Apsattv
10-05-2008, 12:16 AM
From http://www.redorbit.com/news/entertainment/1370049/whos_hopping_on_board_the_tv_freeway/
I continue to be amazed at the proliferation of TV channels, programmes and outlets in New Zealand. But why should we be any different from anywhere else in the world? In fact, as geographically isolated as we are, we have always had a thirst for news and entertainment from other parts of the world.
On the other hand there is the view, particularly from government, that New Zealanders have a great need for more introspective programmes that will help to explain the New Zealand psyche, ie more news and current affairs, more programmes that reflect our biculturalism and growing ethnic diversity. All very worthy but in reality not the type of programmes that attract a majority of New Zealanders, ie NZ Listener vs TV Guide readers.
The AGB Nielsen figures for the top 10 of the top 50 programmes for HHS 25-55 (23-29 March) included: Dancing with the Stars (No. 1), Shortland Street, Coronation Street and old perennial favourites like Fair Go and Animal House - Auckland SPCA. TV One News was 18th, Close Up 21st, 3 News 32nd.
So how many viewers will be attracted to TVNZ's new Freeview Channel 7 with its "factual" New Zealand programming, featuring hourly news updates, etc, etc. That's like reheating the same old pot of soup and tossing in a few new bits to chew on every 60 minutes, in between regurgitating stuff that's appeared earlier elsewhere. It's hard enough finding enough decent news and sport to watch in the 6:00-7:00pm slot. Where's the beef? It's mostly filler including 15 minutes of ads.
Do we really think New Zealand needs to create its own version of a CNN, Sky or Fox news channel? Gimme a break. Why fall into the trap of the overseas cable channels with huge resources, like Rupert Murdoch's Fox News that recycles its lead programmes three times a day or lead stories ad nauseam. To help it along, government has put $78 million of hard earned taxpayers' dollars toward TVNZ's new channels on Freeview.
Just a quick backgrounder on Freeview to refresh your memory. High definition (HDTV) for a sharper, better picture, is eventually expected to replace existing analogue television probably within the next decade or so. This follows international trends. In fact, the current government has said it will pull the plug on existing analogue TV when 75 percent of our homes are equipped for HDTV and existing antennae become obsolete.
Freeview launched its digital satellite service last year and now a UHF (terrestrial) service (DTT) as well. Present channels carried include TV One, TV2, TV3, C4, Maori TV, TVNZ Sport (what's left of it), TV6 (70 percent local programming, time zoned for kids, family etc), TV7 (news and current affairs) and last but not least, the parliamentary channel where we can see the best we are able to muster act like naughty kids, fight (literally), bluster, shout one another down or doze off.
Freeview, is a bit of a misnomer, since it requires a set-top box decoder ($500) as well as the installation of a digital or UHF antenna ($200-$400). Not advertised is the fact that the present set- top boxes are "locked down" to prevent you from receiving any other free-to-air channels that might come along. An HD-ready plasma TV will currently set you back from $1000 (26") up to $4000 (42") or more. As always early adopters pay the price for being first. However, Sky expects to offer HDTV within the next 12 months. So what's the rush?
If one is to believe the hype, 100,000 homes are expected to be equipped for Freeview this year compared to Sky Network's 600,000 plus homes. It's logical that the majority are coming on board to get decent reception on the big four free-to-air channels without having to subscribe to Sky.
Improved reception was my main reason for going to Sky digital years ago. Nowadays, we watch free-to-air channels less and less, and spread our viewing across a wide range of channels, UKTV, Prime, ESPN, National Geographic, Discovery and Documentary channels, Box and Vibe for repeats, Living, Food, History, one or two news channels, you name it. Are we typical? Wait and see.
Sky, which in my view is hands down a better marketer than TVNZ, even without the latter's charter requirements, has countered Freeview, by offering a free decoder and a basic 20-channels package for $11 a week. Hardly enough to break anyone's bank. Full sport and movie channels, of course, are extra.
Perhaps the most perceptive comments on Freeview came from Bill Ralston in the New Zealand Herald in December of last year. And who would know more about it than TVNZ's previous news director? "Simply offering people what they already get on telly, plus a few channels full of re-runs and surplus programming from output deals will not be enough to convince folk to hurry and spend hundreds of dollars on a box, aerial and installation for Freeview when they can wait another decade or more and not spend a single cent."
Freeview costs money to run. Where's the ad revenue coming from to support its growth? TVNZ's TV6 and 7 are advertising free. I can't see Sky losing any to Freeview. According to its latest sales bumph based on AGB Nielsen Dataline, Sky now has almost 45 percent of all NZ households, ie about 675,000 and 1.9 million people. Sky Network's year-on-year share among 25 to 54 year olds surpassed TV One's share of the key demographic. (Admittedly that's across all their channels.) In 2007, income in Sky homes was 33 percent higher than non-Sky homes. And finally one that describes our TV viewing to a tee, people with Sky spend almost half (46 percent) of their total TV viewing time watching a Sky Network channel.
Sorry but my next acquisition is going to be a "My Sky" recorder to better enjoy the Skyway not the Freeway.
Tom Agee is a senior lecturer in the Department of Marketing at the University of Auckland Business School.
t.agee@paradise.co.nz
I continue to be amazed at the proliferation of TV channels, programmes and outlets in New Zealand. But why should we be any different from anywhere else in the world? In fact, as geographically isolated as we are, we have always had a thirst for news and entertainment from other parts of the world.
On the other hand there is the view, particularly from government, that New Zealanders have a great need for more introspective programmes that will help to explain the New Zealand psyche, ie more news and current affairs, more programmes that reflect our biculturalism and growing ethnic diversity. All very worthy but in reality not the type of programmes that attract a majority of New Zealanders, ie NZ Listener vs TV Guide readers.
The AGB Nielsen figures for the top 10 of the top 50 programmes for HHS 25-55 (23-29 March) included: Dancing with the Stars (No. 1), Shortland Street, Coronation Street and old perennial favourites like Fair Go and Animal House - Auckland SPCA. TV One News was 18th, Close Up 21st, 3 News 32nd.
So how many viewers will be attracted to TVNZ's new Freeview Channel 7 with its "factual" New Zealand programming, featuring hourly news updates, etc, etc. That's like reheating the same old pot of soup and tossing in a few new bits to chew on every 60 minutes, in between regurgitating stuff that's appeared earlier elsewhere. It's hard enough finding enough decent news and sport to watch in the 6:00-7:00pm slot. Where's the beef? It's mostly filler including 15 minutes of ads.
Do we really think New Zealand needs to create its own version of a CNN, Sky or Fox news channel? Gimme a break. Why fall into the trap of the overseas cable channels with huge resources, like Rupert Murdoch's Fox News that recycles its lead programmes three times a day or lead stories ad nauseam. To help it along, government has put $78 million of hard earned taxpayers' dollars toward TVNZ's new channels on Freeview.
Just a quick backgrounder on Freeview to refresh your memory. High definition (HDTV) for a sharper, better picture, is eventually expected to replace existing analogue television probably within the next decade or so. This follows international trends. In fact, the current government has said it will pull the plug on existing analogue TV when 75 percent of our homes are equipped for HDTV and existing antennae become obsolete.
Freeview launched its digital satellite service last year and now a UHF (terrestrial) service (DTT) as well. Present channels carried include TV One, TV2, TV3, C4, Maori TV, TVNZ Sport (what's left of it), TV6 (70 percent local programming, time zoned for kids, family etc), TV7 (news and current affairs) and last but not least, the parliamentary channel where we can see the best we are able to muster act like naughty kids, fight (literally), bluster, shout one another down or doze off.
Freeview, is a bit of a misnomer, since it requires a set-top box decoder ($500) as well as the installation of a digital or UHF antenna ($200-$400). Not advertised is the fact that the present set- top boxes are "locked down" to prevent you from receiving any other free-to-air channels that might come along. An HD-ready plasma TV will currently set you back from $1000 (26") up to $4000 (42") or more. As always early adopters pay the price for being first. However, Sky expects to offer HDTV within the next 12 months. So what's the rush?
If one is to believe the hype, 100,000 homes are expected to be equipped for Freeview this year compared to Sky Network's 600,000 plus homes. It's logical that the majority are coming on board to get decent reception on the big four free-to-air channels without having to subscribe to Sky.
Improved reception was my main reason for going to Sky digital years ago. Nowadays, we watch free-to-air channels less and less, and spread our viewing across a wide range of channels, UKTV, Prime, ESPN, National Geographic, Discovery and Documentary channels, Box and Vibe for repeats, Living, Food, History, one or two news channels, you name it. Are we typical? Wait and see.
Sky, which in my view is hands down a better marketer than TVNZ, even without the latter's charter requirements, has countered Freeview, by offering a free decoder and a basic 20-channels package for $11 a week. Hardly enough to break anyone's bank. Full sport and movie channels, of course, are extra.
Perhaps the most perceptive comments on Freeview came from Bill Ralston in the New Zealand Herald in December of last year. And who would know more about it than TVNZ's previous news director? "Simply offering people what they already get on telly, plus a few channels full of re-runs and surplus programming from output deals will not be enough to convince folk to hurry and spend hundreds of dollars on a box, aerial and installation for Freeview when they can wait another decade or more and not spend a single cent."
Freeview costs money to run. Where's the ad revenue coming from to support its growth? TVNZ's TV6 and 7 are advertising free. I can't see Sky losing any to Freeview. According to its latest sales bumph based on AGB Nielsen Dataline, Sky now has almost 45 percent of all NZ households, ie about 675,000 and 1.9 million people. Sky Network's year-on-year share among 25 to 54 year olds surpassed TV One's share of the key demographic. (Admittedly that's across all their channels.) In 2007, income in Sky homes was 33 percent higher than non-Sky homes. And finally one that describes our TV viewing to a tee, people with Sky spend almost half (46 percent) of their total TV viewing time watching a Sky Network channel.
Sorry but my next acquisition is going to be a "My Sky" recorder to better enjoy the Skyway not the Freeway.
Tom Agee is a senior lecturer in the Department of Marketing at the University of Auckland Business School.
t.agee@paradise.co.nz