Journal of Consumer Policy

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 63–77 | Cite as

The Consumer and Advertising Regulation in the Television without Frontiers and Audiovisual Media Services Directives

Original Paper


This paper aims to assess the balance between the commercial interests of broadcaster and advertiser and the interests of the viewer, as well as programme makers. The new Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) seeks to clarify and to simplify whilst maintaining the traditional European broadcasting landscape. The recurrent theme of the debate about legislative revision has been based in the vocabulary of consumer choice empowered by technology. The use of this vocabulary then leads to assumptions about the ability of the consumer to make choices. Insofar as those choices existed, they have been limited by developments in the AVMSD and in the broadcasting environment. Despite the claims of the AVMSD about viewer choice, it seems likely that the viewer will have no choice whether to receive commercial communications or not.


Advertising Product placement Surreptitious advertising AVMSD 


  1. ACT (Association of Commercial Television). (2003). Review of the “Television without Frontiers” Directive. Written submission 15th July 2003.
  2. Bazalgette, P. (2005). How to save commercial television. The Guardian, 12 September 2005.,,1567580,00.html.
  3. BBC. (2005). Editorial guidelines, June 2005.
  4. BBC News Business. (2002). New Bond film a “Giant advert.” BBC News.
  5. Benady, A. (2005). Television product placement: Now you see it... Independent, 12 December 2005. London: Independent News and Media.Google Scholar
  6. BEUC (European Consumers’ Association). (2006). Revision of the “Television without Frontiers” Directive: BEUC Position Paper, BEUC/X/023/2006, 11 April 2006.
  7. Commission. (1984). Green Paper on Television without Frontiers COM (84) 300 final. Google Scholar
  8. Commission. (2004). Interpretative communication on certain aspects of the provisions on televised advertising in the “Television without frontiers” Directive, OJ [2004] C 102/2.Google Scholar
  9. Commission. (2005a). Issue 4: Commercial communications paper. Liverpool Conference July 2005.
  10. Commission. (2005b). Communication “i2010 – A European Information Society for growth and employment” {SEC (2005) 717} COM (2005) 229 final.Google Scholar
  11. Council of Europe. (2002). Opinion on split screen advertising, No. 9.Google Scholar
  12. European Broadcasting Union (EBU). (2006). Draft Audiovisual Media Services Directive: Initial EBU contribution to the first reading, DAJ/MW/jev, 3rd April 2006.
  13. Harrison, J., & Woods, L. (2007). European broadcasting law and policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. House of Lords. (2007). European Union Committee. “Television without Frontiers?: Report with Evidence,” 3rd Report of Session 2006–07, HL Paper 27, London, HMSO 2007.Google Scholar
  15. Howells, G., & Wilhelmsson, T. (1997). EC consumer law. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  16. ICC (International Chamber of Commerce). (1997). International Code of Advertising Practice, 1997 edition.
  17. Kehaulani Goo, S. (2006). Apple gets a big slice of product-placement pie movie, TV roles keep firm in ever-brighter spotlight. Washington Post, 15th April 2006.
  18. OFCOM (2005). Broadcasting code, 2005.
  19. Pharmaceutical Executive. (2004). Alternative media: Drugs on film will product placement be the next avenue for brand builders? Pharmaceutical Executive 1st September 2004.
  20. Scheuer, A., & Woods, L. (2004). Advertising frequency and the Television without Frontiers Directive. European Law Review, 29, 366–384.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LawUniversity of EssexColchesterUK

Personalised recommendations