Search results matching tag 'Ofcom'

Things must be tough - even Ofcom has announced a pay freeze

1704826 — Wed, 20 May 2009 09:55:00 GMT

Austerity conditions have been imposed on Ofcom's staff in its lavish Thames-side headquarters; they'll have to forego a pay increase while members of its executive committee will not be considered for a bonus this year.

Poor old chief executive Ed Richards will have to continue to make do with the £400,000 that he made last year while Ofcom chairman Colette Bowe will have to continue to struggle by on the £200,000 she draws for the three day a week position. Perhaps both will consider getting an allotment or take up darning socks to see them through these difficult times.

According to the accompanying press release, Ofcom took into account 'the circumstances of the companies and taxpayers who pay for the organisation'; I'm sure that it had absolutely nothing to do with fear that their gravy train salaries would be next to be exposed to widespread public disgust.

Gordon Ramsay tops the swear-o-meter

1704826 — Mon, 11 May 2009 17:19:00 GMT

Channel 4's potty-mouthed cook Gordon Ramsay has found himself in trouble with Ofcom for managing to get 115 versions of the f-word into the first 40 minutes of his 'Great British Nightmare' programme - that's nearly three a minute.

The broadcaster's defence is that its audience would have expected this. So that's alright then, although poor old Bill Grundy will presumably be spinning in his grave at the news.

I don't care either way but what I do worry about is that Channel 4 has now managed to destroy one of the remaining TV taboos and taken away the power of what was once an incredibly powerful word when used judiciously.

That leaves just one word left that has any power at all and I can think of plenty of people on television who suit it, including Ramsay himself.

Hands up who feels sorry for ITV?

673734 — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:18:00 GMT

Talking to contacts this morning in light of ITV's £2.7 billion losses, it's hard to detect too much sympathy around for those who control the broadcaster. Plenty for those among the 600 who will lose their jobs as it restructures but beyond that there is a feeling that ITV has played a part in its own misfortunes.

Sure the downturn and wider economic picture have hampered ITV's chances of turning around its fortunes, but some are arguing that its content and strategy for diversifying away from ITV1 has not been strong enough.

In mitigation, ITV is performing well in holding its audience share against the BBC but the ad revenues aren't there despite this and now it is pushing for rapid decisions over CRR and Ofcom's proposals that it should be allowed to reduce its regional news commitment.

And it is banging the drum for more radical industry reform, perhaps including a merger with Channel 4 and Five. While there is little appetite for this among the advertising community there is at least recognition that something big and structural needs to happen. As one media agency boss told me this morning: "I'm no advocate of the ITV/4/Five merger but there needs to be a radical rethink of advertiser-funded television because it isn't a model that works right now."

Will there be '100 days to save ITV'?

1704826 — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:04:00 GMT

ITV’s management can quite rightly be accused of crying wolf all too frequently in the past as it sought to protect its dominant position, but if there was ever any doubt that Rupert Howell was over egging it when he said that it was ‘scrapping for its life’ it must surely be dispelled by its results published today.

Why won’t somebody do something to help it? After all it’s not, like Channel 4 - or indeed numerous other companies in various sectors - wielding the begging bowl in front of Peter Mandelson thereby plunging the country into further debt.

All it wants is a lighter regulatory touch and the ability to throw off some of the shackles that are decades out of date and then it continue to deliver value for advertisers, entertainment for viewers, jobs for (British?) workers and money back into the economy. Sure, there has been some appalling mismanagement in the past – ITV Digital and the purchase of Friends Reunited the most notable – but surely it has suffered enough from the sins of its former management team.

If anyone cares about media plurality as well as the future of commercial television in the country they should pressure Ofcom to do something, and fast.

To leave it to die or be taken over by a foreign media conglomerate would be nothing short of negligent. Or does the government really think there are no votes in bothering to take the small measures that would save it?

Pizza sponsorship - make it a new hate crime

1704826 — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:58:00 GMT

God knows how long Ofcom came up with its decision that Domino's Pizza's sponsorship of The Simpsons on Sky One breached its codes that are meant to restrict the promotion of HFSS foods to children.

Given that the adjudication extends to six and a half pages and includes various definitions from ASA and BCAP Codes as well as correspondence with some poor sod at Sky Media who had to put their case back to Ofcom, it is an investigation that would have put the Hutton Enquiry to shame. And all because the National Heart Forum had said that the long-running sponsorship failed to ‘observe the spirit as well as the letter of the rules'.

In the same Broadcast Bulletin adjudication, in which ITV and Highland Spring are also castigated for giving undue prominence to the water brand during an exchange on the British Comedy Awards, which if anything was sarcastic and in any case only attracted one viewer complaint, EastEnders was exonerated despite 90 complaints that its storyline was about paedohilia.

The majority of the complainants said that the subject, centred around Bianca's partner Tony who had started abusing her daughter when she was 12, was not suitable for a pre-watershed audience. Images of them kissing and lying on the bed together were also shown. Incidentally, EastEnders is transmitted at the same time as The Simpsons.

In its judgment, which extended to just three pages, Ofcom noted its responsibility under the European Convention of Human Rights that ‘information and ideas' must be ‘imparted...without undue interference'. Also that the programme prompted viewers ‘to respond to the Action Line...and to write to the programme makers outlining their similar experiences' and it was therefore OK.

At the risk of sounding like Richard Littlejohn, are we sure that Ofcom has its priorities right here?

Promises, Promises

2248082 — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:37:00 GMT

Meant to mention this last week, but congrats to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), on the new Data Protection Promise. Good to see the safeguarding of personal data getting a much-needed boost – particularly as 99 data breaches (no, not Luftballons!), were reported to the ICO in the final quarter of 2008 alone.

According to ICO research, 95 per cent of companies are apparently strong advocates of the Data Protection Act. Which is just as well, as an estimated 70 per cent of consumers are concerned about the amount of personal information companies hold about them, say Ofcom.

I have a couple of minor quibbles with the Promise, though: (i) it commits signatories to what I regard as being minimum ‘good practice’ standards; and (ii) as we’ve all seen more gaffs in recent months than the North Atlantic tuna fleet, shouldn’t we, as responsible data handlers, be trying to raise the bar and do more?

But I don’t want to throw the data protection baby out with the ICO bathwater. With an estimated 100 million items of misaddressed mail still providing too ample opportunity for fraudsters each year (address forwarding fraud constituted a disconcertingly high 36 per cent of total ID fraud cases in 2008), let’s hope advocacy translates into tangible data hygiene and security action in 2009.

Shove it up your *** Mark Thompson

1704826 — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:36:00 GMT

Anyone else watch Mark Thompson's and Michael Lyons' performance before the Commons culture, media and sport select committee? There was pitiful little evidence of either wearing a hair shirt - in fact, neither looked that they were particularly bothered to be there.

Thompson said that the BBC had been responsible for a ‘serious editorial lapse'. No Mark, it had been responsible for a complete lapse in taste, judgment and management by allowing personally offensive material to be recorded in the first place in the name of entertainment - the fact that it was broadcast is secondary to this.

As for Lyons, his claim that the BBC Trust had still not decided Ross's fate looked disingenuous given that the BBC had already trumpeted his glorious return.

The BBC Trust was brought in to replace the discredited Board of Governors following the Gilligan affair. The problem is, that like its predecessor it has no power and is too allied to the management of the organisation. Perhaps it's time for the BBC to come under the auspices of Ofcom and receive proper regulatory control like the commercial media operations against which it seems determined to put out of business.

Is killing puffins really worse than killing Palestinians?

1704826 — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:00:00 GMT

Astonishingly there are more people out there who find the sight of Gordon Ramsay humanely catching then killing a puffin and eating it more offensive than that of a Palestinian man being shot in the head by an Israeli soldier.

That's the latest revelation to emerge from Ofcom, which subsequently spent an unknown number of man hours determining whether or not The F Word had breached any of its programming codes about the ‘generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context'.

While I'm not necessarily a massive fan of Ramsay, the fact is that eating puffins in Iceland - where the piece was filmed - is apparently a common practice, which is something I didn't know. Unfortunately, the shooting of Palestinians is also a common practice in Israel but perhaps people are so immune to it that they couldn't be bothered to ring in and complain.

"You might not be gay, but your car is"

255762 — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:57:00 GMT

Last year Jeremy Clarkson was criticised for calling a car "a bit gay". Ofcom didn't like it, but this hasn't stopped Vanity Fair which has launched a gay car blog.

On the BBC's 'Top Gear' Clarkson asked a man in the audience if he would consider buying a Daihatsu Copen. The guy replied "No, it's a bit gay" prompting Clarkson to comment "A bit gay, yes, very ginger beer".

Frankly the Daihatsu Copen is just a bit ugly. I'm not sure about gay, will have to email Vanity Fair's new blog "Stick Shift: The Gay Car Blog" which says that gay cars are not simply meant to encompass cars that are pastel in colour or characterise a vehicle's owner.

No, apparently a "car's gayness -- like gayness in general -- is based in its inhabiting the margins of conventionality. A Gay Car is quirkier, more enigmatic, or more fiercely accessorised than the average vehicle (It also likes to sleep with other Gay Cars)".

No idea what the last bit means, but the blog plans to run comparison features on such topics as "Which Car is Gayer" as well as answer such burning questions as "How Do Gay Guys Keep Their Cars So Clean?".

The blog is being written by someone called Brett Berk who is apparently a life-long car nut, gay, and the author of The Gay Uncle's Guide to Parenting. Apparently he has a pretty good gaycardar, but he doesn't say what he drives.

I'm still not sure if I could pick a gay car or brand out of a line-up. So I Googled gay cars (yeah I know, always one to valuable invest my time) and found that the Gay Life channel on About.com had helpfully created a list of the top ten gay cars. If you own one of the following either a) do a little skippy skp for joy at the gayness of you motor or b) hang you gay car head in shame.

1. Best Car for the Gay Professional - 2006 BMW 5 Series Sedan - This car (apparently) embodies the essence of today's gay man.

2. Best Car for the New Gay Family - 2006 Saab 9-5 Wagon - "The Saab 9-5 is an individual that refuses to follow the pack, just like the new gay dad and his family."

3. Best Dragwagon - 2006 Kia Sorento - The 2006 Kia Sportage is the perfect solution and this year's top dragwagon.

4. Most Likely Down Low Cruiser - 2006 Chevrolet Impala - Impala driver's seats can be seen leaning far back with just enough visibility to cruise the passing cars.

5. Best Twinkmobile - 2006 Mini Cooper - Thanks to it's great handling, fast engine and fun ride, the Mini Cooper is our Best Twinkmobile winner.

6. Best Ride for the Trendy Gay Man - 2006 Honda Element - It's just unique enough to satisfy the trendy in all of us.

7. Best Ride for the Trendy Gay Man (Urban) - 2006 Chrysler 300C - This car is just hot and so is the trendy urban gay man that drives it. It's broad stance, chrome grill and "get out of the way" attitude has redefined the American sedan.

8. Best Retail Queen Carriage - 2006 Pontiac G6 - We've all seen 'em. We've identified our goal, mapped out our destination and may even be excited about the journey until we hear a high pitched voice that takes all the enjoyment out of the ride. "Can I help you?" it says from thin air...in the mall or on the road, the retail queen and the G6 are just in the way!

9. Best *** Moving Van - 2006 Subaru Outback - There's plenty of space for the cat cage and those boxes that can't fit in the storage bin. The Outback is a long-running *** champion.

10. Queerest Car - 2006 Ford Focus - By it's position and title you may think the Queerest Car of 2006 is a good thing. To the contrary, it's usually an entry level vehicle frequently driven by gay men on a budget. (Translation: I just need a car to get from work to the bar to home.) Saving a dime can be cool too, but must styling be sacrificed? I surveyed many gay men to find the queerest car of 2006 and they all turned their nose up a the same vehicle- the 2006 Ford Focus.

Double standards: open season at the BBC vs tough rules for advertisers

695124 — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:40:23 GMT

Listening to BBC Director General Mark Thompson’s hair shirt speech yesterday, it occurred to me that there’s a rich irony out there. While advertisers and agencies take a rigorous regime for granted, our public service broadcaster has been playing fast and loose with the truth.

In our quest for politicians and the public to take our business seriously and give it the respect it deserves, I think the BBC’s disastrous fall from grace gives us useful ammunition. We mustn’t let up on A4A (Action for Ads) – even for one week in the holiday season. It is vital that the AA, IPA, ISBA and all leading advertisers and agencies keep up the pressure. We have extremely high standards under the watchful eyes of Ofcom, ASA and BACC. The proof of the pudding is in the public perception that if an ad makes a claim for the efficacy of a product, that claim is likely to be believed: “they wouldn’t be allowed to say that if it wasn’t true”.

Going back to the BBC, DG Thompson needs to cast his cleansing zeal much wider than insults to the Queen and misuse of phone-ins. How about shameless editorial bias in prioritising and slanting news bulletins? And how about relentlessly aggressive and rude interrogation of public figures? The news bias is insidious and dangerous. The routine viciousness of interviewers sets an appalling example. It must also skew coverage by putting off the honest but timid from coming on air, while encouraging liars with thick skins.

It all serves to make adland look wholesome.