rss feed blog search engine
 
Search rss blog search engine
 
PARTICIPATION TV - JUST A BIT OF FUN?  
Released:  9/14/2007 11:51:33 PM
RSS Link:  http://timbourne.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
Last View 7/5/2008 8:22:21 AM
Last Refresh 7/6/2008 11:22:22 PM
Page Views 292
Comments:  Read user comments (0)
Save It Add to Technorati Add to Del.icio.us Add to Furl Add to Yahoo My Web 2.0 Add to My MSN Add to Google Add to My Yahoo! PARTICIPATION TV - JUST A BIT OF FUN?



Description:



Action on the games.. Participation TV - hints website.. Stories from the front line of Participation TV.. Winners and thanks..


Contents:

Action on the games

Now you might have thought that I'd lost interest in the business of Participation TV but that's not the case an OFCOM ruling is on the way and here's some background on the business from Bob Winsor...

A few points that I think are relevant

1* The expected fine by OFCOM has dropped from £50m + to about £4m

2* ITV's share price is already in the 'doldrums'

3* Is the game ITV were running that much different from the National Lottery (where punters are kept in the dark about the odds of winning)?

"Below just one example of how BGTV and ITV took money from their viewers. The incident described happened on a daily basis and involved ITV staff actually having meeting and thinking up ways to take money from their viewers. Despite the proof copied below, Ofcom refuse to act to safeguard the consumer/victim of ITV.

VICTIMS OF SUCH PRACTICES SHOULD CONTACT itvbiggametvvictims@hotmail.co.uk WITH A DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THEY SAW HAPPENING ON ANY LATE NIGHT QUIZ ALONG WITH ANY LETTERS OF COMPLAINT TO REGULATORS

Date of game: 22/10/05 (ofcom decision regarding this specific game 19/11/07

Producers of such 'questionable' games:

Keith Price

Sarah Mc Nally (now ‘producing Channel 5’s Quizcall – do not play this game until ofcom/police have sorted thus wide-scale fraud out.)

Matt Cuttle

Paul Judd

Directors responsible for overseeing this questionable programming:

William Van rest (director of ITV play)

Sir Michael Grade (for investigations of  other incidences of the type described below)

David Elstein (ex CEO Sparrowhawk- Halmark quiz) for allowing viewers to be given the impression that   the programmes gave a fair and equal free entry route existed at BGTV –who produced his daily quiz show.

David Sanderson and Fergus Lawson (ex Carlton TV directors who came up with the methods described below.)

Tony Prior and Barry watts (of Music and Brands, 140 Wardour St) who, with Sanderson and Lawson set the operation  up from within the ITN Building)

Kate Mayne and James scorer of ITN Legal and compliance who allowed the programming to continue from within the ITN Building ,

Ed Richards of Ofcom and George Kidd of PhonePayPlus (formerly Icstis) who turned a blind eye to consumers’ safety despite calls from inside the ITN Building from more than one source that ITV/BGTV/Hallmark viewers were being given a false impression.

Technical director on the night described below Andy Pope

Presenters: Vicky Letch and Dave (forgot his surname)

Call Operator: Myself (Bob Winsor).

Description of the fraudulent incident

On the 22/10/05 whilst working at BGTV the producer put a very simple puzzle on air. It was a picture of a fish with the word ‘fingers’ written next to it. Viewers were urged to call in and Say what You See in order to win the £100 prize. I was told to ignore all incoming calls whilst the presenter, on the orders of the producer, urged viewers to hit the redial button. She was also told to ask Why nobody was calling in on such a simple game. The reason why the producer ordered me to ignore al calls was that the call volumes (revenue) was so high that he did not want to take a call and give the money away. It is vital to remember that a cross-party select committee remarked with this particular game in mind that ‘We signal our strong view that any practice of misleading viewers about call volumes or of blocking calls would be more than unfair: It would be fraudulent and should be punished under criminal law (P21/22. Third report of session, 2006-7. Call YV Quiz Shows. (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmcumeds/72/7208.htm#a10).

The evidence submitted and considered by Ofcom prior to their decision of 19th Nov 07

My police statement (sent to Ofcom by DS Bussey)

The original producers running order showing the date of the game and a photocopy of the on-screen graphic

Two email complaints - look at ‘Easy puzzles - long time on air blog by Darren Lethem and ‘Big Game Girlie’ at: http://www.quiztelly.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=3&order=desc&page=1717

An email by Andy Pope that was sent by me as fresh evidence to Ofcom. This email came to light after the police investigation had been concluded. The serious fraud office re SFO powers under Criminal Justice Act s2 (8) – contradictory statements? By not passing this on to the SFO I question the legality of Ofcom’s decision making.

From: Andrew Pope
Sent:
18 May 2006 18:55
To: Fergus Lawson
Subject: Bob Winsor

Fergus, following our conversation I am writing to detail the conversation with Bob Winsor on Friday 12th May.

At 09:30am I received a phone call from Bob Windsor, who had informed me that he had been in contact with OFCOM and the Serious Fraud Squad. He informed me that he first had talks with both organisations whilst at work on a night back in October/November when we played a ‘Say what you see’ style of game for 3 hours. He said that it was ridiculous that Big Game TV did that and I agreed that I wasn’t a fan of how that game was played on that occasion as we were both working on the night that the event took place. Bob then went on to say that since that night he had made a list of all the things that he thinks that Big Game do wrong. He explained that he didn’t like it when we blatantly clued up an answer by almost typing the answer on screen and asking our viewers to call in when he knew we would not take a call for 15 to 20 minutes…

_________________

At the top of this post is a graphic from a police report showing how Mr Pope of the BBC then obstructed the fraud squad and the CPS when questioned a week after this email:



Viewer complaint dated 22.10.05 at 1.02 relating to the above email and the evidence I gave to the fraud squad. Did Ofcom check the call volumes for this three hour fraudulent call block?

Did my eyes deceive me tonight or did Big Game have a ridiculously easy puzzle dragging on for well over an hour?

I am sure that when I was flicking through a puzzle was on with Dave and then with Vicky and then back with Dave again. Surely that means that either they never had a caller on air within that time or they must be incredibly thick to give the wrong answer.

The puzzle was a picture of a fish next to the word fingers - name the food.

When I first saw it the cash was at £150 then when I saw it the second time around it was £250. Are they really taking the **** ?

AT 1.17am it was still on air on ITV whilst the presenters made out nobody was calling:

was a big game tv fan until tonight, that game has been on for almost three hours, and it's still on now!!!! why haven't they taken one caller yet???

The Criminal Law Act 1967, s 4, makes it an offence to do anything intended to impede a prosecution of someone believed to have committed an arrestable offence. The twenty or so witnesses who decided to lie to the fraud squad about such methods are responsible for the CPS making a decision partly based on these false statements.

VICTIMS OF SUCH PRACTICES SHOULD CONTACT itvbiggametvvictims@hotmail.co.uk WITH A DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THEY SAW HAPPENING ON ANY LATE NIGHT QUIZ ALONG WITH ANY LETTERS OF COMPLAINT TO REGULATORS

For the first 2 hours of the game was broadcast on satellite. Calls were at approx 300 calls per minute = 300 x 75p for 120 minutes. This equals 36,000 x 75p. In turn this equals a fraud on the public of £27,000. The 300 calls per minute is very conservative estimate

When the game went into an ITV broadcast the calls were much higher because ITV reached a wider audience. In evidence to Parliament ITV admitted to 6,000 calls per minute but on Panorama a producer said it was more like 11,000 calls per minute. To be generous to ITV/BGTV lets just say that the calls on a busy Saturday night were at a mere 6,000 per minute for the hour the game was left on ITV (00.30am until 01.30am). This works out at 6,000 calls x 60 minutes x 75p. 360,000 calls at 75p = a fraud of £240,000.

Add these two sums together and the e total amount the public were defrauded out of for this three hour period alone equals £267,000. If you imagine this type of thing happening every day then you can get an idea of the scale of the problem

Ofcom’s letter of response specifically dealing with this game and the evidence submitted

Internet blogs – point (4) in your email of 23 November 2007

It is not within Ofcom’s statutory remit to consider the content of internet blog sites. These websites were unconnected to BGTV’s licensed service and carry the unmoderated opinions of individuals who choose to remain anonymous. Had any of these individuals made properly formed complaints to Ofcom it would have considered them in accordance with its normal procedures.

Turning now to the evidential points you raised in relation to the A Pope email and producer running order, you will note that Ofcom’s published decision relating to BGTV makes it clear that there was “a clear and irreconcilable conflict of evidence between the central allegations of unfair conduct outlined by [you] and the position of the broadcaster”. Ofcom is satisfied that in reaching its decision it properly considered and gave appropriate weight to both of these matters.

A Pope email - point (3) in your email of 23 November 2007

Ofcom considered the email from A Pope which was written in May 2006 and describes a telephone conversation he had with you in October 2005.[INCORRECT. THE CONVERSATION MR POPE HAD WITH ME WAS ON 12TH MAY 06. TWO WEEKS LATER HE OBSTRUCTED THE POLICE BY DENYING THE PRACTICES HE DESCRIBES IN THIS EMAIL –IT WAS OFCOM WHO I HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH IN OCT 05 ABOUT THE FRAUD]. However in itself the email was not conclusive evidence of malpractice within BGTV. Moreover, any suggestion of malpractice was contradicted by Mr Pope’s statement to the police.

Relevant Points of Law regarding judicial review of Ofcom on the grounds of

ILLEGALITY and also IRRATIONALITY of decision making on this specific case

The following words are taken from ‘The English Legal Process 9thed. Terence Ingman. OUP 2002.

Re Irrationality

P 523 ‘Lord Diplock said that the grounds on which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified under three heads

….

b) Irrationality. (in the Wednesbury sense of ‘perversity’) where the authority has acted so unreasonably that no reasonable authority would have made the decision (a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person…could have arrived at it’

Re Illegality

P. 525. Lord Diplock’s illegality ground covers a number of different issues…failing to perform a statutory duty, fettering a discretion, taking into account irrelevant considerations and leaving out of account relevant considerations.

Mandamus

P.562 Mandamus is used primarily to enforce the performance of a public duty…But may also be used to ensure that a discretion conferred by statute is exercised according to law.

P.564. The justification for the courts power to interfere n these circumstances is that a complete failure to exercise a discretion which is required by law to be exercised is unlawful and that an improper or capricious exercise of a discretion is tantamount to a failure to exercise it.

For example:

1) Regulators to collect the taped evidence from viewers, the select committee, Panorama and Ben R Good (see his evidence in the report).

2) Collect all the taped evidence from the monitoring unit at Icstis (set up in July 05) and ask whether the ‘calls to action’ are misleading when matched to the call volumes.

3) Match call volume records with ITN records of phone breakdowns at BGTV. This will show viewers still calling in their thousands, as encouraged by producers and presenters, whilst there was no way of getting through because the engineers were fixing the phone system

4) Either tell me, or an independent body, SFO?, the nature of the 49 complaints about BGTV made by victims/viewers. I could then tell the SFO or Ofcom what was going on behind the scenes.

5) Get the call volumes for the timed and dated 3 hour call block (fish fingers) on BGTV and later that same evening on ITV.

6) BGTV have, on 11/12/07 filed for a dissolution or striking-off of BGTV as a company. On the 14/12/07 BGTV filed the application (652a) for striking off. On the 18/12/07 BGTV filed a credit range limit and a risk score change. In light of a possible multi-party action against BGTV/ITV may I suggest that Ofcom seek to prevent the dissolution of BGTV whilst there are still victims who both ITV and BGTV have refused to recognise.

7) Pass evidence of fraud to the authorities, as I had to do due to regulatory failures.

8) Ensure victims are compensated/refunded. Failure to do this will leave no option but for a multi-party action against BGTV/ITV.

9) Use regulatory powers granted by Parliament to ensure the public are never put at risk again by ensuring that the company directors of BGTV, Tony Prior, Barry Watts, Fergus Lawson and David Sanderson are barred from working in the interactive tv and internet related industries.

10) Request that Deloitte and Evershed’s show the relevant authorities their full, unedited findings in order that a public wrong may be righted.

P.565. Mandamus is a discretionary remedy and will not normally be granted where there is some adequate alternative remedy or procedure available for enforcing a particular public legal duty.

Bearing the above words in mind along with the final words from Ofcom on this particular game I see no other alternative remedy.

Final words from Ofcom

The final sentence of the report of the 19th Nov reads:

The allegations made against BGTV Ltd were extremely serious. However, there was no adequate evidence for Ofcom to determine whether the Code had been breached.

The final words of Ofcom’s letter of response reads:

We feel we have addressed all the matters you have raised, many of which appear to be spurious and/or have been explained to you on a number of previous occasions. We strongly recommend that you take appropriate legal advice before proceeding further or sending any additional points for Ofcom to address as part of the pre-action protocol process. We make this suggestion in order to avoid any further unnecessary effort on both your part and that of Ofcom as a public body. If you decide to proceed with an application for judicial review Ofcom reserves its right to draw to the court’s attention your extensive contact with various Ofcom colleagues which includes numerous telephone conversations, messages and written correspondence, frequently of an unspecific nature.

Documents may be served on Ofcom at Riverside House, 2a Southwark Bridge Road, London SE1 9HA for the attention of Harriet Fear Davies or Caroline Smith. We will also accept service of documents by fax to 020 7981 3159 marked for the attention of Harriet Fear Davies or Caroline Smith.

Yours sincerely,

Caroline Smith

Legal Director.

This concludes my reasons for requesting Judicial review of the decision made by Ofcom about a particular game dealt with in Ofcom’s report of 19th Nov 07.

OFCOM JR Preliminary Thoughts

(1) Standing: concerned member of the public with a particular interest in this decision because the applicant provided evidence to OFCOM which was either ignored or not given fair consideration. Protect applicant so far as possible from allegations of being a nuisance – see “threats” in OFCOM correspondence.

(2) Challenge: OFCOM decision not to make a decision notwithstanding its investigatory role. Further work required on OFCOM statutes, discretions and powers, in particular re ducking its responsibilities.

(3) Remedy: Quash not decision and seek an order requiring a further inquiry.

(4) Themes: (a) Counter the position that as the police found insufficient evidence to prosecute so OFCOM found insufficient evidence to reach a decision on the basis that OFCOM’s supervisory and regulatory role obliges them to be proactive and determinative; (b) counter Big Game no longer operating by pointing to systematic practices / phoenix on different channel, i.e. problem still extant.

(5) Evidence: must be that which was before or reasonably available to OFCOM (cf (2) above).

(6) Timing: keep an eye on requirement to be prompt and in any event within 3 months from 17/11/07. Approaches already made to OFCOM are helpful in this respect.

(7) Way forward: collect together such material as is available / investigate and research OFCOM / draft permission application including written witness statement with accompanying documents.

Yours sincerely

Bob Winsor

Jenny Sanders (FOI)

Information Commissioners Office Reference Number FS50187452

The purpose of this short letter is to offer evidence and reasons as to why an independent authority needs to investigate ALL viewer complaints to ofcom. My reasoning can be best summed up by using the words of Rodney Austin – ‘freedom of Information’ in The Changing Constitution’. Ed Jeffrey Jowell and dawn Oliver. 4th ed, 2000. OUP

P330 ‘ The most dangerous consequence which may flow from the withholding of information by regulatory agencies is that the agency may become the captive or even the protector of the regulated industry…Sometimes the regulatory agency may be sympathetic to the regulated industry because it is government funded…the regulatory agency may simply accord greater credence and priority to the claimed commercial needs [itv’s financial crisis has been well documented] and the interests of the industry than the safety, health and welfare of those whose protection the agency is charged’

P 41 of Richard Ayers ofcom investigation into quiz TV says:

Quiz TV

8.15 The consumer protection issues that arise from dedicated quiz TV formats differ

from those that generally apply to viewer competitions used in mainstream genre

programming. Allegations have been made about the way in which phone entries are

handled, but neither ICSTIS nor Ofcom has had reason to uphold a complaint in this respect,

and the City of London Police’s Economic Crime Unit dropped a fraud case against a former

licensee (Big Game TV!) in October 2006.

8.16 Certain techniques used by quiz TV channels and programmes have also been

questioned, including presenters suggesting that call levels are low when they aren’t,

and the use of countdown clocks and the like. Again, though, no Ofcom or ICSTIS

cases have been upheld. [emphasis added re why have no complaints been upheld? What was in the deleted last sentence re BGTV?]

How did Ofcom respond to this complaint below? –taped evidence was submitted in a public spirited action by a concerned viewer


Ofcom Contact Centre
Riverside House
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London
SE1 9HA

14.08.05

Dear Sir or Madam

I wish to register a complaint against “Big Game TV”. I have enclosed a DVD for your perusal. I believe their “games” to be misleading, and unfair.

The bulk of the enclosed disk is taken up with a 2 hour long “game”, where the host refers to a simple paragraph about a baker making buns. The question is “how many buns?”

After 2 hours of accepting premium rate phone calls and taking answers from zero to thousands, the host, realising they have almost reached the end of the broadcast, offers four multiple choice answers. The next three calls all, conveniently, guess incorrectly, and eventually, the last caller of the evening wins.

The second clip I have enclosed has been chopped short to fit on the disk, but this went on in much the same way. The show went on for at least an hour. After many many incorrect guesses (and how many callers failed to even get though?), the host revealed the answer was between 870 and 875. Every possible answer from then was guessed incorrectly, leaving only one possible answer, which the last caller of the evening guessed correctly.

My complaint is that each time I see these shows, the “game” follows the same pattern. The host ends up giving clues, eventually telling the answer outright. Each time, after taking potentially thousands of phone calls at 60p each, they tell someone the answer they have given was correct, but never explain why.

Communication with Big Game, and other channels, gives the response is that they will not reveal the method, as they may wish to use the game in future – however, they have checked with their games designers and can confirm the answer given was correct. This reason is given in “Big Game TV’s” terms and conditions, available on their website, but not on screen. Surely, after playing the “game” for so long, they have a duty to reveal why their answer was right – otherwise, they can say anything they like!

I believe this channel, and many others across the Sky network, are running a ridiculous “Guess the Number I’m Thinking Of” game, where there is no definite way of working out the correct answer, and anyone phoning in has no chance whatsoever of winning, unless the host has revealed the answer himself. Take a look at the DVD enclosed. If you can come up with a way to get 871 for “Mrs Glove”, or 831 for “Mr Chips”, I’ll be surprised. If you can’t work it out with the answers supplied, then how is a caller meant to guess? I am sure you will agree with me that this is not a game.

I am sure you will find the enclosed DVD interesting, but if you require any further information, feel free to surf the Sky programme guide, any day, any time, for other examples of misleading television.

Yours faithfully.

VICTIMS OF SUCH PRACTICES SHOULD CONTACT itvbiggametvvictims@hotmail.co.uk WITH A DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THEY SAW HAPPENING ON ANY LATE NIGHT QUIZ ALONG WITH ANY LETTERS OF COMPLAINT TO REGULATORS

I do not know how Ofcom responded to this concerned viewer but this is how BGTV responded to him:

Dear William, Thank you very much for your e mail and your interest in Big Game TV! Unfortunately I’m sorry to say that we are not able to divulge the methodology behind each and every question. The methodology behind Big Game TV puzzles is regarded as Intellectual Property, and is considered as such by our regulator ICSTIS. This is both to prevent our competitors from copycatting our puzzles, and also telling all our viewers how to do them all! They are designed to be “puzzling” and each will require a certain amount of lateral thinking and have proven to be very popular. We have in the past had a number of callers who have been able to calculate the answers to many of these puzzles, so I assure you that there is a logical calculation for these questions. Kind Regards Carrie Tooke. Big Game TV PO Box 5372 London.

Regulatory problem re the above.

Ofcom and Icstis have a duty to request BGTV proof the following:

a) the methodology

b) Would a ‘reasonable man’ be able to solve it?

c) Were presenters on the taped evidence misleading viewers by suggesting that the puzzle was easy?

d) A game becomes a lottery when all skill is removed by leaving only the correct answer on screen, therefore 20% of profits from the two above games alone should have been given to good causes.

By not investigating in this way complainants go around in circles because the game producers use Icstis and Ofcom to protect themselves from revealing methodology and when the regulators receive a complaint they fail to check with broadcaster if all is above board re methodology and that the public are safe to take part.

Similarly, regarding the freedom of choice of viewer/victims:

From oral evidence 10:
Ms Vahl (BBC Radio 4) When I took the Big game television fraud allegations to Icstis, Icstis said, "It says on screen it is going to cost you 75p a go." I said, "You don't know how many times it is going to cost you." They said, "That's your choice."

Re Icstis and choice - The short complaint below shows Ms Tomsett to have complained to Ofcom. If so, did Ofcom request taped evidence to match call volumes with?

Memorandum submitted by Ann Tomsett

I am very glad to see in the Financial Mail on Sunday that you are to chair a committee to discuss Quiz Shows.

One evening I joined in when the prize was £25,000, convinced I had the answer but every call was a negative reply. My Telewest bill was £140, not the usual £60. I had not realised I had phoned so intensely. That night I continued to watch out of interest, but was astonished when the show went off air (after three hours) and no one had won the prize and no answer was given either. It was then that I realised the whole thing was a scam to raise funds for failing TV companies. [emphasis added - Re the words ‘failing tv companies’ please refer back to Rodney Austin’s comments at the beginning of this letter.]

I made inquiries as to where I could complain. I am a person of average intelligence, but there are many who have not even that and I could see great hardship with paying bills coming to the more vulnerable. Especially as Telewest does give out small prizes of between £100 to £800—to cover themselves.

I wrote to Ofcom and told them pretty much what I mentioned here and I am very pleased that letters like mine are being taken up and done something about.

VICTIMS OF SUCH PRACTICES SHOULD CONTACT itvbiggametvvictims@hotmail.co.uk WITH A DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THEY SAW HAPPENING ON ANY LATE NIGHT QUIZ ALONG WITH ANY LETTERS OF COMPLAINT TO REGULATORS



My point to the regulators has always been that viewers’ choice is severely limited because they are/were constantly misled. In the Letter to Miranda doc I describe how victims were allowed to get through until the clue was put on screen. When the clue appeared the presenters would urge people to hit the redial as she/he really wanted to give the money away and move on to the next game. Come on guys, where are all my callers?

Bearing the above in mind, the quiz becomes a problem of who will guard the guardians? Ofcom failed to act intra vires to limit the freedom of ITV/BGTV to the end of safeguarding the public interest –freedom for the pike is death for the minnows.

I would like the information officer to seriously consider requesting that Ofcom and Icstis make ALL complaints on ALL quiz shows available to an independent party – that is if my FOI request fails. Please bear in mind that the Ayre report says that no complaints have been upheld by the regulators. This is despite the evidence given above of taped recordings of misleading quizzes/large scale fraud being forwarded to Ofcom by concerned viewers

Yours sincerely

Bob Winsor

PS I am also concerned by the fact that two BGTV execs are ex-Carlton TV, The controller of ITV2 (piloted BGTV) is also ex-Carlton TV and two Board members of ITV are also ex-Carlton TV. I wonder if this is the reason that ITN Legal and Compliance allowed BGTV to broadcast from the ITN Building unchecked?




Participation TV - hints website

I've been reviewing progress on my research and had some good input in the last week or so.


If you're a player of these shows or just curious take a visit to the Phonequiz Answers website [thanks Greggles Fan].


If you want to see what the Panorama TV programme found out about the methods used look here.
And if you want to know what the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee thought about it all look here.
Oh Yes and don't forget massive fine that Channel 4 has got to pay for Richard and Judy's phone in quiz.



Stories from the front line of Participation TV
So I hope you didn’t think that my research was over..

the survey is done but I’ve had the benefit of input from Robert (Bob) Winsor who worked at Big game TV and who is able to help me understand how the operation of the ITV Play type participation shows work..

Bob kindly spared me some time today and his input will help bring a fresh angle on the research, many of the respondents to my survey were ultimately in favour of the genre but there is another view which I will be able to reflect in my research too.
Bob is letting me use information he has from his lobbyying so expect to see some of that here over the next few days

Bob was impressed with how John Whittingdale MP, Chairman of the Culture select committee has acted but less so of OFCOM, senior figures in ITV, and David Elstien (the one time applicant for the job of DG at the BBC)


If you have input from having played (or worked) on this type of show please let me know, if you do not wish me to use your name no problem I will respect your privacy.
Contact me at ITVPlaysurvey@btopenworld.com


Winners and thanks






Prize-winners

The winners of the luck draw I ran with my research survey have been announced and if you’ve not heard from me you’ve not won anything (apart from a big thank you and a link to my results when I publish).

As I’m still putting things together I’m still interested in anything you’ve got to say about the ITV brand, ITV Play and participation TV – e-mail me ITVPlaysurvey@btopenworld






Last call for survey! and ITV share price drops

Just to let you know that Friday 16th will be the last day for returns to the survey - if you have messages or comments after that fine just e-mail ITVPlaySurvey@btopenworld.com Don't forget there's still the chance for a prize!!!!


On a related subject I read in my paper today that ITV's share price is at disappointing level ( mid 80s) I think it might be a tad undervalued and bid talk might be on the agenda again when SKY's future involvement becomes clearer. Having said that there continue to be structural worries over long term future of TV advertising. One of the few bright spots is likely to be an easing on the issue of product placement in the EU region which could bring fresh cash to the business (it is already a good generator of cash for the US nets).



more survey results in

Nice to be able to report that I’m still getting responses on the survey that I’ve been running and that they’re interesting and varied – if you want to respond and haven’t just click here.

I was intrigued to see a load of my old posts around ITV Play theme here.

My research around the theme of participation TV continues so visit again soon ..



Sir Trevor as Michael's smokescreen?

Okay so back after a bit of a holiday and listening to the media guardian podcast I was somewhat intrigued by the idea that the News at Ten story was very much an example of diversionary tactics by Michael Grade to get people to look at the Story of bringing back some credibility to ITV.
Do you think that this is what the story is about? It’ll be some time before the changes to the schedule are made and it certainly won’t solve all ITV’s problems – if you think this is an exercise in damage limitation or something else drop me a line at ITVPlaySurvey@btopenworld.com

And don’t forget the survey only a couple of weeks now (and you could win a mystery prize if you’re name/e-mail address is drawn out of the sack)



Big day for broadcast news stories (ITV report out..)


It’s not yet clear if ITV head honcho Michael Grade thought the news at the BBC of hundreds of job losses might bury coverage of the report into ITV’s premium call use it hasn’t (see some here) but perhaps not everything has been revealed (is there more on ITV Play? ) – hopefully further information will be revealed as time goes by ..



the Swedish version of ITV Play
Hot on the heels of the recent entry from Youtube for those of you who didn’t see Graham Norton's show on BBC2 on Thursday here’s a presenter on the Swedish equivalent of ITV Play being professional (or not?).




Extension to the online survey - and a youtube..
I’m due to get a little publicity for the ITV Play survey by courtesy of the Voice of the Listener and Viewer, as their publication date is the end of October and the magazine is distributed by post I’ve extended the survey close to 14th November – the prizes will be even better and if you can spare 10-15 minutes before then do give it a try.

Here’s a guy who really does not like ITV Play - if he wants to get in touch I'd like to know the full story (?) - ITVPlaysurvey@btopenworld.com




Trust??
I don't mean to nag but a further reminder to those with an interest in 'Participation TV' I'm running a survey it closes at the end of October and you could win a prize -please complete and do pass on the link to others...


Here's the link http://www.smart-survey.co.uk/v.asp?i=2760yswkw

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Along with the news today that the BBC is going to be losing around 12% of it’s staff (BBC Trust permitting) is news (far more interesting for this research) that the ITV report into their use of Premium rate phone calls is around.

Is there a common factor here in the shape of Michael Grade – who quit as Chair designate of the BBC Trust last year and who is now CEO at the helm of the UK’s pre-eminent commercial TV network?

ITV is of course at the centre of controversy over the SKY holding that meant Virgin Media (NTL at the time) could not be ‘cosied’ up to for a possible merger/takeover. Once the dust has settled on this lot (and don’t forget Channel 4 that the exchequer could be looking for funds) I predict the UK broadcasting business will be looking very different.



Sunday papers..
Broadcasting has a bit of coverage today, the papers I’ve looked at The Sunday Times and the Mail on Sunday of course cover the BBC’s problems – it’s worth noting that there’s a certain amount of glee by the Sunday Times at the BBC’s discomfort.

The Mail on Sunday also continues (in it’s financial section) with coverage over the premium rate shenanigans saying that Michael Grade will not publish all the findings of the report commissioned to look into the matter. The Mail on Sunday has really covered this story extensively and it believes ‘a major head will roll’.


Looking for coverage of ITV Play I came across this website (and some coverage there of ITV Play too) which may be worth a visit if you’d like to learn more about UK ‘gaming’.


The replacement for ITV Play?

I've been posting to the ITV Play forum and gather from another member that ITV Play will be replaced by 'Bingo'


quoting from the Sunday Express (30/9/07) the post goes


ITV is set to replace its controversial late-night premium-rate phone-in competitions with live interactive bingo TV shows. The scandal-hit broadcaster is understood to be finalising details for the show, which could be announced as early as next month ... To play, viewers would download cards from the internet and use them to play games that would be screened during the evening. The Bingo TV show will replace ITV Play, the firm's discredited late-night phone-in programme which will be off the air by the end of nest year.

This seems to fit in with the recent PartyGaming deal but other forums are taking this story with a pinch of salt.

I'm not sure if this would satisfy viewers of current participation TV on ITV or provide a 'whiter than white' replacement..

Comments or inside news please to ITVPLaySurvey@btopenworld.com



A break from 'Play'

Somewhat away from participation TV I can’t deny some interest in the SKY owning 17.9% of ITV story, sometime ago an experienced commentator wrote of an end game where ITV sold/bartered it’s share of ITV to RTL and became the controlling interest/owner of C5 – are we moving closer to that?

And while I’m straying from my usual call for responses to the ITV Play survey another story that grabbed me was BBC Worldwide’s purchase of Lonely Planet –How does this work (apart from fuelling calls for BBC to be sold off?), is this out of scope of the BBC Trust ?



bye-bye Glitterball

My understanding is that last night was the last Glitterball under the ITV Play umbrella and that ITV Play will now be ‘Make Your Play’ only, which I think is rather sad as if I had to choose between the two I’d opt for Glitterball.

Last night I briefly watched Quiz Call which airs on C5, it looked (on first viewing) as a somewhat inferior product with a single host and answers being revealed by removing a sticky overlay (rather than any fancy electronics) the presenter though seemed characteristically upbeat and the game did feature some good ‘extras’ such as a period where callers could offer two answers for the price of one. On a non-scientific feel it looked like more callers and winners. The game I saw being played was for viewers to name children’s TV programmes.

Views on Participation TV? Either complete the survey or send an e-mail to ITVPlaysurvey@btopenworld.com

I’m putting together a list of characteristics/traits I’ve noted of the format which I’ll add during the week for comments and additions by you…



Thanks so far ..

I’m encouraged by the responses so far for the survey I’ve been running and will be following up with those who have kindly said they’ll help me further.

If any one can pass the survey on to those who are so far under represented (perhaps even help them respond) I’d be very grateful. My feeling is, having watched quite a few of the shows that a sizeable part of the audience are ladies who are over 40, these are in many ways not typical internet users and I’m concerned that I might not be getting their views- reports show they are keen online gamers so please respond if you fit this description or if not encourage those who do fit it to respond.

Also of great interest are those viewers who feel that they have been enticed to spend more than they can afford – if you have stories or know people who have please do get in touch (all is confidential). E-mail ITVPlaySurvey@btopenworld.com

Thanks for your help so far and be assured that the findings will be made available to those who are interested but individual responses will remain confidential.

Here’s the link to the survey

Or cut and paste the text below into your browser

http://www.smart-survey.co.uk/v.asp?i=2760yswkw

And here’s a story about the future online presence of similar offerings..




GMTV's massive fine

So far the companies around the ‘phone-ins’ seem to be taking the rap for the deceits and frauds. The Mail on Sunday’s Financial supplement has been consistently anti ITV Play and this week it notes that William Van Rest is ‘still hanging on to job’ he used to be with the rather aptly named Optimistic Entertainment.

News that the company responsible for running the phone ins for GMTV (Opera) was hit by a fine of £250,000 and that GMTV have had a £2m fine imposed on them today is unlikely to make Mr Van Rest feel any more secure at ITV.




Early ITV Play recollections please ..

Finished off my viewing of 18th September show 140 callers in around 4 hours, £3,100 in prize money calls per minute going as low as 73. The big winners were the ladies

I was coming round to think that ITV Play was harmless fun and it may be that now the games are relatively benign but I get the feeling that it was not always so and was interested to find a blog entry from August 2006 and some comments that it had generated here

Perhaps ITV have improved things but how was it when the ‘service’ first started – comments please to ITVPLAYSurvey@btopenworld.com



Another Boys' night on 'Make your Play'


So looking at the ‘Make Your Play’ show of Tuesday 18th September, another of those ‘boys’ nights’ featuring Ben Baldwin and Russ Spencer (he of recent UK Eurovision group Scooch).

What I’ve noticed on this one is that there are far more mentions (particularly from Russ) of ITV, mainly allied to the ITV.com website but unusually mentions of things like Coronation Street and other ITV programming.
The opening ‘Stack’ which lasted two and a half hours was PUBLIC and toilet and convenience were both popular answers. I’m not sure if the fact that the school holidays are now over but there seem to be less callers who are under 18.

Oh yes and that Blue Peter cat and the worry that meant it was not going to be called Cookie, have a look at what the Guardian says but it seems Socks too has more than one meaning too…
Dont forget -Survey - great prizes if you can spare 5 minutes or so and you've views on participation TV give it a go (you could be a prize winner).



Call to Action and Trust..

Although not directly linked to this research it’s been interesting to see the BBC drawing further skeletons out of the corporation’s murky innards. The BBC in requesting votes and then using the money generated (above that taken by the telephone operator) is, to me on shaky ground, I do not believe (personally) that they can decide where/if this money should go to a particular charity. So I think I know one possibility for the ‘cookie’ worry – what do you think? (The answer will be here tomorrow.)


Participation TV is full of these and here's one from me...


Thanks to those who have helped with the survey very grateful if you can suggest to other UK TV viewers of ITV play (and similar shows) that their views are of interest and could win them a prize.



Just to confirm independence

I noticed today a blog entry that appeared to consider that the survey I'm running (and funding and collating and ..) is connected with ITV - please be assured that it is not. I'm keen to get input from people who like the programmes, those who don't and definitely those who have had bad experiences. In fact I'm interested in the genré generally so channel 5 watchers and those of other channels please; views would be appreciated too.

I don't want to draw conclusions too early or from too small a sample but results will be available to those who want them after it's closed. (e-mail ITVPlaySurvey@btopenworld.com)


Interesting post here too.



Another 'Make your Play' dissected


Today I’ve gone through the Make your Play of 24th July, fairly standard show with just over 200 calls taken to air, 3 games (mainly word stack of Black) and prize money of £2,750 (4 male and 2 female winners).
Hosts were Ben Baldwin and Zo Christien.
Call rates varied from a peak of around 1,600 down to just over 100 per minute.
There was caller from Spain and a rare example of swearing (by a winner), I also note how rarely callers were able to moan about difficulties getting through.I have one more Make your Play to analyse (it'll be for tomorrow’s Tuesday 18th September ) and then I’ll start some more detailed work on the effect on the ITV brand – don’t forget to fill in the survey (HERE) if you haven’t yet .




Getting input.. (and links again)

It’s been gratifying that so many people are able to offer time and advice including people who are not keen on participation TV.

So far I’ve been going through Myspace users, hopefully I’ve not offended too many, I’ll be targeting Facebook next.
A big thanks to Linked in users who have responded with useful tips.
Reports are that ITV is going to improve its programming I’m not sure if this means that there’s no future for ITV Play – let me know your view
ITVPLAYsurvey@btopenworld.com

I don’t think that news of Grade’s bonus will endear him to the employees who are to lose their jobs or shareholders who are awaiting a real improvement on the company’s profitability if though in a year's time things are looking better the cost will be worth it.

And here’s the survey link again or for cutting and pasting..

http://www.smart-survey.co.uk/v.asp?i=2760yswkw



What will replace ITV play??

A reminder that those who have 5 -15 minutes and are interested in this subject could help me by taking part in the survey here and also passing the link on to others.
http://www.smart-survey.co.uk/v.asp?i=2760yswkw

Folks who respond and put some contact details in (at e-mail stage) – get the chance to win one of at least 5 prizes, I’ll also be happy to share my findings when the survey closes.

News that ITV intend to cease this sort of programme adds further interest as perhaps there is room for an improved offering to launch or for something similar online (what do you think – ITVPlaysurvey@btopenworld.com )
We will have to wait and see how the 4 hours or so that is used by ITV is recycled (Teleshopping or repeats and conventional advertising are both possibilities).

If any of you have ideas on how to get more people filling in the survey please also e-mail me (I'm sure another prize can be found for effective ideas!)

More tomorrow



Another singular effort from Ben and early feedback on the survey
Ben's Solo
So another piece of ‘content’ analysis around the Make your Play strand this time it was Monday 10th September and another solo effort from Ben Baldwin.

Notable points:

* As a result of sports coverage the show was the shortest I’ve viewed coming in at around 2 and a half hours.
* The prizes awarded were at an all time low (again for the shows I’ve watched) at £600 (split between just two winners).
* Around half the callers to air were male and both winners were mail.

Now I applaud Ben’s stamina but to my mind 2 and a half hours solo TV is going it a bit and I think a second host would have made all the difference.

Early survey results

Some survey results in which is very encouraging, few points
> the comments and free text are fantastic,
> I won’t be able to enter you in the prize ‘draw’ if you don’t provide contact details –you can add e-mail or put contact details in the comments section,
> If you can direct viewers to the survey that would be really helpful, here’s the link
http://www.smart-survey.co.uk/v.asp?i=2760yswkw
Or click here or above right on this at the survey link on this webpage !






Home  
 


Link to us




RSS Feed of new blogs                                                   Home        Feed Map        Submit Feed      Link to Us       Contact