New e-petition rules for Downing Street Website

(31-07-2011 11:05 )Winston Wolfe Wrote:  If you're going to organise a campaign like this, I would recommend that you direct it to all the companies involved with the channels. They produce the content and are ultimately responsible for production values.
...
Capitalism is the main factor in the equation - not OFCOM. Yes, OFCOM's rules are like a bad joke - but there are loopholes and ways around some of these rules (some of which have already been applied).

Good point. Rather than pressing Ofcom we should be pressing Sky. They are desperate for good news at the moment, as there is widespread confusion between Sky and News International.

Ask Sky to explain why the Adult section is Opt-Out rather than Opt-In. Encourage Sky to ask Ofcom to make it mandatory for licenced Freeview boxes to have a single that blocks Adult channels in one go, and to keep the setting when channels are rescanned. (Some Freeview boxes rescan automatically every month, so parents might not even know that kids have regained access).

Obviously Im not anti Adult channels, but I accept that some people dont want them. Or know about them. And accidentially stumbling across these channels can cause distress to a minority of people. Preventing accidental access seems like a win-win.

Of course it would be better if similar noises were made by family friendly forums.

Quote:I've noticed there are some unrealistic expectations on this forum, in terms of wanting quality adult entertainment - without paying for it. You may find it for free on the Internet, which is all well and good - but it's very difficult to get on TV without the need for encrypted pay-per-view.

Hmm, Id say the big channels have got lazy. And some have a severe conflict of interest because they have shops, DVD sales and online businesses to protect. Its as if the newspapers were owned by TV companies who decided to keep exciting news stories out of the papers in order to boost TV advertising revenues. No celebrity gossip. No MPs expenses stories.

A few years ago Babestar and other channels showed free explicit shows could work and could make a profit. Sexstation still does. But the big boys can make life difficult for channels that push the boundaries.

My own view on this has always been the same - if you don't pay then you can't really complain. If you don't ring - you're not paying.

On the other hand, I agree that the channels will only continue whilst ever they are making money- it's true that the profit motive is the overriding driver, however, it's my opinion, having dealt with regulatory authorities all my professional life, that unfocused, inconsistently applied and inaccurately targeted regulation can and does stifle business sectors. My intention would be to highlight these characteristics in the current regime.

As regards having the companies submit such a petition in concert with one another, using a current analogy, would be like getting the Republicans and Democrats to forget their differences and work together for the good of the world rather than for party politics - it ain't going to happen. In any case one company not on here controls many of the channels - presumably they wouldn't join even if the others did.

A complication is that the babe channels in their current form exist to sell sex chat lines. They dont exist on their own merits. If the audience get off on free TV show they wont ring the chat lines, income will plummet and channels will go off air.

This is a bit of a dilemma for many viewers who are happy to have a sherman in front of the TV, DVD or magazine, but reckon ringing up and having a 1-2-1 sex chat is a step too far.

But would the channels go bust? Doubt it because there will always be loads of people in the other camp who have no qualms about ringing up, and think it is a more real experience than the TV.

The current arrangement where babe channels are a showcase for sex chat lines is a result of Ofcom forcing the channels into a corner. As teleshopping channels they are now BANNED from having editorial content. (Thats to stop an editorial channel reregistering and showing non stop scrolling ads over the top of TV shows, getting advertising advantage over the likes of ITV and 5).

It should be possible to have a TV channel where women flirt, take their clothes off, do sexy things and interact with callers with show themes and regular advertising. It should be possible to have a viewer sex qiz where if they get a question right the babe removes an item of clothing. Or viewer text votes for which babe strips. Or editorial content where babes act out their favourite sexy scene from literature/history.

In an ideal world advertisers would buy short form advertising space or sponsor shows. That would generate real income from the shows, not the calls. In the advertising world, viewer numbers mean advertising revenue. That way the viewers who do not turn into callers would be making a contribution too.

(31-07-2011 22:08 )eccles Wrote:  Ask Sky to explain why the Adult section is Opt-Out rather than Opt-In. Encourage Sky to ask Ofcom to make it mandatory for licenced Freeview boxes to have a single that blocks Adult channels in one go, and to keep the setting when channels are rescanned. (Some Freeview boxes rescan automatically every month, so parents might not even know that kids have regained access).

Obviously Im not anti Adult channels, but I accept that some people dont want them. Or know about them. And accidentially stumbling across these channels can cause distress to a minority of people. Preventing accidental access seems like a win-win.

Hey Eccles, I've posted a few times that I dont think this is a good option, the last one a few posts up in the previous page. Basically I think it eliminates the shop window for new accidental channel surfers, and for the numbers involved I think that margin would be disastrous for the channel's revenues over time. [Lets say there has to be 100 channel surfers before one of them eventually becomes a paying caller? rough guess sounds ballpark for illustration] Certainly thats how I came to see the babechannels.

I dont mind at all if you disagree, just wonder what you think of it? I understand why it seems a great idea to undercut Ofcom's child protection argument (and I think it wise of you to recognise some strength in that argument), but it doesnt seem win-win at all to me, certainly not for the channels, and ultimately us. To compensate for the downturn in revenue the channels would have to charge a (hopefully) small fee, such as babestation extreme (is that what Winston is hinting at? hope not lol). Not sure if it is working for BS extreme, but even that channel depends on the incessant shop window of advertising on BS1.

Sorry this is a bit of digression from the petition.

Can I just point something out here, it's 7 O'Clock in the fucking morning yet SKY ARTS are showing Spencer Tunick's naked in mexico, just to cut through all the bullshit however you can't even see a tit during the day on the 900 specially devoted Adult Channels, this is fucked up and so are ofcom and the current government.

Roquentin - Im not very good at getting ideas across concisely. Like you I am completely against having to enter a PIN each time you change channels. Like you say, that would destroy the free adult channels. In fact one of the things I dislike about the subscription channels is that they lock people into a fraction of the channels without having seen the content. Its bad news if you decide you dont like the theme or the models.

What I do favour is a once only system. It could even be a tick box in the Sky subscription form.

Like you say, it would deter the causal surfer, but it would also destroy the accidental offence and child viewing argument that Ofcom trots out every time.

A way to allow the curious to view would be to have a 'soft' time of day when inooffensive sampler content could be aired. Or a sampler hour when would be viewers would have to type the PIN in. Either way adults would not see content they found offensive without having to actively select it and could control what their kids view.

Scottishbloke - complain to Ofcom. Its a breech of the rules.

(31-07-2011 23:34 )Renfrew169 Wrote:  On the other hand, I agree that the channels will only continue whilst ever they are making money- it's true that the profit motive is the overriding driver, however, it's my opinion, having dealt with regulatory authorities all my professional life, that unfocused, inconsistently applied and inaccurately targeted regulation can and does stifle business sectors. My intention would be to highlight these characteristics in the current regime.

Be mindful that most of these issues have already been debated before in the industry...

(31-07-2011 23:34 )Renfrew169 Wrote:  As regards having the companies submit such a petition in concert with one another, using a current analogy, would be like getting the Republicans and Democrats to forget their differences and work together for the good of the world rather than for party politics - it ain't going to happen. In any case one company not on here controls many of the channels - presumably they wouldn't join even if the others did.

You didn't catch my drift. My previous post wasn't about all companies in the industry joining forces - it was about directing your campaign, about any content you consider substandard on free-to-air/pay-per-view, to the companies themselves. Remember - only one company is required to provide either a new format or different content within an existing format.

I'm only prepared to help out from the production side of it. If a new project is given the green light, and a good position is established, then maybe certain moves can be made to protect the business.

One thing I won't be doing is going round in circles with the same old discussions on here - they've been done to death.

Many thanks Eccles for the reply, and I am sure you get your ideas across perfectly well. Its a good case for the once off opt in, and more plausible to me now. I still think deterring the casual surfer is too much to risk, especially as it seems like the main route to becoming a caller. I suspect it usually takes a few months of semi watching at a very casual level (and probably not committed enough to seeking out an opt in) before a proportion become fans and then eventually callers. But I'm happy to drop it as I'm sure I sound like a broken record now

Detering the casual viewer is a risk. Sort of. If people had to tap in a PIN every time they changed channel it would kill the free channels. I have had to do it when I have bought PPN from a multi channel operator, and it gets to be a complete pain in the arbroath 3 dundee 2.

I have suggested a once per night PIN before. Not sure how much of a pain that would be.

But a once ever opt in? I suspect quite a few people have dipped a toe into subscription channels occasionally by signing up for one nights PPV, either by text, clicking the remote buttons and entering the PIN, or by phoning up. If opt in is free and its once only people will try it after a while and will stay.

The other thing is I suspect that many men secretly get satellite TV knowing full well that there are naughty channels and planning to give them a try.
"Hi darling, why dont we get Sky?"
"Um, dont you get faster internet with Virgin honey?"
"You never get the advertised rate, and Sky has more channels"
"Well its up to you"
One more tick box on the package options when signing up wouldnt be an excessive burden.

I don't think entering a pin would be an issue at all. I as well as many others do it without a thought when we want to watch a film on Sky Movies which is rated 12 and above during the day. It takes about 3 seconds!

Good point Eccles makes about the purpose of these channels. How many of us even spend £10 per month on phoning the girls. I suppose this is the reason for Babestations mega sales approach on pics and videos etc. They have to squeeze all the revenue they can from those who do not generate phone revenue.