ITV says "jump", OFCOM ask "how high?"

Proof please... because I haven't seen any.

Regional news gets ratings which rival the national bulletins in the early evening, and indeed individual regions get ratings Sky News could only dream of.

No denying the cost of providing the service is a bigger burden than it once was (which is ITV's own fault for stripping the regions of their facilities), and no denying things could be improved - but absolutely zero evidence that the viewing public want regional news to completely vanish from their screens.

I totally agree. It's a load of codswallop saying that regional news isn't cared for anymore. Sure, ratings may have decreased over the last ten years but you'd expect them to with the increase in channels and more variety of programming. I believe ITV's regional news programmes have collectively maintained a steady amount of ratings, in spite of the digital era.

Brekkie, to be fair - ITV1 is stuck between a rock and a hard place right now. Is it really fair in a declining market that ITV should be expected to produce PSP to the standard of the state-funded rival?

The day we start funding ITV1 is the day we can see some decent regional news and CITV back in the weekday afternoons, eh?

Also why bother when the BBC's news beats ITV's hands down?

The economy as a whole is in the **** though - doesn't mean other businesses should be absolved of their social responsibility. Why should ITV be any different?


I don't think anybody really blames ITV for what they're trying to do - most of the blame lies with OFCOM for how they've allowed ITV to get into this position, while I guess they probably both share the blame for creating the myth that once we head to the 2012 switchover date, nobody will care about regional TV.

Yep - but equally, ITV are only in the position they are in (guaranteed terrestrial slots, guaranteed EPG positions etc.) because of their PSB commitments.

If they shed these, then they should lose their half of Mux 2, and their guaranteed 3rd position in the EPGs.

That may lose them more viewers and cost them more than their PSB requirements...



The viewers do... PSB shows - regional news, regional weather etc. - are some of the most highly valued shows broadcasters make. Whenever you do surveys into what they value most - they often come very high up the list.

Most people forget that the most watched news slot in the UK is the BBC 1830-1900 regional news slot. It usually outrates every other news slot in the UK. This isn't apparent in the BARB Top 50 list - as each regional show is rated separately - but when you look at the overnights, the slot ratings are all added up, and it usually outrates the Six and the Ten.

ITV regional news has faired less well of late - but you could argue that that is because it is a shadow of its former self...

Competition is not an end in itself though. The reason we want competition is promote efficiency in pricing and output, such that the value of the goods being produced matches what consumers are willing to pay for that output. Yet competition might not always be required to achieve this. Indeed, in some markets, we welcome monopolies - for instance, we only need one set of power lines to run down the street. In this case, competition would in fact introduce unnecessary costs, duplicating existing infrastructure without any additional benefit to end users.

I would argue that much the same is true for public service broadcasting. PSB commitments arise from the need to correct a perceived market failure - that there are certain services that will not be provided by commercial media providers. So long as those services are being provided by somebody, then this successfully overcomes the market failure. Competition in the provision of a market failure-correcting good or service would be unnecessary.

Moreover, in this case we need to consider the additional costs which are being borne by the providers of the competing PSB services - ie. the commercial broadcasters. It is not a level playing field when they are required to meet public service obligations out of their own pocket, while the BBC gets to fund its services out of taxpayers' money (all the while actively competing against those commercial networks when it comes to non-PSB programming - but that's another debate).


What social responsibility do other businesses have? The only responsibility firms (or rather, the people who run them) have is to maximise profits for the benefit of their shareholders. To suggest otherwise is sheer lunacy, and directs us towards a path of socialism, not free market capitalism. As the late Milton Friedman reminds us:

"What does it mean to say that the corpo­rate executive has a "social responsibility" in his capacity as businessman? If this statement is not pure rhetoric, it must mean that he is to act in some way that is not in the interest of his employers. For example, that he is to refrain from increasing the price of the product in order to contribute to the social objective of preventing inflation, even though a price in crease would be in the best interests of the corporation. Or that he is to make expendi­tures on reducing pollution beyond the amount that is in the best interests of the cor­poration or that is required by law in order to contribute to the social objective of improving the environment. Or that, at the expense of corporate profits, he is to hire "hardcore" un­employed instead of better qualified available workmen to contribute to the social objective of reducing poverty.

In each of these cases, the corporate exec­utive would be spending someone else's money for a general social interest. Insofar as his actions in accord with his "social responsi­bility" reduce returns to stockholders, he is spending their money. Insofar as his actions raise the price to customers, he is spending the customers' money. Insofar as his actions lower the wages of some employees, he is spending their money."

but its not a level playing field anyhow, because they (ITV and five [ ignoring c4 as its state owned]) get the long list of perks mentioned three times in this thread now for providing these things. Having slots 3 and 5 on the EPG is very advantageous as is having gifted spectrum on freeview.

And if it's simply been 'gifted' to them - that is, they don't pay a cent for it - then that's not likely to be ideal in my view. If the spectrum has been auctioned off in some way, and they are the highest bidder, then that's an efficient outcome. At any rate, it doesn't change my underlying argument that having multiple broadcasters with PSB-obligations doesn't make much sense.

The ITV companies bid for their Channel 3 analogue licences. The space gifted to them on DTT and their EPG positioning is simply an extension of this.

Right - and that kind of makes sense. Their bids for the analogue licences would have been contingent on those analogue licences having some continuing value. Obviously if digital licences went to other firms entirely, then their ability to continue broadcasting in the future would be significantly constrained, since eventually those analogue licences will essentially be revoked.

And moreover it is "conditionally granted", not "gifted".

Its easy to take an absolute view of economics, as Mr Q does; but I personally don't feel that serves people well.

Yes, this is a capitalist society. In rigid terms that means that EPG placement should go to the highest bidder, and no one should feel compelled to provide public service broadcasting except for a solitary channel funded by Government, somewhere half way down the channel guide.

And then we'd be in America.

I think I am happier having the system we currently enjoy - with PSB programming spread around the terrestrial channels - the pay off being they are easy to find at the top of the EPG.

And I would respectfully disagree.


I don't believe that's quite how I defined it. I find your choice of phrase though - "feel compelled to provide public service broadcasting" - interesting. If commercial broadcasters see merit in providing services that don't directly return a profit, then I have absolutely no problem with that. It's not a matter of saying that channels like ITV absolutely can't provide certain services like regional news or other things that might be defined as a PSB commitment. I am simply inclined to let them run the services the want to run based on what viewers want to watch, as reflected by ratings. As a principle, I just don't accept that the media industry needs to be as heavily regulated by government as it currently is.