I couldn't have put it better myself!

BBC has a right to be in the local arena
The Guardian, Thursday November 27th, 2008
© Copyright 2008. The Guardian. All rights reserved.

I t looks as though the BBC will be banned from introducing local online video services. An independent report commissioned by Ofcom, its regulator, says the service would have "a significant negative impact" on commercial providers. Well, that's that then. The BBC should not be allowed to do something that might have a "significant negative impact" on its rivals, should it? But what is the scale of this negative impact - 30% or 40% or more? No, the negative impact is reckoned to be 4%. Actually, it is "up to" 4% - so it could be as little as 3% or even 1%. Is the future of the BBC's local services to be decided by an amount so small it almost falls into the margin of statistical error?

It is a principle that, if applied to the rest of the BBC, would mean it would never exist at all. Imagine if the BBC were just a website and suddenly announced plans to move into television. An independent assessment would probably find it could harm up to 25% of the commercial activities of incumbents. The same would be true if the BBC had been assessed before introducing its very successful web activities. They would simply not have happened and the synergetic competition between the BBC's website and others - including the Guardian's - would not have happened.

For decades the economic model of a commercial sector selling advertisements and a publicly funded one that can't has worked very well and improved performance on all sides. There are times, such as now, when an economic downturn hits advertisements and gives the BBC a relative boost - and other times when the commercial sector is awash with advertising and cash. That is what should apply to local services. Video, through sites such YouTube, is becoming a critical conduit thorough which younger people learn about what is going on. For the BBC to be deprived of this at a local level is condemning it to compete with its hands tied behind its back and preventing it from doing what it ought to be doing to justify a national licence fee: providing a nationwide service.

The argument that local BBC video will depress commercial activity could be turned on its head: the presence of the BBC in many areas covered by local newspaper monopolies may be just what they need to galvanise them out of complacency. I come into contact with local papers in London and Herefordshire. In London my local paper covering Paddington, Marylebone and Pimlico last had a video on its website more than three weeks ago. In the country example, there are two papers in neighbouring country towns owned by the same company. I can't find any videos at all. If I owned them, I would like to keep the BBC out too.

We have been here before. Not long ago there were regional TV monopolies. One by one they were merged on the argument that only by doing this could they become a global force. Whatever happened to those ambitions? The only global media force - apart from the Murdoch empire, the Guardian and one or two smaller exceptions - is the BBC. The BBC is the most trusted media brand in the world. But instead of the government coming to the BBC and asking what it can do to help preserve this rare advantage, it chips away at its activities.

This reached its barmiest when the usually highly respected Ofcom actually suggested that one way of dealing with criticism of the BBC's success in selling its programmes abroad (coming almost entirely from competitors) would be to hand much of the business over to a rival, Channel 4.

At a time when the government is pouring billions of pounds into failed banks, it might be a good time to pay respect to a successful organisation. We don't have that many of them. This doesn't mean giving the BBC more money. It just means standing beside it rather than constantly wielding an axe.

vic.keegan@guardian.co.uk

BT Vision

This article (BT’s blurred vision) in Marketing Week makes some good points. One of its points is that BT Vision needs to get its hands on Sky’s sports package. The article has a disapproving tone of BT asking the regulator (Ofcom) to force Sky to make its premium content available at wholesale rates in the same way that BT is forced to make its network available to Sky (for broadband and telephony) at wholesale rates.

Debate that all you want but the real problem is what differentiates BT Vision from alternatives. Currently it’s the PAY-AS-YOU-GO option. But if 80% are taking out subscriptions then that is clearly not the driver.

To me the problem is that ALL the content on BT Vision can be seen elsewhere first, from the films in the library to the catch-up TV offering and even the Santanta sports highlights package.

BT Vision has not established an identity beyond a limited library of video that you can see or buy through a number of different outlets. It relies on the established broadcast market to make or purchase content for the UK and then uses the marketing done by these established broadcasters to promote the BT Vision service.

BT Vision needs to carve out some clear brand identity. While I doubt that it is ready to take the risk of commissioning original content there is no reason why it could not purchase content (from the US) which is not picked up by the old school broadcasters – then promoting them as exclusively available on BT Vision. Select a genre or two such as science fiction and crime drama to establish BT Vision as the place to see cutting edge versions of this genre.

BT Vision needs to establish it self with a clear identity about the content rather than the technology and how you pay.