madcomments

Who quizzes the quiz master?

Posted in Media January 29th, 2007 by Stuart Aitken

The House of Commons Culture Media and Sport committee’s report into call TV quiz shows raises serious questions about what can be done to regulate them.

After months of speculation a parliamentary report has finally attempted to place curbs on call TV quiz shows. The report came about for a number of reasons. Firstly, statutory regulators are struggling to keep up with the new genre; secondly the shows have the look and feel of gambling but are not regulated as such; and finally “Members of Parliament are receiving complaints from people who see the shows as a “rip-off”.”

This latest TV phenomenon has courted controversy since it suddenly appeared on screens. Following one notorious Quizmania show for example, Ofcom judged that ITV Play broke broadcasting rules by making answers too obscure. When asked to name 13 things you find in a woman’s handbag, callers were enraged by the obscurity of the answers which included “balaclava” and the top answer - “Rawlplugs”. One participant complained to ITV about this answer and was told that the answer was justified as “the handbag may have belonged to a decorator”.

Despite the controversy the format is hugely popular and has spread rapidly, taking over all of ITV’s late night slots and rapidly gaining a foothold on digital channels. This is of course very good news for broadcasters struggling to deal with a fall in advertising revenue. In a submission to the Culture Media and Sport committee, Five argued that “the revenue that we make from this programming will partially mitigate the impact of this year’s downturn in television advertising revenue”.

So just what is the format worth? Industry estimates suggest that £80 million will be made by operators in 2005 with predicted growth of 33 per cent year on year until 2010 when the figure will rise to £320 million. ITV reported £27 million revenue from ITV Play in the first 6 months of 2006, £9 million of which was profit. The production values of these shows may be low – some operators spend less than £1,000 for an hour of call TV programming – but this is no trifling matter.

But who pays? The Citizen’s Advice Bureau reported a case where one couple ran up a bill of nearly £1,500 after only three days’ participation. In another case two minors had used a phone without permission to call and text ITV’s The Mint, resulting in phone bills of £700. The BBC’s Newsnight reported the case of Bret Rees of Sheffield who had been over the moon when he won £2,500 – only to discover that his phone bill was over £8,000. In another twist the 90-year old mother-in-law of ICSTIS chairman Sir Alistair Graham had been shocked that her bill for calling The Mint totalled £190.

Even more serious than the suggestion that the public are being misled by the shows though are allegations of fraud. Key to these claims is Bob Winsor a former employee of Big Game TV who, back in June 2006 accused his employers of running a fraudulent operation by refusing to answer 75p-a-call phone lines for up to two hours. He continues to contest that the aim of these shows is to keep as many people as possible waiting. The DCMS report acknowledged that any practise of misleading viewers about call volumes or of blocking calls would be “fraudulent and should be punished under criminal law”.

But in the meantime what exactly can be done to regulate these shows? As a result of the enquiry MPs on the Commons media committee will call on the quiz show operators to display call volumes on screen as well as giving viewers an indication of the odds of getting through to the studio. However the review has raised serious issues about the accountability of such shows, calling into question exactly what can be done to regulate them.

A key finding of the report was that the shows have managed to wrong-foot the regulators. While the committee concluded that “it seems to us that Call TV quiz shows should constitute gaming under the Gambling Act 2005”, they were unable to uphold this finding. Equally they were unable to classify the shows as lotteries. What’s more the Gambling Act when it comes into power in the Autumn will do little to alleviate the problem as it was drafted before such shows existed. “It is intensely frustrating that uncertainty about whether programmes should or should not be regulated as lotteries under current law is unlikely to be resolved and that shows’ status under current law will not be determined.”

How long the shows continue to pull in the crowds is uncertain but in the meantime it seems there is little – beyond self-regulation – that can be done to hold these shows to account.