Push-Pull Strategy and the Future of the BBC

For an animated talk through of this post click here: video

‘Push - pull’ strategy is a well-known business paradigm. Put simply, a company that uses a ‘push’ approach develops a product or service and drives sales through marketing and advertising. An organisation that uses a ‘pull’ approach, on the other hand, develops a product or service in direct response to existing customer demand. In the information age, it is much easier for manufacturers to create products that cater to consumer desires. Digital technologies, from social media platforms to rapid data analysis tools, give corporations direct access to their customers and allow them to respond to customer needs more quickly. Dell transformed the personal computer industry with its ‘pull’ supply chain strategy. It provided consumers with a platform to build their own computer, on-demand, from a menu parts, components and consumables. The company saved money by maintaining low inventories of finished goods and attracted buyers to its product through quick and easy online ordering and home delivery. In the cosmetics industry, the YouTube beauty blogger revolution has created a platform for ‘pull’ rather than ‘push’ marketing. After watching a make-up tutorial on, for example, creating the perfect winged eyeliner, consumers seek out the products used in the video. No matter what the industry, corporations are increasingly being pushed to do more pulling.

The new Culture Secretary John Whittingdale has recently announced a ‘root and branch’ review of the BBC that will include an assessment of whether the TV broadcasting component should produce commercially popular shows like The Voice. This got me thinking about how the ‘push-pull’ paradigm applies in the cultural sector. To me, these types of shows reflect the BBC’s understanding that it has to ‘pull’ viewers to its channels in order to ‘push’ more challenging or innovative programming.

 The most illustrative examples of ‘push-pull’ in the cultural sector come from the music industry. The digital dissemination of music via platforms such as iTunes, Spotify and XM Radio allow consumers to customise their listening experience – no need to purchase a 12-track album for the 2 songs you like or to turn the dial of the radio endlessly to find your favourite tune. The musician has the freedom to release a song whenever inspiration hits. From a business perspective, this is supply chain efficient – the producer, supplier and consumer are in perfect alignment. However, how are we to be exposed to the next great southern rock vocalist or the song that signals a new genre of music? Traditionally, the radio disc jockey saw his or her role as playing what we want as well as  introducing us to something new. DJs carefully balanced ‘pull’ – taking requests from callers and playing top ranked songs – with ‘push’ – using their expertise and access to the music industry to select new music for the listener.

Curators, the DJs of the museums world, tend to focus more on ‘push’, but things are changing. Contemporary art curators seek out new artists and introduce their work to the public through temporary exhibitions. However, institutions like the Tate and V&A do balance exhibitions of new or obscure art and artefacts with more sure-fire audience pleasers such as last year’s Matisse Cut-Outs and David Bowie exhibitions. The Royal Academy of Art is bravely embracing the ‘pull’ approach – it is using the Kickstarter crowdfunding platform to raise money from the public for an installation by Chinese contemporary artist Ai WeiWei.  If insufficient funds are raised, the installation will not happen. If it does, it is clear that there will be visitors and audience interest. This is supply chain efficiency its best. However, would this have been possible 10 years ago, before curators from around the world supported and exhibited Ai WeiWei’s work to new audiences?  When it comes to culture, arts organisations must both push and pull.

 Whittingdale’s argument appears to be that the BBC should not compete with commercial broadcasters who could produce shows like The Voice and instead focus on distinctive programming. I don't know what he means by 'distinctive' but if it doesn't include popular shows like Strictly Come Dancing, the danger is that the BBC becomes a 'push only' operation and risks alienating large portions of the TV viewing audience.  I certainly support all efforts to ensure the BBC does not stop producing high quality arts and news programming in favour of audience pleasers.  However, I think the genius of the BBC’s overall approach (notwithstanding the overabundance of property location shows) is that it mixes ‘push’ and ‘pull’ strategies. The BBC is like a DJ playing some of the things you know you like but then offering something new, unusual or challenging. The BBC’s iPlayer is particularly important to this strategy as it allows audiences to dip in and out of programmes that they might find interesting, but may not consider ‘appointment TV.’ If the BBC were to become known as the channel that produces programming that is ‘good for you, but you probably won’t like’ the possibility of audience cross over greatly diminishes. Furthermore, the BBC risked becoming an organisation disconnected from the breath of the UK viewing audience.  The current model allows there to be a continuous internal organisational dialogue about the diverse interests and needs of the UK population.

 Interestingly, the current TV license fee-funding model supports a mixed push-pull broadcast strategy, as it requires the BBC to reflect the tastes of the entire viewing public in its programming. Hence, each show has a push-pull element to it depending on the tastes of viewer. An approach based on a ‘push only’ strategy suggests a BBC completely funded through government subsidy. This would not be unlike the subsidies that governments give to car manufacturers to create cars using alternative energies or grants given to pharmaceutical companies to do research and development on new drugs for fighting rare diseases.  However, Whittingdale is not suggesting this.  Nor is he suggesting the BBC should fund itself commercially, which would orient it to a ‘pull’ strategy based of highly rated, popular programming. He suggests a revised public funding structure that requires either viewer subscription (suggesting a ‘pull’ strategy oriented to the preferences of the subscriber base) or a revamped license fee based on the German model.  What is the German model?  Pretty much the same as the UK license fee model, except it is mandatory for all residents (rather than just TV owners) and slightly more expensive. Incidentally, on the argument that BBC TV is bloated and needs paring down – the German TV fee funds 22 national and regional television channels, double that of the BBC.

 I think the BBC is on the right track with its current push-pull strategy.  I know this because in a world where iTunes predicts the music I like, I watch the BBC’s Later… with Jools Holland to get exposure to something new.  Last season, one episode of Later… featured British favourites Noel Gallager and Mumford & Sons, 70s funk master George Clinton and Parliament Funkadelic, South London’s Ghostpoet, Senegalese musician Cheikh L? and the debut of Ethiopian Finnish singer Mirel Wagner. The music pushed and pulled me from side to side – a truly enjoyable experience.