Market Failure: A Neglected Concept.

Mark Thompson, Director General of the BBC, said in 2007: “The only economic justification for the BBC – indeed for any public intervention in broadcasting – is market failure”. Many of the benefits he itemised in that speech are things that reasonable people should want to be widely accessible.


But the trouble with the argument is that it makes an assumption of market failure and does not give the concept – potentially a useful one – a chance to do its job. It does not acknowledge that state intervention when it is not justified has a negative impact. It inhibits competition, and reduces the incentive for private players to take risks.

Since markets can be very efficient, the concept of Market Failure was invented to identify where public intervention was really justified – and where it was not.

The theory identifies two main causes of failure. Market Imperfections due to lack of competition, and Externalities. Externalities occur where something causes ill effects without having to bear the cost. You could argue, for instance, that if accurate News was expensive and hard to get, fewer people would be well-informed at election times and make ill-informed choices with negative effects for other electors.

Those who think the concept is relevant to broadcasting – and I accept that some people don’t – would argue that the scale of the intervention should equal the scale of the failure? From Ofcom’s figures we can put the scale of intervention at somewhere short of £4bn – made up of the BBC Licence fee plus lesser benefits to other broadcasters in the form of reduced-price spectrum, favoured positions on guides, etc.

What are the consequences if the “solution”, £4bn of public money, exceeds the “problem”? For a start, if there is Market Failure today, and there probably is, we have no idea what and how much – for most of the £4bn of public subsidy goes on genres that the market could perfectly well provide. Most of it is spent on Entertainment.

In fact, no Government department or regulator has been willing to address either the fact or the consequences of excessive intervention in broadcasting. However, I am not alone in thinking the basis of broadcasting regulation and policy that has prevailed for the last few decades should be overhauled. Inevitably, the BBC, the UK’s prime media asset, must be at the heart of that review.

So how would a Government address this if it wished to remedy the problem of excessive intervention? It should start by acknowledging that it doesn’t know the scale of Market Failure and spell out some must-have items, available to all in the public interest, leaving the entertainment industry to get on with the entertaining.

Some items for the wish-list are obvious: accurate news, childrens’ content from the UK, etc. My guess is £300 to £400m would cover the basics. The body set up to administer this would develop the techniques to monitor what other public wishes or were not being met and decide where intervention was justified.

Such a reversal of policy would have massive consequences and need careful thought. In the remaining posts in this series I will argue that change is inevitable anyway – some of the reasons for which I have given in earlier postings – and that getting future solutions right will require smart thinking and energetic debate.

(On reflection, I have taken down an earlier posting on Market Failure. It tried to cover too much ground and the attempt to inject some humour into a complex issue didn’t work.)

Differences on the Right

Changing the Channel, commissioned by the Policy Exchange and written by Mark Oliver, presents the case for “radical” reform of Public Service Broadcasting in the UK. I heard Mark describe this as a “centre right” policy initiative. You can see or download the report via the link beside this page. (Among other objectives, Policy Exchange promotes “national self-confidence and an enterprise culture”.)

I know Mark and respect him, but in my view the project is flawed. Why? For a start, because it fails to address (1) the potential weakness of the BBC licence fee as a long-term funding source and (2) the scope for the expansion of competing niche Pay-TV services. The objective of reform, according to Changing the Channel, must be to put more emphasis on “quality”, less on “reach” (defined as the number of people who watch TV – or listen to the radio -- for more than a given time over a given period, like a week or month.)

The report doesn’t really acknowledge the reason the BBC must strive to reach every part of the population at least some of the time. Mark says this means putting reach before “quality/distinctiveness”. A key policy aim, for him, is to stem this trend, a trend that means the BBC pays stars like Jonathan Ross loads of money, competes for expensive sports that would play on “commercial” channels, and puts up £400k an episode for Heroes to target young people (who, as Oliver says, would actually be more comfortable on C4). All this content would indeed play well on commercial channels and the BBC probably is inflating prices. More important, Mark feels the “public value” of this content is limited. (I will come back to the issue of “public value” in a second post on this document).

The chart on the left (using BARB audience data)shows why the BBC channel portfolio is already under severe pressure, drifting down by just under 1% a year. Would that decline not accelerate if the “reach” objective was abandoned? Mark suggests additionally that some of the licence fee be “bottom sliced” – that is allocated to “Public Service” content elsewhere. Won’t that confuse people even more, make them even more resistant to a fee that already only has minority support from public opinion?


To handle this he proposes a Public Service Content Trust (PSC) which will monitor the BBC spend on Public Service Content. It will introduce tougher monitoring of “public value”, building in a degree of “contestability”. But how is it going to resist the drive to defend reach as BBC share declines and pressure on the licence fee grows? Why will it not share the same pressure? We’re missing an answer to that question. (OK, PSC has some new money from other sources like retransmission fees, but that hardly addresses the issue).

In spite of this unanswered question, there are a lot of things here to be supported and discussed further. There is a lack of “contestability” in the way the BBC spends it money and in the so-called “public value” tests that are now applied. Single-body regulators do get captured (or “end up at loggerheads”) -- either way they tend to be ineffectual. The Market Impact tests are a mess. And Mark is surely right to argue that we must have an external body (a PSC?) not just to monitor how public money is spent on broadcasting (and avoid capture!) but also to secure access for public value content. (What that could have done for American public television!).

HBO: Can We Have One?

HBO has many admirers in the UK because of the quality of its drama, but is usually dismissed as a model because of the much greater size of the US population.

Some facts: HBO gets about $10 a month from 29m US homes, mainly better-off ( median income $63,000 in 2007). Thus around a quarter of the US homes pay a premium for HBO on top of cable fees and basic packages. For this HBO provides about 140 hours of ad-free new content each year. (Subscribers do not just sign up for brilliant series like The Wire or Curb Your Enthusiasm but for films and boxing as well.) Its subscribers value HBO highly and feel a sense of ownership. (In our terms, HBO is a specialist, premium-subscription content provider, carried on nearly all US multichannel platforms.)

In the UK subscription basically means Sky or Virgin. Most Sky subscribers in the UK pay about £40 a month for various bundles -- so Sky as a platform is broadly in line with US cable systems like Comcast which includes HBO as an option. OK, so the UK is probably not large enough to fund a specialist service of high-end drama and comedy funded by subs from better-off homes like HBO. However, though the £12 per month License Fee paid by over 25m UK households has no equivalent in the US, it looks like very good value and delivers a wide range of material -- including some HBO-type fare like Outnumbered or The Thick of It. Does the UK offer the opportunity for new variants of the pay model -- perhaps big advertiser- supported channels going behind a "lite" pay wall? And may we one day find a way to tap the wishes of a minority who want more of what they value and are ready to pay for it, which is what drives HBO -- after all, innovation is so often led by enthusiasts or "early adopters"?