Memorandum submitted by Bob Winsor
I blew the whistle on Big Game TV and Mark Field
MP has agreed to raise important issues about this morally dubious
industry with the Secretary of State. Attached is an article I
plan to get published in the name of public interest [not printed
here]. I would appreciate it if you would read the proposed
article as it gives a detailed account as to how the public may
be being defrauded.
Article?
INTRO. and then ... Recently ITV's Quizmania
ran a "family fortunes" type game by which money was
won for guessing one of the correct answers to the question "Things
in a Lady's Handbag". After a few hours the top answer still
hadn't been guessed and so the presenter revealed the answer.
This top "answer" was rawl plugs, it might as well have
been hand grenade. Still, Quizmania would have made huge profits
whilst viewers phoned in with their hopelessly realistic answers.
In an industry worth an estimated £160 million a year it
seems the lure of such profits has cancelled out the conflicting
interests of viewers' trust and quality programming. As a former
telephonist at Big Game Television, who are currently under investigation
by the City of London Fraud Squad, I can speak from experience
and in favour of the argument for more effective regulation. It
is in the domain of public interest that the techniques these
quizzes may use to extract the maximum amount of money from viewers
should be exposed. The practices described took place whilst I
was employed by Big Game TV between May 2005 and March 2006.
Perhaps the most serious case of malpractice
was the changing of an answer should the top answer on a family
fortunes type game be won "too soon". Admittedly this
happened on very rare occasions but it did happen and therefore
is contrary to Big Game TV's Player's Charter, published on the
internet which (mis)states that "Before beginning a game,
the producer will enter an answer into our computer system. Once
the game begins the answer is locked in and cannot be changed."
The exact opposite is true— the telephonist has to ask the
caller their answer so that it can be typed into the corresponding
answer slot if it is correct. Last October I was taking calls
for a family fortunes type game "Things you see in a Pub?"
The top answer of pork scratchings was worth £200 and a winner
guessed the answer within the first 30 minutes of the game. When
the top prize is won this quickly it is not good for call revenue
because having a top answer of £200 still to be won is more
tempting to viewers than a £20 bottom answer. Bearing this
in mind the producer moved this top £200 answer down to the
£40 answer slot whilst the presenter stalled the player with
the usual "Hi! So, where are you calling from" chitchat.
The producer then entered "Drunk Person" as the new
top answer thus depriving the winner of £160.
Sometimes maths games were played where the
answer required a bit more thinking but if a player got the right
answer too soon telephonists were told to tell the winner that
their details were being entered into a computer (non existent)
and that the computer may randomly select and call them back as
the winner. Telephonists would then carry on putting only incorrect
answers through to the presenters. After a length of time the
telephonist would be asked to call back the first caller who had
given the correct answer. Subsequent correct answers during the
game were told the same lie but obviously the "random computer"
didn't select them to win.
The most regular method employed on "family
fortune" type games can best be explained by describing a
game which was broadcast last March. "Things you keep as
Pets' was the game. The bottom, low prize money answers were won
quickly (cat, dog, mouse). These easy, low prize answers may merely
act as bait to show viewers that they actually do get through
live on air and so stand a chance of winning the larger amounts
of money on offer. However, the producer knows that it is highly
unlikely that callers will guess Bearded Dragon as the "pet"
worth the top £200 answer and so callers are allowed to come
through thick and fast to the studio until ideas have been exhausted
and the studio software consequently indicates that the call volumes
are starting to drop. At this point a clue appears on screen "BEARDED
DRAG-N". Because the callers had been getting through when
there was no clue they have good reason to believe that
they will get through again and recoup the money that they have
so far spent. These players are unaware that the goalposts have
been moved and calls are now being ignored because the clue on
the screen has now made the answer ridiculously obvious. Callers
often complained to me that they could never get through once
the clue had appeared on screen. I emphasize that players have
"good reason" to carry on calling the quiz to highlight
the point that players are not being gullible. They are, I believe,
the victims of deception. If the hypothetical construct of a reasonably
intelligent person is employed as an example then it is plausible
that such a person would believe that they have a chance of getting
through once a clue appears on screen because they were getting
through when there no clue was on screen. The producer will capitalise
on making callers think they will get though as usual by zooming
in on the dummy studio phone which will now be silent, "tension"
music will be played. The presenter encourages more callers. The
deception succeeds—call volumes will suddenly shoot up from
20 or 30 per minute to 150-200 per minute. The presenter begs
for callers to "hit the redial button" and win the money.
The telephonist is told to ignore the calls for any amount of
time and Big Game television makes a fortune by employing what
I believe are deceptive means. Before I left Big Game TV profits
from 70,000 calls a day could be taken using these methods. However
since the fraud squad raided the studio both ITV Play and NTL
have dropped all Big Game TV productions from their schedules
and Sky 3 have recently pulled out of negotiations with Big Game
TV in order to protect their image. Big Game TV still produce
the Hallmark Channel Quiz.
The opinion that people who play these games
are no-hopers and so deserve all they get is blinkered, ignorant
nonsense that completely misses the point. If people wish to take
part in interactive quiz shows they should be allowed to do so
without fear of being victims of what the more generous media
has termed sharp practice. People of all social identities may
be potential victims of these quizzes. Last year regular players
included people from all sorts of jobs along with a decorated
WWII Halifax bomber navigator and a housebound woman recovering
from a throat biopsy. After a while most people will stop playing.
One can only assume they have received their phone bills. Who
knows what the full consequences of such astronomical phone bills
may be on the standards of living of victims and their spouses?
Who knows how many people may have become addicted to these shows?
On the subject of addiction ITV Play has made a laughable attempt
to be a responsible broadcaster by limiting calls to 150 per day
per household. 150! That's £112.50 per day. Or to put it
another way ITV Play are so concerned about the welfare of its
viewers that they wish to "limit" quarterly phone bills
(from BT landlines. Other networks may vary) to an extortionate
£10,000. Stronger regulation is urgently needed to protect
not only consumers but also broadcasters who may wish to set up
legitimate interactive quiz shows.
Last October, after receiving no response to
two complaints emailed to the directors Music and Brands (Big
Game Television's parent company) I contacted the regulating body.
ICSTIS informed that the allegations were extremely serious to
the point that they would involve the fraud squad. This advice
highlights an obvious gap between the law and effective regulation.
It should not be the case that employees are left no option but
to report breaches of ICSTIS' standards of fair play to the fraud
squad and by doing so possibly incurring the nightmare of becoming
a CPS witness. In response to issues I have since raised, Ofcom's
policy director Chris Banatvala, has replied that "Deception
on the public committed by any interactive quiz show that results
in a loss money and—to a lesser extent—a waste of
people's time, is a breach of generally accepted standards. It
is not possible however to frame regulations that prevents deliberate
deception that amounts to fraud." Such a matter is a matter
for the police and not for Ofcom". I take his point. However,
it seems that due to the recent adverse publicity and a sharp
rise in the number of complaints to the regulators, many of these
interactive channels appear to be self-regulating for the sake
of self-preservation. For example, many of these shows now have
the presenter carrying the answer in an envelope in the hope of
persuading the viewer, in the face of publicity to the contrary,
that the answer cannot be changed. Many quizzes now display a
three minute clock and inform the viewer that a call will be taken
within the three minutes. Whilst at Big Game Television I was
once told to ignore the calls for over two and a half hours whilst
a picture of a fish and the word "fingers" was on the
screen. The call volumes were so high that the producer didn't
wish to give the £100 prize money away. Admittedly holding
calls for this length of time was rare—half an hour to an
hour was the norm. Bearing these meek self- regulatory measures
in mind, surely any legitimate potential broadcasters would support
Ofcom in framing legislation that strongly dictates how games
have to be played instead of the present vague, open-toabuse
guidelines on how games should be played? For example:
a definition of fair play should be required; a time limit on
how long simple puzzles may be played should be made known to
broadcasters; a statement of odds is necessary—most of the
time 80% of all calls to BGTV were routed to a "hard luck.
Try again" type of message. Therefore the odds of getting
through are, theoretically, immediately cut to 5-1. So the cost
of a call maybe 75p but the cost of actually getting through will
be more like £3.75 (not taking into account whether the single
telephonist is answering calls or the fact that hundreds if not
thousands of people may be trying to get through to the single
telephonist at the same time). Perhaps independent adjudicators
should be employed and paid for by the industry for the sake of
accountability, transparency and trust? Adjudicators are essential
for checking the methodology of what appear to be simple maths
puzzles. Here are two examples of these puzzles played by Big
Game Television last year. They clearly illustrate my point. The
examples are printed in upper-case because answers often involve
letters that may double-up as roman numerals.
Add the numbers:
2. THE NUMBERS 4, 5, AND 9
Big Game Television's answer to this puzzle
is 3,176
Answer: 782
Perhaps these answers are correct, but the point
is that the methodology needs to be double-checked by an independent
source if only to avoid the risk of human error. In a letter to
me earlier this year regarding the genre in general, Chris Banatvala
voiced Ofcom's concerns about the methodology behind these games
and the detrimental effect for players and broadcasters alike
that result from the various unfair methods still open to the
producers of interactive quiz shows. "We consider that the
integrity of the answers is of paramount importance. We have and
are continuing to conduct a number of investigations into this
area. Going forward, we are also considering how best to provide
a framework for Ofcom to deal with these matters, so that we can
react as quickly and effectively as possible . . . It is essential
that in order to protect the public—and the industry—that
the standard set by Ofcom is maintained. Failure to abide by Ofcom's
standards will lead to members of the public losing money and
faith in the probity of the broadcasters. Ofcom has a range of
sanctions at its disposal including fines and revocation of licence—it
has not been afraid to use its powers in this area." This
is good news, and with the added pressure from public opinion
perhaps there is hope that tighter controls are in place a lot
sooner September 2007 when a proposed "raft of legislation"
aims to clamp down on the industry. In the meantime Mark Field
MP, in his position of Shadow Minister for Culture, has agreed
to discuss the issues raised here and in my police statement with
the Secretary of State. Ofcom have informed me that they are looking
into Quizmania's game methodology .
30 October 2006
|
