Why Channel 4’s in-house move isn’t a death knell for indies

By Derek Drennan 16-06-2025

Could Channel 4’s controversial move to producing in-house be a positive turning point for indies rather than the negative that’s been portrayed so far?

BAFTA and National Comedy Award winning Taskmaster

The recent announcement that Channel 4 will establish its own in-house production unit has understandably stirred concern within the UK independent production community.

For many this move feels like a challenge to an ecosystem built over decades. There’s been a wave of worry, and in some cases, a sense of betrayal. But it’s crucial to recognise what this moment represents.

Channel 4’s decision is not a sudden abandonment of its public service remit. It’s a commercially pragmatic, arguably inevitable step in the evolution of a broadcaster under serious financial pressure.

Rather than spell doom for indies, it could, if approached the right way, offer fresh opportunities and a necessary jolt toward proper innovation, scale, and a more sustainable model. As one exec said – Channel 4 could probably have done this years ago. Let’s take a breath and look at the bigger picture.

Channel 4 is a commercially funded public service broadcaster. For years, it has faced increasing headwinds of declining ad revenue, inflationary production costs, and competition from global streamers who operate with different economic models entirely. These pressures don’t just impact the indies, they impact the commissioners as well. Broadcasters have been tightening belts, cancelling projects, and adjusting their strategies to survive in this new landscape.

In this context, Channel 4 launching an in-house production arm makes sense. It provides a chance to bring more content creation under its control, develop new IP, and reinvest revenues directly into its operations. That may be uncomfortable to hear, but it’s reality.

This isn’t unprecedented either. Let’s rewind to 2016, when the BBC restructured to launch BBC Studios as a commercial production entity. The reaction at the time? Panic. Independent producers feared being squeezed out. There were warnings about market dominance and unfair access.

Gogglebox has been a global sensation

What really happened? BBC Studios has gone on to become one of the UK’s most successful content exporters.

Yes, there have been bumps in the road. The National Audit Office and others have scrutinised the operation, but the indie sector didn’t collapse. Many companies adapted and found new ways to compete.

What we learned from the BBC Studios transition is that change, even when disruptive, doesn’t have to be destructive. With clear governance, safeguards around commissioning, and strong leadership, a broadcaster’s in-house production model can coexist with a thriving indie sector.

The key is in how it’s managed and perhaps more importantly how committed the broadcaster is to fairness and transparency.

And here’s where we, as independents, need to reflect honestly. Those companies that have remained entirely dependent on UK broadcasters for revenue have felt the squeeze for some time. That’s not new. Budgets have tightened. Turnaround times have shortened. Development funding has all but disappeared for many.

Innovation is not an option anymore. It’s a necessity – a survival strategy.

Some of the most successful indies today have moved beyond the traditional commission-based model. They are developing IP, forging brand partnerships, building direct-to-consumer offerings, and exploring international co-productions. These shifts were happening already. All that has happened is Channel 4’s announcement has increased the urgency.

Rather than viewing this development as a zero-sum game, we should ask about what opportunities could emerge?

First Dates: Teens aired Channel 4’s youth net E4

An in-house C4 studio, if managed responsibly, could offer creative opportunities. Its scale and infrastructure, access to data, scheduling insight and audience strategy can be powerful drivers for innovation. When combined with the energy, agility, and originality of the indie sector, this could lead to new hybrid models of production that benefit both sides.

Public service content could become more ambitious, more innovative, and more commercially viable. But only if partnerships are structured with fairness and access at their core.

That’s the crux.

The fear isn’t the existence of in-house production, rather it’s the potential for unfair commissioning practices. That’s where Channel 4 needs to be absolutely clear and consistent. There must be watertight separation between commissioning and in-house teams. Commissioning processes must remain open, competitive, and committed to plurality. It’s essential that emerging producers, regional voices, and diverse creatives are not sidelined.

I would like to see the commitment to diversity, representation, inclusion and talent discovery – as well as welfare for talent internally and externally – prioritised and not fall by the wayside.

From the producers we have already spoken with, the feeling is that Channel 4 must articulate, as soon as possible, a comprehensive package of measures that guarantee independent producers will continue to have fair access to commissions. That means formalised commissioning standards. It means transparency in how proposals are assessed. It means measurable commitments to diversity of company size, region, ownership, and perspective.

Because here’s the thing, if done right, this could strengthen the industry. If Channel 4 can become profitable, it can put that profit back into itself, its talent and thus the industry.

There’s no denying the discomfort of this moment. For many indies, it feels like yet another challenge in a long list. But we’ve seen this play out before with the BBC, and the sky didn’t fall. It forced everyone to raise their game. And as a result, the entire sector evolved.

We now have an opportunity, however uninvited it may feel, to evolve again. To rethink our business models, reassert the value of independent creativity, and forge new types of partnerships with broadcasters who themselves are fighting to survive and remain relevant.

So, let’s not meet this development with fear alone. Let’s start with clear demands, but also open minds, and a willingness to adapt.

Channel 4’s in-house move might just be the catalyst we need to bring in the next chapter of our wonderful industry.