The BBC in the Digital Age
19 June 2002
城镇医保Printable version
Speech given at the SMF Conference on the Future of Public Service Broadcasting
Good morning. It is a pleasure to be asked to speak at this event organid by the Social Market Foundation – not least becau I am a director of this non partisan organisation.
This morning I will argue that the BBC has much to offer in the digital age. Developments in the marketplace will strengthen, not undermine, the fundamental ca for the BBC. But we recogni that public ownership and our system of funding bring with them major responsibilities as well as advantages. We are ready to meet them.
First, I shall offer an asssment of how the BBC has reacted to the digital revolution so far. Second, I will comment on the BBC’s role in the much longer term, in the context of the exciting opportunities which new technologies can offer to every citizen. Third, I will explain why the BBC believes that the success of the DTT is crucial to grasping this opportunity. And fourth I shall argue that some strengthening of the draft Communications Bill is needed if the role of public rvice broadcasting (PSB) is to be safeguarded in the digital age.
First, let's look at the digital revolution up to now.
In thinking about this, I could easily e why the subject of public rvice broadcasting has been a recent focus of the SMF. Ever since its foundation, people have asked whether it is possible for the SMF to pursue a coherent rearch agenda which has both a "social" and a "market" orientation.
Well…. I will leave it to others to decide whether the SMF is managing successfully to square this particular circle. But what I would like to say - and Tim has just argued this - is that we at the BBC face a similar challenge. Our sole purpo is one of public rvice – to provide distinctive and ambitious programming for all the people of Britain. But we have to provide this public rvice in the context of a rapidly developing and competitive market-place. If it ever could, the BBC can no longer ignore the disciplines and challenges of the market when it comes to fulfilling its public purpo.
Some of the disciplines usually associated with the market are obvious, and are now common ground. The BBC must continue its drive towards greater efficiency – and on this I am plead to report that we have raid the percentage of income spent on content from 76% to 85% since Greg Dyke became Director General – thus hitting our target two years early.
In practical terms, this means the BBC, by becoming more efficient, is spending around £250m more on programmes and rvices now than two years ago. We must also make t
he best commercial u out of our programme archive – with the sole purpo of ploughing the benefits directly back into public rvice content for the licence payer.
But apart from recognising the simple market disciplines, we must also continue to moderni our rvices so that they complement, rather than duplicate, the rapid developments taking place in the private ctor. With vastly incread competition, it is even more crucial than in the past that the BBC should remain both ambitious and distinctive.
Sometimes, the BBC is even now portrayed by its competitors as a lumbering giant which is becoming ever more dominant in the broadcasting and online markets. But actually the truth is entirely different. Far from being larger than ever before, the BBC is in fact, in relative terms, smaller than ever before – not becau it has been failing its audiences, but becau it faces far more competitors than ever in its history. The long-term trend of the BBC receiving a declining share of industry revenues continues.
The consumer has reaped the benefits from competition between the BBC and the private ctor. A mixed broadcasting ecology, in which the BBC and the private ctor all thrive, is the best hope of offering genuine choice to the consumer.
This extra competition will prent the BBC with many new challenges – and I believe we are ready to meet them.
A few years ago, it was fashionable to argue that the BBC would have nothing unique to offer in a world of multi-channel television. Everything would, quite soon, be provided by the private ctor. But so far, this has been proved wrong. Looking across the broadcasting landscape today, I do not e a large number of organisations with the resources and ambition to make programmes like The Blue Planet , The History of Britain, Stephen Poliakoff’s drama ries Perfect Strangers, or the current documentary ries on The Hunt for Britain's Paedophiles.
And how many other broadcasters would have the experti, (and possibly the nerve) to stage a rock concert in the Queen's back garden as a way of marking the Jubilee?
I was enormously proud of our contribution to the Jubilee celebrations, a fantastic example of what the BBC is capable of:
- Over half of the population saw one of our three key broadcast over the Jubilee Weekend
- About 1.3m people attended 160 live music events staged and produced by the BBC around the country, with a further million gathering on the Mall for the fireworks which followed the Buckingham Palace rock concert.
We did what we've always been there to do - we created a public space and reflected a s
hared experience for people across the nation, bringing communities clor together and Britain clor to the world.
古劳水乡
Similarly, when big events occur - whether the September 11 attacks, the foot and mouth crisis or the World Cup, it is still the BBC people turn to in the greatest numbers. Despite the proliferation of alternative news and information sources, almost two-thirds of the population turned to BBC news on September 11.
中国的军衔等级So I believe that the BBC can prove itlf to tho who said that the arrival of digital technology would sound its death knell. As competition from the private ctor has expanded, we have continued to provide distinctive rvices which are different from tho that the market alone can offer. We have continued to address a clear market failure.
But what about the longer term – my cond topic?
We are still only in the early stages of the digital revolution. I have little doubt that the private ctor will continue to provide increasing numbers of radio and television channels, funded by advertising or subscription. One day, it may be possible for consumers to purcha programmes, one by one, from content libraries over the web. I often read that, once this is possible, then everything can safely be left to the private ctor – there will be no market failure for a public corporation like the BBC to address.
All this is a very long way off. But I am determined to ensure that the BBC will once again prove to be resilient to the challenges. While the impact of technological change is clear in terms of quantity, it is far from clear what the long term effects, particularly coupled with a largely deregulated market, will be on quality. The traditional BBC view has been that more players in the market – ITV and then Channel 4 – drove up the quality of programmes as well as increasing the number of rvices on offer.
I fear this may be more difficult in the digital world. Cut-throat competition could easily reduce the amount spent on original programmes by the commercial ctor.
If the fears prove justified, then the BBC's role as a tter of standards, and a provider of original, British, quality programmes, could become more important, not less.
Furthermore, even when most people are able to pay for programmes via subscription or over the web, the nature of the product and of its cost structure means that the free market will not deliver an optimal outcome.
There is an economic explanation for this - brilliantly t out in a recent essay by the SMF Chairman David Lipy. Esntially, the argument follows from the fact that once a programme is produced, the marginal costs of broadcasting it are effectively zero.
Consider The Blue Planet as an example. Making one copy of this ries was an expensive and risky undertaking but, once the first copy had been put in the can, it could
be shown to limitless numbers of viewers for virtually zero extra cost. The same is true of all forms of broadcasting, and of much of the content of the web.
Selling the Blue Planet at a price higher than zero would have the effect of deterring many people from benefiting from the product, even though the cost of showing it to them is effectively zero. This would be a clear failure of the free market.
So now we come to the conundrum – how can we pay for programmes like the Blue Planet if it is inefficient to charge a subscription for them? One answer would be to fund the programmes by advertising – but there is much experience throughout the world to suggest that advertising funding does not necessarily ensure quality and distinctiveness.
Furthermore, in a world of Tivo boxes and personal video recorders, which enable the audience to skip the "ads", the basis for advertising-funded television is becoming less certain.
This leaves us with only one alternative which will provide an efficient market outcome – public funding, probably through a licence fee. So even after Adam Smith's invisible hand is free to roam throughout the broadcasting landscape, the structure of costs in the new economy is therefore likely to mean that market failure persists.
母字笔顺One more word on this. Broadcasting and media industries have a very definite tendency to develop quickly towards the absolute dominance of a tiny number of players, or towards an outright monopoly. It follows that a public entity like the BBC – which exists to promote diversity, distinctiveness and choice – will remain very badly needed to combat this. 磁盘分配
For the long term future, I therefore e a role for the BBC in producing an efficient market solution, and in guaranteeing quality and choice for British citizens. And here I am talking about the BBC as a total package, not a BBC which is unbundled into an artificial notion of public rvice components versus rest.
We have always existed to make the good popular and to make the popular good. To try artificially to parate the two into distinct channels would be difficult and damaging – for example, would the Rock Concert at Buckingham Palace count as public rvice, or entertainment? And if the latter, how many would have watched on a subscription channel? After all, only 40% of houholds now have digital, and even after switchover, we expect that many millions of houholds will still not have access to pay channels. Would they simply be barred from watching the BBC’s entertainment and sports offerings?
盖以诱敌What about the World Cup? Four fifths of viewers have freely chon to watch England matches on the advertising-free BBC. Would they now have to pay a subscription for this privilege? What about drama? Should "Crime and Punishment" be relegated to a subscription channel?
Our concern is that if you attempt to unbundle the BBC into two distinct parts, you might
marginali the public rvice channels thus losing mass audiences for national events, and for public rvice high points like Blue Planet and the the History of Britain. And we doubt whether subscription entertainment channels, even if run by the BBC, could conceivably provide the high quality drama and entertainment which we currently provide. For example, on Sky One, only 6% of programmes are original UK production, and over 80% are acquired from overas. This is determined by the fundamental economics of subscription television.
个人书面检查
If we get the issues right, the eventual destination of the digital revolution could be an immenly exciting one.
This brings me to my third topic, the future of DTT.
New technologies are bringing with them the possibility of hugely enhanced choices for everyone. The 40% of houholds which already have access to digital television tend to
readily accept this is the ca. But in my travels around the country, I have found that this is not always recognid by the rest of the population. Many people who have not yet gone digital apparently e very little advantage in doing so. They are not interested in subscription channels for movies and sport. They have not yet been persuaded to buy expensive new equipment to access digital free-to-air channels. And – a very major factor – they are totally confud about what is available, and how much they need to pay for it.
The BBC has a crucial role to play here too. We have our familiar responsibility to provide content which can drive digital take-up. Our portfolio of digital radio and television channels is designed to do just this. They have made a strong start. BBC Four, Radio 6 Music, Cbeebies and other new channels are winning critical acclaim, and are building audiences. Moreover the BBC's interactive rvices are leading the way, whether to enhance enjoyment of watching England playing in the World Cup or to fulfil the learning potential of Walking with Beasts. We still hope to get permission to launch BBC Three, a new public rvice television channel for young adults.
But even the very best content will be irrelevant if people are unable to access it. Up to now, tho who have not wished to pay for subscription rvices via satellite, and who are not covered by cable, have faced difficulties in accessing digital rvices. DTT – digital television through your aerial – has not been a success, partly becau of technical problems, and partly becau the subscription package offered by ITV digital did not win sufficient subscribers.
Yet DTT remains vital if we are to attract the resistant half of the population towards the benefits of digital choice. The BBC believes that at least three requirements must be fulfilled if DTT is to succeed in future:
First, the way DTT is broadcast needs to be changed so that many more houholds can access the rvices on a plug-and-play basis, or with a simple aerial up-grade. This now ems to be common ground, but it does limit the number of channels that can be successfully carried on the platform.
