Transcript PIosifidis
Public Broadcasting in Small EU Countries: Challenges and Strategies Dr. Petros IOSIFIDIS Reader in Media Policy City University London Measures of State Size NOTIONS OF SMALLNESS... Population Size Geographic Size Economic Size (Wealth) Market Size Population Size Dividing line between large/small states? below 20m (EC, 2009; Puppis, 2009; Lowe & Nissen, 2011) Iceland (0.3m); Ireland (4.5m); GR (11m), NETH (16.3m) Small population - cannot support broadcasting industry high service cost/no scale economies Geographic Size Microstates Less than 200 square miles (Picard, 2011) The territory affects costs via the size & complexity of the necessary transmission infrastructure to serve state/localities Geography affects costs: it is cheaper to serve flat territories than mountainous that require more transmitters/repeaters It is cheaper to serve urban than rural audiences (population density creates advantageous cost thresholds) Economic Size (wealth) Measure of economic output GDP per capita EU27, 2008: GDP was 23,500 EURO (Eurostat, 2008) states below that average typically have lower GDP Poorer states have less resources to devote to providing & acquiring broadcasting services (however, a state can be small but wealthy) Small states as per political system Liberal states: Ireland Democratic-corporatist: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland) Polarized/pluralist: Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Portugal Post-socialist: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovak Rep, Slovenia (Hallin/Mancini 2004) Small Broadcasting Market Size Shortage of resources (limitation on production; know-how) Small audience/advertising markets (limits to revenues; no scale economies costly media production; few exports due to cultural specificity) Dependence (commercialization & globalization affect more smaller states ‘imported deregulation’) Vulnerability (foreign takeover of media firms) (Puppis, 2009) Small number of TV channels Denmark (5.5m) – PSBs: TV2, DR1; Private: None Ireland (4.5m) – PSBs: RTE1, RTE2, RTE3; Private: None Sweden (9.3m) – PSBs: SVT1, SVT2; Private: TV4 Netherlands (16.3m) – PSBs: Ned1; Private: RTL4, SBS6 EXCEPTION: Greece (11m) – PSBs: NET, ET1; Private: 5 Impact of giant neighbours Austria, Luxemburg, Switzerland Giant neighbour: Germany Belgium - Giant neighbour: France Ireland – Giant neighbour: UK BEYOND EUROPE: Canada – Giant neighbour: USA New Zealand – Giant neighbour: Australia Taiwan – Giant neighbour: China) The language factor Not widely spoken languages in small countries: Pros may prevent cultural domination Cons cannot expand activities abroad (Nordic exception) Austria, Ireland & Belgium affected by same-language neighbouring countries VRT (Flanders) - competition from Dutch channels RTBF (Wallonia) - competition from French cable channels ORF - competition from German channels RTE - competition from British channels Diverse policies Nordic model: protection of domestic program supply (YLE & SVT: bulk of domestic output in Finish & Swedish respectively) Southern Europe: - higher acceptance of commercialisation state, not public broadcasting Historical & Political Context PORTUGAL Broadcasting developed under dictatorship (same to Greece and Spain) In addition to the state, the Catholic Church also influential in shaping media GREECE De-facto TV deregulation in 1990 no consideration re: effects on market structure Attempts to regulate market failed due to: Broadcasting’s association with a military dictatorship (1967- 74) Introduction of a regulatory regime with vague principles and highly detailed but rarely implemented rules PSB’s debt has increased its dependency on the government Strategies for the future Interventionist approach – given the small audience & advertising markets, it’s not possible to achieve socio-cultural goals (pluralism & cultural diversity) through liberalisation (EU approach) & competition among domestic media firms (pro-market approach) allow mono- & cross-media concentration subsidies/support programmes (Puppis, 2009, 2010; Siegert, 2006) Invest in PSB PSBs’ Assets political backing, relatively secure funding, longevity, credible source Most small PSBs from Northern Europe managed to retain high audience/revenue share Exceptions: ERT (GREECE), RTP (PORTUGAL), which had embraced commercialisation (Iosifidis, 2007) Invest in new technology Be available in several platforms (transform into PSM) New digital channels, mobile telephony & interactive web sites (e.g. create a channel on YouTube) More interactivity; closer to audiences to reflect a multicultural society, catch younger audiences Independent producers Channel 4 and S4C Advantages: healthy independent production sector; new voices, new ideas (new technology helps) Difficulty: independent sector consolidation (few firms dominate less diversity and dynamism) Selected bibliography Iosifidis, P. (2007) ‘Public Television in Small European Countries: Challenges and Strategies’, International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics 3(1): 65–87. Lowe, G.F. and C. Nissen (2011) Small Among Giants.TV Broadcasting in Smaller Countries, Nordicom. Puppis, M. et al (2009) ‘The European & Global Dimension: Taking Small Media Systems Research to the Next Level’, International Communication Gazette 2009; 71; 105. Siegert, G. (2006) The Role of Small Countries in Media Competition in Europe’, in Heinrich, J. and Kopper, G. (eds.) Media Economics in Europe. Berlin: Vistas. Trappel, J. (2010) ‘Squeezed and Uneasy: PSM in Small States - Limited Media Governance Options in Austria and Switzerland’ in P. Iosifidis (ed.) Reinventing Public Service Communication: European Broadcasters and Beyond, Palgrave Macmillan.