Kenrick is right

March 11th, 2013 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

When he was hired last May, Television New Zealand chief executive rebuffed putative interviewers with the words “not until I know more about it”. …

“Most people think of as being a TV business,” he begins. “Not surprisingly, I guess; we’ve got it in our name.” He goes on to explain they are now delivering 2.5 million online video streams a month and the number is growing at 30 per cent a year. “It has gone beyond a toe in the water to a really significant part of what we do every day.” …

He says people in the business don’t think of themselves as working in television any more – I suspect that would surprise some of them – but as being “in the video content business”. Would he change their name, then? He ponders this – “what would you call yourself?” – and settles for saying they will change people’s perceptions. He talks about giving people content when and where they want it. So one day, then, there might be no TV1 or TV2? He doesn’t know, doesn’t care much.

As an involuntary shareholder in TVNZ, I’m pleased to see this statement from Kenrick because I agree that the future is not necessarily in channels.

Traditionally there are three segments in broadcasting. Producing the content, playing it on a channel and distributing the content.

The future is more and more about the first and third segments. There will be money in producing content and money in distributing content. But not a lot of money in channels per se.

I watch very little live TV. I set My Sky to record programmes that interest me over around 20 different channels. I hardly even notice what channel they were originally on, and don’t really care. I care about content, not about channels.

Some viewers are different, especially older ones. But the world is changing and channels will become less valuable – especially as on demand content also increases in popularity.

Tags: ,

14 Responses to “Kenrick is right”

  1. Bovver (173 comments) says:

    It’s amazing what has happened with distribution channels in the last 10 years, thanks to UFB (and ASDL) we are not held hostage by the TV companies to what we can and cannot watch when ever we want. With the UFB roll out will NZ ever get a decent Netflix type service, I don’t mind paying a fair price but Sky’s indecent charges to get to the Soho and Rialto channels means I’ll keep using EZTV for the time being, plus I want to watch programs when it suits me and not be at the whim of some TV schedule.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    I’ve had broadcast television disconnected since the West Coast went digital last year and I don’t regret it one bit. The kids can still watch DVDs, my wife watches her crap programs ‘on demand’, and I search the net for news and documentaries.

    I haven’t watched a NZ television news bulletin for nearly 5 months.

    I highly recommend it, we simply don’t need traditional televison or ‘channels’ any longer.

    The freedom from advertising blaring into the living room is bliss, though youtube is rapidly encroaching into that territory……

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. YesWeDid (1,048 comments) says:

    So DPF, how did you become an ‘involuntary shareholder in TVNZ’? Did the government hand out some shares for free to you?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Black with a Vengeance (1,861 comments) says:

    Could you please define ‘involuntary shareholder’ as it relates to ownership of state assets and SOE’s?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Hahaha DPF, the trolls are seizing on your throwaway ‘involuntary shareholder’ comment to support their claims that they already own MRP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. David Farrar (1,894 comments) says:

    An indirect involuntary shareholder.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Black with a Vengeance (1,861 comments) says:

    Qualifying it with another adjective is not defining it…

    And no RN…I already know we own the assets through ownership of the government.

    Surely you don’t think they own the assets and, by inference, us as well?

    What a deluded little nutjob you are if you do!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Dave Mann (1,218 comments) says:

    I don’t have Sky, but I also record everything I watch (off Freeview) rather than watch it live…..however nowadays the free-to-air TV is such utter rubbish (cooking shows, reality TV etc) that I find myself only recording 4 or 5 programmes per week across all the channels – and of these I usually watch the first 5 minutes and end up deleting most of them, coz its such garbage. I have more or less given up on the idea of TV and I get almost all my news, opinion and media entertainment from this www thingy.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Black with a Vengeance (1,861 comments) says:

    Can you please finish this sentence DPF?

    An involuntary shareholder in a State Owned Enterprise is someone who…

    So would a direct involuntary stakeholder be Maoridom?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    DPF – “….. I hardly even notice what channel they were originally on, and don’t really care. I care about content, not about channels….”

    And DPF is now doing in 2013 what people were all doing after work all that time before ‘tv channels’ were ever invented – pursueing his own personal interests. And that is what TV should be, a tool. Sometimes to amuse us, sometimes to educate us, and sometimes to relax us.

    DPF # “…..But not a lot of money in channels per se….” Idon’t know about that being the case as that is where the advertising is. But then I don’t know what all the stats are between ad-less pay TV, pay tv with ads, and free content with ads, etc. If it goes the way of ad-less pay tv, then you may probably be right. Cheers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Australis (101 comments) says:

    ” As an involuntary shareholder in TVNZ ….”

    You should avoid encouraging this illusion that all New Zealand residents (citizens? taxpayers?) somehow own an undivided undefined share in every asset held by the Crown.

    I don’t get a vote on decisions taken by your local primary school. I don’t receive dividends, and am not entitled to a share in the event of liquidation. I can’t will my share of the asset to my heirs or transfer it to my cousins. Whatever my relationship to that school, it has absolutely none of the incidents of ownership. (In fact, the school doesn’t even have any shares.)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Black with a Vengeance (1,861 comments) says:

    So how does a political party in office on a 3 year electoral cycle suddenly own a countries assets and can sell them as they see fit and not as the citizens they are accountable to see fit ? Are assets magically gifted ownership each time we have a change of govt as though an inheritance?

    Exactly, where the fuck does it say that or is that one of those dodgy British laws we adopted wholesale without questioning?

    An election is not a mandate to sell state assets. It’s a mandate to serve the best interests of the country as whole, not as in this case, just the fatcats and dumfucks who voted these chumps in.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. CrazyIvan (90 comments) says:

    While TVNZ may be moving a lot of video streams, how much of that is actual TVNZ-commissioned content as opposed to being a platform for overseas shows? Would the TVNZ content be commercially viable solely based on its own content, rather than being a conduit for someone else’s?

    Of course, the content is at the moment still under the control of each networks that funds and commissions the work in the hope that the shows will be ratings hits, that persuade advertisers to climb on board. Someone will still need to put up the money for shows to be made, in the hope of a commercial return. Television channels are relatively easy to do that because the mechanism for obtaining the revenue stream is there. I wonder whether the pay-to-watch market on the Internet would be sufficient to cover the costs of creating the content in the first place.

    In the future the networks may become like the film studios, not owning the theatres that the shows play in, but simply being a distributor of the content. Whether there’s money in that is another question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Viking2 (11,467 comments) says:

    Odds on that most of the vid’s are sport.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote