Mr Skrzynski, SBS Chair, & the SBS Board
Locked Bag 028
CROWS NEST    NSW   1585

sent by email and post

Dear Mr Skrzynski & the SBS Board,

Save Our SBS submission to the SBS Review

We welcome the approach taken by SBS to conduct a comprehensive review of the organisation.  In consideration of this recent SBS review, we provide this submission for consideration by the SBS Board.

Introduction

Save Our SBS is concerned with many aspects of SBS and always seeks to support our multicultural broadcaster in improving its place within the communities that it serves.

In this submission, Save Our SBS concentrates on the television operations and discusses the number one issue that has troubled many in the community since 2007; programs being interrupted for advertisements. We also examine the difficulties of free to air broadcasters relying in whole or part on advertising and in the case of any public broadcaster within an Australian context, present the benefits and evidence as to why SBS should aim to rid itself of all advertising in the longer term.

We present the case that as a first step, SBS should cease interrupting programs for advertisements (and promos) and outline the reasons why – beyond the obvious annoyance of the disruptions.

We consider the consequences if the SBS Board were to amend the current (SBS) Guidelines For The Placement of Breaks in Television Programs September 2006, [1] that outlines the existing SBS policy for programs to be interrupted.  We ask the question: “What would happen if the SBS Board amended those Guidelines and no longer allowed programs to be interrupted?”

Whilst it cannot be confirmed if there might be a drop in revenue raised from advertising if SBS were to restrict advertisements to between programs only, we conclude that there will be an immediate substantial benefit to SBS in terms of the public perception of SBS, and, that SBS will ultimately benefit financially from increased government funding in the longer term due to a change of advertising policy now.

SBS perception: public or commercial?

SBS was formed in the mid 1970’s but it was not until 1991 [2] that it was allowed to broadcast advertisements.

While the impact was subtle in the early years, the volume and stridency of advertising has grown with time. . . limited advertising was introduced in 1992-3 [but] the current full-blown interruption into all programs for commercial breaks [did not commence until] late 2006. [3]

Prior to 2006 SBS was seen as a public broadcaster that sometimes ran advertisements between programs only, and, occasionally in live sporting events.  As a hybrid broadcaster, it was then perceived to respect the viewer because it did not allow advertising to disrupt the viewer experience.  However, by 2007 when all programs on SBS television were interrupted as a matter of policy, the perception of SBS was that it was no longer a broadcaster to be funded by government, but that it had become a commercial broadcaster.  Thousands of people voiced their objections [4] at the time. Some two years later, in December 2008, a public review was held by the Department of Communications Broadband & Digital Economy [5].  A significant number of the more than 2000 submissions, were not happy about the SBS advertising policy and expressed the broad view that since the introduction of commercial breaks in programs on SBS television, SBS had deteriorated and was no longer worthy of public support.

At best, the decision by SBS to interrupt programs for advertisements has largely been perceived as an act of contempt by SBS for its audience.  The perception and the reality is that SBS considers the needs of the advertisers, to achieve the maximum return for their advertising dollar by disrupting programs, over and above the needs of the viewer.  This is at odds with the perception within Australia of how a public broadcaster should act.

The goodwill that SBS had built up over the many years prior to the decision to interrupt programs for advertisements has largely been destroyed.  However that goodwill could very easily now be returned if SBS were to announce a change of policy and no longer allow any programs to be interrupted for advertisements.

The client of SBS: viewer or advertiser?

The disruption to the viewer experience for the interruptions of advertisements is not the only reason that SBS is perceived as loosing faith with its audience.  The on-selling of the viewer by SBS, to the advertiser is accentuated each time a program is interrupted for a commercial break.

When SBS did not carry advertisements and when the advertisements were outside programs, the viewer was treated as the client of SBS and SBS considered the needs of their client, the viewer.  But when SBS began to interrupt programs for advertisements, the client of SBS very blatantly became the advertiser. It became obvious that the viewer of SBS was merely a commodity, a product, to be sold to the new client of SBS, namely the advertiser.  Viewers were deeply offended by this obvious lowering of their status, and still see this as a sign of the destruction of the goodwill that SBS once had with its audience.

When there was no advertiser appearing within the program, the product of SBS was clearly the actual program content.  However, when SBS began to interrupt programs for advertiser, the product changed from being the program to the viewer who is now onsold by SBS to the new client of SBS, the advertiser.  This is at the heart of the reason that the SBS community of viewers have an intense dislike for the interruptions of programs for advertisements; more so than would apply to a commercial broadcaster.  It is seen as being against the spirit, the very essence of what a public broadcaster should be and only gives weight to the perception that SBS is now akin to that of commercial television and hardly worthy of public funding.  This view may be unique to Australia.

Forced breaks are forced, not natural breaks

It is very difficult to break into a program under the pretext that the break is natural when the interruption of the program appears to be un-naturally forced.  Most breaks on SBS television look like that.

Regardless of the law, the public perception is that SBS is forcing breaks into programs where a break was never intended.

In their answer to question 7 of Questions on Notice (sqn 0093) 2008, SBS supplied a document titled Programs delivered to SBS without breaks (2007) [6], that revealed that in 2007 SBS had positioned some 5627 commercial breaks into approximately 2046 programs that “in their original format had not been produced, assembled or compiled with provision for any commercial breaks, such as British Broadcasting Corporation programs or cinema-release movies etc [7].” The above suggests that the breaks in these programs were not natural and that SBS had un-naturally forced the breaks into those programs.  In their answer, SBS said they “were not able to determine which programs had been . . . produced . . . with provision for commercial breaks”.  The producers of six programs from the list cited, made suggestions as to the positioning of breaks [8].

Although specific figures are available as to the number of such breaks, the precise statistics is not needed when a night of ordinary viewing of SBS television quickly leads the viewer to believe that breaks are usually forced into most programs.

In a small study conducted at the end of 2008, when SBS had been interrupting all television programs for just on two years, 96.3 percent of the 1733 participants said they wanted “SBS-TV to stop interrupting programs for commercial breaks. [9]”

Winning back audience and political support for SBS television

As revenue from TV advertising plummets, and as audience reaction to the interruption of programs with advertising persists, now is a good time to reassess the hybrid financing model that the SBS has adopted.

While rumours of the death of advertising may well have been greatly exaggerated, new delivery platforms and new ways of reaching niche audiences are already having a significant effect on the broadcast media.  While advertising may not be dying, its relationship with broadcasting is changing.

According to Inside Film SBS director of television and online content, Matt Campbell, told an international documentary conference in Adelaide recently that a sharp drop in advertising revenue had meant that SBS had “no money for online . . . no money for SBS TWO. . . It really is dire” [10]

While Mr. Campbell said that the loss of revenue was largely caused by the global financial crisis this has not been the only factor affecting the advertising revenues of broadcasters.  The financial crisis appears to be easing (at least in Australia) but there are other structural factors that are likely to continue to threaten advertising revenues for broadcasters.  Both newspapers and commercial broadcasters are suffering.

In his book The Chaos Scenario U.S. writer and broadcaster Bob Garfield argues:

For the past four centuries, mass media were funded or at least subsidized by mass marketing, which piggybacked on what we now call “content” to issue messages of its own.

Like the eternal co-dependence of flowers and bees, this was an extremely convenient symbiotic relationship for those involved.  Or if you prefer a more spiritual analogy, imagine the media yin coupled snugly with the advertising yang, a transcendent oneness yielding cheap and free content for all.  Well, that’s over – or damn near.  In the digital age, that time-honored symbiosis is coming apart. It’s happening slowly enough that most consumers haven’t really noticed.  But it’s happening quickly enough that media and marketing are in big trouble – trouble that I believe will send the world spinning into a post-apocalyptic post-advertising age. [11]

Garfield later goes on to demonstrate the steady decline in television viewing compared to Internet usage in the U.S.

According to Nielsen, in the new millennium, the U.S. TV audience eroded an average of 2% a year – even though, in the same period, the population increased by 30 million.  According to Swivel, in 2000 Americans devoted an average of 793 hours to broadcast TV and 104 to the Internet, a ratio of just under 8:1.  By 2008, with broadband penetration in the U.S. tripling, the TV/Internet ration had gone to 675-200, or 3.4:1.

It is a similar story in Australia as Bob Peters writes for the Screen Australia website.

Viewing free-to-air television still accounted for the greatest usage of discretionary time by Australian children in 2007: 87 minutes per day or 30 per cent. However, this was 26 per cent less than in 1995, with children redirecting a considerable amount of time to watching subscription television and spending increased time viewing video (DVD and VHS). This shift in behavior highlights the challenges that television is likely to face in the future as the availability of alternatives continues to expand. [12]

In The Long Tail Chris Anderson argues that the decline in audiences for the broadcast media is not simply the fact that there are other alternatives like DVDs or the Internet. While it is true, as Mark Pesce has said, that the Internet can function as a giant TiVo, enabling viewers the strip out advertisements, the changes are more fundamental than that.

The point is that these technologies can serve niche audiences much better than broadcasting can.  This feature is of particular relevance to the SBS.

The great thing about broadcast is that it can bring one show to millions of people with unmatchable efficiency. But it can’t do the opposite—bring a million shows to one person each. Yet that is exactly what the Internet does so well. The economics of the broadcast era required hit shows—big buckets—to catch huge audiences. The economics of the broadband era are reversed.  Serving the same stream to millions of people at the same time is hugely expensive and wasteful for a distribution network optimized for point-to-point communications.

. . . This shattering of the mainstream into a zillion different cultural shards is something that upsets traditional media and entertainment no end. After decades of executives refining their skill in creating, picking, and promoting hits, those hits are suddenly not enough. The audience is shifting to something else, a muddy and indistinct proliferation of . . . Well, we don’t have a good term for such non-hits. They’re certainly not “misses,” because most weren’t aimed at world domination in the first place. They’re “everything else.”

. . . That mass of niches has always existed, but as the cost of reaching it falls—consumers finding niche products, and niche products finding consumers—it’s suddenly becoming a cultural and economic force to be reckoned with. [13]

Traditionally commercial broadcasters have valued share above reach – “hit shows – big buckets to catch huge audience” as Anderson put it.  Publicly funded broadcasters (like the ABC) have given more emphasis to reach – something for everybody, at least some of the time.

As a hybrid broadcaster SBS TV has had a foot in each camp.  The Charter requires it to provide something for everybody, but advertisers want to buy audiences for hit shows, like Top Gear.  However it is difficult to build a prime time mass TV audience from an assortment of niche audiences.  To hold a mass audience you need to grab them early in prime time and keep them with you for as long as possible.  This is difficult if you follow a Chinese program with a Greek program then a German program and then a Vietnamese program.

The answer appears to have been to reserve prime time on the main channel for mostly English language programs, while the second channel (currently available to a much smaller number of viewers who don’t yet have digital TV) while still primarily in English, carries slightly more programs in community languages in prime time.  However this does not sit well with the station’s role as a multicultural broadcaster.

The strategy of moving mainstream mass audience programs into what had been a niche broadcaster has not worked.  While Top Gear brought a large audience (for SBS) to the station its very success in ratings terms was a negative for SBS. Channel 9 used its deep pockets to poach the program and the rights to make an Australian version.  For the SBS it was back to the drawing board.  The network’s investment in the Top Gear experiment failed to pay dividends.

Meanwhile, as Matt Campbell has noted, there is no money for the SBS website.  If as Garfield and Anderson suggest, the Internet is the best way of communicating with niche audiences, then that money needs to be found.

Both the BBC and the ABC have been very successful in integrating their web presence with their broadcast programs.  Wired and wireless feed off one another.  Yet the SBS has no money for the web.

The SBS is in a very difficult situation.

It has alienated sections of the audience, and some in the government, with its decision to interrupt programs with advertisements.  As David Nolan and Natalia Radywyl have also concluded changes to program policy have tended to “place it at risk of losing the political support that has historically maintained it.” [14]

While it was the SBS, rather than the ABC, which most needed a funding boost, the SBS received a tiny increase in the last budget while the ABC obtained a much larger sum.

We suggest that SBS should send a clear signal that it is changing direction.  It should immediately seek to restore its relationship its audiences and the government by announcing that it will rescind its decision to interrupt programs with advertisements.  This should be followed by a decision to phase out advertising altogether and operate as a dedicated public service broadcaster along the lines of the ABC.

SBS Board is required to develop or change an advertising policy

There is nothing in the SBS Act 1991 that requires SBS to carry any advertisements.

Section 45(4) of the SBS Act 1991 requires the Board to develop guidelines on advertisements and their placement and section 45(5) allows the Board to revise any guidelines.

As such, the Board is empowered to now revise the (SBS) Guidelines For The Placement of Breaks in Television Programs September 2006 and completely replace those guidelines with a new set of Guidelines.

Save Our SBS believes that it is now timely for the SBS Board to create a new set of Guidelines that does not allow programs to be interrupted for advertisement or promo breaks.

Long term benefits of a new advertising policy

In 2006, when SBS changed the then policy to allow programs to be interrupted for commercial breaks, SBS also changed its policy on the type of advertisement it would accept. The then new, now current advertising policy, allowed SBS to accept almost any type of advertiser when previously SBS had been very selective in only accepting certain ‘soft-sell-arty-type’ advertisements.

As a result of the decision to accept almost any type of advertisement, SBS was more easily able to increase its advertising revenue quite aside from where the advertisements were positioned.

SBS declared in their answer to questions 5 and 6 of Questions on Notice (sqn 1493) that in 2008 and 2009 that SBS did not charge more to the advertiser to place an advertisement within the program compared to placing the advertisement outside the program [15].  This being the case, the question is not so much one of loss of potential income due to the position or re-position of the advertisement, as each advertisement was charged at the same rate regardless of position – inside or outside the program, but rather if SBS would continue to attract a range of advertisers who might be willing to have their advertisement placed between programs only.

Given that prior to late 2006, SBS only placed advertisements between programs, it would seem highly likely that advertisers would still be prepared to have their advertisements placed between programs.  The old policy was selective as to the type of commercial that SBS would broadcast whereas the current policy does not discriminate and it would therefore follow that a larger number of advertisers is now available to SBS to continue advertising, however, positioned between programs only.

Conclusion

The idea that a public broadcaster should carry any advertisements does not fit comfortably with most Australians even though this is a privilege afforded to SBS under the Act. In the long term, SBS should aim to achieve non-reliance from any advertising.

If SBS is to move forward, it must learn from its past good and not so good performance.  The SBS audience must be considered more seriously particularly regarding the ongoing and very strong dissatisfaction with SBS for interrupting programs.  Audiences do not want that.

It is doubtful that any increase in revenue from advertising was due to the decision to interrupt programs for advertisements but rather may have been due to a change in the type of advertisement that SBS was prepared to accept post 2006.

Even if SBS were to suffer a loss of advertising revenue due to a policy that only allowed advertisements between programs, we submit that SBS would not only survive, albeit on reduced income for a period, but SBS would be better positioned with the public and the government to obtain increased funding from the public purse.

As long as SBS presents a façade of being able to be self reliant on income from advertising, there will be no incentive for any government to increase the SBS budget.

Save Our SBS strongly recommends that the SBS Board now create a new set of Guidelines to replace the current (SBS) Guidelines For The Placement of Breaks in Television Programs September 2006 and that the new Guidelines only contain the single statement: “Programs on SBS television shall not be interrupted for advertisement / promo breaks”.

Save Our SBS Inc, Committee of Management

Further reading and other submissions made by Save Our SBS in support of SBS

Dec 2009  SBS Internet Funding: May 2010 Budget Request,  http://saveoursbs.org/archives/921

Dec 2008  The ABC SBS Review,  http://saveoursbs.org/archives/334

Oct 2008  The SBS Must Be Special,  http://saveoursbs.org/archives/318

Aug 2008  SBS funding for 2009-2012,  http://saveoursbs.org/archives/323

Feb 2008  A chronology of advertising on SBS,  http://saveoursbs.org/archives/194

References

1] (SBS) Guidelines For The Placement of Breaks in Television Programs September 2006, http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/media/documents/3913advertising_guidelines_2006.pdf copy at http://saveoursbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/3913advertising_guidelines_2006.pdf

[2] Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991,  http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/0/2F8013F942CC76E5CA2571FD0020CC29/$file/SpecBroadService91WD02.pdf

[3] Cassidy, D  2008, A chronology of advertising on SBS, Save Our SBS Inc, http://saveoursbs.org/archives/194

[4] Petition, Save Our SBS,  http://petition.saveoursbs.org/

[5] ABC-SBS Review, Broadband, Communications & the Digital Economy, http://www.dbcde.gov.au/media_broadcasting/consultation_and_submissions/abc_sbs_review/_submissions

[6] Broadband, Communications & the Digital Economy, Senate Question Number 93,  2008 – answer supplied by SBS in the form Attachment A – Programs delivered to SBS without breaks (2007), 37 pages

[7] SBS,  2008, Programs delivered to SBS without breaks (2007), http://saveoursbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/programs-delivered-to-sbs-without-breaks-2007.pdf

[8] Save Our SBS  2008, SBS Forced 6000 Ad Breaks, http://saveoursbs.org/archives/312

[9] Save Our SBS,  2008, One Minute Survey Results, http://saveoursbs.org/archives/332

[10]Swift, B  2010, SBS’s ‘dire’ funding position: Campbell, Inside Film,  http://if.com.au/2010/02/24/article/SBSs-dire-funding-position-Campbell/PKKPVCLJTZ.html

[11] Garfield B, 2009 ,The Chaos Scenario , Stielstra Publishing

[12]Peters, B   Free-to-air television in Australia, Screen Australia, http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/gtp/wftvanalysis.html

[13] Anderson C, 2009, The Longer Long Tail, Random House, London

[14] Nolan D and Radywyl N, 2004 ‘Pluralising identity, mainstreaming identities: SBS as a technology of citizenship’ Southern Review vol. 37 no. 2

[15] Broadband, Communications & the Digital Economy, Senate Question Number 1493,  2009 – answer supplied by SBS in the form Attachment A – SBS 2008 Ratecard for each Australian State, 55 pages

17 December 2009

To:
The Treasurer
Parliament House
Canberra

Copies:
Minister for Broadband, Communications & Digital Economy;
Minister for Finance;
Chairperson of SBS;
Managing Director of SBS

Dear Mr Swan

SBS Internet Funding: May 2010 Budget Request

Funding for our public broadcasters has normally been on a triennial basis although there have been prior occasions when adjustments have been made part way through a triennium.

Save Our SBS was encouraged by comments made by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy at Senate Estimates on 19 October 2009, when he said that the government was open to suggestions for amendments to the SBS budget before the conclusion of the triennial period in 2012.[1] As such we make our suggestion as outlined below for consideration in the May 2010 Budget.

The SBS on the Internet – from marginal to mainstream

Until relatively recently radio and television services have been seen as the main outputs for the ABC and the SBS.

But now more Australians have access to the Internet at home than have access to either digital television or digital radio.[2] Yet it appears that the government has made no funds available for the Internet services provided by the SBS.  While this was understandable in the early years of the Internet, we believe that it is more than time for a rethink.

Technological changes and other developments are threatening the funding models of both newspapers and free to air television.  As a result access to information, and effective participation in community life is likely to become restricted.  Global media proprietors including Rupert Murdoch are threatening to erect pay walls.  The division between the information rich and the information poor is likely to grow.

In his recent speech “The BBC and public space”, the Director General of the BBC, Mark Thompson outlined a different vision.

Wherever it can be – and certainly in the case of the BBC – public space is free at the point of use. And the more people who use it the better. In the case of the BBC, there’s another important characteristic. There’s no demand curve and no exclusion. You can’t buy a better service from the BBC no matter how wealthy you are. And you can’t stop people who are less well off than you enjoying just as good a service as you do.[3]

Australia is fortunate to have the SBS as well as the ABC. With adequate funding for its online services the SBS would have the opportunity to create a genuine public space. This would give new arrivals further avenues to shake off their isolation.

At present however the Internet presence of the SBS is limited.  We understand that there has never been any specific funding for the SBS website. As a result, the SBS site has never realized its potential.

While lack of specific funding for the web presence was understandable in the early days, the Net has now moved from marginal to mainstream. Without appropriate support for its online activities the SBS faces the prospect of its connection with its audiences being largely a one-way conversation.

Funding to expand its Internet presence would enable the SBS to add value to its existing output in two ways.

First, by expanding its capacity to make downloads of programs available on demand, it could extract greater value from existing productions.

Second, and more significantly, the SBS could interact more effectively with its diverse audiences by extending its conversation with viewers and listeners through the Internet.

Save Our SBS requests that in the May 2010 Budget, specific funding be made available to SBS to further develop its Internet services.

Yours sincerely

Darce Cassidy
Secretary
for the Committee of Management
Save Our SBS Inc
mobile phone: 0412 685 178

DOWNLOAD in PDF this May 2010 Budget Request: http://saveoursbs.org/archives/921

FURTHER READING SBS funding for 2009 – 2012:   http://saveoursbs.org/archives/323

[1] ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 19/10/2009 BROADBAND, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE DIGITAL ECONOMY PORTFOLIO Special Broadcasting Service

[2] A study (Media and Society Report 2007) by the Australian Communications and Media Authority found that nine in ten Australian families had access to the Internet at home, three quarters of them through a broadband connection.  In a separate survey  (Digital TV in Australian Homes) in the same year the ACMA found that only 42% of Australian families had digital TV.  More recent figures indicate that while ownership of digital television is growing it still lags well behind access to the Internet at home.

[3] The BBC and Public Space  18 November 2009  http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20091118_1.htm

To: The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
Sent by email to: abcsbsreview@dbcde.gov.au

submission
THE ABC SBS REVIEW

A chronology of events: Public to Commercial

Since advertising was first allowed on the SBS in the early nineteen nineties, there has been a steady drift away from the original multicultural mandate of the SBS.

This was identified by Dr Chris Lawe Davies in a study of SBS output between 1975 and 1995 which found:

“An overview of the market and advertising research reports carried out for SBS between 1993 and 1994 confirms anecdotal accounts of the effects of advertising culture on SBS programming outlined in the previous chapter of this thesis: that it has had a profound effect on the broadcaster in shifting the orientation of SBS away from the terms of the Charter and towards satisfying market conditions…

From evidence cited thus far in the thesis, the social outlook for SBS appears gloomy. The English language issue; the mismatch between languages spoken in Australia and those on SBS; the 1994-95 marketing campaign which positioned SBS for social ABs, and so on, all point towards a relative failure by SBS to address its Charter by providing programming which reflected cultural diversity in Australia, and offered exciting and different perspectives on Australian society.” 1

What began as a slow but steady drift away from the Charter accelerated in 2006 when the SBS Board and management changed their interpretation of the SBS Act to argue that it permitted them to force breaks into programs for advertisements. Around the same time SBS changed its advertising policy to include aggressive advertisements.

SBS’s director of commercial affairs, Richard Finlayson was quoted as saying that the broadcaster has reviewed “the type of ads it will and will not accept. In the past SBS has been reluctant to carry some ads, such as hard-hitting, in your face retails ads. That’s changing.” 2

As advertising has become more intrusive and aggressive, ethnic community leaders and others have become more concerned.

George Zangalis, President of the National Ethnic and Multicultural Broadcasters Council, and a former member of the SBS Board, issued a media release criticizing the direction of SBS-TV.

“The SBS was established as a multicultural broadcaster, but has been moving away from its original charter. Programming in community languages has shrunk, while English programming has grown. Advertising has increased and become increasingly strident. Rather than focusing on different cultures, the SBS seems to be moving towards mainstream sports like cricket and now AFL. There is plenty of this type of programming on the ABC and the three commercial channels.” 3

In June 2006, questioned on ABC radio about the new direction of the SBS, the new Chair of the Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of Australia (FECCA), Voula Messimeri responded:

“… the intention of having the special broadcaster is so that they can be a multicultural provider, a special broadcaster in terms of being different from commercial enterprise, and I think that this will make it, increasingly, look very much like mainstream, commercial enterprise.” 4

The late Ross Warneke, media writer for the Age, lamented the movement of programs in languages other than English out of prime time.

“The bulk of its ‘ethnic content’ these days is its morning news marathon, with hour after hour of foreign language news services relayed from everywhere from Manila to Madrid.” 5

Also in the Age Debi Enker writes that SBS staff have also become concerned about the impact of advertising on the SBS schedule.

“… SBS will become ‘a poor man’s version of a commercial network rather than providing a challenging alternative’. The harshest critics fear SBS will end up looking like a second-rate cable-TV station, running reality TV shows and English-language drama series that the free-to-air channels have rejected as either being too limited in their appeal or too provocative.” 6

Australian actor Chris Hayward commented on the decision by the SBS to devote a large budget to a locally produced motoring program.

“After 37 years as an actor I believe the decision of the management to spend $11.5 million dollars on a motoring program is so far off the mark that the Board and senior management should all be sacked, or the station sold. SBS’s role without our society is crucial towards maintaining a greater understanding and awareness of the complex and diverse society that we as Australians are. Indigenous issues need far greater exposure than that are getting, detailed examination though drama and debate in our society are much more important that the fuel consumption of the latest offering from Ford. There is nothing wrong with motoring programs -I am as much a petrol head as the next average Australian -but let one of the commercial channels or even the Australian Broadcasting Corporation produce such a program.” 7

SBS management was reported as denying that that the series cost $11.5 million. It was also generally reported that SBS spent all of their income from ‘extra’ revenue generated as a result of interrupting programs for advertisements for the whole of 2007 in order to commission this motoring program “Top Gear”.

Public Opinion

In April of this year (2008) more than seven thousand people signed a petition, drafted by Save Our SBS (www.SaveOurSBS.org), calling for an end to the practice of SBS disrupting all programs for advertisements; followed by amending the SBS Act to prohibit advertising and sponsorship on SBS; and, funding SBS so it is not dependent on commercial revenue nor supplementation from advertising. 8

Later in 2008 a number of ethnic community leaders and key figures from public life, literature and the arts signed a public statement prepared by Save Our SBS that called for SBS to focus on the needs of viewers rather than on selling consumers to advertisers. The statement concluded:

“The Special Broadcasting Service was never intended to be like other broadcasters and was certainly not created to mimic the look of the commercial networks. The SBS is a taxpayer funded public service broadcaster and should, as its creators intended, be both special and committed to serving its audience.” 9

The statement called for SBS to return to its original values. The signatories represented a broad range of background and opinion.

Languages Other Than English

Save Our SBS submits that the need to sell audiences to advertisers has influenced SBS-TV to reduce programs in languages other than English in prime time, when the greatest number of viewers (and the greatest advertising revenue) is available. Currently only about one-fifth of programs broadcast in prime time (defined by ACMA as the period six to ten thirty in the evening) are in languages other than English (LOTE) however SBS has redefined ‘prime time’ as extending to midnight.

SBS into a digital future

Internet

In the modern age, public broadcasting extends beyond the radio and television airwaves. The SBS website (sbs.com.au) is an important arm that ought not be forgotten.

For the main part, the SBS website assumes an English reading visitor. It does not generally contain multilingual web pages. In the digital revolution of the 21 century, the website arm of our multicultural public broadcaster should be committed to providing an informative website with more than 90 percent of the site available in a choice of languages as well as English.

It was only a few years ago that POD and VOD cast downloads were highly compressed for dial up users. It should be recognised that not everyone in the community has access to broadband and/or may be forced, economically, to rely on dial up for internet access. A pitfall of the digital revolution that SBS as a public broadcaster needs to be wary not to fall into, is to assume that everyone who attempts to download a program, has access to broadband. Currently this is not a particular problem but it should be borne in mind.

Digital TV, Radio & the Web

It is a sad fact that the role of the second SBS digital channel has more or less become the outpost of LOTE programs and only to the extent of it being a LOTE news repeats channel. SBS has hopes of developing this and two more digital television channels on free to air as well as a comprehensive web site with streaming and free downloads.10 The expansion of SBS services on these digital platforms is admirable. However it would be a lost opportunity and a grave mistake if these services were yet another commercialized arm of SBS. These outlets ought be commercial free. To this extent SBS deserves a massive injection of public funding so that it is not reliant on advertising for these services at all.

The Future

Save Our SBS is of the view that SBS ought not be reliant on advertising nor seek to be a hybrid commercial look a like. The evidence is that others in the community also support that view. Many are passionate about it in fact.

SBS will have difficulty in maintaining a vision for the future if its funding model requires it to serve two masters.

However this is not a totally negative picture. While recent trends have been negative, the SBS can be saved. The SBS remains a unique broadcasting organisation. For many years it has been a valued part of Australian life. It will not take too much to put it back on the right track.

The decision to adopt an open and merit-based method of appointment to the SBS Board, has been an important step. The requirement that members of the SBS Board should have “an understanding of SBS’s role as a multicultural broadcaster, its Charter and its place in the Australian media environment” is also a positive move.

The final step is the removal of advertising and the provision of adequate funding.

Multiculturalism In The Digital Age

If SBS is to survive in the digital age, government needs to rescue it. It deserves saving.

Advice

In consideration of all the circumstances, Save Our SBS strongly recommends that:

• The 2009-2012 triennium SBS Budget base funding from government for the SBS, be set at not less than half that provided to the ABC and indexed annually in the usual manner.11

• The Minister consult with the SBS Board with regard to the decision by the SBS to interrupt programs for advertisements, and that the Minister consider if he has power under section 11 of the SBS Act to direct the SBS Board to cease such interruptions. If the Minister is unable to act under section 11 of the Act, then the government seriously consider amending section 45 of the Act to prohibit the SBS from interrupting programs for advertisements.

• At a future date, the SBS Act be amended to prohibit the broadcasting of advertisements on SBS outlets.

Save Our SBS welcomed this government Review and was pleased to make a submission. We are happy for this submission to be posted in its entirety on the Department’s web site.

A response from the Department would be appreciated.

The Committee of Management
Save Our SBS Inc
11 December 2008

For further details and comments, in the first instance please contact:-
Darce Cassidy,
Secretary,
Save Our SBS Inc
phone: 0412 685 178
email: Spokesperson@SaveOurSBS.org
References

1. Lawe Davies C., 1997, Multicultural Broadcasting in Australia; policies, institutions and programming, 1975-1995, PhD thesis, University of Queensland
2. FIFA world cup kicks off SBS ad sales, Australian Financial Review, 27 February 2006.
3. NEMBC Media Release, 8 June 2005
4. SBS Act may prohibit ads during programs The World Today, ABC Radio, 2 June , 2006, viewed 11 December 2008 http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1654227.htm
5. The Age, 8 January 2004
6. The Age, 27 May 2004, Debi Enker, Where to now, SBS?
7. Australian Financial Review, 3 January 2008
8. NO ADVERTISEMENTS OR SPONSORSHIP ON SBS, Save Our SBS Inc, 8 April 2008, address to the Minister for Communications, Broadband and the Digital Economy, viewed 8 December 2008, http://petition.saveoursbs.org
9. The SBS Must Be Special, 19 October, 2008, statement drafted by Save Our SBS Inc and endorsed by a range of community leaders, viewed 8 December 2008, http://saveoursbs.org/archives/318
10. SBS’s Plans for the Future, SBS, 2008, viewed 10 December 2008, http://www.sbs.com.au/future/web/upload_media/site_32_rand_574585360_sbs_s_plans_for_the_future.pdf
11. SBS funding for 2009-2012, Save Our SBS Inc, 5 August, 2008, viewed 8 December 2008, http://saveoursbs.org/archives/323

This submission may also be read at
http://saveoursbs.org/archives/334
and/or
http://saveoursbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/sbs-dept-review-submission-save-our-sbs.pdf

as proposed by Save Our SBS Inc

submitted to Senator Stephen Conroy 5 August 2008

SBS funding for the next triennium – Executive Summary

By any reasonable measure the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation (SBS) has been under funded.

• SBS total revenue (for both its radio and television services) is less than one fifth of the average commercial television station in Australia.
• The SBS receives about one quarter of the funding that the ABC receives from government and the total combined public funding for both broadcasters is less than half that, on a per capita basis, of the BBC.

This has led the SBS to seek additional funds through advertising. The changes brought about by advertising have been gradual, but they have now reached the point where SBS television, in prime viewing time, is loosing its distinctive multicultural character. This has lead to public alarm within ethnic communities, and the public at large.

In a liberal democracy, close regulation of the media by the government is clearly undesirable. Australian governments have decided that very light handed regulation through the Australian Communications and Media Authority, coupled with competition amongst three very distinct broadcasting sectors, should ensure diversity in the broadcast media. Accordingly, Australia has three separate broadcasting sectors: community, public, and commercial. However they are becoming less distinctive.

As SBS-TV advertising revenue has grown, its distinctiveness, and its commitment to multiculturalism, has declined.

An international study by McKinsey and Co,7 which looked at nineteen public service broadcasters around the world, found that separate and distinct sectors did indeed have the potential to pay a diversity dividend, without the need for heavy-handed regulation. However McKinsey found that this only worked if the public service broadcasters had both a distinctive schedule and adequate government funding. They concluded “an increased dependence on advertising has led inexorably to a more popular and less distinctive schedule”. Save Our SBS suggests that this is exactly what advertising has done to SBS-TV.

Save Our SBS recommends that the interruption of programs for advertisements should be prohibited immediately, followed by a complete ban on all advertising on the SBS. There should be an increase in funding to enable the SBS to fulfil its role as an effective public service broadcaster within a public service/commercial/community broadcasting environment. If the SBS were funded at half the rate of the ABC, our two public broadcasters, between them, would still provide better value than either the BBC or Australian commercial television.

Committee of Management
Save Our SBS Inc
5 August 2008

SBS funding for the next triennium

By any reasonable measure the Special Broadcasting Service has been under funded. SBS is the poor cousin when compared with public and commercial broadcasters within Australia and overseas.

SBS total revenue (for both its radio and television services) is less than one fifth of the average commercial network in Australia. This figure includes both government support and funds from commercial activities, including advertising.

• The total revenue for the SBS (from all sources) in 2005-6 was $241, 782,000.1
• Total revenue for commercial television in the same year (less licence fees to the government for broadcast spectrum, for which SBS does not pay) was $3738 million.2
• Given the three free to air commercial TV networks, the average revenue for each commercial TV network was $1246 million, or more than five times the revenue for all SBS output, including its radio services.

The SBS receives about one quater of the funding that the ABC receives from government and the total combined public funding for both broadcasters is less than half that, on a per capita basis, as the BBC.

• Total licence fee support for the BBC in the twelve months ending March 2005 was 3.1 billion UK pounds.3 At the July 2008 rate of exchange this translates to $A6.42 billion.
• Total government funding for the ABC in 2005-06 was $827,269,000,4 while the SBS received $176, 472,000.1 Total for the two Australian public broadcasters was $1, 003,741,000.
• With the Australian population at a little over 20 million, and the UK population at 60 million, per capita government support for public service broadcasting in the UK was $107 per year and $50 per year for Australia.

This has encouraged the SBS to seek additional funds through advertising and other commercial activities. As a result, advertisers have replaced the viewer as the client of the SBS, while viewers have become the product to be sold to the advertiser. Efforts to attract advertising have caused the SBS to become less distinctive, and less committed to its multicultural mandate, as it seeks to compete in the commercial market.

In a liberal democracy close regulation of the media by the government is clearly undesirable. Both government broadcasters, the SBS and the ABC, operate at arms length from the government of the day. Save Our SBS welcomes the notion of the Australian version of the British Nolan system type of appointments for the SBS Board as being a more transparent system of appointments that will lead to better governance of the SBS.

Australian governments have decided that very light handed regulation through the Australian Communications and Media Authority, coupled with competition between three very distinct broadcasting sectors, should ensure real diversity in the broadcast media.

However the reliance on difference and diversity in the three media sectors to ensure a degree of pluralism starts to fall apart if all three sectors are colonised by advertisers.

The community sector has been severely affected. Initially free of advertising, the community broadcasting sector is now heavily reliant on advertising. A survey conducted in 2002-3 by the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia indicated that across the community radio sector advertising is the single largest source of income and on average accounts for one third of total station income.5

A study of community radio in regional areas by Dr Catharina van Vuuren found that one Queensland community radio station was receiving nearly 80% of its income from advertising.6

An international survey of public service broadcasters (PSB), commissioned by the BBC and conducted by McKinsey and Co in 1999,7 argued that the presence of a public service broadcaster in a broadcasting ecology consisting of both commercial and public service broadcasters:

. . . combines creative and market pressures on broadcasters to achieve society’s aims for its broadcasting market.

It does so by setting off a ‘virtuous circle’ with its commercial competitors. Because of its unique role and funding method, a PSB can popularise new styles of programming, and thereby encourage commercial broadcasters to create their own distinctive programs. In this way the viewing standards of the entire market are raised.

An example from the UK helps illustrate this. The BBC spends large sums of money and, often, several yeas to make compelling, highly rated costume dramas such as Pride and Prejudice. The competing commercial channels, rather than concede the genre to the BBC, have created their own popular costume dramas – e.g. ITV’s Moll Flanders and Channel 4’s The Camomile Lawn. The competition among the three broadcasters raises quality and reinforces audience taste for the genre.7

The McKinsey survey reach the unsurprising conclusion that the greater the advertising income that a PSB received, the more it looked like a commercial broadcaster and the less is looked like a public service broadcaster. The consequence for the broadcasting ecology was that:

Many PSBs are funded, at least partly, through advertising. Our survey shows clearly the potential dangers of this approach. We have found evidence that the higher the advertising revenue as a proportion of total revenues, the less distinctive a public service broadcaster is likely to be.7

We suggest that this has been exactly what has occurred to SBS-TV. When advertising was first introduced to the SBS, following legislative change in December 1991, there was a gradual shift in the television service from multiculturalism to cosmopolitanism.

Just over two years later, in 1994, this resulted in the SBS changing its slogan from “Bringing the world back home” to “The world is an amazing place”. Dr Chris Lawe-Davies commented that:

An overview of the market and advertising research reports carried out for SBS between 1993 and 1994 confirms anecdotal accounts of the effects of advertising culture on SBS programming outlined in the previous chapter of this thesis: that it has had a profound effect on the broadcaster in shifting the orientation of SBS away from the terms of the Charter and towards satisfying market conditions. One of the dominant criticisms of the campaign was the appropriateness of a public service broadcaster being so led by community attitudes; when its Charter quite clearly requires it should instead be leading the community in attitude change.8

While it would be an exaggeration to say that the cart was leading the horse, the advertising influenced decision to pursue the middle class and predominantly Anglo AB demographic in preference to migrant communities had begun to distort SBS-TV’s programming priorities. With the arrival of Shaun Brown as Managing Director the cautious and discreet incorporation of advertisements became brash and aggressive. The scale and stridency of advertising rose. Advertisers would pay more for interrupting programs with advertisements. The logic of the market was enthusiastically embraced.

It was no longer a case of multiculturalism morphing gradually into cosmopolitanism, but a policy of marginalising the SBS Charter. Moving most of them to less accessible times has marginalised programs in languages other than English.

Approximately four-fifths of prime time on SBS-TV is now in English. Prime time is generally understood to be the optimum time for most people to watch television, and is defined by the Australian Communications and Media Authority as being between six and ten thirty in the evening. However SBS management would have us believe that prime time extends from ten thirty right through to midnight. Through this sleight of hand they sought disguise the degree to which they have abandoned a key part of their audience.

It is not surprising, as advertising has increased on SBS-TV, that the station’s output should look more and more like the commercial competition. Hotelling’s Effect, or the Principle of Minimum Differentiation, has been well known to economists since the early part of the twentieth century. Professor Glenn Withers described its application to broadcasting as follows:

The reason for this is that stations based on advertising revenue will seek to maximize their audience (and thereby their revenue). Stations will therefore duplicate program types as long as the audience share obtained is greater than that from other programs.

Hence a number of stations may compete by sharing a market for one type of program (such as crime dramas) and still do better in audience numbers than by providing programs of other types (such as arts and culture). In economics this point is an application of the Principle of Minimum Differentiation, a principle also capable of explaining such associated phenomenon as why bank branches may cluster together, why airline schedules may be parallel, and why political parties may have convergent policy platforms.9

This principle informed a recent econometric study in Australia, which modelled the impact of a government funded player into a commercial television market, and found that:

When a government player was introduced to an otherwise free enterprise market, greater diversity, lower ‘collusion’ and greater market coverage was enjoyed by viewers. Surprisingly though, the presence of a government player also brought about increased revenues for the other market players…

Similarly, privatisation of the government player results in decreased viewer choice and diversity. Also a decrease in total market share results in a reduction of revenue for the existing market players. Curiously, not a single positive outcome was observed from the privatisation of a government player.

Almost all of the outcomes predicted by our model have been observed, either in the Australian or the US television market, empirically.10

This conclusion is consistent with the observation in the McKinsey survey that the larger the proportion of advertising revenue in the budget of a public service broadcaster, the less diversity in the market.
In the context of SBS, Senator Conroy expressed his concerns about advertising eroding the fundamental tenets of public broadcasting, when he wrote:

The introduction of in program advertising to the SBS in effect makes the SBS a de facto fourth free-to-air commercial television station and serves to erode the fundamental tenets of public broadcasting- that is, that it should be free from commercial and political influence.11

Save Our SBS agrees with the sentiments expressed above.

Funding Recommendation for the SBS

Save our SBS recommends that the interruption of programs by advertisements should be prohibited immediately. Accordingly, Save Our SBS would support amending section 45 (advertising) of the SBS Act for such purpose. A prohibition on interrupting programs for advertisements should be followed by a complete ban on all advertising on the SBS. We do not see any reason for SBS to continue to carry advertisements when properly funded from government. We acknowledge that SBS estimated it may require an extra $29.39m to $35.72m (30- 35% of base government funding) if SBS ceased interrupting programs for advertisements or $72.45m to $78.85m to drop advertising completely12, however, Save Our SBS submits that SBS is worthy of a substantial increase in base government funding regardless. An increase in government funding would enable the SBS to fulfil its role as an effective public service broadcaster within a public service/commercial/community broadcasting environment. A substantial increase in funding is required.

We suggest that SBS funding be increased to half that of the ABC.

Taking the 2005-6 financial year as a comparison, this would have seen SBS funding at $413,634,000 with the ABC at $827,269,000. The total for both public broadcasters would have been $1,240,903,000.

Such funding would have seen the ABC and the SBS, which broadcast both radio and television, with a lower income than the average commercial television network which received $1,246,000, 000 in 2005-6.

While this is a large increase for SBS, this increase in funding is small by comparison with public broadcasters overseas and the revenue of the commercial sector in Australia. Australians would have paid $58 per head per year for our public broadcasters, while in the U.K. support for the BBC was running at $107 per head per year in 2005-6.

Both SBS and ABC have two television channels. Financially, SBS struggles to operate SBS2, while SBS1 now looks more like that a commercial network rather than the public multicultural broadcaster intended. SBS has correspondents in many countries around the globe as does the ABC. The ABC has 5 domestic radio networks and broadcasts overseas, while the SBS has two radio networks. SBS does more multilingual broadcasts than the ABC. Both SBS and ABC run web sites. SBS is smaller than the ABC on the number of radio networks but has the same number of TV networks but is disproportionately under funded.

The output of the SBS is comparable to at least half that of the ABC – however the current base funding is much less than half that of the ABC. By comparison to Australian commercial broadcasters, by comparison to public broadcasters overseas, and by comparison to the ABC, the SBS is under funded.

Even without comparison to other Australian broadcasters, SBS is worthy of an increase in funding due to its unique role within Australian society. This value, or ‘cultural worth of SBS’ deserves preservation, which can only be achieved by further funding and a withdrawal of advertising.

Save Our SBS recommends that base funding from government for the SBS be set at not less than half that provided to the ABC and indexed annually in the usual manner.

Save Our SBS Inc
5 August 2008

References

1. SBS Annual Report, 2005-6, Special Broadcasting Service, viewed 28 July 2008, http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/index.php?id=392
2. Commercial Television Industry Financial Trends, 1978-79 to2005-06, Australian Communications and Media Authority, viewed 28 July 2008, http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib310665/commercial_tv_trends.pdf
3. Media Guardian 7/7/2006, BBC license fee income tops £3bn, guardian.co.uk, viewed 28 July 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/jul/07/bbc.broadcasting1
4. ABC Annual Report, 2005-6, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, viewed 28 July 2008, http://www.abc.net.au/corp/annual_reports/ar06/pdf/ABC_Annual_Report_2005-06.pdf
5. CBOnline, viewed 28 July 2008, http://www.cbonline.org.au/index.cfm?pageId=37,113,2,0
6. van Vuuren, C., 2004, Community Participation in Australian Community Broadcasting: A Comparative Study of Regional, Rural and Remote Radio, PhD dissertation, Griffith University, viewed 28 July 2008, http://www4.gu.edu.au:8080/adt-root/public/adt-QGU20040720.153812/
7. McKinsey & Co, 1999, Public Service Broadcasters Around the World, London, (mimeo)
8. Lawe Davies, C 1997, Multicultural Broadcasting in Australia; policies, institutions and programming, 1975-1995, PhD thesis, University of Queensland.
9. Withers, G 2002, Economics and Regulation of Broadcasting, Discussion Paper No 93, viewed 28 July 2008, http://dspace.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/41411/2/No93Withers.pdf
10. Alcock, J. & Docwra, G., 2005, A simulation analysis of the market effect of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Information Economics and Policy 17.
11. Senator Conroy, S, 2007, email, 11 October 2007, viewed 28 July 2008, http://saveoursbs.org/archives/127 
12. Senate Estimates Question on Notice BROADBAND, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE DIGITAL ECONOMY 12 February 2008 QUESTION NO.93 sub-question 16 and 17

http://saveoursbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/sbs-triennial-funding-submission-from-2009-to-2012-proposed-by-save-our-sbs-inc.pdf

www.SaveOurSBS.org

Save Our SBS Inc is a not for profit community organisation

There have been major changes to the SBS since the introduction of advertising, but they have not happened overnight. While the impact was subtle in the early years, the volume and stridency of advertising has grown with time. Previously advertisements did not interrupt programs. They now do. We can chart developments at the SBS since strictly limited advertising was introduced in 1992-3 to the current full-blown interruption into all programs for commercial breaks commencing late 2006.
1992
SBS Managing Director Brian Johns moves programs in languages other than English (LOTE) out of prime time as advertising is about to start. (i) Subsequent chief executives maintain the practice of English language domination of prime time, with LOTE programs broadcast either in the mornings, afternoons, or late at night, when many people would be at work, asleep, or otherwise occupied.
1999
Dr Chris Lawe Davies (now Senior Lecturer in Journalism, University of Queensland) completes a PhD thesis on SBS program policy. He concludes that there has been a “relative failure” of the SBS to follow its Charter. From evidence cited thus far in the thesis, the social outlook for SBS appears gloomy. The English language issue; the mismatch between languages spoken in Australia and those on SBS; the 1994-95 marketing campaign which positioned SBS for social ABs, and so on, all point towards a relative failure by SBS to address its Charter by providing programming which
reflected cultural diversity in Australia, and offered exciting and different perspectives on Australian society. Instead, [it is] argued, SBS programming provided to Australia perspectives from and about other places.
1999
A study of public service broadcasters in 19 different countries, commissioned by the BBC and carried out by McKinsey and Co, concludes: Our analysis shows that an increased dependence on advertising has led inexorably to a more populist and less distinctive schedule. (ii)
March 2003
SBS management is involved in a dispute with its own journalists over the introduction of advertising into news programs, which had previously been exempt. The NSW secretary of the Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance says forty journalists had written to management claiming that sponsorship of news and current affairs programs compromised editorial integrity and could result in reporters being disciplined or fired for airing unfavourable stories about advertisers. (iii)
November 2003
More key staff to leave. Since the arrival in January of former Television New Zealand (TVNZ) executive Shaun Brown as the head of television, there has been a succession of changes on and off screen at the Special Broadcasting Service. At first they seemed incremental. But over the past few months, long-established people and programs have been removed or relocated, new line-ups have been launched and pivotal programs reshaped. Since August 2002, the head of television has left, the chief programmer has resigned and the head of internal production has been told his job no longer exists. (iv)
December 2003
The Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of Australia (FECCA) says that SBS has lost its way. FECCA Chairman, then, Abd Malak, claims: “The only people who like SBS-TV now are the cappuccino crowd -well-educated, middle-class people, it’s mainly sex and soccer, I think”. He added that his organisation was “very close to giving up on SBS TV. . . In the last three or four years they have separated themselves from ethnic communities. They don’t come to our functions or religious festivals.” The dismissive, not to say insulting, response from then SBS Managing Director Nigel Milan was “We’re not going to cover the clog dancing from Brisbane
Town Hall.” (v)
January 2004
The Age’s media writer the late Ross Warneke comments on the banishment of non-English programs from prime time. “The bulk of its ‘ethnic content’ these days is its morning news marathon, with hour after hour of foreign language news services relayed from everywhere from Manila to Madrid”. (vi)
May 2004
Staff become disenchanted. The Age’s Debi Enker writes that SBS staff fear “that the search for a broader audience is leading to the acquisition and commissioning of programs that are ’safer and blander’, that SBS will become ‘a poor man’s version of a commercial network rather than providing a challenging alternative’. The harshest critics fear SBS will end up looking like a second-rate cable-TV station, running reality TV shows and English-language drama series that the free-to-air channels have rejected as either being too limited in their appeal or too provocative.” (vii)
June 2004
SBS joins with commercial broadcasters to oppose the tightening of restrictions on tobacco advertising through the insidious practice of product placement. (viii)
October 2004
As an associate member of Commercial Television Australia now Free TV Australia (the industry body representing commercial television) SBS joins with the existing commercial stations to restrict competition and to argue against the granting of an additional free to air TV licence. The reason -more competition would impact on their advertising income. (ix)
November 2004
Veteran SBS film critic Margaret Pomeranz, who together with co-host David Stratton deserted SBS for the ABC comments: I think that the current management has a much more commercial bent than any previous management. They seem to be after the young female demographic, and I worry about this, because this is a demographic already
catered to in excess on the commercial television stations. SBS was meant to broaden the scope of television in this country, extend what was already available, or that was always my vision of it. And I think it was the vision of a lot of people there as well. We were so little we didn’t rate very well, although during the ’90s under Peter Cavanagh, our ratings increased at really a remarkable rate. And for all of this new direction towards a more commercial bent, young female demographic, SBS is appealing to less viewers than it did before. (x)
June 2005
George Zangalis, President of the National Ethnic and Multicultural Broadcasters Council, and a former member of the SBS Board, issues a media release criticizing the direction of SBS-TV. The SBS was established as a multicultural broadcaster, but has been moving away from its original charter. Programming in community languages has shrunk, while English programming has grown. Advertising has increased and become increasingly strident. Rather than focusing on different cultures, the SBS seems to be moving towards mainstream sports like cricket and now AFL. There is plenty of this type of programming on the ABC and the three commercial channels. (xi)
August 2005
When first introduced, advertising on SBS is limited to five minutes per hour, and does not interrupt programs. It is only used to top and tail programs. There are media reports that the SBS Board wants these restrictions lifted, and the then Managing Director Nigel Milan commissions a confidential survey on possible audience reactions to interruptions into program for advertisement breaks. (xii)
February 2006
The SBS confirms the complaint made by George Zangalis, President of the Ethnic Broadcasters Council, in June 2005, that SBS advertising has increased and become increasingly strident. SBS’s director of commercial affairs, Richard Finlayson says that the broadcaster has reviewed “the type of ads it will and will not accept. In the past SBS has been reluctant to carry some ads, such as hard-hitting, in-your-face retails ads. That’s changing” (xiii)
June 2006
In a revised interpretation of the SBS Act, the SBS Board claims that the provision in the Act for the SBS to insert advertisements during ‘natural breaks’ authorises the network to interrupt programs with advertisements. The Board directs SBS management to implement this policy over the next six to twelve months. Later the then Shadow Minister for Communications, Senator Conroy, says that Labor does not accept this interpretation.
2007 to now
SBS-TV no longer resembles the special broadcaster its creators intended. All programs including news, documentaries, cinema release movies are now interrupted throughout, for fully fledged commercial breaks. Many in the community say that SBS television has been ‘dumbed down’ chasing the advertising dollar. Highly respected long time nightly news presenter, Mary Kostakidis, departs SBS-TV and there is mass public outcry about the commercialisation of the SBS. Thousands of people sign a petition at www.SaveOurSBS.org to stop the advertising on the SBS. The magazine of the broadcasting & television advertising industry, ‘B&T’ reports that the SBS was out “to position SBS as Australia’s fourth commercial network”. B&T quoted Richard Finlayson head of SBS commercial affairs. (xiv)
January 2008
Despite the public outcry SBS-TV continues to interrupt programs for advertisement breaks and gears itself to look more commercial than before. Australian actor Chris Hayward comments on the decision by the SBS to devote a large budget to a locally produced motoring program. After 37 years as an actor I believe the decision of the management to spend $11.5 million dollars on a motoring program is so far off the mark that the board and senior management should all be sacked, or the station sold. SBS’s role without our society is crucial towards maintaining a greater understanding and awareness of the complex and diverse society that we as Australians are. Indigenous issues need far greater exposure than that are getting, detailed examination though drama and debate in our society are much more important that the fuel consumption of the latest offering from Ford. This is nothing wrong with motoring programs -I am as much a petrol head as the next average Australian -but let one of the commercial channels or even the Australian Broadcasting Corporation produce such a program. (xv)

You can download a PDF version of this at: http://saveoursbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/the-impact-of-advertising-on-the-sbs.pdf

References
(i) Brian Johns, ‘SBS: Coping with a Strange Idea’, in Multicultural Australia: The Challenges of Change, D. Goodman et al.
Carlton, Scribe, 1991
(ii) McKinsey and Co, Public service broadcasters around the world, London, 1999 (mimeo)
(iii) Kylie Walker, SBS clashes with journalists over ads, The Age, 9 March 2003
(iv) Sydney Morning Herald, 11 November 2003
(v) Christopher Kremmer, Ethnic groups find SBS sex and soccer a turn off, SMH 20 December, 2003
(vi) Ross Warneke, Public broadcasters face big year, The Age, 8 January 2004
(vii) Debi Enker, Where to now, SBS?, The Age, 27 May 2004
(viii) Letter from Julie Eisenberg, SBS Head of Policy, to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, 17 June, 2004
(ix) Provision of Commercial Television Broadcasting Services after 31 December 2006, SBS Submission to the Department of
Information Technology, Communications and the Arts, October 2004
(x) Radio National Media Report, 4 November 2004
(xi) NEMBC Media Release, 8 June 2005
(xii) Errol Simper, Borrowed time up for Milan, The Australian, 11 August 2005
(xiii) Neil Shoebridge, FIFA world cup kicks off SBS ad sales, Australian Financial Review, 27 February 2006
(xiv) Quentin Dempster “Come Clean On Commercialisation” Walkley Magazine July 2007
(xv) Australian Financial Review, 3 January 2008