CorpComms Magazine

In April the BBC's Panorama revealed that breakfast programme GMTV had been duping viewers into making premium-rate competition entry calls past the point when it was possible to win. But this was only the beginning of a long list of scandals that have since hit television broadcasters and production companies alike.

Audits and investigations have uncovered mismanaged competition phone-ins throughout the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 that have deceived entrants into making worthless calls while boosting programme makers' profits.

The BBC has admitted to staging fake competition winners on charity programmes such as Children in need and Comic relief. Misleading documentaries and reality shows have also come to light, including the unfair representation of the Queen in a BBC trailer, and Bear Grylls' comfortable hotel stays while filming Channel 4's supposedly hard-hitting Born survivor series, when he was demonstrating how to stay alive in some of the harshest places on earth.

In what appeared as a welcome response to the ITV crisis, Paul Corley, managing director of GMTV, announced his resignation on July 25. 'It is important that people take responsibility when mistakes are made that threaten the trust of our viewers,' he said at the time. But key resignations are likely to prove only a small part of the short and longterm remedial action necessary to repair such widespread reputational damage.

People in glasshouses

'Broadcasters initially responded as if they were unaware of the problems; it was as if management teams were completely oblivious to what was going on,' points out Claire Cater, group director at the Bell Pottinger Group, and head of its crisis communications practice. 'The media are great at scrutinising others but are not so good at reviewing their own behaviour.'

Indeed, an early statement from GMTV, responding to the phone-in revelations, suggested the programme knew nothing about the scandal. Instead it attempted to shift blame onto telecoms operator Opera, which had managed the phone lines. But damning emails were later uncovered that proved GMTV's head of production and three senior producers all played a role in the racket, further plunging GMTV and ITV into reputational disarray.

The BBC didn't get off lightly, either. When independent regulator Ofcom recently fined the broadcaster £50,000 for a Blue Peter phone-in scandal in which a young studio guest posed as a competition winner, the BBC was defiant, vigorously contesting the fine, which it said would undermine its tradition of self-governance. Ofcom was unimpressed, not only with the BBC's seeming determination to pass the buck to a Blue Peter researcher, but also for its 'serious and avoidable management and compliance failures'.

'With the BBC scandals, there appeared to be no significant response early on,' notes Cater. 'I would have expected a demonstration of real shock. I would have expected as big a gesture from the broadcaster as the scandal itself.'

Speed of response

Mike Seymour, international director of the crisis and issues management practice at Edelman, agrees a quick response to a crisis is vital. 'You need to establish as many of the facts as possible, and you may have to take action, which could include sackings,' he says. 'But even if you are not sure what you are going to do straight away, you can't just ignore the issue, and you must never hope it is just going to go away. You have to acknowledge that something is wrong and you need to react incredibly quickly.'

Seymour also makes little allowance for broadcaster claims of ignorance when it comes to programmes aired. 'Take the Bear Grylls' survival series, for example,' he says. 'Who checked the facts in advance? The production company must have considered the accommodation question beforehand, and thought putting Grylls up in a hotel (but not mentioning the fact) was a risk worth taking, perhaps to boost viewer ratings. But did Channel 4 or the production company have a plan in place to respond if the facts got out?'

In addition, the programme included a scene where Grylls bites the head off a snake. 'This was bound to upset certain groups,' says Seymour. 'Was Channel 4 prepared for the potential backlash?'

Having a plan in place for potential problems may be increasingly crucial at a time when there is so much pressure on broadcasters to win ratings. 'Risks are taken because of the increased competition,' says Cater. 'There's a greater incentive to sensationalise when independent production companies are fighting hard to sell their goods. When a final product is delivered by a production company, there is a major push to get it out in as big a way as possible.'

In such an environment, planning for a crisis and responding quickly to any ensuing problems is essential, but this is still only part of what must be a far more long-term solution to the difficult process of building and maintaining corporate reputation.

For Alastair Eperon, founder of Leicestershire-based Eperon Consulting, the real issue lies in finding the source of the problem and making lasting changes to rectify underlying issues. 'Very often you get a knee-jerk reaction to the media furore,' he points out. 'But it is far more important to understand what has happened, who is responsible, and why. Then you can deal with what needs to be done.'

Be prepared

Eperon believes it's essential to take the time to work out different agendas. 'The production company is presumably working to some sort of brief with the broadcaster,' he explains. 'The broadcaster has particular objectives in terms of rationale and strategy for running programmes that may deliberately have some level of controversy to stimulate viewer and media interest. Once you understand these motivations, you can start to assess, probably through a delicate process of research, the facts behind what is really going on. You can then respond accordingly.'

In the wake of the current television scandals, Eperon thinks codes of practice may need to be introduced and reformed, and additional regulation might be necessary across the industry. Most importantly, though, he argues that any actions need to encompass a 'much more measured view of what is happening'.

In the long term, Cater also thinks broadcasters need to embrace the broad variety of media now available to the public. 'The media are no longer simply black and white - people are used to shades of grey and can get richer, deeper information from a variety of sources, including the internet,' she comments. 'The tactics used to run phone-ins, for example - broadcasters could have turned that issue into a mechanism for an open dialogue with the public. In addition, they could have used blogs and online communities to open worthwhile and ongoing communication with viewers. I think they really missed an opportunity there.'

Television companies and related organisations need an arsenal of ideas and practical plans to respond quickly and fundamentally to reputational crises. But there have been recent signs of improvement among broadcasters and production companies that appear more willing to take responsibility and implement change.

GMTV, for instance, has taken some impressive steps forward. The broadcaster has unveiled a package of measures to restore viewer confidence, including refunds for all those affected by the phone-in scandal and the appointment of a compliance officer with responsibility for ensuring that phone-in processes are managed correctly. With an additional £250,000 donation to the charity Childline and 250 free prize draws held last month for affected entrants, the broadcaster's initially shaky response appears to be transforming into something far more substantial and effective.

But broadcasters and production companies are by no means out of the woods just yet. Michael Grade, chairman of ITV, has appointed Deloitte & Touche to carry out an independent review of all the broadcaster's phoneins; the report may prove dismal reading. How well television companies respond to further scandal remains to be seen, but perhaps the experience so far will be enough to ensure better crisis management in future.

share me: del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Tweet