Let's get quizzical!Premium rate telephone comps have come a long way over the last few years, and no publication or television programme seems complete without some kind of intelligence–insulting question nowadays. Thankfully, most promoters no longer inflict the nation’s s-l-o-w-e-s-t speaker upon us, or painstakingly repeat information that is already provided on the page in front of us, or treat us to an entire Beethoven symphony before getting down to the nitty gritty. But then again, with the huge range of tariffs now available, this is no longer necessary. A promoter can collect between 10p and £1.50 a minute these days, or even a flat rate connection fee of up to £1.50 without the actual call itself having to last any time at all, so even though the calls themselves might seem quicker and slicker compared to a few years ago, chances are they’re costing you more than ever. And remember that I’m only talking about the bona fide comps you see on mainstream TV programmes or in reputable publications. If you start to include the plethora of scratchcards and dodgy mailings that litter our comping lives, then things can get very expensive indeed. This ‘underclass’ of comp might lack a reputable name like ITV or IPC Magazines, say, to supposedly prove that a comp is genuine and above board, but they’ll try their best to give that impression by being slotted inside a good magazine, or by giving their game a title or branding not dissimilar to a famous product or name.
Never forget though, that this type of comp is nothing more than a money-making exercise for the promoter. The tariff and length of call is invariably the highest it can legally be, and if you’ve ever wondered where those aforementioned really s-l-o-w speakers, Beethoven tapes, and obsessive descriptions ended up, then give one of these numbers a quick call if ever you have a few pounds to burn and the mystery will be solved! It’s nice to know that the people who speak on those tapes are still in gainful employment, but I can’t help thinking that they must have to endure some l-o-n-g job interviews!
Of course, the ‘reputable’ promoters will tell us that the service they offer is very different to the rest. Whilst others may run their phone lines purely for profit they, it goes without saying, only do so as a convenience to their valued readers or viewers. But of course they do! Strange they’ve never heard of Freephone numbers then, isn’t it, given how much they obviously care for and value their customers?!
Recently, we’ve seen the arrival of satellite and cable TV channels that take the idea of phone-in comps a step further. Not for them the occasional programme with a comp tacked on the end, the entire output of the new channels is simply question after question, with viewers being invited to phone in with their answers. The genre is still in its infancy, so it’s very difficult to pin these channels down as they change names, times and channel numbers with alarming regularity. Most also tend to just operate on another channel’s frequency when that channel is off the air, so only broadcast at off-peak hours. But at the time of writing this, a few examples can be found on Sky channel 632 (NTL 633) – Quiz TV from 5pm each night, Sky 160 – Stash the Cash from 11pm, Sky 247 – Quiz Nation from 6pm, and Sky 235 – Grab a Grand from 11pm each night. This is not an exhaustive list, and you’ll probably come across other names and numbers if you channel-hop at any time of day. And what a motley bunch the current crop is!
The best organised, most competently presented channel at the moment is Quiz TV. It seems to be the most reputable as well, although the slick and glossy appearance probably makes it the most dangerous cost-wise too. At a flat rate 60p per call, with the format encouraging quick, multiple calls, your phone bill can soon mount up. The other channels are even more expensive – usually at £1 a call – but their presentation tends to be more ponderous with fewer callers making it through to the studio, so it’s less likely that you’ll get caught up in the thrill of the chase. I’ve called most of these channels at least once in the interests of research, and I have to say that care is needed should anyone reading this consider them to be their passport to riches beyond their wildest dreams. One channel told me live on air that my answer was wrong, but when they revealed the answer later it was exactly what I’d said. Another rang me back to “log” my answer into their “computer” – only an old cynic like me would assume that this was so they could pick and choose exactly when a winning caller would appear on air. Another actually asks you to leave your answer when you first ring, so again they can pick and choose callers (a theory amply demonstrated when three quarters of what was quite obviously Robbie Williams’ face was on screen for over two hours as caller after caller kept giving the wrong answer!). The most transparent selection system again appears to be Quiz TV, as lucky callers get straight through to the studio immediately on calling, but again, with today’s technology, how do we know for certain? Regular callers could be deliberately chosen, callers who consistently get answers wrong… who knows?
The format of the channels leaves much to be desired too. Questions are either ridiculously easy, so that it’s simply a matter of being lucky enough to be chosen to go on air, but in this case a caller is invariably not taken for a very long time in order to notch up the broadcaster’s profits. Or, the questions are very difficult (some might say impossible) and they run for most of the night, with caller after caller giving the wrong answer and then being encouraged to call again. When the channels first started, the ‘difficult’ questions were along the lines of “how many triangles are hidden in this extremely complicated pattern” so at least had a definite right answer, but now the viewers have no such luxury. Some recent laughably-impossible tasks have included being shown the back of a hand-written postcard and having to add up all of the numbers on it (including things like very bad handwriting, smudged postmark, even the small print on the postcard itself – all of which was crammed in a tiny box taking up around a quarter of your TV screen). Or how about having to add up all of the money shown on screen – again in a very small area – and, only on closer examination, discovering that the £20 note was in fact a £28 note, that a 5p piece actually said 3p, and that letters and pictures had been missed off many of the other notes and coins to render them invalid? One regular puzzle at the moment asks you to select which flags or road signs on screen are completely correct – again, with one of the dimensions perhaps being just millimetres out, or a colour being just slightly the wrong shade, this is almost impossible to work out accurately on a typical TV set. It’s a shame really, since the original difficult puzzles were at least a challenge, but now they’re increasingly being replaced with subjective, ambiguous tasks. With, and I’m being my usual cynical self again here, the potential for the channel to select an answer that suits them.
Even the prize structure can be open to abuse. Most of the channels advertise a high potential prize, but in reality the ‘guaranteed’ element is very low, with the rest only being paid out if you win a ‘jackpot’ game. On many of the channels, this is simply an on-screen graphic where you must choose one or more numbers to find a prize. Now, I’m no TV technical expert, but surely the director can put whatever he or she likes behind those numbers at the flick of a switch?
As technology improves, and legislation changes to allow more and more kinds of comping (or should that be gambling) tasks, it’s more important than ever that we keep our wits about us. Promoters are getting more cunning, and as new initiatives get rolled out, it doesn’t take long for competition organisers to regroup in the light of experience and begin to tweak things in their favour over the ensuing weeks and months. More than ever, especially with something new, if something seems too good to be true then it invariably is. So always proceed with caution, especially if you’ve never heard of the company involved. Just because someone can afford to take out an ad in a newspaper or magazine, produce a glossy mailshot or fancy website, or even broadcast a TV channel for a couple of hours in the dead of night, it doesn’t automatically follow that they’re completely honest. As with any comp, don’t get carried away and always trust your instincts.
ONE, TWO, TREE…
There was a great response to my last competition, in September’s CN, so thanks for all of your efforts. With apologies for the pun, I’d deliberately seeded 28 trees into that article but as promised was more than happy to consider lists that contained other names. In fact, many entrants submitted lists in the 30s and 40s. Every list was checked, and a standard list of acceptable answers was agreed upon. The overall winner was – in the spirit of the competition’s theme, but purely coincidental I can assure you! – Teresa Hill of Chester who wins a 12-month extension to her Compers News subscription. Hers was the highest score so there was no need to judge tiebreakers, but these were of such a high standard that it was a shame to waste them. So, Jane and I have decided to award two extra prizes of three-month CN sub extensions to the senders of our favourite slogans, irrespective of the number of trees found. Congratulations then to Julie Davies of Wigan for “Compers News is TREEmendous because… fir limericks, chestnuts, news and views, yew just can’t beat Chatterbox and Compers News!”, and Pauline Gilhooly of St Albans for “Jane’s comping pashion yew can appley share, poplar with winners for the knowledge in there”. Well done to all of the winners. Julie especially seems to be racking up subscription extensions galore lately, which only goes to show that our ‘CN exclusive’ competitions are always worth a try. The number of entries will always be small when compared to most of the other comps listed in the magazine, so your chances will always be much improved if you have a go. Watch out for my special Christmas comp next month!
Just time to squeeze in some questions from Monica Harrold, who has raised some valid points about the current Herbal Essences comp that appears on the back page of the latest Morrisons / Safeway Health & Beauty magazine. Firstly, she asks, should you have to make a purchase if it’s a free prize draw? And is it worth making any effort with a slogan if it’s just a draw? Well, despite the misleading (and constant!) references to ‘draw’ in the rules, I think that we can safely assume that slogans will in fact be judged. This particular handling house are usually very good, and I assume that the ‘draw’ references were simply as a result of some slapdash ‘cut and pasting’ from an earlier promotion when they were first putting the comp together, and then some dubious proof reading that didn't pick up the error. This is an all too common problem with a lot of comps these days, I’m afraid. Finally, Monica asks why is the entry form backing on to another comp? Do the Morrisons PR team not liase with promoters prior to publication, surely these gaffes should be spotted? Well yes, of course they should. And it certainly used to be the case that if an editor of any newspaper or magazine carelessly printed any coupon or token back to back on their pages, great shame and ridicule would befall him and his family and it was almost a sacking offence. Sadly, once again standards aren’t as high as they used to be and silly errors like this often crop up. The advertisers probably booked these particular page positions months in advance and, unknown to each other, both decided to run a competition. The brochure was then probably put together in Morrison’s marketing department, most likely at the touch of a computer button, with no thought being given to the possible conflict. I’m afraid that the old Fleet Street images of proof readers studying the copy with a microscope, and tyrannical editors ensuring that things are in the right place, are long gone. But, lazy and slapdash as it all appears, I don’t think that we should be too concerned here. The magazine is free after all, so you just need to pick up twice as many. This will make Morrisons and the advertisers think that the publication is extremely popular, so they’re more likely to rush out another issue. And those comps have since appeared as a separate leaflets anyway.
Poor old Morrisons are having a hard time with their comps at the moment. The back to back entry forms. Forgetting to include an address on the current Walkers form. Not being clear on the qualifier needed for the Herbal Essences comp (any Herbal Essences product, or just the hair colouring being advertised?). A very poorly worded question in their Carte d’Or comp that could arguably lead to several different answers. But hopefully this is just a blip caused by them having to concentrate on the Safeway takeover. Since they continue to be far and away the best provider of comps for us at the moment, I certainly don’t want to be too harsh on them. And hopefully it won’t be too long until they’re back on form.
That’s it for this month. The Christmas comp rush is almost upon us, so I’ll not waste any more of your valuable time. Remember at this time of year that a lot of your fellow compers – especially the more casual entrant – will be too busy to give the hobby their full attention. So it’s always worth trying to put in a bit of extra effort. Easier said than done I know, so try to plan ahead and make a start on those December comps now. Good luck!
Until next time, happy comping!
Smid x
|
