Dr. Petros IOSIFIDIS 

Reader in Media PolicyCity University London

Public Broadcasting in Small EU Countries: Challenges and

Strategies

Measures of State SizeNOTIONS OF SMALLNESS...

Population Size

Geographic Size

Economic Size (Wealth)

Market Size

Population Size

Dividing line between large/small states?

below 20m (EC, 2009; Puppis, 2009; Lowe & Nissen, 2011)

Iceland (0.3m); Ireland (4.5m); GR (11m), NETH (16.3m)

Small population - cannot support broadcasting industry- high service cost/no scale economies

Geographic Size

Microstates Less than 200 square miles (Picard, 2011)

The territory affects costs via the size & complexity of the necessary transmission infrastructure to serve state/localities

Geography affects costs: it is cheaper to serve flat territories than mountainous that require more transmitters/repeaters

It is cheaper to serve urban than rural audiences (population density creates advantageous cost thresholds)

Economic Size (wealth)Measure of economic output GDP per capita

EU27, 2008: GDP was 23,500 EURO (Eurostat, 2008)states below that average typically have lower GDP

Poorer states have less resources to devote to providing & acquiring broadcasting services (however, a state can be small but wealthy)

Small states as per political systemLiberal states: Ireland

Democratic-corporatist: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland)

Polarized/pluralist: Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Portugal

Post-socialist: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovak Rep, Slovenia (Hallin/Mancini 2004)

Small Broadcasting Market Size

Shortage of resources (limitation on production; know-how)

Small audience/advertising markets (limits to revenues; no scale economies costly media production; few exports due to cultural specificity)

Dependence (commercialization & globalization affect more smaller states ‘imported deregulation’)

Vulnerability (foreign takeover of media firms) (Puppis, 2009)

Small number of TV channels

Denmark (5.5m) – PSBs: TV2, DR1; Private: NoneIreland (4.5m) – PSBs: RTE1, RTE2, RTE3; Private:

NoneSweden (9.3m) – PSBs: SVT1, SVT2; Private: TV4Netherlands (16.3m) – PSBs: Ned1; Private: RTL4,

SBS6

EXCEPTION:

Greece (11m) – PSBs: NET, ET1; Private: 5

Impact of giant neighbours

Austria, Luxemburg, Switzerland Giant neighbour: Germany

Belgium - Giant neighbour: FranceIreland – Giant neighbour: UK

BEYOND EUROPE:

Canada – Giant neighbour: USANew Zealand – Giant neighbour: AustraliaTaiwan – Giant neighbour: China)

The language factorNot widely spoken languages in small countries:

Pros may prevent cultural dominationCons cannot expand activities abroad (Nordic

exception)

Austria, Ireland & Belgium affected by same-language neighbouring countries

VRT (Flanders) - competition from Dutch channelsRTBF (Wallonia) - competition from French cable

channelsORF - competition from German channels RTE - competition from British channels

Diverse policiesNordic model: protection of domestic

program supply (YLE & SVT: bulk of domestic output in Finish & Swedish respectively)

Southern Europe:

- higher acceptance of commercialisation- state, not public broadcasting

Historical & Political Context

PORTUGAL

Broadcasting developed under dictatorship (same to Greece and Spain)

In addition to the state, the Catholic Church also influential in shaping media

GREECEDe-facto TV deregulation in 1990 no

consideration re: effects on market structure

Attempts to regulate market failed due to:

Broadcasting’s association with a military dictatorship (1967-74)

Introduction of a regulatory regime with vague principles and highly detailed but rarely implemented rules

PSB’s debt has increased its dependency on the government

Strategies for the futureInterventionist approach – given the small

audience & advertising markets, it’s not possible to achieve socio-cultural goals (pluralism & cultural diversity) through liberalisation (EU approach) & competition among domestic media firms (pro-market approach)

allow mono- & cross-media concentration subsidies/support programmes

(Puppis, 2009, 2010; Siegert, 2006)

Invest in PSBPSBs’ Assets political backing,

relatively secure funding, longevity, credible source

Most small PSBs from Northern Europe managed to retain high audience/revenue share

Exceptions: ERT (GREECE), RTP (PORTUGAL), which had embraced commercialisation (Iosifidis, 2007)

Invest in new technologyBe available in several platforms (transform

into PSM)

New digital channels, mobile telephony & interactive web sites (e.g. create a channel on YouTube)

More interactivity; closer to audiences to reflect a multicultural society, catch younger audiences

Independent producersChannel 4 and S4C

Advantages: healthy independent production sector; new voices, new ideas (new technology helps)

Difficulty: independent sector consolidation (few firms dominate less diversity and dynamism)

Selected bibliography Iosifidis, P. (2007) ‘Public Television in Small European Countries: Challenges

and Strategies’, International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics 3(1): 65–87.

Lowe, G.F. and C. Nissen (2011) Small Among Giants. TV Broadcasting in Smaller Countries, Nordicom.

Puppis, M. et al (2009) ‘The European & Global Dimension: Taking Small Media Systems Research to the Next Level’, International Communication Gazette 2009; 71; 105.

Siegert, G. (2006) The Role of Small Countries in Media Competition in Europe’, in Heinrich, J. and Kopper, G. (eds.) Media Economics in Europe. Berlin: Vistas.

Trappel, J. (2010) ‘Squeezed and Uneasy: PSM in Small States - Limited Media Governance Options in Austria and Switzerland’ in P. Iosifidis (ed.) Reinventing Public Service Communication: European Broadcasters and Beyond, Palgrave Macmillan.