Kiwiblog

Stuff reports:

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

“Most people think of TVNZ 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.

A press secretary commented to me yesterday that I seem to be the only person in the country who liked Seven Sharp. By coincidence Heather DPA walked past at that point!

Anyway it is fair to say that almost all reviews and comments online have been critical, including of course those written before it aired!

But I thought this post by Toby Manhire is pretty well balanced. The summary is:

Good

1. The tone
2. The personnel
3. Ali Mau
4. The set
5. The John Key office item
6. The Afghanistan and post-traumatic stress disorder item
7. No pratfalls

Bad

1. The lack of live-news content
   
2. Interactivity
3. The tone
4. The tone cont’d
5. The timing of the John Key office item
6. Some of the jokes
7. The absence of studio guests

Tuesday’s night show was a bit different to the first night. One thing which would improve things for me is having them say at the beginning of the programme what they’ll be covering. If you know what is coming up, you are more likely to stay past the jokes.

The naturist item was quite interesting. A good example of meeting someone behind the headline story. I had some sympathy for him up until the point he compared himself to Martin Luther King.

Had to laugh at the position of the boom mike in the interview

Not quite so many items as the night before, which was good in my opinion.

And a mini coup with getting Karen from the Rachel v Karen phone call on screen. Not as exciting as one would have thought though from the phone call.

The Richie McCaw item was very boring, but I guess rates well with hormonal women.

So after two nights, I’m still in the liking it category. But no, I won’t be doing daily reviews. After this I’ll give a month before blogging again on it.

Well I have to say I liked it. Highlight was the suggestion that the person who accompany the PM onto the Waitangi Marae was Karen from Stokes Valley. One of many times I had a good laugh.

The three hosts had good rapport with each other and the items were interesting. Obviously enjoyed Heather DPA’s tour of the PM’s Office and how he has a sword instead of a panic button.

No it wasn’t in-depth critical analysis of the day’s issues. It was never going to be that. There are other shows for that. But I think a bit of humour isn’t a bad thing to get people watching.

It is of course one day only. The real challenge is to still be fresh and interesting a month down the track. It’s certainly done well enough that I’ve set it down as a series record on My Sky – something I had never done with Close Up (or Campbell Live).

Stuff reports:

Television New Zealand’s head of news and current affairs Ross Dagan has resigned after less than nine months in the job.

In an email to staff, Dagan said his departure was for personal reasons and he was heading back to his hometown of Brisbane to take up a job at Seven Network.

It is highly unusual and almost unprofessional to quit an executive role in less than two years, unless there is something wrong at work. I’d heard Dagan wasn’t very popular – but that is not unusual for people in his role.

TVNZ have announced:

TVNZ has announced that Ali Mau , Greg Boyed , and Jesse Mulligan will host TV ONE’s new 7pm show, Seven Sharp.

I’m a big fan of Ali Mau’s work, and Greg Boyed has been solid on Q+A.

I love 7 Days and enjoy Jesse Mulligan on there. I understand the strategy has been for Seven Sharp to be more chatty and light hearted, and hence why they have gone for someone best known as a comedian. But Mulligan is also a well known left-winger (he has been a panelist for Locally Left) who has taken part in fund-raisers for the Labour Party. It is hard to imagine that his natural sympathy for Labour is not going to colour his comments on air. Can you be seen as neutral on the Leader of the Opposition when you have done fundraisers for him and endorsed him as “brilliant”?

This show is a replacement for Close Up. Would it have been acceptable for Susan Wood or Mark Sainsbury to do fundraisers for the National Party? Would John Campbell do fundraisers for the Greens? And we’re not talking years ago, but just four months ago.

Nothing personal against Jesse, who I am sure will try his best not to let his support for Labour affect his on air comments. I certainly am not advocating that those with political leanings should not be on the air. I’ve sometimes been a panelist on TV and radio. And I try to be fair with my comments when I am on air. However of course my overall worldview influences my comments. And there is a huge difference between being an occasional panelist and being employed by state broadcaster TVNZ as a daily host and journalist.

So it will be very interesting to see how Seven Sharp goes. I hope it succeeds in that I think we need more  current affairs on television, and I’m all for a bit of humour mixed in with that. Politics is often best viewed with a sense of humour. But I do hope it is fair and balanced.

Regan Cunliffe blogs at Throng:

On monday, Sky and TVNZ launched their hardly anticipated new subscription television service.

Here’s our list of reasons why it shouldn’t be under your tree this Christmas or anywhere else in your house for that matter.

10. It’s probably still broken.  

The custom built platform was supposed to be launched months ago but has been delayed due to “technical problems”.  Is the launch simply exploitation of the spending season or a Christmas miracle?

9. TVNZ are involved.

Remember when TVNZ said “TiVo transforms television“? How are all those customers feeling today?  How long before Igloo too melts down?

8. A comparable Freeview box is less than half the price.

There are a number of basic models of DVB-T receivers which also have the ability to record to a connected USB storage device.

7. Sport is ultra-expensive.

The base “30 day channel pack” plus purchasing every Super XV match The Chiefs play during that period would cost you up to $99.74. On Sky this would cost $72.46 and include more channels, every Super XV game and a lot more sports besides.

6. Paying for content that used to be free.

Two of the eleven Igloo channels feature content that TVNZ used to broadcast for free:  Kidzone24 and TVNZ Heartland.

5. All Igloo content is Standard Definition.

The only content that you’ll be able to view in High Definition is from any of the free-to-air channels that broadcast in HD.  All of the extra content you’re paying for is delivered in standard definition.  This includes movies and sport.

4. High per channel price.

The “Sky Basic” package costs approximately $1.36 per premium channel compared with $2.27 per premium channel on Igloo.

3. Igloo is not a middle option.

Currently, a new 12 month “Sky Basic” package (~63 channels) with 3 months free sport and SoHo and free installation costs $553.44.

A new Igloo box (~34 channels) which you install yourself and a 12 month subscription costs $478.05

A new Freeview box (~29 channels) which you install yourself costs from $99.

2. Two thirds of the channels you can already watch for free.

That’s right.  They’re already free.  And also the most watched.

1. You’re not an Eskimo.

They’re the only ones who should have an igloo.

Those are our top 10 reasons why you shouldn’t get igloo and now we want yours.  We’ve got a brand new Samsung MyFreeview HD digital TV recorder (BDE-8500) worth $649 to give away.

In addition, if anyone reposts this on their own blog, we’ll include any comments made there in the draw. Have at it.

So if you comment below on Kiwiblog why you think people shouldn’t get Igloo, you can win a Samsung MyFreeview HD digital TV recorder!

The Herald reported:

Close Up’s replacement will be a magazine show with two presenters – and Pippa Wetzell and Paul Henry are understood to be the hot favourites.

A confidential brief circulating at TVNZ says the focus will be on the “talking point of the day” and a mixture of news and entertainment.

But a journalism commentator said it would be “Breakfast at dinner-time” and showed the broadcaster’s lack of commitment to strong current affairs.

It is no secret within TVNZ that the network has been courting Wetzell and that it wants to give her a prominent role next year.

It is understood she has had meetings with TVNZ executives.

I think Paul Henry could do well in the role, so long as he doesn’t do any brain farts. Sure, on Breakfast he is the rogue, but it is worth considering that he can actually do decent interviews. Also he is majorly interested in politics, so if he is the host the focus might be more on “hard news” than “light news”.

The new format is understood to be much like The Project, which airs on Australia’s Channel 10 and is hosted by comedians presenting news stories.

Dagan was behind the show before he moved to TVNZ.

“It’s the news – but not as you know it,” Channel 10 says in a description of the show on its website.

“Guaranteeing no miracle diets, no stories that ‘no parent can afford to miss’, and virtually no dodgy plumbers, The Project is a TV show joining in the conversations going on in living rooms around the country.”

The Project is on each weekday at 6pm and its three hosts “dissect, digest and reconstitute each day’s news” in a style “not afraid to be serious, but not a satirical newscast,” Channel 10 says.

I actually predicted on radio that the new format would be a panel, dissecting the day’s news. The key would be who is on the panel.

Stuff reports:

From Close Up to closed down, it’s the end of an era for a New Zealand television staple and its current frontman, Mark Sainsbury.

TVNZ announced a proposal yesterday to switch off the programme by the end of the year, with 16 staff going through a consultation period until mid next month.

Sainsbury said he would have preferred the programme and his role to continue but ultimately he accepted the broadcaster’s decision.

“I’d love to keep going until I drop dead. But let’s be real, it is the end of an era,” he said yesterday after six years with the show and 31 years at the network.

“They’ve been looking at the programme for most of the year – we’d made a huge effort – but they want to make changes.”

Last night, on signing off for the night on his programme, Sainsbury said the Close Up format “as we know it” was ending after 23 years.

“But a new different programme will emerge next year.

“It’s an exciting time in this business when change happens, whether you want that change to occur or not, and the feeling is that it’s time for change,” he said.

Sainsbury stopped short of saying he was leaving TVNZ but said he had no regrets over his 31-year career.

A long-time commuter to Auckland, he is expected to return to his Wellington home when the curtain falls.

Former TVNZ broadcasters said they had concerns the proposal to pull the plug on Close Up was another step towards dumbing down content.

Former TVNZ news and current affairs executives Bill Ralston and Paul Norris said they had fears the programme might be replaced with an even more lightweight “info-tainment” show designed to draw in larger audiences while neglecting serious analytical stories.

I may be wrong but I suspect it will head to more info-tainment. My guess is a couple of stories per show, with a panel talking about them, and soliciting viewer feedback through social media.

The big question is will this see the return of Paul Henry? He’s guaranteed to see huge interest, initially anyway.

Sky TV has announced that Backbenches will return in 2013. It will be primarily funded by NZ on Air, part-funded by Sky, produced by TVNZ, broadcast live on Wednesday evenings by Prime TV and shown delayed on TVNZ Heartland channel.

A great collaborative effort, which should mean it is seen by far more people than was the case on TVNZ7.

Funding at this stage is for 20 one hour shows.

As I said when Backbenches finished on TVNZ7, I’ve been a big fan of the show. However there are some format changes they should consider to make it better when it relaunches.

John Drinnan writes at NZ Herald:

Plans for TVNZ to make Back Benches for Prime TV will deliver good public relations results all round and a pleasing result for the show’s loyal audience.

The politics programme, which is one of the last vestiges of television in Wellington, has screened on TVNZ 7 until it was discontinued last week.

It does not fit with TVNZ’s aims of making profit at all costs, so TVNZ is not interested in picking up the niche-interest show for TV One.

Prime TV is prepared to run a weekly 10.30pm show – a time when it should not be too encumbered with advertising.

So now TVNZ, which owns the intellectual property, has sought taxpayer funding from New Zealand On Air to make the show in-house and sell it to Prime.

This is a win-win-win. Worthy souls will applaud the survival of Back Benches. TVNZ and New Zealand On Air will do something to keep the legacy alive.

NZ on Air has to agree to the funding request, but I certainly hope they do.

As I understand it the bid is a co-operative exercise between TVNZ and Sky, and it would probably also show on a TVNZ channel at a delayed time spot.

The good thing is this bid, if successful, will open up viewership to a potentially much larger audience than TVNZ7 had.

I’ve blogged at length before on TVNZ7. I have praised a number of programmes on TVNZ7, but noted that their audiences were miniscule (seem to range from 0.1% to 0.4% of the population) and that trying to make TVNZ both a commercial and a public service broadcaster is doomed to failure (as former CEO Ian Fraser has noted).

I’d like to see other broadcasters (including Sky) apply to NZ on Air to broadcast some of the better shows that were on TVNZ7 such as Court Report, Media 7, Backbenchers and The Last Word. But at this stage I’ve not heard any are.

Clare Curran has blogged a number of things:

I am drafting a private members bill which would ensure TVNZ7 had adequate funding to continue. But a private members bill goes into a ballot with around 60 other bills and it’s the luck of the draw as to whether it gets pulled out. If it did, it would be interesting to see the support for TVNZ7 and public service television across the House. I think the government might find itself outnumbered.

The bill has no chance of achieving anything, and is a last minute publicity stunt (nothing wrong with those, but let’s not pretend it is something different). The bill hasn’t even been drafted yet (most MPs draft the bill then announce it), and could not possibly be passed by 30 June. Hell even it was drawn out of the ballot, I doubt it would even have its first reading by 30 June.

There are two schools of thought. The government’s view  is that public service television can continue to be funded by NZ on Air funding programmes on commercial channels. The problem with this is that the most interesting programmes are not shown in prime time.

True, but with the growing use of PVRs and TV on demand on the Internet this is less of a problem.

There’s a strong argument for a complete revamp of the sector and the Broadcasting Act. For a  new independent public service TV channel separate from TVNZ. For requiring commercial channels, including the pay TV channel Sky to contribute. For even a small levy on internet connections to enable a new service to embrace the broadband environment and develop more Kiwi content that is accessible to Kiwis.

I really do hope Labour adopt this Internet tax as policy and campaign on it.

I am not against there being a public service television broadcaster, but the appropriate funding mechanism would be taxes – just as Radio NZ and Maori TV are funded. And no I do not advocate increased funding in these tight fiscal times. I think one could seriously look at a ABC or BBC style combined radio and television broadcaster within the current Vote Broadcasting.

There’s a strong view that if TVNZ7 was able to continue, and however it is funded, it should be completely separate from TVNZ control and influence.

I agree with that. You can not be a public service broadcaster and a commercial broadcaster. Choose one, not both.

Clare quotes Judy Callingham:

The channel itself should be a  totally separate entity, run by a separate organisation. Whether that’s a trust, a government entity or a company is a detail that can be worked out later. What is important now is to remove the channel from the control of TVNZ  altogether – mere editorial independence isn’t enough.

The separate entity could still use TVNZ studios and staff and equipment if need be.  It would hire them, just as private companies do. It would, and should, expect mates’ rates, but it shouldn’t expect to use the facilities for nothing, although perhaps the cost could be absorbed and become a paper addition to TVNZ’s annual dividend.

This would never work long-term in my opinion. TVNZ would always prioritize itself and other customers over an entity paying very little for its facilities.

Also this model overlooks one of the reasons why TVNZ7 had such dismal ratings. TVNZ never promoted TVNZ programmes in prime time on other channels. Trying to run a stand-alone broadcaster on $15m a year would inevitably fail. This is why the model of a larger combined pubic service broadcaster is better. One could promote the better TV programmes on radio, and vice-versa. There would also be synergies where (for example) something shown on the Court report could be followed up on Radio NZ the next day. When did you ever see One News follow up something from TVNZ7? Very rare.

Going on about “saving” TVNZ7 sounds good, but it was always a flawed model. What the debate should be about is how to best get quality public service programmes onto television. Is it purely NZ on Air or should it be all through a dedicated public service broadcaster or something inbetween? And how do you make it affordable in our current fiscal environment.

Steven Price blogs:

So the head of TVOne and Two, Jeff Latch, asks for a powwow with Fair Go staff. Labour broadcasting spokesperson Clare Curran asks whether, at that meeting, he asked them to go easy on TVNZ’s advertisers.

Latch said he just stressed the need for balance. Price comments:

It does make sense. So much sense, in fact, that you have to wonder why Jeff Latch had to organise a meeting with Fair Go to tell them that. Did he also mention that they should try to be accurate? Not defame people? Latch should know that Fair Go are probably the TVNZ reporters best versed in broadcasting standards and media law, since they deal with them every week.

Then the key part:

Asked if he was instructing Fair Go not to produce programmes that upset advertisers, he said “it wasn’t an instruction, per se.”

Not per se? This sounds weasily to me. Was it a hint, Mr Latch?

Any suggestion that advertisers on TVNZ should be treated differently to non-advertisers by Fair Go, is abhorent.

Price concludes:

Because actually, Fair Go has a pretty good track record in its broadcasting standards complaints. It has not been listed in the BSA’s “Most complained about” shows for at least the past three years, despite the fact that it often makes serious accusations against people with the resources to sue. Likewise, there haven’t been any reported defamation cases against them in the last few years, as far as I can tell. Was there a big secret settlement recently?

If not, Mr Latch – how should I put this? – you should stay the fuck away from the Fair Go staff. It’s their job to tackle TVNZ’s advertisers when that is merited, and it’s your job to hire good journos then leave them to get on with their job.

A fair conclusion.

Throng blogs:

Every major TV network in the world that we work with regularly sends out publicity material which we gladly publish for them because, well, we love talking about TV.  When the latest reality TV show hits the airwaves, our inbox gets flooded with bios and photos of the contestants from publicists desperate to get their content talked about andpromoted for, in the most part, free.

Contrast this with the latest no from TVNZ:

Hi [throng]

We’re currently being very selective with the provision of our MasterChef contestant images, so were are not sending any additional ones out at this stage.

Regards

[publicist]

Why would a broadcaster turn down free publicity? Especially free publicity from the site that specifically caters to the fans of their reality TV shows.

Plus Throng can of course grab images from screen shots, so TVNZ saying no seems to just be about petulance.

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

Television New Zealand has dumped the Labour leader’s weekly appearance on its Breakfast show, telling David Shearer it’s not about him “as a person”.

Prime Minister John Key has a Monday morning slot on the show and last year former Labour leader Phil Goff regularly appeared on Tuesday mornings. …

It is understood Labour put its case to TVNZ, saying its leader needed to have the right of reply when Key attacked the Opposition.

In a letter back to Labour, TVNZ said the Prime Minister was a newsmaker in his own right and the state broadcaster was merely doing what it always had.

The leader of the Opposition had only featured weekly during election years.

“This is not an issue about the person, merely a decision about the position, and we have been consistent with that through Labour and National administrations.

“The Breakfast team has already shown its willingness to invite Mr Shearer on to the programme when he is a legitimate newsmaker and is setting the agenda on a story.”

Off memory, TVNZ is absolutely correct. I recall when National was in Opposition, the Opposition Leader never got a regular spot until election year.

The Electoral Commission has also announced:

TVNZ OneNews coverage before 7pm on 26 November 2011.  It is the Electoral Commission’s view that the broadcast breached section 197(1)(g)(i) of the Electoral Act 1993 because it included statements that were likely to influence any elector as to the party for whom the elector should or should not vote.

I didn’t see the news that night (mainly because I was actually at TVNZ getting ready for the election broadcast) so can’t recall what they broadcast, which has triggered this referral.

It will be interesting to see the details of the material complained about, once it is made public.

I could not believe One News the night before last, when during an (un-necessary) live cross, one of their reporters said how they were hoping to get live footage of the hearse going by (after the ballooning tragedy). I actually yelled at the television – which I do not do often. That was silly and tacky.

I’m not alone it seems. Throng blogged yesterday:

Sarah Batley’s live cross on One News tonight was utterly disgraceful and disrespectful to the 11 people who died tragically yesterday in the hot air balloon crash in Carterton, their families and their friends.

Desperately hoping to be live while a hearse drives past with bodies of the victims is incredibly distasteful, offensive and unnecessary.

Whale has blogged on this also. When Whale says it is distasteful, you know it definitely is

Stuff reports:

TV3 has confirmed it has poached TVNZ’s political editor Guyon Espiner.

He will work as a journalist for current affairs show 60 Minutes, starting in February.

Espiner has been TVNZ’s political editor since 2006 and also hosted the Sunday morning programme Q+A for the state broadcaster.

I can remember Guyon starting in the press gallery in the 1990s, but that just makes me feel old!

Certainly a coup for TV3 to pick Guyon up, and good to see them beefing up 60 minutes. I suspect Guyon will appreciate a less hectic lifestyle as his two roles of press gallery in Wellington and Q+A every weekend must have been draining.

TVNZ has announced that One News will host three election debates. They are:

1. Mon 31 October – major party leaders
2. Wed 16 November – minor party leaders
3. Wed 23 November – major party leaders

Now it is great that we have three debates scheduled to help people make informed votes on who governs New Zealand for the next three years.

But where are the televised debates on the electoral system referendum, which will decide our electoral system for the next 50 years or so?

Surely if we have 270 minutes of prime time devoted to the election debates, we should have at least that much time on TV for debating the electoral system?

I hope TVNZ and TV3 announce a number of electoral referendum debates. It is only 32 days until we vote on whether or not we keep MMP or have another referendum in 2014. Radio NZ has led the way with a high level debate, I hope they will not be the only broadcaster to do so.

Readers may recall that TVNZ under Labour was given a “charter” and “charter funding” with the idea being that TVNZ would be both a commercial broadcaster and a public service broadcaster.

It was an experiment that failed. Former TVNZ CEO IAN Fraser, a huge public broadcasting advocate, said that you can’t ask the broadcaster to be both.

And certainly viewers couldn’t detect any change in TVNZ programming despite the charter money. In fact much of it got siphoned off into stuff that they would have done anyway, or stuff shown at times no one watches.

So National abolished the meaningless charter and took the charter funding of around $15m a year, and gave it to NZ on Air who uses it for contestable “public good” programmes through their platinum fund.

Now I’m not sure if others have been watching Sunday Theatre the last few weeks, but there have been some great shows on, funded through the Platinum Fund. There was Billy on the life of Billy T James, Rage last night on the Springbok Tour by Tom Scott, Bliss on Katherine Mansfield, and the iconic Tangiwai.

Now some may say they don’t think there should be any public broadcasting at all. That’s fine. But I think most would agree if we do have public broadcasting it should be high quality programmes that people actually watch,

These dramas have all had massive ratings, and in my opinion have all reflected events and people which are important parts of New Zealand’s history.

I think it is a great example of substance over form. The TVNZ charter made people feel think that it would be good for public broadcasting, but it wasn’t. The current approach of using the charter funding as a contestable fund has produced some superb New Zealand television.

TVNZ reports:

Prime Minister John Key’s appearance on Late Show with David Letterman may have cost taxpayers up to $10,000.

Not really.

“I’ve been informed that Tourism New Zealand have a PR company. They’re on a retainer. They pay them every month, irrelevant of what I do.”

“Apparently, when the Letterman show was on, that was one of the projects they worked on. They would have made the payment whether I was there or not.”

So in fact no extra money was spent. Not that I would have had a problem if there had been – as a tourism promotion, $10,000 would have been ridiculously cheap.

In fact one 25th the cost of the $250,000 spent in 2002 on a Discovery documentary about NZ, starring Helen Clark. And that was in an election year.

I have no problem with either expenditure if they are genuinely deemed a worthwhile tourism investment.

The Herald’s Sideswipe put together a few days ago this video comparing a Close Up story to a story on ABC News in the US.

It is quite common to base stories on overseas stories. But I’ve never heard of a story using basically the same script and words. Close Up have now apologised after an initial “No problems” response. Good to see they have backed down, and kudos to Sideswipe for the story.

TVNZ reports:

Many people have also commented on the book’s timing, including prominent blogger David Farrar who said it was “appalling in itself” and that “Wishart has chosen to market the book during the coronial inquest into the death of the twins”.

In a statement to ONE News, Wishart also said the book’s timing was “appalling”.

However, he added it was not intentional and that “the only positive is that it has created a strong national debate on child abuse”. The story broke after ONE News contacted Wishart following a tip-off.

Wishart said it was not true that the publicity for the book, which is being published by his Howling at the Moon company and is due for release at the end of the month, was deliberately timed to coincide with the inquest.

My guest bloggers do not post often, so it is an easy mistake to make. But those quotes in questions come from Jadis, not me. If you scroll down the main page, you’ll see her listed as the author for the posting on 29 June at 10.26 am.

The site doesn’t list authors on individual archive pages, only the main page. I have on my to do list to get that changed.

TVNZ has black-listed Throng from receiving media releases from them, because of a dispute over whether a press releases from TVNZ misled people by using “reach” instead of “average viewers”. I’ll come to the details of the issue shortly, but first want to focus on the big picture.

TVNZ is a state owned broadcaster, and has a news division which itself often reports news that others feel is unwelcome or unfair. It is vastly overkill to refuse to have an outlet on their media release list, just because you didn’t like one of their stories.

I would hope that TVNZ reporters and journalists will ask their colleagues in marketing and pr, whether they think it helps TVNZ’s brand to act in such a way, relaying on bullying and threats instead of reason.

First of all Throng, for those who don’t know it, is a website dedicated to New Zealand Television. It’s the work of a husband and wife team, who make their living from the Internet. They provide summaries, and feedback on all the major TV shows, plus general commentary on television issues. It’s the sort of site that a broadcaster should want to have a great relationship with. Sure it takes two to tango, but I know Regan and Rachel and I doubt you could find two more decent and honest people. Also as it happens Rachel got an A+ for Statistics at Auckland Uni, has lectured in Statistics and ironically helped write the materials for Stats 150 – “Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics”.

On the 2nd of May they blogged about a press release from TVNZ which was putting the boot into 60 minutes ratings on TV3. Throng pointed out the stats were wrong. TVNZ agreed they made a mistake and said so. So this is not the post which caused the dispute, but I suspect is part of the reason why TVNZ is being hyper-sensitive.

A few days later Throng blogged:

Just a few days after TVNZ’s press release full of ratings blunders about TV3′s show 60 Minutes where they quote figures way lower than in reality, they’ve sent out another ratings press release which a number of people ended up being misled by.  

Using a statistical term such as “average” in that press release was ambiguous.  Many would take it to mean the most-quoted statistic of average audience, rather than what TVNZ had used and intended for people to understand: average reach. 

The two measures are very different and can lead one to very different conclusions about the popularity of a show.   

As a result, TVNZ has requested their publicity department ensure that in future all viewership figures are attributed to Nielsens and identified by their appropriate categories.

They went on to explain:

Cumulative Audience, also known as reach: 

Relates to the total number of different people within the selected demographic who tuned into the selected time period for 8 minutes or more (i.e. reached at least once by a specific schedule or advertisement). It is usually represented in thousands, but can be transferred into a percentage of the potential audience.

Average audience: 

The average number of people who tuned into the given time selected.

Now at the heart of the dispute is TVNZ is offended that Throng said their use of the “reach” was misleading. They say it is not misleading and a valid figure.

The comparison might be between a website which talks of the number of “hits” as oppossed to “page views” or even “visits”. They are all valid terms, but if you don’t label them precisely. What TVNZ said was:

In total, more than 2 million New Zealanders (all 5+) have tuned in to Go Girls this series, and on average 708,200 tune in each week (all 5+).

Now I think it is a fair criticism that people reading that could think it refers to average audience rather than average reach. It might not be deliberately misleading, but why have a lack of clarity? I think TVNZ itself has acknowledged this point by putting in place a policy where future releases will use precise descriptions such as reach or average audience.

Now it is because of that dispute, that TVNZ have decided to blacklist Throng and refuses to have them on the media release list. This is taking thin-skinned to new heights. And I think TVNZ are doing it because Throng are small and they think they can bully them. The NZ Herald often reports items very critical of TVNZ, but you don’t see TVNZ refusing to send press releases to the Herald do you?

Throng have talked to other media about the issue they face. They have been told they must remove the offending post or they will not be given co-operation again, or put on the media release list. They have approached other media about this, which resulted in a further e-mail from TVNZ which said:

I’ve had a call from the Dominion Post Regan, who have told me that you emailed them regarding our ratings figures.  You are certainly going the wrong way about getting any further cooperation from us.  I suggest you pull back from this exceptionally foolish position.

So now it is threats.

I’m amazed TVNZ is being so petty, rather than just doing the “we agree to disagree”. What really galls me is that they would not act so high handed with a more powerful organisation.

I could understand their position if Throng refused them to have their say on the site. to the contrary they run unedited all their press releases. Surely the solution is TVNZ issue a formal “right of reply” to Throng, which Throng would publish.

But really this is beating up a mountain from a molehill. The “sin” was saying that using reach instead of audience average was misleading. For this, they have instituted a boycott.

I hope that those in the news and editorial sections of TVNZ will defend freedom of the press, and ask their corporate colleagues to reconsider the damage they do to TVNZ’s brand by instituting a boycott against a site because of one critical blog post.

Throng are not asking to be given special access to anything – they just want to be put back on the press release list. The ball is in TVNZ’s court.

Throng blogs:

TVNZ claims that 60 Minutes had an average audience of 130,060 in April, quoting Nielsen TAM (5+).  We publish these same ratings each day on Throng, and based on the figures we have been sent, the average audience was approximately 257,000.  TVNZ’s figure is roughly half that!

The press release gets even more dramatic by saying 60 Minutes has lost “almost 300,000 viewers per week since February”.  Hold on a minute: that’s an awful lot of viewers to be losing.  With over 8 weeks in March and April, that would have given 60 Minutes over 2.4 million viewers in February – more than the total number of Kiwis watching the Royal Wedding!

“[60 Minutes] had an average of 422,120 viewers watching each week in February” is misleading as there was only one episode of show screened in February!  It was a special 30 minute Christchurch earthquake special on the day after the quake, so not surprising that it rated so highly.  

So TVNZ was comparing a one off special the day after the earthquake, with normal ratings for 60 minutes, and using it to try and con people that 60 Minutes had a plummeting audience.

Someone in One News should explain to TVNZ Marketing that dodgy press releases from the broadcaster undermine their trustworthiness as a new source.

Tracy Watkins at the Dom Post reports:

Public broadcasting channel TVNZ 7 is to be wound up after just three years.

The commercial-free channel has cultivated a niche audience since its inception but Broadcasting Minister Jonathan Coleman confirmed yesterday its funding would not be extended beyond next year after it failed to live up to expectations that it would support itself over time.

This is not some spin made up by National. Here is what then Broadcasting Minister Steve Maharey said in 2006:

The government will support TVNZ’s proposal to move into the digital era with funding of $79 million over the next six years, Broadcasting Minister Steve Maharey announced today.

“The government is backing TVNZ’s plans to strengthen its public broadcast offering as it makes the transition to free-to-air digital,” Steve Maharey said. …

Funding for TVNZ’s digital content proposal will be released to TVNZ over the next six years, with the intention that the services become self-sustaining over time.

So Labour never promised to sustain taxpayer funding of TVNZ7. The funding was for a transitional period, and the sad reality is that the viewing numbers for TVNZ7 were miniscule.

I’m personally a big fan of some of the shows on TVNZ7. I think Media 7 and Court Report are important shows, as they are about scrutinising the actions of powerful institutions. Likewise Backbenchers plays an important role in having MPs actually debate issues of the week with each other. I think NZ will be the poorer, if these shows disappear.

However that doesn’t mean that a dedicated TVNZ7 channel was the best way to have shows like that on TV. I believe that the value associated with channels is rapidly declining in a Tivo and My Sky world. I record programmes I want to watch – I don’t view channels anymore. I record content from One, Two, TV3, C4, Comedy Central, TVNZ7, Stratos, History Channel etc. Half the time I don’t even have any idea what channel something has played on. And the future will be more and more people like me – choosing content not channels.

So for me, the challenge is how to keeps non-commercial shows like Court Report, Media 7 etc on the airwaves, without TVNZ7. In my mind, there are two ways forward:

1. As previously advocated, set up a unified public broadcaster like the BBC or ABC. Sell of TVNZ to generate the capital for the “NZBC” and use the current operational funding for Radio NZ, Maori TV and NZ on Air for ongoing costs.
2. Have TVNZ apply to NZ on Air to fund the shows from their contestable fund. I would hope that the shows would have a reasonable chance of success. In an ideal world it would be nice to be able to increase funding for NZ on Air, but that is unrealistic in the next few years. We just have to get back into surplus first.