Lies, Damned Lies and Diversity Statistics

On Wednesday the Creative Diversity Network (CDN) published the diversity figures for the UK television industry collected by Diamond and my Twitter feed went into melt down.

Here is a sample of the Twitter reaction:

"the publication of this diabolical @tweetCDN report proves why we need far better Diversity reporting & data analysis because this is not fooling anyone.” @ScreenNation

"The whole thing is a ridiculous farce.” @BlaakRichardson

"This is a blatant lie” @Shabir1

"Failing us. One report at a time.” @courttianewland

The outrage extended beyond the “usual suspects” of people interested in TV diversity.

Uzma Mir-Young a board member of Glasgow Film tweeted “Wow. I thought Diamond was a good idea, but this is NOT my experience at all.” @Uzma MY

Respected BBC journalist and presenter, Rajan Datar, responded to the report by saying: “That is very worrying indeed. This cannot be allowed to give the impression that things are going swimmingly” @rajandatar

And the actor and senior member of Equity Daniel York tweeted; “This is misleading at best, mendacious at worst.” @danielfyork

So what is all the fuss about?

First a little background.

The Creative Diversity Network (CDN) is an organization supported by all 5 major British broadcasters, BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Viacom/C5 and Sky, with the task of coordinating efforts to increase diversity in the industry and to “share, discuss and profile the work that the UK broadcasters are doing around the diversity agenda. Both independently and collectively”.

Key to this is Diamond, (formerly called Project Diamond).

Diamond is an online system where television productions can report their diversity figures, both on-screen and behind the camera, of every programme they make for one of the five major broadcasters.

If you believe the old adage that “sunlight is the best disinfectant” Diamond should be a game changer for TV diversity as it should reveal what is happening on TV productions and enable appropriate action to be taken.

But the recently published report seems to be far from the “sunlight” that most people have been hoping for.

For example the report said 16.4% of senior TV commissioners are from a Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic background (BAME). Anyone who works in UK television knows that reporting such a figure is laughable, and that is putting it politely.

The report also said 12.8% of people working behind the camera are BAME. And that BAMEs are over-represented behind the camera in News & Current Affairs, Entertainment, Music, Education and Factual Entertainment programmes. Again anyone who works in television knows this is simply ridiculous.

To put these figures in context the number of BAME commissioners at the BBC is so low that in their annual diversity report they have replaced the number with an asterisks because in the words of the BBC “Data has been replaced with an asterisk where figures are below sample size”. For BBC Studios, the department that makes TV programmes, only 9.6% of its staff are BAME and 7.7% of its freelancers are BAME. If the Diamond report is right that would mean the rest of the industry are roughly twice as good at employing BAME people than the BBC. Even the harshest BBC critic doesn’t believe that.

So how did Diamond arrive at these figures?

The report acknowledges that only 25.2% of productions actually reported their diversity figures to Diamond.

Therefore in the words of the National Centre for Social Research, the body who reviewed the report,"there is the inevitable possibility of reporting bias due to sample self-selection as a consequence of the low response rate, and this caveat must be included in the methodology, and results interpreted with a degree of caution."

For the non-statisticians and social scientists amongst us that one sentence basically means; “these figures are meaningless as in all likelihood only the best students bothered to hand in their homework”.

So it is a bad report and the figures are terrible – but why are so many people angry?

People are angry because that one sentence admitting that the figures need to be “interpreted with a degree of caution” is buried on page 24 of the 28 page report (not counting the appendix).

Most politicians, journalists and even industry figures just read the executive summary and won’t read the important sentence 4 pages from the end.

There is the very real risk that people will read the report by the major industry body and supported by all five major UK broadcasters and think that TV does not have a diversity problem. And if they think that they definitely won’t commit resources & institute policies to address it.

Far from helping to address diversity problems in the industry this report this report could set things back – and that is enough to make a lot of people angry.

TV has a diversity problem and CDN publishing the Diamond data in its current form does not help. Diamond is a great idea and the truth is the response rate of TV productions of reporting their diversity data was marginally better this year than last. Eventually I hope it will be a useful tool in tackling diversity.

But we are not there yet.

Last Thing We Need Are More Training Schemes - A Simple Economics Lesson

Most people who know me – even those who just follow me on Twitter – know that I am a running nerd. I have run over 15 marathons and run at least one marathon on every continent on earth (except Antarctica).

What most people do not know however is I am also an economics geek.

I studied economics at university and I am married to one of the leading economists in China Africa relations.

Just the other day I was talking to her about Neo-paleo-Keynesian Phillips Curves. And bedroom pillow talk can sometimes stray into subjects such as Friedrich List’s theories on infant industry protection.

So it should not surprise anyone that when I look at the issue of diversity in the film and television industry, I often do so through the lens of economic theory.

With all that said I am now going to write what is my most wonkish blog post to date but possibly the most important.

And it is all about “Monopsony theory”

WHAT IS A MONOPOLY

I firmly believe that if we do not understand the market and economic models that cause low diversity representation, no number of diversity schemes will solve the problem of low numbers of BAME, disabled people and women in the industry. 

Most people have heard of a monopoly. A monopoly is when you have a large number of buyers of a certain product or service but only one seller of the product or service.

The examples that most people come across are railway companies or electricity companies. A few companies can dictate how much people pay for the product, provide a bad service and have other negative effects for the consumer, but still increase their profits. The negatives of monopolies are well know and governments often have to intervene to try and either break them up or legislate against their worst actions.

MONOPOLY VERSUS MONOPSONY

A monopsony has similarly negative consequences but it is like a monopoly in reverse.

A monopsony is when you have lots of sellers of a product but only one or two buyers.

In these circumstances it is the buyers who can dictate the price and how the market works.

It is classic case of market failure.

And increasingly that is precisely what many economists think we have in the television industry.

Most freelancers and independent companies might not have heard of monopsony theory but whenever I talk to friends in the industry they quickly recognize the situation of competing with hundreds of other companies (sellers) but only having a handful of broadcasters (buyers) they can pitch their ideas to or sell their programmes to.

Increasingly monopsony theory is being used by economists to explain why diversity problems exists in various industries – it is no coincidence that both the tech and television industries seem to suffer from a lack of diversity and both have the problem of a few large companies dominating their industries.

MONOPSONY THEORY EXPLAINS PAY GAPS

Now concentrate here comes the science bit (as L’Oreal used to say):

All companies, in every market, want to increase their profits and a major way of doing this is to minimize their wage bill.

The simple theory is that the first person they can employ is willing to come into work for a low amount – say  £8.00 per hour. However the next person they can attract to their company requires a bit more money so they have to pay him £8.50 an hour. And then the third person requires a little bit more still to get them out of bed, say £9.00.

Now here is the problem for the company. Instead of being able to pay everybody the least money that they are willing to come into work, the company has to set a wage that is high enough to attract the third worker (if they are only employing three people). Which means the first worker will actually get paid £9.00 per hour, even though they are willing to come into work for £8.00.

The company would like to be able to pay everybody the least they can – so what some companies do (consciously or subconsciously) is divide people into sub-groups, as they know those sub-groups will have different thresholds as to how much money they are willing to work for. This is called “price differentiation”.

Therefore imagine a company employing 20 people - ten men and ten women. The wages required to attract the 10th male worker might be £12 dollars an hour but the amount required to attract the 10th woman might only be £10. That means it is in the interests of the company to split the payments to men and women so all the men get roughly £12 and all the women get only about £10.

(If they don’t do this then they would pay all the men and women $12 and their wage bill would go up. They may consciously or subconsciously do this for other groups including BAME and disabled people).

In a perfect world however the gender pay gap should not exist because a woman would see that their male colleagues are getting paid more, and even if they are willing to work for less she could just leave the company that is paying her less and go to another company that would pay her more equitably.

But this is where monopsony theory kicks in. The woman being underpaid can’t do that if there are just a few buyers she can sell her labour to. Those companies can keep paying her low wages safe in the knowledge that there are few options of where she can go. This might explain why the tech sector, a classic example of a monopsony, is thought to have the worst gender pay gap in the US. And why the BBC and other British media organisations have been embroiled in pay gap controversies recently.

MONOPSONY THEORY EXPLAINS OTHER FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION

So if monopsony theory can explain pay gaps can they explain some of the entrenched diversity problems in the UK TV and film industry, such as only 3 percent of people working behind the camera in the film industry being from a BAME background or that number falling to 0.3 percent when it comes to disabled people?

While there will always be competition for the very best talent, say the top 1 percent, the vast majority of us are in somewhere in the middle. What monopsony theory tells us is that while the companies might fight over a very few people (actually inflating their wages) there is less competition by companies to battle it out for the other workers. 

The market failures associated with monopsonies mean that companies will more likely hire their friends, promote people that look like them and retain people that they like rather than people who might be the best person for the job. 

In a free market if you did this you would quickly be punished.

In a monopsony you will hardly feel the consequences of your actions - at least in the short to medium term.

DIVERSITY NEEDS MARKET SOLUTIONS NOT TRAINING SCHEMES

So what does mean for those of us who want to increase diversity in the film and television industry? Should we all just give up because we are working in a monopsony?

We definitely should not give up.

But monopsony theory does teach us that we need to look at different types of solutions as opposed to the usual ones people in the industry often try.

Market failures, like monopolies and monopsonies, require market interventions. This is precisely what regulators like Ofcom exist to do. Market failures mean television broadcasters left to their own devices will not produce enough quality news and current affairs programmes, they will not produce enough quality children’s programmes and will definitely not produce enough programmes outside of London. To solve these types of market failures the regulators have to step in and actually shape the market setting quotas and issuing license requirements. For example Ofcom insists that broadcasters produce a set number of news and current affairs programmes, children’s programmes and programmes outside of London.

Importantly what Ofcom does not do is insist that producers of children’s programmes receive more training in the hope that they will be able to compete with cheaper light entertainment programmes. Ofcom does not insist there are more entry level schemes for people working outside of London to get them into the industry. Ofcom does not ask broadcasters to implement “unconscious bias training” for senior managers to commission more news programmes. They realise that they needed to focus on the market failures inherent in how the industry operates, not on the individuals working in the market.

MARKET INTERVENTIONS THAT WILL WORK FOR DIVERSITY

Similarly monopsony theory teaches us that market failures can be addressed. These include solutions such as tax breaks for diversity, as advocated by Lenny Henry and the Film Diversity Action Group. And it would also include ring-fenced funding for diversity programmes, as argued for in an open letter to broadcasters by influential industry figures in 2014.

So next time someone advocates another training scheme to solve the problem of diversity in the film and television industry just ask them, “how do you think this will solve the monopsony problem?”. Although take it from me, a self-confessed economics geek, it might mean you get invited to fewer dinner parties. 

Standing on the Shoulders of Giants

When I was 15 I saw an advert in the Voice newspaper for a week long film and video course for young black people.

You had to apply and even attend an interview to be accepted on to the course, held during the Easter holidays.

I applied and was successful.

Every day a different person would come and teach us the basics of film production. I didn’t realize it then but each one of them was a legend of black British cinema

Menelik Shabazz, the director of the seminal film “Burning an Illusion”, taught about a "directors eye". Glenn Ujebe Masokoane, who directed “We Are The Elephant”, one of the best films ever made about the struggle against apartheid by South African students, taught us how to write commentary for documentaries. Denis Davis who later went on to direct “Omega Rising – Women In Rastafari” taught us how to use a camera – and the fact that the first camera person I ever met was a woman had a lasting effect on me on how I viewed the profession and breaking down stereotypes before they are even formed.

On the last day of the course, when we were cutting our self-shot little films, Denis Davis approached me and asked me if I would like to spend the summer helping the Ceddo Film Collective work on their new film “Time and Judgement”. I would only be making coffee and at best syncing rushes but in my spare time I could mess around on their VT tape editing machines.

It ended up being a summer that would change my life. It gave me a love for film and shaped my career to this day.

I tell this story because I recognize that I owe these people a massive debt.

I am not describing the normal narrative that you often hear of the mentor who inspires you and guides you to greatness – a la “Dead Poets Society”. I am talking about debt far more important and so large that I will never be able to repay it.

Every black person working in TV and film today owes these people, and others  like them, a debt. These men and women paved the way to make everything we do possible. They were role-models, they were mould-breakers, diversity champions and revolutionaries.

All our careers are in some form or other, whether we know it or not, built on the barriers they broke down and the paths they cleared.

They are the giants whose shoulders we all stand on.

A few days ago I started a Twitter thread where I named some of these “giants” and asked other people to add to the list naming the people who built the foundation for Black and Asian people in UK film and TV.

The response was overwhelming, educational and slightly emotional.

So these names are not lost I have decided to create a wiki-document: 

"BAME FILM AND TV GIANTS"

Anyone can access the document and update it - in the spirit of BAME people in TV and film this must be a team effort. You can edit the existing entries and add "giants” you feel are missing. I hope the page will eventually be hosted by a more established organization so it can get as wide an audience as possible.
 

But for now read about some of the greats of British Asian and Minority Ethnic film and television.

Enjoy

How Do You Solve a Problem Like BBC's Question Time?

Every Thursday my twitter feed is filled up with people complaining about BBC’s Question Time. In fact, it seems there are more complaints than ever, as the UK seems more divided and the government makes some of its most important political and economic decisions since the end of World War II.

In this context, Question Time (QT) - a weekly debate show where the political classes are held to account by the public, and voices of key opinion formers in the UK are heard - is more important than ever.  And yet… at this crucial time it seems to be failing.

Why? Diversity isn't at Question Time’s core.

But before I explain how diversity could solve QT’s problems first let me share a short story.

In December 2010, I was the executive producer of a Panorama investigation into banker’s bonuses. It was only two years after RBS had been bailed out with taxpayers money and the idea that bankers had got off scot free while the majority of the population were suffering from austerity measures was a hot issue (including on QT!). At a planning meeting I suggested the team interview a young back bench MP called Chuka Ummuna. Chuka had just been elected to the Treasury Select Committee and at that point had done no network television.

The team interviewed him. He gave us a great interview. And for once we had a serious BBC programme about the financial crisis that was not full of just white men (with a sprinkling of white women).

But at the time none of my team had heard of Chuka Ummuna – he had been an MP for less than a year. Living in Brixton and having social and professional circles which include a lot of Black and Asian people almost everyone I knew - outside of work - had heard of this new vibrant politician, who would eventually go on to be a contender for the leader of the Labour Party and one of the leading voices of the Party (but more on that later).

The reason we were able to identify this fresh new politician was because for once a black person had editorial power on one of the BBC’s most important current affairs programme.

Which brings me back to BBC’s QT – arguably Britain’s most important news debate programme. It is currently made by an independent company, Mentorn Scotland, but its contract with the BBC has been put up for tender and will be decided in the coming months.

Now, the last time the programme was up for tender the BBC stipulated that the winning production company must be based in Scotland. More specifically, it set criteria that at least 50% of staff spend had to be spent north of the border. Why?

At the time, the BBC realised that politics across the UK was changing because of increased devolution. The BBC recognized they must enshrine regional diversity into the DNA of the programme. They had to find a way to have people with lived experiences outside of London, outside of the “Westminister Bubble”, with a different perspective, at the very heart of editorial decision-making. So they set criteria accordingly in the tender document. That’s why QT is currently made by Mentorn Scotland.

However, while regional diversity has flourished, QT’s record on Black, Asian & Minority Ethnic (BAME) diversity has not.

In 2015, research conducted by a team led by David Lammy MP found that between 2010 and 2015 almost two thirds (61%) of the episodes had no BAME panelists. And of the times BAME politicians that did appear just two, Chuka Umunna and Diane Abbot, accounted for 50% of them. I now shudder to think what would have happened if Chuka hadn’t appeared on the Panorama programme I mentioned earlier!

But why does this matter? The fact is that Britain is more diverse than ever and increasingly so. The UK BAME population is actually larger than the population of Scotland and by 2051 it will be larger than Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland combined. Most demographers say it is only a matter of time that many of the country’s major cities will be majority BAME. That means ethnicity is increasingly shaping the discussion in the UK. From the rural-urban divide, to global politics, to heated debates around immigration. Diversity is at the center. It is now totally impossible to have debates about most of the key issues affecting the UK without reflecting a BAME perspective.

That means that if the last QT bid had to recognize regional issues to ensure it works, now it has to recognize ethnicity issues.  And the country – and therefore the BBC - needs Question Time to work. Without a robust, constructive political debate open to the public once a week the electorate is less informed. In such a scenario, my twitter feed will not only become impossible, the BBC will also lose its taxpayers mandate.

How could BBC push for diversity to be better reflected in QT? It shouldn’t micro-manage. No, the BBC just needs to do what it did for regional diversity last time. Award the contract to an independent company that is brilliant AND meets certain diversity criteria – such as the proportion of staff pay going to under-represented groups (as Mentorn Scotland did for regional staff pay) and/or having BAME people in key editorial roles. These criteria just need to be put into the tender document and voila – believe me – the companies will respond!

At this time of huge change and uncertainty in the UK, reflecting diversity is the ONLY way the Question Time of the future will work. As the BBC begins the procurement process for the new independent company to run it going forwards, it has a responsibility and a role in making this happen. And I sure hope it does - at the very least to keep my twitter feed clean!

4 steps C4 should take to avoid the 'regional diversity trap'

A week ago, I posted an open letter to the CEO of Channel 4, where I welcomed the announcement that C4 will open new national headquarters in Leeds and regional hubs in Glasgow and Bristol.

I also warned against the “regional diversity trap”, where an increase in regional diversity can result in a fall in ethnic diversity. All three new locations have BAME populations far smaller than London - both as a percentage and in absolute terms – and so the risks are real.

But as I made clear in my original letter if Channel 4 take the right steps a move to increase productions outside of London does not have to result in a fall in ethnic diversity. In this blog post I am going to outline the four essential steps I believe Channel 4 should take to avoid the “regional diversity trap” and even grow BAME diversity..

First, an action relating to Channel 4’s commissioners.

1. COMMISSIONERS MUST BE BAME CHAMPIONS

Those outside the UK TV industry may not know that Channel 4 has no in-house productions. That means it relies on independent companies (indies) and freelancers to make their programmes. The people who run Indies and freelancers make their living by producing programme after programme for broadcasters, and while they might be creative artistic people the vast majority are savvy rational business people. They have a very rational fear of relying on just one source of work. The appeal of London is that if you fail, for example, to get a C4 commission one year you can still pitch to BBC, ITV, C5, Sky or others for commercial work. Indeed, the vast majority of Britain’s creative economy is based in London with over two thirds of all jobs in the creative industry being based in the South East.

Therefore, to ask people to focus outside of London is to ask them to disproportionately put their faith in a drastically smaller number of options.  That’s fine if you’re well established and well networked, but often BAME led indies and freelancers are not, they are often surviving from commission to commission. It also explains why it is not only difficult to attract BAME staff to work outside of London but to retain the ones who are already based there.

As an executive producer outside of London for a total of 11 years now – 8 in Glasgow 3 in China, regularly commissioning from indies and bringing on freelancers myself, I have realized that if I am asking BAME indies and producers to show extra faith in me I have to return the favour. I have to make extra effort to foster BAME indies and freelancers. I have to mentor BAME talent and effectively champion them to other commissioners, not just within the organization I work in but beyond.

If Channel 4 is serious about avoiding a fall in diversity with the move out of London, they should therefore formally include as a job objective for all the new regional commissioners to champion and actively target BAME indies and freelancers. This can then be easily be tracked as part of annual appraisals.

Second, Channel 4 should take actions related to accommodation.

2. MAKING THE TRANSITION EASY

In China I have seen if any large international media organisation wants to attract the best talent from around the world they must address the issue of accommodation. These organisations recognise that they are effectively asking potential staff to either give up their accommodation in their hometowns on the basis of a temporary position, or asking them to take on two sets of rent. Either prospect deters potential staff from taking up such positions.

While this is a broader problem for Channel 4 – in terms of attracting all talent to the new locations, it will disproportionately affect BAME talent, as they are currently more concentrated in London.

It was an issue I had to grapple with as an executive producer in Scotland. Indeed, it often surprises people when I tell them that in Glasgow, I frequently put directors and assistant producers up in my house. In China, I still do the same. It is often the only way I can ease the transition for BAME talent to move from London to Scotland or Beijing.

I’m not suggesting that Channel 4 asks every commissioner to open up their spare bedroom (I happen to have a very understanding wife!). Nor am I suggesting that Channel 4 now buys out apartment blocks in Leeds for new staff.  That would be far too costly. But I do believe that the issue of the accommodation transition can be managed by uplifting certain programme budgets or by working with larger indies to address the problem. For instance, some independents based in Glasgow, such as Keo, actually provide short-term accommodation for their staff based outside of Scotland. This short-term accommodation of a few months often eases the way for people to relocate permanently. Examining how this works will be worthwhile, especially for attracting BAME staff.

Third, Channel 4 needs to encourage its new regional commissioners to properly “mainstream” diversity.

3. GOING BEYOND THE “WINDRUSH SEASON” AND FILMS ON KNIFE CRIME

Far too commissioners only think of bringing on BAME staff when they are commissioning programmes on “diversity issues”. I was often called up by colleagues to recommend BAME staff when they were doing films they thought were directly related to BAME life – from the Windrush to knife crime. What I call “diversity commissions”. But I was never once called up for the same reason when people were staffing up “mainstream” programmes.

Far too many BAME indies (and directors) rely on “diversity commissions” to survive. They can just about do this when they are in based in London where there are a variety of commissioners and channels. It’s close to impossible to survive outside of London if this is your only source of work.

I am particularly proud of the fact that when in Scotland, around half the documentaries I commissioned for the BBC for the Scottish independence referendum had BAME staff in important key roles behind the camera. It wasn’t easy to deliver, but it was fruitful. Now in Beijing, my news team is literally from all over the world. Having BAME people involved in production provides a perspective that can be seriously lacking otherwise.

If Channel 4 wants to avoid a fall in ethnic diversity in the new regional offices, Channel 4 should find ways to encourage its commissioners to bring on BAME indies and freelancers to work on all sorts of programmes, not just the “diversity commissions”.

 Last but not least, Channel 4 can do something no-one has ever done before in this area – increase everyone’s potential to do better.

4. CREATE A BRAIN TRUST

The fact is, there are some great examples of ethnic diversity flourishing outside of London. Twelve percent of the directors for BBC’s soap Casualty filmed in Cardiff are BAME and twenty percent of directors for Doctors filmed in Birmingham are BAME. These are great successes. At the same time, there are many examples of indies and executive producers who have tried to increase ethnic diversity outside of London and failed. We all need to learn from each other’s successes and mistakes.

Channel 4 should therefore sponsor an annual conference for commissioners, executives, series producers, producers, production managers and interested parties to share knowledge and experience of how to increase and maintain ethnic diversity in the nations and regions. I for one would happily accept such an invitation, and from my discussions with programme executive who have worked outside of London I have yet to meet one who would not welcome such a forum.

Anyone interested in diversity, and television truly representing the UK’s diverse population, must welcome Channel 4’s move to commission more productions to be made outside of London. But we must make sure that one type of diversity (regional) is not increased at the cost of another type of diversity (ethnicity).  

After 11 years of leading diverse teams outside of London, I believe it’s possible, and have these 4 tips to pass on. But I would welcome other people’s top tips too. Let’s help Channel 4 manage this important transition.