Our position on TVNZ7

At the launch of Choice TV last week I was asked by NZ On Air’s Jane Wrightson what Throng’s position on TVNZ7 was.  While Rachel made a brief statement on Media7 a while back, I thought it might be worthwhile publishing this for the record.

Firstly, I’ll answer a couple of key questions and then go into the detail behind why our answers are what they are.

Q. Does Throng believe TVNZ7 should be saved?
A. No.

Q. Does Throng believe there should be a Public Broadcasting TV channel?
A. Yes.

There are a number of positive aspects to TVNZ7.  It has had some great new shows with the quality and content improving year on year.  Despite Mike “don’t talk about cume unless you’re referring to how my salary is justified” Hosking’s comments about its audience, a third of New Zealand watches TVNZ7 every month. It only costs $15m a year to run, or 83 cents per month per viewer.

So with such positives, why do we not support TVNZ7 being saved?  The primary reason is due to the first four letters of the channel’s name.

When the Labour government established both TVNZ6 and TVNZ7 and the channels were launched on the Freeview platform, there was much fanfare about an alternative to subscription-based television. However, due to the poor broadcasting policies of both the former and current governments, TVNZ has found itself caught in the middle of striving for commercial success and being a public broadcaster.  The reality is that they simply cannot do both.

TVNZ were never going to drive viewers away from their highly rating, ad supported channels.
TVNZ7 was doomed to near invisibility and the critics’ ire.

Over the years, a number of industry insiders have also voiced their concern to Throng about how TVNZ has charged out its resources for TVNZ7, suggesting that the commercial side of TVNZ has been milking the funding.  There is nothing commercially wrong with this, of course, but it would reinforce the conflict of interest that TVNZ has in having feet in both camps.

While there are a number of shows on TVNZ7 that would be worth saving, the channel as it stands needs to go and TVNZ needs to be allowed to focus on its commercial directives while the role of public broadcaster is handed over to someone else.

With the numbers tuning in each month, there is certainly evidence to support the existence of a public broadcasting tv channel.  The issue, as many on the right would suggest, is how it is funded under the current economic climate.

To put it in perspective, in 2011, $1.6 billion was spent on advertising on television in New Zealand.  An ad supported/sponsorship model that was limited to the $15m annual funding required to keep the channel on the air hardly seems unreasonable.  In fact, you could double it to $30m without impacting viewer experience which, as it currently is on TVNZ7, would easily replace the short “promo breaks” that already exist between shows.

There are plenty of players that could contribute to a new public broadcast tv channel.  The three main ones being Triangle, who are already working in that space on a shoestring budget, Maori Television who have produced some excellent public television services to viewers beyond their indigenous audience and Radio New Zealand who provide the most respected news service in the country and already have vast resources in place.

It is time the confusion was ended and there be a separation between TVNZ’s role as a public broadcaster and a commercial entity.  If they are there to make a profit, let them do it but let’s not pretend any longer that they can do that and have success as a public broadcaster at the same time.

About the author

Regan is one of the co-founders of Throng Media.
He's currently watching Survivor, Homeland, House, Glee and can't wait for the return of Game of Thrones.
More from this author »

  • brendonRS

    Agree with the spirit of this. We need public broadcasting, and providing it through TVNZ isn’t a great mechanism.

    But does that $15m number have any meaning in a model where the channel isn’t being run by TVNZ?

    • cre8d

      Re: the $15m, if it was a totally new entity, probably not.  If it was Maori Television, Triangle or Radio New Zealand, maybe.

      • jb

        You would be amazed at what could be provided for that amount of money!

    • TG

      I doubt the $15 million figure would have much meaning of a stand-alone channel, but really the amount of money transferred away from TVNZ should be considerably larger.

      It shouldn’t be only TVNZ7 that is taken away from TVNZ, but all of the state-funded public service programmes, such as Q+A, Asia Downunder, Tagata Pasifika, Te Karere, Marae, and Waka Huia.

      There is no point continuing to fund programmes on TV One as if it were still the national broadcaster, when it shows no commitment whatsoever to public broadcasting and dumps these funded programmes late at night or on Sunday mornings.

  • jwblackman

    It’s interesting and encouraging to see some lateral thinking in this area. Thank you for including Triangle in your list of potential players – its been 14 years and we have been proud to bring some great – and ground breaking – programming to air despite our miniscule budgets

  • Waipukurau

    There didn’t appear to be any mention of the way TVNZ supported TVNZ7, particularly in news gathering.  TVNZ7 had no crews, editors, reporters ( had some presenter/producers), nor commercial deals with overseas news companies, so had to rely almost exclusively on One News and other TVNZ programmes for content.  A new public broadcasting channel would presumably have to spend a considerable amount of money just setting up the broadcasting infrastructure.

  • mattyman1010

    Hmm we could always take funding from Maori TV and give it to TVNZ 7. Of course that will never happen, I find it hard to disagree with anything in this post.

  • Wilsonowen

    The ad spend in 2011  was actually  $618 million

    • throngca

      Do you have a source for that $618m figure?

      • Rob
        • http://www.facebook.com/reganjcunliffe Regan Cunliffe

          Interesting difference when you compare it to the numbers from Nielsens: http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1204/Nielsen_the_year_that_was_apr12.pdf

          • Rob

            The difference (I think) is that Nielsen’s numbers are based on the ratecard value of all the ads that ran but the ASA/ThinkTV numbers are the amount which was actually paid by advertisers. i.e. there is a lot of discounting.

  • AJ

    Other than the $1.6b – well said!

  • hjb

    We already have two important free to air public broadcasters who both do a great job: Maori TV and Radio New Zealand.  People who want to listen or watch something just need to look hard enough and they will find it.  Radio NZ beats TVNZ7 and other free to air channels any day, and it’s the most listened to radio network in New Zealand.

  • Brooke

    My hope is that over time, if it’s allowed to continue it’s course, Maori will develop into a strong, public broadcaster. It’s already for filling much of the role with events like ANZAC day. The added benefits of dragging public viewing to a bilingual channel make it even more appealing. And for those working on Triangle. I love your station. Keep it up.

    Brooke HS

  • David Finch

    An interesting piece.  While supporting the idea of a public service channel, you fall into line with the current government’s thinking that TVNZ should be freed to follow a purely commercial path. I think it’s worth remembering that TVNZ’s current market dominance is based largely on its history  as a public broadcaster. For all its faults, many of us still feel a sense of ownership – particularly towards TV One, despite the company’s repeated squandering of that goodwill.  In building a genuine public service channel, why should it be necessary for us to start from scratch when the infrastructure and – to a significant extent – the audience are already in place at TVNZ?  You offer some sound suggestions, but I would argue that it would make just as much sense to reclaim what we already own and de-commercialise TVNZ.

    • http://www.facebook.com/reganjcunliffe Regan Cunliffe

      Successive governments have put TVNZ on the path it is now and that horse has now well and truly bolted from the public broadcasting stable.  TVNZ has been focusing on commercial activities for well over a decade and suggesting we reign it in now is just silly.

      • reece_555

        Yes, Well and truly bolted. Has it ever really existed in this country? TVNZ7 has only been around since 2008 and would require far more money than what it currently gets to be considered a good channel.

      • Kiwibeca

        Returning TVNZ to a proper Public Broadcasting Mandate is
        “silly”?!?!?!? What do you base that on??? It would probably be
        cheaper, and certainly more Cost Effective to relaunch TVNZ as a full Public
        Broadcast Network; (Or TV One, at the very least, and dropping the nonsensical
        “exclusive to Sky” TVNZ channels, Heartland and the Children’s Channel.)
        than to go to all the trouble and expense of setting up a whole new TV Station.

      • http://www.facebook.com/reganjcunliffe Regan Cunliffe

        Who said anything about setting up a whole new TV station?  

        I’m not sure why you seem to be advocating for job losses at TVNZ because there are a whole bunch of sales people and the like who would be out the door under your proposal.

      • David Finch

        Why is it silly?  Yes, of course successive governments have put TVNZ on the path it is on now.  Yes, of course it has been commercially focused for well over a decade.  So what?  Is that reason for us all to throw up our hands and accept that a once admired cultural institution has been, to all intents and purposes, stolen from us?   For all its faults, TVNZ is still owned by the people of New Zealand and all that’s missing for it to be returned to a public service mandate is political will.   The TVNZ charter may have been flawed, its implementation even more so, but even within the last decade there was a valiant attempt under Ian Fraser to fulfill its aims.  

        • http://www.facebook.com/reganjcunliffe Regan Cunliffe

          Because there would be more value to taxpayers in selling TVNZ and starting a new public broadcast entity than there would be in just ditching the commercial side of it altogether. 

          What you’re suggesting is devaluing the asset which is simply silly, for lack of a better word.

          • Kiwibeca

            “…starting a new public broadcast entitiy…” I.E. launching a new TV Channel. Hugely expensive when going form the ground up. It also wouldn’t have the market sahre that TVNZ, TV One in particular currently enjoys, for all the historical reasons that Dave has already pointed out. Leave TV 2 commercial/semi commercial and return TV One to public broadcast, as was done with Radio NZ’s commercial arm, until those stations were privatised in 1996.

            The announced TV One timeshift channel is a good idea and I would like to see it retained. I would also like to see TVNZ’s 24 hour Children’s Channel, currently only availible to Sky Subscribers removed from Sky and U and Heartland dropped altogether.

          • http://www.facebook.com/reganjcunliffe Regan Cunliffe

            1. A new “entity” doesn’t have to mean everything, including facilities, must be new.  As mentioned, there are already alternatives that a new entity could operate from.

            2. Who cares what TV One’s market share is if it is not commercial?  

            3. Your suggestion that the Kidzone24, U and Heartland be dropped makes no economic sense.  If they are returning a profit, which one must assume that they are, why would you not want that extra revenue being returned to the taxpayer?

          • David Finch

            I don’t mean any disrespect by this but I think you’re probably a lot younger than me. The decade or so that TVNZ has been rampantly commercial is a comparatively  small amount of the time that TV is this country has been a political football and the various systems in place before the late 80s had considerable merit.   I disagree with your narrow definition of what an “asset” is.  Sadly, you seem to have fallen into the right wing trap of measuring everything by its market/monetary value or the dividend it returns.  I would argue that the true devaluation of TVNZ as an “asset” took place when it was given over to commercialism.  

          • http://www.facebook.com/reganjcunliffe Regan Cunliffe

            The public broadcast asset has definitely been devalued.  Be that as it may, TVNZ is now a commercial operation and the value in it’s return must be based on that.  

          • David Finch

            “TVNZ is now a commercial operation and the value its return must be based on that”.  I’m not even sure what that means.  But again… Why? 

          • http://www.facebook.com/reganjcunliffe Regan Cunliffe

            sorry “of its return”…

            I understand your point about the value in having a public broadcaster, and I agree.  However, the economic reality is that the value of the commercial asset that is TVNZ would be completely destroyed if it was reverted back to a public broadcaster.  Why on earth would you want to pour all those millions of dollars down the toilet?  

            There is a cost effective and intelligent solution out there that wouldn’t require building something from the ground up and would maximise the value from the current situation.  

            As long as the taxpayer isn’t left out of pocket, how on earth can that be a bad thing?

          • David Finch

            I appreciate that we agree more than disagree.  But I can’t think of a better, cost-effective, base for a public service channel than TVNZ – with its infrastructure, history, and yes – audience loyalty.  ”The value of the commercial asset that is TVNZ would be completely destroyed”.  Not necessarily of course – the BBC has a very effective commercial arm.  But my point remains: if we as a nation decide that we place more SOCIAL value in TVNZ than we do in its capacity to generate income, then there is no reason for it not to revert to a public service focus and no great difficulty in achieving that (give or take a few top tier managers).  
            Would your model involve the sale of TVNZ and/or the end of all public subsidies (i.e.. Nz on Air funds) to its channels?

          • Kiwibeca

            I couldn’t agree with you more David. (Apologies for referring
            to you as “Dave” in a previous Post on this thread too. :-) )

            Regan, TV One and TV2 have the largest Market Share of all
            the national FTA Channels and TV One has always had a less populous focus than
            TV2. If TV One were to be decommercialised, then its share of the market would
            generate sufficient audience numbers to justify the cost of this. As was the
            case of Radio NZ’s commercial arm until 1996, advertising revenue from TV2 can
            be utilised to offset some of this cost too.

            As far as I’m aware, U targets a similar demographic to TV2,
            so in theory anything that is rating well there will also rate well if moved to
            TV2. Heartland is nothing more than a rehash of TVNZ and TV3′s back catalogue.
            A channel of Repeats and repeats of Repeats on a Government Owned Broadcaster
            is at best a very poor use of Taxpayer funding. DVD sales are a far better way
            of generating Revenue from back catalogues.

            I am a paid up, card carrying member of both Labour and The
            Greens and proud of it; and I am absolutely philosophically opposed to a State
            Owned Broadcaster having a Channel, much less one exclusively showing non-commercial
            Children’s Programming *exclusively* available via a For Profit, Subscriber
            Broadcaster. I have nothing against Sky, per se; I am a MySky HD subscriber
            myself, and I also have a Freeview PVR; but the very idea of TVNZ’s Children’s Channel
            being exclusive to Sky Subscribers is one I find abhorrent.

            This is what I would like to see being done with TVNZ’s two
            digital Channels; a Time shift of a relaunched, non-commercial TV One, and non-commercial
            Children’s Programming, possibly also bookended with rolling News Coverage. One thing
            they SHOULD NOT be, especially in the case of the latter, is exclusive to a For Profit, Subscriber Broadcaster.

  • Pingback: Throng on TVNZ7 | Kiwiblog