Feeds
Research published this week by media consultancy Mott MacDonald Schema and commissioned by Ipsos MORI showed that 89% of those who frequently use TV premium rate services have recently lost confidence in them. A huge percentage indeed, but that's no great surprise with such high profile shows like GMTV, Richard & Judy, X Factor and Saturday Kitchen the subject of premium rate phone-in controversies.
GMTV has said it will wait for a new code of conduct to be drawn up before it considers including further premium rate services in its shows. However, what surprised Robin Bosworth, a senior media consultant at Mott MacDonald Schema, was that even if broadcasters were to show the phone-in charges in a clear and transparent manner, a significant number of viewers are still not prepared to take part in such competitions again. "We asked people [would they take part if] if the costs and the likelihood of winning were clear - all the things the regulators have suggested. But we were still getting a situation where 84% [of respondents] said they wouldn't use the services again," he said.
Scandals come and go, and in any industry that creates revenue from public money, there is usually a natural decline in participation following a scandal, with a gradual return. "If you look at scandals in other areas - like betting scandals on sports events - you don't see this sort of sharp down turn in people's reactions," said Bosworth. "I think that in sport the overwhelming majority has a trust and a faith that most sport is honest, and where there has a problem, there's a feeling it is an exception to the rule."
Nearly two out of three of all respondents in the survey agreed that premium rate TV phone-in competitions and votes are "just a way to cheat people out of money with no chance of success." "It isn't one rogue element that has been exposed. It's across channels and across all types of programming from incredibly trusted brands, and because of that it's undermined the confidence to this degree," Bosworth added.
This week John Whittingdale, chairman of the culture select committee, said he believed the police should be looking into such matters as fraud. Bosworth is more cautious: "The question mark would be who knew what, and who was responsible. Was it a deliberate policy or was it one where people didn't give it the necessary amount of due diligence, because of the amount of revenues coming in? There is a difference between not being as rigorous in the audit of procedures, and deliberate fraud. That would be the case that would have to be proved."
A £2 million fine is a large penalty, hard for any commercial broadcaster to swallow, especially in today's already tough TV advertising market. The fine does represent the level of what Ofcom called "gross negligence" in the matter, and a percentage of the revenues that were raised from the competitions. So can we expect to see more fines of this level as Ofcom continues its investigations into other shows? "As an absolute value, you may not necessarily see larger ones [fines], but in terms of impact on the broadcaster or the production company, or the telecoms operator, they may be just as significant," Bosworth advised.
So what now? Get rid of phone-ins on TV altogether? "I think what's needed is to try and show the application of [participation] services as useful. Events like Children in Need and charity appeals demonstrate that these services can actually generate significant revenues that are proven to deliver social benefits," said Bosworth. "I am great believer that participation TV has many values, and there is definitely a market. You can use it to interact with the presenters and make TV more compelling. It's those sorts of things - rather than restrained money earning competitions - where they [the broadcasters] are going to have to take a broader view of the portfolio."
Discuss this article
Share this article
Print this article
