A FUTURE FOR PUBLIC SERVICE TELEVISION CONTENT AND PLATFORMS IN A DIGITAL WORLD

A FUTURE FOR PUBLIC SERVICE TELEVISION
It is precisely because of this trend that
the principle of universality should be so
cherished and defended. It is only the BBC
that can truly attempt it. Channel 4 lacks the
necessary scale and its remit prioritises the
serving of minorities and niches; ITV has the
scale but its commercial focus can skew its
agenda; pay television companies have an
entirely different set of priorities. The BBC has
to keep making programmes and delivering
services that aspire in some way to be for
everybody. This is not to say that everybody
will watch or use them. But their existence
should be of value to everybody even if not
everybody chooses to take advantage of
them.
There are real threats to universality.
Firstly, there is the trend towards media
proliferation and atomisation that we have
already identified. Secondly, the associated
‘siloisation’ of life, so ably served by social
media, divides people into micro-communities
based on interests and affinities. Thirdly, the
BBC could be tempted to personalise its
services in an on-demand world in such a
way that it reflects only individual consumer
preferences and thus splinters its audience
yet further. And fourthly, the adoption of
even a partial subscription model, as already
floated in the government’s white paper, 130
would divide viewers by putting them on
different sides of the paywall (see below). So
our view is that a commitment to securing
universal provision and access should be
at the heart of all proposals that affect the
future of the BBC.
The scale and scope of the BBC
The government’s consultation documents
asked whether the BBC’s expansion could
be justified and whether it could be fairly
accused of crowding out competition. In
reality, after a longish period of growth driven
by increases in the licence fee and more
households, the BBC has, in relative terms,
contracted significantly. Enders Analysis
estimates that while the BBC accounted for
22% of TV revenue in 2010, this was likely to
fall to 17% in 2016 and to only 12% in 2026. 131
It has had to digest severe real-terms cuts
as a result of recent settlements that have
loaded it with new costs: a 16% cut following
the deal in 2010 and a huge 23% reduction as
a result of the 2015 settlement that forces the
BBC to take on the cost of free licences for
the over-75s, which will reach an estimated
£745 million a year by 2020. 132 In response,
it has had to take some radical steps to
save money, for example the withdrawal of
BBC Three as a broadcast service and the
proposed merger of its news channels. 133
Yet the government has fashioned a debate
on the size of the BBC not simply by
overseeing a reduction in its revenue but also
by requiring it to be ‘distinctive’ in everything
it does. Indeed, there are more references
(nearly 100) to ‘distinctive’ or ‘distinctiveness’
in the main body of the 2016 white paper
than there are to ‘public service’.
This is, of course, far from the first criticism
of the BBC for relying on populist formats
of which Strictly Come Dancing and The
Great British Bake-Off seem to be the
130
Ibid., p. 103.
131
Enders Analysis, ‘The plight of the BBC post-intervention’, July 13, 2015.
132
Jane Martinson, ‘BBC Increases savings target to £800m a year to pay for drama and sport’, the Guardian, March 8, 2016. See also BBC white paper, p. 93.
133
While we recognise the difficult financial circumstances in which the BBC finds itself, we do not believe that combining two services – the BBC News
Channel and its advertising-funded counterpart BBC World News – which have very different personalities and objectives makes strategic sense. We
would worry that a merged operation would satisfy neither domestic viewers nor international audiences and we hope that the BBC executive can find
alternative ways of reducing costs without closing more channels and cutting staff.
54