Channel 4 Privatisation

[StanSP]

Just to be clear, I hate Nadine Dorries and what she stands for and what she does. I don't agree with her decisions, suggestions or proposals in the slightest. 

 

This has come out of this new C4 deal apparently though:

 

I know England aren't great to watch but free to air football is a good thing...? 

 

[Raj]

Never mind that I'm just glad your alive mate!

Xx

[Saxondale]

Is this as a result of the Dorriesification or is it unrelated? Can’t see how there’d be a possible link.

 

By the way, the privatisation is a very bad thing, instigated by cultural vandals and cowardly zealots.

[Bellend Sebastian]

I can just about motivate myself to watch England in the finals of a competition but outside of that I'm more likely to watch that Bob Foster painting thing than England on telly and I'm not arsed about that.

 

The privatisation of Channel 4 just seems utterly pointless to me. It's a model that works pretty well, and they seem dead set on disrupting it for political reasons.

 

This 'to compete with Netflix' thing is a load of bollocks. All Netflix proves is you can expand very quickly on borrowed cash and the point where this runs out of steam comes quite quickly, whereas C4 sustains itself with no subscriber or tax payer cash and supports a load of domestic content creators

 

[SecretPro]

Yeah but...but... she just wants to privatise it like they did with Channel 5 a few years ago....

 

(they didn't, she's clueless, has no idea what she's talking about, tennis pitch, downstreaming, I hope she rots off)

[davieG]

it's already as good as privatised already as it relies on advertising and receives nothing from the Government, I doubt this has anything to do with the Government talk of selling they've obviously done a good deal with a number of advertisers.

 

The privatisation is just politics as it's in the Tory genes to make everything possible available to the shareholding public. No doubt those with free cash will make a profit on buying and then selling any shares. 

 

It's life as we know it.

[Wolfox]

Lots of small producers rely on it…. So much of what they’ve produced over the years would never have been made if it weren’t for their approach

 

Commercial interest will mean that they’ll just try to be backing safe winners as opposed to trying to properly innovate…

 

Changing this model is a real shame 

[RoboFox]

1 hour ago, Saxondale said:

Is this as a result of the Dorriesification or is it unrelated? Can’t see how there’d be a possible link.

 

By the way, the privatisation is a very bad thing, instigated by cultural vandals and cowardly zealots.

It's unrelated in that the government would've had nothing to do with this whatsoever. The bidding process would've been well underway before her announcement.

 

However it is related in that C4 would've upped their interest in it purely in an effort to stave off privatisation. Set piece sporting events bolster advertising revenues. 

 

Although I'm sure she'll try to make some baseless claim that she somehow had something to do with it. Embarrassing cretin.

 

 

 

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

What does it mean for film4? They've helped make some great films, would be a shame for them to go to the crapper. 

[BlueSi13]

It's the right decision, no reason for Channel 4 to still be publicly owned in 2022.  If its content is really so good it will surely thrive under new ownership

[davieG]

7 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

It's the right decision, no reason for Channel 4 to still be publicly owned in 2022.  If its content is really so good it will surely thrive under new ownership

It's survives on adverts no tax payers money goes into it and was set up as an alternative public broadcasting option with it's main aim to service the public. Any private ownership will be about profits so any minority stuff will inevitably disappear.

 

This is purely a Tory distraction tool there's no benefit to the public at all. It will cost money to privatise it and only those in a position to buy shares will benefit.

 

It's chalk and cheese in terms of their respective aims.

[leicsmac]

38 minutes ago, davieG said:

It's survives on adverts no tax payers money goes into it and was set up as an alternative public broadcasting option with it's main aim to service the public. Any private ownership will be about profits so any minority stuff will inevitably disappear.

 

This is purely a Tory distraction tool there's no benefit to the public at all. It will cost money to privatise it and only those in a position to buy shares will benefit.

 

It's chalk and cheese in terms of their respective aims.

...this is a positive feature rather than a negative bug to some.

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

You want all sorts of different content though if you hate 8 shows and love 2 of 10 then it's a winner. All of Netflix in house content is just rinse and repeat like a ubisoft open world game now and if channel 4 goes that way then it'll be all the worse for it. 

[davieG]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...this is a positive feature rather than a negative bug to some.

I guess, I rarely watch Channel 4 mostly just the old comedies but I appreciate it's aimed at a different audience that probably doesn't get catered for elsewhere. 

 

People don't have to watch all of it or any of it it's not as if there isn't other options.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, davieG said:

I guess, I rarely watch Channel 4 mostly just the old comedies but I appreciate it's aimed at a different audience that probably doesn't get catered for elsewhere. 

 

People don't have to watch all of it or any of it it's not as if there isn't other options.

Agreed.

 

To re-elaborate on my point, there are those who are fine with there being no content aimed at that different audience you mention. Unfortunately.

 

And I would posit perhaps some are behind this deal taking place.

[String fellow]

Personally, I don't mind who owns C4, as long as they get rid of Anne Robinson from Countdown and maybe make the rules a bit more interesting.

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

9 hours ago, BlueSi13 said:

It's the right decision, no reason for Channel 4 to still be publicly owned in 2022.  If its content is really so good it will surely thrive under new ownership

 

****ing HELL

[BlueSi13]

10 hours ago, davieG said:

It's survives on adverts no tax payers money goes into it and was set up as an alternative public broadcasting option with it's main aim to service the public. Any private ownership will be about profits so any minority stuff will inevitably disappear.

 

This is purely a Tory distraction tool there's no benefit to the public at all. It will cost money to privatise it and only those in a position to buy shares will benefit.

 

It's chalk and cheese in terms of their respective aims.

Yes and despite it being state owned, the tax payer gets no money out of it either.   It debuted in an era when we had THREE TV stations.  This was literally the 4th.  Today, we have hundreds/thousands of options when we turn on our televisions.  We also have the internet/radio/streaming etc etc etc.  Public Service Broadcasting was relevant decades ago but no longer the case now.  

 

IMO I don't believe the state should be owning television channels in 2022.  

 

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, BlueSi13 said:

Yes and despite it being state owned, the tax payer gets no money out of it either.   It debuted in an era when we had THREE TV stations.  This was literally the 4th.  Today, we have hundreds/thousands of options when we turn on our televisions.  We also have the internet/radio/streaming etc etc etc.  Public Service Broadcasting was relevant decades ago but no longer the case now.  

 

IMO I don't believe the state should be owning television channels in 2022.  

 

....do people want the equivalent of Mrs Brown's Boys to be the entirety of TV output?

 

Because that is what would happen if the market, and therefore popularity, were to dictate cultural output in that area entirely.

 

Having a public service broadcaster, if only for the purpose of news and education/edutainment, as well as such market-based options, should remain the model to stick to.

[Strokes]

15 hours ago, leicsmac said:

...this is a positive feature rather than a negative bug to some.

I’m not sure I watch any minority stuff on it anymore but I definitely used too.

Its a massive shame, Peep show would have never got a second series on privately owned broadcaster because of viewing figures. That would have been a disaster.

 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I’m not sure I watch any minority stuff on it anymore but I definitely used too.

Its a massive shame, Peep show would have never got a second series on privately owned broadcaster because of viewing figures. That would have been a disaster.

 

Yep, one example of many.

[CosbehFox]

On 30/04/2022 at 11:54, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

You want all sorts of different content though if you hate 8 shows and love 2 of 10 then it's a winner. All of Netflix in house content is just rinse and repeat like a ubisoft open world game now and if channel 4 goes that way then it'll be all the worse for it. 

Said before - Netflix do very well out of Channel 4’s broadcasting. Two of their biggest successes were C4 shows but they couldn’t sustain the budget, so Netflix took over and carried them on (White Mirror and Topboy). That’s before you getting into how Channel 4 stuff is just on Netflix to view 

[SouthStandUpperTier]

21 hours ago, leicsmac said:

....do people want the equivalent of Mrs Brown's Boys to be the entirety of TV output?

 

Because that is what would happen if the market, and therefore popularity, were to dictate cultural output in that area entirely.

 

Having a public service broadcaster, if only for the purpose of news and education/edutainment, as well as such market-based options, should remain the model to stick to.

Mrs Brown's Boys was inflicted on us by the BBC, so probably not the best example to use.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

Mrs Brown's Boys was inflicted on us by the BBC, so probably not the best example to use.

Ha, yes, fair point.

 

I think the general premise that purely market-based solutions lead to vapid and lowest-common-denominator output only in the name of popularity because popularity = profit is salient, though.