A major issue with Ofcom has to be that many board members are appointed on temporary contracts that might or might not be renewed or extended.
Many of the Content Board members are relatively unknown (to put it politely) so being on it is a big deal salarywise and as a career step. How many people would rock the boat knowing that you were partway through a 3 year contract?
Secondly the structure has a bias towards Content Board members who are either interventionist ("understand the role...") or are neutral but interested in going from quango to quango.
Most people who are proporn will be more interested in making the stuff than sitting in committee meetings and being repeatedly outvoted or marginalised.
Third there may be a bit of networking going on. Without any intentional bias, people who are involved with Ofcom in some capacity may be more likely to hear about vacancies, and therefore more likely to apply.
Scottishbloke Wrote:worst case scenario is the new Chief Executive may wish to revoke the licence of every single babe channel that is currently on the telly.
They cant do that any more than Maggie Thatcher could shut down sex shops in Soho. Shut the lot and its instant referral to the Human Rights Court, and the papers might actually get off their collective arses, and a lot of people would say they dont want to see that stuff but understand some people do. Its about as likely as closing down all foreign religious channels.
Negative scenarios could be lots of horror stories followed by a clampdown. Set a quota, 1 channel per provider, no more than 4 to satisfy completion rules (who needs even 4 porn channels?) Force them to go pay encrypted. Ban or discourage pay per night so you cant watch without committing for a whole year (and featuring on the credit card bill that the wife/your mum sees). Make it later - no toplessness before midnight. Make it tamer claiming widespread offence.
The other gamechanger could be to commission a survey using biased methodology and leading questions.
Does anyone have any thoughts on who front runners could be?
Claudio Pollack is head of Content Consumers and External Affairs.
Polly Weitzman is head of the Legal Group. Lawyers rise to the top in some organisations, possibly because of their good debating skills.
Jill Ainscough is the current Chief Operating Officer, a job with a good track record.
Of course the winning candidate could be an external one.
Chris Banatvala, Ofcoms founding director of standards, might be interested. He has plenty of experience and has broadened it by working outside Scissor House.
For all I know former Content Board member Kath Worrall might be retired or happily following a consultancy career, but she might be interested.
The editor of the Daily Mail might fancy a change, or someone from MediaWatch might like to bring their expertise to the table.
All this assumes a broadcasting bias. Ofcom is a diverse organisation that regulates mobile phones, landlines, the internet and postal services. The emphasis might be skewed toward telecoms (huge industry, 3 big operators control 85% of the mobile market) or post (limited real competition).
The ideal candidate would be 50, with experience in a challenging broadcasting organisation, say Disney or Discovery, unsullied by involvement in porn, also with experience in telecoms and post, and interested in a full time salaried management job.
Independents and the self employed will be temperamentally unsuited.
Big names will be at the wrong stage of their careers.
To be credible they will need to have run a department with hundreds of office staff (not creatives) and a budget of millions (David Cameron after the election?)
That sounds like a middle manager at the DCMS, Department of Trade, BBC, Channel 4, an international broadcaster, or a telecom firm.
