Putting commercial advertising on the ABC is an idea that is regularly put forward by politicians who know that there is plenty of money in Treasury, but don't want to spend it on anything that is socially useful. The latest regurgitation comes from the (Liberal) Senator Gary Humphries - a former ACT Chief Minister who was nominated by the Liberal Party to fill a casual Senate vacancy and so became a Senator.
Our objections to using advertising to fund more ABC drama also arise from the simple fact that if the ABC was given substantially more money, it would not only have more money for drama but also more money for all its other equally needy services.
There are of course quite a few other needy public services just as much in need of funding as the ABC. However, our role as Friends is to specifically publicise Our ABC's claim.
Advertising on the ABC: the Never-ending Story.
ACT Liberal Senator Gary Humphries is wrong for a number of reasons in his recent claim that advertising on the ABC could help address the decline in its local drama production. Like so many politicians unfamiliar with the issues and probably disinterested in actually resolving them, the magic pudding of advertising is seen to be the way to stuff away an inconvenient funding claim.
Firstly, following a deliberate Board decision to do so, the ABC already indulges in considerable self-promotion. FABC (WA) believes that the ABC is doing more than enough, especially given regular complaints from members of the Friends and of the public.
Secondly, notwithstanding the wishful thinking of the politicians, there’s not much there. ABC Enterprises’ net profit is about $5 million a year; the ABC’s Budget appropriation totalled $777 million in 2004. The ABC’s last triennial funding submission sought an extra $250 million over three years. SBS’s earnings from advertising – at $29 million – are (for better or worse) a record for it, but are only a small part of its appropriation of $162 million. They have also led to many complaints of excessive commercialism.
Thirdly, the commercial advertisers may not really be interested. In a multi-channelling submission, the ABC has pointed out "The additional services provided by the ABC are likely to meet the interests of specialised audiences or enhance convenience by time shifting. They are unlikely to draw a mass audience away from the commercial broadcasters during peak times.” Advertisers want the programme and the audience skewed to maximise sales.
Fourthly, extensive advertising on the ABC would assist the long-running campaign against the ABC by The Australian and others of the Murdoch stable. Their position would be the simple one that if ABC programming could pay for itself, why should the taxpayer do so? Of course, neither commercial (pay or free-to-air ) TV, nor radio, nor any print media apart from the Fairfax group, provide serious specialist, quality broadcasting.
Fifthly, politicians being politicians, sooner or later the ABC’s funding could be cut by the amount that it was earning through commercial advertising.
Finally, not least, the ABC’s ethos and charter are quite incompatible with the commercial focus, the lack of continuity and obsession with ratings-driven change that is very common with the commercial media.
Prior to the last Federal Budget, the Australian Council of Social Service observed that the Federal Government is wasting $11 billion on a range of concessions and tax breaks. This financial year, the Federal Government is expecting to rake in an extra $7,400 million due to higher commodity prices. There’s plenty of cash in the till.