Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Why we need the licence fee

Next year, we'll all be paying slightly more for our TV licence, a piece of paper that costs £131.50 and keeps our national public service broadcaster up and running.




Now the sheer fact that you have to buy this piece of paper should you happen to own any equipment capable of receiving television transmissions doesn't always go down well with certain sections of the general public and it certainly doesn't go well with any media organisation that isn't the BBC (apart from Channel 4 perhaps).
Their argument is that the BBC, like any other business, should be self-sufficient, relying on advertising rather than a public subsidy and perhaps more crucially, be able to operate at a profit.

And it's that latter point that is responsible for the current the mass media slump.
We the consumer have more choice than we have ever had. The established and traditional mediums are seeing increased competition from digital broadcasting and online rivals. Media services now cater for every possible interest, community and niche market and that's just fine.
But that has it's problems. With all these niche markets, advertisers can pick and choose where they aim their products. Got a power drill to sell? Why advertise on ITV when there's a dedicated DIY channel with exactly the sort of viewer you want to speak to?
The net result? Advertising revenue within the mainstream media has plummeted. Overall, television advertising has fallen 3%, with ITV sales dropping by 11%. Google UK now makes more in advertising sales than Britain's biggest independent television broadcaster. The story isn't any brighter in radio.

With the drive for profit not yielding, costs need to be slashed and that has meant quality being sacrificed for quantity. Saturday night is a prime example. Unless you want to watch a talent show of some variety, you're pretty much stuck. Last Saturday's offering included, as far as I could decipher, a contest to see who could fold themselves in half in the most stupid manner possible.

The drive to cut costs has eventually led to the new 'Jack Radio' format kicking off. The idea started in the US and literally involves plugging an iPod into a radio transmitter and .....erm........er.......going home. No DJ's, no talk, just the iTunes collection of a complete stranger.
The worst part is, it's now crossed the Atlantic and heading to Oxford. Many have heralded this as the death of the DJ and have proclaimed that rather than video, it'll be the Internet that kills the radio star.

It's this very idea that means we should still keep the BBC as a public service. Let's just assume that those "privatise the Beeb" mob get their wish. You can say goodbye to BBC local radio for a start. Radio Leeds has seen it's budget cut in recent years and one of their presenters has told me before that they are literally having to fight for more cash from Wood Lane, just to stop themselves from becoming another Radio Aire or Galaxy. There's no way that Radio 4 would continue in it's current form and Radio 1's 'Newsbeat' would soon disappear. OK, it's not exactly hard-hitting journalism, but as an informative piece, it is very effective in delivering to it's audience. No commercial independent, with the same target audience, does anything to rival that.
The BBC website, regarded as the most respected and comprehensive in the world, would soon become a classified publication of online casino and 'shoot the duck to win an iPod' banners.

TV programmes would suffer a similar fate.
"wastes" a monumental amount of film in pursuit of the perfect programme. A typical programme works on a 20:1 ratio. For every 20 minutes of film shot, one minute makes it on screen. Top Gear uses nowhere near that ratio. It uses an estimated 500:1 ratio. Commercially, it's completely You'd never for instance, get a show like Top Gear on a commercial channel, it's just two expensive. The estimated £500,000 per episode cost doesn't tell half of it. The real story runs on it's filiming ratio.
A typical programme runs roughly on a 20:1 ratio. For every 20 minutes that you shoot, one minute makes the airwaves. For Top Gear, to get one minute into the final cut can take a staggering 500 minutes of tape. Commercially, that's just not viable.

As for the BBC's remit to entertain, educate and inform, when was the last time you saw anything educational or informative on ITV? Scrub that, when was the last time you saw anything entertaining either?

Still, if you don't like it, you can still keep handing £50 every month to Rupert.

1 comment:

John_D said...

More than that, not being propped up by advertisers means their editorial control remains totally independent and free from the persuasions of the paymasters. Compare BBC News and Fox News for a glaring example of that.