Changing the Channel
In each of these areas many of the BBC’s actions have proved contentious both in terms of the quality and distinctiveness achieved and the negative market impact issues raised. In the area of sport, the BBC still chooses to pay significant sums for events such as the FA Cup (which it recently lost to ITV) and Formula 1, both events which would end up on ITV or Five in much the same form if the BBC were not to bid. Meanwhile, it has failed to bid for domestic test match cricket on TV since 1998. Formula 1 and FA Cup matches attract an under 40, C1C2 male audience to the BBC, an audience it finds difficult to attract with its home grown programming, while Test Match cricket tends to attract a largely over 40 male ABC1 audience. In the area of peak time entertainment the BBC has ended up bidding against ITV and Channel 4 for key on screen talent, and against commercial radio for key breakfast and drive time presenters, in order to attract either a 16 to 35 audience or a more mass market C1C2 audience. In many cases, this talent would have produced very similar shows on commercial free to air outlets had the BBC not secured their services. Perhaps the most high profile case in this area was the BBC’s claimed £5.6 million a year contract with Jonathan Ross in competition with Channel 4 and ITV. The problem is not so much what the BBC paid (a report for the BBC Trust suggested they may have offered slightly less per hour to the star than Channel 4 or ITV) but rather what the BBC was doing in the bidding ring in the first place. In the area of programme imports, Sky and Channel Four have complained that the BBC pays huge amounts for US drama series like The Wire, Heroes and Mad Men. Channel Four claim this has forced up the price for them for other popular US imports like Desperate Housewives. Sky argue that the £400,000 an episode the BBC pay US giant, NBC, for the series Heroes could be spent on home-grown UKproduced drama. With services and programming for the 16 to 35 age group the BBC may well be adding some public value in terms of quality and distinctiveness through outlets such as Radio 1, BBC 3, BBC Switch and 1Xtra, but in an area where the commercial market already offers E4, Sky One, Dave, MTV and Kiss FM. The BBC ends up spending disproportionately high amounts on these services not to provide quality and distinctiveness but merely to reach a group that is not naturally inclined to visit the BBC for any service. Would not the licence payer be better served by using the commercial outlets that do reach these audiences to offer public service programming – perhaps in partnership with the BBC - rather than expending millions of pounds developing a specific BBC service that is always going to be “swimming against the tide” when trying to attract these audiences? While the BBC is charged with driving new technologies in order to facilitate universal access, its bias towards achieving reach for its services at all costs has led the corporation to develop platforms such as Freeview, DAB and the i-Player, and initiatives such as project Canvas, with little thought as to how these platforms might help provide commercially sustainable business models – either through targeted advertising or micropayments. Instead, the BBC seems intent on rolling out these platforms free of any charge or advertising as rapidly as possible to help them deliver services to underserved niches with little regard for the consequences for commercial and pay broadcasters.
30
|
policyexchange.org.uk