World Service x 2

What difference should it make to the World Service that in future it will be funded from the licence-fee ?  Mark Thompson has said the BBC may in the long-term be able to invest more than the Foreign Office, once the funding switch is made in 2014. The problem is that the cuts imposed before then may leave it seriously weakened.

This is a real opportunity to think differently about how the BBC broadcasts abroad, and there's a risk that in scrambling towards new structures and governance, the licence-payer is left out of the equation. Simply put, the UK licence payer is not interested much in the World Service (on radio in English), unless they're on holiday - or they have ex-pat friends and relatives. The BBC can and should turn this to their advantage.  Shorn of FCO constraints, the BBC should plan to double its radio output in English around the world. 

One service should unashamedly be providing the "best of British".  News, football commentaries, classic and new comedies and dramas, music shows and more, all co-commissioned with Radio 4, 3, 2, 6Music and 5Live.  The shows could be sponsored (more easily handled than ads) to help with the additional costs of worldwide rights. Big multinationals would bite your hand off to be associated with top drama reaching 34 million or so English-speakers around the globe.  And, yes, individual elements should be available to listen again on a sponsored international i-Player.

The other service should be a 24 hour news channel, available currently to listen online and within Bush House, but, once you listen abroad, squeezed into a mixed schedule depending on your region.  The output needs to be more heavily BBC-branded, but also to stick even more rigidly to a global take on the world.  So-called "partner" stations are currently allowed to slot bits into their output without cash or kudos going back to Auntie, in the chase for audience figures.   And some of the current affairs output takes regional slants depending on where you are in the 24 hour clock, in what I think is another misguided hunt for audience.  In that this service already "exists", it's a low-cost option, but could be made cheaper by more shared programming and production with R4 and R5Live news teams. Aligning World Service news writers with BBC World.com and BBC World could produce some more efficiencies (and help the reputation of the junior services).   The modern licence-fee payer would, I hope, see the sense in this being advert and sponsorship-free, but in a transparent world, expects good cost control. 

So, BBC World Radio and BBC News Radio - a matched pair, resolving the conflicts of one channel trying to do two jobs. Double the transmission costs ?  Not really. Digital delivery is growing around the world, and good quality radio stations have proved an asset in selling digital television. The hunt here is not first for audience figures, which will sound odd to radio folk; it's for value for the licence payer. And I believe that if you build two better, clearly-defined radio stations, the world will come to them.  For quality programmes, and respected news judgements.

In the interest of shorter posts, I'll come back to the language services another time. They do fit in to a licence-fee funded future - and can help make all the above even better.