1
Remarks of FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin
Association of National Advertisers Advertising Law and Business Affairs 
Conference
January 18, 2007
As Prepared for Delivery
Thank you very much, Judy, for that kind introduction. I want to thank Bob 
Liodice, Dan Jaffe and Doug Wood for inviting me to be here with you today. 
As you know well, the media is undergoing unprecedented change.  Television 
programs are sold on the Internet and streamed wirelessly to mobile devices.  DVRs 
mean people watch TV when, where and how they want - - sometimes skipping 
commercials altogether.   Mobile phones now show movies, play songs, take pictures, 
and even send emergency messages.  And you cannot read a business section of a 
newspaper today without coming across an article about the decline of traditional news 
and entertainment outlets at the hands of YouTube or My Space.  One newspaper editor 
recently quoted in the Washington Post put it well saying, “you can’t really avoid the fact 
that page views are increasingly the coin of the realm.”  While technology is changing the 
advertising market, new opportunities abound.  The Wall Street Journal reported 
yesterday that just one company last year distributed nearly a billion ads to mobile 
phones.
Although the technology by which it is delivered is changing, people’s appetite 
for news and entertainment has not diminished.  And its impact, especially on children, 
can’t be overstated. According to Nielsen Media Research (for the 2004-2005 season), an 
average American Household has the television turned on more than 8 hours a day with 
children watching between 2 and 4 hours daily.  And recent studies have found that even 
the youngest children are highly exposed to television.  Almost one-half (43 percent) of 
children under two watch TV every day. One quarter (26 percent) of them even have a
television in their bedroom.  Almost three-fourths (72 percent) of children age 2 to 6
watch TV every day. The Kaiser Foundation also found that by the time they enter the 
first grade, kids will have spent the equivalent of three school years in front of the TV.  
I have said that with hundreds of channels to choose from, consumers today have 
access to some of the best programming ever produced.  But television today also 
contains some of the coarsest and most violent programming ever aired.  For instance a 
Time Magazine survey in 2005 found fifty-eight percent of people believe there is too 
much cursing and sexual language on TV;  fifty percent believe there is too much explicit 
sexual content. And sixty-six percent of people believe there is too much violence on 
television. 
This data is consistent with the FCC’s own findings. We have seen a dramatic 
increase in the number of indecency complaints.  And several years ago, Congress 
requested the FCC study Violent Television and Its Impact on Children. Our report finds 
that there is a deep concern among parents and health professionals regarding harm from 
viewing violence in the media.
2
In addition, there has been a lot of attention recently paid to the alarming rise in 
childhood obesity rates. According to the CDC, since 1980, the number of overweight 
children between the ages of 6 and 11 has doubled. The number of overweight 
adolescents has tripled during that same period. The Christian Science Monitor reported 
American companies are spending $15 billion per year advertising to children under the 
age of 12 and children influence about $500 billion in annual spending on products like 
cereal, candy and fast food. 
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, children under 6 cannot distinguish 
between programming content and advertising.  Congress anticipated that children would 
be particularly susceptible to advertising and thus put certain protections in place. 
Indeed, in the Children’s Television Act, Congress enacted specific limits on the amount 
of advertising that could be shown during children’s programming. The Children’s 
Television Act requires that commercial TV broadcasters and cable operators limit the 
amount of commercials in children’s programs to no more than 10 ½ minutes per hour on 
weekends and 12 minutes per hour on weekdays.  These limits apply to all digital video 
programming, including both broadcasting and subscription channels, directed to children 
12 and under. Our rules also require the separation of programming content from 
commercial material with a “bumper.” Finally, our rules prohibit program characters and 
show hosts from being featured in commercials run during the program in which they 
appear. 
While government has a responsibility to address concerns about content and 
excessive marketing to kids, it is always preferable for industry to work on these issues 
on their own.  For example, ANA members have tried to develop significant initiatives to 
address the trend in childhood obesity rates. Disney’s “Healthy Kids Initiative” is 
employing favorite Disney characters to encourage healthy eating.  General Mills is 
promoting portion control by offering small 100-calorie packages of their snack foods. I 
am particularly pleased by the ANA’s willingness to participate in the Task Force on the 
Media and Childhood Obesity that the Commission and Senator Sam Brownback recently 
announced. The goal of this bipartisan task force is to provide a forum in which health 
experts, advocacy groups, media companies, the food and beverage industry, advertisers 
and the government can work together to examine the impact of the media on childhood 
obesity. The Task Force will hold meetings throughout the year and ultimately identify 
voluntary steps that the public and private sectors can take to combat this very important 
social and medical problem.
The ANA has also urged “parents, not the government, must act as the first line of 
defense for their children,” adding “it is up to them to determine what programming 
content to allow into their homes.” But that means that industry must ensure that parents 
have the tools necessary to make those decisions.  The best way to avoid government 
mandates is responsible private sector action.  Since I first came to the Commission, I 
have urged media companies, both broadcasters and cable operators, to provide parents 
with more tools to help them navigate the entertainment waters, particularly when it 
comes to television. 
3
For instance, I have long called for broadcasters to bring back the “family hour.” 
I know you share the commitment to make family friendly programming available 
between the hours of 8 p.m. and 10 p.m. You have supported and promoted the 
development and scheduling of family friendly programming through the Family 
Friendly Programming Forum. And, I applaud these efforts. 
While changes in technology certainly challenge regulators and advertisers to 
keep apace, they provide important opportunities as well. In the digital world, it is 
technologically feasible, with a few simple steps, for cable and satellite operators to offer 
consumers more choice over the programming they buy and bring into their homes. For 
instance, they could purchase smaller bundles such as a family or sports tier.  Or they 
could simply elect not to receive channels they are not interested in.  Indeed 78 percent of 
respondents in an AP poll said they would prefer to choose and pay for their own tailored 
selection of cable channels.  Moving to a more a la carte system of television
programming would offer consumers significant benefits, and be consistent with ANA's 
position that it is parents who should control “what programming content to allow into 
their homes.”
I was surprised to learn that some advertisers were concerned about giving parents 
such tools and offering cable channels in more a la carte manner. Generally, the ANA 
has said: “Marketing accountability is one of the top priorities for ANA members.  This 
push to gain granular visibility and understanding of commercial vs. program ratings is 
critical for the accuracy of media measurement in the U.S.”  I agree, and it should be 
similarly helpful to have an understanding of who is willing to pay for what 
programming.  The willingness of viewers to pay for a service is extraordinarily helpful 
information to advertisers much as it is for print media.  Advertisers want to know the 
paid subscriptions and direct sales for a magazine, not just how many copies are printed 
at the printing press.   A magazine read by nobody can have millions of copies and be of 
little or no value to advertisers. But a magazine with a hundred thousand paying 
subscriptions can be enormously valuable to those subscribers and to the advertisers 
trying to reach them.
Suppose the publishing industry were arranged such that consumers who paid 
$100 per month would each receive a copy of 200 different magazines.  In this scenario 
consumers could not purchase magazines individually or on the street.  You either pay 
$100 per month for all magazines, or you get no magazines.
How would advertisers know which magazines to advertise in?  Of course there 
would be consumer surveys and polls, but ultimately advertisers would not know whether 
most households read 195 magazines throwing out five, or read five magazines and 
tossed 195 of them into the recycling bin without ever opening them.
That would be a confusing situation for the advertising industry and for the 
American consumer.  So instead, in the magazine world, consumers can, and do, 
purchase individual subscriptions and purchase individual copies from stores.  Indeed, I 
haven’t met anyone who subscribes to 200 magazines. 
4
In most American homes, consumers can watch hundreds of channels of video 
programming.  But the reality is that most viewers watch fewer than two dozen channels. 
The hundreds of channels included in the most highly subscribed video programming 
packages each have some form of advertising on them.  But how many consumers are 
actually watching advertisements on a particular channel? My guess is not many. But 
the sad truth, as both you and your commercial clients know, is that no one actually 
knows how many people are watching each channel, much less how many are watching 
each commercial.
Currently the most accurate measures are those Nielsen provides for stations 
affiliated with the four major networks during prime time. One can easily sell ads during 
prime time, and advertisers have some sense of the audience being reached. At other 
times of the day, however, there are fewer viewers and less precise measures of shares of 
viewer-ship even for network affiliates.
As one goes to the top several cable channels, market shares drops into the low 
single digits. And as market share declines confidence in the ability to accurately 
measure actual audience share declines as well.  For second and third-tier cable channels, 
there really are no good approximations of actual audience.  For some channels, it is 
uncertain whether viewership is in the hundreds of thousands, tens of thousands, 
thousands, or really whether anyone ever watches the channel at all. Advertising is sold 
on the basis of homes passed and on potential viewership rather than on the basis of 
actual viewership.  
Providing cable channels on a more a la carte basis would decrease the 
uncertainty for advertisers and their clients about the viewership of smaller cable 
networks not covered or not accurately covered by Nielson.  A la carte sales provide a 
much more accurate proxy for viewership than sales of the large tier of which the small 
network is currently one component.
Secondly, if television programming is purchased a la carte, advertisers on a 
particular channel will know more about the characteristics of their potential audience.  
Knowing more about the types of consumers that are watching a particular channel 
means advertisers could target ads to the demographic composition of the audience more 
effectively.  
Finally, I do not believe overall television viewing would decline -- and therefore 
advertisers would not be harmed -- if consumers had more choice. It goes against 
common sense to believe that if consumers were able to purchase only the channels they 
want, they will watch less TV.  Are they going to read a book or mow the lawn instead, 
because there is less clutter to sift through on their TV?  I don’t think so.
The current tying of channels of video programming is much the same as 
requiring consumers to buy 200 magazines or none at all.  No consumer wants to be 
required to buy everything. And no advertiser wants to advertise on channels that no one 
5
watches.  So I have to ask, why is your industry unenthusiastic about a la carte 
programming? Allowing consumers to purchase programming on a more a la carte basis 
would give them greater choice and control over the programming that comes into their 
homes and would give advertisers more information about exactly who is watching your 
commercials; information you desperately want and need.
Thank you very much again for the opportunity to be with you today. I look 
forward to working with you on these and other relevant issues before us at the 
Commission. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
- FCC -