Posts by Brendan Smyth
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
yes, but do it with the directives of the act in mind. fund that which reflects our culture and identity ...
The point I was trying to make is that music made by New Zealanders is a reflection of our culture and identity; that culture includes popular music culture; that our culture is not prescriptive; that, in music terms, it is the sum total of the music that we as New Zealanders make.
All we ask is that we get a meaningful airplay result for our spending of airplay dollars. If we don't have regard for the airplay outcomes or ignore airplay outcomes, then we risk falling into the ultra vires void. We have to fund on the basis of airplay merit because we are in the broadcasting business.
-
We made a policy choice back in 1991 to tackle commercial radio ...
... who are you to go changing the rules ...
The Act doesn't say "commercial radio" or "public radio", it simply says "radio" ... which we interpret to mean "all radio". We have policies in place for dealing with the New Zealand music work of public radio and we have policies in place for dealing with commercial radio. Different policies. Horses for courses policies.
We could have said that our job is "public radio" and left it at that - got into a comfortable bed with National and Concert and access and Maori and b.net - "public good" radio - and ignored commercial radio and said "not our business" but that would mean 20% of radio would be addressed and 80% of radio - where the New Zealand music problem was most acute - would be ignored. Climb into the comfortable bed with our friends and allies and avoid the hard bed. That would be head-in-the-sand at best and ultra vires at worst.
-
But has radio really changed ... do they know much more past crowded house and split enz
That's unfair. If you look at the 40 most-played songs on New Zealand radio at the moment www.radioscope.co.nz, none is Crowded House or Split Enz.
-
you mean like a quota?
There are plenty of other angles to the issue and its solution. Strengthening public radio, and existing supporters of local, and working for a quota are some of those routes
would a quota have given you leverage ... youth radio network was leverage
Just to clarify ...
Quotas or setting up our own radio station - a "Youth Radio Network" - are not tools in our toolbox and never have been. Those things are not within our power. Quotas and a YRN are matters of Government policy. NZ On Air is an instrument of Government policy; we carry out Government policy but we do not make Government policy. Ministers and the Minstry for Culture & Heritage have that prerogative and they will guard that prerogative and tell us where to get off, in no uncertain terms, if we cross the make/carry out line.
When NZ On Air was set up, quotas were not Government policy and for 10 years, until the 1999 Labour Government, quotas were off the agenda (this Labour Government was elected on a pledge to introduce a quota and negotiated the the NZ Music Code with radio). If quotas are not Government policy, then we cannot advocate quotas because that would be against Government policy. As I say, we implement Government policy, not make it. Same with a YRN - the Government pledged to investigate it (and did) but elected not to go there, for whatever reason. If the Government had decided yes to a YRN, then our job would be to do it, to implement that policy. Likewise, quotas.
-
for future net etiquette it's better to break your posts up into smaller points
Sorry. Will do better next time ...
-
Hello there everyone ...
Brendan Smyth from NZ On Air here ...
Sorry I have been slow to join in here. Been busy funding bands! But been following the debate too.
I can’t answer everything that’s been said here - it would take so long and I type real slow - but there are a couple of things that I need to say … to clarify and to correct.
The first thing is to do with NZ On Air’s mandate and how we interpret it…
Going right back to basics ... NZ On Air’s job under the 1989 Broadcasting Act is to “reflect and develop NZ identity and culture” in broadcasting which means, basically, on radio and television. That’s Section 36. And in Section 37(d), it says that we should have special regard for “the broadcasting of New Zealand music”.
The way we interpret all that is by assuming that (a) New Zealand music is a legitimate reflection of New Zealand culture and indentity, and (b) our job is to ensure that New Zealand music is as well represented on the radio (and television airwaves) as we can manage (within the obvious constraints – like we don’t own radio stations or television channels, and we don’t programme radio stations or television channels, and the Act expressly forbids us from having editorial control over programmes or broadcasts that we fund).
The Act doesn’t tell us what is “New Zealand music” (mercifully…!) We have said that, for working purposes, “New Zealand music” is “music made by New Zealanders” where “made” means “performed or recorded” and a “New Zealander” is a “citizen or resident”. We are not the cultural commissars that Rob wants us to be. We don’t say New Zealand music is this or that or sounds like this or that; it is the music that New Zealanders make and, ipso facto, it reflects New Zealand culture and identity, which is a rich tapestry and a coat of many colours, as we all know.
Our job is to get as much of it played on the radio as we can and the tools at our disposal for doing so are (a) funding and (b) promotion. Coercion and regulation are not tools in our toolbox, whether we like it or not. Over the years, we have developed a bunch of funding schemes (albums, radio singles, music videos, radio shows, etc) and promotional strategies (hit dicsc, pluggers, showcases, etc) to help with that campaign to infiltrate radio and we do it in partnership with repertoire owners.
Our job is not to change radio if by "changing radio" you mean force them to play songs that they don't want to (which we can't anyway) or you mean turn them into public service radio. Nor is our job to change the music. Our job is to take the music that New Zealanders make and get as much of it played on the radio as possible. As simple and as hard as that is.
If by "change radio" you mean change attitudes at radio, then I believe we have done that and are doing that. I have witnessed that change from the indifference of the ealy '90s to now and believe me it is real.
And let us not forget the bigger picture. We also fund the New Zealand music work that Radio New Zealand National and Concert do (so, effectively, we fund Music 101 every Saturday afternoon on National Radio). We fund the New Zealand music work of the b.net student radio stations and a string of New Zealand music shows on Kiwi (about $800,000+ a year altogether). We fund access radio stations to provide an outlet for community groups to make and broadcast New Zealand music of their choosing. We used to fund Maori radio but that’s Te Mangai Paho’s job now.
We fund RNZ, the b.nets and Kiwi, and access radio to champion difference and diversity in New Zealand music. New Zealand music culture would be the poorer without these outlets and the good work that they do. Audience is important but it is not the driver here, the driver is difference and diversity.
That’s one end of the radio dial. And then there is commercial or mainstream radio, whatever you like to call it, which is like 80% of the radio stations on the dial with something like 80% of the radio audience. We have a bunch of funding schemes and promotional strategies to tackle the New Zealand music challenge at commercial radio. We have to tackle commercial radio differently. With RNZ, the b.nets, Kiwi, and access radio we have funding contracts that specify New Zealand music outputs because ... well, we fund them. We have no funding contracts with commercial radio stations that give us any leverage at all. They are in control whether we like it or not.
We made a policy choice back in 1991 to tackle commercial radio. No, Rob, it is not in the Act, it was our policy decision. Our strategic priority was - and still is - to infiltrate commercial radio with more and more New Zealand music. It was never because we valued commercial radio more than public radio; it was simply because commercial radio was where the yawning gap was (and coincidentally, where most people were listening). RNZ, the b.nets, access radio were all doing a good job for New Zealand music; they were converts to the cause already and we funded them anyway. But commercial radio was a New Zealand music desert.
Over the years, we have chipped away and where New Zealand music used to be 2% represented; it is now 20% represented. And, coincidentally, many more New Zealanders are hearing and loving New Zealand music. Music made by New Zealanders. Not, maybe, the music that Russell or Simon or Gray Bartlett or Rob or I dig, but music that they dig. And the New Zealand music economy is the livelier for that.
The second thing that I need to say is about who makes the decisions…
No, Rob ... we have not given the funding control over to radio programmers, radio does not “pick the bands”. The reality is that when we are making decisions about which songs to fund, we research those songs with the broadcasters. Yes ... that's true. We do not exist in a vacuum. We consult the broadcasters and we get their feedback on the “airplay potential” of the song from their programming point of view as part of our research. We take their feedback into account, but they do not make the decisions. Sometimes we agree; sometimes we don’t. We do not surrender that responsibility to the broadcasters. It is our decision (after research, consultations, feedback) and we must live with it and be accountable for it. I could (but I won’t…!) list you lots of examples where we have taken punts on songs without broadcaster backing. Sometimes we win, sometimes we don’t, but always, we are pushing the radio mandate as far as we can without falling into the ultra vires void. We push the envelope ... maybe not as far as you guys want us to, but as far as we believe we can go within the broadcasting mandate.
Ironically, in the “halcyon” days that Rob talks about – 1991-1999 – the Kiwi Hit Disc and the Indie Hit Discs were tracklisted by radio programmers, but we stopped doing that in the late ‘90s and took the tracklist job in-house using our own ears and instincts and experience coupled with research coupled with our reading of the radio environment coupled with liaison with the repertoire owner about the timing, etc coupled with our judgement about the strategic value of this or that song to the local content campaign and to our attempts to not just fuel, but to grow, the appetite for New Zealand music at radio. Ironically, when we did that – stopped track-listing the discs based on PDs' picks – a radio programmer told me that “the quality of the discs is so much better now that you are using radio people to help pick the tracks”.
As an aside, all of the artists in the UK Sunday Times story (with the exception of Laurence Arabia for some reason) have (a) had NZ On Air music video funding; (b) been on Kiwi Hit Disc; (c) been featured on NZ On Air Phase Five international samplers in the UK; (d) have got or had NZ On Air Phase Five international promo campaign money - The Brunettes, The Ruby Suns, The Phoenix Foundation. And Cassette, Connan & The Mockasins, SJD, Dimmer have all been on Kiwi Hit Disc and/or got Music Video and/or New Recording Artist funding and/or Phase Four Album funding.
Is there a word limit on blogs…?
Brendan Smyth
NZ Music Manager
nz music on nz radio
www.kiwihits.co.nz
www.kiwihits.com