Can't wait for the TVNZ coverage of the RWC /s

mattwnz:

 

BBC seem to be able to manage FTA coverage, and without ads fine. So it isn't a PAYTV vs FTA TV thing, as BBC is FTA. The problem TVNZ has, is should they delay coverage when playing ads, so it restarts where they left off, or should they run ads during live coverage and risk people missing parts of the event . I think TVNZ needs to learn how to place ads in parts of the program when there are breaks in the event, which is how they used to do it. Maybe they just don't have the staff knowledge or the staff numbers these days to run live events like this. IMO their coverage has been ok, and in the old days we only had a single channel of coverage, and they flicked between events, which IMO was actually better. This new way of doing it, means we have to flick between channels, and may miss important thigns that happen..

 

The old days?  You mean the 1990's or the 1980's?  

Beijing 2008 - 4 channels.  800 hours of programming.  HD.  http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1883566

Fast forward 10 more years - and nothing has changed.  Not a jot.  

sbiddle:

 

mattwnz:

 

BBC seem to be able to manage FTA coverage, and without ads fine. So it isn't a PAYTV vs FTA TV thing, as BBC is FTA. 

 

 

BBC FTA? Hardly. Everybody in the UK has to pay a TV licence yearly to fund it. 

 

Which is essentially a tax where the only way to avoid it is to not own a TV... NZBC TV was funded the same way in the very early days. Through a whole lot of changes it was still collected to fund NZ on Air up until the 90's. And then in classic (short sighted) NZ fashion people campaigned to have the fee abolished because it was "just another tax" and some may argue TVNZ suffered for that reason. Now TVNZ only gets 10% of it's funding from the government form memory so we still pay a "fee", just less of it, unknowingly, and get a poorer quality TV station as a result.

The obvious difference is the number of people who live in the UK and pay a licence fee vs NZ which means the BBC has a large pool of money to fund from. The days aren't longer there so they can use the money to make better content (I realise they have more channels to fund than TVNZ but the funding difference is enormous...) and they make fantastic programs.

It still cracks me up that you can still buy a black and white TV Licence for £50!

sdav:

 

sbiddle:

 

mattwnz:

 

BBC seem to be able to manage FTA coverage, and without ads fine. So it isn't a PAYTV vs FTA TV thing, as BBC is FTA. 

 

 

BBC FTA? Hardly. Everybody in the UK has to pay a TV licence yearly to fund it. 

 

 

Which is essentially a tax where the only way to avoid it is to not own a TV... NZBC TV was funded the same way in the very early days. Through a whole lot of changes it was still collected to fund NZ on Air up until the 90's. And then in classic (short sighted) NZ fashion people campaigned to have the fee abolished because it was "just another tax" and some may argue TVNZ suffered for that reason. Now TVNZ only gets 10% of it's funding from the government form memory so we still pay a "fee", just less of it, unknowingly, and get a poorer quality TV station as a result.

 

The obvious difference is the number of people who live in the UK and pay a licence fee vs NZ which means the BBC has a large pool of money to fund from. The days aren't longer there so they can use the money to make better content (I realise they have more channels to fund than TVNZ but the funding difference is enormous...) and they make fantastic programs.

 

It still cracks me up that you can still buy a black and white TV Licence for £50!

 

In the 12 months to Jun 2017 TVNZ received $5m of funding from NZOA and TMP.  It received revenue from other Crown entities totalling $2m and made purchased from Crown entities of $8m.  It is essentially a net-payer to the Government.

Of its total $316m of revenue it gets very very little funding from the Government.  A shade over 2%.  

If you think it gets 10% from the Crown then you are seriously mistaken.  We, as taxpayers, make ZERO NET CONTRIBUTION TO TVNZ.

ockel:

 

The old days?  You mean the 1990's or the 1980's?  

 

Beijing 2008 - 4 channels.  800 hours of programming.  HD.  http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1883566

 

Fast forward 10 more years - and nothing has changed.  Not a jot.  

 

They also covered the winter Paralympics in February and it must have been fantastic coverage because I don't recall any complaints then. Either that or no one cares about them like more than half the sport on Sky which suddenly everyone must watch live this week. I'm not saying TVNZ have done a good job (their execution has been far from good) and if you take on the Commonwealth Games you should be expected to do it well. I just think there are a lot of fickle people about who suddenly care about NZ athletes in sports that Sky cover year round they don't watch...

sdav:

 

ockel:

 

The old days?  You mean the 1990's or the 1980's?  

 

Beijing 2008 - 4 channels.  800 hours of programming.  HD.  http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1883566

 

Fast forward 10 more years - and nothing has changed.  Not a jot.  

 

 

They also covered the winter Paralympics in February and it must have been fantastic coverage because I don't recall any complaints then. Either that or no one cares about them like more than half the sport on Sky which suddenly everyone must watch live this week. I'm not saying TVNZ have done a good job (their execution has been far from good) and if you take on the Commonwealth Games you should be expected to do it well. I just think there are a lot of fickle people about who suddenly care about NZ athletes in sports that Sky cover year round they don't watch...

 

The poster believed that "IMO their coverage has been ok, and in the old days we only had a single channel of coverage, and they flicked between events, which IMO was actually better. This new way of doing it, means we have to flick between channels, and may miss important thigns that happen".  

The old days of a single channel were a long long time ago.  This is not TVNZ's first rodeo - and as an organisation hasnt progressed in 10 years.

ockel:

 

sdav:

 

sbiddle:

 

mattwnz:

 

BBC seem to be able to manage FTA coverage, and without ads fine. So it isn't a PAYTV vs FTA TV thing, as BBC is FTA. 

 

 

BBC FTA? Hardly. Everybody in the UK has to pay a TV licence yearly to fund it. 

 

 

Which is essentially a tax where the only way to avoid it is to not own a TV... NZBC TV was funded the same way in the very early days. Through a whole lot of changes it was still collected to fund NZ on Air up until the 90's. And then in classic (short sighted) NZ fashion people campaigned to have the fee abolished because it was "just another tax" and some may argue TVNZ suffered for that reason. Now TVNZ only gets 10% of it's funding from the government form memory so we still pay a "fee", just less of it, unknowingly, and get a poorer quality TV station as a result.

 

The obvious difference is the number of people who live in the UK and pay a licence fee vs NZ which means the BBC has a large pool of money to fund from. The days aren't longer there so they can use the money to make better content (I realise they have more channels to fund than TVNZ but the funding difference is enormous...) and they make fantastic programs.

 

It still cracks me up that you can still buy a black and white TV Licence for £50!

 

 

In the 12 months to Jun 2017 TVNZ received $5m of funding from NZOA and TMP.  It received revenue from other Crown entities totalling $2m and made purchased from Crown entities of $8m.  It is essentially a net-payer to the Government.

 

Of its total $316m of revenue it gets very very little funding from the Government.  A shade over 2%.  

 

If you think it gets 10% from the Crown then you are seriously mistaken.  We, as taxpayers, make ZERO NET CONTRIBUTION TO TVNZ.

 

That's why I said from memory and makes my point and yet people still want to know what the salaries of presenters of the "State Broadcaster are"... Personally when National abolished the charter they should have cut all ties with TVNZ. There is no reason for TVNZ to be "State Owned" anymore.

sdav:

 

 

 

That's why I said from memory and makes my point and yet people still want to know what the salaries of presenters of the "State Broadcaster are"... Personally when National abolished the charter they should have cut all ties with TVNZ. There is no reason for TVNZ to be "State Owned" anymore.

 

Yes.  The Govt is a passive investor in TVNZ.  And holds it to a very low threshold for returns given its risk profile.  Its a poor investment that, like Mediaworks, fails to meet its cost of capital.

However, selling it in this day and age?  Never going to happen.  Funding it as a public broadcaster and shifting content to that of a public (rather than commercial) broadcaster?  Its where it should be if it needs to have relevance and survive. 

Sports broadcaster?  Thats not public broadcasting - thats entertainment.

TVNZ are doing ok, what they should be pushing is a guide on how to watch it to get the most out of it.

its not 1980, the spoon fed single channel get what we give you days are gone.

The best way to watch it is to multiscreen, and a chromecast

have a tablet or phone showing the mosaic and the extra online events (6 events live as I type) vs 4 on OTA tv

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/commonwealth-games

beam the online only content using your chromecast

ockel:

 

Yes.  The Govt is a passive investor in TVNZ.  And holds it to a very low threshold for returns given its risk profile.  Its a poor investment that, like Mediaworks, fails to meet its cost of capital.

 

However, selling it in this day and age?  Never going to happen.  Funding it as a public broadcaster and shifting content to that of a public (rather than commercial) broadcaster?  Its where it should be if it needs to have relevance and survive. 

 

Sports broadcaster?  Thats not public broadcasting - thats entertainment.

 

Do you think it's partly a political issue in that selling it would be seen by the public as a really bad thing?

Also wasn't there talk of turning starting a RNZ TV channel?

sdav:

 

ockel:

 

Yes.  The Govt is a passive investor in TVNZ.  And holds it to a very low threshold for returns given its risk profile.  Its a poor investment that, like Mediaworks, fails to meet its cost of capital.

 

However, selling it in this day and age?  Never going to happen.  Funding it as a public broadcaster and shifting content to that of a public (rather than commercial) broadcaster?  Its where it should be if it needs to have relevance and survive. 

 

Sports broadcaster?  Thats not public broadcasting - thats entertainment.

 

 

Do you think it's partly a political issue in that selling it would be seen by the public as a really bad thing?

 

Also wasn't there talk of turning starting a RNZ TV channel?

 

I think public perception of a sale would be that its a really bad thing.  But more than that its actually not worth very much anymore.  Think about it Sky is worth c900m (generates $160m of cashflow - EBITDA less tax less capex).   TVNZ generates $10m of cashflow (EBITDA pre onerous contracts less tax less capex).  Both entities are under the pump from a competition and costs point of view. 

So what is it really worth if it can find a buyer?  IMFO - SFA.

Free and rubbish.  No surprises there.  Hopefully the RWC will be better.  They don't have to juggle concurrent matches.  Advertising at inappropriate moments could be an issue still.

sdav:

 

Also wasn't there talk of turning starting a RNZ TV channel?

 

I think that has bitten the dust with Carol H.

I will give credit to TVNZ for the fact their online coverage via the web has been very good in terms of quality. HD and have one had 1 2 minute outage in 4+ hours of viewing. So many ads. I have never seen so many. Terrible. 

MikeAqua:

 

sdav:

 

Also wasn't there talk of turning starting a RNZ TV channel?

 

 

I think that has bitten the dust with Carol H.

 

Probably for the best. I listen to National Radio sometimes but I sure wouldn't watch it.