The gloom that pervades the unit could not be further from the excited mood that prevailed over 25 years ago when it was established. Subtitlers at SBS TV have been part of a team which has produced arguably the world’s finest subtitles in a unit built from scratch starting in the early 80s. Over the years, their work has allowed viewers to enjoy programming from around the world through their provision of English language subtitles. Drama – ranging from Lebanese sitcoms to Garcia Lorca – documentaries, children’s programming, even opera. Programs which could be quirky or weird or wonderful, but above all, distinctive – you didn’t need a watermark on the screen to know you were watching SBS.

The standards developed over the years at the SBS subtitling unit mean there is a lot more to creating subtitles than simply translating, a challenging enough task in itself.

The subtitles are prepared using a purpose-built computer program. Each subtitle must contain no more than a certain number of characters, and must remain on screen for a determined length of time to ensure that viewers can easily read it. The timing of the subtitle must correspond to the spoken word on screen, but it must also allow for contingencies such as camera angle changes. Where songs or poems are subtitled, the translation must replicate the rhythm of the original as well as the meaning. The process is much more laborious than a simple translation, and creating subtitles for a feature film may take up to a fortnight.

Once the subtitles are completed (usually by a native speaker of the language in question), they are checked by an editor (usually a native speaker of English). There may be discussions to be had about ambiguities and cultural sensitivities, as well as punctuation and grammar. Employment in the unit was gained only after exhaustive tests to assess candidates’ knowledge of the culture associated with their language as well as their translation skills.

In addition to their subtitling responsibilities, subtitlers were called on by newsreaders, journalists and others to check pronunciation of foreign names, and they also previewed and assessed overseas programs being considered for purchase. SBS subtitlers took their expertise around the world; Aboriginal broadcasters in Central Australia and European linguistic conferences alike benefited from the unit’s prowess.

In an era when SBS prided itself on being the world’s only multicultural, multilingual broadcaster, the quality of SBS subtitles set a benchmark worldwide. It was work for lovers of words and film, and the subtitling unit provided a home for aspiring novelists, poets and filmmakers, as well as people who simply delighted in making the products of other cultures accessible to a wider audience. In the days when SBS saw its role as providing an alternative to the programming seen on other channels, a majority of SBS’s programs were in languages other than English, with subtitles.  Providing services to News & Current Affairs, Local Production and even Sport, the subtitling unit lay at the heart of SBS TV.

But the heyday of the Subtitling Unit was shortlived, as programming of foreign language material, once the broadcaster’s raison d’etre, was downgraded.

The advent of advertising, initially only between programs, was quickly followed by a policy of excluding non-English language programs from prime time. Leaving aside the morning worldwatch broadcasts, which are not subtitled, it’s now not unusual for the SBS-ONE schedule to feature only one or two non-English language programs a day. There have even been days when there is no subtitled foreign language content at all (on SBS ONE). Don Quixote and Mozart and Lebanese soap operas have made way for Top Gear, Mythbusters and Big Love. When the pursuit of ratings rules, Inspector Rex alone finds a home in a prime-time slot.

The announcement about the most recent cutbacks was unwelcome but not unexpected. Subtitlers had been apprehensive about a recent review of the unit conducted without consultation with staff. The audit found that the unit was inefficient, and Brown stated that in future more films would be bought complete with subtitles done overseas to avoid the cost of doing them in-house (in times past, most overseas-created subtitles have been regarded as failing to meet SBS subtitling standards).

Some of the staff slated for redundancy are happy enough to go; as foreign-language programming has dwindled, people originally employed because of their language skills spend much of their time writing the teletext subtitles (Closed Captions) for the hearing-impaired for English-language programmes. Sub-editors’ duties now include identifying “natural breaks” in programs for insertion of commercials. (Not an easy task – just where are those breaks in, say, Tosca?)

Those of us who had the good fortune to work in SBS’s subtitling unit over the last 20 or so years must now acknowledge that those exciting days are over, and they will not return. SBS has moved on, and so must we. But we can be proud to have contributed to a thrilling period in Australian television, which was as remarkable as it was short-lived.

Cathy Carey has worked in various capacities at SBS TV including stints as a  subtitler.

The article above is the full text by Cathy Carey. Abbreviated versions have appeared on other sites. It was first published under the title “Lost in translation, subtitlers get the chop” in the Melbourne Age – Green Guide on 9 June 2010.

SBS World News Australia has fallen victim to the ill effects of the chronic under funding that has plagued the broadcaster for more than a decade. Already operating with strained resources, the news department can take the strain no more.

In an email sent last week by the SBS Director of News & Current Affairs, staff were told the redundancies “will not be a hands-up exercise”. However the email went on to say that an effort would be made to give preferences to staff who expressed an interest – in taking redundancy. Precise numbers were not revealed although the email did state that the numbers “affected will be small”.

This week the SBS Director of Strategy and Communications, speaking on behalf of SBS, confirmed to SaveOurSBS.org that “there will be some redundancies in the news room”.

Asked if World News Australia would run shorter bulletins and SBS planned to sack half the news staff the spokesperson for SBS said “There is no truth to the story that we plan to cut news staff by half or that there is any plan to reduce the length of the news bulletin.”

SaveOurSBS.org was also told that part of the budgetary strain now effecting the news room, was because no specific funding had been made from government for the operation of SBS TWO.

Meanwhile SaveOurSBS.org continues to lobby government for greater funding and in a submission to the SBS Board in March this year, again raised the concern that pursing the commercial path has and will lead to a gradual downturn in government funding. The Board was strongly urged to abandon the disruption in programs for advertising as a first step towards regaining increased public support for greater funding and so that the broadcaster would appeal more favourably to those in government who are deeply offended by that practice – believing that SBS was never intended to operate along commercial lines to the current extent. Dependency on advertising is now taking its toll.

SBS ventured into this with NINE. What is the relationship between SBS and NINE?

In order to facilitate SBS and NINE broadcasting what are effectively test transmissions in 3D the ACMA, which regulates and allocates broadcast spectrum, has made some spectrum available on a temporary basis. NINE and SBS have agreed to share the spectrum, with SBS becoming the “licensee” of the spectrum in some places and NINE in others.

SBS and NINE have devised a broadcast schedule that accommodates the needs of both broadcasters for the World Cup and State of Origin series. When matches are not being played a promotional reel showcasing 3D content from both broadcasters will be played. Replays of 3D matches will also be scheduled.

Is there a commercial arrangement between NINE and SBS in terms of splitting the income and sharing the overall costs?

There is no commercial arrangement between NINE and SBS. No payments or other consideration (other than practical assistance) will pass between the two.

How is SBS funding the 3D broadcast?

SBS has brokered a commercial partnership with Sony and Harvey Norman that covers the costs of broadcasting the World Cup in 3D. SBS has also received technical and transmission support from a number of partners including Broadcast Australia and satellite provider Optus.

Will there be advertising, including 3D advertising?

It is unlikely for technical reasons that it will be possible to insert ads in the 3D broadcast. Very few 3D ads currently exist.

What will be needed to watch the SBS 3D broadcasts?

Viewers will need to have or have access to a high definition 3D set and appropriate glasses to view the broadcast.

What will happen to the 3D digital channels after the World Cup?

After the World Cup and State of Origin series the spectrum will revert to the Government and its future use will be considered as part of the digital television switch over process.

At a future time would SBS like to have access to the 3D digital channel spectrum?

SBS does not have spectrum available to it to broadcast further 3D content at this stage. In any event there is little 3D content in existence [but we] will continue to monitor developments in 3D television and look at options for future broadcasts as and when they become feasible. 3D is still a technology in development. There are not yet agreed standards and at present there is not enough spectrum available to broadcasters for the wide spread provision of 3D programming.

Which cities and what digital channels will the 3D test broadcasts be available?

Frequencies in the UHF band in Sydney (35), Melbourne (35), Brisbane (50), Adelaide (29), Perth (35), Newcastle (35) and Wollongong (50).

Will SBS 3D be available in regional centres and remote parts of Australia?

Unfortunately, the service will not be available in regional areas. However, Austar MyStar customers who can receive a signal from one of the transmitter sites [mentioned] and who have appropriate reception equipment will be able to receive the signal.

The 3D test broadcasts on SBS of the FIFA World Cup will broadcast on the following dates and times: -

South Africa v Mexico LIVE 11 June at 23:45 hours AEST; Germany v Australia LIVE 14 June at 04:15 AEST; Netherlands v Denmark LIVE 14 June at 23:30 AEST; Argentina v Korea LIVE 17 June at 23:30 AEST; Netherlands v Japan LIVE 19 June at 23:30 AEST; Ghana v Germany 23 June LIVE at 04:15 AEST; Portugal v Brazil LIVE 25 June at 23:45 AEST; 1B v 2A (2) LIVE 28 June at 04:15 AEST; 1E v 2F (5) LIVE 28 June at 23:45 AEST; Quarter Final 1 v 3 (A) LIVE 3 July at 04:15 AEST; Quarter Final 2 v 4  (B) LIVE 3 July at 23:43 AEST; Quarter Final 6 v 8 (D) LIVE 4 July at 04:15 AEST; Semi Final A v C (1) LIVE 7 July at 04:15 AEST; Semi Final B v D (1) LIVE 8 July at 04:15 AEST; Final W1 v W2 LIVE 12 July at 04:15 AEST

Further Reading

SBS to broadcast World Cup in 3D SBS press release about 3D TV.

3D TV trials The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is the industry regulator and has issued the licence for the 3D test transmissions.

3D television – the technology explained The Wikipedia technical explanation of how 3D works.

3D TV FAQ The CNEWS technical explanation of how 3D TV works.

3D TV SBS Broadcasts – Technical Only How technical buffs are watching 3D on a computer – the hardware and software needed.

Ready or not, the latest 3D technology is coming home What equipment is required to make and view 3D TV.

The History of Australian Television – the eighties 3D was first broadcast in Australia in 1983.

In his opening presentation to last week’s Senate Estimates hearing, Brown told the Senate Committee that SBS needed to find a way to offset the hits to the broadcaster’s commercial revenue that have occurred.

Brown said that the hits to SBS’s advertising revenue had come about: “firstly as a consequence of the global financial crisis and secondly because of the explosion of multichannels from commercial broadcasters which has doubled the amount of commercial inventory in the market”. Brown added this was “having an impact on the revenue that SBS can derive”.

Brown was alluding that the value of the SBS advertising dollar has been diluted with the introduction of ONE, SEVEN-TWO and GO. Previously SBS only had to contend with 7, 9 and 10. And now that community television has begun transmissions on digital 32 and the ABC will soon have four television networks, the spread of viewers across 13 metropolitan free-to-air channels will mean that SBS will have far fewer viewers than a year ago. That’s not overly attractive to advertisers who want numbers. It throws into doubt the emphasis that SBS gave to depending on income from in-program advertising breaks, as a reliable source of income. It no longer is.

In what could be called a justified but subtle plea for further funding, Brown told Senate Estimates that a way needed to be found “to resource new and emerging platforms so that SBS remains a vital part of that expanded landscape”. Later Brown discussed some of those platforms, including the Internet and SBS-TWO.

However there has been no particular funding granted to SBS for these platforms and SBS has been habitually under funded by all governments. Taking these factors into account, SaveOurSBS.org wrote to the Treasurer in December 2009 urging that specific funding be made available to SBS for its online services before the next triennial funding period commences in 2012. That specific request was on the back of earlier submissions to government that SBS deserves greater funding to free the broadcaster from any need to rely on advertising.

In August 2008, SaveOurSBS.org made a submission to the Minister for a massive injection of public funding for the current triennial period (2009 to 2012) so that SBS would not need to rely on advertising.

Since 2007 in other submissions to government, SaveOurSBS.org has repeatedly predicted that SBS would ultimately suffer, and the current model that has caused SBS to turn to advertising as a source of income, is flawed. Brown’s revelation to the 24 May 2010 Senate Estimates that SBS needs to “find a way to offset the hits to [SBS] commercial revenue” is spot on. A way is needed.

Considering the disruptions to regular programs for advertisements remains grossly unpopular with viewers and that many in government have deep philosophical objections to those disruptions, SaveOurSBS.org (again) submitted in March this year that the interruptions of programs for commercial breaks will need to end as a first step in SBS rebuilding support from its viewers and obtaining greater public funding. Adequate funding for SBS remains years overdue.

SaveOurSBS.org understands that the restructure has come about because many people who were originally employed to subtitle foreign language programs have found their duties were later extended to create closed captions. Closed captions are the teletext subtitles for the hard-of-hearing on English language programs – not the superimposed subtitles used on foreign language programs.

In a statement to SaveOurSBS.org, SBS management said: “At present we have an over supply of capacity in some languages relative to need. As a result many staff are spending considerable amounts of time doing closed captioning of English language programming rather than subtitling. This is not what they are trained for, or prefer to do”.

Sources close to those affected have said that SBS intends to outsource subtitling of foreign language programs or import programs that are already subtitled, even if the standard of subtitling is inferior, as that is cheaper. But SBS has assured SaveOurSBS.org that “there is no plan to out source the unit nor to reduce the amount of subtitled programming (in fact increased investment in SBS TWO will result in more subtitled product).”

SaveOurSBS.org has argued for a fully funded commercial free SBS with an increase in foreign language programs.

The Charter is very clear: “The principle function of the SBS is to provide multilingual and multicultural radio and television services . . .”

Section 45 of the Act states that SBS may broadcast advertisements “before programs commence, after programs end or during natural program breaks” but no definition is given of a “natural program break” or when that might occur. The history of advertising on SBS dates back to 1991. There is nothing in the SBS Act that exempts advertisements from needing to comply with the SBS Charter. Mostly they don’t.

In late 2006, SBS reinterpreted their previous definition of a “natural program break”, and SBS-TV began to look and feel like that of a commercial broadcaster what with every program being interrupted for commercial breaks. SBS was no longer ‘special’.

Multilingual and multicultural programming took second place.

Tens of thousands of people protested about the commercialisation of SBS.

Three years on, the interruptions of programs for advertisements remains the biggest single annoyance to SBS viewers. Traditional supporters abandoned ship.

The legislators and those that drafted the Act say that in 1991, when SBS was granted permission to carry advertising, they never intended that a “natural program break” be interpreted in the broad way that SBS now do.

At the Senate Estimates on 30 October 2006, Senator Conroy said: “I have spoken to some of the people who were involved in drafting it [the SBS Act]”. He criticised the reinterpretation that SBS had just announced that would allow for the interruption of programs for advertisements into virtually any program. Conroy said the SBS self-penned definition of a “natural program break” was: “inconsistent with the intent of the limits that the legislation attempted to set”. The Senator was referring to the (SBS) Guidelines For The Placement of Breaks in Television Programs September 2006 which fall under the SBS Codes of Practice 2006. The Act requires the Board to determine an advertising policy. But it must be consistent with the Charter and the intent of the Act, not just the wording of the Act.

At the same Senate Estimates Senator Conroy quoted from the previous SBS Codes that defined a “natural program break” as “any pause during coverage of an event where audiences miss none of the proceedings that relate directly to the event (for example, rest periods in sports events)” for SBS-TV. That definition does not clash with the Charter or just common sense.

Legislators intended that “natural program breaks” would at least be genuine natural breaks, e.g., a ‘gap’ between acts in a live opera when there might otherwise have been a long pause, or, in similarly in live sport at half time. No one could honestly believe that the current reinterpretation of 2006, for example, the end of a scene (any scene) in a drama is a genuine natural break. It is obvious such breaks are not natural. They are forced.

The current SBS advertising Guidelines policy has pre-determined that a certain number of natural breaks per hour do exist. Even if a program has no genuine, natural breaks, they must be found. The policy says so. In daily practice, almost no room is left for the discretion of the poor bod whose task it is to force a break knowing that common sense would say: this is not a genuine natural break. The viewer suffers as does the reputation of SBS.

And since late 2006, the intent of the Act remains ignored.

All eyes are now on the new Chair of SBS, Joseph Skrzynski to lead the Board in a different direction and adopt a new model where advertisements are placed between programs and not in them. Only time will tell if the SBS Board will act as the responsible custodian of these public airwaves, respect the Charter, the SBS audience and the intent of the legislation.

FURTHER READING

The Zampatti Makeover by David Ingram.  Former SBS National Training Manager (1994 to 2007) expresses his opinion that the retirement on 16 December 2009 of Carla Zampatti as the then Chair of the SBS marks “the end of perhaps the most destructive era in the multicultural broadcaster’s 34-year history”.

Bill bans ad interruptions on SBS-TV A legislative solution that would prohibit SBS from interrupting programs for commercial breaks but allow SBS to advertise between programs only.

The SBS Must Be Special Former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, whose government established the Special Broadcasting Service, building on the creation of the publicly funded multi-lingual radio stations 2EA and 3EA of the Whitlam government, joined with ethnic community leaders and key figures from public life, literature and the arts calling for SBS to focus on the needs of viewers rather than on selling consumers to advertisers.

A chronology of advertising on SBS The history of advertising on SBS from subtle sponsorship in 1992 to soft sell ‘arty’ commercials of the late 1990’s right through to full blown, hard sell ‘in your face’ type advertising in 2007 and 2008. The detrimental impact to multilingual and LOTE programming caused by advertising is documented.

SBS URL BROKEN

The SBS Codes URL for the SBS Codes of Practice 2006 may have been removed from http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/media/documents/8487sbs_codes_of_practice_2006.pdf but now can be found at http://saveoursbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/8487sbs_codes_of_practice_2006.pdf

The SBS Advertising Guidelines URL for the (SBS) Guidelines For The Placement of Breaks in Television Programs September 2006 may have been removed from   http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/media/documents/3913advertising_guidelines_2006.pdf but now can be found at http://saveoursbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/3913advertising_guidelines_2006.pdf

Commenting on the appointment Save Our SBS spokesperson Darce Cassidy said:

“Mr Skrzynski is well qualified to lead Australia’s multicultural broadcaster. He arrived in Australia as a refugee from Poland after the Second World War. He has held Board positions with the Australian, Film Television and Radio School and the Australian Film Commission and is a former Chairman of the Sydney Opera House Trust. He has been recognised for mentoring Australian film makers and his support for Indigenous scholarships”

Mr Skrzynski is already a member of the SBS Board and was appointed on 27 March this year. A vacancy on the SBS Board has now been created as a result of his newer appointment to the position of Chair. Persons interested in filling that Board vacancy should visit www.dbcde.gov.au/abcsbsboards

Commenting further the Save Our SBS spokesperson added:

“Despite his qualifications and experience Mr Skrzynski faces a daunting task in getting the SBS, and particularly its television services, back on course. The pursuit of advertising income has lead to a decline in programs in languages other than English (LOTE) during the most popular viewing times. Moreover the decision to interrupt programs for advertisements, while it may have generated more income has upset both audiences and the government.”

“Mr Skrzynski and the Board will need to build bridges with ethnic communities, with audiences and with the government. For our part Save Our SBS will continue to lobby the government over advertising on SBS and to replace lost advertising with federal funds.”

Joseph Skrzynski will take up the position of SBS Chair on 17 December 2009 until his term expires on 26 March 2014.

In a media statement Senator Ludlam said: “The Bill will not prevent SBS from generating advertising revenue, nor from running advertisements and station promotions between programs”. He added the “character [of SBS] is under threat from the shortfall in public funding”. Previously the Greens had called for more funding for the broadcaster.

The Bill, the Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Prohibition of Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2009 (Bill Number 165/2009) was first introduced by the Australian Democrats in 2008. The parliament did not vote on it then. If it became law, the Bill would prohibit the interruption of programs by advertisements and station promotions on SBS television by amending Section 45 (2) (a) of the Special Broadcasting Service Act (1991) to omit the phrase ‘or during natural program breaks’.

Senator Ludlam said: “It has been taken up by the Greens due to the ongoing and widespread concern about the dangers associated with expanding advertising on a public broadcaster and aims to protect SBS from the creeping commercialisation that is now evident”. A former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, whose government established the Special Broadcasting Service, and other distinguished persons had previously expressed similar sentiments in a public statement The SBS Must Be Special.

SaveOurSBS.org believes the re-introduction of the Bill may be timely but hopes that the government stimulus packages might now be extended to include SBS.

Prior to the May 2009 Budget, Save Our SBS  made a submission to the government for a massive injection of public funding for the 2009-2012 SBS Budget coupled with legislation to ban commercial breaks on SBS.

In 2008 Save Our SBS  presented a petition signed by more than seven and a half thousand people urging a ban on advertising on SBS with more funding from the public purse. Other campaigns have repeatedly called on the government to live up to its 2007 election policy statement that “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising”. (ALP email; Senator Conroy email; and, Kevin Rudd email).

As yet there is no date set down for the parliament to debate or vote on the Bill.

In the May 2009 Senate Estimates the Greens spokesperson for Communications, Senator Ludlam questioned Minister Conroy about Labor’s pre-election policies in regard to SBS interrupting programs for commercial breaks. Part of the proceedings are cited below:-

Senator LUDLAM- You might require a slightly better citation than this. SaveOurSBS.org, the website, which I am sure you are familiar with, is running a quote by you when you were opposition spokesperson for communications: “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising.” I will find the date of that for you.
Senator Conroy- No, I am not disagreeing that I said that-
Senator LUDLAM- Okay. That was-
Senator Conroy- I am disagreeing with your interpretation of what that meant.
Senator LUDLAM- Can you bring us up to date on what that actually meant?
Senator Conroy- It meant exactly what it said. It just did not mean what you are saying it said.
Senator LUDLAM- I am pretty happy with the context of the quote, that you opposed when you were in opposition-
Senator Conroy- I am pretty happy with it too; I made it.
Senator LUDLAM- But it was not government policy at the time; it was just an opinion?
Senator Conroy- It was an opinion. It was never stated-you will not find any election document or any public statement that says we would reverse it.
Senator LUDLAM- But it does not say-
Senator Conroy- There is a reason that you do not have a quote there saying we would reverse it, and the reason is that we never said it.
Senator LUDLAM- Sorry to belabour the point, but you also have not said, ‘I, Mr Conroy, oppose’; you have said, ‘Labor has opposed and continues to oppose’. But at the time you did not say, ‘But we will do nothing about it once we are in government’; you just opposed it on principle at the time?
Senator Conroy- Yes.

The Minister Conroy went onto tell Estimates that he was not happy with the situation.

The SaveOurSBS.org quote referred to above in Senate Estimates “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising” was first published on the SaveOurSBS.org website on 11 October 2007 under the heading “What Each Party Will Do With SBS: Election 2007″ – The SBS policies of each party explained.

But there are other documents that contain the quote. And it was far more than just an opinion expressed by Senator Conroy.

The quote was repeated multiple times by Senator Conroy then in the month of the election it was re-issued in  emails from Kevin Rudd and the ALP Campaign Information headquarters. By November 2007 the quote (above) had become official Labor party policy appearing on authorised ALP material under Labor’s chosen heading: Labor’s SBS Policy. Save Our SBS has obtained documents that prove that.

The policy “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising” was consistent with Senator Conroy’s earlier comments.

On 11 October 2007 Senator Conroy had sent an email to the then newly founded Save Our SBS. Senator Conroy, then opposition spokesperson for Communications, was responding to a SaveOurSBS.org email of 22 August 2007. We sent a similar email to other politicians and parties. We told each politician that we would publish their answer on the SaveOurSBS.org website. In our email of 22 August 2007 to Senator Conroy we began: “We seek information as to ALP policy regarding SBS. In particular we would like to know what is the ALP policy regarding the interruptions to programs for advertisements on SBS-TV?” In the public interest of fairness we disclose the full email from Save Our SBS of 22 August 2007 to Senator Conroy and his email reply of 11 October 2007. Both can be read here. (For privacy reasons a personal phone number has been blacked out).

We published Senator Conroy’s reply containing his quote (above) on 11 October 2007 (here). Then in November 2007 SaveOurSBS.org published the famous quote again “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising” in a different story (here). We were reporting on the outcome of a joint Save Our SBS and Friends of the ABC campaign. Again the quote appeared under Labor’s named heading: Labor’s SBS Policy. The same heading and quote was issued in multiple emails with identical content about the SBS and the ABC. Some emails placed Labor’s SBS Policy at the top of the email while other emails placed it towards the middle of the email. Nevertheless the quote always appeared under the same heading: Labor’s SBS Policy.

The emails were sent from Kevin Rudd, Senator Conroy and the ALP Campaign Information Services. All three had sent their email to the participants of the joint Save Our SBS and Friends of the ABC campaign that ran in the lead up to the 2007 Federal election. Save Our SBS tracked 1119 email campaign participants. We have copies of all those emails. There may have been more.

No one was left wondering what Labor’s policy was regarding SBS and “in-program advertising”. Certainly not the 1119 people who received who the email a week or so before the election from Kevin Rudd, Senator Conroy and the ALP Campaign Information Services. Each email clearly stated:-

Labor’s SBS Policy
Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising

If it looks like a policy, reads like a policy, is emailed under the heading Labor’s SBS Policy and sent in multiple emails from Labor party headquarters, Senator Conroy and Kevin Rudd, to 1119 people right up to one day before the election, we reckon it is a policy.

The question remains: when will the government now live up to its pre-election promise? Will Senator Conroy amend section 45 of the SBS Act to prohibit SBS from interrupting programs for advertisements or will another Senator or MP have do that? Who will make the first move?

Labor’s SBS policy email below From Kevin Rudd, Sent 23 Nov 2007 (PDF here)
BELOW email page 1 of 4

BELOW email page 2 of 4

BELOW email page 3 of 4

BELOW email page 4 of 4

Labor’s SBS policy email below From Senator Conroy, Sent 21 Nov 2007 (PDF here)
BELOW email page 1 of 2

BELOW email page 2 of 2

Labor’s SBS policy email below From ALP Campaign Information Services, Sent 14 Nov 2007 (PDF here)
BELOW email page 1 of 3

BELOW email page 2 of 3

BELOW email page 3 of 3

For a quick overview click to read:
No ad breaks on SBS part 1: When is a policy not a policy?

Responding to Senator Scott Ludlum (Greens) in a recent Senate Committee hearing, Senator Conroy suggested that statements he made before the 2007 election, which had severely criticized SBS management for interrupting programs for commercial breaks, “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising” were not official Labor policy, but simply his “opinion”.  According to the Hansard transcript:

Senator LUDLAM- But it was not government policy at the time; it was just an opinion?
Senator Conroy- It was an opinion . . .
[and later]
Senator LUDLAM- . . . you just opposed it on principle at the time?
Senator Conroy- Yes.

However separate emails from Kevin Rudd, the ALP campaign office and Senator Conroy himself all make it clear that this was the considered policy of the Labor Party as a whole.

Labor’s campaign office took the view that this was Labor policy. In an email dated 14 November 2007, under the heading Labor’s SBS Policy, campaign headquarters wrote “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising.” See ALP email here.

A week later Senator Conroy, also under the heading Labor’s SBS Policy, wrote “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising.” See Conroy email here.

A few days later Kevin Rudd, also under the heading Labor’s SBS Policy repeated exactly the same words.  Mr Rudd did not suggest that this was simply Senator Conroy’s opinion.  In his email Mr Rudd also made it clear that it was Labor Party policy. This was one day before the election. See Rudd email here.

This is not simply an issue of Senator Conroy’s credibility.  It is also reflects on Kevin Rudd and the government as a whole.

For a detailed a background report click to read:
No ad breaks on SBS part 2: Minister denies policy

Brown took exception to the expression that SBS had forced breaks into these or any programs. However he did admit that SBS interrupted programs that were never produced for commercial breaks. Brown insisted that SBS only had natural breaks which is permissible under the SBS Act. However the Act does not define natural breaks, so under their Codes SBS invented their own Guidelines. The SBS definition has never been tested in the Courts.

At Senate Estimates Brown said that the SBS definition of a natural break was a “global” definition.

Brown’s statement is not globally true.

It is true that some similarity can be found with the UK as to where it is acceptable to place a break but there is no reference to such break being described as a natural break.

Back home, commercial television in Australia was de-regulated in the mid 1980’s. Commercial television licenses were originally granted under the old Broadcasting & Television Act. There was never a legislated definition of a natural break. Commercial broadcasters may now place breaks of any length, where ever they desire but SBS does not hold a commercial licence. It is a public, tax payer funded broadcaster.

In 2007 SBS forced 6000 breaks into programs that were never intended to be interrupted, as such we maintain they were not natural. Certainly they annoyed viewers.

Brown also told Senate Estimates “We now place only one 30-second spot on the top of the hour.”

But anyone who watches SBS-TV regularly knows the break between programs are longer than 30 seconds.

Breaks in programs on SBS run 2 mins and breaks between programs vary in length but are usually also about 2 minutes. Was Brown telling a fib to Senate Estimates when he said they now have “only one 30-second spot on the top of the hour”? A “spot” is industry jargon for a commercial but you could be forgiven for not knowing that because the total length of the break, including promos and advertisements is usually closer to 2 minutes and sometime longer. It is rarely just 30 seconds.

In defending SBS interrupting programs for commercial breaks, Brown has always maintained the line that the breaks were around 8 to 10 minutes between programs under the previous model where programs were not interrupted. In a media release on 1 June 2006, when SBS had been preparing to move to the now current model, Brown said: “These lengthy breaks – sometimes up to 10 minutes – are clearly unpopular with viewers. The new structure will reduce the lengthy, between-program breaks currently in the SBS schedule” and in discussing the then future model of interrupting programs, in the same media release, Brown said: “For half hour programs, there could be two short advertising breaks of 60 seconds duration and for one hour programs, there may be three short breaks, each no longer than 90 seconds duration”.

Regular viewers of SBS-TV would know that under the previous model the break between programs were rarely 8 to 10 minutes, except very late at night, for example at close of transmission. Although under the old model, SBS-TV often ran 4 to 6 minute breaks between programs, it is now obvious that viewers preferred that approach instead of the current model of interrupting programs.  Under the present model half hour programs have two, 2 minute breaks (not 60 seconds as foreshadowed) while one hour programs now contain three, 2 minute breaks (not 90 seconds as stated).

Is Brown a master at manipulating statistics?

Transcript of Senate Estimates

The questions and answers asked by Senator Scott Ludlam in the May 2009 Senate Estimates may be read in detail at:  http://wotnews.com.au/like/estimates_sbs_funding_and_advertising/3471896 however if you would prefer to read the full Hansard transcript of the May 2009 Senate Estimates visit:  http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=;db=;group=;holdingType=;id=;orderBy=;page=0;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2F12031%2F0003%22;querytype=;rec=;resCount=

Senator Scott Ludlam, the W.A. Greens spokesperson for Communications had been questioning Brown about the SBS advertising policies and operations.

Surprisingly Brown also told Senate Estimates that SBS had not sought “revenue to offset the commercial revenue” when SBS recently made its submission to government for funding for the next three years. Brown also said he was aware of the public objections to SBS interrupting programs.

Senator LUDLAM- Are you concerned or are you surprised by the degree to which these opinions were raised in the process of public submissions late last year, the degree of disquiet amongst the audience about the amount of advertising?
Mr Brown- No, I am not really.

This revelation by Brown at Senate Estimates only confirms public perception that Brown and the SBS Board are not listening to their viewers. Such arrogance, that SBS made a deliberate decision not to seek any funding from government in the May Budget to abandon its failed advertising policy in the light of SBS knowing that viewers expected such funding request be made, only serves to further annoy and anger viewers.

Brown has previously taken credit for the decision by the SBS Board to interrupt programs. That commenced in late 2006. Before that, SBS-TV only placed advertisements between programs, not in them.

For the past 2 and a half years since SBS began these interruptions, Brown has publicly claimed that the sole reason for such interruptions was to fund Australian program production and that all the money (minus agency commissions) raised from commercial breaks in programs was only used to make Australian programs.

But now that in the May 2009 Budget the federal government maintained SBS funding in real terms for the next three years and added an additional amount specifically to produce Australian programs, there is no reason for SBS to continue to interrupt programs.

In the Save Our SBS: Triennial Funding for SBS Submission submitted to Senator Conroy on 5 August 2008 we asked for more money for SBS than did the broadcaster itself. But we now know the Managing Director was not interested in requesting more money to wind back advertising because he favoured revue from advertisements interrupting programs. This he articulated to the National Press Club in 2007 and has repeated since.

Save Our SBS says it is high time the Managing Director of SBS and the Board listened to their viewers and reversed their failed commercialisation policy.

Stop interrupting programs for commercial breaks.

Self regulation of the SBS Board to take note of public opposition to advertisements interrupting programs has failed.

Now that the government has granted SBS funding for Australian program production, thereby removing the only stated need ever given by SBS to interrupt programs, will Labor take the bold step to introduce a Bill to prohibit SBS from interrupting programs on SBS-TV. Or will they leave that up to another politician to sort out? Who? How? When?

More Information

The questions and answers asked by Senator Scott Ludlam in the May 2009 Senate Estimates may be read in detail at:  http://wotnews.com.au/like/estimates_sbs_funding_and_advertising/3471896 however if you would prefer to read the full Hansard transcript of the May 2009 Senate Estimates visit:  http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=;db=;group=;holdingType=;id=;orderBy=;page=0;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2F12031%2F0003%22;querytype=;rec=;resCount=

The reference made in the May Senate Estimates to “public submissions” refers to some 2400 submissions made about the ABC & SBS to the Minister in December 2008. The Department has published most of these at: http://www.dbcde.gov.au/consultation_and_submissions/abc_sbs_review/_submissions

This may be a once in a lifetime opportunity to make your thoughts about SBS known directly to the Minister via the Departments online submission form.

We will make a submission and we strongly encourage you to make one too before 12 December 2008 at the Department’s online form. See URL under the box of our suggested questions below.

You may use any or none of the below to help you write a submission.

Make your submission on the form at the government web site at this link: http://www.dbcde.gov.au/media_broadcasting/consultation_and_submissions/abc_sbs_review/make_a_submission/online_submission_form

Submissions close 4pm EADT on 12 December 2008.

Other Info

A discussion paper has been prepared by the Minister’s department for comment or you can make your own comments on any topic you like.

If you would like to refer to the longer discussion paper visit http://www.dbcde.gov.au/media_broadcasting/consultation_and_submissions/abc_sbs_review

SBS Board Appointments

Senator Conroy also recently announced a new process for making appointments to the SBS and ABC boards which will make the selection process more transparent. Details at http://www.dbcde.gov.au/media_broadcasting/abc_and_sbs/abc_and_sbs_board_appointments

A PDF of the statement below may be viewed at: http://saveoursbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/the-sbs-must-be-special-signed.pdf

A media release about the above statement may be viewed at: http://saveoursbs.org/archives/319

The Minister responsible for SBS, Senator Stephen Conroy wrote to Save Our SBS on 26 August 2008 in response to the petition that we gave to his staff on 8 April 2008. Senator Conroy apologised for his late reply and wrote. 
 

The petition that was handed to the Minister had called for

• an immediate end to SBS interrupting programs for advertisements
   
• full funding for our tax payer funded multicultural public broadcaster
   
• an amendment to the SBS Act to prohibit ads on SBS
   
• a  new system of SBS Board appointments so that the Board would be appointed on the basis of merit with a strong commitment to multiculturalism and SBS independence, with assurance that the Board would be independent from the government of the day and without commercial influence.

Despite the petition and very strong public sentiment that SBS-TV ought not interrupt programs for commercial breaks, the practise has not stopped.

References:

NO ADVERTISEMENTS OR SPONSORSHIP ON SBS PETITION Save Our SBS Inc

Pre-election promises for SBS: 2007 Promises made before the November 2008 federal election.

A chronology of advertising on SBS by Darce Cassidy.

Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 Portable Document File

SBS Codes of Practice 2006 Portable Document File

(SBS) Guidelines For The Placement of Breaks in Television Programs September 2006 Portable Document File

Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Prohibition of Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2008 (Bill Number 08050) presented by the Australian Democrats to prohibit SBS-TV from interrupting programs for advertisements is a bill not law.

The regulator of broadcasting is The Australian Communications & Media Authority (ACMA).

A log of the full list of programs that SBS-TV forced commercial break interruptions into, is available at the conclusion of this story. See below.

The SBS Act allows for SBS to broadcast advertisements in natural program breaks however the Act does not define a natural program break. Until late 2006, SBS-TV only broadcast ads between programs. The break between programs was considered to be a safe definition of a natural break. But in 2007, SBS-TV interrupted almost every program for advertisements making SBS appear more like a commercial broadcaster instead of the public multicultural broadcaster that it was intended to be.

In September 2006 SBS re-wrote their Codes of Practice and created a document titled the (SBS) Guidelines For The Placement of Breaks in Television Programs September 2006 in which the SBS Board created their own definition of a natural break. The SBS definition has never been tested in the courts.

Although many complained when the broadcaster began interrupting program for commercial breaks, people were dissatisfied on discovery that SBS is only required to consider a complaint that falls within the Codes of Practise. The placement of ads is outside the Codes and, the regulator, ACMA, has no power to deal with a complaint that is outside the Codes. There remains no proper process to resolve a complaint about SBS interrupting a program for advertisement breaks.

But in August 2007, thousands of loyal SBS viewers protested in support of Mary Kostakidis when the long time news presenter, walked from the station as the broadcaster pursued the commercial approach.

Save Our SBS quickly put together a petition calling for a ban on advertising on SBS and adherence to the SBS Charter. 5000 signatures were sought. More than 7000 people signed before the petition was closed. The petition was handed to the Minister’s office in April 2008. 

When in opposition, Senator Stephen Conroy was very vocal both in and out of parliament about the interruptions for advertisements on SBS-TV.

Prior to the November 2007 federal election Senator Conroy told Save Our SBS: “The introduction of in program advertising to the SBS in effect makes the SBS a de facto fourth free-to-air commercial television station and serves to erode the fundamental tenets of public broadcasting- that is, that it should be free from commercial and political influence“.

In the week before the election, Stephen Conroy and Kevin Rudd announced Labor’s SBS policy saying: “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising“.

But SBS continues to broadcast ads. Typically, SBS broadcasts a 2 minute commercial break twice, in a half hour program and three, 2 minute commercial break interruptions, in a one hour program. Breaks are also seen between programs. Generally SBS-TV has about 8 to 10 minutes of non-program-content per hour of which not more than 5 minutes is considered to be advertising. 

Disgruntled electors have contacted Save Our SBS to express their disappointment of expectations that Labor has not prohibited SBS from interrupting programs for advertisements some nine months after being elected to form government.

On being appointed as the Minister responsible for SBS, Senator Conroy reviewed a summary of the legal opinion that had been supplied to SBS (before his Ministerial appointment) as to the legality of SBS interrupting program for advertisements. Then at the May 2008 Senate Estimates, the Minister was questioned extensively and said “the SBS Board have always argued that they believed that what they were doing was consistent with their legal advice“.

Opposition Senator Birmingham questioned Minister Conroy further and asked if he was “considering any amendments to the governing legislation to tighten up this matter [to prohibit advertisements interrupting program on SBS]?” The Minister replied: “That is not something that I have considered at this stage but I appreciate your contribution and I will get some advice on that“.

But two months earlier, in March 2008, a private members Bill was read by outgoing Democrats leader, Lyn Allison, in the Senate, to prohibit SBS from interrupting programs for advertisements. The Bill, the Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Prohibition of Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2008 – Bill number: 08050 remains dormant.

Save Our SBS has always been of the opinion that, regardless of any internal government review that might examine if SBS was in breach of the Act, the SBS Act ought to be amended to prohibit SBS-TV from interrupting program for advertisements. Even if SBS choose voluntarily to cease interrupting program for ads, Save Our SBS wants legislative protection to prevent any future Board from the practise of interrupting program for ad breaks. It is our aim that eventually SBS should be ad free.

Since being elected, the Minister has had no luck in prohibiting SBS from interrupting programs for advertisements and return to the multicultural broadcaster it once was. However, any legislative amendment would require support of the Senate. But the balance of power in the Senate is held in the hands of non-government Senators. A review of SBS and public broadcasting generally, by the Minister’s department is now likely, in preparation for the next SBS-triennial-funding due in the May 2009 Budget.

In discussing the prohibition of advertising at the May 2008 Senate Estimates, the Minister said: “The issue of triennial funding is coming up so the first opportunity for us to address these issues is within the context of the review of SBS’s triennial funding“.

Many remain annoyed by the ad interruptions but aside from the annoyance factor, one of the problems of allowing a public broadcaster to carry advertising is that the broadcaster’s relationship to their audiences changes. The client of a non-commercial public broadcaster, is the audience and the product is the program. However the entire relationship changes once advertisements are introduced. The client of a commercial broadcaster becomes the advertiser and the audience become a product to be sold to the advertiser. The role of the broadcaster is no longer to serve the audience, but rather to sell their product, that is the audience, to the broadcaster’s client, that is the advertiser. Hence the need to chase ratings and pay lip service to any Charter.

Save Our SBS understands that the Minister, Cabinet and government still hold the same philosophical belief that they voiced prior to the election and remain unhappy about SBS continuing to interrupt programs for advertisements and the general commercialisation that the public broadcaster is pursuing. 

Meanwhile SBS has said it would want an extra “$29.39m to $35.72m, or approximately between 30- 35% of base government funding, to maintain SBS operations [per year]. . . if SBS was to stop interrupting programs for advertisements and run advertisements between programs only, as used to be the case until late 2006.” SBS provided the information in answer to a question at Senate Estimates in February this year.

The Managing Director of SBS, Shaun Brown who, along with the Board, took SBS down the commercial path was reluctant to confirm that in 2007 SBS generated an extra $10m gross (or less than five percent of total revenue) from advertisements that interrupted programs. 20 percent of that income was diverted by way of commissions to a private advertising agency. Meanwhile SBS spent all the money and more, on their Australian version of a British motoring program, “Top Gear”. SBS has been criticised as wasting money on a program that is more suited to a commercial network. Many believe that “Top Gear” is outside the SBS Charter.

A long list of programs was supplied in answer to a question at the February 2008 Senate Estimates. SBS was asked: “In 2007, which programs were televised with breaks inserted by SBS in the circumstances where, those programs when supplied to SBS in their original format had not been produced, assembled or compiled with provision for any commercial breaks, such as British Broadcasting Corporation programs or cinema-release movies etc.”

The answer, later supplied by SBS, headed Programs delivered to SBS without breaks (2007), suggests that SBS must have forced some 5627 commercial breaks into 2046 program broadcasts that were never produced with natural breaks. The producers of 6 programs from the list below, had made suggestions as to the positioning of breaks.

To view the full list of programs broadcast on SBS-TV in 2007 that were delivered to SBS without breaks, click here or programs-delivered-to-sbs-without-breaks-2007.pdf

Save Our SBS is opposed to advertising on SBS. For more information about Save Our SBS please read the About Us page on the web site www.SaveOurSBS.org 

This is the second time SBS has re-branded in a little over 12 months. Just over a year ago SBS World News Australia changed the set and adopted a more tabloid and commercial style of news presentation. Long time news presenter Mary Kostakidis ended up departing the broadcaster.

The idea of a multicultural, non commercial public broadcaster is now but a memory of the past. Will there be nothing special remaining?

The re-branding this time is more than just a change of logo. There has been an partial attempt to make the program play offs leading in the commercial breaks and the return to program appear somewhat smoother than before however this does nothing to lessen the very obvious intrusions into program for advertisements. The advertisement interruptions still show no regard for the viewer. The ‘look’ of each promo within the ad break is different from before with pretty coloured little sparkles on screen which are superimposed again lower frame on return to program.

There has been an overall softening of the ‘look’ but the advertisements interruptions remain ‘unnatural’. SBS is still creating ‘forced breaks’ in program.

There is nothing unusual about changing the look and the feel of a TV station however it’s an expensive exercise and done cautiously.

It’s almost unheard of to re-brand any broadcaster in May. The re-branding of SBS comes only weeks after the reappointment by the SBS Board of the Managing Director, Shaun Brown, the man responsible for the commercialisation of SBS.  Normally January would be the preferred month to re-brand.

Re-branding is done as part of a marketing tool, when an organisation is failing or had failed.

SBS is an associate member of Free TV Australia (formerly the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations, FACTS). This is somewhat ironic considering that SBS does not hold a commercial licence and is a publicly funded tax payer broadcaster that was originally never intended to have ads. Due to a perceived discovered loop hole in the law, although never tested in a court, in late 2006 SBS-TV began interrupting television program for advertisements. So what’s all this got to do with a change of brand?

Simple. Now that SBS has made the decision that it wants to become even more reliant on income from advertisements, and considering that there was a massive public objection to their move of late 2006 to interrupt program for ads, they now needed to re-brand. The fact is that SBS-TV has been loosing audiences since their decision to interrupt ads and therefore their entire experiment with advertisements has been complete flop.

SBS may be hoping that a new look will win back lost viewers. However SBS-TV has failed to address the underlaying issue that viewers, especially of public TV, do not like ad break interruptions in program.

The SBS budget is about $190M per annum from the federal government. We understand that SBS may have generated about $8M net ($10M gross) in extra revenue per annum after they changed their advertisements acceptance policy in 2006. Previously SBS-TV would only accept a particular type of ad. Artistic, non-hard sell type ads were okay but now they will accept virtually any type of ad. At the same time SBS changed their policy to accept any type of ad, they also began interrupting programs for advertisements.

The decision to re-brand is a desperate move on the part of SBS to attract even more advertisers.

A month ago (on 8 April 2008) Save Our SBS handed to the Minister’s staff a petition signed by more than 7000 people who wanted an end to the ads on SBS. Only 5000 signatures were sought. People heard of the petition by word of mouth and email. Save Our SBS has been assured that the Minister has read the petition and will issue a statement shortly. Follow up meetings have been promised.

Subsequently a number of petitioners have emailed Save Our SBS since the petition was handed to the Minister’s office wanting to know the outcome and if something will be done via legislation to prohibit SBS-TV from interrupting programs for ad breaks. Some people have also emailed the Minister and sent a copy of their email by CC to Save Our SBS.

One such email came from a John Tate who we have never met. A separate email was sent with permission to publish.

The author addresses the Minister somewhat informally as “Steven” and makes reference to an email he received from Senator Conroy “prior to the federal election” (November 2007). The email that the author refers to was in response to a joint campaign run by the two separate organisations: Save Our SBS and Friends of the ABC under the banner ‘The Coalition to Restore Public Broadcasting’. In the final week before the election, Senator Conroy’s office, Kevin Rudd’s office, and, ALP Campaign Information Services sent more than 1119 identical emails to those who participated in objecting to ads on SBS and other matters. A copy of that email, being the one that the author below refers to, can be read at this link http://saveoursbs.org/archives/165

The email below sums up the sentiment in the community conveyed to Save Our SBS.

From: John Tate
Sent: Monday, 28 April 2008 1:16 PM
To: ‘minister@dbcde.gov.au’
Cc: ‘Save Our SBS’
Subject: Advertising on SBS

Hi Steven,

Prior to the federal election you told me in an email that:

“Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising. SBS maintains that they can put advertisements into their programs without there needing to be a change to legislation. Section 45 of the SBS Act 1991 provides for advertising only during periods before programs commence, after programs end, or during natural program breaks. Accordingly, Labor is concerned that the SBS’s action may place it in breach of the Act.”

Fortunately, your party won the federal election on many promises including your promise to reverse the advertising decision on SBS.

Unfortunately I have not seen or heard any word from your Department on this issue.

Last year when SBS was asking for public comment on their new advertising proposal, I submitted this email to SBS:

“Shame on you.

Not only are you destroying the very nature of a public broadcaster, you are destroying the natural flow of many good programs on SBS.

When the government allowed SBS to advertise, I believe they never intended that programs be interrupted as you are currently doing.  You are also using the same annoying pop-up advertising technique that the commercial stations use.

Enough is enough for me.

Until the current or next federal government changes the rules governing SBS, my family will no longer be watching SBS programs with adds.  Add appears, station gets changed.

Please go back to basics.”

My viewing of SBS has declined over the last 12 months and when I do view a program, whenever an add appears I change the channel.  Often I do not return to SBS.

Also, SBS claimed that the new funding stream would increase the variety of programs.  I have not seen any evidence of this (although I don’t watch as much SBS).  Some programs, such as Dateline, thankfully are still being produced however for how long who knows.

I would like you to make an undertaking to honour your election promise and getting rid of the in-program add breaks, and hopefully fully fund SBS to eliminate advertising completely (even though Labor instigated advertising in the first place).

Always hopeful.

John Tate

From: John Tate
Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2008 5:33 PM
To: ‘Senator.Conroy@aph.gov.au’
Cc: ‘Save Our SBS’
Subject: FW: Advertising on SBS

Copy forwarded in case email not received.

Please send a written reply (either email or post to ██ ███ ███, █████, ███ , ████).

Regards

John Tate

Now that SBS has re-branded itself, yet again viewers have been sold off to their advertisers. There is no sign that SBS will voluntarily cease the ad break interruptions in program. Our once great, special public broadcaster has ended up just like another commercial network. What’s special about that?

The petition (full title: NO ADVERTISEMENTS OR SPONSORSHIP ON SBS) attracted more than 7000 signatures which was much more than the target of 5000.

Many people felt outraged when the world’s first multicultural broadcaster began interrupting programs for advertisements in late 2006. Prior to that ads were only shown between programs, not in them. SBS-TV does not hold a commercial broadcast license. It is a public broadcaster funded from taxes.

In opposition, when he was then Shadow Minister for Communications, Senator Conroy emailed Save Our SBS and said that “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce advertising into its programming”. The email, dated 11 October 2007 stated that this was Labor party policy and had resulted from the Labor Party National Conference in April 2007. One week before the November 2007 federal elections, an almost identical email was sent to more than 1119 persons who had emailed many political leaders expressing their concerns over SBS funding and wanting an end to the ads on SBS. Each of the 1119 people received the same email sent from Kevin Rudd’s office, Senator Conroy’s office and the ALP Campaign Information Services office that included virtually the same sentence: “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising” .

Has the new government’s widely publicised pre-election policy now been broken?

More than three months since coming to government SBS-TV still continues to interrupt programs for advertisements. Senator Conroy has asked for the legal opinion that SBS stated they received more than two years ago that SBS Managing Director, Shaun Brown has been reported as saying suggests that is it not a breach of the SBS Act for SBS to interrupt programs for “natural breaks”. Many in the community have argued that the breaks are “forced” and “not natural” and in any case they disrupt the viewing experience which would appear to breach the GUIDELINES FOR THE PLACEMENT OF BREAKS IN TELEVISION PROGRAMS September 2006 if not the SBS Act itself.

In the final weeks before the petition closed, Senator Lyn Allison the leader of the Australian Democrats, presented a private members bill that, if it became law, would mean an end to the practice of SBS-TV interrupting programs for advertisements. Her bill, the Special Broadcasting Service (Prohibition of Disruptive Advertising) Amendment Bill 2008, would overcome any ‘loop-holes’ in the current Act that SBS may have exploited, while forcing the newly elected Rudd Labor government to implement their pre-election policy that would prohibit the interruption of programming on SBS television by restricting advertising to the period between the completion of one program and the commencement of another program.

Most private members bills go nowhere are not debated and never become law unless the government of the day wants that. Support of both houses is needed.

More background reading is provided on this web site at the links below.

Private Members Bill Bans Ads Interrupting SBS-TV

Backlash against advertising on SBS by Darce Cassidy

A chronology of advertising on SBS by Darce Cassidy

We Don’t Believe You Shaun: SBS BOSS ADDRESSES THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB

Page Archive: A Petition To Save SBS

The Object of the bill states:

“The object of this Act is to prohibit the interruption of programming on SBS television by restricting advertising to the period between the completion of one program and the commencement of another program“.

The bill achieves the above by removing from section 45(2)(a) of the current Act the controversial phrase: “or during natural program breaks” which, SBS has argued, allows them to interrupt programs or force breaks, according to a set of criteria created by the SBS Board in their (SBS) GUIDELINES FOR THE PLACEMENT OF BREAKS IN TELEVISION PROGRAMS September 2006 http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/media/documents/3913advertising_guidelines_2006.pdf.

The bill adds a new section, section 45A Non-Program-Content(NPC) which bans SBS from interrupting television programs. It reads:

“The SBS must not interrupt a televised program for non- program-content (NPC) and for the purposes of this section NPC shall be taken to mean any material that is separate from the program being broadcast such as but not limited to advertisements, sponsorship announcements, community service announcements, station promotional material, promos and program promotional material and the like.”

SBS indicated in Senate Estimates in February 2008 that the revenue that could be attributed directly to interrupting programs for advertisements was about $10 to $20 million gross in the first year of the practice. The Managing Director of SBS, Shaun Brown refused to give a precise figure on the amount of revenue raised as a result of interrupting programs for ads, however it is believed the real figure might be closer to $10 million.

Senator Allison said, “It is argued by critics that SBS Management’s recent decision to use most of this $10 million to produce a local version of the cult British motoring program ‘Top Gear’ would not appear to be consistent with SBS’s charter obligations of providing multilingual and multicultural services.”

The Australian Democrats yesterday called on the Government to immediately fund SBS for the extra $10 to $20 million that comes from in-program ads and properly resource the broadcaster to deliver on its charter.

It is not clear if the government would increase the SBS annual budget, currently around $188 million, by an extra $10 million to make up for any shortfall.

Prior to the November 2007 federal elections, the ALP stated that, consistent with their SBS policy of April that year, it was Labor party policy that: “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce advertising into its programming” http://saveoursbs.org/archives/127.

More than 7000 people have signed a petition at www.SaveOurSBS.org calling for an end to ads on SBS.

Senator Allison said that “Minister Conroy criticised these ads while in opposition. Now he has the chance to rectify the problem.”

Normally nothing happens when a private members bill is introduced into the Senate. Typically private members bills sit idle, in a long cue of months or even years, awaiting further action, if ever. If the government had the will to adhere to its election promise of no ads interrupting programs on SBS-TV, the Minister could, conceivably use Senator Allison’s bill now so that it soon became law soon. Now is the time for Senator Conroy to act.

The private bill will not become law unless approved by both houses of parliament.

Background information on SBS carrying advertisements can be read in “A chronology of advertising on SBS” by Darce Cassidy at: http://saveoursbs.org/archives/194.

The Australian Democrats Press Release: http://www.democrats.org.au/news/index.htm?press_id=6509&display=1

It is understood that the intention of her private members bill is to prohibit the interruption of programming on SBS television by restricting advertising to the period between the completion of one program and the commencement of another program.

Prior to the November 2007 federal elections, the ALP stated that, consistent with their SBS policy of April that year, it was Labor party policy that: “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce advertising into its programming” (http://saveoursbs.org/archives/127) however since being elected to government, the new Minister, Senator Stephen Conroy has kept quiet as to when the APL intends to put into practice its pre-election promise.

More than 7000 people have signed a petition at www.SaveOurSBS.org calling for an end to ads on SBS.

Read the Press Release today from the Australian Democrats here: (http://www.democrats.org.au/news/index.htm?press_id=6509&display=1)

In Australia more than 7,000 people have signed a petition at www.SaveOurSBS.org calling for a ban on interrupting programs with advertisements. In Canada a Senate inquiry has recommended a ban on advertising on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and a significant increase in the national broadcaster’s budget.

Senator Lyn Allison has indicated that she plans to introduce a private members Bill in the Senate to ban programs from being interrupted for advertisements on the SBS. A Liberal backbencher also plans to raise the issue in the House of Representative shortly.

It is believed that the Bill contains a provision that would prohibit SBS-TV from interrupting programs for non-program-content. Ads would only be allowed between programs only. Read the Press Release from the Australian Democrats here: (http://www.democrats.org.au/news/index.htm?press_id=6509&display=1)

This backlash has surprised many people. SBS TV has been running advertisements since 1992 while the CBC has carried advertising for even longer.

What has caused this change in public attitude? I think it is because broadcasters find advertising revenue addictive. You start with a little, but over time crave more and more.

That was pretty much how it happened in the United States. Advertising was not the main support for radio in its early days in the US. Erik Barnouw, author of the definitive history of broadcasting in the U.S, says that initially advertising was very discreet. Prices were never mentioned. Mention of personal items, like toothpaste, mouth wash or underclothes was taboo.

Companies attached their names to entertainers, like the Ipana Troubadours, the Browning-King Orchestra and the Goodrich Silvertown Orchestra. There was no mention that Ipana made toothpaste, or that Goodrich made tires, let alone any suggestion that listeners should buy these products.

A strict ban on the mention of prices and store locations remained. The broadcasting lobby group, The National Association of Broadcasters, proposed that sponsorship announcements be banned from prime time listening, on the basis that it was family listening time.

All this changed with the 1929 crash. CBS, one of the major networks was in trouble. George Washington Hill, President of American Tobacco, came to the rescue. Cremo cigars were suffering from rumours that they were made with spit. He needed to counter the rumours, and was prepared to pay. CBS capitulated, and in between tunes from the Cremo Military Band an announcer shouted: “There is no spit in Cremo.” NBC soon followed suit, sponsorship became advertising, and aggressive.

Initially the SBS was free of advertising. However once advertising was introduced, programs started to change. As in the United States advertising on the SBS was discreet to start with. Today, the SBS goes well beyond “no spit in Cremo” and interrupts serious documentaries with advertisements for erectile dysfunction medication. Director of Commercial Affairs Richard Finlayson confirmed this change in policy when he told the Financial Review that the broadcaster had reviewed “the type of ads it will and will not accept. In the past SBS has been reluctant to carry some ads, such as hard-hitting, in-your-face retails ads. That’s changing”

SBS still describes itself as “the voice and vision of multicultural Australia” but programs in languages other than English (LOTE) have almost disappeared from prime time.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority defines prime time as the hours between 6 pm and 10.30 pm. A check of the program schedule for SBS TV for the 14 days between 22 February and 6 March 2008 reveals that just under 80% of programs were in English.

Moreover those programs which are broadcast in LOTE during prime time bear practically no relationship to how the languages in question were spoken in the community. For example Chinese languages (Mandarin and Cantonese) together accounted for just 0.8% of prime time broadcasts. However Mandarin and Cantonese, taken together, account for 27.09% of all LOTE spoken in Australia.

Advertising has not only affected the language issue. It has also led to a sameness in programming. According to Dr Glenn Withers this is part of a broader economic phenomenon known the Principle of Minimum Differentiation:

The reason for this is that stations based on advertising revenue will seek to maximize their audience (and thereby their revenue). Stations will therefore duplicate program types as long as the audience share obtained is greater than that from other programs. Hence a number of stations may compete by sharing a market for one type of program (such as crime dramas) and still do better in audience numbers than by providing programs of other types (such as arts and culture). In economics this point is an application of the Principle of Minimum Differentiation, a principle also capable of explaining such associated phenomenon as why bank branches may cluster together, why airline schedules may be parallel, and why political parties may have convergent policy platforms.

Ethnic communities have been quick to notice the changes.

In December 2003 Federation of Ethnic Communities Council (FECCA) Chair Abd Malik said:

The only people who like SBS TV now are the cappuccino crowd… it’s mostly sex and soccer I think. He added that FECCA was “very close to giving up on SBS TV… they have separated themselves from ethnic communities. They don’t come to our functions or religious festivals.

The dismissive, not to say insulting, response from then SBS Managing Director Nigel Milan was “We’re not going to cover the clog dancing from the Brisbane Town Hall.”

In June 2005 George Zangalis, President of the National Ethnic and Multicultural Broadcasters Council, and a former member of the SBS board, issued a media release criticizing the direction of SBS TV.

Programming in community languages has shrunk, while English programming has grown. Advertising has increased and become increasingly strident. Rather than focusing on different cultures, the SBS seems to be moving towards mainstream sports like cricket and now AFL. There is plenty of this type of programming on the ABC and the three commercial channels.

In June 2006, interviewed on ABC radio the new Chair of FECCA, Voula Messimeri responded:

… the intention of having the special broadcaster is so that they can be a multicultural provider, a special broadcaster in terms of being different from commercial enterprise, and I think that this will make it, increasingly, look very much like mainstream, commercial enterprise.

While advertisements have brought in extra money, much of that money seems to be going to the kind of programs that can be found on commercial stations. For example some $10 million is to be spent on a locally produced motoring program, in English.

Darce Cassidy is Secretary and Spokesperson of Save Our SBS Inc (www.SaveOurSBS.org). His background is in broadcasting and journalism. He has worked for the ABC (Four Corners, AM & PM, and, various radio management roles); the SBS (Training); and, the National Ethnic and Multicultural Broadcasters Council.