Just who is the FT’s mysterious BBC Trust mole?

Anthony Fry, BBC TrustThe Fin­an­cial Times has a trenchant cri­tique of BBC World­wide and its impact on the pub­lic ser­vice broad­cast­ing debate.

But who exactly is the per­son ‘famil­iar with the BBC Trust’s think­ing’ that they quote? Or the lead­ing Lon­don banker? Don’t be temp­ted by the obvi­ous jig­saw iden­ti­fic­a­tion.

A per­son famil­iar with the BBC Trust’s think­ing says: “The suc­cess of World­wide has argu­ably threatened the BBC’s future more than any­thing else in recent times, by sim­ul­tan­eously provid­ing an image – pos­sibly illus­ory, pos­sibly not – of great wealth and a yard­stick, also pos­sibly illus­ory, of sup­posedly anti-competitive beha­viour.” Con­tinue read­ing

Two views of ITV

James Mur­doch bought ITV shares for 135p not too long ago. Now, you and I can pick them up for about half that.

Mur­doch didn’t exactly buy them hop­ing them to make a quick buck. But now he has moved to Wap­ping, how does one of his papers cover the ITV story? Dan Sab­bagh plays a pretty straight bat lay­ing out the ter­rit­ory in the Times:

On fun­da­ment­als, ITV is expens­ive, even at these super­fi­cially bombed-out levels. The shares trade at 14 times earn­ings, a premium to European peers, and there are real wor­ries that the high street advert­isers on which ITV depends will start to rein in advert­ising as the eco­nomy tightens.

That has not happened yet, but eco­nomic sen­ti­ment is so poor that the worry is that depend­ence on retail advert­ising is a weak­ness wait­ing to be exposed, rather than a strength.

How­ever, most quoted European broad­casters can­not be bought, because they are tied up with a stra­tegic investor; ITV is the excep­tion. For that reason alone, ITV, with its unique dom­in­ance of Brit­ish com­mer­cial broad­cast­ing remains a com­pel­ling investment.

So far so reas­on­able.

Yet for any­body will­ing to take a view, it is obvi­ous that Sky’s share­hold­ing has more value sold in a block to a would-be bid­der. It is also clear that there is long-term stra­tegic value in the stock. Tele­vi­sion advert­ising may be dif­fi­cult in 2008, but it will improve at some point.

A recov­ery in 2010 would be felt by investors from mid-2009. Mean­while, ITV’s com­pet­it­ive envir­on­ment is rel­at­ively benign. Neither the BBC nor Chan­nel 4 is steal­ing view­ers and 88 per cent of house­holds have switched to mul­tichan­nel. A bid may not be on the agenda yet, but it will come. ITV shares look attract­ive for the patient investor who believes that the eco­nomy will not col­lapse. Buy.

Hmmm.

Here is the FT’s take:

With its shares trad­ing at half the 135p price BSkyB paid, ITV looks at first glance like low-hanging fruit…

Even at 67.9p, up 3.9p yes­ter­day, ITV “is still more expens­ive than most other west­ern TV com­pan­ies”, one invest­ment banker said yes­ter­day. “You can’t raise the debt.”

With an equity value of £2.7bn and £668m of net debt at the end of Decem­ber 2007, ITV is out of reach of any bid­der that needs to tap tightened credit markets…

The big­ger uncer­tainty, accord­ing to one exec­ut­ive who has examined ITV, remains the reg­u­lat­ory régime, which restricts how much ITV can charge its advert­isers. Although the Office of Fair Trad­ing is review­ing the con­tract rights renewal régime, any relief is unlikely to be felt until 2010..

Buy, hold or sell?

In the shorter term, ITV remains “on the cliff” of los­ing its invest­ment grade rat­ing, accord­ing to Chris­tian Rauch, an ana­lyst with Moody’s, which last month rated the group Baa3 with a neg­at­ive outlook.

Should any­thing knock ITV’s bonds into junk ter­rit­ory, any pro­spect­ive buyer may yet be able to strike at a lower price.

How to argue in circles

Writing in the FT, Pablo Eis­en­berg provides a great example of fuzzy think­ing on journ­al­ism. And also a les­son in how to write in circles.

For a dec­ade, the print media have been the only effect­ive mech­an­ism for keep­ing non-profit organ­isa­tions open and account­able. The out­stand­ing invest­ig­at­ive work of the Boston Globe, the Wash­ing­ton Post, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and many other papers has uncovered hun­dreds of found­a­tions and char­it­ies guilty of inap­pro­pri­ate expendit­ure, cor­rup­tion, self-dealing, con­flicts of interest and excess­ive compensation.

This cov­er­age has had impress­ive res­ults: con­gres­sional hear­ings and legis­lat­ive activ­ity; more effect­ive fed­eral and state reg­u­la­tions; increased scru­tiny by state attorneys-general; bet­ter audit­ing and enforce­ment pro­ced­ures by the Internal Rev­enue Ser­vice; and more self-reform efforts by non-profit organisations.

Yet without con­tin­ued media focus on the non-profit sec­tor, char­it­ies and found­a­tions are likely to revert to old habits. Scand­als, inap­pro­pri­ate beha­viour and excess­ive compens­ation are still a regret­table part of our non-profit world.

So what has driven news­pa­pers away from such invest­ig­a­tions, accord­ing to Eis­en­berg? Why the pur­suit of profit.

Twenty years ago a news­pa­per was happy to make a profit of 10–15 per cent. Even though daily news­pa­pers today earn between 10 and 20 per cent in pre-tax profits, that is no longer good enough for Wall Street and investors, who demand much more, no mat­ter what the cost to journ­al­istic integ­rity. Busi­ness interests have trumped the pub­lic interest.

Is there any hope for a resur­gence of high-quality, mission-oriented journ­al­ism? Non-profit own­er­ship of select daily news­pa­pers could offer a prom­ising new begin­ning, and phil­an­thropy could make it happen.

I like it. Non-profit own­er­ship as the solu­tion for news­pa­pers fail­ing to provide invest­ig­at­ive scru­tiny of non-profits? A com­plete circle. (And have you noticed how things were always bet­ter twenty years ago? There must a twenty year rule: another post, another time)

Paid content — the British newspaper experience

My col­league Neil Thur­man has spent the last few months talk­ing to online edit­ors across the UK about how they see their busi­nesses. That research, with the snappy title Paid con­tent strategies for news web­sites: An empir­ical study of Brit­ish news­pa­pers online busi­ness mod­els, is out now. You can down­load a pre­view here.

The head­lines?

Here’s what Neil found:

  • Brit­ish online news­pa­pers that cur­rently charge for news stor­ies and op-ed — like FT.com and Independent.co.uk — see the bene­fits of drop­ping pay­walls and mak­ing more con­tent free. Archive con­tent too is being freed up to make sites, such as TimesOnline.co.uk, more vis­ible to search engines.
  • A buoy­ant ad mar­ket is driv­ing the move free­ward. The study con­firms that ads are the main rev­enue stream online (90%, in some cases). But rev­en­ues from online ser­vices and com­mer­cial part­ner­ships are grow­ing by 20–30%+ a year at the Guardian.co.uk; whilst at the Telegraph.co.uk they con­trib­uted close to a third of total profits.
  • Edit­ors don’t like/make money from digital editions.
  • Email ser­vices are a growth area.
  • Online ‘can­ni­bal­iz­a­tion’ con­cerns are a thing of the past at most newspapers.
  • All the papers were char­ging for some­thing, with edit­ors recog­niz­ing the need to expand com­mer­cial services.