Voice of the Listener & Viewer – written evidence (BBC0027)

INFORMATION ABOUT VLV

Voice of the Listener & Viewer Limited (VLV) represents the citizen and consumer interests in broadcasting and speaks for listeners and viewers on the full range of broadcasting issues. It uses its independent expertise to champion quality and diversity in public service broadcasting, to respond to consultations, to produce policy briefings and to conduct research.  VLV has no political, commercial or sectarian affiliations and is concerned with the issues, structures, institutions and regulations that underpin the British broadcasting system.  VLV supports the principles of public service in broadcasting. It is a charitable company limited by guarantee (registered in England No 4407712 - Charity No 1152136).  

Executive Summary

1. Under the current Charter delivery of the six Public Purposes is central to any assessment of the BBC’s performance. As an organisation which represents the interests of listeners and viewers we believe that licence fee payers concerns should play an important role in deciding what the purposes of the BBC should be.

2. VLV believes that the Public Purposes are relevant today and are central to any assessment of the BBC’s performance. Along with their accompanying purpose remits and when taken together with the Service Licences, they provide a detailed articulation of what the BBC should do to fulfil its mission.

3. VLV does not consider there is evidence to suggest that the BBC’s scale and scope are limiting the development of a successful broadcast market.

4. We do not agree with the suggestion in the DCMS Green Paper that audiences might be better served by a more narrowly-focused BBC. If this happens, the BBC will be restricted mostly to broadcast ‘worthy’, less popular content and its popularity will decline, making a universal fee unsustainable; and this in turn would undermine the model upon which the BBC is based.

5. The VLV has been impressed with the achievements of the BBC Trust in engaging with licence fee payers and industry but believes the BBC’s governance model needs to be reformed.

6. VLV strongly opposes the process of negotiating the recent licence fee settlement of July 2015 and that of December 2010 which were both conducted hastily without any public or Parliamentary scrutiny. Both settlements have diverted money from BBC budgets, have undermined the BBC’s independence from government and compromised its ability to deliver its mission. 

7. Whatever the outcome of this Charter Review, VLV urges that there should be no more top slicing of the licence fee during this Charter Review period and VLV would like the commitments made in the 2010 settlement reversed.

8. VLV wants the BBC to remain independent of Government control. Currently we believe that through the setting of the licence fee especially, the Government has undue political influence on the BBC’s delivery of its mission.

9. VLV therefore proposes that the current system for setting the licence fee should be completely changed with the institution of a statutory body, the Licence Fee Body, to determine the level of licence fee settlements. This would provide protection to the BBC from the Government ‘top slicing’ the licence fee and diverting it to fund other projects.

10. VLV members support public funding as the primary source of income for the BBC.[1] In the coming Charter period we would suggest that the current system should remain in place for collecting the licence fee but it should be modernised to include catch up TV.

11. VLV would welcome further study of the option of the household fee as a model to fund the BBC. VLV believes that the BBC should not follow an advertising model because this would have a negative market impact on other advertising funded broadcasters and advertising impairs the experience of some viewers and listeners. We also oppose subscription as a model for funding the BBC because once the BBC loses its universality, its income will be dependent on the popularity of content and this will be a precursor to a decline in less profitable genres which are nevertheless important for delivering the BBC’s public purposes.   VLV believes that any model of funding needs to be universal because this is the only way to keep down the cost of individual licences and ensure that the system is equitable.

12. VLV opposes funding through general taxation which would reduce the BBC’s independence from the government and believes that the BBC’s funding should not be associated with any government spending review or budget as it has been since 2010.

13. VLV opposes the use of licence fee income on any services where are not provided by the BBC.

Are public purposes the best way to judge/analyse the BBC's performance?

14. Under the current Charter delivery of the six Public Purposes is central to any assessment of the BBC’s performance. As an organisation which represents the interests of listeners and viewers we believe that licence fee payers concerns should play an important role in deciding what the purposes of the BBC should be so VLV welcomes the opportunity to comment on the public purposes as a lens through which to view the performance of the whole Corporation.

15. The 2006 Royal Charter states that the BBC exists to serve the public interest and that its main object is the promotion of its Public Purposes.[2] It further states that its main activity to deliver its purposes should be … the provision of output which consists of information, education and entertainment.[3] VLV considers that the mission of the BBC should remain unchanged. It is clear that three broad purposes for the BBC are the most popular with the public:  the three most popular purposes among the public when asked what the BBC mission should be were to entertain (64%), inform (59%), educate (43%).[4]

16. VLV believes that the BBC is a precious UK national institution which needs to be supported to provide services which lead to a better informed, democratically engaged population.

17. The BBC is considered the best public service broadcaster in the world. It provides independent, impartial, accurate content which we can trust. VLV members do not want to see it undermined.

18. Many of the arguments which informed the current BBC Charter were developed in Building Public Value, the policy document which the BBC published prior to the last Charter Renewal. The VLV believes that many of these principles remain valid today:

The BBC’s founders believed that broadcasting could make the world a better place. Public intervention would ensure that its astonishing creative power – to enrich individuals with knowledge, culture and information about their world, to build more cohesive communities, to engage the people of the UK and the whole globe in a new conversation about who we are and where we are going – would be put to work to the sole benefit of the public.[5]

19. These are high ambitions and VLV considers that the current structure of the public purposes is the right approach to ensure delivery of the BBC’s mission. The purposes have worked effectively for the past 9 years as a framework for the BBC: they help focus the BBC strategically and provide a basis upon which to assess the BBC’s performance.

20. Research conducted by VLV among its members[6] to coincide with Charter Review and inform our response to this inquiry demonstrates that there are certain types of content which are key for VLV members in the BBC’s delivery of its purposes. A copy of the full report is attached to this submission as Appendix 2.

News, free from any kind of political or commercial bias or influence is the one kind of output nearly everyone agrees is very important (93.2%). 51% view entertainment as “important”, and an additional 27% as “very important”. Bringing “our country” together is also “important” for the majority and nearly half think it to be “very important” (46.6%). 48.5% think the arts are “very important”. 60.2% think global news is “very important”. There is somewhat less emphasis on or support for sport with only 55% of the respondents thinking that “bringing us a wide range of sport” is “important”. Providing services and content for children and young people has strong support (57%). And the support for nature, science and the environment is surprisingly strong with 63% of respondents saying it is “very important” and 29.6% “important”.

In terms of priority, news which is free from bias is considered the most important aspect of BBC delivery as can be seen in Figure 1:

Figure 1: Priorities for the BBC

(Note: The Lower the Number, the more important the priority.)

21. The DCMS Green Paper implicitly suggests that the purpose are too broad and that they do not set clear boundaries for what is or isn’t appropriate output from the BBC. VLV disagrees with this view. When taken together with their accompanying Purpose Remits and the Service Licences it is VLV’s view that the purposes are quite detailed enough and provide an effective articulation of what the BBC should do to deliver its mission.  If the purposes were made more specific, there would need to be more of them so as to cover everything the BBC does to achieve its mission; and having more purposes would dilute their impact and the focus of the BBC on its core ambitions.  Also, more detailed purposes would not allow enough creative freedom for the BBC to adapt to the needs of its audiences, innovate and be imaginative in its delivery of its mission. 

22. Delivery of the purposes needs to be thoroughly assessed and any recommendations made as a result of such analysis need to be enforced rigorously. Whether recommendations are enforced is dependent wholly on BBC governance being effectively managed.  This is the primary disadvantage of the current model because the purposes are only effective as a means to improve delivery of the BBC’s mission if governance is effective and their use is mostly retrospective.

Ten years on from their inception, how relevant are these core purposes to the contemporary debate about the renewal of the Charter? Should they be revised and should a broad process of consultation be used to test the public purposes against licence payers’ expectations?

23. It is VLV’s view that the provision of a package of high quality services for all homes should remain a high priority for reasons of social equity, cultural cohesion, educational development and employability. The current PSB system provides such content, with the BBC as its cornerstone, maintaining competition, high standards and public service content in some genres which are considered commercially unviable by the commercial PSBs.

24. In this context, VLV considers that the public purposes remain relevant today, ten years on from their inception, although they could be supplemented and some of them could be revised slightly. We detail suggestions for revisions in question 4 below.

25. We understand that there is consensus that the current sixth purpose, ’Delivering to the Public the Benefit of Emerging Communications Technologies and Services’, is no longer relevant. We agree with this view, but VLV believes the BBC should continue to have a responsibility to conduct research and development where it is used to promote the BBC’s other purposes.

26. VLV considers that a broad process of consultation should be used to test the public purposes against licence payers’ expectations although we are concerned that the window of opportunity will not be available to do so.

What are the pros and cons of the current purposes?

27. VLV has been impressed with the BBC Trust’s Reviews conducted to monitor BBC performance and we consider that this is one of the benefits of the current model where the public purposes are central to any assessment of delivery of the BBC’s mission.

28. The public purposes when taken with their accompanying purpose remits and the Service Licences provide concrete goals for BBC staff to aim at.

29. The advantages of the current purposes are that because there are not too many they provide a focus for BBC staff and they also allow creative freedom for the BBC to adapt to the needs of its audiences, innovate and be imaginative in its delivery of its mission. 

30. The disadvantages of the current model are that the purposes are, as stated above, only effective as a means to ensure delivery of the BBC’s mission if governance is effective and their use is mostly retrospective. Their wording currently tends to be rather abstract and could be improved if it were more concrete.

31. Another disadvantage of the current model is that the purposes are effectively prioritised in each Service Licence – some channels should make a very important contribution to purposes, whereas in others they must simply play their part in contributing to them. We consider this leads to uneven delivery of the purposes on individual channels and it needs to be examined closely. While we understand that each service cannot deliver all the purposes equally, we believe that every service should make a significant commitment to every purpose in its Service Licence if it is to continue to exist.
32. VLV would like the purposes to be employed more strategically, with the BBC Trust (or its replacement body) at the beginning of each year setting clearer strategic targets for the BBC Executive based on the public purposes.

How are they measured, how should they be measured?

33. We welcome the Trust’s work over the past nine years in creating a framework to assess delivery of the BBC’s mission which has included consultation with the licence payers who fund the BBC. For the first time in the history of the BBC we have a publicly available evidence base by which to hold the BBC to account. 

34. We understand that current measurements of the delivery of the public purposes include performance analysis, data from public consultations and qualitative audience research.  One of the Trust’s methods of measuring performance has been to measure public perceptions of delivery, rather than actual social and economic impact. Therefore we welcome the Trust’s announcement in June 2015[7] that it is developing a measurement framework to enable the BBC’s regulator to undertake a thorough examination annually of how well the BBC is meeting each of its purposes and to better measure the social and economic impact of content.  We look forward to seeing more detail on these proposals in due course. 

35. We agree with BBC Trust Chair, Rona Fairhead, when she suggested that where possible analysis of the costs involved in delivering each public purpose might be a useful tool in analysing the BBC’s priorities and performance:

‘it ought to be crystal clear what the BBC has agreed to do as part of its public service remit. That should also include greater clarity about the costs that go with such purposes. If the BBC continues to provide dedicated services to the constituent parts of the UK, that has significant cost. If it continues to provide a world-beating World Service or World News, that has significant cost.’[8]

36. We would also welcome other measurements of performance which lead to the corporation being less reliant on reach and share as criteria of success. While it is important that the BBC maintains its appeal to mass audiences, it is crucial that programmes which may be less popular but are equally as important because of the social or democratic benefits they bring, are highlighted within any assessment of the BBC’s performance.

37. We found the points made by Jacqui Hughes on this issue in Broadcasting by Consent particularly relevant:

Interviewees for this paper were consistent in their belief that the BBC had allowed a near obsession with audience reach and share to dictate its commissioning agenda. As one senior BBC executive put it:

‘For as long as it is a measure of success for a director of television that you minimise loss of reach and maintain a competitive share position against ITV (if you’re running BBC1) and that’s what they judge themselves by …they are all scared shitless of being the one in charge and it all goes tumbling down. This has really affected the mind-set of everyone in television…you have very smart corporate people really worrying that BBC2 has lost a bit of reach…well we said it would! If you want to be more distinctive, it’s going to happen. That’s fine, we are very comfortable with that’.

Audience share, said interviewees, is the altar on which distinctiveness and reach are sacrificed.[9]

38. VLV therefore welcomed the news earlier this year that Danny Cohen, BBC Director of Television, planned to introduce staff to a wider range of measures of success for programmes than overnight ratings provide.[10]

39. In recent years there has been evidence that audiences want the BBC to be more distinctive.[11] In order to do this, it must be encouraged to stretch itself creatively, take risks and strive to be innovative. In some instances this may lead to reduced reach initially, but it is crucial that the BBC leads the way in broadening our horizons, introducing us to new ideas and telling us about the world around us: none of which are guaranteed to be crowd pleasers.

How do the purpose remits contribute to this?

40. The purpose remits are essential in the current regulatory model because they provide greater detail on what outputs should be used to deliver the public purposes. It is VLV’s view that the crucial role of the purpose remits is being overlooked in the current debate about the purposes which are being criticised for being too vague. Without the purpose remits, the public purposes are vague, but with them they are specific and any analysis of the public purposes should include reference to the purpose remits.

If they should be amended, what should they be amended to? What rationale or supporting evidence is there to support this?

41. The purposes as written in the Royal Charter are still largely relevant today although it is VLV’s view that they could be reframed so that there are four core purposes aimed at content for UK audiences and four additional purposes which relate to wider activities such as the BBC’s output for foreign audiences and training.

42. We note the recommendations made by the BBC Trust in July this year with draft rewording of the purposes and have structured our response around these suggested revised purposes.

Revised Purpose 1: VLV proposes that the new wording for the first purpose should be revised to read as follows:

Providing a range of content that helps people understand the world around them. The BBC should provide accurate, engaging and high quality content across all genres including news and current affairs to build people’s understanding of all parts of the UK and of the wider world.

This revised purpose is an amalgamation of the current first purpose, ‘Sustaining Citizenship and Civil Society’ and the UK aspect of the global purpose, ‘bringing the world to the UK’.

43. VLV supports the revised wording for Purpose 1 proposed by the BBC Trust, however we do not agree that it should be limited to news and current affairs output.

44. We would want the obligations of the current first purpose as stated in the Agreement to remain including the provision  to ensure that the BBC gives information about, and increases understanding of, the world through accurate and impartial news, other information, and analysis of current events and ideas;  promoting  understanding of the UK political system; promoting media literacy.

45. And we would want the obligations in the current ‘global’ purpose to remain including making people in the UK aware of international issues and of the different cultures and viewpoints of people living outside the UK through news and current affairs and other outputs such as drama, comedy, documentaries, educational output and sports coverage.

46. The current ‘global’ purpose, Bring the UK to the world and the World to the UK, is not specific about which genres should be employed to deliver this purpose. The proposed new wording specified by the Trust suggests news and current affairs as the means to deliver this content but there are limitations to this approach. News and current affairs, because of their necessary focus on major conflicts and disasters, often present a largely negative view of other parts of the world and do not by themselves contribute to a fuller understanding.

47. Research by the International Broadcasting Trust shows that if we only see negative content about the wider world, this tends to reinforce stereotypes and lead to a more insular society. Also, it is clear that not everyone watches current affairs and news programmes and therefore they will not benefit from the delivery of this purpose unless it is delivered across a range of genres, such as children’s output, factual, drama and entertainment. 

48. Purpose 2: We propose the new wording for this purpose should be as follows:

Encouraging learning and education The BBC should help people learn about different subjects in ways they will find accessible, engaging and challenging. The BBC should also provide specialist educational content to help support learning.

49. This purpose replaces the current second purpose, ‘Promoting Education and Learning’. We would suggest that in the revised purpose 2 proposed by the BBC Trust the wording should be changed slightly to read Encouraging learning and education rather than supporting learning and education. We consider that encouraging is more active than supporting. We welcome the inclusion of this purpose because VLV believes that the role of the BBC in providing educative content – whether formal or informal – should continue to be a central role for the BBC.

50. We would want the obligations in the current purpose retained including the requirement to stimulate interest in, and knowledge of, a full range of subjects and issues through content that is accessible and can encourage either formal or informal learning; and to provide specialist educational content and accompanying material to facilitate learning at all levels and for all ages.[12]
51. VLV believes that the purpose remit for this purpose should be strengthened to ensure better delivery because over the past decade educational output has been affected by changes in technology, the market and public expectations; interactive technology has transformed the broadcast learning experience and taken much of it online; the digital education market has become quite crowded; and society’s (and teachers’) expectations of what education the BBC should provide have shifted. 
52. Therefore VLV would recommend that there should be a review of what the education purpose means and how the BBC can best support education and learning. This could give new impetus and understanding to the way the BBC delivers its remit and highlight possible gaps and where there is less effective provision.
53. More broadly, VLV considers the BBC should continue to offer a wide range of factual, knowledge-building, broadly educative programmes on its main channels and through its children’s channels, CBBC and CBeebies. It should also explore the current gaps in education provision, where real need and public service opportunity are apparent, especially for older teenagers and young adults. At the same time the BBC should ensure that children’s formal education is a priority and that the BBC remains a trusted provider, continuing to offer quality content in support of the school curriculum, playing to its programme-making and commissioning strengths, but recognising competitive concerns in a busy marketplace.  We would caution against any trimming of the BBC’s online education provision because it is very effective and distinctive.

54. Purpose 3: We propose the new wording for this purpose should be as follows:

Disseminating the most creative ideas and highest quality content. The BBC should provide output that sets the standards for broadcasting in the UK and internationally. Its content should be distinctive from that provided elsewhere, enrich the cultural life of the UK and it should bring the best talent to its audiences from across the UK’s creative community.

55. We welcome the inclusion of this purpose which is a revision of the current third purpose, ‘Stimulating creativity and cultural excellence’. We consider that the proposed headline wording proposed by the BBC Trust is an improvement on the current purpose because it is more concrete; however we would propose ‘disseminating’ rather than ‘showing’ which the BBC Trust suggests, since radio and online provision are equally as important as television. 

56. We welcome the ambition for the BBC to continue to set standards for broadcasting in the UK and to ensure that content is of the highest possible quality and is distinctive, however we would like to see the obligation retained to enrich the cultural life of the UK[13] in this purpose.

57. We would propose to not include train and develop people in this purpose because we suggest a separate purpose for training, which we outline in greater detail below.

58. Purpose 4: We propose the new wording for this purpose should be as follows:

Reflecting and representing the whole of the UK population. The BBC should reflect the diversity of the UK in its content. In doing so, the BBC should accurately and authentically represent and portray the lives of the people of the UK, its nations, regions and communities. It should also provide content for all age groups, including children and young people.

59. We welcome the ambition in this purpose to both represent and reflect back to audiences the whole UK population. It replaces the current fourth purpose, ‘Representing the UK, its Nations, Regions and Communities.’ We would want this purpose to include the existing obligation for the BBC to reflect and strengthen cultural identities through original content at local, regional and national level; to promote awareness of different cultures and alternative viewpoints, through content that reflects the lives of different people and different communities within the UK.[14]

60. In addition, VLV proposes that this purpose should include a more explicit ambition for the BBC to reflect the diversity of the UK both on screen and also in the BBC’s employment strategies. The BBC should aim to employ people from different regions of the UK, fully representing the diversity of the UK population across race, gender and geographical boundaries. We believe this purpose should also include reference to providing content for all age groups, including children and young people.

61. Non UK output purposes:

VLV proposes an additional set of purposes in addition to the four above which describe activities which do not directly relate to broadcast or online content available in the UK and therefore should be separated from the other purposes. This means that these extra purposes do not need to be taken into account by commissioning editors when they are considering the commissioning of content to fulfil the public purposes for the BBC’s primary audience in the UK.

62. Additional Purpose 1: Growing the creative industries. The BBC should be a catalyst for further growth of the creative industries, working in partnership with other cultural organisations.

This is an important purpose but because it does not relate directly to what we see on our screens or listen to in the UK we propose that it should be an ‘additional’ purpose. 

63. VLV welcomes the proposal by the BBC Trust in this purpose that the BBC should work in partnership with other cultural organisations, however we suggest a separate purpose for technological research and development below because we consider this is an important purpose which should have greater prominence.

64. Additional Purpose 2: Providing content for international audiences. The BBC should provide impartial and accurate news and information for audiences around the world to encourage democratic engagement.

We propose this purpose as an additional purpose because it is not primarily aimed at UK audiences but brings with it huge benefits.

65. Around the world the BBC provides a service which is highly valued as the most trusted and impartial source of information. Its role as a global broadcaster fulfils a specific public purpose, to share the benefits of public service broadcasting around the world.  The value of this contribution should not be underestimated. The BBC provides essential information for populations during moments of national crisis as well as more generally information which improves their democratic engagement.

66. Additional Purpose 3:  Training and developing expertise.

VLV believes the BBC should make a commitment to training future generations in content production and distribution, as expressed in the proposed BBC Trust Purpose 3, but that this should be an additional purpose because it doesn’t relate to commissioning content and should not therefore be a direct concern of BBC commissioning staff.

67. Additional Purpose 4: through research and development ensure that the BBC is able to promote its other purposes.

We understand that there is consensus that the current sixth purpose, ’Delivering to the Public the Benefit of Emerging Communications Technologies and Services’, is no longer relevant. We agree with this view but VLV believes the BBC should continue to have a responsibility to conduct research and development where it is used to promote the BBC’s other purposes. We agree with the proposal by the BBC Trust that the BBC should work with others in the sector to deliver the benefits of technological change to UK citizens.[15]

Who should decide what the public purposes are? What body, combination of bodies and/or individuals? Are there any comparisons with other organisations which would be useful to inform the debate?

68. It is VLV’s view that as an element of the Charter Review process the Government should decide what the public purposes are in consultation with licence fee payers, the BBC Trust (or its replacement body), the BBC Executive, Ofcom and Parliament.

69. VLV considers that public consultation is crucial in deciding the mission of the BBC and in assessing all that it does. We therefore welcome the commitment of the BBC Trust to conduct a large scale public consultation and extensive programme of audience research.. allowing licence fee payers to consider a range of options for what the BBC should look like in the next Charter.[16]

What is the wider public’s and those who work for the BBC’s knowledge and understanding of the Public Purposes?

70. It appears that within the BBC the purposes are generally understood although we agree with many of those who have provided oral evidence before the Committee that creative decision making within the BBC is not overly dictated by them.

71. There are two exceptions however; VLV believes that there is much confusion among BBC staff about the meaning of global purpose as it is currently worded. It is unclear what this purpose means - does it mean content for international audiences or international content for UK audiences? Are we talking about international documentaries on BBC One or news on the World Service? It is clear many within the BBC think of this purpose as being the preserve of the World Service and do not regard it as a priority for domestic production teams. VLV considers therefore that the two different outputs covered by the current global purpose should have their own new purposes which would improve clarity for BBC staff.

72. Additionally, we propose that the true meaning of the education purpose should be examined and an appropriate purpose remit developed which covers both informal and formal education. VLV considers that the BBC needs to clearly state how much content delivered to fulfil this purpose should be informal and how much should be formal education.

73. While we acknowledge that it is desirable for the public to understand the meaning of the public purposes, it is our view that it should be a greater priority that BBC staff understand them in order to ensure that the BBC’s mission is fully understood within the BBC so it can be delivered.  

74. We believe that if the wording of the ‘top lines’ of the purposes were more concrete and applied to content the public might have a better understanding of what they mean.

Does the process by which the public purposes are set deliver the best outcome for the public? Does this process need to be amended?

75. VLV considers that the process by which the public purposes were set in 2006 was commendable – at its heart it involved public and stakeholder consultation and we believe that as a result there is consensus that the purposes largely remain relevant today.  The work of the Burns Panel was particularly effective in enabling public consultation to have a meaningful role within Charter Review.

76. We are concerned that the process of this current Charter Review may not be as open or democratic. The period of time allocated for the current Review is significantly shorter than last time and it is our view that the short duration available is likely to provide less opportunity for open public consultation.

77. Additionally, the undemocratic process by which the licence fee settlement was negotiated in June this year, suggests that the current Government may not be as open to public opinion as the Government was in 2004-6.

78. VLV is concerned that unless the views of the public are taken into account fully in the Charter Review process that it will not be the interests of the public or society as a whole,  but those of industry or politicians which influence the debate unduly. This could have a detrimental impact on the nature of the BBC’s public purposes, the scope and scale of the organisation and undermine its ability to deliver its mission.

79. In light of these concerns, we are broadly supportive of calls by the BBC Trust that a more formal Parliamentary process should be considered for future Charter Reviews.[17]

80. We welcome the work of this Committee in examining Charter Review and would encourage it and the BBC Trust to do all they can to ensure that the interests of the public are upheld during this process.

If this needs to be amended what process would be appropriate for setting the public purposes within the current Charter Renewal?

81. VLV does not consider that the process for deciding the public purposes needs to be amended.

Should the BBC do anything beyond its public purposes?

82. VLV considers that the public purposes, taken with their accompanying purpose remits, should incorporate all the significant work the BBC conducts in fulfilling its mission. However, we support the suggestion that a set of values could be incorporated into the Charter because if they are explicitly stated they could help the BBC regulator assess whether the BBC is performing as well as it should, give clearer guidance to BBC staff about the behaviours expected of them and reinforce the principle of BBC independence; however VLV believes that this should not be done in a way which might overload BBC staff with increased compliance work since this could possibly dilute the impact of the public purposes. Therefore we recommend that any set of values should be used cautiously as a regulatory tool to ensure that the BBC is carrying out its mission without being imposed on content makers.

83. There are ‘values’ already expressed in the current Charter and Agreement although they are not explicitly described as such. In the Charter it is stated that the BBC should be independent and serve the public interest; it should adopt methods of good corporate governance; the Trust should carefully and appropriately assess the views of licence fee payers; exercise rigorous stewardship of public money; and ensure that the BBC observes high standards of openness and transparency. In the Agreement it is further stated that the content of the BBC’s UK Public Services must be high quality, challenging, original, innovative and engaging, with every programme or item of content exhibiting at least one of those characteristics.[18]

84. VLV agrees there should be a set of values included in the new BBC Charter and these are the values we suggest:  

The BBC should:

• Be Independent.
• Be Impartial.
• Produce distinctive, diverse and innovative content of high quality.
• Be effective and provide value for money.
• Behave in a transparent manner which is fully consultative and inclusive, sharing its research with licence fee payers and engaging all the audiences which make up the UK population.

Who should set the level of the licence fee?

What are the positives and negatives of the way the settlement has been reached in the past? How should the settlement be reached for 2017?

85. There are no advantages in the way the past two licence fee settlements have been reached but many disadvantages.
86. VLV proposes that the current system for setting the licence fee should be completely changed with the institution of a statutory body, the Licence Fee Body, to determine the level of licence fee settlements. This would provide protection to the BBC from the Government ‘top slicing’ the licence fee and diverting it to fulfil other purposes. The full details of our proposal are set out below.
87. VLV did not support the licence fee settlement reached in December 2011 or that of June 2015 because both have diverted money from BBC budgets, have undermined the BBC’s independence from government and compromised its ability to deliver its mission. 
88. In agreement with those who have provided oral evidence before the Committee, VLV strongly opposes the process of the recent licence fee settlement which was conducted hastily over the period of a week without any public or Parliamentary scrutiny.

89. In light of the recent announcement regarding the licence fee, VLV’s main concern is to explore how this type of process can be avoided in future. Whatever the outcome of this Charter Review, VLV urges that there should be no more top slicing of the licence fee and VLV would like the commitments made in the 2010 settlement reversed.

90. There is no better articulation of how inadequate the past two licence fee negotiations have been than that expressed in the Culture, Media and Sport Committee report into the Future of the BBC published in February this year. To quote key points:

No future licence fee negotiations must be conducted in the way of the 2010 settlement: the process must be open and transparent, licence fee payers must be consulted and Parliament should have an opportunity to debate the level of funding being set and any significant changes to funding responsibilities. We recommend that the independent panel and Charter Review process consider the appropriate length of licence fee settlements and the period in which they should be reviewed and changes made.

Through the setting of the licence fee, the Government of the day can, if they wish, either squeeze or boost the BBC’s funding and, therefore, affect the scale of the BBC’s services and ambitions, even within a secure Charter period. Moreover, the Government is not required to pay to the BBC the whole of the licence fee revenue received. Lesser sums can be paid out as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.[19] 

91. VLV opposed the most recent licence fee settlement because it is nonsensical to negotiate the funding of the BBC prior to deciding what its role, scope and scale should be. In future licence fee settlement negotiations VLV would strongly urge the Government to ensure that the scale and scope of the BBC are decided through public consultation prior to any negotiations on its funding. In this way the public can decide what they want from the BBC, this can be costed and then a licence fee can be set to deliver what the public says it wants.

92. It is clear that the BBC Trust failed to protect the BBC in both the recent licence fee negotiations. In the Charter it is stated that the Trust has a responsibility to represent the interests of licence fee payers and ensure that the independence of the BBC is maintained.[20] VLV would suggest that it failed in both respects.

93. Therefore, VLV has taken the opportunity to have a Bill drafted which would resolve such problems in future. A full version of the Bill is attached to this submission as an Appendix.

94. VLV proposes that a Licence Fee Body should be created to set licence fees which are designated to fund the BBC. This body would comprise a Chairman and other members who have the requisite expertise and knowledge, are independent of government, of the BBC and other media organizations; the Chairman and members would be appointed by the Secretary of State who would have a duty in making these appointments to consult with the BBC, Treasury, licence fee payers (as represented by BBC Trust or its replacement body).

95. The Licence Fee Body would consult and recommend a level for the licence fee. The Secretary of State would have a duty to lay this recommendation before the Parliaments of the UK.

96. If the Government wanted to impose any extra burdens on the BBC during a Charter, the Licence Fee Body would estimate what additional funding is required to fulfil such projects.

What alternative mechanisms exist for setting the fee, and what are their advantages and disadvantages? In each case, how might independence from government be achieved and protected? Are there any useful international comparisons?

97. As suggested in question 10, VLV proposes that a Licence Fee Body should be created to set the level of the licence fee. 
98. The advantages to this alternative method of setting the fee are that there a range of bodies will be consulted during the process, the public would be involved and the decision would be taken independent of Government, thus removing the BBC from potential political interference.

Could a new independent system also incorporate thinking about collection and charging mechanisms in light of technology changes?

99. VLV members support public funding as the primary source of the BBC’s income. In research conducted by VLV among its members in response to Charter Review,[21] an overwhelming majority (61.2%) support the continuation of the current system of licence fee funding as can be seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2: BBC Funding

100. However we recognise that there are drawbacks to the current system – such as the fact that 5% of the population doesn’t pay a licence fee and many of those who are exempt because they are over 75 would be happy to do so. We would therefore welcome further study of the household fee as a model to fund the BBC.

101. VLV agrees with the Government and the BBC Trust that the BBC should not follow an advertising model because this would have a negative market impact on other advertising funded broadcasters and advertising impairs the experience of the viewer and listener. 

102. We also oppose subscription as a model for funding the BBC because once the BBC loses its universality its income will be dependent on the popularity of content and this will be a precursor to a decline in less profitable genres which are nevertheless important for delivering the BBC’s public purposes.  

103. VLV believes that any model of funding needs to be universal because this is the only way to keep down the cost of individual licences and ensure that the system is equitable.

104. VLV opposes funding through general taxation which would reduce the BBC’s independence from the government and believes that the BBC’s funding should not be associated with any government spending review or budget as it has been since 2010. In any discussion of the licence fee it is crucial to highlight that the licence fee is not part of general taxation. For the past 69 years it has been specifically raised to pay for BBC services.

105. However, when the Chancellor announced the most recent settlement, he said

The BBC…is a publicly-funded body, so it is right that it, like other parts of the public sector, should make savings.[22]

106. More recently, in front of the CMS Select Committee the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, John Whittingdale, reiterated that the BBC is a publicly funded body:

The argument that the BBC is a publicly funded organisation, at a time when every other publicly funded organisation is being asked to find savings in order to make their contribution to the overall objective, which is to eliminate the deficit, it was perfectly reasonable to expect that the BBC should do so again.[23]

107. It is clear from these statements that the Government views the licence fee as a form of general taxation and the BBC as a government department or agency. This is misguided and highly damaging to perceptions – and indeed the reality – of the BBC’s independence. 

108. The Secretary of State in the same evidence session in front of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee rather contradictorily, then went on to say how despite being a ‘publicly funded body’ it is crucial that the BBC remains independent of Government and that the recent top slicing was in fact not top slicing:

I think the chairman of the BBC Trust made a good case that if you are dependent upon direct Government funding then you are always going to be vulnerable, and you will recall our experience in the Netherlands where they moved to direct Government funding and promptly found their budget slashed six months later. The licence fee is an arms-length funding principle that, to some extent, protects them from that. The licence fee has not been touched. What was touched was the transfer, the amount of money that goes directly across from DWP, and it will be phased out but over quite a long period. I do not, in any way, pretend that that is not going to be difficult for the BBC. It represents quite a significant reduction, but it is less than the reduction that other publicly funded bodies may also be asked to find in the coming months.[24]

109. In the coming Charter period we would suggest that the current system should remain in place for collecting the licence fee but it should be modernised to include catch up TV.

Some argue that the BBC should shed some of its output; they say that the BBC hinders or crowds out commercial operators. Defenders of the current approach point to positive market impacts the presence of the BBC promotes. Where do you stand on this argument?

110. The BBC’s size has always featured in Charter Review discussions so it is quite right that we should examine whether the BBC’s current scale and scope are necessary for it to deliver its public purposes. VLV welcomes the opportunity to comment on this aspect of the BBC because we consider that it is vital that the public are given the opportunity to influence the discussion about how large the BBC should be and what range of content it should provide.

111. VLV questions whether the BBC would be able to fulfil its purposes and meet the needs and interest of licence fee payers if it reduces its range and diversity of content (its scope). If it reduces its scale (size) it risks losing its universal appeal and ability to produce high quality content. 

112. Explosion of Choice? A narrower set of BBC services? The DCMS Green Paper suggests that the explosion of choice in media platforms and channels means we no longer need such a large, all-purpose BBC and it might become more focused on a narrower, core set of services. Undoubtedly there are many more platforms and channels available to audiences now than there were 10 years ago, but many of these come at a significant cost for consumers and they do not guarantee a range or diversity of content.

113. Benefits of Scale: VLV considers that the BBC’s ‘critical mass’ has been an essential element in it sustaining not only the quality and variety of the BBC’s own programmes but in its role of discovering and developing talent in the UK broadcasting industry.

114. Additionally, in the atomized, multi-faceted age of social media, the BBC provides a recognised source of information to which people instinctively turn together in crisis or celebration, when great events happen and there are major occasions to be broadcast and recorded. The BBC remains, in the digital age, a glue electronically bonding the nation. In order to retain its universal appeal the BBC needs to be of a significant scale.

115. As a result of its scale it is also able to contribute a huge amount to the creative industries. The BBC invested around £2.2 billion directly in creative industries in 2013/14 and a further £1.5 billion was invested outside of the creative industries in the UK: much of this investment was in the digital and high-tech industries on activities which support content creation and content distribution.[25] We question whether if the BBC’s scale is reduced the commercial media sector would replace this investment in the creative industries. 

116. Crowding out? The positive contribution that the BBC makes to the rest of the industry and the cultural sector should outweigh any negative effects and we acknowledge this needs careful oversight and regulation.

117. However, while the BBC is a major public intervention in the market, VLV does not consider that the BBC is crowding out commercial competition.

118. Up until now we do not believe that there has been any convincing evidence that other UK broadcasters are failing financially as a result of the BBC’s over dominance. The UK's creative industries have grown and flourished around and alongside it. Ofcom reported this year that the British television industry generated £13.2bn revenues in 2014[26] and a wide range of other broadcasters and producers continue to have great commercial and creative success, and competition between different providers has helped sustain overall standards of quality.

119. With reference to existing services, there is evidence from Enders Analysis and Paddy Barwise,[27] Chairman of Which, that not only does the BBC’s role not impede the commercial market place and growth, it actually enhances it by building the overall size and skills in the market, giving it global scale and attracting inward investment. In any assessment of the BBC’s wider impact on the market we need to carefully balance the public benefits the BBC brings with the need for its commercial rivals to thrive and survive. VLV would say that currently the positive contribution that the BBC makes to the rest of the industry and the cultural sector outweighs any negative effect, but agrees that this needs careful oversight and regulation.

120. The Green Paper correctly highlights that BBC services have expanded in the past 10 years, however VLV notes that the income of the BBC represents a far smaller proportion of the market today than it did a decade ago. It accounts for over 40% of total investment in UK original content, yet only c.22% of total TV revenues.[28] The number of channels available in the UK has increased from 61 to 536 in the past ten years and the BBC accounts for a far smaller proportion of television now than it did 20 years ago. Globally it has less than half the revenue of Sky and a sixth of the revenue of Disney.[29]

121. Having said that, we acknowledge that the BBC should always ensure that it focuses on delivering its core purposes and does not stray from these. There has recently been a lively debate about whether the BBC should provide popular entertainment, competing with commercial channels in its offering and schedule. To reference just one example: the BBC’s popular music stations have been criticised for ‘crowding out’ commercial competition. It is clear that Radio 1 and Radio 2, while popular, are also distinctive in many ways and provide a service which is not disrupted by advertising which can be a deterrent to listeners. Radio 1 is promoted by the BBC as a champion for new and live music and a platform which engages a young demographic and Radio 2 provides speech content as well as a range of music which is wider than that played by other commercial music radio stations including 1,100 hours of specialist music programming every year.[30]  VLV would argue that in order to maintain its universality and popular appeal, the BBC has a responsibility to provide something for everyone and that this should include entertainment and popular programming but that it has to remain distinctive in all that it offers.

122. Necessary Cuts: There are obviously going to be constraints on the BBC during the coming Charter period due to the reduction by between 10% and 20% of its income as a result of the recent fee licence settlement. The BBC will need to achieve even greater efficiencies and find ways to exploit other sources of revenue better. Even then, the necessary savings will not be achieved through productive efficiencies alone and the VLV accepts there will be some impact on the BBC’s services. These cuts are inevitably going to have an impact on the BBC’s scale and scope and VLV urges the BBC to be very cautious and ensure it continues to deliver its public purposes across a range of genres with high quality content. It will need more than ever to focus on its remit and public interest.

123. Additionally, we believe that the BBC should not convert services which are being dropped into online or subscription services. The BBC’s current proposals to ‘ride two horses’ – one the traditional broadcasting model and the other the online model – seem sensible, but it must be remembered that while changes in technology and the market are having a profound effect on all broadcasters, Ofcom’s latest figures show that the change in viewing habits from the traditional model towards mobile viewing is incremental and this is happening more slowly than many would have originally expected.[31] Free-to-air terrestrial viewing is likely to remain the primary means by which UK citizens consume television for the foreseeable future and probably for the period of the next BBC charter, therefore VLV is concerned by proposals that current broadcast channels, such as BBC Three, are to move onto online platforms. VLV believes that the BBC should continue to provide a range of content to mass audiences on its mainstream broadcast platforms in the coming Charter period. In order to do so it needs to remain of a sufficient size to provide a range of content to mass audiences and sustain its universality.

124. VLV agrees that there should be a thorough assessment of the BBC’s online services which VLV believes should only exist if they are distinctive and successfully contribute to the delivery of the public purposes. The Green Paper suggests that there may not be a need for the BBC to have a significant presence online because a rapid growth in digital and online services… means that the market is well served. In a very crowded online space, discoverability is crucial and the BBC provides an important service because it is recognised as a reliable and trusted source of accurate and impartial information. Additionally the BBC has a responsibility to provide access to its content to licence fee payers, many of whom may prefer to consume it time shifted or online.

125. We agree that the BBC should work more effectively in commercial partnerships, whether that is in sharing content with local papers and local news websites or in developing technology which will benefit the UK population as a whole.

126. Therefore while we would not envisage an expansion in the BBC’s services from the current provision, the VLV would like the BBC to continue to deliver content which engages, informs and entertains at similar levels as today.

Is the BBC’s current scale and scope appropriate? Are there any areas of the BBC’s work that you would reduce in size or even jettison? Conversely, are there areas where you think the BBC does not do enough; and if so, are any of the public purposes thereby being neglected?

127. We have dealt above with our views on the overall scale and scope of the BBC. It is clear from the recent Ofcom PSB Review that certain genres are not being delivered by the PSBs as a whole, such as religious programing, music and arts programming and content for 10-14 year olds, and it is VLV’s view that the BBC should explore what it can do to fill the gaps[32] in this provision; however VLV believes that the BBC should decide what type of content (genres) it should broadcast guided by the public purposes, the purpose remits and its service licences. This should not be a decision influenced by Government or others. 

The terms “universality” and “market failure” are often used in relation to the BBC to describe the concepts of a BBC seeking to appeal to everyone and a BBC which fills gaps which other broadcasters will not cover. How would you define these two concepts? What are the pros and cons of each? Would you advocate one of these approaches and, if so, why?

128. It is VLV’s view that there is an implicit suggestion in the DCMS Green Paper that the BBC should do less, be less universally popular and accessible, so that others in the broadcasting and media industries can do more. We question whether this approach to the scale and scope of the BBC is wise because it inherently suggests the BBC’s activities should be reduced. 

129. VLV disagrees with the suggestion in the Green Paper that audiences might be better served by a more narrowly-focused BBC. We understand this to mean that the BBC should focus its efforts on providing content where there is market failure. The danger of pursuing a more ‘narrowly-focused BBC’ in this way is that the BBC will be restricted to only broadcast ‘worthy’, less popular content and its popularity will decline, making a universal fee unsustainable; and this in turn would undermine the model upon which the BBC is based. 

130. While we acknowledge that during the past decade all households have gained access to a wider range of sources of information and entertainment, many of these come at a significant cost for consumers and the current range of high quality public service content available in our mixed broadcast ecology is not guaranteed on commercial platforms.

131. VLV strongly refutes the suggestion in the DCMS Green Paper that the explosion in the number of media channels guarantees greater choice.  ‘Market failure’ refers to the fact that, whatever the number of providers in the market at any given time, the market may still fail the citizen if there isn’t a wide range of high quality, diverse and informative programming, especially in genres which may not be considered commercially attractive. VLV would suggest that fragmentation of the market has led to a narrower range of content in certain genres as platforms and channels compete for audiences (for example religious content, UK culturally specific children’s content and current affairs). Commercial channels necessarily focus on the popular to ensure returns and in this context the volume of less popular content diminishes. This in turn leads to less diversity, less range of content and therefore less choice. Additionally content on other platforms and channels is not regulated for accuracy and impartiality as BBC content is.

132. The existing Agreement requires the BBC to do ‘all that is reasonably practicable to ensure that viewers, listeners and other users (as the case may be) are able to access the UK Public Services that are intended for them, or elements of their content, in a range of convenient and cost effective ways which are available or might become available in the future’.[33]

133. In this way the BBC belongs to the public, who pay for it directly through the licence fee; it is neither owned by the Government, nor by its management. Because almost every home in the United Kingdom pays for the BBC it has always been considered a universal service. It is only by pooling everyone’s resources through the licence fee in this way that the BBC is able to provide a low unit cost per person which provides a real benefit to UK society while fulfilling audience expectations.

134. There are three principles which underlie the democratic basis of the BBC. That it is popular, independent and adequately funded. 

135. Popularity means it has to provide a good value service with something for everyone on as wide a range of platforms as possible. It is independent from political or commercial interests which means public interest remains its driving force and it makes its own editorial and creative decisions. And it needs to be adequately funded in order to be popular and independent.

136. It is the view of the VLV members that the BBC should continue to provide a universal service: one which appeals to a wide audience and a range of tastes with content which is free at the point of access.

137. The Green Paper identifies three ‘types’ of universality. VLV disputes whether these are ‘types’ of universality at all. They are facets of a service which aims to be universal but are not types of universality per se. We agree that all should continue to be aspects of a universal BBC service but they do not of themselves form a universal service.

138. In this situation it is VLV’s view that the provision of high quality services for all homes should remain a high public policy priority for reasons of social equity, cultural cohesion and educational development.

Annexe 1: Proposed BBC Funding Bill

BBC Funding Bill

A

B I L L

TO

Provide for BBC licence fees to be determined by an independent process; and to prevent the imposition on the BBC of non-budgeted costs.

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: –

BBC Funding

1              Independent body to set licence fees

After section 365 of the Communications Act 2003 (TV licence fees) insert—

“365A                            Licence Fee Body: establishment

(1)   There shall be a body corporate to be known as the Licence Fee Body, to carry out the functions conferred by section 365B.

(2)   The chair and other members of the Licence Fee Body shall be appointed by the Secretary of State; and in appointing the chair or another member of the Licence Fee Body the Secretary of State must aim—

(a)   to appoint only persons who appear to be independent (of central government, devolved government and local government, of the BBC and of other media organisations); and

(b)   to secure an appropriate balance of experience and knowledge.

(3)   Before appointing the chair or another member the Secretary of State must consult—

(a)      the BBC;

(b)                   the Treasury;

(c)                  persons appearing to represent the interests of users of services provided by the BBC; and

(d)   any other person the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.

(4)   The Secretary of State must make regulations about the constitution and proceedings of the Licence Fee Body; and the regulations may, in particular—

(a)   determine the number of members;

(b)   make provision about procedure (including a quorum);

(c)    make provision about the process to be followed in consulting on determinations under section 365B;

(d)   provide for the payment of remuneration, allowances or other sums out of money provided by Parliament;

(e)   confer a discretionary power on a specified person (including the Secretary of State);

(f)     amend an enactment.

(5)   Before making regulations under subsection (4) the Secretary of State must consult the persons listed in subsection (3).

365B                            Licence Fee Body: functions

(1)   The Licence Fee Body may publish determinations about—

(a)   the amount of sums to be specified in regulations under section 365, and

(b)   any other matter that may be included in regulations under section 365.

(2)   Where the Licence Fee Body publishes a determination, the Secretary of State must as soon as reasonably practicable—

(a)   lay the determination before Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly, and

(b)   make regulations under section 365 to give effect to the determination.

(3)   Before publishing a determination the Licence Fee Body must consult—

(a)   the Treasury,

(b)   the BBC,

(c)    persons appearing to the Licence Fee Body to represent the interests of users of services provided by the BBC, and

(d)   any other person the Licence Fee Body thinks appropriate.

(4)   A determination of the Licence Fee Body must be accompanied by an explanation of the assumptions by reference to which it is made (which may refer to the BBC Charter and Agreement, or any other document).

(5)   If in the opinion of the Licence Fee Body a new or revised requirement or expense is imposed on the BBC (whether or not by an enactment) which falsifies the assumptions on which a determination was based, the Licence Fee Body must—

(a)   review the determination, and

(b)   issue a revised determination, unless the review concludes that no revision is required.

(6)   Regulations made in accordance with this section do not require the consent of the Treasury (despite section 365(6)).”

Technical provision

2              Commencement, extent and citation

(1)   This Act comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the date of Royal Assent.

(2)   This Act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom.

(3)   This Act may be cited as the BBC Funding Act 2015.

Report on VLV Members’ Survey

August 2015

BBC Charter Review

Responses to Mailed Questionnaire on the BBC’s Future, August 2015

The purpose of this research project was to find out what VLV members think on three important topics at a time when the BBC Charter is due for renewal and when these key questions about the BBC are being considered:

• Funding the BBC
• The BBC’s Purpose
• The Governance of the BBC

One point needs to be made. Many VLV members felt they needed to say more than the questionnaire made provision for. Moreover, some felt the offered answers did not always cover what they wanted to say, a not uncommon challenge of this type of research. In a few cases some respondents felt unable to choose any of the offered options and left some parts of their questionnaire blank accordingly. Some felt unable to give an answer for some questions. All returned completed questionnaires have been included however.

Question 1: Funding - How should the BBC be funded in the future?   Choose one answer

There is a big majority for the continuation of the current system of licence fee funding. Some saw the need for some subscriptions to be added.

Question 2 (a): The BBC’s Purpose

The purpose of this question was to find what respondents thought about ten types of programme offering or content. First, they were asked how important they though each of these were. 

News, free from any kind of political or commercial bias or influence is the one kind of output nearly everyone agrees is very important.

Respondents also view popular entertainment as important.

Bringing “our country” together is also important for the majority. And nearly half of those who responded think it to be “very” important.

And there is a similar level of support for the arts.

How important is it that the BBC is a provider of news to the world? This is “very important” in the opinion of most.  Note that this gets more respondents saying it is “very important” than for the previous two questions

. 

This option is perhaps not very different from others on news and bringing the country together and it receives a very positive response.

There is somewhat less emphasis on or support for sport. Even so, more than half (55%) the respondents think that “bringing us a wide range of sport” is important.

Providing services and content for children and young people has strong support with most viewing it as “very important”.

The pattern here is similar to that for sport. Respondents think it important, but not as much as independent news and programmes for children.

The support for nature, science and the environment is strong – and very similar to that for children’s programmes, bringing the country together and global news.

Question 2 (b): The BBC’s Purpose

Now respondents were compelled to make more difficult choices. It is all very well to say that this or that genre or service type is “important” or “very important” but if you have to rank them in order of importance how would you do that? What would be your #1, your # 2 and so on?

Many respondents struggled, a bit like choosing your one disc to save from the waves on your Desert Island, only even more difficult.

News, perhaps not surprisingly, was the number one choice for most.

The provision of popular entertainment is spread across the board when it comes to respondents’ priorities. The only other notable point is that very few made it their first choice.

Again there is little agreement here. Indeed the same can be said for all nine other things that the BBC does, other than news free from bias.

The Arts, Global News and telling us about our country and the world are the second choices of many.

Sport is a low priority for most respondents. A clear majority make it their 8th, 9th or 10th priority.

Children’s programmes slant towards the upper half of respondents’ priorities.

This option comes low on the priority list.

But here the pattern seems to be reversed. Science, nature and the environment are well up in the upper half of respondents’’ priorities.

Aggregated scores for priority

There is another, perhaps more fruitful way of analysing these data on respondents’ priorities. And that is to add up all the scores. The possible scores are as follows. The highest theoretical score would be 206 points – if everyone had chosen the same topic as their number 1 priority. And the lowest score would be 2060 if everyone had given the same topic the bottom (10th) score. This is the way the ten topics or priorities are ordered by respondents if we use this approach:

Note: This chart needs to be read differently from all the others. The highest priority scores are those to the left!

Question 3: BBC Governance

Question 4: Membership of VLV

Nearly all respondents (98%) are members of VLV.

Methodology

A short questionnaire was devised. Paper copies were sent out to all 582 VLV members on August 7th 2015.  By 15th September 206 questionnaires had been returned, a response rate of 35%.

The questionnaires were coded and data were entered into SPSS analysis software. The following report presents the main results.

September 2015

43