Posts Tagged ‘TVNZ’

1. Radio Stands Tall When Canterbury Earthquake Hits

   Published on Wednesday, September 8th, 2010
   While TVNZ proudly proclaimed that 2 million Kiwis tuned in to its coverage of the Canterbury earthquake, the run-away winner story-teller in the first hours of the disaster was radio.

   By 7am on Saturday morning National Radio and Newstalk ZB were bringing us eye witness descriptions from people – professionals and the public – who painted images of the devastation for us with their verbal accounts.

   On ZB anchor man Larry Williams was superb – seamlessly ensuring listeners understood the big picture, bringing us the personal tragedies while sending out a steady stream of civil emergency messages to those that needed vital information.

   It was compelling, and radio at its very best.

   Compare that to TV1 and TV3 at 7am. What earthquake! We were being served up reruns of ‘entertainment’ programmes. Not even an on screen caption mentioning our largest ever recorded earthquake had occurred.

   Naturally BBC and CNN were telling the world about it. What an indictment of our own television news services that we had to go overseas to find out what was happening in our own country.

   Some time after 8am TV1 finally woke from its slumber and started to bring us excellent coverage, and we were able to ‘see’ what ZB had been describing brilliantly for an hour. TV3 had roused itself to putting up an onscreen caption under its entertainment programmes telling us it would bring us news of the earthquake from 11am. ‘News’ – by then it was ‘history’.

   Social media also found the going tough as a communication medium through a combination of overloading, civil defence requesting people to restrict cell phone use to reserve capacity for emergency services, and the battery back up to power cell sites running low.

   The other standout was Mayor Bob Parker. It was a case of cometh the hour, cometh the man. Authoritative and calm, he exuded all that you want from the person in control when disaster strikes.

2. Spilling the beans becomes inevitable

   Published on Thursday, July 29th, 2010
   It wasn’t the Australian Leaders’ Debate that sparked a major controversy on Monday morning radio. Nor was it the Leaders’ debate timeslot being moved to give preference to the hotly contested final of Australian Masterchef on Sunday night. No, it was Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report inadvertently disclosing the winner of said cooking show.

   In an apparent slip of the tongue, host Geoff Robinson told listeners the name of the winner, later defending himself by saying it was all over the papers. Yes, the Australian papers. New Zealand viewers  are just two weeks into Aussie Masterchef, so many listeners of Morning Report were incensed.

   However, Robinson makes a good point in today’s global media space. It’s near impossible to keep such ‘news’ a secret and really; shouldn’t the cries of anguish and displeasure be levelled at TVNZ for airing the show so many weeks behind the Aussies?  Why not do what they did for American Idol, playing the finale a mere hours after it aired in America?

   We can expect there will be financial reasons for the delay, but as punters, more than ever before, we expect media connectivity, (including entertainment), to be ‘current’

   Thank you Morning Report, for highlighting the heavy feet of our state broadcaster.

3. There was no Sunrise today at my place

   Published on Tuesday, April 13th, 2010
   The end of Sunrise highlights the challenges media will always face when they enter an established market and aim to grab a slice of the national media pie.

   Even in its category of breakfast TV it was always going to be David up against Goliath (TV1’s Breakfast).  When you add in the other competitors for morning audiences, multiple options from online, print and radio, Sunrise faced a major scrap winning a commercial share.

   Full credit to TV3, as it gave it more than a fighting chance. The quality of the product was first class, and it was delivered by a great team.

   Regrettably for Sunrise we live in commercially difficult times, and things have to pay their way.  For Sunrise, ultimately the numbers did not stack up.
    
   I had always thought it was a safe bet that it would remain an essential in the TV3 line-up.  How wrong I was and, to paraphrase Paul Henry – it’s sad to see it go. 

   Despite our scale, New Zealand offers excellent, possibly world class, media options and there’s simply not enough time to take in everything, no matter how good it is. 

   While there will always be the loyalists who are the backbone of media ratings charts, increasingly people are becoming promiscuous – looking, listening and reading around. In our intensely busy lives we are not inclined to spend our precious time on things we don’t have a high level of interest in, and this is reflected in modern media habits.  For example, how many families sit down and watch shows together.  More likely different people watch different items at different times

   Breakfast TV as a medium, only launched in the UK in 1983, is likely to continue to face major problems in attracting and holding an audience at potentially the most time critical part of most people’s day.  

   So what does Sunrise’s demise mean for the public relations sector, working to tell its clients’ stories via television? The options have just shrunk by half for stories that are great for morning television, and lots of them are. The visual element, a bit of entertainment, some ‘nice to know’ information and perhaps add in a worthwhile cause and we’re onto a winner.

   It’s a shame that now the (admittedly small) viewing public of Sunrise may not get to hear about it.

4. Brand, a treasure worth protecting

   Published on Thursday, July 9th, 2009
   Although many of us think that imitation is the height of flattery and common usage the measure of fame and acceptance, one manufacturer has made it clear that its sub-brands are not to be trifled with; and have a cache that demands respect and protection.

   We’ll call the story of Glad Snap Lock bags Part 1 of this brand story.  At the weekend we learned that the manufacturer of Glad Snap Lock bags was warning people against the appropriation of their “Snap Lock” trademark or sub-brand.

   Of course, the Glad brand is ubiquitous in the nation’s kitchens, with cling films, freezer storage bags, rubbish bags, sandwich bags and a multitude of handy containers whose lids are so frequently orphaned.

   The reality is that Glad has been and is an extraordinary innovator, and innovation costs money. On simple, low-cost household items that return on investment is a long-run process, so its advertisements are warning that flattery will not be tolerated.  While some may think its approach a tad heavy, it is reinforcement that Glad takes seriously its brand and will fight to protect it.  That is something we as consumers should respect.

   Part 2 of our brand story, won’t be so familiar to most.  Two weeks ago Google held a ball – that’s right, trip the light fantastic and all that. Thinking it would get into the spirit of things, Vodafone arranged for two body-painted models “baring” the Google brand to titivate fellow ball-goers.

   Google was not amused. Displaying their brand on near naked women was out of line with its brand’s values.

   The lesson? If you are flirting with someone else’s brand, always be sure that you know and respect its values.

   And speaking of respect,  TVNZ’s American correspondent Tim Wilson got the message from fans of late Michael Jackson while he was doing the piece-to-camera on the prince of pop’s untimely demise.  Security men had to hold back fans as they shuffled forward menacingly when Wilson was less than respectful of Jackson.  One cockney was heard to say to her friend: It’s alright, Linda, there are respecters and dis-respecters and we’re the respecters!

5. Warning: Sunday Theatre to throw up to

   Published on Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009
   I love Sundays, the best day of the week for sharing the comfort of home with family and friends. Last Sunday evening I roasted a chicken, we enjoyed it with homemade pesto and fresh salad leaves picked straight from the garden. Grace, the household’s 13 year old has been working on a school project about Mexico and she treated us to a national specialty, steaming mugs of hot chocolate spiked with cinnamon and chilli.

   Ah what family happiness I thought as my university aged other daughter and I curled up on the couch for TV One’s Sunday Theatre.

   ‘Above Suspicion’ is based on a Lynda La Plant best seller. The television drama followed a group of detectives on the trail of a twisted serial killer; it was described as a crime-thriller and sported a pretty hefty series of warnings before it began.

   Fore-warned for sure but in no way was I prepared for what the censors at TVNZ pass as suitable free-to-air entertainment. The drama contained references, descriptions and re-enactments of mutilation, incest, and child rape, close ups of a naked corpse autopsy, an as-live suicide and I’d say pretty much every type of vileness imaginable.

   I was reeling by the time I hit the off-button. The 19 year old had voted with her feet much earlier. But now I’m confused, the Sunday Theatre used to be a television highlight, an evening of high quality, challenging drama. It was televisions’ finest hour sponsored by high-end brands like Montana and Lexus.

   TVNZ did communicate that the material was extremely graphic but none of the previews, on their website or others alluded to quite how disturbing it would be. The AO gave me no indication either. Audiences are abandoning free-to-air TV in great numbers, so is this no-hold-bar content an attempt to woo them back? I wonder how advertisers like Telecom and the Warehouse feel about being sandwiched in between such icky stuff for a premium rate? The tele will stay off next Sunday and as for Black and Green chocolate, the current sponsor, I’ll be leaving you on the shelf.

6. 21st Century Prohibition – Managing the modern day Pandora’s box

   Published on Friday, April 3rd, 2009
   As I write this post my Twitter profile is minimised, I’ve checked my Facebook at least twice today, researched articles on-line and watched a couple of items from last night’s TV news – a normal day in the life of a PR professional. For many the internet is an essential tool. But it can also have a dark side (and I don’t mean the vast amounts of R rated content). It can seduce you into spending far more time surfing than you initially intended and decrease productivity and focus.

   One survey suggests that personal internet usage at work accounts for 25% of all browsing while others have put it closer to a staggering two thirds of browsing time. Like Pandora’s box the temptation to look inside and see what’s new is irresistible especially when you have a case of 3.30-itis.

   So how can we balance the benefits with the down-sides? How can we ensure it doesn’t eat at productivity and organisational performance? Strict rules and bans are probably not the right approach for most organisations. If people want to spend their time surfing the net and avoiding work it is likely there are bigger issues than internet access. The tone of an organisation is likely to change when there are strict bans enforced. People who want to slack off can find plenty of other ways – txting and emailing for example.

   In our organisation the work-home blur means there is frequent overlap. Media calls and releases late at night are balanced by the ability to dispatch personal matters through the course of your work day. The ability to quickly deal with a pesky bill payment or booking on-line can prevent that nagging distraction in your workload and allow you to focus on the job at hand. That free thinking time to surf and trawl can result in new ideas or spark creative inspiration for a campaign you may be working on. In setting your internet usage guidelines you need to ensure it fits with the culture and professional requirements of your workplace.

   As communicators we are self-regulating. On the other hand it has been suggested recently at TVNZ that sites such as Facebook and TradeMe be blocked during work hours. The thinking behind this was cutting bandwidth costs. As they are communicators as well, is this conducive to business in the media sector?

   

7. Who Would Want To Be In Politics!

   Published on Monday, March 23rd, 2009
   John Key has my admiration for the way he is publicly handling the issue of ‘retaining jobs’ for New Zealanders.

   Within weeks of leading from the front at the ‘jobs summit’ where he looked great urged employers to do all within their power to retain their workforce, he is now placed in the embarrassing position of defending the decision of TVNZ to make some 90 people redundant so that it can meet its required dividend payment to the Government.

   Getting his head around the key messages to talk about both situations publicly while not appearing hypocritical is no mean feat.

   My perception is that he is pulling it off, in part because he still comes across in public as being honest, earnest and facing up to the issues.

   When Parliament first reconvened, John started to develop a reputation among media for being a bit of a word and meaning ‘mangler’. He is no dominant, razor sharp Helen; or silken, motor-mouthed Michael.

   However, what John lacks in the way of a persuasive tongue is compensated for by his honesty, believability and his freshness.

   Conversely, Phil Goff struggles to make any cut through in the believability stakes because we have been seeing and hearing from him for 20 plus years. Try as he might, his theme that Labour ‘lost contact’ with ordinary New Zealanders and it is now on a journey of ‘reconnecting’ just does not make it in the credibility stakes.

   In the months ahead John’s challenge is to retain his believability as the nation becomes more exposed to him. It is a far easier challenge than the one facing Phil, which is to prevent himself becoming a stop gap leader before a new leader emerges 12 to 18 months ahead of the next election.