Media convergence
Chapter 1: Introduction
1. The easiest way to think about media convergence
is as a technological phenomenon whereby the digitisation of content
and its distribution have given audiences the ability to access
content on multiple platforms or devices.[1]
Media previously made distinct by their technology of distribution
have converged. This development has prompted changes in: the
way audiences access and use content; their expectations across
media; and the way in which content producers and distributors
make money and operate more generally. The phenomenon was well
described in the written evidence of Lara Fielden, Visiting Fellow,
Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism:
"Newspapers are not just printed but online
and carry video packages with the look and feel of traditional
TV; broadcasters publish websites including text-based articles
similar to online print offerings; scheduled programmes are broadcast
but also available on-demand, on digital channels and a variety
of websites; user-generated material vies for online audiences
alongside professionally produced content; professional and amateur
bloggers share the same debates."[2]
2. Converged devices have become a mass market
reality, giving people access to types of content, conventionally
distributed over different platforms, on one single platform,
be it on their desk, table-top or in the palm of their hand. Audiences
are increasingly expecting: 'anything, anytime, anywhere'. The
possibilities—from ever more multi-faceted devices to ever
greater interactivity—seem limitless. Paradoxically, therefore,
convergence is leading to diverging sources of content and means
of consumption: in the range of suppliers at one end, and the
range of devices and means of accessing content at the other.
3. The pace of media convergence, however, is
contested, and it has been put to us repeatedly during the course
of this inquiry that traditional services such as linear broadcast
TV remain hugely popular and resilient. While this is clearly
the case, there are very marked generational differences in the
ways younger age groups are using media compared to other age
groups (see para 34). Younger age groups are in the vanguard
of convergence. So, when considering their behaviour, content
accessed via the internet and on new converged devices poses more
significant challenges than might first seem apparent from the
resilience of conventional linear TV across the population as
a whole. It is, of course, impossible to predict with any certainty
whether younger generations will continue to consume media as
they are doing at present; their media consumption may become
more conventional as they get older. However, even if this happens,
there is still a cohort of young people currently using media
in ways unimaginable to previous generations, and the next generation
are likely to be even more radical in their consumption patterns.
4. In the unconverged world, different regulatory
models have been applied to each of the different media—broadcast,
print and online—encompassing licensed broadcasters at one
extreme and the almost completely unregulated internet at the
other. In a converged world, this approach faces increasing challenge:
the clear boundaries between media are breaking down, new methods
of consumption are undermining traditional regulatory approaches,
and public expectations are changing. Among some of the questions
posed by these changes are:
· What standards, if any, will the public
expect to be applied in future to different media, and what tools
are available to ensure they are delivered?
· How can we continue to secure wide availability
of high quality content made in the UK, including accurate and
trustworthy news and information?
· How can we secure healthy and competitive
media markets which contribute to the public interest?
5. The proposals for responding to media convergence
that we heard over the course of this inquiry varied in their
radicalism and urgency. These differences emerged particularly
strongly in the specific recommendations witnesses made for regulatory
reform. Some believed that a sweeping response is required now,
some believed that we needed to begin planning for reform, while
others believed that we should adopt a 'wait-and-see' approach:
"A new settlement for media content is required."[3]
"As media platforms become interchangeable
the traditional boundaries between regulatory systems and structures
are also breaking down."[4]
"Planning for a converged future is to be
advised."[5]
"For at least 20 years technology enthusiasts
have consistently exaggerated the speed and scale of change, especially
in the case of television."[6]
"It is premature to attempt to put in place
a rigid new regulatory structure which would seek to address in
a comprehensive way all the issues thrown up by convergence."[7]
"Convergence is a process that is very much
still underway … so a guiding principle for Government policy
must be sufficient flexibility to remain relevant and adaptable
to future advances."[8]
6. While it might be tempting to strike a 'wait
and see' posture, it has become clear to us that whether audiences
are aware or not, new technologies and behaviours are evolving
more quickly than regulatory protections and than many people
suggest. To a great extent, different media and media platforms
do still exist, and audiences have some cherished expectations
linked to them, but there are important changes taking place which
require a policy response. At present, we do not see the need
for a complete overhaul of the regulatory architecture overnight;
indeed, we would counsel against this. But in our view it is imperative
that a new, proportionate, approach is fashioned which is capable
of gradually responding to this more complex world, which audiences
can trust, and which may involve new priorities and changes to
the assumptions underpinning the current policy stance. The Government's
forthcoming White Paper on communications is an opportunity to
start addressing these issues.
7. Over four months, we heard a wide range of
evidence and proposals, falling broadly under three themes:
· Content standards
(i) consumer trust and confidence;
(ii) access to content via the internet;
· Content creation
(i) safeguarding public service content;
· Competition
(i) an effective competition regime for a converged
world.
8. As the inquiry progressed, complex issues
around content standards rose to prominence. Nevertheless, we
continue to believe that the other two broad issues are of equal
relevance. As content regulation becomes more complex, so it will
be even more important to design effective 'positive' public service
intervention to secure high quality content from the UK's public
service providers, which will help set industry-wide standards.
Alongside this, well regulated and effective competition—with
more open markets and lower barriers to entry—should encourage
innovation and deliver value and choice for consumers.
9. This debate is happening at the same time
as regulatory fluidity and debate in the media elsewhere, i.e.
the ongoing debate around implementation of the recommendations
of Lord Justice Leveson. While Lord Justice Leveson
has been criticised in some quarters for supposedly 'ignoring
the internet,'[9] the evidence
we received has rather suggested that his voluntary co-regulatory
model may have relevance beyond the press—to a number of
sectors in this altogether less predictable converging media environment.
In Chapter 3, we explain how we think our proposals for audiovisual
media regulation are broadly consistent with, and could sit alongside,
the proposals currently emerging for press regulation.
10. Media convergence is an enormous subject
and we do not claim that our Report is exhaustive in its analysis,
but we hope that it provides a good sense of the necessary direction
of travel for key aspects of policy and regulation. We received
some evidence on two areas of policy which are clearly of importance:
intellectual property[10]
and plurality. Both these topics are worthy of inquiries in their
own right and we have not addressed them in this Report. Plurality,
ensuring as far as possible an informed citizenry, a media without
any single set of views, or individuals wielding too much influence
over the political process, is of fundamental importance and will
be the topic of our next inquiry.
11. We would like to thank everyone who gave
evidence to us, both at oral evidence sessions, which we held
between October 2012 and February 2013, and in writing. We also
wish to thank our Specialist Adviser, Robin Foster, whose expertise
greatly enhanced our work.
1 The technical definition: "digitisation of content,
internet protocol, and ability to access any content anywhere
on any device"-Dr David Levy, Director of the Reuters Institute
for the Study of Journalism, Oxford University, Q 409. Back
2
Lara Fielden Back
3
Lara Fielden Back
4
IPPR Back
5
Professor Richard Collins Back
6
Q 409 Professor Patrick Barwise Back
7
ATVOD Back
8
DCMS Back
9
The Guardian, 'Leveson's distinction between web
and print news "will undermine regulation"', 29 November
2012. Available online:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/29/leveson-web-print-undermine-regulation
Back
10
Intellectual property is a substantial part of an inquiry currently
being undertaken by the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport
Select Committee into support for the creative economy. Back
|
