http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23387772-details/ITV+suspends+premium+rate+services+after+phone-in+rows/article.do

<<
ITV is pulling off air all of its premium rate interactive phone-ins following damaging allegations about viewers being ripped off.

The broadcaster has decided to suspend all these services - which includes phone-in votes and competitions on shows like Dancing on Ice and This Morning - while an independent review is carried out to see if viewers are getting a fair deal when they ring in.

[...]

This weekend ITV was facing accusations that viewers of Ant and Dec's Saturday Night Takeaway had been encouraged to call and text the ITV1 show using £1 a time phone lines to enter its "grab the ads" contest - even after the contestants had already been selected.

Only last week ITV admitted that viewers who had voted on The X Factor were overcharged by £200,000. ITV revealed that Sky Digital users who voted using the red button on their remote controls had been overcharged by 15p.

Before that the BBC was accused of misleading viewers after allegations that cookery show Saturday Kitchen had encouraged viewers to call in to the "live" show, even though it was a prerecorded a week earlier.

In one instance, the cookery show asked viewers to vote for which of two meals Eamonn Holmes should eat. But the show was pre-recorded and Holmes was presenting his slot on BBC Radio Five Live at the time.

[...]
>>


~Edited by bbb_uk: Amended title to take into consideration the many other broadcasters' PRS being called into question

Paxman asks head of ICSTIS (BBC 2  Newsnight 5 March 07), why he did not regulate ITV’s use of premium rate numbers in programs, before ITV itself acted.

What a 'gov puppet' he seemed to be (Sir Alan, that is) and his final 'big idea' to really come down hard - he is thinking up a new name, ICSTIS is not catchy enough!!  God help us all!

kk wrote on Mar 5^th, 2007 at 11:35pm:

Paxman asks head of ICSTIS (BBC 2  Newsnight 5 March 07), why he did not regulate ITV’s use of premium rate numbers in programs, before ITV itself acted.

Michael Grade, ITV's new chairman, was 'Humphrey'd' on the Radio 4 Today programme this morning. His mumbled defence included a claim that the phone providers are partly to blame but declined to state how much profit ITV makes from each call. He also affirmed they would restart when their audit was complete

You can listen to the interview at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_6420000/newsid_6425800?redirect=6425823.stm&news=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1&bbram=1&nbram=1

Now Five has suspended these 'services', see here.

Thing is that these are the sorts of companies that one has faith in, especially when you compare them to other less known (smaller) companies.

Dave wrote on Mar 8^th, 2007 at 8:16pm:

Now Five has suspended these 'services', see here. Thing is that these are the sorts of companies that one has faith in, especially when you compare them to other less known (smaller) companies.

A link from the webpage you quoted led to other story about BBC's Saturday Kitchen. There was a quote from the BBC that:

"neither the programme makers nor the BBC profits from phonelines on the programme."

Can this go unchallenged?

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/arts_entertainment/media/radio+station+quizzed+over+phone+services/285347

"Another twist in the spiralling scandals of premium rate quiz calls - now radio joins the controversy failing to tell listeners about the overwhelming costs of texting in.

Following a Channel 4 News investigation, the regulator is examining whether LBC - part of the giant Chrysalis group has misled listeners - over how much text and phone calls cost."

I've amended the title of this post to reflect the fact that it not isn't just ITV's PRS that are under investigation but other broadcasters as well, including it appears Radio broadcasters now!

Was watching Saturday Kitchen on the BBC this morning, and they had a competion for Comic Relief, Calls cost 25p with at least 8p going to Comic Relief.  I sent an email to the BBC asking what happens to the over two thirds that does not go to CR. and how much the BBC makes out of the calls to CR .  Just got the bland auto reply, so none the wiser.

Make a second request quoting Freedom of Information Act. You must give an address for the reply.

kk wrote on Mar 10^th, 2007 at 5:04pm:

Make a second request quoting Freedom of Information Act. You must give an address for the reply.

Done!!

jimjim wrote on Mar 10^th, 2007 at 4:30pm:

Just got the bland auto reply, so none the wiser.

Was it an auto reply as in something along the lines thank you for your query, we will respond within x...?

It seems to me that the reply was very quick which would indicate that its just an automated response saying they'll deal with your query and get in touch later, etc.

bbb_uk wrote on Mar 10^th, 2007 at 6:00pm:

jimjim wrote on Mar 10th, 2007 at 4:30pm: Just got the bland auto reply, so none the wiser. Was it an auto reply as in something along the lines thank you for your query, we will respond within x...? It seems to me that the reply was very quick which would indicate that its just an automated response saying they'll deal with your query and get in touch later, etc.

No mention of getting in touch, "Due to the size of the mailbag we are very sorry that we are unable to enter any indivual correspondence"

jimjim wrote on Mar 10^th, 2007 at 8:02pm:

No mention of getting in touch, "Due to the size of the mailbag we are very sorry that we are unable to enter any indivual correspondence"

That's very rude so good on you for doing an FOI.  I would have mentioned in the FOI that if they had bothered to at least email you back instead of basically saying thank you for your email but get lost you're not going to get a reply from us because we can't be bothered, then an FOI wouldn't have been needed.

Interesting piece in the Telegraph yesterday with a pie chart showing where the money from a 75p per minute number goes - 52p is straight profit for the TV company running the scam!

Caught a fleeting glance of what looked like a 'larger section' of small-print at bottom of screen on 'This Morning' competition phone-in, today.
The last line appeared to say that calls made after the closing time would not count - BUT may still be charged???

Is this a way to get round the original scam, by saying you can still be charged after it's all over?

Or has my eyesight let me down?

firestop wrote on Mar 13^th, 2007 at 1:02pm:

Caught a fleeting glance of what looked like a 'larger section' of small-print at bottom of screen on 'This Morning' competition phone-in, today. The last line appeared to say that calls made after the closing time would not count - BUT may still be charged???

But surely when the lines are closed, they should not answer. Either they should be engaged or just ring out or another non-chargeable state.

Those late night TV quiz shows are an excuse to print money. Telling callers that "lines are closed now" may not stop them calling anyway.

Agree, Dave.
Was hoping to get confirmation of what I think I saw, from someone else, as I only noticed the 'terms' at the last minute and couldn't bear the thought of continuing to watch till it was put on again (was Channel hopping at the time!).
It was only that the 'block' of 'terms' seemed larger than normal for these things that caught my eye and I quickly read them.
Anyone else confirm (or otherwise?).

firestop wrote on Mar 13^th, 2007 at 1:02pm:

Caught a fleeting glance of what looked like a 'larger section' of small-print at bottom of screen on 'This Morning' competition phone-in, today. The last line appeared to say that calls made after the closing time would not count - BUT may still be charged???

I agree with Dave.  The very least they could do is put a non-chargable message on there stating that the competition or whatever has now shut.

Try and get confirmation of this as surely it's not right and I would expect (well hope) that ICSTIS would agree with us on this matter.

Even "Blue Peter" is in on this:

Blue Peter sorry for fake contest

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6449919.stm

<<
The BBC has apologised for faking the results of a competition on children's programme Blue Peter last November.
A technical problem meant that viewers calling in for a competition were not getting through to the studio.

A member of staff asked a child who was visiting the show to pose as a caller and answer a question live on air.

BBC Children's controller Richard Deverell called the incident a "serious error of judgement". The BBC did not make money from calls to the programme.

Viewers who did ring in were charged 10p per call, with 3.5p going to children's charity Unicef.

However, the child who posed as the winning caller took home a prize chosen from a selection of children's toys.
[...]

Blue Peter will broadcast an apology to viewers on Wednesday's edition of the show. A winner will also be chosen from the callers who contacted the programme on 27 November, 2006.

"I would like to apologise unequivocally to viewers, to all the children who took part in the competition," said Mr Deverell.

"We have already apologised directly to the child involved and her family for this incident."

A freephone number - 08000 565 363 - is available for viewers who took part in the competition and would like more information.

[...]
>>

idb wrote on Mar 14^th, 2007 at 12:52pm:

Even "Blue Peter" is in on this: Blue Peter sorry for fake contest http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6449919.stm

They've all learned so very well from our politicians, haven't they?  

"Is there a chance we can make a few bob on the quiet here without the punters realising it?"  

"Yes."

"OK, go for it.  But keep it quiet"

kk wrote on Mar 10^th, 2007 at 5:04pm:

Make a second request quoting Freedom of Information Act. You must give an address for the reply.

Recieved a reply today from the BBC  r.e  FOI

"I attach an explanatory note about BBC's use of 0870, 0845, 0800 and premium rate  telephone numbers.  You will see from the note that the BBC does not make any money for itself from audience phone calls.

The explanatory note is also available on our Publication Scheme under the Organisation & management section: www.bbc.uk/foi

Please note that the information you requested is not covered by the Freedom of information Act 2000 ("The Act").  Your request falls outside the scope of the Act because the BBC and the other public service broadcasters are covered by the act only in respect of information held for purposes "other than those of journalism, art or literature" (see Schedule 1 Part V1 of the Act).  We are not therefore obliged to supply information held for purposes of creating the BBC's output  (i.e. our programmes) or information that supports and is closely associated with these creative activites.

The BBC does not offer an internal review when the information requested is not covered by the Act.  If you with our dicision you can appeal to the Information Commissioner."

Well that's as clear as mud, what a complete waste of time !!!

The highly competent minister, Ms Jowell, is now on the case, so I'm sure everything will be resolved considering her outstanding track record with telephone scamming:

http://www.nma.co.uk/Articles/32420/Tessa+Jowell+looks+into+premium+rate+complaints.html

<<
Tessa Jowell looks into premium rate complaints

Tougher laws may be brought in against broadcasters who exploit viewers with premium rate mobile marketing campaigns, culture secretary Tessa Jowell said today.

The cabinet minister said that if regulators Ofcom and Icstis failed to satisfy her she would look at giving them more legal powers.

In an interview published in The Times, Jowell said she was taking complaints of misleading and exploitative phone-ins seriously.

[...]

Ms Jowell said: "My message to the broadcasters is that they must never forget the level of trust that people hold in public service broadcasters and you lose that trust and confidence at your peril.

"So any activity that exploits people - which extracts from them more money than they intend to spend - I think has got to be clamped down on very hard.

"Let's judge whether the existing legislation gives Ofcom and Icstis enough regulatory control and, if not, let's review it, because there is clearly a problem that has been growing because of an enthusiasm for a certain type of television," she added.
>>