Why Sunrise really failed
April 9th, 2010 at 2:00 pm by David FarrarThere’s been lots written about why Sunrise failed. The most humouros involve the powerful Rick Giles. The most modest theory though comes from Bomber Bradbury:
TV3 never set out to offer an alternative to what was already being offered, which is why initially the appointment of Oliver Driver (after his amazing work doing 30minute political interviews on Alt Tv) had such a ratings reaction, finally a liberal alternative to Breakfast. Sadly once I stopped writing the questions for Oliver, he quickly fell back into the dumb TV that saw Sunrise bleed away to nothing.
So there we have it – why TV3, Sunrise and Oliver Driver all failed.
I watched the farewell episode today. Lots of good humour, and was a good send off. While Oliver’s politics would frustrate me, I don’t regard it as a good thing to have less choice and competition in news.
Related posts:
- Naked News on Alt TV
- NZ 7th least failed
- Wednesday Wallpaper 11 July | Sunrise, Moeraki Boulders
- Wednesday Wallpaper | Lake Tekapo Lupines At Sunrise
April 9th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
It really failed because it was really rubbish. Really.
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
The arguments of Act on Campus were simply too powerful.
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
kiwitoffee (369) Says:
April 9th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
It really failed because it was really rubbish. Really.
It’s a shame if that really is the truth because all TVNZ/3 News and current affairs is really rubbish. Really. Maybe people are just dumber at night and will wach anything because there has to be SOMETHING on TV.
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
LRO.
I think you’re on to something there.
Trivia, third-rate celebrities who think they’ve got something to say, and presenters who struggle with the language (when you can decipher what they are saying), advertorials, all this and more on ‘brekky telly’.
Blimey, I’ll feel a lot happier getting up on cold mornings knowing that such drivel is now gone.
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
I already feel happy getting up on cold mornings. My protestant upbringing won’t let me turn on the tele in the AM and I don’t see why I, or anyone, should get the hump over something so stupid as crap masquerading as news. Do you?
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Alt TV – another stunning success.
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
It’s a shame if that really is the truth because all TVNZ/3 News and current affairs is really rubbish. Really.
People watch it. I’ll trust the independent decisions of 140,000 people to watch Breakfast before I trust any individual’s judgment of its quality.
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
^^^ People watch breakfast because trainwrecks are compelling viewing.
It’s like the big chimpanzee at the zoo sexually abusing his niece. You can’t watch, but you can’t look away either.
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
That Bomber eh – sheesh, he’s a legend in his own lunchtime!
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Confession: I’ve never watched more than – in total – 20 minutes of breakfast telly, and never been able to stomach more than about threee minutes at any one time.
It’s the presenters. They are truly appalling in every respect and I just get tired of trying to understand what they are saying (and depressed when I finally do).
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
i read the headline and thought it was something about sunrise adams, bless her heart
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
“he appointment of Oliver Driver (after his amazing work doing 30minute political interviews on Alt Tv) ”
I’m amazed he calls it work. Driver sucks ass.
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
RRM 2:20 pm,
Is that a metaphor?
Vote:For a small fee I can pretend to act as priest if you come to the confessional.
April 9th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Murray said
But only ever the left-leaning cheek Murray
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
ben (725) Says:
People watch it. I’ll trust the independent decisions of 140,000 people to watch Breakfast before I trust any individual’s judgment of its quality.
Do you also trust the independent decisions of 1.5 billion muslims that the’re religion is thwe one true religion before you judge the quality of their claims?
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Do you also trust the independent decisions of 1.5 billion muslims that the’re religion is thwe one true religion before you judge the quality of their claims?
Compared to a single person claiming their religion is the one true religion? Yes, I would, actually.
Of course, they are both wrong, because as everyone knows it is the Flying Spaghetti Monster that is the one true religion.
But remember, TV quality is not like a god, in that it can be observed, even if it is hard to measure. 140,000 people independently choosing to watch Breakfast, rather than read the paper or watch another channel or a DVD or read a book or listen to radio or watch one of 90 channels on Sky, etc, is a very reliable signal that what Breakfast does has value, if not to the taste of everyone. Breakfast is beating a lot of competition to pull those viewers, and to me that is a strong signal of quality.
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
No, it’s a sign of pulling power, but not of quality. Successful at a relatively limited time, not quality. It seems evident that many TV viewers are not attracted to quality, they are attracted to magazine junk.
Many more people eat at McDonalds than at Bell Pepper Blues, that doesn’t prove McDonalds is quality and BPB is not.
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Sorry Pete but everyone knows that the only judge of quality is the consumer. Your opinions are but those of one consumer amongst 140,000 (always assuming you qualify as a consumer of course)
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
” While Oliver’s politics would frustrate me, I don’t regard it as a good thing to have less choice and competition in news.”
oh believe me, Drivers politics are well covered catered for in this industry
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Oliver Driver is a complete tosser. There’s no way I would watch a flaming lefty like him. I do remember hearing him once on Newstalk ZB singing the praises of a Truther movie (one of those conspiracy theory flicks that claim the US govt blew up the twin towers).
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Pete, I think it is a sign of quality because, unlike McDonalds vs fancy restaurants, there is no price signal. Breakfast has about the same out of pocket expense as Sunrise, as reading a book, as listening to the radio, as watching the grass grow. Ok, Breakfast is not what you’d like to watch at 7am, but the bottom line is that for 140,000 NZers it has won their attention from a lot of free alternatives. Sunrise only managed 20,000, at the same price, at the same time, same ease of access. The difference speaks to quality.
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
david (1306) Says:
April 9th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Sorry Pete but everyone knows that the only judge of quality is the consumer. Your opinions are but those of one consumer amongst 140,000 (always assuming you qualify as a consumer of course)
Sounds like we’ve found ourselves another ACTbot.
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
If Olly had of had his former associate Lisa Lewis suitably garbed as co-host I am sure ratings would have soared. She had a unique ability to reveal the bare facts.
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
TV1 has got the pulling power at both ends of the working day.. with Breakfast in the morning and now the big pulling power of Ellen starting at 5pm.. then followed by the news.. so why would anyone want flick over to TV3. And i’m pretty sure Ellen is a lefty as well… what a coup for ONE.
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
LRO: Type whatever you like here, talk is cheap. 140,000 people vote with their feet against you, 7 times more than the TV3 competition. That is a reliable signal of Breakfast’s quality against the many morning alternatives.
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Ben, I suggest you need to chill a little and try to understand the difference between quality and quantity. and between popularity and quality.
Maybe you think the All Blacks play the best quality rugby because more people IN NZ support the All Blacks than any other rugby team.
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Bomber was the ‘brains’ behind Sunrise. Uh-huh. Must have scared the shit out of the main sponsors.
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Maybe you think the All Blacks play the best quality rugby because more people IN NZ support the All Blacks than any other rugby team.
Go the ALL BLACKS..
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
LRO, why wouldn’t quality translate directly to viewership? Why would viewers choose something other than the best product for them if it is only a click away? And why shouldn’t the show that offers the best fit with the most viewers be interpreted as a quality issue? The goal for both programs was to pull the most viewers.
If two rugby tests were on at the same time, then I would expect counting the number of non-partisan fans watching each game to tell me something about quality (partisanship obviously matters in rugby but not so much in television I submit).
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
DPF I wonder if the last sentence of your post could have been clearer as to accuracy with “delivery” or “presentation” as an ending. News is News.
Are ’140 000′ viewers watching the infotainment AM “news” or is the telly on till the last one leaves the room whereas are 140 000 watching a Linda la Plante telly play just a little more committed than those focussed on getting ready for the day ahead.
Vote:‘Viewers’ or are they just present some of the time.
April 9th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
ps go the All Blacks!!
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
You could say that a few million people chose to do something other than watching TV in the morning.
140,000 isn’t a big proportion of potential viewers. If they put on a quality show in the morning they might pull some significant numbers.
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Yes, quite correct Pete. TV strikes me as a tough sell, I’m sure TVNZ would pay you handsomely if you could pull another 100,000.
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
LRO, I object strongly to your description of me as an ACTbot. Far from it sunshine.
If you had availed yourself of the educational opportunities available in this fair country, you would have discovered (probably on day 1) that what I said is precisely how “quality” is described. I am aware that this differs markedly from the leftist wet dream of “we know best and we know what is best for you” but the man who sets himself up as an arbiter of quality for other people’s consumption is not only a fool but is deluding himself.
But for our endless amusement why don’t you clearly describe your definition of quality and then apply it to a TV entertainment show.
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
David: hear hear.
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Oh and if you want to try and obtain an assessment of a particular episode, you can only do it after the event amongst those who watched it. Viewership therefore will not per se define quality. Over time however, those who keep coming back must have found suffiient quality by their personal measures including how they value their time and comparing alternative uses of that time so the judgement of ongoing viewer numbers is a valid measure of quality judgement.
Interesting LRO, I syuppose you would define National Radio as quality with talkback as lacking quality. Ask the market !!
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Last one before the weekend:
I suppose you could say that, in this thread at least, the commenters’ contempt for Oliver Driver is so complete and obvious that we don’t really need to talk about it.
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
david suggests:
As a former broadcaster, including sa stint as a TV Executive Producer, and a current (very occasional) TV program-maker two things come to mind.
1. Quality, like beauty, is something which it is easier to define in its absence. The majority of people, by their absence from the viewership figures, seem to have decided that, while they may differ as to what constitutes quality, what’s on TV in the morning at present ain’t it.
Until a TV channel in NZ is brave enough to offer something like “ABC News Breakfast” (ABC2, 6 – 9 am) with actual journalists as presenters and actual news as content so people who want some sortof TV news in the morning have a choice other than Tweedledum and Tweedledummer, no one can really say they’re satisfied with what they’re getting – merely that they’re putting up with it.
2. You seem to be implying ratings = quality, but I doubt that’s actually what you’re saying. But are you implying that the arbiter of what gets screened ought solely to be its ratings?
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Thank God for morning milkings.
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
I would think 140,000 viewers watching TV in the morning in NZ is a pretty good result.
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
What is the cost of sending out a team to various country wide locations, just to repeatedly burble on every 10 minutes about the weather ???
Couldn’t stand that Driver guy either..
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
2. You seem to be implying ratings = quality, but I doubt that’s actually what you’re saying. But are you implying that the arbiter of what gets screened ought solely to be its ratings?
I don’t know about anyone else, but I’ll go with Milton Friedman and say the sole criterion for TVNZ and any business is profit maximisation. That’s it. Maximise the difference between revenue and costs.
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Sunrise failed because it sucked and because it was persuing a market already catered for. End of analysis.
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Yes, the simple answer is always the best and the last chose. Sunrise failed because people didn’t want it.
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
At least this shows the media is saturated with leftist liberal shows and the public has no appetite for any more.
So if Sunrise was liberal or left of centre, where were the conservative or right of centre programmes on TV? I must have missed them?
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
As for my tuppence worth, I am so pleased my working day starts with the diesel firing at 6am.
Vote:TV1 or TV3 all the same to me……..I wouldn’t know, never see it, but it sounds like I aint missing much.
April 9th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Come to think about it if Bomber’s claim is true then its no wonder that Sunrise failed. He was the programming director at ALT TV when it went down the drain so he’s obviously worked his magic again.
I’m not sure if being the ‘brains’ behind breakfast television is any better than working for Mathew Hooton.
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Jd: Bradbury is a sad sack of shit, thinking he’s a primo media and politics don when in fact he’s been involved in two major TV failures and is still doing stage 3 politics papers when he’s 34 years old. The only sign the private sector still wants him is his show he does on Stratos that no one watches which is made up of Powerpoint slides where he pretends to be Glenn Beck without the “aw shucks” charisma.
Vote:April 9th, 2010 at 9:18 pm
I don’t have issues with whether he’s a failure so at least he’s made a go it it albeit with other people’s money. He is in denial over his role in the failures of ALT TV so introspection obviously isn’t one of his be traits.
What I do have a problem is that he betrayed his principles that he loves to hold over others. How could he profess to be an ‘urban liberal’ but then gets into bed with a Hooton, a national party PR lobbyist who represents tobacco companies. At least Hooton he is who he says he is but with Bomber you have to ask what the hell does he stand for if he’s willing to trade his political beliefs for thirty pieces of silver.
He should have just gone on the dole instead of destroying his credibility like that if he was so desperate for cash.
PS Didn’t he graduate in the 1990s.
Vote:April 10th, 2010 at 3:33 am
Sunrise was just boring to watch. The presenters were dull. No energy there at all.
Why does Bomber think he is such hot shit? He made a mess of Rip It Up, he made a mess of ALT TV, and now he’s claiming Sunrise as well? Dude, find a new profession.
Vote:April 10th, 2010 at 4:34 am
television, the
Vote:opium of the masses
dancing with the stars
April 10th, 2010 at 9:14 am
They should reinstate Dancing with the Stars every third year.
Vote:Next time- ask Oliver Driver.
April 10th, 2010 at 9:15 am
Love the Haiku (s) or whatever is the plural.
Vote:April 10th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Bomber’s problem is that he is no longer relevant.
He’s an aging politically compromised activist way past his use by date that no amount of tattooing, overinflated self-importance or outrageous sideboards can redeem.
But as is the way in NZ with hasbeens he will continue to grace our screen at timeslots and on stations where he will slowly sink into anonomity.
Vote:April 10th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Failed because…no one thought it worth watching.
Where were those shows/news catering to the right of the political spectrum (aside from the odd foray by Paul Henry)? #crickets chirping
Vote:April 11th, 2010 at 7:23 am
Ben, the difference in scale of viewership is nothing more than a indicator of the more dominant application of basic social engineering concepts in the editorial phase of production. The manifestation of SE in the media is no indicator of quality, its quite the opposite actually
Allow me to respectfully suggest you enlighten yourself to the business model of the media before making similar comments
Good day to you.
Vote:April 11th, 2010 at 7:33 am
Reading your later statement, it seems you have contradicted your own argument with this (correct) assertion:
“The goal for both programs was to pull the most viewers”
The goal is to pull the most viewers, not deliver a high quality product, therefore the more dominant program is simply better at pulling more viewers, it is illogical to inject quality into the calculation as viewership is not related to quality (assuming that by quality you mean deeply engaging highly significant pieces of news and not the volume of revenue generated, if by quality you are referring to the latter, then you are correct and i withdraw my comments)
Vote:April 11th, 2010 at 7:48 am
It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the program “Sunrise” was actually delivering a higher quality product and failed as a result of it. If we are to compare the editorial teams of both sunrise and breakfeast, we can easily conclude that the breakfeast team was more successful in terms of the selection of material broadcasted.
Now we have to consider this, what is more likely to retain the larger market share, material that is significant, relevant , controversial and deeply engaging of importance to a small pool of viewers, or something less significant, less controversial and less engaging that is appealing to the more wider demographic. You may wonder, how can you argue that the larger market share will be attracted to the less signficant material? Its because years of conditioning that we have suffered at the hands of these outfits, we have literally been engineered to gobble up a specific “safe” product on a large scale.
I will conclude this by ask you what would be of more interest to the general public in new zealand:
I) The slaying of x people in a foreign land
II) Controversy surrounding the sex life of the All Black Dan Carter
Once you have made your decision, ask yourself which is genuine news and which is cluttery gossip
Vote:April 11th, 2010 at 10:31 am
socialism, the
Vote:opium of the masses
its other peoples money
April 11th, 2010 at 10:31 am
And its opiate.
Vote:April 12th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
five seven five, muzz
Vote:a haiku is five seven
five, but nice try dude