Royal Television Society Conference - Europe the New Battleground
- Session 6: Europe Battleground or Graveyard?
10
September 2002 
Printable version
At
this very conference in Cambridge a year ago I sat on a panel very similar
to this where people asked where oh where was the British Vivendi.
The answer was there wasn't one 聳 thank god.
The question I asked that day was did it really matter whether or not
we had a British based international media giant?
I argued that what was more important was that we had a media which
reflected our culture, our society, our way of life.
Of course I was seen as making a self serving speech in favour of the
大象传媒. And largely ignored.
Twelve
months on the world has changed. Kirsch is bust; Vivendi is close to
bust; Disney, AOL Time Warner and News Corp have record losses. Bertlesman
has dumped its internationalist chief executive in favour of concentrating
on its home market.
Suddenly
being an international media player doesn't look quite as attractive
as it did 12 months ago.
The UK
has not escaped. ntl and Telewest are undergoing radical financial surgery
(and that's to put it politely), ITV Digital has gone bust , ITV itself
is in the doldrums and Channel 4 suffered its first ever loss.
Personally,
I am not convinced that, if you want a strong, flourishing, creative
UK TV industry, the race to be an international media player is worth
winning.
All of
which brings me onto the Broadcasting Bill and the proposal that has
dominated much of today, the proposal that American media companies
will be allowed to buy up British broadcasters like ITV and Channel
Five while European broadcasters cannot even buy a station in Cincinatti.
Let me
say the 大象传媒's position will not be damaged by this proposal.
In fact,
it could well lead to our position strengthening so I do not have a
vested interest other than as a citizen of the UK and someone who has
spent his adult life working in the British television industry.
So in this
regard I am speaking not as Director General but as Greg Dyke, Citizen
of Britain.
I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government is pursuing
this agenda.
When I ask why they believe in this proposal they tell me it will bring
new investment, drive and energy into British television as Patricia
Hewitt said this morning.
That's
possible but I think it is a bit naive. In a mature industry like British
commercial broadcasting US companies won't buy to invest, assuming they
want to buy at all.
They'll buy if they can increase their own profitability by reducing
investment in UK programming and selling more of their own US programmes
into this market.
At
the Edinburgh Television Festival David Puttnam summed it up when he
described the evidence given to his committee by a former Disney executive.
His summary of her evidence said: "the likely impact of American
ownership was spelt out; reduction in access for UK producers, removal
of popular US imports from competing channels, and the inevitable reduction
of the UK to a peripheral market position within a giant international
production and distribution machine".
Remember this can only be done once. Once we've done it, as a society,
there is no going back.
This means
the case in favour has to be very much stronger than the case against
and so far, in my opinion, this hasn't been demonstrated.
I would argue that the cultural arguments for continuing with the current
regulations far outweigh the spurious economic arguments in favour of
the changes proposed in the Bill.
I thought the recommendations on this proposal from David Puttnam's
committee were eminently sensible 聳 they were to postpone the decision
now and let Ofcom do a proper piece of research allowing real consultation
and then make appropriate recommendations to the Government.
It seems from what we heard today, that advice is being ignored.
The
second issue I want to talk about after this morning's debate is ITV
and the position it now finds itself in.
In the
new competitive world of British broadcasting, ITV has been the big
loser but not, I repeat not, because of the 大象传媒.
Just look at the figures. If you look at share or reach, the 大象传媒 hasn't
"become bigger". In the multi-channel world, it just hasn't
shrunk as fast as ITV in the face of new competition.
In fact, it is the success of other commercial broadcasters which has
left ITV in such a difficult position. ITV's share of commercial viewing
is just 57% of the level it was 10 years ago, which by complete coincidence
happens to be about the time I left ITV.
This analysis makes it pretty hard to argue that the 大象传媒 is crowding
out ITV.
Mark Thompson's statement at Edinburgh this year that ITV's problems
were of their own and the market's making not due to a "more resilient"
大象传媒 is very true.
I do have some sympathy with ITV. This situation is very serious: last
year their revenue was back to 1997 levels in real terms. This is not
good.
The broadcast
ecology in the UK is stronger if ITV is in good health 聳 it helps
everybody, 大象传媒 included, to raise their game. A thriving, popular and
energetic ITV is important to the future of British TV and British TV
production.
So what
needs to be done? A single ITV is important and the Bill will allow
that to happen 聳 although the Director General of Fair Trading
may not.
But ITV is still paying the price for Lord Thomson's famous quote of
forty years ago that ITV was a: "licence to print money".
It isn't any longer and the amount it and Channel Five pay each year
to the Government needs to be questioned.
A monopoly tax was fine when commercial television was a monopoly but
today it isn't. If the money being paid to the Government today was
released so that ITV and Channel Fivew could increase expenditure on
programming both the television production and broadcasting industries
would be beneficiaries. And that has to be in all our interests.
Thank you.
