The Government will provide an additional $158.1 million to the SBS over five years. SBS will use some of the funds to launch a new indigenous free-to-air television channel when it acquires NITV, the National Indigenous television channel. NITV was never a free-to-air-service.

SBS’s Managing Director, Michael Ebeid said “SBS is honoured and excited to be delivering this new service which will vastly increase the opportunity for the telling of stories from and by Indigenous communities, and make those stories more accessible to audiences across the country.” The Indigenous channel will begin in the second half of 2012.

The funding boost for SBS represents a 27 per cent increase on base Government funding over the next four years. This figure excludes the cost of operating the transmitters.

Minister Conroy said that this is "the most significant funding boost SBS has ever had, and will ensure SBS can continue to provide a unique broadcasting service that includes comprehensive television, radio and online services.”

Whilst no specific mention was made of retiring in-program commercials breaks, Mr Ebeid hinted that the SBS would now be in a better position to reconsider its approach to this – when he said, "the funding increase will offset the slower growth in commercial revenues experienced by SBS, in line with trends across the media industry."

SBS’s rate of growth from advertising has been negative since 2010.

Meanwhile Greens communications spokesperson, Senator Ludlam who has been a very strong advocate for the SBS, and the need for government to steeply increase its funding said, "In a tight budget in which many portfolios faced serious cuts, the fortunes of SBS have swum against the tide. No doubt, we could always have hoped for more, and indeed the finances of the station will remain tight for years to come. But the commitment of $158 million is the most significant funding boost the SBS has ever had."

Senator Ludlam acknowledged the recent Save Our SBS campaign in which ordinary people sent personal emails to MPs and Senators urging that government increase SBS’s funding and for the removal of in-program disruptions. The Senator thanked "the many advocates for the station within the Parliament, and in particular the ‘Save Our SBS’ group who never take ‘no’ for an answer."

There is no doubt that Minister Conroy and his staff also put the case to Cabinet in a very convincing manner, that the SBS is worth every dollar. And it is.

Here we publish a representative sample of all emails sent.

The identities of the senders has been removed in this publication as has the date sent, subject heading and each politician’s email address. We only show the body of emails. All campaigners were encouraged to write as they saw fit and had total control of the message content of their email. The original spelling and grammatical errors as they were in each email, have intentionally been retained for this publication. Many senders did not have Anglo names and for a high proportion of these, English may not be their first language. The formatting of each email may appear different on this webpage.

What the campaigners wrote

Here are some of the messages sent in the pre-Budget Make SBS Special Again campaign.

Dear Political Masters,

I write to join my voice to a campaign to see appropriate funding restored to SBS. I understand this is both necessary for survival, as the funding model in place is proving inadequate, and to once again plead with you to remove the unfortunate necessity for program breaks for advertising.

As a regular viewer of SBS, I find the constant interruptions for advertisements to be a major irritation. It disrupts the continuity of the programs and thereby reduces the quality of the viewing, even late in the evening.

SBS provides a major source of programming that is different from the stupefying sameness of the commercial stations – a feature which I find the ABC is rapidly seeking to mimic, under the present management. SBS also represents a much-appreciated alternative viewing opportunity compared with the heavily American-derived programming shown on the commercial channels. For me it is a major source of broadcasts from an array of European and Asian countries (including in the languages of those countries) that are refreshingly different and which I know to be greatly appreciated by my many friends who have migrated from these countries to live in Australia. I consider it to provide cultural diversity to counterbalance the too rapid Americanisation of Australian society. Having lived in different parts of the USA, over many years, I consider that we are importing many of unfortunate social behaviours that are promoted by American TV programs, without developing the counterbalancing attitudes and behaviours that one finds within decent American suburban living.

I urge you to use the opportunity offered in the formulation of the 2012 budget and the subsequent parliamentary discussion to ensure appropriate funding for SBS, so that advertisements can be totally removed from within the SBS programs on television. I put it to you, that even in these difficult economic times, this is a high priority initiative that will more than repay the additional expenditure.

For these reasons I recommend that you support the SBS amendment natural program and disruptive breaks bill that will see their eventual removal over four years. Please support it and in addition, ensure that the SBS is given more money, as public financial support has not kept up with basic operating costs. Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

[sender's name and address supplied]

SBS needs more money. A lot more.

Like many people, I am tired of seeing commercial interruptions whilst watching the SBS. I accept adverts in between programs, but to wedge adverts into the programs themselves is simply unacceptable for a public broadcaster. I wonder if it is even legal to do so. That is why I would like to see politicians of all parties vote in favour of the Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Natural Program Breaks and Disruptive Advertising) Bill, which will gradually provide the SBS with an avenue to shift advertising out of programs over a 4 year period. I would like to see the government more than triple funding for the SBS and make the Bill become law too.

[sender's name supplied]

I am a passionate SBS watcher. SBS a very significant public broadcaster and delivers a high standard of journalism, particularly in news and documentaries. It has the best world news of any television station in Australia.

Please give the SBS the budget increase it so desperately needs in the May budget.

Not only does the SBS need more funding, legislation is needed to safe guard against SBS having to resort to advertising in the future. This could be achieved if the Natural Program Breaks and Disruptive Advertising Bill for SBS became law. It would phase out advertising – no more interruptions to programmes (except sport) and return public funding to SBS.

Vote in favour of this Bill. It is the only way to keep the SBS from falling away from its intended mandate and eventually being bought by a commercial entity. We may never reverse the financial decline at the SBS if this Bill fails to become law.

Yours sincerely,

[sender's name supplied]

Dear Fellow Australians,

I am writing to you regarding a Bill that was introduced this year by Senator Ludlum called the Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Natural Program Breaks and Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2012.

The aim of this Bill is to put an end to the disruptive advert breaks that currently plagues our SBS television programs by providing a method for the SBS to phase down the in-program breaks over the next three or four years. This is important because these in-program breaks are extremely disruptive and certainly very detrimental to SBS itself and its audience. I am not the only person who strongly objects to them, by all means, as you all must be aware of thousands of objections voiced sometime ago when commercial in-program breaks were introduced. Please do what you can to get this passed and see that the SBS is properly funded in the budget this May for the next three years.

The SBS is one area that the current government has not attended to yet it badly needs increased funding just to keep abreast of daily operating costs.

Entitites, such as the SBS, are of paramount importance as an effective, efficient and well-suited communcation channel servicing our culturally diverse society.

Our SBS must:

- be free of abnoxious in-program breaks (specially profiteering ones);

- to be given dequate and continuous funding; and

- be able to have an independent, diverse and representative Board that would truly reflects our community makeup and which would faithfully take into account our communities’ wishes and aspirations.

Thank you for your time and with my respect,

(Australian Citzen and meticulous voter!)

[sender's name supplied]

I am a passionate viewer of many of the programs provided by SBS.

I would like to draw your attention to the crisis now within the SBS.

It has no money and urgently needs a massive increase in public funds instead of the struggle it has faced relying on reduced income from cluttered advertising during it’s television programs.

The Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Natural Program Breaks and Disruptive Advertising) recently put up by Senator Scott Ludlum lays the framework of a scheme to fund SBS in a fairer manner and I favour this approach and hope you do too.

Basically, it will see a gradual withdrawal of advertising from within television programs over the next four years with a portion of government funding used by SBS to achieve that, at the discretion of the SBS.

This is a right and proper approach and I hope you and your Party support it as well as increasing funding for the SBS in May.

SBS will not be able to survive nor remain relevant if public funding for it remains at an all time low.

Yours truly,

[sender's name and address supplied]

Dear Minister!

I would like to express my concern about the direction of the SBS.

I’ve been bitterly disappointed with the decline of SBS.

It used to be truly ‘Special’ and unique as a broadcaster and is rapidly becoming just one of a compromising pack. Please stop the decline and let’s have our quality broadcaster back!

Why is it that this public broadcaster requires so much advertising. I understand some adverts between the shows and during sports events, but to interrupt all the programs themselves is ridiculous. Cleary it needs more money. Surely the government should be funding the SBS so that it does not need to have advertising to such a great extent. Leave the commercials to the commercial sector and fund the SBS appropriately.

Give more money to the SBS in this budget and please require SBS cease disrupting programs with a change in the law so they cannot continue to do this.

[sender's name and address of an organisation focusing on disability services supplied]

Dear Minister

The [name of organisation supplied] believe now is the time for the government to provide significantly greater funding for SBS in the May budget.

Multicultural broadcasting needs support to help it operate and function without commercial influence.

In this regard we also urge you to support the SBS Natural Program Breaks and Disruptive Advertising Bill 2012 to remove commercials from in programming by 2016 proposed by The Greens.

The SBS was founded on the understanding that funding would come from the government and without reliance on advertisers. The hybrid model over the last few years has not helped SBS meet its charter obligations. It has done SBS no good and failed the community.

In the May budget please correct this situation by increasing SBS funding and by supporting the Greens Bill.

[sender's name and address of an organisation representing ethnic communities supplied]

I would be grateful to any member of your party who will support the SBS Amend (Natural Breaks – Disruptive Adverts) Bill 2012.

It is a serious issue of how our public service broadcaster is to be funded now and in the future.

It is a reasonable proposition that a small part of increased funds be used to retire the in-program breaks.

It seems inappropriate that SBS television has to rely on so much advertising to make ends meet. Due to the stations mandate of serving the needs of our multicultural society, I believe a return to government funding is appropriate. Please consider this when drawing up this Budget.

[sender's name and address of an organisation representing multicultural communities supplied] 

Dear Members of Parliament,

I hope you are also unhappy about the commercialisation of SBS. If so, I am sure you are aware that a bill has been tabled recently by the green senator Scott Ludlum called the Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Natural Program Breaks and Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2012, which will see the gradual reduction and eventual removal of commercial interruptions during SBS TV programs. It will take 4 years.

The bill will also ensure the future funding of the station by the government. This seems a fairer way to pay for the SBS.

It is equally sensible that a portion of any funding increase be used directly to pay for the removal of these in-program disruptions.

Can I ask for you to increase funding for SBS and to support the bill and encourage your colleagues to do the same.

I am writing to register my support of the Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Natural Program Breaks and Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2012 and wish to encourage you and all members of parliament do everything possible to ensure its passage into law.

Over the past five years we have seen the interruption of SBS television programs with commercial breaks. Public broadcasting should be free from such commercial interruptions.

The hybrid public-commercial model at SBS has failed.

Advertisers are given priority over viewers despite falling advertising revenue. Therefore I implore you to support the Bill and increase funding for the SBS in the forthcoming budget.

[sender's name and address supplied]

SBS needs more money. A lot more.

Like many people, I am tired of seeing commercial interruptions whilst watching the SBS.

I accept adverts in between programs, but to wedge adverts into the programs themselves is simply unacceptable for a public broadcaster. I wonder if it is even legal to do so. That is why I would like to see politicians of all parties vote in favour of the Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Natural Program Breaks and Disruptive Advertising) Bill, which will gradually provide the SBS with an avenue to shift advertising out of programs over a 4 year period.

I would like to see the government more than triple funding for the SBS and make the Bill become law too.

We watch SBS constantly and would dearly wish it restored to its former excellence.

[sender's name and address supplied]

I recently had cause to complain to both the SBS and ABC in relation to advertising interrupting programs. Does the ABC interrupt programs with its self-promotion? Well, not during the program but they certainly have tried to emulate the commercial networks by "squeezing" the end credits to insert unrelated promotional video and voice-overs. Why on earth they would copy such crass commercialism is beyond me and I hope the individuals who instigated it have been disciplined.

SBS’s advertising has now "progressed" to the full commercial model; interrupting programs mid-word (which brought about my complaint to them) and, on some occasions, failing to ensure continuity when the program resumes.

I understand that Parliament will soon be considering the Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Natural Program Breaks and Disruptive Advertising) Bill. This is an important step and I ask you to support it. However, increased funding for the SBS is also essential so that it can move away from its present commercial format and return to its proper public broadcasting role.

It would be even better if such controls were extended to all commercial broadcasting. After all, we taxpayers not only fund the ABC and SBS but provide the profits for the 7, 9 and 10 networks through the advertising costs imposed on the products we buy, and we are obliged to pay that "tax" even if we actively avoid the advertising.

Thank You

[sender's name and address supplied]

I am concerned about the future funding of the SBS.

The broadcaster has been providing multi-lingual output to help our immigrant population integrate into Australia and has a vital role in our cultural life.

Over the past 5 years more and more advertising clutter has made its way into the television programs.

Whilst commercials have been a staple part of commercial television, advertisements are having a detrimental effect on the SBS. They have a mandate to serve the public, not the interests of the commercial sector.

SBS needs a very large increase in funding and I would like a portion of those funds to be used to shift the advertisements breaks out of program to where they belong – between programs, for this to be backed up through legislation. Please oblige this when voting for the Senator Ludlum SBS bill, which will establishes a scheme for funding SBS so they do not need to rely on disruptive advertising breaks in TV programs. It is a reasonable approach.

[sender's name and address supplied]

SBS currently show some fantastic programs that are often educational as well as interesting. However it’s so annoying that they have to interrupt programs with ads because they don’t have enough funding to continue unless they advertise. Surely the Government can support such a very important tv channel.

Before the May Budget I would like to see consideration given to ensuring the financial security of our public broadcaster, in particular the SBS, who have been relying heavily on decreasing advertising dollars for some time now. This is a worrying development and indicates that the funding provided to the broadcaster is inadequate.

Ensuring our public service broadcasters are properly funded is vital for their future.

Please do whatever you can to protect the SBS for future generations of Australians to enjoy and lend your support to the Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Natural Program Breaks and Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2012 so that an amount of government funds are used to achieve that over and above all else.

Please consider fund SBS in such a way they don’t have to rely on boring old ads.

Thank you for reading my comments.

Regards

[sender's name and address supplied]

Dear members,

In the 2012 Budget I would like you and your party to take time to consider the future of the SBS for the next 3 years and beyond.

I am sure you have noticed that their television shows are now being broken up with multiple advert breaks.

Considering the number of news, current affairs and debate shows they broadcast it seems in the interest of all parties to keep this platform free of distractions. The same thing occurs in movies on SBS but that never happened a decade ago.

This government must see to it that adverts remain outside of the programs, as that is what Labor promised to do in November 2007 and make certain the station is better funded to avoid this happening in the future.

I shall be watching closely in the hope you will support the Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Natural Program Breaks and Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2012, and fund the SBS whole lot more than you do so now.

Regards,

[sender's name and address supplied]

Dear Members,

I urge you please, not to forget SBS when the 2012 budget is drawn up. For some time now the station has been interrupting its programs with advertisements which ruins the continuity of the shows and detracts from the overall quality.

Furthermore, publicly funded television should not be relying on advertising to the point where they interrupt the programming at all, otherwise it is just like a commercial broadcaster.

We contribute taxes to ensure this situation does not occur.

I therefore recommend your support for the SBS bill (the SBS amendment natural program and disruptive breaks bill) that will see the eventual removal of adverts from within TV shows on the SBS over four years.

Please support it and support the SBS by giving it more money.

Thank your giving this your most serious consideration.

[sender's name and address supplied]

Dear Fellow Free-to-air Watchers,

Public broadcasting is an integral part of our Australian culture: and so is advertising. They don’t make a good mix, but we have learned that they can co-exist.

However: much as Shane Warne’s hair-loss ads and the EZY-LINE kelpie are Aussie icons, I’d love them a whole lot more if they didn’t interrupt the cycling or the soccer replays, or Erotic Tales and my favourite kungfu movies. I’d trade them for all those Al-Jazeera feeds, too, if necessary.

But it shouldn’t be necessary: if the ABC is funded to a level where it can run programming uninterrupted (we get the ABC’s promos and cross-promotions–its equivalent of advertising–in breaks between programming), SBS deserves an equivalent level of funding. At present SBS apparently cannot make ends meet without selling advertising time within its popular programmes. And this does look like a double standard for ethnic/multicultural broadcasting.

I wholeheartedly support the message of SaveOurSBS.org:

"It is clear that the government must intervene to support multicultural broadcasting with significantly stronger funding.

"I urge you to support the Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Natural Program Breaks and Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2012 and encourage your colleagues to do the same.

"This is the Bill that establishes a framework to fund the SBS into the future and allows them to self-manage its way to having no in-program breaks by 2016.

Happy free-to-air watching.

Kind regards

[sender's name and address supplied]

I would like to request that some of the money to be given to SBS be used to displace ads breaks from inside programs to after the program has finished, and this be coupled to legislation.

I seek two things.

1) increase overall funding for the SBS, and

2) you vote in favour of the SBS Amend (Natural Program Breaks and Disruptive Advertising) Bill when that time arrives, and influence your party to do the same.

I hope you will agree that SBS plays a crucial role in the nation’s cultural landscape, in sharing our diverse stories and helping shape the character of Australian society.

Please give the SBS priority in the May budget.

[sender's name and address supplied]

I wish to raise my concerns I have about the SBS.

Over the past five years we have seen this television service interrupted by advertising inserted into the programs. It is obvious when watching programs that were not designed for interruptions.

I have noticed the shows being cut off whilst in full flow for an advertising break.

This raises two issues.

Firstly, why does the SBS carry advertising when it is publicly funded.

Also, how has the station arrived to the position where it needs adverts to fund itself.

I would encourage you take any action you can to remove these adverts from within the programs and better funding the SBS in the up coming budget with a portion of funding used to retire these breaks from program.

[sender's name supplied]

I hope to see all Parties uniting behind the Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Natural Program Breaks and Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2012. This is a great Bill as it will both secure a future funding model for the SBS and remove advertising from breaking up their programs into unwatchable fragments.

Please support the SBS amendment Bill and begin by providing funding for SBS in this Budget to make up the shortfall from past years, at least so that the SBS can operate without needing to outsource all its operations to commercial, for-profit companies.

[sender's name supplied]

Dear Members and Senators,

I am writing to you in relation to the upcoming Senate SBS funding bills, and Senator Ludlum’s bill to eliminate advertising disruption on the broadcaster’s programs.

As a devoted viewer of SBS since its rollout to regional NSW in the mid 1980s I have been distrubed by the erosion of funding revenue and the insertion of advertising into the programming.

I’ve observed the impact of SBS upon relatively isolated populations of people on the Monaro & Far South Coast of NSW over the last 30 years; the positive influence of SBS cannot be under estimated. In some cases it is the first time these local people, mainly descended from Anglo-Irish settlers, have encountered the rich varied cultures that now compose our Australian population. The food, arts, movies and music programs have opened their eyes and awareness and promoted tolerance and acceptance in the regiional areas which, unlike the major capital cities, do not have much migration nor a variety of ethnicity. SBS news is the ONLY news program available free-to-air in this country that informs us of world news in enough detail to have an objective ‘big picture’ of international events.

The introduction of advertising into the programming of SBS has been disturbing; apart from interrupting the program it calls into question the integrity of the broadcaster. Restoring funding levels to a point where the ads can be reduced is a desirable situation that you have the power to help enact. Should you decide to support increased SBS funding you have my full support, and no doubt that of many other electors.

sincerely,

[sender's name and address supplied]

I am writing to say I support the SBS and hope you do to, and that the government increase funding for SBS in this budget.

I also ask that you support the SBS Amendment (Natural Program Breaks and Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2012 that will free the SBS from reliance on advertising, in the long term.

The advertisements have been crowding SBS television programs and for not much return. I do not understand why a public broadcaster, funded by taxes should present as if a commercial station.

Advertising mid-program is not only aggravating it also goes against the spirit of publicly funded broadcasting. I therefore encourage you to support more public funding for SBS and all efforts to remove advertising from appearing mid programs.

Regards

[sender's name supplied]

SBS is at cross roads and needs your support in the coming Budget.

I would like to request the members of your party support the Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Natural Program Breaks and Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2012.

It’s time to remove adverts from breaking the flow of television shows and increase the public funding for SBS.

If it is reasonable, use a portion of future funding to end commercial breaks from disrupting SBS television programs as part of any funding increase.

I absolutely loathe commercial breaks within television programs and in my opinion SBS & ABC are the better channels and need your support. These channels have better programs, much more interesting and informative.

The commercial channels 7, 9 and 10, are forever running behind their advertised times. When they print the TV magazines they never factor in the time it takes to play the advertising breaks and consequently every evening program after the 6.00pm News is always running later than advertised.

[sender's name and address supplied]

The SBS has played an important part in Australian cultural life for many decades but the funding for the SBS has been so low that it is no longer able to function.

It needs financial support from the public wallet in the budget in May.

Reliance on advertising dollars has proved fatal as it has set multilingual content aside in appealing to more and more advertisers. This clutters up the stations programs and has been detrimental to the quality of the stations output.

There is a bill that could see this problem resolved – the SBS amendment bill. It would remove advertising from disrupting the programs over the next few years while establishing a scheme for SBS to manage the extent of change up to 2016 in shifting adverts from in-program to intra-program.

I hope you will do what you can to support the Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Natural Program Breaks and Disruptive Advertising) Bill and also fund SBS more in the budget so that it can abide by its Charter.

Signed:

[sender's name and address supplied]

For the sake of SBS and those that work there, as well as the viewers and listeners who rely on it every day, please give it more money and vote in favour of the Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Natural Program Breaks and Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2012 as this will help SBS to be like it once was, special.

The Bill will mean that between now and 2016, SBS will slowly wind down the amount of adverts in programs and move them to appear between each program only.

It is fair that a fragment of future funds be used specifically for that.

I want this, and so does SBS.

At the next election, I will remember how you acted in this regard.

[sender's name supplied]

It is time to drop the ads from disrupting SBS programs through legislation. Supporting the Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Natural Program Breaks and Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2012 is a way to achieve this.

It is highly desirable to put a stop to pernicious commercialism at SBS.

During the entire time that Labor has been in power, SBS has become more commercial yet the ALP Policy in the 2007 election was – Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising – but SBS still has these in-program breaks.

I would like all Parties to vote to pass the Bill into law.

When I cast my vote at the next election, I shall remember how each politician voted on this Bill.

I will also take note if funding for the SBS has not increased significantly to enable the SBS to operate without disruptive breaks inside the programs.

It is time to significantly raise government funding for the SBS in the 2012 budget.

[sender's name and address supplied]

The above snapshot is highly representative of the thrust of the content of the 9,171 messages sent in the pre-Budget Make SBS Special Again campaign. Varying compositions of the same basic desires were BCC’d to SaveOurSBS.org of the emails sent to Minsters, MPs and Senators. Without a doubt, the overwhelming attitude of the electorate was that government ought to increase SBS’s funding and remove the in-program disruptive breaks through legislation, in the May 2012 Budget.

On the campaign webpage visitors were presented with an example of an email text and asked to compose an email in their own words. Most did.

The website also suggested that participants not be anonymous. A high percentage of campaigners included their name, address and phone number.

For authenticity, each email was sent from the sender’s email account. This approach is different from many other websites where campaign emails are often sent via the server of the campaigning website on behalf of a person. That may result in a high number of ‘fake’ respondents from fictitious people with no real email address. Such was not possible in the SaveOurSBS.org pre-Budget campaign due to the technical requirement of each participant to send their email from their actual address. No real address, no email sent.

Some participants sent the same email twice, a minute apart. However there were many more people who sent a single email but signed from a couple. In this respect we concluded that the total number of emails sent very highly verified the actual number of participants. All emails appeared to be genuine. No automated, bot or spam type emails were detected.

A trigger on the campaign page preselected 10 email recipients at random per email, from a list of 26 politicians where greater weight was given to the finance and communications ministers. Other members of Cabinet were assigned a lower weighting as were politicians outside Cabinet. Some emails were also sent to the Shadow Communications Minister and the Greens communications spokesperson. Each campaigner was able to add, remove and alter the recipients to whom their email was sent. Some participants sent a separate email to their local MP. Others also sent messages to the PM. 

Many emails were copied from the sender to SaveOurSBS.org and from those ones we are able to confirm that at least 9,171 messages were sent to the politicians. These messages were spread across the selected random recipients and according to the weighting mentioned and no one politician would have received a complete set of all emails.

The site statistics further confirm the above from the number of unique clicks required to activate an email.

There was a steady flow of emails each day except for peaks of more than five times the average at the beginning, middle and end of the campaign. Surges are common in many campaigns.

The duration of the pre-Budget Make SBS Special Again campaign was the shortest of any on-line campaign run by Save Our SBS.

Simply click the graphic – Make SBS Special Again – on the Home page at SaveOurSBS.org and you will be taken to a page where you can send an email to the finance and communication ministers, and other politicians. In addition to the email, please also sign the CPSU’s on-line letter to the Minister via the link lower down the page from where you send your email. These two separate actions on your part will make an enormous difference. Tell your friends about this too.

You may not be aware that the SBS has the lowest operating budget of any mainstream broadcaster when compared to all other broadcasters. It was one sixth of Channel 7 and less than a quarter of the ABC. Also, since the introduction of in-program advertising on SBS-TV five years ago, the rate of growth from advertising on SBS has decreased significantly. It has been negative since 2010. The hybrid public-commercial model that was handed to the SBS has now caused it to face a severe funding crisis. Public funding has not kept pace with basic operating costs. SBS is too important to all of us to see it fail or close down. Your support is needed at www.SaveOurSBS.org to make SBS special again; to de-commercialise it and fund it now from the public purse, with a very steep increase – but only if you press for these things. Your voice counts.

It’s taken five years of continuous lobbying from thousands of people to get to this point; the possibility of legislation to end disruptive breaks during program coupled with an increase in government funds. This is not the time to sit back. Please act now. Go to SaveOurSBS.org

Keeping you informed, with thanks from everyone at Save Our SBS.

Do NOT reply to this email as this address is not monitored. If you wish to send us an email, please do so via the Contact page on our website. UNSUBSCRIBE here.

This eNewsLetter No 14 was sent from Save Our SBS Inc to the email address below, because you are subscribed to receive occasional eNewsLetters from us. We are a not for profit organisation staffed by volunteers. We may provide you with further updates however are unable to send regular mail outs. You can keep up to date by regularly by browsing our website. Come visit us weekly.

We are supporters and friends of SBS and believe it should be adequately funded from the public purse without reliance on advertising and free of disruptive breaks. We are not associated with any political party or organisation.  

SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE future eNewsLetters with your email addresses at http://www.saveoursbs.org/lists  

If the Bill fails to become law, the future of SBS will be uncertain but commercially driven and no longer special.

Funding for the next three years will be announced on Budget night 8 May.

Help SBS now. Click here to find out how. Join our campaign and make SBS special again.

Meanwhile one of the unions representing workers at SBS, the Community & Public Sector Union (CPSU) is taking a multi-pronged approach to save jobs and address the underlaying issue, the commercialisation of SBS. With the slogan SBS – without the special…it’s just BS the CPSU has launched a campaign that calls on the Minister to provide greater funding for SBS. The one page online letter, which can be signed by anyone, concludes by saying “I call on you and your Government to demonstrate your support for SBS by providing more triennial funding for SBS so that it can meet its Charter Obligations and cease the commercialization and outsourcing of SBS work. Without adequate funding from your Government, SBS can no longer be ‘special’ and it is just another broadcasting service. Our community is relying on you and your Government to support SBS and will be watching what happens on 9 May 2012 very carefully”.

Ordinary members of the public, including people not working at SBS may sign the online letter.

The Android version has the same features as the iPhone version; live streaming of SBS Radio 1, Radio 2, the digital only stations POPAsia, and SBS chill, plus a choice of podcasts. The app will display a schedule of programs too.

One of the best features of the app is the ability to be notified at the time a favourite program or language is broadcast.

The only slight drawback of the app is the white text on yellow background on the program line-up screens. Not a good combination. The lack of contrast between text and background when attempting to select a program, makes it difficult to read at times. This was the same on the iPhone version. Hopefully SBS will address this in a future app update. But despite this drawback, the app is by far one of the best, if not the best radio app around and is definitely worth downloading.

Android users may download the SBS Your Language app from Google play (also known as Google Market). It is free.

Don’t be anonymous. Any email to a politician is only noted if the senders name and postal address is included in the email.

Additional emails to all government Senators and government MPs will also help. Now is the time to write. Tell your friends too >

If the bill fails to become law, the future of SBS is uncertain.

Not only would in-program disruptions be phased out by 2016 if the Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Natural Program Breaks and Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2012 passes into law, but increased funding of SBS would be likely.

For statistical purposes an email sent by clicking on the email addresses above, may also result in a BCC of the email to Save Our SBS and we may update you of the progress via the Save Our SBS occasional eNewsLetter. We do not give or sell your email address or personal details to anyone.

When introducing the Bill, Senator Ludlam made clear it was intended to bring advertising practices back into line with Parliament’s original intentions when debating the SBS Act in 1991.

The Senator said SBS received less than a quarter of the ABC’s budget before pointing out that the station had moved-arguably in contradiction of its Act, to full in-program advertising and that this situation had not only damaged SBS and created considerable viewer discontent, it has led to successive government’s getting away with structural under-funding.

Senator Ludlam said the Bill sought to “reverse the tide of commercialisation before declining advertising revenues and rising viewer discontent force a crisis on the broadcaster.”

The Bill still allows SBS to carry 5 minutes of advertising each hour. Eventually ads would only be allowed between programs and in live sports programs. Radio would not be affected.

The Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Natural Program Breaks and Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2012 has three timelines.

The first begins on 1 January 2013. This is when a legislated definition would apply to the phrase “natural program breaks”. That would be a break in a program that was intended by the maker of the program. It is difficult to argue against that. The definition will protect SBS from false claims that it ‘forces’ breaks where not intended.

The current SBS Act states SBS may place advertisements in natural program breaks but fails to give a definition. That’s the ‘loophole’ that SBS used to force in-program advertisements often in highly questionable and disruptive positions.

In the past SBS was criticised for ‘forcing’ breaks into programs although SBS has always denied this. At a Senate Estimates Hearing Senator Conroy said that the current SBS-penned definition of a “natural program break” was “inconsistent with the intent of the limits that the legislation attempted to set”. Over time, the Bill would virtually return SBS to that intended by the legislators.

Many television programs are constructed and supplied to television stations – in a broken format – ready for insertion of commercial breaks at pre-selected positions by the maker of the program. In the future, this would be the only place where SBS would be allowed to place their breaks. That’s far more sensible than the current arrangement where the broadcaster at times appears to cut into programs at will. Nothing in the Bill requires SBS to take all the available breaks.

The second timeline begins on 1 January 2014. From that date SBS would be allowed to place one break only in each television program – in the position defined above for a natural break. Sports programs would have no limit on the number of natural program breaks. Exemption for sport was requested by SBS to enable coverage of their big events like the FIFA World Cup and La Tour De France. It is also consistent with the original intentions of Parliament when SBS became a corporation in 1991.

At that time, SBS promised the Parliament that a natural program break would be strictly limited to “half-time in a soccer match”. . .  “in effect what will happen is that advertising will top and tail programs”. SBS held to this promise for many years.

Hansard, in 1991, conveys a sense of nervousness from all politicians about opening up SBS to carry advertising. Then National MP, Mr Sinclair summed it up by saying “let us not try to get the advertising revenue that will make the SBS another commercial channel. If we do, again, that will change its character, and I do not think that is really what we are about”.

The 1991 Parliament’s concerns were eventually resolved by the inclusion of the well explained and understood phrase – natural program breaks. Labor MP, Mr Lee expressed the outcome very clearly when describing these breaks as “advertisement–at the beginning and the end of the sponsored program. In that way the viewers were not disturbed and were not constantly interrupted, as is the case on some of the commercial television programs”.

But the original intentions of the Parliament were largely set aside by SBS in late 2006 when it began to disrupt all television programs with advertising and sponsorship breaks. Senator Ludlam’s Bill is a good attempt to gradually restore SBS to that intended when it was corporatized in 1991.

The Bill does not place any restrictions on the number of breaks between programs.

During the second timeline, the Bill offers SBS an ‘incentive’ to shift the commercial content out of program to a break between programs. If SBS does that, they would be allowed to use specified funding for that purpose from monies already appropriated. This offset would be a virtual government ‘buy-out’ of the in-program advertising but only for night time programs (6pm to 2am) where SBS chose not to place any breaks in a program.

Although the Bill would allow SBS to place a break in a program – if that’s what SBS wants – they wouldn’t be able to reconcile the government offset. In an age where governments are reluctant to over-regulate, this Bill does not punish for non-compliance. The Bill is not about government intervention. Far from it. It’s more about supporting SBS with a financial incentive to broadcast some programs without disruptions, from 1 January 2014. This will lead into the third timeline.

Unless proclaimed earlier, by 1 January 2016, SBS television would not be allowed to place any in-program breaks in television programs, except for sport.

The Bill is a much needed circuit breaker for both SBS and the viewing public, considering the growth rate from advertising on SBS-TV has been declining since 2008 and negative since 2010. Given the current and forecast financial gloom with regards to SBS television advertising revenues, this Bill could be a life-saver for SBS. It would be grossly irresponsible not to publicly support this Bill. Among other things, Senator Ludlam said the Bill will protect what a considerable number of Australians-including non SBS viewers-regard as one of this country’s most valuable cultural and social assets – our multicultural broadcaster.

Save Our SBS welcomes the Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Natural Program Breaks and Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2012. It’s fair, sensible and not heavy handed. It will be debated and voted on in later in the year.

The Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Natural Program Breaks and Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2012 was introduced by Greens Communications spokesperson, Senator Scott Ludlam .

Commenting on the Bill, Mr Aujard said, “We call on all parties to support the Bill. That would ensure the long term viability of SBS and only then will viewers of SBS television be returned to the experience of before 5 years ago when constant and inappropriate disruptions began. That led to a high level of discontent.

“In late 2006, SBS began disrupting all television programs for ad breaks, rather than placing them at the beginning or end of a program which was the original intention of legislators when debating the SBS Act in  1991.

“The introduction of in-program advertising five years ago fundamentally changed the intention of the 1991 legislators. Hansard clearly shows they never intended in-program ads or promos. The intention was that advertisements would “top and tail programs” only, except during the “natural break” of a sporting event, quite specifically half-time during soccer matches”, he said.

Reflecting on the past five years Mr Aujard said “The policy change to force ads and promos during programs  has been a disaster – both in terms of what Australian’s expect from a public broadcaster and financially for SBS. SBS’s rate of growth from television advertising has been in decline since 2008 and negative since 2010. By 2015 it will be minus 37% if the status quo remains.

“Under funding and advertising have remained unresolved issues for SBS and supporters for years while successive governments could get away with structural underfunding. This has been a major problem for SBS.

With new and emerging communities migrating to Australia, SBS is more relevant today than it ever has been. As issues such as migration, multiculturalism and refugees are a big part of the national debate, SBS is an essential public service and should be treated, and funded, as such,” he said.

On this basis, advice was provided to the SBS that it was not allowed to place ads in programs except sport. Ads only appeared between programs – except for sport – and everyone was happy.

But 15 years later, with insufficient public funds and wanting to expand its local TV content, SBS obtained a different legal opinion and in late 2006 began disrupting all TV programs for commercial breaks. That was a fundamental departure from its past practice of screening advertisements between programs only.

At the time, Senator Conroy described the change as being: “inconsistent with the intent of the limits that the legislation attempted to set” and not in accordance with the people who were involved in the drafting of the SBS Act 1991.

The 1991 Hansard reveals that the intent and understanding of the Parliament was that advertisements would “top and tail programs” only, except during the “natural break” of a sporting event.

1991 intent of Parliament on advertising limitations of the SBS Act

• definition of natural program breaks . . .  half-time in a soccer match . . . in effect what will happen is that advertising will top and tail programs (Mr Smith Liberal).
• let us not try to get the advertising revenue that will make the SBS another commercial channel. If we do, again, that will change its character, and I do not think that is really what we are about (Mr Sinclair National).
• advertisement–at the beginning and the end of the sponsored program. In that way the viewers were not disturbed and were not constantly interrupted, as is the case on some of the commercial television programs (Mr Lee Labor).

The current practice by SBS of placing ads in all TV programs has never been tested in the Courts. If it were, an opinion is SBS might be found to have acted not in accordance with the intent of the 1991 Parliament. Not only would SBS then be required to retire all in-program ad breaks except for those in soccer, but members of the SBS Board may individually be found wanting. Not a pleasant scenario. When a section in an Act of Parliament fails to define a phrase, e.g., natural program breaks, the Courts give considerable weight to the intent of the Parliament in determining the meaning of the section in question. The intent of the Parliament is paramount in determining if an action is in breach of an Act. Little weight is given to an argument that an Act failed to provide a definition – ’so we made one up’.

There is no doubt that SBS ought to be funded significantly more from the public purse than has been the case to date. This is a separate issue from the rights and wrongs of in-program advertising.

The legally untested action to pursue in-program advertising caused SBS to juggle between two masters – advertisers and audience. Advertisers replaced the audience as the client of SBS. This resulted in thousands of viewers protesting to both SBS and government. The decision to disrupt programs questioned the unique and “special” nature of the SBS and all in the name of commissioning more local content; an honourable objective. Ironically, unlike other Networks, there is no legal requirement on SBS to produce any quota of Australian content.

The financial incentive to position ads in-program on SBS-TV is also questionable.

Post 2010, SBS suffered due to the revenue growth from television advertising being negative.

If the negative rate of growth from advertising continues with the same decline as is current, by 2015, it will be minus 37% (excluding the transient, temporary spike caused every 4 years during the very high rating FIFA World Cup broadcasts).

Not only is the rate of growth from ad revenue declining, five years after the change that saw all programs disrupted for advertisements, revenue from ads (in 2010-11) was on a par with the final year of when programs were not interrupted for ad breaks (2005-06).

Although SBS may have ignored the intent of the Parliament in placing ads in-program, it makes no financial sense for SBS television to continue with this flawed policy.

References

The Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/0/2F8013F942CC76E5CA2571FD0020CC29/$file/SpecBroadService91WD02.pdf

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS 30/10/2006 COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS PORTFOLIO Special Broadcasting Service Corporation (committees/estimate/9768/0002) http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:%22committees/estimate/9768/0002%22

SBS GUIDELINES FOR THE PLACEMENT OF BREAKS IN SBS TELEVISION PROGRAMS SEPTEMBER 2006 http://media.sbs.com.au/home/upload_media/site_20_rand_1995575143_sbs_advertising_guidelines_2006.pdf

SBS Corporate Plan 2010-13 http://media.sbs.com.au/home/upload_media/site_20_rand_1685307411_sbs_corporate_plan7.pdf

* SPECIAL BROADCASTING SERVICE BILL 1991 Second Reading’ House Hansard Parl No.36. 4 October 1991 – (references below)

* (chamber/hansardr/1991-10-14/0051) Page: 1842 Mr SMITH (Liberal) http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F1991-10-14%2F0051%22

* (chamber/hansardr/1991-10-14/0061) Page: 1860 Mr SINCLAIR (National) http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F1991-10-14%2F0061%22

* (chamber/hansardr/1991-10-14/0060) Page: 1857 Mr LEE (Labor) http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F1991-10-14%2F0060%22

SPECIAL BROADCASTING SERVICE BILL 1991 14/10/1991 (chamber/hansardr/1991-10-14/0057) from http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F1991-10-14%2F0057%22 (pg inj 1855) and 19 subsequent fragment URLs of Parl No 36 to end (pg inj 1875)

Question No 30, Hansard Ref: EC 66–67, answer (d) http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/ec_ctte/estimates/supp_1011/bcde/sbs.pdf

Environment and Communications Legislation Committee 18/10/2011 Estimates BROADBAND, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE DIGITAL ECONOMY PORTFOLIO Special Broadcasting Service Corporation:  M Ebeid, Managing Director, SBS page 6 (PDF page 10)“The forecast has now dropped to about $45 million for this year” http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/estimate/2b715df2-8420-43c6-8675-c8418d2c3ed9/toc_pdf/Environment%20and%20Communications%20Legislation%20Committee_2011_10_18_573_Official.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22committees/estimate/2b715df2-8420-43c6-8675-c8418d2c3ed9/0002%22

SBS Annual Report(s), SBS, http://www.sbs.com.au/aboutus/corporate/view/id/111/h/Annual-Reports

SBS 2001 – 2002 Annual Report, Financial Statements, p 73, (Way Back Machine) http://web.archive.org/web/20030312011429/www.sbs.com.au/2002_annual_report/sbs_financials.pdf

2002 – 2003 Annual Report, Financial Statements, pg 97, Waybackmachine Internet Archive, http://web.archive.org/web/20040413170218/www.sbs.com.au/2003_annual_report/2003_Annual_Report_Financials.pdf

2003 – 2004 Annual Report, Financial Statements, pg 85, Waybackmachine Internet Archive, http://web.archive.org/web/20061231163944/www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/media/documents/5633financials_appedix.pdf

2004 – 2005 Annual Report, Financial Statements, pg 93, Waybackmachine Internet Archive, http://web.archive.org/web/20060621075907/www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/media/documents/193809_financials.pdf

SBS 2005 – 2006 Annual Report, Financial Statements Sec2:93 (Way Back Machine) http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20070607045758/http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/media/documents/91508_financial_statements.pdf

SBS 2005 – 06 Annual Report Commercial Affairs Sec2:42 (Way Back Machine) http://web.archive.org/web/20061231081007/http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/media/documents/652304_commercial_affairs.pdf

2006 – 2007 Annual Report, Financial Statements, pg 88, Waybackmachine Internet Archive, http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20080812155413/http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/media/documents/174sbs_ar067_financial.pdf

2007 – 2008 Annual Report, Financial Statements, pg 96, http://media.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/documents/6859sbs_annualreport_financialstatements.pdf

2008 – 2009 Annual Report, pg 97, http://media.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/documents/7738sbs_annual_report_200809.pdf

2009 – 2010 Annual Report, pg 84, http://media.sbs.com.au/home/upload_media/

SBS 2010-11 Annual Report http://media.sbs.com.au/home/upload_media/site_20_rand_1237101070_sbs_annual_report_2010_11.pdf

Environment and Communications Legislation Committee 18/10/2011 Estimates BROADBAND, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE DIGITAL ECONOMY PORTFOLIO Special Broadcasting Service Corporation:  M Ebeid, Managing Director, SBS page 6 (PDF page 10)“The forecast has now dropped to about $45 million for this year” http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/estimate/2b715df2-8420-43c6-8675-c8418d2c3ed9/toc_pdf/Environment%20and%20Communications%20Legislation%20Committee_2011_10_18_573_Official.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22committees/estimate/2b715df2-8420-43c6-8675-c8418d2c3ed9/0002%22

When the previous Managing Director of SBS retired mid last year, other staff soon left. Some were shown the door by the new boss and others walked of their own accord. The head of TV was one of them.

Then in October last year, SBS’s Managing Director, Michael Ebeid told Senate Estimates that plans to appoint a new head of television had been dashed.

So when the TV schedule was made up for this year, it was done so on a sort of auto pilot; there being no one solely in charge of television. Surprisingly SBS has come up with a schedule that in part, shows lots of promise – if you separate out the ‘more of the same’ stuff.

A program not to be missed is Once upon a time in Cabramatta. It airs on 8 January. It’s the untold story of how the Vietnamese community overcame the odds and found their place in multicultural Australia.

From Prime Minister Fraser’s landmark decision to open Australia’s doors to thousands of refugees at the end of the Vietnam War, this three part series follows the Vietnamese people of Cabramatta as they struggle to find their place in a foreign land.

The 80s and 90s see the arrival of street gangs, a heroin epidemic and the first political assassination in Australia’s history. The Vietnamese people are vilified and demonised and it seems Cabramatta represents all that is wrong with Asian immigration. But as the century draws to a close there is a remarkable turnaround and the Vietnamese people finally find their voice – speaking up to claim their rightful place in their adopted home. Cabramatta becomes a community transformed. Australia, a continent changed forever.

Some of the other programs that SBS has in store for this year are below.

Freddy Flintoff Versus The World – 2 January.

Cricketing legend and ultimate bloke, Freddie Flintoff, tries his hand at some of the most extreme sports and challenges on offer around the world. But, ever the competitive sportsman, he won’t be trying anything out without turning it into a competition so he’s also enlisted other athletes who retired at the top of their game to see if they can beat him. Against opponents that include Dennis Rodman, Iwan Thomas and Dennis Wise, Freddie challenges himself at extreme events including the skeleton bob, wing walking and rodeo bull riding.

Who Do You Think You Are? resumes early in the new year.

The celebrated genealogy series Who Do You Think You Are? returns to SBS for its fourth Australian season. Actor John Wood, funnyman Shaun Micallef, AFL legend Michael O’Loughlin, actress Melissa George, journalist Kerry O’Brien and actor Vince Colosimo take a journey into their family history in this fascinating chronicle of the social, ethnic and cultural evolution of Australia’s national identity. Travelling across the country and around the globe, their personal journeys are revealing, sometimes shocking and always emotional.

24 Hours in Emergency – 5 January.

With 70 cameras filming round the clock for 28 days, 24 Hours in A&E offers unprecedented access to one of Britain’s busiest A&E departments, at King’s College Hospital. Each episode focuses on patients who were treated within the same 24-hour period. The series captures the joy and heartache faced by patients and their families, as well as the hard work and professionalism of the A&E staff. From life-threatening traumas to embarrassing mishaps, 24 Hours in A&E is an intimate, powerful and sometimes comic insight into life – and death – on the frontline of a busy hospital.

Vet Adventures will screen in January.

Vet Adventures follows Dorset vet Luke Gamble as he travels the world treating animals in need. Visiting countries as diverse as India, Grenada, Malawi and Mexico, this unique series sees Luke challenge his skills to treat any species of animal that needs help – both domestic and wild – in places where they have no one else to turn to.

One Born Every Minute USA early this year.

American version of One Born Every Minute, the show that looks at the drama and emotion of a maternity unit from the perspective of the parents-to-be and the maternity ward staff.

Early in February Red Cliff (parts 1 & 2). This film is not to be missed.

In Asia the film was originally released in two parts, totalling over four hours in length. The first part was released in July 2008 and the second in January 2009. But outside Asia only a single 2½ hour film was released. SBS will screen the full version in two parts.

Set in 208 A.D., in the final days of the Han Dynasty, shrewd Prime Minster Cao Cao convinced the fickle Emperor Han the only way to unite all of China was to declare war on the kingdoms of Xu in the west and East Wu in the south. Thus began a military campaign of unprecedented scale, led by the Prime Minister, himself. Left with no other hope for survival, the kingdoms of Xu and East Wu formed an unlikely alliance. Numerous battles of strength and wit ensued, both on land and on water, eventually culminating in the battle of Red Cliff. During the battle, two thousand ships were burned, and the course of Chinese history was changed forever. Directed by John Woo, it stars Tony Leung, Takeshi Kaneshiro and Zhang Fengyi.

Bollywood Star is promised this year too.

Inspired by the huge success and influence of Bollywood movies, SBS brings a taste of Bollywood to Australia. Renowned Bollywood producer/director Mahesh Bhatt is offering a place in his next movie to one Australian to become the next Bollywood Star. This four-part series follows the search for an Australian Bollywood star: an unknown who will go on to win the prize of a lifetime – a part in a Bollywood movie.

Each applicant will have their own unique set of circumstances and background but all are striving for the same goal – to become a star in the biggest movie industry in the world. The first two episodes will feature a national talent search, whittling down hundreds of applicants to a shortlist of 20. In the final two episodes the participants are reduced to six finalists, who travel to Mumbai for two weeks intensive Bollywood training in singing, dancing and acting with the top Indian industry professionals. The final winner will be selected by Mahesh himself and take away the prize of an exciting role in his next feature film.

As well as experiencing the glitz and glamour of the Indian film industry the six finalists will see and live Mumbai life first hand. For some the trip will be more than a competition – it will be a journey of self-discovery and cultural identity.

Danger 5 scheduled for February.

Set in a bizarre, 1960’s inspired fantasy World War II complete with tropical bars, dancing women, cocktails, cigarettes and talking animals, action comedy series Danger 5 follows a team of five international, super skilled, super good-looking spies on a mission to kill Hitler. Danger 5 is the finest group of special operatives the allies have to offer; Jackson from the USA, Tucker from Australia, Ilsa from Russia, Claire from Britain and Pierre from Europe.

Mad Men (series 3) – 18 February.

Set in 1960’s New York, Mad Men follows the lives of the ruthlessly competitive men and women of fictional Madison Avenue advertising agency Sterling Cooper; an ego-driven world where key players make an art of the sell while their private world gets sold. In season three, against the backdrop of rapid social and political changes playing out across America in 1963, the conflicted world of Creative Director Don Draper (Jon Hamm) slowly begins to implode as new economic realities threaten the future of Sterling Cooper, and his dark past and constant philandering begin to bear on his faltering marriage to Betty (January Jones).

Luke Nguyen’s Greater Mekong – 23 February.

Celebrated chef, Luke Nguyen, in the third instalment of his popular series, takes viewers on a culinary journey across the Greater Mekong region of Southeast Asia. Beginning in Yunnan Province, China, Luke takes to the backstreets and traverses mountainsides to prepare the dishes that have sustained customs and communities for centuries. Luke explores how food is integrated into Myanmar’s many ethnic cultures. In Yangon, he cooks with three generations of Burmese women, while in the Shan State he tends to the floating gardens of Inle Lake with Intha farmers. In northern Thailand, Luke learns a thing or two from local Mekong River fishermen. They reveal the Mekong is more than a source of food to the people that live along its shores, it is a way of life.

Then in in March it’s the Toughest Place to Be (series 2).

This three part series follows three experienced and qualified professionals who find out what it would be like to do their job under some of the toughest conditions on the planet.

2012 Paris-Roubaix can be seen on 29 March.

The most prestigious single-day professional road cycling race, the Paris-Roubaix is known for its rough terrain and cobblestones, which make for a gruelling event. Beginning in Compiègne in northern France, the 260km race has been dubbed the Hell of the North and follows a winding route to Roubaix. SBS will show the 2012 Paris-Roubaix live.

A program that worth considering later this year is Go Back To Where You Came From – series two. Worth considering because – series one – screened last year, was a brilliant piece of television. The test will be: can SBS come up with the goods again? We hope so. The sad truth is though, that invariably the 2nd or 3rd of any production is often not as good as the first.

If you missed it, Go Back To Where You Came From – series one, was about racial tensions in Australia. It followed six Australians who travelled on a rickety boat taking the same journey as those seeking asylum here, but in reverse order. They agreed to challenge their preconceived notions about refugees and asylum seekers embarking on a confronting journey. Over the course of the three episodes, prejudices were challenged and insights gained. It was as much an eye opener for the six participants as it was for the audience, as we – the audience – were witness to situations that stirred the deepest of emotions in the most horrific and seemingly hopeless circumstances. It was a rare piece of television. If SBS can do half as good this year, it’ll still be worth watching.

2012 FA Cup Final – 5 May.

The best club football teams in the English football leagues go head-to-head in the world’s longest running and most respected club football tournament, the FA Cup. The FA Cup final is one of the most highly-anticipated football matches of the year and showcases the very best of English football. The 2012 FA Cup Final will be broadcast live on SBS from Wembley Stadium.

2012 Tour de France – Saturday 30 June to Monday 23 July.

In 2012 SBS will broadcast its 22nd Tour de France with over 60 hours of live coverage in high definition over three weeks. After becoming the first Australian to win the yellow jersey in 2011, Cadel Evans will be looking to take home the title once again.

SBS’s coverage of the 2012 Tour de France will include every stage live and exclusive, plus daily highlights. It will be hosted by Michael Tomalaris in his 17th year as host, with commentary from Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen.

The 2011 Tour de France was SBS’s 21st broadcast of the Tour and its most successful to date. The final stage, broadcast on 24 July, was the most watched Tour de France stage ever in Australia.

For up-to-date information on all programs see the SBS schedule.

Stay tuned. With the appointment of a head of television there’s more to come.

Senator the Hon Penny Wong,
Minister for Finance and Deregulation
Parliament House,
Canberra, ACT, 2600

Copy sent to: Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy, Minister for BCDE

sent by post and email

Funding the SBS in the 2012-15 triennium – Executive Summary

Save Our SBS Inc examined the role of the SBS and how it could be funded in the forthcoming triennium including the impact of advertising policies and revenues.

• SBS has a unique role in Australian society and an increase in public funding is justified.
• Income from advertising as a major source of revenue for SBS combined with government funding has not been sufficient for SBS to keep up with the financial pressures brought upon it by multi-channels. SBS’s gross television advertising revenues decreased in 2010-11 and overall revenues have not kept pace with increasing operational costs.
• In 2010, SBS announced its Social Inclusion and Cohesion Policy which is in step with the Federal Government’s Social Inclusion Principles. The implementation of the SBS social inclusion policy requires substantial government funding. This policy lays the foundation from which SBS can develop its practices, understandings, programming and other policies.
• Although SBS is smaller than the ABC it is disproportionately underfunded. The output of the SBS is comparable to at least half that of the ABC, but its base funding is far less.
• Placing unrealistic expectations of securing revenue from advertising, SBS has under estimated the funds required and appropriation monies needed to carry out basic services.

There is overwhelming evidence that the rate of growth from advertising decreased significantly and in parallel to and post the introduction of the current in‑program advertising breaks policy on SBS‑TV. We conclude the current policy is flawed and that average annual appropriation monies for SBS ought to be increased significantly by not less than either $105m p.a. if SBS takes on virtually no new initiatives – or – by not less than $190m p.a. if SBS updates its services to that of a modern, culturally relevant, media organisation over the forward estimates (2012-2015).

Committee of Management, Save Our SBS Inc

PDF version http://saveoursbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Funding-the-SBS-in-the-2012-15-triennium.pdf

Table of Contents

Financial & social investment for the future – 2012-15. page 3

Advertising revenues policy. page 4

Financial page 4

Intent of the Parliament page 6

Perception. page 7

Social inclusion. page 8

Catch up of services. page 10

Competition from other broadcasters. page 10

Summary, conclusion and recommendations. page 11

References. page 13

The graphs in this document are best viewed in colour.

Financial & social investment for the future – 2012-15

This paper covers two main areas; the financial and the social aspects of funding the SBS.

The Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) is established under the SBS Act and its purpose is guided by its Charter; the umbrella statement of Australia’s multicultural broadcaster[1].

SBS is a microcosm of society not just on-air, but internally in its day to day operation. Few public organisations foster multiculturalism, diversity and social inclusion to the extent that SBS does. The peoples of SBS and contributors may take credit for nurturing much of this, and with fewer resources than other broadcasters.

• In 2009-10, SBS total revenue was less than ¼ for that of the average Australian commercial network. This includes government support and income from commercial activities, including advertising.
• In the same year the total revenue for the SBS (from all sources) was $308.4 million[2].
• The average advertising revenue for each of the three free-to-air commercial TV networks was $1,231 million[3], or about four times the revenue for all SBS output, including its television, radio and internet services.
• For the 2009-12 triennium SBS received less than ¼ of the funding that the ABC received from the public purse[4].
• Funding for SBS television is as little as one sixth compared to the highest commercial network annual budget[5].

By every measure, SBS was the least funded broadcaster in the period mentioned.

GRAPH 1: Comparative ‘funding/revenues’ by broadcaster/network

Since 1991, SBS has been permitted to broadcast 5 minutes of advertisements per hour.

Until late 2006 all advertising on SBS-TV, was placed between programs only (except for big sports events like the FIFA Word Cup – held every four years). However the inadequate financial resources available to SBS ‘forced’ it to seek additional funds through a change in their then advertising model, when in late 2006, SBS introduced in‑program advertising. Since then all programs have been disrupted numerous times per hour for advertising breaks. With this change, advertisers replaced viewers as the clients of SBS, while viewers became a product to be on-sold to advertisers. Ratings became important. Adjustments were made to appease advertisers and this fundamental change mobilised a ground swell of electors seeking government funding for the SBS specifically to reverse the above[6] [7] [8] [9] [10].

Advertising revenues policy

In the light of the above, a number of questions arise. Would the SBS be better or worse served with a change in advertising policy, such as a doubling of permitted advertising from 5 to 10 minutes per hour – or – would SBS and consumers of SBS be better served with a return to the former model, where the breaks only occurred between programs? The answer to these questions can be divided into four broad categories: financial, intent, perception, and social inclusion.

Financial

Revenue from television advertisements accounted for almost all of total advertising revenues on SBS.

There was a steady increase in revenue from advertising from 2001 to 2008. Although the year by year dollars increased with each year, the rate of growth slowed towards the end of this period. Post 2010 revenue growth from television advertising was negative.

GRAPH 2: Rate of growth of advertising from 2002 to 2011 (excluding FIFA World Cup contribution)[11] [12] [13] [14]

If the negative rate of growth from advertising continues with the same decline as is current, by 2015, it will be minus 37% (excluding the temporary spike caused every 4 years during the very high rating FIFA World Cup broadcasts).

In October 2010 SBS predicted forecasts to FY ending 2015 were that the growth rate of revenue from advertising would fall[15] [16]. At the time SBS introduced in‑program advertising and subsequently, SBS predicted that reliance on revenues from advertising would not be sustainable in the longer term[17] [18]. Graph 2 above confirms those forecasts. Despite the change of SBS policy to introduce in‑program ad breaks, SBS has been unable to sell their full quota of 5 minutes per hour.

There is no evidence to support the notion that a change in law to allow SBS to double its permitted advertising to broadcast 10 minutes per hour or more would result in a financial gain to SBS at all. Predicably viewers would object to the idea of increasing advertisements on SBS considering there is ample evidence that the electorate preferred the ‘old’ SBS advertising model of pre‑2006, where all ad breaks were only between programs and not in them. From a financial perspective, SBS was in fact better off under that model in terms of advertising revenues growth rate.

Aside from the change of late 2006 to disrupt program for commercial breaks, SBS undertook a range of wholesale changes in an effort to attain their full quota of 5 minutes of advertising in every hour. None of the changes documented above or below have ever achieved that aim.

• At the time that the SBS changed to the new (now current) model to allow in‑program advertising, more people were engaged to sell advertising.
• SBS ‘relaxed’ its policy on the type of advertisement it was prepared to accept[19] [20] [21] [22].
• Under the old model, only the ‘soft sell’ advertisers were accepted whereas under the new model, almost any type of advertiser became acceptable.

Despite these changes advertisers invariably continue to invest in the mainstream commercial networks (SEVEN, NINE and TEN) where they are virtually guaranteed a return, in part due to the demographic of the commercial broadcasters.

The niche demographics of SBS change with every program. This makes SBS decidedly unattractive to many advertisers. The aim by SBS to charge a higher rate for an ad placed in program failed because the market demands discounting across the board. Hence SBS charges the same rate for advertisements regardless of whether they were placed between programs or in-programs[23]. This outcome has ensured the in‑program breaks policy is close to worthless.

In the past SBS overestimated the possibilities from advertising while underestimating budget monies requested from government. In 2010-11 total television advertising revenue for SBS was forecast to be $65m then revised down to $50m[24] however the year concluded less than that.

A snapshot of three time points at the beginning, middle and end of the past decade is useful. Gross revenue from advertising in 2001-02 was $23.6m[25] (excluding revenues from the FIFA World Cup). By 2005-06 the total advertising revenue was $46.5m[26]. Of this, $33.2m[27] came from television only advertising (when programs were not interrupted for advertising) and the FIFA World Cup generated a further $11.39m[28] in that year.

GRAPH 3: Snapshot of advertising revenues (SBS-TV) from three time periods from 2001 to 2011[29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]. The two green bars on the left of the chart are when adverts were between programs (past policy). The amber bar on the right (current policy) is with in‑programs ad breaks.

The above points to a strong argument in favour of requiring SBS cease in‑program advertising breaks and that breaks only occur between programs. Conversely any increase of permitted advertising would achieve nothing and ignore the fiscal evidence cited and also that intended by the 1991 Parliament when SBS was corporatised.

Intent of the Parliament

The intent and understanding in debating the SBS Bill (now the Act) in 1991, was that advertisements would “top and tail programs”, except during the natural break of a sporting event.

1991 Parliament understanding of a “natural program break” for the SBS bill (now the Act)

Section 45 of the SBS Act states that SBS may broadcast advertisements during “natural program breaks” but the Act fails to define that phrase – although the intent of the Parliament is well documented in Hansard [39] (see quote box above & references). The current definition[40] was self‑determined by SBS in 2006 and reaffirmed by SBS in 2010 [41]. It does not take account of the Parliament’s intent. This SBS definition was described as being: “inconsistent with the intent of the limits that the legislation attempted to set” and not in accordance with the people who were involved in the drafting of the SBS Act (Senator Conroy) [42]. The Hansard clearly shows the legislators never intended in‑program breaks on SBS television.

Perception

An international survey of public service broadcasters (PSBs), commissioned by the BBC and conducted by McKinsey and Co, argued that the presence of a public service broadcaster in a broadcasting ecology consisting of both commercial and public service broadcasters:

. . . combines creative and market pressures on broadcasters to achieve society’s aims for its broadcasting market.

It does so by setting off a ‘virtuous circle’ with its commercial competitors. Because of its unique role and funding method, a PSB can popularise new styles of programming, and thereby encourage commercial broadcasters to create their own distinctive programs. In this way the viewing standards of the entire market are raised.

Many PSBs are funded, at least partly, through advertising. Our survey shows clearly the potential dangers of this approach. We have found evidence that the higher the advertising revenue as a proportion of total revenues, the less distinctive a public service broadcaster is likely to be[43].

The McKinsey survey concluded that the greater the advertising income that a PSB received, the more it looked like a commercial broadcaster and the less is looked like a public service broadcaster. There is evidence of this with SBS.

The introduction of in program advertising to the SBS in effect makes the SBS a de facto fourth free-to-air commercial television station and serves to erode the fundamental tenets of public broadcasting- that is, that it should be free from commercial and political influence[44] (Senator Conroy).

The SBS places two breaks in a half hour television program plus a break on conclusion of the program. This therefore means that when 2 half-hour programs are scheduled back to back, there are in fact 6 breaks in total for that hour of viewing. This is more than commercial broadcasters who schedule 4 to 5 in-program breaks in a one hour program slot.

The SBS Charter includes the entire packaging of the SBS – not just the program content – and the manner in which SBS television in particular presents itself, now like that of a commercial broadcaster, led viewers to think of the SBS as deviating from its “special” purpose.

In 2007 some 1,119 people emailed politicians seeking more funding for SBS and legislative restrictions to prevent disruptions into programs[45].

In 2008 more than 7,500 people requested an end to the disruptions into programs by an amendment to the SBS Act coupled with full funding for the SBS[46].

In a small study conducted when SBS had been interrupting all television programs for just on two years, 96.3 percent of the 1,733 participants said they wanted “SBS-TV to stop interrupting programs for commercial breaks” and 95.9 percent said they wanted “government to legislate to prevent programs from being interrupted on SBS-TV”[47].

In 2008, more than one-thousand public submissions were made to the DBCDE ABC SBS Review and it is interesting to note that of those that commented on the SBS only, almost all expressed the view of wanting the government to legislate to prohibit SBS from interrupting programs for commercial breaks[48] [49].

By 2010 more than 15,400 had directly asked their parliamentarians to increase public funding for SBS so that it would be free from advertising, to amend the SBS Act accordingly, saying – an investment in SBS would be an investment in Australia’s future cultural diversity[50]. By any measure there is a ground swell of electors who wish for all of these things.

The ‘experiment’ since 2007 that commenced with the introduction of in‑program commercial breaks questioned the unique and “special” nature of the SBS[51] [52].

Since late 2006, SBS has juggled between two masters: advertisers and audience. However the two are not always compatible.

The dangers of a public broadcaster taking the commercial path, whether by necessity or desire, were documented as a tendency of the broadcaster to move away from its Charter in order to satisfy its clients, the advertisers.

An overview of the market and advertising research reports carried out for SBS . . .  confirms anecdotal accounts of the effects of advertising culture on SBS programming . . .  that it has had a profound effect on the broadcaster in shifting the orientation of SBS away from the terms of the Charter and towards satisfying market conditions. One of the dominant criticisms . . .  was the appropriateness of a public service broadcaster being so led by community attitudes; when its Charter quite clearly requires it should instead be leading the community in attitude change[53].

Social inclusion

In 2010, SBS actively sought to move in a new direction. After months of community consultation the SBS Board, under the Chairmanship of Joe Skrzynski, announced the SBS Social Inclusion and Cohesion Policy[54]. This move can only be applauded and is the right policy for SBS[55]. It recognises and takes into account the diverse mix that makes up the Australian society; a world example of multiculturalism and ethnic communities living within the one country. SBS’s Social Inclusion and Cohesion Policy is on the back of their Second Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP)[56] which is SBS’s policy and practice about increasing awareness of the contribution of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander communities to Australian society and building capacity to learn from and serve Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Unlike the National Indigenous Television (NITV) service which is restricted, SBS could play an important role in serving Australia’s Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander peoples due to SBS being a national free‑to‑air broadcaster.

The SBS Social Inclusion Policy is in step with the Federal Government’s Social Inclusion Principles[57] announced earlier this year. This is part of a whole of government policy and the release of the federal government’s booklet, Australia’s Multicultural Policy – The People of Australia[58] published February 2011, articulates that. The SBS social inclusion and cohesion policy will build on those principles and if the SBS is properly funded, not only will it flourish but it will reflect the government’s goal that “reaffirms the Government’s unwavering support for a culturally diverse and socially cohesive nation” [59] (Chris Bowen, Minister for Immigration, and Citizenship; &, Kate Lundy, Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs).

This policy is the foundation of SBS, from which its practices, understandings, programming and other policies may develop. However the ongoing implementation of the SBS social inclusion policy requires substantial government funding. The policy may be at risk of failure without such. If that occurred that could be to the detriment and worthiness of the SBS policy direction and would also undermine the desire of the government’s social inclusion and cohesion policy and principles referred to above.

While programs remain disrupted for commercial breaks, SBS will be at risk of proceeding down the path that economists call the Principle of Minimum Differentiation. This is a dangerous path for a public broadcaster to adopt.

. . . stations based on advertising revenue will seek to maximize their audience (and thereby their revenue). Stations will therefore duplicate program types as long as the audience share obtained is greater than that from other programs.

Hence a number of stations may compete by sharing a market for one type of program (such as crime dramas) and still do better in audience numbers than by providing programs of other types (such as arts and culture). In economics this point is an application of the Principle of Minimum Differentiation, a principle also capable of explaining such associated phenomenon as why bank branches may cluster together, why airline schedules may be parallel, and why political parties may have convergent policy platforms[60].

The introduction of in-program breaks in late 2006 is a form of the above. By its nature, it reaffirms the status quo – like that of the commercial broadcasters, disrupts in the same manner, opposes diversity of presentation [A] (as does 7; 9; and 10), and conflicts with the principles of social inclusion.

The original purpose of in-program advertising was a promise that the revenue from advertising would be used to “increase the production of Australian multicultural drama and documentaries”[61]. That did not always happen. In 2009-10 none of the $22.7m advertising revenue from major sporting events (FIFA World Cup; Ashes & One Day International Series) was used for such purpose[62].

The above highlights an outcome resulting from inadequate funding from the public purse.

Catch up of services

Due to its very low levels of public funding and the flawed in‑program advertising policy referred to earlier, SBS has not had been in a position to keep up with other comparable services. Funding is required to implement the long overdue and much needed initiatives below. This would allow SBS to ‘catch up’ with how modern media organisations operate, through:-

• Development and expansion of SBS’s internet services.
• Expansion of other television channels.
• Expansion of digital radio.
• Expansion of indigenous broadcasting.
• Funding for innovative multiculturally relevant programs in an Australian context.

With increased government funding there could be relevant opportunities for Australia’s culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities too, for example:-.

• Expansion of news services relevant to communities from an Australian perspective.
• Expansion of audio language services to those areas not currently serviced.
• Improvement of migrant representation in media and language skills including English language tuition.
• Expansion of local content to convey multicultural Australian stories.
• Expansion and development of mobile internet services including apps across every platform.
• Establishment of an SBS archiving service.
• Funding for languages other than English (LOTE) productions, both imported and produced locally.
• Development of the SBS music language services that connect with younger migrant audiences such as digital audio broadcasts (DAB), podcasts and associated internet apps.
• Development of online news services.
• Journalistic opportunities for people of non-English speaking backgrounds.

The above are worthy of investment but out of reach of SBS in the absence of a very significant increase in public funding[63]. Similarly low levels of public funding have meant that SBS broadcasts less Australian content compared to its peers[64].

Competition from other broadcasters

The expansion of multi‑channels in the commercial sector added to financial difficulties for SBS. There are now 16 free-to-air television broadcasters in capital cities (ABC has 4 channels; SBS, 2 channels; community, 1 channel; SEVEN, three channels; NINE, three channels; and, TEN, three channels) compared with a few years ago, when there were then only six.

“the explosion of multichannels from commercial broadcasters . . . has doubled the amount of commercial inventory in the market and [this] is having an impact on the revenue that SBS can derive.” (SBS, MD, Sen. Est. 2010)[65]

The above is not surprising as when in-program advertising was introduced in late 2006, SBS stated that that model would only be sustainable for 10 years at the most. That time has now arrived.

SBS requested less funding than required, evidenced by the debt of concluding financial years, which was in part due to a false belief that revenue from advertising would grow when in fact the growth rate has declined with the advent of in‑program advertising and multichannelling (refer to GRAPHS 2 & 3). This highlights the need to increase government funding significantly for SBS and remove in‑program breaks.

However the fine balancing act that SBS struggles – program and Charter requirements versus declining advertising dollars is based on a model flawed for a public broadcaster, that in‑program advertising will save the day. That strategy has failed.

Summary, conclusion and recommendations

If comparing SBS to Australian commercial broadcasters, or to public broadcasters overseas, or only the ABC, the SBS is very underfunded.

Even without comparison to other Australian broadcasters, SBS is worthy of an increase in funding due to its unique role within Australian society. The cultural worth of SBS deserves nurturing. In the context of the SBS social inclusion and social cohesion policy and the whole of government’s Social Inclusion Principles for Australia, such policies can only be achieved with a combination of greater government funding and a withdrawal of all advertising disruptions on SBS.

There is no evidence that a change in law to permit greater levels of advertising would result in greater advertising revenues. There is however ample evidence that the growth rate of advertising was much higher in all the years that that SBS-TV did not disrupt programs for commercial breaks (prior to late 2006) when advertisements were positioned between program only – see GRAPHS 2 & 3. Furthermore there are a growing number of electors who would support government granting a significant increase in funding the SBS combined with legislative amendments to disallow in‑program breaks on SBS-TV as a matter of priority [66] [67] [68] [69] [70]. We strongly recommend this course of action.

With sufficient government funding, SBS has a rightful place in Australian society and is crucial to the success of a socially inclusive society that embraces all cultures of the world, settling within Australia[71].

To a large extent SBS has had expectations of generating revenue from advertising that are unrealistic for a niche broadcaster. Considering its past and current debt, SBS has under estimated the funds required and appropriation monies needed to carry out basic services, let alone catch up to other media organisations.

If the hoped reliance on revenue from advertising continues – and the current in‑program breaks advertising policy remains – by 2015 the growth rate from advertising will be minus 37%[B] (see GRAPH 2).

The only way SBS can now fulfil its Charter obligations is for government to provide much greater funding than has been the case, especially given that advertising is not sustainable and the entire in‑program advertising breaks policy on SBS television is flawed and is contrary to that intended by the Parliament (see box on lower half of page 6).

In consideration of our findings, in the 2012‑15 triennium Save Our SBS Inc very strongly recommends:-

(1)    a significant increase in the average annual government appropriation monies for SBS by not less than either-

(a)   $105m p.a. if SBS takes on virtually no new initiatives; or,

(b)   $190m p.a. if SBS moderately expands its services to that of a culturally relevant, modern media organisation as outlined in ‘Catch up of services’ above; and

(2)   the total abolition of the flawed SBS in‑program breaks advertising policy; and

(3)   an abandonment of expectations that reliance on income from advertising is achievable – as it is not – or desirable for SBS.

Save Our SBS Inc
19 December 2011

References

[B] Not including the temporary spike caused every 4 years by the very high rating FIFA World Cup broadcasts.

[2] SBS Annual Report 2009-10 (pp109-110) http://media.sbs.com.au/home/upload_media/site_20_rand_662398772_sbs_annual_report_2009_10_.pdf

[3] Based on Free TV Australia published annual advertising revenues FY2009/10 totalling $3,693,021m averaged at 33% per network (Seven, Nine, Ten).  See http://www.freetv.com.au/media/News-Media_Release/PR13_Revenue_figures_-_Jul_-_Dec_09.pdf and http://www.freetv.com.au/media/News-Media_Release/PR14_Advertising_revenue_for_commercial_television_networks_-_Jan-Jun_2010.pdf

[4] Based on stated triennial funding from Government. http://www.dbcde.gov.au/television/abc_and_sbs_television (viewed 13Aug2011)

[5] Deloitte 2011, SBS and ABC funding based on Portfolio Budget Statements – excl. radio and transmission but includes an allocation for TV overhead.

[6] NO ADS ON SBS & ABC: email campaign, Save Our SBS, 24/11/2007 http://saveoursbs.org/archives/165

[7]Minister responds to petition, Save Our SBS, 26/08/2008, http://saveoursbs.org/archives/316

[8] Save Our SBS,  2008, One Minute Survey Results, http://saveoursbs.org/archives/332

[9] Department of Broadband Communications and Digital Economy ABC SBS Review public submissions 2008 http://www.dbcde.gov.au/media_broadcasting/consultation_and_submissions/abc_sbs_review/_submissions

[10] 2010 campaign statistics, Save Our SBS, 8/09/2010, http://saveoursbs.org/archives/1545

[11] SBS Corporate Plan 2010-2013 but excluding advertising revenue from the FIFA World Cup http://media.sbs.com.au/home/upload_media/site_20_rand_1685307411_sbs_corporate_plan7.pdf

[12] Question No 30, Hansard Ref: EC 66–67, answer (d) http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/ec_ctte/estimates/supp_1011/bcde/sbs.pdf

[13] SBS 2010-11 Annual Report http://media.sbs.com.au/home/upload_media/site_20_rand_1237101070_sbs_annual_report_2010_11.pdf

[14] Environment and Communications Legislation Committee 18/10/2011 Estimates BROADBAND, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE DIGITAL ECONOMY PORTFOLIO Special Broadcasting Service Corporation:  M Ebeid, Managing Director, SBS page 6 (PDF page 10)“The forecast has now dropped to about $45 million for this year” http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/estimate/2b715df2-8420-43c6-8675-c8418d2c3ed9/toc_pdf/Environment%20and%20Communications%20Legislation%20Committee_2011_10_18_573_Official.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22committees/estimate/2b715df2-8420-43c6-8675-c8418d2c3ed9/0002%22

[15] SBS Corporate Plan 2010-2013 but excluding advertising revenue from the FIFA World Cup http://media.sbs.com.au/home/upload_media/site_20_rand_1685307411_sbs_corporate_plan7.pdf

[16] Question No 30, Hansard Ref: EC 66–67, answer (d) http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/ec_ctte/estimates/supp_1011/bcde/sbs.pdf

[17] SBS Manger Director Mr Shaun Brown appearing before the Senate Estimates BCDE 24/05/2010 (committees/estimate/13005/0001) ECA page 4 (PDF page 8) http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/estimate/13005/toc_pdf/7622-3.pdf

[18] SBS Manger Director Mr Shaun Brown appearing before the Senate Estimates Environment & Commun’s 25/05/2011 System ID committees/estimate/13784/0004 pg 124 http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2F13784%2F0004%22

[19] SBS “Codes of Practice 2005“ PDF page 23, (archived from the Way Back Machine) http://web.archive.org/web/20051030104706/http://sbs.com.au/media/9736Text_Codes_SCREEN.pdf “As far as possible, SBS ensures that potential advertisers are informed of SBS’s responsibilities as a national multicultural broadcaster . . . some advertisements broadcast by commercial stations may not be suitable for SBS because of SBS’s other programming policies and objectives.”

[20] Neil Shoebridge, FIFA world cup kicks off SBS ad sales, Australian Financial Review, 27 February 2006 http://afr.com/p/business/media_marketing/item_rMMJrPN43ehS62ripiXmkJ quoting Richard Finlayson (SBS sales) “In the past SBS has been reluctant to carry some ads, such as hard-hitting, in-your-face retails ads. That’s changing.” Also see: A chronology of advertising on SBS Save Our SBS, 27 February, 2008 http://saveoursbs.org/archives/194

[21] Quentin Dempster Come Clean On Commercialisation July 2007 edition of the Walkley Magazine (archived from the Way Back Machine) http://web.archive.org/web/20090322222338/http://magazine.walkleys.com/the_news/stories/come_clean_on_commercialisation_20070617104

[22] Quentin Dempster SBS debate: Fourth commercial network? 23 August 2007 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/sbs-debate-fourth-commercial-network/story-e6frg996-1111114245108

[23] Dept BCDE QUESTION NO. 1493 Senate Hearing, Senator Scott Ludlum 5 May 2009 – sub QUESTION (6): “ In 2008 did SBS offer a lower rate for advertisements that were run in the break between programs as opposed to those run within programs.” ANSWER: “No. All spots are charged at the same rate.” http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansards/2009-08-17/0142/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

[24] Senate Estimates Environment 25/05/2011 System ID committees/estimate/13784/0004 pg 124 http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2F13784%2F0004%22

[25] SBS 2001 – 2002 Annual Report, Financial Statements, p 73, (Way Back Machine) http://web.archive.org/web/20030312011429/www.sbs.com.au/2002_annual_report/sbs_financials.pdf

[26] SBS 2005 – 2006 Annual Report, Financial Statements Sec2:93 (Way Back Machine) http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20070607045758/http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/media/documents/91508_financial_statements.pdf

[27] SBS 2005 – 06 Annual Report Commercial Affairs Sec2:42 (Way Back Machine) http://web.archive.org/web/20061231081007/http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/media/documents/652304_commercial_affairs.pdf

[28] SBS 2005 – 06 Annual Report Commercial Affairs Sec2:42 (Way Back Machine) http://web.archive.org/web/20061231081007/http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/media/documents/652304_commercial_affairs.pdf

[29] SBS 2001 – 2002 Annual Report, Financial Statements, p 73, (Way Back Machine) http://web.archive.org/web/20030312011429/www.sbs.com.au/2002_annual_report/sbs_financials.pdf

[30] SBS 2005 – 2006 Annual Report, Financial Statements Sec2:93 (Way Back Machine) http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20070607045758/http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/media/documents/91508_financial_statements.pdf

[31] SBS 2005 – 06 Annual Report Commercial Affairs Sec2:42 (Way Back Machine) http://web.archive.org/web/20061231081007/http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/media/documents/652304_commercial_affairs.pdf

[32] SBS 2005 – 06 Annual Report Commercial Affairs Sec2:42 (Way Back Machine) http://web.archive.org/web/20061231081007/http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/media/documents/652304_commercial_affairs.pdf

[33] Senate Estimates Environment 25/05/2011 System ID committees/estimate/13784/0004 pg 124 http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2F13784%2F0004%22

[34] SBS 2010-11 Annual Report http://media.sbs.com.au/home/upload_media/site_20_rand_1237101070_sbs_annual_report_2010_11.pdf

[35] Environment and Communications Legislation Committee 18/10/2011 Estimates BROADBAND, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE DIGITAL ECONOMY PORTFOLIO Special Broadcasting Service Corporation:  M Ebeid, Managing Director, SBS page 6 (PDF page 10)“The forecast has now dropped to about $45 million for this year” http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/estimate/2b715df2-8420-43c6-8675-c8418d2c3ed9/toc_pdf/Environment%20and%20Communications%20Legislation%20Committee_2011_10_18_573_Official.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22committees/estimate/2b715df2-8420-43c6-8675-c8418d2c3ed9/0002%22

* SPECIAL BROADCASTING SERVICE BILL 1991 Second Reading’ House Hansard Parl No.36. 4 October 1991 – (references below)

[36] * (chamber/hansardr/1991-10-14/0051) Page: 1842 Mr SMITH (Liberal) http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F1991-10-14%2F0051%22

[37] * (chamber/hansardr/1991-10-14/0061) Page: 1860 Mr SINCLAIR (National) http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F1991-10-14%2F0061%22

[38] * (chamber/hansardr/1991-10-14/0060) Page: 1857 Mr LEE (Labor) http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F1991-10-14%2F0060%22

[39] SPECIAL BROADCASTING SERVICE BILL 1991 14/10/1991 (chamber/hansardr/1991-10-14/0057) from http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F1991-10-14%2F0057%22 (pg inj 1855) and 19 subsequent fragment URLs of Parl No 36 to end (pg inj 1875)

[40] SBS GUIDELINES FOR THE PLACEMENT OF BREAKS IN SBS TELEVISION PROGRAMS SEPTEMBER 2006 http://media.sbs.com.au/home/upload_media/site_20_rand_1995575143_sbs_advertising_guidelines_2006.pdf

[41] SBS Corporate Plan 2010-13 “Guidelines for the Placement of Breaks in SBS Television Programs” pg 14-15 http://media.sbs.com.au/home/upload_media/site_20_rand_1685307411_sbs_corporate_plan7.pdf

[42] STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS 30/10/2006 COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS PORTFOLIO Special Broadcasting Service Corporation (committees/estimate/9768/0002) http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:%22committees/estimate/9768/0002%22

[43] McKinsey & Co, 1999, Public Service Broadcasters Around the World, London, (mimeo)

[44] Senator Conroy, S, 2007, 11 October 2007, http://saveoursbs.org/archives/127

[45] NO ADS ON SBS & ABC: email campaign, Save Our SBS, 24/11/2007 http://saveoursbs.org/archives/165

[46]Minister responds to petition, Save Our SBS, 26/08/2008, http://saveoursbs.org/archives/316

[47] Save Our SBS,  2008, One Minute Survey Results, http://saveoursbs.org/archives/332

[48] Department of Broadband Communications and Digital Economy ABC SBS Review public submissions 2008 http://www.dbcde.gov.au/media_broadcasting/consultation_and_submissions/abc_sbs_review/_submissions

[49] Submission – SBS Review, Save Our SBS Inc 11/12/2008, http://saveoursbs.org/archives/334

[50] 2010 campaign statistics, Save Our SBS, 8/09/2010, http://saveoursbs.org/archives/1545

[51] The SBS Must Be Special, Save Our SBS Inc, 19/10/2008, http://saveoursbs.org/archives/318

[52] Simons, M, Who will save SBS? Sex Before Soccer? The Monthly, pg 40-44, June 2011 edition http://www.themonthly.com.au/sbs-sex-soccer-margaret-simons-3360

[53] Dr C Lawe Davies, C 1997, Multicultural Broadcasting in Australia; policies, institutions and programming, 1975-1995, PhD thesis, University of Queensland.

[54] SBS Corporate Plan 2010-2013, pages 9 & 10,  http://media.sbs.com.au/home/upload_media/site_20_rand_1685307411_sbs_corporate_plan7.pdf

[55] Multiculturalism in Australia Inquiry (April 2011) http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/mig/multiculturalism/subs/sub85.pdf & http://media.sbs.com.au/home/upload_media/site_20_rand_1154630904_sbs_multiculturalism_submission_080411.pdf

[56] SBS – Second Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP), 2010, http://media.sbs.com.au/shows/upload_media/Second_RAP.pdf

[57] Social Inclusion Principles for Australia http://www.socialinclusion.gov.au/sites/www.socialinclusion.gov.au/files/publications/pdf/SIPrincilpes.pdf

[58] Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Australia’s Multicultural Policy – The People of Australia, 16 February 2011, http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/multicultural/pdf_doc/people-of-australia-multicultural-policy-booklet.pdf

[59] Dep of Immigration & Citizenship, Australia’s Multicultural Policy – The People of Australia, 16/2/11 Chris Bowen, Minister for Immigration, and Citizenship; &, Kate Lundy, Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs PDF page 5, http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/multicultural/pdf_doc/people-of-australia-multicultural-policy-booklet.pdf

[60] Withers, G 2002, Economics and Regulation of Broadcasting, Discussion Paper No 93, http://dspace.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/41411/2/No93Withers.pdf

[61] IPB Media Release, SBS, 1//6/2006 (Way Back Machine)  http://web.archive.org/web/20071213160022/www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/index.php?id=1215

[62] Question No 30, Hansard Ref: EC 66–67, answer (f), page 8, SBS [re advertising revenues received]: “. . . in 2009-10 SBS received $17m for the World Cup and $5.7m for the 2009 Ashes and One Day International series, all of which went to cover the costs of acquiring and producing the coverage of each event.” http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/ec_ctte/estimates/supp_1011/bcde/sbs.pdf

[63] SBS’s aspirations, Save Our SBS Inc, 9/10/11, http://saveoursbs.org/archives/1981

[64] ABC – 2009/10 FY. ABC: ABC Annual Report 2009-10 (pp. 98, 174); documentary, factual, religion & ethics, science & technology, natural history hours included. Seven; Nine Ten: ACMA, Compliance with Australian Content Standard & Children’s Television Standards for the following network/s: Seven, Nine, Ten between program start dates: January 2010 and December 2010 – figures for ATN Sydney (7); TCN Sydney (9) and TEN Sydney (10) used. SBS: PILAT – 2010 CY – SBS ONE (SBS NSW).

[65] SBS Manger Director Mr Shaun Brown appearing before the Senate Estimates BCDE 24/05/2010 (committees/estimate/13005/0001) ECA page 4 (PDF page 8) http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/estimate/13005/toc_pdf/7622-3.pdf

[66] NO ADS ON SBS & ABC: email campaign, Save Our SBS, 24/11/2007 http://saveoursbs.org/archives/165

[67]Minister responds to petition, Save Our SBS, 26/08/2008, http://saveoursbs.org/archives/316

[68] Save Our SBS,  2008, One Minute Survey Results, http://saveoursbs.org/archives/332

[69] Department of Broadband Communications and Digital Economy ABC SBS Review public submissions 2008 http://www.dbcde.gov.au/media_broadcasting/consultation_and_submissions/abc_sbs_review/_submissions

[70] 2010 campaign statistics, Save Our SBS, 8/09/2010, http://saveoursbs.org/archives/1545

[71] Multiculturalism Inquiry, Save Our SBS Inc, 24/5/2011, http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/mig/multiculturalism/subs/sub458.pdf

This show appears to be a rehash of the many panel and discussion programs that have come before it and at first you wonder what CQ can bring to the Australian public that hasn’t been done before. However, SBS have struck upon a novel idea. Rather than pad out the studio with members of the public, slowing the pace of discussion and limiting the range of argument, they have crammed the studio with academics, experts, journalists, politicians, documentary makers and just about anyone with an a sliver of insight into the issue.

To call it a lively debate would undersell this program. The exchanges crackles with tension, with Anton Enus jumping in to pull the contributors apart from one another. The show opens with a journalist accusing the Daily Telegraph of reportage in line with war time propaganda. This isn’t members of the public using the opportunity to attack politicians they dislike; these are journalists and academics making aggressive accusations about each others’ conduct. There are times this is less a discussion than a verbal boxing match.

Participants include former Immigration Minister in John Howard’s government Amanda Vanstone, Pino Migliorino from the Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of Australia, the Daily Telegraph’s Joe Hilderbrand, from SBS’s Go Back To Where You Came From – Bahati Masudi, Liberal Party candidate Dai Le, and a host of others.  University academics and social researchers have something to say too. The arguments, counterarguments and accusations are fired out fast and frequent and the range of topics covered is diverse to say the least.

CQ deals with the issue of the media’s relationship to asylum seekers in an expansive light bringing several new perspectives and arguments, as well as being thoroughly entertaining with one of the most informative, energetic and entertaining discussions in years. CQ: Cultural Intelligence is definitely worth a look.

On Wednesday (26/11/11) the government voted in favour of a motion, tabled by Senator Scott Ludlum, communications spokesperson for the Greens, reiterating the value of SBS to Australian society. He also gave notice of a private bill, aimed at removing commercial breaks during programs on SBS television.

The Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Natural Program Breaks and Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2012 will be tabled next year.

Save Our SBS President, Steve Aujard said “We fully support the recognition of SBS with legislation to curtail advertising.

“For over a decade now, SBS has suffered from the effects of chronic underfunding by successive governments. Advertising breaks during programs were introduced five years ago to make up the short fall, a decision we believe goes against the spirit of independent public broadcasting.

“The commercialisation of SBS five years ago has been a disaster. Its rate of growth from television ads has been in decline since 2008 and negative since 2010. Viewers dislike the breaks in programs and Hansard clearly shows the legislators never intended ads in programs anyway. SBS is a special broadcaster.

“Save Our SBS hopes Senator Ludlam’s bill will be an excellent opportunity to resolve the funding shortfall and diminish the effects of advertising on program quality.

“SBS was the world’s first multicultural broadcaster; the commercialisation of the past five years has brought the organisation to a crossroad. If government fails to recognise the need for appropriate public funding in next years triennial budget, there will be an irredeemable slide away from its historical mandate towards implacable commercialism.”

Save Our SBS has been campaigning for a phasing out of advertising on SBS since 2007 and a significant increase in public funding.

It is believed this is for the long awaited Bill to address the issues around the commercialisation of the SBS that has occurred over the past five years. Senator Ludlam promised as much during the 2010 election campaign.

We await with bated breath for an opportunity to read the Bill referred to today, when it becomes available.

SBS has been permitted to broadcast advertisements since 1991. However in late 2006 SBS television broke a long standing understanding and began to disrupt television programs for advertisements. It changed to look like that of a commercial broadcaster. At the time Senator Conroy described this change by SBS saying, “the introduction of in program advertising to the SBS in effect makes the SBS a de facto fourth free-to-air commercial television station and serves to erode the fundamental tenets of public broadcasting”.

Although the contents of Senator Ludlam’s Bill are not known and won’t be released until it is tabled in 2012, it is no secret that, like the Minister, he is no fan of the commercial breaks disrupting SBS television programs. For that matter neither are most people who work at SBS. Audiences and the loyalists of supporters of SBS have voiced objection too, particularly as SBS is  a public broadcaster. It is perhaps the biggest open-secret ever, that management do not like the ad breaks either. But strapped for cash, SBS requires government assistance to resolve this.

In a statement issued last month, Senator Ludlam made the point that “It is vital that SBS remains a strong public institution. Without proper public funding, the independence of SBS will be undermined as will its capacity to cater to all manner of target audiences – regardless of whether they are lucrative enough to attract advertising dollars”.

In a comprehensive budget submission published on his website earlier today, Senator Ludlam concluded, “whatever additional funding the Government chooses to appropriate for SBS, we believe it is essential that a substantial fraction of the additional funding be used to retire as much in-program advertising as possible”. Viewers want the same. An end to ad breaks on SBS-TV. Senator Ludlam submitted that SBS should be given $90m p.a. for this purpose. SBS put the figure at a lower amount. Save Our SBS would support overall funding for SBS at not less than half that of the ABC.

Notice of the Bill today came on the back of a multi-paragraphed ‘motherhood’ motion that Senator Ludlam gave Notice of yesterday. It was a motion in support of SBS, that drew on its history and emphasised that the SBS is more relevant today, than any other time in history. The Managing Director of SBS, Michael Ebeid made the same point at the October Senate Estimates when he said, “SBS is truly more relevant today than it ever has been in its last 35 years of history, mainly because of our cultural complexity in Australian society”.

Senators Ludlam’s ‘motherhood’ motion in support of SBS concluded by asking government to consider whether the resources allocated to SBS are sufficient to allow it to fulfill its mandate. Essentially the motion was saying SBS needs more government funding. The motion is reproduced in full below.

That the Senate—

1. Notes that

a) In Australia there are twice as many people speaking languages other than English and that Australia is more culturally and racially diverse than 30 years ago, at the time of the formation of the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS)

b) research demonstrates that tensions and fault lines exist in Australia, with particular sensitivity around refugee intake.

2. Notes that Australia’s SBS

a) was the first multicultural broadcaster established anywhere in the world

b) transmits in a different language every hour, with 7 million viewers watching SBS TV in over 60 languages per week

c) exposes Australians to cultures and ideas beyond the Anglosphere

d) portrays multicultural Australia and tells the stories of Aboriginal people

e) has the purpose of inspiring all Australians to explore and appreciate our multicultural world and contribute to an inclusive society

3. Calls on the government

a) To consider whether the resources allocated to SBS are sufficient to allow it to fulfill its mandate and take full advantage of the education, employment and creative opportunities provided by digital multi-channeling and the NBN.

Save Our SBS has been campaigning for greater funding for SBS and a phasing out of advertising since 2007. In a submission by Save Our SBS to the Minister last month the organisation called for a significant increase in public funding for the SBS in the forthcoming triennium with sufficient funds granted to SBS to end all disruptive breaks in television programs.

The SBS Your Language app has a range of great functions including live streaming of SBS Radio 1, Radio 2, POPAsia, and SBS chill, audio on demand – a mix of podcasts and audio highlights. It also has the ability to listen to previous programs, which is really handy. The user can set a schedule that automatically selects the language of choice. More than one language can be selected. The schedule is more than a traditional schedule though because is has a notification function to remind the listener about their programs.

Commenting on the i app, the SBS Managing Director, Michael Ebeid said, “The Your Language app extends the reach of the more than 60 SBS Radio language programs with listeners now able to access their favourite programs at a time that suits the listener”.

And there’s more. A tap of a button in the app can be used to send an email, a text message or phone the program. The app has been well thought out.

Aside from listening, the app displayed a graph of an SBS poll. It was not clear though how many people had participated in the poll.

If your mobile device is not an i one, for the time being you may have to settle for a third party radio app such as TuneIn Radio. It’s a free app useful for live streaming, audio on demand and POD casts and works across all platforms – iPhone; Android; Blackberry; Symbian; and Windows. It doesn’t have all the features of the SBS Your Language app and SBS live streaming is not fully functional there but downloads of SBS programs are possible. If using TuneIn Radio, search for SBS. There is always that old fashion thing called a radio – of course.

All-in-all, the SBS Your Language app is well architected, easy to use and it does everything it claims. It’s free and definitely worth downloading and using. This is by far the best radio app available. Audio buffs can listen in high quality digital audio.

It is not known if the app will be released for Blackberry, Symbian, or Windows. Standby for the Android version soon.

Sent by email to:-
Hon Senator Stephen Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communications & Digital Economy

Executive Summary – a perspective for funding the SBS in the 2012-15 triennium

In late 2006 SBS introduced in‑program advertising. Advertisers replaced viewers as the clients of SBS, while viewers became a product to be on-sold to advertisers. Ratings became important. Adjustments were made to appease advertisers. This fundamental change has mobilised a ground swell of electors seeking government funding for the SBS specifically to reverse the above.

• SBS has a unique role in Australian society and an increase in funding is justified for several reasons related to the above. These are detailed in this submission.
• Income from advertising as a major source of revenue for SBS combined with government funding has not been sufficient for SBS to keep up with the financial pressures brought upon it by multi-channels. SBS’s gross television advertising revenues decreased in 2010-11 and overall revenues have not kept pace with increasing operational costs.
• In 2010, SBS announced its Social Inclusion and Cohesion Policy which is in step with the Federal Government’s Social Inclusion Principles. The implementation of the SBS social inclusion policy requires substantial government funding. This policy lays the foundation from which SBS can develop its practices, understandings, programming and other policies.
• Although SBS is smaller than the ABC it is disproportionately underfunded. The output of the SBS is comparable to at least half that of the ABC, but its base funding is far less.

This submission discusses the above with funding options to phase out in‑program breaks.

• A reduction of in-program breaks from the current number, while still allowing one only in‑program break per program (plus the break between programs) may be a low or no cost step towards ultimately phasing out in‑program breaks.
• Although it would be highly desirable that funding be provided in full to the SBS for the specific purpose of the removal of disruptive breaks at the commencement of the 2012-15 triennium, it may be possible to stagger the amount requested over three years, or defer a smaller amount for a lesser period later in the triennium, to a period of government surplus.

Even in times of a fluctuating economy, a significant increase in public funding for SBS is justified for maintenance, expansion of services and the winding down of in-program breaks.

Committee of Management
Save Our SBS Inc
11 Oct 2011

Social investment for the future – 2012-15

The Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) is established under the SBS Act and its purpose is guided by its Charter; the umbrella statement of Australia’s multicultural broadcaster[1].

SBS is a microcosm of society not just on-air, but internally in its day to day operation. Few public organisations foster multiculturalism, diversity and social inclusion to the extent that SBS does. The peoples of SBS and its contributors may take credit for nurturing much of this, and often with fewer resources than other broadcasters.

• In 2009-10, SBS total revenue was less than ¼ for that of the average Australian commercial network. This includes government support and income from commercial activities, including advertising.
• In the same year the total revenue for the SBS (from all sources) was $308.4 million[2].
• The average advertising revenue for each of the three free-to-air commercial TV networks was $1,231 million[3], or about four times the revenue for all SBS output, including its television, radio and internet services.
• For the 2009-12 triennium SBS received less than ¼ of the funding that the ABC received from the public purse[4].
• Funding for SBS television is as little as one sixth compared to the highest commercial network annual budget[5].

By every measure, SBS was the least funded broadcaster in the period mentioned.

GRAPH 1: Comparative ‘funding/revenues’ by broadcaster/network (click image to enlarge)

Such lack of financial resources encouraged the SBS to seek additional funds through advertising.

In 2010, SBS actively sought to move in a new direction, although not able to rid itself of its commercial approach. After months of community consultation the SBS Board, under the Chairmanship of Joe Skrzynski, announced the SBS Social Inclusion and Cohesion Policy[6]. This move can only be applauded and is the right policy for SBS[7]. It recognises and takes into account the diverse mix that makes up the Australian society; a world example of multiculturalism and ethnic communities living within the one country. SBS’s Social Inclusion and Cohesion Policy is on the back of their Second Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP)[8] which is SBS’s policy and practice about increasing awareness of the contribution of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander communities to Australian society and building capacity to learn from and serve Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The SBS Social Inclusion Policy is in step with the Federal Government’s Social Inclusion Principles[9] announced earlier this year. This is part of a whole of government policy and the release of the federal government’s booklet, Australia’s Multicultural Policy – The People of Australia[10] published February 2011, articulates that. The SBS social inclusion and cohesion policy will build on those principles and if the SBS is properly funded, not only will it flourish but it will reflect the government’s goal that “reaffirms the Government’s unwavering support for a culturally diverse and socially cohesive nation” (Chris Bowen, Minister for Immigration, and Citizenship; &, Kate Lundy, Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs[11]).

This policy is the foundation of SBS, from which its practices, understandings, programming and other policies may develop. However the ongoing implementation of the SBS social inclusion policy requires substantial government funding. The policy may be at risk of failure without such. If that occurred that could be to the detriment and worthiness of the SBS policy direction and would also undermine the desire of the government’s social inclusion and cohesion policy and principles referred to above.

Funding, social inclusion & cohesion, and advertising

The expansion of multi‑channels in the commercial sector particularly, added to financial difficulties for SBS. There are now 16 free-to-air television broadcasters in capital cities (ABC has 4 channels; SBS, 2 channels; community, 1 channel; SEVEN, three channels; NINE, three channels; and, TEN, three channels) compared with a few years ago, when there were then only six. The increased numbers of channels has seen revenue for SBS from television advertising drop and continue to drop. It is now below that of 12 months ago (excluding the impact of the World Cup). Predictions by SBS are that it will decline further[12]. At best, any financial success could only be described as transient and limited to a period of the few years just concluded. Income from advertising as a major source of revenue for SBS will not be sustainable.

“the explosion of multichannels from commercial broadcasters . . . has doubled the amount of commercial inventory in the market and [this] is having an impact on the revenue that SBS can derive.” (SBS, MD, Sen. Est. 2010)[13]

The above is not surprising as when in-program advertising was introduced in late 2006, SBS stated that that model would only be sustainable for 10 years at the most. At that time SBS had not considered, and was not to know that only a few years later, the ‘competition’ would almost triple. SBS had always said that governments would need to decide on how SBS was to be funded in the longer term. The time to look at the longer term is now. It has arrived sooner than the presumed 10 year span referred to, probably due in part to multi-channels and partly as a spin off from the (excellent) whole of government social inclusion policy (as practised by the SBS). This will be discussed later.

Government funding combined with revenue from advertising has not been sufficient for SBS to expand. In 2008 we reported that revenue for SBS was significantly lower than Australian commercial broadcasters and the ABC[14]. That remained the case despite the increased government funding in the 2009‑12 triennium.

The combination of the above has resulted in changes at SBS that could not have been imagined or anticipated 20 or more years ago. The ‘experiment’ since 2007 being the commercialisation of the broadcaster questioned the unique and “special” nature of the SBS[15] [16].

Since late 2006, SBS has juggled between two masters: advertisers and audience. However the two are not always compatible. An analysis of this reveals difficulties at a number of levels. These points shall be expanded upon in this submission and recommendations provided.

Since 2001, with the exception of that appropriated in the 2009-12 triennium, the average increase in BGF was 1.5 percent per annum[17]. This was below ordinary inflation and well below that required for a functioning broadcaster, let alone a broadcaster that might hope to expand its services or reduce its reliance on advertising. The policy that saw the introduction of in‑program advertisement breaks on SBS-TV, was an attempt to offset the relatively low increases in base government funding (BGF)[A]. 

GRAPH 2: Derived from data presented in a series of SBS Annual Reports[18] and published inflation data[19] (click image to enlarge)

GRAPH 2 illustrates that the gap between base government funding and government appropriation has increased since 2001. It also shows that the government appropriation is well below the actual operating expenses of SBS.

In the period mentioned on GRAPH 2, public monies appropriated by SBS, although calculated in accordance with WCI6 [20], have not kept pace with the actual operating costs of SBS. As a result, BGF for SBS was not fully indexed to account for all price rises (outside the WCI6 calculations), in particular increasing content costs. In short this led the SBS to look for ways to make up the shortfall, which it has done in part by disrupting programs for advertisements as a means of attracting more advertisers. However often this was at the expense of the viewer. The full impact of the commercialisation of Australia’s multicultural public broadcaster came into force in 2007 and has remained the case since.

Without a doubt no-one enjoys disruptions into a program, particularly on a public broadcaster, and, especially in a position where the maker of the program had not intended a break be placed. The jarring impact of such informs the accusation that SBS is ‘forcing’ a break into the program for the benefit of the advertiser and not the viewer. This undermines the Charter by morphing the production of the program and leads to diminished viewer experience. This is the point at which a hybrid broadcaster may be perceived as crossing the line to that of a commercial network. The loyalest of viewers and strongest supporters of SBS have voiced objections. Although understanding of the reasons, that is, the underfunding position of the SBS, the resulting consequences – the intrusion into programs for advertisements, remain offensive to viewers and advocates of what an Australian public broadcaster ought to be[21]. However this situation is solvable.

Such wide disapproval of a public broadcaster disrupting programs for commercial breaks is shared almost universally amongst the public at large, politicians of all persuasions, SBS staff and Board, and if it were not for a potential shortfall in revenue, the disruptions on SBS television may have been removed. A solution publicly articulated by the SBS Chairman, Joe Skrzynski is paraphrased here.

If government has enough money to buy out the advertising, that may be an option for the future[22].

A solution would be to significantly increase public funding for SBS possibly in stages in the 2012‑15 triennium and simultaneously wind down the number of in-program breaks with the aim of eventually phasing out all advertising on SBS in the longer term, or at least restricting them to between programs by early 2015, a period when presumably Australia’s finances be stronger.

Acknowledging that in-program breaks would not exist to the extent they now do if the SBS had operated within the intent of the Parliament of 1991 (when the SBS Corporation was formed under the Act), ought not to detract from a significant increase in public funding for the SBS.

The intent and understanding in debating the SBS Bill (now the Act) in 1991, was that advertisements would “top and tail programs”, except during the natural break of a sporting event.

1991 Parliament understanding of a “natural program break” for the SBS bill (now the Act)

“half-time in a soccer match” (Mr Smith Liberal)[23] – the only example given [and]

“in effect what will happen is that advertising will top and tail programs”

“let us not try to get the advertising revenue that will make the SBS another commercial channel. If we do, again, that will change its character, and I do not think that is really what we are about” (Mr Sinclair National)[24]

“advertisement–at the beginning and the end of the sponsored program. In that way the viewers were not disturbed and were not constantly interrupted, as is the case on some of the commercial television programs” (Mr Lee Labor)[25]

Section 45 of the SBS Act states that SBS may broadcast advertisements during “natural program breaks” but the Act fails to define that phrase – although the intent of the Parliament is well documented in Hansard [26] (see quote box above & references). The current definition – contained in the GUIDELINES FOR THE PLACEMENT OF BREAKS IN SBS TELEVISION PROGRAMS[27] (which does not take account of intent) – was determined by SBS in 2006 and reaffirmed in 2010[28]. This SBS definition was described as being: “inconsistent with the intent of the limits that the legislation attempted to set” and not in accordance with the people who were involved in the drafting of the SBS Act (Senator Conroy) [29]. However, none of these differences detract from the need for greater public funding.

The dangers of a public broadcaster taking the commercial path, whether by necessity or desire, were documented as a tendency of the broadcaster to move away from its Charter in order to satisfy its clients, the advertisers.

An overview of the market and advertising research reports carried out for SBS . . .  confirms anecdotal accounts of the effects of advertising culture on SBS programming . . .  that it has had a profound effect on the broadcaster in shifting the orientation of SBS away from the terms of the Charter and towards satisfying market conditions. One of the dominant criticisms . . .  was the appropriateness of a public service broadcaster being so led by community attitudes; when its Charter quite clearly requires it should instead be leading the community in attitude change[30].

However the fine balancing act that SBS struggles with, program and Charter requirements versus advertisers offering further funding is not without problems. The attraction to a greater financial certainty has not been assured to SBS by its dependency on advertising.

Cost of removing commercial breaks

The cost of removing advertising or even partly removing in-program breaks can be divided into three broad categories: financial, perception, and social inclusion.

Financial

Revenue from television advertisements accounts for almost all of total advertising revenues on SBS.

There was a steady increase in revenue from advertising from 2001 to 2010. Although the year by year dollars increased with each year, the rate of growth slowed towards the end of this period. Post 2010 revenue growth from television advertising was negative.

Income from advertising for SBS was $23.6m in 2001-02 (excluding FIFA World Cup revenues). From then up to 2005-06, the rate at which advertising grew was 16.8 percent per annum# [B] [31]. This is the period in which SBS-TV did not disrupt programs and placed advertisements between programs only[C]. In the first year of full on in‑program advertising (2007), both ad revenue and its rate of growth increased a little. However from 2008 to 2010, the overall rate at which advertising was growing fell to 13.4 percent per annum then lower[32]. SBS attributed the decline to the explosion of multi‑channelling[33] although apparently the overall numbers of people watching free to air television grew since the introduction of multi‑channelling. “Free TV’s share of prime-time viewing is up”[34]. The industry ratings company OzTam[35] showed ratings for SBS television hovered steady in the 4 to 6 percent range in the years 2006 to 2011 (5.4 percent[36] for first half of 2011).

In October 2010 SBS predicted forecasts to FY ending 2015 were that the growth rate of revenue from advertising will fall.[37] [38] This confirms SBS’s earlier statements that advertising is not sustainable in the longer term. 

GRAPH 3: Rate of growth of advertising from 2002 to 2011[39] [40] (click image to enlarge)

A snapshot of three time points at the beginning, middle and end of the past decade is useful. Gross revenue from advertising in 2001-02 was $23.6m[41] (excluding revenues from the FIFA World Cup). By 2005-06 the total advertising revenue was $46.5m[42]. Of this, $33.2m[43] came from television only advertising (when programs were not interrupted for advertising) and the FIFA World Cup generated a further $11.39m[44] in that year. In 2010-11 total television advertising revenue for SBS was $50m[45] (when programs were disrupted with commercial breaks).

GRAPH 4: Snapshot of advertising revenues from 3 time periods from 2001 to 2011[46] [47] [48] [49] [50]. The two green bars on the left of the chart are when adverts were between programs (past policy). The amber bar on the right (current policy) is with in‑programs ads. (click image to enlarge)

Other factors affecting advertising revenues are documented below.

The number of people employed to sell airtime in 2001 and 2006 at SBS was a fraction of the 2011 levels engaged for the same purpose.

At the same time that the SBS changed to the new (now current) model to allow in‑program advertising, more people were engaged to sell advertising. Also at the same time SBS ‘relaxed’ its policy on the type of advertisement it was prepared to accept[51] [52] [53] [54]. Under the new model, almost any type of advertiser became acceptable.

SBS charged the same amount for advertisements regardless of whether they were placed between programs or in-programs[55].

Was it the decision to accept almost any type of advertisement, or the expansion of people selling advertising for the SBS, or the shift to insert commercial breaks into programs, that affected SBS advertising revenues? The precise answer may never be known, short of conducting a trial that reverts to placing breaks between programs only for a period, while still accepting a wide range of advertisers and retaining ample numbers of people in air time sales.

Under the old model where ads were between programs only, advertisements in breaks of 8 minutes duration were sold with a 50% discount to the advertiser[56]. This statement implies that the move from the old, to the current model of short breaks in‑program[57], did not apply a discount to the current break length, which is usually under three minutes.

If programs were no longer disrupted for ad breaks, SBS had estimated a potential shortfall of $29.39m to $35.72m[58] but more recently increased that to $36m[59] then $45m[60]. The methodology for these calculations was not publicly revealed. (SBS stated the $45m would not cover the ‘big’ sporting events, e.g., La Tour De France & FIFA World Cup Series; that these programs would therefore need to carry in‑program commercial breaks).

Although it may be said with certainty that a rescheduling of advertisements from in‑program to intra‑program would be less costly to the tax payer than would a total ban on all advertising, the accuracy of any estimation to reschedule advertisement breaks from in-program, to between program only, may only be confirmed after implementation. In terms of actual costs, a more pertinent point arising out of the above is how to proceed in the direction of shifting advertising from in‑program to intra‑program, as a step towards that intended by the 1991 Parliament when SBS was corporatised[D]. If acknowledgment of the 1991 intent were to be resumed (to that practised pre-late 2006), essentially the SBS has suggested an increase of their base government funding of $45m for that specific purpose – this being separate from other monies for maintenance and expansion of services.

Although it would be highly desirable that funding be provided to the SBS for the specific purpose of the removal of disruptive breaks at the commencement of the 2012-15 triennium, it may be possible to defer same to a later period in the triennium – to a period of government surplus, for example if the action commenced in the last quarter of the final year of the triennium, then the base government funding would need to be increased by $11.25m[E] ($45m ÷ 4) in the 2014-15 year for a change effective on 1 April 2015.

If the number of in‑program breaks were to be reduced to one only per program, such may be also be a low or no cost approach to eventually rescheduling break content from in‑program to intra‑program.

Perception

An international survey of public service broadcasters (PSBs), commissioned by the BBC and conducted by McKinsey and Co, argued that the presence of a public service broadcaster in a broadcasting ecology consisting of both commercial and public service broadcasters:

. . . combines creative and market pressures on broadcasters to achieve society’s aims for its broadcasting market.

It does so by setting off a ‘virtuous circle’ with its commercial competitors. Because of its unique role and funding method, a PSB can popularise new styles of programming, and thereby encourage commercial broadcasters to create their own distinctive programs. In this way the viewing standards of the entire market are raised.

Many PSBs are funded, at least partly, through advertising. Our survey shows clearly the potential dangers of this approach. We have found evidence that the higher the advertising revenue as a proportion of total revenues, the less distinctive a public service broadcaster is likely to be[61].

The McKinsey survey concluded that the greater the advertising income that a PSB received, the more it looked like a commercial broadcaster and the less is looked like a public service broadcaster. There is evidence of this with SBS.

The introduction of in program advertising to the SBS in effect makes the SBS a de facto fourth free-to-air commercial television station and serves to erode the fundamental tenets of public broadcasting- that is, that it should be free from commercial and political influence.[62]

The universal dislike of in-program breaks on SBS television and the perceived and actual crossing of the line into that of a commercial operator have made it difficult for all.

The Charter of the SBS speaks to the output of the SBS. In essence the Charter includes the entire packaging of the SBS – not just the program content – and the manner in which SBS television in particular presents itself, now like that of a commercial broadcaster, led viewers to think of the SBS as deviating from its “special” purpose. This is disturbing even for a hybrid public broadcaster.

The SBS places two breaks in a half hour television program plus a break on conclusion of the program. This therefore means that when 2 half-hour programs are scheduled back to back, there are in fact 6 breaks in total for that hour of viewing. This is little different from commercial broadcasters who schedule 5 in-program breaks in a one hour program slot

This comparison above is intriguing as the SBS is restricted by legislation to 5 minutes of advertising per hour, whereas the commercial stations have no such restriction and typically run around 13 minutes[F].

The presentation of the SBS is not distinguishable from that of commercial television.

Presenting itself as a commercial broadcaster, the SBS has suffered despite multicultural broadcasting being a most valuable asset to the Australian society. Lack of sufficient government funding is the real issue and the one thing that could change all this.

In 2007 some 1,119 people emailed politicians seeking more funding for SBS and legislative restrictions to prevent disruptions into programs[63].

In 2008 more than 7,500 people requested an end to the disruptions into programs by an amendment to the SBS Act coupled with full funding for the SBS[64].

In a small study conducted when SBS had been interrupting all television programs for just on two years, 96.3 percent of the 1,733 participants said they wanted “SBS-TV to stop interrupting programs for commercial breaks” and 95.9 percent said they wanted “government to legislate to prevent programs from being interrupted on SBS-TV”[65].

In 2008, more than one-thousand public submissions were made to the DBCDE ABC SBS Review and it is interesting to note that of those that commented on the SBS only, almost all expressed the view of wanting the government to legislate to prohibit SBS from interrupting programs for commercial breaks[66] [67].

By 2010 more than 15,400 had directly asked their parliamentarians to increase public funding for SBS so that it would be free from advertising, to amend the SBS Act accordingly, saying – an investment in SBS would be an investment in Australia’s future cultural diversity[68]. By any measure there is a ground swell of electors who wish for all of these things.

Social inclusion

Prior to late 2006, when advertisements were outside programs, the viewer was very much the client of SBS and SBS considered the needs of their client, the viewer – over and above that of an advertiser.  However from 2007 when SBS began to disrupt all television programs for advertisements, the client of SBS changed. It became the advertiser. Viewers of any commercial broadcasting transaction are in fact a commodity, a product, to be sold to the advertising client.  This highlights one of the main differences between a commercial operation and a public service broadcaster.

In the years that advertisements were not placed within SBS-TV programs, the product of SBS was clearly the actual program content.  However, when SBS began to interrupt programs for their advertiser, the product became the viewer, who is now onsold by SBS to the newer client of SBS, the advertiser.  This is the point where the hybrid nature of SBS was ‘forced’, due to inadequate public funds, to cross the line and be more like that of a commercial broadcaster.

The increased reliance on income from advertising (from 2007 to the present time), evidenced by the disruption into SBS television programs for commercial breaks, has not been without problems. Financially it was not as expected. Moreover the disruptions have annoyed viewers[69] [70] [71] the most noticeable impact being the expansion of commercial breaks into SBS‑TV.

However this approach, by the very purpose it seeks to serve (to raise funds for local productions) undermines that of social inclusion because the client of SBS television has now become the advertiser, not the audience. Daily minute by minute ratings have become the norm; necessary to make adjustments to appease the advertiser. The audience is now the product that is sold to the client, the advertiser. This was not the case prior to 2007, when advertisements were placed between programs only. Then, the more distinct separation of commercials away from programs meant that the program remained the product and the audience the client with the net result of a more socially inclusive broadcaster. The current situation can only be reversed if the following triple action occurs:- a legislated phasing out of commercial disruptions into SBS television programs coupled with proportional increases in government funding and further public money for expansion of services[72].

Save Our SBS strongly recommends the foregoing. SBS shall then be freed from the constraints it currently faces, switching the focus of the client of SBS from advertiser back to the audience, thus fostering social inclusion to the full extent. This is entirely appropriate in consideration of the whole of government approach for a national multicultural and social inclusion policy[73] [74] [75].

In the light of that very worthwhile policy, it would be risky for government to send the wrong message to the SBS and leave it to face commercial competition[76] [77] [78]. That will happen without sufficient government funding. Such would be to deny the whole of government policy referred to.

While programs remain disrupted for commercial breaks, SBS will be at risk of proceeding down the path that economists call the Principle of Minimum Differentiation.

. . . stations based on advertising revenue will seek to maximize their audience (and thereby their revenue). Stations will therefore duplicate program types as long as the audience share obtained is greater than that from other programs.

Hence a number of stations may compete by sharing a market for one type of program (such as crime dramas) and still do better in audience numbers than by providing programs of other types (such as arts and culture). In economics this point is an application of the Principle of Minimum Differentiation, a principle also capable of explaining such associated phenomenon as why bank branches may cluster together, why airline schedules may be parallel, and why political parties may have convergent policy platforms[79].

The introduction of in-program breaks in late 2006 is a form of the above. By its nature, it reaffirms the status quo – like that of the commercial broadcasters, disrupts in the same manner, opposes diversity of presentation[G] (as does 7; 9; and 10), and conflicts with the principles of social inclusion.

The original purpose of in-program advertising was a promise that the revenue from advertising would be used to “increase the production of Australian multicultural drama and documentaries”[80]. That did not always happen. In 2009-10 none of the $22.7m advertising revenue from major sporting events was used for such purpose[81].

When addressing the question as to why or if the SBS should be focusing on using advertising revenues for operational purposes or to increase local productions, a presumption is sometimes put that the SBS was intended to incur less expenses than other broadcasters, for example the ABC. It has sometimes therefore been argued that it would be inappropriate for government to fund the SBS for a withdrawal of ads or even a reduction of the intrusive in‑program breaks. However if the ‘SBS was intended to incur less expenses than other broadcasters and therefore receive less government funding’ argument is taken to its logical conclusion, it would also follow that SBS ought not be attempting to produce local productions to the extent that occurred over the past five years, in which case the original purpose of the need to run in-program advertising must also be questioned. Undoubtedly if there were fewer Australian productions, there would be less of a need to raise such revenues in the manner practised; i.e., from disruptive advertising breaks. However such discussion would have to be part of a separate discussion about the purpose of the SBS.

The above highlights an outcome resulting from inadequate funding from the public purse.

Funding

When the SBS Corporation was formed in 1991, it was never envisaged that SBS would have taken the commercial path it commenced in late 2006. In 1991, that was not intended. Then, it would have been inconceivable to think of a need to address advertising matters to the extent done here.

Save Our SBS would like to see all advertising removed completely from SBS. We acknowledge however that the SBS is permitted to carry restricted advertising. We also note the original intention of the parliament as recorded in the Hansard[82] was that – except for sport – programs would not be disrupted (see earlier discussion about this) and that the Act endeavoured to convey that[83].

As to funding, the following possibilities ought to be considered:-

• The funds ‘saved’ from the switch-­off of the analogue transmitters be appropriated to SBS; hence an increase in the base funding would eventuate even though total government appropriation would remain steady.

There is however a strong case that SBS be funded above and beyond any ‘savings’ funnelled back to SBS even if the above were implemented.

• A portion of all revenue raised from the fees of the commercial broadcaster licensees be destined directly for the SBS, in addition to the ordinary triennial funding of government appropriation.

The airwaves are public and it follows that the for-profit commercial use of them ought to be in exchange for direct benefit to a public broadcaster.

During the phase in period of multi-channelling the commercial broadcasters were assisted to the extent of $250m by having their license fees waived for two years. This enabled the commercial broadcasters to develop their second and third channels. SBS has claimed that it has had a downturn in its ability to generate advertising revenue directly due to multi-channelling. Fees raised from the commercial broadcasters could be ear marked for the SBS, as outlined in the dot point above.

Expansion of services

Due to its low levels of funding, SBS has not had been in a position to keep up with other comparable services . Funding would be required to implement the items below. This would allow SBS to ‘catch up’ with how modern media organisations operate, through:-

• Development and expansion of SBS’s internet services.
• Expansion of other television channels.
• Expansion of digital radio.
• Expansion of indigenous broadcasting.
• Funding for innovative multiculturally relevant programs in an Australian context.

With increased government funding there could be relevant opportunities for Australia’s culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities too, for example:-.

• Expansion of news services relevant to communities from an Australian perspective.
• Expansion of audio language services to those areas not currently serviced.
• Improvement of migrant representation in media and language skills including English language tuition.
• Expansion of local content to convey multicultural Australian stories.
• Expansion and development of mobile internet services including apps across every platform.
• Establishment of an SBS archiving service.
• Funding for languages other than English (LOTE) productions, both imported and produced locally.
• Development of the SBS music language services that connect with younger migrant audiences such as digital audio broadcasts (DAB), podcasts and associated internet apps.
• Development of online news services.
• Journalistic opportunities for people of non-English speaking backgrounds.

The above are all worthy of investment and at various times have been publicly flagged as out of reach for SBS in the absence of a significant increase in public funding[84]. Similarly low levels of public funding have meant that SBS broadcasts less Australian content compared to its peers[85].

GRAPH 5: Comparison by network of first release drama. This graph is prior to the very recent increase in first release drama on ABC-TV, and decrease on SBS-TV. (click image to enlarge)

The only way SBS can now fulfil its Charter obligations is for government to provide more funding, given that advertising is not sustainable.

Conclusion and recommendations

If comparing SBS to Australian commercial broadcasters, or to public broadcasters overseas, or only the ABC, the SBS is very underfunded.

Even without comparison to other Australian broadcasters, SBS is worthy of an increase in funding due to its unique role within Australian society. The cultural worth of SBS deserves nurturing. In the context of the SBS social inclusion and social cohesion policy and the whole of government’s Social Inclusion Principles for Australia, such policies can only be achieved with a combination of greater government funding and a withdrawal of advertising disruptions on SBS.

The changes in SBS over the past five years that led to public outcries ought not detract from the inherent worthiness of the world’s first multicultural broadcaster, SBS. With sufficient government funding, it has a rightful place in Australian society and is crucial to the success of a socially inclusive society that embraces all cultures of the world, settling within Australia[86]. However the unhealthy obsession that essentially grew out of an instinct to survive, namely the commercialisation of SBS with the continual disruption of commercial breaks in SBS-TV programs requires ‘fixing’ with the same hand that provides an increase in government funding.

Five years ago it was speculated that after a period, people might accept the in-program disruptions. All the evidence since then has proved the contrary [87] [88] [89] [90] [91]. There are a growing number of electors who would support government funding to end in-program breaks on SBS-TV through legislative change as a matter of priority.

• It would be highly desirable that on 1 July 2012 base government funding be increased by at least $45m[92] for the specific purpose of removing in‑program breaks; all disruptions on SBS television programs would cease – adverts at the beginning or end of a program remain.

If the above funding was not available there are other options.

• Government appropriation be increased by at least $15m each year for three years ($15m × 3 = $45m) for the specific purpose of removing in‑program breaks, to be commenced by the SBS, either:-
  • on a pro-rata basis in each year of increase referred to; or alternatively,
  • allow the SBS to postpone the cessation of in‑program breaks until the third $15m increment had occurred i.e., when the full $45m of increases had eventuated, (2014-15) and cease all in-program disruptions in that year, e.g., 1 January 2015.

If neither of the above options were available, then the following would delay the desired action pro-rata with an overall total lower cost, to a period when the economy is stronger than during a period of deficit.

• In program breaks cease on 1 April 2015, i.e., in the last quarter in the final year of the forthcoming triennial period, and government appropriation be increased by approximately $11.25m[H] in the 2014‑15 financial year ($45m ÷ 4 = $11.25m).

This may be the least preferred option but would nevertheless ensure better financial security for SBS at the commencement of the 2015-18 triennium (outside the scope of this submission) .

As a step towards the above, the following interim measure might also be considered.

• A reduction of in-program breaks from the current number, while still allowing one only in‑program break per program (plus the break between programs). Such action has not been claimed by the SBS as having an affect on ability to raise advertising revenue. Our modelling confirms this.

Whilst the above dot point is not ideal to the viewer, it would be better than the current model of numerous in‑program breaks (2 in a half-hour program plus a break after, and 3 in a one hour program plus a break after[93]). The suggested approach above would reduce the frequency of disruptions yet still accommodate some in‑program breaks in addition to ordinary breaks between programs. It may be low cost or revenue neutral and help to justify other funding initiatives.

• In addition to the funding above for the specific winding down of in‑program disruptions, additional funding as required for the SBS to carry out its other initiatives.

The intrinsic social value alone of SBS would qualify it worthy of a substantial increase in government funding, and particularly funding for the removal of in‑program breaks.

The principles of social inclusion and cohesion referred to earlier are a whole of government policy[94] [95] [96]; that being the case, the rightful execution of such policy alone would also be justification for a greater level of public funding to the SBS than has previously occurred, to properly implement initiatives identified in this submission.

In consideration of our findings, Save Our SBS Inc recommends that funding for SBS in the 2012-15 triennial period be increased with specific funding granted as a priority for a reduction and removal of disruptive breaks in television programs, with a longer term plan to free the SBS from a reliance on advertising.

This submission is published at http://saveoursbs.org/archives/1993

scan the QR code above with a smart phone – to read this submission while mobile

Notes and References for this submission are here.

For example, SBS is the only broadcaster without a third television network. And there’s a need for an increased number of SBS radio stations too. After all, there are many more languages in Australia now than when SBS radio began 36 years ago. New and emerging communities, especially from African nations are expanding, although under-represented in our media than their established counterparts. Just as the mainly German, Greek and Italian communities of 30+ years ago made their presence on the multicultural and ethnic airwaves, space now needs to be made available for our newer communities. That would be possible if SBS were to expand its digital media outlets. SBS’s POPAsia is an example of digital media. It’s their very successful internet radio station for younger Asians.

The internet is an area that SBS would dearly love to take to its full potential. But SBS has never received government funding directly for this. Although SBS has some mobile apps, its number is few compared to other media. In fact SBS has not received funding for any of the above – more TV and radio networks, nor its internet services.

Recently Save Our SBS approached SBS regarding the above. We also asked if their aspirations had progressed beyond the wish list we had compiled from the public comments SBS had made in the past.

A spokesperson for SBS confirmed that SBS would like to:-

• Develop and expand SBS’s internet services.
• Offer apps across every platform.
• Open more television channels and digital radio stations.
• Improve migrant representation at SBS.
• Extend language skills in the community including English language tuition programs.
• Offer productions in languages other than English (LOTE), both imported and local.
• Innovate multiculturally relevant programs in an Australian context, like, “Immigration Nation” & “Go Back To Where You Came From”.

The spokesperson also said that SBS’s budget was over stretched to the point of restricting any of the above or that below from occurring.

The spokesperson added that SBS was aware of a great need in the culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities for things like expansion of:-

• News services relevant to communities within an Australian perspective.
• Audio language services to those areas not currently serviced.
• Local content to convey multicultural Australian stories.

Save Our SBS endorses the above. They are all worthwhile and within the SBS Charter.

The question is how will SBS achieve any of the above with current levels of public funding as they are? It won’t come from advertising. The past year in  particular has seen a massive drop in TV airtime sales. That’s mainly due to multi-channelling which has resulted in the dilution of the advertising dollar. There is general consensus within SBS now that revenue from advertising is no longer sustainable. One senior person described it as “an addiction”. Now with a diminishing return.

The world of multicultural broadcasting has taken a few twists and turns in recent years but now that SBS has a good vision for the future, it’s time for government to fund it – beyond just ‘catching up’. SBS is worthy of a position at the very top of the priority list.

Funding may not be clear, but one thing is; SBS has a first-rate vision for the future and an investment in SBS, would be a worthwhile investment in our rich and culturally diverse nation.

The group is the joint initiative of Steve Georganas (Labor Member for Hindmarsh), Senator Scott Ludlam (Greens Senator for Western Australia), and, Paul Fletcher (Liberal Member for Bradfield).

In a statement the group said “SBS stands alone as Australia’s Multicultural and Multilingual Broadcaster and for many years has played a vital role in the Australian media and society. In a challenging and rapidly changing media environment this role is, more than ever, critical in maintaining and promoting a cohesive Australian society”.

The official launch date of the group: 11 October – attended by the SBS Board and Management as well as special guests from SBS television, and their Parliamentary friends.

The primary goal of the friendship group is to raise awareness among Parliamentarians of SBS and its potential for the future. It’s a group supportive of SBS – for Parliamentarians. The group will meet occasionally and receive briefings on SBS issues and initiatives.

The idea for a television series focusing on immigration came after SBS commissioned the Ipsos-Eureka Social Research Institute to conduct a study and produce a report, a national attitude research project to explore and contrast the Australian public’s attitude to immigration and their perception of Australia’s immigration history. The Institute summarized its findings in the Ipsos Mackay Report. The research study for the Report was conducted in late 2010 before SBS aired Immigration Nation: A Secret History Of Us and prior to Go Back to Where You Came From was broadcast.  It would be interesting to see whether the screening of Go Back to Where You Came From shifted public opinion.

The week after the program was broadcast, SBS held a discussion program hosted by Anton Enus where the series participants spoke of their attitudes. But did the attitudes of the wider Australian community change as a result of Go Back to Where You Came From?

The answer may be an interesting one considering the controversial issues of the refugee swap deal with Malaysia, combined with the further arrival of boats from Indonesia, and difficulties for Julia Gillard’s government. This also coincides with the 10^th anniversary of the Tampa incident, which led to the Howard government implementing the controversial pacific solution, a policy aimed at deterring asylum seekers from attempting the voyage to Australia.

Overall the Report concludes that support for asylum seekers has declined over the last decade, whilst support for skilled migration has increased. Currently there is only moderate support for the idea that Australia should accept the current number of asylum seekers, with the majority of participants wanting to see an overall decline.

Of the 1375 people who participated in the study, the Report notes 22% with strident anti‑immigration views, not just hostile to asylum seekers and refugees but all migration into the country, even if it would be beneficial to Australia’s economy. Reasons cited for their views included the racial make-up of new arrivals, the availability of jobs and housing, terrorism and a general distaste for the salaries and superannuation received by politicians.

At the pro-immigrant end of the report, 28% of those surveyed showed strong support for both asylum seekers and acknowledged the positive effects of immigration. This group cited racism and a lack of tolerance as a problem in Australia and prioritized other concerns such as housing and the cost of living.

In between these two groups came a range of opinions on immigration and asylum that couldn’t be defined as exclusively pro or anti-immigration and asylum. Whilst many accepted that legal immigration was advantageous to the Australian economy, there was considerable concern about the impact that immigrants and asylum seekers would have on Australian culture, the strain on government services and whether they could integrate into society.

Many of the survey’s findings will come as little surprise. Following on from the Tampa incident and the 2005 Cronulla riots, it is clear that a section of Australian society is suspicious of both asylum seekers and different ethnic groups in general. More startling however is how consistently the same concerns about immigration have risen in Australian society. As the Report notes, over the last three decades, the issues surrounding immigration remain a high concern for Australian, despite the fact the worst fears about what migrants might do is rarely realised.

It is interesting to note the shift in the language used to criticize asylum seekers. In the 1980’s and 90’s, fear of asylum seekers related to the belief that they would take Australian jobs. Now, in a time of near full employment and the rise of skilled migrants the focus has shifted to asylum seekers as queue jumpers who will be reliant on welfare from the government. It seems those critical of asylum seekers are happy to shift their rhetoric to suit their preconceived notions rather than change their opinions to match the facts.

It should also be re-iterated that nearly a quarter of Australians have expressed views opposed to migration that would be beneficial to the countries economy. This is a staggeringly large percentage of the population willing to support positions that go against their own interest. Concerns about asylum seekers also appear to link into wider concerns about the Australian government and are used as evidence that it isn’t listening to the general public, prioritising the wrong issues and is wasting public funds. Perhaps it is unsurprising that many politicians see this as an issue that should be avoided as it is laced with pitfalls and ill feeling. Perhaps of more concern to SBS in terms of the role of the media, all phases of the research showed reasonably low levels of trust in the information gleaned by media, with 58% of participants trusting the media ‘only slightly’ or ‘not at all’.

Despite these concerns the Report finds reasons to be optimistic. It notes that resistance to particular ethnic groups clearly and quickly break down over time. There is also much belief in the tolerance and adaptability of the young generations, recognition that Australia should remain multicultural and that immigration has enriched many aspects of Australian society. Overall, SBS had good reason to be pleased with Go Back to Where You Came From in terms of production values, ratings and the discussion the series generated in the media and online. The findings of the Ipsos-Eureka Social Research Institute shows that further output relating to immigration and asylum would be welcome.

At the start of the journey, one of the six is openly racist and five are hostile towards refugees. One of the participants says, “People who come here without any documentation by boat should be immediately expatriated.” But will this journey change preconceived notions?

The participants begin the journey in Sydney, where they are disposed of their passports, phones and wallets, before being split into two groups sent to spend a week with refugees who now live in Australia.

Half spend a week with the Masudis, a Congolese family  resettled in Australia in 2009, whilst the rest accompany several Iraqi refugees who arrived via boat.

We hear the experiences these refugees went through before arriving in Australia and see what impact their stories have on the six participants.

Following their week long split up, the two groups are reunited in Darwin before boarding a fishing boat for the dangerous journey to Malaysia. It doesn’t take long for the rickety vessel to run into trouble, taking on water and eventually having to be rescued by the coast guard. Thankfully, nobody is hurt and the journey was in fact a controlled exercise using a navy training vessel.

In Malaysia, the six participants experience the anxieties refugees face before boarding a boat to Australia, sharing a flat with 52 Burmese refugees and keeping their bags packed at all times in case immigration control conduct a raid. They then join and observe a dramatic midnight raid by the Malaysian immigration authorities on a suspected refugee hideout. By this point many of the group can see why so many people are willing to risk the dangerous journey to make it to a less hostile climate.

Split up once again into two groups, half are taken to a refugee camp in Kenya whilst the rest experience the existence of urban refugees in Jordan, a city already burdened with nearly two million Palestinian refugees. In an unexpected twist, the six Australians are able to travel back even further. Half journey into the Congo with UN peacekeepers, whilst the rest make it into Iraq, completing in reverse, the same journeys experiences by the refugees they stayed with in Australia during the first episode of the series.

Finally, after a long 25 day expedition across the world, the journey concludes with a debriefing in Dubai. Although many have changed their opinions about how refugees in Australia should be treated, others still hold onto the beliefs they began with.

This certainly isn’t the first documentary about the refugee experience, but there are two aspects which give it a fascinating twist. The first is the tone. There is no doubt SBS are trying to create a documentary that gets people talking, the title alone gives this away. It’s a continuation of the approach that saw Immigration Nation on our screens earlier this year, a documentary that dispensed with neutrality and wore its agenda on its sleeve. More importantly, it will place Australians and their opinions on asylum at the centre of the narrative, holding a mirror up to the nation’s views on asylum seekers and migration.

In a recent interview for the June edition of Monthly magazine, the newly appointed Chief Executive Officer & Managing Director of SBS, Michael Ebeid, said he hoped Go Back to Where You Came From would be a “catalyst for discussion about what matters in a diverse society today”. An ambitious aim certainly. Whether it can live up to the noble aim is yet to be seen.

The program is hosted by Dr David Corlett. He has worked with refugees and asylum seekers as a case worker, researcher and advisor since 1998.

Go Back To Where You Came From will be broadcast during Refugee Week on SBS ONE at 8:30pm on 21, 22 and 23 June. It’s worth watching.

Committee Secretary
Joint Standing Committee on Migration
PO Box 6021
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia
sent by email TO:  jscm@aph.gov.au

Joint Standing Committee on Migration – Inquiry into Multiculturalism in Australia

Introduction

Save Our SBS Inc is pleased to have the opportunity to make our submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration[1] on multiculturalism in Australia.

About Save Our SBS

Save Our SBS Inc is a not-for-profit organisation representing 8000 people in all States and Territories living in metropolitan and regional Australia, our subscribers and members, being critical supporters of Australia’s national multicultural and multilingual broadcaster, the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation (SBS). We have a close working relationship with SBS and organisations who are also interested in multicultural and multilingual broadcasting. We have made various submissions[2] to government and continue to do so with the aim of always providing the best possible outcome for SBS and in the interests of consumers of SBS, its audience.

Multiculturalism, social inclusion and globalisation

Before discussing the role of multiculturalism in the Federal Government’s social inclusion agenda[3] it is necessary to mention that there are distinct differences between multiculturalism and social inclusion. Broadly speaking these can be described as follows:-

Multiculturalism is an expression of the diverse mix of cultures that make up a society; races, languages, philosophies, religions, and the cultural inheritance, where all are respected, even if not understood by people from other cultures.

Multiculturalism could also include any subset within an existing culture, i.e., a subculture, e.g., people of a particular orientation, practice or belief and so on. In a treasured multicultural society no group or subculture would be regarded as inferior or of less value than another.

Social inclusion is the embracing of the multicultural expressions. For example, social inclusion may exist then when each culture or subculture in a society is included equally in the wider society as well as their own group, without discrimination or favour.

The federal government’s booklet, Australia’s Multicultural Policy – The People of Australia [4] outlines important multicultural policy principles and key initiatives. It has already allowed a dialogue about multiculturalism to occur; something that had been frowned upon since 2006 in the absence of a national multicultural policy. In the context of SBS and the Federal Government’s Social Inclusion Principles[5] SBS is well positioned through its Charter[6] to reflect Australia’s multicultural society. Ahead of, but consistent with the foregoing, in 2010 SBS articulated a policy direction of social inclusion and cohesion as fundamental to SBS[7]. This was pre‑empted by SBS’s Second Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP)[8] which is SBS’s policy and practice about increasing awareness of the contribution of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander communities to Australian society and building capacity to learn from and serve Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander peoples. The RAP builds on the unique content that SBS has demonstrated in its commitment to telling Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander stories on SBS. Rightfully SBS sees this as crucial to building relationships and partnerships with Indigenous peoples. This is but one example of social inclusion; a policy that has lead to an outcome and is on-going.

Settlement and participation

When people feel socially included, settlement may result.

The purpose of SBS is spelt out in its Charter, “to provide multilingual and multicultural radio and television services that inform, educate and entertain all Australians. . . in their preferred languages. . . and promote Australia’s multicultural society”. To facilitate the purpose of  SBS fully, its role, is broader than that of a broadcaster, although that is its primary function. In the 21st century broadcasting has extended to the internet too.

Probably no other media organisation in Australia engages as widely as SBS does with the communities it serves. SBS does so, not just through the medium of broadcasting, but often by holding public forums and community meetings. This is important as it allows direct interaction. This may also occur on‑line.

Through the use of modern technology it is relatively easy for migrants to access media in their country of origin. However SBS is often the first and ongoing Australian media reference point for new and emerging communities. Given that almost one‑quarter of all Australians were born outside Australia and a little less speak a language other than English (LOTE)[9] in the home, SBS has particular relevance for culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities and other Australians who may not identify as being a part of any of the above. This is not surprising considering that almost two thirds of all Australians believe that Australia should be a multicultural society[10].

With sufficient government funding there is a role for SBS to commit to assisting new arrivals to settle. When SBS was first established, this occurred through, among other things, on-air English language programs. There are a variety of other ways of assisting people to be included. A feeling of inclusion will help people to settle. During the settling process there is a role for SBS to build a strong acceptance of the diversity of cultures that exists within the existing Australian society. Established Australians would also benefit.

The role of the media cannot be underestimated in terms of influencing the wider community. It is unfortunate that some (commercial) media outlets have abused this power.

Sometimes this has been executed in a misleading, negative, or even a racially hateful manner. The Cronulla riots in 2005 where a Sydney commercial radio presenter called for “a rally, a street march, call it what you will. A community show of force. . .” against a certain community. The call resulted in riots of some 5000 people taking violent action against people of a particular ethnic background. The radio presenter was later found by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to have encouraged violence or brutality and to have vilified people on the basis of ethnicity[11]. This is only one example of the power of the media, albeit an abuse of power to facilitate a horrible event.

So where does SBS fit into all this?

The power of the media, in the case above, was more than just inciting violence; that alone being bad enough. It contributed to making a particular ethnic community feel unsafe, isolated, and without a sense of belonging to the wider Australian society. In short it divided the community. Then, there was no social inclusion policy and any counter view to that cited above was faced with ridicule and incidental. Although other media and SBS may have been able to off-set some of the prevailing attitudes at the time, in the absence of a national agenda there remained a risk that most likely the events had a negative impact on those new to Australia or those already settled, to feel safe, wanted and included.

Ignorance about ethnic communities can lead to fear and outcomes such as the one described above. One of SBS’s roles is to educate the Australian community about other cultures by making ethnic programs available to all Australians. This may lead to better harmony of ethnic cultures within the Australian community.

Participation only occurs when one feels included. To settle, one must be able to participate.

Language is very powerful. It is a tool required for participation. When the communicated language is not your own, isolation may exist. Considering that less than one-third of programs on SBS’s main television channel are in LOTE[12], many commentators have criticised SBS for not serving the Australian communities “in their preferred languages” to the same extent that was the case when SBS television was established. This may be a spin‑off of the enthusiastic commercial approach at SBS television of the past five years and an issue of lack of adequate public funding.

Television is more costly to operate than radio.

Probably SBS Radio and on-line services address the language issue more fully than SBS television currently can, or does, given the chronic under-funding of SBS.

Acknowledgment should also be given to the ethnic and multicultural community broadcasting sector, as well as the SBS; in balancing a local and national conversation about the impact of Australia’s multicultural policy.

National productive capacity

Migrants cannot be fully productive individuals unless they are comfortably integrated into, and embraced by, their new community. SBS plays an important role in facilitating this integration process in several ways. It provides programs from ethnic cultures which help to educate the broader community to allow better understanding and acceptance of those cultures. It is unreasonable to expect that immigrants immediately take on the culture of their new country. It is therefore also a role of SBS to provide ethnic communities living in Australia with a way of getting information about their country of origin and helping them to maintain a connection with the culture they are accustomed to as they welcomed into and form part of the Australian community and therefore allow them to be productive contributors to the Australian productive capacity.

In the past 5 years, funding for much of the work of SBS was derived from reliance on the commercial dollar. This is evidenced by the disruption of programs for advertisements on SBS-TV since late 2006. That has co-existed with a more commercial-type presentation of programs. However, SBS still struggles. In 2010 SBS reported that it needs “to find a way to offset the hits to our commercial revenue that have occurred firstly as a consequence of the global financial crisis and secondly because of the explosion of multichannels from commercial broadcasters which has doubled the amount of commercial inventory in the market and is having an impact on the revenue that SBS can derive”[13]. SBS is the least government funded public broadcaster in Australia. Put another way, governments have not funded SBS adequately. Although Australia produced the world’s first multicultural broadcaster, public funding for it, by any measure, is inadequate.

Despite the above, SBS still exists and airs high quality programs. The production of programs is a form of art. Art is an expression of diversity. Art can bring peoples of differing cultures together.

The SBS Charter states that SBS must “contribute to extending the range of Australian television and radio services and reflect the changing nature of Australia society, by presenting many points of view and using innovative forms of expression.” This provision recognises that diversity is a form a cultural expression. SBS Independent (SBSi)[14] was the independent arm of SBS that was established to foster this objective. It received funding from government[15], however when SBSi was absorbed into the SBS funding may have been affected[16] and the cultural expression changed. With a greater reliance on advertising neutralised by ever increasing costs and inadequate revenue from the public purse, in a 2010 submission to government, SBS emphasised that greater government funding was required “to the television production industry, particularly in a climate where the Screen Australia direct funding subsidy is decreasing year on year”[17].

The employment of persons required in the production of television or radio programs not only adds to the diverse Australian culture, the process itself enhances our national capacity to produce. The employment of many stimulates the economy. In this aspect alone, the whole of Australian society would benefit if government invested heavily in SBS.

The implementation of a multicultural policy needs to be nurtured – not left to struggle – resulting in a need to turn to commercial revenue in the manner that SBS television has had to since late 2006.

Conclusion

In the context of the foregoing, Save Our SBS recommends that the Joint Standing Committee on Migration consider the points below.

Without sufficient government funding, a social inclusion agenda will have little purpose.

For social inclusion and cohesion to have any real meaning there needs to be strong recognition of, and on-going financial support for, the role of SBS as Australia’s multicultural and multilingual broadcaster. It is not satisfactory for Australia to boast that Australia produced the world’s first multicultural broadcaster but then leave it to struggle due to lack of adequate government funding.

Government funding to a greater extent than has occurred in the past decade is overdue and now necessary so that SBS can provide services to CALD communities through its radio, television and on‑line services. The latter has never been funded by government.

Possibly the most noticeable impact of insufficient government funding on SBS in recent years has been the expansion of commercial breaks into SBS‑TV. However this approach, by the very purpose it seeks to serve (to raise funds so that the broadcaster may remain operational) undermines that of social inclusion because the client of SBS television has now become the advertiser, not the audience. Daily minute by minute ratings have become the norm; necessary to make adjustments to appease the advertiser. The audience is now the product that is sold to the client, the advertiser. This was not the case prior to 2007, when advertisements were placed between programs only. Then, the more distinct separation of commercials away from programs meant that the program remained the product, the audience the client with the net result of a more socially inclusive broadcaster. The current situation can only be reversed if the following triple action occurs:- a legislated phasing out of commercial disruptions into SBS television programs coupled with proportional increases in government funding and further public money for expansion of services. Save Our SBS strongly recommends the foregoing. SBS shall then be freed from the constraints it currently faces, switching the focus of the client of SBS from advertiser back to the audience, thus fostering social inclusion to the full extent. This is entirely appropriate in consideration of the whole of government approach for a national multicultural policy.

If SBS is to move forward in the direction that it was established for, and give meaning to the principles of social inclusiveness and assist migrants to settle, and affect the national productive capacity in a fruitful way for all Australians, SBS will need far greater public funding than has occurred to date. With a massive injection of government funding, SBS could be central to ensuring that Australia continues to lead the way as a world example of a successful multicultural society.

The Committee of Management
Save Our SBS Inc
2011

PDF format at: http://saveoursbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/SaveOurSBS-submission-Inquiry-into-Multiculturalism-2011.pdf
This submission may also be read on the SaveOurSBS.org website at: http://saveoursbs.org/archives/1861

[2] Save Our SBS submissions http://saveoursbs.org/archives/category/submissions

[3] Social Inclusion Agenda http://www.socialinclusion.gov.au

[4] Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Australia’s Multicultural Policy – The People of Australia, 16 February 2011, http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/multicultural/pdf_doc/people-of-australia-multicultural-policy-booklet.pdf

[5] Social Inclusion Principles for Australia http://www.socialinclusion.gov.au/SIAgenda/Principles/Documents/SIPrincilpes.pdf

[6] Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991, section 6,  http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/0/2F8013F942CC76E5CA2571FD0020CC29/$file/SpecBroadService91WD02.pdf

[7] SBS Corporate Plan 2010-2013, pages 9 & 10,  http://media.sbs.com.au/home/upload_media/site_20_rand_1685307411_sbs_corporate_plan7.pdf

[8] SBS – Second Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP), 2010, http://media.sbs.com.au/shows/upload_media/Second_RAP.pdf

[9] ABS Census (2006) http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/home/census+data

[10] Ipsos-Eureka Social Research Institute – Ipsos Mackay, Special Broadcasting Service Immigration Nation Thought Leadership Research Report, Dec, 2010 (Feb 2011), page, 14, http://media.sbs.com.au/home/upload_media/site_20_rand_1318646201_sbs_immigration_nation_cut_down_report_final_14_feb.pdf

[11] 2005 Cronulla riots, Wikipedia, 1 May 2011, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Cronulla_riots

[12] QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Special Broadcasting Service, Allison, Sen Lyn, Question 93 Senate Hansard, (chamber/hansards/2008-06-16/0157) Page 2135, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, upon notice, on 12 February 2008 refer to sub-question 4 and Minister’s answer “32.03% of nightly programming (167 hours) was in a language other than English”, http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2008-06-16%2F0157%22

[13] SBS Manger Director Mr Shaun Brown appearing before the Senate Estimates BCDE 24/05/2010 (committees/estimate/13005/0001) ECA page 4 (PDF page 8) http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/estimate/13005/toc_pdf/7622-3.pdf

[14] Wikipedia “SBS independent” 6 February 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SBS_independent

[15] Senator Coonan media release Federal Budget 2005-06 SBS Independent—continuation of funding for the Special Production Fund http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/coonan/media/media_releases/sbsindependent__continuation_of_funding_for_the_special_production_fund

[16] Communications and the Digital Economy, Media Release, Budget 2009: More Australian stories from ABC and SBS, 12 May 2008, http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/035

[17] 2010 Review Australian Independent Screen Production Sector SBS SUBMISSION page 4 http://www.arts.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/91893/special_broadcasting_service.pdf

POPAsia http://www.sbs.com.au/popasia The site blurb reads: “The very best non-stop Asian pop hits in Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, Korean and more – streaming 24/7”. Before establishing POPAsia it was known that many Asians did not own a radio set and younger people had a preference for listening to music and radio on-line. The uptake of the service, measured by the number of hits to the site, has been very impressive for SBS. POPAsia appears to be filling a void Australia.

Anther  radio station, SBS chill, was also launched on-line. Its purpose is not as distinct as POPAsia nor is its relevance to the SBS Charter clear.

SBS chill http://www.sbs.com.au/chill is a middle of the road music station. Below an on-line-player, the webpage displays a selection of previous and coming tracks with an opportunity to click and buy on selected tracks. A click will redirect to the exact track on the iTunesApple site. It’s convenient but none the less, a marketing ploy. It’s unclear if there’s a financial kick-back to SBS. The SBS chill site reads: “Relax and enjoy chilled sounds from around the world streaming 24/7 on SBS digital radio and live online”.

SBS also stream on-line radio news and current affairs on World News Australia Radio http://www.sbs.com.au/podcasts/naca/radionews. Like World News Australia on SBS-TV, their on-line radio service is excellent.

SBS has an equivalent to iView but without a name. SBSview might be a good one. Whatever it’s called, it is not easy to find either. Rather than click through an array of menus and screens, the direct link http://player.sbs.com.au/programs is worth remembering. It will redirect to: Sneak Peak TV; Full Episodes; and, Web Extras.

Unfortunately many of the on-line TV programs begin with an advertisement which you can’t scroll past. If you just want to browse until you find the program you like, this can be off-putting because you might end up seeing the same ad at the beginning of each program until you locate the desired TV program. One of the recent on-line ads was for the wine festival State, which was viewable at anytime of day for every program on the site that carried the ad. This raises the question of advertising on-line. Are SBS doing this responsibly? Advertisements for alcohol are not allowed on television during times when children might be watching and the same standard ought to apply to the SBS website too.

The development of the SBS website has been slow. It has also been without government funding.

One of the impressive features of SBS’s website, is the multiple Language Site drop down menu.

SBS.com.au has input from World News Australia, television, program specific sites, and radio. Streaming and download services are available. There are SBS blog sites, a corporate section and more.

But it’s not all rosy. There are an unacceptably high number of broken links, and clicks that go to nowhere. Written reports, submissions and material in the public interest is often moved and removed as fast from the site as it appears. SBS have removed most of the content that was pre 2009; material from the old website. However, it is difficult to build a website that is big. And the SBS site is massive.

It had a major make-over about 18 months ago. It needed it. But it needs to be overhauled again. Rebuilt.

It’s not a mobile friendly website. There are some SBS apps for mobile phones but these are limited.  Mobile apps are not cheap to develop, especially when the main site is not already mobile-friendly. At commercially discounted rates, there may be no change out of $75k per app per system for a site that is already mobile friendly. If SBS are to develop their internet presence, they need to act for users of the iPhone, Android, Windows, Blackberry, Symbian, and generic mobile systems. Considering that SBS has never received any specific government funding to develop the internet service, it’s not doing too badly.

Aside from it being slow and difficult to navigate through, some basic understandings and principles ought be developed within SBS, like don’t delete any text based material ever. Especially if it’s a SBS submission, report, code, guideline or material of public, or academic interest. Archive it instead. And develop a system that won’t allow run-away broken links.

No doubt the new boss, Michael Ebeid will want to develop the SBS internet services to 21st century standard. Given his marketing experience and past background with an internet company, he may be well equipped to do so and make a worthwhile site, better. A less clumsy site would be a start.

Ebeid’s broadcast experience has been in the public and commercial spheres.

Previously Ebeid was at the ABC, where he was the Executive Director of Corporate Strategy and Marketing.

Prior to that Ebeid spent ten years with Optus Communications. His last role was Director of  Commercial Operations for the Consumer Division, responsible for strategy, business development, regulatory and finance across internet, Pay TV and telephony. Earlier, Ebeid worked at IBM for nine years in Australia and Asia.

SBS Chairman, Mr Joe Skrzynski, said: “Mr Ebeid brings to SBS a special set of personal and professional skills, with the right blend of operational and strategic experience from his twenty-four years in the Media, Telecommunications and IT technology sectors which represent the three arms of the convergence changing the entertainment and information landscape in Australia.

“He is extremely well suited to lead SBS in its mission to promote social harmony by helping migrants to settle and participate fully in Australian society, and assisting all Australians to understand and appreciate the benefits of cultural diversity.

“As SBS moves into its fourth decade, its Charter is more vitally relevant than ever. Not only is our population manifestly more complex and diverse, but today there are three million Australians whose first language is not English and that is twice as many as when we were first formed,” Mr Skrzynski said.

On his appointment, Mr Ebeid said: “I am very excited to be joining SBS, an organisation that has been inspiring its audiences to explore and appreciate our multicultural world, and has helped contribute to a more inclusive Australian society. I am looking forward to ensuring that SBS grows its relevance and reach at a time when the media landscape and audience habits are fundamentally changing. SBS is an organisation that can and does make a difference, and it is an honour to lead it.”

Ebeid was born in Cairo, Egypt, and moved to Australia with his family when he was three years old.

In the past 24 years Ebeid has worked in senior management and executive roles across the technology, telecommunications and media industries.

At the ABC he led the creation of the ABC’s first cross divisional strategic marketing plan,

Prior to the ABC when Ebeid when at Optus Communications, he was Director of Commercial Operations (CFO/COO) for Consumer and Multimedia, Optus’ largest division with over 3000 staff. He led the formation of the division in 1999 when revenues were $560m, then embarked on a series of strategic initiatives turning the business around and taking revenues to $1.8b in four years. He was responsible for managing the division’s finance, strategy, regulatory and business development teams across telephony, internet and Pay Television. Ebeid also played a key role in Optus Television’s Digital Interactive TV launch and the Foxtel/Optus Content Sharing deal in 2001, and was on the Board of Pay TV’s industry body, ASTRA, from 2001-2005.

Prior to Optus, Ebeid was an executive at IBM for nine years in various finance management, sales and marketing positions, and worked in Tokyo and other Asian countries.

Ebeid has a Bachelor of Business (Charles Sturt University), International Executive Development Program (INSEAD Business College, France), and Media Strategies Program (Harvard Business School).

Ebeid was raised and educated in Sydney where he lives with his partner.

His interests are in Film, the Arts and Current Affairs, and his leisure activities include scuba diving, water skiing, sky diving and travel.

Ebeid replaces Shaun Brown.

SBS Chair, Mr Skrzynski paid tribute to Mr Brown. In August last year Brown announced his retirement. He may be credited for convincing the SBS Board in 2006 to run advertisements within programs. At the time, described as a “bold” move, but one that offended many in the community.

This may be the start of a cultural change to end racism and embrace those from other cultures. SaveOurSBS.org welcomes such. At the heart of the Policy is a new advisory body to be called the Australian Multicultural Council (AMC). It will operate from 2012 and will succeed the current Australian Multicultural Advisory Council (AMAC).

The Immigration Minister said “The new body will act as a champion for multiculturalism in the community; will advise the government on multicultural affairs; and will help to ensure Australian Government services respond to the needs of migrant and refugee communities”.

The government will seek to “to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination” through a National Anti‑Racism Partnership. The task is to “deliver an anti-racism strategy”, Chris Bowen said.

The implementation of the multicultural policy will be assigned to Senator Kate Lundy. She will now be the Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.

In a media release, the Chair of FECCA, the Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia, Mr Pino Migliorino said, “We congratulate the government on telling the world that Australian multiculturalism is unique, successful and vital in creating a peaceful and harmonious society. We commend the Minister for his eloquent exposition of the genius of multiculturalism and acknowledge the passion of thousands of Australians who supported our advocacy. The world will watch while we celebrate Australian multiculturalism; this is only the beginning.”

The Policy has four main points which are:-

• celebrating and valuing diversity
• maintaining social cohesion
• communicating the benefits of Australia’s diversity
• responding to intolerance and discrimination

These are all excellent values.

So where does our multicultural broadcaster, SBS, fit within all this?

Mr Bowen said the Policy was “built on a whole-of-government approach”. That being said, SaveOurSBS.org expects that when the next triennial funding is announced for SBS in 2012, this “whole-of-government approach” might also include increased funding for SBS so it may execute its role more effectively. SBS’s role in nurturing diversity and celebrating multiculturalism via the communication of radio, TV and the internet, is like most other things, dependant on having sufficient funds.

While nothing was specifically mentioned in the Policy in relation to our multicultural broadcaster, nor was specific reference essential, it would appear not to be outside the scope of the “whole-of-government approach” of the Policy for government to now be able to justify an increase in public funding for SBS. Time will tell if government will do this or abdicate its responsibilities for SBS; leave it to struggle through reliance on the commercial sector.

The Policy was developed as an expression of support for Australia’s multiculturalism and an endorsement of the Australian Multicultural Advisory Council (AMAC) statement which was presented to government for consideration last year. The Policy was also formed in response to the Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia’s “Different but Equal – National Multicultural Agenda”, also in 2010.

The entire 16 pages of The People of Australia – Australia’s Multicultural Policy can be read in full at http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/multicultural/pdf_doc/people-of-australia-multicultural-policy-booklet.pdf and in languages other than English (LOTE) here http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/a-diverse-australia/multicultural-policy

The documentary makers are certainly ambitious and have identified an interesting and relevant part of Australian history and culture to explore. The recent events on Christmas Island, where a boat carrying refugees crashed onto the shore leading to 48 deaths, was a stark reminder of Australia’s continuing problems with immigration. To coincide with Immigration Nation, a series of discussion programs will be broadcast on SBS Radio to further explore the issues raised during the series. A further discussion will take place at the Old Parliament Building in Canberra in partnership with the Museum of Australian Democracy.

If Immigration Nation fulfils its promise, it may be a welcome catalyst for constructive debate regarding Australia’s attitude towards race and immigration in the country.

Immigration Nation premieres on SBS-ONE on Sunday 9 January 2011, at 8:30pm. The three part series concludes on 23 January.

The full SBS program schedule is here.

On 28 October this year SBS celebrated 30 years of television and 35 of radio broadcasting. The celebration was held at the Fox studios in Sydney. Following welcome drinks and finger food, the evening’s meal was preceded by an official welcome to Country and acknowledgement of the Gadigal People of the Eora Nation. Soon after and in one of his finest speeches yet, the Minister responsible for SBS, Senator Stephen Conroy outlined the fascinating history of SBS – their story.

Senator Conroy’s speech

Good evening everyone, it’s a real pleasure to be here to mark this historic milestone for Australia’s very Special Broadcasting Service.

I’d like to acknowledge:
• Joe Skrzynski, SBS Chair
• Gerald Stone, SBS Deputy Chair
• SBS Board members both past and present
• Shaun Brown, Managing Director of SBS
• Senator Kate Lundy, Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Citizenship
• Julie Bishop, Deputy Leader of the Opposition
• Gladys Berejiklian, NSW Shadow Minister for Transport
• All SBS management and staff, both past and present

35 years ago, the Whitlam Government made a visionary decision to launch Government-funded radio services to assist new Australians to settle in to their new home.

Ethnic Affairs radio, as it was then known, was an essential service that allowed migrants to more easily find their way in a strange new land.

Its creation was a significant step away from the Australia of old, which had operated the notorious White Australia Policy, to a new and inclusive nation that welcomed people from all over the world.

The creation of what was known as “ethnic” television five years later, by the Government of Malcolm Fraser, was a continuation and expansion of this important step.

It demonstrated a bi-partisan commitment to a multicultural Australia, and led to the creation of the Special Broadcasting Service to manage both radio and television services for Australians from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

From its earliest focus on providing services for newly arrived migrants, SBS’s vision was expanded in the 1980s and 1990s to one of promoting the benefits of cultural diversity to all Australians.

In doing so, SBS grew to be a broadcaster that has hugely enriched our national culture, changing the very nature of Australian society – and always for the better.

On a fraction of the budget of the average broadcaster, SBS now provides a truly breathtaking range of services – services which contribute far more than just entertainment to Australia.

And I’m not just talking about the World Cup – although this year’s coverage of that all important tournament was arguably the finest and most comprehensive in the world!

SBS now broadcasts two free-to-air TV channels, operates two subscription TV channels, and runs four radio networks in 68 languages.

Its programs reflect the real, “lived” diversity of Australian society, more so than any other broadcaster, including the ABC.

And, in this digital age, SBS also provides online services that reflect and celebrate the strength of Australia’s cultural diversity and social harmony.

30 years ago Australia was very fortunate to see the establishment of a broadcaster that is very special indeed – in fact, unique in the world.

Over the last three decades, SBS has had an undeniable impact on Australia, promoting a more inclusive and yet outward looking society, one which has built on the great strengths of its increasingly diverse citizenry.

An Australia without SBS is now unimaginable.

Congratulations to all involved with SBS, both past and present, on reaching this important milestone.

Happy Birthday, and here’s to the next 30 years.

Other speeches were given that evening while a five course multicultural feast was served. Guests watched live performances from various cultures and projected video of SBS’s past achievements and history.

Later, the Chairman of SBS, Joe Skrzynski continued the SBS story and spoke of the future.

Joe Skrzynski’s speech

Tonight is a celebration, and I trust you will enjoy seeing, hearing and tasting from our multicultural buffet. At the same time it is important to reflect on such an occasion as to how we are fulfilling our mission, and how we think of the future. The context for SBS is that Australia is a new world multicultural society, absorbing successive waves of migrants from different countries. SBS was created to welcome and support them, and to inform and educate them in their own languages and in English about Australia, and at the same time inform, educate and entertain all Australians so that they better understand and value cultural diversity at home and abroad.

From humble beginnings, with coverage of eight languages on radio with limited coverage, SBS has grown to be a national broadcaster, broadcasting in 68 languages weekly on radio, reaching about 40% of Australians each week across two free-to-air channels, in addition to World Movies and STVDIO on subscription television, and over a million visits a month across our websites in English and in 68 other languages.

It is indisputably not only Australia’s, but the world’s most distinctive and diverse broadcaster, and has been a potent factor in making Australia a cosmopolitan society in a rapidly globalising world.

It has garnered numerous international and national awards for its programs along the way, including an Academy Award, and this year the majority of the peer group awarded Logies – and, just last night, 8 nominations for the AFI.

Now the success of Australia as a multicultural society could lead some to think that SBS is “mission accomplished”. They would be wrong. Today there are more than 3 million, or twice as many Australians as in 1975, who speak a language other than English at home, and the diversity of race, religion and cultures has multiplied among newer arrivals, so that the mission has in fact expanded, quantitatively and qualitatively!

Technology has presented fresh challenges. Global satellite distribution and cheap home receivers mean many, especially newer migrants, can and do tune into home country broadcasts to the virtual exclusion of English language Australian media, posing the risk of them falling into “media ghettoes”, where their principal source of knowledge about Australia is through the eyes of their old country media. Our surveys show that they distrust mainstream Australian media, other than SBS.

So the need for SBS “in language” and English services is greater than ever. The cohesion of our multicultural society cannot be taken for granted. It is a work in progress, and requires continuing and sophisticated government programs, including a vigorous SBS to ensure its success.

In recognition of these enormous social and technological changes impacting upon our services and industry, we recently re examined the organisation’s strategic direction and reshaped SBS’s Corporate Plan.

The plan outlines our ambitions for the future, and explicitly states that the role of SBS is to contribute to social inclusion in Australia.

Our aim is to be a vital factor in the harmonious integration of migrants into Australian society, whilst valuing their distinctiveness; to be a catalyst for the nation’s conversation about multiculturalism – informing and educating all Australians so as to promote harmony and enable us to minimise friction and maximise the benefits of the skills, cultural and linguistic richness and global networks of our diverse migrant communities.

The strategies to do this are based on creatively exploiting new technologies. Digital TV has tripled the channel capacity of SBS TV. This resolves the dilemma of the past, whereby with just one channel, English language programming of broad appeal across all communities competed with niche “in language” programs in prime time.

Across all its TV channels, SBS will be able to be both broad and distinctive, with much more “in language” programming.

Another new strategy which I can announce tonight sees the further development of SBS “on demand” services to pilot Virtual Community Centres for individual language groups. These will be the “go to” media destination for those communities, providing on-demand access to SBS TV and radio programs, additional on line content specially commissioned or acquired, links to community and government services information and, a first for SBS, user generated content from the individual community itself.

The first of these Virtual Community Centres will be for Australian Chinese speaking communities, and will be launched next month, including the pilot of an Australian-Mandarin language news service. This will be a first for Australian television – a domestic in-language news service. We have had in-language Australian news on radio, but now will pilot extending that to television.

But some things will not change, notably our commitment to drama and documentaries that reflect the reality of our multicultural society in a way that other broadcasters simply do not. This means more programs like the award winning East West 101, The Circuit and First Australians.

So, this is the anniversary vision for SBS incorporated in its new corporate plan. It will be implemented progressively as funding permits.

On behalf of SBS, thank you for being part of the story so far, and welcome to the next exciting episode of SBS, six billion stories and counting.

Listening to the speeches (above) were the 300 guests that SBS had invited to their birthday celebrations. 

The night was attended by dignitaries, representatives from various ethnic community groups, as well as current and past on-air presenters and others associated with SBS.

SBS-Chairman, Joe Skrzynski with Majida Abboud from SBS Radio and Malcolm Turnbull, Shadow Communications Minister (pictured) at the SBS 30th/35th birthday party held in Sydney on 28 October 2010.

The food delights for the evening were created by Yaama Dhiyaan,  (the welcome sharing plate); Guillaume Brahimi (first course); Luke Nguyen (second course); Sean Connolly (third course); Adriano Zumbo (dessert).

Luke Nguyen is well known to SBS viewers for his Vietnam series while Sean Connolly introduced viewers to multicultural families across Australia in My Family Feast. In 2011, Guillaume Brahimi will present a French Food Safari on SBS-TV and Adriano Zumbo will take viewers behind the scenes in his kitchen.   

Also attending the SBS 30th/35th birthday party was the SBS Managing Director, Shaun Brown with Liz Courtney and former SBS MD, Nigel Milan (pictured).

A separate party was held at another time for current employees of SBS who were not able to attend the birthday celebrations at Fox studios.

Many changes have occurred since multicultural broadcasting commenced. No other broadcaster in the world exists like SBS. For more information about the history of Australia’s multicultural broadcaster see the TelevisionAu.com – Channel 0/28 website, the Wikipedia – Special Broadcasting Service website and the SBS website. Also of interest Clare Dunne who pioneered multicultural broadcasting. Other information about SBS is on the SaveOurSBS.org website.

Hakim and Davis currently work as reporters on Dateline.

Dateline’s Executive Producer Peter Charley said each will continue to work as reporters. One will present the program while the other is on assignment.

Charley said, “The idea of putting working Video Journalists in the studio to host the program returns Dateline to the essence of what has made it such a distinctive program – Video Journalism lies at the heart of what we do.”

“Yalda and Mark represent the cutting edge of Video Journalism, the core of Dateline’s unique approach to story-telling.”

27 year old Yalda Hakim speaks five languages. She is acknowledged as a highly talented reporter. Last year she won the United Nations Media Peace Prize for Best Australian Television News coverage. She has filed stories globally, including from Afghanistan, Norway and India. Born in Afghanistan she fled Kabul with her family when Russia invaded. Hakim has been reporting for Dateline for the past two years.

Mark Davis has hosted Dateline before. He is a pioneer of Video Journalism and one of Australia’s most respected journalists and presenters. The high standards of his work have become the benchmark for Dateline. He won five Walkley awards, including the prestigious Gold Walkley for Blood Money.  Most recently Davis reported on Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and Dutch politician Gert Wilders.

Dateline first aired in 1980 on SBS Radio, 3EA (Ethnic Australia) in Melbourne. In 1984 it was picked up by SBS television.

The Chairman of SBS, Joe Skrzynski, told SaveOurSBS.org that as a consequence of not receiving additional funding from Government, SBS must continue to take advantage of its commercial license.

No doubt by the time the Budget is announced for the next triennial funding for SBS (2012-2014), there will be a different economic climate. In a different economic climate or with prompting from the Greens and Independents, the government might feel more inclined to provide the funding SBS seeks to surrender in-program advertising and expand its operations. SBS may become a beneficiary of the hung parliament.

Sometime during the course of this hung parliament the Greens Communication’s spokesperson, Senator Scott Ludlam will move that his Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Prohibition of Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2009 (Bill Number 165/2009) become law. If passed, that would mean SBS-TV would only be allowed to place advertisements between programs and not in them. The Greens also want SBS to receive additional public funding to offset lost revenue due to stopping in-program advertising.

SBS believes that if television ads were placed between programs only, income from TV advertising would be reduced by about half, compared to interrupting programs.

In March this year, SaveOurSBS.org made a formal submission to SBS that it ought to cease interrupting programs on SBS television for advertisement and promo breaks. However the plans that SBS now have to further pursue the commercial path are outlined in the recent SBS Corporate Plan 2010-2013. It provides forecasts for revenue from advertising and sponsorships. The Plan does not separate television advertising from radio, internet or other advertising. However, it is well known that advertising on SBS-TV accounts for most of the income from advertising.

The Corporate Plan (page 13) predicts that advertising revenue will be in the order of $86,666,000 for the current financial year and that this will rise by 6.68 percent to $92,457,000 in the 2011-2012 year. It will rise by a further 6.03 percent in 2012-2013 amounting to $98,040,000. Thereafter SBS forecasts a massive increase of 27.32 percent for the year 2013-2014 resulting in $124,827,000 from advertising. The Corporate Plan does not explain why SBS expects an increase of 27.32 percent for a period three years into the future nor why they have forecast a decline of minus 11.94 percent for the year 2014-2015, giving a stated income of $109,917,000 for that year from advertising and sponsorships. SBS predicts that by 2013-2014 revenue from all advertising will peak at 57.84 percent of government appropriation monies. The full projected finances (revenue and expenditure) including forecast funding from government can be viewed here.

From a strategic point of view SBS needed to provide advertising revenue forecasts. It may need to draw on those advertising figures to argue a case for public funding equal to half that generated by advertising, if legislation is passed to prohibit advertising during programs. But it will need to justify the figures and explain their methodology substantially better than that outlined in the Corporate Plan.

Given the evidence that SaveOurSBS.org had presented to SBS in March as to why in-program advertising should be aborted and the 15,427 emails sent by the electorate before the federal election opposing in-program interruptions, many had hoped to find a sentence in the SBS Corporate Plan that expressed a clear desire on the part of SBS to abolish ads and promos from interrupting programs. By failing to make such statement, SBS may have done itself a disservice to attain the full support needs for the (other) priorities outlined in the Plan.

The Corporate Plan states that the Strategic Plan will be reviewed annually (page 11). The decision to “look for commercial opportunities consistent with the SBS Act” (page 8) falls under the Strategic Direction of the Plan. The Goals of the Plan are outlined on page 9. It contains two contradictory points: – “15. Grow commercial revenue in a fragmenting market”. [versus] “16. Deliver on stakeholder expectations to justify support and proper funding”. But it is well established that the stakeholders (ethnic communities and viewers of all demographics) favour public funding over commercial revenue (A, B, C, D, E,). Many believe that SBS is acting in a dishonourable manner by taking advantage of poorly worded legislation. SBS were present at a Senate Estimates Committee when Senator Conroy explained that the legislators and those that drafted the SBS Act in 1991, never intended that programs be interrupted in the way that SBS now do.

SaveOurSBS.org will continue to present the case that SBS-TV ought to be funded adequately and should do so without interrupting programs for advertisements. We favour legislation to achieve that. Currently there is nothing in the SBS Act that obliges SBS to interrupt programs.

The SBS Corporate Plan 2010-2013 deals with many other matters aside from advertising.

It outlines the overall direction that SBS is headed for the next few years.

Aside from the lack of courage to publicly express a desire to aim in the direction of abandoning in-program advertising (and seek government funding to do so), the broad direction of the Plan has much merit. It contains many desires on the part of SBS that will never be achieved unless government decides to fund the multicultural broadcaster adequately. In the new paradigm of the hung parliament, funding to offset lost revenue resulting from prohibiting in-program advertising may become a priority over some of the things that SBS has outlined in their Corporate Plan.

The Plan states that SBS would like to attract younger audiences and it recognises the importance of social inclusiveness as fundamental to SBS. It seeks to make a greater commitment to multilingual content across all platforms:- television, radio and internet. SBS would like everyone to be able access their material no matter when or how they wish. Not many people are aware that SBS has never received funding for their internet services. In December 2009, SaveOurSBS.org made a submission to government to urge funding to assist SBS with its internet operations. That was on the back of our August 2008 submission for a massive injection of funding for SBS for the current triennium and to free it from advertising.

The SBS Corporate Plan 2010-2013 says that SBS will explore the possibility of establishing further SBS-TV channels and it recognises the changes in the make up of Australian society (in particular the increase in the number of Australians from Asia, the Middle East and Africa). The Plan says that SBS would like to respond to that.

Rightly, SBS also have emphasised their role in telling original Australian stories that explored the multicultural nature of our society. In discussing their past achievements SBS highlighted First Australians. That was the landmark documentary series. Landmark because it covered Indigenous Australian history which had not been done before. Other programs were mentioned too including the many awards that SBS productions have won.

The Plan also discusses SBS Radio which broadcasts in 68 1anguages. It explains the role of the SBS pay channels:- STVDIO and World Movies.

The SBS Corporate Plan 2010-2013 was signed off by the Board and forwarded to the Minister last month. It is expected to be presented to the October Senate Estimates, Communications Committee. It can be read in full here.

The SBS website has a PDF of the SBS Corporate Plan 2010-2013 at
http://media.sbs.com.au/home/upload_media/site_20_rand_1685307411_sbs_corporate_plan7.pdf

SBS has acted to increase awareness of the contribution of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander communities to Australian society and building capacity to learn from and serve Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Recently, SBS launched the Second Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP). It builds on the unique content that SBS has demonstrated in its commitment to telling Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander stories. Through a series of objectives and action plans, the Second Reconciliation Plan will foster stronger relationships for all Australians.

SBS already airs the only Indigenous current affairs program, Living Black, on Australian television. Other SBS programs featuring Indigenous peoples include First Australians. That was a documentary series that covered Indigenous history for the first time.

The actions in SBS’s first RAP were implemented by members of SBS’s first Reconciliation Action Plan Committee. That Committee consisted of 27 members, including Aboriginal & Torres Strait employees, which enabled the development of wording for SBS staff to deliver Acknowledgement of Country and the acknowledgement of the traditional custodians. This also helped SBS staff to engage in Indigenous culture through the National Aboriginal and Islander Day Observance Committee (NAIDOC) week celebrations. That is held in July each year.

The Committee determined that SBS could better realise its potential by taking a long-term approach that encapsulates what SBS is uniquely positioned to offer in the reconciliation process. Reconciliation Australia’s principles of respect, relationships and opportunities were used to formulate these ideas and actions.

The actions are set out under each set of objectives, with each action signposted with Reconciliation Australia’s key elements to indicate its contribution to the principles of relationships, respect and opportunities. SBS outlines that establishing and maintaining relationships and partnerships with Indigenous peoples are crucial to being a reconciliation leader. SBS is encouraging recognition and respect for Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander communities, by creating opportunities to broadcast stories of Indigenous communities, through encouraging business systems that are more inclusive.

In order to track progress and reporting of this plan, the Committee will make annual progress reports as well as a final report.

Further details can be found as a PDF document on the SBS website at Second Reconciliation Action Plan.

All the Parties and Independent’s agreement to the way parliament is to conduct itself could result in SBS getting a better deal. Private bills must now be debated and voted on. Labor’s Agreement with the Greens gives the Greens direct access to the Prime Minister on a weekly or fortnightly basis. This could ensure an opportunity for both to act on their common ground of how SBS should be. Neither really like programs being interrupted for ads. But it is only the Greens who have a stated policy for a legislative prohibition of interrupting programs for advertisements coupled with more funding for SBS.

The real test for the Greens will be to draw on their common ground with Labor and gather support in the parliament for the next triennial funding for SBS to include the passing into law of the private bill of Greens Senator, Scott Ludlam, his Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Prohibition of Disruptive Advertising) Bill – and – that SBS is funded for any loss resulting due to the provision that advertisements would then only be allowable between programs and not in them. Philosophically that’s not dissimilar to Senator Conroy view that, “Labor opposes and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising” which became part of Labor’s SBS Policy when it took power in 2007. Here is the opportunity for Labor and the Greens to build on their joint dislike of in-program advertising and agree to amend the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 accordingly.

The battle to save SBS, to see it better funded by government so SBS could concentrate on its core reason for existence, without reliance on advertising began in 2007. Then 7,541 people signed a petition that SaveOurSBS.org conducted. Australians believed that SBS had been abandoned under the Howard Liberal-National Coalition government. But the recent evidence from the 15,427 emails that visitors to SaveOurSBS.org sent to politicians immediately before the recent federal election, is that people believed Labor had also abandoned SBS, in their first term. In government, Labor did not fund SBS as expected and failed to act on their own policy objections to SBS interrupting programs for advertisements. The recent campaign we ran shows the electorate want ads banned from programs by legislation.

Labor paid dearly for many reasons in the recent elections. Somewhere in the mix is their failure to fully carry out their own SBS policies and Labor’s misreading of what the electorate were seeking; a promise to fix the SBS issues in the future. That was seen as neglect of SBS, a failure to support multicultural broadcasting and an abandonment of multiculturalism. According to former NSW Labor Premier, Maurice Iemma, the abandonment of multiculturalism cost Labor seats, at least in parts of Sydney, NSW and beyond. Our analysis of the 15,427 emails sent to various politicians immediately before the election, reveals they were sent from all over Australia. The emails sought more funding for SBS and a banning of ads within programs. Senders saw this as Labor abandoning multiculturalism. Maurice Iemma may be correct.

During the campaign Labor stated that “in the current economic climate” they would not require SBS to change their approach to advertising. This could imply that in a different economic setting, Labor might ban ads on SBS. A portion of voters could have been retained by Labor if it had committed to increasing funds for SBS and promised that sometime during the next triennial funding period (2012-2014), when the country will no longer be in debt, a Labor government would legislate to prohibit in-program advertising on SBS-TV. Looking forward, the Greens policies for SBS became far more attractive for many voters. It’s now up to the Greens to pursue the banning of ads within programs and gather support for increasing SBS funding, with the Labor minority government, Opposition and Independents.

There was some excitement in the air when the Rudd Labor government was elected in its landslide victory in 2007 that the days of disrupting programs on SBS-TV were over. Everyone thought SBS would be better funded and all would be rosy.

Despite three years of meetings, public submissions and much lobbying, not much changed.

But in those three years, Australians had not forgotten Labor’s broken policy promise and its failure to act as expected. So in the month before the 21 August 2010 federal election, visitors to the SaveOurSBS.org website sent 15,427 emails to selected politicians asking for a promise to increase public funding for SBS to free it from advertising. Replies were received by some campaign participants from the Labor, Liberal, and, Greens parties.

Tony Abbott’s Office responded early but he did not address any of the points that the campaign participant had raised, nor even mention SBS. His generic reply stated “it is vital that the Coalition knows what people are thinking so that we can represent the interests of all Australians”. A link was provided to the Liberal party website but also no mention of the SBS issues were addressed there. Many campaign supporters have told us that they regarded Tony Abbott’s email as either “laughable” – “out of touch” or “hopelessly inappropriate”.

Five days before the election, the Labor party sent a reply to the later campaign participants only. Their bulk email was virtually identical to their answers (20/7/10) that they gave to SaveOurSBS.org that we had published almost a month before and summarised in our article Election promises for SBS (10/8/10). Upon receiving the ALP bulk email, campaign participants were sparked into letting us know. They were furious. “Labor has provided too little too late”. The ALP bulk mail was viewed as “contemptuous and antagonistic” - “it endeavoured to confuse people with volumes of irrelevant data” – “it quoted a heap of facts and figures and blamed SBS management” – “the simple, unrefutable point is if government had continued full funding, SBS would not need to advertise” – “Labor has seriously abandoned multicultural broadcasting” and so on. However the biggest single point repeatedly expressed to us was along these lines: “I have not forgotten nor forgiven Labor for doing nothing to stop those ads in the programs”.

Amongst the feedback we received there was not a single phone call or email of support for the ALP. None for the Liberal or National parties either. Support expressed to us for the Greens SBS Policies became apparent. This was the first time that we got a real sense that campaign participants had felt so betrayed by Labor’s broken SBS policies, while fearing SBS funding would be slashed under a Coalition government, that voters were now going to vote Green; specifically so the SBS issues could be fixed.

Over the course of the campaign period, the Greens had replied to campaign participants on three separate occasions. Their final email was sent a few days before the election. It re-stated their published answers (30/7/10) of a few weeks prior. They were also summarised in our article Election promises for SBS (10/8/10).

In particular, the attraction for supporters of SBS to vote Greens was their Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Prohibition of Disruptive Advertising) Bill that would legislate to prohibit SBS from interrupting programs for commercials and promos. Overwhelmingly viewers of SBS want this to become law. Public funding from lost advertising revenue for SBS is part of that equation too.

During the month of the campaign, we provided three different sample template messages (Restore our multicultural broadcaster, Rescue SBS, and, Vote to restore SBS). Each ran in short succession. Many people took the time to reword the sample messages we had provided while maintaining the main points but expressed in their own words. Most signed their message with their name and address. Some also gave a phone number.

Emails were sent from all states and territories across Australia with the highest concentration sent from Sydney. Our site statistics show that the geographical locations included all capitol cities and most regional areas.

We kick started the campaign with newsletters to our subscriber base, who in turn told others. We also ran large animated banner campaign promos on our then Home page during the month long campaign period (one archived here). Nearing the campaign end, the President of Save Our SBS Inc, Steve Aujard, issued a media release.

Each sample template included a set of email address for the main political leaders in government and the opposition parties as well as a link to a list of 127 email addresses of local Members and Senators. The campaign participants were selective in who was sent an email. Not every politician was sent an email and many participants sent only to some that we had suggested in our templates. Some way into the campaign/s we provided the ALP email address as an option due to the stated care taker government convention, which closed the Prime Minister’s email contact.

The main points expressed by campaign participants asked the politician to commit to:-

• amending section 45 of the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 to prohibit SBS from interrupting programs for advertisement and promo breaks;
• funding SBS from the public purse to cover the loss of revenue as a result of the above;
• ensuring that SBS is adequately funded by government  so it could expand into the future without any advertisements;
• funding to recover the shortfall from past years of under funding.

The emails broadly covered the view that:-

• the public-commercial hybrid model was never intended to end up the way it now has for SBS;
• an investment in SBS would be an investment in Australia’s future cultural diversity and would enable SBS to again be the special, multicultural broadcaster it once was, and more closely abide by its Charter without reliance on advertising;

Some emails expressed the view that SBS ought not be funded further until it had ceased interrupting programs for advertisements.

Many emails asked for a reply from the politician.

The Labor, Liberal, and, Greens parties sent responses to some campaign participants. The Nationals did not. The Department of Communications, Broadband & Digital Economy also sent a signed departmental letter to some.

Mr Aujard accused the Labor and Liberal parties of showing little regard towards SBS.

“Despite more than 12,000 emails sent to leaders of all parties from visitors to the SaveOurSBS.org website in the past few weeks, pleading for a promise to increase funding for SBS to free it from advertising, neither Labor nor Liberal are interested”, Mr Aujard said.

“Beyond a few nice words of support and a warm fuzzy glow, Labor is offering little for SBS. Its only forward policy is to enshrine into legislation a transparent system of appointments to the SBS Board – something the Opposition had objected to. However in government, Labor failed to act on their existing policy of opposing the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising. The electorate have not forgotten.

“By comparison the Liberals and Nationals don’t even have an SBS policy but unconfirmed reports are that the Liberals may slash SBS funding in favour of the further commercialisation of SBS followed by a sell-off. That would be a tragedy for public broadcasting in general and multicultural broadcasting in particular”, Mr Aujard said.

“If the Charter were watered down and advertising restrictions de-regulated, a partial or total sale would generate billions. It would be the end of multicultural broadcasting.

“We would like the Liberal party to state their position but so far they have refused to do so despite our written invitation. Aside from prior contact we are somewhat surprised at their refusal to engage now. They are fully aware of us, our submissions to government and that SaveOurSBS.org has been mentioned a number of times in the parliament.

Mr Aujard said that although SBS was already budgeted until mid 2012, voters wanted to be told now that government would increase base funding for SBS after that date. “SBS needs a massive injection of funds so it can expand its television and Internet services in particular and be free of advertising. It’s ironical that although Labor has committed $43 billion for broadband rollout, it can’t commit a single cent to help SBS develop its Internet service. A tiny fraction of the $43 billion would more than cover all the things SBS so desperately needs to expand and be free of advertising.

“To date, it is only the Greens that have issued a promise that would increase funding for SBS so it could expand and be free of advertising backed up with legislation as per a Bill they already have in the Senate”.

Speaking about the Election promises for SBS Mr Aujard said, “It’s a national disgrace that although Australia produced the world’s first multicultural broadcaster, our political leaders are now no longer proud to fund the organisation adequately, leaving SBS to run off the smell of an oily rag”.

For more information see Election promises for SBS at http://saveoursbs.org/archives/1396

SaveOurSBS.org approached the four major parties for their SBS policies. The Greens and Labor parties responded whereas the Liberals and Nationals did not. An overview is provided in the table below – for the SBS policies of the Greens and Labor parties only.

Our analysis and opinion is below the summary table followed by the full text of each party’s SBS policies.

Summary of party policies at a glance

Analysis and opinion

If Labor is elected on 21 August SBS might be left behind – for a time. The Liberals and Nationals are offering less than nothing. They don’t even pretend to have a policy for SBS and their past record when in government was devastating for SBS. It probably would be again. SaveOurSBS.org understands that privately some in the Liberal party would prefer to fully commercialise and sell SBS.

The Greens are the only party who have come up with a carefully considered, well thought out broadcast policy that is truly supportive for SBS that will provide our multicultural broadcaster with the resources it needs and deserves, with opportunities to expand and free of advertising.

There is no doubt that Labor lifted funding to SBS in their May 2009 Budget and that it had declined markedly under the Howard Liberal-National Coalition government. The current triennial funding increase of Labor was not enough though. SaveOurSBS.org had recommended SBS be funded at half that of the ABC which would have been more than double that received by SBS.

While Senator Conroy was happy to highlight Labor’s SBS policy ‘achievements’ to SaveOurSBS.org not much was mentioned of the future. Nothing was said about the failure to implement Labor’s 2007 SBS election policy into action, “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising“.

The Greens said they support funding to SBS similar to that for public broadcasting in the UK without disruptions into programs backed with legislation and “free of advertising”.

Unlike the 2007 election, there is nothing that SaveOurSBS.org can find in the 2010 Labor policy that speaks to the need for expansion of SBS let alone without reliance on advertising. No forward plans for the much needed SBS Internet funding that we proposed, nor expansion of SBS-TWO or ONE, nothing for SBS-Radio nor community development. Labor might not be against these things and may even fund them. They are just not raising them now. Not publicly.

How ironical that Labor has committed $43 billion for broadband rollout, yet can’t commit a single cent to help SBS develop its Internet service.  A tiny fraction of the $43 billion would more than cover all the things SBS so desperately needs to expand and be free of advertising.

Supportive statements were expressed to SaveOurSBS.org by both Labor and Greens (1) for SBS to be a strong public broadcaster. Labor did not elaborate further other than that stated in the table above but the Greens said that their communications spokesperson, Senator Scott Ludlam, has maintained a keen interest in the welfare of SBS throughout the current Parliament. “For example, he has moved to legislate to remove advertising from SBS, investigated rumours of pending cuts to news and current affairs staffing levels (2), and moved a motion (in cooperation with Senator Bob Brown) in the Senate calling for the Government to adequately fund SBS (3)“.

The Greens said they would be accommodating of SBS in the event that SBS desired to not interrupt programs for advertisements and added “Senator Ludlam has asked a series of Senate Estimates questions to quantify the additional funding required to offset lost revenue due to stopping in-program advertising, and the Greens favour substituting this funding with public revenue (4)“. However Labor would not be drawn on if they might commit to any increase in funds for SBS, to cover any loss of advertising revenue should SBS want to cease interrupting programs for ads. Labor’s official response: “in 2008–09, SBS earned gross revenue of $52.5 million from television advertising sales”. That factual statement is somewhat meaningless in the context of the question, as it avoids answering the issue at the centre of the question – one of supportive funding. But the current non-position of Labor leaves the funding issue open so that Labor could fund SBS in such circumstances if it wanted to in the future.

Meanwhile, a departmental communication not addressed to the Minister but written by a senior person in the Department and given to SaveOurSBS.org just before this publication referred to matters of SBS advertising and funding and the document stated these would be raised with the Minister “following the election”. This appears to have been prompted by the more than 12,000 emails that the SaveOurSBS.org campaign (A,B,C) participants had sent (copied to us) in a very short period, to the Minister and other government and opposition politicians about funding and advertising disruptions on SBS. To be fair, Senator Conroy’s Office responded to our questions when those campaigns were in their infancy so he may not then have known the extent of the continuing passion that the community still has towards funding SBS for expansion and without reliance on advertising. Labor’s official line is that ads help provide SBS with “high quality and diverse programming”.

However Labor also maintains that “the SBS Board and management, were responsible for the change in advertising policy on SBS Television in 2006”. That’s true.

In 2007 Senator Conroy described the described the in-program advertising policy of SBS as serving “to erode the fundamental tenets of public broadcasting- that is, that it should be free from commercial…influence” (D). He has again reaffirmed that stance for these 2010 elections by telling SaveOurSBS.org of Labor’s SBS policies and referring to the Howard appointed SBS Board “[it] showed little interest in or knowledge of the tenets of public broadcasting…and [that] forced SBS to increase its reliance on commercial income”- in-program advertising. Now with the same advertising policy it would seem that Labor continues to politely ‘blame’ SBS itself as well as the previous government but ‘compensation’ for SBS, is not a word that rolls off Labor party tongues easily. SaveOurSBS.org believes that there has been some suggestion within government circles that Labor wants the SBS Australian made television programs to be substantially produced in languages other than English (LOTE) and for SBS to cease interrupting programs for ad breaks before meaningful discussions about increasing SBS base funding might occur. Then Senator Conroy will have the ammunition he needs to push for increased funding if Labor is re-elected.

As for future policy, it remains unclear as to when or if, Labor might boost base funding for SBS and to what extent. The Greens have a clear supportive financial policy for SBS.

For now it seems Labor won’t amend the SBS Act 1991 to prohibit SBS from disrupting programs for advertisements. The Greens will, and will also replace lost revenue resulting from that for SBS with public funding. In discussing this SaveOurSBS.org notes that the Rudd-Labor government ignored a prominent point of the submissions that were solely about SBS, that submitted government ought to prohibit advertising disruptions on SBS and fund it adequately. The submissions were for the 2008 government initiative, the ABC & SBS Review.

Essentially neither the Greens nor Labor parties support the merger of the SBS and ABC however with a qualification of the Labor party as explained in the table above.

When we asked each party about their other major policies for SBS, we were quite surprised that Labor did not use this opportunity to outline any future Labor policies (do they have any?) other than rightfully wanting to legislate for SBS Board appointments to occur in a more transparent manner than was the case under the previous Howard government.

Labor wants their Bill about the appointments process to the SBS Board in favour of a merit based system, to become law. The Greens appear broadly supportive of that but the Liberals and Nationals are not. The merit based system Labor wants is not currently law but has been practised by Labor for the three appointments made since Labor was elected in 2007, namely, the “new Chair of SBS, Mr Joseph Skrzynski, and board members Elleni Bereded-Samuel and Hass Dellal. All appointments made by the Government through this process have been from the short list recommended by a Nomination Panel which is not subject to direction by or on behalf of the Government“.

Labor and Greens agree the SBS Board should be independent but there is a notable difference between the two on the make-up of the Board. The Greens say the SBS Board is to include “staff representation”. Labor did not include staff representation on its Board policy for SBS (as was the case for the ABC Board).

Each party was invited to provide references for their answers. No URL links were provided by Labor while the Greens gave the references below
(1) http://greens.org.au/policies/media-arts-science/media-and-communications
(2) http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/please-explain-does-sbs-plan-slash-newsroom-staff
(3) http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/content/motion-support-sbs
(4) http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/content/question/advertising-during-sbs-programs

As at 10 August 2010 here is the full text of the questions asked and answers given about the policies of the Greens and Labor parties for the 21 August 2010 Australian federal election. The Liberal and National Parties did not provide anything.

Save Our SBS Inc is not a member of or aligned with any political party.

This post and the party policy links on the SaveOurSBS.org server may be reproduced in full or part by any person, organisation or other media without payment to Save Our SBS Inc provided a credit is given to SaveOurSBS.org

The Rudd government barely increased SBS funding with less than a stingy 6 cents/taxpayer/month* to produce Australian programs. Nothing for much needed expansion, nor catch-up money for years of chronic under-funding. And nothing to remove advertising. Under $1 taxpayer/month* would have covered that. Now SBS is suffering badly unless the government elected on 21 August rescues it. If you don’t insist now, it wont happen!
SEND this new pre-worded EMAIL MESSAGE to the Prime Minister, Opposition Leader, relevant Minsters, Shadow Ministers and other parliamentarians.

When done send this campaign to your friends by email and on Facebook and Twitter and let’s put the “special” back into the Special Broadcasting Service and rescue multicultural broadcasting.

This campaign “Vote to restore SBS” is the headline of this post only and refers to the 21 August 2010 Australian federal elections. This campaign post does not promote any specific political candidate or party.

SBS has been under funded for years and all governments have shirked responsibility for funding it adequately while the pursuit of the commercial path has offended many. SBS needs more government funding and no one wants the ads. Insist that the government elected on 21 August will stop the ads and fund it adequately. Don’t wait until after the election. The future of our SBS depends on your action now.
SEND a pre-worded EMAIL MESSAGE to the Prime Minister, Opposition Leader, relevant Minsters, Shadow Ministers and other parliamentarians. If composing your own email instead, the quotes below the boxes may assist.

When done send this campaign to your friends by email and on Facebook and Twitter and let’s put the “special” back into the Special Broadcasting Service and rescue multicultural broadcasting.

The quotes below may be helpful if composing your own email.

“The introduction of in program advertising to the SBS in effect makes the SBS a de facto fourth free-to-air commercial television station and serves to erode the fundamental tenets of public broadcasting- that is, that it should be free from commercial and political influence”. (Senator Conroy October 2007).

“Labor is committed to ensuring adequate funding and support for the SBS, to enable it to continue to provide Australians with high quality services, free from political and commercial interference”. (ALP November 2007).

“Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising”. (Kevin Rudd; Campaign Office of the ALP; and, Senator Conroy, November 2007).

SEND an EMAIL HERE * to the Prime Minister, key Ministers and opposition politicians.

Julia.Gillard.MP@aph.gov.au,Wayne.Swan.MP@aph.gov.au,Senator.Conroy@aph.gov.au,Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au,J.Hockey.MP@aph.gov.au,Tony.Smith.MP@aph.gov.au,Senator.Joyce@aph.gov.au,Senator.Ludlam@aph.gov.au,Senator.Xenophon@aph.gov.au,zelection2010webMail@saveoursbs.org,

OR copy all the email addresses above and paste to the TO field of a new email THEN copy the message from the text box below and paste into your new email.

AFTER you have sent the email tell your friends to visit www.SaveOurSBS.org to participate in this campaign and from there, link to, and join our FACEBOOK, and TWEET everyone you know. FORWARD this email to your friends too.

* A click on the EMAIL HERE above will activate most email clients, e.g., Outlook; Outlook Express; Live Mail; MacMail; Entourage; Mail; Thunderbird, etc. If not copy the addresses above and the message from the text box below to an email. The text is editable.

This is eNewsLetter No 9 from Save Our SBS Inc (SaveOurSBS.org).

If you participate in this campaign a copy may be sent to Save Our SBS Inc. This helps us understand how many people participated in this campaign. We do not give, sell or publish your contact or other personal details to anyone at all. Save Our SBS Inc (SaveOurSBS.org) may contact campaign participants at a later date to give you feedback about this issue.

You have received this email because you are subscribed to receive occasional eNewsLetters from us. We are a not for profit organisation and staffed 100 percent by volunteers. As such we are unable to send regular mail outs but you can keep up-to-date by regularly visiting www.SaveOurSBS.org

The SaveOurSBS.org website is also syndicated via these RSS feeds:-
http://saveoursbs.org/feed displaying stories (posts)
http://saveoursbs.org/comments/feed displaying comments

If you would like to SUBSCRIBE to receive occasional free eNewsLetters or update your details, or UNSUBSCRIBE now go to http://lists.saveoursbs.org/?p=subscribe&id=1

The gloom that pervades the unit could not be further from the excited mood that prevailed over 25 years ago when it was established. Subtitlers at SBS TV have been part of a team which has produced arguably the world’s finest subtitles in a unit built from scratch starting in the early 80s. Over the years, their work has allowed viewers to enjoy programming from around the world through their provision of English language subtitles. Drama – ranging from Lebanese sitcoms to Garcia Lorca – documentaries, children’s programming, even opera. Programs which could be quirky or weird or wonderful, but above all, distinctive – you didn’t need a watermark on the screen to know you were watching SBS.

The standards developed over the years at the SBS subtitling unit mean there is a lot more to creating subtitles than simply translating, a challenging enough task in itself.

The subtitles are prepared using a purpose-built computer program. Each subtitle must contain no more than a certain number of characters, and must remain on screen for a determined length of time to ensure that viewers can easily read it. The timing of the subtitle must correspond to the spoken word on screen, but it must also allow for contingencies such as camera angle changes. Where songs or poems are subtitled, the translation must replicate the rhythm of the original as well as the meaning. The process is much more laborious than a simple translation, and creating subtitles for a feature film may take up to a fortnight.

Once the subtitles are completed (usually by a native speaker of the language in question), they are checked by an editor (usually a native speaker of English). There may be discussions to be had about ambiguities and cultural sensitivities, as well as punctuation and grammar. Employment in the unit was gained only after exhaustive tests to assess candidates’ knowledge of the culture associated with their language as well as their translation skills.

In addition to their subtitling responsibilities, subtitlers were called on by newsreaders, journalists and others to check pronunciation of foreign names, and they also previewed and assessed overseas programs being considered for purchase. SBS subtitlers took their expertise around the world; Aboriginal broadcasters in Central Australia and European linguistic conferences alike benefited from the unit’s prowess.

In an era when SBS prided itself on being the world’s only multicultural, multilingual broadcaster, the quality of SBS subtitles set a benchmark worldwide. It was work for lovers of words and film, and the subtitling unit provided a home for aspiring novelists, poets and filmmakers, as well as people who simply delighted in making the products of other cultures accessible to a wider audience. In the days when SBS saw its role as providing an alternative to the programming seen on other channels, a majority of SBS’s programs were in languages other than English, with subtitles.  Providing services to News & Current Affairs, Local Production and even Sport, the subtitling unit lay at the heart of SBS TV.

But the heyday of the Subtitling Unit was shortlived, as programming of foreign language material, once the broadcaster’s raison d’etre, was downgraded.

The advent of advertising, initially only between programs, was quickly followed by a policy of excluding non-English language programs from prime time. Leaving aside the morning worldwatch broadcasts, which are not subtitled, it’s now not unusual for the SBS-ONE schedule to feature only one or two non-English language programs a day. There have even been days when there is no subtitled foreign language content at all (on SBS ONE). Don Quixote and Mozart and Lebanese soap operas have made way for Top Gear, Mythbusters and Big Love. When the pursuit of ratings rules, Inspector Rex alone finds a home in a prime-time slot.

The announcement about the most recent cutbacks was unwelcome but not unexpected. Subtitlers had been apprehensive about a recent review of the unit conducted without consultation with staff. The audit found that the unit was inefficient, and Brown stated that in future more films would be bought complete with subtitles done overseas to avoid the cost of doing them in-house (in times past, most overseas-created subtitles have been regarded as failing to meet SBS subtitling standards).

Some of the staff slated for redundancy are happy enough to go; as foreign-language programming has dwindled, people originally employed because of their language skills spend much of their time writing the teletext subtitles (Closed Captions) for the hearing-impaired for English-language programmes. Sub-editors’ duties now include identifying “natural breaks” in programs for insertion of commercials. (Not an easy task – just where are those breaks in, say, Tosca?)

Those of us who had the good fortune to work in SBS’s subtitling unit over the last 20 or so years must now acknowledge that those exciting days are over, and they will not return. SBS has moved on, and so must we. But we can be proud to have contributed to a thrilling period in Australian television, which was as remarkable as it was short-lived.

Cathy Carey has worked in various capacities at SBS TV including stints as a  subtitler.

The article above is the full text by Cathy Carey. Abbreviated versions have appeared on other sites. It was first published under the title “Lost in translation, subtitlers get the chop” in the Melbourne Age – Green Guide on 9 June 2010.

SBS World News Australia has fallen victim to the ill effects of the chronic under funding that has plagued the broadcaster for more than a decade. Already operating with strained resources, the news department can take the strain no more.

In an email sent last week by the SBS Director of News & Current Affairs, staff were told the redundancies “will not be a hands-up exercise”. However the email went on to say that an effort would be made to give preferences to staff who expressed an interest – in taking redundancy. Precise numbers were not revealed although the email did state that the numbers “affected will be small”.

This week the SBS Director of Strategy and Communications, speaking on behalf of SBS, confirmed to SaveOurSBS.org that “there will be some redundancies in the news room”.

Asked if World News Australia would run shorter bulletins and SBS planned to sack half the news staff the spokesperson for SBS said “There is no truth to the story that we plan to cut news staff by half or that there is any plan to reduce the length of the news bulletin.”

SaveOurSBS.org was also told that part of the budgetary strain now effecting the news room, was because no specific funding had been made from government for the operation of SBS TWO.

Meanwhile SaveOurSBS.org continues to lobby government for greater funding and in a submission to the SBS Board in March this year, again raised the concern that pursing the commercial path has and will lead to a gradual downturn in government funding. The Board was strongly urged to abandon the disruption in programs for advertising as a first step towards regaining increased public support for greater funding and so that the broadcaster would appeal more favourably to those in government who are deeply offended by that practice – believing that SBS was never intended to operate along commercial lines to the current extent. Dependency on advertising is now taking its toll.

SBS ventured into this with NINE. What is the relationship between SBS and NINE?

In order to facilitate SBS and NINE broadcasting what are effectively test transmissions in 3D the ACMA, which regulates and allocates broadcast spectrum, has made some spectrum available on a temporary basis. NINE and SBS have agreed to share the spectrum, with SBS becoming the “licensee” of the spectrum in some places and NINE in others.

SBS and NINE have devised a broadcast schedule that accommodates the needs of both broadcasters for the World Cup and State of Origin series. When matches are not being played a promotional reel showcasing 3D content from both broadcasters will be played. Replays of 3D matches will also be scheduled.

Is there a commercial arrangement between NINE and SBS in terms of splitting the income and sharing the overall costs?

There is no commercial arrangement between NINE and SBS. No payments or other consideration (other than practical assistance) will pass between the two.

How is SBS funding the 3D broadcast?

SBS has brokered a commercial partnership with Sony and Harvey Norman that covers the costs of broadcasting the World Cup in 3D. SBS has also received technical and transmission support from a number of partners including Broadcast Australia and satellite provider Optus.

Will there be advertising, including 3D advertising?

It is unlikely for technical reasons that it will be possible to insert ads in the 3D broadcast. Very few 3D ads currently exist.

What will be needed to watch the SBS 3D broadcasts?

Viewers will need to have or have access to a high definition 3D set and appropriate glasses to view the broadcast.

What will happen to the 3D digital channels after the World Cup?

After the World Cup and State of Origin series the spectrum will revert to the Government and its future use will be considered as part of the digital television switch over process.

At a future time would SBS like to have access to the 3D digital channel spectrum?

SBS does not have spectrum available to it to broadcast further 3D content at this stage. In any event there is little 3D content in existence [but we] will continue to monitor developments in 3D television and look at options for future broadcasts as and when they become feasible. 3D is still a technology in development. There are not yet agreed standards and at present there is not enough spectrum available to broadcasters for the wide spread provision of 3D programming.

Which cities and what digital channels will the 3D test broadcasts be available?

Frequencies in the UHF band in Sydney (35), Melbourne (35), Brisbane (50), Adelaide (29), Perth (35), Newcastle (35) and Wollongong (50).

Will SBS 3D be available in regional centres and remote parts of Australia?

Unfortunately, the service will not be available in regional areas. However, Austar MyStar customers who can receive a signal from one of the transmitter sites [mentioned] and who have appropriate reception equipment will be able to receive the signal.

The 3D test broadcasts on SBS of the FIFA World Cup will broadcast on the following dates and times: -

South Africa v Mexico LIVE 11 June at 23:45 hours AEST; Germany v Australia LIVE 14 June at 04:15 AEST; Netherlands v Denmark LIVE 14 June at 23:30 AEST; Argentina v Korea LIVE 17 June at 23:30 AEST; Netherlands v Japan LIVE 19 June at 23:30 AEST; Ghana v Germany 23 June LIVE at 04:15 AEST; Portugal v Brazil LIVE 25 June at 23:45 AEST; 1B v 2A (2) LIVE 28 June at 04:15 AEST; 1E v 2F (5) LIVE 28 June at 23:45 AEST; Quarter Final 1 v 3 (A) LIVE 3 July at 04:15 AEST; Quarter Final 2 v 4  (B) LIVE 3 July at 23:43 AEST; Quarter Final 6 v 8 (D) LIVE 4 July at 04:15 AEST; Semi Final A v C (1) LIVE 7 July at 04:15 AEST; Semi Final B v D (1) LIVE 8 July at 04:15 AEST; Final W1 v W2 LIVE 12 July at 04:15 AEST

Further Reading

SBS to broadcast World Cup in 3D SBS press release about 3D TV.

3D TV trials The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is the industry regulator and has issued the licence for the 3D test transmissions.

3D television – the technology explained The Wikipedia technical explanation of how 3D works.

3D TV FAQ The CNEWS technical explanation of how 3D TV works.

3D TV SBS Broadcasts – Technical Only How technical buffs are watching 3D on a computer – the hardware and software needed.

Ready or not, the latest 3D technology is coming home What equipment is required to make and view 3D TV.

The History of Australian Television – the eighties 3D was first broadcast in Australia in 1983.

In his opening presentation to last week’s Senate Estimates hearing, Brown told the Senate Committee that SBS needed to find a way to offset the hits to the broadcaster’s commercial revenue that have occurred.

Brown said that the hits to SBS’s advertising revenue had come about: “firstly as a consequence of the global financial crisis and secondly because of the explosion of multichannels from commercial broadcasters which has doubled the amount of commercial inventory in the market”. Brown added this was “having an impact on the revenue that SBS can derive”.

Brown was alluding that the value of the SBS advertising dollar has been diluted with the introduction of ONE, SEVEN-TWO and GO. Previously SBS only had to contend with 7, 9 and 10. And now that community television has begun transmissions on digital 32 and the ABC will soon have four television networks, the spread of viewers across 13 metropolitan free-to-air channels will mean that SBS will have far fewer viewers than a year ago. That’s not overly attractive to advertisers who want numbers. It throws into doubt the emphasis that SBS gave to depending on income from in-program advertising breaks, as a reliable source of income. It no longer is.

In what could be called a justified but subtle plea for further funding, Brown told Senate Estimates that a way needed to be found “to resource new and emerging platforms so that SBS remains a vital part of that expanded landscape”. Later Brown discussed some of those platforms, including the Internet and SBS-TWO.

However there has been no particular funding granted to SBS for these platforms and SBS has been habitually under funded by all governments. Taking these factors into account, SaveOurSBS.org wrote to the Treasurer in December 2009 urging that specific funding be made available to SBS for its online services before the next triennial funding period commences in 2012. That specific request was on the back of earlier submissions to government that SBS deserves greater funding to free the broadcaster from any need to rely on advertising.

In August 2008, SaveOurSBS.org made a submission to the Minister for a massive injection of public funding for the current triennial period (2009 to 2012) so that SBS would not need to rely on advertising.

Since 2007 in other submissions to government, SaveOurSBS.org has repeatedly predicted that SBS would ultimately suffer, and the current model that has caused SBS to turn to advertising as a source of income, is flawed. Brown’s revelation to the 24 May 2010 Senate Estimates that SBS needs to “find a way to offset the hits to [SBS] commercial revenue” is spot on. A way is needed.

Considering the disruptions to regular programs for advertisements remains grossly unpopular with viewers and that many in government have deep philosophical objections to those disruptions, SaveOurSBS.org (again) submitted in March this year that the interruptions of programs for commercial breaks will need to end as a first step in SBS rebuilding support from its viewers and obtaining greater public funding. Adequate funding for SBS remains years overdue.

SaveOurSBS.org understands that the restructure has come about because many people who were originally employed to subtitle foreign language programs have found their duties were later extended to create closed captions. Closed captions are the teletext subtitles for the hard-of-hearing on English language programs – not the superimposed subtitles used on foreign language programs.

In a statement to SaveOurSBS.org, SBS management said: “At present we have an over supply of capacity in some languages relative to need. As a result many staff are spending considerable amounts of time doing closed captioning of English language programming rather than subtitling. This is not what they are trained for, or prefer to do”.

Sources close to those affected have said that SBS intends to outsource subtitling of foreign language programs or import programs that are already subtitled, even if the standard of subtitling is inferior, as that is cheaper. But SBS has assured SaveOurSBS.org that “there is no plan to out source the unit nor to reduce the amount of subtitled programming (in fact increased investment in SBS TWO will result in more subtitled product).”

SaveOurSBS.org has argued for a fully funded commercial free SBS with an increase in foreign language programs.

Mr Skrzynski, SBS Chair, & the SBS Board
Locked Bag 028
CROWS NEST    NSW   1585

sent by email and post

Dear Mr Skrzynski & the SBS Board,

Save Our SBS submission to the SBS Review

We welcome the approach taken by SBS to conduct a comprehensive review of the organisation.  In consideration of this recent SBS review, we provide this submission for consideration by the SBS Board.

Introduction

Save Our SBS is concerned with many aspects of SBS and always seeks to support our multicultural broadcaster in improving its place within the communities that it serves.

In this submission, Save Our SBS concentrates on the television operations and discusses the number one issue that has troubled many in the community since 2007; programs being interrupted for advertisements. We also examine the difficulties of free to air broadcasters relying in whole or part on advertising and in the case of any public broadcaster within an Australian context, present the benefits and evidence as to why SBS should aim to rid itself of all advertising in the longer term.

We present the case that as a first step, SBS should cease interrupting programs for advertisements (and promos) and outline the reasons why – beyond the obvious annoyance of the disruptions.

We consider the consequences if the SBS Board were to amend the current (SBS) Guidelines For The Placement of Breaks in Television Programs September 2006, [1] that outlines the existing SBS policy for programs to be interrupted.  We ask the question: “What would happen if the SBS Board amended those Guidelines and no longer allowed programs to be interrupted?”

Whilst it cannot be confirmed if there might be a drop in revenue raised from advertising if SBS were to restrict advertisements to between programs only, we conclude that there will be an immediate substantial benefit to SBS in terms of the public perception of SBS, and, that SBS will ultimately benefit financially from increased government funding in the longer term due to a change of advertising policy now.

SBS perception: public or commercial?

SBS was formed in the mid 1970’s but it was not until 1991 [2] that it was allowed to broadcast advertisements.

While the impact was subtle in the early years, the volume and stridency of advertising has grown with time. . . limited advertising was introduced in 1992-3 [but] the current full-blown interruption into all programs for commercial breaks [did not commence until] late 2006. [3]

Prior to 2006 SBS was seen as a public broadcaster that sometimes ran advertisements between programs only, and, occasionally in live sporting events.  As a hybrid broadcaster, it was then perceived to respect the viewer because it did not allow advertising to disrupt the viewer experience.  However, by 2007 when all programs on SBS television were interrupted as a matter of policy, the perception of SBS was that it was no longer a broadcaster to be funded by government, but that it had become a commercial broadcaster.  Thousands of people voiced their objections [4] at the time. Some two years later, in December 2008, a public review was held by the Department of Communications Broadband & Digital Economy [5].  A significant number of the more than 2000 submissions, were not happy about the SBS advertising policy and expressed the broad view that since the introduction of commercial breaks in programs on SBS television, SBS had deteriorated and was no longer worthy of public support.

At best, the decision by SBS to interrupt programs for advertisements has largely been perceived as an act of contempt by SBS for its audience.  The perception and the reality is that SBS considers the needs of the advertisers, to achieve the maximum return for their advertising dollar by disrupting programs, over and above the needs of the viewer.  This is at odds with the perception within Australia of how a public broadcaster should act.

The goodwill that SBS had built up over the many years prior to the decision to interrupt programs for advertisements has largely been destroyed.  However that goodwill could very easily now be returned if SBS were to announce a change of policy and no longer allow any programs to be interrupted for advertisements.

The client of SBS: viewer or advertiser?

The disruption to the viewer experience for the interruptions of advertisements is not the only reason that SBS is perceived as loosing faith with its audience.  The on-selling of the viewer by SBS, to the advertiser is accentuated each time a program is interrupted for a commercial break.

When SBS did not carry advertisements and when the advertisements were outside programs, the viewer was treated as the client of SBS and SBS considered the needs of their client, the viewer.  But when SBS began to interrupt programs for advertisements, the client of SBS very blatantly became the advertiser. It became obvious that the viewer of SBS was merely a commodity, a product, to be sold to the new client of SBS, namely the advertiser.  Viewers were deeply offended by this obvious lowering of their status, and still see this as a sign of the destruction of the goodwill that SBS once had with its audience.

When there was no advertiser appearing within the program, the product of SBS was clearly the actual program content.  However, when SBS began to interrupt programs for advertiser, the product changed from being the program to the viewer who is now onsold by SBS to the new client of SBS, the advertiser.  This is at the heart of the reason that the SBS community of viewers have an intense dislike for the interruptions of programs for advertisements; more so than would apply to a commercial broadcaster.  It is seen as being against the spirit, the very essence of what a public broadcaster should be and only gives weight to the perception that SBS is now akin to that of commercial television and hardly worthy of public funding.  This view may be unique to Australia.

Forced breaks are forced, not natural breaks

It is very difficult to break into a program under the pretext that the break is natural when the interruption of the program appears to be un-naturally forced.  Most breaks on SBS television look like that.

Regardless of the law, the public perception is that SBS is forcing breaks into programs where a break was never intended.

In their answer to question 7 of Questions on Notice (sqn 0093) 2008, SBS supplied a document titled Programs delivered to SBS without breaks (2007) [6], that revealed that in 2007 SBS had positioned some 5627 commercial breaks into approximately 2046 programs that “in their original format had not been produced, assembled or compiled with provision for any commercial breaks, such as British Broadcasting Corporation programs or cinema-release movies etc [7].” The above suggests that the breaks in these programs were not natural and that SBS had un-naturally forced the breaks into those programs.  In their answer, SBS said they “were not able to determine which programs had been . . . produced . . . with provision for commercial breaks”.  The producers of six programs from the list cited, made suggestions as to the positioning of breaks [8].

Although specific figures are available as to the number of such breaks, the precise statistics is not needed when a night of ordinary viewing of SBS television quickly leads the viewer to believe that breaks are usually forced into most programs.

In a small study conducted at the end of 2008, when SBS had been interrupting all television programs for just on two years, 96.3 percent of the 1733 participants said they wanted “SBS-TV to stop interrupting programs for commercial breaks. [9]”

Winning back audience and political support for SBS television

As revenue from TV advertising plummets, and as audience reaction to the interruption of programs with advertising persists, now is a good time to reassess the hybrid financing model that the SBS has adopted.

While rumours of the death of advertising may well have been greatly exaggerated, new delivery platforms and new ways of reaching niche audiences are already having a significant effect on the broadcast media.  While advertising may not be dying, its relationship with broadcasting is changing.

According to Inside Film SBS director of television and online content, Matt Campbell, told an international documentary conference in Adelaide recently that a sharp drop in advertising revenue had meant that SBS had “no money for online . . . no money for SBS TWO. . . It really is dire” [10]

While Mr. Campbell said that the loss of revenue was largely caused by the global financial crisis this has not been the only factor affecting the advertising revenues of broadcasters.  The financial crisis appears to be easing (at least in Australia) but there are other structural factors that are likely to continue to threaten advertising revenues for broadcasters.  Both newspapers and commercial broadcasters are suffering.

In his book The Chaos Scenario U.S. writer and broadcaster Bob Garfield argues:

For the past four centuries, mass media were funded or at least subsidized by mass marketing, which piggybacked on what we now call “content” to issue messages of its own.

Like the eternal co-dependence of flowers and bees, this was an extremely convenient symbiotic relationship for those involved.  Or if you prefer a more spiritual analogy, imagine the media yin coupled snugly with the advertising yang, a transcendent oneness yielding cheap and free content for all.  Well, that’s over – or damn near.  In the digital age, that time-honored symbiosis is coming apart. It’s happening slowly enough that most consumers haven’t really noticed.  But it’s happening quickly enough that media and marketing are in big trouble – trouble that I believe will send the world spinning into a post-apocalyptic post-advertising age. [11]

Garfield later goes on to demonstrate the steady decline in television viewing compared to Internet usage in the U.S.

According to Nielsen, in the new millennium, the U.S. TV audience eroded an average of 2% a year – even though, in the same period, the population increased by 30 million.  According to Swivel, in 2000 Americans devoted an average of 793 hours to broadcast TV and 104 to the Internet, a ratio of just under 8:1.  By 2008, with broadband penetration in the U.S. tripling, the TV/Internet ration had gone to 675-200, or 3.4:1.

It is a similar story in Australia as Bob Peters writes for the Screen Australia website.

Viewing free-to-air television still accounted for the greatest usage of discretionary time by Australian children in 2007: 87 minutes per day or 30 per cent. However, this was 26 per cent less than in 1995, with children redirecting a considerable amount of time to watching subscription television and spending increased time viewing video (DVD and VHS). This shift in behavior highlights the challenges that television is likely to face in the future as the availability of alternatives continues to expand. [12]

In The Long Tail Chris Anderson argues that the decline in audiences for the broadcast media is not simply the fact that there are other alternatives like DVDs or the Internet. While it is true, as Mark Pesce has said, that the Internet can function as a giant TiVo, enabling viewers the strip out advertisements, the changes are more fundamental than that.

The point is that these technologies can serve niche audiences much better than broadcasting can.  This feature is of particular relevance to the SBS.

The great thing about broadcast is that it can bring one show to millions of people with unmatchable efficiency. But it can’t do the opposite—bring a million shows to one person each. Yet that is exactly what the Internet does so well. The economics of the broadcast era required hit shows—big buckets—to catch huge audiences. The economics of the broadband era are reversed.  Serving the same stream to millions of people at the same time is hugely expensive and wasteful for a distribution network optimized for point-to-point communications.

. . . This shattering of the mainstream into a zillion different cultural shards is something that upsets traditional media and entertainment no end. After decades of executives refining their skill in creating, picking, and promoting hits, those hits are suddenly not enough. The audience is shifting to something else, a muddy and indistinct proliferation of . . . Well, we don’t have a good term for such non-hits. They’re certainly not “misses,” because most weren’t aimed at world domination in the first place. They’re “everything else.”

. . . That mass of niches has always existed, but as the cost of reaching it falls—consumers finding niche products, and niche products finding consumers—it’s suddenly becoming a cultural and economic force to be reckoned with. [13]

Traditionally commercial broadcasters have valued share above reach – “hit shows – big buckets to catch huge audience” as Anderson put it.  Publicly funded broadcasters (like the ABC) have given more emphasis to reach – something for everybody, at least some of the time.

As a hybrid broadcaster SBS TV has had a foot in each camp.  The Charter requires it to provide something for everybody, but advertisers want to buy audiences for hit shows, like Top Gear.  However it is difficult to build a prime time mass TV audience from an assortment of niche audiences.  To hold a mass audience you need to grab them early in prime time and keep them with you for as long as possible.  This is difficult if you follow a Chinese program with a Greek program then a German program and then a Vietnamese program.

The answer appears to have been to reserve prime time on the main channel for mostly English language programs, while the second channel (currently available to a much smaller number of viewers who don’t yet have digital TV) while still primarily in English, carries slightly more programs in community languages in prime time.  However this does not sit well with the station’s role as a multicultural broadcaster.

The strategy of moving mainstream mass audience programs into what had been a niche broadcaster has not worked.  While Top Gear brought a large audience (for SBS) to the station its very success in ratings terms was a negative for SBS. Channel 9 used its deep pockets to poach the program and the rights to make an Australian version.  For the SBS it was back to the drawing board.  The network’s investment in the Top Gear experiment failed to pay dividends.

Meanwhile, as Matt Campbell has noted, there is no money for the SBS website.  If as Garfield and Anderson suggest, the Internet is the best way of communicating with niche audiences, then that money needs to be found.

Both the BBC and the ABC have been very successful in integrating their web presence with their broadcast programs.  Wired and wireless feed off one another.  Yet the SBS has no money for the web.

The SBS is in a very difficult situation.

It has alienated sections of the audience, and some in the government, with its decision to interrupt programs with advertisements.  As David Nolan and Natalia Radywyl have also concluded changes to program policy have tended to “place it at risk of losing the political support that has historically maintained it.” [14]

While it was the SBS, rather than the ABC, which most needed a funding boost, the SBS received a tiny increase in the last budget while the ABC obtained a much larger sum.

We suggest that SBS should send a clear signal that it is changing direction.  It should immediately seek to restore its relationship its audiences and the government by announcing that it will rescind its decision to interrupt programs with advertisements.  This should be followed by a decision to phase out advertising altogether and operate as a dedicated public service broadcaster along the lines of the ABC.

SBS Board is required to develop or change an advertising policy

There is nothing in the SBS Act 1991 that requires SBS to carry any advertisements.

Section 45(4) of the SBS Act 1991 requires the Board to develop guidelines on advertisements and their placement and section 45(5) allows the Board to revise any guidelines.

As such, the Board is empowered to now revise the (SBS) Guidelines For The Placement of Breaks in Television Programs September 2006 and completely replace those guidelines with a new set of Guidelines.

Save Our SBS believes that it is now timely for the SBS Board to create a new set of Guidelines that does not allow programs to be interrupted for advertisement or promo breaks.

Long term benefits of a new advertising policy

In 2006, when SBS changed the then policy to allow programs to be interrupted for commercial breaks, SBS also changed its policy on the type of advertisement it would accept. The then new, now current advertising policy, allowed SBS to accept almost any type of advertiser when previously SBS had been very selective in only accepting certain ‘soft-sell-arty-type’ advertisements.

As a result of the decision to accept almost any type of advertisement, SBS was more easily able to increase its advertising revenue quite aside from where the advertisements were positioned.

SBS declared in their answer to questions 5 and 6 of Questions on Notice (sqn 1493) that in 2008 and 2009 that SBS did not charge more to the advertiser to place an advertisement within the program compared to placing the advertisement outside the program [15].  This being the case, the question is not so much one of loss of potential income due to the position or re-position of the advertisement, as each advertisement was charged at the same rate regardless of position – inside or outside the program, but rather if SBS would continue to attract a range of advertisers who might be willing to have their advertisement placed between programs only.

Given that prior to late 2006, SBS only placed advertisements between programs, it would seem highly likely that advertisers would still be prepared to have their advertisements placed between programs.  The old policy was selective as to the type of commercial that SBS would broadcast whereas the current policy does not discriminate and it would therefore follow that a larger number of advertisers is now available to SBS to continue advertising, however, positioned between programs only.

Conclusion

The idea that a public broadcaster should carry any advertisements does not fit comfortably with most Australians even though this is a privilege afforded to SBS under the Act. In the long term, SBS should aim to achieve non-reliance from any advertising.

If SBS is to move forward, it must learn from its past good and not so good performance.  The SBS audience must be considered more seriously particularly regarding the ongoing and very strong dissatisfaction with SBS for interrupting programs.  Audiences do not want that.

It is doubtful that any increase in revenue from advertising was due to the decision to interrupt programs for advertisements but rather may have been due to a change in the type of advertisement that SBS was prepared to accept post 2006.

Even if SBS were to suffer a loss of advertising revenue due to a policy that only allowed advertisements between programs, we submit that SBS would not only survive, albeit on reduced income for a period, but SBS would be better positioned with the public and the government to obtain increased funding from the public purse.

As long as SBS presents a façade of being able to be self reliant on income from advertising, there will be no incentive for any government to increase the SBS budget.

Save Our SBS strongly recommends that the SBS Board now create a new set of Guidelines to replace the current (SBS) Guidelines For The Placement of Breaks in Television Programs September 2006 and that the new Guidelines only contain the single statement: “Programs on SBS television shall not be interrupted for advertisement / promo breaks”.

Save Our SBS Inc, Committee of Management

Further reading and other submissions made by Save Our SBS in support of SBS

Dec 2009  SBS Internet Funding: May 2010 Budget Request,  http://saveoursbs.org/archives/921

Dec 2008  The ABC SBS Review,  http://saveoursbs.org/archives/334

Oct 2008  The SBS Must Be Special,  http://saveoursbs.org/archives/318

Aug 2008  SBS funding for 2009-2012,  http://saveoursbs.org/archives/323

Feb 2008  A chronology of advertising on SBS,  http://saveoursbs.org/archives/194

References

1] (SBS) Guidelines For The Placement of Breaks in Television Programs September 2006, http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/media/documents/3913advertising_guidelines_2006.pdf copy at http://saveoursbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/3913advertising_guidelines_2006.pdf

[2] Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991,  http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/0/2F8013F942CC76E5CA2571FD0020CC29/$file/SpecBroadService91WD02.pdf

[3] Cassidy, D  2008, A chronology of advertising on SBS, Save Our SBS Inc, http://saveoursbs.org/archives/194

[4] Petition, Save Our SBS,  http://petition.saveoursbs.org/

[5] ABC-SBS Review, Broadband, Communications & the Digital Economy, http://www.dbcde.gov.au/media_broadcasting/consultation_and_submissions/abc_sbs_review/_submissions

[6] Broadband, Communications & the Digital Economy, Senate Question Number 93,  2008 – answer supplied by SBS in the form Attachment A – Programs delivered to SBS without breaks (2007), 37 pages

[7] SBS,  2008, Programs delivered to SBS without breaks (2007), http://saveoursbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/programs-delivered-to-sbs-without-breaks-2007.pdf

[8] Save Our SBS  2008, SBS Forced 6000 Ad Breaks, http://saveoursbs.org/archives/312

[9] Save Our SBS,  2008, One Minute Survey Results, http://saveoursbs.org/archives/332

[10]Swift, B  2010, SBS’s ‘dire’ funding position: Campbell, Inside Film,  http://if.com.au/2010/02/24/article/SBSs-dire-funding-position-Campbell/PKKPVCLJTZ.html

[11] Garfield B, 2009 ,The Chaos Scenario , Stielstra Publishing

[12]Peters, B   Free-to-air television in Australia, Screen Australia, http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/gtp/wftvanalysis.html

[13] Anderson C, 2009, The Longer Long Tail, Random House, London

[14] Nolan D and Radywyl N, 2004 ‘Pluralising identity, mainstreaming identities: SBS as a technology of citizenship’ Southern Review vol. 37 no. 2

[15] Broadband, Communications & the Digital Economy, Senate Question Number 1493,  2009 – answer supplied by SBS in the form Attachment A – SBS 2008 Ratecard for each Australian State, 55 pages

17 December 2009

To:
The Treasurer
Parliament House
Canberra

Copies:
Minister for Broadband, Communications & Digital Economy;
Minister for Finance;
Chairperson of SBS;
Managing Director of SBS

Dear Mr Swan

SBS Internet Funding: May 2010 Budget Request

Funding for our public broadcasters has normally been on a triennial basis although there have been prior occasions when adjustments have been made part way through a triennium.

Save Our SBS was encouraged by comments made by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy at Senate Estimates on 19 October 2009, when he said that the government was open to suggestions for amendments to the SBS budget before the conclusion of the triennial period in 2012.[1] As such we make our suggestion as outlined below for consideration in the May 2010 Budget.

The SBS on the Internet – from marginal to mainstream

Until relatively recently radio and television services have been seen as the main outputs for the ABC and the SBS.

But now more Australians have access to the Internet at home than have access to either digital television or digital radio.[2] Yet it appears that the government has made no funds available for the Internet services provided by the SBS.  While this was understandable in the early years of the Internet, we believe that it is more than time for a rethink.

Technological changes and other developments are threatening the funding models of both newspapers and free to air television.  As a result access to information, and effective participation in community life is likely to become restricted.  Global media proprietors including Rupert Murdoch are threatening to erect pay walls.  The division between the information rich and the information poor is likely to grow.

In his recent speech “The BBC and public space”, the Director General of the BBC, Mark Thompson outlined a different vision.

Wherever it can be – and certainly in the case of the BBC – public space is free at the point of use. And the more people who use it the better. In the case of the BBC, there’s another important characteristic. There’s no demand curve and no exclusion. You can’t buy a better service from the BBC no matter how wealthy you are. And you can’t stop people who are less well off than you enjoying just as good a service as you do.[3]

Australia is fortunate to have the SBS as well as the ABC. With adequate funding for its online services the SBS would have the opportunity to create a genuine public space. This would give new arrivals further avenues to shake off their isolation.

At present however the Internet presence of the SBS is limited.  We understand that there has never been any specific funding for the SBS website. As a result, the SBS site has never realized its potential.

While lack of specific funding for the web presence was understandable in the early days, the Net has now moved from marginal to mainstream. Without appropriate support for its online activities the SBS faces the prospect of its connection with its audiences being largely a one-way conversation.

Funding to expand its Internet presence would enable the SBS to add value to its existing output in two ways.

First, by expanding its capacity to make downloads of programs available on demand, it could extract greater value from existing productions.

Second, and more significantly, the SBS could interact more effectively with its diverse audiences by extending its conversation with viewers and listeners through the Internet.

Save Our SBS requests that in the May 2010 Budget, specific funding be made available to SBS to further develop its Internet services.

Yours sincerely

Darce Cassidy
Secretary
for the Committee of Management
Save Our SBS Inc
mobile phone: 0412 685 178

DOWNLOAD in PDF this May 2010 Budget Request: http://saveoursbs.org/archives/921

FURTHER READING SBS funding for 2009 – 2012:   http://saveoursbs.org/archives/323

[1] ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 19/10/2009 BROADBAND, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE DIGITAL ECONOMY PORTFOLIO Special Broadcasting Service

[2] A study (Media and Society Report 2007) by the Australian Communications and Media Authority found that nine in ten Australian families had access to the Internet at home, three quarters of them through a broadband connection.  In a separate survey  (Digital TV in Australian Homes) in the same year the ACMA found that only 42% of Australian families had digital TV.  More recent figures indicate that while ownership of digital television is growing it still lags well behind access to the Internet at home.

[3] The BBC and Public Space  18 November 2009  http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20091118_1.htm

The Charter is very clear: “The principle function of the SBS is to provide multilingual and multicultural radio and television services . . .”

Section 45 of the Act states that SBS may broadcast advertisements “before programs commence, after programs end or during natural program breaks” but no definition is given of a “natural program break” or when that might occur. The history of advertising on SBS dates back to 1991. There is nothing in the SBS Act that exempts advertisements from needing to comply with the SBS Charter. Mostly they don’t.

In late 2006, SBS reinterpreted their previous definition of a “natural program break”, and SBS-TV began to look and feel like that of a commercial broadcaster what with every program being interrupted for commercial breaks. SBS was no longer ‘special’.

Multilingual and multicultural programming took second place.

Tens of thousands of people protested about the commercialisation of SBS.

Three years on, the interruptions of programs for advertisements remains the biggest single annoyance to SBS viewers. Traditional supporters abandoned ship.

The legislators and those that drafted the Act say that in 1991, when SBS was granted permission to carry advertising, they never intended that a “natural program break” be interpreted in the broad way that SBS now do.

At the Senate Estimates on 30 October 2006, Senator Conroy said: “I have spoken to some of the people who were involved in drafting it [the SBS Act]”. He criticised the reinterpretation that SBS had just announced that would allow for the interruption of programs for advertisements into virtually any program. Conroy said the SBS self-penned definition of a “natural program break” was: “inconsistent with the intent of the limits that the legislation attempted to set”. The Senator was referring to the (SBS) Guidelines For The Placement of Breaks in Television Programs September 2006 which fall under the SBS Codes of Practice 2006. The Act requires the Board to determine an advertising policy. But it must be consistent with the Charter and the intent of the Act, not just the wording of the Act.

At the same Senate Estimates Senator Conroy quoted from the previous SBS Codes that defined a “natural program break” as “any pause during coverage of an event where audiences miss none of the proceedings that relate directly to the event (for example, rest periods in sports events)” for SBS-TV. That definition does not clash with the Charter or just common sense.

Legislators intended that “natural program breaks” would at least be genuine natural breaks, e.g., a ‘gap’ between acts in a live opera when there might otherwise have been a long pause, or, in similarly in live sport at half time. No one could honestly believe that the current reinterpretation of 2006, for example, the end of a scene (any scene) in a drama is a genuine natural break. It is obvious such breaks are not natural. They are forced.

The current SBS advertising Guidelines policy has pre-determined that a certain number of natural breaks per hour do exist. Even if a program has no genuine, natural breaks, they must be found. The policy says so. In daily practice, almost no room is left for the discretion of the poor bod whose task it is to force a break knowing that common sense would say: this is not a genuine natural break. The viewer suffers as does the reputation of SBS.

And since late 2006, the intent of the Act remains ignored.

All eyes are now on the new Chair of SBS, Joseph Skrzynski to lead the Board in a different direction and adopt a new model where advertisements are placed between programs and not in them. Only time will tell if the SBS Board will act as the responsible custodian of these public airwaves, respect the Charter, the SBS audience and the intent of the legislation.

FURTHER READING

The Zampatti Makeover by David Ingram.  Former SBS National Training Manager (1994 to 2007) expresses his opinion that the retirement on 16 December 2009 of Carla Zampatti as the then Chair of the SBS marks “the end of perhaps the most destructive era in the multicultural broadcaster’s 34-year history”.

Bill bans ad interruptions on SBS-TV A legislative solution that would prohibit SBS from interrupting programs for commercial breaks but allow SBS to advertise between programs only.

The SBS Must Be Special Former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, whose government established the Special Broadcasting Service, building on the creation of the publicly funded multi-lingual radio stations 2EA and 3EA of the Whitlam government, joined with ethnic community leaders and key figures from public life, literature and the arts calling for SBS to focus on the needs of viewers rather than on selling consumers to advertisers.

A chronology of advertising on SBS The history of advertising on SBS from subtle sponsorship in 1992 to soft sell ‘arty’ commercials of the late 1990’s right through to full blown, hard sell ‘in your face’ type advertising in 2007 and 2008. The detrimental impact to multilingual and LOTE programming caused by advertising is documented.

SBS URL BROKEN

The SBS Codes URL for the SBS Codes of Practice 2006 may have been removed from http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/media/documents/8487sbs_codes_of_practice_2006.pdf but now can be found at http://saveoursbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/8487sbs_codes_of_practice_2006.pdf

The SBS Advertising Guidelines URL for the (SBS) Guidelines For The Placement of Breaks in Television Programs September 2006 may have been removed from   http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/media/documents/3913advertising_guidelines_2006.pdf but now can be found at http://saveoursbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/3913advertising_guidelines_2006.pdf

Below is some important news from Save Our SBS.

As a result of the continued inadequate government funding for SBS and the annoying reliance on commercial breaks interrupting programs, we are often asked: What can I do now?

Email every politician before the next election

Visit www.SaveOurSBS.org and follow the links to EMAIL the federal politicians in your electorate, before the next election is even called. Tell them what you want specifically in relation to advertising and funding.

We’ve provided links to reveal each politicians contact details and an email template for the above, however, it is better if you use your own words if possible. Please do this now at www.SaveOurSBS.org

Facebook

Save Our SBS is now on Facebook. If you have your own Facebook, link your Facebook page to ours. A link to our Facebook can be found at www.SaveOurSBS.org (on the left side part way down). This is a great way to tell others to join in on our campaigns.

Twitter

Save Our SBS is now on Twitter. If you have your own Twitter, link your Twitter page to ours. A link to our Twitter can be found at www.SaveOurSBS.org (on the left side part way down). Send a tweet to your friends to tell to join in on our campaigns.

New SBS Chair appointed

Recently a new Chair of SBS was announced. Mr Joseph Skrzynski will take up his position of SBS Chair on 17 December 2009. He is already an existing member of the SBS Board. He was appointed during the term of the current government and his newer appointment to that of SBS Chair has caused a vacancy on the SBS Board.  A link of how to apply to serve on the SBS Board is in the story New SBS Chair appointed at www.SaveOurSBS.org

Banning commercial breaks on SBS

There have been no further moves in the parliament to debate or vote on the Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Prohibition of Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2009 that we reported on in Bill bans ad interruptions on SBS-TV. If you are wondering what happened to the government’s official policy that objected to ads interrupting programs on SBS, then read No ad breaks on SBS parts 1 & 2: ‘When is a policy not a policy?‘ & ‘Minister denies policy‘. All these stories and more can be found at www.SaveOurSBS.org

Other ways to help

• After participating in the email campaign at www.SaveOurSBS.org we urge you to Tell others by clicking on the baby envelope icon seen in the footer of any post to further spread the word via email from our website to all your friends. You can also send our post to various social and news websites too. Simply click on any of the tiny icons in the grey bar located just below the last sentence of any post.
• Under some stories you can post your comments about the topic. This means you can express your views after you’ve read an article and a few days later, your comment might be published. Guidelines are on the site.
• Regularly visit www.SaveOurSBS.org and make a point of reading the articles to find out what has been going on. This is a good way to keep up to date.

If you are wondering “yes”, the look of the SaveOurSBS.org site has been redesigned.

Please visit www.SaveOurSBS.org today to participate in this vital campaign. Tell your friends to do the same.

Save Our SBS Inc
eNewsLetter No 8

Subscription Service

Occasionally we may send you information such as the “Save Our SBS eNewsLetter” or other SaveOurSBS.org email updates however as we are a volunteer organisation we do not have the resources to send regular or periodic emails. Our emails are very occasional. You can update or remove your contact details here.

—

Send an email before the next federal election is announced.

If you already know the names and email address of the elected politicians for your electorate, click to send an EMAIL from here now*. (The click will activate your email client with a pre-worded email which you may edit, delete or change if you wish. Webmail users see below). Type the recipients email address into the TO field. We suggest you send a separate email to each politicians for your electorate (and other candidates if you know who they are). At the head your email please type: Dear [name], and at the tail type your name.

After emailing the federal politicians in your electorate, you may want to email every federal politician if you can. See box below.

How to find the Name & Contact Details for Politicians

To find out the name and contact details of the federal politicians in your area, you first need to find out the name of the electorate where you live.

1.    If you are not sure of the name of your electorate click here to look it up. The answer will also show the names of the federal politicians for your electorate.

2.    When you are certain of the name (from the step above) you can then find the contact details of your federal member of parliament (MP) from the list of names here. If your local MP shows their email address, copy the address and paste it into the TO field of the pre-worded EMAIL*. You can also write a letter, phone and visit your MP as well.

3.    To find the contact details from the list of names for your federal Senators for your State or Territory click here. If your Senator shows their email address, copy the address and paste it into the TO field of the pre-worded EMAIL*. You can also write a letter and phone your Senator as well.

* The EMAIL links above will activate most email clients, e.g., Outlook; Outlook Express; Live Mail; Mail; MacMail; Thunderbird, etc.

Webmail

If the EMAIL link above fails to work, just copy the text from the box below and paste into your own email and send that. Remember to type the email address of your MP, Senator and each candidate standing at the next federal election, into the TO field. It may be helpful to also type into the CC field pre10election@SaveOurSBS.org if you want SaveOurSBS.org to receive a copy of your email. You may edit, delete or change the text if you wish.

If you send the email using the EMAIL links above, a copy may be sent to SaveOurSBS.org A copy to SaveOurSBS.org helps us understand how many people participated in this campaign. We do not give or sell your contact or other personal details to anyone at all. Save Our SBS may contact participants at a later date to give you feedback about this issue.

Commenting on the appointment Save Our SBS spokesperson Darce Cassidy said:

“Mr Skrzynski is well qualified to lead Australia’s multicultural broadcaster. He arrived in Australia as a refugee from Poland after the Second World War. He has held Board positions with the Australian, Film Television and Radio School and the Australian Film Commission and is a former Chairman of the Sydney Opera House Trust. He has been recognised for mentoring Australian film makers and his support for Indigenous scholarships”

Mr Skrzynski is already a member of the SBS Board and was appointed on 27 March this year. A vacancy on the SBS Board has now been created as a result of his newer appointment to the position of Chair. Persons interested in filling that Board vacancy should visit www.dbcde.gov.au/abcsbsboards

Commenting further the Save Our SBS spokesperson added:

“Despite his qualifications and experience Mr Skrzynski faces a daunting task in getting the SBS, and particularly its television services, back on course. The pursuit of advertising income has lead to a decline in programs in languages other than English (LOTE) during the most popular viewing times. Moreover the decision to interrupt programs for advertisements, while it may have generated more income has upset both audiences and the government.”

“Mr Skrzynski and the Board will need to build bridges with ethnic communities, with audiences and with the government. For our part Save Our SBS will continue to lobby the government over advertising on SBS and to replace lost advertising with federal funds.”

Joseph Skrzynski will take up the position of SBS Chair on 17 December 2009 until his term expires on 26 March 2014.

In a media statement Senator Ludlam said: “The Bill will not prevent SBS from generating advertising revenue, nor from running advertisements and station promotions between programs”. He added the “character [of SBS] is under threat from the shortfall in public funding”. Previously the Greens had called for more funding for the broadcaster.

The Bill, the Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Prohibition of Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2009 (Bill Number 165/2009) was first introduced by the Australian Democrats in 2008. The parliament did not vote on it then. If it became law, the Bill would prohibit the interruption of programs by advertisements and station promotions on SBS television by amending Section 45 (2) (a) of the Special Broadcasting Service Act (1991) to omit the phrase ‘or during natural program breaks’.

Senator Ludlam said: “It has been taken up by the Greens due to the ongoing and widespread concern about the dangers associated with expanding advertising on a public broadcaster and aims to protect SBS from the creeping commercialisation that is now evident”. A former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, whose government established the Special Broadcasting Service, and other distinguished persons had previously expressed similar sentiments in a public statement The SBS Must Be Special.

SaveOurSBS.org believes the re-introduction of the Bill may be timely but hopes that the government stimulus packages might now be extended to include SBS.

Prior to the May 2009 Budget, Save Our SBS  made a submission to the government for a massive injection of public funding for the 2009-2012 SBS Budget coupled with legislation to ban commercial breaks on SBS.

In 2008 Save Our SBS  presented a petition signed by more than seven and a half thousand people urging a ban on advertising on SBS with more funding from the public purse. Other campaigns have repeatedly called on the government to live up to its 2007 election policy statement that “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising”. (ALP email; Senator Conroy email; and, Kevin Rudd email).

As yet there is no date set down for the parliament to debate or vote on the Bill.

In the May 2009 Senate Estimates the Greens spokesperson for Communications, Senator Ludlam questioned Minister Conroy about Labor’s pre-election policies in regard to SBS interrupting programs for commercial breaks. Part of the proceedings are cited below:-

Senator LUDLAM- You might require a slightly better citation than this. SaveOurSBS.org, the website, which I am sure you are familiar with, is running a quote by you when you were opposition spokesperson for communications: “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising.” I will find the date of that for you.
Senator Conroy- No, I am not disagreeing that I said that-
Senator LUDLAM- Okay. That was-
Senator Conroy- I am disagreeing with your interpretation of what that meant.
Senator LUDLAM- Can you bring us up to date on what that actually meant?
Senator Conroy- It meant exactly what it said. It just did not mean what you are saying it said.
Senator LUDLAM- I am pretty happy with the context of the quote, that you opposed when you were in opposition-
Senator Conroy- I am pretty happy with it too; I made it.
Senator LUDLAM- But it was not government policy at the time; it was just an opinion?
Senator Conroy- It was an opinion. It was never stated-you will not find any election document or any public statement that says we would reverse it.
Senator LUDLAM- But it does not say-
Senator Conroy- There is a reason that you do not have a quote there saying we would reverse it, and the reason is that we never said it.
Senator LUDLAM- Sorry to belabour the point, but you also have not said, ‘I, Mr Conroy, oppose’; you have said, ‘Labor has opposed and continues to oppose’. But at the time you did not say, ‘But we will do nothing about it once we are in government’; you just opposed it on principle at the time?
Senator Conroy- Yes.

The Minister Conroy went onto tell Estimates that he was not happy with the situation.

The SaveOurSBS.org quote referred to above in Senate Estimates “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising” was first published on the SaveOurSBS.org website on 11 October 2007 under the heading “What Each Party Will Do With SBS: Election 2007″ – The SBS policies of each party explained.

But there are other documents that contain the quote. And it was far more than just an opinion expressed by Senator Conroy.

The quote was repeated multiple times by Senator Conroy then in the month of the election it was re-issued in  emails from Kevin Rudd and the ALP Campaign Information headquarters. By November 2007 the quote (above) had become official Labor party policy appearing on authorised ALP material under Labor’s chosen heading: Labor’s SBS Policy. Save Our SBS has obtained documents that prove that.

The policy “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising” was consistent with Senator Conroy’s earlier comments.

On 11 October 2007 Senator Conroy had sent an email to the then newly founded Save Our SBS. Senator Conroy, then opposition spokesperson for Communications, was responding to a SaveOurSBS.org email of 22 August 2007. We sent a similar email to other politicians and parties. We told each politician that we would publish their answer on the SaveOurSBS.org website. In our email of 22 August 2007 to Senator Conroy we began: “We seek information as to ALP policy regarding SBS. In particular we would like to know what is the ALP policy regarding the interruptions to programs for advertisements on SBS-TV?” In the public interest of fairness we disclose the full email from Save Our SBS of 22 August 2007 to Senator Conroy and his email reply of 11 October 2007. Both can be read here. (For privacy reasons a personal phone number has been blacked out).

We published Senator Conroy’s reply containing his quote (above) on 11 October 2007 (here). Then in November 2007 SaveOurSBS.org published the famous quote again “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising” in a different story (here). We were reporting on the outcome of a joint Save Our SBS and Friends of the ABC campaign. Again the quote appeared under Labor’s named heading: Labor’s SBS Policy. The same heading and quote was issued in multiple emails with identical content about the SBS and the ABC. Some emails placed Labor’s SBS Policy at the top of the email while other emails placed it towards the middle of the email. Nevertheless the quote always appeared under the same heading: Labor’s SBS Policy.

The emails were sent from Kevin Rudd, Senator Conroy and the ALP Campaign Information Services. All three had sent their email to the participants of the joint Save Our SBS and Friends of the ABC campaign that ran in the lead up to the 2007 Federal election. Save Our SBS tracked 1119 email campaign participants. We have copies of all those emails. There may have been more.

No one was left wondering what Labor’s policy was regarding SBS and “in-program advertising”. Certainly not the 1119 people who received who the email a week or so before the election from Kevin Rudd, Senator Conroy and the ALP Campaign Information Services. Each email clearly stated:-

Labor’s SBS Policy
Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising

If it looks like a policy, reads like a policy, is emailed under the heading Labor’s SBS Policy and sent in multiple emails from Labor party headquarters, Senator Conroy and Kevin Rudd, to 1119 people right up to one day before the election, we reckon it is a policy.

The question remains: when will the government now live up to its pre-election promise? Will Senator Conroy amend section 45 of the SBS Act to prohibit SBS from interrupting programs for advertisements or will another Senator or MP have do that? Who will make the first move?

Labor’s SBS policy email below From Kevin Rudd, Sent 23 Nov 2007 (PDF here)
BELOW email page 1 of 4

BELOW email page 2 of 4

BELOW email page 3 of 4

BELOW email page 4 of 4

Labor’s SBS policy email below From Senator Conroy, Sent 21 Nov 2007 (PDF here)
BELOW email page 1 of 2

BELOW email page 2 of 2

Labor’s SBS policy email below From ALP Campaign Information Services, Sent 14 Nov 2007 (PDF here)
BELOW email page 1 of 3

BELOW email page 2 of 3

BELOW email page 3 of 3

For a quick overview click to read:
No ad breaks on SBS part 1: When is a policy not a policy?

Responding to Senator Scott Ludlum (Greens) in a recent Senate Committee hearing, Senator Conroy suggested that statements he made before the 2007 election, which had severely criticized SBS management for interrupting programs for commercial breaks, “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising” were not official Labor policy, but simply his “opinion”.  According to the Hansard transcript:

Senator LUDLAM- But it was not government policy at the time; it was just an opinion?
Senator Conroy- It was an opinion . . .
[and later]
Senator LUDLAM- . . . you just opposed it on principle at the time?
Senator Conroy- Yes.

However separate emails from Kevin Rudd, the ALP campaign office and Senator Conroy himself all make it clear that this was the considered policy of the Labor Party as a whole.

Labor’s campaign office took the view that this was Labor policy. In an email dated 14 November 2007, under the heading Labor’s SBS Policy, campaign headquarters wrote “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising.” See ALP email here.

A week later Senator Conroy, also under the heading Labor’s SBS Policy, wrote “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising.” See Conroy email here.

A few days later Kevin Rudd, also under the heading Labor’s SBS Policy repeated exactly the same words.  Mr Rudd did not suggest that this was simply Senator Conroy’s opinion.  In his email Mr Rudd also made it clear that it was Labor Party policy. This was one day before the election. See Rudd email here.

This is not simply an issue of Senator Conroy’s credibility.  It is also reflects on Kevin Rudd and the government as a whole.

For a detailed a background report click to read:
No ad breaks on SBS part 2: Minister denies policy

Save Our SBS www.SaveOurSBS.org congratulates SBS-TWO on its prime time* TV schedule. It goes more than half way in serving Australians whose native tongue is not English.

For the week ending Friday 5 June 2009 the schedule, as published on the SBS website, indicates that well over half of the prime time programs on the SBS second channel are in LOTE (languages other than English).

Save Our SBS spokesperson Darce Cassidy said “This would be good news, but the problem is that most Australians can’t receive SBS-TWO, which is only available in digital transmission. According to OZTAM figures for March of this year only 43.4 percent of households can receive digital television.”

“Meanwhile the main SBS TV channel, SBS-ONE, condemns programs in LOTE to minority status in prime time. Less than one fifth of prime time TV on SBS-ONE is in LOTE”.

“According to the SBS Act: “The principal function of SBS is to provide multicultural radio and television services that inform, educate and entertain all Australians and, in doing so, reflect Australia’s multicultural society.”

“In effect, the second channel is second best, and the people who would be most inclined to watch it have been treated as second class citizens.”

“If the SBS were serious about its commitment to its Charter it would put the SBS-TWO schedule on the SBS-ONE transmitters, and vice versa.”

“Both SBS channels continue interrupt programs for advertisements.”

* The official regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, defines prime time television as the hours between six and ten-thirty p.m.

For further information and comment:
CONTACT: Darce Cassidy 03 9005 8660 or 0412 685 178
WEB: www.SaveOurSBS.org
EMAIL: Spokesperson@SaveOurSBS.org

Save Our SBS Inc

Brown took exception to the expression that SBS had forced breaks into these or any programs. However he did admit that SBS interrupted programs that were never produced for commercial breaks. Brown insisted that SBS only had natural breaks which is permissible under the SBS Act. However the Act does not define natural breaks, so under their Codes SBS invented their own Guidelines. The SBS definition has never been tested in the Courts.

At Senate Estimates Brown said that the SBS definition of a natural break was a “global” definition.

Brown’s statement is not globally true.

It is true that some similarity can be found with the UK as to where it is acceptable to place a break but there is no reference to such break being described as a natural break.

Back home, commercial television in Australia was de-regulated in the mid 1980’s. Commercial television licenses were originally granted under the old Broadcasting & Television Act. There was never a legislated definition of a natural break. Commercial broadcasters may now place breaks of any length, where ever they desire but SBS does not hold a commercial licence. It is a public, tax payer funded broadcaster.

In 2007 SBS forced 6000 breaks into programs that were never intended to be interrupted, as such we maintain they were not natural. Certainly they annoyed viewers.

Brown also told Senate Estimates “We now place only one 30-second spot on the top of the hour.”

But anyone who watches SBS-TV regularly knows the break between programs are longer than 30 seconds.

Breaks in programs on SBS run 2 mins and breaks between programs vary in length but are usually also about 2 minutes. Was Brown telling a fib to Senate Estimates when he said they now have “only one 30-second spot on the top of the hour”? A “spot” is industry jargon for a commercial but you could be forgiven for not knowing that because the total length of the break, including promos and advertisements is usually closer to 2 minutes and sometime longer. It is rarely just 30 seconds.

In defending SBS interrupting programs for commercial breaks, Brown has always maintained the line that the breaks were around 8 to 10 minutes between programs under the previous model where programs were not interrupted. In a media release on 1 June 2006, when SBS had been preparing to move to the now current model, Brown said: “These lengthy breaks – sometimes up to 10 minutes – are clearly unpopular with viewers. The new structure will reduce the lengthy, between-program breaks currently in the SBS schedule” and in discussing the then future model of interrupting programs, in the same media release, Brown said: “For half hour programs, there could be two short advertising breaks of 60 seconds duration and for one hour programs, there may be three short breaks, each no longer than 90 seconds duration”.

Regular viewers of SBS-TV would know that under the previous model the break between programs were rarely 8 to 10 minutes, except very late at night, for example at close of transmission. Although under the old model, SBS-TV often ran 4 to 6 minute breaks between programs, it is now obvious that viewers preferred that approach instead of the current model of interrupting programs.  Under the present model half hour programs have two, 2 minute breaks (not 60 seconds as foreshadowed) while one hour programs now contain three, 2 minute breaks (not 90 seconds as stated).

Is Brown a master at manipulating statistics?

Transcript of Senate Estimates

The questions and answers asked by Senator Scott Ludlam in the May 2009 Senate Estimates may be read in detail at:  http://wotnews.com.au/like/estimates_sbs_funding_and_advertising/3471896 however if you would prefer to read the full Hansard transcript of the May 2009 Senate Estimates visit:  http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=;db=;group=;holdingType=;id=;orderBy=;page=0;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2F12031%2F0003%22;querytype=;rec=;resCount=

Senator Scott Ludlam, the W.A. Greens spokesperson for Communications had been questioning Brown about the SBS advertising policies and operations.

Surprisingly Brown also told Senate Estimates that SBS had not sought “revenue to offset the commercial revenue” when SBS recently made its submission to government for funding for the next three years. Brown also said he was aware of the public objections to SBS interrupting programs.

Senator LUDLAM- Are you concerned or are you surprised by the degree to which these opinions were raised in the process of public submissions late last year, the degree of disquiet amongst the audience about the amount of advertising?
Mr Brown- No, I am not really.

This revelation by Brown at Senate Estimates only confirms public perception that Brown and the SBS Board are not listening to their viewers. Such arrogance, that SBS made a deliberate decision not to seek any funding from government in the May Budget to abandon its failed advertising policy in the light of SBS knowing that viewers expected such funding request be made, only serves to further annoy and anger viewers.

Brown has previously taken credit for the decision by the SBS Board to interrupt programs. That commenced in late 2006. Before that, SBS-TV only placed advertisements between programs, not in them.

For the past 2 and a half years since SBS began these interruptions, Brown has publicly claimed that the sole reason for such interruptions was to fund Australian program production and that all the money (minus agency commissions) raised from commercial breaks in programs was only used to make Australian programs.

But now that in the May 2009 Budget the federal government maintained SBS funding in real terms for the next three years and added an additional amount specifically to produce Australian programs, there is no reason for SBS to continue to interrupt programs.

In the Save Our SBS: Triennial Funding for SBS Submission submitted to Senator Conroy on 5 August 2008 we asked for more money for SBS than did the broadcaster itself. But we now know the Managing Director was not interested in requesting more money to wind back advertising because he favoured revue from advertisements interrupting programs. This he articulated to the National Press Club in 2007 and has repeated since.

Save Our SBS says it is high time the Managing Director of SBS and the Board listened to their viewers and reversed their failed commercialisation policy.

Stop interrupting programs for commercial breaks.

Self regulation of the SBS Board to take note of public opposition to advertisements interrupting programs has failed.

Now that the government has granted SBS funding for Australian program production, thereby removing the only stated need ever given by SBS to interrupt programs, will Labor take the bold step to introduce a Bill to prohibit SBS from interrupting programs on SBS-TV. Or will they leave that up to another politician to sort out? Who? How? When?

More Information

The questions and answers asked by Senator Scott Ludlam in the May 2009 Senate Estimates may be read in detail at:  http://wotnews.com.au/like/estimates_sbs_funding_and_advertising/3471896 however if you would prefer to read the full Hansard transcript of the May 2009 Senate Estimates visit:  http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=;db=;group=;holdingType=;id=;orderBy=;page=0;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2F12031%2F0003%22;querytype=;rec=;resCount=

The reference made in the May Senate Estimates to “public submissions” refers to some 2400 submissions made about the ABC & SBS to the Minister in December 2008. The Department has published most of these at: http://www.dbcde.gov.au/consultation_and_submissions/abc_sbs_review/_submissions

Save Our SBS spokesperson Darce Cassidy said “The government has made the first move.  It is now time for the SBS to listen to the government, and, more importantly, to its viewers.  Both the viewers and the government want the SBS to stop interrupting programs with advertisements.”

“It is time for the SBS Board to put the “special” back into SBS television, to return the SBS to its multicultural Charter.  Programs in English dominate prime time television.  Indeed on some nights there are no programs in languages other than English in prime time.”

“As a first step the SBS should immediately cease interrupting programs for commercials.  In the longer term the SBS should be required to operate on the same basis as the ABC, without advertisements of any kind.  The prohibition of advertising should be accompanied by a substantial funding increase to bring the SBS budget to half that of the ABC”.

Further information:  Darce Cassidy 03 9005 8660 or 0412 685 178
 

Recently we emailed you asking if you would send an email to the Treasurer and Prime Minister to ensure that SBS is better funded coupled with an end to commercial breaks in the Triennial Budget to be announced in the May Federal Budget. If you have not already done so please send an email today to save our public, multicultural broadcaster. Time is running out!

► Click here to EMAIL the Treasurer in the first instance
then
► Click here to EMAIL the Prime Minister from a different screen

If you have any difficulties with the above please visit www.SaveOurSBS.org and follow the links there or go directly to http://sbsbudget.saveoursbs.org and read the directions to email the Treasurer, then, the Prime Minister.

Say “NO” to ads on SBS.  Say “YES” to more government funding in the May Budget. Act today.

If you recently participated in this campaign please inform your friends about this and ask them to visit www.SaveOurSBS.org

It is crucial that as many people as possible participate in this final pre-budget campaign to better SBS which is about to be funded for the next three years. Don’t be complacent. Send your emails now.

Save Our SBS Inc

The “Click here to EMAIL the Treasurer” above only works for email clients of Outlook, Outlook Express, Live Mail, Entourage, Apple Mail, Eudora, Evolution, but not webmail. Users of YahooMailWebService, HotMailWebMail and gMailWebMail may need to use the copy and paste method at http://sbsbudget.saveoursbs.org unless your email is configured via one of the email clients named.

Below are other URL’s related to this campaign.

The URL http://sbsbudget.saveoursbs.org redirects to the first screen at:
http://saveoursbs.org/sbs2009budget/NoAds2009SBSBudget-screen1of2.htm where you can send Wayne Swan & other politicians a pre-worded email.

The URL of the second screen is:
http://saveoursbs.org/sbs2009budget/NoAds2009SBSBudget-screen2of2.htm and it has a pre-worded email that redirects to:
http://www.pm.gov.au/contact/index.cfm where you can email Kevin Rudd.

In some instances participation in the campaign may activate an email from participants to Save Our SBS Inc and we might later contact you. We do not pass your contact information or personal details on to anyone.

Save Our SBS Inc www.SaveOurSBS.org is a not for profit community organisation.

You have received this eNewsLetter because you are subscribed to receive the occasional update from www.SaveOurSBS.org to keep you informed.

Please do not reply to this email. Use the Contact Us page on the www.SaveOurSBS.org website instead or if you would prefer eNewsLetters to be sent to a different email address or to subscribe or unsubscribe use this link: http://lists.saveoursbs.org

Visit www.SaveOurSBS.org website periodically for more up to date information and outcome of this campaign.

eNewsLetter No 7 Save Our SBS

On 5 August 2008, Save Our SBS Inc made a recommendation to Senator Conroy that the Budget for SBS for the years 2009 to 2012 be set at not less than half that provided to the ABC and indexed annually in the usual manner and that the interruption of programs by advertisements should be prohibited by amending section 45 (advertising) of the SBS Act. We further recommended that the prohibition on interrupting programs for advertisements should be followed by a complete ban on all advertising on the SBS. The full report can be read at http://saveoursbs.org/archives/323 or http://saveoursbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/sbs-triennial-funding-submission-from-2009-to-2012-proposed-by-save-our-sbs-inc.pdf

We urge all concerned persons to email the Treasurer & Prime Minister from here before the May 2009 SBS Triennial Budget is delivered. Demand SBS receives increased funding and without commercials. Insist Labor’s pre-election sentiment is honoured: “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising” (saveoursbs.org/archives/165). Act today to see our public, multicultural broadcaster is once again ’special’ and funded fully by government with an end those annoying advertising interruptions. Prior to the Nov 2007 election Labor was committed to ensuring “adequate funding and support for the SBS, to enable it to continue to provide Australians with high quality services, free from political and commercial interference” (alp.org.au/platform/chapter_16.php) then in the lead up to the Nov 2007 election the ALP publicly stated “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising” (saveoursbs.org/archives/165). But nothing has changed. In Oct 2007 Senator Conroy wrote: “The introduction of in program advertising to the SBS in effect makes the SBS a de facto fourth free-to-air commercial television station and serves to erode the fundamental tenets of public broadcasting- that is, that it should be free from commercial and political influence” (saveoursbs.org/archives/127). The May 2009 Federal Budget is the time to restore SBS to the multicultural broadcaster it was supposed to be. Many are now demanding that the government to live up its pre-election sentiment to support and fund SBS adequately, with an immediate end to interrupting programs for commercial breaks followed by a phasing out of all advertising on SBS. In these economic times it is more important than ever to support our public, multicultural broadcaster so it may once again be a special broadcaster not reliant on advertising. Click http://sbsbudget.saveoursbs.org and wait while you are redirected to part 1 (send an email to Wayne Swan) then follow the links to proceed to part 2 (send an email to Kevin Rudd).

Please read this important email from Save Our SBS www.SaveOurSBS.org

SBS is about to be funded for the next three years. We are inviting you to participate in our latest campaign to see SBS properly funded in the May 2009 Federal Budget and to put an end to those commercial breaks on SBS. We urging you to send a pre-addressed, pre-worded email directly to the Treasurer & Prime Minister. You can do this now from http://sbsbudget.saveoursbs.org

There are two parts to this campaign: In the first part you are asked to send an email to the Treasurer and in the second part to the Prime Minister.

Please commence at http://sbsbudget.saveoursbs.org where you will be able to send your own pre-addressed and pre-worded email from Outlook / Express or Live Mail etc via an automation link from that first screen. Webmail users will be able to copy and paste the message text and addresses if required. After sending your mail to the Treasurer from the first screen, please follow the links there to the second screen to email the Prime Minister direct from his website with a pre-worded email. You may change the wording of either emails if you wish.

The process will take less than 2 minutes of your time. It is very simple.

We urge you to participate in both email parts – to the Treasurer at the first screen and the Prime Minister at the second screen.

When you have completed the above please email all your friends and ask them to visit www.SaveOurSBS.org or forward this eNewsLetter-email to them asking them to do the same. If enough people participate in this campaign, SBS might get a decent budget for the next three years and a phasing out of commercials. This will be our last chance until 2012.

Please now go to http://sbsbudget.saveoursbs.org

Together we can restore and save SBS to be the multicultural, non-commercial, ’special’ public broadcaster it was supposed to be.

It is crucial that as many people as possible participate in this very new but final pre-budget campaign to better SBS. Don’t be complacent. Act now. Visit http://sbsbudget.saveoursbs.org today.

Save Our SBS Inc

Below are other URL’s related to this campaign.

The URL http://sbsbudget.saveoursbs.org redirects to the first screen at:
http://saveoursbs.org/sbs2009budget/NoAds2009SBSBudget-screen1of2.htm where you can send Wayne Swan & other politicians a pre-worded email.

The URL of the second screen is:
http://saveoursbs.org/sbs2009budget/NoAds2009SBSBudget-screen2of2.htm and it has a pre-worded email that redirects to:
http://www.pm.gov.au/contact/index.cfm where you can email Kevin Rudd.

In some instances participation in the campaign may activate an email from participants to Save Our SBS Inc and we might later contact you. We do not pass your contact information or personal details on to anyone.

Save Our SBS Inc www.SaveOurSBS.org is a not for profit community organisation.

You have received this eNewsLetter because you are subscribed to receive the occasional update from www.SaveOurSBS.org to keep you informed.

Please do not reply to this email. Use the Contact Us page on the www.SaveOurSBS.org website instead or if you would prefer eNewsLetters to be sent to a different email address or to subscribe or unsubscribe use this link: http://lists.saveoursbs.org

Visit www.SaveOurSBS.org website periodically for more up to date information and outcome of this campaign.

eNewsLetter No 6 Save Our SBS

To: The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
Sent by email to: abcsbsreview@dbcde.gov.au

submission
THE ABC SBS REVIEW

A chronology of events: Public to Commercial

Since advertising was first allowed on the SBS in the early nineteen nineties, there has been a steady drift away from the original multicultural mandate of the SBS.

This was identified by Dr Chris Lawe Davies in a study of SBS output between 1975 and 1995 which found:

“An overview of the market and advertising research reports carried out for SBS between 1993 and 1994 confirms anecdotal accounts of the effects of advertising culture on SBS programming outlined in the previous chapter of this thesis: that it has had a profound effect on the broadcaster in shifting the orientation of SBS away from the terms of the Charter and towards satisfying market conditions…

From evidence cited thus far in the thesis, the social outlook for SBS appears gloomy. The English language issue; the mismatch between languages spoken in Australia and those on SBS; the 1994-95 marketing campaign which positioned SBS for social ABs, and so on, all point towards a relative failure by SBS to address its Charter by providing programming which reflected cultural diversity in Australia, and offered exciting and different perspectives on Australian society.” 1

What began as a slow but steady drift away from the Charter accelerated in 2006 when the SBS Board and management changed their interpretation of the SBS Act to argue that it permitted them to force breaks into programs for advertisements. Around the same time SBS changed its advertising policy to include aggressive advertisements.

SBS’s director of commercial affairs, Richard Finlayson was quoted as saying that the broadcaster has reviewed “the type of ads it will and will not accept. In the past SBS has been reluctant to carry some ads, such as hard-hitting, in your face retails ads. That’s changing.” 2

As advertising has become more intrusive and aggressive, ethnic community leaders and others have become more concerned.

George Zangalis, President of the National Ethnic and Multicultural Broadcasters Council, and a former member of the SBS Board, issued a media release criticizing the direction of SBS-TV.

“The SBS was established as a multicultural broadcaster, but has been moving away from its original charter. Programming in community languages has shrunk, while English programming has grown. Advertising has increased and become increasingly strident. Rather than focusing on different cultures, the SBS seems to be moving towards mainstream sports like cricket and now AFL. There is plenty of this type of programming on the ABC and the three commercial channels.” 3

In June 2006, questioned on ABC radio about the new direction of the SBS, the new Chair of the Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of Australia (FECCA), Voula Messimeri responded:

“… the intention of having the special broadcaster is so that they can be a multicultural provider, a special broadcaster in terms of being different from commercial enterprise, and I think that this will make it, increasingly, look very much like mainstream, commercial enterprise.” 4

The late Ross Warneke, media writer for the Age, lamented the movement of programs in languages other than English out of prime time.

“The bulk of its ‘ethnic content’ these days is its morning news marathon, with hour after hour of foreign language news services relayed from everywhere from Manila to Madrid.” 5

Also in the Age Debi Enker writes that SBS staff have also become concerned about the impact of advertising on the SBS schedule.

“… SBS will become ‘a poor man’s version of a commercial network rather than providing a challenging alternative’. The harshest critics fear SBS will end up looking like a second-rate cable-TV station, running reality TV shows and English-language drama series that the free-to-air channels have rejected as either being too limited in their appeal or too provocative.” 6

Australian actor Chris Hayward commented on the decision by the SBS to devote a large budget to a locally produced motoring program.

“After 37 years as an actor I believe the decision of the management to spend $11.5 million dollars on a motoring program is so far off the mark that the Board and senior management should all be sacked, or the station sold. SBS’s role without our society is crucial towards maintaining a greater understanding and awareness of the complex and diverse society that we as Australians are. Indigenous issues need far greater exposure than that are getting, detailed examination though drama and debate in our society are much more important that the fuel consumption of the latest offering from Ford. There is nothing wrong with motoring programs -I am as much a petrol head as the next average Australian -but let one of the commercial channels or even the Australian Broadcasting Corporation produce such a program.” 7

SBS management was reported as denying that that the series cost $11.5 million. It was also generally reported that SBS spent all of their income from ‘extra’ revenue generated as a result of interrupting programs for advertisements for the whole of 2007 in order to commission this motoring program “Top Gear”.

Public Opinion

In April of this year (2008) more than seven thousand people signed a petition, drafted by Save Our SBS (www.SaveOurSBS.org), calling for an end to the practice of SBS disrupting all programs for advertisements; followed by amending the SBS Act to prohibit advertising and sponsorship on SBS; and, funding SBS so it is not dependent on commercial revenue nor supplementation from advertising. 8

Later in 2008 a number of ethnic community leaders and key figures from public life, literature and the arts signed a public statement prepared by Save Our SBS that called for SBS to focus on the needs of viewers rather than on selling consumers to advertisers. The statement concluded:

“The Special Broadcasting Service was never intended to be like other broadcasters and was certainly not created to mimic the look of the commercial networks. The SBS is a taxpayer funded public service broadcaster and should, as its creators intended, be both special and committed to serving its audience.” 9

The statement called for SBS to return to its original values. The signatories represented a broad range of background and opinion.

Languages Other Than English

Save Our SBS submits that the need to sell audiences to advertisers has influenced SBS-TV to reduce programs in languages other than English in prime time, when the greatest number of viewers (and the greatest advertising revenue) is available. Currently only about one-fifth of programs broadcast in prime time (defined by ACMA as the period six to ten thirty in the evening) are in languages other than English (LOTE) however SBS has redefined ‘prime time’ as extending to midnight.

SBS into a digital future

Internet

In the modern age, public broadcasting extends beyond the radio and television airwaves. The SBS website (sbs.com.au) is an important arm that ought not be forgotten.

For the main part, the SBS website assumes an English reading visitor. It does not generally contain multilingual web pages. In the digital revolution of the 21 century, the website arm of our multicultural public broadcaster should be committed to providing an informative website with more than 90 percent of the site available in a choice of languages as well as English.

It was only a few years ago that POD and VOD cast downloads were highly compressed for dial up users. It should be recognised that not everyone in the community has access to broadband and/or may be forced, economically, to rely on dial up for internet access. A pitfall of the digital revolution that SBS as a public broadcaster needs to be wary not to fall into, is to assume that everyone who attempts to download a program, has access to broadband. Currently this is not a particular problem but it should be borne in mind.

Digital TV, Radio & the Web

It is a sad fact that the role of the second SBS digital channel has more or less become the outpost of LOTE programs and only to the extent of it being a LOTE news repeats channel. SBS has hopes of developing this and two more digital television channels on free to air as well as a comprehensive web site with streaming and free downloads.10 The expansion of SBS services on these digital platforms is admirable. However it would be a lost opportunity and a grave mistake if these services were yet another commercialized arm of SBS. These outlets ought be commercial free. To this extent SBS deserves a massive injection of public funding so that it is not reliant on advertising for these services at all.

The Future

Save Our SBS is of the view that SBS ought not be reliant on advertising nor seek to be a hybrid commercial look a like. The evidence is that others in the community also support that view. Many are passionate about it in fact.

SBS will have difficulty in maintaining a vision for the future if its funding model requires it to serve two masters.

However this is not a totally negative picture. While recent trends have been negative, the SBS can be saved. The SBS remains a unique broadcasting organisation. For many years it has been a valued part of Australian life. It will not take too much to put it back on the right track.

The decision to adopt an open and merit-based method of appointment to the SBS Board, has been an important step. The requirement that members of the SBS Board should have “an understanding of SBS’s role as a multicultural broadcaster, its Charter and its place in the Australian media environment” is also a positive move.

The final step is the removal of advertising and the provision of adequate funding.

Multiculturalism In The Digital Age

If SBS is to survive in the digital age, government needs to rescue it. It deserves saving.

Advice

In consideration of all the circumstances, Save Our SBS strongly recommends that:

• The 2009-2012 triennium SBS Budget base funding from government for the SBS, be set at not less than half that provided to the ABC and indexed annually in the usual manner.11

• The Minister consult with the SBS Board with regard to the decision by the SBS to interrupt programs for advertisements, and that the Minister consider if he has power under section 11 of the SBS Act to direct the SBS Board to cease such interruptions. If the Minister is unable to act under section 11 of the Act, then the government seriously consider amending section 45 of the Act to prohibit the SBS from interrupting programs for advertisements.

• At a future date, the SBS Act be amended to prohibit the broadcasting of advertisements on SBS outlets.

Save Our SBS welcomed this government Review and was pleased to make a submission. We are happy for this submission to be posted in its entirety on the Department’s web site.

A response from the Department would be appreciated.

The Committee of Management
Save Our SBS Inc
11 December 2008

For further details and comments, in the first instance please contact:-
Darce Cassidy,
Secretary,
Save Our SBS Inc
phone: 0412 685 178
email: Spokesperson@SaveOurSBS.org
References

1. Lawe Davies C., 1997, Multicultural Broadcasting in Australia; policies, institutions and programming, 1975-1995, PhD thesis, University of Queensland
2. FIFA world cup kicks off SBS ad sales, Australian Financial Review, 27 February 2006.
3. NEMBC Media Release, 8 June 2005
4. SBS Act may prohibit ads during programs The World Today, ABC Radio, 2 June , 2006, viewed 11 December 2008 http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1654227.htm
5. The Age, 8 January 2004
6. The Age, 27 May 2004, Debi Enker, Where to now, SBS?
7. Australian Financial Review, 3 January 2008
8. NO ADVERTISEMENTS OR SPONSORSHIP ON SBS, Save Our SBS Inc, 8 April 2008, address to the Minister for Communications, Broadband and the Digital Economy, viewed 8 December 2008, http://petition.saveoursbs.org
9. The SBS Must Be Special, 19 October, 2008, statement drafted by Save Our SBS Inc and endorsed by a range of community leaders, viewed 8 December 2008, http://saveoursbs.org/archives/318
10. SBS’s Plans for the Future, SBS, 2008, viewed 10 December 2008, http://www.sbs.com.au/future/web/upload_media/site_32_rand_574585360_sbs_s_plans_for_the_future.pdf
11. SBS funding for 2009-2012, Save Our SBS Inc, 5 August, 2008, viewed 8 December 2008, http://saveoursbs.org/archives/323

This submission may also be read at
http://saveoursbs.org/archives/334
and/or
http://saveoursbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/sbs-dept-review-submission-save-our-sbs.pdf

The survey commenced in October 2008 and is on-going at www.survey.saveoursbs.org 

The results of the survey to date are below. This post will be updated periodically until the survey closes.

The total number of people who participated in the survey was: 1733  participants.

1) In the past six months, how often did you watch SBS-TV?

16 being 0.92% answered “A lot”

149 being 8.6% answered “Somewhat”

618 being 35.7% answered “Not much“ 

947 being 54.7% answered “Never”

2) In the past six months, how often did you listen to SBS-radio?

1023 being 59.0% answered “A lot”

484 being 27.9% answered “Somewhat”

179 being 10.3% answered “Not much”

44 being 2.5% answered “Never”

3) Would you like SBS-TV to stop interrupting programs for commercial breaks?

1669 being 96.3% answered “Yes”

64 being 3.7% answered “No”

4) SBS-TV began interrupting programs for commercial breaks in late 2006. How frequently do you now watch SBS-TV compared to before, when there were no commercial break interruptions?

809 being 46.7% answered “Less now than before”

497 being 28.7% answered “Somewhat less now than before”

402 being 23.2% answered “About the same now as before”

21 being 1.2% answered “More now than before”

5) Do you want the government to legislate to prevent programs from being interrupted on SBS-TV?

1661 being 95.9% answered “Yes”

72 being 4.1% answered “No”

6) Given that SBS is a public, tax payer funded broadcaster, do you want SBS to be better funded from the public purse so that it is not reliant on advertising at all?

1682 being 97.1% answered “Yes”

51 being 2.9% answered “No”

7) Since SBS-TV became more ‘commercial’, how faithful do you think SBS-TV is to the SBS Charter?

1240 being 71.6% answered “Less faithful to the Charter now than it used to be”

110 being 6.3% answered “Neither less nor more faithful to the Charter now than it used to be”

8 being 0.5% answered “More faithful to the Charter now than it used to be”

372 being 21.5% answered “I am not sure”

8) Given that SBS was established as our multicultural broadcaster, do you think SBS-TV should broadcast more programs in languages other than English (LOTE) in prime-time viewing than it currently does?

968 being 55.9% answered “Yes (more LOTE programs please): SBS should have more programs in languages other than English during prime-time (evening) viewing”

57 being 3.3% answered “It is now okay (leave it as it is): SBS should neither increase nor decrease the number of programs that are in languages other than English during prime-time (evening) viewing”

708 being 40.9% answered “No  (less LOTE programs please): SBS should have less programs in languages other than English in prime-time (evening) viewing”

9) Do you want SBS to cease broadcasting advertisements completely?

1440 being 83.1% answered “Yes”

293 being 16.9% answered “No”

10) Any additional comments?

Many people provided additional comments. A summary of those comments will be posted at a later date.

A State by State break down of participants:

618 were from NSW/ACT

10 were from NT

164 were from QLD

153 were from SA

25 were from TAS

274 were from VIC

100 were from WA

28 were from elsewhere

As at 1 December 2008 the total number of genuine responses was 1733. The reason why the total percentage of responses to each question did not add up to the total of overall responses is because a small number of people did not answer every question and in the case of YES/NO answers a null response was treated as NO and in the case of Q8, a null response was treated as OK. We detected only 7 bot responses out of 1733 participants and believe that more than 99 percent of responses were genuine responses from real people.

The figures and information above for this post was last updated on the date shown.

Following our recent eNewsLetter of a couple of weeks ago Save Our SBS has received enquiries from many people who would like some assistance in making a submission to the public enquiry into SBS. The feedback to us is that the Minister’s 36 page background discussion paper is too long and the Department’s website for submissions difficult to navigate through. Many are overwhelmed and at a loss to know what to say or where to begin. Our supporters have asked us to show a sample submission. As a result, we have taken the very unusual step of issuing another eNewsLetter now.

We urge you to look now at our sample submission at: http://sample.saveoursbs.org/  

You can use any, all, or none of our sample, for your own submission.

It would be highly desirable to write your own submission in your own words if you can. No more than 1000 words are allowed.

If you have limited time, better to make a submission rather than no submission. If this is the case, you are very welcome to use our sample submission as your own, or you can delete any part of it, or change the sections in ours that you do not want. It is up to you. Whatever you do, please make a submission. Make it today. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity.

Begin at  http://sample.saveoursbs.org/  

Please act now.

Submissions close 4pm AEDT on 12 December 2008.

Save Our SBS will make a submission about SBS too. Ours will be a bit more detailed than the sample at http://sample.saveoursbs.org/ and we will publish a copy of it on www.SaveOurSBS.org in mid December.

Thankyou for supporting our cause to restore and save SBS.

eNewsLetter No 5 Save Our SBS

Below is some important news about SBS and an update about on how you can help restore and help rid it of advertisements.

It is now just over one year since Mary Kostakidis was reported walking from SBS, not to return and soon approaching that since the Labor government was elected.

There was reason to believe that Labor might provide more funds, and move to stop the SBS interrupting programs with advertisements.

Six months ago we presented the NO ADVERTISEMENTS OR SPONSORSHIP ON SBS petition to Senator Conroy. But SBS-TV still has ads. Will this change? Can anything further be done?

Who wants ads on SBS? – One Minute Only: survey

The ads on SBS-TV are more than just an annoying interruption. Speaking last year Senator Conroy said that this effectively “makes the SBS a de facto fourth free-to-air commercial television station and serves to erode the fundamental tenets of public broadcasting- that is, that it should be free from commercial and political influence”. (Senator Conroy 11 Oct 2007 ref)

So why the ads still? What can I do?

Voice your objection on-line. You may have previously signed a no ads on SBS petition, but that was only part of an on-going campaign to restore the broadcaster. Your support is much needed, again, to rescue SBS.

Visit www.SaveOurSBS.org and spend just a minute participating in a new, very short on-line survey to re-confirm your support that you want SBS to be properly funded from the public purse and free from ads. Just click on the “survey” logo-link, near the top of the screen at www.SaveOurSBS.org and wait while you are re-directed to the survey. We urge you to do this now. Tell your friends to visit www.SaveOurSBS.org and complete the One Minute Save Our SBS Survey too.

The one minute survey will provide us both quantitative and qualitative information. 

SBS Must Be Special

Former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, has been joined by ethnic community leaders and key figures from public life, literature and the arts in calling for the SBS to focus on the needs of viewers rather than on selling consumers to advertisers.

Mr Fraser and the other notable Australians recently signed a public statement of support prepared by Save Our SBS. The statement “The SBS Must Be Special” expresses concern that in going down the commercial path, SBS is moving away from its Charter and becoming less special. You can read the statement and view the list of signatories at http://saveoursbs.org/archives/318

Among the list of notable persons who signed their name to the statement are former Board member of SBS, George Zangalis and Julian Burnside Q.C. who represented Mary Kostakidis last year.

Malcolm Fraser was Prime Minister of Australia in the second part of the 1970s. He embraced multiculturalism in the establishment of SBS, building on the creation of the publicly funded multi-lingual radio stations that was commenced by the Whitlam government.

The statement prepared by Save Our SBS was widely reported in the print media.

Future of SBS: government seeks public submissions

The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Stephen Conroy, has commenced a public consultation process to review the future of Australia’s national broadcasters, SBS & ABC. Comments from the public are welcome. Information and a list of topics to help get you started in making your own submission are at http://saveoursbs.org/archives/324 That link is worth looking at before you make your submission.

Save Our SBS will make a submission. We strongly encourage you to make one too at http://www.dbcde.gov.au/media_broadcasting/consultation_and_submissions/abc_sbs_review/make_a_submission/online_submission_form

Submissions close 4pm AEDT on 12 December 2008.

This may be a once in a lifetime opportunity.

SBS funding for 2009-2012

On 5 August 2008, Save Our SBS submitted to Minister Conroy, a funding proposal of what we argue SBS ought to be granted for the next triennium (2009 to 2012). We understand that SBS requested a lesser amount than we submitted for the broadcaster. The government will announce its decision about SBS funding in the May 2009 Budget. Details of the Save Our SBS funding proposal can be found at http://saveoursbs.org/archives/323

Our Summer 2009 eNewsLetter will contain further information about this, leading up to the Budget.

Petition Closed

In recent months we’ve been asked: “What happened to the No Ads on SBS petition?”

The NO ADVERTISEMENTS OR SPONSORSHIP ON SBS petition closed on 23 March 2008 and was handed to Minister’s staff at a meeting in the Minister’s Melbourne office on 8 April 2008. The Minister was unable to attend. Save Our SBS and Senator Conroy’s office have remained in contact regarding SBS and the issues raised in the petition.

The Minister formally replied to Save Our SBS by letter on 26 August 2008. A copy of the Minister’s reply can be read at http://saveoursbs.org/archives/316 

Forced Ad Breaks

Did you know that in 2007, SBS forced 6000 commercial breaks into a long list of programs that were never intended to be interrupted for commercials. More details at http://saveoursbs.org/archives/312

The SBS Act provides for SBS to place ads in “natural breaks”.

Donate

Save Our SBS receives no money from government. We are a 100 per cent volunteer organisation. We do not carry advertisements and in order to run these campaigns we rely on donations from ordinary people, like you.

You can donate to Save Our SBS via the secure link on the Donate To Us page at: http://saveoursbs.org/donate-to-us

Become Involved

Save Our SBS was commenced by people with a background in broadcasting who care passionately about public broadcasting and SBS in particular. We have come a long way since our early days in January 2007. Many people are involved with Save Our SBS at all sorts of levels. If you share our views about restoring and saving SBS, and are committed to the notion of public broadcasting you are very welcome to become involved with us. Details at: http://saveoursbs.org/join-us

Why Was I Sent This eNewsLetter?

You were sent this eNewsLetter because you are subscribed to this eNewsLetter. You may have participated in one of our earlier campaigns. We only send very occasional eNewsLetters. As a volunteer organisation, we do not have the resources for regular mail-outs. We do not pass on your personal details to anyone else. Anyone can subscribe to our eNewsLetters. They are free. If you would prefer eNewsLetters to be sent to a different email address or to subscribe or unsubscribe use this link: http://lists.saveoursbs.org

Save Our SBS www.SaveOurSBS.org is a not for profit community organisation.

Visit www.SaveOurSBS.org web site for more up to date information.

This may be a once in a lifetime opportunity to make your thoughts about SBS known directly to the Minister via the Departments online submission form.

We will make a submission and we strongly encourage you to make one too before 12 December 2008 at the Department’s online form. See URL under the box of our suggested questions below.

You may use any or none of the below to help you write a submission.

Make your submission on the form at the government web site at this link: http://www.dbcde.gov.au/media_broadcasting/consultation_and_submissions/abc_sbs_review/make_a_submission/online_submission_form

Submissions close 4pm EADT on 12 December 2008.

Other Info

A discussion paper has been prepared by the Minister’s department for comment or you can make your own comments on any topic you like.

If you would like to refer to the longer discussion paper visit http://www.dbcde.gov.au/media_broadcasting/consultation_and_submissions/abc_sbs_review

SBS Board Appointments

Senator Conroy also recently announced a new process for making appointments to the SBS and ABC boards which will make the selection process more transparent. Details at http://www.dbcde.gov.au/media_broadcasting/abc_and_sbs/abc_and_sbs_board_appointments

A PDF of the statement below may be viewed at: http://saveoursbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/the-sbs-must-be-special-signed.pdf

A media release about the above statement may be viewed at: http://saveoursbs.org/archives/319

The statement, headed “The SBS Must Be Special” was prepared by Save Our SBS (www.SaveOurSBS.org). In addition to Mr Fraser it has been endorsed by the following:

Ethnic Community Leaders:
Professor Mary Kalantzis
Dr Heinrich Stefanik, OAM, former Secretary, Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia
George Zangalis, President, National Ethnic and Multicultural Broadcasters Council, former Board member, SBS

Literature and the Arts:
Dr June Factor
Professor Raimond Gaita
Professor K.S. Inglis
Patricia Lovell
Siobhan McHugh
Bruce Petty
Judith Rodriquez A.M.
Stephen Sewell

Law:
Professor A.R. Blackshield
Julian Burnside Q.C.

Save Our SBS is currently undertaking qualitative research about SBS and advertising in a one minute survey at www.SaveOurSBS.org where the statement referred to may be read.

STATEMENT DIRECT URL http://saveoursbs.org/archives/318

For further information contact:
Darce Cassidy,
Secretary,
Save Our SBS Inc
phone 0412 685 178
email Spokesperson@SaveOurSBS.org 

The Special Broadcasting Service was established by the Fraser coalition government, building on the creation of the publicly funded multi-lingual radio stations 2EA and 3EA by the Whitlam government. ‘EA’ stood for Ethnic Australia.

Concrete government support for multiculturalism was a bi-partisan issue in the mid-seventies, but recently the special nature of the SBS has been under threat.

Since the introduction of sponsorship and advertising to SBS-TV in the 1990s the service has steadily become more generalist and less specialist and multicultural. While SBS radio has remained a specialist multilingual network, SBS-TV is in danger of losing its way. English language lesson programs, greatly valued by new arrivals, have been phased out of the TV schedule.

Ethnic communities are concerned. Both the Federation of Ethnic Communities Council (FECCA) and the National Ethnic and Multicultural Broadcasters Council (NEMBC) have spoken out.

As the SBS Board and management have sought to increase audience share, languages other than English (LOTE) have been pushed out of prime time. Coverage of community events and customs on SBS-TV has declined. Meanwhile big money is going into a locally produced motoring program. The general is overtaking the special. Mainstream is replacing multicultural. Not only is SBS-TV becoming less special, but it is also losing sight of the original idea of the service. The SBS should focus on the special needs of viewers, rather than on selling consumers to advertisers.

Since late 2006 SBS-TV has been interrupting programs of all kinds for advertisements by forcing breaks into programs.

The Special Broadcasting Service was never intended to be like other broadcasters and was certainly not created to mimic the look of the commercial networks. The SBS is a taxpayer funded public service broadcaster and should, as its creators intended, be both special and committed to serving its audience.

The above statement was prepared by Save Our SBS Inc, and has been endorsed by the following:

Professor A.R. Blackshield; Julian Burnside QC; Dr June Factor; Malcolm Fraser, PC, AC, CH; Professor Raimond Gaita; Professor K.S. Inglis; Professor Mary Kalantzis; Patricia Lovell; Siobhan McHugh; Bruce Petty; Judith Rodriguez AM; Stephen Sewell; Dr Heinrich Stefanik O.A.M.; George Zangalis

www.SaveOurSBS.org
 

The data at the end of the survey period will be published on the SaveOurSBS.org web site and may be provided to politicians and media outlets.

Personal details of the participants will remain confidential and will not be handed over to anyone. It is possible to do the survey anonymously.

SBS-TV began interrupting programs for advertisements in late 2006. It was reported that a few years before that, SBS had engaged a research company to find out peoples attitudes towards the idea of SBS-TV interrupting programs for advertisements. It is believed that the large majority of people did not want SBS to interrupt programs for commercial breaks. However despite the findings of the researchers, SBS proceeded to adopt a more commercial approach and interrupt programs for ad breaks. SBS has not chosen to publicly release their study.

Unlike the research conducted for SBS, Save Our SBS will publish the findings of our online survey.

To participate in this important study, click www.survey.saveoursbs.org and wait whilst you are re-directed to the survey form.

The petition that was handed to the Minister had called for

• an immediate end to SBS interrupting programs for advertisements
• full funding for our tax payer funded multicultural public broadcaster
• an amendment to the SBS Act to prohibit ads on SBS
• a  new system of SBS Board appointments so that the Board would be appointed on the basis of merit with a strong commitment to multiculturalism and SBS independence, with assurance that the Board would be independent from the government of the day and without commercial influence.

Despite the petition and very strong public sentiment that SBS-TV ought not interrupt programs for commercial breaks, the practise has not stopped.

References:

NO ADVERTISEMENTS OR SPONSORSHIP ON SBS PETITION Save Our SBS Inc

Pre-election promises for SBS: 2007 Promises made before the November 2008 federal election.

A chronology of advertising on SBS by Darce Cassidy.

Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 Portable Document File

SBS Codes of Practice 2006 Portable Document File

(SBS) Guidelines For The Placement of Breaks in Television Programs September 2006 Portable Document File

Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Prohibition of Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2008 (Bill Number 08050) presented by the Australian Democrats to prohibit SBS-TV from interrupting programs for advertisements is a bill not law.

The regulator of broadcasting is The Australian Communications & Media Authority (ACMA).

as proposed by Save Our SBS Inc

submitted to Senator Stephen Conroy 5 August 2008

SBS funding for the next triennium – Executive Summary

By any reasonable measure the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation (SBS) has been under funded.

• SBS total revenue (for both its radio and television services) is less than one fifth of the average commercial television station in Australia.
• The SBS receives about one quarter of the funding that the ABC receives from government and the total combined public funding for both broadcasters is less than half that, on a per capita basis, of the BBC.

This has led the SBS to seek additional funds through advertising. The changes brought about by advertising have been gradual, but they have now reached the point where SBS television, in prime viewing time, is loosing its distinctive multicultural character. This has lead to public alarm within ethnic communities, and the public at large.

In a liberal democracy, close regulation of the media by the government is clearly undesirable. Australian governments have decided that very light handed regulation through the Australian Communications and Media Authority, coupled with competition amongst three very distinct broadcasting sectors, should ensure diversity in the broadcast media. Accordingly, Australia has three separate broadcasting sectors: community, public, and commercial. However they are becoming less distinctive.

As SBS-TV advertising revenue has grown, its distinctiveness, and its commitment to multiculturalism, has declined.

An international study by McKinsey and Co,7 which looked at nineteen public service broadcasters around the world, found that separate and distinct sectors did indeed have the potential to pay a diversity dividend, without the need for heavy-handed regulation. However McKinsey found that this only worked if the public service broadcasters had both a distinctive schedule and adequate government funding. They concluded “an increased dependence on advertising has led inexorably to a more popular and less distinctive schedule”. Save Our SBS suggests that this is exactly what advertising has done to SBS-TV.

Save Our SBS recommends that the interruption of programs for advertisements should be prohibited immediately, followed by a complete ban on all advertising on the SBS. There should be an increase in funding to enable the SBS to fulfil its role as an effective public service broadcaster within a public service/commercial/community broadcasting environment. If the SBS were funded at half the rate of the ABC, our two public broadcasters, between them, would still provide better value than either the BBC or Australian commercial television.

Committee of Management
Save Our SBS Inc
5 August 2008

SBS funding for the next triennium

By any reasonable measure the Special Broadcasting Service has been under funded. SBS is the poor cousin when compared with public and commercial broadcasters within Australia and overseas.

SBS total revenue (for both its radio and television services) is less than one fifth of the average commercial network in Australia. This figure includes both government support and funds from commercial activities, including advertising.

• The total revenue for the SBS (from all sources) in 2005-6 was $241, 782,000.1
• Total revenue for commercial television in the same year (less licence fees to the government for broadcast spectrum, for which SBS does not pay) was $3738 million.2
• Given the three free to air commercial TV networks, the average revenue for each commercial TV network was $1246 million, or more than five times the revenue for all SBS output, including its radio services.

The SBS receives about one quater of the funding that the ABC receives from government and the total combined public funding for both broadcasters is less than half that, on a per capita basis, as the BBC.

• Total licence fee support for the BBC in the twelve months ending March 2005 was 3.1 billion UK pounds.3 At the July 2008 rate of exchange this translates to $A6.42 billion.
• Total government funding for the ABC in 2005-06 was $827,269,000,4 while the SBS received $176, 472,000.1 Total for the two Australian public broadcasters was $1, 003,741,000.
• With the Australian population at a little over 20 million, and the UK population at 60 million, per capita government support for public service broadcasting in the UK was $107 per year and $50 per year for Australia.

This has encouraged the SBS to seek additional funds through advertising and other commercial activities. As a result, advertisers have replaced the viewer as the client of the SBS, while viewers have become the product to be sold to the advertiser. Efforts to attract advertising have caused the SBS to become less distinctive, and less committed to its multicultural mandate, as it seeks to compete in the commercial market.

In a liberal democracy close regulation of the media by the government is clearly undesirable. Both government broadcasters, the SBS and the ABC, operate at arms length from the government of the day. Save Our SBS welcomes the notion of the Australian version of the British Nolan system type of appointments for the SBS Board as being a more transparent system of appointments that will lead to better governance of the SBS.

Australian governments have decided that very light handed regulation through the Australian Communications and Media Authority, coupled with competition between three very distinct broadcasting sectors, should ensure real diversity in the broadcast media.

However the reliance on difference and diversity in the three media sectors to ensure a degree of pluralism starts to fall apart if all three sectors are colonised by advertisers.

The community sector has been severely affected. Initially free of advertising, the community broadcasting sector is now heavily reliant on advertising. A survey conducted in 2002-3 by the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia indicated that across the community radio sector advertising is the single largest source of income and on average accounts for one third of total station income.5

A study of community radio in regional areas by Dr Catharina van Vuuren found that one Queensland community radio station was receiving nearly 80% of its income from advertising.6

An international survey of public service broadcasters (PSB), commissioned by the BBC and conducted by McKinsey and Co in 1999,7 argued that the presence of a public service broadcaster in a broadcasting ecology consisting of both commercial and public service broadcasters:

. . . combines creative and market pressures on broadcasters to achieve society’s aims for its broadcasting market.

It does so by setting off a ‘virtuous circle’ with its commercial competitors. Because of its unique role and funding method, a PSB can popularise new styles of programming, and thereby encourage commercial broadcasters to create their own distinctive programs. In this way the viewing standards of the entire market are raised.

An example from the UK helps illustrate this. The BBC spends large sums of money and, often, several yeas to make compelling, highly rated costume dramas such as Pride and Prejudice. The competing commercial channels, rather than concede the genre to the BBC, have created their own popular costume dramas – e.g. ITV’s Moll Flanders and Channel 4’s The Camomile Lawn. The competition among the three broadcasters raises quality and reinforces audience taste for the genre.7

The McKinsey survey reach the unsurprising conclusion that the greater the advertising income that a PSB received, the more it looked like a commercial broadcaster and the less is looked like a public service broadcaster. The consequence for the broadcasting ecology was that:

Many PSBs are funded, at least partly, through advertising. Our survey shows clearly the potential dangers of this approach. We have found evidence that the higher the advertising revenue as a proportion of total revenues, the less distinctive a public service broadcaster is likely to be.7

We suggest that this has been exactly what has occurred to SBS-TV. When advertising was first introduced to the SBS, following legislative change in December 1991, there was a gradual shift in the television service from multiculturalism to cosmopolitanism.

Just over two years later, in 1994, this resulted in the SBS changing its slogan from “Bringing the world back home” to “The world is an amazing place”. Dr Chris Lawe-Davies commented that:

An overview of the market and advertising research reports carried out for SBS between 1993 and 1994 confirms anecdotal accounts of the effects of advertising culture on SBS programming outlined in the previous chapter of this thesis: that it has had a profound effect on the broadcaster in shifting the orientation of SBS away from the terms of the Charter and towards satisfying market conditions. One of the dominant criticisms of the campaign was the appropriateness of a public service broadcaster being so led by community attitudes; when its Charter quite clearly requires it should instead be leading the community in attitude change.8

While it would be an exaggeration to say that the cart was leading the horse, the advertising influenced decision to pursue the middle class and predominantly Anglo AB demographic in preference to migrant communities had begun to distort SBS-TV’s programming priorities. With the arrival of Shaun Brown as Managing Director the cautious and discreet incorporation of advertisements became brash and aggressive. The scale and stridency of advertising rose. Advertisers would pay more for interrupting programs with advertisements. The logic of the market was enthusiastically embraced.

It was no longer a case of multiculturalism morphing gradually into cosmopolitanism, but a policy of marginalising the SBS Charter. Moving most of them to less accessible times has marginalised programs in languages other than English.

Approximately four-fifths of prime time on SBS-TV is now in English. Prime time is generally understood to be the optimum time for most people to watch television, and is defined by the Australian Communications and Media Authority as being between six and ten thirty in the evening. However SBS management would have us believe that prime time extends from ten thirty right through to midnight. Through this sleight of hand they sought disguise the degree to which they have abandoned a key part of their audience.

It is not surprising, as advertising has increased on SBS-TV, that the station’s output should look more and more like the commercial competition. Hotelling’s Effect, or the Principle of Minimum Differentiation, has been well known to economists since the early part of the twentieth century. Professor Glenn Withers described its application to broadcasting as follows:

The reason for this is that stations based on advertising revenue will seek to maximize their audience (and thereby their revenue). Stations will therefore duplicate program types as long as the audience share obtained is greater than that from other programs.

Hence a number of stations may compete by sharing a market for one type of program (such as crime dramas) and still do better in audience numbers than by providing programs of other types (such as arts and culture). In economics this point is an application of the Principle of Minimum Differentiation, a principle also capable of explaining such associated phenomenon as why bank branches may cluster together, why airline schedules may be parallel, and why political parties may have convergent policy platforms.9

This principle informed a recent econometric study in Australia, which modelled the impact of a government funded player into a commercial television market, and found that:

When a government player was introduced to an otherwise free enterprise market, greater diversity, lower ‘collusion’ and greater market coverage was enjoyed by viewers. Surprisingly though, the presence of a government player also brought about increased revenues for the other market players…

Similarly, privatisation of the government player results in decreased viewer choice and diversity. Also a decrease in total market share results in a reduction of revenue for the existing market players. Curiously, not a single positive outcome was observed from the privatisation of a government player.

Almost all of the outcomes predicted by our model have been observed, either in the Australian or the US television market, empirically.10

This conclusion is consistent with the observation in the McKinsey survey that the larger the proportion of advertising revenue in the budget of a public service broadcaster, the less diversity in the market.
In the context of SBS, Senator Conroy expressed his concerns about advertising eroding the fundamental tenets of public broadcasting, when he wrote:

The introduction of in program advertising to the SBS in effect makes the SBS a de facto fourth free-to-air commercial television station and serves to erode the fundamental tenets of public broadcasting- that is, that it should be free from commercial and political influence.11

Save Our SBS agrees with the sentiments expressed above.

Funding Recommendation for the SBS

Save our SBS recommends that the interruption of programs by advertisements should be prohibited immediately. Accordingly, Save Our SBS would support amending section 45 (advertising) of the SBS Act for such purpose. A prohibition on interrupting programs for advertisements should be followed by a complete ban on all advertising on the SBS. We do not see any reason for SBS to continue to carry advertisements when properly funded from government. We acknowledge that SBS estimated it may require an extra $29.39m to $35.72m (30- 35% of base government funding) if SBS ceased interrupting programs for advertisements or $72.45m to $78.85m to drop advertising completely12, however, Save Our SBS submits that SBS is worthy of a substantial increase in base government funding regardless. An increase in government funding would enable the SBS to fulfil its role as an effective public service broadcaster within a public service/commercial/community broadcasting environment. A substantial increase in funding is required.

We suggest that SBS funding be increased to half that of the ABC.

Taking the 2005-6 financial year as a comparison, this would have seen SBS funding at $413,634,000 with the ABC at $827,269,000. The total for both public broadcasters would have been $1,240,903,000.

Such funding would have seen the ABC and the SBS, which broadcast both radio and television, with a lower income than the average commercial television network which received $1,246,000, 000 in 2005-6.

While this is a large increase for SBS, this increase in funding is small by comparison with public broadcasters overseas and the revenue of the commercial sector in Australia. Australians would have paid $58 per head per year for our public broadcasters, while in the U.K. support for the BBC was running at $107 per head per year in 2005-6.

Both SBS and ABC have two television channels. Financially, SBS struggles to operate SBS2, while SBS1 now looks more like that a commercial network rather than the public multicultural broadcaster intended. SBS has correspondents in many countries around the globe as does the ABC. The ABC has 5 domestic radio networks and broadcasts overseas, while the SBS has two radio networks. SBS does more multilingual broadcasts than the ABC. Both SBS and ABC run web sites. SBS is smaller than the ABC on the number of radio networks but has the same number of TV networks but is disproportionately under funded.

The output of the SBS is comparable to at least half that of the ABC – however the current base funding is much less than half that of the ABC. By comparison to Australian commercial broadcasters, by comparison to public broadcasters overseas, and by comparison to the ABC, the SBS is under funded.

Even without comparison to other Australian broadcasters, SBS is worthy of an increase in funding due to its unique role within Australian society. This value, or ‘cultural worth of SBS’ deserves preservation, which can only be achieved by further funding and a withdrawal of advertising.

Save Our SBS recommends that base funding from government for the SBS be set at not less than half that provided to the ABC and indexed annually in the usual manner.

Save Our SBS Inc
5 August 2008

References

1. SBS Annual Report, 2005-6, Special Broadcasting Service, viewed 28 July 2008, http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/index.php?id=392
2. Commercial Television Industry Financial Trends, 1978-79 to2005-06, Australian Communications and Media Authority, viewed 28 July 2008, http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib310665/commercial_tv_trends.pdf
3. Media Guardian 7/7/2006, BBC license fee income tops £3bn, guardian.co.uk, viewed 28 July 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/jul/07/bbc.broadcasting1
4. ABC Annual Report, 2005-6, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, viewed 28 July 2008, http://www.abc.net.au/corp/annual_reports/ar06/pdf/ABC_Annual_Report_2005-06.pdf
5. CBOnline, viewed 28 July 2008, http://www.cbonline.org.au/index.cfm?pageId=37,113,2,0
6. van Vuuren, C., 2004, Community Participation in Australian Community Broadcasting: A Comparative Study of Regional, Rural and Remote Radio, PhD dissertation, Griffith University, viewed 28 July 2008, http://www4.gu.edu.au:8080/adt-root/public/adt-QGU20040720.153812/
7. McKinsey & Co, 1999, Public Service Broadcasters Around the World, London, (mimeo)
8. Lawe Davies, C 1997, Multicultural Broadcasting in Australia; policies, institutions and programming, 1975-1995, PhD thesis, University of Queensland.
9. Withers, G 2002, Economics and Regulation of Broadcasting, Discussion Paper No 93, viewed 28 July 2008, http://dspace.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/41411/2/No93Withers.pdf
10. Alcock, J. & Docwra, G., 2005, A simulation analysis of the market effect of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Information Economics and Policy 17.
11. Senator Conroy, S, 2007, email, 11 October 2007, viewed 28 July 2008, http://saveoursbs.org/archives/127
12. Senate Estimates Question on Notice BROADBAND, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE DIGITAL ECONOMY 12 February 2008 QUESTION NO.93 sub-question 16 and 17

http://saveoursbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/sbs-triennial-funding-submission-from-2009-to-2012-proposed-by-save-our-sbs-inc.pdf

www.SaveOurSBS.org

Save Our SBS Inc is a not for profit community organisation

A log of the full list of programs that SBS-TV forced commercial break interruptions into, is available at the conclusion of this story. See below.

The SBS Act allows for SBS to broadcast advertisements in natural program breaks however the Act does not define a natural program break. Until late 2006, SBS-TV only broadcast ads between programs. The break between programs was considered to be a safe definition of a natural break. But in 2007, SBS-TV interrupted almost every program for advertisements making SBS appear more like a commercial broadcaster instead of the public multicultural broadcaster that it was intended to be.

In September 2006 SBS re-wrote their Codes of Practice and created a document titled the (SBS) Guidelines For The Placement of Breaks in Television Programs September 2006 in which the SBS Board created their own definition of a natural break. The SBS definition has never been tested in the courts.

Although many complained when the broadcaster began interrupting program for commercial breaks, people were dissatisfied on discovery that SBS is only required to consider a complaint that falls within the Codes of Practise. The placement of ads is outside the Codes and, the regulator, ACMA, has no power to deal with a complaint that is outside the Codes. There remains no proper process to resolve a complaint about SBS interrupting a program for advertisement breaks.

But in August 2007, thousands of loyal SBS viewers protested in support of Mary Kostakidis when the long time news presenter, walked from the station as the broadcaster pursued the commercial approach.

Save Our SBS quickly put together a petition calling for a ban on advertising on SBS and adherence to the SBS Charter. 5000 signatures were sought. More than 7000 people signed before the petition was closed. The petition was handed to the Minister’s office in April 2008. 

When in opposition, Senator Stephen Conroy was very vocal both in and out of parliament about the interruptions for advertisements on SBS-TV.

Prior to the November 2007 federal election Senator Conroy told Save Our SBS: “The introduction of in program advertising to the SBS in effect makes the SBS a de facto fourth free-to-air commercial television station and serves to erode the fundamental tenets of public broadcasting- that is, that it should be free from commercial and political influence“.

In the week before the election, Stephen Conroy and Kevin Rudd announced Labor’s SBS policy saying: “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising“.

But SBS continues to broadcast ads. Typically, SBS broadcasts a 2 minute commercial break twice, in a half hour program and three, 2 minute commercial break interruptions, in a one hour program. Breaks are also seen between programs. Generally SBS-TV has about 8 to 10 minutes of non-program-content per hour of which not more than 5 minutes is considered to be advertising. 

Disgruntled electors have contacted Save Our SBS to express their disappointment of expectations that Labor has not prohibited SBS from interrupting programs for advertisements some nine months after being elected to form government.

On being appointed as the Minister responsible for SBS, Senator Conroy reviewed a summary of the legal opinion that had been supplied to SBS (before his Ministerial appointment) as to the legality of SBS interrupting program for advertisements. Then at the May 2008 Senate Estimates, the Minister was questioned extensively and said “the SBS Board have always argued that they believed that what they were doing was consistent with their legal advice“.

Opposition Senator Birmingham questioned Minister Conroy further and asked if he was “considering any amendments to the governing legislation to tighten up this matter [to prohibit advertisements interrupting program on SBS]?” The Minister replied: “That is not something that I have considered at this stage but I appreciate your contribution and I will get some advice on that“.

But two months earlier, in March 2008, a private members Bill was read by outgoing Democrats leader, Lyn Allison, in the Senate, to prohibit SBS from interrupting programs for advertisements. The Bill, the Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Prohibition of Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2008 – Bill number: 08050 remains dormant.

Save Our SBS has always been of the opinion that, regardless of any internal government review that might examine if SBS was in breach of the Act, the SBS Act ought to be amended to prohibit SBS-TV from interrupting program for advertisements. Even if SBS choose voluntarily to cease interrupting program for ads, Save Our SBS wants legislative protection to prevent any future Board from the practise of interrupting program for ad breaks. It is our aim that eventually SBS should be ad free.

Since being elected, the Minister has had no luck in prohibiting SBS from interrupting programs for advertisements and return to the multicultural broadcaster it once was. However, any legislative amendment would require support of the Senate. But the balance of power in the Senate is held in the hands of non-government Senators. A review of SBS and public broadcasting generally, by the Minister’s department is now likely, in preparation for the next SBS-triennial-funding due in the May 2009 Budget.

In discussing the prohibition of advertising at the May 2008 Senate Estimates, the Minister said: “The issue of triennial funding is coming up so the first opportunity for us to address these issues is within the context of the review of SBS’s triennial funding“.

Many remain annoyed by the ad interruptions but aside from the annoyance factor, one of the problems of allowing a public broadcaster to carry advertising is that the broadcaster’s relationship to their audiences changes. The client of a non-commercial public broadcaster, is the audience and the product is the program. However the entire relationship changes once advertisements are introduced. The client of a commercial broadcaster becomes the advertiser and the audience become a product to be sold to the advertiser. The role of the broadcaster is no longer to serve the audience, but rather to sell their product, that is the audience, to the broadcaster’s client, that is the advertiser. Hence the need to chase ratings and pay lip service to any Charter.

Save Our SBS understands that the Minister, Cabinet and government still hold the same philosophical belief that they voiced prior to the election and remain unhappy about SBS continuing to interrupt programs for advertisements and the general commercialisation that the public broadcaster is pursuing. 

Meanwhile SBS has said it would want an extra “$29.39m to $35.72m, or approximately between 30- 35% of base government funding, to maintain SBS operations [per year]. . . if SBS was to stop interrupting programs for advertisements and run advertisements between programs only, as used to be the case until late 2006.” SBS provided the information in answer to a question at Senate Estimates in February this year.

The Managing Director of SBS, Shaun Brown who, along with the Board, took SBS down the commercial path was reluctant to confirm that in 2007 SBS generated an extra $10m gross (or less than five percent of total revenue) from advertisements that interrupted programs. 20 percent of that income was diverted by way of commissions to a private advertising agency. Meanwhile SBS spent all the money and more, on their Australian version of a British motoring program, “Top Gear”. SBS has been criticised as wasting money on a program that is more suited to a commercial network. Many believe that “Top Gear” is outside the SBS Charter.

A long list of programs was supplied in answer to a question at the February 2008 Senate Estimates. SBS was asked: “In 2007, which programs were televised with breaks inserted by SBS in the circumstances where, those programs when supplied to SBS in their original format had not been produced, assembled or compiled with provision for any commercial breaks, such as British Broadcasting Corporation programs or cinema-release movies etc.”

The answer, later supplied by SBS, headed Programs delivered to SBS without breaks (2007), suggests that SBS must have forced some 5627 commercial breaks into 2046 program broadcasts that were never produced with natural breaks. The producers of 6 programs from the list below, had made suggestions as to the positioning of breaks.

To view the full list of programs broadcast on SBS-TV in 2007 that were delivered to SBS without breaks, click here or programs-delivered-to-sbs-without-breaks-2007.pdf

Save Our SBS is opposed to advertising on SBS. For more information about Save Our SBS please read the About Us page on the web site www.SaveOurSBS.org 

This is the second time SBS has re-branded in a little over 12 months. Just over a year ago SBS World News Australia changed the set and adopted a more tabloid and commercial style of news presentation. Long time news presenter Mary Kostakidis ended up departing the broadcaster.

The idea of a multicultural, non commercial public broadcaster is now but a memory of the past. Will there be nothing special remaining?

The re-branding this time is more than just a change of logo. There has been an partial attempt to make the program play offs leading in the commercial breaks and the return to program appear somewhat smoother than before however this does nothing to lessen the very obvious intrusions into program for advertisements. The advertisement interruptions still show no regard for the viewer. The ‘look’ of each promo within the ad break is different from before with pretty coloured little sparkles on screen which are superimposed again lower frame on return to program.

There has been an overall softening of the ‘look’ but the advertisements interruptions remain ‘unnatural’. SBS is still creating ‘forced breaks’ in program.

There is nothing unusual about changing the look and the feel of a TV station however it’s an expensive exercise and done cautiously.

It’s almost unheard of to re-brand any broadcaster in May. The re-branding of SBS comes only weeks after the reappointment by the SBS Board of the Managing Director, Shaun Brown, the man responsible for the commercialisation of SBS.  Normally January would be the preferred month to re-brand.

Re-branding is done as part of a marketing tool, when an organisation is failing or had failed.

SBS is an associate member of Free TV Australia (formerly the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations, FACTS). This is somewhat ironic considering that SBS does not hold a commercial licence and is a publicly funded tax payer broadcaster that was originally never intended to have ads. Due to a perceived discovered loop hole in the law, although never tested in a court, in late 2006 SBS-TV began interrupting television program for advertisements. So what’s all this got to do with a change of brand?

Simple. Now that SBS has made the decision that it wants to become even more reliant on income from advertisements, and considering that there was a massive public objection to their move of late 2006 to interrupt program for ads, they now needed to re-brand. The fact is that SBS-TV has been loosing audiences since their decision to interrupt ads and therefore their entire experiment with advertisements has been complete flop.

SBS may be hoping that a new look will win back lost viewers. However SBS-TV has failed to address the underlaying issue that viewers, especially of public TV, do not like ad break interruptions in program.

The SBS budget is about $190M per annum from the federal government. We understand that SBS may have generated about $8M net ($10M gross) in extra revenue per annum after they changed their advertisements acceptance policy in 2006. Previously SBS-TV would only accept a particular type of ad. Artistic, non-hard sell type ads were okay but now they will accept virtually any type of ad. At the same time SBS changed their policy to accept any type of ad, they also began interrupting programs for advertisements.

The decision to re-brand is a desperate move on the part of SBS to attract even more advertisers.

A month ago (on 8 April 2008) Save Our SBS handed to the Minister’s staff a petition signed by more than 7000 people who wanted an end to the ads on SBS. Only 5000 signatures were sought. People heard of the petition by word of mouth and email. Save Our SBS has been assured that the Minister has read the petition and will issue a statement shortly. Follow up meetings have been promised.

Subsequently a number of petitioners have emailed Save Our SBS since the petition was handed to the Minister’s office wanting to know the outcome and if something will be done via legislation to prohibit SBS-TV from interrupting programs for ad breaks. Some people have also emailed the Minister and sent a copy of their email by CC to Save Our SBS.

One such email came from a John Tate who we have never met. A separate email was sent with permission to publish.

The author addresses the Minister somewhat informally as “Steven” and makes reference to an email he received from Senator Conroy “prior to the federal election” (November 2007). The email that the author refers to was in response to a joint campaign run by the two separate organisations: Save Our SBS and Friends of the ABC under the banner ‘The Coalition to Restore Public Broadcasting’. In the final week before the election, Senator Conroy’s office, Kevin Rudd’s office, and, ALP Campaign Information Services sent more than 1119 identical emails to those who participated in objecting to ads on SBS and other matters. A copy of that email, being the one that the author below refers to, can be read at this link http://saveoursbs.org/archives/165

The email below sums up the sentiment in the community conveyed to Save Our SBS.

From: John Tate
Sent: Monday, 28 April 2008 1:16 PM
To: ‘minister@dbcde.gov.au’
Cc: ‘Save Our SBS’
Subject: Advertising on SBS

Hi Steven,

Prior to the federal election you told me in an email that:

“Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising. SBS maintains that they can put advertisements into their programs without there needing to be a change to legislation. Section 45 of the SBS Act 1991 provides for advertising only during periods before programs commence, after programs end, or during natural program breaks. Accordingly, Labor is concerned that the SBS’s action may place it in breach of the Act.”

Fortunately, your party won the federal election on many promises including your promise to reverse the advertising decision on SBS.

Unfortunately I have not seen or heard any word from your Department on this issue.

Last year when SBS was asking for public comment on their new advertising proposal, I submitted this email to SBS:

“Shame on you.

Not only are you destroying the very nature of a public broadcaster, you are destroying the natural flow of many good programs on SBS.

When the government allowed SBS to advertise, I believe they never intended that programs be interrupted as you are currently doing.  You are also using the same annoying pop-up advertising technique that the commercial stations use.

Enough is enough for me.

Until the current or next federal government changes the rules governing SBS, my family will no longer be watching SBS programs with adds.  Add appears, station gets changed.

Please go back to basics.”

My viewing of SBS has declined over the last 12 months and when I do view a program, whenever an add appears I change the channel.  Often I do not return to SBS.

Also, SBS claimed that the new funding stream would increase the variety of programs.  I have not seen any evidence of this (although I don’t watch as much SBS).  Some programs, such as Dateline, thankfully are still being produced however for how long who knows.

I would like you to make an undertaking to honour your election promise and getting rid of the in-program add breaks, and hopefully fully fund SBS to eliminate advertising completely (even though Labor instigated advertising in the first place).

Always hopeful.

John Tate

From: John Tate
Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2008 5:33 PM
To: ‘Senator.Conroy@aph.gov.au’
Cc: ‘Save Our SBS’
Subject: FW: Advertising on SBS

Copy forwarded in case email not received.

Please send a written reply (either email or post to ██ ███ ███, █████, ███ , ████).

Regards

John Tate

Now that SBS has re-branded itself, yet again viewers have been sold off to their advertisers. There is no sign that SBS will voluntarily cease the ad break interruptions in program. Our once great, special public broadcaster has ended up just like another commercial network. What’s special about that?

Spoiling the ship for a ha’porth of tar MEDIA RELEASE

The petition (full title: NO ADVERTISEMENTS OR SPONSORSHIP ON SBS) attracted more than 7000 signatures which was much more than the target of 5000.

Many people felt outraged when the world’s first multicultural broadcaster began interrupting programs for advertisements in late 2006. Prior to that ads were only shown between programs, not in them. SBS-TV does not hold a commercial broadcast license. It is a public broadcaster funded from taxes.

In opposition, when he was then Shadow Minister for Communications, Senator Conroy emailed Save Our SBS and said that “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce advertising into its programming”. The email, dated 11 October 2007 stated that this was Labor party policy and had resulted from the Labor Party National Conference in April 2007. One week before the November 2007 federal elections, an almost identical email was sent to more than 1119 persons who had emailed many political leaders expressing their concerns over SBS funding and wanting an end to the ads on SBS. Each of the 1119 people received the same email sent from Kevin Rudd’s office, Senator Conroy’s office and the ALP Campaign Information Services office that included virtually the same sentence: “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising” .

Has the new government’s widely publicised pre-election policy now been broken?

More than three months since coming to government SBS-TV still continues to interrupt programs for advertisements. Senator Conroy has asked for the legal opinion that SBS stated they received more than two years ago that SBS Managing Director, Shaun Brown has been reported as saying suggests that is it not a breach of the SBS Act for SBS to interrupt programs for “natural breaks”. Many in the community have argued that the breaks are “forced” and “not natural” and in any case they disrupt the viewing experience which would appear to breach the GUIDELINES FOR THE PLACEMENT OF BREAKS IN TELEVISION PROGRAMS September 2006 if not the SBS Act itself.

In the final weeks before the petition closed, Senator Lyn Allison the leader of the Australian Democrats, presented a private members bill that, if it became law, would mean an end to the practice of SBS-TV interrupting programs for advertisements. Her bill, the Special Broadcasting Service (Prohibition of Disruptive Advertising) Amendment Bill 2008, would overcome any ‘loop-holes’ in the current Act that SBS may have exploited, while forcing the newly elected Rudd Labor government to implement their pre-election policy that would prohibit the interruption of programming on SBS television by restricting advertising to the period between the completion of one program and the commencement of another program.

Most private members bills go nowhere are not debated and never become law unless the government of the day wants that. Support of both houses is needed.

More background reading is provided on this web site at the links below.

Private Members Bill Bans Ads Interrupting SBS-TV

Backlash against advertising on SBS by Darce Cassidy

A chronology of advertising on SBS by Darce Cassidy

We Don’t Believe You Shaun: SBS BOSS ADDRESSES THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB

Page Archive: A Petition To Save SBS

The Object of the bill states:

“The object of this Act is to prohibit the interruption of programming on SBS television by restricting advertising to the period between the completion of one program and the commencement of another program“.

The bill achieves the above by removing from section 45(2)(a) of the current Act the controversial phrase: “or during natural program breaks” which, SBS has argued, allows them to interrupt programs or force breaks, according to a set of criteria created by the SBS Board in their (SBS) GUIDELINES FOR THE PLACEMENT OF BREAKS IN TELEVISION PROGRAMS September 2006 http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/media/documents/3913advertising_guidelines_2006.pdf.

The bill adds a new section, section 45A Non-Program-Content(NPC) which bans SBS from interrupting television programs. It reads:

“The SBS must not interrupt a televised program for non- program-content (NPC) and for the purposes of this section NPC shall be taken to mean any material that is separate from the program being broadcast such as but not limited to advertisements, sponsorship announcements, community service announcements, station promotional material, promos and program promotional material and the like.”

SBS indicated in Senate Estimates in February 2008 that the revenue that could be attributed directly to interrupting programs for advertisements was about $10 to $20 million gross in the first year of the practice. The Managing Director of SBS, Shaun Brown refused to give a precise figure on the amount of revenue raised as a result of interrupting programs for ads, however it is believed the real figure might be closer to $10 million.

Senator Allison said, “It is argued by critics that SBS Management’s recent decision to use most of this $10 million to produce a local version of the cult British motoring program ‘Top Gear’ would not appear to be consistent with SBS’s charter obligations of providing multilingual and multicultural services.”

The Australian Democrats yesterday called on the Government to immediately fund SBS for the extra $10 to $20 million that comes from in-program ads and properly resource the broadcaster to deliver on its charter.

It is not clear if the government would increase the SBS annual budget, currently around $188 million, by an extra $10 million to make up for any shortfall.

Prior to the November 2007 federal elections, the ALP stated that, consistent with their SBS policy of April that year, it was Labor party policy that: “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce advertising into its programming” http://saveoursbs.org/archives/127.

More than 7000 people have signed a petition at www.SaveOurSBS.org calling for an end to ads on SBS.

Senator Allison said that “Minister Conroy criticised these ads while in opposition. Now he has the chance to rectify the problem.”

Normally nothing happens when a private members bill is introduced into the Senate. Typically private members bills sit idle, in a long cue of months or even years, awaiting further action, if ever. If the government had the will to adhere to its election promise of no ads interrupting programs on SBS-TV, the Minister could, conceivably use Senator Allison’s bill now so that it soon became law soon. Now is the time for Senator Conroy to act.

The private bill will not become law unless approved by both houses of parliament.

Background information on SBS carrying advertisements can be read in “A chronology of advertising on SBS” by Darce Cassidy at: http://saveoursbs.org/archives/194.

The Australian Democrats Press Release: http://www.democrats.org.au/news/index.htm?press_id=6509&display=1

It is understood that the intention of her private members bill is to prohibit the interruption of programming on SBS television by restricting advertising to the period between the completion of one program and the commencement of another program.

Prior to the November 2007 federal elections, the ALP stated that, consistent with their SBS policy of April that year, it was Labor party policy that: “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce advertising into its programming” (http://saveoursbs.org/archives/127) however since being elected to government, the new Minister, Senator Stephen Conroy has kept quiet as to when the APL intends to put into practice its pre-election promise.

More than 7000 people have signed a petition at www.SaveOurSBS.org calling for an end to ads on SBS.

Read the Press Release today from the Australian Democrats here: (http://www.democrats.org.au/news/index.htm?press_id=6509&display=1)

In Australia more than 7,000 people have signed a petition at www.SaveOurSBS.org calling for a ban on interrupting programs with advertisements. In Canada a Senate inquiry has recommended a ban on advertising on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and a significant increase in the national broadcaster’s budget.

Senator Lyn Allison has indicated that she plans to introduce a private members Bill in the Senate to ban programs from being interrupted for advertisements on the SBS. A Liberal backbencher also plans to raise the issue in the House of Representative shortly.

It is believed that the Bill contains a provision that would prohibit SBS-TV from interrupting programs for non-program-content. Ads would only be allowed between programs only. Read the Press Release from the Australian Democrats here: (http://www.democrats.org.au/news/index.htm?press_id=6509&display=1)

This backlash has surprised many people. SBS TV has been running advertisements since 1992 while the CBC has carried advertising for even longer.

What has caused this change in public attitude? I think it is because broadcasters find advertising revenue addictive. You start with a little, but over time crave more and more.

That was pretty much how it happened in the United States. Advertising was not the main support for radio in its early days in the US. Erik Barnouw, author of the definitive history of broadcasting in the U.S, says that initially advertising was very discreet. Prices were never mentioned. Mention of personal items, like toothpaste, mouth wash or underclothes was taboo.

Companies attached their names to entertainers, like the Ipana Troubadours, the Browning-King Orchestra and the Goodrich Silvertown Orchestra. There was no mention that Ipana made toothpaste, or that Goodrich made tires, let alone any suggestion that listeners should buy these products.

A strict ban on the mention of prices and store locations remained. The broadcasting lobby group, The National Association of Broadcasters, proposed that sponsorship announcements be banned from prime time listening, on the basis that it was family listening time.

All this changed with the 1929 crash. CBS, one of the major networks was in trouble. George Washington Hill, President of American Tobacco, came to the rescue. Cremo cigars were suffering from rumours that they were made with spit. He needed to counter the rumours, and was prepared to pay. CBS capitulated, and in between tunes from the Cremo Military Band an announcer shouted: “There is no spit in Cremo.” NBC soon followed suit, sponsorship became advertising, and aggressive.

Initially the SBS was free of advertising. However once advertising was introduced, programs started to change. As in the United States advertising on the SBS was discreet to start with. Today, the SBS goes well beyond “no spit in Cremo” and interrupts serious documentaries with advertisements for erectile dysfunction medication. Director of Commercial Affairs Richard Finlayson confirmed this change in policy when he told the Financial Review that the broadcaster had reviewed “the type of ads it will and will not accept. In the past SBS has been reluctant to carry some ads, such as hard-hitting, in-your-face retails ads. That’s changing”

SBS still describes itself as “the voice and vision of multicultural Australia” but programs in languages other than English (LOTE) have almost disappeared from prime time.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority defines prime time as the hours between 6 pm and 10.30 pm. A check of the program schedule for SBS TV for the 14 days between 22 February and 6 March 2008 reveals that just under 80% of programs were in English.

Moreover those programs which are broadcast in LOTE during prime time bear practically no relationship to how the languages in question were spoken in the community. For example Chinese languages (Mandarin and Cantonese) together accounted for just 0.8% of prime time broadcasts. However Mandarin and Cantonese, taken together, account for 27.09% of all LOTE spoken in Australia.

Advertising has not only affected the language issue. It has also led to a sameness in programming. According to Dr Glenn Withers this is part of a broader economic phenomenon known the Principle of Minimum Differentiation:

The reason for this is that stations based on advertising revenue will seek to maximize their audience (and thereby their revenue). Stations will therefore duplicate program types as long as the audience share obtained is greater than that from other programs. Hence a number of stations may compete by sharing a market for one type of program (such as crime dramas) and still do better in audience numbers than by providing programs of other types (such as arts and culture). In economics this point is an application of the Principle of Minimum Differentiation, a principle also capable of explaining such associated phenomenon as why bank branches may cluster together, why airline schedules may be parallel, and why political parties may have convergent policy platforms.

Ethnic communities have been quick to notice the changes.

In December 2003 Federation of Ethnic Communities Council (FECCA) Chair Abd Malik said:

The only people who like SBS TV now are the cappuccino crowd… it’s mostly sex and soccer I think. He added that FECCA was “very close to giving up on SBS TV… they have separated themselves from ethnic communities. They don’t come to our functions or religious festivals.

The dismissive, not to say insulting, response from then SBS Managing Director Nigel Milan was “We’re not going to cover the clog dancing from the Brisbane Town Hall.”

In June 2005 George Zangalis, President of the National Ethnic and Multicultural Broadcasters Council, and a former member of the SBS board, issued a media release criticizing the direction of SBS TV.

Programming in community languages has shrunk, while English programming has grown. Advertising has increased and become increasingly strident. Rather than focusing on different cultures, the SBS seems to be moving towards mainstream sports like cricket and now AFL. There is plenty of this type of programming on the ABC and the three commercial channels.

In June 2006, interviewed on ABC radio the new Chair of FECCA, Voula Messimeri responded:

… the intention of having the special broadcaster is so that they can be a multicultural provider, a special broadcaster in terms of being different from commercial enterprise, and I think that this will make it, increasingly, look very much like mainstream, commercial enterprise.

While advertisements have brought in extra money, much of that money seems to be going to the kind of programs that can be found on commercial stations. For example some $10 million is to be spent on a locally produced motoring program, in English.

Darce Cassidy is Secretary and Spokesperson of Save Our SBS Inc (www.SaveOurSBS.org). His background is in broadcasting and journalism. He has worked for the ABC (Four Corners, AM & PM, and, various radio management roles); the SBS (Training); and, the National Ethnic and Multicultural Broadcasters Council.

There have been major changes to the SBS since the introduction of advertising, but they have not happened overnight. While the impact was subtle in the early years, the volume and stridency of advertising has grown with time. Previously advertisements did not interrupt programs. They now do. We can chart developments at the SBS since strictly limited advertising was introduced in 1992-3 to the current full-blown interruption into all programs for commercial breaks commencing late 2006.
1992
SBS Managing Director Brian Johns moves programs in languages other than English (LOTE) out of prime time as advertising is about to start. (i) Subsequent chief executives maintain the practice of English language domination of prime time, with LOTE programs broadcast either in the mornings, afternoons, or late at night, when many people would be at work, asleep, or otherwise occupied.
1999
Dr Chris Lawe Davies (now Senior Lecturer in Journalism, University of Queensland) completes a PhD thesis on SBS program policy. He concludes that there has been a “relative failure” of the SBS to follow its Charter. From evidence cited thus far in the thesis, the social outlook for SBS appears gloomy. The English language issue; the mismatch between languages spoken in Australia and those on SBS; the 1994-95 marketing campaign which positioned SBS for social ABs, and so on, all point towards a relative failure by SBS to address its Charter by providing programming which
reflected cultural diversity in Australia, and offered exciting and different perspectives on Australian society. Instead, [it is] argued, SBS programming provided to Australia perspectives from and about other places.
1999
A study of public service broadcasters in 19 different countries, commissioned by the BBC and carried out by McKinsey and Co, concludes: Our analysis shows that an increased dependence on advertising has led inexorably to a more populist and less distinctive schedule. (ii)
March 2003
SBS management is involved in a dispute with its own journalists over the introduction of advertising into news programs, which had previously been exempt. The NSW secretary of the Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance says forty journalists had written to management claiming that sponsorship of news and current affairs programs compromised editorial integrity and could result in reporters being disciplined or fired for airing unfavourable stories about advertisers. (iii)
November 2003
More key staff to leave. Since the arrival in January of former Television New Zealand (TVNZ) executive Shaun Brown as the head of television, there has been a succession of changes on and off screen at the Special Broadcasting Service. At first they seemed incremental. But over the past few months, long-established people and programs have been removed or relocated, new line-ups have been launched and pivotal programs reshaped. Since August 2002, the head of television has left, the chief programmer has resigned and the head of internal production has been told his job no longer exists. (iv)
December 2003
The Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of Australia (FECCA) says that SBS has lost its way. FECCA Chairman, then, Abd Malak, claims: “The only people who like SBS-TV now are the cappuccino crowd -well-educated, middle-class people, it’s mainly sex and soccer, I think”. He added that his organisation was “very close to giving up on SBS TV. . . In the last three or four years they have separated themselves from ethnic communities. They don’t come to our functions or religious festivals.” The dismissive, not to say insulting, response from then SBS Managing Director Nigel Milan was “We’re not going to cover the clog dancing from Brisbane
Town Hall.” (v)
January 2004
The Age’s media writer the late Ross Warneke comments on the banishment of non-English programs from prime time. “The bulk of its ‘ethnic content’ these days is its morning news marathon, with hour after hour of foreign language news services relayed from everywhere from Manila to Madrid”. (vi)
May 2004
Staff become disenchanted. The Age’s Debi Enker writes that SBS staff fear “that the search for a broader audience is leading to the acquisition and commissioning of programs that are ’safer and blander’, that SBS will become ‘a poor man’s version of a commercial network rather than providing a challenging alternative’. The harshest critics fear SBS will end up looking like a second-rate cable-TV station, running reality TV shows and English-language drama series that the free-to-air channels have rejected as either being too limited in their appeal or too provocative.” (vii)
June 2004
SBS joins with commercial broadcasters to oppose the tightening of restrictions on tobacco advertising through the insidious practice of product placement. (viii)
October 2004
As an associate member of Commercial Television Australia now Free TV Australia (the industry body representing commercial television) SBS joins with the existing commercial stations to restrict competition and to argue against the granting of an additional free to air TV licence. The reason -more competition would impact on their advertising income. (ix)
November 2004
Veteran SBS film critic Margaret Pomeranz, who together with co-host David Stratton deserted SBS for the ABC comments: I think that the current management has a much more commercial bent than any previous management. They seem to be after the young female demographic, and I worry about this, because this is a demographic already
catered to in excess on the commercial television stations. SBS was meant to broaden the scope of television in this country, extend what was already available, or that was always my vision of it. And I think it was the vision of a lot of people there as well. We were so little we didn’t rate very well, although during the ’90s under Peter Cavanagh, our ratings increased at really a remarkable rate. And for all of this new direction towards a more commercial bent, young female demographic, SBS is appealing to less viewers than it did before. (x)
June 2005
George Zangalis, President of the National Ethnic and Multicultural Broadcasters Council, and a former member of the SBS Board, issues a media release criticizing the direction of SBS-TV. The SBS was established as a multicultural broadcaster, but has been moving away from its original charter. Programming in community languages has shrunk, while English programming has grown. Advertising has increased and become increasingly strident. Rather than focusing on different cultures, the SBS seems to be moving towards mainstream sports like cricket and now AFL. There is plenty of this type of programming on the ABC and the three commercial channels. (xi)
August 2005
When first introduced, advertising on SBS is limited to five minutes per hour, and does not interrupt programs. It is only used to top and tail programs. There are media reports that the SBS Board wants these restrictions lifted, and the then Managing Director Nigel Milan commissions a confidential survey on possible audience reactions to interruptions into program for advertisement breaks. (xii)
February 2006
The SBS confirms the complaint made by George Zangalis, President of the Ethnic Broadcasters Council, in June 2005, that SBS advertising has increased and become increasingly strident. SBS’s director of commercial affairs, Richard Finlayson says that the broadcaster has reviewed “the type of ads it will and will not accept. In the past SBS has been reluctant to carry some ads, such as hard-hitting, in-your-face retails ads. That’s changing” (xiii)
June 2006
In a revised interpretation of the SBS Act, the SBS Board claims that the provision in the Act for the SBS to insert advertisements during ‘natural breaks’ authorises the network to interrupt programs with advertisements. The Board directs SBS management to implement this policy over the next six to twelve months. Later the then Shadow Minister for Communications, Senator Conroy, says that Labor does not accept this interpretation.
2007 to now
SBS-TV no longer resembles the special broadcaster its creators intended. All programs including news, documentaries, cinema release movies are now interrupted throughout, for fully fledged commercial breaks. Many in the community say that SBS television has been ‘dumbed down’ chasing the advertising dollar. Highly respected long time nightly news presenter, Mary Kostakidis, departs SBS-TV and there is mass public outcry about the commercialisation of the SBS. Thousands of people sign a petition at www.SaveOurSBS.org to stop the advertising on the SBS. The magazine of the broadcasting & television advertising industry, ‘B&T’ reports that the SBS was out “to position SBS as Australia’s fourth commercial network”. B&T quoted Richard Finlayson head of SBS commercial affairs. (xiv)
January 2008
Despite the public outcry SBS-TV continues to interrupt programs for advertisement breaks and gears itself to look more commercial than before. Australian actor Chris Hayward comments on the decision by the SBS to devote a large budget to a locally produced motoring program. After 37 years as an actor I believe the decision of the management to spend $11.5 million dollars on a motoring program is so far off the mark that the board and senior management should all be sacked, or the station sold. SBS’s role without our society is crucial towards maintaining a greater understanding and awareness of the complex and diverse society that we as Australians are. Indigenous issues need far greater exposure than that are getting, detailed examination though drama and debate in our society are much more important that the fuel consumption of the latest offering from Ford. This is nothing wrong with motoring programs -I am as much a petrol head as the next average Australian -but let one of the commercial channels or even the Australian Broadcasting Corporation produce such a program. (xv)

You can download a PDF version of this at: http://saveoursbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/the-impact-of-advertising-on-the-sbs.pdf

References
(i) Brian Johns, ‘SBS: Coping with a Strange Idea’, in Multicultural Australia: The Challenges of Change, D. Goodman et al.
Carlton, Scribe, 1991
(ii) McKinsey and Co, Public service broadcasters around the world, London, 1999 (mimeo)
(iii) Kylie Walker, SBS clashes with journalists over ads, The Age, 9 March 2003
(iv) Sydney Morning Herald, 11 November 2003
(v) Christopher Kremmer, Ethnic groups find SBS sex and soccer a turn off, SMH 20 December, 2003
(vi) Ross Warneke, Public broadcasters face big year, The Age, 8 January 2004
(vii) Debi Enker, Where to now, SBS?, The Age, 27 May 2004
(viii) Letter from Julie Eisenberg, SBS Head of Policy, to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, 17 June, 2004
(ix) Provision of Commercial Television Broadcasting Services after 31 December 2006, SBS Submission to the Department of
Information Technology, Communications and the Arts, October 2004
(x) Radio National Media Report, 4 November 2004
(xi) NEMBC Media Release, 8 June 2005
(xii) Errol Simper, Borrowed time up for Milan, The Australian, 11 August 2005
(xiii) Neil Shoebridge, FIFA world cup kicks off SBS ad sales, Australian Financial Review, 27 February 2006
(xiv) Quentin Dempster “Come Clean On Commercialisation” Walkley Magazine July 2007
(xv) Australian Financial Review, 3 January 2008

Below is a copy of the Save Our SBS eNewsLetter as per the date given. Other editions posted in the “eNewsLetters” category on this web site. You can also access the eNewsLetters category at  http://eNewsLetter.SaveOurSBS.org

Subscriber emails are sent occasionally to people on our data base.

They are not regular events. Each eNewsLetter is a short update about SBS and activities at Save Our SBS.

Each Save Our SBS eNewsLetters includes links to SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE.

You may find this link helpful if you want to SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE from here: http://lists.saveoursbs.org/

Privacy

We do not give or sell your email address or your other personal details to anyone else. We do not send spam. From time to time we may occasionally contact you, usually by email, with updates about SBS or Save Our SBS via the Save Our SBS eNewsLetters’ or others emails.

EMAIL SUBJECT: No Ads on SBS petition tell others please

Dear [NAME] of [EMAIL],      

Following the recent No Ads on SBS or ABC email-campaign in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election, many people have asked Save Our SBS about our other campaign. 

“What’s happened to the No Ads on SBS petition that commenced many months ago?“ 

The No Ads on SBS petition, is about to close.  Soon it will be presented to the new Minister, Senator Stephen Conroy.

Our records show that you signed this petition using the email address above. We ask that you now encourage your friends to sign the petition before it closes.

The purpose of this message is to ask you to send an email about the petition to your friends. You can do this by clicking here.

The click will activate most Windows and Mac email clients, e.g., Outlook, Outlook Express, Eudora, etc with a pre-worded email ready to send to your friends. You will need to insert your friends email addresses.

If you use webmail rather than a stand-alone email client like Outlook etc the above may not work. However you can copy and paste the text between the yellow lines below into a webmail and send that to your friends.

The full wording of the petition is available here.

The Save Our SBS team

I have signed a petition at www.SaveOurSBS.org to support SBS so that it is properly funded from the public purse without the need to rely on advertising. I am asking you to support this cause so that our public multicultural broadcaster may once again be able to fulfil its Charter responsibilities with high quality, multicultural and ethnic programming.

Please click on the direct petition link www.petition.saveoursbs.org and sign the petition there as I did.

In short the petition calls for the Minister to immediately require that:-

1) The SBS Board cease disrupting all programs for advertisements;

2) Amend the SBS Act to prohibit advertising and sponsorship on SBS;

3) Fund SBS so it is not dependent on commercial revenue nor supplementation from advertising; and,

4) Introduce a new system of appointments to the SBS Board that will result in Board members being appointed on the basis of merit with a strong commitment to multiculturalism and SBS independence, and, that the Board is independent from the government of the day and commercial influence.

The petition will be handed to the Minister soon.

Our public multicultural broadcaster is still under threat and your support is needed so SBS can once again be properly funded and not reliant on advertising.

Support public broadcasting and SBS and sign the No Ads on SBS petition (NO ADVERTISEMENTS OR SPONSORSHIP ON SBS) petition NOW before it closes.

Protect our multicultural broadcaster. Don’t let SBS be sold out to commercialism! Click the direct petition link www.petition.saveoursbs.org and sign the petition now.

About Save Our SBS (www.SaveOurSBS.org)

Save Our SBS is a not for profit community organisation. We are not aligned with or beholden to any political party or any such group. We care passionately about public broadcasting and SBS in particular and were formed as a direct result of SBS interrupting programs for advertisements. We are very concerned about the direction that SBS is heading in and the commercialisation of SBS.

We operate at a ‘grass roots’ level. No-one is paid and everyone is a volunteer. Our operation depends entirely on the support of active participants.

Why Have I Received This Email?

You (the original recipient of the email address named at the top of this email) subscribed to the SaveOurSBS.org email subscription service and you have been sent this email because at some point you made contact with us sent us your name and email address to be part of our subscription service, you may have participated in one of our campaigns, e.g., signed a petition organised by us, participated in an ‘email flyer to the politicians’ campaign, corresponded with us and we are now sending this as a courtesy email because if public broadcasting is to survive, your support for these campaigns is much needed and appreciated.

Alternatively a friend or colleague of yours may have forwarded this email to you, not us. If that occurred, please refer to the person who sent this email to you for further details.

Privacy

We do not give or sell your email address to anyone without your permission. Your personal details are confidential.

Subscription Service

Occasionally we may send you information such as the “Save Our SBS eNewsLetter” or other SaveOurSBS.org email updates however as we are a volunteer organisation we do not have the resources to send regular or periodic emails. Our emails are very occasional. You can subscribe or unsubscribe here.

This email can be viewed on-line at: http://eNewsLetter.SaveOurSBS.org

3b

Below is a copy of the Save Our SBS eNewsLetter as per the date given. Other editions posted in the “eNewsLetters” category on this web site. You can also access the eNewsLetters category at http://eNewsLetter.SaveOurSBS.org

Subscriber emails are sent occasionally to people on our data base.

They are not regular events. Each eNewsLetter is a short update about SBS and activities at Save Our SBS.

Each Save Our SBS eNewsLetters includes links to SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE.

You may find this link helpful if you want to SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE from here: http://lists.saveoursbs.org/

Privacy

We do not give or sell your email address or your other personal details to anyone else. We do not send spam. From time to time we may occasionally contact you, usually by email, with updates about SBS or Save Our SBS via the Save Our SBS eNewsLetters’ or others emails.

EMAIL SUBJECT: No Ads on SBS sign petition please

Dear [NAME] of [EMAIL],

Following the recent No Ads on SBS or ABC email-campaign in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election, many people have asked Save Our SBS about our other campaign.

“What’s happened to the No Ads on SBS petition that commenced many months ago?”

The No Ads on SBS petition, is about to close. Soon it will be presented to the new Minister, Senator Stephen Conroy.

Our records show that previously you expressed an interest in seeing SBS fully funded by government and without advertisements. However you never fully completed the process from your email address above so we are sending you this email as a last attempt and hope that you will sign the No Ads on SBS petition, before it is presented to the Minister. (If you did sign using a different email address from that above, there is no need to sign again. Thankyou).

Our public multicultural broadcaster is still under threat and your support is needed now so SBS can once again be properly funded and not reliant on advertising.

The purpose of this email is to urge you to act now and sign the No Ads on SBS petition. You can do this by clicking here.

Let’s insist that SBS be non-commercial and that high quality, multicultural and ethnic programming, can once again be the norm at SBS. Don’t let SBS be sold out to commercialism!

Essentially the petition asks for the Minister to require that:-

1) The SBS Board cease disrupting all programs for advertisements.

And protect the integrity and independence of SBS from government and commercial influence by:-

2) Amending the SBS Act to prohibit advertising and sponsorship on SBS;

3) Fully funding SBS so it is not dependent on commercial revenue nor supplementation from advertising; and,

4) Introducing a new system of appointments to the SBS Board that will result in Board members being appointed on the basis of merit with a strong commitment to multiculturalism and SBS independence, and, that the Board is independent from the government of the day and commercial influence.

The full wording of the petition is available here.

Please sign the No Ads on SBS petition now, before it closes.

Thank you for your ongoing support for public broadcasting.

The Save Our SBS team

About Save Our SBS (www.SaveOurSBS.org)

Save Our SBS is a not for profit community organisation. We are not aligned with or beholden to any political party or any such group. We care passionately about public broadcasting and SBS in particular and were formed as a direct result of SBS interrupting programs for advertisements. We are very concerned about the direction that SBS is heading and the commercialisation of SBS.

We operate at a ‘grass roots’ level. No-one is paid and everyone is a volunteer. Our operation depends entirely on the support of active participants.

Why Have I Received This Email?

You (the original recipient of the email address named at the top of this email) subscribed to the SaveOurSBS.org email subscription service and have been sent this email because at some point you made contact with us sent us your name and email address to be part of our subscription service, you may have participated in one of our campaigns, attempted to sign a petition organised by us, participated in an ‘email flyer to the politicians’ campaign, corresponded with us and we are now sending this as a courtesy email because if public broadcasting is to survive, your support for these campaigns is much needed and appreciated.

Alternatively a friend or colleague of yours may have forwarded this email to you, not us. If that occurred, please refer to the person who sent this email to you for further details.

Privacy

We do not give or sell your email address to anyone without your permission. Your personal details are confidential.

Subscription Service

Occasionally we may send you information such as the “Save Our SBS eNewsLetter” or other SaveOurSBS.org email updates however as we are a volunteer organisation we do not have the resources to send regular or periodic emails. Our emails are very occasional. You can subscribe or unsubscribe here.

This email can be viewed on-line at: http://eNewsLetter.SaveOurSBS.org

3a

Due to historical interest we now show you the style of our early web site.

From our scratchy but passionate inception on the web sometime around late April / early May 2007, the SaveOurSBS.org web site used the Patriotic Theme (which we modified) and was powered by WordPress. That Theme was in use from mid 2007 up to early 2008.

Our very first campaign, the petition to protect SBS, stop the ads and maintain our multicultural public broadcaster funded fully by government, commenced, July 2007. Initially we had no publicity but eventually more than 7000 people signed our on-line petition to the Minister.

A still screen shot of the SaveOurSBS.org ORIGINAL Home Page is pictured below the ORIGINAL animated logo.

To view the ORIGINAL style of SaveOurSBS.org & Home Page: December 2007 click here.

Alternatively you may view an images copy of the Home Page from 2007 if you click here.

Not all the links in the older version of the original Home Page will be active.

BELOW: original animated logo

BELOW: screen shot of the SaveOurSBS.org original Home Page

ORIGINAL Home Page December 2007 shown above.

Not all the links in the older version of the original Home Page will be active.

Save Our SBS and Friends of the ABC joined forces for a joint last minute campaign in the lead up to the 2007 Federal Election. Aside from this joint campaign, each organisation remains separate and independent from the other.

This campaign is now closed.

The campaign involved participants clicking on a link, within the email flyer below, that activated a pre-filled, generic email in a ready to send state to the leaders of the political parties. Some parties responded by email to some participants. To read those replies from the politicians see the heading “The Reply From The Politicians” which is under the email flyer below.

Results of this Campaign

In a little over a week some 1119 people sent emails to the leaders of the political parties as per that stated on the campaign email flyer below.

What Are The Policies of the Parties?

To read the policies of the political parties please click: http://saveoursbs.org/archives/127

Reply From The Politicians

Some politicians were slow to reply.

The first to reply was the ALP Campaign Information Services. Later the same policy was sent by Senator Stephen Conroy the then ALP Labor Shadow Minister, and, later by ALP leader, Kevin Rudd.

Later Lyn Allison, then Leader of the Australian Democrats replied.

Days later Helen Coonan the then Minister sent out email replies.

As far as we know, the then Prime Minister, John Howard never replied.

The Liberal-National-Party coalition-government was thrown out of office the day after the joint SOSBS & FABC email campaign above ended.

The email replies from the parties are presented below in the same order that the replies arrived.

ALP Reply

Liberal-National-Coalition (then government) Reply

Democrats Reply

Greens Reply

Below is a copy of the Save Our SBS eNewsLetter as per the date given. Other editions posted in the “eNewsLetters” category on this web site. You can also access the eNewsLetters category at  http://eNewsLetter.SaveOurSBS.org

Subscriber emails are sent occasionally to people on our data base.

They are not regular events. Each eNewsLetter is a short update about SBS and activities at Save Our SBS.

Each Save Our SBS eNewsLetters includes links to SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE.

You may find this link helpful if you want to SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE from here: http://lists.saveoursbs.org/

Privacy

We do not give or sell your email address or your other personal details to anyone else. We do not send spam. From time to time we may occasionally contact you, usually by email, with updates about SBS or Save Our SBS via the Save Our SBS eNewsLetters’ or others emails.