· Decision of the Complaints Committee 04088-15 Pell & Bales v The Sun
Summary of
complaint
1. Pell & Bales complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that The Sun had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause
10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “Will gotten gains”, published on 6 June 2015.
2. The article reported the findings of an undercover
investigation carried out by the newspaper into the work of Pell & Bales, a
telemarketing agency that conducts charity fundraising campaigns. The article
reported that the investigation had found that call centres are “bombarding
vulnerable older women… with appeals for more money”. It gave details of the
training the undercover reporter had received at the call centre, included
examples of the conversations she had with people on the telephone and quoted
the scripted responses Pell & Bales’ staff were required to follow when
dealing with the calls. The investigation followed the suicide of charity
campaigner Olive Cooke, which had been widely reported as being connected to
the volume of charity fundraising requests she had received.
3. The complainant said the investigation and resulting
article represented a breach of Clause 10 of the Code. It said the newspaper
could not justify its decision to engage in subterfuge as it had no grounds to
believe that this would expose unlawful conduct, crime or serious impropriety.
Furthermore, the newspaper’s investigation had not uncovered information which
could justify it in the public interest: the article stated that there was “no
suggestion Pell & Bales did anything illegal”, and the company was
“scrupulous in instructing its employees to stick to acceptable practices”.
4. The complainant was also concerned that the article
was misleading in breach of Clause 1. It said that statements in the article
and accompanying comment piece – including the headline – gave a distorted
account of the newspaper’s findings, in that they suggested that Pell &
Bales had acted improperly. This was compounded by reference to Mrs Cooke, which
incorrectly suggested that Pell & Bales were being investigated in
connection with her death.
5. The complainant said the newspaper had inaccurately
described the calls as “cold calls”; the calls were to existing donors. The
newspaper had also inaccurately reported fundraisers’ pay structure: the
figures were incorrect, and fundraisers’ pay would be increased only if they
first met specific quality standards, such as compliance with the charity’s
script, branding and values.
6. The complainant considered that the references to
older women being “targeted” were misleading. Charities supply the contact
details for individuals on their supporter databases; Pell & Bales does not
further “select” the subjects of calls. The fact that, on the day the reporter
had worked at the call centre, fundraisers had been told that they would mainly
be calling women aged between 60 and 70 merely reflected the makeup of the
charity’s supporters. The complainant also said that the reporter had given a
misleading account of the calls she had made. The vast majority had not been as
she had described in the article.
7. The complainant said the newspaper had not made a
genuine attempt to verify the information with Pell & Bales before
publication.
8. The newspaper said the article was commissioned by the
Head of Features as a direct result of Mrs Cooke’s death, which it believed
demonstrated that cold calling vulnerable people, such as the elderly, was
becoming “dangerous”. This was a matter of considerable public interest.
9. The purpose of the investigation was to find out how
the agency trained and managed its staff, and to ascertain whether
high-pressure sales techniques were used on elderly and vulnerable people. The
newspaper said it was seeking to establish how people were selected for a call,
what questions were asked, what answers provoked further questions, how long
callers were expected to stay on the line, and whether a single donation was
enough to keep a donor on a call list indefinitely.
10. The newspaper said that the reporter assigned to the
project was asked to research charities that were known to have approached Mrs
Cooke for donations. The reporter then applied for a job at a call centre
through a recruitment company which advertised that it represented a number of
those charities. During a telephone interview, the reporter was told that the
call centre she would be working for was Pell & Bales. The reporter then
checked Pell & Bales’ client list online and confirmed that it had worked
for three charities that had contacted Mrs Cooke before her death.
11. On 28 May, the reporter emailed the Features
Executive setting out her plans for the feature, explaining the proposed
arrangements for a telephone interview and follow-up assessment with the
recruitment company, after which she would be offered a job and a day’s
training at the call centre, on 31 May. The newspaper noted that within an hour
of signing up online, the reporter had reached the second stage of the
recruitment process; no experience or qualifications were required. Later that
day, the reporter’s email was sent to the newspaper’s legal department asking
if there was any objection to the reporter proceeding with the training. The
legal department raised no objections.
12. On 29 May, the Head of Features discussed the idea
with the Head of Content, the Managing Editor and the Head of the Legal
Department; the Editor was also consulted. Those present considered whether the
required information could be obtained by means other than subterfuge. They
concluded that sales techniques would be constantly under review and upgraded,
so any existing research on this issue would be out of date. The option to
question former call centre staff was rejected because finding people would be
“too difficult”, and their testimony might also have been out of date. They
considered advertising for case studies from elderly people, but rejected that
approach on the basis that the evidence would have been subjective and limited
to comment on the phone calls. Another option was to speak directly to the call
centre management and ask to spend time working for them; this option was
rejected because a “sanitised” version of the operation might have been
presented. It was decided that the only way to establish how the agency
operated in its normal environment was to send a reporter to work undercover in
its call centre.
13. The day before the article was published, there was a
further meeting of senior editorial staff to consider whether the level of
subterfuge employed was proportionate to the public interest in the material
obtained. The team considered that the level of subterfuge was relatively
limited, in that the reporter attended a training day at a business. The level
of personal information to be published was also minimal.
14. The findings of the investigation were also
discussed. These included that older women were being targeted; staff turnover
was high, suggesting that the work was upsetting; the script that callers used
suggested that an “overriding financial purpose” had driven the cold calling;
callers were trained to read “harrowing”, “hard luck” tales and use “hard sell”
techniques to persuade people to donate; the legacy campaign encouraged people
to leave money in their wills; and job and housing data was used ”cynically” to
establish the financial status of potential donors. The newspaper was also
concerned by the general attitude of the teaching staff, including one person
who said it was easier to ask for a bequest in a will than it was for a monthly
donation. The newspaper concluded that a minimal level of subterfuge was
balanced against a considerable public interest, and the Editor decided to
publish the article.
15. With regards to the complainant’s concerns under
Clause 1, the newspaper said the investigation was launched as a direct result
of the death of Mrs Cooke; the article had not directed blame at Pell &
Bales for her death. The newspaper said the headline was a play on the phrase
“ill-gotten gains”. It was not misleading: it referred to money acquired from
wills and the “legacy campaign”. The newspaper appreciated that Pell &
Bales had adhered to the rules; the issue was whether or not the behaviour
allowed within the rules was acceptable. It considered that its use of the
words “tainted” and “hounded” had been justified.
16. The newspaper maintained that the reference to “cold
calls” was accurate, noting that “existing donor” meant that the individual had
made a donation once. It was concerned that if someone made a charitable
donation, it appeared to make them “fair game” to cold callers. It did not
consider that the reporter’s account of the calls she had made was misleading;
the report had focused on the calls she had found upsetting.
17. The newspaper said that staff were told on numerous
occasions that workers were rewarded for meeting targets, with the top
fundraisers earning an extra £2 an hour and the next best earning an extra £1.
They were told that in a financial campaign, part of your target was how much
an individual fundraised; another target was the number of calls made in which
a “decision-making contact” was spoken to.
18. The newspaper said it had contacted several charities
to tell them about its investigation; three of them had given statements for
publication. Pell & Bales were given the same opportunity to reply, over
the same period of time. It first contacted Pell & Bales at 3pm, and then
made three further calls requesting a statement. The reporter left messages,
but was told the press team was in a meeting and received no response.
Relevant Code Provisions
19. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence,
and - where appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving the
Regulator, prominence should be agreed with the Regulator in advance.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge)
i) The press must not seek to obtain or publish material
acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by
intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the
unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing
digitally-held private information without consent.
ii) Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge,
including by agents or intermediaries, can generally be justified only in the
public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other
means.
The public interest
1. The public interest includes, but is not confined to:
i) Detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety.
ii) Protecting public health and safety.
iii) Preventing the public from being misled by an action
or statement of an individual or organisation.
3. Whenever the public interest is invoked, the Regulator
will require editors to demonstrate fully that they reasonably believed that
publication, or journalistic activity undertaken with a view to publication,
would be in the public interest and how, and with whom, that was established at
the time.
Findings of the Committee
Note by the Committee
20. In assessing the newspaper’s position that its
activity was justified in the public interest, the Committee had regard for the
broader debate that was taking place at the time the article was published
about fundraising practices by charities. That debate was triggered by the
death of Olive Cooke. However, the Committee emphasised that, in considering
this complaint, it did not intend to reach or imply any conclusions as to the
causes or circumstances of Mrs Cooke’s death. Neither did it consider material
that had been made public regarding Mrs Cooke’s death since the article was
published, which would have had no bearing on the newspaper’s decision-making
at the time of publication.
21. The newspaper’s investigation had taken place in the
context of a widespread public debate about the fundraising techniques employed
by charities and their possible effects on vulnerable people, and it had
focussed on a call centre that had a specific and publicly-identified link to
the charities that had reportedly been involved in Mrs Cooke’s case. The level
of subterfuge employed was minimal, given the relative ease with which the
reporter had been able to obtain a place on the training day, and the fact that
the investigation had focused on sales techniques rather than confidential or
personal information relating to identifiable individuals.
22. While alternative means for investigating practices
in the sector generally were available to the newspaper, the Committee was satisfied
that it could not have obtained, and verified, the information it sought by
open means. In particular, it was unlikely to have been able to access the
fundraising script and provide such detailed, up-to-date information on the
methods used by call centre staff to prolong phone calls with potential donors.
There was a public interest in reporting on these details; they contained
specific, new information about the nature of the practices in common use by
one of the firms in the sector. The reporter had uncovered no evidence that
Pell & Bales was acting contrary to any relevant law or regulation, but
this did not eliminate the public interest in the story: it was relevant to the
issue of whether the current laws and regulations were adequate.
23. The Committee concluded that in the context of such
significant public concern regarding charity fundraising practices, the
low-level subterfuge employed was proportionate to the public interest
identified. The resulting article reported general information about the firm’s
working practices and did not include any gratuitously intrusive material
obtained through subterfuge. The newspaper had justified its methods and its
story. The complaint under Clause 10 was not upheld.
24. The Committee then considered the complainant’s
concern that the newspaper had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code in that
the coverage had given the significantly misleading impression that the
newspaper’s investigation had uncovered improper practices on the part of Pell &
Bales.
25. The coverage had, unquestionably, been highly
pejorative in tone. However, in the view of the Committee, the newspaper had
been entitled to take a position regarding the propriety of the practices
described in the article, so long as the basis of its view was clear. The text
of the article had stated expressly that there was “no suggestion that Pell
& Bales did anything illegal”, and reported that the company was
“scrupulous in instructing its employees to stick to acceptable practices”. The
newspaper was entitled to its opinion that the practices described in the
article, which were permitted within those rules, were unacceptable.
26. The complainant had objected to the newspaper’s
reference to “cold calls” and denied that the elderly were “hounded” or
“targeted” by its campaigns. The article had made clear, however, that the
calls were to existing donors. It was not in dispute that on the day the
reporter had worked at the call centre, predominantly older women were called
because they made up the majority of that charity’s supporter base. In this
context, the reference to “targeting” was not significantly misleading. It was
entitled to refer to unscheduled telephone calls received by individuals who
may not have expected them as “cold calls”. Furthermore, the newspaper had been
entitled to its opinion that calling donors for a repeat donation and the use
of techniques intended to prolong conversations with potential donors who were
not responding positively represented “hounding”.
27. The Committee noted the complainant’s concern that
the newspaper had only reported details of a select number of calls made by the
reporter. However, the selection of material for publication is a matter of
editorial discretion. The article had made clear that the reporter had made 25
calls in total. It was entitled to only focus on the calls that the reporter
had found concerning.
28. Nor was the reference to fundraisers’ pay
significantly misleading: there were financial incentives for achieving
performance targets.
29. The newspaper had tried to contact the company for
comment before the article’s publication. It had not failed to take care over
the accuracy of the article, and the Committee did not identify any significant
inaccuracies or misleading statements that required correction under the Code.
The complaint under Clause 1 was not upheld.
Conclusions
10. The complaint was not upheld
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 12/06/2015
Date decision issued: 24/09/2015