Little wonder the media loves elections. As one sales manager put it, “Elections would be better than Christmas if only they came ‘round every year”.

Historical data confirms that government advertising increases sharply in an election year, regardless of which party is in power.

It starts with the incumbent stepping up its “information” campaigns. Strictly speaking, “information” campaigns, such as the current ones for Medicare, Domestic Violence and Apprenticeships, are funded by the taxpayer for the purpose of educating them as to their rights, entitlements or responsibilities under changing government legislation.

Then, when an election date is announced, all such “information” advertising must cease, by law, to be replaced by party political ads – funded not by the public purse, but by the parties concerned. The sole aim of these ads is to “sell” their party to voters while steering votes away from their opposition.

While media commentators may be as biased as they like, most owners play no favourites. They’re happy to take money from all sides.

But does radio get it’s fair share of the election year bonanza? Recent data suggests not.

One reason could be due to anachronistic and ambiguous legislation concerning the wording required for the tag – the bit that says, “Written and spoken by……etc”.

As we found out, trying to determine what constitutes an “information” ad versus a “political” ad and what kind of tag is required on which, is fraught with difficulty.

Although we are reliably informed that radio will get a decent slice of the second round of the Medicare campaign, it missed out on the first round worth $20 million because, we were told, “The creative didn’t work”.

Huh?

Apparently the message was too complex.

Really?

If this sounds difficult for radio people to understand, then next time you’re watching the box look out for the Medicare ad. You won’t have to wait long.

Then check out the number of people in the ad. And pay attention to the last frame (you’ll miss it if you blink). Notice how it lists the names of the dozen or so people who appeared in the ad.

We’re not sure why that list is there. The legislation isn’t clear about its necessity on this kind of government ad. Nonetheless, someone in authority has decreed that on this occasion every participant must be named as part of the “creative” execution.

Now imagine having to translate that “creative” execution to radio. With no option but to read the names out, the list would consume up to half of a 30 second ad.

When radioinfo began investigating the matter we found it difficult to find anyone who was prepared to comment.

A senior bureaucrat from the Health Department referred us to the advertising agency Whybin TBWA, who referred us to the Government Communications Unit, who referred us to Special Minister of State Senator Eric Abetz, who heads a committee which oversees government advertising called the MCGC or Ministerial Committee for Government Communications. We were then referred to his chief of staff Peter Phelps who, thankfully, was willing to go on the record.

radioinfo: Have you included radio in the recent Medicare Campaign?

Phelps: No, because the creative didn’t work. We decided it was not effective.

radioinfo: Did that have something to do with having to say all the names of speakers in the tag?

Phelps: I won’t comment on specific creative details.

radioinfo: Is radio too hard to buy?

Phelps: No, definitely not. Radio is not too hard to buy and we will include radio in our campaigns where it works and targets the right audience.

radioinfo: Some radio stations say that, since they give so much free air time to interview politicians (especially in regional areas), the government should recognise the effectiveness of radio for advertising in the same way as they recognise its effectiveness when they want to speak to their constituents.

Phelps: The two issues are not related. We don’t seek to bribe radio stations by giving them ads, nor should we – there is no correlation. It should not be a ‘quid pro quo.’

radioinfo: In general, what is the overall break-up of spending on radio and other media for government campaigns?

Phelps: TV 50%, Print 15%, Radio 10%, outdoor and other media “the rest” (25%).

Radio clearly did not get 10% of this current Medicare campaign.

The government’s media buying agency is Universal McCann.

In 2003/4, the commonwealth spent $109 million on government information campaigns. The previous year it was $99 million and in 2001/2 $114 million was spent. A Research Note compiled by the Parliamentary Library found that $1.4 billion has been spent since 1991 in commonwealth government advertising, with more being spent in election years.

The problem may go back to the Broadcasting Services Act and the ABA’s interpretation of it in relation to identifying “certain political matter.”

Clause 4 of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Act says:

political matter is defined as “any political matter, including the policy launch of a political party” and the required particulars are the names of speakers and the authorisation.

Is a government information campaign “political matter” or is it non-political? This question is contentious and has recently been debated in the public arena by Opposition Leader Mark Latham and Prime Minister John Howard.

To be on the safe side, the ABA defines such information campaigns as political and so requires them to be tagged with the “particulars” of who wrote and spoke in the ads, but not all campaigns always follow these rules to the letter.

The ABA’s “Guidelines for the Broadcast of Political Matter” say:

Section 1 obliges radio to say all of this information.

Section 2 allows a tv ad to simply be tagged with the spoken words “Authorised by the Australian Government Canberra,” while a slide shows the names of the writer and speakers.

Because newspapers regulate themselves there is no requirement on newspaper advertisements to publish any details of who authorized the ad, whose picture is used in it, and where they live. The normal disclaimer practice of putting the word ‘Advertisement’ in the smallest letters possible at the top of the ad, and putting the Australian Government crest on the ad is being followed.

This current interpretation of the Act came into force on 11 November 1992 when the ABA approved the unequal treatment of radio against television which is now disadvantaging radio revenue.

Voiceover artists have long been aware of this issue – they are paid a premium when they voice “political ads” where they are required to be named, because this can prevent them getting other work on radio.

There are three issues here:

(A) One issue is the definition of what is a political ad. Campaign ads during an election are clearly political, but should an information campaign run by a commonwealth agency, outside an election campaign fall into the same category?

(B) Another is the uneven requirement in the ABA’s interpretation of the act to do one thing on radio and a different thing on tv.

(C) The third question that arises is, why is it important for citizens to know the name of the voiceover guy who is reading the ads. How does this help the democratic process?

An ABA spokesperson told radioinfo:

The Act requires that political matter broadcast at the request of another person be appropriately ‘tagged’. It is the broadcaster in the first instance who makes the assessment of whether the material being broadcast is ‘political matter’ broadcast at the request of another person.

The ‘required particulars’ for broadcasting political matter at the request of another person are the same for both radio and television. However, the requirement to provide the name of every speaker who delivers an address or makes a statement that forms part of the political matter (in addition to the rest of the ‘tagging’ requirements) can only be satisfied on radio in the form of a spoken announcement.

radioinfo: TV advertising in the current medicare campaign uses only the words “authorised by the Australian Government Canberra” then lists the names of the speakers on a slide, but does not actually speak their names. Is this against the rules?

Spokesperson: No. If the political matter is broadcast by television the broadcaster must ensure that the required particulars (other than those contained in paragraph (c) of the definition of required particulars in clause 1 of Schedule 2 (see above)) be broadcast in the form of a spoken announcement, and cause all the required particulars to be broadcast in the form of images of words.

radioinfo: Could radio ads do this to save a precious few seconds?

Spokesperson: No, if they did, they would not be ‘tagging’ political matter with all the ‘required particulars’ as specified in the Act.

radioinfo: So, is radio disadvantaged?

Spokesperson: Radio, because it is a sound medium must use a spoken announcement to comply with the requirements of the Act.

The problem began years ago, when somebody did the wrong thing during an election campaign in the 1940s. A parliamentary debate from 30 April 1942 in relation to the original Australian Broadcasting Bill quotes Senator Amour telling this story:

A lot has changed since 1942.

A lot has changed even since 1992 when the new guidelines came into place. The internet is now all pervasive, and radio ads have developed more creative ways of handling tags and disclaimers by using integrated marketing techniques, such as “see terms and conditions in store,” (point of sale information) or “go to the website for details” (internet) or “see the prospectus” (direct mail).

Digital radio will in future also provide more options, such as scrolling text, to solve this problem.

US regulator Robert Pepper, in Australia recently for the ABA conference, told radioinfo the same problem exists in America, but they have found ways around it.

“There is a requirement to credit the speaker, but in the US we get around this by incorporating the credit into the script such as ‘Hello, I’m Fred Bloggs from Michigan and I’m running for Congress…’ or ‘my name’s John Citizen and the new health system will benefit me because…’

That way the credit requirements are handled in the script and do not need to spoil the feel of the ad by always having to be placed at the end.

A transcript of one of the current tv ads illustrates the style of the campaign:

See for yourself by clicking below (wmv file 2.5 Mb)

We cannot show you a script for the radio ads – there isn’t one!