BBC: time to be put out to pasture?

I poke my head out from the burial ground that is Molière and Maupassant to defend “too high” wages once again. However this time, it’s the BBC stars who are under attack for being paid “above the market rate”, so I shall be less kiddie-gloved with these public sector servants.

To me, the very accusation of being paid “above the market rate” seems absurd. The self-review conducted by the BBC Trust, concluded that the BBC was not guilty (surprise surprise!) of overpaying its stars such as Jonathan Ross and Chris Moyles. Surely the best way of reviewing whether stars are being paid the market rate is by putting them into the market and allowing the market forces to determine whether they “deserve” their wages? I make no judgements about whether they really are overpaid or underpaid, I only rally the call for the people to decide.

This relates back to the debate last year about privatising the BBC. As it currently stands, the BBC is principally funded (75%) by licence fees costing £139.50 per household. In return, it attempts to provide a service that is “free from both political and commercial influence and answers only to its viewers and listeners.” Now sidestepping the contentious issue of whether it has succeeded in achieving what its charter has set out to do, we will examine whether there really is a need for a public broadcasting corporation in the UK.

First of all, the fact that the licence fee exhibits all the characteristics of a tax (despite the government’s adamant claims that it isn’t one) means that it is coercive and there is no way to exclude yourself from it (short of not owning a television), even if you don’t want to watch BBC programmes. The compulsory nature of the licence fee means that there is little accountability to the BBC, the most we can do is to complain. And that was exactly what some of us did last year, when the BBC’s “value-for-money” was being questioned as the audience grew increasingly disgruntled about the lack of quality programs. Compare this to a privatised TV company who is forced to innovate by the threat of competition. If they don’t supply what their customers demand, our displeasure will immediately be reflected in the next morning’s viewing figures which are vital for negotiating advertising deals.

A common argument for the BBC is that it is ad-free and therefore more efficient than the privatised suppliers. The argument against this is threefold: First of all, are you happy to pay £140 for this “privilege” forced upon you? Secondly, even if you are, what gives you the right to force this “privilege” upon others who may not be inclined to feel the same way? Thirdly, as programmes become more easily viewed from the home computer, TV advertisements will shorten in response. The BBC does not hold a monopoly in being an ad-free competitor.

I’ll agree with the sentiment that the BBC does occasionally produce some fantastic programmes that binds the family together (television producing a positive externalities?!) and provides those heated water-cooler moments. But this has nothing to do with the fact that it’s coming from a coercive public sector supplier. There is nothing preventing private enterprise from producing the same quality material, save for a certain public broadcasting body indulging in unfair competition. The argument that specialist programmes which serve a marginalised community are a public good is equally fallacious: take a look at the range of niche television channels available on satellite and cable and you’ll see that firms are not afraid to cater to a more unique consumer base.

Personally I don’t see a necessity to privatise the BBC – I’ve no qualms against it being a producer from the public sector, only that it’s charging a compulsory licence fee which makes it inherently less accountable. Allow advertising and open it up to competitive forces, that’s the only way to find out whether Jonathan Ross really deserves our money.