Information about the chances
of getting through
63. A large part of our oral evidence session concerned
the lack of information about viewers' chances of being put through
to speak to the presenter, or about the odds of winning. Many
witnesses took the view that information about the chances of
a call getting through to the studio was essential for viewers
to understand the real cost of participating in Call TV quiz shows.[130]
There is nothing to counterbalance the presenters' exhortations
to "have a go, get calling, try again" with the encouragement
that "that's got to be worth a 75 pence call".[131]
64. There was a marked reluctance on the part of
broadcasters and producers to provide us with any information
about the odds of a viewer getting through to participate in a
quiz show.[132] Of
the broadcasters, only BSkyB (which does not run any Call TV quiz
shows of its own) said that the viewers' chances of getting through
and being given a chance to provide an answer to the quiz should
be stated.[133] Quiz
producers argued strongly that the odds depend on too many criteria,
some constantly fluctuating, so that any information provided
would be inaccurate or misleading. The variables include the type
of programme, the number of callers, the day of the week, time
of day, prize value, presenter, the presence of celebrity guests,
the size of the viewing audience, number of people deciding
to enter, difficulty of the quiz, frequency of callers being
put through, the number of incorrect answers given and the time
for which the show has run.[134]
The Director of ITV Consumer told us that if information about
viewers' chances were to be given, it would be out of date almost
at once.[135] George
Kidd, the chief executive of ICSTIS, told us that when ICSTIS
consulted on a statement of expectations in September 2005 it
had not been able to find a way of computing what the element
of chance would be on a real-time basis.[136]
65. We accept that there may be practical difficulties
for operators in displaying a figure purporting to show the odds
of any viewer getting through to the studio by making a call at
that particular moment, but we believe that they are not insurmountable.
We are firmly of the view that there should be more transparency
about the factual information on which a calculation of the odds
would be based. At present, the variables which are the most
central to the calculation remain within the exclusive knowledge
of the broadcasters and producers and may be under their direct
control. Their telephony systems register the volume of calls
coming in and it is they who decide what proportion of callers
should be randomly selected, and how frequently callers should
be put through to the studio.
66. Viewers, on the other hand, have no means of
knowing how many others may be watching a programme or how many
are calling in. Some of the operators did suggest that callers
did understand that there might be thousands of other people calling
the show at the same time,[137]
and ICSTIS told us that it had recently carried out research which
had shown that 85% of those who had used the service were aware
that there was an element of chance. But there is a world of difference
between appreciating that participation involves some element
of chance and knowing quite how slim the chances are. It is doubtful
whether the majority of viewers, let alone any first time callers,
would be likely to appreciate that their calls might be among
as many as 6,000 calls made during one minute.[138]
We also doubt whether many viewers would appreciate that when
the volume of incoming calls is low, the result may be that no-one
is given the chance to win a prize until enough calls have come
in to make it justifiable "in simple economic terms".[139]
67. We were encouraged at the oral hearing to learn
that the main broadcasters would be willing to provide information
which would inform viewers about the volume of calls made to the
programmes. At the oral evidence session, Optimistic Media's chairman
told us that the company would happily provide information about
the amount of calls that were coming in at any one time;[140]
and he advocated that broadcasters should put such information
on-screen.[141]
On the same day Optimistic Media announced that it would
introduce "regular and frequent on-screen communication of
the total number of unique callers for each 15 minute segment
of the programme".[142]
68. We recommend that broadcasters should be required
to display some recent historical information about volume of
incoming calls, with an indication of the odds of being connected
to the studio. The operators and regulators should together devise
a model for prescribing what information should be provided and
how often. We acknowledge that considerable care will need to
be taken to ensure that the information given to viewers will
indeed increase transparency.
Information about reasons for
banning participants
69. One participant told us that she had been banned
from entering Ostrich Media's Quizcall games after she had won
almost £22,000 using the free entry route: she said that
the company had given no reason for the ban and that the terms
and conditions were very vague, but she had heard that the company
was banning big winners as well as cheats.[143]
When we asked whether Ostrich Media had barred users from participating,
its managing director told us that no-one had been barred because
of winning but that the company had occasionally blocked people
who had made high volumes of entries, if it believed that they
were not conscious about the decisions they were making or if
it suspected misuse of either the web entry or the telephone route.[144]
He explained that participants could "misuse" the phone
or internet entry routes by using multiple phone numbers, or multiple
IP addresses to "enter more times than a human normally can".[145]
While it is right and proper that operators should be able
to ban participants caught cheating from further participation,
we believe that any participant who has been banned should be
given full information on the reasons why the ban has been imposed.
121 Ev 59 Back
122
Q 207 Back
123
Optimistic Media Ev 17; Big Game TV Ltd Ev 75 Back
124
Ms Vahl Q 8 Back
125
Ev 55-6 Back
126
Q 177 Back
127
Ev 2 Back
128
Q 179 Back
129
Ev 2, Q 7 Back
130
eg Ms Vahl Q 8 Back
131
Ms Vahl Q 1 Back
132
eg ITV Ev 37, Big Game TV Ltd Ev 77 Back
133
BSkyB Ev 12 Back
134
See ITV Ev 37 Back
135
Mr Henry Q 119 Back
136
Mr Kidd Q 177 Back
137
Mr Henry Q 150 and Optimistic Media Ev 18 Back
138
Mr Henry Q 125 Back
139
Big Game TV Ltd Ev 77 Back
140
Mr Brook Q 62 Back
141
Mr Brook Q 99 Back
142
Press release from Optimistic Media, 28 November 2006 Back
143
Alison Kennedy Ev 87-8 Back
144
Mr Fleck Q 68 Back
145
Q70 Back