Westminster Media Forum Panel: Key Issues for PSB
The Westminster Media Forum held a panel event on 2nd November including a session titled “Key issues for PSB: shaping the Contestable Fund, further options for support and the future of regulation.” CMF Chair Anna Home spoke on the panel and this is a summary of the discussion.
The event was chaired by Lord Watson of Invergowrie who set the tone of the meeting in his opening words, saying that in his view, the landscape of children’s content provision was not as bleak as a year ago, particularly in the context of the potential re-regulation of the commercial PSBs. He introduced the first speaker, Tim Westcott, Director of Channels and Marketing IHIS Markit.
Tim gave an overview of the current landscape for children’s content in the UK. He highlighted the changes in children’s viewing habits, and the increasing popularity of accessing content online, a theme which ran throughout the morning. He described the very large amount of content available to view in various ways, ranging from 18 linear channels, including free to air PSBs, pay-TV channels included in satellite and cable subscriptions, and the proliferation of On Demand services, both free and commercial. These include advertising-funded services like CITV, and Tiny Pop and YouTube Kids for preschoolers, plus services services available via subscriptions, e.g. Sky Kids, Hopster and Azoomee.
He talked about the SVOD services Amazon and Netflix and argued that one of the reasons they are interested in children’s content is because it is “sticky.” Adults renew their contracts because their children are watching a lot, even if they are not themselves. He spoke about these companies investing large amounts of money in original content, including kids’. However, he made the point that the majority of original content was still coming from the traditional broadcasters.
Touching on sources of funding, he pointed out that the amount of investment from broadcasters was relatively small, largely due to the fact that, on the whole, kids’ content does not make money. He concluded that that being the case, regulation and quotas should be welcome, at least to the producers, giving them reassurance of potential commissions.
The next speaker was Anna Home, Chair of The Children’s Media Foundation. She outlined the current state of play and the CMF’s position. She echoed Lord Watson in saying it was more encouraging than it had been for many years: the BBC had headlined children’s as one of its key genres and committed an extra £34 million investment. There was a dramatic last minute amendment to the Digital Economy Bill permitting Ofcom to regulate the commercial PSBs, and the potential of the £60 million Public Service Contestable Fund pilot provided a real opportunity to revitalize original content for kids in the UK.
However it was not altogether clear how the BBC money would be spent, and there was a long way to go before the deregulation of the PSBs and the Contestable Fund became realities, a point reiterated by other speakers throughout the session. She explained that Ofcom was currently consulting widely over the terms for deregulation. She stressed the need for Ofcom to set clear requirements on the type of content to be produced. The CMF has argued that these should be set in the context of public service purpose, and should focus on originality, diversity, risk and “Britishness.” The key importance, in an increasingly global media world, is for children to hear their own voices, and see their own world, experiences and culture.
Further, she highlighted the lack of provision for 10 to 16 year olds, and stressed that, in terms of quotas, both hours and spend should be considered. Next, she outlined the proposal for a Contestable Public Service Production Fund open to all genres. This was also going through a long consultation process, although apparently some firm proposals are due to be announced in the near future.
She said that the CMF had argued from the start that the whole of the pilot fund should be allocated to children’s, a position supported by the other speakers. She stressed that urgent thought needed to be given to the long-term funding beyond the pilot, and that this should not come from top slicing the BBC Licence Fee – rather a variety of other sources should be investigated urgently. In conclusion, she made the point that these two initiatives should be seen as related, and that in both cases the new content must be made available to children via the platforms they use regularly.
Rosina Robson, Director of Nations, and Children’s at PACT, spoke next. She explained that she was delighted, if a little surprised, by the success of the Save Kids’ Content campaign, a cooperation between The Ragdoll Foundation and PACT. She said that PACT was also discussing criteria of PSB provision with Ofcom, arguing that the criteria applied to the main channels would also need to take into account the provision of children’s content on related services, e.g. CITV.
She pointed out that the amendment to the Digital Economy Bill did not specifically refer to original content for British children, but PACT believed that this was an underlying part of the PSB requirement. She stressed that by supporting the amendment PACT had not intended to press for unrealistic quotas for the commercial PSBs, appreciating that they are working in a challenging market.
She welcomed the Contestable Fund, and said that it and the new PSB criteria complement each other, the Fund encouraging the PSBs to commission more content. She raised the issue of “dead weighting,” using the fund just to make programmes that would have been made anyway. She suggested that part of the Fund could be dedicated to development, or used to encourage new entrants into the market, particularly in the digital space, or possibly it could be used as a top up fund.
Rosina then raised the issue of producers’ rights in the online space. She argued that they need a fairer deal, and more control over their rights. She cited the example of Netflix, and how even though they have available funding, their requirements are challenging in terms control of both content and rights. She concluded by stressing the importance of supporting a healthy domestic market, particularly in the context of Brexit, in order to ensure that UK content continues to travel well overseas.
The next speaker was Douglas Lloyd, co-founder of Azoomee. Douglas explained that Azoomee was the “new kid on the block,” three years old and founded as a result of the clear movement of kids from linear to online media in terms of consuming content. Azoomee’s content is available in the UK on any app store, and on any mobile device. It is sold direct to the customer via the app stores or through agreements with O2, Argos, and soon on Amazon.
It is not funded by ads, rather purely by subscription, and funding is challenging. Originally they funded content themselves, but found it was not commercially viable to do this and fund a platform as well. They are prepared to invest in original British productions, but can’t do it alone. Therefore, the Contestable Fund would be valuable to them. He stressed that as a partner, Azoomee had the advantage of being able to move quickly, and have a simpler commissioning process than others.
Douglas went on to talk about games, and suggested that part of the fund should be spent on them. Games would deliver real value for money, and as more companies would benefit, the commercial industry would grow.
His final point was on safety and security, which is the reason Azoomee (which means a “safe place” in Japanese) exists. They are currently working with government on wider internet safety matters.They believe that through the way they produce kids’ content they can address safety issues in a way which will satisfy both parents and children, without the need to be aggressively educational.
Kate O’Connor, the Executive Chair of Animation UK, spoke next. She explained the new role of the organization which now represents the whole animation sector, with the remit to create the right conditions for the industry to flourish in business terms, as well as artistically and culturally. She argued that the animation sector is brilliant, and that the children’s area is particularly significant, but despite the proven success of the genre it is a “Cinderella” sector, hidden and unrecognized despite its potential for commercial success – a sector she had until recently felt was an endangered species.
Following the developments discussed above, she too was feeling more optimistic. Animation UK had also argued that the pilot of the Contestable Fund should be devoted to children, and that the other underserved PSB genres could be reflected in the commissioned kids’ content. However, Animation UK will argue for a focus on animation so that in conjunction with existing tax breaks and new quotas, a climate will be created where the business base is substantially improved, and the animation sector can redevelop and grow.
She agreed with Rosina about a role for the Fund in supporting development, in particular short form development. Animation UK are already talking to the BFI and the Arts Council about this. She concluded by talking about the need for inward investment strategies to work well, and the need for an export strategy for animation which supports producers who want to export, and helps them gain a position in the market, a strategy which promotes the whole industry. This is an issue they are currently discussing with the Department for International Trade.
The final speaker was Jeanette Steemers, Professor of Culture, Media and Creative Industries, Kings College London, and Trustee of the Voice of the Listener and Viewer. Speaking on behalf of the VLV, Jeanette used her time to reflect on a number of themes which had emerged during the morning, and despite the mood of cautious optimism, to raise a few concerns and caveats.
Firstly, she pointed out that the new proposals still focus primarily on traditional broadcasting. She is concerned that unless changes in the marketplace are better addressed by policymakers, the new initiatives may soon become irrelevant and have to be rethought. Next she warned the audience members in the room about lack of engagement with politicians and policymakers. She argued that producers should be more actively engaged in the protection of UK-made content. She said that viewers, both parents and children, did not understand and were unaware of the pressures, and would only notice when UK content disappeared, but producers do understand and should therefore speak out.
In her view, Ofcom were not enthusiastic about imposing quotas. They had the power but not the obligation, and there is plenty of “wiggle room” allowing them ways out. As far as the Contestable Fund was concerned, she is worried by the emphasis on broadcasting, and the lack of time within the three year pilot period for proper evaluation.
Finally, she looked at the state of home grown content outside the UK. It was only good in countries with strong, well-funded public broadcasters such as Germany and the Scandinavian world. In countries where there is no regulation at all, children’s provision is a wasteland. This includes Arab countries and countries in Eastern Europe, where before Communism there was a flourishing animation industry.
Some countries have had successful policy interventions including measures like tax breaks and production quotas. France and Canada are examples, although in the latter they are currently unraveling. In Ireland, thanks to tax breaks, there is a thriving animation industry, but despite the existence of a contestable fund there is very little domestic production for Irish children. In New Zealand all public service funding is contestable. For kids this means just two long running magazine programmes that have to fight for survival. Jeanette argued that if we have a contestable fund, we have to ensure it works better than it has elsewhere.
A brief Q&A followed in which a number of questions and comments were raised, including a discussion about the true costs of development, and the need for any fund to take this into account. This led to a further discussion about the problems of administering the fund, who should be involved in the selection process, and the question of whether it should be the job of administrators or creatives or a mixture of both. Douglas Lloyd made the point that there was a danger of creating an administrative beast which itself consumed a large proportion of the funding. He wanted a fast moving body prepared to take risks.
Lord Watson closed the session by stressing the need for continued political pressure to ensure the kids’ sector takes advantage of this opportunity, and does not lose out to bigger, more powerful interests. He said it was a question of “Carpe Diem.” Seize the day!
Perspectives on Personalisation: event summary Taking Stock at the Summit