Issued July 2008

Editorial Standards Findings: Appeals to the Trust considered by the Editorial Standards Committee Sports Personality of the Year

1

Remit of the Editorial Standards Committee

The Editorial Standards Committee (ESC) is responsible for assisting the Trust in securing editorial standards. It has a number of responsibilities, set out in its Terms of Reference at bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/meetings_and_minutes/bbc_trust_committees.html.

The Committee comprises five Trustees: Richard Tait (Chairman), Chitra Bharucha, Mehmuda Mian Pritchard, David Liddiment and Alison Hastings. It is advised and supported by the Trust Unit.

In line with the ESC’s responsibility for monitoring the effectiveness of handling editorial complaints by BBC management, the Committee considers appeals against the decisions and actions of the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) or of a BBC Director with responsibility for the BBC’s output (if the editorial complaint falls outside the remit of the ECU).

The Committee will consider appeals concerning complaints which allege that: • the complainant has suffered unfair treatment either in a transmitted

programme or item, or in the process of making the programme or item • the complainant’s privacy has been unjustifiably infringed, either in a

transmitted programme or item, or in the process of making the programme or item

• there has otherwise been a failure to observe required editorial standards

The Committee will aim to reach a final decision on an appeal within 16 weeks of receiving the request.

The findings for all appeals accepted by the Committee are reported in this bulletin, Editorial Complaints: Appeals to the Trust.

2

In line with its duty to consider topics of editorial concern to the Committee, whether or not such concern arises from a formal complaint, and to commission information requests from the Trust Unit or Executive to support such consideration, the Committee also from time to time requests the Executive to report to the Committee regarding breaches which have been accepted by the Executive and are therefore not subject to appeal to the Committee. The bulletin also may contain findings relating to such cases.

The bulletin also includes a statement on any remedial action taken.

It is published at bbc.co.uk/bbctrust or is available from:

The Secretary, Editorial Standards Committee BBC Trust Unit Room 211, 35 Marylebone High Street London W1U 4AA

3

Findings (JULY 2008)

Sports Personality of the Year, BBC One & Radio 5 Live, 9 December 2007 The BBC Trust received two appeals regarding the annual BBC Sports Personality of the Year Awards from ITV plc and the RadioCentre ( the trade body for commercial radio companies) respectively. As the complaints covers the same output the finding is presented as one finding but the complainants’ issues were addressed separately by the Committee. A summary of each complaint has been set out ahead of the finding. Appeal A - ITV plc 1 The complaint The complainant believed that the BBC was contravening its 2006 Agreement with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and its BBC Editorial Guidelines by the use of sponsorship of events and sponsored material in its services. Following the screening of the annual BBC Sports Personality of the Year Awards (SP07), the complainant wrote to the Chairman, Sir Michael Lyons, on 13 December 2007, setting out the complaint. The complainant stated:

It was an annual BBC sports programme, originated by the BBC and for which the BBC had never had a sponsor, and which that year, (as in the previous year) was filmed in front of a large audience at the NEC in Birmingham.

“[…] the BBC had obtained commercial sponsorship for its programme from Robinsons, to whom commercially valuable and fulsome acknowledgement was given, inter alia, during the

programme itself (and in the after show programme on Radio Five Live) and on the BBC website.”

A number of references to Robinsons were scripted into the live broadcast and that after the programme on Radio 5 Live the presenter, “thanked Robinsons on air adding 'I have to say that; it's part of their contract'.”

That they had enclosed a screen shot from the BBC Sport website “which shows the Robinsons brand very prominently in connection with the programme.”

That they understood that the Robinsons brand was prominently displayed on the backdrop of the programme set.

It was very difficult to see that this was anything other than programme sponsorship “in other words that the sponsor paid a fee (we understand £200,000 for a two year deal) which met some of the costs of the BBC Sports Personality of the Year, with a view to promoting its own trademark, image, product, etc (the heart of the Ofcom definition of programme sponsorship.)”

That Robinsons “are clearly directly related in the minds of the public to the subject matter of the event (sport)... they are very well known sponsors of tennis professionals as well as of the drinks at Wimbledon; and one of their sponsored players, Tim Henman, presented the Unsung Hero award on the programme itself.”

That a quote from a BBC press release of 14 June 2007 stated that the sponsorship deal was described as including “exclusive sponsorship” of the Unsung Hero award.

That the sponsorship had included on-pack promotion by Robinsons.

“[...] aside from the issue of the BBC carrying a sponsored programme, there are clearly serious issues of editorial integrity raised by this sponsorship.”

“One 'justification' for this sponsorship might be that Sports Personality of the Year has, this year, been classified as an 'event' in its own right and therefore it is open to companies to sponsor the programme.”

That the 'collective understanding' was that the distinction the BBC has always drawn in respect of sponsorship “is between

4

those events which are promoted by outside bodies (sports organisations, private sector promoters and so on) where the 'promoter' attracts sponsors which the BBC then acknowledge and cover (Wimbledon, snooker, etc); and events that the BBC itself creates and promotes, which would not happen without the BBC, who are out of bounds to sponsors.”

“[…] the plastering of the Robinsons brand all over what, by any definition, is a BBC programme at best suggests that there is a loophole in the BBC regulatory regime which is capable of very significant exploitation.”

That there were many programmes which “could pretend to transform themselves into 'events', enabling them to offset their production costs by selling sponsorship.”

That the BBC Trust ought to have a clear role in deciding whether the BBC management “is allowed to turn a programme into an 'event', thereby opening up the possibility of taking commercial revenue.”

That there should be “clear, objective criteria for any such transformation and a consultation, given the potential impact on the commercial revenues of other operators and the potential on screen impact.”

Asked if the Trust regarded the arrangement between the BBC and Robinsons to be acceptable.

That there was “an apparent increasing willingness by the BBC, in sports coverage, to give prominence to the names of sponsors and others.” He asked for reassurance that the BBC was not committing in any way to deliver commercial exposure to sponsors on the BBC.

2. The Chairman, Sir Michael Lyons, replied on 18 December 2007

explaining that Trust's role in the complaints process for both editorial and fair trading matters. He passed the letter to the Director-General requesting that the complainant receive an early reply in accordance with the BBC’s complaints process.

3. The Director-General replied on 22 January 2008

He apologised for the delay in replying.

5

Referring to sub-clause 75(2) of the Framework Agreement he explained that “the whole or partial funding of BBC television, radio or online services by sponsorship is prohibited (unless with the Secretary of State's consent)”, and that “the BBC may not include any sponsored material in any of its services, without the Minister's consent.”

He went on: “However, the BBC's Editorial Guidelines make it clear that when the BBC stages major events at outside venues, such as concerts and award ceremonies, it may be acceptable to supplement the cost of mounting the event with sponsorship.” He said sub-clause 75(5)(f) of the Framework Agreement “makes provision for the sharing with the BBC, by third parties, of the cost of providing an activity, facility or event featured in a licence-fee funded BBC programme, subject to certain criteria.”

He pointed out that the Guidelines are approved by the BBC Trust and are kept under constant review by the BBC's Editorial Policy team.

The overriding requirement is that sponsorship money “should enable the event itself to be mounted, and must not be used to pay for broadcast coverage or programme costs. Sponsors may not make any financial contribution whatsoever to BBC programme budgets.”

He explained that programme departments are required to keep totally separate and auditable accounts to show where the sponsor's contribution was spent and all such expenditure has to be clearly mapped against event expenditure – not production costs. “I understand that this policy was strictly adhered to for the Sports Personality of the Year awards ceremony.”

It was a major live event and the scale of the event in 2006 and 2007 was far greater than in previous years, “in which the programme had been broadcast from a BBC studio that offered little space for the general public to attend.”

One of the main reasons for extending the scope in the last two years “has been to enable the public to attend and participate in a great BBC occasion.” Sponsorship had been sought for this, the second year the event had taken place outside London, “because the size of the event was increased still further to bring in a live

6

audience of 8,000 – and clearly the costs of such an event are massively greater.”

Supplementing licence fee funding in this way “enables the BBC to provide event attractions and the necessary facilities for the thousands who attend – costs which clearly would not have been incurred with a studio-based programme.”

He said the policy of taking sponsorship for major BBC events at external venues in order to defray costs to the licence fee payer of staging them has been established for many years, and that Cardiff Singer of the World, Young Musician of the Year, Choir of the Year and Proms in the Park had all been sponsored in this manner.

As sponsorship money can not be used to cover production costs “there would be no financial incentive for programmes to 'transform' themselves as the funds which results could only be applied to the staging of the event.”

The existing Editorial Guidelines on the nature of broadcasts which may be eligible for such sponsorship “specifically state that outside events 'such as concerts and award ceremonies' may be sponsored – clearly, as an awards ceremony, Sports Personality of the Year would be considered eligible.”

He said the BBC had staged a number of award ceremonies, held at major outside venues, which are sponsored, including the Radio 3 World Music Awards, the BBC Asia Awards and the BBC 4 World Cinema Award.

Now the Sports Personality of the Year Award had become a major outside event with an audience of 8,000 “it is clearly eligible for sponsorship within the terms of the BBC Editorial Guidelines”.

He said his colleagues in Sport firmly believe that the credits given to Robinsons at the event were clearly in accordance with the BBC's established policy for crediting sponsors of such a BBC event. “They do not agree with the suggestion that the Robinsons' brand was 'prominently displayed on the backdrop of the programme set' given that the only visual reference was a small logo on the presentation podium. Most significantly, in regard to the suggestion that 'serious issues of editorial

7

integrity' were raised, they point out there was no editorial influence at all by Robinsons.”

He explained that the BBC's updated Fair Trading regime requires the BBC to have regard to its competitive impact when carrying out its Public Service Activities.

He pointed out that the BBC Editorial Guidelines “state clearly that when covering events 'we aim to credit fairly the enabling role of sponsors' and make clear that 'we must not promote a sponsor in our coverage and any credits given should be fair without being unduly promotional.'”

4. The complainant wrote to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) on

12 February with regard to the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Awards in 2007 and the prospective sponsorship in 2008. The complainant reiterated their initial complaint adding.

In their view the BBC's sponsorship arrangement with Robinsons

did not comply with the BBC's Editorial Guidelines nor with parts of the Framework Agreement between the BBC and the Secretary of State.

With reference to the legal framework the complainant stated:

That the BBC's Framework Agreement allowed the BBC to use the licence fee to fund any activities properly carried on by the BBC except:

“any which are carried on for the purposes of a television, radio or online service which is wholly or partly funded by advertisements, subscription, sponsorship, pay-per-view system or any other alternative means of finance, unless the Secretary of State has given prior written approval”

There were two particularly relevant elements of this restriction: “sponsorship and 'any other alternative means of finance'.”

That although there was no definition in the Framework Agreement of sponsorship, the definition in the Framework Agreement of Sponsored Material is “broadly consistent with the

8

relevant Ofcom definition and states that Sponsored Material is:

'any material [defined as a programme or an item of online content] whose relevant costs [meaning, inter alia, the costs of producing that material or making it available to the viewers] are met in whole or in part by an organisation or person other than the BBC, the Open University, or performers featured in the material, with a view to promoting, through the material's inclusion in a service, its name, its trade mark, its image, its activities or its products or other direct or indirect commercial interests.'”

The Agreement “also makes clear that the BBC cannot, without prior approval from the appropriate minister, include any Sponsored Material in any of its services.”

“[…] the prohibition on the BBC using 'any other alternative means of finance' is a catch all prohibition from which there are a number of carve outs.” The complainant continued: “the only relevant one in this context is set out in clause 75(5)(f). This provision carves out a limited exception to the prohibition on using alternative means of finance in circumstances where:

'(i) the funds are derived from any other arrangement under which any activity, facility or event ---

(a) featured (in whole or in part) in BBC output; or

(b) used (in whole or in part) to support the creation of BBC output is carried on or provided with support from, or in co-operation with, any one or more third parties so as to share the costs of carrying out, providing, using or mounting the activity, facility or event; and

(ii) the use of the funds is compatible with a statement of policy approved for the purposes of this paragraph by the Trust and the Secretary of State.”

9

The sponsorship by Robinsons of Sports Personality of the Year “constitutes unlawful sponsorship and/or falls outside the Clause 75(5)(f) carve out from the general prohibition on the BBC funding its services from alternative means of finance and is therefore unlawful.”

“[…] there is presumably no dispute that Robinsons are interested in 'promoting, through the material's inclusion in a service, its name, its trade mark, its image, its activities or its products or other direct or indirect commercial interests'” as there were a number of references to the company “which were offered as part of the 'rights package' and secured contractually by Robinsons.”

The key question was whether the 'relevant costs' of the programme were met in whole or part by Robinsons.

The Director-General's letter had argued that the cost of the “'event' was somehow entirely separable from the notion of the broadcast coverage or programme costs” and that he had “sought to conflate the 'events' in 2006 and 2007.”

That SP07 was an established TV programme not an event and increasing the scale did not transform it into an event, and that the BBC was arguing that when it was based in a studio it was not an event, and therefore the entire costs of holding the ceremony were programme or broadcast costs. He said “without the ceremony there would be no programme” and vice versa.

The BBC's decision to change the approach to the programme, but little else about the programme changed. It was hard to see how the costs were not integral to the programme production - “...they were all relevant costs.”

It was unclear why the position had changed in 2007 when the “cost of the 'event' appears to have been deducted from the cost of programme production.” He said it was entirely artificial since if the event had not gone ahead “how would the programme have been created/produced at all given that since its inception the programme has been dependent on the ceremony and vice versa?”

Robinsons had paid for part of the programme costs in return for exposure for their brand.

10

The complaint wanted to know what the BBC “considers to be the definition of relevant costs” and whether the nature of the costs of producing SP07 had changed over the past three years.

The complainant also wanted clarity on whether the Trust and the Secretary of State had approved a statement of policy and whether the use of funds was compatible with the statement.

In arguing that the sponsor paid the funds “in exchange for the on air and online mentions of Robinsons pursuant to the overall commercial contract with the BBC”, the complainant quoted the Robinsons' case study on the BBC's customer promotional website:

- The definitive sports review – celebrating its 54th year in

December 2007 [the complainant said “clearly this must refer to the programme not the 'event'”]

- Live 2-hour award show on BBC One 19.00-21.00 – presented by Sue Barker, Gary Lineker and Adrian Chiles

- Coverage on Five Live radio and that the website described the top two elements of the “rights package” as

- Contractual visual and verbal credits on BBC One and Radio Five Live

- Branding on pre-event publicity materials and BBC.co.uk

The complainant said: “Crucially, the contractual guarantee here is not the mentions at the 'event', but on the BBC television and radio programmes.”

They reasoned that if not financed by sponsorship, the programme was at least part financed by an alternative means of finance contrary to the Framework Agreement. To suggest otherwise “is to suggest that Robinsons would still have paid £200,000 for 'event' costs with no guarantee at all of visual, on air and online brand mentions when those were the elements which were clearly most heavily marketed to attract them.”

The complainant asked whether the BBC:

11

a) considered that Robinsons received the mentions for free and

at the BBC's discretion or pursuant to contractual obligation b) believed it received any consideration from Robinsons under

the contract for the mentions c) would now agree that commercial companies can openly buy

guaranteed multimedia brand exposure on certain programmes?

The complainant made the following points under the heading “The BBC's Editorial Guidelines”

“Much was made in the Director-General's letter of the Guidelines and 'established policy' ...” but further guidance on the issues the complainant had set out were not given in the Guidelines. He added “...we are not clear where to look for the BBC's 'established policy' for crediting sponsors.”

That the Guidelines set out the core requirements which must be safeguarded when entering into an external relationship, quoting page 130 and suggesting they were contravened:

We do not accept money or other services in exchange for

broadcast coverage or publicity We do not promote or appear to endorse other

organisations, products, services, views or opinions.

The Guidelines suggested that in some circumstances it may be acceptable to supplement the cost of mounting a freestanding BBC event with sponsorship from a suitable outside body. The complainant (ITV) found it hard to understand how the BBC could classify the SP07 event as freestanding “as though the 'Event' did not depend entirely on the programme for its existence.”

That the rule for event sponsorship appeared to be different “where the BBC does not stand to gain”. He noted that under the Guidelines “a sponsored third party event must be 'genuinely free standing' and not created simply to attract broadcast coverage. The additional word 'genuinely' implies that the

12

freestanding requirement for the BBC sponsored event is not genuine.”

The Editorial Guidelines require that in mounting and covering a sponsored BBC event: “events related to BBC programmes or services must only be sponsored by companies not directly related to the subject matter of the event or programmes connected with it”

and that it was hard to see how sponsorship by Robinsons “which is so closely associated with tennis and Tim Henman” was acceptable given the restriction.

Asked whether the ECU considered the Robinsons’ sponsorship to be appropriate, and if there would be any company who would not be an acceptable sponsor on the basis of the approach the BBC had taken in this case.

5. The complainant also wrote on 12 February to BBC Controller,

Fair Trading.

6. The Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) replied to the complainant on 18 February:

The ECU apologised for not acknowledging the letter of 12

February sooner, but as it raised concerns which fell under a number of areas of the BBC, some preliminary consultation was required.

It explained that the concerns which fell under the ECU's remit were those set out in the complainant's letter under “The BBC's Editorial Guidelines”, and that the ECU's role was confined to judging whether the guidelines had been complied with in specific cases, “not whether appropriate guidelines are in place.”

The ECU had referred the concerns about “The legal framework” to the Fair Trading Department.

The point about Radio 5 Live “which was not addressed as a distinct issue in Mark Thompson's letter” was to be addressed by BBC Sport in the first instance and the complainant would be hearing

from them in due course.

13

7. BBC's Head of Radio Sport wrote to the complainant on 29

February explaining that the specific point regarding the programme on Radio 5 Live had not been addressed:

• He explained that the 5 Live show was presented from the event

and was live throughout the broadcast, continuing for an hour afterwards – “as opposed to being an aftershow programme”.

He said the mentions of Robinsons within the programme adhered to the guidelines for crediting the sponsor of such an event, “in particular to that of crediting fairly the enabling role of a sponsor.”

Just before the end of the programme, the presenter mentioned the final credit:

“Thank you to Robinsons for supporting the entire event.”

The Head of Radio Sport said: “In line with the somewhat light-hearted tone and style of the programme, there followed some muted laughter from the guests, to which [the presenter] responded:

'Don't laugh – I have to say that, it's in the contract'.”

He concluded: “I am happy that this was delivered as a humorous ad-lib in response to an unexpected reaction from the panel, and in no way breached the BBC Editorial Guidelines.”

8. The complainant wrote to the ECU on 4 March regarding the

Head of Radio Sport's letter of 29 February stating:

The Head of Radio Sport had failed to grasp the issue and that it was far from clear what potential transgression he had in fact investigated.

The muted laughter reflected people's surprised reaction to the prominent Robinsons' promotion on the BBC and the presenter's

14

attempt to defuse it “resulted in a statement which we know from the BBC's own sponsorship website was true – contractual guarantees of mentions on television and radio were in the agreement with Robinsons.”

The letter was a “wholly inadequate response.”

9. The ECU wrote to the complainant on 31 March. It did not uphold the complaint in relation to Sports Personality of the Year on BBC One on the following grounds:

The ECU said it would address the Radio 5 Live broadcast under

separate cover. The two issues the ECU considered were: “whether the

Robinsons name and logo were unduly prominent in the broadcast, and whether Robinsons was an inappropriate sponsor by reason of being 'directly related to the subject matter of the event or programmes connected with it'.”

The ECU considered them in connection with the External Relationships section of the Editorial Guidelines and the more detailed Editorial Policy guidance, insofar as it relates to signage seen on-air and other on-air credits for sponsors of BBC events. They were also considered in connection with the relevant editorial principles “because the Guidelines and guidance are not so much rules in their own right as aids to ensuring that the relevant principles are observed.”

With regard to the editorial principles which state:

We do not accept money or other services in exchange for

broadcast coverage or publicity We do not promote or appear to endorse other

organisations, products, services, views or opinions

the ECU said the explicit provision in the Guidelines for sponsored BBC events meant that accepting sponsorship for such events “is not viewed by the BBC as falling within the general prohibition on accepting money or services in exchange

15

for broadcast coverage or publicity, and that the provisions for fairly crediting the role of sponsors mean that such credit does not necessarily constitute promotion or the appearance of endorsement.”

It continued: “Promotion and the appearance of endorsement would, however, be at issue if a sponsor's brand or name was unduly prominent in the broadcast coverage of an event, and it is to this issue that I now turn.”

The ECU specified that with the exception of one segment of the programme, the Robinsons brand was visible “only in the form of a logo on the trophy stand in the middle of the podium” and not prominently displayed on the backdrop of the set.

Although frequently visible, “it was not often prominent; it was at a level on the stand such that it was not seen in close-ups of presenters on the podium, disappearing from shot at about the point where the presenters were seen in three-quarters length...”

This was consistent with the provision in the guidance that “normally, sponsor reflections at awards ceremony may be shown in the form of an integrated logo in the middle of the podium as long as it is not reflected in the main shot of the presenter.”

The exception was the segment of the programme in which the Unsung Hero Award was presented, “where Robinsons logo appeared on the backdrop. This reflected the fact that the award was itself sponsored by Robinsons.”

There were four verbal credits in the programme, “three of which referred to Robinsons' support for the 'event' (reflecting the distinction in the guidance between sponsorship of an event and sponsorship of a programme), and one of which referred to Robinsons' support for the Unsung Hero Award.”

The guidance says there should normally be a maximum of two verbal credits, but makes provision for more in longer programmes. At duration of over two hours, it was “not judged to be a programme where the maximum of two credits applied.”

The guidance says verbal credits should not be delivered in a promotional style. The words used in the programme were “for

16

tonight's event, supported by Robinsons”, “this year's event, supported by Robinsons”, “the Unsung Hero Award, supported by Robinsons” and “The 2007 Sports Personality of the Year event, supported by Robinsons”. The ECU said they were delivered “without particular emphasis”.

The guidance provides for a single written reference in the end credits, but the ECU saw no such reference.

The ECU's view was that the programme kept closely to what is provided for in the relevant Guidelines and guidance.

However, that did not of itself mean the programme conformed to the principles of fair credit without undue prominence. The ECU's finding on this part of the complaint required a “judgement based on the overall impression given by the programme.”

The ECU noted that the verbal references to Robinsons' sponsorship “were few in proportion to the length of the broadcast, and that the logo, even when at its most prominent, was markedly less prominent than a lot of the branding visible in the programme's many sequences of sporting highlights.”

It judged that in terms of prominence, the programme's treatment of Robinsons “was in keeping with the spirit as well as the letter of the relevant Guidelines and guidance.”

The question of whether Robinsons was ineligible to sponsor the event came down to what constituted a direct relationship between sponsor and subject matter. With regard to the complainant's argument that Robinsons' association with tennis, (and Tim Henman presenting the Unsung Hero Award) created such a relationship, the ECU reasoned that the subject matter was “excellence and achievement across the entire range of sports” and found it “difficult to regard the connection between this and Robinsons and its products as anything more than indirect.”

It added that the bulk of the programme was given over to sports with which Robinsons had no connection “and even in the case of tennis its relationship is less direct than, say, that of a manufacturer of tennis equipment.”

Regarding the question of whether there would be any company

17

who would not be an acceptable sponsor, the ECU said it would not be appropriate for it “to enter into a discussion of hypotheticals”.

With regard to the question of how the SP07 event “could be regarded as free-standing 'as though it did not depend entirely on the programme for its existence'”, the ECU believed the answer “lies in the distinction between the programme and the event already made in Mark Thompson's letter...” The ECU said: “Though it can be said that the event would not exist without the programme, the programme could exist without the event, and is in that sense distinct from it.” The ECU regarded the event as “free-standing in a sense which satisfies the Guideline.”

It reasoned that, as this Guideline's reference to free-standing events is an explicit provision for sponsorship of BBC events of the kind listed in Mr Thompson's letter, “'free-standing' can hardly be understood as meaning 'existing independently of any BBC broadcast'.”

The ECU said that the complainant's question about the reference to “genuinely” free-standing events was not one which fell within its remit as it related to the framing rather than the application of the Guidelines.

10. The ECU wrote to the complainant on 7 April. It did not

uphold the complaint in relation to Sports Personality of the Year on Radio 5 Live on the following grounds:

The issue the ECU addressed was whether the Robinsons’ name

was unduly prominent in the broadcast, bearing in mind the External Relationships section of the Editorial Guidelines and more detailed guidance.

The questions of whether this sponsorship arrangement was consistent with the regulatory framework and whether the Guidelines and guidance correctly reflect that framework were not within the scope of the ECU.

Robinsons' sponsorship of the event was mentioned on three occasions in the broadcast.

The first was about six and a half minutes in, when the presenter, said: “So, welcome to our coverage of our BBC Sports

18

Personality of the Year event, supported by Robinsons.” The second was at about 8.15pm, after an interview with one of

the nominees, Jason Robinson. The presenter said: “Actually, Jason Robinson leaves. And I think – [to Jason Robinson] it's not you sponsoring the event tonight, is it, because it says everywhere 'Sponsored by Robinsons'?”

The third occasion was at the end of the broadcast, in an exchange between the presenter and the other commentators:

Presenter: Thank you to Robinsons for supporting the entire event [snort of laughter from a commentator]. I'm not ... don't laugh. I have to say that. It's in their contract. If I don't mention it they won't do it again. Commentator: That's fair enough. Commentator: You're supposed to say “the good people at Robinsons”. Presenter: The good people at Robinsons.

The relevant editorial policy guidance says:

“Depending on the total length of coverage, there should normally be a maximum of two verbal credits for the overall event sponsor and they should be delivered in a non-promotional style. When coverage lasts for many hours, the Head of Department will decide on appropriate verbal credits.”

The ECU said that, as the broadcast lasted three hours, “three

mentions did not exceed what is consistent with the editorial principle that 'we fairly credit others where editorially appropriate'.”

It said the first mention was “entirely neutral in tone” and the “humorous tone of the second and of the exchanges prompted by the third preserved them from any risk of appearing promotional in style.”

The ECU did not have a basis for concluding that the mentions of Robinsons constituted undue prominence.

19

11. The Chair, Executive Fair Trading Complaints Panel, wrote

to the complainant on 8 April further to the letter of 25 February from the Controller, Fair Trading, acknowledging the complainant's letter of 12 February:

A report had been prepared and submitted to the Complaints

Panel but as one of the members was unwell the Panel's consideration had been delayed. He hoped to be able to write the following week.

12. The Chair, Executive Fair Trading Complaints Panel, wrote

again to the complainant on 16 April with reference to the complainant's letter to the Controller, Fair Trading of 12 February. He explained that the Complaints Panel did not uphold the complaint and attached a report setting out the reasons.

13. The complainant appealed to the Chairman, Sir Michael Lyons, on 14 May:

As the Sponsorship website bbc.eventsponsorship.com had not

reappeared after it had been taken down, the complainant enclosed most of the documents which had been contained in it.

The complainant said “we continue to believe that the questions which needs to be answered in full by the BBC are set out in my letters of 12 February” one of which was to the Head of Editorial Complaints, the other to Controller, Fair Trading.

He drew attention to points which he believed required particular scrutiny and which arose from the BBC's responses:

The BBC had not properly addressed whether what it was offering “was programme sponsorship dressed up as event sponsorship”. In particular – referring to the Sponsorship website – the offer to the sponsor of “brand exposure on the

20

BBC's broadcast services for which contractual guarantees were given by the BBC.”

The BBC's own marketing materials, contradicted the BBC's conclusion that it was reasonable for the BBC to:

“accept a level of sponsorship which was not designed to promote the identity of the sponsor by way of a programme broadcast, but was intended to offset (wholly or partially) the costs to the BBC of hosting the event.”

“How could the BBC offer contractual guarantees of on air

coverage for Robinsons and not be in breach of the provision?” “[…] did the market testing which the BBC apparently carried out

to determine the appropriate level of the Robinsons fee compare the fee in question with the fee which would be paid in circumstances where on screen mentions of a company were contractually guaranteed, particularly in the context of programme sponsorship?”

“What is the definition (and what are the guidelines around) 'relevant costs' in the context? ... I assume that the cost of producing a drama includes the cost of location filming and the cost of Top Gear includes the hire of the studio and the creation of the set for the large audience. In the absence of any definition or guidelines the definition of what is event spend and what is programme spend appears to be capable of infinite mutation to suit the particular circumstances.”

The BBC suggested that rather than constituting programme sponsorship, the Robinsons’ sponsorship was consistent with Clause 75(5)(f)(ii) of the Framework Agreement. He said even this creates difficulties for the BBC “since such activity would effectively only have been permissible in circumstances where the

“use of the funds is compatible with a statement of policy approved for the purposes of this paragraph by the Trust and the Secretary of State'”

21

“The difficulty, as the BBC concedes, is that there is no such statement of policy in existence,” and argued that in the absence of such a statement the BBC could not lawfully engage in event sponsorship activity of the type carried out in relation to SP07.

14. Sir Michael Lyons replied on 20 May:

He was sorry to learn that the complainant remained dissatisfied

having exhausted the BBC Executive's complaint handling processes, and confirmed that the Trust would investigate the handling of his complaint and the concerns set out in his letter.

He said: “The issues you raise are complex and span the internal boundary we have between fair trading and editorial matters. We would be happy to handle your appeal in a co-ordinated way across this boundary rather than conducting separate fair trading and editorial investigations if this approach is acceptable to you.”

The conduct of the appeal would be overseen by Head of Finance, Economics and Strategy at the Trust.

He suggested a meeting to ensure “that we have properly understood your concerns and to explain the handling options and take your views on them.”

15. The complainant replied to the Chairman on 2 June:

The complainant thanked him for taking up the issue quickly following the referral to the Trust.

The complainant said it would make a lot of sense for the Trust to deal with the appeal in a co-ordinated way given the close connection between the Fair Trading and Editorial issues “and the questions of legal compliance which also arise”.

He looked forward to meeting the Trust and anticipated that ITV would be represented by him and Magnus Brooke, the Director of Regulatory Affairs.

16. Complaints Handling

22

In the appeal to the Trust, the complainant said, procedurally, it was “hard to have confidence in a complaints process the first act of which is a comprehensive defence of all management action by the Chairman of the Executive Board and Director General. This was followed by a lengthy period of 'investigation' which appears to have started with the conclusion and been devoted to coming up with arguments as to why (a) the jurisdiction of the people investigating didn't cover the particular matter complained of and/or (b) that the original conclusion was correct.

He continued: “Can the BBC point to any instance in recent times where a definitive initial response to a complaint by the Director General (based, we assume, on little investigation given the length of the subsequent enquiries) has been contradicted subsequently?”

Complaint B - RadioCentre 1. The complaint

The complainant (RadioCentre) believed that the BBC was contravening its 2006 Agreement with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and its BBC Editorial Guidelines by the use of sponsorship of events and sponsored material in its services. The complainant sent an email to Jenny Abramsky, Director of BBC Audio & Music, on 20 September 2007:

• The complainant asked if she had come across the website www.bbceventsponsorship.com, adding: “This is a bit odd isn't it?”

• The complainant stated that the website listed the BBC events available for commercial sponsorship “and within the PDFs there are several references to on air credits – the event brief for Proms in the Park states 'Contractual verbal credits on... BBC radio 2 & 3, BBC Local Radio...'.”

23

• “You will, of course, understand the concerns of RadioCentre members with this.” The complainant added: “Perhaps you could provide some clarification?”

The complainant sent another email to Jenny Abramsky, Director of BBC Audio & Music, on 4 October:

• The complainant asked if she had had a chance to review the

website “which is causing some angst amongst our members.” The complainant wrote to the Chairman, Sir Michael Lyons, on 10 December 2007 explaining that RadioCentre had recently become aware of the BBC website www.bbceventsponsorship.com

• “We believe that the BBC is contravening its 2006 Agreement by including sponsored material (and indeed, offering to include sponsored material) in its services.”

• As the complainant had not received a reply to his emails of 20 September and 4 October 2007 to the Director of BBC Audio & Music, they were now directing this enquiry to the BBC Trust.

• The complainant stated that the BBC's sponsored events are attended by members of the public, but are also broadcast, and that it followed “that sponsorship of the physical live event is perceived by advertisers as an attractive way of associating themselves with the BBC brand, and potentially reaching the audience at home via radio and TV.”

With regard to “The use of sponsorship”:

• The complainant commented that the website suggested that the BBC goes beyond “merely an unspoken understanding that a sponsor will get an on-air impact and formalises this benefit with the sponsorship arrangement. Self-evidently, this means that sponsors are being attracted, not purely by the inherent association with the BBC brand offered within the sponsorship, but also by verbal, visual and online credits with BBC programming.”

24

• In an annex to this letter the complainant gave a list of nine BBC Sponsorship Opportunities as listed on the website.

• One of the nine examples was BBC Sports Personality of the Year. The complainant said it became a public event (after having been an invite only event), for the first time in 2006 and it was not clear whether this was to allow the event to seek sponsorship. Robinsons was to be the first sponsor, in 2007.

• The complainant reported that “the sponsorship pack promises 'Contractual visual and verbal credits on BBC One and Radio Five Live' ... It also offers 'Branding on ...BBC.co.uk'. It also states that Robinsons will receive 'Exclusive sponsorship of the Unsung Hero Award category'.” He added it was unclear how this would be handled editorially.

• The complainant quoted the press release in which the BBC's Director of Sport said: “We are delighted to welcome Robinsons as our first ever sponsor as this means we can increase the ambition of the event while providing good value to our licence fee payers.”

• The complainant gave the example of the Robinsons' logo being used on the website as part of the deal.

• The complainant referred to a webpage that suggested BBC London might also be providing on air credits for its own Sports Personality of the Year event, which included the sponsored Robinsons’ award category.

With regard to “The relationship between BBC commercial and programme activities”: • The complainant said the 2006 BBC Agreement “regarding

'Subscription services and sponsored material', states that the BBC must not 'Include any sponsored material in any of its services' unless it has the approval of the Secretary of State.”

• For the complainant it appeared that at least some of the BBC's sponsored event activity “would count as 'sponsored material' as defined by the Agreement whereby:

25

“'material' is classed as 'a programme or an item of online content', and 'sponsored material' as 'any material whose relevant costs are met in whole or in part by an organisation or person other than the BBC, the Open University, or performers featured in the material, with a view to promoting, through the material's inclusion in a service, its name, its trade mark, its image, its activities or its products or other direct or indirect commercial interests.'”

• For example, Sports Personality of the Year as broadcast on Five Live “is a 'programme', and it appears that the costs of producing it or making it available to the listeners are met, at least in part, by Robinsons.”

• The complainant also said that “the BBC's offer to provide 'contractual visual and verbal credits' in return for sponsorship would indicate that Robinson's motive for sponsoring Sports Personality is over and above the benefits that would accrue from the sponsoring of a live event with a public audience.”

• Referring to the BBC's Editorial Guideline:

“Although an event may be sponsored, no programme on a BBC public service channel may be sponsored. Care should be taken to ensure that there is no suggestion of programme sponsorship...”

the complainant did not believe such care had been taken.

• There had been “a perceptible move from the BBC into what

should be an unequivocally commercial activity.” • The complainant quoted from the Agreement:

“The BBC as a corporation shall not directly provide any commercial services, but it may carry out other trading activities' and that 'Any commercial services must be provided through one or more commercial subsidiaries.”

26

• The complainant also quoted the BBC Trust Fair Trading Policy:

“The BBC should ensure that there is... Financial and operational separation between the BBC's Public Service Activities and its Commercial Services” saying he believed “at least some of the BBC's sponsorship activities fall under the definition of 'commercial services' as defined by the Agreement.”

• The complainant said the Agreement provided a definition of “this and all related terms” as:

‘services which are provided, or other activities which are undertaken, not primarily (or at all) in order to promote the BBC's Public Purposes, but with a view to generating a profit (regardless of whether the profit, once generated, will or may be used to fund the promotion of the Public Purposes).'

• The complainant noted that, according to the Agreement,

there are some categories of activities which “cannot be considered 'commercial services'... but we cannot see such a stated exception made for sponsorship or the holding of live events.”

• And quoted the BBC's Fair Trading Guidelines “that 'Commercial Trading Activities' are undertaken directly by the BBC's Public Services ... 'to promote the BBC's Public Purposes but may – as a secondary consideration – also generate a profit'.”

• The complainant added that live ticketed events are mentioned within the list of activities likely to fall under the 'Commercial Trading Activities' banner, “but 'the provision of sponsorship opportunities' is not.”

27

The complainant summed up the concerns in this area as two-fold: • “Firstly, whether these live, sponsored, ticketed events can be

classified by the BBC as 'Commercial Trading Activities' rather than 'Commercial Services'?”

• Secondly, whether these activities which are run, in part or in whole, on a commercial basis will inevitably compromise editorial decisions. For instance, the ready availability of sponsorship may be encouraging the BBC to develop more and more live events programmes with paying audiences, since it is easy to recoup the cost.”

With regard to “The use of Licence Fee”: • The complainant stated the Agreement states restrictions on

the use of the licence fee, “...that the BBC must not use the licence fee to fund activities 'which are carried on for the purposes of a television, radio or online service which is wholly or partly funded by advertisements, subscription, sponsorship, pay-per-view system or any other alternative means of finance, unless the Secretary of State has given prior written approval.'”

• And that it states that

'the funds are derived from any other arrangement under which any activity, facility or event – a. featured (in whole or part) in BBC output, or b. used (in whole or part) to support the creation of BBC output, is carried on or provided with support from, or in co-operation with, any one or more third parties so as to share the costs of carrying out, providing, using or mounting the activity, facility or event...'”

The complainant suggested that, “while engaging a sponsorship partner to meet the cost of an event which is

28

featured in BBC output or which supports the creation of BBC output is acceptable, the payment must be made in order to 'share the costs' of the event, rather than to secure on-air promotion opportunities.”

He concluded that the sponsorship opportunities outlined in Annex A “appear to us to entirely run counter to this”.

With regard to Competitive Impact:

• The complainant quoted the BBC Charter Agreement: “'The Trust must have regard to the competitive impact of the BBC's activities on the wider market and adopt a statement of policy on fair trading policy and hold the Executive Board to account for compliance with it .“

• “The BBC Trust's 'Competitive Impact Principle', further states

that: 'When carrying out its Public Service Activities, whilst always ensuring the fulfilment of its Public Purposes and taking into account its other obligations in the Charter and the Agreement, the BBC must endeavour to minimise its negative competitive impacts on the wider market.'”

The complainant summed up the concern in this area:

“By taking sponsorship on live events of this kind, and offering contractual credits around BBC programming, RadioCentre believes that the BBC reduces the ability of commercial operators to secure sponsorship: a principal source of revenue for us. It is therefore failing to endeavour to minimise its negative competitive impacts on the wider market.”

The complainant asked the BBC Trust to investigate the

matter and hoped it would call for the BBC to take down its sponsorship site without delay.

29

2. The Chairman, Sir Michael Lyons, replied on 19 December 2007 that he was sorry to read that the complainant had not received a reply from the Director of Audio and Music. He also explained that Trust's role in the complaints process for both editorial and fair trading matters. He passed the letter to the Director-General requesting that the complainant receive an early reply in accordance with the BBC’s complaints process.

3. The Director-General, Mark Thompson, wrote to the complainant

on 14 February 2008:

He apologised for the extended delay in replying. He assured the complainant that the BBC takes such matters

very seriously and he was sorry to learn that he had not received a reply to his emails. He hoped the complainant would feel free to contact him directly in the future.

He said the BBC has rigorous guidelines “which govern our business and output and how we manage complaints.” He acknowledged that the complainant's letter had raised questions of editorial policy “(and the extent to which we are meeting our own editorial guidelines) as well as matters which we believe constitute Fair Trading matters.”

He explained that the guidelines require that the latter are dealt with through the Fair Trading complaints process, and as such the Controller, Fair Trading, was reviewing the issues and had contacted the complainant with details of the process.

He added: “I hope you will feel that our approach demonstrates that we take all such allegations seriously.”

The Director-General's response would address the other concerns raised by the complainant, which referred specifically to clause 75 and 76 of the Agreement between the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the BBC with regard to sponsorship.

He recapped that the whole or partial funding of BBC television,

radio or online services by sponsorship is prohibited, without the Secretary of State's consent, adding: “Further, as you

30

suggest, under clause 76 the BBC may not include any sponsored material in any of its services, without the Minister's consent.”

He explained: “However, the BBC's Editorial Guidelines make it clear that when the BBC stages major events at outside venues, such as concerts and award ceremonies, it may be acceptable to supplement the cost of mounting the event with sponsorship. This is not considered programme sponsorship, but event sponsorship.”

He said the Agreement makes provision for the sharing with the BBC, by third parties, of the cost of providing an activity, facility or event featured in a licence-fee funded BBC programme, subject to certain criteria.

He said the BBC has strict guidelines on the way in which references to the sponsor of an event are made during the broadcast of any programme relating to it. The overall principle is that references to the sponsor should be for the purposes of enabling their role in relation to the event to be fairly reflected – “not to allow them to secure on-air promotion opportunities”.

He said that speeches by the sponsors are not allowed, although discreet signage is, but may not include the sponsor's logo.

All proposals for sponsorship of BBC events and on air reflections must be approved by the Chief Adviser Editorial Policy.

He said that the overriding requirement is that sponsorship money should enable the event itself to be mounted, and must not be used to pay for broadcast coverage or programme costs. “No financial contribution from any sponsor may be used to supplement a BBC programme budget, and programme departments must ensure that this is the case.”

He explained that in the case of SP07, “by contrast with the suggestion in your letter, Robinson's contribution had no connection with the production budget for the programme. The sponsor's contribution made up only part of the total event costs – which, as you can imagine, were considerable.”

He said the scale of the event covered on air in 2006 and 2007 was far greater than in previous years, in which the programme

31

had been broadcast from a BBC studio that offered little space for the general public to attend. “One of the main reasons for extending the scope of SP07 in the last two years has been to enable the public to attend and participate in a great BBC occasion.”

He went on: “Sponsorship was sought for this, the second year the event had taken place outside London, because the size of the event was increased still further to bring in a live audience of 8,000 – and clearly the costs of such an event are massively greater. Supplementing licence fee funding in this way enables the BBC to provide event attractions and the necessary facilities for the thousands who attended – costs which clearly would not have been incurred with a studio based programme.”

He said the complainant was correct to suggest that the BBC would not rely on 'merely an unspoken understanding' when considering the sponsorship of events. Such events would have to involve some form of contractual arrangement with the sponsor of the event in order to ensure that the sponsorship would be forthcoming.

He said: “I am advised that receipt of sponsorship money for events which are featured in BBC programmes does not itself amount to a 'commercial service'... You note correctly in your letter that there are some categories of activities which, according to the Agreement, cannot be considered 'commercial services' such as selling off assets or disposing of content rights.”

He pointed out, however, the stated exception for the holding of live events is:

“the provision of facilities and services which are ancillary to the provision of the BBC's Public Purposes and in respect of which any charge is imposed primarily for the purpose of recovering the costs or expenses of the provision, even if other factors [...] make a profit likely.”

He explained that this provision, when read with the exception in sub-clause 75(5)(f) in relation to alternative means of finance, provides for the sponsoring of live events as described above.

32

“This is not a business activity carried on with a view to making a profit but rather a means by which those running events may seek to defray costs.”

He continued: “However, the seeking of sponsorship for events does constitute a form of legitimate public service commercial trading activity. As you rightly state ... commercial trading activities may be undertaken by the BBC public service primarily to promote its Public Purposes under its Charter. All commercial trading activities must be appropriate to those purposes and, therefore, should comply with the relevant parts of the Fair Trading Guidelines as well as complying with the relevant Editorial Guidelines.”

He said he had raised the matter of the Event Sponsorship website with the BBC's Director of Vision Operations and Rights. “In his view, the existence of such a website does make logical sense, and serves both to demonstrate transparency in the BBC's operations in this area, and to ensure that interested parties are aware of the opportunities offered. However, in the light of your complaint, [he] does accept that it is possible that the BBC's activities might potentially be misunderstood. The BBC will therefore be reviewing the content of the website to ensure that it effectively and accurately communicates its message.”

He explained that if the complainant still believed that the BBC editorial guidelines had been broken by the programming or the event sponsorship website, he could escalate those aspects of the complaint to the Editorial Complaints Unit.

The Director-General wrote again to the complainant on 29 February to clarify a point in his previous letter of 14 February:

He explained that the BBC Guidelines cover both signage within an event and end credits, and that both are carefully controlled and closely monitored. “It is within our guidelines to include one reference to the sponsor of an event in our end credits. Our policy is that this written reference must always be in the same typeface and font as the rest of the credits and we will never use the sponsor's logo.”

33

In relation to the BBC policy on sponsor signage at its event he said: “our editorial guidelines state that we 'aim to credit fairly the enabling role of sponsors'. Again this is subject to careful scrutiny, and signage on a main stage is very limited indeed. As is common practice for award ceremonies, the sponsor's logo may appear discreetly on the podium, as I understand was the case for Sports Personality of the Year 2007.”

[The Director-General suggested a meeting to discuss the matters in person, but pointed out that their meeting could not consider any matters currently subject to the formal complaints procedures.]

4. The complainant replied to the Director-General on 13 March:

The complainant was unclear whether the Director-General's letters constituted a formal response through the BBC Editorial Complaints process.

Referring to the Chairman's original reply, the complainant said: “We had assumed, especially given the time that has elapsed, that this would mean our complaint would also be passed through the Editorial Complaints Unit.”

The complainant noted that, as of the previous week, the BBC's sponsorship website was not functional and wanted to know whether or not this was as a result of the BBC's review process.

[He felt it “somewhat frustrating” that a meeting could not consider matters currently subject to the formal complaints procedures.]

5. Mark Byford replied on 31 March in the Director-General's absence

as Deputy Director-General and Chair of the BBC's Complaints Management Board:

He explained the complaints procedures, saying that the

Director-General's letter was a 'first stage response' and that the escalation process allowed the complainant to then raise the matter with the ECU. It could not be escalated internally without knowing whether a complainant felt that the first response

34

sufficiently answered their questions. He explained that the complaints procedures must be

independent of BBC editorial management, and were the Director General as Editor-in-Chief, to rule on a matter while it remained subject to investigation by the ECU, the “robust editorial impartiality might be compromised”.

He confirmed that the website had been taken down pending the review of its content mentioned in the Director-General's letter.

He said the ECU would be able to rule upon content which had appeared on the site at the time of the complaint. However, he hoped the review and the changes made in the light of it would sufficiently address his concerns.

6. The complainant wrote to the Editorial Complaints Unit on 9 April:

The complainant mentioned that the BBC Fair Trading Committee Complaints Panel had provided a full response to the fair trading complaint investigation on 21 February whilst the Director-General wrote on 14 February. He said: “We found this late response disappointing given the time that had elapsed since our complaint, and given Sir Michael Lyons' assurance in his letter of 19 December.”

With regard to the correspondence the complainant had received “...in our opinion, two months does not constitute 'an early (and full) response'.”

The complainant said: “we continue to believe that the BBC's sponsorship arrangements, particularly with regard to Sports Personality of the Year Awards 2007, do not comply with the BBC's Editorial Guidelines. Nor does it comply with parts of the Framework Agreement between the BBC and Secretary of State”.

The complainant gave a summary of the original complaint and said there seemed to be a “significant blurring of boundaries as to what constitutes an event or programme.”

The complainant was not aware that the BBC had had written approval from the Secretary of State for its sponsorship activities.

He said Mark Thompson's letter contended that the Guidelines

35

do permit the BBC to supplement the cost of staging events with sponsorship. “He refers to this, not as programme sponsorship, but events sponsorship. We believe that this distinction diminishes when BBC 'events' are broadcast as programmes on TV and radio, and when advertisers are offered a package of benefits including 'visual credits' and 'contractual on-air mentions' within the programme (to an audience of multimillions), rather than at the event only (to an audience of hundreds).”

In the case of Sports Personality of the Year, the complainant argued that it was not historically an event. “It is an established BBC TV and radio 'programme' which, prior to 2007, had never been commercially sponsored...”

The complainant reasoned that when it was broadcast from a BBC studio prior to 2006 the entire costs of holding the ceremony would have been borne by the BBC and thus were considered programme costs. “...we consider the costs of the ceremony at the NEC to represent integral costs of the programme production (albeit on a larger scale) and do not believe that these costs can be separated out.”

“Indeed, if the sponsored 'event' had not gone ahead, there would not be a programme given that the ceremony and the programme have always been inextricably linked.”

The complainant argued that an audience had not been considered to be essential prior to 2006, and the subsequent introduction of a sponsor in 2007 “raises concerns that the change was motivated by a desire to secure sponsorship income rather than for reasons of Public Purpose promotion.”

The complainant made the following points under the heading “BBC Editorial Guidelines” stating:

The guidelines stated:

“'Although an event may be sponsored, no programme on a BBC public service channel may be sponsored. Care

36

should be taken to ensure that there is no suggestion of programme sponsorship...'”

The complainant said: “We do not believe that the BBC has taken such care...”

That Robinsons' sponsorship of Sports Personality 2007 included several references to Robinsons scripted into the live broadcast of the programme on both radio and TV, “including one presenter stating on air that he had to include a mention of Robinsons as 'it's part of their contract'.”

There was “also significant display of the Robinson's brand on the programme set and the BBC website itself. Again, this leads us to believe that there has been a perceptible move from the BBC into what should be an unequivocally commercial activity.”

That the guidelines stated that:

“in some circumstances it may be acceptable to supplement the cost of mounting a free-standing BBC event with sponsorship from a suitable outside body.”

He added: “we do not believe that Sports Personality is a free-standing 'event'.” He argued that it was a “longstanding 'programme' that has recently been turned into an event, whilst still depending entirely on the awards ceremony as content for the programme.”

That the Guidelines require that in mounting and covering a sponsored BBC event:

“events related to BBC programmes or services must only be sponsored by companies not directly related to the subject matter of the event or programmes connected with it”

and said that “in the case of Sports Personality, this rule has self evidently not been adhered to.”

37

There was an “obviously strong link between Robinsons and the programme matter. Indisputably, Robinsons can be considered closely and directly related to the sporting focus of the programme, with its strong links to tennis and Wimbledon.”

The complainant cited Tim Henman presenting the Unsung Hero award on the programme, plus the Marketing Director of Britvic saying: 'The Unsung Hero Award, in particular, is a great fit for the Robinsons brand and we will be focusing our efforts on adding value to this element of the sponsorship.'

The complainant said that RadioCentre could not comment on changes to the website that they were yet to see, and would like to retrospectively pursue their complaint surrounding the content, given they had initially questioned its appropriateness directly with Jenny Abramsky in September 2007.

7. The ECU responded on 15 April explaining that its remit was

confined to the question of whether the standards set out in the BBC's Editorial Guidelines had been complied with in particular instances:

It said it had copied the complainant's letter to the BBC's Fair

Trading Department so that other aspects of the complaint could receive appropriate attention.

It had already viewed the relevant BBC1 and Radio 5 Live material in connection with another complaint so hoped to give a substantive reply soon.

The complaint about the website raised issues which were likely to take longer to investigate and it aimed to reply by 2 June at the latest, though it hoped to be in a position do so earlier.

8. The ECU wrote again on 24 April, explaining that it did not uphold the complaint against Sports Personality of the Year on BBC One and Radio 5 Live on the following grounds:

The issues within the ECU's remit were those set out in the

38

section of the complainant's letter of 9 April headed “BBC Editorial Guidelines”, which directed the ECU to the particular guidelines which apply:

'Although an event may be sponsored, no programme on a BBC public service channel may be sponsored. Care should be taken to ensure that there is no suggestion of programme sponsorship...(1)

'events related to BBC programmes or services must only be sponsored by companies not directly related to the subject matter of the event or programmes connected with it'

The ECU explained that the point of the first piece of guidance was not that the impression of sponsorship should be avoided, “but that (in the case of sponsored BBC events) it should be clear that it is the event, not the programme, which is sponsored.”

The BBC One broadcast contained four verbal credits for Robinsons, three of which “referred to Robinsons' support for the 'event' (the fourth referred to Robinsons' support for the Unsung Hero Award).”

In the case of the Radio 5 Live broadcast, “there were three verbal references to the Robinsons sponsorship, all of which, again, referred to the 'event'.”

The ECU thought that in both cases the terms of the verbal references to Robinsons “sufficed to make clear that the sponsorship was of the event, not the programme.”

On the complainant's point about Robinsons' “strong links to tennis and Wimbledon,” the ECU said “the subject matter in this instance is excellence and achievement across the entire range of sports, and I would not regard the connection between this and Robinsons and it products as anything more than indirect.”

“The bulk of the programme was given over to sports with which Robinsons has no connection that I know of, and even in the case of tennis its relationship is less direct than, say, that of a manufacturer of tennis equipment.”

39

The ECU did not believe that there had been a breach of the editorial standards which the complainant had referred the ECU to.

The ECU would respond to the concerns about the website in due course.

9. The ECU wrote again on 5 June explaining that it did not uphold the

complaint against bbceventsponsorship.com on the following grounds:

The ECU must confine itself to the aspects of the complaint

which raise issues of editorial compliance. It stated that the original complaint about the website (10

December 2007) was that the acceptance of sponsorship was improper, in the case of at least some of the events it featured. That raised issues about the events and their coverage, which “as they turn on the interpretation of the BBC's regulatory framework” the ECU could not address, though it understood that they had received consideration elsewhere in the BBC.

Neither could it consider whether it was simply undesirable, as distinct from a breach of editorial standards, for the BBC to publish such a website.

The Guidelines and items of guidance “do not directly address the circumstances of a website where event sponsorship itself is the subject matter.” The ECU therefore was applying the overarching principles “which apply to all matters relating to sponsored events – that there should be no suggestion that the programme (as distinct from the event) is in receipt of sponsorship, and that the impression of promoting or endorsing the sponsor's products or services should be avoided.”

In relation to the first of those principles, the ECU saw nothing in the content of the website “to foster the impression that it is programmes, rather than the events associated with them, which may receive sponsorship.”

The ECU pointed out that the front page in both versions the complainant had sent it “identifies the site as 'the BBC Event Sponsorship website' and says 'NB It should be noted that the

40

BBC cannot take sponsorship for programming', and there is nothing in the pages which deal with the individual events which seems to me to undermine that distinction.”

On the second principle, where particular sponsors were referred to in the website, “the references seem to me to be descriptive rather than promotional, and to imply no endorsement of the sponsors' products or services.”

More specific guidance could be found in this connection in the Online Services Guidelines: “Use of commercial logos in BBC sites must be editorially justifiable.”

Referring to those Guidelines, the ECU continued: “Editorial justification must be judged in terms of editorial intention and, to the extent that the editorial intention of the website was to draw attention to BBC events eligible for sponsorship and the arrangements which applied to actual or potential sponsors, the justification for the appearance of sponsors' logos (or in the case of the Sports Personality of the Year pages, a Robinsons label) seems to me clear and direct.”

10. The complainant wrote to the BBC Trust's Head of Finance,

Economics and Strategy, on 16 June:

The complainant appealed against the decision of the ECU to reject the complaint “about the editorial implications of the BBC's arrangements to offer on-air sponsorship credits, as listed on www.bbceventsponsorship.com” with particular reference to Sports Personality of the Year, broadcast on BBC One and Radio 5 Live on 9 December 2007.

The complainant stated that the complaint had triggered a ruling by the BBC Fair Trading Committee Complaints Panel that the BBC's sponsorship activity is compliant with its Charter and Agreement obligations. “I am simultaneously appealing that decision in this letter.”

The complainant said that, as previously discussed with the Trust staff, this letter should be considered alongside the first appeal letter of 19 March and his letter to the Trust of 9 May.

It was the RadioCentre's view that “it is inappropriate, anti-

41

competitive and illegal for the BBC to enter into commercial agreements to provide on-air credits and exposure to third parties. We have complained on the basis that the BBC's events sponsorship arrangements contradict this principle.”

“Accordingly, we are seeking the operational adoption of this principle by the BBC, whether in the context of event sponsorship arrangements or elsewhere.”

The outstanding arguments:

Providing on-air exposure to events sponsors creates 'sponsored material' which is illegal without the approval of the Secretary of State.

Sufficient care had not been taken to ensure “that there is no suggestion of programme sponsorship.”

These arrangements “are of a form which would be subject to restrictions under section 9 of the Ofcom Code...”

The provision of sponsorship opportunities to third parties constitutes a commercial service and should be subject to financial and operational separation from the BBC's Public Service Activities.

Offering sponsorship has the potential to compromise editorial decisions.

The activity contravenes the requirements in Clause 75 of the 2006 Agreement in two aspects.

The activity puts the Trust in breach of the Charter requirements that it should “have regard to the competitive impact of the BBC's activities on the wider market.”

11. Complaints handling

The complainant had not received a reply to his personal emails of 20 September and 4 October 2007 to Jenny Abramsky, Director of BBC Audio & Music.

In the complainant’s reply to the Director-General on 13 March, the complainant referred to the Chairman's letter of 19 December in which he said he had passed the complaints to the

42

43

Director-General for an “early and full response in accordance with the complaints process”. The complainant said: “We had assumed, especially given the time that has elapsed, that this would mean our complaint would also be passed through the Editorial Complaints Unit.”

The complainant was unsure whether the Director-General's letters constituted a formal response through the BBC Editorial Complaints process.

With regard to the correspondence the complainant had received, he told the ECU “...in our opinion, two months does not constitute 'an early (and full) response'.”

Finding for both complaints A and B Two appeals were received regarding the annual BBC Sports Personality of the Year Awards from respectively ITV plc and the RadioCentre (the trade body for commercial radio). As the complaints covered the same output the finding is presented below as one finding but the complainants’ issues were addressed separately by the Committee. The Committee was delegated authority by the Chairman of the BBC Trust under the provision of the BBC Trust’s Standing Orders1 (which entitles the Chairman to delegate the authority of the Trust to a committee) to consider the relevant clauses of the Agreement between the BBC and the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport dated July 2006 (‘The Agreement’) associated to this complaint.

1 BBC Trust Standing Orders http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/standing_orders.pdf 5. Business of the Trust Urgent Business

5.5 An issue which cannot, by reason of urgency, be considered at a meeting of the Trust (or by a committee with delegated powers to consider the issue) may be decided by the Trust out of session. In such instances, the Chairman, or in his/her absence the Vice-Chairman, may decide the matter.

44

The Committee considered the case against the relevant clauses of the Agreement. It also considered the complaints against the relevant editorial standards, as set out in the BBC’s editorial guidelines. The guidelines are a statement of the BBC’s values and standards. In reaching its decision the Committee took full account of all the available evidence, including (but not limited to) the Editorial Adviser’s Report and the subsequent submissions from the complainants, the programme team and the ECU (the Executive’s Editorial Complaints Unit). The Committee noted that the relevant clauses of the Agreement it would have to consider were:

• Section 75(2)(b)2

• Section 76(1)3

• Section 75(f)(i) & (ii)4

2 Agreement http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/regulatory_framework/charter_agreement/bbcagreement_july06.pdf THE FUNDING OF THE BBC 75. Licence fee funding and grants from Government Departments (2) The BBC may use sums paid to it under paragraph (1) to fund any activities properly carried on by the BBC except— (b) any which are carried on for the purposes of a television, radio or online service which is wholly or partly funded by advertisements, subscription, sponsorship, pay per view system or any other alternative means of finance, unless the Secretary of State has given prior written approval. 3 Agreement 76. Subscription services and sponsored material (1) The BBC shall not, without the prior approval of the appropriate Minister— (a) include any sponsored material in any of its services; or (b) provide any subscription service. 4 Agreement 75. Licence fee funding and grants from Government Departments (5) In paragraph (2)(b), the reference to “any other alternative means of finance” does not include the use of funds derived— (f) in the following circumstances—

45

The Committee noted that, in order to be able to reach a conclusion as to whether the sponsorship agreement had complied with the requirements of the Agreement, it would need to decide whether or not the sponsorship agreement between Robinsons and the BBC related to sponsorship of the programme or of the event. Issues considered by the Committee 1. Were the terms of the sponsorship agreement contrary to clause 75(2)(b) and clause 76(1) of the Agreement? 2. Did the sponsorship agreement constitute “alternative means of finance” within clause 75(2)(b) of the Agreement? 3. If so, did it fall within the exception set out in clause 75(f)(i) of the Agreement? 4. If so, was there a policy in place pursuant to clause 75(5)(f)(ii) and did the arrangements comply with its terms? 5. Did the sponsorship arrangements and/or output breach editorial guidelines on editorial integrity and independence? 6. Did the sponsorship arrangements and/or output compromise the editorial guidelines on external relationships? In particular the complainant points to the provisions, • That the BBC will not accept money or services in exchange for broadcast coverage or publicity; and

(i) the funds are derived from any other arrangement under which any activity, facility or event—

a. featured (in whole or part) in BBC output, or b. used (in whole or part) to support the creation of BBC output,

is carried on or provided with support from, or in co-operation with, any one or more third parties so as to share the costs of carrying out, providing, using or mounting the activity, facility or event; and

(ii) the use of the funds is compatible with a statement of policy approved for the purposes of this paragraph by the Trust and the Secretary of State.

• That the BBC will not promote or appear to endorse other organisations, products, services, views or opinions; and • That events related to BBC programmes or services must only be sponsored by companies not directly related to the subject matter of the event or programme connected to it. 7. Did the sponsorship arrangements and/or output compromise the online services guidelines? 8. Complaints handling The investigation by the independent editorial advisor The Committee noted the following facts established by the independent editorial advisor, having taken into account comments made by the complainants and the BBC. The BBC Sports Personality of the Year Awards is an annual awards ceremony, organised by the BBC, which celebrates sporting achievement. It has been in existence since 1954. It originated as an outside event but was largely a studio based programme up until 2006 when BBC management decided to increase its scale. Their intention was to transform a limited studio-based programme into a much larger freestanding event in which the public would be able to attend and participate. A BBC press release dated 6 June 2006 announced that,

“For the first time… the show will be held outside London and the general public will be invited to take part in the experience… Limited space inside BBC Television Centre in London has meant it has not been possible to mount a major event for the general public as well as the sportsmen and women who attend the annual ceremony. However, the move to the NEC will allow greater public access and for the first time members of the general public will be able to enjoy the unique Sports Personality of the Year Awards event. At least 3,000 public tickets will go on sale…

46

No profits will be made from these tickets with all money going towards the cost of staging the event.”

In 2007 the decision was made to enlarge the scale of the event even further, increasing the number of public tickets to over 8,000. BBC management stated that by increasing the size of the live audience, the costs of the event also increased. Event sponsorship has been an established activity within the BBC for nearly twenty years, with the important proviso that sponsorship money has to be traceable to the event budget and cannot make any contribution whatsoever to programme budgets. Many sponsored events are off-air with no on-air coverage, but some were events mounted by the BBC “principally for the purposes of programme coverage”. In 2006, with the decision made to move Sports Personality of the Year to an outside venue with a greater audience capacity, sponsorship was considered to help meet the additional costs. At the outset the Director of Sport discussed with the Chief Adviser, Editorial Policy the notion of taking the awards ceremony to a major outside location and turning Sports Personality of the Year into a free standing event. However, at that stage it was not possible to find an appropriate sponsor prepared to invest the level of funding required. Accordingly in 2006 there was no overall event sponsor, although Tesco’s did sponsor The Unsung Hero Award. This is an award that gives ordinary people the opportunity of recognition for the services they provide to sport within their communities. As sponsor of this award there was one on air verbal credit for Tesco during the BBC One broadcast of the awards ceremony. The 2006 move to the NEC was deemed by BBC management to be a success, so in 2007 it was decided that the event would remain at the same venue, with an increase in audience numbers from 5000 to more

47

than 8000. In 2006 the tickets for the event sold out in 50 minutes. The programme team was confident that demand for the tickets would match the increase in audience numbers. It also considered that with this increase the event costs would also rise. It was in these circumstances the BBC says that the event programme team once more considered the possibility of event sponsorship. The Head of TV Sport Editorial and the Director of Sport consulted with the Chief Adviser, Editorial Policy about sponsorship of the event just a few weeks after the 2006 awards ceremony had taken place and the search was revived for an overall event sponsor. BBC management confirmed that at the outset a list of sponsors deemed inappropriate for a sports event was agreed this included sports brands, alcohol, snack foods, confectionery, and others. Discussions about key aspects of the sponsorship proposal, including the proposition and benefits, took place between the Head of Sponsorship, Editorial Policy and Public Policy, insofar as it related to their remit. The sponsorship agreement was finally concluded with Robinsons, who was to be both the event sponsor and the sponsor of the Unsung Hero Award in 2007. On air credits would form part of the sponsorship package. The BBC sponsorship website entry with regard to Sport Personality of the Year 2007 (SPO7) stated:

Rights Package - Contractual visual and verbal credits on BBC One and

Radio Five Live - Branding on pre-event publicity materials and

BBC.co.uk - Branding at pre and post show VIP parties - Sponsor ticket promotions - VIP hospitality with special sponsor VIP reception - VIP hospitality at 12 regional BBC Sports Awards events

in November and December

48

The website included a Robinsons’ Orange fruit squash label and described it as an “On-pack call-to-action to nominate a sporting Unsung Hero”. As part of the sponsorship package, Robinsons introduced a number of bursaries to go with the Unsung Hero Award so that its sponsorship amounted to something which would be more significant than just the award. Each of the nations and regions would run its own SPO7 events as in previous years, and put forward an Unsung Hero nominee. Robinsons’ support was reflected at each event – some of them were given broadcast coverage, some were not. Robinsons also carried out some work for community sports groups which did not receive any coverage. BBC management was satisfied with the appropriateness of seeking sponsorship to mount SPO7 and its position was that for sports fans this was a major awards ceremony. BBC management pointed out the unique nature of SPO7 which brought together sports personalities from every major sport. Tickets for SP07 sold out within a morning. BBC management noted that to stage this type of event, there were additional costs of mounting the event itself, as distinct from the programme costs. The event was deliberately staged in Birmingham to give access to as many people as possible. BBC management stated that it would have been easier and less costly for the BBC to have staged the event at a London venue, but felt that in order to give something back to the licence fee paying public, the event should be staged more centrally. As a major sports broadcaster BBC management felt that the BBC had a duty to involve the fans as much as possible and that sponsorship would enable the ticket price to be subsidised to make the event more accessible to the general public. The BBC concluded its agreement with Robinsons for sponsorship of SPO7 2007/8 in an agreement dated 12 June 2007.

49

The BBC management’s rationale for contractual credits is that it is important that the sponsor contractually accepts the limitations of what the BBC is prepared to agree. The contract sets in stone the number of credits they can expect. The sponsorship agreement is a contractual agreement whereby the sponsor agrees to sponsor the event and the BBC outlines the limitations of the sponsorship agreement. It is a professional arrangement intended to manage the sponsor’s expectations. The logo on the website was approved by Editorial Policy. The Head of Sport Editorial said that, at the time of the awards ceremony, the link from the BBC website was to a page on Robinsons’ website about the Unsung Hero Award. The Head of Sport Editorial confirmed that he was aware from the start that the contract would specify the number of on air and on line credits Robinsons would receive. The programme team was also fully involved in approving all visual and verbal sponsor reflections. The Head of Sport Editorial said that sponsorship monies from Robinsons were not used towards the production costs of the broadcast or online coverage of SPO7. BBC management stated that separate budgets were kept for broadcast and non-broadcast costs. The SPO7 budget forecast summary showed that the amount attributed to sponsorship was less than the amount attributed to the cost of putting on the event. Robinsons’ relationship with the subject matter of SPO7 According to Britvic plc’s website, Robinsons was acquired by Britvic in 1995 and is one of the biggest grocery brands in the UK. The brand covers a wide range of soft drink labels.

50

Since the 1930’s Robinsons has been associated with the Wimbledon lawn tennis tournament, and they are now the tournament’s official still soft drink supplier. Wimbledon does not have a tournament sponsor. Tim Henman, who was one of the presenters of the SPO7 Unsung Hero Award for which Robinsons is the exclusive sponsor, is himself sponsored by Robinsons. BBC management considered Robinsons suitability as an event sponsor and had no concerns about Robinsons as a sponsor of SPO7. They believed that the subject matter of SPO7 was sport and Robinsons was not considered to be directly connected to sport, as opposed to e.g., sports clothes manufacturers such as Nike or Adidas As to the choice of Tim Henman as one of the presenters of the Unsung Hero Award, the Head of Sport Editorial confirmed that Tim Henman was chosen as it was a natural time for him to present an award as it was the year in which he retired. The Unsung Hero Award was considered to be the most appropriate award for him to present, as the other awards such as Team and Coach of the Year seemed better suited to those involved in team sports. BBC management said that Robinsons had no involvement in this decision, and Tim Henman’s attendance came through a personal invitation from the editor of the programme. The BBC arranged his transport to and from the event. BBC One, Radio 5 Live coverage and online content BBC One BBC One coverage of SPO7 was a live two hour programme, broadcast between 7 and 9pm on Sunday 9 December 2007. In the pre-title sequence, the programme was announced as the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Awards 2007, and was described as celebrating another great year of sporting achievement.

51

In some of the opening shots, sports personalities were seen as they arrived at the awards ceremony and then being photographed against a backdrop which included the Robinsons’ logo: a total of 4 shots were seen lasting a total of 5 seconds, in a longer sequence. The programme’s title, and its accompanying logo, then followed. The title of the programme was “BBC Sports Personality of the Year Awards 2007”. There was no mention of Robinsons in the title. At the start of the ceremony two of the three presenters made their way to the stage and in the middle of the stage there was a podium that displayed an integrated logo comprising both the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Awards 2007 logo and the Robinsons’ logo. The sequence of wording on the integrated logo was as follows:

BBC SPO7 Event supported by Robinsons

The backdrop to the stage behind the podium displayed the Sports Personality of the Year 2007 logo – i.e., the letters and numbers SP07. Two of the awards ceremony’s presenters stood on either side of the podium. In all the full length shots of the presenters on the stage during the programme, the integrated logo, which included the Robinsons’ logo, was visible. Other shots of the presenters (e.g., close ups and shots of them away from the podium) did not include the integrated logo on the podium. The third presenter did appear on the stage at one part of the proceedings The awards were all presented on the stage. Any full length shots of award winners standing next to the podium also included the integrated logo.

52

The programme, in celebrating sporting achievement focused on ten separate sports. Several awards were presented at the ceremony, including the Unsung Hero Award. The only award to attract individual sponsorship was the Unsung Hero Award. Robinsons was the sponsor of the Unsung Hero Award. The programme included four references to Robinsons’ sponsorship of the awards ceremony. All references were made by one of the awards ceremony’s presenters. The approximate times at which these references were made, and the words spoken are listed below:

1. At the start of the programme (within the first three

minutes), “Tonight’s event supported by Robinsons”. 2. Fifty-two minutes – “this year’s event supported by

Robinsons”. 3. One hour fourteen minutes – presentation of the Unsung

Hero Award “supported by Robinsons”. The backdrop to the right of the stage displayed the name of the award with the words “supported by Robinsons” when the presenters of the award first came on to the stage and then when the award winner came forward to accept her award. The Robinsons’ logo can be seen on both occasions briefly.

4. One hour fifty minutes – “2007 Sports Personality of the Year Awards event sponsored by Robinsons is reaching its climax…”

At the conclusion of the programme, the end credits included a credit for Robinsons. It was the first end credit, and appeared in the same written style as the other end credits. The credit did not include the Robinsons’ logo. The wording for Robinsons’ end credit was “Event sponsored by Robinsons.”

53

Radio 5 Live The Radio 5 Live broadcast took place between 7 and 10pm on Sunday 9 December 2007. The programme comprised of live coverage of the awards ceremony and continued for an hour after the awards had concluded. There was one presenter a regular sports presenter on Radio 5 Live, who was joined in the studio by three guests. The style of the programme was informal, light-hearted and chatty. The programme included three references to Robinsons’ sponsorship of the awards ceremony. All three references were made by the programme’s presenter. The first reference was neutral in tone, the other two were lighter in tone. The approximate times at which these references were made and the words spoken are listed below:

1. At the start of the programme (after about six minutes) – “Welcome to our coverage of the BBC’s Sports Personality of the Year Awards supported by Robinsons.”

2. One hour fifteen minutes – As Jason Robinson (an interviewee) leaves the studio, “It’s not you sponsoring the event tonight is it? ‘Cause it says everywhere sponsored by Robinsons.”

3. One hour fifty-eight minutes – “Thank you to Robinsons for supporting the entire event.” And in response to laughter in the studio, “Don’t’ laugh, I have to say that it’s in their contract. If I don’t mention it they won’t do it again.”

Web content The Head of Sport Editorial confirmed that the logo and the link were approved by the relevant Interactive Executive Editor, who designed the webpage.

54

The BBC’s webpage for BBC Sports Personality of the Year included, and continues to include the Robinsons’ logo. The logo is found on the webpage covering the Sports Personality of the Year Awards. It is located at the end of the page and is smaller than the BBC’s logo at the top of the page. The Head of Sport Editorial confirmed that the link was originally to a Robinsons’ webpage giving further details about the Unsung Hero award which was not available on the BBC’s website. In June 2008, the link was to Britvic plc’s corporate news page, specifically a 2006 news story that Britvic’s marketing director had been appointed President of the Marketing Society. This link has now been taken down. The consideration The Committee first considered the sponsorship agreement in relation to the requirements of the BBC Agreement. In particular, the Committee had to come to a view as to whether the sponsorship arrangement with Robinsons with regards to SPO7 was sponsorship of the programme or of the event.

55

56

The ESC noted that Clause 76(1) of the Agreement provides that the BBC shall not, without the prior approval of the Secretary of State, include any "sponsored material"5 in any of its services6. It further noted that Clause 75(2) of the Agreement prohibits the BBC from using Licence Fee funds on activities carried out for the purposes of television, radio or online service which are wholly or partly funded by sponsorship7 or other alternative means of funding without the Secretary of State's prior written approval.

There is a carve-out from the prohibition on use of alternative finance under Clause 75(5)(f) of the Framework Agreement, which allows that:

“(i) funds derived from any other arrangement under which any activity, facility or event

(a) featured (in whole or part) in BBC output, or

(b) used (in whole or part) to support the creation of BBC output, is carried on or provided with support from, or in co-operation with, any one or more third parties so as to share the costs of carrying out, providing, using or mounting the activity, facility or event; and

5 "Sponsored material" is defined as "any [programme or an item of online content] whose relevant costs are met in whole or in part by an organisation or person other than the BBC, the Open University, or performers featured in the material, with a view to promoting, through the material's inclusion in a service, its name, its trade mark, its image, its activities or its products or other direct or indirect commercial interests". 6 A BBC Service includes (but is not necessarily limited to) any activity which is, or ought to be, covered by a service licence - these include the various BBC television and radio channels as well as bbc.co.uk (see Framework Agreement clauses 18 and 104). 7 In working out whether there is sponsorship, the question is whether there is sponsored material (see footnote 5 above).

(ii) the use of the funds is compatible with a statement of policy approved for the purposes of this paragraph by the Trust and the Secretary of State"

The ESC accordingly considered that it was important to determine whether SPO7 was an event of the type covered by Clause 75(5)(f).

The ESC took account of the Editorial Policy guidance note "Mount and coverage of non-sports events". The guidance note provides some non-exhaustive guidance as to what may constitute an event but does not specifically refer to awards ceremonies. It was accordingly for the ESC to determine whether the SPO7 event was an event within Clause 75(5)(f) carve-out.

The ESC noted that in 2005 Sport Personality of the Year was a programme and not an event. It agreed that there was evidence that this had changed in 2006. It noted that: there had been a decision to mount and broadcast a Sports Personality of the Year event in 2006; no BBC studio could have held the 5,000 members of the audience; the broadcast moved out of a BBC studio and into an outside venue; a venue had to be hired and a structure set up to manage the event; and additional displays could now occur. All these factors changed the nature of the proceedings into an event which could be enjoyed by members of the public. They also agreed that an annual awards ceremony was celebratory in character and capable of being converted into an event.

The Committee noted that the 2006 Sport Personality of the Year event had not attracted a sponsor such as Robinsons and that the BBC had therefore met all costs of mounting the event as well as funding the programme itself. The Committee agreed that the fact that the BBC had funded all the event costs did not mean that Sport Personality of the Year 2006 had not been an event and had been a programme or that the Robinsons’ sponsorship in 2007 was of the SPO7 programme and not a contribution to event costs.

57

58

Taking these points into consideration the ESC decided that the SPO7 event should be categorised as an event within the Clause 75(5)(f) carve out.

Issue 1. Given the ESC's view that SPO7 was an event within Clause 75(5)(f), were the terms of the sponsorship agreement contrary to clause 75(2)(b) and clause 76(1) of the Framework Agreement?

The ESC noted and considered the privileged legal advice provided to them on the interpretation of Clauses 75 and 76 of the Agreement. The ESC considered whether sponsored material8 had featured in the coverage of the SPO7 event. They noted that the budget provided by the Executive in respect of SPO7 showed that the funds supplied had been used towards the costs of mounting the event, rather than the costs of producing that material or making it available to the viewers, listeners or users of any service in which was included. The Committee also noted that the Robinsons’ sponsorship did not exceed the whole cost of mounting the event. The ESC also noted the points raised by the appellants that specific event and programme costs were not accurately identified and allocated. However, taking into account the allocation of the costs provided by the BBC Executive and the Executive's further explanation of how costs were allocated, the ESC reached the view that the funds provided had been allocated to the costs of mounting the event and did not meet "relevant costs" i.e. costs of producing the programme or online material or making it available to viewers.

Given that the ESC concluded that no sponsored material was used or included in the SPO7 broadcast, the Clause 75(2)(b) and Clause 76(1) prohibitions on the use of sponsorship material were not breached.

8 As defined by Clause 76 of the Framework Agreement (see footnote 5).

59

The existence of binding contractual guarantees of visual, on air and online credits did not affect the finding that the prohibition on the use of sponsorship material had not been breached. The contractual guarantees are considered further below in relation to the relevant editorial guidelines (see issue 6 below).

Issues 2. Did the sponsorship agreement constitute “alternative means of finance” within clause 75(2)(b) of the Agreement?

Clause 75(2)(b) of the Agreement provides that the BBC may not use the licence fee to fund programming that is wholly or partly funded by advertisements, subscription, sponsorship9 or other alternative means of finance unless the Secretary of State has given prior written approval. The Committee found that sponsorship of the SPO7 event constituted an "alternative form of finance" within the meaning of Clause 75(2)(b).

Issue 3. If the sponsorship agreement did constitute “alternative means of finance” within clause 75(2)(b) of the Agreement, was it a sponsored event within the meaning of clause 75(f)(i) of the Agreement?

This issue has been addressed by the Committee above. The ESC concluded that the sponsorship of the SPO7 event was an event sponsored by a third party within the meaning of Clause 75(5)(f)(i) of the Agreement.

As explained below, there was no Statement of Policy on alternative finance in place at the time that the SPO7 event occurred and so, technically, it could not comply with the requirements of Clause 75(5)(f)(ii).

9 See footnote 7.

Issue 4. If the sponsorship agreement did constitute an event sponsored by “alternative means of finance” within the meaning of clause 75(2)(b) of the Agreement, and clause 75(f)(i) of the Agreement, was there a policy in place pursuant to clause 75(5)(f)(ii) and did the arrangements comply with its terms? The Committee noted that the Statement of Policy referred to in clause 75(5)(f)(ii) of the Agreement was approved by the Trust on 19 March 2008 and the Secretary of State on 12 May 2008. Between 1 January 2007 and 12 May 2008 an approved Statement of Policy as required by this clause did not exist. The Committee found that accordingly, no written Statement of Policy was in place when Sport Personality of the Year was broadcast on 9 December 2007 as required by the Agreement clause 75(5)(f). The Committee concluded that, as there was no policy on alternative finance in place at the time that the event occurred, SPO7 therefore could not comply with Clause 75(5)(f)(ii).

The ESC accordingly concluded that SPO7 had been partly funded by alternative means of finance contrary to Clause 75(2)(b) of the Framework Agreement. The Committee then considered whether, given that there was now a Statement of Policy in place, Sport Personality of the Year and the Robinsons’ event sponsorship would comply with the requirement of the Statement of Policy in the future. The Committee considered that Robinsons (a soft drinks manufacturer) was an appropriate choice of partner for the BBC. The ESC did not consider that Robinsons was directly related to the subject matter of Sport Personality of the Year or the connected programme. The Committee agreed that the fact that Robinsons supplied sports events and provided sponsorship did not constitute a direct relationship with the subject matter of SPO7. The Committee noted in particular that Robinsons was not featured in the title of SPO7 nor did it consider product sponsorship had been accepted (they noted that the event sponsorship related to the brand rather than any Britvic product).

60

Turning to the requirements of the policy in relation to the financial arrangements the Committee considered the SPO7 budget of July 2007. The sponsorship money had been carefully allocated in the budget between the cost of the programme and the cost of the event. The Committee noted the sponsorship provided was less than the event costs. However the Committee noted that these distinctions were not clear cut in the context of SPO7 and some of the budget split had been closely questioned by both complainants showing the difficulty of the process in the context of this programme. The Committee agreed that the proposal for sponsorship of SPO7 had been referred well in advance to the BBC Chief Advisor Editorial Policy. Generally the Committee considered that the arrangements complied with the policy save that they considered that the nature and number of mentions of Robinsons had left viewers with the impression that the BBC’s service was commercially sponsored and that a repeat of that in the future would only compound this view. The Committee also concluded that as a result of this impression the BBC’s editorial integrity would be compromised and that this should be addressed by the Executive Issue 5. Did the sponsorship arrangements and/or output breach editorial guidelines on editorial integrity and independence? The Committee considered the guidelines relating to editorial integrity and independence. The introduction to this section states that:

“The BBC’s global reputation is based on its editorial integrity and independence. Our audiences need to be confident that our decisions are influenced neither by political or commercial pressures, nor by any personal interest. We must not undermine these values by any actions which could bring the BBC into disrepute.”

61

The Editorial Integrity and Independence editorial principles include the following,

“• We must be independent of both state and partisan interests. • We must not endorse or appear to endorse any other organisation, its products, activities or services. • We should not give undue prominence to commercial products or services. • We should ensure that on air and online credits are clearly editorially justified.”

The Committee was of the view that the principle which required the BBC to be independent of partisan interests referred to the BBC’s ability to journalistically inquire into (in this case) Robinsons or Britvic if appropriate. On that basis the ESC did not consider that the event sponsorship agreement with Robinsons for SPO7 had undermined or compromised the BBC's independence. The Committee noted that there was no endorsement (expressed approval) within the BBC content for Robinsons or its products, activities or services. It also noted that no products, activities or services by Robinsons were mentioned in the content. It therefore did not consider that the content gave undue prominence to Robinsons’ products and services or endorsed Robinsons, its products, activities or services. The Committee then considered the credits given to Robinsons and whether they were clearly editorially justified in light of the editorial principle regarding editorial integrity and independence which requires that:

“We should ensure that on air credits and online credits are clearly editorially justified”.

The Committee noted that there was one award credit and three credits for event sponsorship on BBC One.

62

The Committee noted that there were three credits on Radio 5 Live - one of which was “Thank you to Robinsons for supporting the entire event …Don’t laugh I have to say that as it’s in their contract. If I don’t mention it they won’t do it again”. The Committee also noted that the Robinsons’ logo was on the BBC’s web site. The ESC acknowledged the Executive’s desire to fairly credit event sponsors but found that the nature and frequency of the on-air credits and the presence of the online credit was not editorially justified. This was a breach of the guidelines. Issue 6. Did the sponsorship arrangements and/or output compromise the editorial guidelines on external relationships? In particular the complainant points to the provisions,

• That the BBC will not accept money or services in

exchange for broadcast coverage or publicity; • That the BBC will not promote or appear to endorse

other organisations, products, services, views or opinions; and

• That events related to BBC programmes or services must only be sponsored by companies not directly related to the subject matter of the event or programme connected to it.

The Committee noted the introduction to the guidelines regarding external relationships;

“Under the terms of the BBC's Charter and Agreement, no licence fee or grant-in-aid funded BBC service can broadcast sponsored programmes or advertising. Money from external organisations

63

and individuals must not be used for any production costs, apart from co-productions with recognised co-producers and very limited co-funding. We must operate rigorous financial systems and keep clearly separate budgets for broadcast and non broadcast costs.”

The Committee also considered the editorial principles regarding external relationships:

“When entering into an external relationship we must ensure that

• our editorial impartiality and integrity are not compromised and that we retain editorial control of our output.

• our choice of partners is editorially justified and will not bring the BBC into disrepute.

• we do not accept money or other services in exchange for broadcast coverage or publicity.

• we do not promote or appear to endorse other organisations, products, services, views or opinions.

• we fairly credit others where editorially appropriate.”

The Committee also considered the relevant principles guidelines for sponsored BBC events:

“The following editorial principles apply for the mounting and coverage of a sponsored BBC event:

• we must not feature the sponsor in the title of any BBC event. • events related to BBC programmes or services must only be

sponsored by companies not directly related to the subject matter of the event or programmes connected with it.

• our on air events must not accept product sponsorship.

Any proposal for sponsorship of a BBC event must be referred well in advance to Chief Adviser Editorial Policy.”

The Committee considered the broadcast and online content of SPO7 and considered whether the event sponsorship agreement

64

compromised the editorial impartiality and integrity of the BBC. The Committee agreed that there was no evidence that the editorial impartiality of the BBC had been affected. There was nothing to suggest that stories about Robinsons had been treated differently as a result of the event sponsorship agreement. However, while the guidelines allow for the fair crediting of others where editorially justified, the Committee was concerned that the impression could have been created that the BBC service had accepted commercial sponsorship because there was no clear editorial justification for the nature and frequency of the credits afforded to Robinsons. As a result the Committee concluded that the integrity of the BBC was compromised in this case. This guideline had been breached. The Committee then considered whether the event sponsorship agreement had affected editorial control. The Committee noted that despite their concerns about the lack of clear editorial justification for the credits given their nature and frequency, the on air and online credits and signage had been agreed by the appropriate editorial figures. They also noted that Robinsons had no control over the editorial content of the programme. They noted concerns that Tim Henman has been linked to the event sponsor as he was sponsored by Robinsons. However the Committee also noted that the decision to invite Tim Henman to give the Unsung Hero Award had, according to BBC management, been initiated by the BBC and that Robinsons had not been involved in that decision. It was considered that a sportsman of Tim Henman’s stature was a suitable invitee to give an award and that there was no evidence to suggest that his involvement had anything to do with the event sponsorship. The Committee concluded that the BBC retained overall editorial control. The Committee then considered whether the acceptance of event sponsorship meant that money had been accepted for broadcast coverage or publicity. The Committee agreed that it was not simple to ascertain what if any of the event sponsorship monies had been provided by Robinsons in exchange for on air or online mentions or

65

66

signage at the event which might or might not be in shot. Notwithstanding this, the Committee concluded that contractual guarantees of on air or online credits in this case was injudicious and could give the impression that this principle had been breached. In this instance the guideline had been breached. The Committee noted (as explained above) that there was no endorsement (expressed approval) within the BBC content for Robinsons or its products, activities or services. It also noted that Robinsons’ products, services, views and opinions had not been promoted by the BBC. The Committee agreed therefore that there was no appearance of Robinsons being endorsed or promoted. The Committee agreed that Robinson had not been featured in the title of the event. It also agreed that (as explained above) Robinsons was not ineligible as a sponsor for the event as it was not directly related to the subject matter of the event It also agreed that the sponsorship agreement did not amount to product sponsorship - as explained above no product was featured on the programme or web site. It agreed that the sponsorship proposal and the proposal to credit a third party were referred to the Chief Advisor Editorial Policy well in advance of the sponsorship agreement being concluded and the contract being issued. The Committee noted that in accordance with Section 2 of the editorial guidelines which enables the BBC’s Editorial Policy team to produce guidance dealing with specialised policy areas and advice notes, a guidance note had been published dealing with funding and sponsorship of a BBC non-sports event. The ESC noted the contents of the guidance note which is entitled “Mount and Coverage of non-Sports events”10 and applies to both off air events and those (such as SPO7) that are given on air coverage.

10 BBC Editorial Guidance http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/advice/nonsportevents/

67

The Committee noted that the guidance note is separated into two parts. Part one of the guidance note relates to all BBC events, both those covered on air and those not designed for coverage. Part two relates to coverage of non-sports sponsored events mounted by the BBC or an outside organisation. As SPO7 was a BBC sponsored event covered on air, the Committee noted that both parts of the guidance note apply. Part one of the note gives some guidance as to what constitutes an event but is not exhaustive. Awards ceremonies are not specifically referred to in the guidance note, but they are referred to in the main body of the editorial guidelines11. The note suggests that sponsorship may be acceptable for an entire event or part of it. However, the Committee noted that it was key that:

“Although an event may be sponsored, no programme on a BBC public service channel may be sponsored. Care should be taken so that there is no suggestion of programme sponsorship. No sponsorship money should go into any BBC programme or production budget. Clearly separated accounts showing event costs and programme costs must be kept and these must demonstrate that any sponsorship money raised has gone into the event and not the programme. Any proposal for outside sponsorship of a BBC event should be referred in advance to the Chief Adviser Editorial Policy. Receipt of more than £20,000 by the BBC…in connection with an event covered on air must be signed off by the Finance Director for the relevant division responsible for the production.”

The Committee also noted that Section 2.3 “Appropriate Sponsorship” of the guidance note deals with appropriate sponsorship and states:

“• The sponsor’s name, product name, logo or slogan must not appear in the main title of the BBC event e.g. “The X Radio Times Lecture” would be unacceptable, however “The Radio Times

11 See Section 14 - External relationships “Sponsored BBC Events”

Lecture supported by X” would be within the guidelines. If the event is to be covered on air, the sponsor’s name must not appear in the title of the programme. • The choice of sponsor should not cast any doubt over the integrity of an associated programme. Sponsorship deals must not distort the editorial integrity of a BBC event and a BBC event should not change its editorial remit because this clashes with the sponsor’s agenda. • There must be no suggestion either implicit or explicit that the BBC or BBC programmes endorse any third party products or services. • There should be a separation between the sponsor’s brand and the BBC brand, sub-brands or programme brands. • It is not acceptable for a BBC event to be “presented by” or “brought to you by” the sponsor. Any reference should normally be to the event being “sponsored by” or “supported by” the sponsor”

The Committee noted that the guidance goes on to deal with unsuitable sponsors, and states that:

“In general BBC events, even those not related to specific individual programmes should not be sponsored by an organisation which is directly connected with the subject matter of the event e.g. The Good Food Show should not be sponsored by a food manufacturer.”

The Committee noted that part two of the guidance note concerns coverage of non sports sponsored events mounted by the BBC or by an outside organisation. The introduction to this part of the note states that:

68

“When covering sponsored events, programme makers should ascertain whether the event is freestanding. Events that we cover should not be created by a sponsor merely to attract broadcast coverage. The BBC should not allow its coverage to be used as a vehicle for the sponsor’s goods, services or opinions. Producer’s must never agree to display or mention the sponsor’s goods or services.”

A further part of the guidance note deals with programme titles (2), on air credits for sponsors of events (3) online (5) and sponsor signage (1) and (6). The note provides the following guidance:

“Programme titles – The sponsor’s logo must not be used in the programme title graphic or listings. Other on-air credit for sponsors of events – it is essential that any credits make it clear that it is the event that has been sponsored and not the programme. All decisions on credits rest with the BBC. Depending on the total length of coverage, there should normally be a maximum of two verbal credits for the overall event sponsor and they should be delivered in a non-promotional style. When coverage lasts for many hours, The Head of department will decide on appropriate verbal credits. On television it is preferable stylistically for these verbal credits not to be given by the studio presenter. For awards ceremonies they are normally given by the host at the event. In some cases they may be given by reporters at the event or in voice-over. On television there may also be a single written reference in end credits. The event sponsor’s logo should not be used. Written credits must appear in the same style and type as other programme credits. Credits should always be agreed with the Head of Department responsible for coverage.

69

Online –if there is a BBC online site connected to a BBC event the sponsor may be credited in a non-promotional way within the text. Normally there should be no more than one reference per page. The sponsor’s logo may be shown in accordance with the Online Guidelines. For further guidance see Online Services Guidelines or consult Editorial Policy. Sponsor signage at concerts and awards ceremonies – in covering such events, some discreet signage for the sponsor may be acceptable, but all reasonable efforts must be taken to ensure that it will not be included in the dominant shots. When covering such awards ceremonies producers should refer to their Head of Department, who would normally consult Chief Adviser, Editorial Policy It is important that the BBC does not give undue prominence to a sponsor, while at the same time recognising the need to credit the sponsor’s enabling role fairly. At the earliest opportunity programmes should seek to establish with event organisers an understanding over reflections of sponsorship. The following criteria would normally be applied: -

• A reflection on the sponsorship may be shown at the side of the stage out of dominant shots. It may sometimes take the form of an integrated logo or may be “X event supported by Z”. It may be possible for banners in the hall or auditorium to carry the sponsor’s name or logo, without reference to the sponsorship of the event. However such banners should only be used if they can be caught fleetingly in wide shots, not if they are likely to be caught in main shots.

• At an awards ceremony sponsor reflections in the form of an integrated logo or “X event supported by Z” may be shown in the middle of the podium as long as it is not reflected in the main shot of the presenter.

• Banners may also be positioned at the back of the hall out of the main shots.

70

• There may also be other banners reflecting sponsorship at the venue in the entrance foyer.

• Any other types of reflections of sponsorship at an event must be discussed with Editorial Policy”.

The Committee noted that although the guidance note does state that depending on the length of the programme “there should normally be a maximum of two verbal credits for the overall event sponsor”, a two hour programme is considered by BBC management to be much longer than the norm. The Committee also noted that BBC management did give consideration to the size of the Robinsons’ logo on the podium. For the purpose of judging its prominence, the Robinsons’ logo was considered in relation to the entire BBC SPO7 part of the integrated logo, not just the BBC part of it. The Committee also noted that the BBC management had explained that the “main shot” referred to in the guidance note meant the normal shot of the presenter while talking. It was not a wide shot of the whole stage. The main shot in this case was a shot of the top half of the presenter’s body when standing at the podium. This was agreed by BBC management and the programme team prior to broadcast. In the agreed “main shot”, according to BBC management, the Robinsons’ logo on the podium cannot be seen. The Committee also noted that the Head of Sport Editorial has stated that from a programme making perspective there was no dominant shot – the intention was to include as many different shots as possible. The Committee then considered whether the programme and event had complied with the more detailed guidance supplied in the guidance note. The Committee concluded that the Head of Sponsorship had been consulted about the proposed sponsorship of SPO7. The Committee also agreed that, as required by the guidance note, receipt of the money had been signed off by the Finance Director of Sport. The

71

Committee confirmed that the Chief Adviser, Editorial Policy, had been consulted on the signage by the relevant Head of Department The Committee considered whether all of the references to sponsorship of the event were acceptable. It did not consider that all of the references were acceptable. In particular, the Committee found that the comment by the presenter on Radio 5 Live:

“[…] don’t laugh, I have to say that it’s in the contract. If I don’t mention it they won’t do it again”

gave the impression that Robinsons was sponsoring the programme rather than the event and as such were unacceptable. This was a breach of the editorial guidance. As to how the credits were delivered, the Committee was satisfied that they were delivered in a non-promotional style by an appropriate person. The Committee also considered that the inclusion of a single written end credit for the BBC One broadcast was acceptable and confirmed that the Robinsons’ logo had not been used in it. The Committee also agreed that the end credit was in the same written style as the other credits and had also been agreed with the Head of Department responsible for coverage. The Committee then considered whether the event was freestanding in the sense that it would have taken place irrespective of whether the sponsorship was in place. The Committee concluded that it was freestanding in that the event would have gone ahead without a sponsor as it had in 2006. The Committee then considered whether sponsor signage in its own right and not in the context of the frequency it was seen was acceptable. It concluded that the signage was sufficiently discreet and that therefore the sponsor signage was acceptable.

72

The Committee then turned to the question of whether there was separation between the Robinsons’ brand and the BBC brand and whether Robinsons had been given undue prominence or whether the prominence given was fair given Robinsons’ enabling role. It noted the guidance note set out that

‘It is important that the BBC does not give undue prominence to a sponsor, while at the same time recognising the need to credit the sponsor’s enabling role fairly. At the earliest opportunity programmes should seek to establish with event organisers an understanding over reflections of sponsorship. The following criteria would normally be applied: -

• …... • At an awards ceremony sponsor reflections in the

form of an integrated logo or “X event supported by Z” may be shown in the middle of the podium as long as it is not reflected in the main shot of the presenter.

The Committee considered that there was a sufficient degree of separation in the presentation of the Robinsons brand and the BBC brand on the podium as set out in the guidance note. However given the number of podium shots which showed the Robinsons’ logo: it did not appear that reasonable efforts had been made to avoid this shot. The Committee considered that the number of times the logo was in view on screen constituted undue prominence. The Committee was therefore satisfied that level of inclusion of the sponsors logo was unacceptable and a breach of the editorial guidance on signage. The guidance was breached

73

Issue 7. Did the sponsorship arrangements and/or output compromise the online services guidelines The Committee noted (as above) that in line with Section 2 of the Editorial Guidelines editorial policy had drawn up a separate set of online service guidelines. The Committee noted that these guidelines apply to all BBC online content, and are supplemental to the editorial guidelines. The Committee noted the relevant additional provisions of the online service guidelines and the supplemental considerations they raise. In particular, the Committee noted the section of the online guidelines that included the principle relevant to the inclusion of the Robinsons’ logo on the BBC Sports Personality of the Year web page:

Section 13 – Editorial Independence and Integrity: “• there may be no sponsorship of any web page on any BBC publicly funded Internet service. Publicly funded BBC web pages may not carry advertising.”

This section of the online guidelines further provides that:

“Undue Prominence - The BBC must not unfairly promote any commercial organisations. Therefore great care must be taken when linking to any commercial site to ensure that we do not give the impression that the BBC is unfairly endorsing any commercial product or service. Use of commercial logos on BBC websites - Editorial references to companies or outside organisations should not normally contain any use of their logo. Use of commercial logos on BBC sites must be editorially justifiable. Proposals to use commercial logos on the public service site or within the editorial areas of the commercial site should be approved in advance by the relevant Interactive Executive Editor.”

74

The Committee noted that the online guidelines go on to deal with website credits. The guidelines provide that:

“Reasons for giving credits - The BBC seeks to offer fair and appropriate credits on its online sites. We normally give production credits, credits for the supply of material by third parties, credits for some outside events and credits for some software providers. Our use of credits online should be consistent with the Editorial Guidelines. Credits are given at the BBC’s discretion:

• they should be editorially justifiable • they should not be unduly prominent • caution needs to be exercised in the use of third party

logos which should only be used in specific circumstances • linking to a third party site is not acceptable simply as a

form of credit. There has to be some editorial justification for linking to any site

• on occasion, it may be appropriate to credit outside information for reasons for transparency.

Logos as credits - Great caution needs to be exercised in the use of third party logos. Inclusion of third party logos on the BBC’s web site is not generally acceptable as a form of credit or recognition of a third party’s role. Logos are used to enhance brand value and are a strong advertising tool. But there are some circumstances when the use of an outside logo on the BBC site may be an appropriate credit. One of the main reasons for the use of a logo is:

• in our online coverage of a sponsored event, there are some circumstances where a specific tournament or event logo may be used. For a sponsored BBC Event, a

75

commercial sponsor’s own logo may only be used if it is clearly separated from the BBC logo

All logos or icons in credits must have the express advance approval of the relevant Interactive Executive Editor.”

The Committee also noted further provisions in the online service guidelines. It noted that Section 14 - External Relationships of the online guidelines should be applied in conjunction with Section 14 of the Editorial Guidelines. The Committee were also aware that the additional provision of this section of the online guideline was relevant to the part of the complaint that related to online content:

“When entering into external relationships, we must ensure that • there may be no sponsorship of any web page on any BBC publicly funded Internet service. Publicly funded BBC web pages may not carry advertising.”

Section 14 of the online guidelines then goes on to deal with BBC events:

“Coverage of Sponsored Sport and other outside Events. This section applies to both the publicly funded and commercially funded sites. BBC web pages supporting a BBC programme about a sponsored event may mention the sponsor within the editorial content only if strictly editorially relevant. Sponsor logos

• sponsor references should be kept to a minimum • there should be no element of promotion for the sponsor • sponsors’ logos should not normally be used on the

publicly funded site nor within the editorial content of the commercial site

• however, the BBC seeks to credit fairly the enabling role played by event sponsors and the credits policy agreed for

76

a sponsored event on TV will determine the credits policy for the sponsored event online

• some major international sporting events may require specific types of credit

Our overall policy should be in accordance with Section 14 of the Editorial Guidelines.

Links to sites run by the sponsor

• links from pages covering events to the sponsor’s corporate site are not permissible

• we should never give the impression that we are driving traffic to a site selling sponsor’s goods or services

• however, it may be acceptable for sound editorial reasons to link to specific sites run by the sponsor which only give further information about the event or associated sports events. Such links must be approved by the Relevant Interactive Executive Editor.

Sponsored BBC Events.

In some circumstances it may be acceptable for the BBC to supplement the cost of mounting a free-standing BBC event with sponsorship from a suitable outside body. For example, the sponsorship might be by a commercial organisation for an outside event such as a series of concerts.

• the sponsorship may be credited in a non promotional way within the text of both publicly and commercially funded pages connected to the event

• the commercial sponsor’s own logo may only be used if it is clearly separated from the BBC logo.

Arrangements should be in accordance with s.14 of the Editorial Guidelines.”

77

The Committee then considered whether Robinsons could be said to have sponsored the SPO7 web page. It concluded that there was no evidence to support such a finding. The Committee then considered whether the use of the Robinsons’ logo on the website was editorially justified and whether the link from the BBC site to the page regarding the Unsung Hero Award on the Robinsons’ web site was editorially justified. The Committee agreed that use of the logo and link had been approved in advance by the relevant interactive executive editor. It also agreed that Robinsons’ logo was clearly separated from the BBC logo. However the Committee considered that the mere fact that there was event and awards sponsorship did not provide sufficient editorial justification for including Robinsons’ logo on the BBC website. The ESC considered the inclusion of the Robinsons’ logo on the BBC website was not editorially justified and therefore (despite the fact that there was only one reference to Robinsons which was at the bottom of the page and relatively small) the inclusion of the logo in itself accorded a degree of promotion to Robinsons that should not have taken place. The Committee considered this a breach of the guidelines With regard to the link to the Robinson’s site the Committee considered the BBC would need to demonstrate editorial justification by reference to the content held on the web site at the time. The Committee did not have that content. The Committee noted that the BBC management said that at the time the link was to information about the Unsung Hero Award but at the time of the complaint the link from the BBC site was to the Britvic plc corporate pages. The Committee considered this a breach of the guidelines Issue 8. Complaints handling ITV

78

The Committee noted that at stage 1 of the complaints process the initial letter of complaint was forwarded to the Director-General for a first stage response from BBC management, following an initial reply from the Chairman. The Committee acknowledged that a first stage response from the Executive is in line with the BBC’s standard complaints handling process. The Committee also noted that the Director-General’s office confirmed that input was sought from Sport and Editorial Policy; and the issues were analysed by Regulatory Legal and Fair Trading. The Director-General’s response presented the outcome of this analysis. Based on the advice received he sought to address the concerns raised by the complainant in relation to sponsorship generally, with particular regard to SPO7, and to explain the editorial and legal frameworks within which these decisions were made. His response also set out the BBC’s complaints processes, and the escalation processes should the complainant be dissatisfied with this initial response. The Committee also noted how the complaint had been processed at stage 2. It noted that as the main part of the complaint was judged by the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) to be “complex” the target for a response was 35 days. The Committee noted that ECU’s response other than in relation to the Radio 5 Live broadcast (which had not at that stage been dealt with by the programme makers) was within 35 days of the complainant’s letter dated 12 February 2008. The Radio 5 Live part of the complaint was considered by the ECU to fall into the “simple” category and as such the target for a response to that part of the complaint was 20 days. The response from the ECU was made within 20 days of 4 March 2008. The Committee noted that the ECU’s remit is to independently investigate specific breaches of editorial standards.

79

The Committee concluded that although the response from the Director-General at stage 1 of the process had been made in good faith it would have been more appropriate to refer the complaint to the formal complaints process. The Committee agreed that there was no evidence that the ECU investigation at stage 2 of the process had not been carried out independently of the SPO7 team and senior management. The Committee recommended that the Trust write to the Head of the Complaints Management Board to remind the Executive of the need to ensure that complaints are directed to the formal complaint mechanism in accordance with the BBC’s established policy. As to the ECU response, the Committee concluded that the ECU replies had been appropriately courteous and timely. It also concluded that it had been correct for ECU to constrain its response to its remit which was to consider complaints that alleged content had breached the editorial guidelines. The Committee had no doubts as to the integrity of the ECU when investigating complaints. The Committee noted there was no evidence to support the complainant’s allegation of bias, but recognised that it would have been preferable for the complaint to have been directly referred to stage 1 of the complaints handling process. RadioCentre The Committee agreed that the two emails sent to Jenny Abramsky In September and October 2007 constituted a complaint despite the fact they were couched in a friendly fashion. However whether or not they constituted a complaint was in some senses irrelevant as they had not been read and had not been responded to. This was a failure of stage 1 of the BBC’s complaints handling system. The Committee agreed that the length of time between the complaint having been received by the Director General’s office and the reply to the RadioCentre was too long. The letter was passed to the Director

80

81

General’s office by the Trust on 7 January. The reply was sent on 14 February 2008. The Committee concluded that the BBC had breached its commitment to ensure that complaints and enquiries should be responded to in a timely and courteous fashion. The Committee recommended that the Trust write to the Head of the Complaints Management Board to remind the Executive of the importance of replying to complaints promptly and, if necessary, keeping complainants informed to the progress of their complaint on a regular basis so as to avoid similar complaints of this nature in the future. For remedial action please see http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/appeals/sports_personality_appeals.html