Who benefits from CBBC's extended hours?

While the fallout from BBC3 captured the headlines, it was the simultaneous decision to extend CBBC’s hours that best illustrated the flaws in how the BBC Trust makes decisions about new BBC services.

The proposal to move CBBC closedown from 7pm to 9pm found little support anywhere. Indeed, the BBC Trust’s dutifully-commissioned independent audience research reported that “respondents were, on the whole, opposed to extended hours.” It consulted industry about the market impact, finding “near unanimous opposition.” There are no cost savings to help balance the books for the new licence fee settlement (indeed, you would expect some additional costs). And there are no new commissions for producers, as the new service will be comprised of repeats.

Yet the proposal was approved. In the end, the impression was that the benefit of any doubt was firmly on the side of extending CBBC’s hours. The impact on the market was judged to be “small” (although the impact specifically on rival children’s channels was found to be “disproportionate”, it was never quantified). Objections from the public were discounted if they were linked to closing BBC3 (which is necessary to free up broadcasting capacity to extend CBBC’s hours). As for audiences who objected for other reasons, the Trust was left in the ignominious position of reportedly reminding them that “there is an off button.”

COBA’s view is that in future it would not be unreasonable for the onus to be on the person proposing the change to prove the additional public value – and to do so convincingly. No one is arguing that UK PLC will be undermined by this proposal. But individual channels that invest in UK jobs and original content will be impacted. Where the public value created by a proposed new service is, at best, questionable, the priority should be to avoid a negative market impact, rather than just go ahead and expand anyway.

For the record, COBA supports the principle of the BBC and the licence fee as cornerstones of the broadcasting sector. We are not calling for topslicing, and we do not have a problem with the BBC making popular shows. But we are asking for effective oversight where the BBC has an impact on the market, and we have put forward a number of other ways to reform the PVT system. Essentially, whoever ends up overseeing the BBC at the end of this Charter review should have more powers than the Trust does now to hold the corporation to account.

More specifically, as the Trust has itself proposed, there should be mini-PVTs, in which proposals for new services do not qualify for a full-blown six-month investigation. Existing services should also be subject to market impact tests occasionally; in a fast evolving sector, once every five years does not seem unreasonable. The governing body should have powers to make sure that BBC management gives them details of a proposal for a new service within a reasonable timeframe after formally announcing it; by reasonable, less than 10 months would be an improvement.

Above everything, whoever oversees the BBC must be demonstrably independent of BBC management, particularly where decisions impact on external stakeholders – i.e. audiences and industry. Ultimately, that will also be the best way for the BBC to defend itself from its critics.

Adam Minns is executive director of the Commercial Broadcasters Association (COBA), which represents UK multichannel broadcasters.