Production sector: government has short changed us on content quotas

Is it me or do these people just not get it?

Downloads via iTunes (and other non-legal) services are growing rapidly and if you look at the top 20 TV seasons in that store today not ONE is Australian. In fact the first Australian entry (outside of ABC content aimed at pre-school) is at #60 – Rake.

So we’re going to FORCE people to watch more Australian content? Really? Will we mandate that people must download a certain amount of Australian content?

Simon,

Do you not get it? Why would Australian shows on iTunes be high on the list? They get their first run, which is also free, on TV. So that’s where people are watching it.

Now, Dave

Your comment would make sense if it weren’t for a couple of things:

Given the article above this one was showing that advertising revenues for the main three stations are declining, it would seem that terrestrial TV is LOSING viewers. And in the main, they’re losing them to downloads.

I can download a quality show and watch it on my TV in under five minutes. Or I can watch it where I want (I watch Sons of Anarchy on my iPad on the treadmill in the gym).

If Australian TV channels are losing people to downloads, it’s because they don’t have the engaging content people want in the format they want it. So throwing MORE Australian drama on there, which isn’t doing enough to keep people interested at the moment, ain’t going to fix it, even if it is free.

Secondly, your comment about people watching shows because they get first run on free TV WOULD make sense if it weren’t for the fact that in position 3 is season 2 of Homeland….which is free on Channel 10. Or even The James Bond Top Gear episode which was FREE on Australian TV and is…wait for it…first in the iTunes charts.

The only conclusion that you can draw from that is either that (sadly) Australian viewers don’t rate Australian content, or that Australian content is crap. Either way, shoving more of it on TV isn’t going to help anyone.

(footnote: I don’t actually know what the answer is – sorry)

Simon, I think you don’t know what the question is as well.

JG and Dave I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at here… Simon is making an excellent point. So far I’m yet to see a valid argument from content makers as to why increased quotas will do anything but force networks to invest in subpar content, further decreasing their capacity to be competitive and rebroadcast ancient “Australian” shows.

Content makers like quotas with clearly defined parameters because they want broadcasters to fund their various pet projects. We are in dire need of programming innovation if we’re going to be competitive in a global marketplace. Content makers need to start telling engaging stories and stop trying to hide behind legislation.

Let me explain.

1. TV usage has been pretty flat for the past two decades with minor bumps year to year (like Olympics).
2. There is some leakage to online and downloads – yes. Some. For example all online video viewing during the month of September equated to roughly 21 hours of TV usage.
3. The Australian Top 20 has been dominated by Australian content year after year after year.

See the difference is I am relying on data and facts (OzTAM and before that Nielsen) rather than my own experience or opinion.

I also believe that as they are public airwaves owned by all Australians that those fortunate enough to have the rights to use them have an ethical and social responsibility to return something to the fabric of our culture. It may be good, it may be bad – just like overseas produced content.

Where I diverge is that I think we need to encourage MORE local content production so that as diverse as possible is encouraged and provided to the widest possible audience. The cold facts are that if you don’t mandate local production in return for use of the broadcast spectrum then bet your bottom dollar that the balance sheet will ensure that just about all local production (bar news and sport) will fade away and die. It’s like asking someone …l do you want to pay income tax or not … you have to mandate it. Nothing dreamy or idealistic in that approach – just cold hard realism as unpalatable as it may be.

Thanks JG can you link to the Oztam report that contain points 1 – 3?

I think the question here is whether commercially run networks like 7, 9 and 10 should adhere to the same criteria as our publicly funded networks. ABC and SBS are recipients of public money and so as you say they are obligated in ways that commercial networks are not.

Television is a business and the consumers that make that business profitable are going elsewhere. If networks don’t offer what viewers want when they want it, then they won’t continue to operate. This is the challenge facing content makers but instead of facing this we’re having this conversation instead. This is not a classroom where every pupil should get a gold star for trying. It’s a business.

“Where I diverge is that I think we need to encourage MORE local content production so that as diverse as possible is encouraged and provided to the widest possible audience.”

Even if I didn’t make it clear the first time around, I agree with this. But the goal shouldn’t be mandating hours; it should be producing content so bloody good that the channels WANT to put it on.

It’s the same argument as getting women on boards of directors. Do you promote someone because she’s a woman, or because she’s good at her job?

Do we put Australian content on TV because its Australian? Or because its good? I realise there is somewhat of a chicken and egg situation here, but I just don’t believe in mandated content. No-one takes risks with mandated content; hence why we get reality TV, cop shows and Underbelly.

Hi Nicky – not really as it is held in data bases rather that as a report so you’re going to have to trust me on that one.

My point is the next generation of writers, producers and directors of quality content have to start somewhere. If the number of hours are not mandated then hello zero.

“My point is the next generation of writers, producers and directors of quality content have to start somewhere. If the number of hours are not mandated then hello zero.”

It’s a vicious circle. They’ll produce mediocre rubbish for the mainstream market. Mandated content isn’t going to produce a Breaking Bad, or a Sons of Anarchy, or something that truly puts Australian creative drama on the map. Could you see the Australian writer pitching The Walking Dead to Channel 7? lol

LOL Simon.

I agree Simon. Because in your brave new world Channel 7 would just say … don’t care how good it is I don’t have to produce or commission a thing any more, but good luck with it. I’m not a fan of a creative brain drain.

@JG … you’ve missed the point. Mandated content isn’t going to produce a “Breaking Bad” or “Game of Thrones”. Forcing them to meet increased quotas will result in networks making the same level of production investment as they do now but spreading it across more projects. This means they’ll produce more for less which inevitably means a lower quality end-product.

If we increased the quota they won’t invest more money and make better shows… especially when advertising revenue is in decline.

We diminish our industry when we limit this discussion to quotas. We should be focusing on diversifying distribution, making better content decisions and creating commercial investment opportunities beyond TVC’s.

And in your brave existing world JG, we’ll all be sitting there watching more Tricky Business….

I think TV is dead. no matter how much cost cutting they do at the moment it wont stop the inevitable of their business model. They will always struggle in the future with their platform.

Due to the fact there is more digital channels and that 7,9,and 10 have to fill the space they make the problem worse by buying more content. Unfortunately I think the only way they can survive is increase the level of subpar content a lot. The increase in government quotas would force the change they dont want to risk doing.

Many people might not like the thought of subpar content but I know for a fact it is engaging and therefore it can meet viewership. Better some views then none.

So, Simon, “it should be producing content so bloody good that the channels WANT to put it on”, are you suggesting Producers should just MAKE unfunded content and HOPE the networks pick it up?

Thank you Chris. Clearly I forgot to mention the ‘funding fairies”, as I assumed that Simon and Nicky would have known all about them.

So Simon, please elucidate me on your plan how the next Newsroom or Game of Thrones will be generated here for local television. Will it be a funded plan or a labour of love?

Nicky, I think you will find that the quotas you seem to abhor so much have been a major part of sustaining the local production industry (along with freelance ad production). Without them I fear we will end up with more direct-response TV masquerading as local production.

JG this business model is outdated. It may have once sustained our industry but hasn’t resulted in products that are competitive both domestically and internationally. Mandated content and government subsidies exist to kick start industries, not sustain them for decades.

@chris Pitch not production. We’re talking concepts and a level of scriptwriting as yet unseen in Australian TV… I don’t believe in “funding fairies” – governments and broadcasters forced to invest in projects because of a quota not because it’s any good.

Enjoy watchig and making more of the same, I won’t be watching.

“JG this business model is outdated.”

Absolutely Nicky.

“Will it be a funded plan or a labour of love?”

I’m guessing the same way that the funding fairies work in the Australian gaming industry? I don’t remember anyone mandating me to download Brisbane gaming house Halfbrick’s ‘Fruit Ninja’. Yet they managed to do sell 6 million copies in their first 10 months. By May 2012, they did 300 million downloads.

And pretty much everywhere in the world. I built my own company over the last three years to now employ 7 people – did the government need to mandate that people have to use my team for work? Why should creative people who make TV get a head start over creative person who designs logos?

Oh…and have you heard of Kickstarter? Or Pozible? Go and see how many film and video projects there are on Pozible.

This is a start-up in Sweden:

“A startup called Magine has created a product that lets you stream live and on-demand TV across devices. Beta users of the product can choose from 16 channels and watch the programs on their iPhones, iPads, computers, or smart TVs, and pick up on a show at any point from the last week. When the full service launches next year, it’ll have more than 50 channels. Subscribers will pay on a month-to-month basis, at a similar price to what they pay for regular cable.”

How’s this going to work with your mandated content, JG?

Terrestrial TV has two, maybe three years left. Then its dead. Australian production needs to embrace a new model NOW, and stop relying to mandated content.

Nicky I still don’t get the distinction between ‘pitch’ and ‘production’. You only get to see what goes into production. So, how do you know the quality of what is being pitched? Having a guess eh? It’s a bit like making a TVC – the ‘best’ ads (according to the ECDs) rarely make it to air.

Also, the government bodies now tend to rebate the producers (as a way of ‘seeding’ productions) rather than investdirectly in the production (i.e. they realise they are not the best arbiters of what will and won’t work).

Either way I’m happy that you won’t be watching – less whingeing from the sidelines.

@JG I work in this industry. I’m a content maker. I dont guess at anything and I definitely don’t reference Nielsen data that I can’t link to and then ask people to take my word for it. Also the Australian government continues to make direct investments in projects in addition to offering rebates… one of the primary difficulties with government subsidy today is the arbitrary nature of the process involved.

@Simon Halfbrick is a great example. Looking forward to their joint animation projects with partner PRA.

So you lot consider “Killing Time” and “Rake” to name a couple as not worth watching? Both would not have been produced without support. Have you watched “Event Zero” a world class online series funded by WebFest? Yep, WebFest commissions count as Australian content. And yes, even pitches cost – without a first draft script a broadcaster wont even take a look. Simon, do you design logos for free in the hope a client will embrace and pay for your work down the track?

Oh, and BTW @Nicky in response to your “Mandated content and government subsidies exist to kick start industries, not sustain them for decades” – Ermm, Ford, GMH, Toyota? How many decades?

@Chris Love “Event Zero” and Movie Extra. The problem with this example is that Webfest was a marketing exercise delivered very effectively through a Facebook voting system. It’s primary objective was to promote the Movie Extra brand in an environment where targeted advertising is/was becoming more difficult.

I’m not sure if you’re aware but last week Foxtel announced that it wouldn’t be renewing its movie contract with suppliers so they’ve decided to shut down Movie One, Movie Two, FMC (Family Movie Channel), Movie Extra, Movie Greats and StarPics 1 & 2. So while a lot of great programming has come out of it, it is no longer fiable even for a subscription broadcaster to continue as they once did. Mandating them to continue in the same vein would cripple their business.

As for the reference made to Ford, GMH, Toyota…. Car subsidies are based on flawed economics, most economists agree with this…. Car subsidies are widely viewed as an attempt by governments to prop up declining manufacturing and preserve jobs that for reasons of currency or competitiveness cannot be maintained over the long term. Further they are subsidised at the expense of other industries who could argue the same position.

Subsidies can kick start and prop up but should never become a prolonged source of investment.

Hey Nicky, firstly let me correct you on the Primary function of WebFest. It’s key task was to help in the content creation and development of the online extension of the Movie Network Channels. The added benefit of course was marketing in the online environment. MNC has had a clever strategy of developing this additional tier of the business for some time and were leaders in this field when measured against other broadcasters. Developing content was the key focus and MNC digital channels have attracted an impressive number of eyeballs. WebFest was really a Project Greenlight ‘lite’, which demonstrates MNC’s commitment to developing Australian talent. Such initiatives borne through a requirement of minimum Australian content spend has in fact kick started/supported/developed careers for people such as Morgan ONeill, Kenn & Simon Macrae, Rob Carlton, Richard Gray, Henry & Aaron.
It is particularly sad to see the demise of the Movie Network as an independent channel; this is not as a result of as you put it ” no longer fiable even for a subscription broadcaster to continue as they once did. Mandating them to continue in the same vein would cripple their business.” You are a long way off the pace.
Whether or not the car subsidies are propping up an industry to save jobs, isnt the point. There are many other examples too, shall we talk Green schemes? Anyway, I simply provided the example in response to your original comment to demonstrate the point that subsidies/mandates etc exist in much larger forms than those provided for the film & television industry.
Are you also suggesting that Screen Australia and each of the state bodies cut their funding for digital/online/gaming? Its been a few years now, perhaps the time is up…. we dont want that to be a prolonged form of investment.

Chris, not to mention the incentives given to mining companies such as subsidised railway construction under the auspices of ‘infrastructure, when they will never carry a fare-paying passenger. And we’d better get rid of Medicare and free hospitalisation while we’re at it.

@Chris The primary function of Webfest was to market the Movie Extra brand. They would not have leveraged a Facebook voting system that required followers to spam friends and family for an extended period of time had their sole objective been to contribute to Australian content. There are plenty of other ways they could have achieved this. If you read my post again you’ll find no criticism of MCN. If the model were commercially successful they would not be rebranding. It’s as simple as that.

Screen Australia has been instrumental in keeping the Australian film and television industry afloat. This is entirely unacceptable. We cannot grow a profitable media industry in this country if we continue to invest in projects that do not spawn profitable media companies and markets. SA get this and are rejigging their investment priorities accordingly re: Enterprise Program Funding.

@JG you make my point for me. Governments are incapable of subsidising everything. Resources simply do not stretch that far.

My point, made time and again in this thread is that we need to steer away from government handouts and mandating content and figure out how to make film and television in Australia a profitable enterprise. If you get $10 million in government funding and don’t make back 50% of your production costs then 2 years later you’re back knocking on the door for some more there’s something terribly wrong.

Nicky, you make the point that Screen Australia has been instrumental in keeping the film and television industry afloat. Yet your ‘solution’ seems to be to STOP Screen Australia supporting the local industry. How do we ‘steer away’ from government handouts then?

By the way SA’s Producer’s Rebate for TV is ‘upon completion’. This means that the producer (who generally invests 100% of the rebate into the production – usually in exchange for equity) has to have some sort of bridging finance in place in order to even start the production and this is normally in the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars or higher.

Further, we subsidise food production as well. Why? Because we need to eat. We subsidise fuel allowances for industries. Why? Because it keeps the retail price down. We subsidise health care. Why? Because was have a social responsibility to tell ‘Australian stories’ on our media.

While we agree that the government can’t sudsidise everything I am not as mean spirited to deny Australian producers, Australian writers, Australian directors and Australian actors from telling Australian stories to Australian audiences.

And Simon, of course I know Kickstarter. I also know that since its inception in April 2009 it has successfully funded almost 34,000 projects. Fucking fantastic I say But do you realise that only 17 of them (that is one-twentieth of one percent) had funding of over $1million (i.e. a single Underbelly episode). Globally. So if that is your solution to funding Australian film and television may I humbly suggest that you think again.

JG,

I’m going to slap you across the face with a wet fish in a minute because you seem to missing the point:

Terrestrial TV and the current manner in which content is delivered to our TV screens is DEAD IN THREE YEARS.

So sure, you can all sing the mandated content song, demand time on 7, 9 and 10, and stick your heads in the sand whilst the industry evolves around you.

Or you could use your wealth of knowledge and plan for the future.

“But do you realise that only 17 of them (that is one-twentieth of one percent) had funding of over $1million”

Wow. You are NOT making a good case for yourself here.

So money = success in JG’s World? The Office was originally a low-budget home-made video by Stephen Merchant. They didn’t need a million. Or does anyone working with JG just walk into the room and demand a big wad of cash?

Dear oh dear Simon. Yes I AM missing the point. The point that I am missing is the one that you are Nicky are extremely poorly trying to make.

I tell you what. I’ll take you up on your “Terrestrial TV and the current manner in which content is delivered to our TV screens is DEAD IN THREE YEARS.”

By “DEAD” I assume you mean that there will be no more terrestrial TV. If so, my wager starts at $10,000. Let’s make it as follows:

“That by the start of 2016 that Terrestrial TV is DEAD, as measured by the continued existence of the Seven, Nine, Ten, ABC and SBS networks – that is none of the aforementioned channels continue to broadcast.”

Do you have the courage of your conviction? It will be the easiest $10k I will EVER earn.

Clearly you have little idea how much ‘quality’ costs when it comes to scripted broadcast entertainment. I gather that is because you would stand to gain if TV was dumbed down to ‘cats on a piano’ level.

And anyone who knows me understands that I do not measure success by money – but thank you for such an imbecilic comment as I think it says a lot more about you than me. Matter of fact I will donate the $10k I win off you to charity. Half to a charity of my choice and half to a charity of your choice to assuage your pain.

Sure the original ‘The Office’ pilot was ‘home-made’ as are many pilots, but it was made purely to get the series commissioned. No I don’t know the per episode budget of the broadcast series but if it would help I reckon there could be a few people who do know that I could try.

And for Nicky’s benefit I have all the average daily time spent viewing TV since 1991 and will summarise it here. From 1991-2000 is Nielsen TV ratings and from 2001-2012 is OzTAM TV Ratings.

1991 3 hrs 13 mins
1992 3 hrs 14 mins
1993 3 hrs 11 mins
1994 3 hrs 12 mins
1995 3 hrs 10 mins
1996 3 hrs 10 mins
1997 3 hrs 13 mins
1998 3 hrs 14 mins
1999 3 hrs 11 mins
2000 3 hrs 13 mins
2001 3 hrs 18 mins (start of OzTAM)
2002 3 hrs 17 mins
2003 3 hrs 11 mins
2004 3 hrs 7 mins
2005 3 hrs 10 mins
2006 3 hrs 13 mins
2007 3 hrs 11 mins
2008 3 hrs 8 mins
2009 3 hrs 3 mins
2010 3 hrs 8 mins (time-shifted playback included for the first time)
2011 3 hrs 9 mins
2012 3 hrs 7 mins (preliminary)

As you can see it’s a 6 minute reduction in Total TV usage (albeit fragmented across many more channels) over the past 22 years – which apparently will be falling to zero within the next three years.

“By “DEAD” I assume you mean that there will be no more terrestrial TV.”

Which proves my point you have no idea.

“As you can see it’s a 6 minute reduction in Total TV usage”

Hooray. You’ve proved it even further. You’re pushing an average time, rather than absolute viewer numbers? Oh dear.

“Between 2010 and 2011, the number of people watching TV at home declined by 7%.”

That’s Nielson. An a GLOBAL survey. So for 2011, that brings it down to 83%. Let’s assume it continues that decline (based on faster internet, more streaming services, Smart TVs etc etc) that would bring it to about 55% in 2014. At that sort of level, would terrestrial TV still be sustainable? I think my statistics trump your statistics.

Although that would still be 55% watching 3hrs and 7 mins a night…

Or how about another stat. The number of people watching the last Curiosity descent onto Mars:

“Ustream 3.2 million
Fox 803,000
CNN 426,000
MSNBC 365,000”

That was Mashable’s research, and Nielson’s numbers again. Ustream is an online streaming service, in case you hadn’t worked that out.

It’s great you’re looking back at 1991 JG to keep you safe and warm that mandated content is the way forward. Some of us prefer to look at trends to understand the future so we can plan better.

OK, I’ll throw it open to others. Does anyone have any idea what Simon is talking about?

And FYI Average Time Spent Viewing Per Day Per Person is the one constant metric that you SHOULD use as it takes into account the population growth As an example, the average minute in Metro Australia had 1.801 million people watching back in 2001, whereas in 2012 (to-date) it is 2.034 million. So while the audience has gone up it is slightly slower than the population growth over the same time meaning that the average time spent viewing has declined slightly (though I suspect that such mathematical nuances will be way over your head). If however you get a period of lucidity to explain what your ‘55% by 2014’ means i’d be fascinated to find out how you’ve tortured the numbers.

Finally I notice you’re very coy to accept my challenge.