Ofcom just opened an informal consultation — responses due May 4 — on what to do about Channel 4’s financial future. If you have an opinion financial data to contribue just email: mark.bunting@ofcom.org.uk, although I am sure he won’t want to hear your views on Jane Goody (ed. - who?).

I just skimmed the research (133 page pdf) Ofcom commissioned from LEK Consulting. The research seems reasonable and thorough enough. But here it seems like the main question is whether people believe in principle that a broadcasting firm like Channel 4 should receive financial support when the public is already footing the bill for a huge state intervention already. Ofcom envision four options at this stage:

If we conclude that there is no case for intervention of any kind, we should recommend that further public support for Channel 4 should be ruled out for the foreseeable future;

If we conclude that the problems are not immediate, and may not emerge at all, we should monitor Channel 4’s financial performance and remit delivery closely, and review the case for future intervention again as and when there is more evidence available;

If we conclude that major problems are unlikely to be immediate, but that there is some short-term risk to Channel 4’s ability to deliver its remit, we should consider what limited ‘safety net’ measures could be put in place to mitigate this and any medium term risk, and review potential options for more significant intervention at a later date; or

If we conclude that there is a compelling case for immediate structural intervention, we should move directly to make a detailed assessment of the options for intervention.

MBA types take note: None of the options involve sacking Andy Duncan. Usually firms in this situation just replace the CEO and find someone who can get the job done. Or they stick with whatever failing strategy they have and go through a reorganisation or liquidation in bankruptcy. But Channel 4 is state-owned so it is a political issue. State-owned firms rarely do well in the commercial sector because they have one inattentive shareholder.