UK Television Apparently Has Swindled Viewers Out of Millions And Millions of Pounds Via Crooked High-Cost Telephone Voting Schemes – Aren’t People Supposed To Be Thrown In Jail For That Much Larceny?

Philip M. Stone - July 27, 2007

The UK television telephone voting scandal has reached such proportions that even the prime minister had to address the issue in Parliament and say the industry needs to clean up its act, fast. And the first head on the bloc was the managing director of GMTV, the national breakfast time commercial franchise, that now admits that viewers had spent £35 million ($70 million, €51 million) on competitions over four years in which they had absolutely no chance to win.

Indeed revenue from these kinds of scandals have become so important to UK stations  that since GMTV stopped the practice in April it says it has lost about £10 million ($20 million, €14.6 million) – about its yearly profits.

The first senior executive to now have fallen on his sword is Paul Corley, GMTV managing director. He explained, “It is important that people take responsibility when mistakes are made that threaten the trust of our viewers.” GMTV, owned 75% by ITV, the UK’s largest commercial broadcaster, and the Walt Disney Company owning the remainder, did not say whether Corley is getting any severance money.

Similar swizzles have occurred at the BBC, ITV, Channel Four and elsewhere and the money at issue in some cases is potentially huge, let alone the dishonesty. GMTV says it will make retribution to those who ask, it is making a special prize draw in which 250 viewers will win £10,000 each,  and it will make a £250,000 ($500,000,€365,000) contribution to charity. But if everyone wanted their money back and it came to that £35 million that GMTV is now talking about then that is going to be a double-digit percentage claim on ITV’s annual profit.

And the broadcaster is not out of the woods even with all that. Ofcom, the offical regulator of UK televsion, has started an inquiry and it’s believed it will levy a huge fine, perhaps around 5% of annual turnover – about £4 million ($8 million, €6 million).

The regulator asked Richard Ayre, the BBC’s former news deputy, to investigate the entire telephone scandal and he has handed in recommendations that Ofcom says it will probably enforce in order  “to send the strongest possible message”  to broadcasters. Those new rules mean that new license obligations will hold broadcasters “directly responsible for consumer protection,” and that any further premium-rate telephone competitions and voting will require a third-party verification that all is well.

The scandal reached such proportions that Prime Minister Gordon Brown was asked in Parliament what he was going to do about it. Brown, who rather has his hands full these days with security issues, the war in Iraq, and half of England looking as though it is under flood water, said he is going to take the time to hold urgent talks with Ofcom and his department of culture, media and sport which oversees television, to find ways to restore the public’s faith in UK broadcasting.

“This is a very serious matter because it affects the confidence that people have in television stations and those people who are running competitions and running telephone lines where they are relying on people in the general public to have confidence in what they are doing.” But he continued, “It is a matter for those authorities to sort it out and they should do it quickly.”

So what is behind the fuss? UK television has been very fond of inviting viewers particpation on various programs by having them vote who should win, for instance,  a contest or to call to enter a contest in which the telephone contestant  might get a car or a lot of cash. But these are no 800 numbers offered for a free call but rather telephone numbers that  usually cost much more than a local call – in the UK they call them premium rate.  In GMTV’s case each of the swindle calls cost anywhere from 25 pence ($.50 cents, €0.37) to £1.80 ($3.60, €2.60) depending on the contest and when you multiply those numbers by some 25 million calls you see where the £35 million pound figure comes from.

It is this basic dishonesty that has rocked UK televsion and its viewers, and Ofcom has even imposed its first fine against the BBC for such irregularities.  The BBC’s deputy director general, Mark Byford, told a Parliamentary committee this week the broadcaster is implementing a “zero telerance” policy towards further incidents of viewer deception. He said three senior staff have been suspended and there may be more to come. He said the BBC is still investigating whether there are incidents that have occurred that have not been reported. “If we get cases in the future I can confirm to you in no uncertain terms they will be judged as absolutely grave and in a context where we won’t tolerate it.” All staff are to go through a new mandatory training on trust.

Dishonesty problems come from independent producers, too. The BBC has already fallen over itself apologizing to the Queen for a trailer of an upcoming program from an independent producer,  that said it showed her  angrily storming out of a photo shoot  when in fact the video was showing her walking to the shoot. And then Endemol, of Big Brother fame, says it is now investigating whether scenes in its “Killer Shark Live” series shown on the UK’s channel Five  were actually taped, and not live. “Some of the shots were filmed a day before, some a week before, but none of it was live as the program clearly pretended it was,” a production crew member told The Guardian.

And, of course, then there are the advertisers. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has just nailed a L’Oreal ad featuring Penepole Cruz for being misleading.  She was in an ad for L’Oreal Telescopic mascara that claimed it could increase eye lash length by up to 60%. Trouble is L’Oreal added some fake eye lashes to fill gaps between Cruz’ natural eye lashes.

L’Oreal admitted adding the false eyelashes but said it didn’t matter, it still held its product will increase eyelash length. ASA didn’t buy that, saying “In the absense of a disclaimer stating that Penelope Cruz was wearing some individual false lashes adeded to her natural lashes, and because the ad did not make clear that the claim referred to an increase in the ‘appearance’ of lash length (rather than actual growth) , the ads could mislead. It ordered future showings to contain the disclaimer that false  lashes were being used, and that the 60% claim applied just to ‘appearance’.

So it seems no matter where in the UK TV industry one looks there is a strong need to take a long scrub with Mr. Clean, or Mr. Proper as they call him in French speaking countries. Either way, the name fits.

ftm Follow Up & Comments