Public Broadcasting in Small EU Countries: Challenges and Strategies

1. Public Broadcasting in Small EU Countries: Challenges and Strategies Dr. Petros IOSIFIDIS Reader in Media Policy City University London

2. Measures of State Size NOTIONS OF SMALLNESS... • Population Size • Geographic Size • Economic Size (Wealth) • Market Size

3. Population Size • Dividing line between large/small states? below 20m (EC, 2009; Puppis, 2009; Lowe & Nissen, 2011) • Iceland (0.3m); Ireland (4.5m); GR (11m), NETH (16.3m) • Small population  - cannot support broadcasting industry - high service cost/no scale economies

4. Geographic Size • Microstates Less than 200 square miles (Picard, 2011) • The territory affects costs via the size & complexity of the necessary transmission infrastructure to serve state/localities • Geography affects costs: it is cheaper to serve flat territories than mountainous that require more transmitters/repeaters • It is cheaper to serve urban than rural audiences (population density creates advantageous cost thresholds)

5. Economic Size (wealth) • Measure of economic output  GDP per capita • EU27, 2008: GDP was 23,500 EURO (Eurostat, 2008) states below that average typically have lower GDP • Poorer states have less resources to devote to providing & acquiring broadcasting services (however, a state can be small but wealthy)

6. Small states as per political system • Liberal states: Ireland • Democratic-corporatist: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland) • Polarized/pluralist: Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Portugal • Post-socialist: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovak Rep, Slovenia (Hallin/Mancini 2004)

7. Small Broadcasting Market Size • Shortage of resources (limitation on production; know-how) • Small audience/advertising markets (limits to revenues; no scale economies  costly media production; few exports due to cultural specificity) • Dependence (commercialization & globalization affect more smaller states  ‘imported deregulation’) • Vulnerability (foreign takeover of media firms) (Puppis, 2009)

8. Small number of TV channels • Denmark (5.5m) – PSBs: TV2, DR1; Private: None • Ireland (4.5m) – PSBs: RTE1, RTE2, RTE3; Private: None • Sweden (9.3m) – PSBs: SVT1, SVT2; Private: TV4 • Netherlands (16.3m) – PSBs: Ned1; Private: RTL4, SBS6 EXCEPTION: • Greece (11m) – PSBs: NET, ET1; Private: 5

9. Impact of giant neighbours • Austria, Luxemburg, Switzerland Giant neighbour: Germany • Belgium - Giant neighbour: France • Ireland – Giant neighbour: UK BEYOND EUROPE: • Canada – Giant neighbour: USA • New Zealand – Giant neighbour: Australia • Taiwan – Giant neighbour: China)

10. The language factor • Not widely spoken languages in small countries: • Pros  may prevent cultural domination • Cons  cannot expand activities abroad (Nordic exception) • Austria, Ireland & Belgium affected by same-language neighbouring countries • VRT (Flanders) - competition from Dutch channels • RTBF (Wallonia) - competition from French cable channels • ORF - competition from German channels • RTE - competition from British channels

11. Diverse policies • Nordic model: protection of domestic program supply (YLE & SVT: bulk of domestic output in Finish & Swedish respectively) • Southern Europe: - higher acceptance of commercialisation - state, not public broadcasting

12. Historical & Political Context PORTUGAL • Broadcasting developed under dictatorship (same to Greece and Spain) • In addition to the state, the Catholic Church also influential in shaping media

13. GREECE • De-facto TV deregulation in 1990  no consideration re: effects on market structure • Attempts to regulate market failed due to: • Broadcasting’s association with a military dictatorship (1967-74) • Introduction of a regulatory regime with vague principles and highly detailed but rarely implemented rules • PSB’s debt has increased its dependency on the government

14. Strategies for the future • Interventionist approach – given the small audience & advertising markets, it’s not possible to achieve socio-cultural goals (pluralism & cultural diversity) through liberalisation (EU approach) & competition among domestic media firms (pro-market approach) •  allow mono- & cross-media concentration •  subsidies/support programmes (Puppis, 2009, 2010; Siegert, 2006)

15. Invest in PSB • PSBs’ Assets  political backing, relatively secure funding, longevity, credible source • Most small PSBs from Northern Europe managed to retain high audience/revenue share • Exceptions: ERT (GREECE), RTP (PORTUGAL), which had embraced commercialisation (Iosifidis, 2007)

16. Invest in new technology • Be available in several platforms (transform into PSM) • New digital channels, mobile telephony & interactive web sites (e.g. create a channel on YouTube) • More interactivity; closer to audiences to reflect a multicultural society, catch younger audiences

17. Independent producers • Channel 4 and S4C • Advantages: healthy independent production sector; new voices, new ideas (new technology helps) • Difficulty: independent sector consolidation (few firms dominate  less diversity and dynamism)

18. Selected bibliography • Iosifidis, P. (2007) ‘Public Television in Small European Countries: Challenges and Strategies’, International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics 3(1): 65–87. • Lowe, G.F. and C. Nissen (2011) Small Among Giants. TV Broadcasting in Smaller Countries, Nordicom. • Puppis, M. et al (2009) ‘The European & Global Dimension: Taking Small Media Systems Research to the Next Level’, International Communication Gazette 2009; 71; 105. • Siegert, G. (2006) The Role of Small Countries in Media Competition in Europe’, in Heinrich, J. and Kopper, G. (eds.) Media Economics in Europe. Berlin: Vistas. • Trappel, J. (2010) ‘Squeezed and Uneasy: PSM in Small States - Limited Media Governance Options in Austria and Switzerland’ in P. Iosifidis (ed.) Reinventing Public Service Communication: European Broadcasters and Beyond, Palgrave Macmillan.