In defence of the BBC: the public will never believe in value for money

This week’s Media Guardian front-page story analysed ‘the figures that spell worrying news for the corporation.’ The figures came form their exclusive Ipsos Mori poll and the corporation was the BBC. According to the report while 61% of those questioned (2021) named BBC 1 as their favourite channel, only 41% thought that the BBC provided good value for money.

These figures are not, however, surprising and do not signal that the public are losing faith in a public funded broadcaster. Moreover, as the online and onscreen market place becomes evermore crowded it should be welcome news to those at the BBC that the majority of people surveyed stated that BBC 1 is their favourite channel.

As the BBC expands its service to cater for the plethora of requirements made by the public, we will continue to see many who do not think that they are receiving value for money. The sports fans who are loving the 24 hours of Olympic coverage every day provided by BBC 1, BBC2, interactive and online, may not think that the license fee should be spent on commissioning alternative comedy for BBC 3. Likewise those who enjoy wildlife documentaries may feel that too much money is being spent producing Eastenders.

The report concluded that ‘many at the BBC maintain that the huge shifts in technology and consumption over the past decade - laid bare in last week's Ofcom study of the communications market - make the case for a licence fee-funded BBC stronger not weaker. The results of our research appear to suggest that message is not wholeheartedly endorsed by those who pay it.’

As a competitor of the BBC the Guardian may resent the license fee, as it does give the BBC many advantages. The paper has brought to light many valid criticisms of the organisation, such as the huge salaries it pays to select presenters. It is unfair and inaccurate, however, to imply that the BBC is not delivering value for money because the public say so. Ask anyone if they think that they are getting value for money and the majority will say no.

The paper did contain one interesting proposal to cut expenditure, though it was made by David Levy of Oxford University and not one of its journalists. The cost of evasion and collection makes up 8.7% of the licence fee, something that the public probably did not take into account during the survey but a cost which, unlike programming that does not interest the majority, is a waste. Levy suggests adopting a system like the French which ‘assumes that taxpayers have a TV and adds a separate licence fee payment to their local tax bill. Those without a TV, or a licence at another address, tick a box on their tax form and the system then checks up on them. Net collection costs were cut by €100m (65%) to just €55m - and evasion was reduced by more than 75% from 6.36% in 2004 to 1.25% in 2005. Licence fee income increased in spite of a 10% reduction in those required to pay.’

If the BBC is going to compete with the private sector it has to be prepared for more polls of this kind. Instead of worrying about the pleasing everyone all of the time they should be focusing on maintaining and even increasing the number of people who rate their platforms as the best. And when it comes to delivering value for money the savings should be made by cutting costs not content.


Click this link to read the results of the Ipsos Mori poll

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/aug/18/bbc.television

Click this link to read David Levy's proposal in full

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/aug/18/bbc.television1

Source: www.positivejamming.blogspot.com