ICSTIS BB7 Ruling

[remaha]

PRESS RELEASE
For immediate release – Thursday 5 October 2006
BIG BROTHER VOTING LINES “MISLEADING” RULES ICSTIS
Premium rate services regulator ICSTIS has ruled that Channel 4’s Big Brother voting service breached its Code of Practice by misleading viewers.

ICSTIS received 2,635 complaints from members of the public after it was announced that contestants who had previously been evicted were being given the chance to return to the house and potentially win the £100,000 cash prize. The complainants believed that they had been misled as they were under the impression that they had voted to evict the contestants permanently.

ICSTIS’ ruling follows a detailed investigation involving Channel 4 and the two premium rate service providers concerned – iTouch (UK) Ltd, which provided the 090 telephone voting facility, and Minick Ltd, which provided the mobile shortcode text vote facility.
In reaching its decision, ICSTIS accepted that Big Brother was an editorially-inventive show, and that the programme’s much-publicised statement that “Big Brother reserves the right to change the rules at any time” clearly indicated to viewers that they should expect twists and turns in how the show developed.
However, the unprecedented number of complaints for this type of service, combined with the undoubted strength of feeling shown by the complainants, clearly indicated that voters genuinely felt that they had been misled over this twist.

Given that the publicly-available terms and conditions on the Big Brother website stated that: “Once a housemate leaves they forfeit any claim to the prize money”, ICSTIS concluded that the editorial change had indeed caused people to feel misled. Channel 4 acknowledged that this had been an oversight and ICSTIS accepted that Channel 4 had not intended to mislead its viewers.

On the basis that the terms and conditions had not been appropriately amended, ICSTIS found that paragraph 4.3.1(a) of its Code of Practice had been breached.

ICSTIS decided that it would not be appropriate to order redress for complainants because the “misleading” element of the service had not materially changed the outcome of the programme.

In respect of a financial penalty, ICSTIS noted that the administration charge, which is levied to cover the costs of investigation in all cases where a breach of the Code is upheld, would, in this case, be substantial. As a result, ICSTIS decided not to impose an additional fine.

Full details of the adjudications against iTouch (UK) Ltd and Minick Ltd can be found at:
iTouch (UK) Ltd - www.icstis.org.uk/pdfs1/itouch_adjud.pdf
Minick Ltd - www.icstis.org.uk/pdfs1/Minick_adjud.pdf
– ends –
For further information, please contact the ICSTIS Press Office:
Rob Dwight Tel: [phone]
Kate Belson Tel: [phone]

[remaha]

Vindication but no money back and only a small financial penalty for Channel 4.

Channel 4 has indemnified the service providers. So it will pay the costs.

[emptybox]

I like the way channel 4 says it was an oversight.
They knew exactly what they were doing, and they changed their published terms and conditions soon after.

I'm not worried about the £2 or £3 I spent evicting Nikki and Grace, but the effect has been that I wouldn't think about voting in any Channel 4 or Endemol show again.

I think a lot of people will think likewise, and this is where the real financial penalty for Channel 4 will come from.

[julian]

emptybox said:

I'm not worried about the £2 or £3 I spent evicting Nikki and Grace, but the effect has been that I wouldn't think about voting in any Channel 4 or Endemol show again.

I think a lot of people will think likewise, and this is where the real financial penalty for Channel 4 will come from.

I doubt it will make much difference, to be honest. If someone you like is up against someone you don't like chances are such principles will go out the window and you'll vote to save your favourite anyway.

Even if C4 had said up front that everyone we voted out would have a chance to be voted back in again at the end it wouldn't have changed my voting pattern. I'd still have voted the same people out and used the same amount of votes to do it.

Plus it's highly unlikely they'll use the same twist twice. I'd be very surprised if it made any difference to the voting next year.

Regards

Julian

[remaha]

julian said:

emptybox said:

I'm not worried about the £2 or £3 I spent evicting Nikki and Grace, but the effect has been that I wouldn't think about voting in any Channel 4 or Endemol show again.

I think a lot of people will think likewise, and this is where the real financial penalty for Channel 4 will come from.

I doubt it will make much difference, to be honest. If someone you like is up against someone you don't like chances are such principles will go out the window and you'll vote to save your favourite anyway.

Even if C4 had said up front that everyone we voted out would have a chance to be voted back in again at the end it wouldn't have changed my voting pattern. I'd still have voted the same people out and used the same amount of votes to do it.

Plus it's highly unlikely they'll use the same twist twice. I'd be very surprised if it made any difference to the voting next year.

Regards

Julian

It could easily have changed other people's voting patterns though Julian and, if they had been totally up-front it almost certainly would have decreased the number of votes cast.

[Harvestgoddess]

What so thats it , i may have only spent £4 voting to evict nikki but i did it so i wouldnt have to watch her on my screen any longer its not just about the prize money she ruined the final week of big brother for many , and julian i have to dissagree if id know then what i know now i wouldnt of voted at all with exception of aisleyne to win , and i mean it i will NOT vote for anyone full stop next year i cant really see me feeling as strongly about another housemate in the way i have for ais it really is a one off. ive watched the others and never voted anyway i will not give another penny to endemol and i know there are many people out there who feel the same , the whole thing is a joke theyve ripped people off many of them young adults and then theyve laughed at his and basically given us the finger it may be peanuts but you add it all up every phonecall to evict not just nikki but grace , mikey and lea none of that cash went to charity and then to top it off they have the audacity to ask the public to pay to put the very same people back in its daylight robbery they must be laughing their socks off
GUYS PLEASE DONT FALL FOR IT AGAIN NEXT YEAR

[remaha]

Extract from the detailed Complaints Panel decision
Channel 4 case
Channel 4 pointed out that Big Brother was an innovative and creative reality TV show. In order to permit such creativity, one of the rules – “The most important rule of all”, as it was universally known – was that “Big Brother reserves the right to change the rules at any time.” Channel 4 stated that this rule had always been given maximum publicity. It explained that, to keep the show fresh and attractive to viewers, it was important to maintain an element of surprise. It added that each series of the show had had its own twist.

In this series, the twist had been to allow evicted housemates to return at the finish and compete for the prize money. Channel 4’s case was that to have announced this at the start of the series would have been to destroy the element of surprise. It had fully discussed likely voter reaction to such a twist and believed the steps it had taken, such as donating to charity all profits from the vote to choose which of the evicted housemates would return, demonstrated that it was a purely editorially-driven decision. It had relied on audience knowledge of the right to change the rules at any time to prevent any sense of viewers being misled.

Complaints Panel Decision
The Complaints Panel accepted that Big Brother was an editorially-inventive television show, and that the “Big Brother reserves the right to change the rules at any time” rule clearly indicated to viewers that they should expect twists and turns in how the show developed.

Equally, from the 2,635 complaints received in total between the two cases – an unprecedented number for this type of service – it was clear that voters genuinely felt they had been misled over this twist. The number of complaints may have been increased by the press campaign which had taken place, as Channel 4 had suggested, but this was impossible to know.

However, the strength of feeling of the individuals who contacted ICSTIS was undoubted, with comments such as “this…is a blatant rip off” and “the people I have paid to be evicted are now being allowed to go back in the house and I have to pay again to evict them again…I am very angry that they are using this tactic to get more money out of me” being typical.

The Complaints Panel concluded that the editorial change had indeed caused people to feel misled, but it was not the editorial decision itself that was in question, given the existence of the catch-all rule that “Big Brother reserves the right to change the rules at any time.” Channel 4 had been at fault in not ensuring that the publicly-available terms and conditions on the website were in step with how the programme actually developed, since the website continued to say: “Once a housemate leaves they forfeit any claim to the prize money.” Channel 4 itself conceded that, with the benefit of hindsight, a contradiction between the two existed. The Complaints Panel accepted that this had been an oversight and that Channel 4 had not intended to mislead its viewers.

On the basis that the published terms and conditions had not been appropriately amended, the Complaints Panel found that paragraph 4.3.1(a) of the Code had been breached.

The Complaints Panel decided that it would not be appropriate to order redress for complainants because the “misleading” element of the service – in not telling voters early in the programme’s run that some evicted housemates would be let back in during the final week – had not materially changed the outcome of the programme on which they had voted. The person who eventually won the £100,000 prize was not, in the event, one of those re-admitted to the Big Brother House.

In respect of a financial penalty (which Channel 4 would be bearing on behalf of both service providers), the Complaints Panel noted that the administration charge, which is levied in all cases where a breach of the Code is upheld, would, in this case, be substantial, as it was computed in part on a per capita sum for each complaint received. The Complaints Panel agreed, in these circumstances, not to impose any additional penalty by way of a fine.
Sara Nathan (Chairman) Elizabeth Stallibrass
21 September 2006

I think this decision is a cop out.

The rule that said "Big Brother can change the rules at any time" was obviously not meant to be a contractual term with the voting public. It was meant to apply to the housemates.

The notion that a fine should not be imposed merely because Nikki did not win is fatally flawed. Channel 4 induced the public to vote to "evict" housemates on the basis that they would not be eligible to return as a potential winner. If it had been honest about the twist from the start, some people may not have voted. In addition, by changing the rules in mid-stream, it increased its revenue in the final week when Nikki fans voted for her to win.

Although it would be difficult to decide which people may not have voted and to compensate them accordingly, it would be easy to levy a fine equal to the amount spent by those who complained and to fine Channel 4 the revenue that it gained from people voting for Nikki in the final week.

[Harvestgoddess]

Oh and whilst im on the subject the whole idea of charity is that its given out of kindness not used as emotional blackmail if people want to give to charity so they should but that is certainly not the way to go about it the whole thing stinks
Right rant over

[Harvestgoddess]

I totally agree with you remaha its a cop out im really furious that this is the outcome

[andy100]

Well it just goes to show doesn't it! I don't think a lot of people will be watching or voting next year. I suppose only time will tell!