Interview: Clive Hollick, United Business Media (Evening Standard)
By David Rowan
HE MAY have announced his retirement, but Clive Hollick still has unfinished business. By the time he collects his £726,000 pension next May, the Labour peer intends to drop Channel Five from his United Business Media empire for the highest possible price.
He will not say so directly, of course; Lord Hollick of Notting Hill is far too politically astute for that. But why else, Channel 4 insiders are asking, is the former merchant banker talking up a merger between Five and Channel 4, even as the latter's new boss, Andy Duncan, appears to have gone cold on the prospect?
Hollick, 59, insists that UBM's 35 per cent stake in Five is "not for sale". Yet in an exclusive interview after announcing his leaving plans, he seems determined to push a tieup that City analysts say could significantly enhance Five's value.
"I think both Five and Four - under Mark Thompson's leadership and now Andy Duncan's - can see the considerable benefits of working together," Hollick says in his smooth corporate patter.
A merger would offer "significant gains" to both. "We have a lot of duplicated costs, we compete ferociously for bought-in material, we'd have the opportunity for cross-promotion. Where the ball lies now, under Four's new leadership, is to engage and discuss this in great detail and come forward with concrete proposals. We both think it's a sufficiently attractive and interesting opportunity to devote quite a lot of time to it."
After all, he explains, the tie-up is not exactly new. Even before Five was on air, he had talked to Channel 4 about working together. "Michael Grade [then Four's chief executive] was really rather keen," Hollick says. Only a cautious board vetoed the idea. This is not, he insists, "a bright idea that I woke up in the bath with".
Hollick is a formidable operator, charming and persuasive when necessary, although criticised by former staff as abrasive, manipulative and ruthless ("I respect their views," he responds unemotionally). In three decades, he has built a media company with a £750 million turnover, for which last year he took a £1.3 million pay package, and in which he intends to "continue to play my part".
His main loyalty, he insists, is to his shareholders. But should publicly owned Channel 4, with its special innovative remit, really be entering deals intended to boost Five's value?
"It's very important that Four's unique output, its unique brand is sustained and strengthened," Hollick replies. "That's about setting in place a [regulatory] regime, and making sure that the economic strength of the combined entity continues to foster that. There will be a stronger economic base to support its very unique contribution to the diversity of British broadcasting."
The Government, he suggests, would not block a deal. "I'd characterise their view as understanding the dynamics of single television stations which essentially have fixed costs, but an advertising pool growing less fast than the number of mouths round the table. There are inexorable trends here that the Government understands." He should know: as a close ally of Tony Blair, he is expected to play a role in writing the election manifesto.
Channel 4 would not comment on Hollick's latest pitch. But Andy Duncan is known to be less fixated on a merger than his predecessor, Mark Thompson.
Although Duncan has carefully avoided ruling out a deal with Five, a more likely outcome, his colleagues suggest, is a range of smaller partnerships, with the BBC a significant ally.
SOME Four executives believe Hollick's real agenda is to talk up such a potentially groundbreaking deal for a shortterm boost in UBM's share price.
Even if Hollick's political friends were to nod a deal through, there remains Five's major shareholder, the German media group RTL. Last week, its chief executive, Gerhard Zeiler, said Five was in "no hurry" to commit to any partnership. Doesn't that leave Hollick's plan at the starting blocks?
"Gerhard and I look at these reports of our differences and smile," he says. "His point was that we have a whole range of options, and this is just one. We take exactly the same view."
Still, Five's joint owners have not always seen eye to eye. Four years ago, an argument over Five's budget reached court, after Hollick refused to buy in a package of Warner Brothers films. It was, he says now, simply "a different read on the marketplace". But doesn't the dispute suggest that Hollick's cost-cutting instincts could damage Four's programming?
"It was a very small row, about whether we buy more Hollywood films," he insists. "It was not about programming quality. Look, I got into broadcasting on the back of the Campaign for Quality Television. Quality programming delivers viewers. We've surprised a few folk in the last year, coming up on strictly commercial grounds with arts programming to give viewers an alternative. We've shown that there are audiences interested in arts programmes at 7.30pm and, yes, you can still have a bit of porn late at night."
Ah, the channel's famous defining "three F's". Wasn't he ever embarrassed by Five's late-night shows?
"No, I've never found pornography embarrassing," he replies. Not even when prominent friends raised dinner-party eyebrows? "Not at all. They wanted to know the schedule."
Nor did he appear to have any qualms when selling Express Newspapers four years ago to Richard Desmond. Rivals condemned the sale of Beaverbrook's once-great title to a "pornographer"; the Daily Mail's editor called it one of Fleet Street's "shaming moments".
Today, Hollick deflects all responsibility. "It's for the Secretary of State to judge whether any buyers are fit and proper," he says. "We have to abide strictly by the law and look after shareholders' best interests."
Still, the £125 million sale has caused Hollick subsequent difficulties: his lawyers stepped in after Desmond failed to pay bills for space he has rented in Hollick's building. Now, Hollick says, he gets on "fine" with his tenant - although Desmond is about to fulfil a long-threatened move elsewhere. Hollick seems to regret losing control of the papers before he could revive them.
MY disappointment about the Express," he says, "is that it was beginning to attract new readers who saw it as a paper with some good journalistic standards. In [our] last year, we were just at the tipping point, with new, younger readers coming in. If we'd had another few years, and could have put our broadcasting assets behind it ..."
He is "really pleased" that the Star has continued to prosper under Desmond - although it was his own appointee, Peter Hill, he credits with turning the paper around. The Express, he points out, is selling "far fewer papers than it was", though its "much lower-cost model" may yet prove viable.
Without mentioning Desmond, he does warn that only by investing "in people and product" can a media business be run efficiently. "Costcutting by itself," he says, "will not sustain a business."
He claims not to miss being a proprietor, dismissing as "crap" the presumption that it enhanced his prestige. "The power and influence is grossly exaggerated," he says. "It's slightly self-serving of the media to say otherwise."
Still, it allowed him to turn the papers pro-Labour, prompting loud accusations of cronyism. "Frankly, I'm nobody's crony," he says a little impatiently. "I'm a friend and admirer of the Prime Minister. I have my own views; my editors had theirs." Attacks on his political allegiance he sees as "froth". "I have a set of values that inform both, but business and politics are kept firmly apart."
Shareholders, after all, would not expect otherwise.
(Evening Standard, September 8, 2004)
HE MAY have announced his retirement, but Clive Hollick still has unfinished business. By the time he collects his £726,000 pension next May, the Labour peer intends to drop Channel Five from his United Business Media empire for the highest possible price.
He will not say so directly, of course; Lord Hollick of Notting Hill is far too politically astute for that. But why else, Channel 4 insiders are asking, is the former merchant banker talking up a merger between Five and Channel 4, even as the latter's new boss, Andy Duncan, appears to have gone cold on the prospect?
Hollick, 59, insists that UBM's 35 per cent stake in Five is "not for sale". Yet in an exclusive interview after announcing his leaving plans, he seems determined to push a tieup that City analysts say could significantly enhance Five's value.
"I think both Five and Four - under Mark Thompson's leadership and now Andy Duncan's - can see the considerable benefits of working together," Hollick says in his smooth corporate patter.
A merger would offer "significant gains" to both. "We have a lot of duplicated costs, we compete ferociously for bought-in material, we'd have the opportunity for cross-promotion. Where the ball lies now, under Four's new leadership, is to engage and discuss this in great detail and come forward with concrete proposals. We both think it's a sufficiently attractive and interesting opportunity to devote quite a lot of time to it."
After all, he explains, the tie-up is not exactly new. Even before Five was on air, he had talked to Channel 4 about working together. "Michael Grade [then Four's chief executive] was really rather keen," Hollick says. Only a cautious board vetoed the idea. This is not, he insists, "a bright idea that I woke up in the bath with".
Hollick is a formidable operator, charming and persuasive when necessary, although criticised by former staff as abrasive, manipulative and ruthless ("I respect their views," he responds unemotionally). In three decades, he has built a media company with a £750 million turnover, for which last year he took a £1.3 million pay package, and in which he intends to "continue to play my part".
His main loyalty, he insists, is to his shareholders. But should publicly owned Channel 4, with its special innovative remit, really be entering deals intended to boost Five's value?
"It's very important that Four's unique output, its unique brand is sustained and strengthened," Hollick replies. "That's about setting in place a [regulatory] regime, and making sure that the economic strength of the combined entity continues to foster that. There will be a stronger economic base to support its very unique contribution to the diversity of British broadcasting."
The Government, he suggests, would not block a deal. "I'd characterise their view as understanding the dynamics of single television stations which essentially have fixed costs, but an advertising pool growing less fast than the number of mouths round the table. There are inexorable trends here that the Government understands." He should know: as a close ally of Tony Blair, he is expected to play a role in writing the election manifesto.
Channel 4 would not comment on Hollick's latest pitch. But Andy Duncan is known to be less fixated on a merger than his predecessor, Mark Thompson.
Although Duncan has carefully avoided ruling out a deal with Five, a more likely outcome, his colleagues suggest, is a range of smaller partnerships, with the BBC a significant ally.
SOME Four executives believe Hollick's real agenda is to talk up such a potentially groundbreaking deal for a shortterm boost in UBM's share price.
Even if Hollick's political friends were to nod a deal through, there remains Five's major shareholder, the German media group RTL. Last week, its chief executive, Gerhard Zeiler, said Five was in "no hurry" to commit to any partnership. Doesn't that leave Hollick's plan at the starting blocks?
"Gerhard and I look at these reports of our differences and smile," he says. "His point was that we have a whole range of options, and this is just one. We take exactly the same view."
Still, Five's joint owners have not always seen eye to eye. Four years ago, an argument over Five's budget reached court, after Hollick refused to buy in a package of Warner Brothers films. It was, he says now, simply "a different read on the marketplace". But doesn't the dispute suggest that Hollick's cost-cutting instincts could damage Four's programming?
"It was a very small row, about whether we buy more Hollywood films," he insists. "It was not about programming quality. Look, I got into broadcasting on the back of the Campaign for Quality Television. Quality programming delivers viewers. We've surprised a few folk in the last year, coming up on strictly commercial grounds with arts programming to give viewers an alternative. We've shown that there are audiences interested in arts programmes at 7.30pm and, yes, you can still have a bit of porn late at night."
Ah, the channel's famous defining "three F's". Wasn't he ever embarrassed by Five's late-night shows?
"No, I've never found pornography embarrassing," he replies. Not even when prominent friends raised dinner-party eyebrows? "Not at all. They wanted to know the schedule."
Nor did he appear to have any qualms when selling Express Newspapers four years ago to Richard Desmond. Rivals condemned the sale of Beaverbrook's once-great title to a "pornographer"; the Daily Mail's editor called it one of Fleet Street's "shaming moments".
Today, Hollick deflects all responsibility. "It's for the Secretary of State to judge whether any buyers are fit and proper," he says. "We have to abide strictly by the law and look after shareholders' best interests."
Still, the £125 million sale has caused Hollick subsequent difficulties: his lawyers stepped in after Desmond failed to pay bills for space he has rented in Hollick's building. Now, Hollick says, he gets on "fine" with his tenant - although Desmond is about to fulfil a long-threatened move elsewhere. Hollick seems to regret losing control of the papers before he could revive them.
MY disappointment about the Express," he says, "is that it was beginning to attract new readers who saw it as a paper with some good journalistic standards. In [our] last year, we were just at the tipping point, with new, younger readers coming in. If we'd had another few years, and could have put our broadcasting assets behind it ..."
He is "really pleased" that the Star has continued to prosper under Desmond - although it was his own appointee, Peter Hill, he credits with turning the paper around. The Express, he points out, is selling "far fewer papers than it was", though its "much lower-cost model" may yet prove viable.
Without mentioning Desmond, he does warn that only by investing "in people and product" can a media business be run efficiently. "Costcutting by itself," he says, "will not sustain a business."
He claims not to miss being a proprietor, dismissing as "crap" the presumption that it enhanced his prestige. "The power and influence is grossly exaggerated," he says. "It's slightly self-serving of the media to say otherwise."
Still, it allowed him to turn the papers pro-Labour, prompting loud accusations of cronyism. "Frankly, I'm nobody's crony," he says a little impatiently. "I'm a friend and admirer of the Prime Minister. I have my own views; my editors had theirs." Attacks on his political allegiance he sees as "froth". "I have a set of values that inform both, but business and politics are kept firmly apart."
Shareholders, after all, would not expect otherwise.
(Evening Standard, September 8, 2004)
posted by David Rowan at Wednesday, September 08, 2004
<< Home