In an interview with Roger Federer: Swiss television has committed surreptitious advertising

In a conversation with the Swiss tennis star, his new shoe model could be seen for minutes. The Federal Office of Communication has now decided that SRF has violated the ban on surreptitious advertising.

—

In the program “Sportpanorama plus”, which was broadcast on SRF 1 on July 25, 2020, Swiss television violated the principle of separating advertising and editorial programs and the ban on surreptitious advertising. This is what the Federal Office of Communication (OFCOM) wrote in an order dated December 17, 2020.

In the program, an SRF presenter conducted a half-hour interview with Roger Federer and the triathlete Nicola Spirig. The conversation was recorded in a studio in which the On company launched the “The Roger” sports shoe on the same day. Behind the two athletes could be seen the logo of “The Roger” and a screen showing the shoe model – as well as a pedestal on which a pair of the new shoes lay.

In its eleven-page ruling, the Federal Office comes to the conclusion that the program “had an advertising effect for the On company and its shoe model“ The Roger ””. It does not matter whether the company whose products are shown on television paid television for something or not. “The question of remuneration does not play a role in this jurisdiction,” emphasizes the Federal Office.

In a statement, Swiss television asserted that it had not made any agreements with the manufacturer of the sporting goods. As a result, it is a case of “free surreptitious advertising.”

SRF claims time is short. But that’s no use

Why didn’t SRF record the interview at a different location? Those responsible asserted time pressure; a production elsewhere would have been associated with “a disproportionate effort”. The television also emphasizes: Federer’s new shoe was not the subject of the interview. Part of the decor in the studio has been changed. And the logo of the product was not even known to the public at that time; consequently, it could not have had a “significant advertising effect” either.

The Federal Office of Communications has not listened to these arguments and points out that various media had previously reported on the launch of the shoe. The “sports-loving public” was already aware of the new product Federer was presenting.

The Federal Office also sees the online advertising ban violated

SRF also violated the ban on advertising in the online offer – the recording of the interview can still be found there today. OFCOM wants to know by February 11, 2021 what Swiss television is doing to restore the “lawful state”. That means: SRF either removes the video – or it pixelates the background of the recording so that no more shoes and no signet can be seen.

SRF must also pay the procedural costs of 1680 francs and state the precautions it takes to prevent the infringement from recurring.

A complaint to the Federal Administrative Court in St.Gallen is possible. Swiss television will probably refrain from this. It admits a certain negligence on the part of those responsible for broadcasting.

–