NewsLine Column: James MacTaggart Memorial Lecture

The role of the BBC in the increasingly crowded media marketplace has been the source of much debate and the issue topped the bill once again at this year’s Media Guardian International Edinburgh Television Festival. Tony Ball, chief-executive of BSkyB, delivered an extraordinary James MacTaggart Memorial Lecture, in which he argued that the Corporation’s executive vanity is supplanting its public service ethos. Below is an extract from his speech…

Let me outline three ideas which, I believe, would allow the BBC to flourish, but would set clear limits to its role. In each case, by forcing the Corporation to concentrate its considerable strengths on the things it can do well, we can improve the totality of broadcasting in Britain.

First, every BBC network – analogue as well as digital – should have a specific remit and a set of measurable criteria against which it is judged on a regular basis. Too often the debate about whether the BBC is overstepping the mark is utterly nebulous, because nobody has defined where the mark is.

The Government has already decided to impose a clear remit on BBC3. This covers minimum hours per genre per week in peak time, and independent and regional production commitments. There is no logical reason why we shouldn’t be equally clear about what we want other channels to do as well.

Please note. This wouldn’t mean that the Government was setting the schedule. Just as with BBC 3, the requirements would be broadly drawn. Giving such direction to what a public body is expected actually to deliver in return for our money does not seem to me to be an outrageous threat to editorial independence. Michael Grade famously remarked that the BBC kept the commercial operators honest. I believe that a set of clear enforceable criteria for each service would have the same effect on the BBC.

My second proposal is to set limits on specific types of programming that we licence-fee payers definitely do not want our money spent upon. Some programmes clearly fall outside any reasonable remit for a publicly funded broadcaster.

Just as there is a list of sporting events that must be shown on free to air television so there should be a list of programmes types that public money certainly should not pay for. We can argue what exactly should be on that list, but top of my list would be bought in American or other foreign programming.

Last year the BBC spent over £100 million on such shows, a 29% increase over the figure five years ago. Between them the BBC’s two terrestrial networks broadcast nearly 70 hours of acquired programming each week, most of it imported from the US.

I really cannot see why public money is being diverted to those poor struggling Hollywood studios in this way. BBC resources should be redeployed to commission more independently produced UK programming. Why on earth, for example, did the BBC pay Warner Brothers millions for the terrestrial rights to the first Harry Potter movie in the face of competition from other free-to-air channels? The BBC’s prime motivation appears to have been guaranteeing victory in the Christmas Day ratings battle – a clear example of executive vanity supplanting public service ethos.

My third proposal is for a recasting of the relationship between the BBC and the commercial sector, when it comes to UK produced programming.

It aims to resolve two strong arguments made by each side. The BBC argues that, as audiences fragment, only a well-funded public service organisation will have the resources, the risk-taking attitude and the expertise to make innovative new programming. For their part, commercial broadcasters argue that much of what the BBC shows is not any kind of antidote to market failure, since they themselves would be happy to run the same programmes.

I would end this argument by accepting that the BBC does have a role as an innovator and risk taker. But I would ensure that there is an objective mechanism in place to make sure it’s not spending on programmes that crowd out commercial operators.

So I have an idea. Let’s call it Programme Syndication. Here is how it would work.

The BBC should be asked to license some of its established populist programme franchises to the commercial channels. The money it raises can then be ploughed back into more public service programming and developing the classic shows of the future.

The BBC would have the role of using public money to discover the best talent, taking the biggest risks, and building up the shows. Just as public money is used to fund scientific research, but not to fund the commercial applications of that research, so public funding should not be used to continue to fund programmes when it is clear that they can find a commercial home.

At the moment old formats still rule the schedule to a startling degree. Recent analysis of BBC1’s peak time output showed that less than one fifth of the schedule is devoted to programme franchises less than 2 years old.

Under Programme Syndication, every year, a number of established BBC programmes that are a few years old would have to be offered to the commercial sector in a competitive auction. Clearly the process would need to be carefully managed to minimise disruption and guarantee a fair price to the BBC. Not all of the BBC’s established franchises could be auctioned at once. But half a dozen or so programmes in the first year would seem a manageable experiment.

Successful franchises would all attract healthy interest from other networks. Each programme would have a minimum reserve price set according to its popularity and costs of production. And commercial channels would have to guarantee a place in the schedule so viewers did not lose out. The existing production teams, whether in-house BBC or independent, would continue to produce the show ensuring that editorial standards and production values are maintained. Commercial channels would simply be buying the first run UK licence.

Such a scheme would use the mechanics of the market to test market failure. It would help end the arguments about whether the BBC was sufficiently distinctive in its programming. If commercial broadcasters believed a programme could be supported by the market, then they would bid for it. If they did not bid, that programme would clearly pass the “market failure” test, and continued licence fee funding of it may be justified.

The proposal would free up time in the BBC 1 and BBC 2 schedules, and ensure that the licence fee was put to the most creative use possible. It would encourage the BBC to focus on innovative and risky popular programming – exactly as they should be doing. It would give the BBC access to new revenue streams without disrupting the commercial sector. And the latter would come to see the benefits brought by public funding.

For the independent production sector there would be a marked increase in BBC commissions, as the BBC had constantly to reinforce its schedule. In addition, independent production companies would benefit financially if their BBC-commissioned programmes were bought by commercial channels, since they would share in the spoils.

The licence fee would then truly be, in Tessa Jowell’s words a venture capital fund for the nation, stimulating new creativity, to the benefit of the entire industry and the viewing public. But, like venture capital, it would fund risky new projects with a high potential creative return, rather than being used to perpetuate established shows.

By concentrating resources on these new ventures, the syndication proposal would, I believe, help to underpin support for the BBC and the licence fee well into the future.

Of course I’m sure there will be objections even to a small scale experiment. The BBC will no doubt argue that depriving it of some popular shows will cause viewing share to decline, undermining its ability to serve the public. But if all that is underpinning support for the Corporation are old programmes or bought in US shows that would not be out of place on a commercial channel – then, frankly, in my view, the BBC is already failing in its mission.

The BBC is right to argue that the licence fee can only be justified if it provides something of value to everyone. But it must do more than this – it should provide something of public service benefit to everyone. As Patricia Hodgson has said, “beating ITV with Blue Planet is a triumph. Beating ITV with Celebrity Sleepover is a tragedy”.

At the very least, I hope that the principle of the BBC spending as much money as possible on innovative new programming and as little as possible on churning out the Nth run of a show is one which we can all agree on.

If you would like to respond or make further comment on this or any other NewsLine article, please email [email protected].

Subscribers can access previous articles by NewsLine columnists in the Columnist Archive – click button on left.