Barwise, TP

English

Why do we still have public service television (PST) when commercial broadcasters and online TV companies now offer consumers so much choice? The obvious answer is that people are citizens as well as consumers: for policy reasons, we want to ensure the availability of public service programmes that offer social, cultural and political benefits and economic externalities but are not commercially viable. Despite disagreements about scope, scale, governance and funding, the idea that there should be *some* PST for 'citizenship' reasons is not seriously disputed in most countries, the USA being perhaps the main exception.



Among some commentators, however, this 'market failure' argument – the market's under-provision of some kinds of programme – is now the only continuing justification for PST. In the words of British economist Helen Weeds, '[t]he rationale for public intervention in broadcasting must now rest on citizen concerns'. Many others would broadly agree. 



The Conservative government's position also seems to reflect this view. A 2016 White Paper argues that '[t]he BBC has faced questions in recent years, including about ... its distinctiveness, the market impact of its more mainstream services ... and its efficiency and value for money ... [It should] focus its creative energy on high quality distinctive content that differentiates it from the rest of the market'. The White Paper frames broadcasting policy as a kind of balancing act between citizen and consumer interests: for citizenship reasons, we need some PST to address gaps in provision; but for consumer reasons, we should minimise its cost and market impact.



One practical problem with this view is that it assumes a clear-cut distinction between popular/commercial and minority/non-commercial programmes. The reality is much fuzzier and less predictable: what could be more 'minority interest' than a baking competition? Yet *The Great British Bake Off* turned out to be a huge hit. At a deeper level, the key assumption underpinning the 'market failure' argument is that, whatever its citizenship value, PST offers less good consumer value for money (VFM) than the rest of the market. This chapter explores this assumption in the UK context. The main analysis completely ignores the citizenship benefits of PST, treating it as if it were just a consumer product like baked beans. At the end of the chapter, I briefly return to the citizenship issues and discuss the policy implications

London Business School (LBS) Research

Does Public Service Television Really Give Consumers Less Good Value For Money Than The Rest Of The Market?

https://lbsresearch.london.edu/1395/1/Barwise_PST%20VFM%20Freedman%20Goblot.pdf

Does Public Service Television Really Give Consumers Less Good Value For Money Than The Rest Of The Market

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

London Business School (LBS) Research