Brand BBC and Brand Fragility

Brand BBC has attained its lofty status by continuously producing high quality products independent from commercial or political influence and upholding cultural British values – if you are a supporter – or – if you are a detractor - arrogantly abusing privileged access to airwaves and tax revenues to marginalize all competition and, even, criticism.

Brand BBC is like no other media brand. Its depth spans three generations. It is a “constellation” of media brands; music, news and cultureproducer, local, national and international broadcaster, radio, television and now the multi-media star. It competes on the worlds’ stage as easily as the national and local venues. It has set a standard for media journalism. It is studied in, if not the core curriculum of, university media departments. Brand BBC is big; bigger than big. Huge. One would think a brand of this scope and size would withstand even the most dedicated attacks.

For public sector broadcasters, Brand BBC is an aspiration; strong image, huge budgets, reasonable independence from both the government and the marketplace yet strong support from both. Lord Hutton’s report and the pending Charter Review set a few wheels churning, certainly among those who would like to see Brand BBC abit less powerful, rich, pervasive and – some would say – arrogant. Its critics, however, never quite articulate in terms acceptable to the British public, at least, an alternative vision.

Scorn has poured in on Brand BBC. Criticism follows one primary thread; commercial media says it’s too powerful and politicians say it’s too powerful.

ftm Knowledge

The Format Radio Brand

The Format Radio Brand is a product with a name on it. Function and structure work together to define the benefit. The choice and placement of program elements is systematic and consistent. As competition for audience and ad revenue becomes fierce, producers adopt the Format Radio Brand to separate theirs from the vague General Radio Brands. Brands names and positioning become shorthand for consumers; saving time, effort and minimizing risk.

The Six Radio Brands is about the uniquely European development of radio brands. Competition among broadcasters - and certainly between the public and commercial sectors - gives radio in Europe a rich dynamic. As consumers become more media-literate and demand more attachment broadcasters find target markets illusive.
Regulators, advertisers and broadcasters take turns trying to influence radio brands. Culture and technology makes an impact. More and more, the greatest influence comes from consumers.
The Six Radio Brands describes advantages and pit-falls of brand strategies, with illustrations from current radio practice.

100 pages. 2004

Free for ftm Members, €99 for others.

Email to order

For the commercial media in the UK, the well-funded and competitive BBC represents a competitor that takes ad revenue via audience through a publicly funded mechanism and virtually regulates itself. Investments made by Brand BBC in programming and marketing keep costs high among the commercial broadcasters. Brand BBC, too, has aggressively pursued commercial packaging of its various outputs directly competing with commercial media for revenue. One complaint questions Brand BBCs capture of the Internet with, arguably, one of the most successful web portals.

As a “massive brand,” cries Rob Hersov, chairman of the British Internet Publisher’s Association, the BBC has “massive access to promotion. The BBC is like a massive incubator.”

The critical charge that Brand BBC engages in activities outside the public service remit overlooks basic public policy mechanics. As much as a producer and distributor, Brand BBC positions itself as an innovator. In recent years it’s poured resources into the development of web portals and digital broadcasting. Markets may be innovative but public institutions provide the fuel. A trip from London to New York would still take three weeks had the public sector not built the “highway.” The “information superhighway” developed through public sector resources. Digital broadcasting was largely ignored by the private sector until the public sector paid for the development. However, as an industry becomes sustainable the public sector can back out.

Smart competitors know that boredom and complacency are the major disadvantages of market leaders and very strong brands. Sometimes the opening a competitor needs to dislodge the market leader comes with patience since, they think, a major blunder is not just possible but likely. Some foes of Brand BBC seem to believe that fall-out from the Hutton report and the Charter Review will sufficiently influence public opinion, therefore political support, for taking it down a peg. Definition of the category – in this case, electronic media – will move from the market leader to the regulator, they think.

It’s possible that all things will change for Brand BBC. Independence, an idealistic notion for an institution that owes its very life-breath, money, to public policy, will be debated. Brand BBC is generally separated from the British government with the exception of BBC World Service, funded by the UK Foreign Office. Acting DG Mark Byford previously headed the World Service.

The current Charter Review of the BBC is likely to produce a definition or remit for public service broadcasting. Both France and Germany have constitutional guarantees for PSBs. Proposals by the wealth of BBC supporters reads like a list of the optimum conditions for a super-brand.

The EU is in the process of reviewing the Television Without Frontiers directive and an institutional remit for public service broadcasting is likely. It’s also likely that the TWF revision will include all electronic media. This institutionalization of European public media may result in dampened criticism and a further feeling of marginalization among commercial electronic media. As public broadcasting in Europe becomes more enshrined, commercial and private electronic media owners will feel further marginalized and seek relief from competition authorities.

I’d venture there’s general agreement that a polite level of contentiousness is acceptable among worthy competitors. The oldest, most basic illustration is music warfare among competing programmers. Leaving for another time thoughts about the music industry strategy in those wars and self-inflicted damage to it, it’s interesting to watch reactions to that uncomfortable nip from an unexpected competitor.

For NRJ it wasn’t one competitor, it was 90: Les Independants (GIE). For 5 years the aggregate market share of stations affiliated with GIE has steadily risen. These are local or regional stations, holding Class B concessions. NRJ is one of the Class D national thematic networks. Because GIE sells advertising for its affiliates (through Lagardére – a competitor to NRJ and, itself, a holder of national concessions) Mediametrie reports the aggregate results. Many local and regional stations are, shall we say, musically attuned to the youth market. NRJ complained, first to Mediametrie then to the CSA, on two levels; the music similarity infringes on NRJ’s “industrial property” because music and format structures are similar and the GIE affiliated stations are acting as a network.

Of the major European media brands, NRJ and the BBC are the most vigilant in protecting their creative elements. (The BBC persistently denies permission to print its logo.) Though neither would admit trans-Atlantic influence, it’s fundamental to American brands like Disney. “Protect the park,” Walt said.

Consistency is a major strength of the NRJ brand. Founder Jean-Paul Baudecroux famously exhorts staff to avoid sweeping changes. Consistency is one advantage of national radio brands; depth is another. NRJ and other national brands will, however, sprinkle local elements onto regional outlets. Local brands must cater to their strength of being local, therefore molding creative elements to local audiences.

Protecting “the park” is the top management function at any stage, though assigned typically to maturing brands. Strategies shift, and must, as the growth stage ends. Public and commercial sector broadcasters tend to differ on product cycle strategies. The commercial sector tries to extend the growth stage as long as possible – bigger is, of course, bigger - though many are maturing. The public sector hurries to enter the management (mature) stage, cost control being a motivating issue, though some PSBs are benefiting from spirited growth strategies.

Format Radio Brands are vulnerable to competition. Simplicity and consistency, the major strengths, are risky because they’re easily copied. More than being easily copied the Format Radio Brand is also the least adaptable and the least able to allow the consumer to gain ownership of the brand.

A brand is more than a name and a logo. Format Radio Brands promise, typically, a highly defined, often narrow, music output directed toward a highly defined, often narrow, audience. The consumer communicates to the producer only through the quarterly audience surveys or occasional market research. As competition increases this brand strategy is less sustainable because any competitor can copy the essential ingredients under a different name, with a different logo and slightly different content. Maybe the station plays slightly – but perceivably – more or less of one artist or one music style or mentions locally specific events.

It’s often said that strong brands send a consistent message, or “narrative,” to all stakeholders. A crystal-clear message, identical for all stakeholders, is blindingly strong. A confused message is a weak message. Worse for the brand, a fuzzy message leads to uninvited interpretation. When stakeholders don’t interpret the narrative the same way, the brand is in trouble.

The main French national radio networks enjoy an advantage or two; wide distribution, few direct competitors. And, don’t forget financial strength. National media brands are extremely efficient for national advertisers. But media fragmentation is real and it’s happening now. It’s a mistake to presume that more competitors cause more fragmentation. Brands follow the audience, not the other way around. When the audience doesn’t follow the brand, there’s a problem.