No, it’s NOT April Fool’s Day, we’re just doing the Board of Excitement a day early.
- In It To Win It – new series of the WILL THEY JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION quiz show. (8:30pm, Saturday, BBC1)
- The Bank Job Final (9pm, Saturday, C4) And celeb specials next Friday and Saturday.
- The Love Machine – in which Moyles and Solomon attempt to find people true love with a big machine. (6pm, Sunday, Sky Living)
- Mix It Up Real Good – This week we’re all riding the HORSE. And you can come on this ride too if you want, it is free to enter. (8pm, Sunday, Pokerstars)
- Wie is De Mol? Find out – at last! – who the Mole is, and everything they did. And find out who the winner is as well. (Hopefully Monday on Youtube)
- Breakaway – There appears to be a lot of confusion as to what this is called, however it is definitely called Breakaway, and the whole thing appears to be based on cycling road races. Is it better to stay in the pack and share the £10,000 with better numbers, or attempt to breakaway and win the money for yourself? Nick Hancock hosts, we will have a show discussion page up for it on Monday. (4:30pm, Weekdaily, BBC2)
- Schlag den Raab – Episode 33, and it’s been three whole months since the last one and there’s a million euro to defend after last episode’s whitewash. Incidentally, no Pointless Celebs next week because of the rugby. Again. (8pm UK time, Next Saturday ProSieben and naughty online streaming hopefully)
Meanwhile, Baggage pilot for C4 films Wednesday week at The London Studios. Don’t know who is hosting. Can’t go myself, but if you do then let us know what it’s like.
Meanwhile, this very interesting story from the Daily Mail came up at the weekend re: gambling and gameshows. Worth a read, because its implications could be pretty far reaching, and not necessarily in a good way.
There was a little feature on Breakaway in this week’s TV Choice mag. A team of 6 need to answer 30 questions to win an equal share of the prize money, but at any time, one can decide to go it alone with each question worth 3x the amount they were before. If they make it, they get all the money for themselves but are eliminated if they fail.
There was some brief (and I mean brief) footage of Breakaway on Lorraine on Wednesday – which you can see here – http://www.u.tv/utvplayer/video/142880 – about 20 minutes in.
Don’t really get why the BBC didn’t play out the two celeb episodes of Winter Wipeout rather than air two editions of Pointless Celebs before they have to take it off air for two weeks. Then again scheduling and common sense have never gone together.
What is the betting they’ll air them on 22nd and 29th December as a build up for the second series.
Any idea when Blockbusters is starting?
I know it’s the Daily Fail – but good heavens… 😯 😯
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2113217/Deal-No-Deal-faces-Gambling-Commission-probe-TV-gameshows-face-crackdown.html#ixzz1olBDL2za
Actually, this is a very interesting story.
Deal or No Deal may have an argument in that it’s a game of reading people, and that the fact that the money won is far lower than the expected value of the boxes proves something. I don’t know, it’s late, it’s a similar argument as to whether poker is a game of skill or chance. It’s basically both.
As for Red or Black, it’s not gambling. But there’s no skill element at all. It’s a rat race conducted through many games of chance.
I’m a bit exasperated by this, because this is the sort of thing that shouldn’t be an issue but won’t go away.
It would amaze, but not surprise, me if after producing DoND for years they get told “oh sorry it’s gambling, change it”. But what about the theme weeks with a catapult? Skill! Ahem.
I guess Four Rooms would also have the same problem. And in that one they are sort of stumping up the initial gamble.
So, should all luck be removed from all shows? Des O Connor can now no longer go “take the money or open the box”. Contestants on Blankety Blank can no longer pick A or B cards for their question. You could get very Draconian about it, if you wanted.
What would the gambling comission say about the wheel in Wheel of Fortune in the US? It’s skill to get a letter of the puzzle right, but if there are 1xS and 3xT letters left to be guessed, I’m going to guess the S and gamble to see if I can land on the $2500 wedge if I don’t land on it first time.
What about the final Jeopardy qn too? I’m aware there’s some skill in it, but where does the actual “you think you might know something about this question” stop and the “this is how much I put at risk” begin?
It’s interesting that they mention the idea of shelving Play Your Cards Right as a thing, but I don’t see why if it was fine in the eighties when regulators looked more closely at this sort of thing it wouldn’t be fine now given it’s the same for,at.
Wheel is interesting, because I believe the whole ‘answering a question to gain control of the wheel’ thing came in specifically to get round the regulations.
More interestingly, the wheel was originally dropped from The Price is Right for not requiring enough skill, for many years the showcase qualifier was a number of elimination questions.
Did the Gambling Act of 2005 make a difference? I know that regulations around instant win competitions were tightened up as a result of this, it could be one of the reasons you don’t see them as often these days.
Also the regulators is this case are the Gambling Commission rather than the IBA et al, so they are presumably more concerned about the mechanics of a game rather than purely the amount of money on offer as was the IBA’s usual objection.
Mmm-m-m-m-m-m-m. I, too, consider this an interesting and important question. In general, I’m not inherently opposed to gambling shows, but it’s possible to do interesting gambling or dull gambling. Red or Black was dull gambling but the window-dressing was sometimes entertaining enough, in a very few parts over a very long show, to keep things going. Red or Black doesn’t pretend to be anything other than gambling.
DoND: I really like your perspective, but you’re being too subtle. From the banker’s perspective, it indeed is a game of reading personalities. However, the show is clearly presented from the player’s perspective, where it’s a series of gambling decisions with nothing else to it, except for special episodes where there are those few other elements. Arguably the simplest change to make to put a degree of skill in it would be always to let the Banker know what the selected case is worth, then there becomes a degree of skill of interpreting the Banker’s offers.
I don’t think anyone’s seriously proposing to eliminate all elements of luck or gambling, but clearly those two shows have a far bigger element of luck and gambling than most, and I don’t think it would be unfair to draw a line with them (and others, not least my beloved poker shows which you would have to pry from me with a crowbar) on one side of it.
They could let The Banker know what is in the boxes, many versions of the show do exactly that. I don’t think it would change the dynamic for the better though.
This is properly serious stuff, by the sounds of it they’ve stopped filming for the forseeable future.
Stopped filming DoND?! Wow, that is serious.
This is yet another waste of time by people who are looking to make television more bland.
It really depends on what you define as ‘skill’. Do you have to cycle a kilometre, or answer 10 questions right to win the prize. Technically ‘looking’ and ‘talking’ are skills, so this whole debate is pointless!
Yes, it’s the Daily Hell. Excising everything before the first attributed quote (that’s froth to set the emotional temperature) and deleting everything attributed to un-named people (for all we know, they exist only in the journalist’s head), we’re left with:
Max Clifford saying that “Simon Cowell wants to make great television”, and an academic giving his personal opinion.
And that’s it! Two traceable quotes expanded to 1500 words. Such a good job it’s been a mild winter and there’s lots of salt left.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the Gambling Commission wanted to hold a consultation on prize competitions and lotteries on television – it hasn’t sampled industry opinion since 2006, and things have changed a lot since. But it’s a long way from “is the law still providing protection” to “OMG! They want to take Little Noely off your telly!”.
I’m tired and a bit cranky. I like James’s point though:
What is defined as skill?
I’ve been thinking. Which is a little unusual. Anyhoo…
To me, amongst other things gambling implies a sense of putting your money at stake. Except for perhaps the Bankers Gamble, it isn’t your money that you’re putting at stake on DoND.
Million Pound Drop however… if they “give” you that money, then in some sense that is your money that you must play with each question.
I get the idea of skill confused a little. If you know the answer to a question, then there’s skill invovled. If it’s a multiple choice question (MPD) and you really don’t know the answer (I’m looking at the final 50/50 question in particular) then you’re going to end up in a skill-less situation (even though it could be skilful, oh my head might explode).
If DoND is found to be a gambling game, then the same should be said about Four Rooms – although this show could survive the shift to a 9pm or later slot.
I’m completely behind the idea that gambling shouldn’t be glamorised in an afternoon teatime slot. However, DoND really doesn’t do this – you see the heartache of the contestants that fail and the difficulty they face making the decisions. It’s not glossed over.
I think I might go for a rest in a darkened room now.
MPD: definitely a game of skill. Although the final question is basically Red or Black’s non-gambling coinflip, albeit at stakes determined by the players’ prior skill. It’s the Quiz Machine Trick, basically, and I’d prefer proper hard questions from about Q4 onwards instead – basically £16-125k Millionaire type questions, with perhaps a skewing towards somewhat obscure bits of pop culture given the target demographic.
I’m completely behind the idea that gambling shouldn’t be glamorised in an afternoon teatime slot. However, DoND really doesn’t do this – you see the heartache of the contestants that fail and the difficulty they face making the decisions. It’s not glossed over.
But then you get a lot of emphasis, at least sporadically (and it does seem to vary an awful lot by episode) on treating risk-taking generally as A Good Thing, and Noel’s catchphrase collection certainly skews that way (to the point where I suspect he might now be encouraging gambles without actually meaning to). I know the US Standards and Practices cover things like that, although I gather Alex Trebek rather encourages big wagers on “Jeopardy!”, and the first episode of “Power of 10” saw the most egregious intervention I can ever recall from a host (though it was unsuccessful).
Personally, I think that a specifically defined regulatory framework for game shows with a risk-reward element is required. And that should be in Ofcom’s remit, with perhaps advice taken from the Gambling Commission in the process.
Here’s an interesting thought. Say a question category came up that you couldn’t choose between on MPD. So Davina does a coin flip to choose between the two.
Let’s say that you’d have answered one of the two choices perfectly and one of the two completely incorrectly. Would that coin flip be considered gambling?
Black, white, grey and all that.
The coinflip is presented as a consequence of not being able to decide, rather than a gamble, surely?
The only way it would be “your money” in Million Pound Drop would be if they let you just leave with it without having to answer any questions.
As I recall, given the way they wrote the contract, legally the money is yours from the moment you get given it until the moment it falls down a trapdoor… But risking it in the game is a condition of receiving it. (Wonder how that worked in the US version…)
Four Rooms is less likely to be found to be a gambling game than Deal or No Deal – While Deal or No Deal abstracts to, basically, something not dissimilar from a stock market simulation (Selling a volatile commodity to an interested party who will buy it at the end for the value after the period, valued via finding out what it won’t be worth at the end of that period), it’s abstracted in such a way that it appears to be a game of luck.
Four Rooms, on the other hand, while insanely artificial in the nature of the way business is conducted within them, is presented as a business program with a game element – People are invited to sell their possessions to one of four private dealers. They can choose each offer in turn, and don’t get to go back [like deal or no deal] but it isn’t /presented/ as gambling (The gambling commission might require a certain dealer to tone it down, mind… It will be a shame to lose the d6)
But, yeah, horribly uncooberated. But still, it wasn’t one of the tabloid tabloid articles where the final paragraph basically amounts to “Except, not.” by giving some facts that make every other paragraph, and the headline, clearly bollocks.
(Which was better than I was expecting)
Can’t believe they’re even considering wasting their times investigating game shows when the breaks are full of all the bingo website and you’ve got ever increasing scandals over spot betting in sport.
IMO there is more skill involved in getting the most money you can out of Deal or No Deal than answering a multiple choice question on The Chase or Millionaire – both of which effectively involve gambling money.
Also worth noting though that to get around gambling laws that for phone in comps you just have the ridiculously easy question to answer – so technically they could do that on something like Deal in order to start a game, although it would be absolutely ridiculous and of benefit to nobody.
Plus unlike betting or bingo you can’t exactly get addicted to playing Deal or No Deal when it is a one time opportunity.
technically they could do that on something like Deal in order to start a game, although it would be absolutely ridiculous and of benefit to nobody.
And indeed they did do exactly that on the Franco-Italian versions for years. We were the first to get rid of it altogether.
P.S. I really hope television stands up for itself this time as they’re still feeling the consequences of turning over and accepting their fate from the phone in scandals back in 2007.
All right, I’m calling the DoND fans out here. (Yes, I have had a quick view of the appropriate thread on the other forum.)
The implicit utility function questions raised by the deal offered can be interesting (*). I accept that there is an implicit level of challenge to the contestants in presenting themselves as headstrong in their behaviour and life story, not just in the chair but also on the wings, in order to attempt to convince the Banker that their utility function is such that a large offer will be required in order to make them deal. Other than those, which you might argue to be considerable factors, what am I missing, and in what way is the show more than just luck?
(*) Arguably a large part of the appeal of constructed reality TV, and a particularly large part given the production decisions made by many production teams, to the viewer is that it gives them the chance to judge the contestants for their behaviour in the situations they face and feel superior to the contestants when the viewer judges the contestants’ behaviour unfavourably. I would argue this is a particular part of the appeal of Deal every time the viewer makes a decision different to that of the contestant, and the appeal of DoND is much closer to that of a reality TV show than that of a game show as a result.
I also firmly believe in relativism rather than absolutism in utility functions, within the context of DoND, and that the statement “it may not have been the right deal, but it was the right deal for them” carries authority. Just because your utility function might have turned out to have better results in one particular situation does not make your utility function better than theirs.
I fear that reality TV in general, and DoND in particular, encourages people to impose their view of the world on others, rather than accepting other people’s view of their world as equally valid to their own, by encouraging viewers to opine that their utility function – and hence their view of the world – is superior to that of the contestant. I also think that encouraging people to impose their view of the world on others rather than accepting other people’s view to be valid is essentially equivalent to encouraging social conservatism, and that’s why I am very unfavourably disposed to the show in general. (Though, at its best, it certainly can be funny and very well produced.)
Don’t mind me, but I do tend to bristle when the words “very [expletive deleted to attempt to avoid the spam filter] stupid” are thrown about casually, whether they’re directed at me or not.
And this is why the production neutrality is all the more important. If the producers present risk-taking in a positive light – and it would seem a fairly safe assumption that they do – it “encourages people to impose their view of the world on others”, and in this case that means imposing a pro-gambling slant. That absolutely falls under the Gambling Commission’s remit, and to be honest I’d rather that was the basis of their investigation, rather than a slippery argument over what constitutes “skill” in a risk-management game.
Don’t forget that Endemol actually allowed themselves to be quoted on the record as saying that they cancelled “A prendre ou a laisser” due solely to recession-induced conservative play, and that’s the version that directly begat ours. The Aussie producers are on record as saying “the most exciting contestants, win or lose, are those who come to play the game”, a quote directly used in the same context of contestants who ignore the offers and can hence be viably accused of not playing the game. The comparison with social conservatism is an interesting one, and it’s not a coincidence that this is a show that definitely skews towards a more socially conservative audience, although oddly enough its contestant diversity is impressive in any context and doubly so in this one.
“It was the right deal for you” has not been mentioned, at least frequently, since the first season in 2005-6. That’s not coincidence.
Just because your utility function might have turned out to have better results in one particular situation does not make your utility function better than theirs.
Well that is all very nice and twee, but to get round that every viewer watching would have to have throughout no real opinions on what is happening at all to get the sort of show you would like. Good luck with that, but it would be boring.
But there’s the difference between “not having an opinion on the show”, “being encouraged to have your own opinion on the show”, and “being encouraged to have a certain opinion on the show”.
The first of these is wrong. So is the last.
But the second one is precisely what the show encourages, to suggest otherwise is immensely silly. Every situation is immediately relatable to anyone watching.
Having an opinion = good thing.
Exposing yourself to many competing opinions and thinking hard about the reasons that people might choose to hold them, then coming to a conclusion about your opinion for rational reasons = very good thing.
Believing that your opinion is the only good opinion because it’s yours and because you’re always right = very very bad thing.
Bollocks, it’s the entire thing that underpins the Bar.
Yeah, but we all know that’s just your shtick.
I’m still waiting for the DoND fans to tell me what, if anything, I’m missing.
It’s not schtick, it’s conviction backed by knowledge and gut feeling. Who else is quite so willing to put their money where their mouth is?
Your bar, your rules, your admirable generosity, but that still doesn’t offer any sort of defence (and it can’t do, because there isn’t one) for the concept of there being anything significantly subjective about a highly objective matter like this.
I think we’re just destined to butt heads here and don’t think I have anything else new to add on this matter – but I do have something of a track record of changing my mind… 🙂
See, let’s think about this some more. There are plenty of undeniably great game shows – and, for the sake of argument, let’s take the latest UKGS all-time poll as a starting-point – where this is only a very, very small part, or none at all, of the appeal of the show.
The Crystal Maze: enjoyment from watching the imaginative games, enjoyment from playing along with some of them, enjoyment for some from seeing the contestants struggle. Perhaps the only way in which this factor possibly applies is when viewers’ assessment of when to abandon pursuit of the crystal and leave the cell differs from that of the contestant. but it’s a small factor.
The Mole: enjoyment from trying to solve the ongoing mystery, enjoyment from watching the imaginative games, enjoyment from playing along with some of them, enjoyment for some from seeing the contestants in difficult situations. Some games have decisions or dilemmas where contestants are incentivised to break the traditional teamwork paradigm and this factor may apply at those points to a very limited extent.
Only Connect: enjoyment from watching the imaginitive questions, enjoyment from playing along with them, enjoyment from the atmosphere, enjoyment for some from seeing the contestants struggle with the questions. This factor might apply when contestants have a high-valued possible solution to a question and viewers differ from the contestants as to whether to try it or not.
The Cube: this factor applies strongly here, reasonably inarguably, in the decisions whether to take the money or play another game.
Deal or No Deal: this factor applies extremely strongly here, reasonably inarguably, in the decisions whether to take the money or open more boxes.
The Krypton Factor, Knightmare, Countdown, University Challenge, Blockbusters: does not apply at all as these shows make no attempt to feature INCREDIBLE JEOPARDY! of the type discussed here.
WWTBAM?: this factor applies moderately strongly here, reasonably inarguably, in the decisions whether to take the money or try a selected answer to another question.
Interceptor: enjoyment from watching the imaginitive situations, enjoyment from playing along with them, enjoyment from the atmosphere, enjoyment for some from seeing the contestants struggle with the situations. Protestations that the contestants have a risk-vs.-reward decision in whether to behave cautiously or progressively do not seem part of the appeal here.
Mastermind: no.
Fifteen-to-One: I don’t think there is, in practice, a great groundswell of viewers criticising contestants’ decisions to take questions rather than to nominate in the second half of the show.
Raven: conceivably it could be a small element of some of the games.
Bullseye: no.
Divided: this factor applies moderately weakly here, reasonably inarguably, in the decisions whether to take the money or try another round of questions, but is not a significant part of the appeal of the show. I do not think the factor applies to the argument at the end of the show as to which share to take.
QI. Catchphrase, Family Fortunes: none of the above, except possibly – possibly – the decision whether to abandon a line and start another one in the Catchphrase bound, but I don’t think it’s a discussion anyone ever really had.
Taking the top 20, there are three shows where this is a large and obvious part of the appeal, about five shows where there is a very tenuous connection if you wish to stretch to make it and a vast majority of shows considered excellent by the peer group where it isn’t part of the appeal at all. A quick survey of the next 10, and the 20 after that, shows that the trend broadly continues in a similar vein, or might be skewed even further away from risk-vs.-reward decisions about which people can opine.
In conclusion, suggesting that every great game show has to feature INCREDIBLE JEOPARDY! to a greater or lesser extent so that people might express superiority of their utility function to that of the contestant is like suggesting that every meal has to feature rotisserie lamb.
Er, Bullseye: yes, fairly overtly, in the 101 gamble at the end of the show.
Who’s suggesting that? But it is Deal or No Deal’s central tenet. What you want is a show that isn’t Deal or No Deal.
Essentially, most modern-era game and reality shows are dressed-up ‘stories’. With the exception of ultra-bare shows like Countdown, most programmes have a narrative to them that means that the final 5 minutes is very different to the first 5 minutes.
Many of the shows you mention may not have jeopardy but they do have jeopardy in terms of how it affects the storyline and the people within it.
Surely almost every game has a narrative, whether show or not – a beginning, middle and end which contribute towards distinct play styles in what the players are doing, contributed to by what the other players are doing, how well everyone is doing, and proximity to the end of the game. The difference between a game of Werewolf and a game of Chess, or Sale of the Century and Knightmare is how focused on the narrative they are rather than if a narrative is present?
Gameshows with rounds and tabletop games that explicitly change the rules during the game is that they put some of that narrative structure into the rules.
(There are exceptions to this, obviously)
Hmmm. I wonder what the second line from the prosecution would be, when the defence (i.e tv) says – “Well, take Deal Or No Deal – they are not actually gambling with their winnings. Until there is a natural conclusion to the game – the player doesn’t know what they have won, so therefore it’s not their money. And until that point in the format, they are playing with our money, and without this, it would make for a very boring show”
More of an issue, if one show gets kicked off the air because of a regulator who really should have no control over television programmes or material (that’s Ofcom’s job – and bar one or two issues, does it’s job well) then, by twisting words and sentences around, that would remove EVERY game or quiz show off the air.
And, as we know no game or quiz shows would pretty much sink every tv channel under the waterline, as more would have to be spent filling the schedules with more pricer to make fayre.
Something as harmless as Mastermind, for instance.
You need skill for Mastermind. Good recall for your specialist subject and general knowledge. You also need luck, as you need your other three opponents to answer fewer than you.
You can apply that to pretty much every single quiz show on tv, past, present and future, and thus in the sightlines of the Gambling commission.
The gambling commission really should not spend 1p of any taxpayers money parking their tanks on Ofcom’s lawn over this when there are far more important issues from them to go steaming on, like stopping the relentless march of the big 5 bookies taking over every spare shop on the high street (and I type as a regular customer of one of them) and stopping Richard Desmond’s Health Lottey in it’s tracks, as it’s operating as a stealth second national lottery – which is illegal.
That said..
Maybe the gambling commission investigation could be of some use – it may stop another series of The Bank Job getting on air.
I agree completely that the Health Lottery has to be stopped, and I also agree that TV regulation should be Ofcom’s remit. I would say that a change in legislation on both TV competitions and on game shows is well overdue post-0898gate, and there may be room for consultation with the Gambling Commission on this legislation.
But the Health Lottery is a much more obvious illegal lottery than Deal or No Deal.
Don’t get me started on Richard Desmond. The Daily Express somehow worked out that 9.1m watched Man Utd on C5 – even though it peaked at just over 5m and averaged just over 3m. They might have used the reach figure – but the point is Richard Desmond is misinforming the public when it comes to his own TV channel in his own newspaper. Even Murdoch isn’t that desperate when plugging Sky in The Sun (indeed The Sun isn’t really used as a Sky promotional tool other than the odd ad and some sponsorship of the sport pages).
I feel like I’ve wasted my time dropping in and out of here and other places to discuss this gambling commission nonsense here – so to think people are being paid to discuss something that shouldn’t be under their remit is absolutely ridiculous.
Although it’s very difficult to tell from the Mail’s article…
…It appears that this is a consultation regarding a change in television regulations regarding gambling – i.e. the intersection between Ofcom and the gambling commission. Once the regulations are changed (or not) it will be Ofcom’s duty to inform them, but Ofcom would be remiss in their responsibilities if they didn’t at least ask the gambling regulator’s opinion with the gambling authority for changing the television regulations regarding gambling, surely? (Though who’s idea it is to change the regulations/law is anyone’s guess. If it’s a request from parliament, I suppose Jeremy Hunt’s, but it might also be from Ofcom or the gambling commission directly, I guess…)
…Depending on the outcome of whatever the heck this is actually an inquiry into, this could really bugger up any plans to revive Press Your Luck in the UK.
…Or, for that matter, adapt Zombie Dice into a game show (Not that anyone would do that; it’s far more obscure than most ‘family game adaptation’ properties)
Oh. Just thought – The targets seems (based on a biased report) to be on luck based mechanics with financial rewards attached, rather than actual depictions of gambling… Such as the skill based Grand Slam.
I think this is just a tempest in a teapot- I suspect if they did try to do anything, the broadcasters would take it to court (C4 especially- DOND might not be as big as it was, but it’s still a key show for them).
Wrapping up some of the more tangential thoughts coming out of this discussion. Mr. Howell wrote,
If the producers present risk-taking in a positive light [..] that absolutely falls under the Gambling Commission’s remit
No, it doesn’t. Or, at least, not under the current regulatory framework. Contests are either lotteries, regulated by the GC; or prize competitions, regulated by OFCOM. The question is where the line is drawn between a lottery and a competition. In a lottery, prizes are allocated by one or more processes, the first of which relies wholly on chance. In a prize competition, success depends on the exercise of skill, judgement, or knowledge by the participants.
In the case of , it appears that the competition takes place off-screen, and that the televised proceedings are an extended phase to determine what prize is awarded.
In the case of , the first phase, predicting the stunt at Wembley Arena, is a test of judgement, and one that will be failed by about half the participants.
Neither show requires its competitors to pay to enter.
The Gambling Commission’s remit does extend to ensuring that lotteries are regulated, and policing the boundary between those and prize competitions. For prize competitions on telly and radio, OFCOM’s rules apply.
I can’t see how is gambling: if the seller is unable to reach an agreed price, they leave with their original item. It’s not even a prize competition, but televised business negotiations.
I disagree with Mr. With A Y Not An I in his assessment that Ofcom [..] does its job well. The obvious capture of OFCOM by Global Radio has acted to the clear detriment of listeners in southern England, and made it possible for the BBC to suggest similar centralisation across England. OFCOM concentrates on the minutiae of regulations, while refusing to address the larger picture. Only in the last weeks has it deigned to address the dominant market position of British Sky Broadcasting, and the obvious corruption in its main shareholder. [ctd channel 155. Or not.]
Mr W (briefly)
I’m not one for who goes in for these ‘Murdoch is so into Ofcom that he has an office at Riverside House’ Digitalspy-esque hate filled ramblings, but apart from the laws they operate under – for tv, they generally do their job well.
I would like them to levy heavier fines, and have the abillity to revoke and remove tv channels off the air pretty much instantly (rather than the messy notice period they have to currently give) but that’s just stirrs up my normally dormant ‘go nuclear’ feelings.
I will agree with you on the radio issue. They are pathetic when it comes to the ILR irradication of local output through networking, and are pretty much Global Radio’s bitch.
I worked part time for commercial radio for some 9 years, and got out in 2008 just as the ‘local content during network programming’ (i.e the adverts say the names of local towns) was starting to take hold, and Ofcom just stood around with their fingers in their ears going “la-la-la-la can’t hear you”.
Had a pretty exciting moment in round one of Millionaire yesterday. Contestant got to the final question, worth $15,000; with a Round One bank of $49,600. So he either walks with $24,800; misses and drops to $1,000; or gets it right and wins a total of $64,600 and plays for $100,000. Big gamble. Risk $24,000 to win $40,000 more, and to go into Classic Millionaire with a guaranteed $25,000 to fall back on?