Amid much fanfare, Channel 4 has unveiled its Next on 4 statement of promises, which includes pledges on new programming, extra money for teen content and the setting up of a £50m digital public service content fund. How well has the broadcaster made its case for survival as a public service content provider in the multi-platform age?
On the surface it sounds like a well-articulated defence of Channel 4's public service status in the digital age, backed up by definite commitments.
This includes the £50m fund to support public service digital media content over the next two years, alongside pledges to transmit more new programmes in peak time than any other public service broadcaster.
Channel 4 has also promised to broadcast the equivalent of at least one new documentary in peak time each weekday in what is the culmination of an internal review that included consultation with staff, creative and commercial partners and the government.
Adding spice to the mix is a New Talent Month in 2008 and the promise of £10m on a pilot fund for cross-platform projects for 10- to 15-year-olds from 2008.
But this is the channel that does Skins after all, so wouldn't it be spending this kind of money on the teen market where it has scored a notable success anyway?
As for the docs - isn't a new doc showcased on Channel 4 most weeknights anyway?
And what does "new programming" actually mean? More docs and one-offs? Is this not something a channel that does not have many of the much sought-after long-running bankable drama or entertainment formats is forced to pepper its schedules with?
As I say it all sounds good, and it's probably best not to be too cynical, but what do you think it will amount to in reality?
Today's announcement also clearly shows how worried Channel 4 is about its revenue model.
"It [new public support] must be delivered in a form that gives Channel 4 long-term financial stability and preserves its independence from editorial interference," said chairman Luke Johnson.
"This is the moment for absolutely clarity - we believe Channel 4's ability to invest in greater creative risk would not survive a transfer into private ownership, which is why the board unanimously rejects the option of privatisation. It is Channel 4's independence, from shareholders as much from government, that permits its distinctiveness."
But the question remains: is he right?
