7 Overall conclusions
70. During this inquiry, the Committee has heard
strong criticism of Call TV quiz programmes, in particular their
role in raising revenue for broadcasters[146]
and the lack of transparency for participants. There have also
been allegations of unscrupulous practices in the way that the
games are played. It is doubtful whether anyone would describe
them as high-quality programming: Big Game TV noted "a widespread
disdain for Call TV amongst the media",[147]
and they are certainly not creative television. It should not
be overlooked, however, that there is a large audience which finds
these programmes entertaining. Thousands take part each day but
they are only a small fraction of those who watch; and many continue
to participate over the long term.[148]
Both broadcasters and producers receive positive feedback from
viewers.[149] We do
not seek to be censorious about such programmes: broadcasters
are free to fill their schedules as they please, as long as they
satisfy their public service obligations or licence commitments.
71. The shows raise revenue for broadcasters. As
television advertising becomes an ever smaller part of total spending
on advertising, while audiences fragment, and while there remains
a limited market for the pay-per-view television model, broadcasters
are under severe pressure to seek out alternative sources of revenue.
Some at least (such as ITV) are succeeding in doing so. We expect
to revisit this area as part of our forthcoming inquiry into the
provision of public service media content.
72. The purpose of some of the controls that we suggest
in this report is to protect the interests of the viewer, but
they would also be of benefit to broadcasters. The reputation
of Call TV quiz programmes is already blemished; if unscrupulous
practices continue, complaints will increase, and parts of the
existing audience will lose confidence in the programmes and potentially
in the integrity of the broadcasters who schedule them. Producers
acknowledge this: Big Game TV told us that Call TV was "a
consumer-dependent business like any other" and that "if
viewers feel misled, or believe that the proposition reflects
poor value for money, they will stop playing".[150]
The Chairman of Optimistic Media made a similar point, saying
that "if we are building a business, a publicly quoted business,
which depends on bringing back viewers again and again, we are
not going to do that on a get-rich-quick mentality".[151]
73. Primary responsibility for maintaining confidence
in the format rests with the operating companies and the broadcasters.
We accept that effective self-regulation is far better than heavy-handed
intervention. It is clear, however, that recent performance warrants
careful scrutiny by regulators, and the regime will need to be
tightened in certain areas. We have outlined in this report some
of the ways in which this might be done.
74. Looking ahead, serious questions must be asked
about whether having a multiplicity of regulators has made oversight
less effective. Ofcom and ICSTIS argued strongly that they had
worked together closely on Call TV quiz shows, ensuring that there
was "minimal confusion for complainants as well as maximising
the regulators' enforcement efforts".[152]
The ICSTIS Statement of Expectations refers to the regulators'
joint approach and sets out broadly the respective areas of responsibility
for dealing with complaints. The Gambling Commission also described
its "close co-operation" with both Ofcom and ICSTIS,
which had allowed both bodies "to become fully aware of the
Commission's thinking and position".[153]
75. The respective areas of responsibility are less
evident to the general public and to interested parties.[154]
The Gambling Commission told us that some respondents to its recent
consultation on prize competitions and free draws had raised concerns
about matters of fairness,[155]
matters which are more appropriate for investigation by Ofcom.
We also noted in oral evidence a degree of confusion between Ofcom
and ICSTIS about whether or not the question of displaying information
on screen about the chances of getting through to the studio or
winning a prize was an issue of editorial content (primarily for
Ofcom) or about promotion and regulation of telephone premium
rate lines (primarily for ICSTIS).[156]
The split in oversight certainly complicates the procedure for
dealing with complaints. Some complaints about programmes are
made direct to broadcasters or to producers; some are made to
regulators but not necessarily to the one which has relevant
responsibilities; and some are made to consumer organisations
such as Citizens Advice and Consumer Direct, or even to the Ombudsman.[157]
76. We welcome the recognition by regulators that
close co-operation is needed in the Call TV quiz sector. Given
the distinct areas of expertise of each of the regulators, we
believe there should continue to be a regulatory role for each.
However, we recommend that there should be one regulator, in our
view Ofcom, taking the lead and orchestrating oversight. We believe
that members of the public have no clear idea which body they
should complain to if they have concerns, and we recommend that
a single body should take responsibility for registering all complaints
and forwarding them, as necessary, to the appropriate body. This
would allow regulators and broadcasters alike to gain a clearer
picture of where concerns lie.
77. Call TV quiz shows are a new genre and their
place under legislation soon to come into force has not yet been
established. We shall, if we believe it necessary, return to the
subject in the near future if there are signs that regulatory
controls are not proving sufficient to deal with bad practice.
146 "An abuse of the franchise by providers who
are using the late-night viewing simply for money-making purposes":
David Etherington QC, Ev 85; a "scam to raise funds for
failing TV companies": Ann Tomsett Ev 104 Back
147
Ev 78 Back
148
Big Game TV, Ev 78 Back
149
ITV Ev 37 Back
150
Big Game TV Ltd, Ev 77 Back
151
Mr Brook Q 58 Back
152
Ev 49 Back
153
Ev 48 Back
154
See Mr Herbert, Q 9 Back
155
Ev 48 Back
156
QQ 180-1 Back
157
Consumer Direct Ev 84 and the Ombudsman Service Ltd Ev 98 Back
| 
