The Role of the BBC

On another thread I got into an argument about whether the BBC should try to make programmes that generated a high return on investment. I'm posting here what I posted there because I think it explains why some people think the BBC is getting away from the proper role for a public broadcaster.

**In response to the question of the BBC making high return on investment programming**

If the BBC got into porn production it could make awesome returns on investment.

But the BBC wasn't founded to make blockbuster television that would generate tonnes of cash (that's ITV's job ).

I think the BBC should focus on making quality television that wouldn't be made by profit seeking companies, and leave profit seeking companies (ITV, 4, five, etc.) to make programming that's designed to generate a positive return on investment.

I'm actually making a credible argument based on economics. If the BBC makes profit-seeking programming (let's abbreviate this as PSP) then it will crowd out private investment in such programming by companies like ITV, 4 and five (because there's only so much demand for it).

And, by making PSP, the BBC is not fulfilling it's role -- which should be to provide programming that profit-seeking companies would not likely make because it is unlikely to create a large positive return on investment.

So does that mean that the BBC is doomed to make crap that appeals to niche audiences? Not necessarily, they could make lots of programming that would appeal to large audiences, but would be deemed too expensive to produce by profit-seeking companies. The BBC also has TONNES of archive and library footage (at least what wasn't wiped in the 1960s and 1970s). They could also make use of that.

My point is that the BBC was created to fill a role that capitalist markets do not provide for -- namely, producing and broadcasting programming that profit-seeking broadcasters do not have any incentive to produce.

This is what I think the BBC should do.

I'm sure the DG will be around to offer you a job shortly.

Watch out at the door, and hold your breath.

But was the BBC created for this role? The BBC was founded in 1922, and licensed in 1923 for 3 years, as a commercial company (funded by radio manufacturers to provide output to tune into?) - it became a corporation later, in 1926 I think, and had no domestic commercial competition in radio and TV terms until the mid 1950s when ITV launched the UK's second TV service. (The BBC TV service launched in 1936, and then again in 1948 after the war)

I don't think it is the case to say that the BBC was created to fill a role that capitalist markets don't provide for. In both TV and Radio the BBC was the first (and for a long period in both TV and radio the only) UK broadcaster to operate any real service - and was created to do that. I don't think the concepts of what a commercial organisation would provide made much impact on the early decisions with regard to the BBC - as there were no commercial broadcasters in the UK at the time...

Whether the BBC should now be aiming only to make programmes that the commercial market wouldn't otherwise produce is a different argument - but I think your historical argument about the founding of the BBC is somewhat flawed.

I think it is equally strong for the BBC to argue that popular programmes, which draw a high proportion of UK audiences, are important to justify universal payment of the licence fee. Equally important are niche services aiming at audiences not drawn to
this popular output. The BBC can't inhabit a ghetto, only making programmes that other broadcasters wouldn't make, it should always be aiming to make the best shows it can afford to produce in every genre it operates in. That, surely, is the public service.

If these programmes are "profitable" - by which I assume you mean they generate money from sales to oversea broadcasters (including format sales) and to UK repeat channels like Plus and UK Gold - then this is also in the public service as it means the licence fee payer is paying less to get a high quality, popular show.

Don't forget that one of the major reasons that ITV (the UK's first commercial broadcaster on radio or TV I believe) was founded was to provide the BBC with competition. AIUI there was no suggestion that the BBC and ITV should make different types of shows (apart from areas of advertising and sponsorship) - and one of the greatest public services that ITV's creation generated was a massively improved BBC TV output in the late 50s, as it fought to catch up ITV's audience (which was beating the BBC in the ratings)

BBC Two was effectively created to allow the BBC One / ITV competition to continue whilst still allowing the BBC to make less popular programmes serving smaller, yet still important audiences.

Even into the 1960s (40 years after the BBC was formed) - the BBC was still expected to provide a service equivalent to ITV on BBC One... Your argument about the BBC being formed to service areas that the market didn't provide is not accurate.
(It may well hold for PBS in the US though... They are very different beasts)

And there was me thinking that was the raison-d'etre of Channel4, or more accurately to broadcast quality programs that had not been made by profit seeking companies, eg independents and small film makers whose motive was art and not profit.

Now you are advocating that Channel4 should be just another commercial venture like the ITV companies and five whose purpose is to make, or rather, broadcast mainly other people's programmes for profit.

RE: Flaw in the historical argument.

You're right, noggin. It makes no sense to say that the BBC was created as a special case (especially when there was no competition to begin with). What I was trying to say (sometimes I ramble and am not very clear) was that, initially, the BBC was a sort of magnet for all of the funding necessary to establish a broadcasting institution. It's interesting to think what would have evolved in the UK had the licensing (licencing?) fee not been established. After all, NBC was founded in the USA by RCA (the Radio Company of America) to promote its wares. (Incidentally, CBS was formed by the one talent agent in New York City who was not included in the contracts to provide talent for NBC radio.) I'd like to suggest that using the licensing fee to fund the BBC in the 1920s had the twofold effect of guaranteeing the British public a national service, while also keeping other companies out of the market for a while (because the BBC sucked in special revenue).

RE: Channel 4

Corin, you have to remember that Margaret Thatcher said a lot of things...Channel 4 would never have been created if Labour had won the 1979 election and the public-service nonsense about 4 was probably just a Tory ploy to justify the use of public funds to sponsor the start-up of a private company.

ELABORATING

But, really, what is the BBC to do in a multi-channel universe?

I like the idea of the BBC making childrens' programming...because few companies make good childrens' programming. I also like BBC4. I dont mind the BBC making populist programming (chasing trends and all). But I think BBC3 is excessive and virtually pointless. And some of the stuff they put on in primetime on BBC1 and BBC2 is very bad use of the timeslot.

I also think overseas services like BBC America and BBC Canada are ridiculous -- have you ever seen the repetitive, uninspired schedule of BBC Canada? Why can't the BBC just list BBC1 through 4 on cable in North America instead of coming up with some mutant cable channel?

I'm not saying that we should kill off most of the BBC (which I completely disagree with)...but I think the "serving the public good" argument has been abused by using it whenever anyone raises an objection to what BBC's management wants to do.

Perhaps it's a bit off-topic, but related to some of the comments above. Some media outlets in the U.S. (mostly local news) still call the BBC a "state broadcaster" (in the same way they call China's CCTV a "state broadcaster"). They fail to understand that while, yes, they are a government organised body, they are not strictly run and controlled by the government itself.

Just goes to show you how ignorant some news organisations can be. *cough* Fox News *cough*

http://homepage.mac.com/robertpalmer/tvforum/sig.gif

MrTomServo this is because the Americans dont have a BBC.

PBS (the Public Broadcasting System) doesn't actually exist in the corporate sense. It's an affiliation between a bunch of local stations created to market their network nationwide, but there is no central, coordinating authority.

What does exist is something called the "CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING (CPB)." And this is an entirely private corporation (like a LLC in the UK), which is funded solely by private endowments.

Individual citizens can make small cash donations to their local PBS affiliate...indeed, this is the primary revenue source for PBS stations.

In fact, not one cent of public money is or has ever been given to PBS directly. Some support for specific programming may have been given in some way or another, but it's indirect and nonpermanent.

The BBC's funding, like CCTV, is direct from the state (or given directly because of the authority of the state) and permanent.

This is why Americans refer to publicly-funded broadcasters as state broadcasters.

In the UK we pay for our TV Licence (with a "c") which is administered by the TV Licensing authorities. (with an "s"). In English English the noun has a c, the verb an s!

The licence fee (it is never referred to in the UK as a licensing fee!) was introduced as a fee for all radio owners to pay for the service, and guarantee a quality output available across the UK, irrespective of commercial advantage. There was no "special revenue" that I am aware of over and above the licence fee. However there was also no government desire to licence radio spectrum to commercial broadcasters until the 1950s. I think a decision was taken to allow the BBC to develop services in the national interest. I suspect that the Second World War, and the role of the BBC in it (where it gained the trust of many other countries for its broadcasting accuracy.) played a role in this. The role of the BBC as a national, rather than a regionally varied, broadcaster is also important to remember, where AIUI even in Radio terms the US was far more varied, and less "one voice" across the country?

In the US, the concept of market provision was accepted far earlier than in the UK (in fact it is still not universally accepted by all), and government in the US has always had a lighter regulatory touch in some areas? The two countries have always been very different... I think this is also re-inforced by Britain being smaller, and having far stronger national government, and less significant regional variations.


Err - Channel Four is not a private company. It is a public corporation owned by the State, in a similar manner to the BBC, except that it is funded by advertising revenue rather than TV licence fee revenue. This may not have been the original framework when C4 was founded (I think originally it was owned by the IBA?)

Originally it was funded by a levy on the ITV companies ad revenue, and in return the ITV companies sold the advertising space on Channel Four in their franchise region (which normally didn't make as much for them as they paid) The aim was for C4 to make programmes that ITV (and the BBC for that matter) would not make, and also as C4 had no production departments, it was also a way of supporting the independent production community. Certainly it would not be accurate to describe C4 at any time as a commercial operation.

Channel Four was never, strictly speaking, a private company. It was always tasked, by its charter/broadcast licence, with making programmes serving minorities, and taking bigger risks, in other words doing things that a private company would not do...



The BBC couldn't simply rebroadcast BBC One-Four overseas as many of the shows on these channels are only available for the BBC to show in the UK and Ireland (and also a small number of cable channels in Benelux) The BBC do not own the overseas rights required to show BBC One-Four in the US or Canada. They would not be able to show films, US series, some UK independent productions (particularly drama), most sporting events, some news bulletins, as the rights for elements in these shows are UK/Ireland only.

The BBC could attempt to get full US rights for all of its domestic output - but the cost of this would be ridiculous, and certainly not covered by the subscription / advertising revenue generated by the service, and there is no argument for the UK licence fee income to be spent on this... Interestingly a recent survey of US TV reviewing in the print media in the US shows that BBC America is punching very much above its weight, with BBC America shows reviewed far more than those on other channels of similar size. (AIUI BBC America is one of the fastest growing digital channels in terms of timescale from launch ?)

BBC America has a schedule (not entirely of BBC shows, some Channel Four shows also feature, like Graham Norton) of shows the BBC either have US rights to themselves, or that they have bought specifically for the US. (They may be older than the UK versions - often rights gets cheaper with age)

The other major reasons the Beeb wouldn't broadcast 4 channels on US cable is that the costs of broadcasting four separate channels are pretty high, and getting any slots on US cable nets is quite difficult (and impossible on the analogue systems which are effectively full and would have to bump off 4 existing services to carry 4 Beeb services) AIUI BBC America launched initially on one of the DSat services in the US - though it may also be on DCab, and other DSat services these days?

ISTR that BBC Canada may be operated differently - scheduled more by the Canadian partners? Certainly BBC Kids in Canada is I think a straight licensing deal with Worldwide?

Your arguments about what the BBC should and shouldn't do are the same as many others have used, and are all valid questions.

The BBC have historically always had a greater commitment to childrens' output - as ITV often cut back in this area during harder financial times as kids shows don't generate high levels of advertising revenue. (Children don't spend as much money as adults, so advertisers pay less to advertise to them... Kids don't buy cars and use credit cards etc.)

BBC One and Two are in a difficult position - they have to put popular shows in some timeslots - to ensure a decent share to justify a universal licence fee. However they also have to take risks, and place shows they know will not be as popular in prominent schedule positions, to justify their public service remit. In recent years the BBC has mounted NHS, Crime, Asylum etc. days, where large sections of BBC primetime have been devoted to "issue" shows. Whilst these have not rated as well as sitcoms and dramas, they have delivered higher audiences to such shows than would have been expected in their normal schedule positions, so are deemed relative successes.

BBC Three, as one of the BBCs most regulated services (with quotas for almost all areas of its output - News, Current affairs, UK production, Independent production, European production, original commissions etc.) has a difficult job. The BBC has to address the younger TV viewers in the UK - as they are the future BBC audience. It has done this quite well with BBC Radio, but has not, until recently, been able to do it with TV. However the public service remit of BBC Three is strong, meaning it is a unique channel in the UK. (People argue it is competing with E4, ITV2 and possibly Sky One, but these channels are very commercial, with little or no News, Science, Current Affairs output, and high amounts of imported programmes...) Whether the BBC should continue with BBC Three is a valid question, but what is clear is that no-one else in the commercial arena would make and show some of the programmes shown on Three.

Bizarrely the same is not as true of BBC Four - which has closer commercial competition in Artsworld, Performance and to a degree Film Four - in some areas. That said BBC Four is a very strong and distinctively BBC channel, also serving an area of the public not normally well served by mainstream BBC outlets.

In the multi-channel world I think the Beeb has decided that it IS cost effective to address sections of their audience underserved by the mainstream channels with additional niche channels. The UK government seems to be backing this up at the moment.

(BTW Phileas - are you based in the UK? Your usage of BBC 1-4 implies you don't watch the channels, as numerals are used to describe BBC Radio channels, whilst words are used to describe the TV channels... Do you actually watch BBC One, Two, Three and Four, or do you watch BBC America / Canada?)

However "state broadcaster" means to many "state controlled broadcaster" - and was often used historically to discredit such broadcasters' output. (Certainly during the cold war "East German State TV" and "Russian State TV" was shorthand for implying that the credibility of these channels was suspect...)

When Fox, and others, refer to the BBC as a "state broadcaster" surely they aren't doing it for any reason other than to cast aspersions on the journalistic credibility of the BBC's output, or is it just plain ignorance? Surely it would be more accurate, and less loaded, to use "publicly funded" to describe the BBC... However why would Fox wish to be accurate, when they can distort instead???

The BBC is lucky - it is independent of government in all areas except one.

The BBC World Service Radio foreign language services which are funded directly by government and not by the licence fee are influenced by government in the areas of which language services operate and for how long. In other words the government can request output in certain languages for certain regions - though they can't influence the content of the broadcasts.

Parliament sets the licence-fee funding formula every couple of years - and changes to the BBCs output (in such areas as new service launches) would need to be agreed by the DCMS (Department of Culture, Media and Sport - if it is still called this!?) However unlike other "state broadcasters" the actual broadcasting made by the BBC is fiercely independent editorially - hence the current debate in the UK re: Hutton, Kelly, Gilligan, Hoon, Campbell,Blair et al.

(Edited to clarify argument re: State vs Public funding)

CBoobies springs to mind there

CBoobies, LOL, I'd certainly watch it, or perhaps BBC PORN?

The BBC should cater for all!

Do a search on Google Groups for "CBoobies" and you will find a bit of satire I wrote ages ago under the heading "More new BBC channels!"

I still think it's quite funny even now.