Ask... Gavyn Davies (Royal Television Society)
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.
Printable version