Public Service Broadcasting in Britain - Report Example

Analyze the Public Service Broadcasting in Britain and What Role it Plays in Counter Balancing Commercial Broadcasting Date: Contents Contents 1 PSB History 3 PSB viability 4 The Downside of Intervention 4 Changes in consumer behaviour and expectations 5 Reasons for Public Intervention 6 Roles of PSBs in the UK 7 New Forms of Media 9 Radical Situations 12 Commercial Proliferation 14 Conclusion 16 Bibliography 17 In UK, "public service broadcasting" (PSB) describes the broadcasting that aims at the public benefits rather instead of purely commercial concerns. Ofcom, the communications regulator states that certain radio and television broadcasters have to fulfil various requirements to be a part of licensing especially in broadcasting. The forms of the BBCs television as radio stations embrace public service remits that involve those with digital broadcasting. PSB History The BBC has its broadcasting across the UK receives funding from license fees as it does not have advertising time as a product. It is most popular as it was the initial public service broadcaster across the UK. It introduced many concepts that later defines PSB within the UK while adopting the mission of "informing, educating and entertaining". With such launch of a commercial broadcaster (the ITV) much later, the government stated that all local franchises fulfil similar obligations through mandating certain levels for coverage of local news, religious and arts programming. In return, they got the right to broadcast (The Stationery Office. 2010). Subsequent commercial television broadcasters in the UK, including the state-owned S4C and Channel 4, came up through the government focus to provide diverse PSB forms. Channel 4 had to be the BBC public service alternative while catering to the minorities as well as the arts. On the other hand, S4C became a Welsh language programmer mainly. It was not required to be successful in its commercial dealings as Channel 4 had subsidy from the ITV network while S4C had a grant agreement with central government. Later, Channel 4 took up a restructuring through the Broadcasting Act 1990 for state ownership under self-financing programs (Crissel, 2002). In the last analogue terrestrial broadcaster, Channel 5 (of 1997), it took up a number of the public service requirements. The policies subjected include obligations of providing minimum programming amounts from various genres. Minimum programming amounts were originally commissioned through the channel as well as the European origin, while maximum limits attached to the amounts of repeats (Tracey, 1989). PSB viability The rise of the digital era, there are many conflicts about the performance of public service broadcasting across the UK. The BBC receives much criticism from many for being expansionist to a point of exceeding the public service remit. It provides content that is to be provided through commercial broadcasters. There is an argument that the BBC can overly distort the broadcasting market, which will make it even harder for the commercial providers to put up with operations (House of Lords. 2009). One of the notable illustrations for this case is the Internet services that the BBC provides. On the other hand, those defending the BBC insists that it needs to avail new services as well as entertainment for it to have relevance within the digital age. There are many questions for the commitments of public service within the commercial broadcasters. The Downside of Intervention Even though the publicly funded institutions like the BBC are in a position of addressing public good and externality concerns, they also bring in problems. Subsequent interventions include the support on commercial PSBs, which impose extensive costs (The Stationery Office. 2010). It is for these reasons that the intervention for the future needs thorough care for design as well as highlights for twin risks in terms of over regulation and outdated regulations in the fast-changing markets. In the absence of market discipline for publicly funded institutions, there is an emergence of internal productive inefficiencies. They offset all efficiency gains linked to universal free provision. Similarly, there is less incentive towards innovation that actually reduces elements of dynamic efficiency. On a similar note, there are risks for public spending that crowd out what is profitable to the private sector services. On a similar scale, the regulations addressing the commercial companies like Five and iTV distort the competition levels in the commercial markets. The costs involved in meeting the PSB obligations outweigh value delivered on a public scale and is difficult to calculate. There are high transaction costs linked to regulatory infrastructures necessary in supporting the chosen systems. In addition, the current interventions take a design of the times when the British broadcasting market had relative stability coupled with a closed space. There, the main broadcasters accounted for most of the viewing (Mendel, 2007). However, there is a completely different environment ahead that there are diverse providers who are content and equipped with higher levels of content packaging. This way, some of the ancient market failures as well as policy priorities are not applicable by any means. In this case, there is an exploration of the market changes across the next decade, while examining the intervention nature and scale of that comes in handy in achieving the overall policy goals. Changes in consumer behaviour and expectations In most trade scenarios, there are significant changes in consumer behaviour and expectations, even though the proportions of the population and rates of change covering it differ. Particularly, it is notable that there is an increased application of on-demand as well as interactive content services for the greater interests of sharing views and data. In concentrating on online discussions as well as creating content, there is an effect of representation for significant media democratization. This acts as a contribution to a more effective achievement of such traditional goals of PSB. The new media services and application by citizens helps in producing more active and engaged societies (House of Lords. 2009). For instance, there is greater effectiveness than ever, while possibly considering the linear broadcasting realms. Similarly, new forms of media open up access to public for vast stores information and data around the UK including past the international borders. This enhances the content currently provided by the PSBs and ultimately supplanting diverse aspects for their respective outputs. Reasons for Public Intervention There is discussion about public intervention and its relevance in the broadcasting markets while helping deliver the objectives. It surpasses the essence of the evaluation to attach arguments in detail. It is worth recapping such elements to set pace for further research. The integral approach is the focus on the best practices of the broadcasting markets and their workings. This also stretches to the market failures incidences justifying corrective action in government. There are notable market failure deliberations as an aspect to which provided within (Crissel, 2002). For the “Public good” characteristics, UK broadcasting embraces components that economists call public interest characteristics. A person viewing broadcasting content will not overly prevent others from viewing similar contents (“non-rivalrous”). It becomes difficult in preventing individuals who do not make payments for content from having to enjoy the benefits (the service is “on-excludable”). The point earned at any charges for broadcast content risk, exclude many consumers who have a valuation of it exceeding extra costs for the provision (zero) and a very inefficient outcome. Roles of PSBs in the UK The other angle of evaluation is its externalities. The UK broadcasting couples external costs and benefits – popular as “externalities”. They are never in full reflection of the market transactions. For instance, positive externalities include benefits towards the society for having individuals with better information levels. The negative externalities include a possible benefit to society in individuals consuming ample content inciting them from violence. The commercial broadcasters in the UK are paid by viewers for wider societal benefits within the programs while charging all their costs to the society. Lack of interventions would mean a decrease in expected “positive” content through under the provision while “negative” content is overproduced. The UK PBS upholds the principle of “Merit good” characteristics (McNair, 2009). Broadcasting in the UK takes the formation of “merit goods”. In the definition, merit goods are economic offerings that have a valuable component for individuals, even through the people solely recognize the value through the application times. For example, children may not be in preference of choosing to view educational programming irrespective of the fact that later in life, they always look back to see the possible benefits from such viewership in the long term. The UK PBS displays an “experience good” component. In broadcasting its content, there is a goal of achieving “experience good”. The characteristic is only ascertained through consumption. While persons choose television programs, for instance, they are not in awareness of whether it would be the aspects they seek until they develop a factorial watch. Comparing factorial watch to purchasing shows that they offer an assurance by themselves while directing the same to the appropriate kind’s prior making payment for it (Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons. 2007). In the UK, the free broadcasting market for the informational asymmetries across the supplier and consumers translate into suboptimal demand levels for various types of adventurous, challenging, or ambitious content where people are uninformed of the programs they enjoy. The UK PBS came in as a way of opposing the monopolistic structure of the market. The broadcasting industry in the UK develops high fixed costs, which are not varying with the company size or amount of production triggering substantial entry barriers. This proceeds to make it difficult for all new entrants to engage in competition (House of Lords. 2009).At the end, free markets involve risks that major players emerge, making the industry lean towards the structure as characterized through the small firm’s number while wielding extensive market power. The firms using market power overcharge as well as under-supply while making the consumers lose out all the more. The UK broadcasting industry encounters under supplies because of business models engaged. Most of the commercially provided broadcasting content receives funding from advertisers and not from payments from direct consumers. Through the business models, content normally appears to be wide and comprehensive scope towards mass-market appeals and the necessities in achieving that which satisfies demands for all consumers including the niche and minority desires. Such market failure in the broadcasting analytical framework greatly sharpens the debate on PSB across time. It has come in handy in helping focus the attention of policy-makers towards the aspects for provision of the importance in the delivery of the agreed public goals (like “reithian broadcasting”, as described) (Brevini, 2013). For this case, the market has a high unlikelihood of guaranteeing socially optimal outcomes. The broadcasting commentators argue that “broader social goals” techniques offer better starting points in the PSB discussion as compared to those based on markets and economics. They continue asserting that frameworks in market failures inevitably translate into significantly narrow and scaled-back PSB versions. The overview of such broader social dimensions is depicted in policy making. New Forms of Media The new forms of media offer diverse prospects for more effective public service content delivery. They provide ample chances of spreading programs spending across platforms. Therefore, the audiences have better access for production in terms of minority groups while concentrating on the improved provision for content and niche interests among various methods for delivery. Also, use of the greater opportunities involved in the interactive participation (dHaenens & Saeys, 2007). The Broadband aspect of access to vast information sources as well as content from private and public organizations across the UK as well as around the entire world will reduce the essence of vast types of content into public funding in the end. There are several substantial risks for PSB ecology. For this reason, the existing public service model for content provided through the commercial broadcasters coming under threat in all these scenarios. Five and Channel 4 are especially vulnerable. In other scenarios, they survive through a disguise of broadcasters’ niche in the long durations. However, in the increasingly online world, the ultimate viability for such current business models has a comprehensive stake. Due to audience fragmentation as well as global competition increment, the BBC finds it hard to focus on the license-fee payers through convincing them that it seeks to deliver value. This is short-changed by the consequent decline for support of PSBs for its current term and the licence fee policy. The high on-demand nature for viewership, while it bring plenty of benefits, it erodes “serendipity effects” for linear television under which consumers encounter excoriating dissatisfaction of PSB content in which there are plenty of benefit by all means (Habermas, 1989). This also poses more challenges for BBC on the best ways of finding the forms of media equivalents in a linear scheduled channel that offers more choices and the user controls while helping and advising users to be keen in discovering new experiences and material. The dimension also it involves reliance to the market mechanism where the PSBs are in competition to get audiences above one another as well as other broadcasters within the highly competitive market. This helps in ensuring that programming comes tailored to the needs of the audiences even though the BBC does not fully compete with the commercial counterparts in terms of funding. It also receives prompts from the regulatory framework and the PSBs commission goes a long way in the programming part for external independent suppliers while having the introduction of significant competition elements in programs supply as well as competition in fields of ideas, value and talent. In other stages of history for UK PSBs, commercial PSB franchises were issued through competitive tender processes where the awards attached the deliverance on the quality and financial dimensions of the same (Brevini, 2013). The combination of approaches in this case has an underpinning factor in the industry through referring to the ultimate “PSB ecology”. This follows a focus on the changes of the market in effecting the usefulness of the businesses in future in all the types of intervention. In the creative industry, looking past the four scenarios while the public feels that there are possibilities of maintaining and developing dynamic and sustainable UK creative industry, the UK content production suffers (Tracey, 1989). This in particular notable with the scenarios in which commercial PSBs continue facing pressures as well as audiences turning to the US among other providers of content for entertainment. The policy challenge now is currently that of managing new opportunities as well as risks developed by rapidly changing environments while it could be a requirement of significant changes across the overall forces of the public policy. In the interventions of roles, seeking to secure the public service content appears to play critical shaping roles in future (Banerjee & Seneviratne, 2006). Many critics explore the suggested models in developing future for PSBs in the picture for the future as presented in this case. As a public institution, across most of the public policy areas, recent years encounter an emphasis towards regulating, introducing, and designing markets towards achieving public policy objectives. In the PSBs, this forms an entirely proper and ideal suggestion that greater potential for the future of using these market mechanisms in delivering public goals comes above the case from the past. On the other hand, at least one profound institution is necessary as the primary conduit within the public service content while addressing market failures and facilitating the market conditions mostly through competition increments. The maintenance of such an institution with popular culture and values as well as closely alignments with the objectives of the overall public service will effectively come in handy in delivering public service content. Such aspects for public service contents are difficult for precise definition (Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons. 2007). The challenging as well as ambitious drama and factual programming come in handy this way. This way, they becomes unsuitable for detailed contractual specification as well as the high likelihood of delivering the institution for which public service the aims and values have an embedded component in the primary delivery of public service contracts across the commercial gains. It is difficult to perceive the case in the UK as a significantly expanding funding for public service content while there are many scenarios assessed. In the optimistic settings, the market continues increasing provision of services and content of public service characteristics across diverse genres that are traditionally appreciated as part of the integral PSB remittances. For the minimally optimistic scenarios, there are obvious reasons for the answer in the spending more public money in information sharing and content (dHaenens & Saeys, 2007). In addition, the main challenge is that of securing wider access for the existing public interest information through broadband and mobile while giving commercial players not less freedom of responding to their commercial opportunities and pressures. The UK government policy needs to seek a balance of public intervention and markets, through a presumption of having new claims for direct public service provision funding tightly scrutinised. Radical Situations In the more radical situations, there are raisings of reducing the level of spending for public service content in due course. Such decisions will come through markets developing and having better understanding for where things will be heading. With the competitive challenges, lying ahead coupled with the potential relevance of the long-term health for the UK media among the entire production sector, the existing commercial companies like Five and iTV need to acquire as much flexibility. This will allow them develop their respective commercial strategies while forging new alliances, and preparing the excellent broadband (McNair, 2009). Channel 4 also encounters familiar competitive pressures. While helping secure the dynamic commercial media in the domestic sector, a probable approach is that of freeing all the broadcasters from the preceding PSB obligations while allowing each of them to engage in full swing the commercial players across the local UK and the world marketplace. The continuing PSB rules for the commercial firms assume the design of affordability and consistency with respective commercial strategies. Part of the public policy broadcasting objectives includes the identification of looking on the sets while influencing policy across the future. Such aspects drive consumer satisfaction while ensuring delivery of wider citizenship or social benefits as well as achieving fair distribution for access while taking up foundation across society. This supports the thriving as well as dynamic UK business sector contributing to the detailed health for the UK economy. Previously, various market failures exist in ways that the broadcasting markets keep working and used to make justification of corrective public intervention and meeting the objectives (Habermas, 1989). In responding to such market failures, the UK intervention model has developed in the piecemeal fashion. The “PSB ecology “consists of many interventions both structural and regulatory. Such structural interventions necessarily include detailed publicly funded institutions (such as the BBC) and the other publicly owned institution (popular as Channel 4) as well as several of other licensed commercial broadcasters that broadcast various content on public service through the exchange for privileges (mostly iTV and Five). The failure of regulatory requirements, for instance led to the regional-originated and UK-originated content using independent producers (House of Lords. 2009). Together with these, there were components of due reliance to market mechanisms while competition across PSBs and subsequent broadcasters to achieve audiences, talent and value, competition for ideas among others ensured the use of past processes of competitive tender in allocating PSB franchises. Even though the kind of framework in this case has wide accreditation to helping in the encouragement of quality programming as well as impartial news in the sector, it also creates a range of hindrances. For instance, absence of competition in market disciplines translates to the danger of institutions focusing on inefficiency and minimal incentives towards innovation (dHaenens & Saeys, 2007). Meanwhile, the regulatory environment distorts commercial marketplaces. The concerns need any future intervention model to carefully design and subject proper scrutiny mostly where there is drastically changing mass media environment meaning that the scope and scale of appropriate interventions changes while the existing structures go outdated. Commercial Proliferation The argument is the commercial proliferation of the available sources for content such that the intervention ensures the plurality of the specific public service provisions, over the PSB funding for the BBC. This considerably makes minimally necessary components as compared to its situation today. On the other hand, the types of UK PSB interventions are merited over through the BBC. Initially, “the market tuning” interventions are an enabler of commercial PSBs that attach much value to their respective public service status in taking on limited obligations. This helps in the influence of overall character for UK broadcasting through the encouragement of the existing commercial broadcasters towards doing more both good as private businesses and acceptable to the country at large (Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons. 2007). The discussion to retain a “family” of PSB service providers through this manner also brings in the element of benefits for the essence of securing broader supports in the maintenance of investment for UK-originated content. It also secures the editorial standards mostly in contexts where regulation comes through broad principles other than the detailed rules like in an online world. Secondly, limited numbers for carefully selected interventions that are “market-changing” are applicable in the securing of plurality for the provision for diverse genres for PSB content that is under-supplied from the mainstream commercial broadcasters of entertainment-led guidance. The genres include provision of regional or local news and the continued provision for a wider range of content for children. Both new and existing providers are in consideration. For such cases, PSB providers need proper infectivity towards taking on such obligations as compared to simply having such obligations imposed to them (Brevini, 2013). This takes the element of regulatory assets (including spectrum access) among other forms of direct payment. The careful assessment for costs is necessary while the benefits for such an intervention within the new public investments become essential limitations in their amounts. It also carefully targets measures, which deliver much of the public value. Finally, for the specific interventions of securing plurality in terms of provision made, the public focuses on cases of greater roles for the contestable contracts as compared to the present. It is observed that this provides for an approach that is fair and transparent in awarding the tenders for supply and certainly provides better options above the guaranteed financial support for second public institutions such as channel 4. Even though there is recognition of contestability does not form an appropriate case for all cases. For instance, the micro-contracting programmes and for the hard-to identify PSB aspects, there is a belief that, some cases have the contracts put out to public competition (Banerjee & Seneviratne, 2006). In the longer run, there are cases for extended contestable approaches. The UK broadcasting sector has evident characteristics of high levels of public intervention in terms of public funding, institutional, and regulation structures. Collectively, such approaches comprise of the usual calls for “public service broadcasting”. PSB covers both the BBC output and most of its programming that is delivered through non-profit and state-owned (channel 4) as well as licensed commercial public broadcasters like iTV and Five. Conclusion The UK broadcasting policy goals in this industry continue evolving with time. However, there is a typical involvement in mixes for both economic and social goals. Notably, there are distinct objectives influencing policy from the past and continues influencing presently and in the future. It is important to note that their relative relevancies change with times. The first goals of public intervention in the industry are to achieve consumer satisfaction. This often relates to aspects of choice, value for money, innovation and quality. The other role of PBS is to achieve the wider citizenship or social benefits that include support towards democracy, an informed society as well as supporting the cultural identities and heritage. The other role of PBS is achieving a fair distribution in terms of access and taking-up information across the society. This is particularly given a role for broadcast media through helping people play a detailed role in the society. Another of PBS’s roles is that of ensuring a dynamic and thriving UK business in the creative sector contributing to the extensive health for the UK economy. Bibliography Banerjee, I, Seneviratne, K. 2006. Public Service Broadcasting in the Age of Globalization London: AMIC. Brevini, B. 2013. Public Service Broadcasting Online: A Comparative European Policy Study of PSB 2.0 Palgrave. London: Macmillan. Crissel, A.2002. An introductory history of British broadcasting. London: Routledge. dHaenens, L, Saeys, F. 2007. Western Broadcast Models: Structure, Conduct, and Performance. London: Walter de Gruyter. Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Culture, Media and Sport Committee. 2007. Public service content: first report of session 2007-08, Vol. 2: Oral and written evidence. London: The Stationery Office. Habermas, J. 1989. The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge: Polity press. House of Lords. 2009. Public Service Broadcasting: Short-term Crisis, Long-term Future? London: The Stationery Office. McNair, B. 2009. News and Journalism in the UK. London: Routledge. Mendel, T. 2013. Public service broadcasting: a comparative legal survey. London: UNESCO. Susanne Nikoltchev. 2007. European Audiovisual Observatory The Public Service Broadcasting Culture. London: Council of Europe. The Stationery Office. 2010. The British film and television industries: decline or opportunity?, 1st report of session 200-10, Vol. 2: Evidence. London: The Stationery Office. Tracey, M. 1989. The decline and fall of public service broadcasting. Oxford: Oxford university press. Read More