There’s a big privatisation about to happen that you might not know about.
There’s a big privatisation about to happen that you might not know about
In a move that was unearthed yesterday, BBC America is, according to Bloomberg, about to sell itself to AMC, the Breaking Bad broadcaster, handing over ‘about’ 50 per cent in return for access to AMC networks.
But here’s where it gets complicated. BBC America is currently owned wholly by BBC Worldwide, a for-profit company. But BBC Worldwide is itself owned wholly by the BBC – obviously a public sector organisation.
It makes sense for BBC Worldwide to be a separate organisation. After all, the British public can’t be expected to fund an equivalent ad-free public service broadcaster in nearly every country of the world.
But being owned by the British public (albeit at arms-length), it would be reasonable to expect that the public get some say over what happens. Particularly when ‘BBC Worldwide exists to support the BBC public service mission and to maximise profits on its behalf’, operates under the BBC’s Charter, Agreement and ethics, and aims to help keep the Licence Fee as low as possible. All this according to its own website.
So when a significant division of a body that aims, at core, to serve the British public, is half-privatised, why is there no consultation?
The ramifications, after all, could be significant. Sell-offs can often emerge in the long-term as being incredibly short-sighted. They can lead to a lack of independence, accountability and public-service ethos. AMC does not have the interests of the BBC at heart. BBC Worldwide, ostensibly, does. So this matters.
If this acquisition by AMC eventually results in a loss for BBC America, it will result in a loss for the BBC as a whole – that is, British broadcasting (and therefore UK viewers) will notably lose out. There may be cuts, or there may be a license fee hike. This alone warrants discussion with BBC Worldwide’s core stakeholders – the British public.
This isn’t a lone case, either. BBC Worldwide has in recent years been selling off significant chunks of its own operations to private companies.
In 2005, the BBC sold Eve magazine to Haymarket. Then, in 2006, Random House bought out BBC Books. So the entire publishing division of our national broadcaster became privately owned.
Acquisitions matter, too. In 2007, the Beeb bought 75 per cent of Lonely Planet, the tourism guide, for £130m. Big money. Just six years later, they sold it for £51m at an astonishing £80m loss. Taxpayers lost out.
Then, in 2011, BBC Worldwide sold all its non-BBC branded magazines to Exponent, a private equity firm. It also handed over the licenses to run all the BBC branded mags, too, effectively sub-contracting the work, and moved all its magazine staff over to the private company. At the same time, the broadcaster offloaded its subscription fulfilment service.
What we have therefore is a history of semi-secret quasi-privatisations, none of which have public approval except for that of the BBC Trust. In the case of the Lonely Planet sale, it resulted in a massive bill for the taxpayer (indirectly, through losses).
It’s time for some accountability in BBC Worldwide. It may be a company, but it’s one that’s owned by all of us and it says it exists for all of us. Perhaps then, we should get a say when our assets are flogged off.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
25 Responses to “When do we get a say over BBC Worldwide?”
itdoesntaddup
It’s a strange company that instead of paying dividends to shareholders requires them to pay dividends to itself. The real solution to this is to sell the BBC lock, stock and barrel. Internally, it already consists of myriad companies – some purely personal “Presenter Tax Avoider Ltd.”, and some “independent” production companies dedicated to particular programmes. It’s been a long while since the BBC adhered to Reithian values and was accountable to viewers and listeners. Time to end the charade, recognise where modern technology is leading us, and ensure that our talent hones itself by competing instead of troughing on licence fees.
jay
You are quite right to point out the shadiness here. The BBC brand is going into private, foreign hands. But the British are expert at asset-stripping to pay current expenses. We sell our companies, our land and our buildings to keep paying the bills. And Left Foot Forward and other organisations have ten thousand reasons we should increase spending on this or that service but not one clue about how we should increase the wealth of the country through investment and production.
The recent Labour Party Policy Review looked exactly like what it was – a report by service providers and service users bent on taking care of themselves. No mention of investment, of new industries, new technologies.
Liam Fairley
The problem is, as I see it, is that the Right believe the BBC is utterly biased and left-wing, and have been calling for it to be broken up for years. The left – or the far-left, at least – also believe the British Biased Corporation (there words, not mine) is the voice of the establishment and exists solely to serve the need of those in power. In short, both camps will not be prepared to fight for it
Leon Wolfeson
There’s that study showing that it’s the voice of the government.
You might not be prepared to fight for it, I am – as long as it becomes truly independent.
Guest
Oh, so you want investment and production without actually, you know, spending money. Or having high multiple spending.
You bitterly oppose change, I get it, as you think a right wing party’s neoliberal agenda…