PBS Crosses the Line:
Commercialization vs. Public Trust

by Michael Cope, CIPB Assistant Director

"The programs we conceive to be the essence of Public Television are in general not economic for commercial sponsorship, are not designed for the classroom, and are directed at audiences ranging from the tens of thousands to the occasional tens of millions." -Carnegie Commission, 1967

Last June, the PBS board crossed the line between commercial and public television by further relaxing its guidelines for advertising. Among several changes, corporate mascots can now appear alongside of a sponsor's logo in underwriting credits for PBS Kids shows.

PBS claims to review its guidelines at least every three years in order to make changes based on new developments in the sponsorship market, shifting views among station leaders and viewer perceptions. Catherine Hogan, senior director of program management and underwriting policy, says the changes must adhere to the first rule of PBS's underwriting policy- that each credit be "in keeping with the noncommercial nature of public television."

However, spots can now include images of people representing a sponsor's target market and its product within the same spot, as long as these images do not appear simultaneously. "We're drawing the line at showing people…consuming a product or deriving satisfaction from a product," explained Hogan to Current. Where will they draw the line at the next review?

Additional changes to the primetime sponsorship guidelines allow the depiction of multiple products in a spot, appearances by employees or celebrities expressing support for public TV, and toll-free phone numbers and/or web-site addresses, perhaps to enable "Viewers Like You" to send more money.

"Viewers like who?" responds Electronic Media columnist Tom Shales. "Not me, brother. I'm not donating money to a 'public' TV that has been privatized within an inch of its life. It would be like giving a donation to Krispy Kreme in addition to buying the damn doughnut."

Shales is right to be upset. Advertising has invaded every aspect of our lives. Look at the way commercial television uses the public's airways. According to a recent report by MindShare, the four broadcast networks averaged about 14 minutes and 30 seconds of clutter per primetime hour in the first quarter of 2002. Clutter, as explained by MindShare, includes commercials, public service announcements and promos, which are the networks' own commercials for themselves.

Adding to the deterioration of prime-time television are relatively new forms of "screen clutter," including the "split screen," in which a commercial or promo runs next to a show's credit crawl; the "snipe," in which a text message crawls across the bottom of the screen; and even clutter within programs, in which network logos and/or program plugs are inserted into the corner of the screen.

PBS was created to compensate for the limitations of commercial television, to serve us as citizens- not consumers. But sadly, the commercialization of PBS doesn't end with loosely regulated television spots.

In June, PBS teamed up with the Mills Corporation, a fast-growing shopping center developer, to bring PBS to the mall. PBS Kids will feature attractions such as reading nooks, television kiosks with PBS programming and special appearances from stars like Arthur the Aardvark. And, of course, it will carry a line of merchandise, everything from PBS-designed interactive games to t-shirts.

Judy L. Harris, who was hired a year ago to help PBS develop its "brand," told the New York Times that the enterprise is "about reaching the viewers, about keeping us relevant and having more points of impact."

Speaking for the Mills Corporation, Mark Rivers, director of strategic development, states: "Retail has an awful lot of repetition. Consumer brands that have legacy and loyalty give our offering urgency. It also allows us to target a demographic, like young mothers with strollers, and then go out and grab it."

To support innovative, diverse, noncommercial programming for both national and local audiences, an independently funded public trust needs to be established in order to take PBS off the federal dole, remove corporate advertising, stop the desperate search for money, and free public broadcasting to pursue its mission with editorial integrity.

Electronic Media's Aaron Barnhart reported in his July 22 column that "the future of public television is bright, very bright indeed. The future of PBS, now that's another matter."

According to Barnhart, "The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds PBS, will receive $365 million next year, or about as much as ESPN collects in subscriber fees every two months. Only a portion of the CPB pie goes to PBS; there's also [National Public Radio] and local TV and radio stations to feed. It's a pittance when compared with the $1.5 billion that a blue-chip committee known as Carnegie II recommended that Congress allocate each year to CPB. And that figure was for 1985."

The parent companies of NBC, ABC, Fox and CBS would all like to see the rules on media ownership relaxed. Barnhart suggests that one way to soften Congressional opposition would be to buck up for a CPB trust fund, comparable to the Red Cross, U.S. International Olympic Committee and Little League Baseball. Ten billion, raised over a decade or two, should be within the means of commercial broadcasters. "After all," writes Barnhart, "didn't the National Association of Broadcasters issue a press release a while ago bragging that its members gave away $9.9 billion in 'community service contributions' in 2000?"

Barnhart also brings up an interesting point with the example of C-SPAN, which is funded through a simple scheme whereby nearly every cable and satellite operator in America agrees to pay a fee in exchange for carrying one, two or all three of the C-SPAN channels.

If PBS were funded through a public trust, all these wild-eyed attempts to "market" the PBS "brand," or to extend the boundaries of exactly what it means to be non-commercial would be unnecessary. Non-commercial should mean just that. If PBS were fulfilling its mission, it would present a true alternative to the corporate controlled network and cable channels; it would be a service dedicated to entertainment as well as enlightenment, without any attempts at emptying our pockets.