http://www.mad.co.uk/Main/Comments/Articlex/c6032fd25e10401e8053145cee39c63d/Who...

Who quizzes the quiz master?

26 January 2007

<<
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”.”

[...]

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”.

[...]

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.

>>