Ofcom Broadcast Code Consultation

(21-11-2009 11:43 )TheWatcher Wrote:  

(21-11-2009 11:23 )Censorship :-( Wrote:  

(21-11-2009 05:28 )vila Wrote:  SNIP

I don't care what Mandy and Campbell did or said, the programme I saw had no saving grace - it wasn't in the least bit clever, witty or 'arty' and the language in it had the potential to cause far more offence to a far greater number of people than all the babe channels put together.

In your opinion; as it happens, I quite like "The Thick of IT". However, I don't think pointing out material that you think has the potential to cause greater offence is the way to go about things; Yes, I know you are merely illustrating the double standards of Ofcon, but as this is Ofcon we're talking about, it will only give them ideas , and do we really want even more censorship in wider UK broadcasting? It’s bad enough now, IMO!

I actually saw about 10 minutes of this program while flicking through the channels recently. Never seen it before.
While I was not offended, I was very surprised at the language that was used and would be very surprised if a lot of complaints were not received about it.

Ofcon's latest bulletin shows 2 complaints against "The Thick of It", for 'offensive' language; they were not upheld.

Yet 1 complaint towards one of the babe shows is, hmmm I wonder why?

Probably because it’s too much trouble going after one of the big boys when you only have 2 complaints as they know they would loose, but not so with the babe channels it seems.

Apologies in advance for a long post. This is a one-off !
Positively my last word on the subject.

The Participation 3 Ofcom consultation document is about ways of controlling Babe channels that use Premium Rate phone/text services.

The consultation document IS confusing because it puts forward 3 different proposals that seem to directly contradict each other. It tightens rules at the same time as loosening them.

A brief outline of the proposals is given below, followed by a description of what each survey question means and how to respond to the survey. It’s important for everyone who enjoys Babe channels to respond to the survey, because some of the options could close them down and there are small organised groups who would like nothing better. If no-one speaks up in favour of Babe channels but a hundred people speak against they could be closed.

Responses must be in no later than 15 January 2010 and can be online, by email or by post. Your name can be marked “Confidential” and you do not need to give your home address.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/...pationtv3/

What’s The Problem ?
Under Ofcom rules and European ones adverts have to be kept separate from “Editorial”. Babe shows are paid for by links to Premium Rate (telephone) Services (“PRS”) which is why phone numbers are plastered over the screens. If the ads stop the shows will stop. Channels could get round this by registering as Teleshopping – this allows non-stop adverts. But here’s the catch – the Broadcasting Code allows sexual content on free-to-air channels, but the Advertising Code bans it. So under current rules the channels can have sexual content OR adverts but not both. Or they could go encrypted, which would also kill the shows.

Last time round, in Participation 2, Ofcom was putting forward changes that would force the channels to tone down or encrypt or close. Amazingly Ofcom have come back with another option. Not only does it seem to allow the channels to carry on, Ofcom are recommending it.

The Confusing Bit
What is confusing is that TV content is governed by the Broadcasting Code OR the Advertising Code, but apparently not both. “Editorial” material is subject to the Broadcasting Content, and is more or less banned from advertising in shows – very limited use of PRS is allowed, but not much, and sponsorship at the end of a show. The Advertising Code applies to the short ad breaks between shows, but also to Teleshopping. Stuff allowed in Editorial – a Billy Piper sex scene – is not allowed in Teleshopping or Spot ads.

The Proposals
Ofcom propose slightly tightening the Broadcasting Code to make it clearer when Premium Rate Services are allowed and when they are not. A vote to name the puppy or keep Jedward would be allowed because that directly contributes to content. A quick quiz on lunch time TV is allowed because talking about it takes up a small fraction of the show. But they want to ban presenters continually saying “Ring in at £1-50 a minute” because the entire show ends up being about that.

So Ofcom want to BAN heavy use of PRS in the Broadcasting Code for Editorial type shows. This is part of the “tightening consumer protection” that they mention in their press release.

At the same time they want to alter the Advertising Code to ALLOW adverts to use PRS in a sexual context. But they want limits on this to stop teatime ITV becoming a babe show. Sexual PRS will only be allowed on free-to-air channels in the Adult section of the Electronic Programme Guide (or encrypted channels). If it can’t be locked out it’s not allowed. And it will only be allowed at night.

As far as I can see that’s good news for Sky viewers, but bad news for Freeview viewers because Freeview cannot lock out a category. Again, a press release could make this sound like additional restrictions because it is – right now babe content with PRS adverts can be shown on ANY channel as long as the content is tame enough. The new advertising rules will limit sexual ads to Adult channels.

The same sort of thing applies to Psychic channels. These will only be allowed in the Specialist section of the EPG. These will be harder hit as right now some “lifestyle” channels (women’s shows) buy in Psychic feeds at night. That will have to stop.

Interestingly Ofcom quotes research saying 1% of viewers – mostly men – regularly watch Babe shows, and 3% - mostly women – regularly watch Psychic channels. That’s just the regular viewers. That translates into 2% of men – 1 in 50 – or 500,000 men and 4-6% of women, between 1,000,000 and 1,500,000 women depending on the male-female mix.

Ofcom also recognises that “viewers value” the channels and forcing shows to close or encrypt would result in “loss of choice”. Suddenly Ofcom seems to have recognised that there is genuine demand for free-to-air Babe channels from ordinary decent blokes.

The Options
In broad terms Ofcom is asking about 4 options:
Option 1 – keep (and enforce) full restrictions. This would force babe channels to loose advertising money from PRS or go soft, or encrypt
Option 2 – lifting the current Advertising Code restrictions. This will not happen, it is against EU law, but they have to ask.
Option 3 – allowing sexual PRS in spot advertising only – pushing babe channels into 30 second ad slots in the middle of Miss Marple.
Option 4 – allowing sexual PRS as teleshopping in the Adult section of the EPG late at night.
Ofcom recommend Option 4. This is a very condensed summary, and anyone who is unsure should check the actual consultation document. Similar options apply to Psychic services.

The Questions
Ofcom is looking for answers to 4 questions linked to the Options. Make it easy for them and stick to the question format. Unfortunately the questions do not make sense unless read with the long consultation document. It is not essential to answer every point – 2b and 2c are the most important. Please use your own words and opinions. Here are the Questions and some explanation:

Question 1:
a) Do you agree with Ofcom’s assessment of those stakeholders likely to be affected by changes to the regulatory framework for Adult Chat and Psychic PTV services?
Ofcom looks at the effect of each option on each stakeholder – viewers, non-viewers, broadcasters, etc, and decides that Option 4 has the least impact. Up to you if you agree, or think it worth replying on this point.

b) Do you agree with our understanding of the industry and operators?
Ofcom estimates where the money goes and number of callers. Up to you if you think it is worth replying to this point.

Question 2:
Do you agree with our analysis of the options available for regulation of the promotion of premium rate services of a sexual nature, and
a) that on the basis of options, a change to the existing rules appears merited?
Ofcom say Euro rules force them to separate Editorial and Advertising. Up to you if you think it is worth debating this.

b) of the options presented, Option 4 meets the regulatory duties and suggests least potential impact on stakeholders?
THIS IS THE IMPORTANT BIT.
If you are unsure what Option 4 is, say you support “an option that allows premium rate services of a sexual nature to be broadcast, in the evening, in the Adult section of the Electronic Programme Guide provided this is co-ordinated with a relaxation of the Advertising Code”. Do you think this will keep the most people happy, making it less likely that non-babe fans will accidentally tune in, letting babe fans enjoy free-to-view shows and letting the broadcasters make a profit ? Say that this meets the regulations, if you think it does.

c) that the scheduling restrictions of 9pm to 5:30am and requirements for labelling and EPG position under Option 4 offer appropriate protection for viewers?
Well, do you think that limiting hours and only allowing shows in the Adult section is a good option ?

Question 3:
Do you agree with our analysis of the options available for regulation of the promotion of live personal psychic services, and
a) on the basis of the options, that a change to the existing rules appears merited?
Refers to Psychic TV – see above.

b) of the options presented, Option 4 meets the regulatory duties and suggests least potential impact on stakeholders?
Refers to Psychic TV – see above.

c) that the restriction to specific live personal psychic services and the requirements for labelling and EPG position provide appropriate protection for viewers?
Refers to Psychic TV – see above.

Question 4:
a) Do you agree with the principles identified for changes to the Advertising Code rules on promotion of PRS of a sexual nature (rule 11.1.2) and psychic practices (rule 15.5)?
THIS IS IMPORTANT TOO
These are the changes that will permit Premium Rate Services on Adult-Chat “advertising” channels. If you support the idea then say so.

b) Do you agree with the wording of the proposed rules? If not, please suggest alternative wording.
Rule 11.1.2 is copied out below. See part 1ii in particular.
So do you think this wording will allow your favourite channels to carry on ? If you do, say so. If you don’t then say you oppose the change and why. Ofcom are unlikely to completely change the wording at this stage, but might take notice if a drafting error is pointed out.

Here is the new Adult-Chat part of the Advertising Code:
Proposal for revised rule on PRS of a sexual nature in Advertising Code
(to replace current rule 11.1.2)
Telecommunications-based sexual entertainment services are voice, text, image or video services of a sexual nature that are made available to consumers via a direct response mechanism and are delivered over electronic communication networks.
1) Advertising for telecommunications-based sexual entertainment services is only acceptable on:
i) Encrypted elements of adult entertainment channels, or
ii) Channels that are licensed for the purpose of the promotion of the services and are appropriately positioned and labelled within an “Adult” or similar section of an Electronic Programme Guide.
2) Advertising for telecommunications-based sexual entertainment services must not be broadcast before 9pm or after 5:30am.
Note: Encrypted elements of adult channels are interpreted with reference to rule 1.24 of the Broadcasting Code.
-- END QUOTE --

Consultation details can be found at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/...pationtv3/
Replies can be sent online, by email or by post but must be in no later than 15 January 2010.
Your details can be kept confidential (within limits) and you do not need to give your home address, just an email address.

Here's what real people in the real world find offensive, not twats who go looking for things that upset them:

Ofcom audience complaints 17 November 2009 to 23 November 2009:

Dispatches, Channel 4, Mon 16 November 2009 : 31
Harry Hill's TV Burp, ITV1, Sat, 21 November 2009 : 12
I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here! ITV1, Sun 15 November 2009 : 23
I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here! ITV1, Weds 18 November 2009 : 35
I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here! ITV1, Thurs 19 November 2009 : 19
I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here! ITV1, Fri 20 November 2009 : 15
I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here! ITV1, Sat 21 November 2009 : 14
I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here! ITV1, Sun 22 November 2009 : 10
The X Factor, ITV1, Sat 14 November, 2009 : 12
The X Factor, ITV1, Sat 21 November, 2009 : 12
The X Factor, ITV1, Sun 22 November, 2009 :10

So in just 1 week thats 162 complaints against 10 ITV shows.

Just wondering if the consultation document needs to be displayed more prominently in some way?

Don't know if it would be possible to link it across all the individual channel discussion threads. Seems to me that it's quite important that as many people as possible respond to this and looking at the number of views of this thread there are just over 9,000 compared to 17,000 for something like which babe has the best arse.

I know which thread should have the most views and it's not that one!!

(30-11-2009 14:13 )MARCCE Wrote:  Just wondering if the consultation document needs to be displayed more prominently in some way?

Don't know if it would be possible to link it across all the individual channel discussion threads. Seems to me that it's quite important that as many people as possible respond to this and looking at the number of views of this thread there are just over 9,000 compared to 17,000 for something like which babe has the best arse.

I know which thread should have the most views and it's not that one!!

Yes i agree , it needs to be brought to the attention of everyone on this forum

(30-11-2009 14:13 )MARCCE Wrote:  Just wondering if the consultation document needs to be displayed more prominently in some way?

Don't know if it would be possible to link it across all the individual channel discussion threads. Seems to me that it's quite important that as many people as possible respond to this and looking at the number of views of this thread there are just over 9,000 compared to 17,000 for something like which babe has the best arse.

I know which thread should have the most views and it's not that one!!

Indeed.

I personally think it would be of great benefit for a rep from the PTBA to sign up and stress the importance of forum members participating in this consultation. And also the PTBA could provide a plain English translation which would maximise responses.

This thread was started as a suggestion: http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=13581

It seems strange that certain broadcasters make demands that content featuring Amanda Rendall and a lollipop are removed immediately, yet they seem unconcerned about the ramifications of this consultation.

Is it my imagination, or is there very little involvement on this forum from the actual program makers, rather than the babes. Plenty of mentions of shows and some pleasant banter, but almost nothing about how we can help keep the shows going.[/align]

I'm all for harder content, but where are the questions on that link dude?

(02-12-2009 01:15 )DanVox Wrote:  Is it my imagination, or is there very little involvement on this forum from the actual program makers, rather than the babes. Plenty of mentions of shows and some pleasant banter, but almost nothing about how we can help keep the shows going.[/align]

I made a point about this earlier in the thread (post: #64)... If the channels are making enough money, then most won't be that bothered about it.

Problem is some people love to complicate things that are straightforward, and OFCOM is an extreme example of this... Most people are not gonna bother going through all their bullshit rules, regulations & consultations.