Public service media and public funding: A three-country study of willingness to pay versus perceived dispensability

Abstract

Recent public debates in several European countries have shown that public service medias’ (PSM) public funding has become a topic of controversial discussion. Based on an online survey in France, Germany, and the UK, this study analyses how the willingness to pay (WTP) versus perceived dispensability of PSM relates to various factors identified in the current literature. Across the three countries, most respondents doubt that PSM are dispensable. However, if they determine the sum of the licence fee themselves, it would clearly be a smaller amount than it is currently. Assessment of the overall information quality of PSM and the assumed state or government influence thereon, have a significant influence on the WTP for PSM versus the perceived dispensability thereof. Understanding the factors driving and hindering WTP versus perceived dispensability is crucial, providing insights relevant to understanding PSM and public funding.

Keywords

Public service media licence fee public funding willingness to pay comparative research

Introduction

Public service media (PSM) in Europe is in a privileged funding situation compared to private sector media. An analysis of the European Broadcasting Unions (EBU) of 64 PSM organisations in 47 countries shows that 78% of PSM funding in the EBU area in 2020 came from public income. When comprehensively considered, it becomes apparent that the licence fee was undoubtedly the main income source for PSM, accounting for 60% of total funding in 2020 (EBU, 2022: 10). As much independence from market and government as possible is sought through a licence fee model (Mazzone, 2019: 1322).

Consequently, PSM needs to worry less about business models, which is a main challenge for private sector media, especially in digital journalism (Cornia et al., 2019). However, recent public debates in several European countries have shown that PSMs’ public funding has become a topic of controversy. The most prominent example is the Swiss public referendum on the public funding of the Swiss PSM organisation SRG SSR in 2018, which ended with clear public support for the SRG SSR. However, liberal and populist parties in countries with long and stable PSM traditions, such as the UK, Germany, and France, have questioned the necessity of PSM organisations, their mission, or their scope (Holtz-Bacha, 2021; Sehl et al., 2022).

Against this background, this paper analyses how the willingness to pay (WTP) versus perceived dispensability of PSM, relates to various factors, including paying for media services (without PSM), PSM news use and assessment of the overall information quality thereof, political interest, interest in news, and demographics. While there is in general a lack of studies on (the willingness of) paying for news (for exceptions see, e.g., Fletcher and Nielsen, 2017; Goyanes, 2020), there is almost no research published on this aspect of PSM (for exceptions see, e.g., Delaney and O’Toole, 2004; Fauth et al., 2006; Grammel and Gründl, 2018). This is likely owing to their public mission and funding. Understanding the factors driving and hindering WTP versus perceived dispensability is crucial, providing insights relevant to understanding PSM and public funding. An international comparative approach – based on a sample for three European countries – allows for discussion on whether the WTP is influenced by country context or whether there are also factors on an individual level.

The study is based on an online survey in France, Germany, and the UK, representing partially different media systems (Brüggemann et al., 2014; Hallin and Mancini, 2004; Humprecht et al., 2022), including varying conditions and performances of PSM, and French PSM having a comparatively weaker position than the other two countries (Eberwein et al., 2019; Saurwein et al., 2019).

The findings show that across the three countries, most respondents support PSM and doubt that they are dispensable. Nonetheless, the licence fee would be clearly lower if respondents could determine it themselves, underlying the merit goods argument. Regression analyses indicated that assessment of the overall information quality of PSM and the assumed state or government influence thereon, have a significant influence on the support for PSM and the WTP for it; the latter having a negative impact. Interestingly, the support for PSM and WTP there was higher in Germany than in France, or the UK.

The article is structured as follows: First, PSM mission and funding are laid out, prior to the literature on WTP for digital news, as well as PSM, is reviewed. Thus, the research questions are deduced, and the method of the study is described. In the penultimate section, the findings are presented. The paper concludes by discussing the limitations of the approach and perspectives for future research.

PSM mission and funding

Public service broadcasting (PSB) was introduced by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in 1927. After World War II, this model spread across Europe (Schwarzkopf, 1999: 1542). It is characterised by a service of broadcasting for citizens, independent from markets and state. Consequently, it differs from commercial and state broadcasting in mission and funding, respectively (Mazzone, 2019: 1321–1322). McQuail describes these key characteristics of PSB in broad terms, highlighting that PSM is, apart from this consensus, also highly context-dependent:

[…] public service broadcasting refers to a system that is set up by law and generally financed by public funds (often a compulsory licence paid by households) and given a large degree of editorial and operating independence. The general rational for such a system is that they should service the public interest by meeting the important communication needs of society and its citizens, as decided and reviewed by way of the democratic political system (McQuail, 2005: 178).

Its mission includes to ‘inform, educate, entertain’ (Mazzone, 2019: 1320). In the digital age, PSB has progressed into PSM (public service media), meaning that its contents are no longer distributed only through radio and TV (broadcasting), but through all possible platforms, especially the Internet (e.g., Brevini, 2013). EBU, an association that represents PSM in Europe and beyond, describes six core obligations of PSM in the digital age: universality (in access, reach, and content), independence, excellence, diversity, accountability, and innovation (EBU, 2012).

Various studies on the political impact of PSM (for a literature overview see Nielsen et al., 2016) found that they add to an informed public, as they tend to broadcast more news and current affairs programs at peak times (e.g., Aalberg et al., 2010; Esser et al., 2012) and, among those programs, more hard news than private sector media (e.g., Aalberg et al., 2013; Curran et al., 2009). This is true for both direct individual exposure to PSM news and for a country with a strong PSM (e.g., Aalberg et al., 2013; Curran et al., 2009).

PSM proved their role as important news providers at the beginning of the COVID19-pandemic, a situation characterised by rapid development and insecurity concerning the virus. Data emphasises that audiences across Europe increasingly relied on PSM. The average daily viewing share, of 29 PSM organisation's evening news bulletins, was increased by 20% in March 2020, when compared to the first quarter of 2019 (EBU, 2020a: 11). Simultaneously, in many European countries PSM was seen as trustworthy sources of information related to the outbreak of the pandemic (EBU, 2020b: 28–29).

In the context of funding, PSM is perceived as merit goods by several authors (e.g., Holtz-Bacha, 2015: 38; Ramsey and McDermott, 2020). Merit goods are not provided by market-related supply and demand, as what they produce is socially desirable, often expensive to produce, with insufficient funding from consumers (Ali, 2016). Critics of this perspective argue that individuals themselves are best able to judge the benefits they derive from the various goods they can acquire with their (limited) income (Kops, 2005: 5). Donders (2021) provides criticism from a more democratic normative perspective than an economic one, that the pure perspective of market failure falls too short, and that concepts such as citizenship and democracy should rather be given greater consideration. Nevertheless, PSM is characterised by a special funding situation compared to private sector media, although funding arrangements and levels thereof, vary significantly between countries.

Public funding per capita and a stable funding situation for PSM, is higher in the Nordic and Central European countries, than in Eastern and Southern Europe (EAO, 2021). More recently, in some European countries, the funding situation has changed from licence fees to taxes (e.g., Finland), or to state budgets (e.g., Hungary). In particular, the latter is discussed controversially as:

it exposed the PSB to the risk of interferences from governments and parliaments, who could use the resource weapon as a lever to control public media (Mazzone, 2019: 1322).

Paying for digital news

While the business aspect of journalism is somewhat neglected in research (Cornia et al., 2020), there are several studies addressing payment for digital journalism. However, they often differ and even contradict themselves regarding the diverse factors influencing payment or the WTP (Chyi 2012; Fletcher and Nielsen 2017; Goyanes, 2020; Salaverría, 2019).

O’Brien et al. (2020) conducted a review of 37 studies on this topic, to systematise the findings and approaches. First, they differentiated between studies on consumers’ past payments (regarding how much someone has paid in the past for a product), paying/purchase intention (response to whether someone would pay for a certain product), or their WTP (response to whether someone would pay for a certain product) for digital journalism. Then, they identified the most relevant variables and reported their impacts, and critically discussed the methodological approaches that might have individually influenced the findings.

Their systematic literature review concludes that gender (male), education, media use, news interest, format/medium (print or bundle), customisation/personalisation, (perceived) quality, specialisation/niche (e.g., local), and income have a positive impact on at least one of the three payment variables (past payment, paying/purchase intention, or WTP). Contrastingly, age, price, and free mentality have a negative effect on at least one of the three payment variables. Finally, for paywalls, brand image, ease of use, and exclusiveness, the findings are more ambiguous.

Paying for PSM

There are also a few studies about WTP with a focus on PSM worldwide (Finn et al., 2003; Lin et al., 2013; Papandrea, 1999), and in European countries specifically (Delaney and O’Toole 2004; Fauth et al., 2006; Grammel and Gründl, 2018; Reiter et al., 2018).

Delaney and O’Toole (2004) discovered regional differences for the WTP for PSM in Ireland, as respondents from the capital Dublin had a lower WTP compared to those from other parts of the country. Based on a survey experiment in the UK, Fauth et al. (2006) found that income, age, completed FT education, BBC quality rating, and predicted use of new services had a positive influence on the WTP, and respondents were on average willing to pay more than the licence fees in place. Additionally, respondents who had been primed through a stimulus, by being asked to answer the questions from a societal perspective rather than a personal one, were willing to pay slightly more than other respondents. Grammel and Gründl (2018) found that for Austria and Germany, attitudes towards PSM and licence fees, usage and satisfaction with PSM are significant predictors. Reiter et al. (2018) concluded, for a nonrepresentative survey experiment with complementary interviews with young audiences in Austria, that their WTP for the licence fee was only approximately one-third thereof. They identified a general scepticism regarding the economic competition in the Austrian PSM Österreichischer Rundfunk (ORF) in parallel to the licence fee as one reason for this low WTP. Furthermore, their respondents stressed the value of the offers of the commercial competitors.

Research questions

This empirical study analyses the WTP versus perceived dispensability for PSM. It aims to identify, in a comparative design for France, Germany, and the UK, how this relates to various factors identified from the literature.

The research questions for this three-country study are as follows:

RQ1a. To what extent are PSM perceived as dispensable by respondents?

RQ1b. How does this relate to various factors, including PSM news use, assessment of the overall information quality of PSM, assumed state or government influence on PSM, interest in news, political interest, and demographics?

RQ2a. To what extent are they willing to pay for PSM?

RQ2b. How does the WTP for PSM relate to various factors, including paying for media services (without PSM), PSM news use, assessment of the overall information quality of PSM, assumed state or government influence on PSM, interest in news, political interest, and demographics?

Method

The study is based on an online survey conducted in three countries, namely, France, Germany, and the UK. The overall questionnaire addressed the assessment of and attitudes toward PSM compared to other types of media (see also Sehl, 2020). One aspect of it was questions on the WTP for PSM.

In each of the three countries, 1000 citizens, representative of gender and age (18–69 years, comprising 10-year groups, e.g., 30–39 years), were sampled and surveyed via an ISO-certified online access panel provider, in September 2019. The online access panel included a pool of individuals who agreed to participate in online surveys. Participants received a small incentive to undertake the survey, as is common with online access panel providers.

The questionnaire was professionally translated into the relevant languages and scheduled to be completed in 12 minutes. At the beginning of the questionnaire, respondents were asked what sources they use to obtain information regarding current events and in this context were also given some examples of PSM in their respective countries.¹

This article is based on the variables described in the following paragraphs.

Perceived dispensability of PSM. Respondents were asked if they are of the opinion that PSM is dispensable by means of a four-point scale (definitely, generally, generally not, definitely not, do not know).

Willingness to pay for PSM. After providing respondents with information on the current amount of the licence fee in their country, they were asked how much they would pay for PSM if they could determine the sum themselves.

Payment for media services (without PSM). Respondents were asked how much money they spent at present, per month, for media services (prior to the question, it was specified that this does not include the TV and radio licence fee).

Sources of news (weekly). Respondents were asked where they received information concerning current events at least once a week. More than one answer was possible. Examples for each media type were provided specifically to each country's context, including PSM. For the UK, Channel 4 (a publicly owned and commercially funded public service broadcaster (PSB)) was treated as a special and separate case. The answer format of the multi-response questions was dichotomous. For this paper, PSM radio, TV, and online were merged.

Main source of news. The focus here was on the main source of news. The answer options were identical to the question on the sources of news (weekly), but only one source could be chosen. Again, PSM radio, TV, and online were merged afterwards for the purpose of this study.

Assessment of overall information quality of different types of media. For each type of media, this was measured separately by means of a four-point scale, including PSM radio, TV, and online (very poor, generally poor, generally good, very good, do not know). For the calculations of this paper, an average value for PSM radio, TV, and online was used.

Assumed state or government influence on PSM. First, respondents were asked whether they believe that the state or government dictates what media in their country should report. If they agreed (completely, or generally agreed, on a four-point scale), they were asked which media are particularly influenced thereby and were given several options, including PSM. The answer format of these second multi-response questions was dichotomous.

Interest in news and interest in politics. Interest in both was measured by means of a four-point scale (no interest, not very strong, strong, very strong).

Demographics. Gender was measured as female, male, and diverse. Age was measured in 10-year groups (e.g., 30–39 years, for ages 18–69 years old). The measurement of the highest educational qualification was adapted to each country's context, for example, in the UK it was measured in eight categories, from no qualification to higher education, with an additional category for other qualifications.

The three countries were chosen according to strategic sampling, as they represent partially different media systems (Brüggemann et al., 2014; Hallin and Mancini, 2004; Humprecht et al., 2022), including varying conditions and performances of PSM, with French PSM having a comparatively weaker position than the other two countries (Eberwein et al., 2019; Saurwein et al., 2019).

While PSM in all three countries are mainly funded by public revenues, the public revenues per capita vary (see Table 1). However, especially in France and the UK, there have recently been controversial funding discussions, with a temporary solution in France consisting of replacement of the license fee by allocating a proportion of VAT, until 2023 (Burneau, 2022). In the UK, the license fee has recently been frozen for two years, and former prime minister Boris Johnson and his government, have suggested that the BBC funding needs to be reformed (Reuters, 2022).

Table 1.

Funding of PSM in France, Germany, and the UK.

Country	PSM licence fee per household/month in EUR (2019)	Total revenues of PSM in EUR million (2019)	Total revenues of PSM/GDP in % (both 2019)	Public revenues of PSM in % (2019)	Public revenues of PSM per capita in EUR (both 2019)
France	11.58	4572.1	0.19	83	56
Germany	17.50	9472.7	0.27	86	98
UK	14.52^±	6806.5^§	0.27	68	69

Notes: The concept of “Revenues” may differ between PSM and may correspond to total revenues, operating revenues or total funding.

^±

Exchange rate of 15 September 2019 (month of the survey).

^§

The figure for BBC total revenues includes the turnover of BBC Worldwide and other global commercial activities, as well as licence fee revenues, in line with the methodology of the European Audiovisual Observatory.

Sources: European Audiovisual Observatory (2021), Eurostat (2023), and World Bank (n.d.)

The public revenues per capita are almost double for Germany than France, while they are in between in the UK. Normalized by gross domestic product (GDP) at market prices, the German PSM has a higher budget than the British and, at the bottom, the French.

However, Germany also has, as explained above, a comprehensive PSM system with two main national PSM organisations (ARD and ZDF), of which one (ARD) consists of nine regional PSM organisations, the smaller national PSM organisation Deutschlandradio (and a public international broadcaster, but this one is not funded by the licence fee, but mainly by the German federal tax budget).

Findings

RQ1a. To what extent are PSM perceived as dispensable by respondents?

The findings show that across the three countries, over half of the respondents think that PSM is not dispensable (generally not, or definitely not). However, approximately one-third of respondents are of the contrary opinion (definitely, or generally dispensable). A smaller percentage of respondents do not know (see Table 2). Specified per country; PSM are seen as least dispensable in Germany (65%), enjoy stronger support in France (57%), and both surpass that of the origin of PSM, the UK. There, only 40% of respondents stated that PSM are generally not, or definitely not dispensable, with 20% of respondents having no clear opinion.

Table 2.

Perceived dispensability of PSM.

	France	Germany	UK	Total
Definitely dispensable	8%	15%	13%	12%
Generally, dispensable	23%	16%	27%	22%
Generally, not dispensable	34%	26%	23%	27%
Definitely not dispensable	23%	39%	17%	26%
Do not know	13%	4%	20%	12%

Note. Question: Are public service media dispensable? (n_Fr= 1000; n_Ger= 1000; n_UK= 1000); p < 0.001.

RQ1b. How does this relate to various factors, including PSM news use and assessment of the overall information quality of PSM, assumed state or government influence on PSM, interest in news, political interest, and demographics?

To better understand this distribution, a regression analysis on the impact of various variables derived from the literature, on the perceived dispensability of PSM, was conducted per country. The factors tested included PSM news use, assessment of the overall information quality of PSM, assumed influence from state or government on PSM, political interest, interest in news, and demographics.

The use of PSM as sources of information about current events (at least weekly), as well as the main source of news, were control variables. This was done in blocks, with PSM news use as the first control variables, followed by assessment of the overall information quality of PSM and the assumed state or government influence thereon, then interest in news and political interest, and finally, demographic data were included in the regression model (gender, age, and formal education).

For the PSM news use and the assessment of the overall information quality thereof, the data for the three distribution platforms, namely radio, TV, and online, which were collected separately, were combined in each variable.

First, in all cases, the explained variance after the first block of PSM news use accounted for some part of the variance explained by the entire model. Nonetheless, the other three blocks—assessments of the overall information quality of PSM and the assumed state and government influence thereon, interest in news and political interest, as well as demographic data, respectively—led to a further explanation of variance.

The linear regression models show an adjusted R-squared of 0.257 (France), 0.455 (Germany), and 0.154 (UK) for the perceived dispensability of PSM (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Effect on the perceived dispensability of PSM in France, Germany, and the UK (Multiple Linear Regression).

	Beta
DV= Perceived dispensability of PSM	France	Germany	UK
PSM news use (weekly)	−0.023	0.108**	0.079
PSM main source of news	0.113**	0.109**	0.086*
Assessment of the overall information quality of PSM	0.262***	0.431***	0.204***
Assumed state or government influence on PSM	−0.277***	−0.203***	−0.180***
Interest in news	0.009	0.067	0.014
Political interest	0.022	−0.019	−0.059
Gender (male)	−0.021	−0.080**	−0.100*
Age	0.195***	0.093**	0.151***
Formal education	0.148***	−0.004	0.092*
N	625	752	631
Adjusted R2	0.257	0.455	0.154

Notes: Columns showing standardised beta coefficients. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. N differs by country owing to missing data for DV [“Do not know”-option] and “Other”-option for IV “Formal education”; 1= definitely dispensable to 4= definitely not dispensable.

The most significant and meaningful predictor is, with slight differences between countries, assessment of the overall information quality of PSM, followed by the assumed state or government influence. The negative sign means that if respondents believe that PSM is influenced by state or government, they see such PSM as more dispersible. Age also has a significant influence, although this effect is stronger in France and the UK than in Germany. This means that the older a respondent is, the higher the support for PSM is on average. As the main source of news, the impact on the perceived dispensability of PSM is also significant, and nominally stronger in Germany and France than in the UK, where the effect is comparably weak. Formal education is only significant in France and the UK, but a rather weak predictor, especially in the UK. The effect of gender is a significant, but weak predictor in Germany and the UK only. Interest in news and political interest are not significant in any country.

RQ2a. To what extent are they willing to pay for PSM?

At the time of the empirical data collection for this study, in France, households paid 139.00 Euro per year, for their PSM (corresponding to 11.58 Euro per month), whereas in Germany, it was 17.50 Euro per household per month (now 18.36 Euro), and in the UK it was 154.50 GBP for a colour TV per household and year (corresponding to 12.86 GBP per month/14.53 EUR per month, exchange rate as of 15 September 2019).

If respondents could determine the sum they pay per household themselves, it would be less, on average, across the three countries. In France, the difference between what households pay and what respondents state they would like to pay is most pronounced (59% less). In Germany, despite having the highest actual payment for PSM, the discrepancy between WTP and actual pay is smallest (49%, see Table 4).

Table 4.

Willingness to pay for PSM and discrepancy to actual payment.

	France	Germany	UK
	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
WTP for PSM in EUR/month	4.79 (4.778)	8.93 (9.536)	7.30 (7.229)^±
Discrepancy to actual pay in EUR/month in % (2019)	59%	49%	50%

Note. Question (UK example): The TV licence fee in the UK is currently £154.50 a year for a colour TV. How much would you pay per year (and per household) for public broadcasting if you could determine the sum yourself? (n_Fr= 1000; n_Ger= 1000; n_UK= 1000). ^± Exchange rate of 15 September 2019 (month of the survey).

Across all three countries, approximately one in five respondents is not willing to pay for PSM at all and chose a value of 0 EUR (France 19%, Germany 21%, and the UK 20%). Contrastingly, between 6 and 12% of respondents (France and UK, respectively) are willing to pay more than they genuinely do. For Germany, this is the case for 9% of respondents.

The combination of the findings of RQ1 and RQ2 underline why PSM is seen as a merit good. While a majority think that PSM is not dispensable (although public opinion is not a central criterion for a merit good), only a fraction indicates the WTP as the actual price.

RQ2b. How does the WTP for PSM relate to various factors, including paying for media services (without PSM), PSM media use and assessment of the overall information quality of PSM, assumed state or government influence on PSM, interest in news, political interest, and demographics?

Again, a regression analysis of the effects on the WTP for PSM was conducted per country. The factors included and the procedure of blockwise inclusion of variables remained identical, with the exception that the actual payment for media services (without PSM) was added, as it can be assumed that paying for media in general and the WTP for PSM are related.

The linear regression models show an adjusted R-squared of 0.056 (France), 0.123 (Germany), and 0.194 (UK), for the WTP for PSM (see Table 5). The three most significant and meaningful predictors are, with some differences between countries, the assessment of the overall information quality of PSM, the payment for media services (without PSM), and whether respondents think that state or government influences what PSM should report. However, the last factor is not significant in the UK. Again, the sign for the assumed state or government influence on PSM is negative, meaning that if respondents believe that PSM is influenced by state or government, they are less willing to pay for it.

Table 5.

Effects on the willingness to pay for PSM in France, Germany, and the UK (Multiple Linear Regression).

	Beta
DV= WTP for PSM in EUR/month	France	Germany	UK
PSM news use (weekly)	0.060	0.008	−0.098*
PSM main source of news	0.022	0.036	−0.009
Assessment of the overall information quality of PSM	0.094*	0.195***	0.371***
Assumed state or government influence on PSM	−0.121**	−0.108**	−0.003
Payment for media services (without PSM)	0.094*	0.171***	0.114**
Interest in news	0.029	−0.014	−0.035
Political interest	0.076	0.123*	0.212***
Gender (male)	0.009	0.032	0.066
Age	−0.091*	−0.014	−0.087*
Formal education	−0.030	−0.002	0.051
N	687	775	729
Adjusted R2	0.056	0.123	0.194

Notes: Columns showing standardised beta coefficients.

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

N differs by country owing to missing data for DV [“Do not know”-option] and “Other”-option for IV “Formal education”.

Interestingly, the assessment of the overall information quality of PSM has a stronger impact on the WTP in Germany and the UK, compared to France. Simultaneously, previous analyses of the author have shown that PSM is also better evaluated in these two countries when compared to France (Sehl, 2020). Assumed state or government influence on PSM, has a stronger influence in France – a country where several scholars state that such influence is higher than in Germany or the UK (e.g., Nord, 2015: 184). Political interest has a significant influence in Germany and the UK, but not in France.

Age shows as significant, although it has weak effects in France and the UK, with a negative sign. This means that, on average, younger respondents are more willing to pay for PSM. This is a surprising finding, although the effects are minimal. This may be because younger people are more accustomed to paying for media services (e.g., Netflix, Spotify), or because some do not yet pay the licence fee themselves.

PSM as a source of news or even as the main source of news is, surprisingly, mostly not significant (with the exception of PSM news use (weekly) in the UK, but a very weak effect). Interest in news seems to be irrelevant for the WTP for PSM across all countries. Gender and formal education show no significant effects on the WTP in all three countries.

Conclusion

The aim of this paper was to analyse – based on an online survey for France, Germany, and the UK – how the WTP for PSM versus the perceived dispensability thereof relates to various factors on different levels identified in the current literature. In summary, the findings show that across the three countries, most respondents doubt that PSM is dispensable, with support in France and Germany being slightly higher than in the UK. However, if respondents could determine the amount of the licence fee themselves, it would be clearly less than it actually is on average, with about one in five respondents not willing to pay at all, across the three countries. Here, the WTP – in total and in relation to their actual licence fee – is higher in Germany and the UK, than in France. This underlines why PSM are often seen as a merit good, socially desirable, but not sufficiently funded by the consumers, if traded on the market (e.g., Holtz-Bacha, 2015: 38).

Regression analyses for both research questions showed that assessment of the overall information quality of PSM and assumed state or government influence thereon, has a significant impact on the support for it and the WTP there for; the latter with a negative impact (insignificant in the UK). For support, PSM use as a main source of news has also proven to be a significant predictor across countries, while for the WTP, this is the case for the payment for media services (without PSM).

The effect of age: while it had a significant positive influence on the support of PSM, the sign for the impact thereof on the WTP was negative and only significant in France and the UK. Younger respondents are slightly more willing to pay for PSM, possibly because they are more accustomed to paying for media services (e.g., Netflix, Spotify), or because some do not yet pay the licence fee themselves.

Interestingly, the support for PSM and the WTP for it – in absolute terms and relative to the actual licence fee – was higher in Germany than in France or the UK. For France, this is not surprising as such PSM do, as Kuhn (2006) notes, ‘not enjoy the same status or legitimacy in the French media landscape that the BBC has in the UK equivalent’ (Kuhn, 2006: 20). The reason for this is that state influence on PSM content is more common in France (Nord, 2015: 184). Furthermore, this is reflected in the findings, where the assumption of state or government influence on PSM was a stronger predictor in France of perceived dispensability, as well as WTP for PSM, than in Germany or the UK. For the origin of PSM, namely the UK, where the BBC enjoys a wide reach for their (news) programmes (Newman et al., 2022: 63), the findings on perceived dispensability showed a large group of respondents who stated that they have no opinion, which can cautiously be interpreted that the institution is currently under severe pressure and being accused of biased reporting from both political sides in a more polarized political climate (Greenslade, 2019). Simultaneously, the institution faces discussions about its future funding when the Royal Charter is renewed in 2027.

The findings, therefore, highlight that individual factors (e.g., demographics), a perception of performance of the level of the organisation (e.g., assessment of the overall information quality of PSM), as well as of the level of the media system (e.g., assumed influence of government and state), plays a role for the WTP vs. perceived dispensability of PSM.

The findings support, extend, and differentiate those of previous studies of WTP for PSM, (e.g., Grammel and Gründl, 2018) who found that in Austria and Germany, in relation to the attitudes towards PSM and licence fees, usage and satisfaction therewith are significant predictors.

Simultaneously, the findings have practical implications for PSM. They underline that they need to offer high-quality programmes, as the assessment of the overall information quality of PSM was a significant predictor for the WTP versus perceived dispensability.

In this respect, assumed influence from the state and government proved to be an important predictor in both cases. This remains an important criterion for PSM that they need to emphasise and communicate the difference between state broadcasters and PSM, although this might not halt populist attacks on them.

Importantly, age is another predictor of WTP versus perceived dispensability of PSM, and media politics should concentrate on it. PSM needs to continue its digital transformation and offer programmes that attract younger target groups on diverse platforms. Besides being part of their mission of universality (e.g., Lowe and Savage, 2020), young people were also more willing to pay for PSM. Consequently, PSM also needs to have the possibilities to develop and implement new concepts online. This must happen but balanced with the economic interests and needs of the private sector media, which often claim PSM try to crowd them out (e.g., Barwise and Picard 2014; for an overview of studies on the market impact of PSM, see also Nielsen et al., 2016). However, if the PSM future also depends on how successfully they will attract younger audiences with their offers, those audiences will primarily consume content online (Kalogeropoulos, 2019: 54–59).

Finally, the actual payment for media services (without PSM) was a significant predictor of the WTP for PSM. Hopefully, citizens will become more aware of the value of media content as a result. While significant proportions of users are already accustomed to pay for TV/movie streaming and music (Newman et al., 2022: 21), for an extended period digital news was offered for free, and users thus developed a corresponding mentality (O’Brien, 2022). However, longitudinal surveys have shown that paying for digital news has also increased in recent years, although the growth appears to have flattened, with the exception of a few rich countries, and it is especially challenging to convince younger people to pay (Newman et al., 2022: 10). PSM and media politics now need to clearly communicate their value to society while explaining the advantages of the current funding model with a licence fee to society as a whole, as opposed to other types of funding that may allow the state or market to exert more influence.

There are also limitations to this study. Respondents were asked at the beginning of the questionnaire which sources they use to obtain information regarding current events, and for the PSM categories, examples of such offerings were given in each country. This was not only necessary to gather information on PSM news use. The examples were also meant to help respondents make sense of more abstract categories like public service radio stations, public service television stations, or public service online media which some respondents would not have related to actual offers they use. However, the examples have also possibly led to a priming effect, namely that respondents answered the questions on the WTP versus perceived dispensability thinking about the PSM organisation(s) in their country, and not about PSM in abstract terms. The national differences in the findings speak to this particular interpretation occurring.

Additionally, the sample was only representative in terms of gender and age, specifically only for the age group of 18–69 years in 10-year groups, for example, 30–39 years. However, persons under the age of 18 would not have had much sense in being asked about their WTP since they often do not yet pay themselves and, at a very young age, may not even understand the concept of money. Respondents over 69 years were not included for pragmatic reasons. However, in the UK, over-75 s have not paid a license fee since 2020, if they are in receipt of Pension Credit. Representability in terms of further variables like formal education, income, political leanings, amongst others, would have been desirable to include. This must be kept in mind as a limitation when interpreting the descriptive findings.

The study only analyses one point in time, while it would be interesting to compare the data for a longer duration, to see how certain developments on various levels, individual, PSM and society, and political systems at large, are impacted upon. Additionally, this survey focused on the individual level of respondents, and it would be enlightening to include variables on other levels in future studies, as the findings of this study have shown that both the individual and country levels are relevant to explain these phenomena.

Footnotes

Funding

The survey was conducted while the author was still affiliated with the University of the Bundeswehr Munich.

ORCID iD

Annika Sehl

Notes

References

Aalberg

Papathanassopoulos

Soroka

, et al. (2013) International TV news, foreign affairs interest and public knowledge: A comparative study of foreign news coverage and public opinion in 11 countries. Journalism Studies 14(3): 387–406.

Aalberg

van Aelst

Curran

(2010) Media systems and the political information environment: A cross-national comparison. International Journal of Press/Politics 15(3): 255–271.

Ali

(2016) The merits of merit goods: Local journalism and public policy in a time of austerity. Journal of Information Policy 6(1): 105–128.

Barwise

Picard

(2014) What if there were no BBC television? The net impact on UK viewers. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

Brevini

(2013) Public service broadcasting online: A comparative European policy study of PSB 2.0. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Brüggemann

Engesser

Büchel

, et al. (2014) Hallin and Mancini revisited: Four empirical types of Western media systems. Journal of Communication 64(6): 1037–1065.

Burneau

(2022, October 18) Exclusive: What the future holds for Europe’s public broadcasters. Television Business International. Available at: https://tbivision.com/2022/10/18/what-the-future-holds-for-europes-public-broadcasters/

Chyi

(2012) Paying for what? How much? And why (not)? predictors of paying intent for multiplatform newspapers. International Journal on Media Management 14(3): 227–250.

Cornia

Sehl

Nielsen

(2019) Comparing legacy media responses to a changing business of news: Cross-national similarities and differences across media types. International Communication Gazette 81(6–8): 686–706.

10.

Cornia

Sehl

Nielsen

(2020) ‘We no longer live in a time of separation’: A comparative analysis of how editorial and commercial integration became a norm. Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism 21(2): 172–190.

11.

Curran

Iyengar

Lund

, et al. (2009) Media system, public knowledge and democracy: A comparative study. European Journal of Communication 24(1): 5–26.

12.

Delaney

O’Toole

(2004) Irish Public service broadcasting: A contingent valuation analysis. Economic and Social Review 35(3): 321–350.

13.

Donders

(2021) Public Service Media in Europe: Law, Theory and Practice. London: Routledge Research in Media Law.

14.

Eberwein

Karmasin

Saurwein

et al. (2019) Kennzahlen des öffentlichen Rundfunks – ein internationaler Vergleich [Key figures of public broadcasting – an international comparison]. In: Krone

Gebesmair

(eds) Zur Ökonomie gemeinwohlorientierter Medien: Massenkommunikation in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz [On the Economics of Public Interest Media: Mass Communication in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland]. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, pp. 187–208.

15.

Esser

De Vreese

Strömbäck

, et al. (2012) Political information opportunities in Europe: A longitudinal and comparative study of thirteen television systems. International Journal of Press/Politics 17(3): 247–274.

16.

European Audiovisual Observatory (EAO) (2021) Yearbook 2020/2021: Television, VOD, cinema, and video in 40 European States: markets and players, services, and usage. Strasbourg: European Audiovisual Observatory.

17.

European Broadcasting Union (EBU) (2012) Empowering society: A declaration on the core values of public service media. Available at: https:// www.ebu.ch/files/live/sites/ebu/files/Publications/ EBU-Empowering-Society_EN.pdf

18.

European Broadcasting Union (EBU) (2020a) Update: COVID-19 crisis PSM audience performance: Public version. Available at: https://www.ebu.ch/files/live/sites/ebu/files/Publications/MIS/login_only/psm/EBU-MIS_COVID-19_Crisis_PSM_Audience_Performance-Public_UPDATE.pdf

19.

European Broadcasting Union (EBU) (2020b) Market insights: Trust in media 2020. Available at: https://www.ebu.ch/files/live/sites/ebu/files/Publications/MIS/login_only/market_insights/EBU-MIS-Trust_in_Media_2020.pdf

20.

European Broadcasting Union (EBU) (2022) Funding of public service media: Public version. Available at: https://www.ebu.ch/files/live/sites/ebu/files/Publications/MIS/login_only/funding/EBU-MIS-Funding_of_PSM_2021_Public.pdf

21.

Eurostat (2023) GDP and main components (output, expenditure and income). Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/ products-datasets/-/NAMA_10_GDP

22.

Fauth

Horner

Mahdon

, et al. (2006) Willingness to pay for the BBC during the next charter period. London: Work Foundation.

23.

Finn

McFadyen

Hoskins

(2003) Valuing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Journal of Cultural Economics 27(3–4): 177–192.

24.

Fletcher

Nielsen

(2017) Paying for online news: A comparative analysis of six countries. Digital Journalism 5(9): 1173–1191.

25.

Goyanes

(2020) Why do citizens pay for online political news and public affairs? Socio-psychological antecedents of local news-paying behaviour. Journalism Studies 21(4): 547–563.

26.

Grammel

Gründl

(2018) Willingness to pay for public service media. In: Gonser

(ed.) Der öffentliche (Mehr-)Wert von Medien. Wiesbaden: Springer, pp. 109–127.

27.

Greenslade

(2019, October 27) Brexit bias? BBC faces a difficult balancing act in polarised nation. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/27/brexit-bias-bbc-faces-a-difficult-balancing-act-in-polarised-nation

28.

Hallin

Mancini

(2004) Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

29.

Holtz-Bacha

(2015) The role of public service media in nation-building. In: Arriaza Ibarra

Nowak

Kuhn

(eds) Public Service media in Europe: A Comparative Approach. London: Routledge, pp. 27–40.

30.

Holtz-Bacha

(2021) The kiss of death: Public service media under right-wing populist attack. European Journal of Communication 36(3): 221–237.

31.

Humprecht

Castro Herrero

Blassnig

, et al. (2022) Media systems in the digital age: An empirical comparison of 30 countries. Journal of Communication 75(2): 145–164.

32.

Kalogeropoulos

(2019) How younger generations consume news differently. In: Newman

Fletcher

Kalogeropoulos

, et al. (eds) Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2019. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, pp. 54–59.

33.

Kops

(2005) Soll der öffentlich-rechtliche Rundfunk die Nachfrage seiner Zuhörer und Zuschauer korrigieren? [Should public service broadcasting correct the demand of its listeners and viewers?] Arbeitspapiere des Instituts für Rundfunkökonomie an der Universität zu Köln (Heft 196). Köln: Instituts für Rundfunkökonomie an der Universität zu Köln.

34.

Kuhn

(2006) The third age of public television in France. London: University of London. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.471.4055&rep=rep1&type=pdf

35.

Lin

T-T

Yeh

, et al. (2013) Assessing the economic value of public service broadcasting in Taiwan using the contingent valuation approach. Journal of Economics 26(4): 186–202.

36.

Lowe

Savage

(2020) Universalism in public service media: Paradoxes, challenges, and development. In: Savage

Medina

Lowe

(eds) Universalism in Public Service media. Gothenburg: Nordicom, University of Gothenburg, pp. 11–24.

37.

Mazzone

(2019) Public service broadcasting. In: Vos

Hanusch

Dimitrakopoulou

, et al. (eds) The International Encyclopedia of Journalism Studies. Vol. 3. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 1317–1323.

38.

McQuail

(2005, 5th ed.) McQuail’s mass communication theory. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage.

39.

Newman

Fletcher

Robertson

, et al. (2022) Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2022. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

40.

Nielsen

Fletcher

Sehl

, et al. (November 2016) Analysis of the relation between and impact of public service media and private media. Review for the Ministry of Culture (Denmark). Available at: http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Analysis%20of%20the%20Relation%20Between%20and%20Impact%20of%20Public%20Service%20Media%20and%20Private%20Media.pdf

41.

Nord

(2015) Why is public service media content as it is? A comparison of principles and practices in six EU countries. In: Arriaza Ibarra

Nowak

Kuhn

(eds) Public Service media in Europe: A Comparative Approach. London: Routledge, pp. 170–188.

42.

O’Brien

(2022) Free lunch for all? – A path analysis on free mentality, paying intent and media budget for digital journalism. Journal of Media Economics 34(1): 29–61.

43.

O’Brien

Wellbrock

C-M

Kleer

(2020) Content for free? Drivers of past payment, paying intent and willingness to pay for digital journalism – A systematic literature review. Digital Journalism 8(5): 643–672.

44.

Papandrea

(1999) Willingness to pay for domestic television programming. Journal of Cultural Economics 23(3): 147–164.

45.

Ramsey

McDermott

(2020) Local public service media in northern Ireland: The merit goods argument. In: Gulyas

Baines

(eds.) The Routledge Companion to Local Media and Journalism. Abingdon, New York/NY: Routledge, pp. 448–456.

46.

Reiter

Gonser

Grammel

, et al. (2018) Young audiences and their valuation of public service media: A case study in Austria. In: Lowe

Van den Bulck

Donders

(eds.) Public Service media in the Networked Society. Göteborg: Nordicom, pp. 211–226.

47.

Reuters (2022, January 16) UK government to cut funding for BBC – Mail on Sunday report. Reuters.com. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/uk-government-cut-funding-bbc-mail-sunday-report-2022-01-16/

48.

Salaverría

(2019) Digital journalism: 25 years of research. Review article. El Profesional de la Informacíon 28(1): 1–25.

49.

Saurwein

Eberwein

Karmasin

(2019) Public service media in Europe: Exploring the relationship between funding and audience performance. Javnost – The Public 26(3): 291–308.

50.

Schwarzkopf

(1999) Rundfunkpolitik in Deutschland: Wettbewerb und Öffentlichkeit. 2. Band [Broadcasting policy in Germany: Competition and the public sphere. 2nd volume]. München: DTV.

51.

Sehl

(2020) Public service media in a digital media environment: Performance from an audience perspective. Media and Communication 8(3): 359–372. DOI: 10.17645/mac.v8i3.3141.

52.

Sehl

Simon

Schroeder

(2022) The populist campaigns against European public service media: Hot air or existential threat? International Communication Gazette 84(1): 3–23.

53.

World Bank (n.d.) Population, total: Germany, France,United Kingdom. Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?end=2019&locations=DE-FR-GB&most_recent_year_desc=false&start=2018&view=chart