Bearing in mind our ongoing discussions with OFCOM regarding the big idea, one does tend to wonder about how the authorities draw the distinction between awry, 'ripped 'off and outright fraud these days:
Richard and Judy quiz ‘con’
And what they ever do about it.
Guardian - You say, who pays? Richard and Judy show faces inquiry over teatime quiz
Indy - Revealed: Richard and Judy quiz scam
BBC - Richard and Judy in quiz apology
Times - Richard and Judy apologise for quiz
Mirror - RICHARD & JUDY'S FOUR YEAR CON
Times - Probe into Richard and Judy phone quiz
BBC - Madeley 'livid' over quiz scandal
Guardian - Richard and Judy quiz controversy deepens
Indy - Richard and Judy pull plug on phone-in quiz
Observer - Richard and Judy scandal grows
Guardian - We must stop TV companies ringing up the profits
Times - BBC feels the heat as cookery programme calls are investigated
Oh, this just gets too delicious.
And OFCOM and ICSTIS get paid how much, by whom to do what, exactly?
Guardian - BBC axes pre-recorded Saturday Kitchen episodes
Guardian - Premium-rate phoneline scandal reaches BBC
Mirror - NINE PHONEY TV PHONE-INS
Times - Host who was in two places at once
What a link! Shame there is no comment function! I just wonder why the solution to defrauding viewers is to give 'a stern telling to' to the scum-buckets who bilked them
Times - City’s new police chief spells out the true cost of fraud
Times - BBC show must hand over pudding tapes
Times - I have dialled the future – and won
Telegraph - X Factor's voters paid too much
Daily Star - Factor phone votes 'rip off'
Daily Mirror - REFUNDS AFTER NEW TV VOTE BLUNDER
Daily Mirror - NINE PHONEY TV PHONE-INS
Indy - 'X Factor' vote blunder made ITV £200,000
Telegraph - ITV suspends premium rate phone-ins
BBC - ITV suspends premium phone-ins
Times - ITV pulls the plug on phone-ins after series of scandals
As a participant in a voter-driven reality TV show, who was the
cause of some to commit funds to these guys pockets in support
of what they thought was fair contest, I am intrigued as to how this
still seems to be more 'slap wrist, don't do it again' as opposed to
what it seems to me to be clearly: fraud. Why?
The Sun - Lid lifted on TV phone scandal
Sad to see so many readers saying it is participants' own greed and fault. These were competitions entered into in good faith. How many of these smug individuals go to the bookies? Would they feel the same if the arrival of the winning nag was predetermined?
You may like to add Sky and Ricochet to your investigation. Along with the competence of OFCOM or ICSTIS to handle much less police these scams.
I am now four months into a complaint regarding Sky's Big Idea. So far the former has managed to claim it has lost the evidence I supplied and I have not heard back on a request to resubmit the forms. The latter has never replied.
We are dealing with the crime of fraud here are we not?
Why is it being treated like a wrist-slapping, don't do it again? The amounts alone are vast. The principle even more important.
Times - Company in phone-in inquiry wins betting deal So the whole fraud thing is OK? I wouldn't bet on it.
Guardian - Police may be called in over fixed TV shows
G Media Talk
Mirror - WATCHDOG WARNS OF LEGAL ACTION
Guardian - A Watershed moment
An interesting collection of responses from the more intelligent end of the liberal media. Wish I was so smart.
I look forward to all your faces when some aspect of your life is compromised by what the Mirror quotes 'Phone-in watchdog' as saying: 'This is 'semi fraud''. Which errs on being a little bit pregnant in my book.
Someone invites you to take part in a process involving your time and/or money on a set of stated criteria that you agree to, possibly involving calculated risk. Only they are not as stated and the other side has had no intention of honouring them. Tough. Apply that basis to every aspect of your relationships in life.
I was a contestant in a show on SKY (interestingly the BBC this morning stated they were the only major not involved - tell that to the OFCOM and ICSTIS gusy I'm dealing with... if painfully....slowly) that did not feel kosher as a viewer-decided contest to many of those who invested time (and hence money) and money in taking part. And when it came to voting a lot of folk felt they were part of an honest process.
How we chose/choose to spend our money is up to us, so long as it falls within the laws of the land.
Let ye who would cast nasturtiums make sure ye don't suffer from hay fever at a later stage.
Times - Endemol loses its shine over scandals
Times - Channel 5 faked winners of phone-in quiz and put staff on air as contestants
Times - Eckoh chief reluctant to take all the phone-in flak
Showing posts with label BIGID. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BIGID. Show all posts
Monday, February 19, 2007
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Dragging On, and Down? - How reality TV is not serving this nation
A caught a piece from the FT (no sub, no access to comment), but wrote to the author, who kindly replied and suggested I resend to the letters page. Here's the full version:
What I read struck a chord in one who has stood and still stands at the other side of the entrepreneur: business angel/VC relationship. With the dubious added extra benefit of being involved with such reality TV shows as well.
There's a lot of talk in high places these days about encouraging enterprise, especially the social variety.
As with anything, having a great idea is the easy part. Putting together a business plan that makes sense, and a team to execute it just notches up the grief factor to a whole new level. But once you get to funding....
Which is why a lot of people are seduced by such shows. With the added attraction of potential publicity, which any product or service can only gain from having, especially to a nationwide audience, for no more investment than some time, small change and some humiliation.
I thought I was smart, but perhaps I was too smart. I had no intention of some clown getting half my company for the price of their lunch tab at the Ivy, especially when I had no idea what the deal would be before deciding on the spot, and with no idea of their level of commitment. I just wanted profile. Sadly, they saw me coming a mile off. And now I realise my cunning plan would still be on the edit room floor.
So what we have is an endless supply of hapless, televisual 'Christians' being fed into... the Dragon's Den.
Great for ratings. Horrible for enterprise. Most with halfway decent ideas now wouldn't go near such shows (at the British Invention Show we were running away from their reps), and are tarring serious, sensible, decent investors with a very negative brush. And as far as the youth of the country is concerned, being a good businessperson now merely requires one being like Simon Cowell, only without the charm and the interesting lifestyle.
It's a disaster for getting together the key, complementary components that make up a great team to push something into the market and turn a profit.
If I had one critique from my experience of the more reasonable varieties of VC/funder, it is that they still expect things to be laid out for them in a manner they can recognise. Understandable, but there are a lot of creative people out there who are not that savvy with or temperamentally attuned to P&Ls, spreadsheets, forecasts etc. Or suits. It's a shame therefore that there is not more effort to establish a proactive and productive interface between these two disparate character traits, to facilitate the path to mutual reward.
There is more to life than just making money and showing how 'hard' you can be. And in my business experience, it's the guys who are very smart, and very nice as well, who really make things happen.
'A great person (ok, I'm PC-sensitive) makes others feel small. A truly great person makes others feel great'.
I'd rather work with the latter, as I know that if they make me feel great, together we'll make others feel great, and that is a quick route to success... and staying at the top.
I attach here a URL to just one thread of a posting to a show you may or may not have heard of - SKY's The Big Idea - where the subject of DD came up. You may be interested. I just looked and there is a brand new posting about DD. Not very encouraging.
What I read struck a chord in one who has stood and still stands at the other side of the entrepreneur: business angel/VC relationship. With the dubious added extra benefit of being involved with such reality TV shows as well.
There's a lot of talk in high places these days about encouraging enterprise, especially the social variety.
As with anything, having a great idea is the easy part. Putting together a business plan that makes sense, and a team to execute it just notches up the grief factor to a whole new level. But once you get to funding....
Which is why a lot of people are seduced by such shows. With the added attraction of potential publicity, which any product or service can only gain from having, especially to a nationwide audience, for no more investment than some time, small change and some humiliation.
I thought I was smart, but perhaps I was too smart. I had no intention of some clown getting half my company for the price of their lunch tab at the Ivy, especially when I had no idea what the deal would be before deciding on the spot, and with no idea of their level of commitment. I just wanted profile. Sadly, they saw me coming a mile off. And now I realise my cunning plan would still be on the edit room floor.
So what we have is an endless supply of hapless, televisual 'Christians' being fed into... the Dragon's Den.
Great for ratings. Horrible for enterprise. Most with halfway decent ideas now wouldn't go near such shows (at the British Invention Show we were running away from their reps), and are tarring serious, sensible, decent investors with a very negative brush. And as far as the youth of the country is concerned, being a good businessperson now merely requires one being like Simon Cowell, only without the charm and the interesting lifestyle.
It's a disaster for getting together the key, complementary components that make up a great team to push something into the market and turn a profit.
If I had one critique from my experience of the more reasonable varieties of VC/funder, it is that they still expect things to be laid out for them in a manner they can recognise. Understandable, but there are a lot of creative people out there who are not that savvy with or temperamentally attuned to P&Ls, spreadsheets, forecasts etc. Or suits. It's a shame therefore that there is not more effort to establish a proactive and productive interface between these two disparate character traits, to facilitate the path to mutual reward.
There is more to life than just making money and showing how 'hard' you can be. And in my business experience, it's the guys who are very smart, and very nice as well, who really make things happen.
'A great person (ok, I'm PC-sensitive) makes others feel small. A truly great person makes others feel great'.
I'd rather work with the latter, as I know that if they make me feel great, together we'll make others feel great, and that is a quick route to success... and staying at the top.
I attach here a URL to just one thread of a posting to a show you may or may not have heard of - SKY's The Big Idea - where the subject of DD came up. You may be interested. I just looked and there is a brand new posting about DD. Not very encouraging.
Rumbling On
As long term readers of this blog will recall, we took part in a Reality TV show last year that started well but drifted in to... 'unfortunate' areas.
I'm sure the programme makers would hope that it has been left well alone, but a lot of folk were asked to commit a lot of time and money in a contest, whose rules and management became less and less satisfactory, with a bizarre collection of decisions being taken by the organisers that left the results in question.
As one who was not impressed, I decided that if there was anything that needed answering, those responsible should answer it. So I have maintained a watching brief.
This latest vindicates my determination.
If even winners have not had delivered what was promised, it goes to the true intentions of the programme makers to all who were invited to take part.
I'm sure the programme makers would hope that it has been left well alone, but a lot of folk were asked to commit a lot of time and money in a contest, whose rules and management became less and less satisfactory, with a bizarre collection of decisions being taken by the organisers that left the results in question.
As one who was not impressed, I decided that if there was anything that needed answering, those responsible should answer it. So I have maintained a watching brief.
This latest vindicates my determination.
If even winners have not had delivered what was promised, it goes to the true intentions of the programme makers to all who were invited to take part.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)