Morning:
13°c
Most children will be going home from school around the time ministers stand up in Parliament next Tuesday afternoon to unveil the Digital Britain Report.
While it's hard to believe any kids will be tuning in to watch, communications minister Stephen Carter's plans should affect their lives. As Lord Carter says, it is about preparing Britain for a digital future — although reports today that he will soon quit to return to the private sector do not inspire confidence.
The thinking is that Government can make a difference across the media landscape — from encouraging universal broadband to combating piracy and safeguarding a public-service alternative to the BBC. Leaving aside the question of whether Carter can deliver, many businesses are wary of state intervention. But arguably one area in which it can act in a positive way is children's content and security.
As commercial free-to-air broadcasters have cut budgets, kids' TV programming has come under pressure, with ITV1 dropping its afternoon output.
A plethora of niche channels has sprung up. But as lobby groups such as Save Kids' TV point out, the risk is that more children's programming than ever on our screens will be imported, chiefly from America and Australia.
The BBC annual report claims its children's division, CBBC, is “now almost the only source of new UK-originated content for six-to-12-year-olds in news, factual, drama and entertainment”.
At the same time the internet revolution has been liberating and exciting for kids — as well as a source of anxiety, not least for parents and teachers.
In this context, Digital Britain's agenda matters because Carter wants to:
increase support for British-made creative content.
boost public-service broadcasting, which is under threat on some non-BBC outlets.
encourage “media literacy” to educate the public about the benefits of digital and problems of piracy.
persuade internet service providers, social network sites and search engines to fight illegal behaviour including child exploitation and cyber-bullying.
introduce a cinema-style video-games classification system.
Plainly, the BBC has a vital role to play as a trusted brand, overseen by Parliament. Marc Goodchild, Head of Interactive for the BBC Children's department, talks with passion about how his department provides a “three-way contract” between CBBC, children and parents. New programmes and features are researched; parental feedback is sought; and online interaction between children is policed and “pre-moderated”, as identities are protected and conversations vetted.
Goodchild says CBBC's ethos is: “Encouraging safe activity for children online, creating content with them in mind. An overly regulated, top-down proscriptive approach doesn't necessarily work. Children will find ways to subvert it.”
The Corporation took a deliberately low-key approach as it introduced the CBBC iPlayer last December, and a CBeebies version for the under-sixes in May. Anecdotal evidence suggests that huge numbers of children have quickly embraced on-demand TV via the web.
The BBC can invest because it has a £3.6 billion licence fee income. It does not have to seek out advertising. Not so for commercial broadcasting, where fast-food adverts have been banned on commercial kids' TV since 2008.
Goodchild says the BBC children's budget is £125 million a year. The Beeb also supports British content, not only by making its own programmes but also commissioning from independent firms such as Ragdoll, maker of In The Night Garden and Teletubbies.
There's been much speculation about whether Carter will suggest some surplus BBC licence fee money should be set aside for “contestable funding” — say for media firms to bid to make regional news on ITV. On that basis, kids' shows could be a worthy recipient — but that is almost certainly not on the agenda.
Save Kids' TV, a coalition of TV producers, argued in a submission to Digital Britain that any new public-service broadcasting arrangement, such as the mooted tie-up between Channel 4 and BBC Worldwide, should be “mandated, funded and regulated to provide a dedicated and comprehensive public service offering for children”.
The commercial market does provide significant kids' programming, of course, funded by advertising and marketing. Channel Five shows 22 hours a week, describing “the great majority” as UK-made. US giant Disney has a 25% stake in GMTV, and helps supply weekend kids programming — although plenty of content is American. Disney also invests heavily in UK film-making.
Trust is always paramount with children, so all the leading players take online safety seriously. For example, Google has a “Safe Search” tool to filter unsuitable content and advertising — although my family's experience is that this is not flawless. The search engine, which works closely with legal authorities to police content in general, is also set to launch a “family” version of its video website YouTube.
Tanya Byron, the children's expert and TV presenter, published a Government review last year that called for a “national strategy for internet safety” such as video-games classification and better education. She warned of a “generational” divide, and said parents cannot abdicate their duty to watch over their children and must take an interest in what kids get up to online. Now Carter is likely to focus on how internet service providers can do more to stop wider illegal and unsuitable behaviour. This will affect teenagers, who need to learn more about the perils of piracy.
What is most exciting about the digital age is that new ideas flourish and children are eager to adopt them. Mind Candy, a software company in Battersea with a staff of 25, has developed an online children's game called Moshi Monsters, which involves adopting and nurturing cute monsters. Over the last year, more than three million users, chiefly seven-to-11 year olds have signed up— around a third in Britain, a third in the US and the rest elsewhere.
Michael Smith, chief executive of Mind Candy, and his team don't have an educational background but devised the game on the basis of “learning through fun”. Moshi works on a “freemium” basis — it's free but costs £4 a month for premium features. Relatively few do pay but it's a good earner. Mind Candy declined to comment on revenues. Yet on a theoretical basis if, say, 3% of three million users pay, that might easily generate £350,000 a month.
Another interesting games site is Poisson Rouge, where parents are urged to make donations to avoid advertising.
Disney is one of the most active of the big corporate players. It bought and developed a well-regarded educational games portal, Club Penguin, which works on a similar “freemium” model — a premium deal costs £3.95 a month. Disney also recently took a stake in Hulu, the US advertiser-funded video site.
So the state does have a role to play, and public money can help to sustain children's content. But it does not have to be the mother of invention.
Over to you, Lord Carter.
Reader views (1)
can fully endorse this well written statement. The same applies to adults too! To engage people in the first place there has to be a carrot, and CBBC has done wonders. My 4 yr old granddaughter now skypes me every day. She got her skills on the Cbeebies site.
One point that wasn't made in this article which we sincerly hope (but doubt) the digital britain report will address is lack of access for rural children. Our kids leave home at 7am to go to school in town. They don't get home until after 5pm. There is no time to take them to the nearest cybercafe or library to do homework online so they are excluded from the sites which urban children can access. They do not have access to social networking. In many areas mobile broadband and satellite don't work due to hills. The answer is to deliver fibre connections to these areas. The obsolete copper network will never be able to deliver over distance. Fibre is cheaper than copper. Replace the copper through existing ducts/poles and then all our children can grow in the global village.
- Cyberdoyle, lancaster UK
