Redeeming Prasar Bharati

A file picture of the BBC office in London. The BBCs licence fee system has helped it achieve high-quality programming, and competitors are forced to match it.-CARL DE SOUZA/AFP

It is possible for a public service broadcaster not only to dominate a market but also to control it in terms of quality and content.

WITH the exception of the United States, television in every country started with either complete or partial funding by the state or from public funds. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) is fully funded by the Canadian government, as is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). NHK in Japan is funded by the licence fee on television and radio sets, as is the BBC in the United Kingdom. This is more or less the pattern that has led to the development of television in the world.

As the years passed, private television channels came up and in some cases state-funded television networks were partially privatised, as in France, where TF1 operates with public funds and all the other channels that were state funded such as TF2 and TF3 have been privatised. The U.K. has BSkyB, ITV and other private television networks; the story is the same in Japan, Singapore and other countries.

But the beginnings of television broadcasting were almost invariably with state-owned or state-funded channels, which are still operational in virtually all countries. It would perhaps be natural to assume that these have more or less receded into the background and that private channels dominate the spectrum in terms of viewership and quality of programmes.

Some publicly funded networks like the BBC have obviously not done that, but most of the others would have become, as one said, staid and little watched that is the assumption that would generally be made.

Television has clearly branched off into two distinct types: public service broadcasters (PSBs) that are state-funded or publicly funded and whose mandate is primarily to inform, enlighten and entertain; and private commercial broadcasters that entertain and inform but do so primarily to make money. To them television is a business; to PSBs it is precisely what its definition says it is. And the general assumption is that commercial broadcasters are now the dominant type.

Sometime in 1999-2000 the management consultancy firm McKinsey did a detailed study of PSBs around the world. McKinsey looked at 20 PSBs, including SVT in Sweden, NHK in Japan, the BBC in the U.K., TF1 in France, ZDF in Germany, CBC in Canada and ABC in Australia.

Its study (published in The McKinsey Quarterly, 1999, Number 4) came up with some significant facts. The first was that the general notion that private commercial broadcasters were dominant in some countries where PSBs existed was totally wrong. The study found that some PSBs have maintained their influence on the overall development of television by inducing their commercial competitors to offer equally distinctive programmes. In effect, PSBs can and do act as regulators of the television industry as a whole.

The study did find that all PSBs lost market share since commercial television started up, but several have stemmed these losses and remain market leaders, without abandoning high-quality distinctive programmes. Examples include ARD and ZDF in Germany, SVT in Sweden and the BBC. The study pointed out that all governments have two ways of influencing television content: one, by direct regulation, which either prevent some kind of programming from being broadcast or require that some material be shown compulsorily.

For example, profanity, nudity and material offensive to a community could be prohibited, while some programmes of educational value to society have to be compulsorily shown in some countries. This is true of the U.S. as well as other countries.

The second, more-indirect method is by using PSBs that have a strong hold of the market. The McKinsey study cited the example of SVT, which initially lost market share to private commercial channels that were allowed to come up since 1991.

But since SVT got its funds from the licence fee, it was unaffected and continued showing what McKinsey called distinctive programming that was factual and cultural as well as programmes for children. They were also able to maintain their high quality and it became clear that the viewers responded to this as SVTs market share never fell below 40 per cent. When the study was made, SVTs market share had gone up to 50 per cent, as private Swedish television channels had to maintain the quality levels set by SVT and generally follow what was clearly a successful programme mix.

It may be argued that this is a fairly old study, made some nine years ago; but trends indicate that the findings hold good even now. The quality levels set by the BBC in its natural history programmes and classic serials such as Eastenders, which involve considerable sums of money, have to be matched by private broadcasters purely in order to stay in the competition for viewership. Another major finding of the study was that a key determinant of the success of a PSB is how and how well it is financed.

They have demonstrated that the per capita income of a television channel determines the popularity and quality of its programmes the higher the per capita income, the better the programmes and the better chances of it being more popular than others.

A third major finding was that the source of funding was a very crucial factor. McKinseys analysis showed that reliance on advertising income leads to relatively indistinctive programming (page 24, ibid) and government funding tended to be erratic as well. Money from licence fee tends, by contrast, to be stable. What this study did bring out strongly was that it is possible for a PSB not only to dominate a market but actually control it in terms of quality and content.

This brings us to the dilemma that all governments have faced with Prasar Bharati and, before it came into being, with Doordarshan. Why was it not studied by McKinsey? The answer is fairly obvious. It is not a PSB.

A public service broadcaster has, first and foremost, to be totally independent of the government. It must have the power to look at government actions critically and develop its own distinct policy, which cannot be dictated by the government, so long as it conforms to the overall regulations to which all broadcasters have to adhere. Prasar Bharati is, as is generally known, a handmaiden of the government in power. It is the United Progressive Alliances handmaiden today as it was of the National Democratic Alliance prior to 2004. This makes it a purveyor of propaganda, and not a PSB. That, at least, is the image.

Ironically, this is reinforced by the employees of Prasar Bharati demanding that they be retained as government servants. They demand this not because they are enamoured of any particular government; what they want is the security and the terms that they have been getting as government servants pensions, government accommodation, perquisites such as leave travel concessions.

All this means that at some time or the other it will be essential for the government to determine if it really wants a truly independent PSB and if it does, then it must cut it loose totally, by giving it the means to operate with adequate funds that come to it through a licence fee or some other means established by law, not dependent on the whims and fancies of a government. It also means giving it the freedom to give its employees the level of salaries, perquisites and security of service that they have been getting so far.

There is much in Prasar Bharati that is valuable; it has some of the most advanced equipment in the country, an enormous reach through its terrestrial transmitters and some of the most skilled people in the business. But they need motivation and, it is evident to anyone who has seen that organisation working that, that is one major attribute they have lost. It requires just one decision to bring it back.