Hard News: About Campbell Live
565 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 23 Newer→ Last
-
Sacha, in reply to
labour and the Greens get back in, and they eventually will
Let's hope they have some firm coherent policy by then, rather than the feeble efforts of last decade which were so easily undone.
-
Paul Casserly has written a cracker of a piece today which sums up a lot of the feelings expressed in this thread.
If like me, you prefer the likes of Hay & Fagan, Lush and Campbell, it's easy to feel that the barbarians have got through the gates, eaten the last Mallowpuff (sic) and are now pissing on the cat.
Whatever happens, Campbell has an unparalleled legacy to be proud of. His show has made the last decade in NZ a better place to be. He was there for the people of post quake Christchurch and for the working poor hamstrung by zero-hour contracts. He takes politicians to task. He doesn't spend half the show droning on about himself.
I also suspect there is a generation of young journalists who have been inspired and even radicalised by Campbell. I hope they are lying in wait like a sleeper cell, ready for a future jihad of truth over profit. I like to dream.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Revealing interview with CEO Mark Weldon about his plans for Mediaworks.
The Bachelor is going "through the roof" with on-demand viewers, he says.
"You actually make more money for an equivalent ad roll on video play than you do on a ratings point on TV, where all the costs ostensibly sit, " he says.
Shame we can't OIA for the similar numbers around CL
-
Cecelia, in reply to
It's fantastic.
-
Just a question about one of your statements regarding ratings:
"By contrast to Seven Sharp, it holds on to most of its lead-in news viewers and occasionally does better."
Does it? That's not my understanding - I can only look at last week's ratings, but even last week on average it lost around 20% of its viewers from 3 News. Yes that's better than Seven Sharp as a percentage, but it should be noted that 3 News is doing really, really badly in the ratings at the moment. Back when 3 News used to give One News a good run for its money, the drop off to Campbell Live was even more dramatic (and certainly more than Close Up dropped).
I hasten to add that none of this relates to whether or not Campbell Live is a good show, or should be dropped, or any of that. But I've read a few questionable things regarding ratings etc recently, such as this in the Herald:
"But where five years ago Campbell Live lorded it over TV One in the crucial 25-54 age bracket..."
Five years ago was when I blogged about the first rumours Campbell Live was for the chop. And it wasn't because they were lording it over anyone in the ratings. The only time Campbell Live has been consistently threatening as far as I can recall was the first year of Seven Sharp.
Likewise, Mark Jennings' comments about 'viewer engagement'. There may be a sense of the people being moved more by Campbell Live's stories, and that wouldn't surprise me. But if you're looking at Facebook likes, comments, shares etc... nope.
If we're going to have a discussion about this, then there aren't too many figures where Campbell Live is going to beat the opposition. That's part of the problem: It's hard to show people as figures-oriented as Mark Weldon and Julie Christie all the ways in which Campbell Live absolutely trounces the competition, and why it matters.
-
Sacha, in reply to
It’s hard to show people as figures-oriented as Mark Weldon and Julie Christie all the ways in which Campbell Live absolutely trounces the competition, and why it matters.
So true. Fuller leadership is not going to come from them or their current chair, from what he has already said. If only we had ethical law-makers..
-
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Last year Prime Minister John Key and Mark Weldon had a phone conversation in regards to John Campbell. Mr Key was overheard saying “I want that left wing bastard gone”
Pravda, much?
I'd also like to see his source for that before I wave that flag. Especially when you read Joe Trinder's comment:
Mana News doesn't have to substantiate our reveal it's sources we don’t write balanced articles. We expose the national governments corruption the onus is on the media to do its job and
prove us wrong.SRSLY???
-
Sacha, in reply to
I’d like to see that post corroborated before I believe any of it. The govt do not even appoint the Mediaworks board, let alone their CEO.
And this matter does not require a political conspiracy – poorly-regulated capitalism is a good enough explanation. Let’s not over-egg it.
-
There's as much lack of proof in that Mana article as there is lack of proof-reading, and neither give me any confidence in the claims.
To be honest Sacha, poor ratings is a good enough explanation.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
You believe what you want to believe, eh.
Mediaworks wants to make lots of money in an industry where regulation (or lack of) has a lot of influence on how much money is made. It's owned by a private capital company that's culturally in accord with the government's ideology. Not to mention that in return for playing nicely, Mediaworks gets let off paying its bills on time.
I'd say they'd listen when John Key calls.
-
Alfie, in reply to
I'd say they'd listen when John Key calls.
Of course they would. And it's little surprise that Key would like to see Campbell nobbled. Just think how many ministers have been made to look like fools during CL appearances. For a start Hekia Parata couldn't handle a serious interview, then Simon Bridges came across as a first class dork with an attitude problem.
While I have credibility problems with the way Mana presented their tale, I have no doubt that this is what went on behind the scenes.
-
Trevor Nicholls, in reply to
"The Bachelor, X Factor, The Block, MasterChef and Dancing with the Stars are now Weldon's life. They are, he says, "a pretty killer lineup".
Intelligence killer.
-
Sacha, in reply to
poor ratings is a good enough explanation
That’s what I thought – though the show at least makes a profit apparently.
-
Hilary Stace, in reply to
Although there seem to be good grounds for challenging the way they measure and evaluate ratings. Particularly that they discount the large proportion of the population over 55. Median age of NZers is about 38 and they only seem interested in appealing to a small age range either side.
-
Damian Christie, in reply to
While I have credibility problems with the way Mana presented their tale, I have no doubt that this is what went on behind the scenes.
Occam's Razor guides me here. It's possible, just possible, that given the CEO with a head for figures (and a mandate apparently to tart up the company for sale), it didn't require a call from the PM for him to decide to scrap a beloved but long underperforming show that was taking up 150 minutes of primetime each week.
-
Simon Bennett, in reply to
"Although there seem to be good grounds for challenging the way they measure and evaluate ratings. Particularly that they discount the large proportion of the population over 55."
To be fair, this isn't a problem with the ratings system - more an issue with the advertising industry. Broadcast television's core business is delivering audiences to advertisers. Each Network has a specific target audience they are trying to attract in order to generate revenue. The more people from that demographic who watch, the more the network can charge for a 30 second advertising slot. For example, TV2's target audience is All People 18-49. TV3's is All People 25-54.
Everyone outside the target audience (teenagers and people over 54 in TV3's case) are of no interest to advertisers, and therefore of no commercial interest to TV networks. This isn't a fault of the ratings system. It's the fault of an advertising industry that determines that only a particular segment of the population are worth marketing to via TV advertising.
-
Alfie, in reply to
It's the fault of an advertising industry that determines that only a particular segment of the population are worth marketing to via TV advertising.
And broadcasters who increasingly see maximum profits as the sole reason for their existence. Including, sadly, our state broadcaster.
-
Cecelia, in reply to
Making money from making crap can't be all that satisfying ultimately. Reminds me of Theresa Gattung many years ago saying that profit to Telecom shareholders was more important than service for the customers.
And I watched CL tonight - better.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Last year Prime Minister John Key and Mark Weldon had a phone conversation in regards to John Campbell. Mr Key was overheard saying “I want that left wing bastard gone”
Pravda, much?
I'd also like to see his source for that before I wave that flag. Especially when you read Joe Trinder's comment:
Mana News doesn't have to substantiate our reveal it's sources we don’t write balanced articles. We expose the national governments corruption the onus is on the media to do its job and
prove us wrong.SRSLY???
Very scary if it's true. Potentially defamatory if it's not.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
That’s not because companies (and the public sector especially) don’t want to market to under-25s, there are a huge amount of dollars spent trying to do that. (Not least because the cheap beer, mobile phone and banking providers they choose might keep them for a fairly long time, statistically).
It’s just that that they don’t watch TV3 and TV3 doesn’t make programmes for them.
Also, I have a suspicion that the reason they don't explicitly target over 55's is that the advertisers just know their eyeballs are locked to the TV 24/7 and don't need to explicitly serve them.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Wonder if TV3 might do same during the week? Screen CampbellLive at 6.30 then at 7 maybe a gameshow or comedy format like Christie seems to be gagging for, or even a sports show like Crowd Goes Wild?
Why don't Mark Weldon & Julie Christie just go the full monty and produce a bloodsport show? And no, not the WWE fake variety either, I'm talking about Roman gladiator matches with full-on snuff.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
That's not because companies (and the public sector especially) don't want to market to under-25s, there are a huge amount of dollars spent trying to do that. (Not least because the cheap beer, mobile phone and banking providers they choose might keep them for a fairly long time, statistically).
It's just that that they don't watch TV3 and TV3 doesn't make programmes for them.
How many of them spend more time on the Web than watching TV these days? I'm in the 25-39 demographic, and I've been a 'cord cutter' for over 10 years now.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
I was interested in that. Stats NZ do a detailed survey of time use every ten years, and I wonder what the next one (in 2019) might show.
-
izogi, in reply to
I can only look at last week’s ratings, but even last week on average it lost around 20% of its viewers from 3 News. Yes that’s better than Seven Sharp as a percentage, but it should be noted that 3 News is doing really, really badly in the ratings at the moment.
What are the criteria for the ratings system to determine that a show's been watched by someone? Would people who watched for the first 10 minutes, then switched off, be attributed as watching the entire hour? Or is it possible to track people watching the entire thing.
I can only speak introspectively (so not worth much), but whichever channel's news I'm watching will usually only survive the first 15 minutes. It's usually old news by 6pm, contrary to all the commercial promises about "revealing" everything at 6pm as if the internet doesn't exist. There's not much incentive to hang around through sport and weather chit-chat, plus whatever other padding might be needed to make up an hour on a given day, to wait for something like CL to begin, so a failing lead-in doesn't seem unlikely.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.