I wonder what would have happened today if MPs had voted to freeze the licence fee yesterday? I suppose the BBC would have to form a committee to work out, pretty quickly, a plan to cut costs. But how would it know where to start, how would it prioritise?
If it were me, I'd have another look at last Saturday night's BBC1 schedule - not because Britain's entry in the Eurovision Song Contest came fifth, but because it was a night of pure entertainment. When I find myself watching back-to-back singing contests as I did with Tonights the Night followed by the Eurovision Song Contest last Saturday, I can't help thinking 'is it odd that public money is being spent on so much entertainment?' Admittedly, the Song Contest is a national institution and the transition from the Wogan era was successfully accomplished with a 7.8 million/35% share, but is there really a need for Tonight's the Night which had just 3.7 million/20% share.
I know the answer usually given is that BBC1 needs to maintain its share vs ITV1 as a popular entertainment channel. But I still suspect that the licence fee generates so much income for the BBC that it ends up doing things which, if it had less money, it would leave to other, commercial organisations.
Obviously the BBC does not spend only on entertainment - its commitment to news and current affairs is substantial as is pretty clear this week with Question Time moving into primetime. But that doesn't prevent us wondering whether, just as all-night sing-alongs seem to be too much, so too are the wages of news presenters, as disclosed on-air by one presenter last week, also too much?
I can't help feeling that the vote on the licence fee is likely to be the start of a process of greater scrutiny for the BBC in terms of how it spends money. Does it need so many entertainment shows? Is it paying too much for its news presenters? Are its executives too richly remunerated for public servants?
So although the motion to freeze the licence fee was lost, it would not be a suprise if somewhere in the BBC, there's a committee being formed to ask the question - what would we do if, when the next government is formed next year, the licence fee is actually frozen.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Can Channel 4 adjust in time?
I was watching a particularly excrutiating episode of Come Dine with Me on Channel 4 at the weekend when I realised, during a commercial break, that it is advertisers who have adjusted better to the recession than broadcasters. Naturally the break was full of offers, and not just for sofas or DIY stuff. But underlying almost all the commercials was a 'simple life' message - an adjustment to the times in which we live.
In contrast broadcasters have adjusted their schedules by reversioning existing shows and playing out their programme back-log. You feel they're still hoping business will pick up - rather than deciding its time to face up to a different future.
It's a future where money will not be so readily available to broadcasters. How different will it be?
One big adjustment is already underway, as commercial broadcasters lay off staff. Part of the problem is the imbalance between public and commercial broadcasters. The latter are in real trouble and are aggressively tackling their costs. The BBC simply doesn't have the same problems. So - if commercial TV reduces the number of executives and the scale of pay falls, this will leave public broadcasting out of step. I thought the idea that David Cameron will insist all public service chiefs who earn more than the Prime Minister should appear before the Chancellor to justify their pay points the direction.
Beyond executive pay, can Channel 4 adjust to a lower cost business model? It will mean more than arguments over whether drama is too expensive to commission. And it will affect all aspects of television - if 'fat cat' executives are called to account, it will be no suprise to see reciprocal pressure on 'fat indies'. Production costs are bound to come under increasing pressure and those companies which can operate efficiently at lower cost may become as interesting to broadcasters as those which have enjoyed the format boom of recent years.
How quickly will this happen? Soon, I think, if the lesson of the 'half price, simple life' commercial break is learnt.
In contrast broadcasters have adjusted their schedules by reversioning existing shows and playing out their programme back-log. You feel they're still hoping business will pick up - rather than deciding its time to face up to a different future.
It's a future where money will not be so readily available to broadcasters. How different will it be?
One big adjustment is already underway, as commercial broadcasters lay off staff. Part of the problem is the imbalance between public and commercial broadcasters. The latter are in real trouble and are aggressively tackling their costs. The BBC simply doesn't have the same problems. So - if commercial TV reduces the number of executives and the scale of pay falls, this will leave public broadcasting out of step. I thought the idea that David Cameron will insist all public service chiefs who earn more than the Prime Minister should appear before the Chancellor to justify their pay points the direction.
Beyond executive pay, can Channel 4 adjust to a lower cost business model? It will mean more than arguments over whether drama is too expensive to commission. And it will affect all aspects of television - if 'fat cat' executives are called to account, it will be no suprise to see reciprocal pressure on 'fat indies'. Production costs are bound to come under increasing pressure and those companies which can operate efficiently at lower cost may become as interesting to broadcasters as those which have enjoyed the format boom of recent years.
How quickly will this happen? Soon, I think, if the lesson of the 'half price, simple life' commercial break is learnt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)