Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

“A New Future for Public Broadcasting”( 21 November 2003 )

Good evening – or good morning as it is this end – and thank you for inviting me to addressyour conference.I’m conscious that the time difference means you’ve just enjoyed dinner while I’ve just had breakfast. I must confess this is my first after-dinner speech with nothing stronger than a cupof coffee to sustain me.It would have been preferable if I could have been with you in person especially as I couldhave flown on to Australia to see England in the Rugby World Cup final. Of course here inEngland we all expected to be playing New Zealand in the final but I don’t want to intrude on private grief.[pause]This morning I plan to talk about three things in particular and in the process hope to touch onall the subjects I was asked to address by you. The three areas are:Firstly, how public service broadcasting serves the public interest in the digital ageSecondly on distribution issues how the BBC got involved in free to air digital and our interesting relationship with SkyAnd finally a few details on the financial reforms we have carried out which have allowedus to pay for much of what we’ve achieved in the digital worldSo first, the purpose of public service broadcasting.At the outset, we have to remember that although New Zealand broadcasting was originallymodelled on the BBC and the British system, today there are significant differences betweenour two systems. The BBC still doesn’t carry advertising anywhere on our output - the vastmajority of our funding still comes direct from every household via the annual licence feewhich is currently £116 and will soon increase to £121.Even so, there are still some fundamental similarities – particularly thanks to your currentGovernment’s determination to rebuild the role of public service broadcasting in NewZealand. As I understand it after some years in the wilderness, public service broadcasting is back at the heart of your system. In doing this, you’ve clearly recognised the needs of your population as citizens as well as consumers.When I met Martin Matthews when he visited the UK I was impressed by the new TV NewZealand Charter – not just for its laudable aims but also for the simplicity with which theywere expressed. It’s a brilliant piece of work. While you’ve managed to express your objectives on two sides of paper, the BBC charter and related agreement runs to somethinglike 40. Its hardly user friendly. As our charter is up for review in 2006, maybe we’ll be ableto do something about that. (We are also preparing for this charter review process by thinkingabout what the BBC should be for in the 21

Century).Our work on this is still in its early stages but I am sure that the provision of high quality UK-made programmes which reflect our culture and our society will be the defining feature of thefuture BBC.1

The globalised nature of today’s markets have never made it easier or more tempting for broadcasters to buy more and make fewer programmes. In this environment, it’s the BBC’sability to invest in indigenous programming that will increasingly set us apart from our advertiser funded commercial counterparts who, I suspect, will be forced to reduce theamount they spend on original production as the market continues to fragment and more andmore people get multi-channel television.I know you’ve carried out research in this area and the vast majority (77%) of people saidthey supported the kind of programmes provided by NZ on Air. I believe this is further proof of something we all instinctively know – that audiences want programmes which reflect their own culture and values.The BBC’s role as an investor in British programming and talent has always been central toour remit. What’s becoming more apparent today is the increased importance this will have inthe future.We recently published some independent research which highlighted the inevitableconsequences which current trends will have. Whether it’s the increasing reach of thematicchannels or the launch of new networks, content spend in the commercial sector will comeunder pressure.All the evidence suggests that TV markets operated on a purely commercial basis, behave likeany other market; they focus purely on the bottom line, import many of their programmes andfail to provide audiences with the rich range of content we know they want.Put a well funded public broadcaster at the heart of this system and you change the rules. Inthis country, the BBC is responsible for nearly a third of all audio visual content spending and40% of TV production spend.Is this market distortion? Of course it is, but so too are our public hospitals, state educationand social services. As a society these are all things governments make a conscious decisionto provide in the best interests of our citizens. For instance last year the BBC launched twonew childrens’ channels – one called C Beebies for toddlers and the other called CBBC for 6-12 year olds. When we announced we were doing this we came under attack from the likes of Disney, Viacom and Fox all of whom had already launched childrens’ channels in the UK.They claimed it was unfair that we were using public money to compete with them. Butsurely in a democratic society we, the public, have the right to decide we want childrens’channels which don’t carry advertisements, are essentially British and whose content reflectour culture. Why should the BBC be dictated to by American media companies who areeffectively dumping American programmes in our market, simply to make an extra buck.In today’s market driven world I know it’s unfashionable to say these sort of things and attack the free market concept but in the world of television we should always remember thatglobalisation actually means Americanisation.Historically, the BBC’s presence in the UK market has meant that the principal commercialchannels have had to follow our lead if they are to compete. It ceases to be about who canmake or acquire the cheapest programmes and becomes a question of who can make the best2

programmes. You’ll be pleased to know our channels are now number one and three in thechildrens’ market in the UK. Why? Because parents trust the BBC and want children’schannels which are fundamentally British not American.The financial strength of the BBC historically also explains why ITV, our main independentchannel is the biggest commercial spender in Europe and shows 20% more home grown programming than is required by regulators. They have to compete against us. Marketdistortion? Of course – but it’s for the benefit of Britain.So public funding of broadcasting is not about creating an oasis of quality in a desert of reality TV and soap operas. What it does is raise the bar for the big commercial channels tooand of course in the process creates huge spin off benefits in the creative industries moregenerally.Whether this effect will eventually extend to the pay TV sector is far from certain. The UK pay TV sector, dominated by Sky, is now earning annual revenues of £3.4 billion. It’sestimated that just £100 million of that revenue goes back into making new programmes inthe UK. That’s a pretty pathetic recycle rate of just 3%. This compares with an average rateof 55% among the UK’s main broadcasters, including the BBC.This is one of the reasons we see a clear place for a new breed of high quality free to air BBCtelevision services. We’ve recently launched our own portfolio of digital TV channels intothis highly competitive market. Now in addition to our two main analogue TV channels, BBC One and BBC Two, we havesix additional digital services, providing children’s programmes, arts, news and culture.Like our childrens’ channels this new breed of BBC services are radically different from thevast majority of what’s on offer to digital viewers. The channels are advertising-free, and the programmes are overwhelmingly British and commissioned for the channels on which theyare seen.These and our other services are changing people’s minds about digital. In the past, premiumsports or movies were the main reasons for getting digital. Today the BBC brand is bringingmore diverse groups of licence fee payers to digital television.==We are also beginning to realise the potential power of the BBC brand outside the sphere of broadcasting, particularly in partnership with other people. We’ve been discovering the valueof reaching out to communities in ways other than television and radio.In the north of England we’ve been converting some of our radio stations into what we callopen centres where, as well as being broadcasters, they also deliver services so that peoplecan get internet access and IT training. We’ve also been working in partnership with localcouncils to take these resources on the road in special buses – often connecting with peoplewho are neglected by or alienated from more traditional institutions. What we’ve discoveredis that the BBC name is something which has an association with glamour and is also a brandwhich people trust. They don’t associate us with the often rather austere institutions of thestate which traditionally provide education and advice. In the future, we see enormous scope3

Category:	Uncategorized.
Rating:	(2 Ratings)
Upload Date:	08/01/2009
Copyright:	Attribution Non-commercial
Tags:	Humanities public broadcasting Humanities public broadcasting (fewer)

Documents

People