Don’t blame the independent producers

Michael Hedges July 23, 2007

The agonized whinging from BBC critics, honorably not other broadcasters, bemoan the lost days when broadcasters produced everything they aired. That system ended sometime in the last century. That day came when one general director after another asked that very important – and so very ‘80’s – question: What business are we in?

The answer – usually from the head of finance – came back loud and clear: distribution and marketing. Every supervisory board, board of directors, board of trustees and stakeholder (unions being the exception) broke out the champagne. They did not, however, issue a press release. This would be a quiet revolution in broadcastings business model. 

Good riddance.

Big broadcasters buy programming from independent producers for several basic reasons. The fight for time on broadcast channels and networks unleashes the creativity that keeps audiences tuned in. That, in turn, keeps the attention of advertisers, sponsors and other funding sources. That creative force is not limited to actors, musicians, writers and directors. There’s creative accounting, keeping down costs of these marvelous programs. The efficiencies far outweigh the drawbacks.

Beyond the obvious, European broadcasters are even under a European Commission mandate to acquire and air a quota of independently produced programming. The Television Without Frontiers Directive (TVWF) requires broadcasters to invest 10% of their program funding with independent producers. Individual countries have gone further. Ireland mandates 25% investment with independent production companies.

When the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMS) replaces TVWF in a couple of years, the minimum quota for independent production will rise. One of the more contentious AVMS proposals required specific minimum quotas for independent and European production for “linear” media (broadcast and cable) and “non-linear” services (the Web and telecoms). The current version, certain to cause raging debate within Member States, essentially dropped quotas for “non-linear” services and increased quotas for broadcasters. Still to be seen is the degree to which private sector broadcasters, including satellite operators, will be forced to comply.

The BBC is encouraged to outsource 50% of its investment across all channels to independent producers. Last year that was about €500 million (£350 million). This allows for investment in co-productions, a growing revenue source. So important are co-production deals that the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) brokers program and format rights among its member public broadcasting organizations. Without this system of independent and co-production European television would be beyond boring.

The current whinging centers around an independent production, a documentary following around HM the Queen. In the promo trailer sequences were edited out of real-time order, possibly leaving viewers with the impression that HM the Queen stormed out of a photo shoot with Annie Leibovitz. This promo trailer was expressly for selling the show to other broadcasters.

The BBC does not outsource news programming, the major source of its brand strength. It is encouraged to outsource documentaries, the other side of “factual” programming.  Most public broadcasters do not outsource news programming. Private sector broadcasters, with less brand investment in news, are far more willing as outsourcing – either commissioning from independents or buying from sindicators – keeps them closer to their business model.

“This ain’t about news, it’s about television,” said legendary CBS news anchor Dan Rather to your humble writer, lo these many years ago. Dan was “retired” after a similar lapse in judgment. Protestations notwithstanding, everybody in television understands – viscerally – that television is show business. To make the show “work right” liberties – mostly small, occasionally big – are taken all the time. Call it creative license.

“Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story,” said an equally famous broadcast journalist. He was fired, too. It’s obvious what happens to a line manager, producer or journalist. 

RDF Media, the independent production company commissioned to produce that “A Year With The Queen” for the BBC, may have committed, as its chief creative officer Stephen Lambert suggested, a “serious editorial misjudgment” – serious insofar as the BBC and ITV have suspended commissioning their services and, as a publicly traded company, that looks really bad to shareholders and investors. RDF Media was, in fact, following their own business plan – selling shows.

RDF Media has survived – and thrived – in the combative, competitive production business because it has produced hits. The company has also walked right up to “the line” on several occasions and wiggled its toes over the edge. Endemol has done exactly the same. Broadcasters know audiences demand – DEMAND – to look (not necessarily to go) over that edge. Big television, public or private, is not paid to be boring.

Exploring the other side of that edge – implicitly allowed commercial broadcasters but not, mercy sakes, public television – is not only common practice, it’s expected. German public broadcaster ARD found itself in hot water when an independent producer was caught taking money for product placement, explicitly illegal in Germany. High pitch blame was placed on the independent production company. Revelations that ARD owned that production company and sat on its board were harder to explain.  

Faking call-ins and call-in winners is more egregious, ever worse on a show collecting money for charity from punters phone calls. It was deception bordering on theft for a BBC1 Scotland producer or production assistant to suggest any rationalization for using staff members as contest winners. Common law sanctions punishment for perpetrating a hoax. The edited trailer for “A Year With The Queen” falls far short of that definition.

“When all else fails, try the truth,” said one of broadcastings most notorious liars caught without a peon to blame.

The problem for Brand BBC in all this mess is that viewers and listeners, not to forget members of Parliament, are quite separated from the daily ins-and-outs of broadcast management. They don’t much care about a cock-up between a 26 year old commissioning controller (basically an accountant) and an independent production company. They do care about popular programs on television today, tonight and every night.

Most national broadcasting rules hold broadcasters responsible for their output as licensees in the public trust. Public broadcasters, accepting the people’s tax money, can and should accept full responsibility for any lapse in that trust. BBC General Director Mark Thompson’s reply to the RDF Media incident (and the phone-in incident) calling for “training” shows the degree to which the BBC – and a great many public broadcasters – accepts the same business model as RTL, CBS and any other commercial broadcaster.

The BBC was blasted by Lord Hutton merely three years ago when a news commentator made the, then, unsubstantiated claim that the Blair administration “sexed-up” intelligence reports to favor the march into Iraq. It was a lapse in news judgment. DG Greg Dyke thought he could keep his job. He was shown the door. The result has been a greater separation – call it a fire-wall, call it isolation – between BBC News and the rest of the BBC.

The current furor presents a challenge for the BBC Trust. Not only is the BBC a cultural icon in the UK, it is a media icon on the global stage. The former is the basis of its remit. The later is its legacy. The Trust must face the question of what, given 21st century media’s transition, are the license fee payers paying for.

Big television is big television.

ftm Follow Up & Comments