Next on 4 presentation - Transcript
10am, 13th March 2008
124 Horseferry Road, London SW1
[INTRODUCTION VIDEO]
Luke Johnson:
Good morning everyone. Both to those of you present at Channel 4 today, but also those watching the live streaming of this event online.
Unlike Nick Broomfield, I suspect our creative team don't spend much time pondering the question - "what's Channel 4 for?". They don't consult the remit when deciding what programme to commission - they instinctively recognise an archetypal Channel 4 idea. It's the one that comes with the conviction that 'only Channel 4 would do that'.
The most encouraging thing to emerge from our consultations in the last nine months is evidence our viewers share this instinctive understanding of Channel 4's unique position in the media landscape.
The audience research we've undertaken, including a survey of 11,000 viewers and users by YouGov, confirms that our viewers look to Channel 4 for programmes that question, provoke and entertain. They expect us to be opinionated and irreverent, and occasionally a little dangerous.
That same clarity has emerged from other stakeholders. We've encountered strong support for Channel 4's distinctive public service role. There is a heartening determination to maintain our independence and our ability to take creative risks, although there is also concern about whether we always get the balance right between our cultural and commercial ambitions.
We have undertaken this review as we approach a pivotal moment in our quest to secure Channel 4's public service future. Ofcom has brought forward by two years its second review of public service broadcasting. The Government is promising to undertake its review of funding with similar urgency to Ofcom. It is vital to be certain about what Channel 4 will provide as the main source of ongoing public service competition to the BBC.
Gifted analogue spectrum has historically underpinned our public service contribution but its value diminishes as digital switchover progresses. To make the case for new forms of subsidy for Channel 4, we need to be clear why that support is justified.
As well as new forms of public support for Channel 4, a new legislative framework is also needed. It should reflect Channel 4's ongoing transition to become a public service multi-media network, delivering public value through a portfolio of TV channels and services on digital media platforms. This framework should recognise the public value Channel 4 delivers through its contribution to Britain's creative industries.
Today's presentation is not a complete departure from the past. I do not believe Channel 4 needs entirely reinventing. We will remain a commissioner of content for UK audiences, making distinctive output available on every digital platform. The values that have guided us for the last 25 years will be relevant to audiences in the future. Our task is to ensure Channel 4 remains capable of connecting the largest possible audience with the public value we create, in an age when digital technology is shaking the foundations of mass media.
I'm now going to hand over to Channel 4's Chief Executive, Andy Duncan, to take you through our future blueprint in more detail.
Andy Duncan:
Thanks Luke and good morning.
This review has been extensive - the most extensive in Channel 4's history. Through it we have sought to answer a number of fundamental questions about Channel 4. What is it there to do? Who is it for? What sort of organisation does it need to be now and in the future?
You will find our answers to these and other questions in the full Next on 4 document that we will distribute at the conclusion of today's event. In this presentation, however, we are concentrating on two key questions. What distinct public value does Channel 4 currently deliver? And will we still need it to carry out this unique public role in the future?
This presentation will describe four end purposes of Channel 4, intended to supplement our existing remit. It will explain how Channel 4 will remain broad in its approach but put more emphasis on serving younger audiences with high-quality public service content. It will examine the key partnerships necessary for us to achieve our public goals, especially with independent producers. It will outline new accountability and governance measures. It will, of course, address funding. And, perhaps most importantly, it will highlight some new ways in which we plan to deliver our public purposes in our programmes and content.
Let me first attempt to capture the distinct public value we currently deliver, which has been reflected back to us so strongly in our audience research.
Channel 4 is hardly alone in commissioning content for British viewers. But what is unique about Channel 4, what distinguishes us from all our competitors, is our focus on bringing creative innovation from the margins into the mainstream.
There is minimum public benefit from creative risks for small audiences on niche services. Channel 4 delivers maximum public value by taking risks that others avoid. It finds imaginative ways to engage the largest possible audience with new talent, ideas and perspectives. Our experiments take place in peaktime, week in week out. They are on a scale big enough to make a difference not just to British media, but to Britain itself. Channel 4's creative innovations have enriched our culture and shaped social attitudes over the last 25 years.
Of course, not everything we do involves risk - with only limited public support, commercial certainties are needed to fund innovation. But even where our objectives are commercial, we aim to remain distinctive in our approach.
Our remit has served us well over 25 years. In the digital world we now need to be even clearer about the end benefits of Channel 4. We have therefore framed four core purposes to describe the positive public impact we aim to have on the lives of viewers and society at large. Above all, our viewers want to be entertained, but they also appreciate the social value of Channel 4 programmes that question, challenge and inform.
More than any other broadcaster or multi-media network, we aim to:
- Nurture new talent and original ideas
- Champion alternative voices and fresh perspectives
- Challenge people to see the world differently
- Inspire change in people's lives
These purposes are fundamental to Channel 4's public role and I'd like to explore each in more detail. First, to nurture new talent and original ideas.
For Channel 4, new talent is not about a few user generated clips on its website. We commit massive resource to finding, nurturing and promoting new talent to a wider audience. We believe this enables us to offer the most innovative and risk-taking programmes on television.
No other broadcaster has slots dedicated to new talent in its peak schedule - Three Minute Wonder, Comedy Lab, our First Cut new documentary strand.
No other broadcaster gives so much space to new talent when casting drama and comedy or assembling writing and production teams. Our feature film activities emphasise development funding, short films and low budget features.
We pride ourselves on starting the careers of talented people who go on to have an impact on mainstream culture. We've asked a handful to say a few words.
Video Transcript
I don't attribute, you know, my success or anything to Channel 4 because I'm just not generous-spirited enough. Uhm, I like to think it really was all down to me.
Channel 4 has meant to my career, having one.
I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing now if it hadn't have been for Channel 4.
Channel 4's transformed my career. Whoever thought that any television station would commission a series about archaeology that would run for 16 years and and still do fantastically well in the ratings.
Channel 4 has meant for me overall room to grow and make shows that are grown-up.
I think for idiosyncratic film makers like myself who are trying and perhaps not always successfully to invent new ways of seeing and doing things Channel 4 is still a place where you can find a space to do that.
Without Channel 4 there I don't think there would have been a career unless you count smashing up dead mice from a pet shop that are meant to be python food as a career... do ya?
What has Channel 4 meant for my career? Well, considering I haven't made a single television programme for any other channel, quite a lot really.
When I started Popworld I literally had no clue how to present, I'm not sure that I do now, but uhm, I like the fact that Channel 4 have been really patient and also quite nurturing.
For me Channel 4 has been about getting out of the ivory tower.
Channel 4 let me be on television when no one else would.
Channel 4 has meant pretty much everything for my career cos it's been the launch pad for me.
Channel 4 sort of is my career now, thanks to them.
I made My Beautiful Launderette which changed everything: changed everything for me, changed everything for the British cinema.
Channel 4 has meant that I've got to play in a brilliant TV series and play a very different character to what to what I normally played.
Channel 4 ah in terms of my career... well not just my career really, I think, just in general Channel 4 has just made me a better man.
It was really being encouraged to follow the ideas ah sort of the wilder ideas on the outside of ones brain rather than taking the most obvious ones that are the safest ideas. I think Channel 4's always been interested in doing things that aren't the obvious ones.
Channel 4 oozes confidence with that amount of arrogance because they're pushing the boundaries out, so in terms of where it sits for me and my career, you know, it's the perfect match. It's me, there's no there's no there's no set up, it's real and... it's raw.
End of Video Transcript
Andy Duncan Continues...
Our second purpose is to champion alternative voices and fresh perspectives. Throughout the schedule we celebrate the diversity of culture in Britain today, illuminating parts of society rarely seen in mainstream media. Programmes like Cutting Edge offer compelling snapshots of modern lives.
Our third purpose is to challenge people to see the world differently.
We give a platform to powerful, sometimes controversial viewpoints. We are willing to face uncomfortable truths. We open up debate, question assumptions.
Channel 4's news and current affairs and documentary output consistently delivers against this purpose. We are currently airing 40 week runs for both True Stories and Dispatches.
In the complex 21st century world we inhabit, as the audience fragments into infinite digital niches, Channel 4's delivery against these purposes is more important than ever.
Our last core purpose is to inspire change in people's lives. We want to stimulate them with new learning, encourage changes in behaviour that impact directly on their quality of life. We have a long history of liberating, practical advice and developing accessible formats with educational intent. The success of Jamie's School Dinners, our Lost for Words literacy season and this year's Big Food Fight shows Channel 4 can be a powerful force for social change.
These purposes capture the unique and valuable public role that Channel 4 currently plays in British media. But this brings us to our second key question. Do we still need Channel 4 to carry out this role in an age of fully digital media?
Our answer is: more than ever.
Let me explain.
Some will argue Channel 4's public role is less relevant and deliverable as mass-media gives way to my-media. It is getting harder to connect large audiences with unfamiliar, more challenging material. Viewers and users are being informed and empowered by digital media in new ways, from Wikipedia to blogs of all types and intentions.
In this emerging landscape, however, Channel 4's scale and cross platform structure increasingly distinguish us from our competitors. Audiences considered small in analogue television become very large in on-demand digital media. Channel 4 becomes one of only a handful of places where you can even encounter the mainstream, let alone shape it through innovation.
We believe digital media offers us the potential to deliver our remit more effectively than ever. The technology transforms our audience's ability to create, access and engage with content in imaginative and compelling ways. This is already transforming some areas of our provision.
We have redirected the £6 million we invest in schools programming into digital media. This is adding a new dimension to our educational impact with younger audiences, by making our content more engaging and accessible. Our City of Vice game has already attracted 150,000 users online, with an average game time of 20 minutes.
New digital technology also makes it easier for Channel 4 to identify the best of new British creativity.
For example, our talent outreach efforts in comedy have been limited in the past by the hours we could dedicate. Now any viewer can script, perform and film their own comedy sketch and upload it onto YouTube or Channel 4's own website, 4Laughs. Our talent net can be made finer and cast wider. Channel 4 has unique experience of identifying the best new comic talent and an integrated network that permits us to progress it into the mainstream.
This talent ladder exists in other genres. Would-be documentary makers, who have uploaded their first four minute films onto our 4Docs website, are already progressing to First Cut.
Digital media lets us reach out to creative talent that is geographically, socially and regionally diverse. This should cement our appeal to audiences outside the mainstream, particularly younger viewers.
In order to deliver its core purposes, Channel 4 must remain both broad and diverse. We will continue to provide something for everyone some of the time. But we will also seek to use new digital media to make more of our connection with young audiences. Channel 4 has been accused in the past of being obsessed with youth. In an age where social institutions are struggling to remain in touch with young people we should start celebrating our enduring appeal. We should make far more of this connection in pursuit of broader social goals. We must reinvent public service broadcasting for a generation that does not watch television in the way previous generations did.
So Channel 4 has a clear view of how its public role can develop in digital media. Our relationship with our independent suppliers will be key to helping us achieve our creative goals in this new world, as it has been in television throughout our history.
As a publisher broadcaster, Channel 4 sources all its content from third parties, most notably independent producers based across the UK. This varied supply chain delivers the most diverse schedule of any UK channel. It is the bedrock of our broader contribution to the UK's creative economy. We have helped build the sector into the dynamic and successful creative powerhouse it is today. We now want to work with our existing suppliers and other new companies so that we can have the same impact on the digital creative economy.
The Government has rightly identified the creative industries as a key battleground for UK plc in the global economy. Channel 4's annual £450 million investment in original British content supports 22,000 jobs and generates £2 billion for the UK economy. It represents an important contribution.
To allow us to continue supporting the best new creativity we need a future facing rights settlement that enables us to move swiftly and compete. To be clear, we won't be seeking to turn back the clock on previous terms of trade agreements, which have allowed independents to build businesses of scale and value. Instead we will be looking to secure a partnership that recognises that Channel 4 and independents are bound together by mutual self-interest.
To summarise. We've articulated new core purposes to describe the end benefits Channel 4 delivers. I've explained why digital media should allow Channel 4 to have even greater public impact. I've stated our ambition to deliver greater public value for young audiences, while remaining broad and diverse.
This is not some dry, theoretical exercise. We will need policy support to allow us to deliver this blueprint, but one of the benefits of Channel 4's independence is that we have the freedom to get on with delivering our vision. I'll now handover to Kevin Lygo, our Director of Television and Content, to describe how we plan to do that.
Kevin Lygo:
Thanks Andy.
So all this is to help us maintain our ability to be ambitious and take risks in the programmes and content we commission. Because that is the heart of what we do. We try to make interesting and excellent programmes. And now with digital media at our disposal we have new ways to deliver our public value.
I am going to outline four areas in which I believe we can do this.
First, we want to make more space for the new across Channel 4's network of channels and services. That is both new talent and new programmes. It gives me immense pride to see talent we have supported gain wider recognition, such as last month's Oscar for Peter and the Wolf, the fifth Oscar in four years for projects backed by Channel 4.
And so, as an example, this year August will be a New Talent Month with someone getting their first break on television every day. A script by a new writer, a first performance by a new comedian or indeed a new reporter on Channel 4 News. Later in the year we move into digital radio and here too, it will be our mission to experiment.
We will formalise our commitment to show more new programmes in peak each year on Channel 4 than any other channel. We've already successfully renewed the schedule, with the decision to rest some returning series, like Celebrity Big Brother, to make way for new ideas at 9pm. We will do more of this.
So this commitment to creative renewal will involve Channel 4 showing unrivalled levels of documentary in future. Across our channels we will air at least one new documentary every weekday - that's 260 hours in peak each year. I want us to be the home of the British documentary.
This aspect of Channel 4's public service delivery is under appreciated. We are the only mainstream commercial network consistently serving a significant audience with serious journalism and factual narratives. These programmes help society understand itself . They are disappearing from network television.
Secondly, we are determined to make more of our connection with young audiences when it comes to delivering our public purposes. In support of this we believe we can adopt a formal commissioning role for public service content aimed at older children. We're announcing today our intention to spend an initial £10 million on UK multi-media originations aimed at 10 to 15-year-olds. Older children are under served by publicly valuable domestic content. They are a natural constituency for Channel 4.
Thirdly, we want to go back to our original remit and reinvigorate our connection with minority audiences. Today we are unveiling a series of initiatives to help us achieve that. These include:
- The appointment of a new Head of Diversity to the senior executive team
- The appointment of a commissioning editor for multicultural programmes with a ring fenced budget for 9pm and 10pm.
- And we'll double the funding for our diversity placement scheme within commissioning
Lastly, we aim to extend our role as the R&D department for Britain's creative industries. We are committing today to investing £10 million a year in external training and development schemes through 4 Talent, ensuring the industry's creative workforce is constantly refreshed
Take film. Our contribution here is well documented. We want this to continue with £10 million ring-fenced each year for developing and financing British film. There will be the same emphasis on new talent, giving the Shane Meadows and Sarah Gavrons of the future their first film to make.
Off screen, we want to cast our talent net as widely as possible. We want to ensure we're working with the best talent from across the UK by increasing spend in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by 50% in the next five years.
To help us achieve our creative ambitions we plan to reduce our spend on American programmes to allow greater investment in original UK content. In five years time our annual acquisitions budget will be around £35 million lower than it is now - a 20% reduction. I hope we will continue to source the best US television for our discerning audience. But we will reduce both the volume we acquire and the amount we will spend.
What all these initiatives aim at is maintaining our ability to take creative risks and bring our audience the best programmes and content we can. Because this is what Channel 4's future should be all about. Developing, commissioning and promoting fantastic, stimulating content whatever the platform.
Andy Duncan:
Thanks Kevin.
I want to turn now to a further major initiative that we believe will add a bold new digital media dimension to the public value that Channel 4 delivers.
Channel 4 has already made good progress in developing a digital media strategy. Our digital TV channels have been relaunched as free-to-air and have achieved the highest share of viewing amongst 16 to 34-year-olds of any portfolio owned by a single broadcaster. Channel4.com is an established entertainment destination, outperforming the websites of much larger media companies. We have 3.5 million customers for our globally pioneering 4oD service who have viewed 100 million pieces of long form content. Our plans for digital radio are well publicised and are progressing.
We now need to deliver a step change in the scale of our digital media activities.
Let me be very clear about this. Television, as a medium, has a great future. Channel 4 enjoys a 12% share of all TV viewing in the UK and an audience impact that can't be achieved through any other medium. Television revenues will fund the majority of our public service contribution for years to come.
But to deliver our public purposes in the future, especially to young audiences, our blueprint has to address how we can use online media to complement our activities in television. It needs to reflect that we are now a truly multi-media organisation, seeking to distribute publicly valuable content and services on all relevant platforms.
I'd like to show you a tape that illustrates that point.
[TAPE SHOWN]
Today we are announcing a new £50 million fund for publicly valuable digital media. Channel 4 has kick-started this fund - which we are calling Four Innovation for the Public or 4IP - with up to £20 million of our own investment. I am delighted to announce that we have already attracted equivalent funding commitments from partners including Advantage West Midlands, Invest Northern Ireland, NESTA, Scottish Enterprise and Yorkshire Forward.
Here are some examples of projects we are developing.
We are working with partners such as Bebo to explore ways in which news and current affairs can be re-invented for a social networking audience
We want to reinvent other established PSB genres to reach new audiences on-line. We are partnering with the governing bodies of 14 sports that will be included in the 2012 Olympics programme. We need similarly big ideas in comedy and drama.
Channel 4 will explore how games technologies can be put to more dynamic public purpose. We will engage with proven hotspots of games creativity such as the Games Republic in Yorkshire and Interactive Tayside, where we have a relationship with Dare to Be Digital.
There are other ideas involving education, training and also navigation. We will find brilliant ideas that already exist and bring them to more people.
An investment on this scale from Channel 4 is a guarantee of high-quality content of UK origin. It will give a boost to the fledgling digital media production sector. Our intention is to help galvanise the public realm online; to begin delivering the sort of social benefits that have resulted from public interventions in broadcast media. These are not tasks that should be left solely to the BBC anymore than in TV or radio.
We do not pretend to have all the answers about our public role online, but I believe we have the right culture of experiment and partnership and the necessary scale to make a meaningful contribution. We want to be a leading aggregator of content which has public value. We aim to provide seed corn funding for a new generation of diverse creative talent working in digital media. In support of this we will adopt a fully cross-platform commissioning model.
This new digital media fund sits at the heart of our broader strategic blueprint. With the other steps we have outlined today, it represents a milestone for Channel 4. Channel 4 is an idea that has worked brilliantly for the last 25 years in television. We are very excited by the challenge of proving its potential to work even more powerfully in the new digital age.
Ever since I joined Channel 4, I have argued consistently that we should remain a public purpose organisation. If the BBC is the cornerstone of our public service broadcasting system, I believe, more than ever, that Channel 4 is the cornerstone for providing the essential ingredient of plurality.
Luke Johnson:
Of course, talk is cheap. Nothing we have promised has meaning unless we can demonstrate delivery and give proper account of the public value that results.
I believe the governance and accountability measures that Channel 4 currently has in place are sound. However, we recognise all public sector organisations are expected to give better account of the value they deliver and to interact more dynamically with end users of their services. We are looking, therefore, at introducing new measures to improve our governance and accountability.
We have already appointed the channel's first ever Viewers Editor to ensure that audience feedback is heard and acted on at the most senior levels within Channel 4. Today we are announcing a new content sub-committee of the board to review delivery of our public service remit from an editorial perspective. We will establish a new Public Value framework, in consultation with Ofcom. This will include a basket of measures to capture how effectively Channel 4 is delivering its public purposes. We will publish an annual statement of public value alongside our report and accounts.
We have deliberately left funding to the last within this presentation. This blueprint of Channel 4's future public role is ambitious but it is currently affordable and realistic. We are doing all we can in terms of commercial efficiency and self-help to sustain the public value we deliver. Longer term, however, it depends on replacing the subsidy we currently receive in the form of gifted analogue spectrum, with new forms of public support of equal value.
We believe the support we are requesting is justified given the public value we deliver. It is equivalent to around 15% of Channel 4's total income and to the value we have historically derived from gifted spectrum. It must be delivered in a form that gives Channel 4 financial stability and preserves its independence from editorial interference. This is the moment for absolutely clarity - we believe Channel 4's ability to invest in greater creative risk would not survive a transfer into private ownership, which is why the board unanimously rejects the option of privatisation. It is Channel 4's independence from shareholders, as much from Government, that permits its distinctiveness.
New subsidy will underwrite the direct social benefits that derive from the plans we have outlined today. It will ensure vigorous plurality of publicly valuable content, keeping the BBC on its toes. It will boost British creativity - every pound spent on Channel 4 delivers greater benefit to the wider economy.
Most importantly it will underwrite our ability to continue taking risks, which has been so key to Channel 4's success over the last 25 years. It will allow us to continue to commission content that matters, that is different, that stirs public debate. Remarkable documentaries such as China's Stolen Children. Ground-breaking drama like Skins. Compelling reality like The Secret Millionaire. Stunning feature films like This is England. Extraordinary one-off dramas like Longford. Bold seasons like Lost for Words on child literacy. Cult comedy like Peep Show. A whole range of digital media content and services.
These are the things that will disappear if we do not deliver our vision of Channel 4 - a publicly owned media network of even greater impact in the future than in the first 25 years of its existence.
I'm now going to hand over to Jon Snow to chair a brief question and answer session. But first, let's play a final film that summarises much of what we've been talking about.
Thank you.
Finale Video Transcript
Trevor Phillips, Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission: First thing we saw was the exploding 4 and at that time that was... weird. An then we thought, bloody hell, we're in for something here, aren't we?
"WE WILL HAVE A SHOW OF OUR OWN!"
"YEAH!"
Roger Graef, Producer and Director: I think Channel 4 has been a bit like a kind of rogue uncle in the family. You're worried he might get a little bit drunk, you're not quite sure what he's going to say, but you can't wait til he arrives.
"A PINT, AND A BUCKET OF ICE FOR MY GREAT BIG BOLLOCKS."
Tony Hall, Non-Executive Director, Channel 4: Programmes that surprise, programmes that delight, programmes that tell you new things, and programmes that take on the big bastions of power and are not afraid to do that.
"WHEN THE GOVERNMENT'S COMMUNICATIONS CHIEF IS HIMSELF PART OF THE STORY, ISN'T IT TIME HE RESIGNED?"
"OH, FOR HEAVENS SAKE!"
John Whittingdale MP, Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee: It has undoubtedly met its remit of providing programming which probably wouldn't have been made by any other channel, and that has to be a good thing.
"I KNOW WHO YOU ARE, AND EVERYTHING THAT YOU ARE. I AM YOU."
Lord Chris Smith, Director, The Clore Leadership Programme: It has spoken to audiences that don't fall naturally into what one would call mainstream.
Oona King, Writer and Broadcaster: It's a microcosm of Britain itself, especially now, 21st century Britain.
John Willis, Chief Executive, Mentorn: It's encouraged new talent, it's encouraged writers, directors, presenters, it's broadened the number of voices that you hear in the British media. And in the end it's made us and encouraged us to be, I think, a more kind of open and tolerant society.
"SHE SEEMS TO BE TAKING THE WHOLE CATHOLIC THING A BIT SERIOUSLY, TED."
"YES, DOUGAL."
Shane Meadows, Director, 'This is England': You don't have to have come through the obvious routes of great education, film school. You can, you know, get caught pinching a breast pump, as I did, and still make it.
"YOU'RE FUCKING THERE, ME."
John McVay, Chief Executive, PACT: It's about ambition, and about a different place where people feel they can take their ideas and where there's different voices.
Sarah Gavron, Director, 'Brick Lane': There really are so few places in Britain that are prepared to back new filmmakers. Channel 4 can take those risks and therefore you do get these new voices emerging.
"YOU'RE A PROPER LITTLE SKINHEAD THEN, YEAH?"
"YEAH."
[Laughs]
Alex Fraser, Creative Director, Maverick Television: I think the Channel's always been very creative and entrepreneurial in its attitude to working with regional companies.
John McVay: It should be a space where someone from Inverness or Bradford feel that they should be on the telly on a Saturday night and not the person that's there just now.
Shane Meadows: Maybe there is 1,000 production companies in London but if we can find some more spread out over the country then the television is going to feel a lot more representative
"HIYA"
Jeremy Hunt MP, Conservative Shadow DCMS Secretary of State: The success of the sector is because we have plurality of provision of public service broadcasting and that's where Channel 4 has played such an important role.
Andy Burnham MP, DCMS Secretary of State: It's helpful for there to be more than once voice, more than one, eh, provider out there, it creates a helpful, eh, competitive tension and pressure in the system.
Lord Puttnam, Deputy Chairman, Channel 4: This issue of plurality of public broadcasting is very central, and will be one of the, I think, one of the really big issues over the next five years.
Tony Hall: We've got to get a lot better at talking about the public service value of the things that we do. And that's not saying we're going to make programmes that are boring or tedious, far from it. Doing programmes that really do entertain but also tell people things that are new.
"WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THE CHICKEN AND THE EGG."
"THIS IS A SAD REALITY OF WHERE YOUR EGG COMES FROM."
Oona King: I think there's definitely a gap in terms of what's available online and Channel 4 is the organisation I would think that best knows how to fill it creatively.
Don Foster MP, Lib Dem Shadow DCMS Secretary of State: We got to be providing more and more online content that truly is interesting, innovative and reaching out to wide audience, not least to younger audiences who are missing out on what's being offered on the more traditional platforms.
SOUND OF EXPLOSIONS AND SHOUTING
Lord Puttnam: We're heading into a very difficult century and the provision of information during that century is going to be fundamental.
"I'VE HATED THE LAST FEW DAYS."
"WHY? IN YEARS TO COME YOU MIGHT COME TO SEE THEM AS YOUR FINEST HOUR."
John Willis: The very best television usually comes when someone's taken a risk and Channel 4 is right in the vanguard of risk-taking.
"WHAT ABOUT AL PACINO AS ARTHUR SCARGILL?"
John Willis: If it stops taking risks then I think the game will be up.
Trevor Phillips: It has to keep the courage to fail.
Jeremy Hunt: We need to have creative risk-taking, we need to have an organisation that has the freedom to perhaps push the boundaries in a way that other organisations find much harder.
Roger Graef: Samuel Beckett said if at first you don't succeed, fail again, fail better and Channel 4 needs to allow us to do that.
Andy Burnham: It should carry on being provocative and innovative, eh, all of the things that are its traditional strengths but all the time getting out those regional, local voices to the widest possible audience.
Shane Meadows: I think TV would be massively boring without it and we'd probably still be watching "Sorry with Timothy..." whatever-his-name-was and, you know, all that kind of cack.
Chris Smith: Channel 4 being there, pushing the boundaries, doing new things, speaking to new audiences, giving the BBC a bit of a run for its money, is one of the very best things in British broadcasting.
Jon Snow: Q&A Time
JON SNOW: Go for it...
NIGEL EVANS: Nigel Evans, I'm a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee. I got in touch with Andy after The Great Climate Change Swindle was shown, one of the best and most controversial programmes I've ever seen on television, particularly for those who don't like being spoonfed by Al Gore. So, I just want to piece it down as to how much you think this new subsidy would cost and what would your reaction be if that was to be top-sliced, or the suggestion that it should be top-sliced from the BBC budget?
JON SNOW: Andy?
ANDY DUNCAN: I think I think... definitely not going to comment today on what we think might be the best mechanism for addressing the funding gap. That's for another day, that's for after Easter, there's an Ofcom process, there's a government process to look at that. Having said that I think that that's a matter for the next few months, it's not years. On the issue of the gap itself, there's a lot of misunderstanding and I think it's important to understand two or three key points. Channel 4 has always been subsidised. On average over 25 years the equivalent that the Treasury could have got had it been paid for that spectrum is an average of £150m a year in current money, over £2billion has been actually subsidised into Channel 4 in its history. And actually we've been a great return on that investment - the programmes we've made, the competition to the BBC and, as I said in the speech, we've generated a huge amount for the economy because all that money gets pumped back out more widely. And what Luke said is exactly how we see it. We want effectively a continuation of that ratio, about 85% commercially self-funded as we've always been, about 15% that needs to be public support, the kind of cushion if you like for all the day-to-day trade-off decisions we take on putting an hour of news in peak, Dispatches on Monday nights at 8 o'clock, investment in film, all the other things that Kevin and Luke and I have referred to. So actually all we're really saying is the same that we've always had, but just find a modern mechanism to do that. And crucially as Luke's said, as in the last 25 years we've still been able to be independent and take creative risks and it's very important any new mechanism has the appropriate accountability and transparency but also allows the organisation to do what ultimately we're there to do.
JS: Ed Richards is here from Ofcom, I wonder whether you have any sort of instant thought as a result of this presentation. [Laughs]
ED RICHARDS: Well you know I said a few days ago that I thought that now was the time for Channel 4 to redefine itself and reset itself with the same ambition and panache with which it was launched 25 years ago. I said that because I think the traditional model that we've had for public service broadcasting has gradually been breaking down and we are on the cusp of a great new digital media age. So I think the challenges are very clear. I would say that I think this morning is a very impressive response to that challenge. It set a number of challenges for a range of other organisations including ourselves, but the central thrust of what I think Andy, Luke and Kevin were saying which is that we value Channel 4's remit, we value what it does, we think it can play a central role in the future of public service broadcasting, not just in linear television but across new media, and that it's role as providing plurality to the BBC and the range of other organisations across the market is absolutely central. And I think we have made no secret of the importance which we attach to plurality, we've made no secret of the fact that we think Channel 4's future should be as a key part of our public service broadcasting system. So I very much welcome what I've heard this morning, I'll want to look at it in more detail over the next day or two, but I think it does set the challenge for a range of organisations to respond.
JS: Thanks very much Ed. Tom, and if people could just say who they are so that the internet viewing...
TOM McNALLY: Tom McNally, House of Lords, I was a member of the Puttnam Committee. Just to follow on those first two interventions. I think you've presented this morning an inspirational relaunch which will give you support across the parties in both houses. But the danger is that you get moved into a squalid squabble with the BBC about the future of the licence fee. And although I understand, Andy, that it may be for the future, politicians are simple souls, and the sooner you can make some positive suggestions of how much you want, when you need it, and how it can be provided without getting into that squabble with the BBC, the better your many friends in both houses can get behind you.
JS: Luke
LUKE JOHNSON: Yes, well I don't think you'll have to wait for many months for those answers.
JS: Good, perhaps I can take, I'll take a couple actually and then, yup
HAMISH PRINGLE: Hamish Pringle from the IPA, the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising. You've said that 85% of your revenues will continue to come from advertisers and advertising, and you've also said that you're going to target young people, or reaffirm your focus on young people. How do feel then about all the threats to advertising to those young people, how is that going to affect your future security?
JS: Park that for a second and conclude the second question, here, from the woman there.
KAY WITHERS: Hi, Kay Withers from the Institute for Public Policy Research. We've just been doing some research on young people and I think your approach is absolutely right, they've shown that they have really kind of strong recognition of Channel 4 online and really trust the brand. And I just wondered if there's an opportunity to tie two agendas together. Obviously in a digital age you shouldn't see young people as simply consumers and at the same time, as I say, they're not necessarily sophisticated or experienced creators. So, if we're going to have the creative industry workforce of the future is there an opportunity to make sure the digital media fund can also contribute to supporting young people to be able to meaningfully participate and engage with content and create their own content online?
JS: Kevin?
KEVIN LYGO: Yes, well on the advertising point I think that I'm certainly of the belief that if, you know, the kind of if you build it they'll come thing. I don't think anybody really commissions a programme or a successful programme in my experience thinking ah this will hit those 17 year-olds bang on the nose. You take a risk on people you believe in, creative intelligent talented people, you create the space, that's what we do here, for them to try out whatever it is they want to do. And if you get it right, which the Channel has done pretty successfully for many years, then they will come and then you advertisers will want to be part of that. And so I think it's the same attitudes that have always been in everything that Channel 4 has done. It's about experimenting, you know, taking risks, it's about trying to just make programmes we believe will be good. And when you get it right like Skins or Fonejacker that are on at the moment, you see people come, and they appreciate it. They don't know what it is before they see it, but once you give it to them, they're very clear about what they like. So I'm quite confident about us finding, you know, endlessly reinventing what we might make that will attract younger audiences. We've got this great heritage towards them they're more inclined to find things on Channel 4 than they are on the BBC, say, so I think that's what we're making such a big deal of this, we want to make more of it, and keep them coming.
JS: Andy, the IPPR?
AD: Just to be clear the 85% is all of our commercial revenues, so advertising is definitely the biggest part of that but not the only part of that but the pressure you're pointing to is one of the reasons we've got this funding problem. There's no doubt about it that we can't get everything to add up over the next few years. So as Luke said in the speech earlier on, we're doing an awful lot ourselves, whether that's overhead cutting, and lots of restructuring going on within the building to keep numbers down, we're doing a lot of commercial ventures, things like the jv we did with Emap and other things that we're doing to try to earn new revenue sources. It's incredibly hard and I think that somewhere in the system there just needs to be that kind of cushion. But yes at the end of the day advertising will still be the biggest part but I think Kevin's point what we're putting out today although it's very much a public purpose agenda we think will allow us to remain very attractive to commercial advertisers still.
JS: ...this point of access for young people to the digital fund?
AD: Well I think that's part of what Kevin was talking about in terms of some of the talent schemes that we already run. I think the digital media fund is an interesting point. I think there may well be the 4IP there may well be the chance to do some of what you were pointing to. We already do a lot already and Kevin's mention of the 10 million fund, Kevin, might be worth saying...
KL: Well I just think we're corralling everything we do, doing more of it, because yes, it's terribly important we involve this age group in everything we do but you know you can't... if you take the BBC when they specifically target teenagers it's always slightly embarrassing, and [GENERAL LAUGHTER] I think, that you know, you get in trouble with chasing teenagers and I think the great thing about Channel 4 is it, you know, it doesn't have to try too hard, we instinctively kind of just work in this area and people come and I think it would be a mistake to, you know, just throw millions of pounds at lots of young people sitting in their homes to say, ooh come on create something, you know, you need to show them what excellence is and they will find it and they will appreciate it and then they can join in, I think that's the way to do it.
JS: It's very shocking, sometimes you're recognised by, I am, sometimes, by teenagers, and you think good God, they watch, it's a shocking reality [GENERAL LAUGHTER]. Roger?
ROGER GALE: Thanks very much, Roger Gale, Member of Parliament. My guess is that the members of both houses of Parliament who are here this morning are here as friends, if critical friends. You ducked the... [IN RESPONSE TO JON SNOW] I'm about to... You ducked the answer to Nigel's question, you ducked the answer to Tom McNally's question, so let's try a third time. You want about 125 to 150 million quid in subsidy. You're a public service broadcaster but you're also competing with others who feel that you're taking advertising out of their mouths and their pockets. The money you want can only come from two places. It either comes from the taxpayer or it comes from the BBC licence payer which is the taxpayer. Now with respect you can't walk out of here this morning and say later on we will tell you how much we want and where it's going to come from. You've got to have a shot of it this morning.
AD: On the first of your questions we're extremely clear, on the how much we think the issue is. So, about a billion pound organisation, we have about a hundred million pound gap that we believe is emerging by 2012 and that has been modelled by Ofcom and by LEK and by ourselves and there's a lot of agreement about that figure. The two things we've announced today, the children's pilot and the digital media fund pilot, we will fund the pilots, if they're successful they're the only extra things over and above that 100 million pound gap, so as you say the region we're in is somewhere between 100 and 150 million pounds, 15% roughly of our total turnover. To your point, historically the way we've been funded is actually at the taxpayer's expense, money that the Treasury could otherwise have raised that it hasn't raised because we haven't had to pay for the spectrum. And going forward, I mean Ofcom, Ed was saying this the other day, Ofcom have six or seven ideas they want to explore about the ways that funding generally not just for Channel 4 but funding generally for psb could be looked at. And I think there is a need to do it quickly, as Luke said, we want to try to do that relatively quickly, but there's also a need to do it properly and I think there's six or seven interesting ideas that need to be properly explored with the pros and cons and as we stand today we do not have a preferred answer to that question yet. We need to get there quickly, I agree with you.
JS: Yes?
CLAIRE FOX: Claire Fox, Institute of Ideas. I was reassured by Kevin's promise that he won't chase young people and actually I'm very excited by a lot of the proposals today. But there is obviously, I want more reassurance in a way that Channel 4 might abandon some of its more puerile kind of sensationalism in order to attract attention to itself which I think most of us here will recognise at least. You sound as though you're very serious now but I just want to know that you're you know seriously not going to put on a great documentary with the most ridiculously stupid title because you think that's the kind of thing that people will get. I'm very excited about the 10 to 15 year old provision, and I just wondered, I mean that's what British TV needs, programmes for that age group, but what I'm concerned about I suppose is how you avoid ghettoisation. All your talk about youth, the new diversity officer and so on, there is a kind of danger of the kind of parallel lives. I can live with programmes for 10 to 15 year olds but if you're going to have youth segments, you know, ethnic minority segments, we all know that politically that has created serious problems in terms of not creating a united society at all but actually one that looks at each other with suspicion, so how do you not do that?
JS: I want to take that and include two questions here, one and two.
PETER BALE: Peter Bale from Microsoft, just the MSN bit of Microsoft. I'd like to hear a little bit more from Kevin about his ideas about getting news to younger people. It's kind of intriguing that you're doing it with Bebo, I'd like you to do it with us (GENERAL LAUGHTER). And also just to make a mention of this that I thought your piece recently on Nigeria on Lagos in that piece you did on cities was one of the finest pieces of contemporary journalism which changed how we're going to approach stories of that kind for younger people so I'd be really interested to hear what how you're going to get kids or younger people more interested in the news.
JS: Good, thanks very much and a final one, Steve Hewlett?
STEVE HEWLETT: Steve Hewlett, I'm sorry, just to clarify, I'm getting a bit confused about which hundred million is a hundred million. The LEK report, the Ofcom enquiry into Channel 4's finances, was based upon the proposition, as I understand it, that in revenue terms, money in, expenditure out, Channel 4 was going to run into trouble at some point, and estimates as to how what that deficit would be varied. LEK I think came to 30 between 30 and 50 million, erring on the higher side by 2012 with lots of uncertainties. In addition to which there's the question you now raise of the implicit subsidy that Channel 4 has received by being given free airspace. Now that's never been cash. The idea that someone's going to replace an implicit subsidy which may have given you a headstart but is money no one ever had with cash that they're going to pay out from another source is possibly fanciful but isn't it a different question? Isn't the critical question how is Channel 4 in terms of revenues and expenditure going to manage its affairs in the digital future?
JS: OK, so we have ghettoisation, youth content, cash - virtual cash.
KL: Right, anyone there? OK, let's go for the...
JS: You go for the ghettoisation.
KL: OK, ghettos. Well I'm glad you're seeing the bigger picture with programme titles (GENERAL LAUGHTER). I'm sorry if some of the titles you don't like, I'll try and change all of those.
JS: Do you like 'Iraq Unspun'? That's what I'm doing on Wednesday night. 11 o'clock.
KL: Yes, there you are, you see? Vulgar, vulgar John, vulgar. Do you know, it comes back to the thing I was saying earlier, I think that you're right, you shouldn't make sort of ghetto-like programmes, that would be a terrible backward step and a mistake and so, you know, you've got to remember if we're aiming at young people they're not, the last thing they'll come to is a programme that is sort of, that they're told to watch. And so when they come in their great numbers to something like Skins it's not only that age group that's there, they find good things, you know, loads of teenagers watch Eastenders or... all sorts of things. And so, I hear your concern about, you know, specific, targeting, niche, slightly patronising programme and, no, that would be terrible if we did that so I absolutely have no intention of doing that.
JS: MSN's seduction ploy?
KL: Yes, I'll see you later sir [GENERAL LAUGHTER]. I think we're going to talk about exactly what we're going to do later and it is, we've kind of announced it all today, and the I suppose we've started from the position of we don't want to replicate what the BBC does 'cos they do a fantastic job with their news online and we want to take the same approach that infuses all our current news and current affairs output which is, you know, this different approach, slightly more in depth, asking questions, it's not exactly a pure BBC news service, it's asking more questions, delving a bit deeper, we spend more time with our news, remember our news is the only one that's an hour, let alone makes the programme different. And so I think the idea is to use what we know about our audiences to help inform the type of news that we're going to put out there and the way that we do it. But we'll be announcing all of that later.
AD: And I think another very important point to add, in terms of the 4 Innovations for the Public fund, at its very heart it's about partnerships, at its very heart it's about experiments. So yes Bebo happen to be one partner that we're talking to about that project at the moment, but actually by its nature we want to experiment with news online with as many different partners and organisations that want to partner with us and that's the principle of the whole fund. And Jon Gisby who's our Director of New Media and Technology will be very involved, Stuart who's been involved in setting up some of the partnerships to date are very open to any organisation anywhere in Britain that wants to come and join in with that fund with ideas, with resources, with money, and actually I'm cautiously optimistic we'll find there's a huge amount of interest out there and it is a pilot, it is to experiment, so the more people we can pilot with and experiment with, the better, so you've got a very welcome invitation to be part of that as has, frankly, any other organisation in Britain, I think it's really important.
JS: Luke, conjuring real cash from what was notional?
LJ: Well, Steve Hewlett's point that we're not being specific enough about the subsidy - we're not geniuses, we can't predict the future in five years time, I don't think there's a media organisation in the country that knows where they're going to be in revenue and cost terms in three years time. We're making a best guess, as LEK and Ofcom have, that the subsidy will be of the order that's already been mentioned. There is no doubt that we have had a significant subsidy because if you take ITV, for example, they have paid very significant fees for their spectrum over the decades which we haven't had to pay. It depends really - the big bottom line is - how much do we all value Channel 4? If we really value Channel 4 and care about what it's been doing for the last 25 years, and see the added value to society and to the creative industries and to broadcasting as a whole, and believe that there is a place for that in the next 25 years, which I passionately do, then it needs some support. Actually over the last four years, since I've been involved, I think we've defied economics to a degree and we've performed remarkably well economically considering the pressures that traditional media companies have been under, but that won't continue forever. And if you think that having a single public service broadcaster, a monolithic organisation ultimately, is good for Britain's culture, and good for our society, then I think you're wrong. I think we provide an important, diverse, challenging rival to that great monolith and I think it's very important. And I think you're here today because ultimately you believe that. And so therefore we must between us all, that's the regulator and Channel 4 itself and Parliament, who will make the ultimate decision, come up with a solution.
JS: And... thank you very much [GENERAL APPLAUSE]. We're into our last two minutes and I'd just like to ask Ed Richards to come back.
ER: Well just a quick follow-up on the funding issue. I think there is no doubt that the general funding position of Channel 4 is very different to what it was and that will continue to change. And, as Luke said, I think he's right, no one can possibly predict absolutely what will happen, let's not get into that game. I think the more fundamental question is this one about what kind of role do we want as a society Channel 4 to play? And if you then will the ends, you have to start thinking about the means, and I think that is the live question. Now I understand the impatience of a number of people in the room, particularly the MPs, to know what the answer or the proposal is, and indeed many people are impatient for that answer. But equally there are, in fact, a range of different ways one can tackle this problem. They need to be thought through properly. We have brought forward our psb review, as I think Andy mentioned, by two years in order to try and help identify the issues and resolve that problem in a timely way. And that's what we will try and do and then pass the issue to the Government and Parliament for final resolution. But we do need to do it properly and thoroughly because any decisions in relation to Channel 4 are likely to have impacts for others, whether it be advertisers or other broadcasting organisations, so it needs to be done properly and thoroughly.
JS: Whilst the funding issue is obviously an enormous and important one, in the end today was about content. You see around the walls here the green shoots that have been achieved in the first 25 years [GENERAL LAUGHTER], but they are also shoots that are in very full and lustrous bloom, blooms that have intensified in the course of today's presentations [GENERAL LAUGHTER], and what we want you to do is to take away part of what you saw on the screens: the irreverence, the risks, the danger, the commitment, the strength, and the determination to go forward. And to remember also what Luke said, of course, about the financial aspects too. But we're about content, and the future's about content, and we want to travel with you to secure content, good content, for all time, for everybody, so thank you very much indeed for coming.
[GENERAL APPLAUSE]
End of transcript.
