´óÏó´«Ã½

• PwC found in general that the procedures and structures put in place when the WOCC and the in-house guarantee were implemented had lead to ideas being treated equally and commissioning decisions being made on merit. Commissioners had clear incentives to pick the best ideas and PwC found no obvious bias towards accepting in-house ideas over independent ones or vice versa. They were satisfied that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ had met the requirements for implementation and operation of the WOCC and the in-house guarantee set out in the Agreement.
• The fact that for most genres there is in practice a single commissioning process rather than separate arrangements for the WOCC, the independent quota and the in-house guarantee is in many ways encouraging. We found no evidence that either commissioners or producers were pre-occupied with which processing route their ideas were following. The focus was clearly on selecting and developing the best ideas in an environment where the number of ideas greatly exceeded the number of opportunities.
• It might be argued that the effect of the WOCC extends beyond the 25% gap between the independent quota and the in-house guarantee in the sense that every idea considered by commissioners is considered in a competitive environment. The introduction of the WOCC and the associated structural and staffing changes has been a significant step for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and the evidence from this first biennial review suggests that a real shift in culture is being achieved.
• We found priorities and opportunities to be well publicised through the commissioning website and briefings. Commissioners were increasingly reaching out and making themselves available to meet with a range of suppliers both in London and across the UK.
• In terms of hard outcomes, independent producers have won three quarters of opportunities under the WOCC, performing particularly strongly in children's, knowledge, entertainment and comedy. In drama, where more than half of the WOCC was won by in-house producers, returning series appears to be the key factor. PwC's detailed analysis of the outcomes for 2007/08 provides reassurance that an appropriately wide range and diversity of programmes have been made through the WOCC.
• The introduction of the WOCC has been a spur to in-house producers. Many have had a difficult year, adjusting to new structures and significant staff cuts. It was clear that the level of anxiety amongst in-house teams remains high. Even so, we found their outlook to be positive and their enthusiasm and belief in their work undiminished. We heard many references during the review from both in house producers and commissioners to in-house teams ‘raising their game’ and rising to the challenge of increased competition. We noted in our interviews that in-house producers were focusing not only on innovation and quality, but also on costs and overheads. These are encouraging signs.
• Our stakeholder analysis revealed that the WOCC is broadly welcomed by commissioners, in-house producers and independent producers. However producers, in-house and independent, would like to know more about how it is being operated across the genres and about the scale and nature of forthcoming opportunities.
• Independents welcome the expansion of opportunity provided by the WOCC and are less concerned with the details of the new scheme. They also welcome the increasing openness to their ideas and capabilities. Some non-qualifying independents are concerned that the WOCC has not yet delivered the access to production opportunities that they had hoped for.
• In-house producers welcome the in-house guarantee and the opportunity to compete in the WOCC, but need greater clarity on which opportunities are included in which scheme. Only with this can they plan their resources to maximise their value to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and licence-payers.
• In terms of competition for opportunities in the WOCC, our findings suggest that arrangements are reasonably fair, if not well understood by some producers, and that commissioners are generally seen as being open to good ideas regardless of whether from in-house or independents.

More detailed findings are set out in the full Trust report.

The Trust has made the following specific recommendations to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Executive, and has asked for a report on progress with implementation by November 2008. 

Clearer information about the operation of the WoCC

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ Executive should consider how best to explain more effectively to producers – both independent and in-house – how the WoCC operates in practice. In particular it should seek to rectify any misunderstanding that has developed over "pitching for slots" under the WoCC.

Information about the scope and scale of opportunities

Some quantitative as well as qualitative indicators as to the scale and nature of the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s plans at genre level would be of value both to independent and in-house producers and would demonstrate more clearly that there are no ‘no-go’ areas for commissioning from independents. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ Executive should consider what additional information could be made available, through the commissioning website and through briefings, to help producers to plan and prioritise for future business more effectively.

Sport

Whilst taking into account the unique nature of this genre and the significant commitment to transfer ´óÏó´«Ã½ Sport to Salford, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Executive should consider how the principles of the WoCC might best be applied. In particular, the Trust would like the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to consider how independent producers might be encouraged and developed through increased use of both competition in relation to new rights acquisitions (tendering opportunities) and collaboration (working in partnership with in-house producers).

Sharing of best practice

The Trust notes the range of different approaches to commissioning across the genres, tailored to take account of the different characteristics of each and to achieve the best outcomes in an efficient manner. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ Executive should consider whether emerging good practice in some genres might be more widely applied in other genres.

Labelling of programmes

The ability to identify at programme level what has been commissioned through each of the commissioning routes would help in assessing the impact of the WOCC in the longer term. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ Executive should now consider whether this is practicable.

E-commissioning

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ Executive should make clearer the status and purpose of the e-commissioning system. In particular it is essential that independent producers new to the system do not perceive the facility to submit ideas electronically as a substitute for the development wherever possible of a working relationship with commissioners.

Audience data

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ Executive should consider what steps might be taken to ensure that independent producers have a better understanding of audience response to particular types of programming to help them to tailor their ideas and proposals accordingly.

Complaint handling

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ Executive should review its complaint handling arrangements for commissioning with a view to streamlining the process and making it as accessible and independent as possible. In the interests of fairness to in-house producers, the Executive should also consider how any grievances from in-house producers concerning the operation of the WOCC or the in-house guarantee should be handled.