Metropol

Right well I'm not an economist, and I've made my feelings clear on why I think the licence should be kept separate from taxation, so I'll let someone else take up that challenge.

Mr Q wrote:

Hymagumba wrote:Childrens television in particular should be cited here, with ITV scrapping nearly all its homegrown stuff and five reducing the number greatly, we're left with the BBC and a few token shows that disney and nick make.

And you're surprised at this? I would argue any cuts by ITV and Five have come as a result of the BBC's increased investment. It's what economists call 'crowding out' ... Restrictions on what can be advertised during childrens' programming (assuming it is even allowed in the first place), are also likely to impact the commercial viability of broadcasting kids' shows.

Which is exactly why ITV launched an entire childrens channel then isn't it. No, once again we have ITVplc, to whom the concept of running a TV station now seems a damn inconvenience, cleverly working their way around ofcom to dispose of yet another division where they don't instantly claw in the cash, funnily enough, a division I believe was based at Central, therefore giving them yet more reasons to shut regional offices.

There is still enough money in childrens tv, even though they tried to blame the junk food ad ban there are enough ads for trash and overprices toys to easily fill the slots so I don't believe they lost that much. No it was the moment they realised they could avoid doing any work and just buy in a load of imports that they scrapped it, until then they were still making home grown shows like My Parents are Aliens.

That is what public service broadcasting should be about - not about chasing ratings, or even trying to convince the public that there are certain types of shows they 'should' be watching.

Right so the crux of your argument has boiled down to this, instead of paying £130 a year for an organisation that produces worthy content, yet also entertains us allowing us to enjoy a soap and then see a big documentary, we should instead pay £50 a year, in tax, for a service that makes stuff so worthy that nobody gives a shit and nobody watches, and hope that the commercial sector, that has shown that it certainly does not wish to invest in anything, fills the gaps left.

Well I for one, hold out little hope for the private sector giving us a radio one style new music show, a network of very local radio stations, and investing in such ambitious shows as the Blue Planet. We've seen what happens when you let money do the talking in telly and I don't believe its good.

Sput wrote:Ah, in that case I'm way off. I wasn't suggesting it was a small amount though. I was suggesting it's a lot of money to collect money and I was partially wondering how that money was being spent if not on detection R&D. Also, Mr. Q, entertainment is in the BBC's core remit (inform, educate and entertain) so I'd be inclined to include a few films in there.

Well, entertainment can take many different forms. If the BBC is helping to produce films that wouldn't otherwise get off the ground, then that's one thing. If it's showing American blockbusters that any other channel would willingly show, then it's only wasting taxpayers money. After all, viewers would still see the movie anyway.

Hymagumba wrote:There is still enough money in childrens tv, even though they tried to blame the junk food ad ban there are enough ads for trash and overprices toys to easily fill the slots so I don't believe they lost that much. No it was the moment they realised they could avoid doing any work and just buy in a load of imports that they scrapped it, until then they were still making home grown shows like My Parents are Aliens.

That might well be true on the face of it - but like anything, it's driven by supply and demand. Yes, they might choose to replace locally-produced content with cheaper imports. If the audience is left just as satisfied, then there's no issue. The only problem emerges if the audience is in some way worse off. I appreciate that some viewers might be unhappy. At the end of the day though, they're not paying to watch ITV - access is free from them. If the costs to ITV outstrip the benefits for a given service, then it's unreasonable to expect them to continue providing it. If you have public service objectives, then those should be met by the public service broadcaster - that's what it's there for.

Right so the crux of your argument has boiled down to this, instead of paying £130 a year for an organisation that produces worthy content, yet also entertains us allowing us to enjoy a soap and then see a big documentary, we should instead pay £50 a year, in tax, for a service that makes stuff so worthy that nobody gives a shit and nobody watches, and hope that the commercial sector, that has shown that it certainly does not wish to invest in anything, fills the gaps left.

Well I for one, hold out little hope for the private sector giving us a radio one style new music show, a network of very local radio stations, and investing in such ambitious shows as the Blue Planet. We've seen what happens when you let money do the talking in telly and I don't believe its good.

What ITV does in the current environment is not a reflection of what they would do in a different environment. The BBC, in its current form, imposes additional costs on commercial players. When the BBC engages in a bidding war with the private sector for high-rating content, other broadcasters are left to pay more. This is absurd, and only serves as a disincentive to invest in other areas - especially where those private operators believe that they can simply 'free-ride' off the public sector anyway. Many of the innovations that people hail the BBC for in Britain are things that private content providers have been doing in other countries. It does not take taxpayers' dollars, for instance, to run a leading news website.

There is no question that the BBC produces a range of high quality, impressive programmes. Its reputation in Britain and around the world for doing so is well justified. That does not however mean that everything the BBC does is beyond criticism. Specifically, I am of the view that commercially viable services should not be funded or provided by the public sector. That isn't just in issues of broadcasting - it holds for all areas of the economy. There is no doubt in my mind - and I don't think anyone here is trying to argue otherwise - that the BBC does produce and air content which would quite comfortably find homes on other channels. I question whether such expenditures represent the best use of taxpayers' dollars.

This was a debate, however, that started off quite specifically addressing the licence fee. It was not (at the time) my intention to spark an all-out debate on the existence and operation of the BBC. I certainly appreciate the fact that the BBC is a revered institution within the UK, and absolutely mean it, its employees or its supporters any disrespect. However I do think it is too big, and it has been allowed to grow so big precisely because of an antiquated funding model that while fitting for a bygone era is neither practical nor relevant in the modern community. The challenge of addressing that is one that will continue to attract public attention in the years ahead as new media forms come to surpass the old.

Mr Q wrote:

Hymagumba wrote:There is still enough money in childrens tv, even though they tried to blame the junk food ad ban there are enough ads for trash and overprices toys to easily fill the slots so I don't believe they lost that much. No it was the moment they realised they could avoid doing any work and just buy in a load of imports that they scrapped it, until then they were still making home grown shows like My Parents are Aliens.

That might well be true on the face of it - but like anything, it's driven by supply and demand. Yes, they might choose to replace locally-produced content with cheaper imports. If the audience is left just as satisfied, then there's no issue. The only problem emerges if the audience is in some way worse off.

Also children's content is time limited. So you only need a finite number of cartoons etc that can be broadcast on a loop for the 10-or-so years that people are interested in it. That means less money spent on producing content and more money spent profiting from advertising.

Stepping momentarily into the above discussion... it seems the action in question is not the BBC's documentary or news coverage which Mr Q agrees is useful and/or beneficial, but the the presentation of commercially viable content. While this is true on face value - "why pay for content that would pay for itself" - think how the BBC network would be if this were banned. How would it be prevented? Who would decide if something was "commercially viable"? Would all entertainment be considered "commercially viable" for example, or all chat shows? It's hard to draw these distinctions and the consequences of doing so would mean that the BBC would be left with only the most conservative of content. Announcing programming that the BBC couldn't produce would simply be the thin end of the wedge to creating a PBS clone, which nobody would want.

Mr Q has already highlighted that the behaviour of ITV et al. is not a genuine reflection of how those channels would behave in an entirely free market. While this must be true to an extent, the number of factors make it more useful to look at the empirical evidence available, and judging on the quality of television originating from various other countries, their quality is (in my opinion) about equal to that of ITV and the plethora of digital networks. Unless you believe that the BBC has a huge impact on world television as well as television networks in the UK (and that seems rather far fetched to me), channels from different countries, where no BBC equivelent exists, don't offer innovation or variety or any of the other things Mr Q suggests would appear without the BBC. And even if other channels, like ITV, do copy off the BBC's entertainment programming, why is that such a bad thing? It benefits everyone. It's the simple problem by leaving everything to the free market: there are unprofitable shows and profitable shows, but with profitable shows there are varying degrees of profitability. With the commercial system, not only will unprofitable shows not be broadcast, but also shows that are merely less profitable will be axed. That's why cable TV networks in the UK are filled with endless phone in quiz shows, because they offer the best cost:profit ratio. And it's why television stations in the US and similar countries are filled with sensationalist garbage. Even though ITV rides on the wave of the BBC's "successes", inasmuch as it copies the BBC's successful content while avoiding the risk of trying out new content, that innovation is better than the alteranative.

That said I do feel as though I have slightly risen to Mr Q's bait here, as I suspect he is somewhat playing the devil's advocate. I view the advantages of an organisation like the BBC as being so self-evident that I fail to understand the conviction behind the competing argument.

I do, however, agree entirely with Mr Q's point that the license fee should be consumed into general taxation. I don't believe that would tie the BBC closer to the government - after all, the BBC only has responsibility for collection, not for all the other aspects of the fee. The system made sense, I think, when a much smaller percetnage of the population owned a television - in which case one can opt in to the charge by owning a TV - but now those who don't own a television are in the minority (and even those people benefit from the BBC indirectly), it makes sense for it to be rolled into the command aspect of our economy.

cdd wrote:Stepping momentarily into the above discussion... it seems the action in question is not the BBC's documentary or news coverage which Mr Q agrees is useful and/or beneficial, but the the presentation of commercially viable content. While this is true on face value - "why pay for content that would pay for itself" - think how the BBC network would be if this were banned. How would it be prevented? Who would decide if something was "commercially viable"? Would all entertainment be considered "commercially viable" for example, or all chat shows? It's hard to draw these distinctions and the consequences of doing so would mean that the BBC would be left with only the most conservative of content. Announcing programming that the BBC couldn't produce would simply be the thin end of the wedge to creating a PBS clone, which nobody would want.

I take your point cdd. It would be restrictive to have a list of 'banned' content. I think there are some things which are clear cut though - for instance, the BBC bidding against commercial broadcasters for imported content. The programme has already been made, and its going to be shown - there is no market failure for the public sector to correct there. Beyond this, however, I would not advocate any formally prescriptive approach for what the BBC should and shouldn't air - merely broad guidelines which could be reviewed periodically. My preference would be for areas of market failure to be identified - just on what we've been discussing in this thread, things like local news, childrens' programming, etc might be included - which the BBC would be expected to target, though not necessarily rely on exclusively to fill its schedules.

Perhaps the most problematic area is what happens if the BBC supports and develops a programme which initially attracts no commercial interest, but which later becomes a ratings success. I think it would be problematic to mandate that these then be moved to a commercial network for the reason that it would act as a significant disincentive for private operators to develop their own new programming - they could simply use the BBC as a publicly-funded 'R&D' unit that they could free-ride off, which is not likely to be optimal. Mind you, I guess that scenario is no different to rival networks simply launching copycat shows that adopt successful formats from other programmes.

Mr Q has already highlighted that the behaviour of ITV et al. is not a genuine reflection of how those channels would behave in an entirely free market. While this must be true to an extent, the number of factors make it more useful to look at the empirical evidence available, and judging on the quality of television originating from various other countries, their quality is (in my opinion) about equal to that of ITV and the plethora of digital networks. Unless you believe that the BBC has a huge impact on world television as well as television networks in the UK (and that seems rather far fetched to me), channels from different countries, where no BBC equivelent exists, don't offer innovation or variety or any of the other things Mr Q suggests would appear without the BBC.

Well cdd, I would respectfully suggest you're wrong. The BBC has a tremendous reputation internationally. Let's not forget the existence of the BBC's commercial arm, BBC Worldwide, which sells a range of programmes and formats abroad. Moreover, many countries have public service broadcasters of differings sizes and scales. The US has PBS, which is obviously a very different model from the BBC. Australia has the ABC which I think borrows heavily from the BBC in many respects, though doesn't have the same scale as its British counterpart. New Zealand has TVNZ, which has strong public service obligations, but is commercially funded - and AIUI, actually makes a profit for the NZ government. Given this, however, you can't really compare like with like. I think the US produces an excellent range of entertainment programming. And while we might bemoan the likes of Fox News, I think the US has fairly high quality news programming - certainly, I would argue they do a better job than, for instance, Australia does - the ABC and SBS (the part-public funded multicultural broadcaster) are arguably the only serious TV current affairs providers here.

And even if other channels, like ITV, do copy off the BBC's entertainment programming, why is that such a bad thing? It benefits everyone. It's the simple problem by leaving everything to the free market: there are unprofitable shows and profitable shows, but with profitable shows there are varying degrees of profitability. With the commercial system, not only will unprofitable shows not be broadcast, but also shows that are merely less profitable will be axed.

I don't follow your point. Channel A can choose between programme 1 and programme 2. If programme 1 can make more money than programme 2 - given the costs it faces, the viewers it gets, and the advertisers it can attract - then I see no problem with it electing to run with programme 1. Programme 2 might end up being better suited to a different channel with a different class of viewers and advertisers. Remember, we're talking about a diverse media landscape. Ultimately though, each network has to put forward its strongest portfolio of content. Beyond that, if there is content that is not being provided by the private sector, then I have no problem with the public sector developing and broadcasting it instead. To that end, I don't consider my argument here to be advocating "leaving everything to the free market", although I absolutely believe that markets are far better at achieving optimal outcomes than bureaucrats are.

I agree with your example of a clear cut programme - it does seem wrong for the BBC to buy out such content. News like the BBC paying Jonathan Ross several-figure sums to deign to appear on some celebrity-based chat show really does annoy me. But there is another reason why it is good, namely that we are paying for the enjoyment of having no adverts or product placement in our BBC shows. Whether it is worthwhile – paying a portion of the license fee to fund advert-free commercial content, in other words paying the for the content viewed directly – is a matter of opinion. But I can perfectly understand why you’d disagree.

Perhaps the most problematic area is what happens if the BBC supports and develops a programme which initially attracts no commercial interest, but which later becomes a ratings success.

But this is precisely what I am applauding. Even though other networks will copy the BBC, the fact that it exists is still a positive influence in my opinion. I don’t think those R&D units would exist in anything like the same scale of the BBC if it didn’t exist.

Well cdd, I would respectfully suggest you're wrong. The BBC has a tremendous reputation internationally. Let's not forget the existence of the BBC's commercial arm, BBC Worldwide, which sells a range of programmes and formats abroad. Moreover, many countries have public service broadcasters of differings sizes and scales. The US has PBS, which is obviously a very different model from the BBC. Australia has the ABC which I think borrows heavily from the BBC in many respects, though doesn't have the same scale as its British counterpart. New Zealand has TVNZ, which has strong public service obligations, but is commercially funded - and AIUI, actually makes a profit for the NZ government. Given this, however, you can't really compare like with like. I think the US produces an excellent range of entertainment programming. And while we might bemoan the likes of Fox News, I think the US has fairly high quality news programming - certainly, I would argue they do a better job than, for instance, Australia does - the ABC and SBS (the part-public funded multicultural broadcaster) are arguably the only serious TV current affairs providers here.

I guess this discussion is a bit problematic since any discussion of “how would television be without the BBC” must be hypothetical. I don’t doubt the BBC has international influence, but referring to international examples is the best you can really do, since television in its current form has never really existed without the BBC in some form.

I don't follow your point. Channel A can choose between programme 1 and programme 2. If programme 1 can make more money than programme 2 - given the costs it faces, the viewers it gets, and the advertisers it can attract - then I see no problem with it electing to run with programme 1. Programme 2 might end up being better suited to a different channel with a different class of viewers and advertisers. Remember, we're talking about a diverse media landscape. Ultimately though, each network has to put forward its strongest portfolio of content. Beyond that, if there is content that is not being provided by the private sector, then I have no problem with the public sector developing and broadcasting it instead. To that end, I don't consider my argument here to be advocating "leaving everything to the free market", although I absolutely believe that markets are far better at achieving optimal outcomes than bureaucrats are.

My point is really the same as that expressed at the top of this post – that there are scales of profitability. Documentary shows can be profitable, but “100 best…” or celebrity shows are almost always more so. Given this, it makes sense for at least one channel to exist that attempts to achieve balance – with more documentary programs than usual, which while having some commercial appeal, are less likely to be chosen by commercial networks over alternative shows. Why is it bad for programme 1 to get chosen more often than programme 2? Because, quite often, the shows that are most profitable are also the least useful to society. This isn’t always the case, but there’s a definite correlation. And while there may be niche channels that offer different content, those channels do struggle to survive commercially, and mostly disappear. Remember that the commercial UKTV channels which are key suppliers of such programming in the UK do license their content from the BBC. Given this bias, is it not better to have a network offering content that is not affected by the “polluting” influence of money?

I do believe there are aspects of the BBC that are very similar to commercial networks. The BBC wants to get good ratings, and the commercial networks want to get advertising. Since advertisers want to advertise on shows that are generally popular, there is a clear connection in ratings interests there. But I think some distinction is better than none, and the alternative - where ratings are not pursued at all, á la PBS - is I think a worse scenario than the compromise that is the BBC.

cdd wrote:I agree with your example of a clear cut programme - it does seem wrong for the BBC to buy out such content. News like the BBC paying Jonathan Ross several-figure sums to deign to appear on some celebrity-based chat show really does annoy me. But there is another reason why it is good, namely that we are paying for the enjoyment of having no adverts or product placement in our BBC shows. Whether it is worthwhile – paying a portion of the license fee to fund advert-free commercial content, in other words paying the for the content viewed directly – is a matter of opinion. But I can perfectly understand why you’d disagree.

And in principle I have no problem with people paying to avoid advertisements. We obviously have subscription TV, but this isn't based on people paying to avoid ads. Pay TV channels in many cases often have just as much advertising - sometimes more when you consider shopping channels which are pure advertising. The reality is, viewers simply aren't willing to pay the amount that broadcasters would require not to show advertising. Even in the case of the BBC, I don't believe the true cost is reflected in terms of what people might be willing to pay because they are of course compelled to pay.

Perhaps the most problematic area is what happens if the BBC supports and develops a programme which initially attracts no commercial interest, but which later becomes a ratings success.

But this is precisely what I am applauding. Even though other networks will copy the BBC, the fact that it exists is still a positive influence in my opinion. I don’t think those R&D units would exist in anything like the same scale of the BBC if it didn’t exist.

I guess this really becomes a debate over whether innovation is best encouraged by the public sector or the private sector. My view, in general and on balance, is the private sector. Yet this is an area in which there is a substantial degree of ambiguity.

I guess this discussion is a bit problematic since any discussion of “how would television be without the BBC” must be hypothetical. I don’t doubt the BBC has international influence, but referring to international examples is the best you can really do, since television in its current form has never really existed without the BBC in some form.

I don't think international examples are invalid. I don't believe that the British TV market - in terms of its fundamentals rather than its output - should in principle be any different from the market in any other (developed) countries.

My point is really the same as that expressed at the top of this post – that there are scales of profitability. Documentary shows can be profitable, but “100 best…” or celebrity shows are almost always more so. Given this, it makes sense for at least one channel to exist that attempts to achieve balance – with more documentary programs than usual, which while having some commercial appeal, are less likely to be chosen by commercial networks over alternative shows. Why is it bad for programme 1 to get chosen more often than programme 2? Because, quite often, the shows that are most profitable are also the least useful to society. This isn’t always the case, but there’s a definite correlation.

Well, two things there: first, you'd need to define useful; and secondly, I'd argue that your claim about correlation is unsubstantiated. What does "useful" mean? If TV is a medium for entertainment, then anything that entertains people is inherently "useful". The point is that the free market allows people to watch what they want to watch - it's not about dictating what they perhaps "should" watch, which is what I'm reading into your comment. I'm certainly not inclined to impose my values of what people "should" watch on anyone else - and I don't think policymakers should either.

And while there may be niche channels that offer different content, those channels do struggle to survive commercially, and mostly disappear. Remember that the commercial UKTV channels which are key suppliers of such programming in the UK do license their content from the BBC. Given this bias, is it not better to have a network offering content that is not affected by the “polluting” influence of money?

I don't accept the premise that money is a "polluting" influence. There is a strange notion that somehow state-run TV in a country like Iran is propaganda, yet in developed countries like the UK and Australia, they represent the most independent form of media available. I find that to be a rather curious distinction. I certainly don't understand why a public sector broadcaster should be any more independent than a private sector broadcaster - bias exists in many forms.