The ABC’s ‘me too’ strategy puts it on track for redundancy
In this cross-posting from The Conversation Stephen King of Monash University argues pursuing a digital strategy puts the ABC at greater risk of losing its point of difference.
Is the ABC trying to make itself redundant? Because that appears to be its strategy. Here’s why.
The ABC is expensive. In 2013 it was allocated more than A$1 billion of taxpayer funds. The ABC claims, however, that its real funding since 1985-86 has dropped by about one quarter. And the current federal government has cut further – A$120 million in the May budget and a further A$207 million over four years.
The ABC has responded with cutbacks in “niche” areas such as women’s sport and rural services and a renewed focus on internet-based services.
“The ABC cannot uniquely tell the Australian story because thousands of Australians tell their story online every day, using blogs and social media”.
Really?! The mere telling of any Australian story online precludes the ABC telling stories uniquely? This is some strange logic.
“The ABC cannot differentiate itself as a source of quality news when it has thousands of internet competitors, including The New York Times and the BBC”.
This logic would also preclude Australian commercial media and, in fact, touches on the issue. Australian media online need to create unique and compelling stories which not only meet domestic needs but which potentially increase international attention.
To take the ABC out of the mix of compelling Australian content would be unwise. It not only provides unique, quality content (which is not available to advertisers) but it pioneers formats for delivery, which are often adopted commercially.
The ABC has been busy making Australia an attractive destination online well before it became a commercial imperative. To pretend they are usurpers is to attempt to rewrite history.
Economists know everything except for things like when a global financial crisis is coming.
@ken. Or might they know, however pretend they didn’t know and then reap the rewards of their ill gotten gains and government handouts post GFC…? 😉
The logic and assumptions in this piece are mostly wrong
* This “me too ” idea is quirky. Uniqueness is about content—not about platform. Producing unique content means it will thrive on internet and on TV, radio etc and I think we can agree that Q&A, Lateline, 7:30 and lots of other ABC content is unique in comparison to the current affairs offered by other outlets.
* Using digital does not make the ABC “me too”- it means the ABC is following the audience where they are getting news and if the ABC is to remain relevant it needs to have impact in online.
* The ABC was not “me too” about iview- it was the first and still have the most comprehensive VOD platform.
* The ABC charter means it needs to do programming which commercial operators do not—hence the ratings are not important in the same way and are not a valid measure.
* Childrens TV anyone? Another “only me” thing done by the ABC compared to other free TV channels.
* The top 20 Australian programmes will likely only include 1 or 2 dramas this year and as always they will be dominated by sport and reality shows—not something the ABC can afford or should be doing.
* The BBC does not carry all the public service requirements in the UK. Indeed if the writer knew anything about the way the UK works he would know the “Public Service Broadcasters” include the commercial terrestrial channels in the UK including ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 who all have obligations in the type of programming they run that is regulated by Ofcom.
The ABC will never be ” me too” ! It has an extraordinary point of difference in the digital space – its brand . The ABC brand is built on generations of people turning to the ABC when there is a natural disaster, a crisis, an election or analysis. The ABC’s brand of reality television is based on exactly that – reality – how quaint ! That’s why we trust it. ABC content is king regardless of the delivery platform.
Just don’t get this “The ABC cannot uniquely tell the Australian story because thousands of Australians tell their story online every day, using blogs and social media” Oh yeah ? In this era of narcissism and “curating ” your image and message it is farcical to think there is limited space for the ABC to tell uniquely Aust stories. Perhaps ask WW2 diggers do they blog , get on twitter etc? The point is there are thousands of stories but getting the good stories is the goal and that takes skill.
“Arguably the commercial networks tell the Australian story better than the ABC ” – Really ? It may be numbers watched but it is often a repetitive narrative of mind numbing reality TV and sport, the most easily digestible form of story telling. The ABC’s point of difference is that it puts in far more effort in developing interesting and challenging programs
“The ABC cannot differentiate itself as a source of quality news when it has thousands of internet competitors, including The New York Times and the BBC”.It has always reported alongside the NY Times and BBC and that has been its point of difference – being Australian ! I value the perspective of an Aust journo I “know” reporting an issue for an Australian audience on TV, radio or online. This is just plain old fashioned cultural cringe !
http://www.theage.com.au/natio.....1vg4k.html Hilarious to see the old guard at the ABC not wanting forced redundancies. Every HR manager in the world knows the voluntary option means the good staff leave and put the hand up, as they can pick up jobs anywhere, and the old boilers and lifers never put their hands up as in reality they would be lucky to get jobs in Bunnings. One day if the ABC can ever produce balanced output can they move ahead. For some reason the staff keep saying we have Murdoch for right wing. This has nothing to do with their charter. Produce balance. Other networks are commercial and the taxpayer does not pay for them. If people do not watch they are out of business. 4400 staff at the ABC? I think they are lucky they do not lose 2000 staff as that is what any commercial manager would do to this bloated left wing palace. blanced tv is 3 from the right and 3 from left if that is what it takes. If we ever need a laugh just tune into insiders to listen to refugee left wingers and global warming preachers dominate. Truly funny tv.
http://www.theaustralian.com.a.....7134944826 more bloated wages at the ABC.
Whilst I disagree ( like the posters above) with all of Professor King’s subjective judgements, I do agree with his economic one.
If we want a truly independent ABC/SBS, let;s go back to a license fee. It’s much more transparent, makes the recipient more accountable and keeps the Government of the day’s mitts off funding.
Mmmmmm. Nice try at a seemingly well thought out argument , in fact, it’s largely
claptrap of the “Hello Henry ” type, mixed with “Sardoudlum.”
The ABC does so much more than mere traditional media telecasting, it also Braoadcasts nationally, provides a range f news and information and provides overseas services etc . The BBC got one hell of a head start, and thanks to a little episode of history called Empire, it became a global player very early on, with a world market at its door step in a golden era of growth and development.
The major problem for the ABC has been The government using it as a political dog on a leash, promising it bones and other tasty treats if it is good, and threatening it with castration and other deprivation, if it is naughty. Added to the jittery disposition of successive governments, and a particularly jaundiced view of it by the, so called, Liberal Governments, is the disastrous effects of parochial attitudes and interventions, and a none too surprising growing internal paranoia and inertia.
Yes the ABC is expensive, so is Opera and Ballet, but no civilised nation is measured by its football teams or its horse races. The Arts and sciences, along with excellence in News and information technology is another matter, and one that we as a nation have tended to ignore rather more than we should have done.
The ABC the Opera and the Ballet requires, and should be getting, more support, not less.
The BBC ought not to be here, as it is, pushing drama and generally pursuing its interests as a world wide leader in the industry. The ABC should have Australian content drama and News by the short and curly, and be equally distributing world wide by now.
Goodness knows we have aired and screened enough British radio, and television, and film to last a life time. Fifty years ago people were saying “Oh the BBC is such an excellent service, they do it so well don’t they?” and “Oh British drama and comedy is so much better than ours isn’t it? they do it so well don’t they?”
That was 50 years ago my friends, and guess what? They are still saying it today. WHY?
It really is pointless to apply quantum arguments to totally subjective criteria. In my mind an Australian voice wouldn’t have added to not subtracted from the niche specialisations in Radio National. It would be making informative educational documentary about things that matter to Australians. (The current series on the National Party being a perfect example.) More great Australian drama. No games shows no quiz shows and enough already of the boring Chaser team!
I see no reason to block the ABC from doing this in free to air space and digital channels. But I do not need or want it to imitate to desperate drudge of our newspapers and blogs in pumping out more drab opinion – I mean the Drum people – nor any other variants on that cursed tendency in media.
I have serious doubts that either the CEO or the editor in chief of the ABC has a clue about his issue which is at the root of the ABC’s threats.
“It is not clear that a dedicated ABC tax, whether applied as a television licence or funded in some other way, would be politically acceptable in Australia.”
Not clear? The fact of the matter is, a dedicated ABC tax is entirely out of the question. The television licence was an anachronism when it was abolished 40 years ago and it’s even more of one today. Can anyone seriously imagine going back to having billboards of Frank Thring furtively watching his unlicenced television while looking over his shoulder for the licence police, all with the accusing caption: “Do YOU have a television licence?”
In Greece they used to fund ERT by a charge on electricity bills. The joke ran, “Even the dead fund ERT, because graveyards use electricity”. As for the BBC’s licence fee, it’s only paid by the conscientious, and there are serious questions about its future viability. There’s no point even considering bringing a television licence fee back here.
The figures quoted are only for the top 5 capital city market. They do not take into account the other capitol cities or rural and regional areas. Regardless ratings are for measuring audience not value. What value you do you put on 4 Corners vs. The Voice?
Another expatriate preaching to the colonists. If Britain is so great why did you leave ?
The Uk has 3 terrestrial commercial networks (ITV, 4 and 5) – same as Australia, but with 3 times the population – two of which (4 and ITV) are near bankruptcy. So much for that then.
The other “channels” are cable or telephone based networks.
The BBC is not a government owned channel, but a government funded channel, unlike the ABC which is really just a government department. The BBC runs from a government funded trust, the “independence” of the ABC is only established through “Chinese walls” and in fact is largely just for show.