What Supernanny owes to the nanny state

Nick | 04 Mar 2009, 10:15

In a recent article about the success of UK television production companies in the US market, The Times’ media analyst Dan Sabbagh identifies a piece of regulatory engineering that has helped to kickstart the independent sector:

“Curiously, the emergence of Shed, RDF, and other British business talent in Hollywood stems from, of all things, a sensible bit of regulation. Improbable as it may seem, the Communications Act 2003 helped to make it possible for British creative entrepreneurs to start viable businesses abroad by establishing the simple principle that it was the producers, not the broadcasters, who owned the rights to a television programme. That allowed the “indies” to take them over to the US after they had proved a success on air back in Blighty. Helping further were quotas, which forced the BBC and ITV to take a proportion of independently made shows, following the example of Channel 4, where every programme is made by an independent company.“

He says that this change, combined with a US industry custom called “the defici systemt”, where independent production companies have to share the cost of production, in exchange for long-term revenue streams:

“That makes for a curious irony: British regulations helped British producers to invade Hollywood, while a lack of American regulation in this area has limited the ability of outsiders to break down the studio system.“

The article presents a dramatic illustration of the effect supply-side policies can have in shaping the growth of the creative industries. For c&binet, the question of how government policy can nurture the growth of world-class creative companies will be a key issue.