Throng

Jack Yan

Rachel, thanks for posting that Herald article as I have never read it. In light of my column in the printed edition of Lucire published in May 2007, she was awfully easy to bait. The blogger who posted after you was easier still. Not bad for someone whom they profess to be a nobody.

Miss Prozac

You will get another perspective if you read about his initial blog post (the sour grapes referred to by TVNZ) and the follow up post on his self-promotion via IMDb and possibly Wikipedia.

Rachel

Today's Herald on Sunday's Spy column by Rachel Glucina had this to say in response:

Once in a great while, we're treated to a blog so amusing in both its content and tone that we bow down and thank the gods for inventing copy and paste commands. This one comes from a chap who's happy to be rid of TVNZ's negative influences". He is Jack Yan (seriously, who?) You may know him from such feats as being a Miss NZ pageant judge, a fashion mag publisher, a blogger, a marketer and a self-proclaimed "TVNZ insider".

Insider, you say. As in worked the ropes for aeons at the network slogging it out behind the scenes? Hmmm, not so much. He was a sometime panelist on the Good Morning show. Was, being the operative work. He's left now, and if his blog is anything to go by, he toddled off with a large packed lunch of sour grapes.

Yan accuses TVNZ on his Persuader blog of: "Simple not delivering what people want." He goes on: "I can say that with some more authority having been an insider". Then he breaks into a random rant about what little good being on the show did for the Jack Yan brand. "The idea that appearing on TV regularly enhances your profile is, I can now say, bollocks," he says. "Appearing on Good Morning took me away from building my media appearances doing the things that mattered to me as a CEO."

But on the bright side Yan ponders philosophically: "I do seem to have rid myself of the negative influences in my life - and Good Morning, and whatever sickness TVNZ has, were the last". But don't go thinking he wouldn't be interested in being welcomed back into the fold again someday. Yan says, "If I have to appear on a TVNZ network, then it must be totally in line with my real job and personal mission." We say, come on, give this man his own comedy show.

Jack Yan

PS.: Laura, it’s nice to be missed. Thank you. I’ll still be Podcasting via my blogs, though I know it’s not the same.

Jack Yan

Sarah, thank you for your very kind and well thought-out words. With the audience, I believe I had a bit of an OAP following. Maybe our oldies here in New Zealand get my humour (usually described as dry and British), or can spot a decent bloke when they see one. The professionals were like yourself: those who may have had leave, an illness or some other reason, and caught the show, and perhaps saw it for what it was. I tried, for what it was worth, to bring a bit of dignity to the panel, maybe even a bit of intelligence. My friends’ and peers’ criticisms of the show were that it was too dumbed-down. Colleagues from overseas who saw it thought it was quaint—but there’s only so much dragging into the 21st century that one minor panellist can do.

You are right that it is perfectly natural for a blogger to go online post-show, or even pre-show to get some opinions to share—what TVNZ never realized was that this worked in their favour and, really, the negative posts I made about the show were very, very few during my tenure. To disallow mentions of my work was one thing, but a non-profit blog that usually promoted the show?

I have had encouraging comments from some at Avalon for standing up for my principles, though if I was really doing that, I would have left in July 2006. I stuck it out for the guys and the viewing audience. Machismo demanded I grinned and bore it. It is sad to note, however, that there are those I regarded as friends who have been petty and taken the network’s side, which is plain weird. A man can’t stand up for what he believes in any more? Guess not. Right there you have the other problem with telly: some of the phoney-baloney-sold-my-soul personalities, their characteristics offensive to the meaning of a true blue New Zealander.

The tall-poppy aspect may have had a part to play, but I am not wholly sure. My fellow panellist on my last shows, Craig Revel Horwood, mentioned his how-to-dance book without penalty. But that was another example of the sort of unfairness I encountered, especially given the promises made to me at the start.

I also recall that despite making complaints about the invasions into my private life, nothing was done, yet a later October 4 memorandum went out to ask us not to discuss Brendon Pongia’s love life on air.

It was a case of over-promise, under-deliver.

The networks, or, indeed, any major old-media organization, have not caught on to the fact that the audience has fragmented—I agree with you fully. In such cases, there should be a strategy to create greater unity with the audience, not pissing off the talent or generating rifts. These ideas have been around relationship-marketing academics for well over a generation—which places some of TVNZ’s strategists’ knowledge somewhere in a drug-hazed 1960s where Peter Sinclair is still boogying to the Chicks in black and white. Networks should welcome bloggers who have connections to their shows, putting themselves as accessible, normal human beings who work with the audience. Indeed, we should be accessible, especially in a tiny country, and we should be discussing these issues on Throng and elsewhere.

Right now, I only see al-Jazeera embracing blogs as a major part of its programming.

I’m likely going to appear on more newsy things, which is where I used to be before Good Morning, and am perfectly happy with being my own man doing that. Let me say right now that you will never see me on Dancing with the Stars, Sing Like a Superstar or any of the shows that I have written very nasty things about over the years! (No offence meant to their fans—or even my friends who have been on them!)

Good question, there, Laura, and Tui, I was referring to Avalon.

I was on the old 5.30 p.m. Susan Wood show at Victoria Street many years ago and the atmosphere, at least for guests, was far warmer.

Noho ora mai, ka kite.

TuiKiwi

Nope - I went to the 'head office' so to speak in Auckland, where ONE News, Close Up, Breakfast, Studio 2 etc come from.

Laura

Missed seeing you on the show lately Jack, wondered where you had gone.

Tui, did you go to the Avalon studios where Good Morning is filmed?

TuiKiwi

When I went to TVNZ, there was no negative vibes at all.

Sarah08

Hi Jack,

I recently spent quite a bit of time at home from work and saw you on about 3 shows of Good Morning and really enjoyed your attitude, your input, honesty and perspective on the men's panel. I must admit I had no idea of your background which I've discovered through your site now and think it's a shame that you're not given MORE air time in NZ.

Good Morning is probably not a good place for you to promote your business or expertise since I'm guessing the vast majority of people watching would likely be stay-at-home mums or unemployed people, rather than people in business.

There's this awful mentality that it's not right to promote yourself in New Zealand, otherwise you're classed as "up yourself" or "proud" or "arrogant" etc. This pervades our culture and quite possibly TVNZ as well.

I believe TVNZ and other such institutions is afraid of blogging, digital media, satellite TV, broadband etc because they're not in control of it. The media world is becoming increasingly fragmented and advertisers are becoming more interested in niche areas. The days of having a TV ad campaign to reach the nation are going to come to an end.

When you have a blog and you go home and write about your experiences and reflections from the show, it's not carefully orchestrated comments via the mouthpiece of a publicist. Reputation has a lot riding on it in the world of television and they'll guard that fiercely.

Look forward to seeing you on television soon and hopefully this time with more freedom.

Jack Yan

Thank you for citing me, Rachel, and for being fair about which excerpts to use.

To add to the throng: there was even a theory, from one source, that my blogging was frowned upon. Hellos to a kid who was ill with cancer watching at home were met with disapproval. To get me on the show, it was all, ‘Yes, you can promote your businesses’; until it became, ‘Don’t ever mention them again.’ All too regularly, a Diktat was given from upstairs after a show about what we weren’t allowed to say. I emigrated with my parents in 1976 to avoid living under the Reds taking over Hong Kong. Who knew that the same sort of behaviour was so Close to Home, I mean, close to home?

And it’s not like I’m a Paul Holmes or Judy Bailey. I’m a regular Joe who did between 10 and 17 minutes of telly a week, a timeslot that hardly anyone cares about. Why be so godawful on a feel-good show? Unless they really, really feared me. Oooh, I’m so scary.

With hindsight, the experience was One-sided: given the crappy pay (as explained on my blog, the excuse that the exposure would be beneficial is bunk), there was no quid pro quo. Communists aside, I cannot recall any mob that was capable of generating this much negativity, this much opposition to a person’s free speech—and still regard itself as a grand success. I can only conclude that the network has little idea of the 21st century—of free speech, blogs, digital media, satellite TV and the consumer movement—making me additionally critical these days.