Ad Breaks

[coalescent]

As most of you are probably aware, US TV shows are written to a strict structure to accomodate ad breaks: Teaser (Credits)/Act I/Act II/Act III/Act IV. And, as most of you are probably also aware, when US programs get shown in the UK, this structure is almost always ignored, with breaks inserted in all sorts of unusual places. The worst offender is usually Sky, but this problem has cropped up on almost all the ad-based channels at some point.

Recently, Channel 4 started doing things right, with, amongst other things, Smallville. Breaks were where the program makers intended them to be, everything flowed nicely, and all was well with the world.

Unless you're the ITC.

See, it turns out that the reason for the disregard for existing breaks is not just broadcaster madness, it's actually forced upon them. According to the ITC regulations:

A break may be taken only when:
(i) there is a clearly marked and dramatically significant lapse of time in the action, or
(ii) there is a complete change of scene, with a significant break in the continuity of action, or
(iii) in the case of adaptation from stage plays, the original intervals in the stage play may be regarded as natural breaks.

The problem being, of course, that most breaks in US shows are not at scene changes, they're in the middle of scenes - cliffhanger act breaks are the norm.

It turns out that one (1) person complained to the ITC about just this issue. And the complaint was upheld.

This annoys me. I can sympathise with the spirit of the rules, and the desire to ensure that the artistic integrity of the work being broadcast is not compromised. But in the case of US dramas, adhering to the letter of the rules is compromising the integrity of the shows in exactly the manner that the rules are designed to prevent, and you would have thought that someone might have realised that.

I wonder how many people complain about the ITC-compliant placement of breaks?

(Link via uk.media.tv.buffy-v-slayer)

Comments

[ex-toastie256.livejournal.com]

A break may be taken only when:
(i) there is a clearly marked and dramatically significant lapse of time in the action

See, personally I would consider a fade to black as a clearly marked and dramatically significant lapse of time in the action. It hasn't been put there by the UK broadcaster, it's a dramatic break (i.e. cliffhanger) so should surely be valid?

[sclerotic-rings.livejournal.com]

Huh. I always wondered about that. A friend sent me several videos of American programs from the UK (you guys got to see Babylon 5 episodes as much as six months before we did), and I was wondering about the strange placement of advertising within the segments. Now I know it's bureaucratic incompetence that put them there. Thanks for passing that on.

[truecatachresis.livejournal.com]

Well, I've just complained to the ITC, and asked for information on how to lobby for a change in the regulations.

They do not publish an email address on their website, that I could find, so I had to fill in one of those horrible web form thingys.

[ajp.livejournal.com]

I wonder how many people complain about the ITC-compliant placement of breaks? Well, there's one at least.

See here for my previous comment.

Also consider this section of the ITC's rules. In particular section 6.10 - which says:

6.10 Acquired Programmes
Licensees should note that in programmes acquired from overseas pre-existing breaks may be taken only where this does not conflict with Rule 5.4.

Rule 5.4 states that:

5.4 Period Between Breaks
In the case of programmes other than those referred to in 5.2 and 5.3 above, a period of at least 20 minutes should normally elapse between each successive internal break. A slightly shorter interval is acceptable only where the interests of viewers would be better served by taking a break earlier (eg, to fit in with a particularly suitable interruption of continuity). However, in such cases the programme must not contain more internal breaks than would be permissible by strict application of the 20-minute minimum separation principle.

Now, nowhere in that, can I find anything that says why we can't take the breaks in US imports - in the correct places.

Stupid, stupid, ITC rules.

[rejs.livejournal.com]

Personally, I find the frequency and length of ad breaks in the US absolutely infuriating. (I then go channel-hopping and forget what channel number I was actually watching in the first place.)

If US imports are shown on the BBC, what should be done about the breaks?

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

If US imports are shown on the BBC, what should be done about the breaks?

The same thing that's done when the episodes are released on VHS or DVD - fade to black, then fade back in again. The breaks are dramatic beats in the story; the pause is intentional.

[davehiggins.livejournal.com]

Another problem would seem to be that, ignoring the breaks that usually occur in the US after the title sequence and before the credits, a typical 60-minute American syndication programme is usually geared up for three breaks, whereas the ITC would only allow two, and they must be at least 20 minutes apart (so you couldn't even get round it by just skipping one*).

I agree that it would be better to follow the intended break format for artistic reasons, but it will involve getting the ITC to change its ways.

Dave

* The good news is that the code does state that a shorter interval between breaks may be permitted in the interests of continuity, the bad news is that the ITC don't seem to consider mid-scene cliffhangers continuity.

[davehiggins.livejournal.com]

PS - When you're pressing the ITC to change the rules, you might want to point out that they're already broken in order to generate "cliffhangers"... compare the code's view on quiz programs:

"A break may be taken at the point where one competitor leaves the scene and before a new competitor is introduced. Where there is no change of competitor, a break may occur at the end of one complete round of questions."

With the usual technique on Millionaire