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

CONTENT AND PLATFORMS IN A DIGITAL WORLD
predate the broadcast era, exist to promote
the kind of public service objectives that we
have associated with British broadcasting
since its emergence in the 1920s – stimulating
knowledge and learning, reflecting UK cultural
identity, and informing our understanding
of the world. Many are active in genres
that are currently perceived as at risk or
failing in delivery on television – specialist
factual, science, arts, children’s content. We
are not just talking about metropolitan or
national organisations; the network of local
and regional museums, art galleries and
charities is far more widespread, diverse and
connected to communities than the outposts
of our public service broadcasters. 278
The technological developments of the past
decade or so have given these institutions
new digital tools to reach out to the public,
and some of them have done remarkable
things with audiovisual productions. When
Benedict Cumberbatch stepped on to
the stage of the Barbican as Hamlet in
October 2015, there was a global audience
of 225,000 people in 25 countries, courtesy
of the National Theatre’s NT Live service. 279
Screenings of the play have gone on to make
nearly £3 million for NT Live. 280 The Tate now
produces its own films and shares them with
third parties such as the Guardian and the
BBC. Its film series TateShots generated 1.9
million views in YouTube in 2014/15. A “live
tour” of its 2014 Matisse exhibition that was
broadcast in cinemas worldwide won a Royal
Television Society award. 281
In the past the distinction between television
– narrative-driven, entertainment-focused,
universally available – and these collectionbased
institutions, locked into their
geographically static buildings, may have
seemed absolute. But in the past 20 years
the distinction has become far less clear.
Take Tate, perhaps the most sophisticated
and confident brand in the cultural sphere,
with a clear, definable mission: to increase
the public’s understanding of art. This can
be done through galleries and exhibitions,
interpretation and education – but for 20
years now, core parts of Tate’s intellectual
endeavour have been delivered through
digital media. Tate has developed a
knowledge and skills base that combines
editorial and curatorial excellence and digital
knowhow to develop what is probably the
strongest global cultural brand around
contemporary art.
Our cultural institutions, both local and
national, have deep specialist knowledge in
areas that are core to public service content
– whether it be science and technology,
ecology and the natural world, cultural
identity, history, or dramatic excellence. They
also have the editorial knowledge, the assets,
the audiences and the expertise to become
significant public service content players in
the digital world.
What they do not have, by and large, is the
money to pursue this destiny. At the moment
they operate on relatively modest budgets
and are expected to generate much of their
own revenue. Even our largest museums and
galleries generally have operating revenues of
278
Given their reliance on local authority support, this rich regional landscape of local and regional cultural intuitions is also far more at risk
from recent structural changes in public funding, with institutions from large to small at risk of closure or radical reductions in their remit.
See Museum Journal, ‘Cuts put regional museums at risk’, February 16, 2016. Surely this is an argument for diversifying funding rather than
continuing to superserve our public service broadcasting system.
279
Rebecca Hawkes, ‘Live broadcast of Benedict Cumberbatch’s Hamlet watched by 225,000 people’, Telegraph, October 21, 2015.
280
David Hutchison, ‘Benedict Cumberbatch Hamlet takes £3m at NT Live box office’, The Stage, December 9, 2015,
281
Tate Report 2014/15, p. 33.
97