considers the complaint to be justified.
As WerbeWoche already suspected in the campaign description (WW 23/01), the spot for Swiss Radio DRS realized by Advico Young & Rubicam, in which a cock tired of life ends its earthly existence under a train, was indeed recently objected to. Not by outraged animal rights activists, but by a head physician of a psychiatric clinic who found the spot "absolutely tasteless." The psychiatrist complained that the TV commercial could have an inciting effect on suicidal young people because of the cock suicide it suggested, and thus undermined a broadly supported campaign for suicide prevention.
According to Otto Schoch, ombudsman of Radio and TV DRS, the advertising message generated an extremely positive response among TV viewers. Nevertheless, Schoch saw reason to clarify the complaint legally. The result: the commercial violates neither the RTVG nor the licensing regulations and Bakom guidelines, which is why Radio DRS wants to continue broadcasting it.
Generous interpretation of Article 60 RTVA
More surprising than the "acquittal" is Schoch's decision to interpret the term broadcast, as defined in the RTVA, generously and to extend its scope of authority to include advertising. Regarding the commercial review, he wrote in the magazine of the audience council Link: "I would have found a narrow interpretation of the legal requirements to be very petty, and I therefore took up the rebuke. After all, Art. 60 RTVG provides that anyone can object to a broadcast, and I think that commercials are also broadcasts within the meaning of this norm."
The SDA concluded that in addition to the program, TV commercials can now also be complained about to the ombudsman, which is actually the responsibility of the Fairness Commission. BSW managing director Walter Merz is not happy with this: "If one were to adhere to the well-rehearsed competency path, Mr. Schoch should have made the psychiatry chief physician aware that this commission is responsible for advertising."
How she would decide in such a case, he could not estimate. But he is certain that its verdict is prejudiced under the given circumstances. However, like Peter Felser, CEO of the advertising agency responsible, he does not fear a new scissors in the heads of the creatives. Felser: "We will continue to fulfill the briefing of our customers, which puts a task in the foreground, to the best of our knowledge and belief."
In the case of the offending TV spot, the aim was to make the message stunning, according to which more and more people are being woken up by the radio. "If the content is not given, it is a senseless provocation à la Benetton," adds Felser. For Publisuisse deputy director Othmar Stadelmann, who had visioned the spot, it is certainly debatable, especially from the point of view of depressed people, which is why he understands Schoch's approach.
DRS press spokesman René Bardet insists that in principle the whole thing has nothing to do with SF DRS and that "a strict separation between programming and advertising continues to apply". Due to absence, ombudsman Otto Schoch was unable to comment on the decisive entry issue. It therefore remains to be seen whether his decision should be interpreted as pointing the way forward.
For Merz, it is conceivable that the secretary of the Fairness Commission will seek contact with the ombudsman in order to clarify his acceptance of the reprimand. After all, ethics cannot be imposed by a government agency, he said. If an agency violates ethical principles, it harms itself and its clients, and no one has any interest in that.
Although the Fairness Commission has never been confronted with such a case, it feels neither belittled nor replaced. Commission secretary Hanspeter Marti sees his task as subsidiary to the courts. "As soon as fairness law is affected, we deal with all cases, regardless of whether the authorities or others have already dealt with them." Nor does he expect a government agency to refer the case to a private one. Especially not when the issue is ethical and not legal. "After all, we don't want to be moral judges."
As WerbeWoche already suspected in the campaign description (WW 23/01), the spot for Swiss Radio DRS realized by Advico Young & Rubicam, in which a cock tired of life ends its earthly existence under a train, was indeed recently objected to. Not by outraged animal rights activists, but by a head physician of a psychiatric clinic who found the spot "absolutely tasteless." The psychiatrist complained that the TV commercial could have an inciting effect on suicidal young people because of the cock suicide it suggested, and thus undermined a broadly supported campaign for suicide prevention.
According to Otto Schoch, ombudsman of Radio and TV DRS, the advertising message generated an extremely positive response among TV viewers. Nevertheless, Schoch saw reason to clarify the complaint legally. The result: the commercial violates neither the RTVG nor the licensing regulations and Bakom guidelines, which is why Radio DRS wants to continue broadcasting it.
Generous interpretation of Article 60 RTVA
More surprising than the "acquittal" is Schoch's decision to interpret the term broadcast, as defined in the RTVA, generously and to extend its scope of authority to include advertising. Regarding the commercial review, he wrote in the magazine of the audience council Link: "I would have found a narrow interpretation of the legal requirements to be very petty, and I therefore took up the rebuke. After all, Art. 60 RTVG provides that anyone can object to a broadcast, and I think that commercials are also broadcasts within the meaning of this norm."
The SDA concluded that in addition to the program, TV commercials can now also be complained about to the ombudsman, which is actually the responsibility of the Fairness Commission. BSW managing director Walter Merz is not happy with this: "If one were to adhere to the well-rehearsed competency path, Mr. Schoch should have made the psychiatry chief physician aware that this commission is responsible for advertising."
How she would decide in such a case, he could not estimate. But he is certain that its verdict is prejudiced under the given circumstances. However, like Peter Felser, CEO of the advertising agency responsible, he does not fear a new scissors in the heads of the creatives. Felser: "We will continue to fulfill the briefing of our customers, which puts a task in the foreground, to the best of our knowledge and belief."
In the case of the offending TV spot, the aim was to make the message stunning, according to which more and more people are being woken up by the radio. "If the content is not given, it is a senseless provocation à la Benetton," adds Felser. For Publisuisse deputy director Othmar Stadelmann, who had visioned the spot, it is certainly debatable, especially from the point of view of depressed people, which is why he understands Schoch's approach.
DRS press spokesman René Bardet insists that in principle the whole thing has nothing to do with SF DRS and that "a strict separation between programming and advertising continues to apply". Due to absence, ombudsman Otto Schoch was unable to comment on the decisive entry issue. It therefore remains to be seen whether his decision should be interpreted as pointing the way forward.
For Merz, it is conceivable that the secretary of the Fairness Commission will seek contact with the ombudsman in order to clarify his acceptance of the reprimand. After all, ethics cannot be imposed by a government agency, he said. If an agency violates ethical principles, it harms itself and its clients, and no one has any interest in that.
Although the Fairness Commission has never been confronted with such a case, it feels neither belittled nor replaced. Commission secretary Hanspeter Marti sees his task as subsidiary to the courts. "As soon as fairness law is affected, we deal with all cases, regardless of whether the authorities or others have already dealt with them." Nor does he expect a government agency to refer the case to a private one. Especially not when the issue is ethical and not legal. "After all, we don't want to be moral judges."
