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.
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
25 Responses to “When do we get a say over BBC Worldwide?”
blarg1987
Tax and spend does encourage start ups, if we look after the war, money spent on infrastructure such as new roads, towns, airports etc fed through into technology to create better more efficient products and services.
Governments are good at setting a direction, industry is good at innovating and feeding of the technologies created into things we can consume.
jay
Your final sentence would create consternation and amazement in Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Germany and Japan. In these countries government is an active participant in start-ups, long-term planning, industrial investment and finance provision.
This is today’s Labour Party:-
Let’s have a mansion tax! Shall we use the receipts to invest in industry? No. To build social housing perhaps? No. We will use it to lower taxation at the lower end of the scale. In other words we will place it directly into consumption. Let’s buy some votes. To hell with the country.
blarg1987
Well it is true, Germany and Japan became powerhouses after the second world war because the Government set the general direction of rebuilding and exporting and so they are success stories today.
South Korea, Japan and Singapore have clauses in their contracts that have technology transfer or components to be assembled locally mainly in military contracts.
I am not saying it is the be all and end all but the key point is that they keep money in their economies so that start ups can thrive.
jay
I want the mansion tax to be used for social housing and investment. The Labour Leadership has decided it should be used to lower taxes at the lower end of the scale so it will go straight to consumption.
Where do you get off jumping to ridiculous conclusions? Do you read my comments or just impose your preconceptions?
Guest
Oh right, you want it to go to “social” housing at the Tory scale of “housing for young rich kids”, which is what the new rent policies are turning it into.
We don’t need to lower taxes, we need to restore high-multiple spending. And borrow to do so. And invest. And borrow to do so. Borrowing is at record low levels…lower than even the government’s crookedly low inflation levels!
How dare I read your posts! Your problem is I am.