Ofcom: A new approach to public services content in the digital media age - BECTU comments

15 March 2007

1. BECTU, as a trade union with many members in the audiovisual sector, has commented on Ofcom's previous public service broadcasting (PSB) reviews and consultations. We retain a close interest in the development of future policy in this area, including the document currently under discussion, which we recognise is a discussion paper rather than a formal consultation paper.

   The balance between TV and non-TV forms of public service content (PSC) distribution

2. We welcome Ofcom's recognition that the proposed Public Service Publisher (PSP) 'is only a part of the overall solution, and its role needs to be considered alongside approaches to the major areas of PSC, and existing PSB providers' (p2).
3. Specifically, we note that Ofcom recognises that further intervention could 'be limited to linear television only' or 'have an important digital media element' - but that 'these options are not mutually exclusive' and that a PSP could operate 'alongside an enhanced role for existing PSBs in either television or other digital media' (p25).
4. We further note that Ofcom's previous estimate of £300m funding for PSC delivery 'would need to be directed to a range of interventions in the public service system - including but not limited to the PSP' (p39).
5. We have previously agreed (eg in our response to Ofcom's PSB Review Phase 2 and in the recent submission to the Parliamentary Culture, Media & Sport Committee) that it is both desirable and justifiable to provide an up to £300m per year injection of investment into commercial PSB (principally ITV and C4) in order to promote a strong plurality of PSB providers within the digital media future. We further argued that such funding could be provided by means of a levy on the turnover of UK licensed broadcasters who are not PSB providers - in particular BSkyB.
6. We continue to believe that a strong and plural PSC presence within the 'linear TV' world will be necessary for the foreseeable future and that while we welcome the current debate on 'non-TV' forms of PSC distribution, we would not wish this to displace a continuing policy focus on the future of commercial PSB.
7. We would therefore ask that Ofcom considers:
   • That up to £300m per year should be allocated for the future of commercial PSB (specifically via ITV and C4) beyond digital switchover.
   • That this be funded by a levy on non-PSB broadcasters such as BSkyB.
   • That such proposals should be developed on the same timescale and with at least the same prominence as the PSP proposal.

   The PSP proposal

8. We recognise the need to address the growth in new digital media outlets and services - including both the means of distribution (eg the internet, mobile phones, video games, storage technologies such as personal video recorders) and the type of content (interactive, personalised, participative, web-generated - with myspace, YouTube and wikipedia as recently prominent examples).
9. However, we believe strongly in the continued relevance of public service content within the new digital media. We therefore agree with Ofcom that 'the factors that continue to drive intervention in linear television - namely that public service content continues to achieve economic and social benefits that would not be realised without intervention - are also relevant for the wider digital media' (p5).
10. The rationale for public service intervention is well summarised on pages 22-3 of the Paper. Without such intervention, the market will simply not provide content of comparable quality and diversity; will not maintain the broader cultural, democratic and citizenship benefits of PSB (which informs and educates as well as entertains); and - crucially for our members - will not sustain a high and continuing level of original content-production.
11. We can therefore support, in principle, Ofcom's continued exploration of the PSP proposal - provided, as indicated above, that this is done in conjunction with continuing support for traditional, linear PSB beyond digital switchover.
12. However, in moving from support in principle to the more specific operational proposals for the PSP, there are - as Ofcom clearly anticipates - a number of potentially contentious issues.

    Funding

13. We noted above Ofcom's overall estimate of £300m per year as the value of the shortfall in public service content which may need to be compensated for as we move from the analogue to the digital era. Our view on the need for continuing support for commercial PSB and the means of funding this (the levy) is set out above.
14. We further note Ofcom's initial estimate of £50 - £100m per year as the sensible 'starting-point' (p7) for funding the PSP from within the overall total of £300m - with the additional proviso that this is likely to grow over time as the PSP takes on a growing role.
15. While recognising that we are dealing with hypothetical proposals and roughly-estimated figures, we have several initial concerns:
    • If the funding focus increasingly shifts from commercial PSB to the PSP, we may eventually be left with a relatively-closely argued rationale for a costed-out PSP and a residual amount out of which commercial PSB would have to do the best it could. To avoid this, we would want at least as much focus on commercial PSB's funding needs beyond digital switchover.
    • The discussion paper still begs the questions of whether £300m per year as an overall figure is sufficient; and of the actual funding mechanism (tax, levy etc).
    • The £50-£100m estimate for the PSP, based as it is on very rough equivalence to the BBC's online expenditure, may itself prove insufficient. If, as Ofcom already indicates, this may in the future need to be expanded, what source is envisaged for additional funds (other than diverting funding from commercial PSB)?

The Operating Model

16. Leaving aside the issue of rights (see below), we note that the key elements of the PSP operating model would encompass the following:
    • a commissioner rather than a producer of content
    • a non-commercial business model
    • a partnership approach to distribution
    • a non-London base (or bases)
    • a role as a public service navigator (guiding users to PSC generally)
    • a preference for a new organisation rather than an extension of an existing PSB
17. While reserving judgement on some of these points, our initial views are as follows:
    • Operating a non-commercial business model and with a partnership approach to distribution may be eminently sensible up to a point. However, given the scarcity of public funds and the extreme profitability of large parts of the media sector, we believe that strong safeguards are needed to ensure that the PSP receives suitable returns on this public investment - ie the PSP should seek to enforce its own continued financial survival and should therefore take due care in its contractual arrangements with the commercial partners.
    • We strongly agree with the suggestion that the PSP could act as a public service navigator - not just for its own output but also for PSC generally. We further believe that the PSP should seek to cater for those who do not have ready access to the new range of digital technologies by ensuring a continued engagement with broadcast TV. Without this, a key element of public service - universal access - will be lost.
    • Most importantly, we do not automatically accept the desirability of establishing the PSP as a new organisation. The advantages of awarding a tender to an existing PSB - existing high profile, a pool of experience and expertise, economies of scale, coproduction possibilities, a guaranteed broadcast outlet - should not be underestimated. Nor should the growing expertise of existing PSB organisations in the new media area. We think this point should be reconsidered - especially when set against the broader context - acknowledged by Ofcom - of the need for continued support for commercial PSB quite apart from through the proposed PSP.

    Rights

18. We note the suggested new 'open rights model' and the reference to the Creative Business License as a possible precedent. As an organisation representing a number of individual creators with rights (eg writers, designers, animators, still photographers, visual artists), we have significant concerns about this approach.
19. Creative Commons and other forms of open access licence offer just that - a licence which is itself based on the copyright model. We recognise that the Creative Commons model is a useful means for making available certain types of material for copyright and adaptation for education use. However, we do not believe it is appropriate for a PSP dealing with creators, whether individuals or SMEs whose livelihoods depend on their ability to transact in their rights. Copyright is the right of the creator to earn a return for his or her innovation. Its primary purpose is not 'the task of managing dealings between a limited number of professional organisations' though it is also effective in that context.
20. As a representative of authors and creators, particularly those contributing content to a PSP, BECTU is concerned by the suggestion that traditional copyright models should be abandoned. Surely the most effective procedure for facilitating effective exploitation of content is a tried and tested one and the one which broadcasters are most experienced in dealing with, both with content providers and among themselves. That is copyright.
21. Returning to the creator, it is the major means by which most earn their livelihood and without which they are afforded little protection or have little incentive to create. Making content available to users and allowing extensive re-use of material is already permitted under the existing copyright licensing system. What the PSP and other users of copyright material are perhaps unwilling to recognise is the need to provide appropriate payment for that additional use.
22. BECTU also recognises that there will be increased demand for interaction and the potential to modify content in the future and believes that the copyright system is well able to licence this but reminds Ofcom that the moral rights of authors and creators must be taken into account within whatever system is used to transact in creative works.

    Conclusion

23. We hope you will take note of our views, including those on continuing funding for commercial PSB, the operating model and rights. We look forward to the continuing progress of Ofcom's work in this area.