Broadcasting in the Public Service

An Introduction to Marie Luise Kiefer and her Ideas about the Public Sector Media By Sebastian A. Baciu (22.09.2011) Since the widespread introduction of broadcast media in Europe, the market has traditionally been dominated by organizations designed to operate in the public interest. For most of that time, these public broadcasters enjoyed a dominant position in their respective markets and were given little reason to question either their purpose or legitimacy. However, the recent shift toward a dual-market system1 has caused a surge in the number of private broadcasters throughout the continent. This dramatic increase in competition has heightened the pressure on the public sector to adapt and reform. Meanwhile, the debate continues about what role public broadcasters ought to occupy in this new and vastly altered media landscape. Marie Luise Kiefer is a well-known German intellectual and media economist at the forefront of the debate about public sector media and program quality in Europe. Although her work has not received much attention in the English speaking world, her arguments are in fact broadly relevant and have often served as a signpost for the European media in more turbulent times. In one of her more recent essays2, Ms Kiefer discusses how public broadcasters must adapt to the new multimedia world. She argues that, due to the deluge of private programming caused by the onset of digitization, public broadcast services must dramatically reorient themselves in order to maintain their future relevance. To survive, she proposes that public broadcasters must do two things: a) reinterpret their public service mandate and b) refine and elaborate on their understanding of public value as well. Reinterpreting the Public Service Mandate Most public sector media organizations in Europe are governed by law through what is known as a public service mandate. This is type of contract which legally binds broadcasters to serving in the public interest, thereby also legitimizing their use of public funds. As the premier public broadcasting institution, the BBC largely pioneered the concept of the public service mandate through its own Royal Charter. At the heart of this document were three words that would later become the governing maxim of numerous public broadcasters throughout Europe: to inform, educate and entertain. In Germany and Austria for example, public service media are still required by law to uphold the values of Information, Bildung und Unterhaltung in their programming decisions. Many public broadcasters are also legally required to ensure that their programmes meet a certain standard of quality, even though this directive is rarely elaborated upon. And while these values remain as important as they are indisputable, their meaning in the context of the modern media landscape must be revisited. Another feature critical to the concept of the public service mandate is the idea of universal service. On the one hand, this can be interpreted as a technical requirement which dictates that public broadcasts must be accessible to everyone. This condition has proven to be a costly one in Austria, where it has forced the countrys only public broadcaster to install expensive transmitters in sparsely populated mountain areas. But more importantly, universal service must also be understood as the public sectors obligation to cater to public taste in its entirety. And because private broadcasters have demonstrated a remarkable tendency to produce programmes which target only a very specific (and very similar)
In this case, a dual-market system refers to the side-by-side operation of both public and private sector media within the same marketplace. KIEFER, Marie Luise: Univerzichtbar oder berflssig? ffentlich-rechtlicher Rundfunk in der Multimediawelt (Pp. 153 172) in LANGENBUCHER, Wolfgang R. (Hg.): Elektronische Medien, Gesellschaft und Demokratie. Wilhelm Braumller, Wien. 2000
1 2

audience, the requirement for universal service has become more important than ever. This is because cherry-picking on behalf of the private sector inevitably causes less lucrative portions of the market to remain chronically undersupplied. And as the number of private broadcasters continues to increase, so too will the programme deficit. In her essay, Ms Kiefer ascribes public broadcasters a complementary purpose in this regard. That is, they must strive to supply those portions of the market which the private sector tends to disregard. Because for-profit media companies overwhelmingly prefer the 12 49 demographic due to its economic significance, it often falls to the public services to provide programmes for young children and the elderly, as well as for minorities and other fringe groups. However, Ms Kiefer also cautions that this idea of complementarity should not be understood too narrowly. She insists that, while public broadcasters must indeed focus on remedying the deficits created by the private sector, it is also vital that they remain attentive to changes and new developments in the market. One such future development is the continued emergence of new players in the private sector. As a result of digitization, many technical bottlenecks which formerly acted as barriers to entry are no longer relevant. From an economists point of view however, increased competition in the market for media products might not necessarily have the benefits one would ordinarily expect. Because television and radio shows are experience goods, it is very difficult and often even impossible for consumers to accurately judge their quality. For example, viewers of news and information programs often have no means of independently verifying the validity of what they are seeing. Instead, they are forced to rely on implicit quality indicators such as the reputation of the broadcaster or their own past experiences. As a consequence, they are not able convert their expectations into market demand for appropriate products. And in turn, the supply side (broadcasters) will have no incentive to provide quality programs if consumers are neither able to recognize nor willing to pay for them. As a result, market competition shifts from quality to price a situation known as a downward quality-spiral. (Kiefer [Langenbucher (Hg.)] 2000, P. 165) Keeping these economic considerations in mind, Ms Kiefer suggests that public broadcasters must also serve as a corrective presence in the media marketplace. (Kiefer [Langenbucher (Hg.)] 2000, P. 165) This means that they must actively compete for the same demographic groups favoured by the private sector. And in fact, this is something for which they happen to be uniquely qualified. Not only do public broadcasters not have to worry about their bottom line, but they are also legally mandated to provide high quality programmes across the board. These are both advantageous characteristics in a marketplace swamped with cheap and largely similar shows and should encourage public broadcasters to create their own distinct program schedules. Ideally, this also gives disaffected viewers an outlet by which punish any perceived slip in the quality of private sector programming because they can simply turn instead to their public counterparts. (Kiefer [Langenbucher (Hg.)] 2000, P. 165) By directly competing with private media companies for their preferred audience, public broadcasters are able to grant consumers the opportunity of true choice. By acting both in a complementary and corrective capacity while simultaneously adhering to the maxim of quality programming, public broadcasters can establish a minimum standard in the marketplace. And although the definition of quality in television programmes remains nebulous, it lies at the heart of the public service mandate. Yet recently, the modern debate about media and public broadcasting has given rise to a new term which threatens to supplant the notion of quality in its traditional sense. It seems that public value has now taken centre stage, even though few seem know how the story might end. Public Value (is what the Public Values?)

The concept of public value was initially developed in a 1995 publication by Professor Mark Moore as a synonym for shareholder value in the public realm. It has since found common currency among academics and think tanks as a means of describing the raison dtre of public institutions. A 2004 report published by the BBC entitled Building Public Value stated that [the BBC] exists solely to create public value. The term is also regularly employed by the Austrian ORF, which even releases a Public Value Report each year detailing how its programmes have contributed to creating public value. Because it is so expansive, the concept also fits well into the existing legal framework which governs many public broadcasters. Yet it is precisely this interpretative leeway which softens its power as a guiding principle. There is no commonly accepted definition of what public value means with relation to public broadcasting. Sometimes, attempts to define the idea serve only to enhance the confusion: What is Public Value? Public Value is what the public values3 This definition is not entirely devoid of meaning however. It proposes that public value is created by the audience and is not an inherent attribute of programmes themselves. Instead, public value may be judged by the degree of harmony a programme has with the audiences own personal values. This definition is flawed however, especially if it is to become a wide-ranging standard for broadcasters. First of all, personal tastes and values are so broad and allencompassing that almost any programme will be able to create a certain degree of public value in this sense. Furthermore, this definition also offers no measure by which to compare the public value of different programmes and no clear objectives for producers and broadcasters to aim for. To better grasp the idea behind public value, it is helpful to draw a parallel to a similar concept in economics. In the context of discussing program quality, Ms Kiefer draws attention to the fact that, in general, many economists consider media to be a merit good. Further, she points out that the market for meritorious goods is left chronically undersupplied by the private sector. The principle reason behind this deficit is that such programs serve societal rather than individual interests, and therefore do not offer the same incentives in terms of market value. As a result, Ms Kiefer proposes public broadcasters have complementary and corrective roles to play in this regard as well. Again, the complementary function involves simply supplying the appropriate programmes to compensate for the shortfall left by the private sector. In doing so, public broadcasters also act correctively by exerting competitive pressure on the private sector to provide at least some small measure of their own meritorious programming. (Kiefer [Langenbucher (Hg.)] 2000, P. 167) In light of these considerations, it would appear that true public value cannot be created simply by pandering to an audiences tastes. In keeping with the meritocratic ideal, public value is not what the public values but instead, it is what the public should value. While such a definition might appear stifling and paternalistic to some, it is in fact largely in line with many of the traditional principles still espoused by public broadcasting. Both the universal service requirement and the obligation to supply high quality programmes can be interpreted in favour of this definition. Furthermore, public broadcasters are better equipped than any other institution to provide for this kind of public value. Casual mass-appeal programmes are supplied in surplus by the private sector, and while public broadcasters must still act correctively in this regard, they must also find their own niche.

OAKLEY, Kate & LEE, Richard: Giving them what they want: the construction of the public in public value. [http://robertoigarza.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/art-public-value-giving-them-what-they-want-oakley-et-alt-2006.pdf] (11.11.2011)
3