Abstract
The notion of public service media is used to describe public broadcasters’ provision of services that contribute to the democratic, cultural and social objectives of society, and this on multiple devices and across various technologies. While most research focuses on the theoretical case for public service media, this contribution analyses how public broadcasters strategically position themselves as providers of public service media. What are their distribution strategies in a market that is no longer dominated by the media themselves, but is characterised by a growing concentration of power in the hands of the so-called platforms and a continuous influx of new entrants? The article is based on a qualitative document analysis of public broadcasters’ strategies in Flanders, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Ireland. Complementary expert interviews were also carried out. Our main finding is that public broadcasters are distributing more and more varied types of content online, but that digital-only content remains limited and is considered as a subsidiary activity. Ample reference is made to the surrounding environment as a means to legitimise the existence of public broadcasters. However, this is not yet translated into concrete and focused distribution strategies.
Introduction
Public service media (PSM) can be defined as the provision of services by public broadcasters that contribute to the democratic, cultural and social objectives of society, and this on multiple devices and across various technologies. The evolution from public service broadcasting to PSM has been researched extensively (Lowe et al., 2018; Lowe and Martin, 2013). Scholars have focused on the theoretical foundations of PSM, on the online services of public broadcasters, the integration of newsrooms and the extent to which national governments and European institutions have enabled the transition to PSM (Burri, 2015; Larrondo et al., 2016; Van den Bulck and Tambuyzer, 2013; Ward, 2008). While there is an academic consensus about PSM as a new standard for public broadcasters, most research recognises that PSM is still a work in progress. The online strategies of some public broadcasters are directionless, although others, admittedly, have developed more mature schemes (Raats, 2013; Ramsey, 2018). That being said, there is little research on the distribution strategies of these public broadcasters. How do they position themselves in a platform age? Inspired by work of Gillian Doyle (2010) on the multi-platform strategies of UK media companies and other research into PSM’s main characteristics (Bardoel and Lowe, 2007; Cunningham, 2015; Dahlgren, 2001; Jakubowicz, 2007), this article analyses the strategic arrangements of public broadcasters in a platform age.
The main research question is how public broadcasters want to achieve the successful implementation of PSM in an internationalised media market where the connection with audiences is no longer controlled by those media, but by conglomerates with little or no concern for the protected position of public broadcasters in nation states. We investigated the reported content and distribution strategies of four public broadcasters: the BBC, RTE, NPO and VRT. The BBC is the only public broadcaster that does not rely on commercial communication. The Dutch NPO, Irish RTE and Belgian VRT (which is the public broadcaster servicing the Dutch-speaking population in Belgium) are all active in both television and radio advertising. While the BBC is very active in distributing its existing programmes online and in developing digital-only content, the other three public broadcasters are still at a more experimental stage. The United Kingdom is the biggest audiovisual market in Europe; Ireland is an economically vulnerable neighbour. Belgium and the Netherlands are fairly small media markets, yet characterised by a high GDP, high advertising expenditure and strong public and commercial media. Both the United Kingdom and Ireland are part of the liberal group of countries in Hallin and Mancini’s (2004) typology of media systems. The Netherlands and Belgium can be classified as democratic corporatist countries. Our hypothesis was that there would be marked differences between these four public broadcasters’ distribution strategies and that these differences can be explained by the size of market, level of funding, reliance on commercial revenues and political climate in which broadcasters operate. Of course Hallin and Mancini’s typology has been criticised. Are the United Kingdom and also Ireland really examples of the liberal model? They have strong public broadcasting systems. There are also several events in the United Kingdom that raise doubts about how liberal the system is indeed. The Hutton Inquiry in 2004 raised several doubts on the control of government over the BBC and the respect of the former for journalistic independence (Schlesinger, 2014). Some of the United Kingdom’s counterterrorism laws are equally worrisome, severely impeding free inquiry whether from a journalistic or academic angle. Nevertheless, it offers a solid starting point for case selection, even if not being a ground for simplistic causal inference (Humphreys, 2011).
Our main finding is that, while the context of an internationalising media market is increasingly used as a legitimising factor for PSM, the public broadcasters have so far failed to develop distribution strategies that match the theories relating to PSM. To demonstrate this, we first elaborate on the evolution from public service broadcasting to PSM and the characteristics of PSM, focusing on aspects dealing with the distribution of public service offers and their connection with audiences. Second, we outline the methodology underlying our case studies, as well as providing a brief introduction to each of the four cases chosen. Third, the main findings are discussed, before finishing with conclusions that also address the relevance of the cases for scholarship beyond the four countries concerned. Public broadcasters in numerous countries are struggling to update their distribution strategies and reinvent their organisations for the digital platform age (see also Flew, 2011). Moreover, while the specific nature of PSM creates a different dynamic in this respect than is usually the case for commercial media, some of the challenges are similar (cf. Evens and Donders, 2018).
Being present, relevant or squeezed online: the decisive role of distribution for public service media
While most scholars would agree that PSM is the next and semi-natural step for public service broadcasting, there is less agreement about the current position of public broadcasters in this transition. We can distinguish between five phases of development. First, there is the experimental phase. In this phase, public broadcasters realise that the Internet offers possibilities to distribute content in a different manner. It also allows for interactivity, co-creation, app development and so on. Public broadcasters experiment in order to see what works and what can be improved. Pilots such as combined television-online formats that are co-created with the audience (e.g. TV Lab in France, Carte Blanche in Belgium and BNN University in the Netherlands) (Vanhaeght and Donders, 2015) are typical of this phase. Second, there is the panic phase, when public broadcasters realise that other companies or even some private individuals are more successful than they are at attracting audience attention online. This tends to result in directionless strategies, aimed largely at channelling audiences to their websites. Strategies are often insufficiently precise in terms of formulation and focus. But more importantly, there are multiple ‘battle plans’ – if there is a plan at all – and usually a lack of consistency in both thinking and implementation. To some extent, this is comparable with the period when public broadcasters were first confronted with competition from commercial broadcasters and wanted to see ‘bottoms on seats’ (Nossiter, 1991). This is also reflected in the third phase: the expansionist phase, in which the public broadcasters aim to maximise their presence online, placing more value on this than on their public service mission (Donders, 2012). During the fourth consolidation phase, public broadcasters prioritise what is important and what is not. Often confronted with budget cuts, they critically evaluate what they need to do to satisfy the public interest in media. Interestingly, this phase results in a greater focus on distribution, which is characterised by the offer of quality on-demand services, while at the same time seeking to avoiding stringent regulation on the delivery of these services across digital platforms. This, in turn, leads on to internal re-organisation through the shifting of budget away from the linear to the non-linear distribution of services (Raats, 2013: 128). The fifth and final phase is the maturity phase, when public broadcasters have managed to develop an online strategy that focuses on the public service proposition of each of their brands, combined with a solid view of how to connect with the audience. By this stage, public broadcasters have become more conscious of the need for competitive trade-offs with, for example, Netflix, Youtube or Twitter. Of course, this does not mean that their content and the related distribution strategies are uniformly coherent. Digital evolution is still far from complete: in this sense, it is still a moving target (Ramsey, 2018). Moreover, this stage-based perspective should not seen as a purely linear model. It is perfectly possible for public broadcasters to show elements of the maturity phase, while also providing good examples of panic behaviour – as will be evident from our analysis of the strategies of the public broadcasters in our chosen cases.
Before we examine these cases, it is crucial to first identify the common features of the theoretical PSM construct. What distinguishes PSM from public service broadcasting, particularly in terms of distribution strategies? First and foremost, the B of public service Broadcasting is replaced by the M of Media. PSM is not limited to radio and television broadcasting. Other services, devices and means of distribution are of equal importance, provided they adhere to the basic values (quality, creativity, universality, etc.) of public service broadcasting (cf. contributions in Burri, 2015; Lowe et al., 2018). This makes distribution a more complex issue than it was two decades ago, when the linear transmission of television and radio signals was the main method of connecting PSM content to audiences (see also Doyle, 2010). Second, PSM puts greater emphasis on the citizen. Output alone cannot justify public broadcasters’ existence. This output must relate to the wants and needs of society, more so than ever in an era of PSM. There are increasing calls for a more inclusive approach towards, for example, minority and urban communities, as well as the active involvement of the audience through co-creation and interactivity (Bakker, 2011; Enli, 2008; Horsti and Hultén, 2011). Some would argue that audience emancipation has long been an objective of public service broadcasting (Vanhaeght, 2019), although most would further agree that connecting with audiences is becoming increasingly difficult, not only for technical and economic reasons, but also because of the rise of populism in many countries. Populism rejects plurality of debate and political compromise, whereas public broadcasters have traditionally attempted to strengthen the concepts of citizenship and democracy as a whole (Cushion, 2019; Picard and Pickard, 2018: 16). Living up to that expectation will become ever more difficult in a PSM market where the last mile to the end-user is controlled by international conglomerates. Similar problems are also evident in respect of the public broadcasters’ traditional dedication to the idea of ‘public service’: the provision of services to the public regardless of their appeal to advertisers (Garnham, 1990). This idea posits that services must contribute towards the realisation of socially beneficial goals, such as strengthening cultural identity and diversity, social cohesion, media literacy, emancipation, information citizenship and so on. Ramsey (2018: 13) is convinced that being both ‘popular’ and ‘good’ will remain the key distinctive feature of PSM. In this sense, the main distinguishing characteristic will not be its multi-platform nature and its fragmented means of distribution, but its genuinely public service-driven agenda in a world of clickbait, non-transparent algorithmic personalisation and datafication. However, these aspects of PSM will also require the internal re-organisation of the public broadcasters. When a multitude of services are distributed via a multitude of devices and platforms in a linear and non-linear manner, as is the case with PSM, the old silo-based organisation of PSB needs to be adapted. Unfortunately, research relating to integrated newsrooms (Larrondo, 2014; Larrondo et al., 2016: 296) has shown how workforces are resistant to such changes. Moreover, innovation departments, sandboxes and labs have difficulties to connect from the playground to day-to-day PSM practice (Hoffmann, 2016; Wauters and Raats, 2018).
That being said, public broadcasters are aware of the need to change (Curran, 2019). They have already formulated strategies, which are often detailed in their annual reports. In the rest of this article, we will attempt to show to what extent these strategies take proper account of the key features of PSM as mentioned above, particularly with regard to distribution, and will identify the phase of PSM development that each of our four public broadcasters has reached.
Methodology
We adopted a case study approach. The case studies are both descriptive and interpretative (Vennesson, 2008), not only explaining the strategies but also clarifying the reasons for certain findings and highlighting differences between the cases. The four cases concerned are the PSM content and distribution strategies of the BBC, RTE, NPO and VRT. The BBC is one of the most studied public broadcasters in the world. Rightly or wrongly, it serves as an example for many other PSM players, both inside and outside of Europe (Enli, 2008). It is also part of Europe’s biggest media market; namely that of the United Kingdom. This market is more export oriented than many other markets and the BBC also exports many of its drama series, documentaries and children’s programmes to Europe, the United States, Asia and Africa (Richards, 2013; Steemers, 2005). Moreover, its distribution strategies for the digital age are fairly well developed, both inside and outside the United Kingdom (Ramsey, 2018). The British public broadcaster is licence-fee funded (£3.83 billion in 2018) and receives additional funds from its commercial subsidiary, BBC WorldWide (£1.23 billion) (BBC, 2018). RTE is the Irish public broadcaster. It faces massive competition, mainly from UK-based public and commercial television companies. It not only serves the Irish people within Ireland (4.8 million), but also the so-called Irish diaspora (about 1.5 million people with Irish citizenship living abroad and approximately 2.1 million Irish citizens or descendants in the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland). Its revenues are tight, at just €337,576 million per annum (RTE, 2018), drawn from public and commercial sources. Commercial funding amounts to €151,508 million, which is almost 45% of total revenues. Similarly, the Belgian and Dutch public broadcasters (VRT and NPO) also rely on revenues from commercial communication, constituting 37% and 18% of their budget, respectively. The NPO is the umbrella organisation in charge of PSM in the Netherlands, a country with approximately 17 million inhabitants. It coordinates the activities of eight public broadcasting organisations that together make use of three television channels, as well as offering online services. The Dutch system, with annual funding of approximately €850 million (NPO, 2018), is a de-centralised system. A number of the public broadcasting organisations are membership-based and their aim is to represent different political, but also religious and other ideological groups in society (Bardoel, 2003). The Flemish public broadcaster, the VRT, serves the Dutch speaking population in Belgium, amounting to roughly 6.5 million inhabitants. Its annual budget is €458 million (VRT, 2018). It competes directly with the commercial broadcaster DPG Media, one of the few remaining local broadcasting companies in the small European markets. The Flemish market, compared with the three other countries in this study, is the most concentrated television distribution market. Cable operator Telenet, which is part of the American Liberty Global group of John Malone, serves about 75% of Flemish households.
In terms of anticipated results, we expected the BBC to have a fairly advanced distribution strategy, bearing in mind its export experience and the financial means at its disposal to develop strategies of a more ambitious nature. Although the three other public broadcasters are significantly smaller, they also devote attention to distribution strategies from both a public service and a commercial perspective. However, as their budget is more limited in comparison with the BBC, we expected to see more pragmatism in their distribution strategies.
The case studies rely largely on qualitative document analysis, a method used to ‘elicit meaning, gain understanding and develop empirical knowledge’ (Bowen in Puppis, 2019). We analysed 32 documents, including the management contracts of the four public broadcasters concerned, their annual reports from 2013 to 2018, and other relevant and publicly available documents relating to digital strategies and distribution. The analysis was guided by the key defining characteristics of PSM, as discussed in the previous section:
A multi-platform strategy that goes beyond linear radio and television distribution;
The inclusion of all citizens in PSM in a market where connection with end-users is made increasingly via international conglomerates and/or traditional television distributors that lock in consumers in bundles;
A firm public service-driven orientation in content and distribution strategies;
Internal re-organisation to match the new environment.
Complementary to the extensive document analysis, six expert interviews were also conducted to elicit tacit and explanatory knowledge from experts who are positioned at some distance from the policy process or corporate strategies (Bogner et al., 2014; Van Audenhove and Donders, 2019). The six interviewees were academics, all of whom have a deep understanding of their national PSM system. Some have a background in media policy studies, others are more knowledgeable about audience research or media management and economics. 1 The main objective was to cross-check the findings of the document analysis by using a more interpretative and evaluative approach, while at the same time attempting to identify the different stages of PSM development of our four public broadcasters, from the experimental to the maturity phase. To make this possible, we used a semi-structured topic list, focussing on the distinctive features of each phase of PSM development. We also confronted the experts with our preliminary findings (for expert interview techniques, see Herzog and Ali, 2015). In the past, media policy scholars have pointed out that issues such as ‘cultural otherness’ (Ganter, 2017) and a lack of familiarity with the complex interplay of historical, social, economic, political and cultural factors that determine national PSM systems have had an impact on research (Raats and Pauwels, 2011). The complementary expert interviews were intended to mitigate any such possible impact.
From hype to reality: the (mis)match between PSM and their distribution strategies
Do the distribution strategies of PSM organisations correspond with some of the crucial key features identified by scholars, as detailed above?
A multi-platform strategy that struggles to go beyond radio and television
The four public broadcasters in our study all claim with some justification to offer a multitude of digital services. This includes both digital television and open Internet services. Whereas there was an explosion of websites in the early years of the 21st century, we now seem to have entered a period of consolidation. The emphasis is now on the news website, the offer of online children’s services and the development of mature radio and video players. The latter are seen as a key element in the creation of distribution strategies that will ensure audiences get the programmes they want, when they want them (e.g. VRT, 2015: 49; BBC, 2017: 2; NPO, 2015b: 29, 2017: 12;). As it is to be expected, the current level of these services and their related distribution strategies differ from country to country. The BBC’s news website, children’s offerings and radio and video player are very advanced. As an integral part of the services portfolio, they are adequately funded. In part as a result, both the radio and video player are market leaders among broadcasters (although the BBC iPlayer is loosing from Netflix). In comparison, the distribution strategies of the Irish RTE, Dutch NPO and Belgian VRT are still very much a work in progress, and they are all finding it hard to live up to audience expectations (Interview Evens, 14 November 2018; Interview Titley, 18 December 2018; see also NPO, 2018: 32). These three broadcasters are guided mainly by the desire to connect existing content to their audience via new channels. Complementary online distribution is also used for some of their other subsidiary activities. In contrast, the BBC has the ambition to become a genuine all-round media company.
Notwithstanding budgetary limitations, the Irish, Dutch and Belgian public broadcasters nevertheless still aim to innovate and experiment (RTE, 2015: 37); for example, in the area of curation (VRT, 2015: 5). That being said, distribution strategies beyond existing radio and television broadcast technology are clearly developed in line with the available financial resources (RTE, 2014a: 4).
The axis of RTE’s approach is on the online distribution of programming … Theoretically, they understand what a digital media environment is, but they have difficulties translating this. There are a lot of aspirational ideas … They talk about a new strategy and they do that very well. But little of that can be seen in practice. (Interview Titley, 18 December 2018)
Although the BBC’s strategies are considered more mature by the media experts (Interview Broughton-Micova, 7 January 2019), the British public broadcaster is also facing challenges, most notably to align the production, aggregation and distribution strategies of its different brands. BBC One has a different distribution strategy to that of its children’s channel, CBeebies. These differences can only be explained in part by different audience needs; they are often also a consequence of a lack of coordination between divisions. ‘The sheer scale of the corporation’, argues Ramsey (Interview, 18 October 2018), ‘makes a centralised vision impossible’. This creates a competitive disadvantage when comparing the BBC to more unified companies, such as Netflix and Amazon.
In addition to the lack of funding and lack of coordination in PSM organisations, there are two other reasons that explain their current prudent approach to online content and distribution strategies. First, even though linear television and radio are in decline, public broadcasters are still massively successful in these areas. In 2013, RTE reported that they broadcast 19 of the 20 most popular television programmes in Ireland (RTE, 2013: 3). The VRT holds a market share of 63.7% in radio and 37.1% in television (VRT, 2017: 22, 25). In 2018, the NPO was good for 29.2% of listening time (NPO, 2017: 15) and a 31.2% market share in television (NPO, 2018). The 2017 BBC annual report claimed that 32% of television viewing in the United Kingdom that year was directed towards its channels (BBC, 2017: 24). Of course, the BBC and RTE are also taking the lead in online services. At the time of its introduction, the BBC’s iPlayer was highly innovative and set new standards at both the technical and the user level (Interview Broughton-Micova, 7 January 2019), while RTE News Now is the top news app in Ireland (RTE, 2015: 2). However, the situation for smaller public broadcasters like the Belgian VRT is different. They are not the market leader in online news, but take second place to newspaper publishers like DPG Media and Mediahuis, with their hln.be and nieuwsblad.be sites respectively.
Second, the public broadcasters’ key performance indicators are still largely focused on the reach of radio and television broadcasting (although some multi-platform measurements are gradually being added). For example, one of RTE’s KPIs requires that the weekly broadcast reach of RTE channels has to be maintained or increased for each of their radio and television brands. Similarly, perceptions relating to quality and/or trust are important evaluation criteria for the television channels RTE One and RTE2, but less so for websites such as RTE.ie, RTE Player and RTE News Now, where the performance indicators are focused on softer issues, such as the audience’s perception of satisfaction (for RTE.ie) or the offer of a good range of content (for RTE Player) (RTE, 2017a: 2ff). These are more service-oriented issues and only relate tangentially to the core values of PSM. Of course, it can be argued that the quality of programming is evaluated when people’s satisfaction with the quality of RTE One is measured. However, younger audiences might access RTE content mainly via the RTE Player, which makes it important to assess not only their satisfaction with the variety of services offered via the video player, but also their opinion about the quality of content offered. Similar observations can be made when assessing the BBC’s annual reports. While the BBC is admittedly the most digitally oriented public broadcaster of the four analysed, it also continues to put most emphasis on its outstanding news, documentary and drama programmes, and the prizes it wins with these (BBC, 2017: 2; BBC, 2018: 2–5).
A number of our interviewed experts confirmed the findings of our document analysis: namely that although public broadcasters are attempting to transform from PSB into PSM, they continue to a significant extent to be ‘stuck’ in traditional radio and television broadcasting. Hilde Van den Bulck, for example, said (referring Te Walvaart et al., 2018) that ‘even when management is ready to embrace digitisation, production is not always as ready to follow suit, as television producers still primarily care about delivering a top television program to the linear channels and see social media as something they have to do on the side’ (Interview 7 December 2018). Likewise, Gavan Titley also stated that RTE still prefers to focus on broadcast programming, rarely venturing into genuinely innovative domains (Interview 18 December 2018). At the same time, it was also agreed that the RTE, VRT, NPO and BBC have all made significant progress in transforming themselves into broadcasting companies that are active (and often successfully so) online. Hilde Van den Bulck (Interview 7 December 2018), Tom Evens (Interview 18 November 2018), Phil Ramsey (Interview 18 October 2018) and Sally Broughton-Micova (Interview 7 January 2019) all regard the VRT and BBC as currently being in the public service consolidation phase, or even (for some aspects, at least) in the maturity phase. According to Gavan Titley (Interview 18 December 2018), the situation in Ireland is more complex, with RTE being ‘spread over’ the different phases from experimentation to maturity. He also contends that an ‘online first’ strategy is not per se reflective of an evolution towards PSM, at least if one takes into account the definition of the PSM concept as given in the scientific literature. In this respect, the document analysis did indeed show that in terms of content distribution the RTE has consolidated well and now focuses on optimising its offering of non-linear services, both through its player and new commercial partnerships, which bring in additional revenues. In contrast, at the level of production and aggregation the RTE is still very much in an experimental stage, investigating which digital-only services might or might not work. The analysis of policy, strategy and annual report documents for the Flemish VRT and the Dutch NPO reveal similar trends.
Including all citizens in a market where connection with users is controlled by others
Traditional public service broadcasting was not solely focused on radio and television broadcasting transmission. Its main aim was to reach all citizens in the country where it operates with high-quality content and, in so doing, achieving public interest objectives and strengthen democratic society at large. While PSM has this same aim, the necessary condition of reaching all citizens in an increasingly ‘platformised’ environment has become more challenging. Although many of the documents we examined emphasised the increased role of platforms, this was seldom done in relation to audiences. When talking about audiences, public broadcasters primarily stress the need to better understand the changed relationship with users (see, for example, BBC, 2014: 3; RTE, 2014b: 10; VRT, 2015: 4) and to offer them services ‘anytime, anywhere and anyhow’. However, there are signs of change. Whereas the management contracts from 2013, 2014 and 2015 still present these aspects as a work in progress (see NPO, 2015a: 14), management contracts from 2017 now regard these aspects as a basic feature of PSM and frequently mention a radically different consumption behaviour among their audiences. For example, the 2014 annual report of the NPO stressed the necessity ‘to respond to changing audience needs’ (NPO, 2015a: 16), while the RTE’s 2017 annual report stated that: ‘While broad patterns of media consumption endure, with linear television and radio remaining very strong, major changes in the market are shifting audience behaviour and expectations (particularly among younger people) towards online and mobile services’ (RTE, 2017b: 8). In other words, whereas in the earlier documents personalisation was considered to be something that still needed to happen in the future (or was not even mentioned), it is now more or less taken as a given, albeit that some public broadcasters still see more problems than others. For example, they not only see personalisation as an opportunity, but also relate it to issues such as fake news (NPO, 2018: 14) and filter bubbles (Van den Bulck, Interview 7 December 2018; see also, Van den Bulck and Moe, 2018: 879). Tom Evens adds that most public broadcasters, including the Flemish VRT, are still struggling to adopt a full user-driven perspective on service delivery and the meeting of high consumer expectations (Interview Evens 14 November 2018).
Connecting with audiences is also increasingly perceived as a two-way relationship. Audience interaction and co-creation are presented as parts of ‘a more personalised, social and mobile BBC, offering individual recommendations, participation and a two-way relationship with our audiences’ (BBC, 2014: 55). The VRT (2015b: 70, 75) aspires to strengthen participation not only in programmes, but also, for example, in culture and the arts through its programming. The NPO strategic plan for 2016–2020 states that it wants to strengthen audience interaction, offering ‘numerous opportunities for the audience to interact and to participate … through portals, program sites and the apps of broadcasters, as well as through broadcast portals and social media’ (NPO, 2015b: 38). This mirrors the 2013 annual report, where it was stated that participation and personalisation to meet audience needs was a necessity (NPO, 2014: 7). Even so, a convincing and detailed view about what this could mean for the legitimacy for public broadcasters or for the empowerment of audiences is still lacking. For the time being, the focus continues to be on pilot projects, often for a very limited part of the audience (e.g. VRT, 2014: 19).
Not surprisingly, public broadcasters also frequently talk about the difficulty of reaching youngsters (NPO, 2015a: 27) and children. A focus on mobile channels as a means of distribution is often put forward as an effective way to better reflect the changing needs of the youth audience (RTE, 2014b: 2-3). In this context, the BBC took drastic decisions to turn its BBC Three television channel into an online-only service, as part of a ‘journey to ensure that the service meets the needs of young people today, and innovates with new ways to create and deliver content that keeps pace with young people’s lives in the future’ (BBC, 2016: 66). However, this decision has been criticised for being primarily a cost-cutting measure that has not lived up to expectations (Interview Ramsey, 18 October 2018). Realising that in 2017 its reach in the 6–12 years age group had dropped below 25% for the first time, the BBC also increased investment in its children’s services (Interview Ramsey, 18 October 2018; BBC, 2018: 24). Be that as it may, the NPO, VRT, RTE and BBC all have a 360° strategy in place for children that performs well, both in terms of reach and satisfaction (also of parents) (RTE, 2015: 61; VRT, 2016: 54). This suggests that the content and distribution strategies for this specific target group are better aligned than for most others.
All of the above-mentioned elements require different distribution strategies. In essence, this means more diversified in terms of the devices, modes of distribution (linear and non-linear) and types of access (cable, IPTV, satellite, the open Internet or closed platform zones, such as Hulu and Netflix). As intimated earlier, there is little evidence that much reflection has taken place on the important matter of how the connection with the audience can be restored or improved in an environment where data are largely in the hands of Facebook and Google and in which all the means of distribution are (in one way or another) controlled by companies that are not PSM institutions.
A firm public service orientation in a commercialised and internationalised media landscape
Against the background of an internationalised media market where public broadcasters are less of a node or ‘keystone’ organisation than in the past (Peltoniemi, 2004), the analysed documents show an increased emphasis on public broadcasters as public service-driven organisations. Before 2017, there was little attention for the changes affecting content and distribution strategies. The NPO, 2014 annual report mentions research carried out into the future of public broadcasting, yet while the need for a more distinctive offer, organisational adjustments and changing consumer behaviour were all mentioned, no reference was made to issues such as internationalisation and platformisation. In the 2016 annual report, globalisation, the consolidation of ownership structures and the powerful position of companies such as Apple, Netflix and Spotify were now at least mentioned (NPO, 2016: 5), but once again there was no deeper investigation of what this might mean for the public service remit, nor for the content production, aggregation and distribution strategies of the NPO. Much the same is true for the other broadcasters in our study. Typical in this respect is the vague comment in the 2015 RTE report about need for change, now that it was possible to ‘see how challenging the competitive environment is becoming’ (RTE, 2014a: 4; see also 2014b: 3). This applies equally to the instrumentalisation of internationalisation and platformisation as an argument in favour of PSM institutions. In 2015, the NPO said that the government should be more aware of ‘the increasing role of wealthy international undertakings that control both the production and distribution of media services within the value chain’ (NPO, 2015a: 42). More recently, in its 2017 annual report the Irish public broadcaster RTE stated: ‘Public media has never been more necessary. In a media world dominated by the international, the commercially driven and the false, it is increasingly important to give authority and voice to the indigenous and to the creative’ (RTE, 2017a: 8). The RTE emphasised the lack of accountability of these new competitors and their lack of a dedicated focus on the production on distinctive, high-quality Irish content (Idem: 22).
While all of the above is true, public broadcasters have only recently moved beyond the purely rhetorical consideration of internationalisation and platformisation. In the documents from 2017 and 2018, they talk increasingly about how economic changes are now also a strategic issue for them. In performing their public service task, they need to compete with international conglomerates, without always having adequate means to do so (e.g. NPO, 2017: 31). The Irish public broadcaster has made clear its preference for a collaborative rather than a competitive model by entering into distribution partnerships with Sky, Netflix, Amazon, Acorn TV and Hulu. These are primarily important from a financial perspective (RTE, 2015: 36, 74; 2017: 96), but as a business practice this also relates to the wishes of the Irish diaspora and the need to reach audiences abroad (RTE, 2017a: 48). As far as the other three public broadcasters are concerned, the analysed documents give no clear picture of how they see their strategic positioning in the national and international distribution markets. Seemingly, this is an issue that public broadcasters prefer to deal with behind the scenes. The expert interviews were a little more forthcoming in this respect. While most public broadcasters embrace social media as an additional channel to reach their citizens, they all realise that this inevitably involves a number of ethical issues and competitive trade-offs. In their competitive dealings with on-demand players, cable giants and Internet service providers, their relationships are largely determined by the negotiation dynamics. In these dealings, the public broadcasters do not have the upper hand. They have less power, less money and, in general, more to lose by not collaborating (Interview Van den Bulck, 7 December 2018). The BBC, RTE, NPO and VRT are all still experimenting to see which partnerships work best in terms of delivering value to citizens, but also in terms of securing additional revenues for the broadcasters. Not surprisingly, there is some friction between strengthened public service awareness on the one hand and the public broadcasters’ new commercial distribution strategies on the other hand. The RTE (2017a: 1) openly admits that ‘as the organisation strives to fulfil its public service remit, it must contend with the tensions of securing public service goals, while remaining dependent on a high level of commercial funding, and catering for popular interests, while also serving minority cultures and interests’. In a similar vein, the NPO mentions that its collaboration with the third parties distributing its content requires a ‘balance between the increase of revenues on the one hand and the recognisability and attractiveness of our offers on the other hand’ (NPO, 2015b: 57). Although not specifically stated in the published documents, it is clear that the VRT and BBC are also struggling with the balance between public service goals and commercial objectives. They limit the universality of their offers (e.g. by not streaming all their offers or by boxing some of them in pay-services), because they do not want to jeopardise the generous income they receive from television distributors. Belgian public broadcaster VRT is highly dependent on revenues derived from distribution via the cable platform of Telenet. The development of new distribution strategies or the choice not to use new means to increase access for users is often steered by fear for revenue loss on that side of the market. As already researched by Donders and Van den Bulck (2016), the huge success of BBC content abroad has affected the British public broadcaster’s commissioning strategies. Ramsey (Interview 18 October 2018) is of the opinion that the collaboration between the BBC and Netflix to co-produce content might erode the public broadcaster’s reason for existence. He says: ‘We are talking about two very different beasts: you cannot compare the BBC and Netflix … The BBC could put itself in danger by going too far down that road’.
The need for organisational change to cope with a different distribution strategy
The fact that the fairly simple distribution strategy of the radio and broadcasting era has been gradually superseded by more complex and often unsynchronised (in terms of the balance of relative power) distribution strategies clearly requires some form of organisational change. This need was mentioned in most of the analysed documents. A digital environment requires a flexible and efficient organisation. Unfortunately, this often translates into a legitimation of budget cuts and staff reductions. Although the budgetary issues are discussed in a quite specific manner, that is less the case for matters relating to leadership, stronger internal communication, stimulating collaboration between divisions, promoting innovating across departments, and so on. For this latter type of issue, vague statements are the norm, such as, ‘The HR department has focused on strengthening leadership and supporting collaborative dynamics’ (VRT, 2017: 148) or ‘The NPO regards education, training and coaching as important. On the one hand, to develop the knowledge, capacities, behaviour and attitudes of employees in keeping with the goals of the organisation; on the other hand to enable them to tackle new challenges’ (NPO, 2014: 125). The only aspects for which more specific comment is forthcoming are innovation and newsroom integration. For example, the RTE is clear when it comes to the structure of RTE Digital as a unit that structures all digital and innovation-related activities, such as the radio player and the RTE Incubator (RTE, 2014b). It further elaborates on the need to reorganise its news and current affairs resources ‘to deliver a digital-first news service alongside broadcast news and current affairs output’ (RTE, 2017b: 28). This also relates to the online distribution of news and mobile as the new normal. Similarly, the VRT has detailed the functions of its innovation department (R&D, external communication, collaboration with other public broadcasters), its Open Innovation initiative (inviting talent from outside the VRT to workshops and co-creation sessions) and the VRT Sandbox (a test bed for new services from the VRT and start-ups). However, in the case of the Flemish public broadcaster this probably has more to do with other factors than with new forms of distribution and the resulting need for greater organisational coordination and flexibility. In other words, while there seems to be an awareness of the need to break up silos within public broadcasters in order to improve collaboration and to nurture talent, it remains unclear whether or not this is really taking place and, if so, what its likely effect will be on digital content and distribution strategies.
The position in the Netherlands in terms of internal reorganisation is unique, since the majority of the documents analysed refer to changes made in response to the pluralistic structure of the Dutch PSM system. In the Netherlands, several public broadcasters with different ideological or societal backgrounds share a number of television channels, with their activities being coordinated to some extent by the NPO as an umbrella organisation. As a result, the Dutch public broadcasting system is essentially decentralised. However, the political consensus for this method of providing a public service has now dissolved. There was a growing opinion that too many organisations (13) were involved and that, consequently, some form of amalgamation was necessary, not least because the membership-based existence of the different organisations was clearly under pressure in a society where more and more people wish to disconnect from belonging to ‘the’ Christian public broadcaster or ‘the’ liberal public broadcasting organisation. Faced with this situation, some of the largest organisations have now merged, so that the continued existence of broadcasting organisations is no longer dependent on membership. However, this process is still ongoing and, while it may contribute towards the necessary streamlining of strategies in a digital age, it might also detract attention from the equally necessary transition to PSM. It has certainly already had an impact on distribution strategies, which like television broadcasting, are very much fragmented over the different organisations.
Conclusion
The distribution strategies of public broadcasters have clearly changed, with a greater focus on a multi-platform spread of content. Yet while the BBC has taken a rather ambitious approach, the smaller public broadcasters investigated in this study still prefer to concentrate on the continuing smooth distribution of existing radio and television programmes. This is in keeping with Gillian Doyle’s (2010: 446) finding that ‘breadth must suffer in order to support more innovative and potentially high-impact content proposals’. Doyle reached this conclusion in relation to the BBC’s multi-platform strategies, but in comparison with other public broadcasters it is clear that the breadth of BBC’s distribution strategies is still considerably wider.
As the producers, aggregators and distributors of content, public broadcasters have undeniably become more aware of the highly complex and competitive international media environment in which they operate. As commented by Sally Broughton-Micova (Interview 7 January 2019), public broadcasters ‘are well aware of the platformisation and are working to adapt to it. Although they may be inhibited by resource constraints and legal barriers to cooperation, they do not seem to be held back by any lack of understanding’. Public broadcasters view the changed nature of their surrounding environment as a justification for their continued existence. That being said, few of them are explicit about their competitive positioning and the distribution strategies (in any) they follow in this environment. Some would argue that this makes sense from an economic point of view. Why share your strategic orientation with your competitors? Even so, this secretiveness should be criticised. The distribution strategies of PSM organisations not only have economic implications, but also public service ones. In cases where public broadcasters work together with Netflix and services are offered on a pay-per-view basis, this impacts on the universality of the public broadcasters’ offers. Furthermore, if the public broadcasters feel a need to agree with Netflix to modify the editorial lines of drama series to ensure that these appeal to international audiences, this has clear implications for values such as quality, editorial independence, cultural diversity and identity. This is not to say that public broadcasters are mainly guided by economic motives. On the contrary, both the document analysis and the expert interviews indicate a strong public service awareness, but an obvious friction exists between this ethos and the budgetary pressure that all four cases are facing. Fortunately, there are many new ways in which PSM organisations can serve the public interest in a multi-platform age (Debrett, 2009: 870), although these are not always easy to align with commercial strategies. This can be observed not only in European public broadcasters, but also with PSM organisations in other continents. Admittedly, the competitive positioning of public broadcasters is unclear and in most cases also lacks focus. There is insufficient alignment of strategies between the different brands and departments within public broadcasting companies. This, however, can be regarded as normal, since all media companies currently need to adapt to the rapidly changing environment and the evolving strategies of their competitors. Everyone is in the same boat. In fact, it could be argued that a clear focus will never be possible, given the highly fluid nature of the media sector. What we can say is that in this situation the NPO, VRT and RTE are more vulnerable, given their lower budget and, perhaps even more importantly, their higher dependence on commercial funding, including advertising.
Of course, documents and interviews do not tell the whole story. More research is necessary, specifically through participatory observation. It would be interesting to find out exactly how digital content production, aggregation and distribution strategies are being shaped, not only at management level, but also through the day-to-day practices of producers, journalists and so on. Because the focus of today’s management contracts, annual reports and other strategy documents is largely set on what public broadcasters are required to do (in terms of output), there is too little focus on how they do this and with what impact. These two elements might actually become more important in the future, in terms of distinguishing public broadcasters and their public service ethos from the activities of commercial companies in a datafied and increasingly commoditised media environment.
