When you blog or comment about the need for us as a nation to have public service television – admittedly an awful phrase – you sometimes get branded elitist, high-brow, wasteful of taxpayer dollars to provide content for a minority.
So what about Desperate Housewives? Rupert Murdoch’s British arm, BSkyB has just bought the UK rights to Home Box Office. That means if you want to watch Desperate Housewives – and a string other such others – you have to pay Rupert for the privilege.
How long before that’s your only option here? Sky is now in close to 55% of NZ homes. It is already pursuing such popular programmes to build on its movies and sport base. While free-to-air television has been knocked for six in the last two years, Sky is regarded as ‘recession proof.’ People stay at home and watch Sky. On Friday Sky will report its latest after-tax profit. Projections are $100m this year, up $9m on last year and growing to $141m in two years. Little wonder the analysts are suggesting Sky can gear up and buy something. TVNZ?
To date, TVNZ and TV3 (free-to-air television) have stayed ahead of Sky in viewership by mixing the likes of Desperate Housewives with New Zealand content.
Big threats are posed for free-to-air television once Sky outbids and buys these rights. We all have a stake in TVNZ. The rising cost to buy overseas programmes against Sky will dilute TVNZ’s capacity to make local content, which can be ten times the cost of buying foreign shows. NZ on Air is our $80m mechanism to keep it Kiwi on television. But note NZOA’s chief executive Jane Wrightson in her latest newsletter who felt like writing a “bleak missive” about challenges ahead and “likely enemies preparing to storm the gates.” Ouch!
So we have a government that refuses to acknowledge the competition issues being presented by the increasing power of Sky, is telling TVNZ to only focus on making money and now is looking at raiding NZ on Air funding which keeps FTA viable and allows it to show New Zealanders themselves on television.
The funds-raid is likely to have been in a ‘white paper’ discussed at Cabinet last Monday or soon will be, on what to do once TVNZ 6 + 7 funding runs out next year; options include do nothing (let TVNZ sort it), run 7 + possibly 6 as a small independent entity, or integrate them with Radio NZ.
The first option could mean a ghetto service at best unless there’s a remarkable lift in TVNZ revenue and there’s a high-risk of that being the case with the other two options. And yes, we might well all be watching most of our content on screens other than our televisions in a decade, but someone still has to fund, create and showcase our stories.
A connection to the TVNZ mothership is crucial in my view. Some 20+ years ago, I worked in London for Channel 4 News. Initially the new channel provided the news. It was simply studio interviews that bored viewers into switching off. Independent Television News, ITN, came in and provided a base news feed to liven up what became an excellent news hour including extended interviews, assisted by being, then, non-commercial.
This does not mean Channel 7 (and possibly 6) have to be run by TVNZ. Point is, television needs pictures and TVNZ is probably best placed to provide some of them, not just for news but through its other programming and archives. But how Channels 7 (and 6?) might best work deserves more than a Cabinet paper and some blogging. Feedback from a variety of industry and academic sources confirm that a national debate is demanded with opportunity for real input . We want a television future that regards us as New Zealand citizens as well as consumers.
Next blog: Watching television on other screens and how rapidly it’s changing
To date, TVNZ and TV3 (free-to-air television) have stayed ahead of Sky in viewership by mixing the likes of Desperate Housewives with New Zealand content.
I find this hard to believe, and somewhat inconsistent with:
While free-to-air television has been knocked for six in the last two years, Sky is regarded as ‘recession proof.’ People stay at home and watch Sky.
Leaving aside the Sport channels (why do we get so much NRL?!) Sky’s growth has undoubtedely come from not being a New Zealand-centric broadcaster.
One of the things that has annoyed me about tvnz and tv3, particularly tvnz is they buy up programmes they know they cant fit into a schedule just to stop tv 3 having it, so we never see some quality tv.
all i can see coming out of the process going on at present is that television in this country will become irrelevant to the average NZ’er. at this rate, the only reason to have a state broadcaster would be to use it as a vehicle to spread govt propaganda.
it is vital that we support the efforts of independent broadcasters. if there had been no state support of broadcasting in it’s early years, would the talent that emerged and went on to become successful here, and around the world, have seen the light of day? i think not.
the emergence of sky tv has become a blight on our television industry. making it easier for them to use their purchasing power to control what we watch demonstrates craven cowardice on the part of our government.
Sky is a fantastic business offering people a novel product – shows they actually want to watch…
The possible end of TVNZ doesn’t mean the end of Kiwi shows on TV, the producers can make shows the NZ channels and the world wants to buy – or they don’t get air… The government can even support this by giving direct grants to NZ film and TV producers if it must…
It seems silly to me to be making NZ shows almost no one wants to watch, pouring money down a hole, while we have real shortfalls in Health funding…
“sky’s growth has come from not being a New Zealand-centric broadcaster”. sorry, it has more to do with purchasing power. as an example, when was the last time you watched an all black test live on tvnz? who are the only ones capable of out bidding sky for the rights to broadcast the world cup next year? the govt. nobody else has the money to match them.
television quality in NZ has fallen through the floor since sky gained majority market share. we simply havn’t been given any choice.
Brendon, you seem to overlook the ‘elephant in the room’, the separation of platform from content. Surely if we are to have Kiwis ’see themselves on television’ then that is what should be funded. Imagine for a moment that TVNZ was in private hands. What would we do to ensure that high quality and popular local content gets to air? Fact is, we only own a television network because back in the day, no one else would pay to build one. Would we pay to build one today? Seems to me that we will never be able to have a serious conversation with Labour about this issue until you guys lock the dogma in the closet. You never will. And that is why your position is inherently “elitist and high-brow”.
sky is a fantastic business offering people a novel product? do you work for them? i suppose that watching ad’s on every channel would be novel to some.
the service we get here from sky is utterly abysmal compared to australia. we are treated with contempt simply because they can.. there is no viable competition as there is there. ironicly, the australian government supports their broadcasters extensively. forcing all players in the industry to provide better quality programming or lose out. the amount of local programming that is well patronised should be a pointer to what could happen here if we had the vision, or the nuts to try it.
they don’t seem to see it as a cost. more as a necessity.
It must have come as a huge blow to those who used to control what Kiwis watched when Sky TV arrived. For all those years they could dictate and decide that Fred and Mildred would watch a 2 hour documentary on the life of a red nosed blue bottle.
That they the programme controller knew best what the punters needed.
Heh just like the NZ Labour Party
try not to bring down the tone lms. you have kiwiblog for that stuff.
We have Q&A and The Nation
, sky has ripped off some of our shows for its heartland channel! 
!
You’re right Jeremy
@bbfloyed –
jeremy, local programming is about people here, not in europe or the USA, or asia. if economic considerations are the only consideration given, then very soon, nothing will be produced here. it’s called putting the chicken before the egg. you can see it operating in the music industry already. they have a saying “success breeds success”, which simply translated means that before you can be taken seriously, you have to have, at least the appearance of being successful. programs that are relevant to NZ”ers would be highly unlikely to resonate with overseas viewers. so how do you remedy that? by producing programs that target the demographic you wish to sell to.
at which point, you are competing with local broadcasters in those locations. the net effect will be to narrow down the focus of subject matter to what sells.
so where does that leave local NZ television? nowhere to be seen. i don’t know about others, but i will have thrown my tv out with the next inorganic collection if that was the case.
Jeremy, you forget we supposedly never wanted to listen to kiwi music either, yet along came the quotsa, we hear dmore, enjoyed more, more saw it as a career option, standard improved etc etc
tracey.. thanks for reminding me about that. (don’t know how to do the smiley face).
correct me if i’m wrong, but weren’t most of the arguments put up against local music content economic ones as well?
Jennifer, “Imagine for a moment that TVNZ was in private hands. What would we do to ensure that high quality and popular local content gets to air?” Er, isn’t that what TV3 and Sky could provide? Yes, TV3 does Outrageous Fortune et al but only because there is taxpayer support. But if it doesn’t rate, forget it.
Lastmanstanding, yes TVNZ must have only made boring two hour docos on the bluebottle before Sky – that’s why Sky now has a channel exclusively showing past TVNZ programmes. I believe its very popular.
Off topic sorry but had to say this. Everyone who is interested in politics should watch this.
http://www.3news.co.nz/Political-Animals/tabid/755/articleID/171324/Default.aspx
After watching this I have come to the opinion that even if Phil looses the next election as least he will be a real person people can vote for and not a stage managed side show.
: plus ) =
: plus D =
I like how our local TV gives people jobs
@Brendon – That Robyn Malcom is great!
@waterboy I saw it!
And yes Phil is a real person and not some performing monkey 
!!!!
I would be quite happy if TVNZ disappeared forever. We got Sky 8 months ago and I haven’t watched free to air TV since.
Free to air TV has only one purpose, and that is to allow advertisers into your home and into your brain. I have found it such a relief to be free of the advertisers who wish to make me feel inadequate so they can then sell me something.
Also the programmes shown on FTA TV have become lowest common denominator, celebrity driven rubbish that I find unwatchable. The documentaries on Sky are fantastic and I have learned so much I didn’t know about the world and universe.
If poverty meant that I couldn’t afford Sky anymore then I would get rid of my TV rather than go back to watching the mind rotting dross on TVNZ and TV3. I have no desire to see my tax dollars put into TVNZ- it aint what it used to be and in its current form deserves to be culled.
@bbfloyd, no I don’t work for Sky but I have it and thank goodness we do, I love Discovery, CI, National Geo, Documentary, Animal Planet, Sky News Australia, CNN, BBC, CNBC and Fox News (for a laugh)…
If it wasn’t for the liberalisation of TV in NZ we would still have TV1, TV2, TV3 and all the above listed channels would be reduced to the TV1 and TV3 nightly news and an Attenborough docu on a Sunday morning…
If we want NZ programme the government can have a fund for their production and then only the shows that people want to watch will make it on air…
“there is no viable competition as there is there.”
Sure there is, go and check out what TiVo is doing in the on demand market… FTTH will only increase options and choice but SKY has a regional monopoly with a wide competetive advantage, I’d love to invest if only the share price came down…
bbfloyd
My memory was more of the jeremy type opposition to the quote, let the market decide, if people wanted it it would be played etc etc
Until it’s played, people can’t want it, not really
Brendon, you have simply proven my point. If you don’t like Outrageous Fortune, don’t watch it. Plenty of people do, and are pleased to pay for it with their taxes. You seems unable to present us with a cogent definition of what you mean by ‘public service television’ and appear to be unable to get your head around the issue of platform and content separation. Maybe it’s just that if you do, you realise that we no longer need to own a television network. Which is heresy, right?
… let the market decide, if people wanted it it would be played etc etc.
Until it’s played, people can’t want it, not really
I disagree. Extending your line of reasoning a little further, you’re effectively arguing there should never be any market-driven innovation, ever, anywhere.
Content production is ultimately driven by the same evolutionary principles of other products and services.
@Jeremy – yes diversity in TV is important and that’s why it’s important to keep TVNZ public so that there isn’t a monopoly!
There is a massive bandwidth of channels, feel free to buy one and start your own channel Spud… No monopoly coming anytime soon…
If you just look around a little, there’s plenty to watch on FTA and the Internet – Sky is soon going to be a back-water. I find plenty of value to watch on FTA, with freeview and a recorder. I supplement this with the Internet.
There is a growing platform of fiction/drama series being shown first on the web. This is a major growth area, with some accessible through a small paid subscription, some funded by (fan) “crowd” funding and/or donation, follow-up DVD sales, and some commercially sponsored. Some can be accessed only from within specified countries, some are accessible globally. This is a global platform that some NZ producers should be looking to get into. Take a look at http://www.koldcast.tv/
http://blog.koldcast.tv/about/
The best public service programmes on FTA in NZ are on Triangle and Maori TV. Triangle, TVNZ 7, AND MTS have between them a good range of news and current affairs programmes, while MTS also have a good range of fiction programmes/movies.
I select fiction programmes from what’s on offer across TV1, 2 & 3 and Prime, and sometimes also watch music videos on C4 or C42. Some programmes are on late and I record them. I rarely look at ads (switch on mute, check blogs online, make a cup of tea) or fast forward through them.
Drama shows on TV lack diversity due to the commercial imperative that targets a relatively young, white, middleclass, heterosexual audience. This is bias that needs correctiing, IMO. TVNZ should get back to broadcasting more diversity & quality in its drama. Hopefully the fragmentation of screen platforms & channels will result in more diversity, as is indicated in some of the web series available.
My comment still hasn’t come through
It’s an understandable mistake for an elitist who doesn’t actually watch commercial free-to-air television but wants to appear in touch with popular mass culture. Desperate Housewives was in fact made for screening on ABC, a free-to-air network reliant on advertising revenue. HBO, on the other hand, is a cable network supported, like SKY, by subscriptions. HBO programmes, such as The Sopranos and The Wire, could not survive on free-to-air, advertising-reliant networks. Both were screened here well away from prime time. They are also available on DVD, so their purchase by Murdoch’s BSKYB in the UK does not have the significance that you attribute to it. Desperate Housewives is not one of HBO’s productions. Also, “the enemies at the gate” that Jane Wrightson mentions in her newsletter are, in fact, the growing numbers of critics of NZonAir’s music funding policies.