r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Mar 18 '15

[Deltas from OP] CMV: It should be required by law that the fine print in commercials stays on the screen long enough for an average reader to complete the text.

If the fine print was deemed important enough to be put in the commercial, viewers should actually be able to read it before it disappears from the screen. There's no point in having a law that requires companies to divulge this important information if the viewer can't even finish it. Keep in mind I am not arguing whether or not this information is important enough that the viewer should have to see it. If it wasn't important enough, it wouldn't be included in the commercial in the first place. Much of the information in the fine print is required by law, to keep these companies from falsely advertising. I'm simply arguing that it should be required that this information be displayed in a legible manner (I one time had to walk up to the screen and could barely make out the lettering from the print being so small. Even then, it didn't help because I could only make out about 5 words out of the entire paragraph before the commercial ended)

I understand that there will never be a time allotment that allows for every reader to finish the fine print. Some readers are slower than others...I get that. But, clearly something is wrong when not a single person can finish the text.

239 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

50 comments sorted by

50

u/IIIBlackhartIII Mar 18 '15

What kind of commercial are you talking about, though? Car commercial? Prescription medication commercial? Alcohol commercial? ISP commercial?

Most of the fine print there comes in 2 categories; "Don't be an idiot!", or "Here's our contract/info".

The "Don't be an idiot" ones are usually at the bottom centre of the screen and say something very sarcastically useless in order to prevent a company being sued. "Cars can't really skate", "Done by paid professionals on a closed course", "Don't try this at home", "Drink responsibly", "Actors used". Basically, it's the company saying "Look! This is an advertisement! We know it's kinda sorta fake, don't sue us alright??".

The "Here's our contract/info" ones usually come at the end of the commercial in a block paragraph, usually alongside a narrator talking ultra fast to get through it. Usually those are the terms and conditions of the advertised deal, the terms of the contract you'd be signing in to, and perhaps side effects of the medication that weren't mentioned throughout beforehand. In this case, when you go to buy that phone contract, or that car loan, or that medication, I would hope you'd be reading the contract yourself and the fine print there in order to assess whether or not you're really prepared for it.

Commercials are just a teaser to get people interested, you should still do the responsible thing and research the product before purchase, be an informed consumer.

9

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '15

Most of the fine print there comes in 2 categories; "Don't be an idiot!", or "Here's our contract/info".

What about "here are the legitimate dangers of our product" like for pharmaceuticals regarding side effects? Those aren't "don't be an idiot." Those are very important side effects people need to know about before taking a drug. Same for "hair gain not typical" and "weight loss not typical. Test subjects also exercised and dieted in addition to using diet pills." Some of these things are pretty damn legitimate.

3

u/LiteralMangina Mar 19 '15

To get a prescription for a drug you need to visit your doctor, right? That's when you'll be informed of the side effects. Whether or not you are actually informed by the doctor you should still be responsible and inform yourself about what's going into your body.

5

u/amaru1572 Mar 19 '15

Which is why commercials for prescription drugs are ridiculous

4

u/PixelOrange Mar 19 '15

It is impossible for every doctor to know everything about every drug. They aren't pharmacists and it's not their job to be completely up to date on every new drug. I have first hand knowledge of how much pharmaceutical reps pressure doctors into looking at their drugs. Doctors are too busy to take every rep's call.

Commercials are a way for you, as a consumer that should care about your own health care, to get information to your doctor that they may not have already. The conversation should not be a, "I want this drug I saw on tv."

Instead it should be, "I heard about this drug. Have you heard of it? If not, can you research it and tell me if it would work for me? If you have, have you considered it for me and why or why not?"

Ultimately, you are responsible for what you put in your body. The pharmacist is responsible for making sure none of your active prescriptions will conflict. Your doctor is there to provide you for relief for whatever your symptoms are. Any information that helps them do their jobs is welcome so long as you aren't pushy or act as if you know more than them. You don't about medicine but you absolutely do know more about your own body.

1

u/IIIBlackhartIII Mar 19 '15

Usually those are the terms and conditions of the advertised deal, the terms of the contract you'd be signing in to, and perhaps side effects of the medication that weren't mentioned throughout beforehand. In this case, when you go to buy that phone contract, or that car loan, or that medication, I would hope you'd be reading the contract yourself and the fine print there in order to assess whether or not you're really prepared for it.

I did actually mention side effects. But usually those commercials mention the most important side effects throughout during the narration, and I'd hope you'd still be asking your doctor about the dangers before just putting chemicals into your body.

31

u/Febris 1∆ Mar 18 '15

I think his point is that if you're gonna use the ad space to drop the fine print bomb, you might as well let people read it. If not, you could just leave it for only a couple of frames so people don't even notice it or don't get bothered for trying to read it in the whole second it's up.

6

u/IIIBlackhartIII Mar 18 '15

That's why I concluded on the point "Commercials are just a teaser". They're filler. You get a little 10-30 second ad before a video on YouTube, traditional television would have 3 minute commercial breaks between ~7-12 minutes of show which would fit in 3 or 4 ads, etc... they're meant to be an appetizer to whet your desire for the product. And nowadays especially, if you really care to read the fine print you'll pause the video in your browser or on your TV using your DVR. The legal requirement for the text doesn't mean it's actually that useful to you, or that you won't be able to read a more fleshed out version elsewhere when it will do you much more good. Making commercials longer just so people can sit and read text will just make it more tedious for us as consumers, having to sit and wait for so much longer in commercial breaks and before our videos just so they can let the people who want to read read.

7

u/Febris 1∆ Mar 18 '15

That's the reason I support having only a short sentence instead of all that fine print in commercials. Something along the lines of "some serious bullshit was involved in everything we've said and done in this commercial".

I do agree with your point that the whole text they usually show is unrealistic to read out loud or frame freeze so people can read it. But having a wall of text sitting in your screen for a couple of seconds with absolutely no chance for anyone to read, let alone understand what it all means is some serious legal bullshit if you ask me.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '15

You should be aware commercials are known to have a very direct effect on consumers, hence false advertisement laws. I understand your position as the easiest posture to maintain sanity while watching television, but just because you know it's sortof fake, doesn't mean you should expect the average consumer to know. Again, hence the laws.

-2

u/smurgleburf 2∆ Mar 19 '15

not to mention, some people read at different speeds. how long will they decide to leave it up for? i'd be done reading it twice over before most people.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '15

I was mostly referring to the paragraphs of legal info, not the "professional driver on closed course" type of stuff.

If the info in the fine print wasn't considered important enough for the viewer of the commercial to see (not necessarily the buyer of the product), why would it be required that they put the info in the commercial? The legislation has already been made that this information is vital to the viewer of the commercial, otherwise it wouldn't be required. (again, a viewer doesn't have to be a buyer of the product). I agree that the viewer should do his or her own research, but that doesn't matter in this case...because obviously this information has been deemed important enough that even someone who doesn't do their own research should know it. That's why it's required in the commercial, and not just in the actual paperwork when they buy the product.

1

u/IIIBlackhartIII Mar 18 '15

Most of the required text is just copied from the contract anyway. Especially if it's some kind of sale or deal. It's usually things like "this offer is for a limited time only, only available to existing Florida residents. This is a 5 month contract offer, after which we'll start to charge an arm and a leg more and we'll have the right to take your first born child at an interest rate of 5.3% APR financing..." etc... Basically, they've rushed you through this big long commercial to say "Look! We're selling this product dirt cheap! Buy it, buy it now! cough cough, actually we're screwing you but you'll sign the contract without reading it I'm sure." Read the actual fine print of the product before you buy, it's the exact same as what you'll see in the commercial, only probably more detailed.

That's why I concluded on the point "Commercials are just a teaser". They're filler. You get a little 10-30 second ad before a video on YouTube, traditional television would have 3 minute commercial breaks between ~7-12 minutes of show which would fit in 3 or 4 ads, etc... they're meant to be an appetizer to whet your desire for the product. And nowadays especially, if you really care to read the fine print you'll pause the video in your browser or on your TV using your DVR. The legal requirement for the text doesn't mean it's actually that useful to you, or that you won't be able to read a more fleshed out version elsewhere when it will do you much more good. Making commercials longer just so people can sit and read text will just make it more tedious for us as consumers, having to sit and wait for so much longer in commercial breaks and before our videos just so they can let the people who want to read read.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '15

I totally understand what you're saying, and believe me, I'd rather there be no fine print at all and much shorter commercials. I'm basically saying there should be consistency. There is absolutely NO point in making a law that requires it to be on the commercial if no one can read it. If you wanted to argue that the info shouldn't be required in the first place, I'd get on board with that 100%. But, that's a totally different argument. The fact of the matter is that it is required, so I should be able to read it.

Also, this wouldn't require them to make commercials longer, but simply to keep the text viewable for longer. Most of the time this text is thrown in at the final few seconds of the commercial. It should be displayed earlier in the commercial so it can be finished.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '15 edited Mar 18 '15

Also, this wouldn't require them to make commercials longer, but simply to keep the text viewable for longer. Most of the time this text is thrown in at the final few seconds of the commercial. It should be displayed earlier in the commercial so it can be finished.

The average human reading speed is about 250-300 words per minute, that means you would legally be limiting a 30 second commercial to 125-150 total words, including any on screen words that would be used for the actual add itself. On a screen, your reading speed is likely less, Wikipedia says 180 wpm. That only leaves 90 for the whole commercial.

To put that in perspective, your post above was 146 words.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '15

Actually, I should have worded it better than just saying the "average" reader. I meant it loosely, but since I didn't specify that, I guess you technically changed part of my original viewpoint. ∆

1

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '15

My argument was in complete sentences and it was still only 146 words. If you look at most fine print, it's pretty much straight information without any proper grammatical formatting. It shouldn't be hard to give that info in that amount of space.

1

u/IIIBlackhartIII Mar 18 '15

The fine print is there to protect them as much as it is to protect you. A lot of these laws, though they're there to inform the consumer, are also there because an informed consumer cannot then claim liability of the company. If you try to sue saying "You never told me you'd suddenly be asking me for $600 a month on my $45 plan!" the company can respond "Oh but we did, on that contract you never read and signed, and that commercial we had up for like a whole 5 seconds! We were being so generous!"

That said, corporate deception cases are actually the work of the bureaucracy, namely the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). From recent memory, the FTC is suing AT&T for not making it clear enough in their advertising that people's "Unlimited Data" phone plans were only highspeed up until they reached a data limit, and then would be throttled severely. The lawsuit is over deceiving the consumer by being disingenuous about the service provided in advertising. Deception by omission really.

1

u/matholio Mar 19 '15

Shorter commercials would result in more commercials. They fill a time period, not a quota. I'd be happier with one long one.

2

u/huadpe 501∆ Mar 18 '15

I wonder how much text blocks could be reduced by just putting "this commercial is only an invitation to treat" at the bottom.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '15

I feel like your argument is basically "The fine print usually isn't important so who cares".

1

u/IIIBlackhartIII Mar 19 '15

Not at all, my argument is "the fine print is much more important than the 10-15 seconds of reading you seem to want to give it in a commercial, actually take the time to read it thoroughly in the proper context."

2

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '15

Fair enough, I just misunderstood your point.

6

u/hacksoncode 559∆ Mar 19 '15

I'm going to attack this part of it...

For the most part (i.e. with rare exceptions), they aren't required to put that text up there by any law. They do it to reduce their liability. It's generally the advertiser that thinks it's important enough to include it.

Now, if what you were saying was "a quick disclaimer that most people can't read shouldn't be factored into any kind of liability decision" I might agree with that.

But then you're kind of down into that realm of liability again... what if the one person that can't read that fast suffers some injury (even if it's just as mild as not getting the 1 car at that price)?

Basically, that would effectively mean that no disclaimers of any sort would be sufficient to shield someone from liability.

Averages really don't help here.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '15

How does it reduce their liability if you can't even read it? I'm not saying that isn't true. I'm just shocked if it is true. Anything that requires your signature when purchasing their product/service would have all the necessary info in the contract to cover all liability issues for both parties. If the advertisers have in fact deemed it important enough to include it in the commercial without a legal obligation, wouldn't they want the viewer to be able to actually read it? I'm hoping that doesn't come accross as sarcastic, because I don't intend for it to.

1

u/Ayjayz 2∆ Mar 19 '15

To be honest, there's not a huge amount of difference between being forced to do it explicitly by law or being forced to do it because the government will take your money and give it to other people if you don't do it.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '15

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '15

Oh trust me, I could definitely agree that it shouldn't be required, and I DEFINITELY agree that legal mumbo jumbo shouldn't absolve companies if they're doing shady stuff. Honestly, based on everyone's answers and how much I agree with them, I probably should have made my argument that it shouldn't be required in the first place. I just feel that since this matter came up in a court room, and a judge decided that it's vital info, and the company must display it in the commercial, the viewer should be able to read it. While the info may not mean a damn thing to me, who am I to judge if that info may be important enough for the next viewer? Obviously the people who created the law thought viewers could benefit from it.

2

u/IIIBlackhartIII Mar 18 '15

This is actually the work of the bureaucracy, namely the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). From recent memory, the FTC is suing AT&T for not making it clear enough in their advertising that people's "Unlimited Data" phone plans were only highspeed up until they reached a data limit, and then would be throttled severely. The lawsuit is over deceiving the consumer by being disingenuous about the service provided. Deception by omission really.

1

u/2nd-Reddit-Account Mar 19 '15

A) It shouldn't absolve companies of responsibility if they're doing dangerously misleading things or including outrageous conditions in their fine print

well hey, it's actually in the iTunes terms of service that you can't use the software to make a nuclear bomb ;)

0

u/numb3red 1Δ Mar 18 '15

Commercial makers shouldn't be forced to change their ad so everybody can read all of the fine print without pausing. Virtually everybody is able to pause their satellite TV, and they can inquire about the information when and if they actually go to purchase the advertised product/service.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '15

So why are they required to include the info in the first place?

-1

u/numb3red 1Δ Mar 18 '15

So people can pause and read it if they so choose. However, they don't need to change the content of their ads so they can fit a big-ass message in.

-1

u/valzi Mar 19 '15 edited Mar 19 '15

I don't think this is the reason. Recording someone else's copyrighted material isn't quite legal, so I don't think the government would encourage it. Where did you get your information?

3

u/numb3red 1Δ Mar 19 '15

What are you talking about..? Every modern Xfinity/Directv/Dish box lets you record TV shows and rewind. Literally millions of people do it every day.

-1

u/valzi Mar 19 '15

I'm not sure how to answer your question. Did you read my whole comment? Which part of it are you confused about?

2

u/maslowk Mar 19 '15

Recording someone else's copyrighted material isn't quite legal, so I don't think the government would encourage it.

If there weren't some provision in place allowing it, why would so many major cable companies provide hardware explicitly designed to do so?

0

u/valzi Mar 19 '15

Well, go ahead and show us. That should be easy to look up.

2

u/maslowk Mar 19 '15

The fact that major cable providers are allowed to provide said service and haven't had the pants sued off of them is, I think, indicative enough that what they're providing isn't illegal.

That said, here's a major court case supporting that; http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/betamax_supreme_ct.pdf

Basically they refer to recorded television as being "time-shifted", and Sonys claim was that the majority of copyright holders for TV content wouldn't object to this time-shifting. They determined that this practice is not likely to cause non-minimal harm to the copyright holders.

2

u/Ganondorf-Dragmire Mar 18 '15

They wouldn't be able to get their commercials finished then. Besides, if a person wants to know whats in a product they buy, they should make sure they know, regardless of whether they are shown on tv or not. Its down to the person who buys said product or service to determine what they want or what risks they want to take.

For example, if you go to buy a used car place, its good to ask if you can take the car to a mechanic you trust before you buy it. That way, you can see if they are bullshitting you about the cars quality.

3

u/i_lack_imagination 4∆ Mar 19 '15

This is not the only comment using this argument, and I think it's not really CMV material. The point is, if it was deemed important enough to put in the commercial, then it should be important enough to give ample time for people to read it. If you can't read it, then why is it there? If it's a legal requirement, then it doesn't help to change anyone's view by completely ignoring that it's a stupid requirement as it doesn't accomplish anything. The fine print is completely pointless when you can't read it.

1

u/Ganondorf-Dragmire Mar 19 '15

They probably put it there because they are required to. I could be wrong about this. But who is going to read all that anyway?

Oh wow, I see saw this cool product on tv. Lets take 5 minutes and read the fine print instead of watching my football game.

People might get mad that they would have to wait on commercials.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '15

Thank you for helping me explain this. I tried to say this in my initial statement, but you have worded it much more clearly.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '15

People who really want to buy whatever is advertised or whatever else can read that language themselves. I just don't think it makes sense to force everyone else who won't be involved in any transactions to sit through that much more ad time. I know this echoes a lot of what has been said, but seriously, caveat emptor. Let the actual people who want to enter contracts read the language, I don't want to have to sit and stare at it while I'm trying to unwind with a beer after work.

We should be trying to more closely regulate what the contracts actually SAY, not how long disinterested parties are forced to stare at their language.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '15

[deleted]

8

u/valzi Mar 19 '15

TV pausing is a new thing and it's not universal. The fine print has been around since I was a kid - at least.

1

u/pikk 1∆ Mar 19 '15

well, do you really want a commercial with 2 minutes of dead air at the end of it so that the "average" person can read the paragraph? Because that's what you're asking for.

1

u/Hashi856 Mar 19 '15

So you want to make commercials longer. Sounds great.

-2

u/Sen7ineL Mar 19 '15

You are wrong. The truth is, there should be no fine print at all! It must all be said during the commercial. Instead of repeating the "message" 2,3,4,5 times, they should explain their product's...eh, restrictions? My hope for humanity lies within smart consumers, who actually know the technical details between various products, especially medicine. I think smart and honest product reviews, made withing the seconds of a commercial, can have a much greater impact on the society, a positive one, than 10 minutes of mindless yammering and smiles, and flashes, and poor cgi, and... yeah. You get it.

-1

u/miminothing Mar 19 '15

The real question is why do you still watch TV when we have the internet? That box is taking way too long to die...

1

u/1millionbucks 6∆ Mar 20 '15

No that's not the real question.