Media Perspective: Grade's wavering on phone scandal may cost ITV advertisers

The larger part of the criticism, and not just from the Murdoch papers,
but from viewers and more measured observers, was reserved for Grade's
seemingly supine handling of the findings. Having, back in August,
promised "zero tolerance" from ITV on the issue and criticising some
elements of the TV industry for exhibiting "casual contempt", here was
Grade saying there would be no sackings and that "individuals were
motivated by their professional instinct to produce the best show".

Maybe, but other indiv-iduals, members of the view-ing public, were
ripped off in a series of episodes described by Grade as a "shambles".
If the axe doesn't fall some-where (reports allude to an ITV director
whose bonus depended on revenue from premium phone-ins), then it's hard
to see this scandal going away. An apology and the return of cash to the
public will not restore trust, and neither will any action taken by
Ofcom and, potentially, the Serious Fraud Office (which is already
investigating similar antics over at GMTV).

Up until last week, it seemed that the wave of phone-in scandals would
have little effect on the sales teams of the broadcasters. However,
despite some excellent recent programming successes (with ITV Sport
looming large), ITV is going into the trading season under a cloud.

While it's usually hard to break out the violins for ITV's commercial
team, it must be wondering if it will ever have a healthy environment in
which to make deals, as it's clear that major advertisers are hacked off
over the phone-in scandals. "No advertiser can be happy that a major TV
station appears to have been misleading the public," Bernard Balderston,
the associate director at Procter & Gamble, said last week.

The worrying point for advertisers, despite Grade being clear about a
big move away from the arrogant old ITV and some progress in recent
months, is that ITV still doesn't seem to have a clue how to treat its
customers. ITV is adamant that the Deloitte evidence rules out any
suggestion of criminal behaviour, but if it misleads viewers and then so
easily shrugs off its behaviour as "cultural failing", then clients
might be forgiven for thinking: is it really capable of dealing
competently with the revenues and reputations of its advertisers?