Can 4 and 5 add up to a bright new future?

Published on Wednesday 21 January 2009 20:36

IT WAS once the uncompromising and rebellious face of television, promoting the cause of minorities and shattering taboos with aplomb. Now, lacking inspiration, finance and viewers, Channel 4 finds itself suffering an early mid-life crisis.

A new, uncertain future emerged yesterday, one that looks likely to change irrevocably not only the channel's infrastructure but its very identity as a broadcaster.

Ofcom has recommended that Channel 4 should form part of a larger entity, either through a merger or partnership. The media regulator has proposed it should join forces with either Five or BBC Worldwide, the corporation's commercial arm, to deliver strong public service broadcasting.

Either move could herald a seismic shift in the nature of its programming, but few would disagree that change is needed.

A publicly owned but self-funded company, Channel 4 has become the broadcasting industry's equivalent of the Royal Mail, criticised for failing to uphold its political obligations in favour of populist programmes, and beset by commercial pressures, with a significant annual funding shortfall.

It once seemed unthinkable that the station, which first went on air in 1982 with Countdown, would suffer such hardships.

From its halcyon days in the mid-1980s through to the turn of the millennium, Channel 4 carved out a niche as the home of novel and daring programming, and it found a host of young viewers who appreciated its ethos.

The likes of Jools Holland, Chris Evans, Nick Park, Rick Mayall, Emma Thompson and Nick Broomfield all used Channel 4 to launch their careers. The titles of its most famous programmes have entered our cultural history: Comic Strip Presents, The Word, and, for better or worse, Big Brother.

It was, too, a notable financier of formidable British films, including classics such as Withnail and I, Trainspotting and The Madness of King George.

In the 1990s, however, the approach changed. Instead of unearthing raw talent from these shores, Channel 4 looked across the Atlantic and spent big money importing the best US shows, such as Friends, ER, The Sopranos and Frasier.

The quality of these shows could never be questioned, but the aim of the channel appeared to move away from innovation towards a desire for healthy ratings.

In 2000 came the one programme that perhaps more than any other heralded the demise of Channel 4's reputation as an innovator – Big Brother. The main show, and its various spin-offs, have dominated the channel for the best part of a decade and led to a flurry of similar reality TV strands.

For those who know Channel 4 best, Big Brother epitomises its downward spiral.

Sir Jeremy Isaacs, the founder of the channel and its chief executive until 1987, bemoaned last week how the station had frittered away finances on "dross".

"If they were absolutely, unmistakably dedicated to public-service broadcasting all the time, then it would be much easier for them to get the support they are looking for," he said.

"The paradox of Channel 4 is that it still does some remarkable, excellent programming, but there is so much dross that people start to think, 'why doesn't it merge with Five?' The channel should be spending far less money on things that don't contribute to public-service broadcasting."

Phil Redmond, the creator of Brookside and Hollyoaks, offered a concise, yet equally damning, take on the broadcaster.

"It was set up to cater for minorities but it seems to be locked into this narrow remit of young, funky sensationalism at a time when tranches of the population are totally unrepresented," he said.

Meanwhile, even a cursory look at Channel 4's finances reveals it is under pressure not only for the content of its schedules. Were it allowed to continue and attempt to deliver its existing remit, it is estimated by Ofcom that the channel would require funding of 60 million to 100 million a year. Channel 4 puts the figure even higher – at more than 150 million a year by 2012.

It insists such a downbeat forecast can be attributed to the current economic crisis, but increased competition for viewers and falling advertising revenues – the value of TV advertising in the UK has dropped about 750 million in the past decade – represent lasting problems.

Its digital television channels, E4 and More4, have performed well and attract healthy numbers of viewers, but the station had to abandon an ill-fated attempt to diversify into radio and has made significant cuts to its programme budgets for this year, affecting the amount of British drama and home-made shows in its schedule. This year's budget – some 530 million – is the lowest in seven years, and about 200 staff are being made redundant.

It is an unsustainable position, and only through one of the options proposed by Ofcom can the station achieve a practical and meaningful future.

The regulator believes Channel 4 could form part of a viable institution outside the BBC, providing public-service content that the market would not. Whether with BBC Worldwide, the likelier partner, or Five – an idea that has concerned advertisers who fear a loss of variety – Ofcom wants to see a new entity that would be "a broader enterprise with a more diversified approach to rights exploitation across digital media than Channel 4 has currently".

The only alternatives would be to give Channel 4 public funding directly, relieve it of its public service remit and make it a fully commercial network, or simply mothball it.

Andy Duncan, the station's chief executive, has described the idea of joining forces with the commercially-minded Five as akin to "mixing oil and water", and he said yesterday he favoured a tie-up with the BBC's commercial arm, with whom tentative talks have already taken place. "The strategic logic of brands, channels and distribution outlets Channel 4 has is very strong – you end up with something fit for purpose for the digital world," he said

In the end, the future of Channel 4 will be decided by the government, which will look at Ofcom's report, and a study, "Digital Britain", by Lord Carter, due out next week.

Pertinently, Ed Richards, Ofcom's chief executive, refused to be drawn on whether possible changes at the channel could spell the end for the likes of Big Brother.

That silence might suggest that the once-unruly teenager of British television may have to grow up for good.

BACKGROUND

IF CHANNEL 4 must produce more public service broadcasting under its new guise, it is unlikely some of the controversial television for which it is famous will ever be seen again.

At times, the station's programming has pushed back boundaries, and provoked enlightened debate not only about television, but society in general. Series like Brookside and Queer as Folk depicted gay relationships that caused upset in conservative circles, but these dramas are now regarded as key, empowering television landmarks.

Similarly, Brass Eye, the series by satirist, Chris Morris, attracted a wealth of complaints for its relentless attacks on institutions and public figures.

The Independent Television Commission, however, praised the "risk-taking" and "innovation" of the format.

Frequently, however, Channel 4 has rightly stood accused of screening gratuitously shocking content.

Late night magazine show, The Word, for instance, was panned for showing a man having a colostomy bag emptied over his head, while the Chris Evans show TFI Friday featured a guest who swore 13 times, and a live autopsy in 2002 attracted 130 complaints.

More recently, Celebrity Big Brother was at the centre of a race row, following which Ofcom ruled that Channel 4 must broadcast its adjudication.