|
One of the many consequences of the expansion in new media platforms - and the diversion of advertising revenue from established media towards those platforms - is the drive by commercial broadcasters to seek out new means of raising revenue. Call TV quiz shows are one example of how this is done: the viewer watches the live broadcast programme, sends a text message or makes a premium rate telephone call in order to take part, and the broadcaster keeps a proportion of the call revenue. There is usually an alternative free entry route via the internet. Why is this a matter for a parliamentary select committee? Because statutory regulators are struggling to keep up with a new genre; the shows themselves have the look and feel of gambling but are not presently regulated as such; and Members of Parliament are receiving complaints from people who see the shows as "a rip-off".
We have no issue with the type of entertainment provided by the shows: some of those on terrestrial channels have large audiences and many people thoroughly enjoy them. What we object to is the lack of fairness and transparency throughout the process. Players are generally not told that it is a matter of luck whether a call is connected to the studio and that the chances of getting through are very slim; nor is the cost of calling always made as clear as it might be; nor are players given any idea how much they might have to spend in order to win a prize. This lack of fairness and transparency has led to serious concerns, and it is the aim of this report to make recommendations as to how the broadcasters and regulators should address this.
We also heard allegations of shabby practices by producers and broadcasters. These range from suggestions that games are set which are almost impossible to solve, and which are simply unfair, to claims that call handling procedures are manipulated so as to maximise revenue and deny any callers the chance to give an answer; such a practice, if proven, would be tantamount to fraud and should be pursued as offences under criminal law.
Primary responsibility for maintaining confidence in the Call TV quiz show format rests with the operating companies and the broadcasters. We accept that effective self-regulation is far better than heavy-handed intervention, and the publicity given to a handful of cases seems to have caused operators to tighten up their procedures and to try harder at self-regulation. Complaints persist, however. Both of the two main regulators - Ofcom and ICSTIS - have drawn up guidance which is sound; but it does not go far enough, and it is clear that the regulatory regime will need to be tightened in certain areas. In particular, viewers must be given more information allowing them to have a reasonable understanding of the odds of getting through to the studio, let alone winning a prize if they have a correct answer. We also look to Ofcom and ICSTIS to be more energetic in ensuring that their own guidance is adhered to by broadcasters and producers.
Regulatory oversight has been complicated by the uncertain status of Call TV quiz shows under the existing law on gambling, which is soon to be replaced by the Gambling Act 2005. Not until the Act is fully in force will it be open to the Gambling Commission to establish, through the courts if necessary, whether Call TV quiz shows are free draws, lotteries or gaming. However, our view is that they should constitute gaming as defined under the Gambling Act 2005.
Further confusion has arisen from the involvement of both Ofcom and ICSTIS in regulation, a split which is confusing for the public and which complicates the procedure for dealing with complaints. A single regulator, in our view Ofcom, should take the lead and give direction; and that single body should take responsibility for registering all complaints and forwarding them as necessary.
| 
