THE planned privatisation of Channel 4 could spell the end for some independent production companies in Scotland, the boss of a Glasgow TV firm has warned.
Alan Clements, managing director of Two Rivers Media (below), has branded the proposed move by the UK Government as “cultural vandalism” and claims it would be an “existential threat” to small companies like his.
Meanwhile, he has slated ministers for not making available the results of a consultation on the channel’s ownership which apparently received around 60,000 responses.
Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries (below) said the aim is to “seek to reinvest the proceeds of the sale into levelling up the creative sector, putting money into independent production and creative skills in priority parts of the country – delivering a creative dividend for all.”
Two Rivers has been making shows for Channel 4 since the broadcaster opened a new creative hub in Glasgow in 2019 – the most famous being Escape to the Chateau which it co-produces with Chateau TV.
But Clements says even if his company had no connection with Channel 4 at all, he would still see privatisation as a terrible decision.
He told the Sunday National: “The news was surprising but not shocking, because there’s clearly an intent for the government to do this.
“I don’t know why they are so bent on doing it, because they are going to have to go to a lot of trouble to get this through Parliament for what’s not going to be a massive amount of money, by UK Government standards.
“I think it will change the media landscape of the UK irrecoverably and, I think, for the worse.
“Channel 4 are a very significant buyer for us. We have a very close relationship with them, but I would think privatisation was a terrible thing even if they weren’t investing in us.
“If they do get it through Parliament it would be an existential threat and companies would fold.”
The key reason why this move could be so damaging to small production companies is that as things stand, the rights to shows on Channel 4 sit with the producer. Channel 4 has the right to put shows on its channels and streaming services, but it does not have the rights to commercialise those shows around the world.
This means that if a show is sold abroad, the money comes back to the producer, and not Channel 4.
Any cash Channel 4 – which is publicly owned but commercially funded – does make is also reinvested in commissioning and buying programmes from mostly British TV production companies.
But if the broadcaster was privatised, Clements says any buyer would likely have little interest in working with a production company in Glasgow, especially if shows were made in-house, something Channel 4 currently does not do.
He added: “The only two ways you can create value out of Channel 4 are allowing in-house production or changing the terms of trade which currently leave the intellectual property – the ongoing value of the show – with the producer.
“The channel could potentially lose interest in independent companies if they are allowed to have their own production.
“If they changed the terms of trade, that’s terrible because production is such a low-margin business that the only real profit comes from selling-on programmes.
“Privatisation would almost certainly mean we would have less rights for a show.
“There are things that governments have to do that are really unpopular, but they have to do them. You don’t have to do this. I think this would be a really damaging thing across the UK, but particularly now in Scotland, because of Channel 4’s efforts in the last two or three years.”
Plans for the sale of Channel 4 will reportedly be set out in a White Paper later this month, and will be included in a new Media Bill for spring 2023.
It’s set to be sold for at least £1 billion before the next election, with brands such as ITV, Sky, Discovery and Paramount all said to be vying for it.
The UK Government has been hammered since announcing the decision by broadcasters, cultural icons and politicians, including former Scottish Conservative leader
Ruth Davidson. Many have suggested the move may have been made as part of a Tory agenda against the broadcaster, since it has been highly critical of the party on several occasions.
In 2019, the channel replaced Boris Johnson with a melting ice sculpture during a leadership debate on climate change. Staff had refused to accept former environment secretary Michael Gove as a stand-in.
MEANWHILE, former editor-at-large of Channel 4, Dorothy Byrne, once labelled Johnson “a known liar” in the MacTaggart lecture at Edinburgh’s television festival.
Clements has been equally scathing in his assessment of the government’s call, insisting he believes the decision may have been done “out of spite”.
“There has not even been a summary on the over 60,000 submissions that went to the DCMS [Department for Culture, Media and Sport], which is really unusual when it’s been out to consultation,” said Clements.
“I was shocked at the timing as well because it felt like with the war in Ukraine and the rising cost of living that the last thing the government needed was another fight, but clearly not.
“I have not walked down Sauchiehall Street and seen placards demanding the privatisation of Channel 4.
“If it doesn’t make any economic sense, and it’s not a massive amount of money for the treasury, it’s not really a conspiracy theory to say that it is ideological.
“This is cultural vandalism and I think it’s been done out of spite. That’s a poor way to make decisions.”
A spokesperson for the DCMS said: “Following an extensive consultation on the future ownership of Channel 4, the Culture Secretary has come to a decision and is now consulting with Cabinet colleagues.
“We want Channel 4 to flourish and thrive in the face of a rapidly changing media landscape.
“We set out our preferred option for a change of ownership to give the corporation new freedoms to innovate and grow while continuing to make an important economic, social and cultural contribution to the UK. We will publish our response to the consultation shortly.
“Channel 4 has excellent relationships with regional independent producers and there is no reason this should change. They are precisely the strengths we’d expect any potential buyer to develop through new investment to create even more jobs across the UK.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here