Building a Global Audience Report: BECTU's initial comments

4 May 1999

I give below BECTU's initial comments on television exports in the light of the [UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport's Building a Global Audience] Report. We look forward to a further opportunity to comment on the domestic programme supply market.

We readily acknowledge the current concern about the UK trade deficit in television (which parallels a broader concern - relevant to the new GATS round - about the EU audiovisual trade deficit with the US) and the disappointingly low share of the global market taken by the UK. We would be interested to know if the authors of the Report have analysed the trade figures over time, so as to establish whether there is any historical trend (e.g. since when have such deficits begun to occur?).

We believe the Report has correctly identified a key factor, and a long-held concern of ours - which is the paramount need for strong investment in production. We agree absolutely with the comment (on page 42): 'When all is said and done, we think the combination most likely to be associated with international success is success at home, and higher than average expenditure on production and development.' We share that view that the UK has a problem of over concentrating 'on cheaper products at the lower end of a market' (page 41) and a low commitment to R&D. We would be interested to see any international comparative data correlating the level of investment in programmes with the level of exports.

We support the recommendation that consideration be given to tax breaks encouraging investment in original production (though there is no reason in principle why these should be limited to distributors rather than broadcasters). We further support consideration of support schemes (e.g. production funds and subsidies) to encourage exports. We acknowledge our industry's practical weaknesses such as commissioning in excessively short runs and failing to make off-air pilots and would agree that these should be addressed.

We are less impressed with the analysis on competition and regulation, and the argument that domestic regulation and export performance may be in conflict. As the Report acknowledges, international success in areas such as wildlife programming, historical dramas and news distribution may fairly be seen as a consequence of public service regulatory standards. We do not accept that high regulatory standards (especially in quality and range of programming); the ability to experiment and even to fail; and the possibility for broadcasters to fully fund programmes rather than rely on secondary revenue sources are factors incompatible with export success. To the contrary, we believe that a high regulatory standard/high investment model is the best way forward - as much of the Report's own analysis indicates.

Therefore, while supporting as basic commonsense improved co-operation between distributors and broadcasters and a more co-ordinated expression of distributors' interests, we would not support any restructuring which sought to place a primary emphasis on distributors concern with export sales rather than producers' and broadcasters' concern with the range and quality of programme output as a whole. Certainly, it would in our view make no sense at all to base a strategy for British television on the pursuit of a notional and illusory mid-Atlantic market rather than on investment in programme excellence.

We hope you will take account of our views and look forward to the opportunity for further comment in the next phase of the inquiry.