3 THINGS THAT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE: THING 2 THE BBC PROPERLY FUNDING CHILDRENS CONTENT

ACA THREE THINGS THAT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE

THING TWO: THE BBC NEED TO STEP UP AND STAND BY THE CHILDREN OF THIS COUNTRY BY SIMPLY PAYING FOR THE PROGRAMMES THEY COMMISSION. 

Actually my second point about what would make a difference to Children’s Arts is not about more money – it's about the allocation of money. At an ACA round table last year an idea emerged that it might help focus all the multiple causes for children’s arts by establishing a simple universal principal – that being ‘Children are Important’. Seems obvious doesn’t it. But the work the ACA then did in discovering the % arts funded bodies spend on children as an audience really demonstrates just how important they all think children are… and what a shock. 

For those who didn’t see the figures in the report it shows that 17 of our national, publically funded institutions admitted (via FOI requests) to only spending about 1% of their total budgets on children. For some it was marginally higher – and for all, to be fair, it has increased in the last few years (by less than 1% in most cases). 

1% spend  for 15% of the population. 

Shamefully the BBC’s spend on children is declining, and the Arts Council had no idea how much of the money they allocate gets spent on children’s projects. Check that. No idea. That’s how important children are in the mix. Have you seen the forms you have to fill in for Art Council funding? About who the projects are aimed at and how they will benefit… do the Arts council even look at these forms? Anyway I digress…. It is plain looking around how little consideration these bodies give to children other than their obligations to an educational programme – but they do not see children as part of their core audience, and they would seem to have no interest in building an audience from children. (Is this because of what I referred to in my blog yesterday that these artistic directors see work for children as second rate – not good on their CV…?) 

But here I am going to point my finger squarely at the BBC because this discussion is about what would make a difference. Well. Properly funding your children’s television programmes would make a huge difference and here’s why. 

Firstly my disclaimer and ‘Get out of Jail Free’ card. The folk who run the children’s channels would LOVE to fully fund the shows they want – but they can’t because the BBC Management at the very top don’t believe that children’s programming is deserving of fully funding… for context to do so would require allocating about another 1% of their overall budget – bringing their total spend on kids (15% of the population) to approx. 4%... 

Did you know that the BBC only put in up to 25% of the budget of pre-school TV shows made outside of the BBC? Perhaps up to 75% of those made internally. This is how the usual boilerplate model for financing a pre-school children’s TV show breaks down, in terms of what % of the production budget is paid and by who: 

15-25% Broadcaster 

20- 30% Pre- sales to other countries 

30-40%  Tax credits in other countries 

20-35%  Advance against Licensing and Merchandising 

The upshot of this is that the majority interest in the show is from companies who business model is predicated on making money from the sale of toys/merchandising and other licensed goods. Which means that without the certainty of a strong toy line after the programme is released they will not invest in the show. Don’t get me wrong – in the commercial world it is fine to do this – it is the commercial world. The channels have correctly realised their programmes have a healthy licensing and Merchandising income stream and have used this potential as a way of driving down the price they pay for programmes (not uncommon for them not to pay at all!) It is their business model and they are entirely free to pursue it.

But the British Public Service Broadcaster has quite cynically exploited this trend and used it as a way of making less BBC money go further – to only pay 25% of the production budget. To require producers to gap finance in the same way – putting the same pressures on the content of those shows. To be clear – this means that the majority of shows on the BBC will not get made if there is no intention to release a line of toys. It also often means the editorial needs to be shared with other countries as often it is a co-production that helps gap finance these shows (often with government money) meaning the content needs to be adjusted for a more universal audience. It also means that the Channel controllers actually don’t get the final say about what shows they get… the heads of the distributors do. 

 Lets play. I shall exaggerate for effect… but only a little… 

Imagine ‘War Horse’ being produced with the same considerations. The National Theatre say they would like to do it – it’s an important, exciting and emotional work - but they can only afford to pay 25% toward the cost. That’s OK, because if all of the costumes, the script, the puppets and the music is created in Canada and imported back with a Canadian character or two squeezed into the plot in they will add in another 35%. (It’ll still work if the Horse joins the Canadian Cavalry for a bit won’t it?) And this is all OK because BIG THEATRE Distribution comes in and says they will finance the rest… if… the National agree to a few adjustments. For instance the horses. These dark wood puppets are a bit serious… could they be softer, more cuddly, with bigger eyes and a smile? And can we work in a vehicle or two – they always sell well – something with eyes that might speak? And can we also make sure we can make a further 104 new stories to support the product at retail… oh… and how about if we lose the ‘War’ bit…. Is that OK?

 Like I say, I exaggerate… but only a little. (And by the way - the Canadians are not the baddies here - it is just a normal request in a co-production) Rest assured these conversations have taken place behind the scenes of nearly every new pre-school children’s programme you see. The BBC might claim they are protecting children as an audience as part of their brave new world – but until they properly fund their programming they are not only forcing them to be consumers – but there is a form of blackmail going on. 

Unless children buy the product based on these shows and deliver a profit to the distributor the figures for future shows will stop adding up and the business model fails. If the model fails the programmes will stop being made. It really is that simple. 

Then there is the impact on the creative industry of the UK. We still have world respected creators of programming – but we are unable on the whole to make this programming in the UK. Meaning we are cutting off our creative industry at the knees. Without the BBC properly funding the programming they show so many times they are not only betraying our children, but they are killing off a huge sector of the creative industry costing jobs for our young graduates and money directly from our internal ecomony.