SW calls for opposition to two restrictive consultations
The Swiss Advertising Association (SW) draws attention to two public consultations concerning advertising that would impose stricter regulations on commercial communication. According to the “Kommunikations-Kommentar,” these are restrictive regulations that the industry must oppose as a united front.
On the one hand, it concerns the preliminary draft of a revised Price Disclosure Ordinance (PBV) of May 7, 2010, which also provides for changes to the provisions on price disclosure in advertising (Art. 13 ff. PBV) and the regulations on misleading price disclosures (Art. 16 ff. PBV), which also relate to advertising. As a tightening up of the existing provisions, a new Art. 14 para. 3bis stipulates that the specifications under this article must be easily visible and clearly legible on a neutral background. According to the explanatory notes to the draft ordinance, these criteria are to be defined individually for each advertising medium. On the other hand, the consultation procedure for the total revision of the Alcohol Act has been launched. The consultation period runs until October 31, 2010.
According to SW, both revision efforts are going in the completely wrong direction on individual points. The perfidious thing about the consultation texts is that both come across as "wolves in sheep's clothing". If you ask around in the industry, it is astonishing and frightening to hear: "That doesn't affect us." However, it is true that both consultation texts contain new nonsensical regulations that run completely counter to a liberal stance. The SW will campaign vehemently for the interests of the sector, draw up a consultation text in both cases and make it available with the aim of getting as many players as possible involved in opposing further tightening.
After all, even in 2010, it is not primarily the "weight" of the sender that is decisive in the consultation process in federal Berne, but rather that, as in a game of cards, "lines" are drawn in order to state at the end that "so and so many are against; so and so many are for". This is grotesque, but cannot be changed in a hurry. That is why as many "tally sticks" as possible must be made against further tightening.
According to SW, both revision efforts are going in the completely wrong direction on individual points. The perfidious thing about the consultation texts is that both come across as "wolves in sheep's clothing". If you ask around in the industry, it is astonishing and frightening to hear: "That doesn't affect us." However, it is true that both consultation texts contain new nonsensical regulations that run completely counter to a liberal stance. The SW will campaign vehemently for the interests of the sector, draw up a consultation text in both cases and make it available with the aim of getting as many players as possible involved in opposing further tightening.
After all, even in 2010, it is not primarily the "weight" of the sender that is decisive in the consultation process in federal Berne, but rather that, as in a game of cards, "lines" are drawn in order to state at the end that "so and so many are against; so and so many are for". This is grotesque, but cannot be changed in a hurry. That is why as many "tally sticks" as possible must be made against further tightening.
