What's the nuts and bolts of 4iP?

[Ivan Pope]

Now that 4iP has opened up the doors for proposals, I thought it would be useful to know a bit more about what the funding side of it actually is and how it works and what the implications of applying might be. None of this is supposed to be negative, I actually think 4iP has an interesting approach to the space and I really look forward to seeing what they bring to life. And I have a proposal of my own to submit. And that's why I went looking to understand the lay of the land.

So what are we submitting to? What is the structure of the funding? And what will 4iP do with submissions?

Normally, when you apply for some sort of funding you have a pretty clear idea of what the funding basis is, grant, equity, specialist etc and the basis on which funding might be available. With 4iP you have absolutely no idea how any support might come about. Some more clarity on this might be helpful, not only in guiding applications but in bringing more and better proposals to the table. For example, does 4iP want to own a majority of funded projects? Or a minority? Is it giving grants or will it take a stake? Does it want a seat on the board? Does it have assembled ranks of lawyers ready to spend five months building an investment document, or do they have a light touch system in place? Without knowing how 4iP might work, it's hard to know quite what to propose to it. For example, if I've got a project that has some funding already promised, or the likelihood of some funding from a reliable source, is it worth me applying to 4iP as well? Will their timeframes work with mine, do they in fact co-invest, will their structures work with those of the other investors, etc. Or, to suggest a simpler question, if I'm a eighteen year old student with a killer project and you want to fund it, will you provide support and infrastructure to get me off the ground or do I have to go find stuff elsewhere?
I'm not suggesting that all these sorts of questions can or should be answered by 4iP at this stage, but without any guidance at this point, they are all valid questions.

There's another issue that seems obvious: what implications does submitting to 4iP have for my pet project? While 4iP are quite clear in stating that they don't want to own your idea following submission, they also state:

"Where we do not take ownership of your User Content ... You now grant Channel 4 (and third parties authorised by Channel 4) a worldwide perpetual royalty free irrevocable non-exclusive licence to reproduce, copy, record, translate, modify, adapt, make available to the public, distribute, broadcast, record, perform, make derivative works from, edit, alter, store, re-format, sell and sub-licence your User Content in whole or in part or in any form in all media now known or in future invented. You hereby give all necessary waivers and consents for Channel 4 to use your User Content, including a waiver of those rights known as the moral rights of authors."
http://www.4ip.org.uk/terms_and_conditions

While this may sound like standard UGC disclaimer stuff, it is the terms and conditions linked to from throughout the site, including from the end of the submission forms. So it seems to apply to proposal submissions, i.e. that 4iP considers proposals to be "User Generated Content" that it can make available to the public, distribute, edit, alter and make derivative works from. Hmm, that's quite wide ranging. Although they don't 'own' your work, it sort of sounds like it belongs to them in perpetuity! So, in return for applying for some vague notion of funding 4iP get to distribute your inventions to the wider public and to make new versions of them. Deal or no deal?

For comparison I would go to the Arts Council who specifically state with application forms that they are subject to Freedom of Information requests, that they will not release your applications for funding before they are assessed, that you can request some parts to be kept secret for business reasons, but that in the end they may have to release some or all of your applications. Now, I understand that the Arts Council is a big organisation that has had years to work all of this out. My point with 4iP at this point is that it all seems a bit untransparent. A bit murky. Not deliberately murky (remember, I intend to submit!), but unclear.

(And why am I posting this here rather than on the 4iP site itself? Hmm, have you looked at the 4iP site recently? It's about as closed as a site can be. It take a broadcast model, wise words from above, that is almost the diametric opposite of what I read the project to be about. But that's another post ...)

So what I'm doing here, what I'm using the 38minutes site to do, is to ask 4iP to open up the kimono, to put more thinking on the public table, to engage in a conversation with potential users of your project. After all, you're asking us to add value to your world, it's only fair that you become a bit more transparent in return.

[Ivan Pope]

Hmm, where to start. I think the problem is at this stage that we don't have any track record to relate to. It's a bit vague - which is probably a good thing, but won't be for ever.
The more 4iP can put in the public domain about what it is doing - but without closing down the possible.
VCs always say it's not the idea but the execution. They always say that even great ideas are ten a penny. I've always suspected this is because they don't see many great ideas, or that they can't recognise them when they do.
I guess 4iP's problem may be to avoid being overwhelmed by thousands of dumb ideas. During the last bubble you couldn't meet anyone without them pulling a bit of paper from their pocket and trying to palm their 'startup' off on you. Ideas are cheap - except they often aren't ideas at all but desires.
I would suggest an eclectic advisory/assessment/input/brains trust to filter but also to trawl for stuff, to do outreach and internal provocation.
I've long thought that there is a lot of scope for imaginative thinking about structure and growth systems as much as there is for looking for 'good ideas' in a sort of primal soup of human creativity - hence my posting on CIC companies and my interest in open source applied to structures and management.
Enjoy your meeting ...

[Tom Loosemore]

Hello Ivan...

Thanks for writing the agenda for next week's 4iP meeting. ;o)

As Stuart says, we know we'll need different approaches - different architectures - depending on the type/scale/provenance of project. All suggestions welcomed.

For example, I'm keen to try some kind of open competition process for early ideas/prototypes - maybe along the lines of ShowUsABetterWay - in the hope of reaching more/different people.

[Stuart Cosgrove]

Yes there are range of partners including national agencies like Scottish Screen and Scottish Enterprise, Regional Agencies in West Midlands and Yorkshire, the Arts Council of England, NESTA etc. Sevreal technology partners too but they are more likely to be at project level rather than stuctural funders.

[Michael Coulter]

Whoops, I see Scottish Screen and Scottish Enterprise are partners. (a clue I should have picked up was the logo's plastered all over recent emails.) I'm an idiot. Sorry about that. (Not about being an idiot, can't do anything about that.) Keep up the noble work, and hope all goes gangbusters.

[Michael Coulter]

Will the names of the major national partners, and of project partners be published? (If they already have and I've overlooked this on the site; a) sincere apologies, b) 'Note to self': Book eye test.

[Stuart Cosgrove]

Glad you asked that Stuart its either because of a 'presumption of superiority' in London media circles or your too sensitive mate. Now behave.

[Stuart Cosgrove]

I'd really like to keep this going it will be enormoulsy helpful to the 4iP team to start to think through some of the issues: many of which no broadcaster, tech company or grant awarding agency has attempted before.

I'd like to get another couple of devlish advocates to join Ivan so we can test the thinking as we go. Its not only important its crucial to the openness of what we are trying to acheive.

So any more questions post here and we will keep the dialogue going.

If I'm allowed my own little grenade - contracts are being drawn up under English law. Why?

[Ivan Pope]

Thanks Ewan, I know that really ... just playing devils advocate sometimes

[Ewan McIntosh]

This is what's intended with 38minutes - a chance to 'meet the 4iP team' is really about having conversations to clarify these issues. We've got a rolling batch of stuff that we come back to as things emerge - this is one more for us to crunch but, as Stuart says, with every project needing different specs on (both literally and metaphorically) it's hard to provide a general T&C that'll be both encouraging and worthwhile. Bottom line: you can give us your ideas in confidence and we'll do our best to make the good ones fantastic, the not-so-good ones a chance to go and find funding from someone else pronto. We don't intend to sit on anyone's ideas when they could be doing something with them.

[Ivan Pope]

Stuart, thanks for this reply. My interrogation of the subject is intended to add clarity, for which thanks. It is actually a breath of fresh air looking at 4iP after years of dealing with VCs who are a clear as mud.