House of Commons - Culture, Media and Sport

Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Third Report

4 The effect upon players

30. Producers and broadcasters told us that they received feedback from enthusiastic viewers who "love our shows"[57] and enjoy participating,[58] and that a large percentage of viewers watched the shows for the entertainment value and for the sense of community of enjoying interaction with the presenters.[59] We heard that prize money had made a real difference to some viewers' lives, and that the appeal of participating could be as much about appearing in the television programme as the opportunity to win small but nonetheless exciting amounts of prize money.[60] Some viewers find the shows attractive and exciting,[61] and some are regular participants. We recognise these positive attributes of the genre and would not wish to see any diminution of the entertainment and enjoyment which the shows provide for their audiences.

Financial impact

31. The financial impact of taking part in Call TV quizzes can be substantial. We heard of viewers being shocked at the size of their phone bills after participating in the programmes.[62] The amounts could be five times or more than their normal usage, leading viewers to believe that their phone providers were mistaken about the number of calls made.[63] In one case, a couple whose previous bill had been less than £25 had run up a bill for nearly £1,500 after only three days' participation.[64] Citizens Advice told us of another person who received a phone bill for £348 but claimed to have made only about 15 premium rate calls.[65] We received a submission from someone whose son and a babysitter had together used a phone without permission to make calls and send text messages to The Mint on ITV, resulting in phone bills of up to £700.[66] Another viewer who had been shocked at the size of her phone bill was the 90 year old mother-in-law of ICSTIS's chairman: her bill was £190 after she had been ringing The Mint, one of ITV Play's quiz shows.[67]

32. For some people, taking part in Call TV quiz shows is compulsive. Our impression was that the speed with which callers are told that they have not been successful on a particular occasion could encourage immediate and persistent redialling, with little thought of the financial consequences. In one of the cases described above, where a bill of nearly £1,500 had been generated, the call record showed that 60 calls had been made within one eight- minute period - an average of 8 seconds per call.[68] We heard directly from one person who had received an unexpectedly large telephone bill after calling a quiz show; she did not dispute the bill but told us that she had not realised that she had phoned so intensely.[69] We note with interest figures supplied by ITV, showing that 77% of entrants to ITV Play played fewer than five times a day but that the average number of entries played per entrant each day was six.[70] A simple mathematical calculation shows that very high call volumes must be being generated by a minority of callers in order to produce an average call figure which is higher than the number of calls made by 77% of callers.

33. It was suggested to us that people sometimes took part when they were vulnerable or not in full control of their actions. Some shows are broadcast late in the evening and into the early hours when viewers may have returned from the pub and when their "judgement may be impaired by tiredness or alcohol"[71] or "have their guard down", or when lonely and vulnerable people cannot sleep.[72] We note also a recent article in The Economist, indicating that a high proportion of Call TV Quiz audiences come from socio-economic group E,[73] possibly the least able to afford large premium rate phone bills. PROMIS, a counselling centre which frequently treats gambling addicts, suggested that programmes "colluded" with viewers' fantasies that their lives could be radically transformed through a win.[74] Citizens Advice gave an example of a recent programme which had enticed viewers with a prize of £6,000 and a comment: "Think what a difference that would make to your Christmas".[75] This would appear to breach the spirit of Ofcom's guidance on interpretation of Rule 2.11 of its Broadcasting Code, which strongly advises broadcasters "not to present a monetary prize as a resolution of financial difficulty".

34. We do not know how many people have found themselves with unmanageable debts because they have not understood how much it would cost them just trying to get through to the studio and participate in a programme. Although they may be in a small minority of callers, the personal consequences for them may be devastating. There may also be countless other viewers who have spent relatively small sums of money but who then stopped calling because their experience has taught them that the cost is greater than they had appreciated - they conclude that they have been "ripped off".[76] Although such viewers are unlikely to make any formal complaint, their dissatisfaction is bound to contribute to the negative image of the genre.

Controlling spending

35. Big Game TV told us that its presenters frequently encourage viewers to set a budget with which to play the game and to then stick to it. Big Game argued that it was not in their interest for viewers to spend beyond their means on competitions, as such spending would be unsustainable and would lead players "in all likelihood" to "stop playing fairly quickly".[77] "Five" and Ostrich Media also pointed out that they encouraged viewers to set a budget.[78]

Limits on calls

36. As part of its current review of the sector, ICSTIS is considering whether there should be limits imposed on the number of calls players can make.[79] ITV told us that it had set a daily entry limit, which applied equally to the pay and free entry routes, and that it discouraged excessive usage by setting a limit on the number of pay entries a player could make. Its present limit is 150 entries.[80] Optimistic Media also told us that that if there is a persistent problem with high call volumes from a particular caller, it reserves the right to "block" a customer without notice.[81] Players who make up to 150 premium rate calls in a day may be in a small minority, but they would still be spending considerable amounts of money even if they approached that limit only once. It is unclear whether these limits are an effective way of discouraging excessive spending and whether they can be enforced fairly without unwarranted intrusion into callers' privacy.

Alerting callers to high call volumes

37. The ICSTIS Statement of Expectations does not require operators of Call TV quiz shows to alert premium rate callers to the volume of calls they have made, but most operators have now introduced alerting systems so that automatically generated messages keep callers informed about the number of calls they have made over a given period.[82] Some companies also make proactive calls to high volume players to check that they are aware of the volume of calls being made or to warn them about their excessive spending.[83] Some witnesses suggested that slightly different approaches might be more helpful to callers, for instance that they should be told how much money they had spent rather than how many calls they had made, and that the phone companies should play a part by calling customers (particularly those whose usage was normally low) to make sure that the customers do realise that unusually large amounts have been spent, before they accumulate impossible debts.[84]

38. Evidence to this inquiry has not enabled us to form a view on whether or not caller alerts affect callers' behaviour. Nevertheless we believe that alerting callers to the volume of calls which they have made does go some way to achieving transparency for participants, and is likely to serve as a helpful reminder to callers who might otherwise find themselves carried away in the excitement of the game. We commend the operators who have voluntarily introduced practices intended to help viewers who make repeated premium rate calls appreciate how much they are spending. We recommend that ICSTIS commission or carry out research into the effectiveness of alerts and limits on the number of calls, particularly (in co-operation with consumer bodies) among individuals who have got into debt. ICSTIS should consider making it a requirement for quiz show operators to take steps to ensure that callers are aware of how much they are spending. We address later (in paragraphs 54 to 56) the issue of fairness where callers are still charged even when they have gone over a call limit imposed by broadcasters.

The possibility of addiction

39. Despite the startling examples of compulsive play, there was no clear, consistent pattern in evidence to this inquiry of viewers becoming addicted in the long term to participating in Call TV quiz competitions. The Chairman of Optimistic Media suggested to us that there would be more evidence of addiction if it were a serious problem,[85] and the company's memorandum told us that the impact of its programming was "benign".[86] Others had a quite different view. PROMIS, a counselling centre which frequently treats gambling addicts, had no doubt that the shows could become addictive, with viewers repeating the process over and over again for the "flutter" which it provides.[87] Susan Marks, one of the social policy officers at Citizens Advice, told us that the organisation was concerned that the "hyped atmosphere" of the shows, which had elements similar to pressure selling, could lead to addiction.[88] People may be reluctant to admit that they have become addicted, which makes it difficult to assess the scale of any problem.[89] The charity GamCare, which provides information, advice and practical help in addressing the social impact of gambling in the UK, told us that although its helpline had not received a significant number of calls relating to problematic participation in the shows, this did not necessarily mean that individuals were not experiencing difficulty, as many factors could influence whether they would make calls to the helpline.[90]

40. The Minister told us that he would like to see work done on whether a new generation of addicts could be emerging among people who could not stop themselves from calling numerous times, although he thought that the numbers would be very small at this stage.[91] We agree. Work should be undertaken to assess the scale of addiction to participation in Call TV quiz shows. Given the Gambling Commission's responsibility under the Gambling Act 2005 for protecting vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling, we believe that this would be an exercise appropriate to the Gambling Commission. We also recommend that broadcasters should display the telephone number for GamCare at regular intervals.

57 Big Game TV Ltd Ev 78 Back

58 ITV Ev 37 Back

59 Mr Brook Q 104 Back

60 Big Game TV Ltd Ev 78; Sparrowhawk Entertainment Ltd Ev 103 Back

61 Ms Vahl Q 2 Back

62 Citizens Advice Q 2 Back

63 Ms Marks Q 3 Back

64 Citizens Advice Ev 3 Back

65 Citizens Advice, Ev 3; see also Ms Vahl Q2 Back

66 Paul Griffin Ev 87 Back

67 Financial Times, 27 November 2006 Back

68 Ev 3 Back