BBC1 is distinctive from ITV’s main channel – this is said several times in the report published last week by the DCMS commissioned from O&O/Oxera reviewing the market impact and distinctiveness of the BBC and which was lead authored by me.
In terms of the number and range of programme types and the coverage of more challenging areas such as science and arts, BBC1 is different from ITV and adds to choice in free-to-air TV.
Programmes such as Doctor Who, Bake Off and Strictly Come Dancing are both distinctive and popular – they are public service “breakout hits”, and are precisely what BBC1 should be doing. It would also not be in the interest of viewers to prohibit the BBC from buying in formats from overseas. Innovation in formats is as much about the execution as it is about the overall concept – while the BBC should probably aim to use more home grown formats than overseas ones for the benefit of the UK creative sector, a ban is neither desirable nor necessary.
Some of the claims against the BBC made by ITV in its submission to the charter review process were not supported by a closer look at the evidence by us. The amount of competitive scheduling by BBC1 has not increased markedly in recent years and where it does occur, only in the area of crime drama clashes was there evidence of systematic harm to ITV audiences and possibly its incentives to invest. Even in this area it’s not clear the consumer is losing out when compared with a BBC strategy of always avoiding such clashes.
But compared with 10 to 15 years ago BBC1 has less new programmes in its schedule, has a fewer number of titles, and lower volumes of arts and specialist factual in its peak schedule. And it is worth noting that over this period BBC1 has opened up a seven percentage point lead over its main rival ITV, and a two percentage point lead in peak time. While it is true the trend to less new programmes and fewer titles has not increased in the last few years, it has also not been reversed. So BBC1 is today distinctive from ITV, but perhaps not as distinctive as it was back in 2000, or 2005.
Enough of the past. The report then goes on to look at a “what if”. What if BBC1 was just a bit more distinctive across a range of areas? What if had 200 hours a year more arts, science and specialist factual in peak time, not much more than half an hour a day? What if it chose to show a few more dramas like Wolf Hall on BBC1, or if it premiered Upstart Crow (the new comedy starring David Mitchell) on BBC1 not BBC2? What if it increased the percentage of new programmes in its schedule and made room for them by shortening the runs of many of its long running schedule bankers (not cancelling them, just shorten their runs)? What if it has more current affairs in day time and fewer quiz shows (shorter runs perhaps, not cancellations) and if it replaced programmes such as Bargain Hunt in daytime with other programmes that also travel around the UK but perhaps look at A&Es and the public issues raised not just getting antiques on the cheap – and doing that every week day, every year?
Well BBC1 might lose some market share, perhaps two to two-and-a-half percentage points by our calculations, but it would probably remain the UK’s most popular channel – something it was not in the 1990s. But would UK viewers be better or worse off?
Those who chose to stick with the BBC’s new wider range of programmes would have voted with their remote controls and would be likely to be better off; those who chose to switch to ITV and Channel 4 etc, would now be watching their second favourite quiz or property show, and might be slightly worse off. Last, and least, commercial TV would have some more revenue – £40m to £60m a year by our calculations, and if they chose to invest some of that in more programming (and the BBC licence income did not fall) viewers would, other things being equal, be better off.
So as long as the BBC did not lose too many viewers, and the programming the BBC replaced was that which was most similar to what ITV, Channel 4 and others providers supply, consumers overall should be better off. And if the BBC programmes were high in public value, which they should be, so would society as a whole.
But what may apply to a moderate increase in distinctiveness as outlined above would not apply to a large scale shift. Too much distinctiveness losses too much audience and so consumer value and public value are likely to decrease.
That is why we suggested that a modest increase in distinctiveness – from a 22% share channel that is currently distinctive but not as distinctive as it was 15 years ago, could be in the viewers’ interest, the public interest and, therefore, in the BBC’s long term interests too.
The report – An Assessment of BBC Market Impact and Distinctiveness – was commissioned from O&O and Oxera as part of the BBC charter review process by the DCMS in September 2015 and published last week. It focused primarily on whether more distinctive mainstream BBC services across TV, radio and online could benefit the consumer and the commercial market.
