Channel 4 - financial problems

I heard rumours via the tabloids about this earlier in the week, however thought I'd wait until a more reliable source published an article...


Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/dec/16/channel-4-funding-crisis

Will be interesting to see what will happen over the next few months.

Reports also this week that RTL were once again interesting in taking over the channel.

Ideally though it'll remain in public ownership, but unfortunately times are hard for everyone and if for C4 to survive it needs to be privatised, well that's better than there being no C4.

However, the Government also have a responsibility to learn from their mistakes in regard to ITV, who have now virtually washed their hands of all the responsibility being a PSB brings. If C4 was allowed to go the same way it would be a complete disaster for British broadcasting.


Perhaps part privatisation might be the answer, selling off up to 49% of the company with at least 51% remaining a not for profit public body, but although that might give them a short term cash injection, long term it'll eat into any profits.

Really though the Government need to tell the EU to but out - if they can spend billions bailing out the banks, I don't see how the EU can object to them bailing out a public broadcaster at a fraction of the price.

Why not a 3 way slip?

selling it 33%
giving BBC world wide 33%
Keep the public part 34%

Hmm - think that is probably over-egging it. Broadcasting and Banking are hardly equal areas. If broadcasters guaraded life savings and mortgages, and oiled the bulk of UK industry I'd be with you. They don't - they show TV programmes... Important - sure, as important as banking... Hmm - not so sure.

Channel Four's woes are not part of the credit crunch - they, like ITV, are a result of the inevitable fragmentation of the broadcast landscape, and have been widely predicted for some time. Not sure the banking metaphor really holds true.

In some ways - the UK is reaping what it sowed with the founding of Channel Four as a publisher broadcaster. Unlike ITV and the BBC, who are significant producers, Channel Four makes almost nothing itself. Whilst this wasn't that significant when it was just a TV station - it is VERY significant these days, as both the BBC and ITV have significant revenue streams from programme sales, which in many cases Channel Four don't (as the indies who make the shows for them end up with a lot of the long-term rights)

ITV3 and ITV4 are possible (and helping ITV keep the wolves from the door) because ITV have a large back catalogue. Channel Four has very little...

Someone I know said SKY should have to give Channel 4 some of its Subscription money. I say no way to that why should SKY have to fund C4.

I would imagine if it is true (which I doubt it is) that they mean Channel 4 would receive funding for the privilege of broadcasting on Sky (and I'd imagine the same would have to be true for Virgin Media, Tiscali etc.) and ditching it's free to air status. Whether this is legal or possible as a public service broadcaster I don't know.

For me I don't see how Five can ever make any money - has the lowest viewing figures (that is between BBC, ITV, C4 and Five) on a regular basis, shows very little programming of any value (I find) and seems to be a generally watered down equivalent of Channel 4 - could the answer be to merge the two? Yes you would be loosing (for example) two news services, the hard hitting gravitas that is C4 News vs. newsround-for-thickies Five News, but this could be overcome.

The idea I prefer is merging them as the same company (thus giving some away to RTL), but continuing to broadcast both channels, thus with a wider range of programming across the two. Then you keep the two news services - aimed at different audiences - but potentially solve a funding crisis by reducing your workforce (not preferable in this economic crisis but then if the company you work for is going to go down unless anyway unless it lets you go you're gonna end up unemployed regardless).

My question is why on earth does Channel 4 also have both E4, E4+1 and More4 if it has a funding problem? Surely handing one of these back could reduce costs. I know they're aimed at different audiences but surely cutting costs is more important for it?


I am done. Now please feel free to contradict everything I've said, argue against odd points and generally twist my words.

I can't see how channel five has survived when it only serves half the country on anologue

It's owned by RTL

The thing is those channels (well certainly E4 and even E4+1, not sure about More4) do break even - without them C4 would be making greater loses. Even C4+1 is now bringing in something like 10% of the channels audience, which presumably more than offsets the cost of transmitting it.


I agree thought the idea of RTL running the C4 and Five as two separate entities is probably the best option, but even if they remain separate on-screen, they'll be working together off-screen, and that would likely mean C4 and Five news being supplied by one provider - and I don't think any of us want Sky to get their grubby little mitts on Channel 4 News.

Although I do watch it and it performs very well for Channel 4 providing over 10% of its annual income, I think Big Brother is partly to blame for Channel 4's financial problems. Over the years they've increased the reliance of the show with more live coverage (which they've started to cut back on), longer highlights shows, more spin offs etc so it essentially takes over Channel 4 and E4 for 16 weeks per year (3 in winter, 13 in summer). That means they've got more slots to fill when the show comes off air, and not enough original commissions. Over the years they've also been paying more to Endemol and the extra money has to come from somewhere- so some departments have been stripped back to fund a show that hasn't been performing as well as it could be.

Another problem is the lack of imports they've had recently. They used to have a very strong Friday line up because imports were relatively cheap to produce and rated well but some have been axed and some have moved to other channels.

They do need to sort out their funding, although I think attempting to sort out Friday night until Sunday night would help quite a lot, even if its just doing a few Friends/My Name is Earl etc reruns on a Saturday night.

While I agree C4 have perhaps relied to heavily on a (weakening) Big Brother in recent years and not put as much effort into the schedule outside BB, even at the extortionate rates they pay Endemol for the format without Big Brother C4 wouldn't be able to fund alot of it's PSB content.

They just need to use the show more effectively, especially to launch new original series off the back of it (not US imports) - and also as far as E4's concerned turn it back into a virtually full time streaming channel outside of primetime. I really don't see the logic in paying for reruns of second-rate US dramas to run during the day when a live link to the house would not only get more viewers, but also helps the overall product as far as BB is concerned.


More4 also needs to promote itself much better - they had the multi Emmy award winning Johns Adams this autumn, and buried it in a 5.30pm slot, when surely the channel is designed for airing such content at 9pm or 10pm. Similarly too with the True Stories strand More4 continues to show world class documentaries, but rather than putting it in a flagship 9pm slot one night a week it generally goes by unnoticed at 10pm - without a repeat showing later in the week.