咨询管理战略组织项目麦肯锡工具评估 麦肯锡—public service broadcasters around world.pdf

《咨询管理战略组织项目麦肯锡工具评估 麦肯锡—public service broadcasters around world.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《咨询管理战略组织项目麦肯锡工具评估 麦肯锡—public service broadcasters around world.pdf（39页珍藏版）》请在淘文阁 - 分享文档赚钱的网站上搜索。

1、PUBLICSERVICEBROADCASTERSAROUNDTHEWORLDPUBLICSERVICEBROADCASTERSAROUNDTHEWORLDPublic Service Broadcasters Around the WorldA McKINSEY REPORT FOR THE BBCJANUARY 1999Copyright 1999 McKinsey &Company. All rights reserved.CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY31. TAKING STOCK OF PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTING72. SETTING

2、 ASPIRATIONS FOR BROADCASTING MARKETS11Aspirations for broadcasting markets11Exposing PSBs to competition12Monopolies evolving into ecologies14Shaping the ecology153. DEVELOPING NEW STRATEGIES FOR PUBLIC SERVICE21BROADCASTERSClarifying a PSBs mission and programming strategy21Modernising operations2

3、4Finding avenues to growth and development254. DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATE FUNDING MODEL27FOR PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTERSSubstantial27Independent28Predictable29Growing31Simple and equitable325. CREATING A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE FOR PUBLIC35SERVICE BROADCASTERSEXECUTIVE SUMMARYOver the last decade or so,

4、 broadcasting markets around the worldhave changed dramatically. Deregulation of terrestrial markets, thegrowth of multichannel television and the emergence of strong paytelevision operators have fundamentally altered the competitive dynamics inmany markets. And with the arrival of the digital era w

5、e are poised foreven more dramatic changes.Public service broadcasters (PSBs) were conceived in a world of one or twochannels. Not surprisingly, the market evolution has put pressure on thetraditional PSB model and in some markets fundamentally called intoquestion its validity.Periodically, the BBC

6、has commissioned McKinsey to examine how PSBs are responding to these developments. In preparing this report, we reviewed20 markets on four continents. For each market, we looked at the currentplayers and competitive environment, the distinctiveness of output, themarket evolution and so on. We also

7、looked at the current position of thePSB in terms of its share, distinctiveness and funding model. While themarkets, and the PSBs within them, vary significantly, we were able tocompare our findings to those of previous years and identify trends andpatterns. Additionally, we were able to compare the

8、 strategies of the variousPSBs over time and identify the characteristics of those PSBs which seembest prepared to meet the challenges of the digital age.The key lessons from the report are: The PSBs in our survey can be grouped into three clusters, based on theirbroad strategy: A focus on distincti

9、veness over market share (e.g., PBS, ABC). These PSBs (often forced into this position by their remit or funding model)have had little impact on the main broadcast networks, as they pose no meaningful financial threat to commercial competition. A focus on market share over distinctiveness (e.g., RAI

10、, RTVE). Whilethese PSBs have the potential to significantly influence their market, in practice there is little to differentiate them from commercially funded operators. The majority of PSBs in this cluster depend heavilyon advertising funding. Some form of equilibrium between the two (e.g., SVT ,

11、ARD). These PSBshave held a significant audience share while maintaining a distinctiveapproach and fulfilling their public service remit. A strong PSB can play an important role in todays competitive andcomplex broadcasting markets. In a world of many channels, we have foundthat a PSB is at its most

12、 effective when it not only broadcasts a distinctiveschedule, but also exerts pressure on its commercial competitors to do thesame. While governmental regulation of commercial broadcasters canachieve some of these aims, our analysis shows that the PSB model is the3preferable approach; it combines cr

13、eative and market pressures onbroadcasters to achieve a societys 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 newstyles of programming, and thereby encourage commercial

14、 broadcasters tocreate their own distinctive programmes. In this way, the viewing standardsof the entire market are raised.An example from the UK helps illustrate this. The BBC spends large sums of money and, often, several years to make compelling, highly rated costumedramas such as Pride and Preju

15、dice. The competing commercial channels,rather than concede the genre to the BBC, have created their own popularcostume dramas e.g., ITVs Moll Flanders and Channel 4s The CamomileLawn. The competition among the three broadcasters raises quality andreinforces audience taste for the genre.To set this

16、virtuous circle off, the PSB has to maintain sufficient share whileremaining distinctive from its commercial competitors. This is of criticalimportance for the public good. Our analysis clearly shows that there is astrong linkage between the health and funding model of the PSB and theoverall quality

17、 of each national broadcasting market (Exhibit 1). In many markets, we found a refocusing, in some cases the re-birth, of thePSB. Our survey has identified the key components of the strategies used bythese successful reborn PSBs: Clarity of mission and programming strategy to enable them to maintain

18、share while staying distinctive Modernisation of operations, especially with an eye to reducing costs Growth and development into new areas as the market has evolved. We found clear evidence that a PSBs funding model has profoundimplications for its ability to pursue successfully these new strategie

19、s. Many PSBs are funded, at least partly, through advertising. Our survey4The distinctiveness* of a market and the funding model of its public service broadcaster ?are clearly linkedExhibit 1United Kingdom?Sweden?Germany?Italy?France?Portugal?United States?Funding model ?of local PSB?Licence fee?Lic

20、ence fee + advertising?Grant + advertising?Donation + grant1009687756150351996, market distinctiveness,* index: United Kingdom = 100*?Defined as the percentage of factual, cultural and childrens programmes broadcast by the principal broadcasters in the market (public service and commercial), weighte

21、d by their audience share?September 1998?Source: EBU; schedule analysis; Zenith; TBIshows clearly the potential dangers of this approach. We have found evidence that the higher the advertising figure as a proportion of total revenues, the less distinctive a public service broadcaster islikely to be.

22、* Our analysis shows that the licence-fee-funding system providesbroadcasters with the most stable longer term funding source enablingthem to invest in higher risk, more distinctive types of programmes andnew services. We have discovered that attempts to implement broad scale concessions for example

23、 for the elderly in France have resulted in a series ofdisruptive and politically awkward adjustments. Looking to the future, the best PSBs will continue to adapt, evolving withthe move into the digital era, as they have in the multichannel world.Despite the need to grow and adapt e.g., through the

24、launch of newservices the principles for success will not change: a broad, wide-rangingmix of high-quality programmes, meaningful share, substantial anddependable funding, and a lean organisation. PSBs have a significant responsibility within their markets. As thepacesetters, it is the PSBs who set

25、a tone for broadcasting. Healthy PSBs canpotentially greatly enrich their broadcasting cultures and by extension thecultures of their nations. It is in the interests of all audiences to see that theycontinue to do so, and keep broadcasting the broad-ranging, stimulating,unifying social force it has

26、been for much of the last century.5* There are, however, some distinctive secondary public-service-oriented broadcasters funded at leastpartially through advertising (e.g., Channel 4 in the UK). It is worth noting that they often have someform of safety net that allows them to remain true to their p

27、urpose. Further, they exist in marketswhich already have large, established PSBs.1. TAKING STOCK OF PUBLIC SERVICEBROADCASTINGPublic service broadcasters (PSBs) have seen the markets in which theyoperate go through fundamental changes since the mid-1980s. MostPSBs are former monopolies, and were ori

28、ginally designed to providethe entire supply of programming for the market. However, with the adventof commercial terrestrial competition, then multichannel cable and satellite,and now digital, PSBs have found themselves in a completely differentcompetitive world, presenting them with an enormous ad

29、aptive challenge.The pressures on PSBs are significant and multifaceted. Broadcasting hasbecome a fundamentally more competitive industry than it was 20 years ago.And PSBs are, as a result, facing a number of challenges: Increasingcompetition fromcommercial channelsand multichannelpenetration (Exhib

30、it 2) Saturation of TVviewing and reach(Exhibit 3)7Multichannel TV has become more importantExhibit 2Cable & satellite penetration, 1997?% of TV homesCAGR, 199397?%Netherlands?Belgium?Germany?United States?Canada?Denmark?Sweden?Norway?Poland?Japan?Czech Republic?South Africa?United Kingdom?France?Po

31、rtugal?Australia?Spain?Turkey?Italy?New ZealandSource: Zenith; TBI; McKinsey analysisCableSatellite97311033528251529132367451139683827966615337323130271817104421206NANANATrends in TV viewing vary by marketExhibit 3Belgium (Wallonia)?Sweden?Germany?Belgium (Flanders)?Turkey?Norway?Australia?Netherlan

32、ds?United Kingdom?France?Canada?Spain?United States?New Zealand?Denmark?Portugal?Italy?Czech Republic?Japan?Poland?South Africa4.02.72.43.13.23.72.43.22.53.63.03.13.52.72.62.83.53.43.42.44.03.93.02.62.40.70.30.10.0NANANA0.20.30.40.50.50.60.61.21.92.1Daily viewing time CAGR, 199597?%?Daily viewing ho

33、urs per individual?1997Source: Eurodata and some earlyevidence of substitutionfrom new media(Exhibit 4) Increasing costs oftalent and key rights ingenres such as sport(Exhibit 5)Pressures on fundingas governments seek toreduce the overall taxburden and as increasedcompetition reducesavailable advert

34、ising revenues (Exhibit 6).As a result of thesechallenges, andparticularly thesignificant loss of share (and therefore influence) to the new commercial broadcasters, manyobservers over the past several years considered the PSB an outdatedconcept. The future, they argued, would bring a multiplicity o

35、f channels, asin the United States, with seemingly enormous variety. Many PSBs wereconsidered inefficient relics of an earlier, state-dominated age. The PSBs did8Many Internet users surf the Web instead of ?watching televisionExhibit 4% Internet users262911253118203322813122631996/971997/981996/9719

36、97/9846686742United StatesEuropeSeveral times per dayOnce per daySeveral times per weekOnce per weekSource: Georgia Institute of Technology WWW User SurveysThe cost of rights for major sporting events is risingExhibit 5Index: first year = 100Olympic Games?(Europe)Wimbledon?(Europe)German football?(w

37、orldwide)198819921996198993*199498*198587*198891*199296*199799*1,333911322100443100893268100*?Average costs?Source: Press clippings; McKinsey analysisPressure on funding is increasingExhibit 6Government funding?Other uses for tax revenue ?(e.g., health, education)?Overall lower government spending f

38、or political reasons (e.g., to meet Maastricht criteria)?Government spending is highly scrutinised, and funding a public service broadcaster from tax revenue is not always popularAdvertising funding?Competition from new terrestrial channels?Competition from new cable/satellite channels?Competition f

39、rom other media ?(e.g., magazines, Internet, digital TV)Advertisers are becoming more sophisticated, and have many more options in how they reach their defined segmentstend to carry much higher overheads as they contained large productionunits, education departments, and many other commitments which

40、 the morestreamlined commercial broadcasters did not; the absence of competition hadmade many of them complacent and overstaffed. Further-more, commercialbroadcasters were often more sophisticated in their use of marketingtechniques. The new commercial broadcasters were seen as more progressiveand e

41、xciting than the staid, familiar PSBs.However, this study of public service broadcasting,conducted in the Summer of 1998, has revealed a rather different picture. While some PSBs have never recovered from the share loss andineffectiveness that followed deregulation, severalhave stemmed their share l

42、osses and begun toprosper, at least in relative terms, by finding forthemselves a distinctive role which they cansuccessfully play. Some PSBs, of course, have not been so fortunate, and have been held back by a number of factors, including uncompetitiveprogramming strategies, outdated processes and,

43、especially, inappropriate funding regimes.This report takes stock of the current position ofpublic service broadcasting*around the world,drawing upon extensive research and interviews in 20 countries (Exhibit 7). In each country, wehave sought to understand: The market environment: its historic and

44、current position; how it ischanging; and how the government is seeking to influence it The current performance of the PSB: its mix of programming; audienceshare; funding model and financial health; and its strategy for dealing withthe pressures of the increasingly competitive market.We have used the

45、 insights from this research to address three key questions: What is it that the public is demanding of their broadcasting markets? What is the modern role of public service broadcasting in delivering theseaspirations? What are the characteristics of the PSBs that are best prepared to meet thesechal

46、lenges?9Public service broadcasters reviewed*Exhibit 7Australia?ABC?Network 7, Network 9, Network 10?Belgium (Flanders)? VRT?VTM, VT4, Ka 2?Belgium (Wallonia)? RTBF?RTL-TVI?Canada?CBC, SRC?CTV, TVA?Czech Republic?CT?Nova, Premiera?Denmark?DR, TV2?TV3, TvDanmark?France?F2, F3?TF-1, M6, Canal Plus?Ger

47、many?ARD, ZDF?RTL, Sat.1, Pro Sieben?Italy?RAI?Canale 5, Italia 1, Rete 4?Japan?NHK?NTV, TBS, Fuji TV, TV Asahi, Tokyo TV?Netherlands?NOS?RTL4, Veronica, SBS6?New Zealand?TVNZ?TV3, TV4?Norway?NRK?TV2, TV3, TV Norge?Poland?TVP?Polsat, regional channels?Portugal?RTP?SIC, TVI?South Africa?SABC?M-Net, e

48、-tv?Spain?RTVE?Antena 3, Tele 5, regional channels?Sweden?SVT?TV3, TV4, Kanal 5?Turkey?TRT?Kanal D, ATV, Show TV, Star, TGRT?United Kingdom?BBC?ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5?United States?PBS?ABC, CBS, Fox, NBCCountryPublic service broadcastersPrincipal commercial competitors?*?Focus of work was on larg

49、e, generalist broadcasters with significant public funding?Native channels with more than 5% audience share* In each market, we have concentrated on generalist public service broadcasters. Many markets areenriched by secondary public-service-oriented broadcasters (e.g., Channel 4), but these channel

50、susually have some form of funding safety net, and also are somewhat sheltered by the existence ofbroad-ranging PSBs. Additionally, there are many thematic public service channels (e.g. Arte, 3Sat),but while these enrich their markets in meaningful ways, they do not have wide, cross-genre influence.