As big as television in the 1950s – the ABC lays out plans for the next 20 years
The ABC has acknowledged how fast the media is changing with the launch of ‘ABC 2.0’, a set of initiatives to change the way content is served to audiences.
At its inaugural annual public meeting this morning, the national broadcaster’s senior management described how the organisation would focus on evolving into being “fit for the digital challenges of the next 20 years”.
Milne is comparing the shift to ABC’s decision in 1956 to move into television
Speaking to an audience of more than 400 people at its Sydney HQ with remote events in Rockhampton and Launceston, ABC Chairman Justin Milne coined this initiative as ABC 2.0.
Arguing the shift in focus was as big as the decision to go into television in the 1950s, Milne acknowledged shifting audiences were not new for the ABC and the broadcaster had been adapting but said the company needed to be prepared for the future.
Milne presenting at the ABC’s inaugural annual public meeting
Milne said the “new digital platforms” would be created to understand audiences better and serve content anywhere, anytime. He pointed to modernisation of production processes for ABC News and content partnerships with Australian production companies.
What the ABC is trying to establish, he said, is a “multi platform approach to content” which allows all work to be adjusted and exploited on multiple mediums. But Milne clarified there would not be a lack of investment in TV or radio.
“We see both radio and television extending for many, many years into the future and we will continue to invest in them, love them and improve them. ABC 2.0 is however the major strategic initiative for the ABC. It is akin to us deciding to go into the television business in 1956. Just as then, it will require significant investment and possibly generate some controversy,” Milne said.
“Australia has always been at risk of being culturally swamped by overseas media and I believe that risk has never been greater, so ensuring that the trusted and much loved voice of the ABC can continue to be heard has never been more important.”
A more ‘transparent’ ABC
Early last year, managing director Michelle Guthrie said she would slash between 150 and 200 jobs by June, under a new strategy and transformation program. The broadcaster also axed current affairs programs The Link and Lateline in a programming restructure.
Today’s presentation follows a major restructure of the ABC, which sees the organisation divided into divisions based on content rather than platform. The divisions – news, analysis and investigations, specialist and entertainment, and regional and local, are led by Gaven Morris, David Anderson and Michael Mason respectively.
Aside from promoting ABC 2.0, the meeting also aimed to increase ABC’s transparency and accountability. Guthrie pointed to those new divisions this morning, arguing it was the ABC’s role to be leaders in programming, given others tend to great “generic” and “superficial” programs.
According to figures released today by the ABC, 12.3m watch ABC TV each week, with 4.9m tuning in to news and current affairs, and 4.8m listening to ABC radio.
ABC said it had invested $70m in new programs, services and platforms and returned $254m back to the government.
“There is a crying need for depth, independence and critical analysis,” Guthrie said.
It’s critical the ABC plays to its strengths, Guthrie says
She pointed to the broadcaster’s responsibility to providing news and information to the public, noting investigative news capabilities were a central priority to the broadcaster.
“No media organisation is better positioned to capitalise on the opportunities that lie ahead. We are already digital leaders, we are trusted by Australians, our people are resourceful and open to change and we are known for our distinctive, quality programming and services,” she said.
“Our role as Australia’s public broadcaster is now more important than ever.”
But aside from the major restructure last year, ABC was also caught in the list of concessions to get the Turnbull government’s media bill across the line. When the media reforms bill passed in Senate in September, an amendment by One Nation requested an inquiry into the government broadcaster and a reform of the ABC’s charter.
At the time of negotiations, One Nation said it had received “assurances” from the government it will ask the ABC to start providing details of the wages and conditions of all staff whose packages amount to more than $200,000.
In November, a letter sent by Milne to Communications Minister Mitch Fifield rejected the proposal, arguing it would give competitors an”unfair advantage”.
Today Louise Higgins, ABC’s chief financial officer, made a point to compare ABC’s funding to that of the BBC, and note the broadcaster’s 2018 savings.
“Each year the ABC receives $1b dollars in public funding. Whilst on face value, this is a lot of money, the fact is our funding has declined by 28% in real terms since the mid 1980’s. In the last five years alone, it has declined by more than $200m dollars. Now I point this out for historic context: we know there are many demands on the public purse,” Higgins explained this morning.
“So, how does this compare to other public service broadcasters overseas? Our per capita funding is 34% lower than the average of other public broadcasters, including the BBC. In fact, we serve a population one-third the size of the UK, but do it with a budget one-eighth that of the BBC.
“We have been able to achieve all of this through transformation programs that have cut bureaucracy and unnecessary expenses. We have continued to significantly shift expenditure from administration and back into content by cutting back on managers and travel, reviewing support services, and lowering transmission and distribution costs.
“By the end of 2018 our savings over the last the five years will have increased to $324m; of which we have handed back 78% to government and put the balance back into content for you, our audiences.
“Today my aim was to provide you with a greater level of reporting and transparency than ever before. This will continue.”
Higgins also told the audience the broadcaster would publish its ‘Investing in Audiences’ strategy, and a document which explains the approach to efficiency, public trust and value of the ABC.
“These new disclosures are a signal of our commitment to remain transparent and accountable, and will be followed by regular updates, including our content plans and performance against charter obligations, so you can track our progress,” she said.
Quack, quack, blah, blah, blah. [quote] “Our role as Australia’s public broadcaster is now more important than ever.” [unquote]
How? Why is it more important than ever? Perhaps because it is employing you.
Cutting costs, cutting employment, saving on management and travel expenses? what is this? A bean counters convention? A shareholders free lunch? This is the national broadcaster, our beloved old Aunty.
[quote] “By the end of 2018 our savings over the last the five years will have increased to $324m; of which we have handed back 78% to government and put the balance back into content for you, our audiences. [unquote] Apart from the fact that the quoted statement doesn’t make sense ( perhaps the novel and contradictory syntax) who else but we, the audience, would be the beneficiary of all this industry and expense?
The ABC has been doomed for years because a political bias exists, and there has always been carping over the costs. One eighth of the BBC budget? Why compare that to the one third audience numbers, a bigger audience should equal less cost, not more. The budget is woefully insufficient for the ABC to step up to the place where it deserves to be, and overseas productions are swamping, they have always been a threat and they (along with certain politicians) will ultimately drown us.
User ID not verified.
Standing behind the bowlers wicket with arms outstretched, the umpire is heard to say “That’s a wide…didn’t even land on the pitch”.
User ID not verified.
Two thirds of the speeches had nothing to do with finance. But then that was roughly the proportion that was froth and bubble. So it’s not surprising that the Mumbrella report focused on the financials.
One quote from the textual part of the meeting you might like: “In 1987 the ABC famously cost eight cents a day. Adjusted for inflation and population growth, the ABC today costs each Australian just half that amount.”
It also points out that for the same cost as 22 hours of the US version of House of Cards, the ABC has commissioned 277 hours of Australian TV.
Regarding the future of the ABC, the only thing of note mentioned was that the ABC’s archives are to be entirely digitised (an announcement upstaged by recent stories about the loss of ABC library jobs).
A feature will also be added to iView that has been there for a long time.
User ID not verified.
Are you saying the ABC is politically biased or that there is a political bias AGAINST Aunty? If the former, then enquiry after enquiry ad nauseum has found no perceptible bias.
User ID not verified.
Imagine a country without an unbiased national broadcaster that has no affiliations with any corporations, free to investigate and write stories about anything of public interest without financial consequences?
I never see a negative article about government policy if the front page of such news organisation has government sponsored advertising about such new policy.
Unlike the media that we all work with in our daily lives here in media land the ABC should have garanteed funding regardless of their content. With certain conditions that they meet the public interest which can be determined by a judge if ever challenged, it’s purpose of giving the nation a balanced coverage will almost guarantee we never get a Trump of a Prime Minister.
Or here’s another thought.. imagine if all journalism was not funded by ads, but funded by something the readers had…..CPU power, mining cryptocurrency for the publisher to pay the journalists whilst the readers are reading or watching….there’s an unbiased future without need for an ABC. It would also provide a massive incentive for publishers to get people gripped into long form investigative pieces rather than traffic hits with a few clicks, as time on site becomes as valuable as numbers.
User ID not verified.
It’s time for commercial media to do what they should have done a decade ago: a class action against the Commonwealth Government seeking full compensation for losses incurred by the seizure of their property by the Commonwealth. Their commercial property is audience share – as acknowledged in a million different industry contracts. That property is being seized by the Commonwealth’s agency, the ABC, without compensation, which is provided for in the Australian Constitution. Adding insult to injury, they pay company taxes for the ABC to engage in this theft. It’s time to make the ABC commercially accountable, and include individual executives personally in the action.
User ID not verified.
Isn’t it time we restored the ABC’s funding? At 4 cents per day no wonder they are totally overstretched. Here’s a suggestion – let’s take the long view and increase their funding by a guaranteed $100M per year for the next decade. These additional funds must be spent on content commissioned from and produced by the independent sector. Without this we simply will not have watchable, authentic Australian drama on our national broadcaster.
User ID not verified.
This is an example of the (slightly modified) line “You can fool all the journalists all the time”! So many ran with the headline picked up by Linda Klejus that the ABC now runs on only “4 cents a day” when what Louise Higgins ACTUALLY said was “In 1987 dollar terms we now cost each Australian just four cents a day”. She was careful NOT to say what the ABC ACTUALLY costs per capita in 2018, Funny ’bout that. She was obviously confident that the dumb hacks reporting her speech would get it wrong followed by all of their lemming followers on Fakebook et al. Bit sad. Give us the REAL numbers Louise.
User ID not verified.
So you want the government and ultimately the tax-payer to pay profitable, commercial mass-media companies hundreds of millions of dollars, potentially billions of dollars? Why in the hell?! Unless, which is the only reasonable assumption, you’re a shareholder yourself.
User ID not verified.
Dear Ex-ABC, I agree lets have the real numbers whatever that means, but it doesn’t change my point. Clearly the ABC is being starved of funds – so I suggest gradually increasing funding over a decade with clear obligations to commission from the independent sector.
User ID not verified.
I am saying that there is a general notion that the ABC is left wing, and there is a resistance by governments of either persuasion to support or up the financial support, based upon a political fear and a dissatisfaction with a perceived anti government stance of many ABC interview programs. I am not surprised that enquiry after enquiry has found no political bias.
User ID not verified.
I am not surprised that enquiry after enquiry has found no political bias. Because there is none.
User ID not verified.
The government could then withdraw the media industry’s broadcasting spectrum leases, and access to Commonwealth owned cable right-of-ways.
Next, the citizens of Australia could sue the commercial media industry for theft of mindshare.
User ID not verified.