Give black journalists their 40 acres and a mule.

In the late 90’s to early 2000’s I produced a current affairs radio show for Choice FM called the “Schumann Shuffle” every Saturday morning. It was three hours long; the first hour was music and general radio banter. In the second hour we would get important guests to discuss a pressing issues (Trevor Philips as Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission was a regular guest, Simon Woolly from Operation Black Vote often came into the studio and we had the Mayor of London Ken Livingstone a few times) if they were important to black Londoners we got them in front of the mic. The last hour was a current affairs phone-in discussing the news topics of the week.

At the time it was arguably the most influential current affairs programme for black people in the UK. It got larger audiences than its counterpart at the BBC and was where black politicians and decision makers spoke directly to black people and black people spoke back to them - holding them to account. Despite working at the BBC for 24 years in many ways I think this was the most important public service broadcasting I ever did.

It was also my first foray into news and current affairs and it was an excellent training ground for a young journalist. Without this experience I do not think I would have been able to do the other news and current affairs programmes I went on to do in the rest of my career.

I firmly believe that black led journalism organisations can provide a valuable service to the black community and nurture black journalists by creating a pipeline for them to go on to other mainstream media organisations. Gary Younge, Afua Hirsch, Henry Bonsu and Dotun Adebayo all worked at black newspapers at some point in their careers.

But the truth is “ethnic media” are under threat. Choice FM became Capital Xtra in 2013 and no longer plays the community role it once did. The New Nation newspaper printed its last copy in 2016. The Voice newspaper still exists but my understanding is that it is under severe financial strain. British Asian media is under similar pressures with Eastern Eye close to closure just ten years ago.    

This week the UK government’s Cairncross Review was published, its remit was to investigate ways to secure the future of high-quality journalism in Britain. The government is worried that too many newspapers are making a loss, due to advertising migrating to Google and Facebook. Yet, high quality journalism is essential for an informed electorate to know how to vote and make informed decisions. The review says we cannot afford to lose it.

The Cairncross Review made several recommendations, but the one that has caught the most attention is the idea that the government should provide direct funding to local newspapers to make sure they can support important local journalism. Frustratingly they did not say anything about the BAME press and media.

The BBC, Google and Facebook all currently have different initiatives worth millions of pounds to fund local newspapers either directly giving them money or paying for journalists. Because, like the Cairncross Review, they recognise the importance of local journalism and fear what would happen if it vanished.

The UK government has also set up the Audio Content Fund worth £3 million a year to fund what Broadcast Magazine calls; “original commercial radio productions that are traditionally more difficult to support commercially.” To put it another way this is precisely the kind of fund that could have paid for the work I was doing at Choice FM which was more expensive than just playing three hours of music. When radio stations are strapped for cash often quality journalism is the first thing to go.

If the government, BBC, Google and Facebook are all worried about the demise of quality journalism, they can’t just look at the problems facing local newspapers, they must also turn their attention to how they can support BAME focused newspapers and media From legacy publications like The Voice and Eastern Eye to new digital publishers such as Black Ballad and Media Diversified.

Add the fact that 94% of British journalists are white the demise of BAME media outlets has cut off one of the most effective pipelines to increase the number of BAME journalists.

Back in the 90’s when I was producing the Choice FM current affairs show, black people would often use the phrase “40 acres and a mule” when they felt they were owed something. A reference to the supposed promise that freed slaves were promised 40 acres and a mule by the US government. So in my best 90’s vernacular I think it is about time black journalists were given their “40 acres and a mule”. 

Why TV streaming services are winning in diversity

Too many British broadcasters still think in terms of linear broadcasting and the size of their overnight audience - and that is holding the diversity of their programming back.

According to a recent report by the UK media regulator, Ofcom, when it comes to diversity British audiences are increasingly finding better representation and authentic portrayal on Netflix and other online video streaming providers. Ofcom also found that the UK’s younger audiences (which are demographically more ethnically diverse) were deserting linear traditional television broadcasters and choosing online services instead.

So what are online providers getting right and legacy broadcasters like the BBC, ITV and C4, getting wrong?

Are the executives and commissioners at the online providers more enlightened and receptive to diversity compared to their counterparts at the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5?

While people are important I very much doubt that the difference can be attributed to just the different attitudes of a few individuals and commissioners.

Instead I believe the answer can be found in the different economic models between traditional broadcasters versus online video streamers.

Amanda Lotz, a professor of Media Studies at the University of Michigan analyzed Netflix’s economic model in 2017 and argued that traditional broadcasters still think in terms of attracting large audiences for a single programme as advertisers pay for eyeballs. (As an American she didn’t look at the BBC but I would argue the same argument applies as the BBC still looks to large audiences to justify its license fee).

Online streamers like Netflix and Amazon on the other-hand are not pursuing large audiences for advertisers – instead they are trying to maximize subscribers.

Professor Lotz says “To succeed, subscriber-funded services must offer enough programming that viewers find the service worthy of their monthly fee. Each show doesn’t need a mass audience – which is the measure of success for advertiser-funded television – but the service does need to provide enough value that subscribers continue to pay.”

Professor Lotz describes the strategy Netflix employs as “conglomerated niche” and says that because it does not broadcast in a linear fashion most subscribers don’t even know most of Netflix’s content and only concentrate on the series that appeal to them. She uses the metaphor of a library to describe this phenomenon; “If you were to ask different Netflix subscribers about the service’s brand, you’d likely get different responses. There is no one Netflix; rather, think of it as an expansive library with many small nooks and rooms. Most subscribers never wander floor to floor. Instead, they stay in the corner that matches their tastes.”

This means channel executives at traditional broadcasters think completely differently when it comes to commissioning content versus commissioners at Netflix. The BBC exec for example is thinking, “will the programme get a large audience?” while the Netflix exec is thinking, “will this new series be able to get a new different section of the audience to subscribe?”

The Netflix execs are constantly seeking out programmes that will get a different niche audience to subscribe or continue to subscribe.

Take my favourite series at the moment “Insecure”, it finally tipped the balance for me to finally take out a subscription for HBO Go, and I am sure I am not the only one. “Insecure” is therefore a win for HBO, in a way that commissioning yet another “non-diverse” programme would not be as it wouldn’t attract new subscribers.

Compare this to ITV or BBC. All things being equal the ITV and BBC commissioners would prefer to commission another series like “Call The Midwife” as it would bring in a far larger audience, even if it is the same old non-diverse audience that already watches the majority of their programmes, than commission “Insecure” which relatively speaking would be a ratings flop.  

This leads to far more diverse programmes being commissioned by broadcasters who are financed by subscribers. The irony is that in targeting niche audiences streaming services often create quality content which over time has a far wider appeal.

If you talk to executives of traditional broadcasters they all recognize the importance of commissioning for non-linear viewing and targeting certain demographics (for the last twenty years every commissioning meeting I’ve ever been to has talked about attracting a younger demographic). But it is still incredibly hard for commissioners to break out of a linear “big-audiences-matter” mind state.

The truth is as traditional broadcasters worry about big audiences now, they risk having no audiences in the future. Only by recognizing the rich diversity of their audiences, and creating programmes that they want to watch, will broadcasters survive.

Black-led indies – the elephant in the room of diversity fails

What is the most important statistic when it comes to ethnic diversity in television?

How many Black Asian and Minority ethnic (BAME) people are employed in television productions?

How many BAME people are in managerial positions at the different broadcasters?

What is the percentage of programmes directed by BAME directors?

These are all important statistics and are measured, (some badly and some well), in one form or another. But increasingly I believe that the most important statistic that can give us a measure of how well ethnic diversity is doing in the TV industry is one we are not even attempting to measure:

How many independent production companies are being managed by BAME people or have BAME people in significant positions of responsibility.

Let me explain why this one stat is so important.

In 2007 I moved to Glasgow to restructure BBC Scotland’s current affairs department as the BBC embarked on increasing the number of network programmes produced outside of London. Part of that process was building and nurturing the indie sector in Scotland. Regional diversity needed thriving independent production companies and couldn’t just rely on the BBC in-house productions to be successful.

There are now 124 TV production companies based in Glasgow alone. The high number of indies was used when the city successfully pitched to become a regional hub for one of Channel 4’s new out of London production bases.

People working in television in Scotland need to know they can set up independent companies and have a reasonable chance of success and gain commissions.

A business environment that does not support private businesses is failing and will hinder the careers of the most ambitious.

The fact is the health of the TV industry in a certain area cannot be measured solely just by how many people are employed in it, as they might for example, all be employed just by one company or on one large production, and that makes it very vulnerable in the long run.

Also in my experience regionally based indies are brilliant incubators for nurturing talent and provide an essential critical mass of people working for them to build up local networks and connections which prove important throughout people’s careers.

Finally the success of regional indies is a good barometer of how well connected channel execs are with people outside of London – whether we like it or not many commissions come about due to personal connections.

So if Scottish indies are doing relatively well – indicating healthy regional diversity -  the obvious question is how are BAME independent television companies doing?

The answer is they are not doing very well.

Televisual magazine publish a list of the top 100 independent television companies every year along with the names of people in key positions in those companies.

Of the roughly 300 names listed I could only find 6 people of BAME backgrounds in key positions (yes - I Googled everyone). And only one of the indies listed could possibly be thought of as a “BAME-led” company - Voltage TV whose CEO and Managing Director are both Asian. (So yes if you do the maths of the remaining 99 companies I could only find four people of colour in key roles)

There have been attempts by broadcasters to address the diversity of indies, Channel 4’s “Alpha Fund” champions “BAME-led” indies but it has had limited success if one judges it against the criteria of whether any of these indies have been able to break into the top 100 indies list.

The fear is that the lack of BAME-led indies points to bigger failures of BAME people throughout the television industry; from weak relationships between commissioners and BAME-led companies, to BAME-led companies being stereotyped and only being commissioned to produce programmes about "diverse" issues.

There are successful BAME indies (Maroon Productions, Sugar Films and Douglas Road Productions spring to mind - and there are others) but these are the exception as opposed to the rule. If there was the same dearth of women led indies or regionally based indies it would be recognized as a crisis. The lack of successful BAME-led indies is no less a crisis which the whole industry needs to address.   

We need to think beyond simple head counts and start looking at BAME-led indies.

BBC Radio Bosses Are All White, Soon They Could Be All Men

This week the controller of BBC Radio 4, Gwyneth Williams, announced that she is going to leave after eight years in the role.

That raises one very obvious question: Who will take Gwyneth Williams’ place?

First some facts: If one looks at the BBC website it has a section titled “Who runs BBC Radio” along with their pictures.

The Director of Radio and Music is Bob Shennan – a white man

The Controller of Radio 1, 1Xtra and Asian Network is Ben Cooper – a white man

The Controller of Radio 3 is Alan Davey – a white man

The Controller of Radio 5 Live and Live Sport Extra is Jonathan Wall – a white man

Following a restructure in 2016 Radio 2 and Radio 6 do not have controllers and so they are not listed in this section of the website nor is Director of Radio & Education – overall boss of all radio but:

The Head of Programmes for Radio 2 is Lewis Carnie – a white man

The Head of Programmes for Radio 6 Music is Paul Rodgers – a white man

Director of Radio & Education is James Purnell – a white man

In fact of the eight most senior roles Gwyneth Williams is the only woman to head any of the BBC’s radio stations. When she finally leaves that number could drop to zero.

And most people will have noticed that in the above lists there is not a single person of colour.

And so how is this senior tier of non-diversity doing?

According to the latest audience figures compiled by Rajar commercial radio extended its lead over BBC with total BBC audience down 1.6% compared to the same time the previous year.

And according to the BBC’s own report in 2015:

1.       The majority of BBC Radio’s audience is over 55 while the percentage of young people are increasingly BAME (Black Asian and Minority Ethnic)

2.       You are one and a half times more likely to listen to BBC Radio if you are white compared to if you are BAME.

3.       And unsurprisingly more men listen to BBC Radio than women.

This would normally be the part of a blog post I would argue why the BBC, and/or the media industry in general, needs to embrace diversity and inclusion. But I believe the figures are so stark they speak for themselves.

There are of course plenty of suitable women and/or BAME candidates who could not only replace Gwyneth Williams but could also refresh the other controller positions once the incumbents move on.

And so to answer my original question “Who will take Gwyneth Williams’ place?” the answer is I do not know.

But I am making a plea to the BBC:

Please consider a broad range of candidates and make diversity a priority because if we love the corporation and want it to flourish there is no way it can continue as business as usual.

(The picture at the top of the piece is a rough depiction of what the future of BBC Radio management meetings could look like if we are not careful) 

Diverse Crews Are Not Just For Making "Diversity" Programmes

What does it mean to be a black producer?

How does a woman scriptwriter differ from a male script writer?

In what way does a disabled director work differently from an able bodied director?

I know these are all ridiculous questions which are impossible to answer. But ten years ago I was in a meeting at the BBC which was asking these very questions, only not about race, gender and disability specifically, but about programmes made in Scotland.

The BBC was trying to quantify what made Scottish films different from films made in London.

My understanding was the poor people who were tasked with such a ridiculous job were also going to Wales, N. Ireland and other parts of the UK to ask the same question.

The meeting came to a few conclusions:

1.       Scottish programmes are different from London productions because they are made in Scotland.

2.       There is no easy quantifiable difference. Living in Scotland gives people different perspectives, interests, and in some cases even different values, from living elsewhere in the UK. And so given editorial control this is organically reflected in the finished programme.

3.       Everyone in the meeting fought against Scottish programmes being pigeonholed that it is only genuinely “Scottish” if people are wearing kilts, eating haggis or playing the bagpipes.

I was reminded of this meeting a few days ago when I read about a new series of eight short films which the BBC will be broadcasting called “Soon Gone” looking at Caribbean family’s arrival in Britain on the HMS Windrush in 1948 and charting their progress over the last seventy years and into the future

Talking about the series Jonty Claypole, the head of BBC arts said; “It was implicit from the start we would have a black cast and crew. This seemed like something television could do to mark the Windrush era”.

I commend the BBC and the independent production company for seeking out diverse cast and crew to work on the production. I am sure the films have a different sensibility due to the how they were staffed.

However at the same time I disagree with Jonty Claypole that having a black cast and crew “seemed like something television could do to mark the Windrush era.”

What I would have liked to see to “mark the Windrush era” is for television to reflect how black people are now woven into the fabric of the UK and this would mean productions with majority black staff producing programmes that have nothing to do with explicitly black subject matter.

Whilst I was in Scotland I oversaw award winning news and current affairs programmes about drugs in sport, illegal puppy farming and the financial crisis – all issues that effected Scottish people but were not “explicitly” Scottish. These programmes were crewed by majority Scottish staff and I am 100 percent sure that they were qualitatively and quantitatively different from anything a London based team would have made.

Just like my colleagues in Scotland who did not want to only work on programmes with kilts and shortbread. Black directors, scriptwriters and crew equally want to make programmes that have nothing to do with the Windrush, Nelson Mandela and slavery. Given the opportunity I am also sure black teams would create award winning films on “non-black” subject matter that would have a completely different feel than if a non-diverse team produced them.

Therefore my Windrush plea to the all British broadcasters is: We are now part of British society so remember we can make programmes about everything, we are not just there when you have a black programme you want to make.

This year marks the 50^th anniversary of the first man on the moon. Let’s commission a series of short films about that – but crewed by a majority black team. That might be the best way to really honour the Windrush legacy and get a unique perspective on a subject which has been covered hundreds of times before. How about it Jonty?

48 hours in the campaign for Diversity Tax Break for TV and Film

Last week (Jan 8^th and 9^th) the campaign for tax breaks for film and television productions, which meet certain diversity criteria, took another step forward. With several important meetings in the space of 48 hours.

BIGGER THAN JUST THE PEOPLE IN THE MEETING

I strongly believe that we will only achieve “Diversity Tax Breaks” if there is mass support in the industry for them. Which is why even though the meetings involved relatively few people it is important that I keep as many people as possible informed on the developments.

The first meeting was on Tuesday8th January at The Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Present at the meeting were the actors Sir Lenny Henry and Adrian Lester, the film producer Nadine Marsh-Edwards, the former head of BBC Productions Pat Younge, former commissioner Angela Ferreira and of course I was also there with my experience of regional diversity as former editor of current affairs programmes at BBC Scotland.

I’d like to think we all brought very practical experiences to the meeting of exactly why diversity tax breaks would make a real difference to our work. This was most definitely not an ideological meeting but one where people were trying to look for practical solutions to a problem that has plagued UK film and television for far too long.

THE GOVERNMENT ARE SERIOUS

Over the years I have been to several government meetings about diversity but I have never been to one with so many senior officials representing so many different departments. Representatives from DCMS were obviously there but so were representatives from the Treasury, HMRC, Department for International Development (as UK women and equalities comes under their remit) and representatives from No 10.

My fear had been that after Lenny Henry and others had delivered the open letter, signed by over 80 prominent industry figures and bodies, calling for diversity tax breaks, this meeting was just going to be a polite chat with coffee and biscuits. But many departments sent two representatives and a senior Special Advisor. It wasn’t quite standing room only but extra chairs definitely needed to be brought in. This was not a polite coffee and biscuits chat!

WHAT CAME OUT OF THE MEETING

The debate covered a number of issues on the actual practical implementation of a diversity tax break and a small discussion on possible alternatives to tax breaks to increase diversity in film and television.

Without going into detail of the actual discussions two things came out of the meeting:

1.       The need for another meeting with all the major industry bodies to discuss diversity tax breaks specifically, as well as the issue of film and TV diversity more broadly. Such a meeting would include the BFI, all the entertainment unions (BECTU, Equity and Writers Guild), some of the major film studios and broadcasters as well as other interested parties such as Directors UK.

2.       Economic modelling to inform future discussions. This would answer serious questions as to how much how much a diversity tax break would cost the Treasury in the short run. Whether diversity tax breaks would be able to incentivise new UK productions to be made, as well as attract new productions from abroad, which would all obviously bring in new money to the Treasury. The modelling should also cover the different effects a diversity tax break would have depending on the level it was set.

We left the meeting optimistic that a second larger industry meeting will be held – hopefully before the end of March.

The government officials present at the meeting however informed us that it was their policy not to make possible tax modelling public unless and until a new tax (or tax break) had been agreed upon. Which means we are now looking at trying to commission some independent economic modelling ourselves.

AFTER THE GOVERNMENT COMES THE OPPOSITION

The following day a smaller group of us met with members of the opposition, specifically Dawn Butler MP, the Shadow Equalities Minister, and John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.

We felt it was very important to meet with the Shadow Ministers because the issue of diversity tax breaks must be bigger than Party politics. It is a solution that should be implemented irrespective of whoever happens to be in government. The fact it was a smaller group was no indication of how important we all felt this second meeting was but more to do with pre-existing diary commitments, and the fact I was only in London for 48 hours did not help matters.

Again the meeting was incredibly constructive. But what became very obvious was that independent economic modelling is essential to take the issue further. Otherwise the debate quickly becomes people either asserting support for the idea or criticizing it with little or no evidence.

After seeing the Labour shadow ministers it also became clear amongst ourselves that we should be discussing the issue with the SNP if we really want this to transcend Party politics, and setting up a meeting with the SNP was added to out “to do” list.

On a personal level I also met with people from the Film Diversity Action Group (FDAG) for a quiet cup of coffee. The FDAG are also campaigning for a version of diversity tax breaks. It was the first time I had met with them since they launched in November and although we differ on some important points talking to them and hearing what they are doing made me feel that there is a real head of steam gathering for diversity tax breaks in one form or another.

After 48 hours and three long meetings there have been no concrete commitments by anyone and at best we might have another larger meeting in a few months’ time. We have also made more work for ourselves recognizing that we now need to commission some economic modelling and try and set up a meeting with the SNP. So why am I so optimistic?

WHY AM I OPTIMISTIC?

I have been campaigning and following the issue of diversity in film and television for longer than I care to admit and in those years I have never experienced meetings where so many senior officials have given up their time to discuss these issues.

The level of debate was higher and more detailed than anything I had ever experienced before. This was not mere lip service to “how bad diversity is behind the camera – can we set up another training scheme”. These were discussions probing the practicalities of implementing the policy both the positives and negatives.

The next two to three months will be essential to see if my optimism is well founded but whatever happens I will keep everyone informed via my blog.

Please keep supporting the campaign – the good will we have all received personally and via social media has been overwhelming.

Why Economics Should Not Be Used To Justify Diversity - or what Dr. J, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan and old school basketball can teach us about diversity

About six years ago I started to hear a new argument when it comes to diversity and it is an argument I am hearing more and more often now.

The argument is a simple one: Companies should increase diversity because it is good for business. In the last few years study after study has been published that argues that if companies increase their diversity they will also increase their profits. According to a McKinsey report the most gender diverse companies outperform their competitors by 15%. For ethnic diversity the figures are even bigger with the most ethnically diverse companies outperforming their competitors by 35%.

When it comes to film and television recent studies seem to come to the same conclusion that productions which are more diverse both in front and behind the camera bring in larger audiences and are more profitable.

Now most people know that I love economics. I studied economics at university and I am married to one of the leading economists on China-Africa relations. And so when they hear about these studies they often assume that I support the argument that companies should increase diversity because it is in their financial interests.

But you may be surprised to hear that I do not support this argument and that is because of my other love – Basketball.

In 1988 two economists, Lawrence Kahn and Peter D Sherer, looked at the contracts of different NBA basketball players depending on their race.

They discovered that black players were paid significantly less than their white counterparts who were equally skilled (same shooting stats, turnovers, assists etc). And black players with the same skill level were less likely to receive a contract from a team. For those of you who love basketball like me this is roughly the time when Dr. J and Larry Bird where having their epic battles. 

And now here is the surprising thing – the racism made complete economic sense. In fact the team managers would have been going against their own financial interests to have paid the black and white players equally and here’s why:

The fact of the matter is that basketball is a business and even though as spectators we think the business of teams is to win games it is actually to increase their profits.

The two economists found that replacing one black player on a team with an “identical” white player raised home attendance by 8,000 to 13,000 fans per season.

Or to put it another way; if the Boston Celtics employed just one black player that would be the equivalent of playing one game a year to a completely empty stadium.

It made economic sense for basketball teams not to value ethnic diversity.

Now remember this is the 1980’s and the way most teams made their money was through ticket sales. But in the 1990’s something started to happen across all major sports.

Sports teams started to make their money from television revenue – ticket revenue started to become less important. No longer was it important to pack out a stadium with richer white spectators, attracting large numbers of fans who were willing to watch the games on TV -  irrespective of skin colour – so broadcasters could sell more advertising was suddenly a priority.

Or to put it in a way some basketball fans can understand more easily - this was the era of Michael Jordan - and it didn't matter any more if Jordan could pack out the United Centre in Chicago what mattered was whether people across the whole world would tune in to watch him play.

The economic model had changed. And the profitability of diversity had also suddenly changed. All of a sudden black players started to earn a lot more money.

It is precisely because I am basketball fan that I am very weary of people using profits as a justification for diversity. The NBA is a prime example of how things can change. And change in ways no one can predict.

Now let us take the example of the television industry.

The economics of television are currently undergoing a revolution as the major players in the industry switch from an advertising source of revenue to subscription based revenue.

Who is willing to pay the subscription? How can broadcasters attract new subscribers? And how can you retain the subscribers they have?

How these questions are answered will effect how profitable diversity is to broadcasters.

I actually suspect that in an effort to reach niche subscribers the subscription model may actually increase the financial imperative to increase diversity. But in ten years’ time there might be a new economic model that means diversity is not profitable just like in the bad old days of the NBA in the 1980’s. It is impossible to predict.

By using economics as a justification for diversity and arguing that we should increase diversity because it is good for the bottom line we are implicitly saying that we should not increase diversity if it is bad for the bottom line. That the NBA in the 1980’s was correct to discriminate against black players.

I believe diversity is morally the right thing to do.

Paying women, BAME (Black Asian and Minority Ethnic), disabled, LGBTQ+ and any other groups of people the same wage based on their skills should be the aim. Ensuring that everyone has equal access to have their voices and stories heard creates a better society.

Broadcasters should not do the “right thing” in increasing diversity because it makes them more money today because who knows doing the “wrong thing” might be equally profitable tomorrow.

It sticks in my throat to say but diversity might be even more important than my first two loves: basketball and economics.