Cracker by Damian Christie

I realise a lot of you don’t have the time or inclination to delve into the comment threads on Public Address System, and I couldn’t blame you, if it weren’t for the fact that I honestly believe PAS to be the most polite, respectful, and generally constructive forum of its type in New Zealand. Read: No-one ever calls anyone else a “pinko commie homo”, least of all the blogs’ authors.

Anyway, what I do like is when people directly involved in an issue actively jump in and debate it. That’s how blogs should work – we’re not journos so we don’t call people for quotes or their side of the story or what have you. We also editorialise. So because she took the time to jump in and join the discussion yesterday, and because many of you won’t have read it, I thought I should leave the last word on the Campbell Live issue to its producer, Pip Keane. Mainly because it confirms the whole frickin’ point I was trying to make in the first place:

...As for the racks [the topless sunbathing story].. well some might be critical but 30,000 people have been back for a second look on our website.. go figure if it isn't what people want to watch....

Carriage return. Carriage return. Carriage return. New paragraph. New topic.

Ratings.

No, before you start, this isn’t about Campbell Live or Close Up or anything. Well it is, it’s about all TV. But I just thought for those of you who don’t live and die daily/weekly/by Easter based on a set of figures, you might be interested in some general information and reflections in how ratings work, or don’t, and why we’re in this mess. Those of you who work in TV probably don’t need to read this because you’ll know it already. And any mention of specific channels or shows here is purely illustrative, and not intended to inflame or defame.

Ratings are a lot like God. Not that they decide who lives and who dies, although that’s certainly true, but because we all believe in them when it suits us. Well, not me – I think people who believe in God are a bunch of sun-worshipping cultists, but that’s another post for another day. But if the ratings are good, everyone who works on that programme/channel is happy to trumpet them. If the ratings are bad, we all talk about how inherently flawed the ratings system is. The same happens the day after the Qantas Awards. Trust me.

Ratings only matter because they determine how much a show is worth. Shows on commercial networks exist purely so they can sell the bits in between them, and hopefully recoup more from the bits in between than the bit outside cost. This doesn’t mean that the people who make the shows aren’t proud of them, and that they don’t work hard for their art. Or that the shows aren’t great. But if they can’t sell the bits in between for more than the great show costs, you’re probably not going to get a second season. If more people watch So You Think You Can Spell Better than Our Next Top Chef (Celebrity Edition), they win.

Not all people are created equal, either. And so ratings are divided up into demographics. There’s heaps of different options. The broadest is 5+. It’s everyone aged 5+. Well, everyone who is hooked up to a People Meter, which we’ll get to shortly. Then we start narrowing down, by age (18-34, 25-54, 18-49), ethnicity (Maori/Pacific Island), where you live (Auckland Urban), whether you’re the one who does the shopping or not, and whether you have kids (HHS with kids 0-9), whether you have a penis and so on. Each of these things theoretically means something to certain advertisers, but they are particularly concerned about marketing to people of a certain age – otherwise they’d just use the 5+ figure. So different channels, and to an extent different shows, target themselves towards key demographics, against which they measure themselves. TV3 generally uses 18-49, while TV1 uses 25-54. I could be wrong, but I think TV2 is 18-39.

So those are the ratings the channels will generally measure themselves against internally when selling to advertisers. But when it comes down to using ratings for PR, all bets are off. TVNZ will tend to use 5+, because in terms of overall bums on seats (which is what 5+ is), more people watch TVNZ. At 7pm on Sunday evening, to use an example that involves no 7pm Current Affairs shows, about as many people were watching the TV2 Sunday movie (Mr Magorium’s Wonder Emporium) as the combined audience of three of my favourite shows, The Simpsons (TV3), The Office (US version, C4) and Man vs Wild (Prime). But all these channels added together (including TV2) only adds up to about the same number as those who are watching The Zoo on TV One. As Pip Keane might say, go figure.

But advertisers don’t really care about 5+. Too many kids. Too many oldies who won’t change channel no matter what you put on TV One. They didn’t change channels when Paul Holmes went to Prime, as he found out to his detriment, and they’re not going to change their brand of toilet cleaner or refrigerator either, so don’t bother advertising to them.

TV3, when it comes to PR, will tend to use Auckland Urban 18-49, for the simple fact it dominates that market. Advertisers certainly look at it too. And of all the demographics you’d want to be attached to, then cool young city-dwelling folk has to be better than oldies with blankets over their knees. It’s hip-hop vs hip-op.

Ratings can, over a period of time, tell us interesting things about viewership. Viewed month by month, or year by year, trends can emerge that tell programmers how well their product is appealing to its target audience. But when you try and get ratings to do much more than that, you’re on dangerous ground. And that’s exactly what happens.

Why dangerous ground? Because the system is, by definition, imperfect. Ratings are based on a whole bunch of people (just under 1200 at 5+) whose viewing habits are recorded with PeopleMeters. Let's ignore for the moment the method by which those people are chosen (I believe that an old flaw whereby only homeowners could have PeopleMeters has now been removed). When you start to reduce this number down into demographics, your level of statistical uncertainty increases. The “all-important” 18-49 Auckland Urban demographic, for example, could be represented by fewer than 160 people. And if, for example, we are told 2% of them are watching a repeat of Joey at 6.30pm, that’s based on only three actual people watching telly. If two of those people are in the same house, and disappear off to the bedroom in a frisky mood (and let’s face it, who doesn’t get a bit frisky watching Joey repeats), the shows rating plummets.

Which is fine when you’re looking at long term trends, because they allow for the BBQ that went a bit longer and you missed The Office, or the fishing trip that got cancelled so you could watch Extreme Border Makeover after all. As I was once told in a lecture, weather forecasts aren’t wrong per se, the events just don’t happen in the timeframe it’s predicted they will. And what sort of idiot would listen to minute-by-minute weather predictions? Well, that’s what happens in telly, where minute-by-minute ratings can be analysed to apparently ascertain people’s reactions to one story that’s part of a programme, on say, the news, or a current affairs show.

I’ve been in those offices when this has been done (I won’t say which show, and I’ve worked on half a dozen now, but let's just say this particular person I'm thinking of is no longer in the building), where damning decisions are made – “that’s it, we’re not doing another politics story” (and fortunately often forgotten a week later) – because of a blip in the minute by minutes. A blip which could have a thousand other possibly explanations.

One of the shows I contract to, Back Benches, is on commercial-free Freeview. It has what I assume is a niche but committed viewership. I assume this because I’ve met many of them as I’ve travelled around the country over December/January doing our summer series. How many people watch each week? I have no idea – because it’s commercial free, there is no call for ratings.

Over the years many people, both viewers and within TVNZ itself have said to me “Wouldn’t it be great if you were on TV One!?” As much as I'd love the show to reach a bigger audience, I think of all those years dealing with ratings and the decisions that stemmed from them, and I find it hard to agree.

Yeah well it was about time this blog was relevant than more for updates about my trips to the zoo. And it shouldn't be surprising that it took a post about bare boobs to raise the ratings here, after all, that was the entire point of the post.

In the meantime the print media have come a calling, and spoken to various important people at TV3 and TVNZ about the rumours I'd put in print. Which of course makes one nervous, because what if I was just making it all up? What if my friends have a bad case of Chinese Whispers?

Which I thought I'd perhaps covered off by saying very early on in my last post "This could all be bullshit of course, the media industry is a great one for gossip." But that's unlikely to be added as a disclaimer in any subsequent print story.

I'm told that the powers that be at TV3 have denied it all. Which of course they would - there is absolutely no PR value whatsoever in admitting that a show isn't doing very well and has been given an ultimatum. They've also pointed out John Campbell is still under contract. Three words: Paul Holmes, Prime.

But I've also since had it confirmed via someone on staff at Campbell Live that the rumours are true. Also, I would've thought this John Drinnan piece from last week at least alluded to half of what I've said. You don't order someone back from their holiday to meet with you so you can pat them on the back and say "awesome job dude, now let's hit the strips..."

The feedback from the last blog has been interesting, and is worth a read. A bunch of people have said to me personally they hope Campbell Live does continue because competition is healthy and that two shows mean we can see differening viewpoints. I'd agree with the latter, although as I said in the last post, it's a perverse fact that competition in media often results in a race to the bottom.

What would I like to see? Well if Campbell Live resists the temptation to go completely tabloid, and is scrapped, it's be great if Campbell (for whom I have a great deal of respect) - still under contract, still getting paid - is given a show (daily/weekly/whatever) in a later timeslot, where he doesn't need to pander to the demands of primetime ratings. A smart show. The sort of thing you might see on the BBC. The sort of show it seems (from the feedback at least) many of us thought Campbell Live was going to be in the first place. The sort of show it's not.

Why not be completely brave, transform Nightline into must-see late night telly rather than a showcase for young hotties? I'd watch.

There’s been a lot of talk in media circles in the past few weeks about the return of Campbell Live to the small screen after its summer hiatus. The story I’ve heard from various people at TV3 is that last week the network’s new boss, Ian Audsley, rocked into the Campbell Live office and told its executive producer to lift ratings or the show is gone. Four months was a deadline I’ve heard.

This could all be bullshit of course, the media industry is a great one for gossip, although you’d hardly need a crystal ball or a PhD in Media Studies to see the writing on the wall for Campbell Live, and its even-worse performing morning counterpart, Sunrise. On the other hand, Campbell Live’s ratings haven’t been flash since the get-go, and it’s lasted five years. A network dropping rather than expanding news and current affairs empire isn’t a good look, but with new owners, priorities can change.

Meanwhile, staff at TV3’s summer show @7, which managed okay ratings during the hiatus, are quietly hoping they will be back on air in four months time, when Campbell Live gets the axe. I don’t see it happening; it’d probably be far easier and cheaper to put on re-runs of the Simpsons, which performed perfectly well before Campbell Live came along. But you never know, Australian bosses can make interesting choices.

Whether it was the Ocker boss (I once had a boss from across the ditch who criticised a story on fashion week for not having enough “norks”) or a producer desperate to keep their job, it didn’t take long for Campbell Live to get the message that ratings were all-important. To wit, this
full-frontal gem on its season debut last night. It’s odd that I should probably add "NSFW", when it aired at 7pm on free-to-air TV.

Personally, I hope Campbell Live survives, but not if it’s going to go all tits and arse – if I want porn, have no fear, I know where to get it. I want Campbell Live to keep going because I think competition is something we often lack in New Zealand.

But competition is supposed to be healthy, it’s supposed to result in everyone being stronger, faster, fitter, better, not turning its host into the new Benny Hill. Unfortunately in media, competition often results in a scramble for the lowest common denominator. And while Boobs at the Beach is the most gratuitous example I’ve seen at 7pm, I’m certainly not saying Campbell Live is alone – this decision from the BSA last year wasn’t exactly glowing about its competition.

All I’d say is, John, if you can’t beat ‘em, please don’t join ‘em.
_____________________

So of course I ended up going to the Big Day Out. I know I’d said I wasn’t going because the line-up hadn’t excited me at all, but as a bunch of friends pointed out, the lack of a must-see band or three doesn’t stop you hanging out with your mates, getting pissed in the sun and laughing at/with the crowds. And the fact I had no work on that day, nothing better to do and a free ticket, well.

As predicted (and expounded on by far greater musical minds than mine on this very blog), there was nothing to get too excited about musically – I enjoyed a couple of bands, and left at a civilised hour, but had a thoroughly good day. Hanging out with mates. Getting pissed in the sun. And laughing at/with the crowds. I think this would’ve had to have been one of the best organised BDOs in a while too: Better stage layout, no major bottlenecks, and fast moving booze lines.

Anyway, that was then. Last weekend, on a somewhat dodgy day weather-wise I went to Music in Parks at Coyle Park in Pt Chev. My first time in said park, and the first time in a while since I’ve seen SJD and Dimmer live. I really enjoyed both, although perhaps agree with some people’s comments that Dimmer’s angsty strains was a bit incongruous to a sunny outdoor daytime picnic-type event.

I’ll probably give the next couple M.I.P's a miss (the Warratahs are great I’m sure, but not high on my agenda) but I’ll see you in Kingsland for the Datsuns on Feb 27, and also the 20th anniversary of the 95bFM Summer Series, whenever that is, in Albert Park. Long may the good weather continue.

Regular readers – if it is indeed possible to have regular readers of an irregular blog – might recall a post from a year or so back, where I took my niece Morgan to the Auckland Zoo for her second birthday. She completely ignored the elephants in favour of the puddles around her feet, the lions were no match for the mud and so forth.

Anyway, at the time it generated a bit of empathetic discussion along the lines of 'what is the best age to take kids to the zoo?', so I thought I should really update the experience a year later, with our trip for her third birthday. Yes, Uncle Damian is trying to create a tradition here to continue for years, or at least until such time as she refuses to be seen dead in public with anyone over 30 (insights into exactly when one should expect that are also invited).

Her birthday falling in June, it a damp, cold old wintry day when I picked Morgan up. My sister and brother-in-law live up the line a bit, so these things have to be planned well in advance, and a little rain can't be allowed to get in the way. As we turned up to the zoo, one thing that hadn't changed was Mogan's interest in puddles. This time she was prepared, with gumboots, a raincoat and umbrella, and a licence to splash.

The difference between a two-year-old and three-year-old is huge, but I must admit it was still hard to get her to pay what I considered the appropriate amount of attention to the myriad animals. This time it was all about poking heads through holes (not through bars, fortunately), playing with the older kids on playgrounds she was barely big enough to negotiate, and splashing herself silly at every puddle-shaped opportunity. Tellingly, she seemed more interested in the TV screen at the Cheetah exhibit than the real live thing pressed right against the glass behind her.

She had a great time though, no doubt. On arrival I was told that the giraffe was her favourite animal. Luckily I'd called in advance to find out what time the giraffe feeding was. Impressed? Apparently she was rabbiting on for days about what the giraffe's favourite food was (celery) and what she fed it (carrot).

A little later, two friends turned up with their son, who is quite a bit younger, but a zoo veteran, living locally and having a family pass. They also brought presents; a toy beaver (exactly), and the Best Present Ever, a pair of toy binoculars. My sister told me later that Morgan had wanted binoculars for so long that she'd taken to walking around looking through her curled up hands, so you could imagine the delight – for her, having her new favourite thing in the world, and for us, as she walked around looking like a complete dork.

Hey.

Happy New Year.

Goodbye 'noughties'. (How did we end up with that one? It's like that shit idea that stuck only because no-one else came up with anything better and then it was too late). Hello… um, "tweenies"? "teens?" Let's stick a pin in that one too.

I won't bore you with tales of how I've spent the past month or so, suffice to say it isn't half as interesting as one might have hoped – my plan to visit, dive and fish the Barrier over New Years sort of evaporated, along with most of my intended DIY projects around the house – although I did manage to vacuum the other day – in a haze of alcoholic afternoons and narcotic nights.

And so I begin 2010 ("twenty-ten" comes the instruction from the TVNZ newsroom, which I guess is at least shorter than "two thousand and ten", but perhaps not as cool as "two-oh-one-oh", especially if said with emphasis on the second syllable so it sounds a little bit like "nine-oh-two-one-oh") with the usual boring resolutions I've not come to associate with my mid-thirties. Quit smoking. Exercise more. Drink less. Pick up my clothes off the floor. Six days in and the first three are going well at least.

I have to agree with Russell about this year's Big Day Out. The line-up is such that forget buying a ticket, this year I can't even be arsed sending a blagging email politely asking for a freebee. Which is not to say I don't have mucho respect and affection for those individuals involved in putting it on – the organisation in recent years has been beyond reproach – and I think the local line-up is pretty good all things considered: There's just nothing on the international menu to make me want to spend my day sweating and pushing and drinking warm beer from plastic bottles. It's like the line-up for some mid-noughties (grrrr) Big Day Out got stuck in transit somewhere and has finally touched down. Lily Allen? Muse? Kasabian? I mean the Big Day Out has always featured a few anachronistic appearances, particularly in the electronic sphere – Crystal Method, Prodigy etc – but I just don't see anything new or interesting here. On some level though, it's not about the music, and I'm sure everyone will have a gay old time. I look forward to hearing about it, and I might see you there next year.

After booking a few days ahead to get decent seats, I finally got to see Avatar at the IMAX (Queen Street) last night. Wow. It leaves my Viewmaster for dead. Everything I'd heard about it – good and bad – was true, and yet this remains a must-see experience. Yes, it is Dances With Wolves in Space. Yes, it is Pocahontas meets the Lorax meets Fern Gully. In Space. Yes it did remind me a lot of a 90s black light rave (or Espresso Love on Ponsonby Road circa 1998). Yes, it is Smurf Porn – Hollywood has finally found a way to make its female leads taller and thinner than ever before. It is predictable, hammy and all those other things we associate with Hollywood Blockbusters. But it is 'Wow'. At least in 3D – I can't imagine anyone being impressed seeing it otherwise, which means DVD sales will theoretically be nonexistent – and go and see it at the IMAX if you can, you want this to be as big, as immersive as possible. Best seats are in the middle of the very back row, delay a few days if it means getting better seats.

I don't think this is a spoiler at all, but read on at your own discretion – my friend Ben and I both found the most affecting scenes, 3D-wise, involved the holographic computer screens they use – it's the sort of technology we've seen portrayed on screen ever since Star Wars, but the fact that it was finally 3D to both us and the movie character was cool. You can keep your angry dragons flying straight at the screen, give me a 3D monochrome computer monitor any day.

If you're still on holiday and looking for a few recommendations how to fill your time, may I recommend Magpie Hall, the second novel by the wonderful Rachael King, as a good way to fill some beach-time (even if its gothic themes might seem a little out of place when you're frying on Cheltenham Beach). I'm early into The Trowenna Sea by Witi Ihimaera & Co at the moment – my review copy came with a note, "the author is available for interview", an invitation which I believe was quickly rescinded. I'm not reading it for any reason other than at some point over summer I went away for a couple of days and needed something to read. And I'm enjoying it, although I find myself wondering which bits he didn't write, which doesn't exactly add to the experience.

Music-wise, the stereo is blaring Them Crooked Vultures, the Dave Grohl, John Paul Jones, Josh Homme supergroup (from Nirvana/Foo Fighters, Led Zeppelin and Queens of the Stone Age respectively, just in case you're musically a bit illiterate, we don't judge…), a dirty rock album which seems after a few listens to be living up to its hype. They're touring Auckland and Wellington soon too, could definitely be worth checking out.

Or if you want something a bit more chilled, I'm still loving the fairly recent Opensouls album Standing in the Rain. It's about as derivative as it's possible to get of sweet, classic Motown, but the musicians involved, the quality of the songwriting and of course Tyra's succulent vocals makes it work beautifully.

Other than that, things are ticking over slowly but steadily here at Cracker HQ – Back Benches is in the midst of a summer tour – we've done Russell, Mangawhai and Whitianga so far, recording Tauranga this weekend with Gisborne and Napier on the subsequent two weekends (the show still broadcasts on Wednesdays as per though), so if you happen to be around any of those towns, come down and say hi.

PA Radio and Q+A are both on a break until February some time, so while I've got some downtime, I'm hoping to present a few of the best blogs I never wrote last year – there were a couple of trips overseas that passed barely without mention, and a few other nice little moments.