Asking Questions of 4iP
February 18th, 2009 |
by Jon Hickman
Published in
Creative & Cultural Industries, General | 13 Comments
4iP is a “public service media” initiative from Channel 4. Described as a fund it aims:
to deliver publicly valuable content and services on digital media platforms with significant impact and in sustainable ways. It represents one of the biggest and most exciting calls-to-action for new and emergent digital media companies in the UK.
http://www.4ip.org.uk/about
If 4iP has a public service remit, it merits critical scrutiny in order to evaluate how far it succeeds in fulfilling its remit to people like me and you – the public.
The scheme’s launch generated positive and excited interest amongst local bloggers and businesses here in Birmingham. Once the application process opened we got to hear (through Twitter, blog posts, emails, and at our local scene’s various networking meetings) about a lot of 4iP activity as entrepreneurial social media types applied to the fund with their latest idea.
That was back in autumn 2008: a long time ago in web years. In that time there has been very little evidence of projects being funded, and a lot of confusion expressed amongst the online spaces where potential 4ip applicants express themselves. One might say that the shine has come off, and some people have become critical of what seemed originally to be a good idea. So what has gone wrong?
Unfair Criticisms
Firstly, we should realise that some of the criticisms levied at 4iP are somewhat unfair, for example:
“No reference to the 4IP launch on their website. Guess its just an in-crowd thing”
addingvalue on Twitter
This is simply an unfair criticism as information on 4iP launches was readily available around the time of the 4iP launch (Tweet dated at12:23 PM Oct 15th, 2008). There is also a current debate on Twitter regarding the amount of money 4iP has invested so far:
“Find 4iP being criticised for having a 3% approval rate strange: most VCs would have a much lower investment rate – more like 0.3%!”
dcockburn on Twitter
Some of the conversations amongst the Birmingham blogging community might suggest this community sees the money from 4iP as rightfully theirs. This is causing frustration amongst that community because they are now not getting the results they expected. The blame for this could be placed with these groups for having unreasonable expectations: after all nobody from Channel 4 has promised them cash, have they?
When is a fund not a fund?
4iP is problematic because of the way in which it has sold itself, and the way in which it conducts itself. 4iP describes itself as a “fund”. This word has incredibly important connotations in this context and takes us to the heart of the 4iP problem – if it can be said to have one.
4iP is a partnership between Channel 4 and publicly funded bodies such as the regional development agencies and NESTA. When you call something a “fund” and it exists to apportion public monies, you build expectations of a certain way of working. When you bring this to a city like Birmingham, where the creative industries are used to applying for public money, and where many players in our social media scene operate in the third sector or social enterprise you are pitching to an audience who know what they mean by funding.
What might these people expect from funding?
- A clear and transparent application process
- Clear and consistent assessment criteria
- Authoritative and consistent management of the fund
- Overall, an accountable process
A fund is not a fund when it’s run by a publisher-broadcaster
Channel 4 is a publisher-broadcaster. It’s not a fund manager in the way 4iP’s potential project partners would understand. Would it be fair to assume that 4iP, as a Channel 4 project, is imbued with the working practices and cultures of its parent? Paul Walsh, commenting on the 4iP blog, thinks so:
“I’m confused. Why are you referring to Commissioners and Commissioning so much? This is a “fund…which will invest in digital content and services which deliver public value.” You should be comparing yourself to a VC fund if your original pitching (prior to and during, launch) is accurate – not a TV Commissioner – perhaps that your downfall. If you continue to compare yourself with people/processes that take forever and a day to get things done, then that’s what you’ll end up as good as – if not worse.”
And what have people come to expect from a publishing/commissioning process? Negative associations might include:
- Lack of transparency
- Nepotism and networking over accountability
- Commissioning as an arbitrary process
This line of thought leads us to see 4iP as an old media publisher wearing “funding” and “public service media” like they were the Emperor’s New Clothes. It is manifest in the confusion over what 4iP want to commission, and in confusion over the ownership, control and financial rewards of 4iP projects.
Funder or Publisher: an example
My collagues Paul Long & Andrew Dubber applied for an idea called Rejected by 4iP. While there is an easily recognisable satirical element to the bid, it was a genuine attempt to open a dialogue on funding transparency and would have provided a useful forum for exploring failed 4iP ideas further.
Rejected by 4iP was turned down, but not before two 4iP commissioner’s pledged support for it publicly. Not only do such responses muddy the waters (perhaps as a condition of having online conversations) but such instances lack the transparency and reliable procedure that we would expect from a funding process, and is more indicative of a publishing mind set than a funding one.
It’s not what you say that counts, it’s what we hear.
Lack of clarity. Contradictory statements. Vague criteria. Funding or publishing? 4iP applicants are confused, and 4iP is struggling to explain itself to them. But what is confusing is that 4iP achieves this while being so communicative. Ning sites. Blogs. Twitter. Accessibility. 4iP’s commissioners have leveraged social media to make themselves available, but in doing so they have sacrificed consistency of voice. A bad situation is made worse if 4iP won’t accept that this is a problem for people. Consider this Twitter conversation:
jonhickman:
@ewanmcintosh blog posts are good but do they represent your procedure and criteria, and are these clear and consistent and easy to find? (http://twitter.com/jonhickman/statuses/1164277453)
ewanmacintosh:
@jonhickman They do represent procedure and our criteria are next to the submit form at submit.4ip.org.uk (http://twitter.com/ewanmcintosh/statuses/1164281824)
jonhickman:
@ewanmcintosh to clarify: I’m not a 4ip bidder. I know people who are. They don’t find there’s clarity. But tell me there is all you want (http://twitter.com/jonhickman/statuses/1164294047)
-conversation ends-
As if the variety of information and advice available in different fora isn’t problematic enough, anecdotal evidence suggests that pre-approval through one-to-one meetings is the best way to achieve results with a 4iP bid. If this is true, then it places 4iP completely outside of our notion of what constitutes funding, and it suggests that this public service funding will help develop not a plurality of voices, but more of the same.
Why does all this matter?
Understanding 4iP matters because there is money on the line. More importantly understanding 4iP matters because an opportunity is on the line: the opportunity to explore what public service media means.
It also matters because as long as 4iP is in anyway unclear the process is potentially wasting the time of the 4iP staff and applicants. 4iP was billed as being simple to apply for and accessible to all: this makes it an attractive proposition for those who could benefit from funding. How many of these applications never stood a chance of being funded? How could that time have been better spent? Is 4iP a distraction from getting things done?
Hard questions about 4iP
- Is this a fund, or a commissioning process?
- How can you make this process more transparent?
- Are projects more likely to be funded if applicants have a meeting or a relationship with a 4iP commissioner?
- Who owns finished projects, and what are the financial and IP arrangements?
- How is 4iP meeting Channel 4′s public service ideals?
- How does this project open this market to new voices?
February 18th, 2009 at 4:26 pm (#)
I will only answer one question, I’m not a funding animal, so I don’t really have experience in a lot of this, but:
>Is 4iP a distraction from getting things done?
Anecdotally, well from my anecdote, yes — I’ve heard many people say of an idea “sounds like a 4iP bid” (and presumably bidding) rather than getting on with doing whatever the idea was (as they may have done before).
I’d agree with you that the Birmingham “scene” (if there is one) is experienced in using funding models — perhaps too much — and the way that 4iP was presented (as a fund for wacky ideas that were in some way public service – what I felt was the general understanding of the launch event) may have led it to somewhat stifle innovation.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:31 pm (#)
[...] Asking Questions of 4iP :: interactivecultures – Jon Hickman at Birmingham City University asks some hard questions of 4IP: "Is 4iP a distraction from getting things done?" [...]
February 18th, 2009 at 11:31 pm (#)
[...] Asking Questions of 4iP :: interactivecultures – Jon Hickman at Birmingham City University asks some hard questions of 4IP: "Is 4iP a distraction from getting things done?" [...]
February 19th, 2009 at 9:47 am (#)
Here’s my take from a Scottish perspective on 4iP, and hopefully it provides some answers to your questions. No doubt, other colleagues may wish to chip in with their takes, especially on how things are developing in Birmingham, where, it is worth noting, the Digital Commissioning Manager has only been in place since January.
* Is this a fund, or a commissioning process?
The monies are not public (entirely) – C4′s cash is privately gained from advertising, coupled with public partners’ funding, often on a non-exclusive basis (i.e. you can apply to a public partner in the same way as normal, or benefit from the commissioning process with C4 that brings expertise in shaping an idea for launch or expansion. Your call. It is a commissioning process to spend a fund – think Lottery, but easier and with an editorial line.
* How can you make this process more transparent?
The ideas which are rejected cannot be talked about through or after the process by us, but rather by the people who had their idea rejected. Given that only one or two have done this on their own blogs or Twitter, we can draw the inference that people would not appreciate us talking about their failures ‘transparently’.
The rest of our processes and thinking is already transparent, if a complex, but making a venture successful is complex.
* Are projects more likely to be funded if applicants have a meeting or a relationship with a 4iP commissioner?
All ideas must first go through the submit.4ip.org.uk site and, if the idea feels right at that point, we initiate a discussion. See this post:
http://www.4ip.org.uk/blog/what_happens_when_i_press_submit_4ip_commissions/
With the sheer volume of ideas we’ve received, it would be unfeasible to meet everyone ‘blind’ – we need a project we both agree has potential to kick off discussions.
* Who owns finished projects, and what are the financial and IP arrangements?
IP arrangements are different for every project. Nearly always the IP is owned by the company, and exploited by them, with either a revenue or profit-share with 4 and sometimes other funders, too. In Scotland, we also undertake equity deals with companies.
* How is 4iP meeting Channel 4’s public service ideals?
4iP is meeting 4′s public service ideals. Currently on the slate and being contracted are projects covering the arts, citizen journalism and news, sport, education/learning, holding Government and Local Government to account, uncovering new talent in production and in the public…
* How does this project open this market to new voices?
In Scotland, all but one of the commissioned or slated projects thus far involve companies that have only been around for around a year or less, and has created one. All the companies are working in areas that are new to them, and we have worked extensively with university knowledge transfer groups to begin developing some of their technologies in the public media space.
I hope that helps, and please do post anything that you think I’ve missed.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:21 am (#)
My own tuppence as a company who 4IP have invested in.
The 4IP process is crap and they probably realise (and are working on) ways to make it better. But to bidders it is always going to be a hard sell since the whole point of 4IP is to find nuggets and gems and help them spring to life. If they had gone out there and said we are looking for A and B, then I think criticism would be justified. As it is, they are funding projects all over the place, which is how it should be, and that may lead some to feel there is a lack of clarity as to the purpose.
To me, 4IP is a bit like going to a jumble sale (do they still have those?). You go because you might find some treasures but you don’t leave disappointed if you don’t.
I’ve done plenty of knocking of Ewan et al when they deserved it. In the points highlighted here, they don’t.
February 19th, 2009 at 5:22 pm (#)
The whole 4IP thing certainly caused a buzz. As more ideas get the go ahead, we’ll see what it actually is, 4IP are after. Whether this makes potential bidders ‘shape’ their bids to fit, I don’t know…probably, because that’s how funding tends to work. We wrote a bid around development and delivery of a free online English language tool for non English speakers.
I wasn’t overly surprised the bid was unsuccessful as I wasn’t sure if our project remit and idea, fitted with the 4IP vision.
The reason given for rejection was thus -
“Channel 4 fulfils its public service around education through our 4Learning department which also provides a support service for teachers and education establishments. As such, this isn’t an area that will be a priority for 4iP funding.”
I am equally unsurprised then, by Ewan’s comment about projects that have been contracted with an “education/learning” agenda…
But all this confusion is nothing new! the world of funding is a dark world indeed. Maybe there’s a change around the corner, but until then we just keep keeping on.
February 19th, 2009 at 5:47 pm (#)
On a sidenote, just to point out the subtlety: there’s a difference between education/learning (emphasis on the latter really) and what feels like ‘schooling’. Some ‘education’ projects fall firmly into the broadest definition of learning: School of Everything is one example, which somewhat redefines learning. Others tackle specific subjects of learning, which feels like it much more firmly rooted in the 19th century definition of schooling.
I write about this stuff all the time on my personal blog, http://edu.blogs.com – redefining education is more than one comment on a blog post will allow
February 19th, 2009 at 6:53 pm (#)
Interesting debate. Useful of Ewan to make a contribution.
It’s been interesting to watch the criteria for 4IP emerging since its inception. From the first videos of existing C4 commissioning editors talking about their own interpretation of the fund to teasing out how Ewan and the other 4IP commissioners think from their tweets. Understanding what’s in the mind of those who are looking at the bids is always useful and in this instance social media has helped us get even closer to how C4 are thinking. That’s good isn’t it? Laying out all the clues for potential bidders? Asking you to develop a ‘sense’ of what’s being asked?
My concern is that this level of chat about 4IP emanating from C4 employees and bidders could be distracting and of course can be contradictory at times. Certainly compared to other chunky funding pots such as that on offer at the Technology Strategy Board. I’ve heard little from those thinking of bidding to their digital content fund but then the officers who work on that fund aren’t on twitter, nor are those who decide who gets what. Maybe potential bidders to 4IP are best advised to switch off their 4IP social media radar if they’re concerned that they might be shaping their idea to fit the commissioners’ interests rather than just submitting a good idea. Maybe just read the Next on 4 document as that’s really the guiding document here behind C4′s thinking.
Here in the West Midlands of course there was a lot of distracting 4IP hype because the fund was a little oversold in the early days: ‘National Headquarters’; ‘Team of Commissioners’. Not quite.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:26 pm (#)
Hi Jon, thanks for the link. I might work with the sector, but 4ip is the first experience I’ve had of applying for any sort of grant.
I think this is over complicating things. There is a cultural problem of trying to get what Channel 4 wants, which is a fast moving fund to make ideas happen quickly, to work with RDA based funding – which is to do with measuring by jobs created etc.
But fundamentally it is very simple: If you have an idea all it takes is 250 words to get it into the system. If the people paid to decide what to do with this money like it then they’ll tell you and start talking to you.
It would be quicker to do that than read this blog post.
February 20th, 2009 at 10:37 am (#)
As someone who has been critical of 4iPs lack of transparency and strange procedures, and who has now been through a (rejected) application procedure, I’d like to add my view.
Firstly, although my application was rejected, I did feel on balance that they put a reasonable amount of thinking and discussion into it including a couple of long conversations and the opportunity for me to revise various aspects of the original proposal and to add things in. And while I don’t totally agree with their decision, I can’t really argue with their view of what and why the would commission or not.
I do still think that the procedures are not transparent at all. There is also some evidence that they are funding projects that somehow orginated within or close to the heart of various participants, though this may change as the fund gets funding. I think we need to see quite a few more actual funded projects come out the door before we can judge whether they are getting it ‘right’ or not.
There is always an issue with sources of funding that those who rely on those sources are loath to criticise the funders in any way, don’t bite the hand that feeds you, etc. (As a professional irk, I have an embryonic site and blog around Arts Council England funding at http://artfunding.pbwiki.com ) However, I do have a second proposal about to go in to 4iP, so of course they are brilliant, excellent etc etc
Seriously, I am happy to publish the final response I got from 4iP for my proposal and will just go back and check whether this is ok with the person who wrote it – then I’ll post it here so you can see how considered it was.
One of the reasons I started the Artfunding site above is because I believe that the best way for funding to develop is if everything is out in the open – not sure if that can happen with 4iP, but my view is that all applications, whether failed or not, and all responses should be in the public domain – not least so we can all learn from them.
My final word on 4iP at this stage is to echo what someone said above – it’s a bit like a jumble sale, they are obviously learning on the fly, I’m sure some brilliant projects will come out of it – and if you’ve ever dealt with real VCs you’ll know that they aren’t a barrel of laughs to deal with.
Now, back to my next application!
February 20th, 2009 at 1:27 pm (#)
I think the main concerns for those in the West Midlands will be to reach the £10 million funding target. As the fund is national, but there is a deliberate bias to Yorkshire, West Midlands, Scotland and N. Ireland whose RDA have co-invested, this creates a contradiction that businesses in these regions should be “more likely” to have their idea accepted (which in itself contradicts the somewhat woolly guidelines of the fund).
Now projects are being annoucned it’s easier to say “I get it” (although the first project in Norwich http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2008/dec/05/channel4-startups seemed to me to only relate to Channel 4 in that it was an online version of The IT Crowd’s “Bluff Ball”).
There is a particular problem here: The West Midlands is really a region lacking in a volume of well developed, commissionable digital media companies appropriate to give £20K plus of investment finance. There’s a dearth of sizeable digital agencies or cross-platform producers (sorry I don’t mean to get contentious – there are some great co’s but it’s a small number when compared to places like South West, London and North West).
So I think what 4iP needs to do with some of it’s cash is to invest it in training the sector – not some professional development courses at Birmingham City University (!) but some practical workshops, labs that bring together a range of partners with some seed funding of a few grand to work up those ideas to something worthy of commission (rather like the BBC Innovation Lab model).
That would certainly help the cash for the WM get spend quicker (what happens if C4 don’t commission enough ideas? WIll the regional match money remain unspent?) and invest back in the whole of the sector so there’s a legacy of ideas, knowledge and skills when the fund is spent.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:22 am (#)
@Nick Booth
Just to clarify a point for the record, that I know we have discussed together outside of this thread.
I hadn’t realised you’d applied for 4iP, and the two links I provided (to your blog and to We Share Stuff) were merely to demonstrate my point that there are “media” orgs here in Brum that are very active within the third sector, and that third sector organisations might reasonably expect more structure in the administration of a “fund”. I was in no way inferring anything about specific applications to 4iP by mentioning these two organisations.
A shame that, despite writing an epic post I didn’t nail this point more precisely.
June 18th, 2010 at 3:03 pm (#)
It will be interesting to see how many micro (£15k or less) investments they make during 2010. They’ve largely ignored this type of support to-date: I really think that this is were they should be putting more of their (our) resources.