Forum for former BBC staff

Forum for former BBC staff
http://www.ex-bbc.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl >> News and Comment >> 'BBC should be subscriber funded'- David Elstein http://www.ex-bbc.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1253891679 Message started by Administrator on Sep 25^th, 2009, 3:15pm

Title: 'BBC should be subscriber funded'- David Elstein
Post by Administrator on Sep 25^th, 2009, 3:15pm

Former Five chief David Elstein has said that the BBC should be funded by a voluntary subscription model to increase its creative freedom, reports The Guardian.

During his lecture delivered yesterday to the Institute of Economic Affairs Beesley in London, Elstein said that the BBC is now trying to appear a smaller organisation without actually getting smaller.

He said that the corporation and other commercial rivals have been involved in a "tactical shift of resources from the main channels accessible by all homes to purely digital channels and non-broadcast activities". This, he said, conjures questions about the appropriate returns on such investments in digital services.

He continued: "Is BBC3 really worth the £500m it has cost so far? Is the move to Salford really worth the reported £876m cost, still rising? Should Hollywood movies, or series, or music-driven radio services or premium sport be a charge on the licence fee?

"If a Conservative government is cutting back on ministerial cars and salaries, can a licence fee reduction be far behind the threatened licence fee freeze? Is the battle over the digital support fund going to turn into a long war of attrition?"

Elstein said that the BBC licence fee should therefore be replaced by a voluntary subscription model - an approach he first suggested back in 2004 in a report compiled by the Broadcasting Policy Group.

He pointed to the example of US subscription cable network HBO, which has used its funding model to foster the creative freedom to back critically acclaimed shows such as The Wire.

"Dependent solely on subscription, HBO can take great creative risk. If subscribers don't like what they are getting, they can cancel," he said.

"Writers, actors and directors flock to work for HBO. Nowhere in films or television is there so much creative freedom - certainly not at White City."

Back in July, Frank Field MP and David Rees published a different report which backed a similar approach to the licence fee. Under their proposal, the BBC would have to pitch ideas to an independent organisation in order to access public funding on a per-project basis.

Elstein claimed that a subscription model would "raise many issues" for the BBC, including question marks over future provision of certain programming in the absence of licence fee funding.

"What level of public subsidy might a subscription-funded BBC seek from a contestable fund? There are plenty of candidates, of which radio and orchestras might be the strongest," he said.

"Conversely, there would be normal competition concerns applied to this newly liberated organisation. After all, the BBC is not only the nation's biggest broadcaster, but also owns its biggest production and distribution companies. Partial divestment of BBC Worldwide might not suffice."

However, the BBC was not the only subject of Elstein's criticism. He also levelled disapproval at Channel 4 for its investment in ventures such as Film Four and digital radio, which have done little to advance its public service broadcasting remit.

"It is not just the woeful financial performance of the new ventures that causes concern. They constitute a major distraction from Channel 4's core purpose: contributing to PSB," he said.

"In joining the general switch by terrestrial channels towards the attractions of Freeview, Channel 4 has shifted not just resource but also audience to the non-PSB side of its activities."

Elstein said that the broadcaster now needs "a new board, new governance, a new remit and a new start". He also backed a proposed merger with Five as way for Channel 4 to save millions in operating costs.

"If Channel 4 sold off its non-PSB channels, and concentrated on its core purpose, it could dramatically reduce staff and costs," he added.

"If it entered into a joint venture with Five, it could save tens of millions a year in addition. There is no reason why Channel 4 should not continue to play its core role for many, many years, if it just abandoned its delusions of grandeur, for which all board members of the last decade carry some responsibility."

Source:-
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/broadcasting/a179111/elstein-bbc-should-be-subscriber-funded.html