This is the twelfth in a series of reports compiled by the FXI’s researcher, Mr Ike Hloka. The report covers the period 15  to 28 November 1998. The report was compiled with the financial assistance of the European Union Foundation for Human Rights (EUFHR). Views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the official position of the EUFHR.

This report looks at the conference organised by the Department of Arts, Culture, Science and   Technology on  local content programming in broadcasting.
 
 

CONFERENCE ON LOCAL CONTENT IN BROADCASTING

The Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology organised a conference on local content on the 20th and 21st November in Durban, South Africa. Issues discussed were:

(i) What is the value of broadcasting local content?
(ii) How much local content is being broadcast ?
(iii)What are the best ways of financing local content in broadcasting?

The conference also looked at international experiences in these areas. There were international speakers from Australia, Canada and the United States. The following section deals with issues mentioned above.

What is the value of broadcasting local content?

Two views emerged during the conference on the value of local content in broadcasting.
Firstly, there was a view, which was an overwhelming view in the conference, that local content broadcasting is the expression of South Africa’s national identity. It was also argued that  broadcasting local production could contribute to nation building and the forging of a new identity. Secondly, there was an argument that local content productions were not always compatible with the operational motives of broadcasters and especially private/commercial broadcasters whose main reasons for existence was to generate profits. This view was propounded by Eon De Vos, representative of the newly established commercial radio station Classic FM, and Mr Johann Van Heerden, chief executive officer of M-Net’s Magic Works. The proponents of this view implied in their arguments that local content did not attract many television viewers and radio listeners.  They argued that as a result of this, advertisers tended to shy away from using  broadcasters who broadcast locally produced material and thus deny them their  much needed revenue.
Thirdly there was an argument that local content broadcasting had very important developmental value. Dr Esther Figuera, one of the international speakers at the conference and a professional producer from Hawaii,  argued that despite claims that local content broadcasting was not economically viable this had not been proven beyond any doubt. According to Dr Figuera the example of Rupert Murdoch’s V Music video network was an important one to consider. This network serves the near East, South East Asia and the Far East. The initiative had  proven more successful because it was local content based featuring the music of each targeted region. The network challenged and successfully beat MTV Asia, a music channel, which was one of the biggest competitors. MTV is currently trying to go the local route. This view was not only based on development in monetary terms but also in terms of developing loyalty to local businesses which would eventually ensure sustainability of these businesses and their loyalty to the country.
What came out from the  discussions on the value of broadcasting local content was that there was a need to maximise local content productions on our television screens and radios. The biggest question to be closely looked at would be how to best make sure that there was a workable mechanism to increase local content in broadcasting.
 
 
 
 

How much local content is being broadcast and what are the difficulties, challenges
and opportunities?

The conference noted with concern the low amount of local content productions being broadcast. Conflicting explanations for this situation were put forward. There were  three bodies of opinion  on this issue. First, there was an argument by commercial broadcasters that broadcasting local content was expensive when compared to broadcasting foreign productions. Secondly, there was a feeling that there was no country in the world where local productions were not expensive, but solutions had to be found to make sure local productions were given adequate exposure. Thirdly, it was argued that public, community and commercial broadcasters were using terrestrial frequency spectrum, which was a public resource, and therefore had to be obliged by law  to perform some community service in the form of broadcasting local content programmes. A couple of issues were raised on this issue.

Firstly, broadcasters, especially commercial broadcasters, argued that they were driven by basic business principles. As Classic FM’s Eon De Vos put it commercial broadcasters were not in the business of predicting audience or listener needs but were meant to satisfy those needs. This view was attacked  for being rigid and pandering to English/American programming modes, thus making South Africans look like "apprentice Americans" with no distinct identity of their own. It was argued that the commercial broadcasters were rigid in that they did not expose their audience to local productions because of their preconceived notion that their audience would not be interested in local productions.  The question raised and which was not sufficiently answered with regard to this argument was how much exposure commercial broadcasters,  in particular gave to locally produced  material. Mfundi Vundla, Chairperson of the Independent Producers Organisation (IPO),  citing latest All Media Products Survey (AMPS) figures for the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), said  local content productions had clinched the highest audience ratings.
 
 

What are the best ways of financing local content broadcasting?

A number of suggestions were made.
Firstly there was a recommendation proposing "needletime" as a means of financing the local music industry. "Needletime", or "pay for play", was where originally payment was made to the recording houses each time a song was played. This practise was prevalent in South Africa  prior to 1965. It is  in line with the practice throughout the Commonwealth. This arrangement was changed in South Africa 1965 when the National Party government amended the Copyright Act to exempt the SABC, then state broadcaster, from paying such monies for spinning the discs. Reasons for this are not clear. According to Mr Howard Belling, vice -president of the Musicians Union of South Africa (MUSASA), there were compelling legal and commercial reasons for "needletime". Since broadcasters were using the protected product, the recording production, to attract listenership and eventually entice advertisers.

This position was challenged by commercial broadcasters who felt they were doing musicians a good service by playing local music as they gave them exposure. They argued that the fact that they promoted local music had to be taken as one of their contributions  to the music industry, rather than solely serving their own  interests. While the above arguments seemed compelling, depending on which side one stood, it was clear that broadcasters were now being expected   to  make a much more tangible contribution to promoting local content material.

On the question of  local productions other than music there were also a number of proposals  made. Firstly, there was a proposal that in order to maximise local content programming in broadcasting, suitable financing mechanisms for community radio stations had to be established especially as they were closer to communities. According to Tracey Norton, a development communication consultant, total community radio listenership had increased by 39% from the time these stations commenced broadcasting in December 1994 to 1997. She noted that it was possible that community radio listenership might be considerably larger than reported. This was indicative of the pivotal role community radio stations could play in terms of promoting local productions.

It was proposed that a "mixed economy" for the community radio sector had to be seriously looked at. This meant that community radio stations would have to rely on more than one source of funding. Currently, community radio stations rely heavily on funding from foreign donors. Three main proposals were made to alleviate the financial distress facing local community radio stations. These were:
(i)   the business sector needed to consider community radio as an option for advertising.
(ii) Non Governmental Organisations (NGO) needed to work closely with community radio stations by way of buying air time to promote their issues and train staff to present programs about NGO’s.
(iii) government needed to spend a certain percentage of its communication budget on community radio as a way of promoting this sector.  It was argued that this would not only help in the promotion of locally produced material but  would also help the government communicate better with the general populace.
 
Government’s financial support for local content was further emphasized by Felleng Sekha, Chairperson of the Independent Broadcasting Authority(IBA). She argued that in some countries  governments played an important role in helping the cultural industry and broadcasters overcome their financial difficulties. In the United States for example she said there were various regulatory and other incentives offered at federal and state levels. Sekha emphasised that the empowering and democratising role of broadcasting made it incumbent upon the government to be at the forefront of local programming. She suggested that government could do this through  departments such as Arts, Culture, Science and Technology; Education;  Communications;  Trade and Industry and others setting aside certain funds to fund local programmes. The government would also be expected to play the role of a facilitator in order to get the private sector , sponsors and independent producers to play a greater role. In Australia, for example,  the government had introduced tax incentives to encourage the involvement of the private sector in cultural funding.

Conclusions
By way of conclusion I want to argue that local content broadcasting is not the responsibility of one role player in the South African society but rather a "shared responsibility" and all stakeholders such as coomunity, maintsream and public service media, government departments, private sector and civil society needed to start looking at how they could discharge their responsibility in relation to this. It is also important for the whole idea of local content in broadcasting to be looked at in the context of the cultural industry’s growth strategy, the primary objective of which was to make the cultural industry contribute to the overall economic development of the country. Seen in this context the inescapable conclusion is that all would see this as an opportunity to locate themselves in the broader deevelopmental framework.