Do we give the channels too hard a time?

When the channels are testing the water (for whatever reason), we're the first to sing their praises, but then when the inevitable Ofcom warnings and fines hit their doormats they have to retreat into their shells. The result? They get bombarded with complaints (of a different sort) from us lot on here because of it. But is it their fault? Are their hands tied? What should they do?

I suppose what frustrates (me, certainly) more than anything is their (the channels) reasoning regarding content, and the fact that we're left completley in the dark as to why they do what they do. Not once have I had a satisfactory explanation - from viewer or producer - as to why they suddenly decide that they're going to blatantly break the rules for a few weeks, and to hell with the consequences. Whatever the reason, it makes it all the more frustrating when they do tame down. I'm not suggesting these channels should stop testing the water - given the choice of a few weeks rule-breaking, two or three times a year, or a steady and consistent 12 months of the garbage we're getting now, I know which I'd choose - but as the title of this thread asks: Do we give them too hard a time?

If you phone the channels and get a bad service then give them a hard time.If you are just watching then you have no right to moan about any channel after all you are getting it for free so if you do not like it then change the channel.

(06-02-2010 20:01 )old git Wrote:  If you are just watching then you have no right to moan about any channel after all you are getting it for free so if you do not like it then change the channel.

That's a pointless and lazy argument, old git. Whichever way you look at it we all pay for these channels in one shape or another (Sky subscription, fta receiver, etc, etc) That fact that these channels don't financially gain directly from us window shoppers is beside the point.

I have a sky reciever but no longer subscribe so i am not paying for these channels.The fact that they dont gain from us is the point.You dont phone then you have no right to complain.

some of the time they deserve the critiscism they get, for some of their practices, and i sort of agree with old git, if you dont phone in or text in you really dont have a right to complain, sure you can give an opinion but to complain is a bit out of order when ya dont contribute finiacally.

as a peeping tom (i listen in a lot its quite expensive but its enjoyable) i have earnt the right to complain , though i try and limit it as complaining just shortens your life.

An interesting question to pose Stan.

I think there is probably a cycle for each of the channels when they push boundaries and when they play it safe or at the very least we have a perception that there is such a cycle. For the sake of argument let's assume that there is a safe-risky cycle, this could be the result of a conscious decision by participants (performers, interactions between performers, camera crew, executives). Or it could an unconscious result of a variety of factors (ibid plus other forces such as callers and other exogenous/external factors like the weather, state of the economy and so on) that produce the same result. For the sake of clarity I've made this a bipolar distinction although I suspect it is not so clear cut as to be simply one set of circumstances leading to an event or another collection of variables producing a similar result. Before this paragraph gets too complicated, which may already be too late, I'd say that providing adequate causal explanations for social outcomes is quite tricky but Max Weber provided a very useful framework for thinking about these things in which you have to try to identify underlying or deep causes (antecedents of events) that can then be triggered by a particular minor event. I think the example he gave was that the revolutions of 1848 were not caused by a person firing a gun in the street but by the underlying injustices experienced by people in many aspects of their daily lives. The gun was the spark that lead to the explosion of revolutions but the bullet didn't start the subsequent events.

Enough of the theoretical underpinnings for explaining social outcomes! On balance, I think that there probably is a cycle of safe-risky and that it is usually the result of a conscious decision.

Is it their fault? Probably not, they are driven by commercial concerns and regulated by OFCOM so there is a balance to be struck and one way to achieve that balance is to have a safe-risky cycle.

What should they do? The channels certainly shouldn't report on each other as has been suggested elsewhere on the forum (OFCOM thread I think) although I can understand how there might be the view that what is bad for a competitor is therefore good for me informing such actions. I think this is an interesting question for behavioural economics rather like the classic prisoner's dilemma - two or more people have committed a crime and been arrested but the police don't have sufficient proof to keep them detained/charge them and so are aiming to secure a confession with the promise of going lightly on the person who confesses. If none of the conspirators confess they all walk free but if one of them cracks then all are punished. I think John Nash (A Beautiful Mind) made some important insights into the rationality of choosing the second best option rather than aiming for the optimal - the example was don't chase after the prettiest woman because she will have lots of suitors, the wiser strategy is to go for the second prettiest woman because you are far more likely to be successful in your pursuit. Think of it as not chasing after Fernanda but scoring with her slightly less attractive sister (that is entirely hypothetical as I've no idea if Fernanda has a sister and can you imagine if she was in fact better looking than Ms Ferrari...) Anyway, what should the channels do? Probably best to act responsibly with the regulator and seek to change the default pin coding position with the manufacturers of Sky boxes (a very sensible point made on the OFCOM thread) as this would change what Thaler and Sunstein refer to as the 'choice architecture' when it comes to making viewing decisions in millions of homes. Thaler and Sunstein wrote a very interesting book last year called 'Nudge' that outlined a number of subtle, simple yet insightfully clever ways that our behaviour can be influenced to produce socially desirable social outcomes without (overly?) impinging on our liberties and freedom of choice.

Finally (and I'm sure anybody who has read this rather long post will be glad of that - hey I bloody typed it!) do we give the channels a hard time. The short answer (and I can do short answers!) is that you certainly do Stan! I suspect that you are expressing the view held by quite a few people but that they will not necessarily post much on this thread.

I know it gives stan the hump when the channels are a bit predictable, but i dont see how the bosses can win here. Offcuts has everybody by the goolies it seems, but it appears to be random in the way they go about their job. I feel sorry for the girls who are in a difficult position. Do they cross the line and risk the sack or tow the line and be good girls. It sucks but as these are the rules, what can be done to change them. Only way i see is for all the channels to get together and challenge these outdated laws. Cant see this happening myself but we live in hope.

(06-02-2010 20:59 )SOCATOA Wrote:  I know it gives stan the hump when the channels are a bit predictable, but i dont see how the bosses can win here. Offcuts has everybody by the goolies it seems, but it appears to be random in the way they go about their job. I feel sorry for the girls who are in a difficult position. Do they cross the line and risk the sack or tow the line and be good girls. It sucks but as these are the rules, what can be done to change them. Only way i see is for all the channels to get together and challenge these outdated laws. Cant see this happening myself but we live in hope.

I agree it's not their fault, SOC, but I do think the channels are sometimes guilty of being lazy. Live 960, for instance, just seems to have stopped trying. The performances are so routine and predictable it's untrue. I don't see how Ofcom are to blame for that. When I think of Live 960 now, all I can see in my head is a waggling arse soaked in baby oil. I'm singling this channel out becuase up until a month or so ago it used to be my favourite.

As for Asian Babes, don't get me started - they're entirley to blame. First we get the influx of ladyboys and now the picture quality had deteriorated to such a level that it actually manages to be worse than Latino Babes' was.

(06-02-2010 22:58 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(06-02-2010 20:59 )SOCATOA Wrote:  I know it gives stan the hump when the channels are a bit predictable, but i dont see how the bosses can win here. Offcuts has everybody by the goolies it seems, but it appears to be random in the way they go about their job. I feel sorry for the girls who are in a difficult position. Do they cross the line and risk the sack or tow the line and be good girls. It sucks but as these are the rules, what can be done to change them. Only way i see is for all the channels to get together and challenge these outdated laws. Cant see this happening myself but we live in hope.

I agree it's not their fault, SOC, but I do think the channels are sometimes guilty of being lazy. Live 960, for instance, just seems to have stopped trying. The performances are so routine and predictable it's untrue. I don't see how Ofcom are to blame for that. When I think of Live 960 now, all I can see in my head is a waggling arse soaked in baby oil. I'm singling this channel out becuase up until a month or so ago it used to be my favourite.

As for Asian Babes, don't get me started - they're entirley to blame. First we get the influx of ladyboys and now the picture quality had deteriorated to such a level that it actually manages to be worse than Latino Babes' was.

SOC's point about the channels acting in concert is an interesting one. Collectively they almost certainly have a commercial interest to acting in unison to seek changes to the rules both with OFCOM and with Sky/Sky box manufacturers. However, they face difficulties in pursuing such a course of action (trust, agreement on strategy and tactics, egos of actors involved etc) and so it is probable that they will continue to operate within the current regime to their and our detriment.

Personally I think that one or two channels should adopt a market based solution to this safe-risky issue and alter their charges. I'm not familiar with the technicalities of changing rates for calls but given that we currently have channels charging at 35p, 75p (Partyland up to 1am and then is it £1.50 after that or does it stay at 75p?), 960 at a £1 and the rest at £1.50 it is possible to have different rates. I can also recall 2p, 10p, 50p rates for calls so there has been some price variation/sensitivity. This may prompt changes in consumer behaviour with 'safer' channels charging less but riskier channels charging more.

Another alternative force for change could be the Competition Commission athough this is rather more speculative. A complaint about most channels acting effectively as a cartel by charging £1.50 per minute for a service when a similar service is available for less might be feasible although I am no expert in these matters. This exogenous factor, or just the threat of it, could be the catalyst for change in terms of price sensitivity that was mentioned above or producing solidarity between the channels to bring about change through lobbying.

Finally, Asian babes and Latino babes?! I really never understood the rationale for Latino babes and I find Asian babes absolutely unwatchable in terms of content and presentation. I suppose that market forces do operate (which rather undermines the Competition Commission complaint avenue?) as the demise of Hotel Voyeur and the rise of Angels TV demonstrates. Will 2010 see the demise of Asian Babes?

(07-02-2010 11:05 )Doctoratthedock Wrote:  channels charging at 35p, 75p (Partyland up to 1am and then is it £1.50 after that or does it stay at 75p?), 960 at a £1 and the rest at £1.50

You forgot Elite, £2.25 a minute if you dont use the orange network...........