Please visit http://saveoursbs.org/archives/1313 now regardless of whether you’ve participated in an earlier campaign or not. It will take more than a single campaign alone before any politician is going to promise to boost SBS funding to cut the ad breaks and enable SBS to expand into the future. If Australia is taken forward, make sure SBS is not left behind.

Don’t wait until after the election. Now is the time to get promises from the next government.

MESSAGE our political leaders, the Minister, Shadow Minister and others to fund SBS properly so SBS may abolish ad breaks, expand into the future and provide catch-up money from past years of under-funding here.

Politicians’ will need further prompting before making any promises. For your own sake and that of future generations, and to rescue SBS go to http://saveoursbs.org/archives/1313 now.

The Rudd government didn’t deliver on SBS but maybe someone else will. Will it be Julia Gillard and the ALP or another party? Who will promise to rescue SBS, to fund into the future and rid it of ads? Before an election, collectively we can all influence politicians. They want your vote and we want their promise to fix SBS with proper funding. Call talkback radio and tell others about the campaign too at SaveOurSBS.org Tell your friends too

Make the government accountable. Remember these words?

“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”. (Senator Conroy October 2007).

“Labor is committed to ensuring adequate funding and support for the SBS, to enable it to continue to provide Australians with high quality services, free from political and commercial interference”. (ALP November 2007).

“Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising”. (Kevin Rudd; Campaign Office of the ALP; and, Senator Conroy, November 2007).

Hold the government to account. Send a clear message and demand these things be honoured under the next government.

Put the “special” back into SBS. Rescue multicultural broadcasting.

Send your new message only from http://saveoursbs.org/archives/1313 then FORWARD this eNewsLetter to your friends. Act today. Do it now!

This is eNewsLetter No 11 from Save Our SBS Inc (SaveOurSBS.org).

You have received this email because you are subscribed to receive occasional eNewsLetters from us. We are a not for profit organisation and staffed 100 percent by volunteers. As such we are unable to send regular mail outs but you can keep up-to-date by regularly visiting www.SaveOurSBS.org

The SaveOurSBS.org website is also syndicated via these RSS feeds:-
http://saveoursbs.org/feed displaying posts (stories)
http://saveoursbs.org/comments/feed displaying comments

If you would like to SUBSCRIBE to receive occasional free eNewsLetters or update your details, or UNSUBSCRIBE go to http://lists.saveoursbs.org/?p=subscribe&id=1

The Rudd government barely increased SBS funding with less than a stingy 6 cents/taxpayer/month* to produce Australian programs. Nothing for much needed expansion, nor catch-up money for years of chronic under-funding. And nothing to remove advertising. Under $1 taxpayer/month* would have covered that. Now SBS is suffering badly unless the government elected on 21 August rescues it. If you don’t insist now, it wont happen!
SEND this new pre-worded EMAIL MESSAGE to the Prime Minister, Opposition Leader, relevant Minsters, Shadow Ministers and other parliamentarians.

When done send this campaign to your friends by email and on Facebook and Twitter and let’s put the “special” back into the Special Broadcasting Service and rescue multicultural broadcasting.

This campaign “Vote to restore SBS” is the headline of this post only and refers to the 21 August 2010 Australian federal elections. This campaign post does not promote any specific political candidate or party.

The Rudd government didn’t deliver on SBS but maybe someone else will. Will it be Julia Gillard and the ALP or another party? Who will promise to rescue SBS and rid it of ads? Before an election, collectively we can all influence politicians. They want your vote and we want their promise to fix SBS. Call talkback radio and tell others about the campaign too at SaveOurSBS.org

Make the government accountable. Remember these words?

“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”. (Senator Conroy October 2007).

“Labor is committed to ensuring adequate funding and support for the SBS, to enable it to continue to provide Australians with high quality services, free from political and commercial interference”. (ALP November 2007).

“Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising”. (Kevin Rudd; Campaign Office of the ALP; and, Senator Conroy, November 2007).

Hold the government to account. Send a clear message and demand these things be honoured under the next government.

Put the “special” back into SBS. Rescue multicultural broadcasting.

Send your new message only from http://saveoursbs.org/archives/1135 then FORWARD this eNewsLetter to your friends. Act today. Do it now!

This is eNewsLetter No 10 from Save Our SBS Inc (SaveOurSBS.org).

You have received this email because you are subscribed to receive occasional eNewsLetters from us. We are a not for profit organisation and staffed 100 percent by volunteers. As such we are unable to send regular mail outs but you can keep up-to-date by regularly visiting www.SaveOurSBS.org

The SaveOurSBS.org website is also syndicated via these RSS feeds:-
http://saveoursbs.org/feed displaying posts (stories)
http://saveoursbs.org/comments/feed displaying comments

If you would like to SUBSCRIBE to receive occasional free eNewsLetters or update your details, or UNSUBSCRIBE go to http://lists.saveoursbs.org/?p=subscribe&id=1

SBS has been under funded for years and all governments have shirked responsibility for funding it adequately while the pursuit of the commercial path has offended many. SBS needs more government funding and no one wants the ads. Insist that the government elected on 21 August will stop the ads and fund it adequately. Don’t wait until after the election. The future of our SBS depends on your action now.
SEND a pre-worded EMAIL MESSAGE to the Prime Minister, Opposition Leader, relevant Minsters, Shadow Ministers and other parliamentarians. If composing your own email instead, the quotes below the boxes may assist.

When done send this campaign to your friends by email and on Facebook and Twitter and let’s put the “special” back into the Special Broadcasting Service and rescue multicultural broadcasting.

The quotes below may be helpful if composing your own email.

“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”. (Senator Conroy October 2007).

“Labor is committed to ensuring adequate funding and support for the SBS, to enable it to continue to provide Australians with high quality services, free from political and commercial interference”. (ALP November 2007).

“Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising”. (Kevin Rudd; Campaign Office of the ALP; and, Senator Conroy, November 2007).

SEND an EMAIL HERE * to the Prime Minister, key Ministers and opposition politicians.

Julia.Gillard.MP@aph.gov.au,Wayne.Swan.MP@aph.gov.au,Senator.Conroy@aph.gov.au,Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au,J.Hockey.MP@aph.gov.au,Tony.Smith.MP@aph.gov.au,Senator.Joyce@aph.gov.au,Senator.Ludlam@aph.gov.au,Senator.Xenophon@aph.gov.au,zelection2010webMail@saveoursbs.org,

OR copy all the email addresses above and paste to the TO field of a new email THEN copy the message from the text box below and paste into your new email.

AFTER you have sent the email tell your friends to visit www.SaveOurSBS.org to participate in this campaign and from there, link to, and join our FACEBOOK, and TWEET everyone you know. FORWARD this email to your friends too.

* A click on the EMAIL HERE above will activate most email clients, e.g., Outlook; Outlook Express; Live Mail; MacMail; Entourage; Mail; Thunderbird, etc. If not copy the addresses above and the message from the text box below to an email. The text is editable.

This is eNewsLetter No 9 from Save Our SBS Inc (SaveOurSBS.org).

If you participate in this campaign a copy may be sent to Save Our SBS Inc. This helps us understand how many people participated in this campaign. We do not give, sell or publish your contact or other personal details to anyone at all. Save Our SBS Inc (SaveOurSBS.org) may contact campaign participants at a later date to give you feedback about this issue.

You have received this email because you are subscribed to receive occasional eNewsLetters from us. We are a not for profit organisation and staffed 100 percent by volunteers. As such we are unable to send regular mail outs but you can keep up-to-date by regularly visiting www.SaveOurSBS.org

The SaveOurSBS.org website is also syndicated via these RSS feeds:-
http://saveoursbs.org/feed displaying stories (posts)
http://saveoursbs.org/comments/feed displaying comments

If you would like to SUBSCRIBE to receive occasional free eNewsLetters or update your details, or UNSUBSCRIBE now go to http://lists.saveoursbs.org/?p=subscribe&id=1

The gloom that pervades the unit could not be further from the excited mood that prevailed over 25 years ago when it was established. Subtitlers at SBS TV have been part of a team which has produced arguably the world’s finest subtitles in a unit built from scratch starting in the early 80s. Over the years, their work has allowed viewers to enjoy programming from around the world through their provision of English language subtitles. Drama – ranging from Lebanese sitcoms to Garcia Lorca – documentaries, children’s programming, even opera. Programs which could be quirky or weird or wonderful, but above all, distinctive – you didn’t need a watermark on the screen to know you were watching SBS.

The standards developed over the years at the SBS subtitling unit mean there is a lot more to creating subtitles than simply translating, a challenging enough task in itself.

The subtitles are prepared using a purpose-built computer program. Each subtitle must contain no more than a certain number of characters, and must remain on screen for a determined length of time to ensure that viewers can easily read it. The timing of the subtitle must correspond to the spoken word on screen, but it must also allow for contingencies such as camera angle changes. Where songs or poems are subtitled, the translation must replicate the rhythm of the original as well as the meaning. The process is much more laborious than a simple translation, and creating subtitles for a feature film may take up to a fortnight.

Once the subtitles are completed (usually by a native speaker of the language in question), they are checked by an editor (usually a native speaker of English). There may be discussions to be had about ambiguities and cultural sensitivities, as well as punctuation and grammar. Employment in the unit was gained only after exhaustive tests to assess candidates’ knowledge of the culture associated with their language as well as their translation skills.

In addition to their subtitling responsibilities, subtitlers were called on by newsreaders, journalists and others to check pronunciation of foreign names, and they also previewed and assessed overseas programs being considered for purchase. SBS subtitlers took their expertise around the world; Aboriginal broadcasters in Central Australia and European linguistic conferences alike benefited from the unit’s prowess.

In an era when SBS prided itself on being the world’s only multicultural, multilingual broadcaster, the quality of SBS subtitles set a benchmark worldwide. It was work for lovers of words and film, and the subtitling unit provided a home for aspiring novelists, poets and filmmakers, as well as people who simply delighted in making the products of other cultures accessible to a wider audience. In the days when SBS saw its role as providing an alternative to the programming seen on other channels, a majority of SBS’s programs were in languages other than English, with subtitles.  Providing services to News & Current Affairs, Local Production and even Sport, the subtitling unit lay at the heart of SBS TV.

But the heyday of the Subtitling Unit was shortlived, as programming of foreign language material, once the broadcaster’s raison d’etre, was downgraded.

The advent of advertising, initially only between programs, was quickly followed by a policy of excluding non-English language programs from prime time. Leaving aside the morning worldwatch broadcasts, which are not subtitled, it’s now not unusual for the SBS-ONE schedule to feature only one or two non-English language programs a day. There have even been days when there is no subtitled foreign language content at all (on SBS ONE). Don Quixote and Mozart and Lebanese soap operas have made way for Top Gear, Mythbusters and Big Love. When the pursuit of ratings rules, Inspector Rex alone finds a home in a prime-time slot.

The announcement about the most recent cutbacks was unwelcome but not unexpected. Subtitlers had been apprehensive about a recent review of the unit conducted without consultation with staff. The audit found that the unit was inefficient, and Brown stated that in future more films would be bought complete with subtitles done overseas to avoid the cost of doing them in-house (in times past, most overseas-created subtitles have been regarded as failing to meet SBS subtitling standards).

Some of the staff slated for redundancy are happy enough to go; as foreign-language programming has dwindled, people originally employed because of their language skills spend much of their time writing the teletext subtitles (Closed Captions) for the hearing-impaired for English-language programmes. Sub-editors’ duties now include identifying “natural breaks” in programs for insertion of commercials. (Not an easy task – just where are those breaks in, say, Tosca?)

Those of us who had the good fortune to work in SBS’s subtitling unit over the last 20 or so years must now acknowledge that those exciting days are over, and they will not return. SBS has moved on, and so must we. But we can be proud to have contributed to a thrilling period in Australian television, which was as remarkable as it was short-lived.

Cathy Carey has worked in various capacities at SBS TV including stints as a  subtitler.

The article above is the full text by Cathy Carey. Abbreviated versions have appeared on other sites. It was first published under the title “Lost in translation, subtitlers get the chop” in the Melbourne Age – Green Guide on 9 June 2010.

SBS World News Australia has fallen victim to the ill effects of the chronic under funding that has plagued the broadcaster for more than a decade. Already operating with strained resources, the news department can take the strain no more.

In an email sent last week by the SBS Director of News & Current Affairs, staff were told the redundancies “will not be a hands-up exercise”. However the email went on to say that an effort would be made to give preferences to staff who expressed an interest – in taking redundancy. Precise numbers were not revealed although the email did state that the numbers “affected will be small”.

This week the SBS Director of Strategy and Communications, speaking on behalf of SBS, confirmed to SaveOurSBS.org that “there will be some redundancies in the news room”.

Asked if World News Australia would run shorter bulletins and SBS planned to sack half the news staff the spokesperson for SBS said “There is no truth to the story that we plan to cut news staff by half or that there is any plan to reduce the length of the news bulletin.”

SaveOurSBS.org was also told that part of the budgetary strain now effecting the news room, was because no specific funding had been made from government for the operation of SBS TWO.

Meanwhile SaveOurSBS.org continues to lobby government for greater funding and in a submission to the SBS Board in March this year, again raised the concern that pursing the commercial path has and will lead to a gradual downturn in government funding. The Board was strongly urged to abandon the disruption in programs for advertising as a first step towards regaining increased public support for greater funding and so that the broadcaster would appeal more favourably to those in government who are deeply offended by that practice – believing that SBS was never intended to operate along commercial lines to the current extent. Dependency on advertising is now taking its toll.

SBS ventured into this with NINE. What is the relationship between SBS and NINE?

In order to facilitate SBS and NINE broadcasting what are effectively test transmissions in 3D the ACMA, which regulates and allocates broadcast spectrum, has made some spectrum available on a temporary basis. NINE and SBS have agreed to share the spectrum, with SBS becoming the “licensee” of the spectrum in some places and NINE in others.

SBS and NINE have devised a broadcast schedule that accommodates the needs of both broadcasters for the World Cup and State of Origin series. When matches are not being played a promotional reel showcasing 3D content from both broadcasters will be played. Replays of 3D matches will also be scheduled.

Is there a commercial arrangement between NINE and SBS in terms of splitting the income and sharing the overall costs?

There is no commercial arrangement between NINE and SBS. No payments or other consideration (other than practical assistance) will pass between the two.

How is SBS funding the 3D broadcast?

SBS has brokered a commercial partnership with Sony and Harvey Norman that covers the costs of broadcasting the World Cup in 3D. SBS has also received technical and transmission support from a number of partners including Broadcast Australia and satellite provider Optus.

Will there be advertising, including 3D advertising?

It is unlikely for technical reasons that it will be possible to insert ads in the 3D broadcast. Very few 3D ads currently exist.

What will be needed to watch the SBS 3D broadcasts?

Viewers will need to have or have access to a high definition 3D set and appropriate glasses to view the broadcast.

What will happen to the 3D digital channels after the World Cup?

After the World Cup and State of Origin series the spectrum will revert to the Government and its future use will be considered as part of the digital television switch over process.

At a future time would SBS like to have access to the 3D digital channel spectrum?

SBS does not have spectrum available to it to broadcast further 3D content at this stage. In any event there is little 3D content in existence [but we] will continue to monitor developments in 3D television and look at options for future broadcasts as and when they become feasible. 3D is still a technology in development. There are not yet agreed standards and at present there is not enough spectrum available to broadcasters for the wide spread provision of 3D programming.

Which cities and what digital channels will the 3D test broadcasts be available?

Frequencies in the UHF band in Sydney (35), Melbourne (35), Brisbane (50), Adelaide (29), Perth (35), Newcastle (35) and Wollongong (50).

Will SBS 3D be available in regional centres and remote parts of Australia?

Unfortunately, the service will not be available in regional areas. However, Austar MyStar customers who can receive a signal from one of the transmitter sites [mentioned] and who have appropriate reception equipment will be able to receive the signal.

The 3D test broadcasts on SBS of the FIFA World Cup will broadcast on the following dates and times: -

South Africa v Mexico LIVE 11 June at 23:45 hours AEST; Germany v Australia LIVE 14 June at 04:15 AEST; Netherlands v Denmark LIVE 14 June at 23:30 AEST; Argentina v Korea LIVE 17 June at 23:30 AEST; Netherlands v Japan LIVE 19 June at 23:30 AEST; Ghana v Germany 23 June LIVE at 04:15 AEST; Portugal v Brazil LIVE 25 June at 23:45 AEST; 1B v 2A (2) LIVE 28 June at 04:15 AEST; 1E v 2F (5) LIVE 28 June at 23:45 AEST; Quarter Final 1 v 3 (A) LIVE 3 July at 04:15 AEST; Quarter Final 2 v 4  (B) LIVE 3 July at 23:43 AEST; Quarter Final 6 v 8 (D) LIVE 4 July at 04:15 AEST; Semi Final A v C (1) LIVE 7 July at 04:15 AEST; Semi Final B v D (1) LIVE 8 July at 04:15 AEST; Final W1 v W2 LIVE 12 July at 04:15 AEST

Further Reading

SBS to broadcast World Cup in 3D SBS press release about 3D TV.

3D TV trials The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is the industry regulator and has issued the licence for the 3D test transmissions.

3D television – the technology explained The Wikipedia technical explanation of how 3D works.

3D TV FAQ The CNEWS technical explanation of how 3D TV works.

3D TV SBS Broadcasts – Technical Only How technical buffs are watching 3D on a computer – the hardware and software needed.

Ready or not, the latest 3D technology is coming home What equipment is required to make and view 3D TV.

The History of Australian Television – the eighties 3D was first broadcast in Australia in 1983.

In his opening presentation to last week’s Senate Estimates hearing, Brown told the Senate Committee that SBS needed to find a way to offset the hits to the broadcaster’s commercial revenue that have occurred.

Brown said that the hits to SBS’s advertising revenue had come about: “firstly as a consequence of the global financial crisis and secondly because of the explosion of multichannels from commercial broadcasters which has doubled the amount of commercial inventory in the market”. Brown added this was “having an impact on the revenue that SBS can derive”.

Brown was alluding that the value of the SBS advertising dollar has been diluted with the introduction of ONE, SEVEN-TWO and GO. Previously SBS only had to contend with 7, 9 and 10. And now that community television has begun transmissions on digital 32 and the ABC will soon have four television networks, the spread of viewers across 13 metropolitan free-to-air channels will mean that SBS will have far fewer viewers than a year ago. That’s not overly attractive to advertisers who want numbers. It throws into doubt the emphasis that SBS gave to depending on income from in-program advertising breaks, as a reliable source of income. It no longer is.

In what could be called a justified but subtle plea for further funding, Brown told Senate Estimates that a way needed to be found “to resource new and emerging platforms so that SBS remains a vital part of that expanded landscape”. Later Brown discussed some of those platforms, including the Internet and SBS-TWO.

However there has been no particular funding granted to SBS for these platforms and SBS has been habitually under funded by all governments. Taking these factors into account, SaveOurSBS.org wrote to the Treasurer in December 2009 urging that specific funding be made available to SBS for its online services before the next triennial funding period commences in 2012. That specific request was on the back of earlier submissions to government that SBS deserves greater funding to free the broadcaster from any need to rely on advertising.

In August 2008, SaveOurSBS.org made a submission to the Minister for a massive injection of public funding for the current triennial period (2009 to 2012) so that SBS would not need to rely on advertising.

Since 2007 in other submissions to government, SaveOurSBS.org has repeatedly predicted that SBS would ultimately suffer, and the current model that has caused SBS to turn to advertising as a source of income, is flawed. Brown’s revelation to the 24 May 2010 Senate Estimates that SBS needs to “find a way to offset the hits to [SBS] commercial revenue” is spot on. A way is needed.

Considering the disruptions to regular programs for advertisements remains grossly unpopular with viewers and that many in government have deep philosophical objections to those disruptions, SaveOurSBS.org (again) submitted in March this year that the interruptions of programs for commercial breaks will need to end as a first step in SBS rebuilding support from its viewers and obtaining greater public funding. Adequate funding for SBS remains years overdue.

SaveOurSBS.org understands that the restructure has come about because many people who were originally employed to subtitle foreign language programs have found their duties were later extended to create closed captions. Closed captions are the teletext subtitles for the hard-of-hearing on English language programs – not the superimposed subtitles used on foreign language programs.

In a statement to SaveOurSBS.org, SBS management said: “At present we have an over supply of capacity in some languages relative to need. As a result many staff are spending considerable amounts of time doing closed captioning of English language programming rather than subtitling. This is not what they are trained for, or prefer to do”.

Sources close to those affected have said that SBS intends to outsource subtitling of foreign language programs or import programs that are already subtitled, even if the standard of subtitling is inferior, as that is cheaper. But SBS has assured SaveOurSBS.org that “there is no plan to out source the unit nor to reduce the amount of subtitled programming (in fact increased investment in SBS TWO will result in more subtitled product).”

SaveOurSBS.org has argued for a fully funded commercial free SBS with an increase in foreign language programs.

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

The Charter is very clear: “The principle function of the SBS is to provide multilingual and multicultural radio and television services . . .”

Section 45 of the Act states that SBS may broadcast advertisements “before programs commence, after programs end or during natural program breaks” but no definition is given of a “natural program break” or when that might occur. The history of advertising on SBS dates back to 1991. There is nothing in the SBS Act that exempts advertisements from needing to comply with the SBS Charter. Mostly they don’t.

In late 2006, SBS reinterpreted their previous definition of a “natural program break”, and SBS-TV began to look and feel like that of a commercial broadcaster what with every program being interrupted for commercial breaks. SBS was no longer ‘special’.

Multilingual and multicultural programming took second place.

Tens of thousands of people protested about the commercialisation of SBS.

Three years on, the interruptions of programs for advertisements remains the biggest single annoyance to SBS viewers. Traditional supporters abandoned ship.

The legislators and those that drafted the Act say that in 1991, when SBS was granted permission to carry advertising, they never intended that a “natural program break” be interpreted in the broad way that SBS now do.

At the Senate Estimates on 30 October 2006, Senator Conroy said: “I have spoken to some of the people who were involved in drafting it [the SBS Act]”. He criticised the reinterpretation that SBS had just announced that would allow for the interruption of programs for advertisements into virtually any program. Conroy said the SBS self-penned definition of a “natural program break” was: “inconsistent with the intent of the limits that the legislation attempted to set”. The Senator was referring to the (SBS) Guidelines For The Placement of Breaks in Television Programs September 2006 which fall under the SBS Codes of Practice 2006. The Act requires the Board to determine an advertising policy. But it must be consistent with the Charter and the intent of the Act, not just the wording of the Act.

At the same Senate Estimates Senator Conroy quoted from the previous SBS Codes that defined a “natural program break” as “any pause during coverage of an event where audiences miss none of the proceedings that relate directly to the event (for example, rest periods in sports events)” for SBS-TV. That definition does not clash with the Charter or just common sense.

Legislators intended that “natural program breaks” would at least be genuine natural breaks, e.g., a ‘gap’ between acts in a live opera when there might otherwise have been a long pause, or, in similarly in live sport at half time. No one could honestly believe that the current reinterpretation of 2006, for example, the end of a scene (any scene) in a drama is a genuine natural break. It is obvious such breaks are not natural. They are forced.

The current SBS advertising Guidelines policy has pre-determined that a certain number of natural breaks per hour do exist. Even if a program has no genuine, natural breaks, they must be found. The policy says so. In daily practice, almost no room is left for the discretion of the poor bod whose task it is to force a break knowing that common sense would say: this is not a genuine natural break. The viewer suffers as does the reputation of SBS.

And since late 2006, the intent of the Act remains ignored.

All eyes are now on the new Chair of SBS, Joseph Skrzynski to lead the Board in a different direction and adopt a new model where advertisements are placed between programs and not in them. Only time will tell if the SBS Board will act as the responsible custodian of these public airwaves, respect the Charter, the SBS audience and the intent of the legislation.

FURTHER READING

The Zampatti Makeover by David Ingram.  Former SBS National Training Manager (1994 to 2007) expresses his opinion that the retirement on 16 December 2009 of Carla Zampatti as the then Chair of the SBS marks “the end of perhaps the most destructive era in the multicultural broadcaster’s 34-year history”.

Bill bans ad interruptions on SBS-TV A legislative solution that would prohibit SBS from interrupting programs for commercial breaks but allow SBS to advertise between programs only.

The SBS Must Be Special Former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, whose government established the Special Broadcasting Service, building on the creation of the publicly funded multi-lingual radio stations 2EA and 3EA of the Whitlam government, joined with ethnic community leaders and key figures from public life, literature and the arts calling for SBS to focus on the needs of viewers rather than on selling consumers to advertisers.

A chronology of advertising on SBS The history of advertising on SBS from subtle sponsorship in 1992 to soft sell ‘arty’ commercials of the late 1990’s right through to full blown, hard sell ‘in your face’ type advertising in 2007 and 2008. The detrimental impact to multilingual and LOTE programming caused by advertising is documented.

SBS URL BROKEN

The SBS Codes URL for the SBS Codes of Practice 2006 may have been removed from http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/media/documents/8487sbs_codes_of_practice_2006.pdf but now can be found at http://saveoursbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/8487sbs_codes_of_practice_2006.pdf

The SBS Advertising Guidelines URL for the (SBS) Guidelines For The Placement of Breaks in Television Programs September 2006 may have been removed from   http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/media/documents/3913advertising_guidelines_2006.pdf but now can be found at http://saveoursbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/3913advertising_guidelines_2006.pdf

Below is some important news from Save Our SBS.

As a result of the continued inadequate government funding for SBS and the annoying reliance on commercial breaks interrupting programs, we are often asked: What can I do now?

Email every politician before the next election

Visit www.SaveOurSBS.org and follow the links to EMAIL the federal politicians in your electorate, before the next election is even called. Tell them what you want specifically in relation to advertising and funding.

We’ve provided links to reveal each politicians contact details and an email template for the above, however, it is better if you use your own words if possible. Please do this now at www.SaveOurSBS.org

Facebook

Save Our SBS is now on Facebook. If you have your own Facebook, link your Facebook page to ours. A link to our Facebook can be found at www.SaveOurSBS.org (on the left side part way down). This is a great way to tell others to join in on our campaigns.

Twitter

Save Our SBS is now on Twitter. If you have your own Twitter, link your Twitter page to ours. A link to our Twitter can be found at www.SaveOurSBS.org (on the left side part way down). Send a tweet to your friends to tell to join in on our campaigns.

New SBS Chair appointed

Recently a new Chair of SBS was announced. Mr Joseph Skrzynski will take up his position of SBS Chair on 17 December 2009. He is already an existing member of the SBS Board. He was appointed during the term of the current government and his newer appointment to that of SBS Chair has caused a vacancy on the SBS Board.  A link of how to apply to serve on the SBS Board is in the story New SBS Chair appointed at www.SaveOurSBS.org

Banning commercial breaks on SBS

There have been no further moves in the parliament to debate or vote on the Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Prohibition of Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2009 that we reported on in Bill bans ad interruptions on SBS-TV. If you are wondering what happened to the government’s official policy that objected to ads interrupting programs on SBS, then read No ad breaks on SBS parts 1 & 2: ‘When is a policy not a policy?‘ & ‘Minister denies policy‘. All these stories and more can be found at www.SaveOurSBS.org

Other ways to help

• After participating in the email campaign at www.SaveOurSBS.org we urge you to Tell others by clicking on the baby envelope icon seen in the footer of any post to further spread the word via email from our website to all your friends. You can also send our post to various social and news websites too. Simply click on any of the tiny icons in the grey bar located just below the last sentence of any post.
• Under some stories you can post your comments about the topic. This means you can express your views after you’ve read an article and a few days later, your comment might be published. Guidelines are on the site.
• Regularly visit www.SaveOurSBS.org and make a point of reading the articles to find out what has been going on. This is a good way to keep up to date.

If you are wondering “yes”, the look of the SaveOurSBS.org site has been redesigned.

Please visit www.SaveOurSBS.org today to participate in this vital campaign. Tell your friends to do the same.

Save Our SBS Inc
eNewsLetter No 8

Subscription Service

Occasionally we may send you information such as the “Save Our SBS eNewsLetter” or other SaveOurSBS.org email updates however as we are a volunteer organisation we do not have the resources to send regular or periodic emails. Our emails are very occasional. You can update or remove your contact details here.

—

Send an email before the next federal election is announced.

If you already know the names and email address of the elected politicians for your electorate, click to send an EMAIL from here now*. (The click will activate your email client with a pre-worded email which you may edit, delete or change if you wish. Webmail users see below). Type the recipients email address into the TO field. We suggest you send a separate email to each politicians for your electorate (and other candidates if you know who they are). At the head your email please type: Dear [name], and at the tail type your name.

After emailing the federal politicians in your electorate, you may want to email every federal politician if you can. See box below.

How to find the Name & Contact Details for Politicians

To find out the name and contact details of the federal politicians in your area, you first need to find out the name of the electorate where you live.

1.    If you are not sure of the name of your electorate click here to look it up. The answer will also show the names of the federal politicians for your electorate.

2.    When you are certain of the name (from the step above) you can then find the contact details of your federal member of parliament (MP) from the list of names here. If your local MP shows their email address, copy the address and paste it into the TO field of the pre-worded EMAIL*. You can also write a letter, phone and visit your MP as well.

3.    To find the contact details from the list of names for your federal Senators for your State or Territory click here. If your Senator shows their email address, copy the address and paste it into the TO field of the pre-worded EMAIL*. You can also write a letter and phone your Senator as well.

* The EMAIL links above will activate most email clients, e.g., Outlook; Outlook Express; Live Mail; Mail; MacMail; Thunderbird, etc.

Webmail

If the EMAIL link above fails to work, just copy the text from the box below and paste into your own email and send that. Remember to type the email address of your MP, Senator and each candidate standing at the next federal election, into the TO field. It may be helpful to also type into the CC field pre10election@SaveOurSBS.org if you want SaveOurSBS.org to receive a copy of your email. You may edit, delete or change the text if you wish.

If you send the email using the EMAIL links above, a copy may be sent to SaveOurSBS.org A copy to SaveOurSBS.org helps us understand how many people participated in this campaign. We do not give or sell your contact or other personal details to anyone at all. Save Our SBS may contact participants at a later date to give you feedback about this issue.

Commenting on the appointment Save Our SBS spokesperson Darce Cassidy said:

“Mr Skrzynski is well qualified to lead Australia’s multicultural broadcaster. He arrived in Australia as a refugee from Poland after the Second World War. He has held Board positions with the Australian, Film Television and Radio School and the Australian Film Commission and is a former Chairman of the Sydney Opera House Trust. He has been recognised for mentoring Australian film makers and his support for Indigenous scholarships”

Mr Skrzynski is already a member of the SBS Board and was appointed on 27 March this year. A vacancy on the SBS Board has now been created as a result of his newer appointment to the position of Chair. Persons interested in filling that Board vacancy should visit www.dbcde.gov.au/abcsbsboards

Commenting further the Save Our SBS spokesperson added:

“Despite his qualifications and experience Mr Skrzynski faces a daunting task in getting the SBS, and particularly its television services, back on course. The pursuit of advertising income has lead to a decline in programs in languages other than English (LOTE) during the most popular viewing times. Moreover the decision to interrupt programs for advertisements, while it may have generated more income has upset both audiences and the government.”

“Mr Skrzynski and the Board will need to build bridges with ethnic communities, with audiences and with the government. For our part Save Our SBS will continue to lobby the government over advertising on SBS and to replace lost advertising with federal funds.”

Joseph Skrzynski will take up the position of SBS Chair on 17 December 2009 until his term expires on 26 March 2014.

In a media statement Senator Ludlam said: “The Bill will not prevent SBS from generating advertising revenue, nor from running advertisements and station promotions between programs”. He added the “character [of SBS] is under threat from the shortfall in public funding”. Previously the Greens had called for more funding for the broadcaster.

The Bill, the Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Prohibition of Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2009 (Bill Number 165/2009) was first introduced by the Australian Democrats in 2008. The parliament did not vote on it then. If it became law, the Bill would prohibit the interruption of programs by advertisements and station promotions on SBS television by amending Section 45 (2) (a) of the Special Broadcasting Service Act (1991) to omit the phrase ‘or during natural program breaks’.

Senator Ludlam said: “It has been taken up by the Greens due to the ongoing and widespread concern about the dangers associated with expanding advertising on a public broadcaster and aims to protect SBS from the creeping commercialisation that is now evident”. A former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, whose government established the Special Broadcasting Service, and other distinguished persons had previously expressed similar sentiments in a public statement The SBS Must Be Special.

SaveOurSBS.org believes the re-introduction of the Bill may be timely but hopes that the government stimulus packages might now be extended to include SBS.

Prior to the May 2009 Budget, Save Our SBS  made a submission to the government for a massive injection of public funding for the 2009-2012 SBS Budget coupled with legislation to ban commercial breaks on SBS.

In 2008 Save Our SBS  presented a petition signed by more than seven and a half thousand people urging a ban on advertising on SBS with more funding from the public purse. Other campaigns have repeatedly called on the government to live up to its 2007 election policy statement that “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising”. (ALP email; Senator Conroy email; and, Kevin Rudd email).

As yet there is no date set down for the parliament to debate or vote on the Bill.

In the May 2009 Senate Estimates the Greens spokesperson for Communications, Senator Ludlam questioned Minister Conroy about Labor’s pre-election policies in regard to SBS interrupting programs for commercial breaks. Part of the proceedings are cited below:-

Senator LUDLAM- You might require a slightly better citation than this. SaveOurSBS.org, the website, which I am sure you are familiar with, is running a quote by you when you were opposition spokesperson for communications: “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising.” I will find the date of that for you.
Senator Conroy- No, I am not disagreeing that I said that-
Senator LUDLAM- Okay. That was-
Senator Conroy- I am disagreeing with your interpretation of what that meant.
Senator LUDLAM- Can you bring us up to date on what that actually meant?
Senator Conroy- It meant exactly what it said. It just did not mean what you are saying it said.
Senator LUDLAM- I am pretty happy with the context of the quote, that you opposed when you were in opposition-
Senator Conroy- I am pretty happy with it too; I made it.
Senator LUDLAM- But it was not government policy at the time; it was just an opinion?
Senator Conroy- It was an opinion. It was never stated-you will not find any election document or any public statement that says we would reverse it.
Senator LUDLAM- But it does not say-
Senator Conroy- There is a reason that you do not have a quote there saying we would reverse it, and the reason is that we never said it.
Senator LUDLAM- Sorry to belabour the point, but you also have not said, ‘I, Mr Conroy, oppose’; you have said, ‘Labor has opposed and continues to oppose’. But at the time you did not say, ‘But we will do nothing about it once we are in government’; you just opposed it on principle at the time?
Senator Conroy- Yes.

The Minister Conroy went onto tell Estimates that he was not happy with the situation.

The SaveOurSBS.org quote referred to above in Senate Estimates “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising” was first published on the SaveOurSBS.org website on 11 October 2007 under the heading “What Each Party Will Do With SBS: Election 2007″ – The SBS policies of each party explained.

But there are other documents that contain the quote. And it was far more than just an opinion expressed by Senator Conroy.

The quote was repeated multiple times by Senator Conroy then in the month of the election it was re-issued in  emails from Kevin Rudd and the ALP Campaign Information headquarters. By November 2007 the quote (above) had become official Labor party policy appearing on authorised ALP material under Labor’s chosen heading: Labor’s SBS Policy. Save Our SBS has obtained documents that prove that.

The policy “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising” was consistent with Senator Conroy’s earlier comments.

On 11 October 2007 Senator Conroy had sent an email to the then newly founded Save Our SBS. Senator Conroy, then opposition spokesperson for Communications, was responding to a SaveOurSBS.org email of 22 August 2007. We sent a similar email to other politicians and parties. We told each politician that we would publish their answer on the SaveOurSBS.org website. In our email of 22 August 2007 to Senator Conroy we began: “We seek information as to ALP policy regarding SBS. In particular we would like to know what is the ALP policy regarding the interruptions to programs for advertisements on SBS-TV?” In the public interest of fairness we disclose the full email from Save Our SBS of 22 August 2007 to Senator Conroy and his email reply of 11 October 2007. Both can be read here. (For privacy reasons a personal phone number has been blacked out).

We published Senator Conroy’s reply containing his quote (above) on 11 October 2007 (here). Then in November 2007 SaveOurSBS.org published the famous quote again “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising” in a different story (here). We were reporting on the outcome of a joint Save Our SBS and Friends of the ABC campaign. Again the quote appeared under Labor’s named heading: Labor’s SBS Policy. The same heading and quote was issued in multiple emails with identical content about the SBS and the ABC. Some emails placed Labor’s SBS Policy at the top of the email while other emails placed it towards the middle of the email. Nevertheless the quote always appeared under the same heading: Labor’s SBS Policy.

The emails were sent from Kevin Rudd, Senator Conroy and the ALP Campaign Information Services. All three had sent their email to the participants of the joint Save Our SBS and Friends of the ABC campaign that ran in the lead up to the 2007 Federal election. Save Our SBS tracked 1119 email campaign participants. We have copies of all those emails. There may have been more.

No one was left wondering what Labor’s policy was regarding SBS and “in-program advertising”. Certainly not the 1119 people who received who the email a week or so before the election from Kevin Rudd, Senator Conroy and the ALP Campaign Information Services. Each email clearly stated:-

Labor’s SBS Policy
Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising

If it looks like a policy, reads like a policy, is emailed under the heading Labor’s SBS Policy and sent in multiple emails from Labor party headquarters, Senator Conroy and Kevin Rudd, to 1119 people right up to one day before the election, we reckon it is a policy.

The question remains: when will the government now live up to its pre-election promise? Will Senator Conroy amend section 45 of the SBS Act to prohibit SBS from interrupting programs for advertisements or will another Senator or MP have do that? Who will make the first move?

Labor’s SBS policy email below From Kevin Rudd, Sent 23 Nov 2007 (PDF here)
BELOW email page 1 of 4

BELOW email page 2 of 4

BELOW email page 3 of 4

BELOW email page 4 of 4

Labor’s SBS policy email below From Senator Conroy, Sent 21 Nov 2007 (PDF here)
BELOW email page 1 of 2

BELOW email page 2 of 2

Labor’s SBS policy email below From ALP Campaign Information Services, Sent 14 Nov 2007 (PDF here)
BELOW email page 1 of 3

BELOW email page 2 of 3

BELOW email page 3 of 3

For a quick overview click to read:
No ad breaks on SBS part 1: When is a policy not a policy?

Responding to Senator Scott Ludlum (Greens) in a recent Senate Committee hearing, Senator Conroy suggested that statements he made before the 2007 election, which had severely criticized SBS management for interrupting programs for commercial breaks, “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising” were not official Labor policy, but simply his “opinion”.  According to the Hansard transcript:

Senator LUDLAM- But it was not government policy at the time; it was just an opinion?
Senator Conroy- It was an opinion . . .
[and later]
Senator LUDLAM- . . . you just opposed it on principle at the time?
Senator Conroy- Yes.

However separate emails from Kevin Rudd, the ALP campaign office and Senator Conroy himself all make it clear that this was the considered policy of the Labor Party as a whole.

Labor’s campaign office took the view that this was Labor policy. In an email dated 14 November 2007, under the heading Labor’s SBS Policy, campaign headquarters wrote “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising.” See ALP email here.

A week later Senator Conroy, also under the heading Labor’s SBS Policy, wrote “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising.” See Conroy email here.

A few days later Kevin Rudd, also under the heading Labor’s SBS Policy repeated exactly the same words.  Mr Rudd did not suggest that this was simply Senator Conroy’s opinion.  In his email Mr Rudd also made it clear that it was Labor Party policy. This was one day before the election. See Rudd email here.

This is not simply an issue of Senator Conroy’s credibility.  It is also reflects on Kevin Rudd and the government as a whole.

For a detailed a background report click to read:
No ad breaks on SBS part 2: Minister denies policy

Save Our SBS www.SaveOurSBS.org congratulates SBS-TWO on its prime time* TV schedule. It goes more than half way in serving Australians whose native tongue is not English.

For the week ending Friday 5 June 2009 the schedule, as published on the SBS website, indicates that well over half of the prime time programs on the SBS second channel are in LOTE (languages other than English).

Save Our SBS spokesperson Darce Cassidy said “This would be good news, but the problem is that most Australians can’t receive SBS-TWO, which is only available in digital transmission. According to OZTAM figures for March of this year only 43.4 percent of households can receive digital television.”

“Meanwhile the main SBS TV channel, SBS-ONE, condemns programs in LOTE to minority status in prime time. Less than one fifth of prime time TV on SBS-ONE is in LOTE”.

“According to the SBS Act: “The principal function of SBS is to provide multicultural radio and television services that inform, educate and entertain all Australians and, in doing so, reflect Australia’s multicultural society.”

“In effect, the second channel is second best, and the people who would be most inclined to watch it have been treated as second class citizens.”

“If the SBS were serious about its commitment to its Charter it would put the SBS-TWO schedule on the SBS-ONE transmitters, and vice versa.”

“Both SBS channels continue interrupt programs for advertisements.”

* The official regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, defines prime time television as the hours between six and ten-thirty p.m.

For further information and comment:
CONTACT: Darce Cassidy 03 9005 8660 or 0412 685 178
WEB: www.SaveOurSBS.org
EMAIL: Spokesperson@SaveOurSBS.org

Save Our SBS Inc

Brown took exception to the expression that SBS had forced breaks into these or any programs. However he did admit that SBS interrupted programs that were never produced for commercial breaks. Brown insisted that SBS only had natural breaks which is permissible under the SBS Act. However the Act does not define natural breaks, so under their Codes SBS invented their own Guidelines. The SBS definition has never been tested in the Courts.

At Senate Estimates Brown said that the SBS definition of a natural break was a “global” definition.

Brown’s statement is not globally true.

It is true that some similarity can be found with the UK as to where it is acceptable to place a break but there is no reference to such break being described as a natural break.

Back home, commercial television in Australia was de-regulated in the mid 1980’s. Commercial television licenses were originally granted under the old Broadcasting & Television Act. There was never a legislated definition of a natural break. Commercial broadcasters may now place breaks of any length, where ever they desire but SBS does not hold a commercial licence. It is a public, tax payer funded broadcaster.

In 2007 SBS forced 6000 breaks into programs that were never intended to be interrupted, as such we maintain they were not natural. Certainly they annoyed viewers.

Brown also told Senate Estimates “We now place only one 30-second spot on the top of the hour.”

But anyone who watches SBS-TV regularly knows the break between programs are longer than 30 seconds.

Breaks in programs on SBS run 2 mins and breaks between programs vary in length but are usually also about 2 minutes. Was Brown telling a fib to Senate Estimates when he said they now have “only one 30-second spot on the top of the hour”? A “spot” is industry jargon for a commercial but you could be forgiven for not knowing that because the total length of the break, including promos and advertisements is usually closer to 2 minutes and sometime longer. It is rarely just 30 seconds.

In defending SBS interrupting programs for commercial breaks, Brown has always maintained the line that the breaks were around 8 to 10 minutes between programs under the previous model where programs were not interrupted. In a media release on 1 June 2006, when SBS had been preparing to move to the now current model, Brown said: “These lengthy breaks – sometimes up to 10 minutes – are clearly unpopular with viewers. The new structure will reduce the lengthy, between-program breaks currently in the SBS schedule” and in discussing the then future model of interrupting programs, in the same media release, Brown said: “For half hour programs, there could be two short advertising breaks of 60 seconds duration and for one hour programs, there may be three short breaks, each no longer than 90 seconds duration”.

Regular viewers of SBS-TV would know that under the previous model the break between programs were rarely 8 to 10 minutes, except very late at night, for example at close of transmission. Although under the old model, SBS-TV often ran 4 to 6 minute breaks between programs, it is now obvious that viewers preferred that approach instead of the current model of interrupting programs.  Under the present model half hour programs have two, 2 minute breaks (not 60 seconds as foreshadowed) while one hour programs now contain three, 2 minute breaks (not 90 seconds as stated).

Is Brown a master at manipulating statistics?

Transcript of Senate Estimates

The questions and answers asked by Senator Scott Ludlam in the May 2009 Senate Estimates may be read in detail at:  http://wotnews.com.au/like/estimates_sbs_funding_and_advertising/3471896 however if you would prefer to read the full Hansard transcript of the May 2009 Senate Estimates visit:  http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=;db=;group=;holdingType=;id=;orderBy=;page=0;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2F12031%2F0003%22;querytype=;rec=;resCount=

Senator Scott Ludlam, the W.A. Greens spokesperson for Communications had been questioning Brown about the SBS advertising policies and operations.

Surprisingly Brown also told Senate Estimates that SBS had not sought “revenue to offset the commercial revenue” when SBS recently made its submission to government for funding for the next three years. Brown also said he was aware of the public objections to SBS interrupting programs.

Senator LUDLAM- Are you concerned or are you surprised by the degree to which these opinions were raised in the process of public submissions late last year, the degree of disquiet amongst the audience about the amount of advertising?
Mr Brown- No, I am not really.

This revelation by Brown at Senate Estimates only confirms public perception that Brown and the SBS Board are not listening to their viewers. Such arrogance, that SBS made a deliberate decision not to seek any funding from government in the May Budget to abandon its failed advertising policy in the light of SBS knowing that viewers expected such funding request be made, only serves to further annoy and anger viewers.

Brown has previously taken credit for the decision by the SBS Board to interrupt programs. That commenced in late 2006. Before that, SBS-TV only placed advertisements between programs, not in them.

For the past 2 and a half years since SBS began these interruptions, Brown has publicly claimed that the sole reason for such interruptions was to fund Australian program production and that all the money (minus agency commissions) raised from commercial breaks in programs was only used to make Australian programs.

But now that in the May 2009 Budget the federal government maintained SBS funding in real terms for the next three years and added an additional amount specifically to produce Australian programs, there is no reason for SBS to continue to interrupt programs.

In the Save Our SBS: Triennial Funding for SBS Submission submitted to Senator Conroy on 5 August 2008 we asked for more money for SBS than did the broadcaster itself. But we now know the Managing Director was not interested in requesting more money to wind back advertising because he favoured revue from advertisements interrupting programs. This he articulated to the National Press Club in 2007 and has repeated since.

Save Our SBS says it is high time the Managing Director of SBS and the Board listened to their viewers and reversed their failed commercialisation policy.

Stop interrupting programs for commercial breaks.

Self regulation of the SBS Board to take note of public opposition to advertisements interrupting programs has failed.

Now that the government has granted SBS funding for Australian program production, thereby removing the only stated need ever given by SBS to interrupt programs, will Labor take the bold step to introduce a Bill to prohibit SBS from interrupting programs on SBS-TV. Or will they leave that up to another politician to sort out? Who? How? When?

More Information

The questions and answers asked by Senator Scott Ludlam in the May 2009 Senate Estimates may be read in detail at:  http://wotnews.com.au/like/estimates_sbs_funding_and_advertising/3471896 however if you would prefer to read the full Hansard transcript of the May 2009 Senate Estimates visit:  http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=;db=;group=;holdingType=;id=;orderBy=;page=0;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2F12031%2F0003%22;querytype=;rec=;resCount=

The reference made in the May Senate Estimates to “public submissions” refers to some 2400 submissions made about the ABC & SBS to the Minister in December 2008. The Department has published most of these at: http://www.dbcde.gov.au/consultation_and_submissions/abc_sbs_review/_submissions

Save Our SBS spokesperson Darce Cassidy said “The government has made the first move.  It is now time for the SBS to listen to the government, and, more importantly, to its viewers.  Both the viewers and the government want the SBS to stop interrupting programs with advertisements.”

“It is time for the SBS Board to put the “special” back into SBS television, to return the SBS to its multicultural Charter.  Programs in English dominate prime time television.  Indeed on some nights there are no programs in languages other than English in prime time.”

“As a first step the SBS should immediately cease interrupting programs for commercials.  In the longer term the SBS should be required to operate on the same basis as the ABC, without advertisements of any kind.  The prohibition of advertising should be accompanied by a substantial funding increase to bring the SBS budget to half that of the ABC”.

Further information:  Darce Cassidy 03 9005 8660 or 0412 685 178
 

Recently we emailed you asking if you would send an email to the Treasurer and Prime Minister to ensure that SBS is better funded coupled with an end to commercial breaks in the Triennial Budget to be announced in the May Federal Budget. If you have not already done so please send an email today to save our public, multicultural broadcaster. Time is running out!

► Click here to EMAIL the Treasurer in the first instance
then
► Click here to EMAIL the Prime Minister from a different screen

If you have any difficulties with the above please visit www.SaveOurSBS.org and follow the links there or go directly to http://sbsbudget.saveoursbs.org and read the directions to email the Treasurer, then, the Prime Minister.

Say “NO” to ads on SBS.  Say “YES” to more government funding in the May Budget. Act today.

If you recently participated in this campaign please inform your friends about this and ask them to visit www.SaveOurSBS.org

It is crucial that as many people as possible participate in this final pre-budget campaign to better SBS which is about to be funded for the next three years. Don’t be complacent. Send your emails now.

Save Our SBS Inc

The “Click here to EMAIL the Treasurer” above only works for email clients of Outlook, Outlook Express, Live Mail, Entourage, Apple Mail, Eudora, Evolution, but not webmail. Users of YahooMailWebService, HotMailWebMail and gMailWebMail may need to use the copy and paste method at http://sbsbudget.saveoursbs.org unless your email is configured via one of the email clients named.

Below are other URL’s related to this campaign.

The URL http://sbsbudget.saveoursbs.org redirects to the first screen at:
http://saveoursbs.org/sbs2009budget/NoAds2009SBSBudget-screen1of2.htm where you can send Wayne Swan & other politicians a pre-worded email.

The URL of the second screen is:
http://saveoursbs.org/sbs2009budget/NoAds2009SBSBudget-screen2of2.htm and it has a pre-worded email that redirects to:
http://www.pm.gov.au/contact/index.cfm where you can email Kevin Rudd.

In some instances participation in the campaign may activate an email from participants to Save Our SBS Inc and we might later contact you. We do not pass your contact information or personal details on to anyone.

Save Our SBS Inc www.SaveOurSBS.org is a not for profit community organisation.

You have received this eNewsLetter because you are subscribed to receive the occasional update from www.SaveOurSBS.org to keep you informed.

Please do not reply to this email. Use the Contact Us page on the www.SaveOurSBS.org website instead or if you would prefer eNewsLetters to be sent to a different email address or to subscribe or unsubscribe use this link: http://lists.saveoursbs.org

Visit www.SaveOurSBS.org website periodically for more up to date information and outcome of this campaign.

eNewsLetter No 7 Save Our SBS

On 5 August 2008, Save Our SBS Inc made a recommendation to Senator Conroy that the Budget for SBS for the years 2009 to 2012 be set at not less than half that provided to the ABC and indexed annually in the usual manner and that the interruption of programs by advertisements should be prohibited by amending section 45 (advertising) of the SBS Act. We further recommended that the prohibition on interrupting programs for advertisements should be followed by a complete ban on all advertising on the SBS. The full report can be read at http://saveoursbs.org/archives/323 or http://saveoursbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/sbs-triennial-funding-submission-from-2009-to-2012-proposed-by-save-our-sbs-inc.pdf

We urge all concerned persons to email the Treasurer & Prime Minister from here before the May 2009 SBS Triennial Budget is delivered. Demand SBS receives increased funding and without commercials. Insist Labor’s pre-election sentiment is honoured: “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising” (saveoursbs.org/archives/165). Act today to see our public, multicultural broadcaster is once again ’special’ and funded fully by government with an end those annoying advertising interruptions. Prior to the Nov 2007 election Labor was committed to ensuring “adequate funding and support for the SBS, to enable it to continue to provide Australians with high quality services, free from political and commercial interference” (alp.org.au/platform/chapter_16.php) then in the lead up to the Nov 2007 election the ALP publicly stated “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising” (saveoursbs.org/archives/165). But nothing has changed. In Oct 2007 Senator Conroy 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” (saveoursbs.org/archives/127). The May 2009 Federal Budget is the time to restore SBS to the multicultural broadcaster it was supposed to be. Many are now demanding that the government to live up its pre-election sentiment to support and fund SBS adequately, with an immediate end to interrupting programs for commercial breaks followed by a phasing out of all advertising on SBS. In these economic times it is more important than ever to support our public, multicultural broadcaster so it may once again be a special broadcaster not reliant on advertising. Click http://sbsbudget.saveoursbs.org and wait while you are redirected to part 1 (send an email to Wayne Swan) then follow the links to proceed to part 2 (send an email to Kevin Rudd).

Please read this important email from Save Our SBS www.SaveOurSBS.org

SBS is about to be funded for the next three years. We are inviting you to participate in our latest campaign to see SBS properly funded in the May 2009 Federal Budget and to put an end to those commercial breaks on SBS. We urging you to send a pre-addressed, pre-worded email directly to the Treasurer & Prime Minister. You can do this now from http://sbsbudget.saveoursbs.org

There are two parts to this campaign: In the first part you are asked to send an email to the Treasurer and in the second part to the Prime Minister.

Please commence at http://sbsbudget.saveoursbs.org where you will be able to send your own pre-addressed and pre-worded email from Outlook / Express or Live Mail etc via an automation link from that first screen. Webmail users will be able to copy and paste the message text and addresses if required. After sending your mail to the Treasurer from the first screen, please follow the links there to the second screen to email the Prime Minister direct from his website with a pre-worded email. You may change the wording of either emails if you wish.

The process will take less than 2 minutes of your time. It is very simple.

We urge you to participate in both email parts – to the Treasurer at the first screen and the Prime Minister at the second screen.

When you have completed the above please email all your friends and ask them to visit www.SaveOurSBS.org or forward this eNewsLetter-email to them asking them to do the same. If enough people participate in this campaign, SBS might get a decent budget for the next three years and a phasing out of commercials. This will be our last chance until 2012.

Please now go to http://sbsbudget.saveoursbs.org

Together we can restore and save SBS to be the multicultural, non-commercial, ’special’ public broadcaster it was supposed to be.

It is crucial that as many people as possible participate in this very new but final pre-budget campaign to better SBS. Don’t be complacent. Act now. Visit http://sbsbudget.saveoursbs.org today.

Save Our SBS Inc

Below are other URL’s related to this campaign.

The URL http://sbsbudget.saveoursbs.org redirects to the first screen at:
http://saveoursbs.org/sbs2009budget/NoAds2009SBSBudget-screen1of2.htm where you can send Wayne Swan & other politicians a pre-worded email.

The URL of the second screen is:
http://saveoursbs.org/sbs2009budget/NoAds2009SBSBudget-screen2of2.htm and it has a pre-worded email that redirects to:
http://www.pm.gov.au/contact/index.cfm where you can email Kevin Rudd.

In some instances participation in the campaign may activate an email from participants to Save Our SBS Inc and we might later contact you. We do not pass your contact information or personal details on to anyone.

Save Our SBS Inc www.SaveOurSBS.org is a not for profit community organisation.

You have received this eNewsLetter because you are subscribed to receive the occasional update from www.SaveOurSBS.org to keep you informed.

Please do not reply to this email. Use the Contact Us page on the www.SaveOurSBS.org website instead or if you would prefer eNewsLetters to be sent to a different email address or to subscribe or unsubscribe use this link: http://lists.saveoursbs.org

Visit www.SaveOurSBS.org website periodically for more up to date information and outcome of this campaign.

eNewsLetter No 6 Save Our SBS

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

The survey commenced in October 2008 and is on-going at www.survey.saveoursbs.org 

The results of the survey to date are below. This post will be updated periodically until the survey closes.

The total number of people who participated in the survey was: 1733  participants.

1) In the past six months, how often did you watch SBS-TV?

16 being 0.92% answered “A lot”

149 being 8.6% answered “Somewhat”

618 being 35.7% answered “Not much“ 

947 being 54.7% answered “Never”

2) In the past six months, how often did you listen to SBS-radio?

1023 being 59.0% answered “A lot”

484 being 27.9% answered “Somewhat”

179 being 10.3% answered “Not much”

44 being 2.5% answered “Never”

3) Would you like SBS-TV to stop interrupting programs for commercial breaks?

1669 being 96.3% answered “Yes”

64 being 3.7% answered “No”

4) SBS-TV began interrupting programs for commercial breaks in late 2006. How frequently do you now watch SBS-TV compared to before, when there were no commercial break interruptions?

809 being 46.7% answered “Less now than before”

497 being 28.7% answered “Somewhat less now than before”

402 being 23.2% answered “About the same now as before”

21 being 1.2% answered “More now than before”

5) Do you want the government to legislate to prevent programs from being interrupted on SBS-TV?

1661 being 95.9% answered “Yes”

72 being 4.1% answered “No”

6) Given that SBS is a public, tax payer funded broadcaster, do you want SBS to be better funded from the public purse so that it is not reliant on advertising at all?

1682 being 97.1% answered “Yes”

51 being 2.9% answered “No”

7) Since SBS-TV became more ‘commercial’, how faithful do you think SBS-TV is to the SBS Charter?

1240 being 71.6% answered “Less faithful to the Charter now than it used to be”

110 being 6.3% answered “Neither less nor more faithful to the Charter now than it used to be”

8 being 0.5% answered “More faithful to the Charter now than it used to be”

372 being 21.5% answered “I am not sure”

8) Given that SBS was established as our multicultural broadcaster, do you think SBS-TV should broadcast more programs in languages other than English (LOTE) in prime-time viewing than it currently does?

968 being 55.9% answered “Yes (more LOTE programs please): SBS should have more programs in languages other than English during prime-time (evening) viewing”

57 being 3.3% answered “It is now okay (leave it as it is): SBS should neither increase nor decrease the number of programs that are in languages other than English during prime-time (evening) viewing”

708 being 40.9% answered “No  (less LOTE programs please): SBS should have less programs in languages other than English in prime-time (evening) viewing”

9) Do you want SBS to cease broadcasting advertisements completely?

1440 being 83.1% answered “Yes”

293 being 16.9% answered “No”

10) Any additional comments?

Many people provided additional comments. A summary of those comments will be posted at a later date.

A State by State break down of participants:

618 were from NSW/ACT

10 were from NT

164 were from QLD

153 were from SA

25 were from TAS

274 were from VIC

100 were from WA

28 were from elsewhere

As at 1 December 2008 the total number of genuine responses was 1733. The reason why the total percentage of responses to each question did not add up to the total of overall responses is because a small number of people did not answer every question and in the case of YES/NO answers a null response was treated as NO and in the case of Q8, a null response was treated as OK. We detected only 7 bot responses out of 1733 participants and believe that more than 99 percent of responses were genuine responses from real people.

The figures and information above for this post was last updated on the date shown.

Following our recent eNewsLetter of a couple of weeks ago Save Our SBS has received enquiries from many people who would like some assistance in making a submission to the public enquiry into SBS. The feedback to us is that the Minister’s 36 page background discussion paper is too long and the Department’s website for submissions difficult to navigate through. Many are overwhelmed and at a loss to know what to say or where to begin. Our supporters have asked us to show a sample submission. As a result, we have taken the very unusual step of issuing another eNewsLetter now.

We urge you to look now at our sample submission at: http://sample.saveoursbs.org/  

You can use any, all, or none of our sample, for your own submission.

It would be highly desirable to write your own submission in your own words if you can. No more than 1000 words are allowed.

If you have limited time, better to make a submission rather than no submission. If this is the case, you are very welcome to use our sample submission as your own, or you can delete any part of it, or change the sections in ours that you do not want. It is up to you. Whatever you do, please make a submission. Make it today. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity.

Begin at  http://sample.saveoursbs.org/  

Please act now.

Submissions close 4pm AEDT on 12 December 2008.

Save Our SBS will make a submission about SBS too. Ours will be a bit more detailed than the sample at http://sample.saveoursbs.org/ and we will publish a copy of it on www.SaveOurSBS.org in mid December.

Thankyou for supporting our cause to restore and save SBS.

eNewsLetter No 5 Save Our SBS

Below is some important news about SBS and an update about on how you can help restore and help rid it of advertisements.

It is now just over one year since Mary Kostakidis was reported walking from SBS, not to return and soon approaching that since the Labor government was elected.

There was reason to believe that Labor might provide more funds, and move to stop the SBS interrupting programs with advertisements.

Six months ago we presented the NO ADVERTISEMENTS OR SPONSORSHIP ON SBS petition to Senator Conroy. But SBS-TV still has ads. Will this change? Can anything further be done?

Who wants ads on SBS? – One Minute Only: survey

The ads on SBS-TV are more than just an annoying interruption. Speaking last year Senator Conroy said that this effectively “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”. (Senator Conroy 11 Oct 2007 ref)

So why the ads still? What can I do?

Voice your objection on-line. You may have previously signed a no ads on SBS petition, but that was only part of an on-going campaign to restore the broadcaster. Your support is much needed, again, to rescue SBS.

Visit www.SaveOurSBS.org and spend just a minute participating in a new, very short on-line survey to re-confirm your support that you want SBS to be properly funded from the public purse and free from ads. Just click on the “survey” logo-link, near the top of the screen at www.SaveOurSBS.org and wait while you are re-directed to the survey. We urge you to do this now. Tell your friends to visit www.SaveOurSBS.org and complete the One Minute Save Our SBS Survey too.

The one minute survey will provide us both quantitative and qualitative information. 

SBS Must Be Special

Former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, has been joined by ethnic community leaders and key figures from public life, literature and the arts in calling for the SBS to focus on the needs of viewers rather than on selling consumers to advertisers.

Mr Fraser and the other notable Australians recently signed a public statement of support prepared by Save Our SBS. The statement “The SBS Must Be Special” expresses concern that in going down the commercial path, SBS is moving away from its Charter and becoming less special. You can read the statement and view the list of signatories at http://saveoursbs.org/archives/318

Among the list of notable persons who signed their name to the statement are former Board member of SBS, George Zangalis and Julian Burnside Q.C. who represented Mary Kostakidis last year.

Malcolm Fraser was Prime Minister of Australia in the second part of the 1970s. He embraced multiculturalism in the establishment of SBS, building on the creation of the publicly funded multi-lingual radio stations that was commenced by the Whitlam government.

The statement prepared by Save Our SBS was widely reported in the print media.

Future of SBS: government seeks public submissions

The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Stephen Conroy, has commenced a public consultation process to review the future of Australia’s national broadcasters, SBS & ABC. Comments from the public are welcome. Information and a list of topics to help get you started in making your own submission are at http://saveoursbs.org/archives/324 That link is worth looking at before you make your submission.

Save Our SBS will make a submission. We strongly encourage you to make one too at http://www.dbcde.gov.au/media_broadcasting/consultation_and_submissions/abc_sbs_review/make_a_submission/online_submission_form

Submissions close 4pm AEDT on 12 December 2008.

This may be a once in a lifetime opportunity.

SBS funding for 2009-2012

On 5 August 2008, Save Our SBS submitted to Minister Conroy, a funding proposal of what we argue SBS ought to be granted for the next triennium (2009 to 2012). We understand that SBS requested a lesser amount than we submitted for the broadcaster. The government will announce its decision about SBS funding in the May 2009 Budget. Details of the Save Our SBS funding proposal can be found at http://saveoursbs.org/archives/323

Our Summer 2009 eNewsLetter will contain further information about this, leading up to the Budget.

Petition Closed

In recent months we’ve been asked: “What happened to the No Ads on SBS petition?”

The NO ADVERTISEMENTS OR SPONSORSHIP ON SBS petition closed on 23 March 2008 and was handed to Minister’s staff at a meeting in the Minister’s Melbourne office on 8 April 2008. The Minister was unable to attend. Save Our SBS and Senator Conroy’s office have remained in contact regarding SBS and the issues raised in the petition.

The Minister formally replied to Save Our SBS by letter on 26 August 2008. A copy of the Minister’s reply can be read at http://saveoursbs.org/archives/316 

Forced Ad Breaks

Did you know that in 2007, SBS forced 6000 commercial breaks into a long list of programs that were never intended to be interrupted for commercials. More details at http://saveoursbs.org/archives/312

The SBS Act provides for SBS to place ads in “natural breaks”.

Donate

Save Our SBS receives no money from government. We are a 100 per cent volunteer organisation. We do not carry advertisements and in order to run these campaigns we rely on donations from ordinary people, like you.

You can donate to Save Our SBS via the secure link on the Donate To Us page at: http://saveoursbs.org/donate-to-us

Become Involved

Save Our SBS was commenced by people with a background in broadcasting who care passionately about public broadcasting and SBS in particular. We have come a long way since our early days in January 2007. Many people are involved with Save Our SBS at all sorts of levels. If you share our views about restoring and saving SBS, and are committed to the notion of public broadcasting you are very welcome to become involved with us. Details at: http://saveoursbs.org/join-us

Why Was I Sent This eNewsLetter?

You were sent this eNewsLetter because you are subscribed to this eNewsLetter. You may have participated in one of our earlier campaigns. We only send very occasional eNewsLetters. As a volunteer organisation, we do not have the resources for regular mail-outs. We do not pass on your personal details to anyone else. Anyone can subscribe to our eNewsLetters. They are free. If you would prefer eNewsLetters to be sent to a different email address or to subscribe or unsubscribe use this link: http://lists.saveoursbs.org

Save Our SBS www.SaveOurSBS.org is a not for profit community organisation.

Visit www.SaveOurSBS.org web site for more up to date information.

This may be a once in a lifetime opportunity to make your thoughts about SBS known directly to the Minister via the Departments online submission form.

We will make a submission and we strongly encourage you to make one too before 12 December 2008 at the Department’s online form. See URL under the box of our suggested questions below.

You may use any or none of the below to help you write a submission.

Make your submission on the form at the government web site at this link: http://www.dbcde.gov.au/media_broadcasting/consultation_and_submissions/abc_sbs_review/make_a_submission/online_submission_form

Submissions close 4pm EADT on 12 December 2008.

Other Info

A discussion paper has been prepared by the Minister’s department for comment or you can make your own comments on any topic you like.

If you would like to refer to the longer discussion paper visit http://www.dbcde.gov.au/media_broadcasting/consultation_and_submissions/abc_sbs_review

SBS Board Appointments

Senator Conroy also recently announced a new process for making appointments to the SBS and ABC boards which will make the selection process more transparent. Details at http://www.dbcde.gov.au/media_broadcasting/abc_and_sbs/abc_and_sbs_board_appointments

A PDF of the statement below may be viewed at: http://saveoursbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/the-sbs-must-be-special-signed.pdf

A media release about the above statement may be viewed at: http://saveoursbs.org/archives/319

The statement, headed “The SBS Must Be Special” was prepared by Save Our SBS (www.SaveOurSBS.org). In addition to Mr Fraser it has been endorsed by the following:

Ethnic Community Leaders:
Professor Mary Kalantzis
Dr Heinrich Stefanik, OAM, former Secretary, Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia
George Zangalis, President, National Ethnic and Multicultural Broadcasters Council, former Board member, SBS

Literature and the Arts:
Dr June Factor
Professor Raimond Gaita
Professor K.S. Inglis
Patricia Lovell
Siobhan McHugh
Bruce Petty
Judith Rodriquez A.M.
Stephen Sewell

Law:
Professor A.R. Blackshield
Julian Burnside Q.C.

Save Our SBS is currently undertaking qualitative research about SBS and advertising in a one minute survey at www.SaveOurSBS.org where the statement referred to may be read.

STATEMENT DIRECT URL http://saveoursbs.org/archives/318

For further information contact:
Darce Cassidy,
Secretary,
Save Our SBS Inc
phone 0412 685 178
email Spokesperson@SaveOurSBS.org 

The Special Broadcasting Service was established by the Fraser coalition government, building on the creation of the publicly funded multi-lingual radio stations 2EA and 3EA by the Whitlam government. ‘EA’ stood for Ethnic Australia.

Concrete government support for multiculturalism was a bi-partisan issue in the mid-seventies, but recently the special nature of the SBS has been under threat.

Since the introduction of sponsorship and advertising to SBS-TV in the 1990s the service has steadily become more generalist and less specialist and multicultural. While SBS radio has remained a specialist multilingual network, SBS-TV is in danger of losing its way. English language lesson programs, greatly valued by new arrivals, have been phased out of the TV schedule.

Ethnic communities are concerned. Both the Federation of Ethnic Communities Council (FECCA) and the National Ethnic and Multicultural Broadcasters Council (NEMBC) have spoken out.

As the SBS Board and management have sought to increase audience share, languages other than English (LOTE) have been pushed out of prime time. Coverage of community events and customs on SBS-TV has declined. Meanwhile big money is going into a locally produced motoring program. The general is overtaking the special. Mainstream is replacing multicultural. Not only is SBS-TV becoming less special, but it is also losing sight of the original idea of the service. The SBS should focus on the special needs of viewers, rather than on selling consumers to advertisers.

Since late 2006 SBS-TV has been interrupting programs of all kinds for advertisements by forcing breaks into programs.

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.

The above statement was prepared by Save Our SBS Inc, and has been endorsed by the following:

Professor A.R. Blackshield; Julian Burnside QC; Dr June Factor; Malcolm Fraser, PC, AC, CH; Professor Raimond Gaita; Professor K.S. Inglis; Professor Mary Kalantzis; Patricia Lovell; Siobhan McHugh; Bruce Petty; Judith Rodriguez AM; Stephen Sewell; Dr Heinrich Stefanik O.A.M.; George Zangalis

www.SaveOurSBS.org
 

The data at the end of the survey period will be published on the SaveOurSBS.org web site and may be provided to politicians and media outlets.

Personal details of the participants will remain confidential and will not be handed over to anyone. It is possible to do the survey anonymously.

SBS-TV began interrupting programs for advertisements in late 2006. It was reported that a few years before that, SBS had engaged a research company to find out peoples attitudes towards the idea of SBS-TV interrupting programs for advertisements. It is believed that the large majority of people did not want SBS to interrupt programs for commercial breaks. However despite the findings of the researchers, SBS proceeded to adopt a more commercial approach and interrupt programs for ad breaks. SBS has not chosen to publicly release their study.

Unlike the research conducted for SBS, Save Our SBS will publish the findings of our online survey.

To participate in this important study, click www.survey.saveoursbs.org and wait whilst you are re-directed to the survey form.

The Minister responsible for SBS, Senator Stephen Conroy wrote to Save Our SBS on 26 August 2008 in response to the petition that we gave to his staff on 8 April 2008. Senator Conroy apologised for his late reply and wrote. 
 

The petition that was handed to the Minister had called for

• an immediate end to SBS interrupting programs for advertisements
   
• full funding for our tax payer funded multicultural public broadcaster
   
• an amendment to the SBS Act to prohibit ads on SBS
   
• a  new system of SBS Board appointments so that the Board would be appointed on the basis of merit with a strong commitment to multiculturalism and SBS independence, with assurance that the Board would be independent from the government of the day and without commercial influence.

Despite the petition and very strong public sentiment that SBS-TV ought not interrupt programs for commercial breaks, the practise has not stopped.

References:

NO ADVERTISEMENTS OR SPONSORSHIP ON SBS PETITION Save Our SBS Inc

Pre-election promises for SBS: 2007 Promises made before the November 2008 federal election.

A chronology of advertising on SBS by Darce Cassidy.

Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 Portable Document File

SBS Codes of Practice 2006 Portable Document File

(SBS) Guidelines For The Placement of Breaks in Television Programs September 2006 Portable Document File

Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Prohibition of Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2008 (Bill Number 08050) presented by the Australian Democrats to prohibit SBS-TV from interrupting programs for advertisements is a bill not law.

The regulator of broadcasting is The Australian Communications & Media Authority (ACMA).

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

A log of the full list of programs that SBS-TV forced commercial break interruptions into, is available at the conclusion of this story. See below.

The SBS Act allows for SBS to broadcast advertisements in natural program breaks however the Act does not define a natural program break. Until late 2006, SBS-TV only broadcast ads between programs. The break between programs was considered to be a safe definition of a natural break. But in 2007, SBS-TV interrupted almost every program for advertisements making SBS appear more like a commercial broadcaster instead of the public multicultural broadcaster that it was intended to be.

In September 2006 SBS re-wrote their Codes of Practice and created a document titled the (SBS) Guidelines For The Placement of Breaks in Television Programs September 2006 in which the SBS Board created their own definition of a natural break. The SBS definition has never been tested in the courts.

Although many complained when the broadcaster began interrupting program for commercial breaks, people were dissatisfied on discovery that SBS is only required to consider a complaint that falls within the Codes of Practise. The placement of ads is outside the Codes and, the regulator, ACMA, has no power to deal with a complaint that is outside the Codes. There remains no proper process to resolve a complaint about SBS interrupting a program for advertisement breaks.

But in August 2007, thousands of loyal SBS viewers protested in support of Mary Kostakidis when the long time news presenter, walked from the station as the broadcaster pursued the commercial approach.

Save Our SBS quickly put together a petition calling for a ban on advertising on SBS and adherence to the SBS Charter. 5000 signatures were sought. More than 7000 people signed before the petition was closed. The petition was handed to the Minister’s office in April 2008. 

When in opposition, Senator Stephen Conroy was very vocal both in and out of parliament about the interruptions for advertisements on SBS-TV.

Prior to the November 2007 federal election Senator Conroy told Save Our SBS: “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“.

In the week before the election, Stephen Conroy and Kevin Rudd announced Labor’s SBS policy saying: “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising“.

But SBS continues to broadcast ads. Typically, SBS broadcasts a 2 minute commercial break twice, in a half hour program and three, 2 minute commercial break interruptions, in a one hour program. Breaks are also seen between programs. Generally SBS-TV has about 8 to 10 minutes of non-program-content per hour of which not more than 5 minutes is considered to be advertising. 

Disgruntled electors have contacted Save Our SBS to express their disappointment of expectations that Labor has not prohibited SBS from interrupting programs for advertisements some nine months after being elected to form government.

On being appointed as the Minister responsible for SBS, Senator Conroy reviewed a summary of the legal opinion that had been supplied to SBS (before his Ministerial appointment) as to the legality of SBS interrupting program for advertisements. Then at the May 2008 Senate Estimates, the Minister was questioned extensively and said “the SBS Board have always argued that they believed that what they were doing was consistent with their legal advice“.

Opposition Senator Birmingham questioned Minister Conroy further and asked if he was “considering any amendments to the governing legislation to tighten up this matter [to prohibit advertisements interrupting program on SBS]?” The Minister replied: “That is not something that I have considered at this stage but I appreciate your contribution and I will get some advice on that“.

But two months earlier, in March 2008, a private members Bill was read by outgoing Democrats leader, Lyn Allison, in the Senate, to prohibit SBS from interrupting programs for advertisements. The Bill, the Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Prohibition of Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2008 – Bill number: 08050 remains dormant.

Save Our SBS has always been of the opinion that, regardless of any internal government review that might examine if SBS was in breach of the Act, the SBS Act ought to be amended to prohibit SBS-TV from interrupting program for advertisements. Even if SBS choose voluntarily to cease interrupting program for ads, Save Our SBS wants legislative protection to prevent any future Board from the practise of interrupting program for ad breaks. It is our aim that eventually SBS should be ad free.

Since being elected, the Minister has had no luck in prohibiting SBS from interrupting programs for advertisements and return to the multicultural broadcaster it once was. However, any legislative amendment would require support of the Senate. But the balance of power in the Senate is held in the hands of non-government Senators. A review of SBS and public broadcasting generally, by the Minister’s department is now likely, in preparation for the next SBS-triennial-funding due in the May 2009 Budget.

In discussing the prohibition of advertising at the May 2008 Senate Estimates, the Minister said: “The issue of triennial funding is coming up so the first opportunity for us to address these issues is within the context of the review of SBS’s triennial funding“.

Many remain annoyed by the ad interruptions but aside from the annoyance factor, one of the problems of allowing a public broadcaster to carry advertising is that the broadcaster’s relationship to their audiences changes. The client of a non-commercial public broadcaster, is the audience and the product is the program. However the entire relationship changes once advertisements are introduced. The client of a commercial broadcaster becomes the advertiser and the audience become a product to be sold to the advertiser. The role of the broadcaster is no longer to serve the audience, but rather to sell their product, that is the audience, to the broadcaster’s client, that is the advertiser. Hence the need to chase ratings and pay lip service to any Charter.

Save Our SBS understands that the Minister, Cabinet and government still hold the same philosophical belief that they voiced prior to the election and remain unhappy about SBS continuing to interrupt programs for advertisements and the general commercialisation that the public broadcaster is pursuing. 

Meanwhile SBS has said it would want an extra “$29.39m to $35.72m, or approximately between 30- 35% of base government funding, to maintain SBS operations [per year]. . . if SBS was to stop interrupting programs for advertisements and run advertisements between programs only, as used to be the case until late 2006.” SBS provided the information in answer to a question at Senate Estimates in February this year.

The Managing Director of SBS, Shaun Brown who, along with the Board, took SBS down the commercial path was reluctant to confirm that in 2007 SBS generated an extra $10m gross (or less than five percent of total revenue) from advertisements that interrupted programs. 20 percent of that income was diverted by way of commissions to a private advertising agency. Meanwhile SBS spent all the money and more, on their Australian version of a British motoring program, “Top Gear”. SBS has been criticised as wasting money on a program that is more suited to a commercial network. Many believe that “Top Gear” is outside the SBS Charter.

A long list of programs was supplied in answer to a question at the February 2008 Senate Estimates. SBS was asked: “In 2007, which programs were televised with breaks inserted by SBS in the circumstances where, those programs when supplied to SBS 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.”

The answer, later supplied by SBS, headed Programs delivered to SBS without breaks (2007), suggests that SBS must have forced some 5627 commercial breaks into 2046 program broadcasts that were never produced with natural breaks. The producers of 6 programs from the list below, had made suggestions as to the positioning of breaks.

To view the full list of programs broadcast on SBS-TV in 2007 that were delivered to SBS without breaks, click here or programs-delivered-to-sbs-without-breaks-2007.pdf

Save Our SBS is opposed to advertising on SBS. For more information about Save Our SBS please read the About Us page on the web site www.SaveOurSBS.org 

This is the second time SBS has re-branded in a little over 12 months. Just over a year ago SBS World News Australia changed the set and adopted a more tabloid and commercial style of news presentation. Long time news presenter Mary Kostakidis ended up departing the broadcaster.

The idea of a multicultural, non commercial public broadcaster is now but a memory of the past. Will there be nothing special remaining?

The re-branding this time is more than just a change of logo. There has been an partial attempt to make the program play offs leading in the commercial breaks and the return to program appear somewhat smoother than before however this does nothing to lessen the very obvious intrusions into program for advertisements. The advertisement interruptions still show no regard for the viewer. The ‘look’ of each promo within the ad break is different from before with pretty coloured little sparkles on screen which are superimposed again lower frame on return to program.

There has been an overall softening of the ‘look’ but the advertisements interruptions remain ‘unnatural’. SBS is still creating ‘forced breaks’ in program.

There is nothing unusual about changing the look and the feel of a TV station however it’s an expensive exercise and done cautiously.

It’s almost unheard of to re-brand any broadcaster in May. The re-branding of SBS comes only weeks after the reappointment by the SBS Board of the Managing Director, Shaun Brown, the man responsible for the commercialisation of SBS.  Normally January would be the preferred month to re-brand.

Re-branding is done as part of a marketing tool, when an organisation is failing or had failed.

SBS is an associate member of Free TV Australia (formerly the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations, FACTS). This is somewhat ironic considering that SBS does not hold a commercial licence and is a publicly funded tax payer broadcaster that was originally never intended to have ads. Due to a perceived discovered loop hole in the law, although never tested in a court, in late 2006 SBS-TV began interrupting television program for advertisements. So what’s all this got to do with a change of brand?

Simple. Now that SBS has made the decision that it wants to become even more reliant on income from advertisements, and considering that there was a massive public objection to their move of late 2006 to interrupt program for ads, they now needed to re-brand. The fact is that SBS-TV has been loosing audiences since their decision to interrupt ads and therefore their entire experiment with advertisements has been complete flop.

SBS may be hoping that a new look will win back lost viewers. However SBS-TV has failed to address the underlaying issue that viewers, especially of public TV, do not like ad break interruptions in program.

The SBS budget is about $190M per annum from the federal government. We understand that SBS may have generated about $8M net ($10M gross) in extra revenue per annum after they changed their advertisements acceptance policy in 2006. Previously SBS-TV would only accept a particular type of ad. Artistic, non-hard sell type ads were okay but now they will accept virtually any type of ad. At the same time SBS changed their policy to accept any type of ad, they also began interrupting programs for advertisements.

The decision to re-brand is a desperate move on the part of SBS to attract even more advertisers.

A month ago (on 8 April 2008) Save Our SBS handed to the Minister’s staff a petition signed by more than 7000 people who wanted an end to the ads on SBS. Only 5000 signatures were sought. People heard of the petition by word of mouth and email. Save Our SBS has been assured that the Minister has read the petition and will issue a statement shortly. Follow up meetings have been promised.

Subsequently a number of petitioners have emailed Save Our SBS since the petition was handed to the Minister’s office wanting to know the outcome and if something will be done via legislation to prohibit SBS-TV from interrupting programs for ad breaks. Some people have also emailed the Minister and sent a copy of their email by CC to Save Our SBS.

One such email came from a John Tate who we have never met. A separate email was sent with permission to publish.

The author addresses the Minister somewhat informally as “Steven” and makes reference to an email he received from Senator Conroy “prior to the federal election” (November 2007). The email that the author refers to was in response to a joint campaign run by the two separate organisations: Save Our SBS and Friends of the ABC under the banner ‘The Coalition to Restore Public Broadcasting’. In the final week before the election, Senator Conroy’s office, Kevin Rudd’s office, and, ALP Campaign Information Services sent more than 1119 identical emails to those who participated in objecting to ads on SBS and other matters. A copy of that email, being the one that the author below refers to, can be read at this link http://saveoursbs.org/archives/165

The email below sums up the sentiment in the community conveyed to Save Our SBS.

From: John Tate
Sent: Monday, 28 April 2008 1:16 PM
To: ‘minister@dbcde.gov.au’
Cc: ‘Save Our SBS’
Subject: Advertising on SBS

Hi Steven,

Prior to the federal election you told me in an email that:

“Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising. SBS maintains that they can put advertisements into their programs without there needing to be a change to legislation. Section 45 of the SBS Act 1991 provides for advertising only during periods before programs commence, after programs end, or during natural program breaks. Accordingly, Labor is concerned that the SBS’s action may place it in breach of the Act.”

Fortunately, your party won the federal election on many promises including your promise to reverse the advertising decision on SBS.

Unfortunately I have not seen or heard any word from your Department on this issue.

Last year when SBS was asking for public comment on their new advertising proposal, I submitted this email to SBS:

“Shame on you.

Not only are you destroying the very nature of a public broadcaster, you are destroying the natural flow of many good programs on SBS.

When the government allowed SBS to advertise, I believe they never intended that programs be interrupted as you are currently doing.  You are also using the same annoying pop-up advertising technique that the commercial stations use.

Enough is enough for me.

Until the current or next federal government changes the rules governing SBS, my family will no longer be watching SBS programs with adds.  Add appears, station gets changed.

Please go back to basics.”

My viewing of SBS has declined over the last 12 months and when I do view a program, whenever an add appears I change the channel.  Often I do not return to SBS.

Also, SBS claimed that the new funding stream would increase the variety of programs.  I have not seen any evidence of this (although I don’t watch as much SBS).  Some programs, such as Dateline, thankfully are still being produced however for how long who knows.

I would like you to make an undertaking to honour your election promise and getting rid of the in-program add breaks, and hopefully fully fund SBS to eliminate advertising completely (even though Labor instigated advertising in the first place).

Always hopeful.

John Tate

From: John Tate
Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2008 5:33 PM
To: ‘Senator.Conroy@aph.gov.au’
Cc: ‘Save Our SBS’
Subject: FW: Advertising on SBS

Copy forwarded in case email not received.

Please send a written reply (either email or post to ██ ███ ███, █████, ███ , ████).

Regards

John Tate

Now that SBS has re-branded itself, yet again viewers have been sold off to their advertisers. There is no sign that SBS will voluntarily cease the ad break interruptions in program. Our once great, special public broadcaster has ended up just like another commercial network. What’s special about that?

Spoiling the ship for a ha’porth of tar MEDIA RELEASE

The petition (full title: NO ADVERTISEMENTS OR SPONSORSHIP ON SBS) attracted more than 7000 signatures which was much more than the target of 5000.

Many people felt outraged when the world’s first multicultural broadcaster began interrupting programs for advertisements in late 2006. Prior to that ads were only shown between programs, not in them. SBS-TV does not hold a commercial broadcast license. It is a public broadcaster funded from taxes.

In opposition, when he was then Shadow Minister for Communications, Senator Conroy emailed Save Our SBS and said that “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce advertising into its programming”. The email, dated 11 October 2007 stated that this was Labor party policy and had resulted from the Labor Party National Conference in April 2007. One week before the November 2007 federal elections, an almost identical email was sent to more than 1119 persons who had emailed many political leaders expressing their concerns over SBS funding and wanting an end to the ads on SBS. Each of the 1119 people received the same email sent from Kevin Rudd’s office, Senator Conroy’s office and the ALP Campaign Information Services office that included virtually the same sentence: “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising” .

Has the new government’s widely publicised pre-election policy now been broken?

More than three months since coming to government SBS-TV still continues to interrupt programs for advertisements. Senator Conroy has asked for the legal opinion that SBS stated they received more than two years ago that SBS Managing Director, Shaun Brown has been reported as saying suggests that is it not a breach of the SBS Act for SBS to interrupt programs for “natural breaks”. Many in the community have argued that the breaks are “forced” and “not natural” and in any case they disrupt the viewing experience which would appear to breach the GUIDELINES FOR THE PLACEMENT OF BREAKS IN TELEVISION PROGRAMS September 2006 if not the SBS Act itself.

In the final weeks before the petition closed, Senator Lyn Allison the leader of the Australian Democrats, presented a private members bill that, if it became law, would mean an end to the practice of SBS-TV interrupting programs for advertisements. Her bill, the Special Broadcasting Service (Prohibition of Disruptive Advertising) Amendment Bill 2008, would overcome any ‘loop-holes’ in the current Act that SBS may have exploited, while forcing the newly elected Rudd Labor government to implement their pre-election policy that would prohibit the interruption of programming on SBS television by restricting advertising to the period between the completion of one program and the commencement of another program.

Most private members bills go nowhere are not debated and never become law unless the government of the day wants that. Support of both houses is needed.

More background reading is provided on this web site at the links below.

Private Members Bill Bans Ads Interrupting SBS-TV

Backlash against advertising on SBS by Darce Cassidy

A chronology of advertising on SBS by Darce Cassidy

We Don’t Believe You Shaun: SBS BOSS ADDRESSES THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB

Page Archive: A Petition To Save SBS

The Object of the bill states:

“The object of this Act is to prohibit the interruption of programming on SBS television by restricting advertising to the period between the completion of one program and the commencement of another program“.

The bill achieves the above by removing from section 45(2)(a) of the current Act the controversial phrase: “or during natural program breaks” which, SBS has argued, allows them to interrupt programs or force breaks, according to a set of criteria created by the SBS Board in their (SBS) GUIDELINES FOR THE PLACEMENT OF BREAKS IN TELEVISION PROGRAMS September 2006 http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/media/documents/3913advertising_guidelines_2006.pdf.

The bill adds a new section, section 45A Non-Program-Content(NPC) which bans SBS from interrupting television programs. It reads:

“The SBS must not interrupt a televised program for non- program-content (NPC) and for the purposes of this section NPC shall be taken to mean any material that is separate from the program being broadcast such as but not limited to advertisements, sponsorship announcements, community service announcements, station promotional material, promos and program promotional material and the like.”

SBS indicated in Senate Estimates in February 2008 that the revenue that could be attributed directly to interrupting programs for advertisements was about $10 to $20 million gross in the first year of the practice. The Managing Director of SBS, Shaun Brown refused to give a precise figure on the amount of revenue raised as a result of interrupting programs for ads, however it is believed the real figure might be closer to $10 million.

Senator Allison said, “It is argued by critics that SBS Management’s recent decision to use most of this $10 million to produce a local version of the cult British motoring program ‘Top Gear’ would not appear to be consistent with SBS’s charter obligations of providing multilingual and multicultural services.”

The Australian Democrats yesterday called on the Government to immediately fund SBS for the extra $10 to $20 million that comes from in-program ads and properly resource the broadcaster to deliver on its charter.

It is not clear if the government would increase the SBS annual budget, currently around $188 million, by an extra $10 million to make up for any shortfall.

Prior to the November 2007 federal elections, the ALP stated that, consistent with their SBS policy of April that year, it was Labor party policy that: “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce advertising into its programming” http://saveoursbs.org/archives/127.

More than 7000 people have signed a petition at www.SaveOurSBS.org calling for an end to ads on SBS.

Senator Allison said that “Minister Conroy criticised these ads while in opposition. Now he has the chance to rectify the problem.”

Normally nothing happens when a private members bill is introduced into the Senate. Typically private members bills sit idle, in a long cue of months or even years, awaiting further action, if ever. If the government had the will to adhere to its election promise of no ads interrupting programs on SBS-TV, the Minister could, conceivably use Senator Allison’s bill now so that it soon became law soon. Now is the time for Senator Conroy to act.

The private bill will not become law unless approved by both houses of parliament.

Background information on SBS carrying advertisements can be read in “A chronology of advertising on SBS” by Darce Cassidy at: http://saveoursbs.org/archives/194.

The Australian Democrats Press Release: http://www.democrats.org.au/news/index.htm?press_id=6509&display=1

It is understood that the intention of her private members bill is to prohibit the interruption of programming on SBS television by restricting advertising to the period between the completion of one program and the commencement of another program.

Prior to the November 2007 federal elections, the ALP stated that, consistent with their SBS policy of April that year, it was Labor party policy that: “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce advertising into its programming” (http://saveoursbs.org/archives/127) however since being elected to government, the new Minister, Senator Stephen Conroy has kept quiet as to when the APL intends to put into practice its pre-election promise.

More than 7000 people have signed a petition at www.SaveOurSBS.org calling for an end to ads on SBS.

Read the Press Release today from the Australian Democrats here: (http://www.democrats.org.au/news/index.htm?press_id=6509&display=1)

In Australia more than 7,000 people have signed a petition at www.SaveOurSBS.org calling for a ban on interrupting programs with advertisements. In Canada a Senate inquiry has recommended a ban on advertising on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and a significant increase in the national broadcaster’s budget.

Senator Lyn Allison has indicated that she plans to introduce a private members Bill in the Senate to ban programs from being interrupted for advertisements on the SBS. A Liberal backbencher also plans to raise the issue in the House of Representative shortly.

It is believed that the Bill contains a provision that would prohibit SBS-TV from interrupting programs for non-program-content. Ads would only be allowed between programs only. Read the Press Release from the Australian Democrats here: (http://www.democrats.org.au/news/index.htm?press_id=6509&display=1)

This backlash has surprised many people. SBS TV has been running advertisements since 1992 while the CBC has carried advertising for even longer.

What has caused this change in public attitude? I think it is because broadcasters find advertising revenue addictive. You start with a little, but over time crave more and more.

That was pretty much how it happened in the United States. Advertising was not the main support for radio in its early days in the US. Erik Barnouw, author of the definitive history of broadcasting in the U.S, says that initially advertising was very discreet. Prices were never mentioned. Mention of personal items, like toothpaste, mouth wash or underclothes was taboo.

Companies attached their names to entertainers, like the Ipana Troubadours, the Browning-King Orchestra and the Goodrich Silvertown Orchestra. There was no mention that Ipana made toothpaste, or that Goodrich made tires, let alone any suggestion that listeners should buy these products.

A strict ban on the mention of prices and store locations remained. The broadcasting lobby group, The National Association of Broadcasters, proposed that sponsorship announcements be banned from prime time listening, on the basis that it was family listening time.

All this changed with the 1929 crash. CBS, one of the major networks was in trouble. George Washington Hill, President of American Tobacco, came to the rescue. Cremo cigars were suffering from rumours that they were made with spit. He needed to counter the rumours, and was prepared to pay. CBS capitulated, and in between tunes from the Cremo Military Band an announcer shouted: “There is no spit in Cremo.” NBC soon followed suit, sponsorship became advertising, and aggressive.

Initially the SBS was free of advertising. However once advertising was introduced, programs started to change. As in the United States advertising on the SBS was discreet to start with. Today, the SBS goes well beyond “no spit in Cremo” and interrupts serious documentaries with advertisements for erectile dysfunction medication. Director of Commercial Affairs Richard Finlayson confirmed this change in policy when he told the Financial Review that the broadcaster had 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”

SBS still describes itself as “the voice and vision of multicultural Australia” but programs in languages other than English (LOTE) have almost disappeared from prime time.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority defines prime time as the hours between 6 pm and 10.30 pm. A check of the program schedule for SBS TV for the 14 days between 22 February and 6 March 2008 reveals that just under 80% of programs were in English.

Moreover those programs which are broadcast in LOTE during prime time bear practically no relationship to how the languages in question were spoken in the community. For example Chinese languages (Mandarin and Cantonese) together accounted for just 0.8% of prime time broadcasts. However Mandarin and Cantonese, taken together, account for 27.09% of all LOTE spoken in Australia.

Advertising has not only affected the language issue. It has also led to a sameness in programming. According to Dr Glenn Withers this is part of a broader economic phenomenon known the Principle of Minimum Differentiation:

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.

Ethnic communities have been quick to notice the changes.

In December 2003 Federation of Ethnic Communities Council (FECCA) Chair Abd Malik said:

The only people who like SBS TV now are the cappuccino crowd… it’s mostly sex and soccer I think. He added that FECCA was “very close to giving up on SBS TV… 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 the Brisbane Town Hall.”

In June 2005 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.

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.

In June 2006, interviewed on ABC radio the new Chair of 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.

While advertisements have brought in extra money, much of that money seems to be going to the kind of programs that can be found on commercial stations. For example some $10 million is to be spent on a locally produced motoring program, in English.

Darce Cassidy is Secretary and Spokesperson of Save Our SBS Inc (www.SaveOurSBS.org). His background is in broadcasting and journalism. He has worked for the ABC (Four Corners, AM & PM, and, various radio management roles); the SBS (Training); and, the National Ethnic and Multicultural Broadcasters Council.

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

Below is a copy of the Save Our SBS eNewsLetter as per the date given. Other editions posted in the “eNewsLetters” category on this web site. You can also access the eNewsLetters category at  http://eNewsLetter.SaveOurSBS.org

Subscriber emails are sent occasionally to people on our data base.

They are not regular events. Each eNewsLetter is a short update about SBS and activities at Save Our SBS.

Each Save Our SBS eNewsLetters includes links to SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE.

You may find this link helpful if you want to SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE from here: http://lists.saveoursbs.org/

Privacy

We do not give or sell your email address or your other personal details to anyone else. We do not send spam. From time to time we may occasionally contact you, usually by email, with updates about SBS or Save Our SBS via the Save Our SBS eNewsLetters’ or others emails.

EMAIL SUBJECT: No Ads on SBS petition tell others please

Dear [NAME] of [EMAIL],      

Following the recent No Ads on SBS or ABC email-campaign in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election, many people have asked Save Our SBS about our other campaign. 

“What’s happened to the No Ads on SBS petition that commenced many months ago?“ 

The No Ads on SBS petition, is about to close.  Soon it will be presented to the new Minister, Senator Stephen Conroy.

Our records show that you signed this petition using the email address above. We ask that you now encourage your friends to sign the petition before it closes.

The purpose of this message is to ask you to send an email about the petition to your friends. You can do this by clicking here.

The click will activate most Windows and Mac email clients, e.g., Outlook, Outlook Express, Eudora, etc with a pre-worded email ready to send to your friends. You will need to insert your friends email addresses.

If you use webmail rather than a stand-alone email client like Outlook etc the above may not work. However you can copy and paste the text between the yellow lines below into a webmail and send that to your friends.

The full wording of the petition is available here.

The Save Our SBS team

I have signed a petition at www.SaveOurSBS.org to support SBS so that it is properly funded from the public purse without the need to rely on advertising. I am asking you to support this cause so that our public multicultural broadcaster may once again be able to fulfil its Charter responsibilities with high quality, multicultural and ethnic programming.

Please click on the direct petition link www.petition.saveoursbs.org and sign the petition there as I did.

In short the petition calls for the Minister to immediately require that:-

1) The SBS Board cease disrupting all programs for advertisements;

2) Amend the SBS Act to prohibit advertising and sponsorship on SBS;

3) Fund SBS so it is not dependent on commercial revenue nor supplementation from advertising; and,

4) Introduce a new system of appointments to the SBS Board that will result in Board members being appointed on the basis of merit with a strong commitment to multiculturalism and SBS independence, and, that the Board is independent from the government of the day and commercial influence.

The petition will be handed to the Minister soon.

Our public multicultural broadcaster is still under threat and your support is needed so SBS can once again be properly funded and not reliant on advertising.

Support public broadcasting and SBS and sign the No Ads on SBS petition (NO ADVERTISEMENTS OR SPONSORSHIP ON SBS) petition NOW before it closes.

Protect our multicultural broadcaster. Don’t let SBS be sold out to commercialism! Click the direct petition link www.petition.saveoursbs.org and sign the petition now.

About Save Our SBS (www.SaveOurSBS.org)

Save Our SBS is a not for profit community organisation. We are not aligned with or beholden to any political party or any such group. We care passionately about public broadcasting and SBS in particular and were formed as a direct result of SBS interrupting programs for advertisements. We are very concerned about the direction that SBS is heading in and the commercialisation of SBS.

We operate at a ‘grass roots’ level. No-one is paid and everyone is a volunteer. Our operation depends entirely on the support of active participants.

Why Have I Received This Email?

You (the original recipient of the email address named at the top of this email) subscribed to the SaveOurSBS.org email subscription service and you have been sent this email because at some point you made contact with us sent us your name and email address to be part of our subscription service, you may have participated in one of our campaigns, e.g., signed a petition organised by us, participated in an ‘email flyer to the politicians’ campaign, corresponded with us and we are now sending this as a courtesy email because if public broadcasting is to survive, your support for these campaigns is much needed and appreciated.

Alternatively a friend or colleague of yours may have forwarded this email to you, not us. If that occurred, please refer to the person who sent this email to you for further details.

Privacy

We do not give or sell your email address to anyone without your permission. Your personal details are confidential.

Subscription Service

Occasionally we may send you information such as the “Save Our SBS eNewsLetter” or other SaveOurSBS.org email updates however as we are a volunteer organisation we do not have the resources to send regular or periodic emails. Our emails are very occasional. You can subscribe or unsubscribe here.

This email can be viewed on-line at: http://eNewsLetter.SaveOurSBS.org

3b

Below is a copy of the Save Our SBS eNewsLetter as per the date given. Other editions posted in the “eNewsLetters” category on this web site. You can also access the eNewsLetters category at http://eNewsLetter.SaveOurSBS.org

Subscriber emails are sent occasionally to people on our data base.

They are not regular events. Each eNewsLetter is a short update about SBS and activities at Save Our SBS.

Each Save Our SBS eNewsLetters includes links to SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE.

You may find this link helpful if you want to SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE from here: http://lists.saveoursbs.org/

Privacy

We do not give or sell your email address or your other personal details to anyone else. We do not send spam. From time to time we may occasionally contact you, usually by email, with updates about SBS or Save Our SBS via the Save Our SBS eNewsLetters’ or others emails.

EMAIL SUBJECT: No Ads on SBS sign petition please

Dear [NAME] of [EMAIL],

Following the recent No Ads on SBS or ABC email-campaign in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election, many people have asked Save Our SBS about our other campaign.

“What’s happened to the No Ads on SBS petition that commenced many months ago?”

The No Ads on SBS petition, is about to close. Soon it will be presented to the new Minister, Senator Stephen Conroy.

Our records show that previously you expressed an interest in seeing SBS fully funded by government and without advertisements. However you never fully completed the process from your email address above so we are sending you this email as a last attempt and hope that you will sign the No Ads on SBS petition, before it is presented to the Minister. (If you did sign using a different email address from that above, there is no need to sign again. Thankyou).

Our public multicultural broadcaster is still under threat and your support is needed now so SBS can once again be properly funded and not reliant on advertising.

The purpose of this email is to urge you to act now and sign the No Ads on SBS petition. You can do this by clicking here.

Let’s insist that SBS be non-commercial and that high quality, multicultural and ethnic programming, can once again be the norm at SBS. Don’t let SBS be sold out to commercialism!

Essentially the petition asks for the Minister to require that:-

1) The SBS Board cease disrupting all programs for advertisements.

And protect the integrity and independence of SBS from government and commercial influence by:-

2) Amending the SBS Act to prohibit advertising and sponsorship on SBS;

3) Fully funding SBS so it is not dependent on commercial revenue nor supplementation from advertising; and,

4) Introducing a new system of appointments to the SBS Board that will result in Board members being appointed on the basis of merit with a strong commitment to multiculturalism and SBS independence, and, that the Board is independent from the government of the day and commercial influence.

The full wording of the petition is available here.

Please sign the No Ads on SBS petition now, before it closes.

Thank you for your ongoing support for public broadcasting.

The Save Our SBS team

About Save Our SBS (www.SaveOurSBS.org)

Save Our SBS is a not for profit community organisation. We are not aligned with or beholden to any political party or any such group. We care passionately about public broadcasting and SBS in particular and were formed as a direct result of SBS interrupting programs for advertisements. We are very concerned about the direction that SBS is heading and the commercialisation of SBS.

We operate at a ‘grass roots’ level. No-one is paid and everyone is a volunteer. Our operation depends entirely on the support of active participants.

Why Have I Received This Email?

You (the original recipient of the email address named at the top of this email) subscribed to the SaveOurSBS.org email subscription service and have been sent this email because at some point you made contact with us sent us your name and email address to be part of our subscription service, you may have participated in one of our campaigns, attempted to sign a petition organised by us, participated in an ‘email flyer to the politicians’ campaign, corresponded with us and we are now sending this as a courtesy email because if public broadcasting is to survive, your support for these campaigns is much needed and appreciated.

Alternatively a friend or colleague of yours may have forwarded this email to you, not us. If that occurred, please refer to the person who sent this email to you for further details.

Privacy

We do not give or sell your email address to anyone without your permission. Your personal details are confidential.

Subscription Service

Occasionally we may send you information such as the “Save Our SBS eNewsLetter” or other SaveOurSBS.org email updates however as we are a volunteer organisation we do not have the resources to send regular or periodic emails. Our emails are very occasional. You can subscribe or unsubscribe here.

This email can be viewed on-line at: http://eNewsLetter.SaveOurSBS.org

3a

Due to historical interest we now show you the style of our early web site.

From our scratchy but passionate inception on the web sometime around late April / early May 2007, the SaveOurSBS.org web site used the Patriotic Theme (which we modified) and was powered by WordPress. That Theme was in use from mid 2007 up to early 2008.

Our very first campaign, the petition to protect SBS, stop the ads and maintain our multicultural public broadcaster funded fully by government, commenced, July 2007. Initially we had no publicity but eventually more than 7000 people signed our on-line petition to the Minister.

A still screen shot of the SaveOurSBS.org ORIGINAL Home Page is pictured below the ORIGINAL animated logo.

To view the ORIGINAL style of SaveOurSBS.org & Home Page: December 2007 click here.

Alternatively you may view an images copy of the Home Page from 2007 if you click here.

Not all the links in the older version of the original Home Page will be active.

BELOW: original animated logo

BELOW: screen shot of the SaveOurSBS.org original Home Page

ORIGINAL Home Page December 2007 shown above.

Not all the links in the older version of the original Home Page will be active.

Save Our SBS and Friends of the ABC joined forces for a joint last minute campaign in the lead up to the 2007 Federal Election. Aside from this joint campaign, each organisation remains separate and independent from the other.

This campaign is now closed.

The campaign involved participants clicking on a link, within the email flyer below, that activated a pre-filled, generic email in a ready to send state to the leaders of the political parties. Some parties responded by email to some participants. To read those replies from the politicians see the heading “The Reply From The Politicians” which is under the email flyer below.

Results of this Campaign

In a little over a week some 1119 people sent emails to the leaders of the political parties as per that stated on the campaign email flyer below.

What Are The Policies of the Parties?

To read the policies of the political parties please click: http://saveoursbs.org/archives/127

Reply From The Politicians

Some politicians were slow to reply.

The first to reply was the ALP Campaign Information Services. Later the same policy was sent by Senator Stephen Conroy the then ALP Labor Shadow Minister, and, later by ALP leader, Kevin Rudd.

Later Lyn Allison, then Leader of the Australian Democrats replied.

Days later Helen Coonan the then Minister sent out email replies.

As far as we know, the then Prime Minister, John Howard never replied.

The Liberal-National-Party coalition-government was thrown out of office the day after the joint SOSBS & FABC email campaign above ended.

The email replies from the parties are presented below in the same order that the replies arrived.

ALP Reply

Liberal-National-Coalition (then government) Reply

Democrats Reply

Greens Reply

Below is a copy of the Save Our SBS eNewsLetter as per the date given. Other editions posted in the “eNewsLetters” category on this web site. You can also access the eNewsLetters category at  http://eNewsLetter.SaveOurSBS.org

Subscriber emails are sent occasionally to people on our data base.

They are not regular events. Each eNewsLetter is a short update about SBS and activities at Save Our SBS.

Each Save Our SBS eNewsLetters includes links to SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE.