Channel 4 is no stranger to privatisation talk – but this feels different
Almost since Channel 4 launched 38 years ago, with the first episode of Countdown, there has been speculation that it is facing privatisation.
In January 1983, just two months after the channel launched, Kevin Goldstein-Jackson – the executive who helped launch hits like Tales of the Unexpected and who later headed the ITV franchise operator Television South West – was calling for it to be privatised.
As Margaret Thatcher’s privatisation revolution rolled on through the 1980s, the calls kept coming, often from surprising directions.
In 1987, Michael Grade, who was then managing director of BBC television and who later went on to be dubbed Britain’s ‘pornographer in chief’ when he became Channel 4’s chief executive, said “it would be a very good thing indeed for British broadcasting if that were to happen”.
The FT reported that John Whittingdale, a firm supporter of a privatisation historically, is to lead a consultation
Somehow, though, Channel 4 managed to remain state-owned. The last serious calls for the broadcaster to be privatised came after David Cameron’s 2015 general election victory, when John Whittingdale, the then Culture Secretary and Matt Hancock, the then Cabinet Office Minister, were said to be pushing for it.
A key aspect to their proposal was that it would raise up to £1bn for the government.
Now, however, privatisation talk is again in the air.
The Financial Times reported on Friday that Channel 4 will be “steered towards privatisation” by the UK government as soon as next year. It said ministers were set to launch a formal consultation within weeks on the future of the broadcaster.
This could, according to the FT, even see an outright sale of Channel 4.
Ominously for Channel 4, which has always opposed being privatised, the FT said the consultation would be run by Mr Whittingdale himself.
There are a number of reasons why the idea has resurfaced now. The first is that, in the eyes of some in government, Channel 4’s business model is under pressure. As a free-to-air broadcaster that has few programme rights to exploit, it is unusually exposed to the vagaries of the advertising market, as has been shown during the last year.
The broadcaster reported a pre-tax loss of £26m in 2019 – Channel 4 itself has put this down to the cost of opening its new site in Leeds – but then suffered a collapse in advertising revenues when the COVID-19 pandemic erupted in March last year.
Channel 4’s historic headquarters in London (pictured) has been watered down through a new site in Leeds. Pic: AP
For its part, Channel 4 itself has said that it expects to report a surplus for the year, with advertising having bounced back strongly in the second half of the year.
The broadcaster also shored up its finances with aggressive cuts to its budget during the pandemic and by taking out loans. One indication of its recovery to financial health was that it repaid furlough money to the Treasury as long ago as last autumn.
It is also argued that the rise of streaming platforms like Amazon Prime, Disney+ and Netflix and the continued strength of multi-channel television broadcasters like Sky, the owner of Sky News, makes Channel 4 vulnerable to a loss of viewers that would eventually hit its advertising revenues.
Channel 4 has responded by arguing that, in 2020, it actually raised its share of television viewing, not only in terms of linear television, but also via digital platforms. It said at the end of last year that digital viewing now accounted for one in every eight hours of Channel 4 viewing.
Despite all this ministers fear that, as a business, Channel 4 is unusually vulnerable.
Earlier this year, Oliver Dowden, the Culture Secretary, vetoed the reappointment of two of Channel 4’s directors, Uzma Hasan and Fru Hazlitt, even though both Channel 4 itself and Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator, were supportive.
It was reported at the time that Mr Dowden wanted the two women, both of whom come from a production background, replaced with new directors boasting more financial experience.
The FT reported that John Whittingdale, a firm supporter of a privatisation historically, is to lead a consultation
Another reason why privatisation may be back on the agenda is the public finances.
Some in Whitehall believe that a significant sum of money could still be made from a sale of Channel 4 – although most analysts who have run the numbers believe any sale proceeds would fall well short of the £1bn mooted six years ago.
It is also argued that a new owner for Channel 4, with deep pockets, might help ensure the quality of its output. The problem is that there are few obvious buyers out there for the channel.
Most of the big US buyers who might be interested are focused on other things while Channel 4’s relative lack of intellectual property rights – a big contrast with, for example, ITV – means there would be few gains to be made by a big media buyer.
Viacom-CBS, the owner of Channel 5, is seen as the likeliest buyer but it, too, is more focused currently on building its streaming service, Paramount+, as well as trying to shore up confidence among its investors after a calamitous drop in its share price earlier this year related to the collapse of the hedge fund Archegos Capital.
Investors also suspect Viacom-CBS will be looking to conserve capital to invest more in content as it battles it out with rivals like Netflix and Disney, whose Disney+ streaming service has strongly outperformed Wall Street’s expectations, rather than use it buying an asset like Channel 4.
Channel 4 has prided itself on alternative, original programming throughout its history. Pic: AP
Moreover, if any of the big US broadcasters were interested in acquiring a UK free-to-air broadcaster, they are far more likely to alight on ITV which, unlike Channel 4, has its own production arm in ITV Studios and far more intellectual property assets to exploit.
That might make a flotation on the stock market, which would provide Channel 4 with more access to capital, as a likelier outcome – although it has been speculated in some quarters that ITV itself might be a buyer.
Expect Channel 4 to strongly resist any attempt to privatise it.
In the past the broadcaster has been able to muster a substantial lobbying campaign, relying on members of the arts establishment, to argue that its remit to produce distinctive programming would be jeopardised by a change of ownership.
It is also likely to point to the fact that it is a major investor in British content and spends heavily with independent production companies.
That, however, is a harder argument to make when the likes of Sky and Netflix are investing record sums in British programming, when the BBC’s drama output is still scoring hits and when ITV’s production arm is in such fine fettle.
In short, a lot of the arguments Channel 4 has used to resist privatisation in the past may not be as pertinent as was once the case.
This may represent Mr Whittingdale’s best opportunity yet to push for a policy he has sought for 25 years.
The ripping up of the trade rule book caused by President Trump’s tariffs will slow economic growth in some countries, but not cause a global recession, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has said.
There will be “notable” markdowns to growth forecasts, according to the financial organisation’s managing director Kristalina Georgieva in her curtain raiser speech at the IMF’s spring meeting in Washington.
Some nations will also see higher inflation as a result of the taxes Mr Trump has placed on imports to the US. At the same time, the European Central Bank said it anticipated less inflation from tariffs.
Money: Chef on a classic he’ll never order
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Trump’s tariffs: What you need to know
Earlier this month, a flat rate of 10% was placed on all imports, while additional levies from certain countries were paused for 90 days. Car parts, steel and aluminium are, however, still subject to a 25% tax when they arrive in the US.
This has meant the “reboot of the global trading system”, Ms Georgieva said. “Trade policy uncertainty is literally off the charts.”
The confusion over why nations were slapped with their specific tariffs, the stop-start nature of the taxes, and the rapid escalation of the tit-for-tat levies between the US and China sparked uncertainty and financial market turbulence.
“The longer uncertainty persists, the larger the cost,” Ms Georgieva cautioned.
“Unusual” activity in currency and government debt markets – as investors sold off dollars and US government debt – “should be taken as a warning”, she added.
“Everyone suffers if financial conditions worsen.”
Read more:
Sainsburys profits top £1bn after closing all cafes and cutting 3,000 jobs
Predators eye bargain deal for struggling discount retailer Poundland
These challenges are being borne out from a “weaker starting position” as public debt levels are much higher in recent years due to spending during the COVID-19 pandemic and higher interest rates, which increased the cost of borrowing.
The trade tensions are “to a large extent” a result of “an erosion of trust”, Ms Georgieva said.
This erosion, coupled with jobs moving overseas, and concerns over national security and domestic production, has left us in a world where “industry gets more attention than the service sector” and “where national interests tower over global concerns,” she added.
US stock markets suffered more significant losses on Wednesday, with stocks in leading AI chipmakers slumping after firms said new restrictions on exports to China would cost them billions.
Nvidia fell 6.87% – and was at one point down 10% – after revealing it would now need a US government licence to sell its H20 chip.
Rival chipmaker AMD slumped 7.35% after it predicted a $800m (£604m) charge due to its MI308 also needing a licence.
Dutch firm ASML, which makes hardware essential to chip manufacturing, fell more than 5% after it missed order expectations and said US tariffs created uncertainty.
The losses filtered into the tech-dominated Nasdaq index, which recovered slightly to end 3% down, while the larger S&P 500 fell 2.2%.
Pic: AP
Such losses would have been among the worst in years were it not for the turmoil over recent weeks.
It comes as China remains the focus of Donald Trump’s tariff regime, with both countries imposing tit-for-tat charges of over 100% on imports.
The US commerce department said in a statement it was “committed to acting on the president’s directive to safeguard our national and economic security”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Could Trump make a trade deal with UK?
Nvidia’s bespoke China chip is already deliberately less powerful than products sold elsewhere after intervention from the previous Biden administration.
However, the Trump government is worried the H20 and others could still be used to build a supercomputer in China, threatening national security and US dominance in AI.
Nvidia said the move would cost it around $5.5bn (£4.1bn) and the licensing requirement would be in place for the “indefinite future”.
Nvidia’s recently announced a $500bn (£378bn) investment to build infrastructure in America – something Mr Trump heralded as a victory in his mission to boost US manufacturing.
However, it appears to have been too little to stave off the new restrictions.
Pressure has also come from the Democrats, with senator Elizabeth Warren writing to the commerce secretary and urging him to limit chip sales to China.
Meanwhile, the head of US central bank also warned on Wednesday that US tariffs could slow the economy and raise inflation more than expected.
Jerome Powell said the bank would need more time to decide on lowering interest rates.
“The level of the tariff increases announced so far is significantly larger than anticipated,” he said.
“The same is likely to be true of the economic effects, which will include higher inflation and slower growth.”
Predictions of a recession in the US have risen significantly since the president revealed details of the import taxes a few weeks ago.
However, he subsequently paused the higher rates for 90 days to allow for negotiations.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway