House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee Call TV quiz shows Third Report of Session 2006–07 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 17 January 2007 HC 72 Published on 25 January 2007 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Culture, Media and Sport Committee The Culture, Media and Sport Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and its associated public bodies. Current membership Mr John Whittingdale MP (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford) [Chairman] Janet Anderson MP (Labour, Rossendale and Darwen) Mr Philip Davies MP (Conservative, Shipley) Mr Nigel Evans MP (Conservative, Ribble Valley) Paul Farrelly MP (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme) Mr Mike Hall MP (Labour, Weaver Vale) Alan Keen MP (Labour, Feltham and Heston) Rosemary McKenna MP (Labour, Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) Adam Price MP (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) Mr Adrian Sanders MP (Liberal Democrat, Torbay) Helen Southworth MP (Labour, Warrington South) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/culture__media_and_sport. cfm Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Kenneth Fox (Clerk), Sally Broadbridge (Inquiry Manager), Daniel Dyball (Committee Specialist), Anita Fuki (Committee Assistant), Rowena Macdonald (Secretary), Jim Hudson (Senior Office Clerk) and Laura Humble (Media Officer). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6188; fax 020 7219 2031; the Committee’s email address is [email protected] 1 Contents Report Page Summary 3 1 Introduction 5 2 The Call TV quiz sector 6 How the programmes work 6 The growth of the sector 7 Regulation of the sector 9 3 Legislative framework 11 Legislation 11 Are Call TV quiz shows lotteries? 11 4 The effect upon players 14 Financial impact 14 Controlling spending 16 The possibility of addiction 17 5 Fairness 18 Fairness of competitions 18 Unfair practices in handling calls 21 Charging for calls when the chances of success are zero 22 6 Transparency 23 Information about the cost of calls 23 Information about the chances of getting through 24 Information about reasons for banning participants 26 7 Overall conclusions 27 Conclusions and recommendations 29 Formal minutes 32 Witnesses 33 List of written evidence 34 List of unprinted written evidence 35 Reports from the Committee since 2005 36 3 Summary One of the many consequences of the expansion in new media platforms – and the diversion of advertising revenue from established media towards those platforms - is the drive by commercial broadcasters to seek out new means of raising revenue. Call TV quiz shows are one example of how this is done: the viewer watches the live broadcast programme, sends a text message or makes a premium rate telephone call in order to take part, and the broadcaster keeps a proportion of the call revenue. There is usually an alternative free entry route via the internet. Why is this a matter for a parliamentary select committee? Because statutory regulators are struggling to keep up with a new genre; the shows themselves have the look and feel of gambling but are not presently regulated as such; and Members of Parliament are receiving complaints from people who see the shows as “a rip-off”. We have no issue with the type of entertainment provided by the shows: some of those on terrestrial channels have large audiences and many people thoroughly enjoy them. What we object to is the lack of fairness and transparency throughout the process. Players are generally not told that it is a matter of luck whether a call is connected to the studio and that the chances of getting through are very slim; nor is the cost of calling always made as clear as it might be; nor are players given any idea how much they might have to spend in order to win a prize. This lack of fairness and transparency has led to serious concerns, and it is the aim of this report to make recommendations as to how the broadcasters and regulators should address this. We also heard allegations of shabby practices by producers and broadcasters. These range from suggestions that games are set which are almost impossible to solve, and which are simply unfair, to claims that call handling procedures are manipulated so as to maximise revenue and deny any callers the chance to give an answer; such a practice, if proven, would be tantamount to fraud and should be pursued as offences under criminal law. Primary responsibility for maintaining confidence in the Call TV quiz show format rests with the operating companies and the broadcasters. We accept that effective self-regulation is far better than heavy-handed intervention, and the publicity given to a handful of cases seems to have caused operators to tighten up their procedures and to try harder at self- regulation. Complaints persist, however. Both of the two main regulators - Ofcom and ICSTIS - have drawn up guidance which is sound; but it does not go far enough, and it is clear that the regulatory regime will need to be tightened in certain areas. In particular, viewers must be given more information allowing them to have a reasonable understanding of the odds of getting through to the studio, let alone winning a prize if they have a correct answer. We also look to Ofcom and ICSTIS to be more energetic in ensuring that their own guidance is adhered to by broadcasters and producers. Regulatory oversight has been complicated by the uncertain status of Call TV quiz shows under the existing law on gambling, which is soon to be replaced by the Gambling Act 2005. Not until the Act is fully in force will it be open to the Gambling Commission to establish, through the courts if necessary, whether Call TV quiz shows are free draws, lotteries or gaming. However, our view is that they should constitute gaming as defined under the Gambling Act 2005. 4 Further confusion has arisen from the involvement of both Ofcom and ICSTIS in regulation, a split which is confusing for the public and which complicates the procedure for dealing with complaints. A single regulator, in our view Ofcom, should take the lead and give direction; and that single body should take responsibility for registering all complaints and forwarding them as necessary. 5 1 Introduction 1. The Committee’s inquiry was prompted by widespread concern about a relatively new form of television entertainment, Call TV quiz shows, and by the channels dedicated to them. Despite having become a feature of broadcasting schedules only in the last two years, complaints from the public about Call TV quiz shows have been numerous and persistent, and the shows have attracted adverse media comment. Normally we would regard television programming as a matter for broadcasters rather than a matter of public policy; but it has become clear that Call TV quiz shows can have far-reaching consequences for people’s financial well-being and raise questions of public interest. The intention of the inquiry was to hear whether the statutory and regulatory framework established by Parliament offered suitable consumer protection, particularly given the potentially serious financial consequences of taking part. 2. The Committee issued a call for evidence on 24 October 2006, inviting comment from interested parties on the following issues: — The procedures for handling calls from viewers; — Information provided to viewers on the costs of calls and their chances of participating and winning; — The role of Call TV quiz shows in raising income for broadcasters; — The impact, financial or otherwise, of participation on viewers; and — Whether further regulation of Call TV quiz shows is required. We received a good response from individuals, voluntary organisations, games production companies, broadcasters and regulators. We would like to thank all those who sent contributions. 3. A morning of oral evidence was held on 28 November 2006, with witnesses from Citizens’ Advice, BBC Radio 4 You and Yours, broadcasters (BSkyB, ITV, Channel 4 and Five), games production companies (Ostrich Media and Optimistic Media), regulators (Ofcom, the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services (ICSTIS) and the Gambling Commission), and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). This was a lively and stimulating session which informed the Committee and witnesses alike. 4. We also accepted an invitation from Optimistic Media, a producer of quiz show programming, to visit its studios in London while a show was on-air. We are grateful to Optimistic Media for giving us the opportunity to hold discussions on an informal basis. 6 2 The Call TV quiz sector How the programmes work 5. Quiz shows in which callers use a premium rate telephone line to call a studio to take part in a quiz or game are not new and have been a feature of television and radio programming for about 20 years.1 The traditional format for such shows is for a viewer to call or text a premium rate service with the answer to a question, and the winning participant is the one selected at random from the pool of those who have answered correctly.