Channel 4 has the chance to rebrand itself

Published on Thursday 8 July 2004 03:43

ANDY Duncan moves into the chief executive’s job at Channel 4 with the plaudits of no less than Greg Dyke ringing in his ears. But the mood inside the channel’s Westminster glass-and-metal headquarters is more apprehensive about the elevation of the BBC’s marketing director precisely because he is a marketing man rather than a broadcaster.

Duncan marketed margarine (among other things) for Unilever before he moved to the BBC, which does not always endear him to broadcasting types. It also means that Channel 4 is now run by a chairman (restaurant entrepreneur Luke Johnson) and a chief executive who have never commissioned or produced programmes, which some might find odd for a television company that commissions and produces programmes.

Duncan’s marketing skills are not in doubt (he played a seminal role in the successful launch of the BBC’s Freeview multi-channel platform), even if the more traditional types at the Beeb did not always appreciate his ad-speak. But even the best marketing men need something of substance from which to create an image and the Channel 4 brand is no longer as distinctive as it was.

Any channel that broadcasts Big Brother, Test Match cricket, Channel 4 News and Monday’s superb documentary on the sinking of the Belgrano is certainly eclectic, but such a potpourri of programmes does not necessarily gel into a distinguishing brand in the multi-channel age.

There are those who doubt Channel 4 can survive for long as a stand-alone operation (it is a state-owned entity with a public-service remit but must survive on advertising revenues).

Ofcom, the telecoms and broadcasting regulator, is reported to share that view, hence the tacit official support for talks to explore some sort of merger with Five, which were begun under Mark Thompson, Duncan’s predecessor who is now the director-general of the BBC.

The Observer reported at the weekend that the Treasury, the nominal owner of Channel 4, is about to appoint a City institution to carry out a valuation of the channel, which would be necessary before any merger (or privatisation - not yet on the cards) took place.

Duncan did not even know he was being considered for the top job until a few days before his appointment, so it is unlikely he has given much thought to any of this. In his public statements since his appointment, he has wisely kept all his options open.

Johnson is a deal-maker and Duncan must now agree with him what deals Channel 4 should do (with Five or a multi-channel broadcaster such as Flextech) before he can do his job as a salesman and re- position the Channel 4 brand.

What of the programmes? It was their originality and cutting edge which allowed Channel 4 to stand out from the crowd. Duncan cannot recreate a new brand image for Channel 4 unless Kevin Lygo, the channel’s head of programmes, gives him the output on which to build it.

My own view is that Monday’s Belgrano documentary which, surprisingly, concluded that the British had been right to sink it, shows the way. Channel 4 should have a bias in favour of factual programming. The authority of the Channel 4 News franchise should be spun out into documentaries and specials; Dispatches should be weekly, with regular on-air reporters, and built up into Britain’s answer to America’s 60 Minutes; and its history series, with popular TV dons like Niall Ferguson and David Starkey, expanded.

Into this mix you could intersperse some original drama and comedy (though both are expensive) - and, of course, the best from America.

I appreciate this is not a schedule which would pull in mega-ratings - but that is not Channel 4’s purpose.

Audiences would still be in their several millions, it would be different and it would appeal to the high-income and educated viewers that advertisers find so hard to reach on television; and there is increasing overseas income from high-quality factual programming, with plenty of co-production possibilities.

It is also a schedule that Duncan is well-equipped to build into a distinctive brand.

Tabloids tighten the privacy belt again

THIS page might have to start a regular privacy watch, for the screw tightens on the media almost every week.

The latest celebrity to succeed in the privacy protection business is Ewan McGregor, who this week forced an out-of-court settlement on the Sun and Daily Record for publishing pictures of him and his family on a Mauritius beach. His victory comes hard on the heels of successful actions by Sara Cox, Naomi Campbell and Princess Caroline of Monaco against paparazzi intrusion. McGregor’s victory is not quite as significant as theirs: the star of Trainspotting and Star Wars won only nominal damages of around 5,000. But the papers and picture agencies involved had to pay his substantial costs and the fact that they agreed to a settlement shows how weak the tabloids now think they are when it comes to legal action to protect privacy.

Since the pictures included his young kids, McGregor could have sought redress from the Press Complaints Commission, whose code bans photographing or interviewing children without the consent of their parents or guardians.

But, like an increasing number of celebrities, he chose the legal route instead because the chances of winning have never been greater.

The PCC now risks being marginalised on privacy matters and the days of snapping celebrities in public for no particular purpose are coming to an end.

McGregor’s damages may be pocket-money to him, but the privacy belt around the tabloids has just been tightened another notch.

MP-speak proves difficult to learn

CONGRATULATIONS to Michael Gove, a columnist at the Times, for being selected as Conservative candidate for the safe Tory seat (I assume there is still such a place) of Surrey Heath. Gove is one of the Right’s most intelligent commentators, with wide interests which cover the arts as well as politics.

When he leaves his job he will have to learn to make the transition from columnist to politician. It is not easy: serious commentators are good at conveying complicated thoughts to a small number of educated readers; politicians must communicate simple thoughts to the wider public.

This week, Boris Johnson showed how not to do it. The Spectator editor and Tory MP is now also the shadow spokesman for the arts, but his press-released reaction to Labour’s latest initiative for music in schools ("a document of Wagnerian length with more hot air than the wind section of the London Philharmonic") read more like one of his humorous columns than a politician’s rebuttal.

Would the Financial Times rather be red than read?

IT has always been a curious feature of the Financial Times that the house paper of British capitalism is a bit of a lefty.

Not only did it support Tony Blair in the 1997 and 2001 general elections (which hardly makes it a dangerous radical) but it even backed Neil Kinnock in 1992, when most business folk were appalled at the thought of him winning.

There might be something healthy about our City slickers and captains of industry being confronted with opinions different from their own natural inclinations, but I fear it is testing their patience. Take Saturday’s edition. Not only did it carry a lead editorial lauding the United States’ top anti-capitalist propagandist and Bush-hater, Michael Moore, its enjoyable magazine carried a laudatory interview with a Reagan-hating left-wing US columnist, and book reviews which severely reprimanded Encounter, a magazine for centre-right intellectuals during the Cold War, and current American foreign policy (belligerency, mendacity, irresponsibility).

I’m all for challenging readers’ perceptions, but for the FT’s hard-core loyalists, this could be several ideological steps too far.

Have they got news...

MY thanks to the Independent for (so far) The Least Surprising Headline of the Year, in its early editions yesterday: "Mandelson still harbours hopes of political comeback". You can still feel the shock waves reverberating around Westminster.