Public broadcasting: structure and funding

Jane Duncan

SoS seminar on SABC's structure and funding

Wits University

19 May 2010

..

●Do we need a single, dominant SABC?●Yes●Should the SABC be broken up into multiple, competing PBS's?●No●Should the SABC be privatised?●No

Spread of media (1)

● Inequitable spread of media

● LSM 1-2 (18.3% of population) – rely largely on SABC radio

● LSM 3-4 (27.5%) – SABC radio and tv, e.tv

● LSM 5-6 (27.9%) – SABC, e.tv, daily and weekly newspapers, magazines and outdoor media

● LSM 7 and above command lion’s share of media

● The higher the LSM, the greater the plurality of media

Spread of media (2)● Commercial media tend not to target LSM 4 and below as

audiences● Television and print media prioritises LSM 5 and above –

accounts for 54.1% of population● SABC 1 – LSM 5.1● SABC 2 – LSM 5.7● SABC 3 – LSM 6.3● E.tv – LSM 5.5● DSTV – LSM 5-10. Top TV LSM 4-6● Many SABC radio stations (incl. PBS) – LSM 4-6● Dangers of not having shared viewing and listening

spaces?SABC must contribute to building of public sphere

Diversity of media (1)

Should the SABC be allowed to continue to dominate, at the expense of diversity and plurality?

● Diversity must include diversity of opinions, languages, styles and formats and a diversity of voices, including the voices of those who are generally marginalised by commercial media, such as workers, the unemployed, women, the aged.

Diversity of media (2)

● Plurality and diversity not the same thing● Possible to have pluralism without diversity

(more of the same) – ‘hotelling effect’ where competitors in advertiser funded media tend to imitate one another’s products.

● Market-led diversity? Can have expanding media without diversity (ANC)

● Subscription market driven by particular genres, ie. Sport, porn, 24 hour news, movies

Diversity of media (3)

● Genres considered to be 'uneconomic' crowded out of schedule (documentary/ factual, etc)

● Strong SABC needed to foster true diversity, especially for audiences and genres neglected by commercial media

● Dominant SABC not incompatible with diversity but is a precondition for diversity

● BUT structure and function of SABC in multichannel environment needs to be rethought

Options for PBS in digital environment

● Leave PBS as is● Get rid of PBS. Obsolete. Let the market

distribute media goods● Get rid of public broadcaster, and spread PBS

programming across whole media system● Confine PBS to a narrow range of services or

genres, to address ‘market failure’. Leave new media to market

● Expand PBS to include any and all services that will deliver on the remit in socially relevant ways

Get rid of public broadcasting (ie. Privatisation/ closure)

● Not an option in SA context.● Too many people rely on PBS● No evidence that these audiences will be

picked up by commercial media● Exacerbate information inequalities● Erosion of public sphere – will South Africa

see itself?

Retain PBS, but get rid of SABC

● Dismantling institution associated with PBS dangerous – could lead to marginalisation

● Effective PBS’s need economies of scope and scale to product quality programmes

● Most successful multimedia groups are vertically and horizontally integrated, eg. Naspers/ Media 24. What is good for the private sector must be good for the public sector

Offer PBS on a contestable basis – NZOA model (1)

● April 2009 – announcement by Prime Minister that TVNZ charter would be abolished, and funding for PBS to be handed to NZOA

● Broadcasters invited to bid for funding● NZOA has found that commercial

broadcasters are simply not interested in PBS programming, even if funding is made available, as margin costs are too high

Offer PBS on contestable basis – NZOA model (2)

● Commercial broadcasters relegate PBS programming to graveyard hours

● The moral of the story – quality and diversity cannot be guaranteed through genre specific incentives alone

● PBS needs an institutional champion to survive

Market failure approach● Will make it easier to motivate for funding● Makes remit clearer● But, may prevent PBS from offering genres

that attract mass audiences, eg. entertainment● May lead to marginalisation● Strategy to get rid of PBS by stealth?● Not aspirational, ie. ‘does not provide an

alternative vision for the kind of society we want to live in and the kind of media we want to see’ (Jakubowicz).

Expanded remit● Will lead to an expanded PBS system

● Re-conceptualisation of public broadcasting (one way) to public service media (two way)

● Will ensure a central place for PBS values – purpose and character of public communications will remain but with expanded remit

● Digital inclusion – not digital for the haves and analogue for the have-nots

● May be expensive

● Can lead to the creation of a huge beurocracy

From public broadcasting to public communications

● Proposed principle for public communications services (PCS) – ‘anyone, anything, anytime, anywhere’ – the ultimate goal of PCS is access to anyone from any place and at any time, and all existing content should stored in electronic memory (Jakubowicz: 11)

● PCS should promote the establishment of a digital commons, where information is committed to the public domain, eg. Make archives available and licence for creative re-use

The options in practice – public interest content provider

● SABC would be responsible for content creation across a multiplicity of platforms

● Means that SABC would need to re-establish its in-house production capacity

● Could also use content providers for other platforms

Options in practice – public service publisher

● SABC would be a facilitator of content produced by a wide range of service providers

● Incorporate user generated content● SABC would enter into a range of co-production and

distribution agreements● ‘360 degrees commissioning’● Alternatively, a tender is put out for the establishment

of a public service communications agency (Ofcom proposal)

Options in practice – public interest communications agency

● Possible extension on the above models● SABC opens up significant opportunities for

user-generated content● Include citizen journalism and peer-to-peer

communication and discussion around the content it carries

● SABC’s call in and sms facilities must be included in universality mandate, rather than being based on user-pays principle

Breaking SABC into multiple, competing broadcasters?

● Makes SABC less easy to control, BUT● Impratical – cost, management and

administrative implications?● Broadcaster loses economy of scale● Regional uneveness, leading to balkanisation?

Implications for national unity?

How should the SABC be funded?

Licence fee

● SABC's funding base in long term decline

● Licence fee expensive to collect

● Regressive form of taxation

● VAT'able

● Collection hit a ceiling? Milking a dead cow

● Has varied between 14 and 20% of income since 1994

● Not inflation linked

● SABC needs additional public income stream – wisdom of having two income streams?

Advertising

● Leads to programmes addressing audiences as consumers not citizens

● Unstable – recessionary periods? Independence?

● LSM 5-7 major income stream – may well be eroded by subscription television

● Adspend to be further fragmented by DTT – more channels, but not necessarily more income

Government grants

● Since funding of regional splits, funding has been mainly for projects/ programmes, eg. Education

● Unstable● Independence? Motivated by DoC/ DoE● No institutional funding

Towards a new funding base (1)

● Need to cost mandate, BUT● Need to identify PBS funding principles● Phase out licence fee● Phase out advertising on PBS services – open

more opportunities up for commercial services● Allow SABC to retain PCBS services, but

these should constitute a minority of services. There will be a need for talk and music based formats, if PBS services move towards full spectrum programming

Towards a new funding base (2) – public funding

● Parliamentary appropriation – is the political will there? All Parliamentary parties may not be committed to this option. Only ANC has supported public funding

● To be administered and motivated for by DoC? Implications for independence? Whole method of administering funding may need to be changed. Political will to adopt Asmal report and turn SABC into Chapter 9 institution?

Towards a new funding base (3) – income tax based approach

● SARS an efficient collection agency● Income based tax more progressive, ie those

who earn more, pay more. Only SARS can administer this

● Funding for SABC● Could be combined with tax on commercial

licencees – administered by Icasa● May be more stable form of income than

Parliamentary appropriation

Towards a new funding base (4) – income tax based approach

● Funding to be offered for public broadcasting on contestable basis. Many content producers can produce PBS content. BUT, SABC should lead public communications field.

● MDDA should not decide SABC's allocation. Does not bring financial certainty to the broadcaster. Implications for independence?

● Icasa best placed to decide amount. Parliamentary oversight over adequacy.

● Icasa to decide percentage of content from other public interest content providers. Could be commissioned from SABC or accessed independently. MDDA to administer funds