House of Commons - Culture, Media and Sport

Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Third Report

6 Transparency

57. A persistent complaint throughout oral and written evidence was the lack of transparency about the cost of calls and the chances of being connected to the studio.

Information about the cost of calls

58. ICSTIS' Statement of Expectations for Call TV Quiz Services issued in January 2006 requires information about pricing to be given on-screen and orally during the programme, and in the message greeting callers.[121] It requires easily legible and prominent pricing information to be given on-screen, making it clear that consumers will be charged "irrespective of whether or not they get through", and that pricing information should be spoken by the presenters at regular intervals. Another specification is that pricing information making clear to consumers that all calls are being charged should be announced in the message played to the caller at the beginning of every call to the Call TV Quiz show.

59. The pricing information usually given is what the call will have cost if it was made from a BT landline, with a rider saying that costs may vary on other networks. Exactly how the information is presented on-screen varies from programme to programme, but as the Minister said, the telephone number to ring has permanent prominence and is very large.[122] We observed in the programmes which we watched that the number to ring was always larger and easier to read than the other information shown on screen.

60. What was clear from the evidence - and we have cited examples in paragraphs 31 and 32 above - was that the message was not getting across to all viewers. It was less clear, however, why this was so. We were told about pricing information provided to viewers which does not always seem to comply fully with the ICSTIS expectations: for example, information about the cost of the call does not always come right at the beginning of the message played to a caller.[123] Viewers who do know how much it costs to make one premium rate call do not necessarily appreciate just how many calls they might have to make and how much it may cost them to get as far as speaking to the presenter and taking part in the competition.[124] As part of its current review, ICSTIS is considering whether consumers actually understand what is involved - the cost of taking part, the element of chance and the fact that every caller pays even if they fail to get through to the studio.[125] George Kidd, the Chief Executive of ICSTIS, told us that recent research had shown that 93% of people who have used the service do understand that they always have to pay.[126] Even if only 7% do not understand, that is still a significant proportion.

61. There did appear to be a consensus among our witnesses that more needs to be done to ensure that all viewers understand the cost of participation, and a number of suggestions were made to us about how this might be achieved. Citizens Advice drew our attention to a possible parallel with charging cash machines, where it has discussed ways to improve the signs displayed on and around cash machines. Its suggestion was that warnings about call charges should be displayed more prominently and regularly on-screen in Call TV quiz programmes, and that they should conform to a minimum font size and style such as those prescribed in guidelines under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005.[127] Mr Banatvala, Ofcom's Director of Standards, stressed the need to get the right balance in terms of information because, with too much information on-screen, the screen could become overloaded. As a result, people might not read anything and could miss the key messages.[128] Citizens Advice also suggested that consideration should be given to the possibility of the caller having to press a button to confirm willingness to incur a premium rate charge after hearing the pricing information, rather than hearing the information only after the premium rate charge has already been incurred.[129]

62. We look forward to learning what modifications ICSTIS will make to its Statement of Expectations to ensure that all viewers do understand the cost of participation. We believe that there is scope for raising the standards which broadcasters should meet in presenting information on the cost of participation on-screen, possibly by prescribing the balance to be maintained between that information and the premium rate number.

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