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.

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.

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.

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.

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

“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.

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.

* 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.