Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Explore the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ
This page has been archived and is no longer updated. Find out more about page archiving.

24 September 2014
Press Office
Search the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ and Web
Search Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Press Office

Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔpage

Contact Us

Speeches

Gavyn Davies

Chairman of the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Board of Governors


Ask... Gavyn Davies (Royal Television Society)


7 March 2002
Printable version

When I became Chairman of the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ last October, I inherited an organisation which in many ways was in rude good health. The expansion of radio and television channels for the digital age was well underway, and when completed this year the new portfolio of digital services will give us the right structure to carry forward public service values in a rapidly changing technological environment.


Our portfolio of TV and radio channels, and the development of our online services, was largely planned in the late 1990s by John Birt, Christopher Bland and their respective boards. Greg and I are fortunate that they thought deeply about the right structure for the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ, and were able to persuade the Government to accept it, and to fund it appropriately. This is hugely in the public interest.

If you were to base your view of the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ on the ritual abuse we receive in parts of the press, you might conclude that we are doing everything wrong. But the public does not agree. In terms of audience figures, our performance has been strong, across all of our services.

Β· Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Radio took a 53% share of the total radio audience, well up on previous years.
Β· Our online service Β– Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔi - increased its reach to almost six million users, 60% of the internet population.
Β· The World Service attained a new high of 153 million regular listeners worldwide.
Β· Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO remains the only one of the traditional television services which is retaining its audience in the face of multi-channel competition.
Β· ItΒ’s astonishing to think that 35 million people in the UK turned to the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔΒ’s radio and television news services on September 11th. Even today in this world of media proliferation, itΒ’s still true to say that the important things we all share, we share through the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ.
Β· And of course, famously, last year Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ ONE beat ITV in audience share for the very first time ever. Even when ITV was off the air owing to a strike for 12 weeks in the late 1980s, they still beat us!

I want the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ to be a mass market public service broadcaster, not one which is confined to a tiny corner of the market, like the PSBs in the United States. For us to truly serve the public, and justify the licence fee, we must first make sure that the public consumes our services in huge numbers. I know that is highly inconvenient for some of our competitors, who would like nothing better than to box us into an ever-diminishing space, but it is a fact.


I should just say to our competitors that it is obvious to most fair minded people what is motivating them when they complain about the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ. Many of their complaints are based on naked self interest - the kind of self interest which I would expect if I were one of their share-holders.


So when they make allegations that the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is trading unfairly against them Β– allegations which have never yet been upheld by the relevant competition authorities - they are scarcely unbiased observers seeking to make arguments in the public interest.


The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Board of Governors, by contrast, has no shareholders to consider, and has only the public interest to worry about. That is why we are so concerned to ensure that our Fair Trading Commitment is upheld, and why we investigate complaints on this subject with great care, using external auditors to assist where necessary.


As I say, we normally find that that complaints are unfounded, and we have recently been told by officers of the competition authorities that they too are frustrated by the large number of bogus complaints they receive about the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ. But let me assure you that we will continue to examine each complaint on its merits, and take action where necessary.


I also notice that our competitors have started to complain rather loudly that the licence fee offers stable funding for the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ, at a time when advertising and subscription revenues have been going through a sticky patch. I would make two points about this. First, we did not hear so much about this during the 1990s, when private sector revenues were surging relative to the licence fee. The recent past has seen only a small redressing of the balance. And, second, it is rather far-fetched to blame the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ for some of the problems which private sector broadcasters have recently encountered. The Board of Governors might be responsible for many things, but the short term financial performance of commercial broadcasters is not prime amongst them.


We in Britain have chosen, ever since the 1950s, to develop a healthy mix in broadcasting between the public and private sectors, with both being given a large and flourishing role. We must sustain this mix - and for this to occur, the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ needs to sustain a significant audience share, as well as a near universal reach.


But the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ must never be all about ratings - or even mainly about ratings. This is why I am proud to say that many of our landmark programmes in the past year stand comparison with some of the best that the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ has ever made: Blue Planet, Walking with Beasts, Son of God, Clocking Off, The Way We Live Now, Conspiracy, Lost World. I could go on, and on.


But even in the face of this roster of stunning programmes, I am concerned that the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ still stands accused of maintaining our audience share by "dumbing down" our output, especially on television, and especially on Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ ONE.


I think that the perception of dumbing down stems partly from the massive proliferation of television output which has occurred in the past 10 years. Not all of it can be good, and when you sample 200 channels, 10 seconds at a time, with your remote control in hand, you can be forgiven for concluding that most of the output is of dubious quality.


But actually that is why the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔΒ’s family of quality channels is becoming more important than ever before.


And our analysis of what is available on Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ ONE and Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ TWO does not support the claim that we are dumbing down our main channels. Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ ONE has not dramatically changed the mix and content of its programmes in the past 10 years Β– in fact, we are spending just as much as we have ever done on arts, science, history and current affairs, and we are showing more "public service" hours in peak time than we did five years ago.


One thing has gone missing from our schedules at peak time Β– the off-the-shelf American drama series like Dallas. But surely that is a good thing. We should certainly be spending our licence fee income on "Clocking Off" - a great British drama tailored for a British audience - ahead of American imports.


Many people say to me Β– why canΒ’t we have television series like Civilisation, and the Ascent of Man, which we had 30 years ago, in the so-called golden age of television? They were great series, but they attracted very small audiences, in the region of one to two million per week.


We still make great series Β– like the Blue Plant, Simon SchamaΒ’s History of Britain and Walking with Beasts. And they attract audiences five to ten times as large as the landmark series of yesteryear. So we must be doing something right.


Yet still the criticism for dumbing down will not go away. Typically, this criticism comes from a particular group of people in the UK. They tend to be southern, white, middle class, middle aged and well educated. Strangely enough, they are already the type of people who consume a disproportionate amount of the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔs services - people who get more out of the licence fee than they put into it.


In some cases, the criticism of dumbing down is simply a respectable way of trying to hijack even more of the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔΒ’s services for themselves.


The unique thing about the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is that we all pay exactly the same amount for it. The Asian teenager on the streets of Manchester has just as much right to be heard, and to be served, as a member of the House of Lords in Westminster. The fact is that they may not want exactly the same thing, but we have to serve them both.


And thatΒ’s actually the spirit which has informed our plans for new services across television and radio. Taken together, these services amount to a portfolio of services - and I hope I will be able to include Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Three in this - which will bring the best of Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ public service values, quality and creativity to the digital world. Our aim is to give audiences - some of whom are currently underserved by the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ - something distinctive they wonΒ’t get anywhere else.

I am confident that the public continues to value and trust the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ. On average, each citizen spends 22% of their leisure time in the company of the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ. ThatΒ’s a lot of information, education and entertainment for Β£109 a year.

But when it comes to the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ as an organisation - and institution - the picture is different. The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is sometimes seen as aloof, arrogant and inaccessible and there is confusion and concern about the way the organisation is governed. That is why we have decided to modernise the way the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is governed.


Some have argued that the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ should simply come under the proposed new media super-regulator, Ofcom. Surprisingly enough, I tend to agree - so it should, in many respects. There is a strong case for a level playing field in the regulation of broadcasting.


But the effect of the GovernmentΒ’s latest plans has been widely misunderstood in the public debate. Actually much of the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔΒ’s activity will in fact fall fully within OfcomΒ’s remit - key issues such as economic regulation, and basic content standards and quotas. In these areas - and I repeat that fair trading and economic regulation are prime among them - the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ will be treated just like other broadcasters.


This leaves the public service remit of the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ and other broadcasters. Here, a level playing field will be established not by altering the position of the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ, but by shifting the position of ITV (and others) decisively towards the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔΒ’s current arrangements.


In future, both the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ and private broadcasters will be primarily subject to self-regulation in this crucial final category. The only difference is that back-stop powers will rest with Ofcom for the private broadcasters, while they will rest with the Secretary of State for the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ.


We believe that this difference is justified. A "light touch", largely commercial, regulator like Ofcom is suited to wield back-stop powers over the relatively limited public service remit of private broadcasters.


In the case of the all-encompassing public service remit of the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ, a "light touch" regulator is hardly sufficient. Detailed regulation by a Board of Governors is necessary. And it is surely also sensible that the ultimate back-stop powers for a publicly-owned and publicly-funded organisation should rest in the democratic process, subject to frequent and direct Parliamentary scrutiny.


That said, the Governors have decided that a package of internal reforms is required, to ensure that Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ governance can indeed address some of the concerns mentioned earlier. These reforms are intended to achieve four key objectives:


Β· To ensure that the key distinction between the role of the Governors and that of the Executive is clearly understood inside and outside the organisation. For the first time, we are publishing a clear statement of the very different roles which the two boards fulfil to achieve their common public service purpose.
Β· To ensure that the Governors exercise their authority in a way which is compatible with the new role of Ofcom. This requires Governors to focus their attention on the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔΒ’s public service remit more than ever before. A new framework for setting objectives for the organisation, and for monitoring these objectives, will be needed to achieve this.
Β· To ensure that the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔΒ’s governance is a model of openness and accessibility. This will require an overhaul of the way in which we explain the aims of our services to the public, and then consult them about whether these aims are appropriate, and whether they have been met.
Β· To ensure that the Governors are properly supported to fulfil their responsibilities. This will require the creation of a new Governance and Accountability Office to replace the SecretaryΒ’s Office, thus providing the Governors with more independent sources of advice and support on compliance, objective-setting and accountability.


Before closing tonight, can I just take a moment here to set the record straight on these changes, in particular on this question of resourcing the Governors.


If you read some of the press comment last week, you would have been forgiven for thinking that we were creating a group of political aparatchics across the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ. One paper even suggested that I was eager to dilute the power of the Governors by surrounding them with a bunch of political cronies bent on taking over Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ News!


This of course is just total garbage Β– and is an intentional distortion of everything that we are trying to do. Our sole objective is to strengthen the role of the Governors, their operation and their independence by providing the specialist professional skills and resources they need to do their jobs.


These resources, most of which are already at the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ, will in future be
Β· independent of Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ management
Β· independent of political or any other influences
Β· and answerable only to the Governors.


Earlier this week we advertised for the post of Head of this new Objectives and Compliance team. Look at the advert and the job description and youΒ’ll see for yourself that this is more like a lawyerΒ’s job than that of a political special adviser.

And let me spell it out in language that the headline writers in the popular press will understand: Jo Moore need not apply.



SPEECHES A-Z:

A B C D E F G
H I J K L M N
O P Q R S T U
V W X Y Z Μύ Μύ

SPEECHES BY YEAR:

Printable version top^


The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external internet sites



About the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ | Help | Terms of Use | Privacy & Cookies Policy
Μύ