I just read an interesting law review article by Christopher Yoo (Architectural Censorship and the FCC, Southern California Law Review, March 2005) that contains the dramatic statement:

‘Reliance on advertising also reduces program quality and diversity’.

What a bold statement. I’m not sure that Yoo proves his claim (he does not even begin to define what he means by quality, perhaps assuming we all agree on this…), but he does offer at least two interesting insights and factual positions:

* According to Yoo, advertising prevents viewers and listeners from ‘using prices to signal the intensity of their preferences.’ Advertising limits viewers to an ‘all-or-nothing signal of their preferences’. [Query: Does this change in a digital world?]

* The American subscription network HBO generates 8 times more revenue per viewer than the advertiser-supported network CBS. In 2004, HBO generated $2.4 billion in revenue from an average audience of only 893,000. [hmm, wonder if this includes HBO's overseas viewers...]

Sadly, Yoo does not mention the BBC and whether it is a bastion of quality and diversity due to its lack of advertising. And the BBC has said (see page 38, here.) that the U.K. is simply too small to have an HBO.

Okay, that’s settled: Advertising stinks. Subscription won’t work.

And the license fee is the only option.

Comments to: blog@ofcomwatch.co.uk