Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Third Report


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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 25 January 2007