Blog » 2023 » May
-
Speech to the VLV Spring Conference 2023
May 13th, 2023 | no comments | Posted in Uncategorized
“Why the BBC needs to make the case for its future & who it needs to convince”
Today, I would like to spend some time talking about the future of the BBC.
Why we might want it to exist in a world full of choice.
And the dangers to its future if the BBC itself doesn’t define its role for a modern world and address the major strategic challenges it faces.
Overview
The majority of people would agree that the BBC plays an important part in our national life. It has been there for a hundred years to provide trusted news, educational content, and entertainment that is admired across the world, and we wouldn’t want to see it go.
But is that reason enough to maintain our ongoing loyalty?
For some, it’s rhetorical to ask: why would we not want such a precious public asset to continue doing the same in the century ahead?
For others, it’s perfectly reasonable to respond: but why should we, in this era of never-ending choice of media players who provide very similar services?
Just this last 12 months, the BBC’s coverage of the late Queen’s Platinum Jubilee, followed by her funeral and the King’s coronation last weekend, have demonstrated the BBC’s role in bringing us together at times of national celebration and contemplation.
But Royal events don’t usually happen that frequently, and the BBC isn’t the only place for us to view them, or tune in for other major national occasions.
It’s worth reflecting that the institution of monarchy, which has been around far longer than the BBC, offers some interesting parallels when it comes to questions the BBC must wrestle with. Only last Saturday, we watched as the King sought, in my view successfully, to preserve the traditions and symbols of monarchy by representing their enduring values of unity and stability to a modern, multi-faith nation.
When my Committee conducted our recent inquiry, it was clear that – at its best – the BBC is both a feature and a reflection of our national identity. Some people describe it as a ‘national glue’, which binds the nation together irrespective of our political affiliations or personal differences. The experiences of the US offer a stark reminder of what can happen when the media environment, and trust in news, splinters along political divides.
Whilst the BBC might be one of the best defences we currently have against the same happening in the UK, it’s not as robust a defence as we need it to be – and the BBC must take responsibility for that vulnerability.
The real threat it faces really does not come from politicians. Although I admit, they don’t always help – they don’t represent the biggest danger.
Challenges
So let me turn to what does.
Audience habits are changing. People have unprecedented amounts of choice now about where, when and how they consume entertainment and news.
More and more people are looking at what the BBC has to offer, how it represents them and their perspective – and choosing to go elsewhere.
The facts speak for themselves. The traditional broadcasters’ share of UK viewing fell from 97% in 2010 to 70% in 2021, and this downward trend is continuing – with predictions that it will fall to 50% within five years. To be blunt, the BBC can’t keep defying gravity.
The future looks challenging, and every day that goes by demonstrates that the BBC is facing trouble ahead.
That’s why the BBC itself must be clearer about what it’s for. In an age of endless competition for people’s time and attention, it needs to have a more compelling vision for its future.
Last year Tim Davie – and I’m a big supporter – said the BBC’s future lies in it being the only global all-digital public service broadcaster.
That’s certainly a bold ambition – but it can’t be a means without end. And importantly, if it’s to retain national loyalty, the BBC should aim to be the pre-eminent domestic broadcaster with international appeal – not hope to be a global player which maintains domestic audience appeal.
A distinctive BBC within a domestic market dominated by global players will be critical to its future – and whether people are willing to pay for it. But previous attempts to map out distinctive territory have not always been convincing.
Talking about high-quality unique content is tricky, for example, because some of what makes the BBC unique is not necessarily high quality, and what it does that is high quality is not always unique.
It’s also getting both harder (as more players provide ever more content), and more expensive (as prices rise and inflation bites).
This is a serious problem because, if the uniqueness is the way the BBC is funded, what is left of its distinctiveness once the licence fee diminishes in importance or disappears altogether?
In short, the BBC cannot be all things to all people, and meeting its objective to be distinctive is getting progressively harder. At some point the BBC will need to come out with a bold, ambitious strategy that says what it’s going to do more of, what it’s going to stop doing, and what its strategic driving purpose is that will command people’s confidence and support for how it operates in the decades to come.
This is becoming increasingly urgent in our age of endless choice, rising competition, and declining trust. In my view, this new vision can’t come too soon. It’s needed well ahead of the next Charter review in 2027, because it should inform decisions about how best to fund the Corporation. I’ll come back to funding in a moment…
Trust and Impartiality
But first, the BBC must show how it will foster widespread public trust through better understanding and representation of all its audiences. Because, whilst the BBC understandably promotes how well it is performing across a range of measures when compared to other broadcasters, the picture of its performance in isolation isn’t as good as it needs to be.
Trust in BBC News has fallen 20 percentage points in the last five years, from 75% to 55%. And the proportion who say they distrust the BBC has grown from 11% to 26%.
In my view, the saga around Gary Lineker’s tweets illustrates the complexity of impartiality in today’s world and how it affects people’s trust and confidence in institutions which exist for the benefit of everyone.
Maintaining due impartiality and balanced coverage of political parties and their policies remains necessary, but it’s no longer sufficient for an institution whose purpose is to provide the platform for debates to take place.
The output and the way the organisation is run should not suggest that the Corporation holds a position or world view which large sections of the public don’t share.
The BBC needs to do much better in reflecting all sectors of UK society. Ofcom data show that, in particular, audiences in lower socio-economic groups are persistently underserved and are the least satisfied with the BBC.
These aren’t just numbers – they are people across the country who feel their national broadcaster is not for them. And if people are not properly represented, they will be even less inclined to pay the licence fee – or any other form of public subsidy – when other alternative news and entertainment providers are available.
Funding
When it comes to funding, the BBC needs to be more open and pragmatic about the alternatives. To be clear, the BBC’s distinctiveness should not be associated with the licence fee.
The licence fee is a means to an end, not an end and justification in itself.
The stats on the licence fee are not very encouraging – more and more people are questioning its value. It’s important to understand that straightforward value-for-money arguments do not convince all those who can afford to pay it.
Some people say it’s the least-worst option. My committee’s report on this explored a variety of models with an open mind – we looked at full commercialisation through to full state dependency. We did not set out to recommend any individual funding model, but our evidence was clear that some would not work.
Advertising, for example, is highly unlikely to be viable, leading to a multi-billion pound reduction in the BBC’s income and damaging other public service broadcasters. A pure subscription model likewise would generate insufficient income while facing major technical challenges and creating barriers to access. Funding the BBC by government grant would risk eroding the BBC’s editorial independence.
But there are other options that deserve proper consideration. For example: a hybrid subscription model—either domestic or international—could work. You could even have some features available for an additional fee.
Other options include a hypothecated tax; progressive reform of the licence fee itself; or a progressively applied household levy. There are drawbacks to each of course – but the same is true of the licence fee, which as well as looking increasingly outdated, is increasingly regressive. Simply raising it to keep up with competition from international streaming giants would hit the poorest first – which is not politically acceptable.
The BBC should be leading this debate, not shying away from it.
My Committee – whose membership includes all the main political parties represented in the Lords, crossbench peers (one of whom is a former DG you’ll be hearing from later today) and a Bishop – proved that the question of how best to fund the BBC is real and should not be a political battle. Such a political battle will be best avoided by the BBC leaning in to the challenge more publicly at the earliest opportunity.
Opportunities
Tim Davie has already made a start and I welcome that – indeed, I would urge everyone to support him in addressing these challenges I’ve outlined today.
And there are also events on the horizon that will provide structure and impetus to progress.
In the short term, the appointment of a new Chairman must catalyse action around setting the BBC’s future strategy.
In the medium term, the Media Bill will address some of the longstanding issues around media regulation, including prominence and regulating the audio sector and smart speakers.
In the longer term, the looming Charter Review should set a hard deadline for the BBC to digest the multitude of difficulties it faces, and implement a workable and compelling plan to safeguard its future in the years ahead.
Conclusion
But critically, and most urgently, the BBC needs to outline what its future role should be and its vision for getting there, so we can all judge whether the institution can command our ongoing support.
Because relying on a Reithian heritage and a record of past achievements, when the world has changed so much, will not be enough to generate public confidence in the decades ahead.
For national institutions such as the BBC to retain support, we need to see clearly why it remains relevant and what value it creates for our individual and collective benefit that new or emerging international organisations won’t or can’t.
I am confident that there is a positive and compelling case to be made – and I really do want to hear it.
But laying it out is not a job for politicians.
Setting out the case for its future is the responsibility of the BBC.
ENDS.