Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: The Advocate

131 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

  • graeme muir, in reply to Sacha,

    Hi Sacha
    I'd forgotten how nice and polite PA people are! Just quickly, because I've probably said all that I wanted - I'll leave it to the regulars here - we don't tend to do series (although we often run a story over two nights where we feel it's warranted) because we want to offer our viewers variety - if you're not interested in school lunches for example (good topic though don't get me wrong!) you might not be inclined to want to watch on night 3 or 4.
    And to Russell, I appreciate your point of view.

    auckland • Since Apr 2007 • 8 posts Report

  • linger, in reply to Tim Michie,

    Song? I only know it as Les Barker’s poem “Have you got any news of the iceberg?”

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1944 posts Report

  • Geoff Lealand,

    Ratings, schmatings! It always troubles me when folk accept Peoplemeter data as gospel. As Bettina Hollings famously said some years ago, "Ratings are a myth we all believe in".

    Screen & Media Studies, U… • Since Oct 2007 • 2562 posts Report

  • nzlemming, in reply to Geoff Lealand,

    It always troubles me when folk accept Peoplemeter data as gospel

    Yup. There are 600 homes with 900 peoplemeters and that is it. Fricking voodoo programming and it's time they came clean.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2937 posts Report

  • Damian Christie, in reply to nzlemming,

    I've written about ratings and peoplemeters and all that before. It's not great, not universal, not accurate etc, but everyone jumps up and down with glee when the ratings come back huge, and the big decisions as to what stays and goes are made on them, and they're all we've got - so saying "meh, ratings, how accurate are they", is essentially irrelevant in a conversation about commercial television. I've not once heard anyone inside the industry talking about 'fixing' the system.

    Personally - I think ratings are useful for bigger picture, longer term trends. Unless they've got the mix of people (i.e. the 600 homes and all who live in them) completely wrong, then it's got to be of SOME use for doing what it's supposed to do (which is of course not the same as what we might like it to do).

    But back to what Graeme says, and what I was sort of getting at - it's great to say "hey CLive, good stories", but you can't ignore -especially not with the demise of Close Up - the fact it's a show continuing to underperform - and almost always losing the battle - in its one objectively measurable KPI, the ratings. I'd personally applaud an environment where a show rating 3-something on a regular basis when the show before it is getting a 10-something, isn't being eyed up for the chop. I've made a career out of making 'niche' shows, for me that'd be a fantastic precedent, but it doesn't sit with everything else I know about how the industry works.

    All I can say is that I hope a) Campbell's ratings improve b) it continues to do what it thinks is 'good' and 'right' regardless and c) whatever dirt/polaroids Mark Jennings must have on the TV3 board continues to scare them. That's a joke, that last one. But you know what I'm saying.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1164 posts Report

  • Hilary Stace,

    We've talked about ratings before but it really annoys me how they dismiss half of the population - those over 54. Unjust, unfair and unrealistic for NZ with its aging population which watches television and has disposable income.

    Wgtn • Since Jun 2008 • 3229 posts Report

  • Sacha, in reply to Hilary Stace,

    The craziest thing is that the younger age groups are also the most likely to favour other forms of media over TV.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report

  • Hilary Stace,

    So there are probably a lot more people actually watching TV1 or TV3 at 7 pm than TV2, but the Shortland Street watchers are somehow more valuable human beings. What rubbish.

    Wgtn • Since Jun 2008 • 3229 posts Report

  • Sacha,

    I've never seen a decent explanation about why the advertising industry is so backwards about over-50s.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report

  • Danielle, in reply to Damian Christie,

    I spoke to someone yesterday who complained about all the stuff Clive had been doing of late, saying it was trying to blame the rest of us for the problems of the poor

    You know, I've listened to so much stupid shit in my life that I thought I was desensitised and would no longer have visceral urges to punch people in the nose. But apparently not.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report

  • Geoff Lealand, in reply to Sacha,

    One explanation I heard suggests as we grow older, the less susceptible we are to the blandishments and deceits of advertising. We don't buy so much by impulse or for status or because of emotional manipulation. Or so they say,,,,.

    Screen & Media Studies, U… • Since Oct 2007 • 2562 posts Report

  • Damian Christie, in reply to Hilary Stace,

    but the Shortland Street watchers are somehow more valuable human beings.

    I cite the 25-54 numbers because it’s traditional to use the demographic that channel is aimed at – using the 5+ figures almost always favours TV One (apparently due its older audience who don’t switch around as much). Also, as with dismissing the method by which ratings are gathered, dismissing the target demographic denies the reality of the situation – which in this case is the survival of prime time commercial telly.

    BUT even at 5+ (the widest rating band, everyone over the age of 5) while Close Up becomes a lot stronger (10.5 Wed night), Campbell comparatively weaker (5.2), Shortland Street is still the juggernaut with 12.9, and a 35 share. So yes, together there are more people watching 1+3, but 2 still beats both on their own.

    (Guide to ratings: Rather than Channel Share, I tend to use the Average Audience figure – Share is the % of people who are watching TV, watching your programme, while Average Audience is the % of all people in NZ who are watching your programme, so it’s lower).

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1164 posts Report

  • Damian Christie, in reply to Geoff Lealand,

    One explanation I heard suggests as we grow older, the less susceptible we are to the blandishments and deceits of advertising

    As I've said above, these are two different discussions - not that I'm not fond of a bit of thread derailment :) But I agree entirely. What I've been told is more that ad agencies don't want to market to the 'oldies' because it's not coooooool. They want to be making hip ads for hipsters, not hip replacement ads for, well you know.

    I did a story a few years back on Close Up about just this - there is a movement, a few agencies, a few companies, starting to market more than funeral plans and life insurance to the over 50s. Sony did a great ad about an older guy getting a plane then train across Russia, so he could effectively blow his kids inheritence on some space flight thing.

    There's a huge amount of disposable income in that market, 1 in 3 big screen TVs is bought by someone over 50 or 60 or something, I forget exactly. But maybe they're not as susceptible to changing brands or what-have-you. Bullshit I say, they just need to make smarter ads.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1164 posts Report

  • Hilary Stace,

    You only needed to attend one of the packed Save TVNZ7 meetings to feel the anger of the grey demographic at the dismissal of them on the public service TV issue and the ratings in general. Even mucking around with Coronation Street's timing is done in a disrespectful way. I've heard that Country Calendar would never be commissioned now.

    Wgtn • Since Jun 2008 • 3229 posts Report

  • Geoff Lealand, in reply to Damian Christie,

    (another digression) ... and the proliferation of TV advertising for expensive anti-ageing potions? I recall the UK equivalent of Consumer (Choice?) doing research on their efficacy, to conclude that none of them worked except for minor success with a cheap potion sold by Boots. But I guess people live in hope.

    Screen & Media Studies, U… • Since Oct 2007 • 2562 posts Report

  • Rich of Observationz, in reply to Damian Christie,

    Nah, they drink a great deal of tea, and have managed in a lifetime's TV viewing to synchronise putting the kettle on with the ad break.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report

  • Geoff Lealand, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    Given the number of ad breaks these days, they must be swimming in tea.

    Screen & Media Studies, U… • Since Oct 2007 • 2562 posts Report

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to Damian Christie,

    while Average Audience is the % of all people in NZ who are watching your programme

    So if I understand that means ~30% of New Zealanders are watching TV1, 2 or 3 at 7 pm. So how many are watching all the other channnels combined? Another 20%? Do half of the people in NZ watch TV at 7 pm? The seems kinda high to me.

    And then if 5% of NZ watch TV3 at 7 pm that's 200000. Is that actually enough to make the advertising worthwhile?

    Sorry kinda derailing but the numbers are interesting in terms of what it takes to make producing a program worthwhile.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4461 posts Report

  • Danielle, in reply to Hilary Stace,

    Even mucking around with Coronation Street’s timing is done in a disrespectful way.

    <bugbear> I wouldn't mind all the timing being faffed about if we weren't falling behind by half an hour a week, every week. But it's apparently against their religion to keep up with the UK episodes. </bugbear>

    (Yours, Disgruntled of Oratia, age 38, etc.)

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report

  • Sacha, in reply to Damian Christie,

    Bullshit I say, they just need to make smarter ads.

    Yep

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report

  • Emma Hart, in reply to Geoff Lealand,

    One explanation I heard suggests as we grow older, the less susceptible we are to the blandishments and deceits of advertising. We don't buy so much by impulse or for status or because of emotional manipulation. Or so they say,,,,.

    No-one who's ever done tech support for their parents is going to believe that older people are less susceptible to manipulation.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4651 posts Report

  • Richard Aston,

    No-one who’s ever done tech support for their parents is going to believe that older people are less susceptible to manipulation.

    As a newly arrived "older person" - I turned 60 this year - I don't buy this.
    I have seen so many cycles of ad promises and the inevitable disappointments that I have become very skeptical. Not saying the manipulation is not working , of course it is. Its just that I have become far more aware of it . I notice my hand moving to the brave new world of toothpaste - clinical tests prove it will solve everything - I stop and deliberately buy some brand I have never heard of, just to pissed them off.

    Northland • Since Nov 2006 • 510 posts Report

  • Sacha, in reply to Richard Aston,

    ah, the old double-bluff snares another victim :)

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report

  • Sacha, in reply to Emma Hart,

    "I'm calling from Mumbai to tell you there's a problem with your Microsoft"

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Hilary Stace,

    Even mucking around with Coronation Street’s timing is done in a disrespectful way.

    Personally, I find it slightly more disrespectful that if you wanted to see excellent local documentaries Brother Number One , When A City Falls and an early version of Maori Boy Genius you were shit out of luck if your dial was stuck on the state-owned broadcaster's flagship channel. But, as they say, different strokes for different folks.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

This topic is closed.