Home > Consultations > Consultation Documents > Television Appeals for Donations > Broadcast Appeals for Donations

Summary

Introduction

1.1 Earlier this year Ofcom consulted on the issue of whether the current ban on television channels broadcasting appeals for donations to make programmes or fund their services should be lifted. Such appeals are allowed on radio subject to certain conditions under Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code (“the Code”) but not on television.

1.2 At the time of the consultation Ofcom had not formed a view on whether the advantages of lifting the ban outweighed the disadvantages. The main advantages were felt to be:

• It could provide a new source of income for television broadcasters, in particular specialist channels and those with non-profit status (e.g. religious, minority ethnic, local and community channels);
• It would create a more level playing field between television and radio broadcasters, and also between television religious channels licensed by Ofcom and those broadcasting to the UK from abroad;
• It would be a deregulatory move even though safeguards would be needed, in particular to protect donors and vulnerable viewers.

1.3 The main disadvantages of lifting the ban were felt to be:

• The amount of money which would be raised appeared likely to be limited;
• There was a risk of funds being misused, vulnerable viewers being exploited and broadcasters’ editorial independence being (or being perceived as being) diminished;
• While safeguards could be introduced, they might be difficult and expensive to enforce.

1.4 This Statement contains a summary of the responses to the consultation and Ofcom’s decision now that it has considered these responses, including the changes which it is making to the Code and related Guidance.

Consultation responses

1.5 Twenty-one responses were received to the consultation. These indicated that there would be some interest in broadcasting appeals if the ban were to be lifted and supported the view put forward in the consultation document that appeals could help individual broadcasters, in particular specialist channels with a niche audience and those with non-profit status. However, respondents tended to agree with Ofcom that appeals would be unlikely to be an adequate sole source of funding for any channel and the overall economic benefit to the industry was likely to be limited.

1.6 Respondents agreed with Ofcom that lifting the ban would be unlikely to raise competition issues but rather would help competition by creating a more level playing field between television and radio, and between television broadcasters licensed by Ofcom and those broadcasting to the UK from abroad.

1.7 There was general agreement among respondents on the need for safeguards if the ban were to be lifted. However, opinions varied on which particular safeguards should be put in place ranging from those who favoured self-regulation or simply applying the basic conditions relating to transparency and accountability which apply already to radio appeals, to those who called for the full range of safeguards which had been discussed in the consultation document including, in addition to the above:

• Making it clear that appeals in religious programmes (or indeed in any type of programme) must not improperly exploit any susceptibilities of the audience;
• Requiring that appeals must not create unrealistic expectations of what a donor’s gift will actually accomplish;
• Restricting appeals to broadcasters which are registered charities or non-religious channels;
• Requiring broadcasters to provide Ofcom with a written annual report of donations, the total amount raised and how it has been spent;
• Prohibiting donations from political bodies and emphasising the need for broadcasters to maintain their editorial independence.

1.8 Most respondents were in favour of lifting the ban subject to safeguards of one form or another. Among the arguments put forward for lifting the ban were that:

• The ban is unfair to smaller broadcasters, unnecessary and excessive;
• A uniform approach should be applied to television and radio;
• Ofcom has a duty to look for ways of reducing the regulatory burden on licensees;
• Lifting the ban would help to fund high quality indigenous programmes and help the Christian broadcasting sector in the UK to grow.

1.9 However, four respondents opposed lifting the ban (one of these opposed allowing religious or non-religious belief systems to appeal for funds but was neutral on the question of allowing appeals by community and other public service channels). Among the arguments put forward by this group for retaining the ban were that:

• There is a serious risk of financial abuse and of vulnerable people being exploited;
• The difference in television’s emotional impact compared with radio justifies different rules;
• Broadcasters have other means of raising funds and appeals will make little difference to those channels which are unviable;
• The safeguards which are needed will be difficult or impossible to enforce, costly to administer and inconsistent with Ofcom’s light touch approach to regulation.

Ofcom’s decision

1.10 Ofcom has given careful consideration to the responses to the consultation. It acknowledges that the overall economic benefit of appeals to the television industry is likely to be limited and that the current ban is simple to enforce and provides strong protection to viewers who may be at risk of exploitation. On the other hand, allowing appeals would benefit certain television broadcasters. Ofcom also notes that television services which broadcast to the UK from abroad already broadcast appeals, as do radio services in the UK.

1.11 As regards possible safeguards, Ofcom believes that these should be designed to ensure transparency and accountability; provide protection from exploitation for vulnerable people; and maintain broadcasters’ editorial independence. Ofcom does not believe that these objectives would be achieved through self-regulation alone. However, there is a risk that if restrictions are placed on who can broadcast appeals or too may other conditions are imposed, the benefit of lifting the ban will be seriously diminished and the weight of regulation on broadcasters will remain burdensome.

1.12 For these reasons Ofcom does not believe that it would be appropriate to restrict appeals to only certain categories of broadcasters such as those which are registered charities or non-religious channels; or to require broadcasters to submit an annual report to Ofcom. However, the Code and related Guidance will make it clear, for example, that broadcasters must behave responsibly and that accurate records should be kept which Ofcom may ask to see. The specific changes which Ofcom intends to make to the Code and Guidance are set out in Section 4 of this Statement. While the change to the Code affects only television broadcasters, the new Guidance applies to both television and radio broadcasters.

1.13 Ofcom is satisfied that it has sufficient resources and sanctions available to it to ensure that the safeguards which will apply will be effective. While it is true that application of the safeguards may involve a cost in terms of administration, Ofcom does not feel that this is a sufficient reason for retaining the current ban.

1.14 Ofcom has therefore decided that controlled deregulation (i.e. lifting the ban subject to the safeguards set out in Section 4) would be the appropriate course to adopt.

The full document is available below

• Broadcast Appeals for Donations to Make Programmes or Fund Services [pdf]
  Full Print Version

Back to top