QVC - Stakeholders - Ofcom

More documents

Recommendations

Info

“direct offers broadcast to the public with a view to the supply of goods or services, including immovable property, rights and obligations, in return for payment” While we note that Participation TV could technically fit within this definition we would point out that teleshopping could also technically fit within the definition of television advertising given within the same directive; it is clear, however, that due to the distinct differences between traditional television advertising and teleshopping, there is a need to separate the two to ensure that they are correctly regulated. We consider the same is true of teleshopping and Participation TV. If the two are not clearly defined at this stage, problems could arise in regulating them effectively. 3. THE PROPOSED SCOPE OF THE FORMAL CONSULTATION (QUESTION 2) QVC are satisfied with OFCOM’s proposed scope of the consultation; namely that it will cover television services that rely wholly or mainly on viewers paying for an opportunity to participate in the service. We agree that the means of participation be widened beyond premium rate telephony to encompass new payment methods. We also agree that, where it is clear that PRS contributes to the editorial content of the programme, it should not be included in the scope of the 2007 consultation. We would suggest, however, that safeguards are introduced to ensure this provision is not used as a loophole by Participation TV services to circumnavigate the new regulatory system that results from the consultation. 4. POSSIBLE REGULATORY APPROACHES (QUESTION 4) QVC considers that options A and B represent the only viable regulatory approaches. We consider that Option C would encourage Participation TV services to amend their services to ensure they fell within either editorial or advertising, depending on which regulations were more favourable. Furthermore, it would add an extra burden to the regulator having to decide in which category a Participation TV service fell in and extend the amount of time it takes for the regulator to stop practices that are in breach of their code. We do not understand how Option D could work in harmony with the separation principle. Furthermore, as with Option C, we consider Option D would cause an extra regulatory burden and would cause confusion as to which regulator should be taking action; it could also lead to inconsistency in decisions between regulators. It would also dilute the ASA’s “one stop shop”
concept, as the public would have to contact different regulators depending on the nature of the offence. We consider that the most important function of the 2007 consultation will be to identify whether Participation TV should be considered as editorial or advertising so that resulting regulations can be applied both efficiently and effectively. 5. CHANGES TO THE CODES (Question 5) QVC does not understand how, due to their quintessential commercial nature, Participation TV services can be considered as editorial. We consider they currently breach a number of rules in Section 10 of the Broadcast Code. Clarification is needed as to why Participation TV services are not considered in breach of various rules in Section 10, most notably rules 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4. Nevertheless, if Participation TV services were to be considered as editorial, we consider a number of changes would be necessary to the Broadcast Code. Rule 2.2 of the Broadcast Code should be expanded to ensure that claims did not have to result in harm or offence to be considered misleading. Furthermore, we consider that while Rule 2.11 could encompass a number of potential offences of disingenuous Participation TV services, a guidance note should be issued to clarify practices that are either likely or certain to breach the rule. We also consider that new rules may need to be added to regulate specific types of Participation TV services. We do not consider that, in relation to Participation TV services, the BCAP Code needs to be amended. Unlike the Broadcast Code, the BCAP Code was designed to regulate content that was primarily of a commercial nature. We note that a number of Participation TV services would be prohibited under the BCAP Code if they were considered advertising. We consider, however, that the BCAP Code prohibits these types of advertisements for good reason and that it would be paradoxical for the BCAP Code to be altered just to ensure the survival of these services. We consider that other elements of Participation TV that are currently the cause of public concern could be dealt with under the current provisions for misleading advertising. Furthermore, the process of reviewing and amending the BCAP Code is currently being undertaken by BCAP and we consider that any necessary amendments will be identified in that review. We believe that to be the correct forum for BCAP Code changes. We consider it is possible that because Participation TV is in its infancy there may be regulatory issues that will not be identified by the 2007 consultation which become apparent in the future. We think it is important therefore that, regardless of whether it is defined as advertising or editorial, these services are clearly defined as a distinct form of editorial/advertising so that rules can
Page 1: Ms Yvonne Matthews Content and Stan

QVC - Stakeholders - Ofcom

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?