Access key 0 - Accessibility
Skip To Content | Skip To Navigation
 

Home > About Ofcom > Corporate Structure and Governance > Content Board > Notes of Content Board  > 32nd


10|10|05

Minutes of the Thirty Second Meeting of the Ofcom Content Board, held at Riverside House on 10 & 11 October 2005

Present

Richard Hooper - Chairman
Sara Nathan Deputy - Chairman
Sue Balsom - Member
Floella Benjamin - Member
Kevin Carey - Member
Jonathan Edwards - Member
Pam Giddy - Member
Matthew MacIver - Member
Kip Meek - Senior Partner, Competition and Content (Ofcom)
Adam Singer - Member
Tim Suter - Partner, Content and Standards (Ofcom)

In Attendance

[Withheld from published minutes]

Apologies

Rosemary Kelly Member
Kath Worrall Member

Review of Television Production Sector: Policy Options and Proposals

1. [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes] presented paper CB 104(05) which contained early conclusions in relation to the issues to be addressed and the key policy areas on which proposals would be made in the consultation document. Members were reminded that they received an update on the findings about the television programme production sector in the UK survey at the September 2005 Content Board meeting. The survey had been compiled from data supplied to Ofcom by broadcasters and responses received to the Ofcom/PACT Producer Census carried out during the summer. It was NOTED that following discussion at the Content Board and Ofcom Board the draft consultation document would be published in November 2005, with an intended date of publication for a decision statement of March 2006.

2. The Content Board NOTED that the review concerned essential aspects of the relationship between television broadcasters and the production sector – focusing in particular on the key production quotas, and the operation of the commissioning system between producers and broadcasters. Members NOTED the framework which had been used by the executive in addressing the key policy questions. Members also NOTED the likely structure and contents of the consultation document, including: executive summary; intervention in the television production sector; current and future developments in the television production sector; implications for intervention in the television production sector; and policy issues and options.

3. Members NOTED that the policy issues and options likely to be included in the consultation document, would be in relation to the following areas:

In relation to new media rights, Members NOTED that there remained a considerable amount work to be completed by the executive prior to the creation of policy recommendations.

4. The Content Board considered the information presented and a number of recommendations made by the executive in relation to policy proposals and options which had been defined on the basis of the evidence-based work programme in the review. [Withheld from published minutes]. Members NOTED that the executive had given consideration to what viewers valued, which included entertainment, innovation, creativity and diversity, not just the delivery of PSB purposes and characteristics.

5. [Withheld from published minutes].

6. Particular consideration was given as to whether geographic concentration acted against diversity in programme supply [Withheld from published minutes]. It was AGREED that the consultation document would include reference to the terms of the Communications Act in this area, which obliged Ofcom to ensure that a suitable (significant) amount of production should be based outside London.

7. Members considered the fourth recommendation “The independent quota is likely to remain an important source of certainty for the production sector for the next five years at least – we therefore suggest that Ofcom proposes no change to this quota”. [Withheld from published minutes].

8. Members gave consideration to the fifth recommendation of the executive: “The quota for production outside London is a blunt instrument, but seems to be a necessary intervention – but additional measures may also be needed to secure OOL production for the future”. Members NOTED that the executive had given consideration to the possibility of different approaches being taken for different broadcasters. [Withheld from published minutes].

9. Members AGREED with the sixth recommendation “The codes of practice have generated optimism, but concerns have been raised by producers about the tariffs paid by broadcasters. But our analysis suggests there is no systematic problem here.” Members NOTED the representations which had been made from stakeholders on new media rights. Members considered and CONCURRED with the seventh recommendation of the executive “Resolving the dispute over new media rights is a significant issue, to which Ofcom should aim to bring regulatory clarity – a possible solution could involve a new definition of rights windows”.

10. Members considered the eighth recommendation of the executive: “The BBC’s plans for a Window of Creative Competition (WOCC) are critical to the future of the independent production sector – but more may need to be done to ensure meritocracy in commissioning”. [Withheld from published minutes].

11. The Content Board NOTED that the executive had given consideration to whether changes were needed to the definitions of qualifying producers, and within this had given consideration to the possible impact of a change on existing qualifying independent producers. [Withheld from published minutes].

12. Members considered and CONCURRED with the tenth recommendation of the executive: “We propose no change to the definition of qualifying programmes and OOL productions – these definitions are working well”.

13. Members felt that the market interventions being proposed were considerable and therefore RECOMMENDED that the consultation document made the situation clear at the start, with a general overview of why intervention was felt to be required. In addition it was felt that the consultation paper should be clear as to why intervention would be in the viewers’ interest. It was AGREED that the executive would circulate the draft consultation paper to Members at the same time as it was circulated to the Ofcom Board for consideration, prior to publication at the end of November 2005.

Interactive Media Player - IMP – BBC

14. The Content Board NOTED a presentation on content labelling and a demonstration of the BBC’s Integrated Media Player given by [Withheld from published minutes] (Editorial Policy Adviser at the BBC) and [Withheld from published minutes] (Controller Editorial Policy). The presentation focused on the conclusions of BBC content labelling research which had sought to identify what information audiences wanted, where and how the information should be displayed on the EPG and how effective the preferred system was in user trials. Members NOTED that of the range of labels included in the research; age categories, letters, symbols and long-handed text, the most popular label was long-handed text. It was NOTED that respondents felt that the age categories were too general, the letters did not go far enough in explaining the nature of the content and the symbols were not taken seriously. In every case the respondents opted for the long-handed text as they found it direct, unambiguous and most helpful.

15. Members NOTED that the research identified a need for a short hand symbol or letter to appear next to the programme title, to indicate that more information was available, to appear on the EPG and in listings magazines and to help those with reading difficulties. It was felt that the letter G for guidance was the most useful indicator. It was NOTED that the second phase of the research identified that respondents felt that on the EPG, the text label would be best placed on the information page with the programme synopsis. This preferred system was found to be the most favoured in user trials, where a “G” was placed next to the programme title on the EPG and the long-handed text shown after the programme synopsis.

16. The Content Board then NOTED the key features of the web based system which had been developed by the BBC to allow people in the UK to access the previous seven days of television and radio programmes (BBC’s Integrated Media Player (IMP)). Members NOTED that the content labelling system would be tested as part of the IMP three month trial which had just started. It was NOTED that further research was to be carried out to ensure a full understanding of the effects the system would have on viewers. In response to a query, it was NOTED that it was anticipated that approximately 12 programmes per evening across all the BBC networks would carry a “G” coding. In response to a query, it was NOTED that the control group did not contain a specifically identified category of people with learning difficulties. Members gave consideration to news content and the possible effect on children, however it was recognised that it would not be possible to attach a “G” coding to such content, and that audiences would need to rely on the current in-programme labelling of items. In response to a query, it was NOTED that the BBC was considering future technology to enable embedded metadata information within programmes. The Content Board thanked [Withheld from published minutes]and [Withheld from published minutes]for an interesting and thought provoking presentation and requested that they return to the Content Board with an update in early 2006. It was also requested that the BBC kept the BBFC updated with their progress.

Guidance on engaging with Ofcom Boards: including revised paper template

17. Graham Howell and [Withheld from published minutes] presented paper CB 121(05) which advised Members of guidance which was being developed for colleagues on how to engage with Ofcom Board’s and sought the Content Board’s views on how to improve Board papers and the way in which information was presented, with particular emphasis on formal presentations. The Content Board NOTED that the executive intended to provide information in the guidance about; the respective roles of the Board and Content Board, the process of submitting Board papers, guidance on how to prepare Board papers and guidance on attending Board meetings and presenting papers. It was NOTED that the template used for Board papers was being reviewed to improve governance, promote better policy making and make papers easier to write and more useful to the Boards. It was anticipated that these measures would assist the Ofcom’s Board’s in performing their roles and contributing to better, more robust decisions.

18. Members considered the information presented and welcomed the review and intended proposals. In relation to Board papers it was RECOMMENDED that a cover (overview) paper outlining the issues and giving clear recommendations on policy, with annexes (presentation/background papers) if required, was the preferred approach and was found by Members to be valuable. It was RECOMMENDED that presentations circulated in advance should form an annex paper and not replace a cover paper. In addition it was felt that clear guidance as to contentious and non-contentious issues within the cover paper would be helpful to Members. Members felt that duplication within papers, circulated presentations, and face-to-face presentations was to be discouraged. Members RECOMMENDED that where presentations were circulated in advance for consideration by Members, they should not then be presented at the meeting unless the meeting presentation highlighted new, more detailed or key information and/or drew out further the points for discussion. However it was recognised that a certain amount of professional development of colleagues came from making presentations to Board, which was supported by Members.

Fairness and Privacy Complaints handling

19. [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes] presented paper CB 119(05) which had been drafted in relation to Ofcom’s specific duty to apply adequate protection against unfairness or the unwarranted infringement of privacy in television and radio services. Members NOTED that the legislation required Ofcom to establish procedures for the consideration and adjudication of fairness and privacy complaints and that it was for Ofcom to determine, subject to certain matters expressly required by statute, the appropriate structure and conditions of any complaint handling procedures. Under the relevant legislation, any such procedures should be in keeping with Ofcom’s regulatory principles and be evidence-based, proportionate, consistent, accountable and transparent in both deliberation and outcome. Members NOTED that Ofcom’s current procedures were, to some extent, inherited from the predecessor regulators with some significant modifications. It was NOTED that the executive had prepared the draft consultation document based on the discussion at the previous Content Board meeting.

20. Members gave some consideration to the draft consultation document and in particular to the list of consultation questions and the new draft proposed guidelines and gave their feedback to the executive. [Withheld from published minutes].

21. In relation to the draft proposed guidelines, Members were in favour of the use of the grey explanatory boxes and found these to be a useful addition. It was RECOMMENDED that:

22. Following consideration of the draft consultation document and the new draft proposed guidelines, Members APPROVED the consultation document “The handling of fairness and privacy complaints” for publication, subject to the above recommendations. In response to a query, Members NOTED that if a complainant withdrew a complaint, Ofcom would not be in a position to proceed with the case even if it related to a serious issue. In response to a query, it was NOTED that the consultation itself would include a wide range of views (not just broadcasters) and the executive would aim to seek representations from complainants and viewer organisations. It was AGREED that Floella Benjamin would work with the executive to ensure that a diversity of views was included in the consultation.

Content and Standards Report

23. [Withheld from published minutes] updated the Content Board on programmes which had been attracting complaints. The Content Board was also updated on the status of current Fairness and Content Sanctions cases. [Withheld from published minutes] presented a number of clips which had been considered by both the Content and Standards Group and the Fairness Committee in the area of fairness and privacy. Following each video clip the Content Board discussed the issues raised and the outcome of the complaints.

Minutes of the Meetings held on 12/13 September 2005 (Content Board Minutes 30(05)) and Matters Arising

24. The minutes of the Content Board meeting held on 12/13 September 2005 were AGREED, subject to a few small amendments.

Content and Standards Group Report

25. Tim Suter updated Members in relation to current Content and Standards people and policy issues. Members NOTED that [Withheld from published minutes] had recently joined the Content and Standards group as the Head of Multi Media and that there would be significant changes in relation to desk positions and colleagues working on the fifth floor during October, November and December 2005. It was NOTED that [Withheld from published minutes], had concluded her secondment at Ofcom and had returned to the Bavarian Broadcasting Regulator. Members NOTED that as a result of this positive secondment experience Ofcom was looking to take part in more secondments, in both directions. In relation to policy, it was NOTED that the group was working hard on developing a framework of work for the 2006/7 business plan, based on an analysis of what would be required post digital switchover, which would be fed into the Content Board’s awayday. [Withheld from published minutes]. The Content Board NOTED a summary of the outcome of the TWF Conference held recently in Liverpool. The current situation was considered and Members NOTED that Ofcom had to accept the position and look to work closely with other regulatory bodies to develop workable solutions and attempt to ensure that regulation did not become more intrusive. It was NOTED that while the EU was working on the new draft directive, Ofcom would be lobbying to influence strategy in a principled and practical way.

Rolling Forward Plan of Content Board Agendas

26. Members NOTED the schedule CB 120(05) which set out the rolling forward plan of the Content Board agenda to March 2006.

Ofcom Board Meetings of 6 and 20 September 2005

27. Kip Meek reported on the Ofcom Board meetings held on 6 and 20 September 2005. The main points to note were that :

  1. BT had signed the undertakings, which had been published on 22 September 2005;
  2. The Board had discussed the proposed revision of the TWF Directive;
  3. The Board had considered the proposed acquisition by Cable and Wireless plc of Energis plc;
  4. The Board had made a number of decisions in relation to the Radio Review;
  5. The Board considered preparations for the Regional Radio Conference 2006; and
  6. The Board had considered proposed guidelines on the pricing of technical platform services.

In response to a query, Members NOTED that a paper was being developed in relation to Professional Development and access by non-executive members of Ofcom to internal development tools, which would be brought to the attention of Members once completed.

Members’ Interests

28. Pam Giddy declared an interest for incorporation into the register of interests – she had become a contributory editor for More4 news.
Floella Benjamin declared an interest, not for incorporation into the register of interests – [Withheld from published minutes]

Disclosure of Content Board Minutes

29. Graham Howell presented paper CB 102(05) which made a recommendation in relation to a new policy regarding publication of Content Board and Ofcom Board Minutes. The paper also requested that the Members of the Content Board consider and approve the form of future Content Board minutes in relation to attributable voting. Members NOTED that since the Freedom of Information Act had been implemented in January 2005, Ofcom had received and logged approximately 800 requests for information; a much greater volume than other regulators. It was NOTED that of those requests closed, Ofcom had provided information in full in 85% of cases and fully withheld information in 10% of cases. Members NOTED that Ofcom had received 12 requests for internal reviews of its decisions and the Information Commissioner had received three appeals against Ofcom decisions on disclosure. It was NOTED that two of the appeals related to the disclosure of Content Board and Main Board minutes.

30. The Content Board NOTED that the current practice for the Ofcom Board and the Content Board was for full minutes to be circulated internally only, with notes of minutes published externally (on the web-site). It was NOTED that in taking this approach Ofcom had been following the process followed by the predecessor regulators and a number of its peer group regulators. Members NOTED that on 17 January 2005 Ofcom had received a request for all the full Content Board minutes to date. It was NOTED that this request had been refused and there had been an internal review of the decision requested on 17 March 2005, which upheld the original decision not to disclose the minutes. Members NOTED that the reason cited for withholding the information was exemption Section 36 to the Act i.e. that disclosure would, or would be likely to, inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or the free and frank exchange of views; or would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. An additional reason cited was section 22 of the Act which states that information is exempt from disclosure if it is held by the public authority with a view to its future publication, for example information on the new Broadcasting Code.

31. The Content Board NOTED that in September 2005 Ofcom had been informed by the Information Commissioner (‘IC’) that an appeal against our decision to withhold Content Board minutes had been lodged. It was NOTED that although the IC had not yet made a decision on the application of sections 22 and 36 exemptions to Board Minutes, it was understood from informal discussions that section 22 should only be used when there was an agreed date or proposed period after which the information requested would be published and section 36 had a limited life and should not be used as a blanket exemption although it may apply to specific sections of information rather than the entire set of minutes. Members NOTED that the informal indication from the IC’s office was that Ofcom may be required to release the requested Board minutes. However, it was NOTED that the IC had intimated that if Ofcom changed its policy and decided to release full minutes subject to minimal redactions at an agreed reasonable interval after the meetings, this would be an acceptable response.

32. The Content Board considered the three policy options presented and RECOMMENDED that Ofcom should adopt the following policy:

Continue to publish notes of meetings, but release the full minutes after an agreed period (subject to any redactions because of FOI exemptions applicable at that date), of 6 months after the meeting.

Members considered whether the period of six months was appropriate, and AGREED that any period less than six months was too short to cover controversial or sensitive material and the amount of redactions necessary would be onerous to manage. It was NOTED that the IC believed that the section 22 exemption was unlikely to apply to any period longer than six months. Members NOTED that Ofcom would need to incorporate this change of policy in its publication scheme.

33. The Content Board gave consideration to what detail should be contained in the full minutes of its meetings. It was NOTED that the Content Board at its inception discussed and agreed the principle of a collegiate approach to decision making; where decisions were recorded in minutes as decisions of the Board, however the decision was reached, without identifying whether or not the decision was reached unanimously or by majority. Members NOTED that a recent Content Board debate had highlighted this particular issue and also the issue of whether comments should be recorded as being made by named individuals or being recorded as being made by ‘Members’. The Content Board AGREED that in general the principle of a collegiate approach to decision making would be followed, however if requested by Members, the minutes would record if a decision was not unanimous, and in some circumstances a record of the vote would be recorded. Members AGREED that in general the principle of recording comments made by ‘Members’ would be followed, however if requested by Members, comments be recorded as being made by named individuals.

Explanation of Nutritional Profiling

34. The Content Board NOTED a presentation by [Withheld from published minutes] which explained a nutrient profiling scheme, developed by the Food Standards Agency (FSA). Members were reminded that at the beginning of 2004 Ofcom began its project to review its rules on food advertising to children and that in March 2004, the FSA declared from its own research the there were grounds for restricting the promotion to children of foods high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS). It was NOTED that at that time the FSA committed to developing a nutrient profiling scheme to help Ofcom (and other regulators in a similar position) to identify healthy and un-healthy foods and thus act with a targeted approach. The Content Board NOTED that if it decided to apply different rules to different types of food advertising to children, these rules would need to be based on a nutrient profiling scheme of some kind. The Content Board NOTED that nutrient profiling was a set of criteria by which foods, meals or diets could be classified or categorised. It was NOTED that it was important that the profile was developed to fit the application. Members NOTED that nutrient profiling was not a tool to be used to define “good” and “bad” foods, nor was it a consumer communication tool/signposting.

35. Members NOTED that in developing the scheme the FSA had considered whether it should apply equally to all food categories or whether it should contain different profiles for different food categories. It was NOTED that the FSA’s scheme applied equally to all food categories, and thus helped to distinguish between different types of food. In identifying nutrients, Members NOTED that the FSA had decided to include both ‘target’ nutrients (energy, saturated fat, total sugar, sodium) and ‘balancing’ nutrients (protein, fruit and vegetable content, and fibre) in the scheme. Members NOTED the advantages and disadvantages of three difference choices of base considered by the FSA (per 100g, per portion and per 100 kJ) and NOTED that the FSA had chosen to use per 100g as the base for the scheme. The Content Board NOTED that the FSA had given consideration to the choice of model type, i.e. whether there should be simple cut-off points: “one out, all out” (threshold model) or whether a more graded approach, considering the cumulative effect of nutrients (scoring model), which should be adopted. It was NOTED that the FSA had chosen to use the scoring model for the scheme.

36. The Content Board NOTED that the FSA had chosen its preferred model, which was known as WXY, which was practical to apply, encouraged innovation and classified foods in a way that was consistent with:

Members NOTED an example of how the scheme worked in practice, by determining levels at which a trigger for action existed. Members NOTED that the scheme was transparent in approach, it identified foods high in fat, salt and sugar and also recognised contribution of dairy, meat, fish, fruit and vegetables to the diet.

37. The current situation with respect to progress made by Ofcom, BCAP and the Government in this area was NOTED. Members considered the FSA’s scheme and its potential for use by Ofcom, should a decision be made to introduce a targeted system of rules on food advertising to children in the future. Members NOTED that the ASA had committed to replicating Ofcom’s decision with regard to broadcasting, to advertising.

Advertising Co-regulation: Quarterly Report

38. [Withheld from published minutes] presented to Members the quarterly performance report from the ASA on Broadcast Advertising Complaints, which was NOTED by Members. The presentation contained a summary of complaints received and resolved by the ASA. [Withheld from published minutes]. The Content Board NOTED future policy initiatives and planned activity, in particular determining the boundaries of new media services, where discussions had been held between the ASA and Ofcom. It was REQUESTED that Members be able to consider how such technologies could be regulated and the practical implications in relation to advertising as opposed to broadcasting.

Radio Licensing Committee (3 October 2005)

39. Pam Giddy and Matthew MacIver updated Members on the Radio Licensing Committee (RLC) meeting held on 3 October 2005; when a decision had been made on the award of the Barrow-in-Furness local commercial FM radio licence. In addition the Committee had made an initial consideration of the applications for the Northallerton, Ipswich and Swansea local commercial FM radio licences. A decision was made on the West Yorkshire Area, the Greater Manchester Area, the West Midlands Area and the Northern Ireland Community radio licences and preliminary discussions were held on a number of other Community radio licences. The Committee noted a paper on the Community Radio Fund Panel and also noted a new format change request from Kiss 100. Members NOTED that Sue Balsom had attended the meeting in relation to the consideration of the Swansea licence.

Matters for External Communication

40. [Withheld from published minutes] outlined Ofcom’s recent activities and forthcoming announcements.

Any other business

a) 3G Visit
41. Members were updated in relation to the outcome of a visit to 3G by Sue Balsom, Richard Hooper and Matthew MacIver; Members had found the visit helpful and interesting. It was NOTED that 3G was aware of the issues, taking into account their predominantly young audience, in relation to regulation and future developments, and were taking a responsible approach to content.

b) Spectrum FM Visit
42. Members were updated in relation to the outcome of a visit to Spectrum FM by Floella Benjamin and [Withheld from published minutes], when a number of issues in relation to culturally diverse output were discussed. It was NOTED that Spectrum FM was intending to contact Ofcom in relation to the needs of Asian audiences in the future.

Media Literacy: Audit Research

43. [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes] presented paper CB 118(05) which gave Members an overview of the large scale media literacy audit, which was being conducted by Ofcom to identify the UK media literacy skills, knowledge and understanding of both children and adults across media platforms. It was NOTED that the initial research was intended to benchmark current levels and types of media literacy, with further waves of research to track change over time. Members then NOTED the content of a presentation which outlined the preliminary results of the media literacy adult audit research, and gave Members an insight into the development of possible policy implications. Members NOTED that the full results of the adult research, together with the results of the children's audit and boosts, and policy development would be made at the Content Board meeting in November 2005.

44. The Content Board NOTED that the research included robust samples for England (and its macro regions), those with low incomes and those living in rural areas. In addition the sample was boosted for adults, to ensure robust findings for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and for the largest minority ethnic groups and for people with hearing and sight loss. Members NOTED that the definition of media literacy used in the research was “the ability to access, understand and create communication in a variety of contexts”.

45. The Content Board NOTED that in relation to levels of awareness and interest, the research results presented were focused on the types of digital benefit to and extent of interest and awareness of respondents, and the motivations of respondents for the take-up of platforms. Members NOTED that the level of interest shown in mobile communications was the highest, followed by television, and then radio and the internet. The research identified that interest in digital radio was found to be in relation to accessing better quality and more stations. It was recognised that generally more interest lead to more awareness of digital features. In terms of the awareness of digital features of these forms of media, it was NOTED that respondents were far more aware of the digital features of mobiles, television and the internet, than they were of radio, where respondents were less certain about the digital features available. Members NOTED that home access to digital platforms was strongly related to the level of interest in that platform. However it was NOTED that some respondents had access, but were not aware that they had, e.g. access to digital radio through the internet /Sky. Members NOTED that the executive believed that it was critical to identify the benefits that promoted interest and to communicate these benefits, in an understandable language, to promote take-up.

46. The Content Board NOTED that digital television and the internet had the highest levels of involuntary exclusion, where respondents perceived that they were not able to access the platform as a result of high cost or lack of understanding. Members NOTED that the executive was attempting to identify specific groups which could potentially be left behind, either through involuntary exclusion or voluntary exclusion (i.e. who did not recognise a benefit in the technology). Members NOTED that the executive believed that Ofcom should focus on assisting those who were involuntarily excluded by helping them to understand the technology and benefits. It was felt that a targeted approach to the provision of such assistance should be made in relation to each identified target audience group. Members NOTED that the executive believed that there should be further exploration undertaken to identify any barriers to take-up and the reasons for voluntary exclusion.

47. The Content Board NOTED that in relation to the creation of own content and services, the research results presented were focused on the creation of websites/weblogs and the creation of photo/video content on mobile phones. It was NOTED that the creation of content was still a niche activity. Members NOTED that the executive believed that Ofcom should keep a watching brief on the creation of content activities on all platforms.

48. The Content Board NOTED that in relation to levels of concern and content control over services, the research results presented were focused on the overall level of and types of concern expressed by respondents, the knowledge and competency levels in relation to available controls and the respondents’ knowledge of the regulator’s role. It was NOTED that the internet registered the highest level of concern amongst respondents, mainly related to children and sexual/violent content and a gap in the understanding of content blocking controls available by older respondents. Members NOTED that the executive believed that Ofcom should promote awareness of content controls, with a particular emphasis on sub-groups with the lowest levels of understanding. In addition it was NOTED that the research identified mobile communications as being the cause of the lowest levels of concern, where concern existed mainly around health and not content, and where there was a large gap in understanding of the content controls. Members NOTED that the executive believed that again Ofcom should promote awareness of content controls, with a particular emphasis on sub-groups with the lowest levels of understanding.

49. The Content Board considered the research and initial analysis presented and gave feedback to the executive. It was REQUESTED that the executive undertake some analysis of the difference between live and consolidated viewing, with respect to viewer perceptions of required regulation, for consideration by the Content Board. It was REQUESTED that the executive undertake some assessment of other digital platforms, such as games platforms. Members were interested in identifying whether respondents actually could not afford the technology or whether they just had alternative spending patterns and technology was not of a high enough importance to them to justify the cost. It was REQUESTED that a list of the early policy implications would be circulated to Members for information. Members NOTED that these policy implications would be further developed and would be presented in more detail at the November Content Board.

Nations and Regions Audit

50. [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes] presented paper CB 105(05) which updated Members in relation to a project being undertaken to audit Ofcom’s work in the nations and regions of the UK. Members NOTED that the project aimed to:

51. The Content Board NOTED this would be the first project to look at these issues in a technically converged way and considered possible results of the research. It was NOTED that there was public and political pressure for public intervention, development of a knowledge base and examination of issues in an analytical way to provide a basis for informed debate. Members NOTED that it was intended that the audit would research and analyse:

It was also NOTED that the audit would not cover:

Members NOTED that the research would be structured so that it could be updated periodically.

52. The Content Board NOTED the different ways in which the data could be analysed, which included looking at the key differences between nations and regions, in particular the differences between access to, and use of, communications technologies across the UK. The data could also analyse what differences there were between urban, semi-urban and rural communities. Issues surrounding the digital divide and media literacy were also to be analysed.

53. Members NOTED that the project would be undertaken in three phases and would draw on and feed into other Ofcom projects. The first phase would be information gathering (end 05/early 06), and an important role would be played by the National Advisory Committee sub-committees (on which Content Board Member representatives for the Nations and Regions were welcome to sit) and N&R teams, in particular regarding the sourcing of other, national/regional level data. There would also be workshops with National Advisory Committees and kick-off seminars with stakeholders, prior to the publication of initial findings and hypotheses. It was NOTED that the second phase of the project would focus on policy trajectories (Jan-Mar 06), where additional research would be commissioned (if required), detailed policy analysis would be undertaken, and stakeholder events would be held across the nations and regions to discuss policy implications. Members NOTED that the third phase of the project would focus on conclusions and issues (April 06), to identify policy issues for Ofcom, formulate wider policy recommendations (for Government) and final publication of the findings (but no public consultation).

54. The Content Board considered the information presented and gave feedback to the executive. It was felt that the project would help inform the debate and bring credibility to Ofcom’s work in the Nations and Regions.

Consumer Audit Project

55. [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes] presented paper CB 123(05) which advised Members of the Consumer interest audit ‘tool-kit’ which had been developed PWC for the Consumer Panel. Members were reminded that the Consumer Panel’s statutory duty was to advise Ofcom and others on the interests of consumers in the communications market-place. Members NOTED that the Panel had identified that with limited resources, it could not hope to offer advice on all the consumer-related matters that might come before it and therefore opted to identify more strategic ways of adding value to the regulatory process. It was NOTED that in 2004 the Panel decided to identify if it could find a way to satisfy itself that Ofcom effectively identified and gave due weight to consumer interests in its regulatory decision-making. The Panel observed that whilst there were tools for assessing outputs of regulation (impact assessments, etc) there are few ways of assessing ‘inputs’ to regulation. Members NOTED that the Panel decided to undertake a project to develop a methodology for “auditing” the way in which Ofcom (or any regulator) took consumer interests into account in the formation and implementation of regulation. Members NOTED that Pam Giddy represented the Content Board on the Project Board for the report.

56. The Content Board NOTED that one of the objectives of the project sought to address was how to define the consumer interest, or the framework for identifying the consumer interest, in sufficient detail so that:

It was NOTED that the project's objective was also to ensure that “taking the consumer interest into account” was sufficiently well-evidenced through the processes undertaken by Ofcom colleagues that they were capable of being audited.

57. The Content Board NOTED that there had been debate around whether the audit’s scope should be extended to address the consideration of citizen interests in addition to consumer interests. It was NOTED that similar methodology could be applied to citizen interests, however the project had limited itself to considering the consumer interests in Ofcom, as the consumer interest debate was sufficiently far advanced and embedded into cross-Ofcom thinking to be easily identified and evidenced. Members NOTED that the key findings of the project were that it was possible to devise an auditable methodology to be used by a regulator for identifying and analysing the consumer interest and that Ofcom’s processes were capable of being audited. It was NOTED that an initial review suggested that Ofcom should be well-placed to provide evidence of its consideration of consumer interests in its work.

58. In relation to the key characteristics of the tool-kit, Members NOTED that the tool-kit methodology covered three broad areas:

Members NOTED that whilst developed with Ofcom in mind, the methodology had been designed to be easily adopted by other organisations concerned with regulating in the consumer interest, and for a variety of different uses. It was NOTED that the Consumer Panel was in discussion with Ofcom colleagues over the tool-kit’s potential use within Ofcom, and with some other potentially interested parties.

59. The Content Board considered the information presented and gave consideration as to how the tool-kit could be utilised by the Content Board. It was NOTED that a strategy document was being compiled to identify the citizen interest through Ofcom’s consumer strategy work, which would be presented to the Content Board. Members considered the remit of the Content Board, in respect of the protection of citizen interests in content regulation, which centred on the requirement to ensure that societal needs were met, where there was market failure. It was felt that Ofcom’s fundamental belief of what should be available to citizens, in terms of access and entitlement to content, and the fundamental concepts of plurality and diversity were key to the Content Board’s remit. Members recognised the challenge of deciding what the correct level of PSB provision was, and recognised that a clear definition was required.

60. Members recognised that, with respect to Ofcom’s duties, the Consumer Panel looked after the interests of citizen outside the areas of content regulation, and that this partnership had been working well. Members asked for the Panel's informal view of the current top consumer issues in content and NOTED that the Consumer Panel suggested three consumer content issues, which were: the provision of listed events on non-subscription channels, media literacy and the use of television as a consumer mechanism (such as shopping channels).

Date of next meeting

61. It was NOTED that the next meeting would be held on Friday 18 November 2005 in Newcastle and would commence at 8.30am. The meeting would be preceded by a Content Board Awayday on Thursday 17 November, also in Newcastle, commencing at 9.00am. Members NOTED that they would be approached by [Withheld from published minutes] in advance of the awayday Board review item.

19 September 2005


Back to top Back to top


Further information

Help

Keep up-to-date