I wrote last week that I thought Ofcom’s willingness to pay research in its PSB Review was questionable. After looking into this matter further, my opinion is even stronger. Here is why I think Ofcom’s research was below standard:

– It strongly appears that — instead of deliberative research — Ofcom attempted to guide the participants toward its desired answer that it would be good to pay more for Public Service Broadcasting. Consider: If the public were strongly or mostly opposed to paying more, Ofcom’s entire PSB Review set of options for policy makers would be pretty meaningless.

– The key piece to read is Slide No. 186 in Annex 6 to Ofcom’s PSB Review (yeah, someone reads the slides!).

– The participants in the workshops were presented with ‘an expert witness presentation from Ofcom’ who essentially set forth Ofcom’s doom-laden view of the future of unsubsidised view of PSB. This is a view that many people — including me — contest. But it appears the workshop participants were given Ofcom’s standard view.

– The participants were told ‘that there were no current proposals to increase the licence fee’. In other words — the great flaw in willingness to pay research was stated upfront — it’s all hypothetical and people can offer a feel-good answer without any repercussion.

– Despite this, many of the workshop participants still didn’t tell Ofcom what it wanted to hear. Ofcom say:

‘Faced with the choice of less PSB or increased costs for the same amount of PSB shown today, many participants initially opted to reduce the level of PSB to ensure no price rise.’ (emphasis added by Ofcom)

‘This was a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of paying more and should be considered in the light of contextual data (e.g. general perception that cost of living increasing in UK, are broadcasters making most of money available to them, e.g. presenter salaries)’

– Why would Ofcom’s researcher use the term ‘knee-jerk reaction’? Does it mean the participants simply gave the regulator the answer it didn’t want to hear? If someone bothered to attend the workshop and listened to the Ofcom presentation and then offered their critical view, it doesn’t sound like a knee-jerk reaction to me. It’s not like Ofcom stopped someone whilst they were entering a tube station and quickly asked ‘would you pay more for PSB?’

– And Ofcom act as if things like presenter salaries and the public’s desire for efficient operations in state-owned broadcasters are just contextual background. These are very important issues. They form part of the reason why many people are not willing to pay more — they pay enough already!

– To be fair to Ofcom, at least the regulator is trying to answer these complex questions. Still, on balance, given the already widely acknowledged frailties associated with willingness-to-pay research Ofcom needed to be extra careful and make sure that its results are bullet-proof. They are not; it strongly appears that Ofcom’s research in this area was too results-oriented. I’m not saying I know the answer about what the public is willing to pay, but I am not sure the Ofcom research brings us any closer either.