This document summarizes a presentation on public service media (PSM) during the digital transition. It outlines several hypotheses about PSM funding and governance, including commercialization leading to justification problems, declining audiences for PSM genres, and threats to independence from political interference in negotiations. The document analyzes data from EBU countries showing slight increases in public funding from 2005-2010 and varying audience losses for PSB TV. It also discusses funding models from case studies and implications for radio from lessons of television, concluding that the digital transition presents challenges but no single roadmap, and more research is still needed.

1. Damian Tambini
London School of Economics
Department of Media and Communications
LSE Media Policy Project
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/

2. Introduction to Project
• Mapping Digital Media: Open Society Foundations 2010-2013
• Three year study of digital media transitions in 50 countries
(beyond EBU area).
• Country case studies (rather than comparisons or
transnational research) can shed light on trends, best practice,
some comparative claims
• But relying on country data limits comparability
• Covering a range of issues related to ‘digital media and the
open society’
• A ‘policy engaged’ study for policy advocates and NGOs.
• Some preliminary thoughts on “state administered and Public
Service” broadcasters. (published later this year).

4. Overview of this talk
• Some long term hypotheses on PSM funding and governance
during the digital transition
• Comments on the hypotheses in the light of:
1: EBU data presented today
2: some of our project findings
• Some comments on Radio in the light of TV experiences

5. Long Term Hypotheses on PSM
• Commercialization/ Dumbing down/ dilution of remit in
context of increased competition. Leads to problems of
justification of remit/funding and state aid and eventual
collapse of PSB.
• Inevitable decline of audience for PSB genres/ channels? End
of Hammocking (Tambini 2004).
• End of control of market entry and value of ‘spectrum for
service’ undermines advertising value (Collins, Ofcom 2004) .

6. Hypotheses…
• Digitization will lead to successful renewal from PSB to PSM/
public service ‘Communications’ Tambini, Iosephides (2010,
2012), Renegotiation of Remit, (Jakubowicz 2010), new PSB
role in social media and community / UGC spaces
• PSM is the more viable model given volatility and weakness of
advertising model (since 2008).
• Transformation into a more personalised service such as
channels for Niche ‘tribes’, and personalised consumer driven
experience. (Thompson 1999). End of PSB as ‘nation builder’?

7. Hypotheses on ‘PSB’
independence…
• Where “PSBs” are captured by the ruling party, digitization can
lead to opportunities of independence or pressures for
independence as audiences migrate to more independent
new entrants
• Where PSBs are independent, digitization leads to threats to
independence due to politicisation of discussions of remit and
funding and new services review decisions, as well as
‘switchover champion’ role for PSB.

8. EBU data:
• Slight rebalancing from advertising to licence fee: confirms
vulnerability of spectrum awards as granting of indirect
subsidy for PSM
• Increased volatility of PSB funding due to cyclical crisis and
structural shift in funding basis.
Balancing of public vs private in the European Mixed
Broadcasting ecology: short term health of public funding and
licence fee models, but longer term weakness?.

9. Implications
• Reliance on license fee, taxation and new funding sources: Is
this problematic for PSM independence?
• Renegotiation of funding due to digital transition: is this in
itself a threat to PSM independence?
• Longer term weakness of PSM in relation to wider media
ecology may lead to weakness of PSM in competitive markets
for content and talent.
• … importance of understanding balance of public and private

10. Germany. Evolution of the public/private ratio of funding, 2005-2010
Private,
75%
Public,
25%
2005
Private,
75%
Public,
25%
2010

11. Georgia. Evolution of the public/private ratio of funding, 2005-2010
Private,
85%
Public,
15%
2005
Private,
68%
Public,
32%
2010

12. Italy.Evolutionofthepublic/privateratiooffunding,2005-2010
Private,
86%
Public,
14%
2005
Private,
89%
Public,
11%
2010

13. Japan. Evolution of the public/privateratio of funding, 2005-2010
Private,
81%
Public,
19%
2005
Private,
81%
Public,
19%
2010

14. Turkey. Evolutionof thepublic/privateratioof funding,2005-2009
Private,
94%
Public,
6%
2005
Private,
93%
Public,
7%
2008

15. PSM and the digital transition
• Predicted audience losses for PSB TV continue: this seems to be
unavoidable and relatively uniform, but these are not precipitous,
and are somewhat curtailed by the launch of new channels (many of
which have lower PSB obligations) and much less pronounced in
radio (thus far, notwithstanding plans for radio switchover).
• Most PSBs seem to have had a slight increase in funding between
2005 and 2010.
• Public value framework. Several of the correspondents expressed
concern that Public Value Tests may undermine the PSM in the long
term (E.g. Sweden). Concern about effectiveness (Germany),
objectivity, and cost of implementation (UK).

16. From the case studies:
Some funding models
• Direct state funding (Hungary: after licence fee abolished in
2002).
• Political groups/ foreign donors (e.g. Lebanon)
• Other donations (US, Moldova, .. )
• Crowd funding (Netherlands, US.. )
• Ecommerce converged models (Nigeria)
• PPPs (Nigeria, South Africa).
• New taxes (e.g the ‘sin tax’ on tobacco and alcohol, Thailland:
Ceiling of 2BN THB/ annum)
• Direct taxation funding (Netherlands)
• Also: at what point is it relevant to value all ‘regulatory
assets’? (including spectrum, EPG, …).

17. PSM and Digital Switchover
• PSM taking a leading role and receiving funding to do so (leading to
threat to independence? –e.g. Serbia)
• Direct results of loss of audience due to switchover is almost
universal and seems independent of other factors such as quality
and independence. (conflict of interest?)
• PSM gaining new niche channels on DTTV with lower PSB obligations
in most (Sweden, UK, Germany) but not all (Albania, Serbia..) cases.
(Tribes vs nation-building role).
• Complex implications for advertising vs other licence fee revenues.
Privatization? (Serbia).

18. Preliminary Conclusions?
• Where PSBs are not impartial, digitization and choice is likely
to lead to increased pressure on the PSB to become more
impartial. (For example in Albania, Italy, Romania, Malaysia,
Georgia, Kenya, Serbia and to a certain extent Japan,
broadcasters attempting to present themselves as
independent PSBs, and state broadcasters to a lesser or
greater extent transitioning to PSB, face stronger pressures to
become more impartial in a more competitive environment).
• In Thailand, Germany, the UK, and Canada for example, where
the perception of PSB independence and impartiality is
greater, there is less pressure for change. However PSBs may
be vulnerable to political pressure because of funding
discussions, especially if they do not have ‘patrons’ in power.

19. Implications for Radio
• Learn from the TV experience
• Digital Switchover of Radio: biggest challenge for PSB radio in
terms of audience
• A particular challenge for hybrid funding models (with
advertising)?
• Look carefully at PSB role in managing the transition and at
potential for loss of independence

20. Conclusions
• We can discount the extreme hypotheses (inevitable
marketization or inevitable evolution to PSM).
• There is no roadmap for the digital transition, but some useful
tactics and potential traps. All the hypotheses had something
in them, but it is too soon to conclude and .. We need more
research.