To Quota or Not To Quota

To quota or not to quota? That is the question.

In discussions about diversity in the media nothing can split a room quicker than mentioning the word “quota”. 

Here is a list of diversity words in order of acceptability: “Ambitions” “Goals”, “Targets”, “Ring-fenced”, “affirmative action” and then at the very top “quotas”.

For this very reason for the last five years or more, when I’ve been writing about diversity in the media, I have never mentioned “quotas”. I normally find it counter-productive and whether you support them or not they dominate the rest of the discussion.

The arguments against quotas are normally variations along the following three themes: 

1. That they are “reverse racism” or when talking about another kind of minority group some kind of generic “prejudice in reverse”. 

2. If you implement quotas you don’t appoint the best person but just someone because of their specific “diverse quality”. 

3. And finally the person from the diverse background doesn’t like quotas as they find them condescending and will never know if they were appointed because of their abilities or to tick a box.

These are all strong arguments against quotas and I can see merit in all of them. 

The arguments for quotas are simple and are normally twofold: 

1. There are more than enough qualified people from diverse backgrounds that finding someone competent to do the job will be easy.

2. Nothing much has changed in media diversity in the last ten years and despite “targets” and lip-service according to recent statistics things seem to getting worse. Quotas are the only way.

Again I can see a lot of merit in the quota side of the debate as well.

But I think the real differences between the pro and anti-quota brigades might just be the word. Drop the word “quota” and we might all be a lot closer than we think.

In the Observer paper on Sunday 9^th February Danny Cohen, the BBC Director of Television announced; “TV panel shows without women are unacceptable…We’re not going to have any more panel shows with no women on them. It’s not acceptable”.

From now on the BBC will not film any new all male comedy panel shows it is that simple. This comes after a recommendation by the BBC Trust last year. The BBC wants increased gender diversity in their comedy output and it will now happen. 

What is interesting for me is that everyone has fallen in line. I have not heard people moaning about it and 90% of the people I have spoken to think it’s a good idea.

What’s even more interesting to me is the complete absence of the word “quota” in the debate or in the announcement of the decision. 

Specifying that there will be a woman on every panel show could be viewed as a relatively crude quota. But even the people who are normally dyed-in-the-wool anti-quota advocates seem to have embraced Danny Cohen’s announcement. And the normal left leaning quota heroes just seem to be simply accepting it and not seeing it as a victory for quotas.

I think increasing diversity on the BBC’s panel shows is a tremendous move and I hope other channels follow the broadcaster’s example.

But what I think is even more important is the lesson that if you can take some of the rhetoric out of the debate and dial down the ideology it is surprising how many of us actually want the same thing: A more diverse television that reflects the real world we live in.

A Blue Print For TV Diversity?

A lot has been happening in the world of television diversity recently.

Two events seem to have spurred the media industry into action.

The first event was the publicatino of the Creative Skill Set Census late last year. I've written about the census before, which showed that while the UK media industry has grown by 5,000 people in the last three years the number of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic people (BAME) working in the industry has fallen by 2,000. To put it another way; for every BAME person who lost their job over the last three years in the media two white people were employed!  

The second event has been the very public interventions by Lenny Henry on the lack of diversity in the television and film industry. What started as an off the cuff remark at the BAFTA's when he asked where all the black nominees where, seems to have turned into a one man campaign.

Both these things culminated in January with the Minister of Culture, Communications and Creative Industrie - Ed Vaizey - calling an industry wide "round table" of the great and the good to discuss what could be done.

Most of the talk was about more mentoring and training and increased monitoring. But into this mix of usual solutions Lenny Henry presented what quickly became known as the "Henry Paper". A brief two page document of a road map for structural change in the industry.

Whether you agree or disagree with the "Henry Paper" it was one of those moments that I feel any and everyone interested in increasing ethnic diversity in television should be aware of.

And so for your reading pleasure I present the paper:

THE HENRY PAPER

Increasing Ethnic Diversity Across The UK’s Media Output Based On The Success of Increasing Regional Diversity

OBJECTIVE

To learn the lessons from other diverse groups (most notably regional diversity) in the media as to how to achieve an increase in ethnic diversity.

BACKGROUND

The total number of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic people working in television and across the media has decreased by over 2,000 people from 2009 - 2012 representing just  5.4% of the work force. We believe that a large part of this has been caused not by an increase in prejudice and racism but by structural changes in the media industry.

The decrease in BAME numbers correlates (with an expected time lag) with increased production moving out of London (London having the highest BAME numbers in the UK).

Not only do we applaud the recent developments to ensure the broadcast and media industry is more regionally diverse, (despite the effects it may have had on ethnic diversity), we believe they hold the key to increasing BAME diversity.

THE BBC’S SUCCESSFUL MODEL FOR INCREASING REGIONAL DIVERSITY

1.  Over the last ten years the television industry has been transformed with all major broadcasters successfully commissioning more productions from outside London.

2.  In 2003 the BBC decided to introduce a number of systematic changes and incentives in order to increasing regional diversity. It recognised that the industry was unfairly London biased, meaning that important stories, different views and opinions across the whole UK are missed - both behind the camera and on screen.

3.  In tackling the issue of regional diversity the BBC first had to define what constituted a “regional production”. It used three criteria - production spend, employee spend, and substantive base - and said that to be defined as a regional production any production would have to meet two out of these three criteria.

4.  The BBC then accepted the following four principles and resulting actions:

a.  As the entire population contribute to the BBC’s license fee the way the BBC spends the license fee should accurately reflect the percentage of the populations who pay it. For example if 9% of the license fee is raised in Scotland then 9% of the license fee should be spent in Scotland.  The BBC therefore decided to “ring-fence” money for spend in specific Nations & Regions for both the medium and long term to give both independent companies the confidence to set up in the respective regions in the knowledge that there will be a guaranteed income stream they can compete for and employees the confidence to plan their careers.

b.  The BBC augmented (a) by recognising that it has ambitions for growing the independent sector (freelancers, independent companies, etc) in order to deliver hiqh quality, innovative and value for money programmes. Thus it needed to not only ringfence spend on internal BBC productions, but also ringfence spend on regional production and regional independent companies. 

c.  Regional companies are often disadvantaged by commissioning processes taking place in London - both through weak informal relationships and logistical barriers. The BBC therefore decided to introduce regional commissioners with the task of identifying and being a point of contact for regional productions where the formal and informal links to London based commissioners may be weak.

d.  Last but not least, the BBC recognised that people and companies make long-term decisions when establishing themselves in regions or planning their careers. Thus, it would be ineffective to simply spread the commissions and types of programmes evenly and “randomly” across the board - as this might lead to short-term peaks and troughs in specific types of programmes (e.g. drama, current affairs, etc). Thus, they decided to create “Centers of Excellence” for specific genres to create a critical mass of expertise in each region.

THE PROPOSAL

1.  Transposing the BBC’s regional diversity model to BAME diversity across the industry would involve the following three steps:

a.  To define what constitutes a BAME production - i.e. Broadcasters should establish criteria as to how they will assess license fee BAME spend. This can easily be done with BAME criteria encompassing employee spend, production spend and substantive base (e.g. is the company majority controlled by BAME), with companies and in-house productions being allowed to self declare.

b.  To ringfence money - in both the medium and short-term for BAME independents and in-house employee spend. This would enable indie BAME companies to compete for commissions with confidence and employees to plan their careers.

c.  To introduce BAME commissioners - to actively seek out BAME ideas and address both the institutional barriers and informal processes that BAME employees and companies face when trying to get their ideas commissioned.

2.  Focus On Two Areas: Drama and Current Affairs. Finally, in order to demonstrate that this works, we would propose that the broadcasters begin by focusing on just two genres in increasing BAME representation: scripted drama/comedy and current affairs. Recent audience research suggests the largest divergence between BAME and white audiences in drama/comedy, and current affairs is possibly the most important genre for the needs and concerns of any population to be reflected and addressed. By concentrating our efforts this would also have the added bonus of creating a “critical mass” which is so vital in creating real change.

NOT JUST THE BBC

Although this paper has focused on the example of the BBC these initiatives must be industry wide - just as Channel 4 have also appointed Regional Commissioners and ensured that it commissions from non-London based indies.

To encourage this we could explore possible tax breaks for BAME productions or adapting the current Apprenticeship model to encourage employers to take on new employees.

  

Why TV Needs Black People

TV is in big trouble.

Here are two facts that every television executive should have sleepless nights over:

1.       According to the last 2011 census Britain is becoming a more ethnically diverse country. London is 40% Non-white. Leicester, Luton and Slough are now “minority majority cities” (over 50% of the population are from a black, Asian or ethnic minority) and Birmingham is predicted to join them soon.

2.       Black, Asians and other ethnic minorities watch less television than their white counterparts. On average BAME people watch five hours less television per week (22hours vs. 27hours). The really worrying fact for people at the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel Five is BAME people watch only half the amount of Terrestrial TV than the rest of the population (8hours vs 16hours).

So there you have it TV execs; a segment of the audience that is growing that clearly doesn’t want to consume your product. If this were a business presentation I’d be thinking how do I sell my shares now?

But before I hand in my notice and open the ice cream shop in Brixton Village that I’ve been dreaming about for the last two years a small academic study by the University of California might hold the answer as to what TV execs can do.

During 2011-2012 the University of California’s analysed more than 1,000 “scripted television shows” – that’s drama and comedy to you and me – for how many people of colour appeared in them and the results were striking. The study found that programmes with more actors of colour had above average ratings.

The amount of actors of colour a TV programme had really mattered. The study found that average ratings were highest when the casts were 31 – 40% from an ethnically diverse background. At the other end of the spectrum, ratings were the lowest among shows with casts that were 10 percent ethnic minority or less.

And it wasn’t just “in front of the camera” stats that influenced the ratings, the colour of the staff behind the camera also mattered. The broadcast shows with the highest ratings all had writing staff where at least a fifth of the staff were BAME.

In a recent conversation with Keli Lee the Head of Casting at Disney ABC she told me that the diversity of cast is vital in attracting minority audiences. 15 years ago on screen ethnic diversity on the American network ABC stood at roughly 6%, today it is 27% with shows such as Modern Family, Greys Anatomy and Scandal.

The answer is simple for British TV executives worried about their falling ratings and a growing audience that is switching off:

Employ more black people behind the camera and put more of us in-front of the camera. And if you really want to save TV you might even want to make a few more .of us executives too

The Flight Of The Black Actor

Last week, as Chair of the Royal Television Society Diversity Committee, I organised a panel discussion on whether black British actors need to leave the UK in order to further their careers.

You can read the RTS report on the event here http://www.rts.org.uk/flight-black-actor-%E2%80%93-report-diversify-14-november-2013 (and it was filmed so that is to follow soon)

I thought people might like to read the briefing document I produced ahead of the panel with facts and figures about BAME actors BAME audiences.

Read, enjoy, weep and please feel free to use them randomly in your next discussion about BAME people in the media over a drink, a coffee, at work or a dinner party...

Briefing Document for Royal Television Society Panel on “The Flight Of The Black Actor”

Do black British actors need to leave the UK in order to have successful careers?

It’s a common enough idea with even the Shadow Business Secretary Chukka Umunna MP talking about it in a recent speech. Morgan Freeman has talked about how British actors need to go to America and even the new Director of the National Theatre Rufus Norris has spoken about it.

1. EXAMPLES OF BLACK FLIGHT:

Idris Elba

David Harewood

Troy Titus Adams

Marianne Jean-Baptiste

David Oyelowo

Chiwetel Ejiofor

Notable examples of black actors who have not gone to America:

Naomi Harris

Ashley Walters

And Lenny Henry

2. BRITAIN VERSUS AMERICA

i. Awards

Only three black British actors have won RTS best acting awards: 2009/10 David Oyelowo and Naomi Harris in Small Island and Diane Parish best female actor in Babyfather (interestingly that they were all examples of black subject matter – definitely not colour-blind casting.

BAFTA - No black actor has so far won a BAFTA for best actor (male or female)

EMMYs In last 30 years six BME actors have won best actor awards at the EMMYS

ii. Salary

No BME British actors make any top ten lists for most paid.

In America Sandra Oh of Korean decent makes the top ten paid actors list for her role in Greys Anatomy

iii. “Colour-blind” casting

When the BBC announced a present-day version of Sherlock Holmes they cast Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman. When the Americans announced the US version, Elementary, Lucy Liu was cast as Dr Joan Watson – an Asian woman.

iv. ABC Disney has increased its BME on-screen representation form 6% fifteen years ago to 27% now. It’s stable of programmes include Modern Family, Scandal and Grey’s Anatomy. Head of casting is Korean American Keli Lee.

3. STATISITICS

i. Audiences:

BME population is approximately 14% of the UK population

BME population of London is 40.3% (Particularly pertinent when thinking about about London based dramas)

ii. TV Audiences:

BME’s watch 5 hours less television a week than their white counterparts 22hours –vs- 27hours:

BME’s watch 8 hours less mainstream terrestrial TV a week than their white counterparts. 8 hours vs 16hours.

BME’s are deserting mainstream TV for digital TV. They watch 3 hours more Digital TV a week than their white counterparts. 14hours vs 11hours.

BME audiences watch less mainstream TV of every genre than their population percentages but in drama and comedy the difference is most marked.

For BBC1 Drama only 9.3% of their audience is made up of BME’s vs population percentage of 14%

For BBC1 Comedy only 5.8% of their audience is made up of BME’s vs population percentage of 14%

  

BIG STAT ALERT!! BME onscreen representation for EastEnders has the most racially diverse on-screen representation of any soap. Over a third (38%) of the white population watch EastEnders at some point in the year. But 50% of the BME population watch EastEnders!

Anecdotally ITV have increased their on-screen representation in both Corrie and Emmerdale over the last year. In January 2013 Corrie’s new producer Stuart Blackburn said increased on screen diversity was a top priority.  Last year 2012 introduced its first black family. And it has had no effect on their audiences. That can be seen as both positive and negative. It did not “scare-away” white viewers but so far it hasn’t grown the BME audience either.

The Price Of Diversity

There’s a cheap trick journalists can pull when they want to criticise a government policy. You simply divide the amount of money spent on a policy by the change it has made. Let me give you an example:

Take the amount of money the government has spent on a regeneration project that is meant to improve employment in an area and divide by the number of new jobs created in the area.

You can normally come up with a statistic that “shows” each job cost several hundreds of thousands of pounds!

I say it’s cheap journalism but it also plays an important function. It is vital for us to be able to assess if money is being spent wisely and whether government policies are actually achieving anything.

I was reminded of this just the other day when I was sitting on a panel discussion hosted by Thomson Reuters discussing the issue of how to increase the number of black, Asian and other ethnic minorities working in television specifically and the media generally. Before the event started all the panelists were sitting in the ”green room” and the chair person was picking our brains so he would know what to ask us when we were sitting in front of the audience. Two seemingly innocent questions of his struck me:

Question number 1: “Does mentoring actually work in helping black people get promotions?”

Question number 2: “Do the diversity schemes of different broadcasters schemes actually work?”

The questions were not confrontational - he was just trying to get some background information. But they were not properly answered and the conversation continued to flow, I doubt my fellow panelists would even remember them in the general discussion. When it actually came to the actual talk in front of the audience the two questions did not even come up.

But I left the event asking myself; What if a journalist performed that “cheap journalistic trick” on media diversity schemes?

What if a journalist looked at the different initiatives and money dedicated to increasing diversity in the media and divided it by the number of extra black people employed in the media?

A recent Creative SkillSet survey showed that while the number of people employed in the media industry has increased in the last three years the number of BAME employees (black, Asian and minority ethnic) has actually decreased.

With figures like those I  fear that if you did my cheap journalistic trick you could find every penny spent on diversity schemes actually cost jobs!

I can see the headline now: “For every £XXthousand spent on diversity the TV industry loses another black person”

Any intelligent person will realise that this is not a fair headline as we have no idea what the employment figures would be if there were no diversity initiatives - in all likelihood the figures would be even worse.

But it still leaves the important question of which initiatives actually work and are worth spending money on? Answering this type of question is now common practice when government’s assess their policies and is often called an “impact assessment”. For anyone interested in increasing diversity in the media finding an answer to this question should be our number one priority.

If mentoring works let’s role out mentoring everywhere, if mentoring doesn’t work let’s stop spending money on it and move on, the same goes for all the different initiatives we invariably role out. This is not an argument for not spending money on diversity programmes but let’s find out what is effective and focus our energies and money on that.

The Reuters event was a great success and I met some incredibly interesting people from the world of finance. But it was the two simple questions no one could answer that left the greatest impression on me.