11

Reshaping Public Reshaping Public Broadcasting:Broadcasting:

the New Zealand the New Zealand experience 1988-2003experience 1988-2003

IPPR Seminar 2004IPPR Seminar 2004

Paul NorrisPaul NorrisHead, NZ Broadcasting School, Head, NZ Broadcasting School,

CPITCPITnorrisp@cpit.ac.nznorrisp@cpit.ac.nz

22

OutlineOutline

• Overview of deregulationOverview of deregulation

• NZoA – the contestable funding NZoA – the contestable funding modelmodel

• Strengths and weaknessesStrengths and weaknesses

• Any lessons for UK?Any lessons for UK?

33

2 non-commercial

networks

Deregulation 1988Deregulation 1988

BCNZ

TVNZ LtdRNZ Ltd

TV One TV241

commercialStations

TV3

44

BCNZ/TVNZ FundingBCNZ/TVNZ Funding

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1977 1984 1991 2003$m

Charter

Other

Adrev

Lic/NZoA

Source: BCNZ & TVNZ Annual Reports

55

Deregulation / competitionDeregulation / competition

• Frequencies auctioned to highest bidderFrequencies auctioned to highest bidder

• No programming requirementsNo programming requirements

• Ownership controls relaxed, then Ownership controls relaxed, then abolishedabolished

• Broadcasting Standards Authority to Broadcasting Standards Authority to maintain programme standardsmaintain programme standards

66

Broadcasting Act 1989Broadcasting Act 1989

NZ On Air required to:NZ On Air required to:• Reflect & develop NZ identity & cultureReflect & develop NZ identity & culture• Promote programmes about NZ interestsPromote programmes about NZ interests• Promote Maori language & culturePromote Maori language & culture

• Ensure a range of broadcasts is available Ensure a range of broadcasts is available for women, children, the disabled and for women, children, the disabled and minorities, including ethnic minoritiesminorities, including ethnic minorities

77

Broadcasting Act 1989Broadcasting Act 1989

Re TV, NZ On Air required to:Re TV, NZ On Air required to:• Ensure reasonable provision is made for Ensure reasonable provision is made for

the funding of television drama and the funding of television drama and documentariesdocumentaries

Re funding, have regard to:Re funding, have regard to:• The level of contribution from the The level of contribution from the

applicantapplicant• The potential size of the audienceThe potential size of the audience

88

NZ On Air 1989 - 2004NZ On Air 1989 - 2004

• Mission is local content (NZ Mission is local content (NZ programmes)programmes)

• Populist programmes in prime time Populist programmes in prime time eg eg Shortland StShortland St – medical soap – medical soap

• Minority programmes – off peakMinority programmes – off peak

99

Documentaries

Children's

Drama/Comedy

Special Interest/Others

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

NZ

oAir

Fun

ding

Television Funding by Genre Television Funding by Genre 1990-20031990-2003

Source: NZoA Annual Reports

1010

Documentaries funded by Documentaries funded by NZoANZoA

0

50

100

150

200

250

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

Hours

Source: NZoA Annual Reports

1111

DocumentariesDocumentaries

Outputs:Outputs:

Range too narrow – commercial focusRange too narrow – commercial focus

Impact:Impact:

Ratings adequate for prime time 10-15%Ratings adequate for prime time 10-15%

Value:Value:

Valued for finding out how others face and Valued for finding out how others face and

overcome problems and challenges, also overcome problems and challenges, also

for the opportunity to learn something newfor the opportunity to learn something new

and to be challenged intellectuallyand to be challenged intellectually

1212

Children’s progs funded by Children’s progs funded by NZoANZoA

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

19

98

20

00

20

02

Hours

Source: NZoA Annual Reports

1313

Children’s programmesChildren’s programmes

Outputs:Outputs:

• Stand-alone programmes or kiwi links within Stand-alone programmes or kiwi links within global cartoons?global cartoons?

Impact:Impact:

• Cartoons win the ratingsCartoons win the ratings

Value:Value:

• Valued for giving children a sense of NZValued for giving children a sense of NZ

identityidentity

• Also for not being hypedAlso for not being hyped

1414

Qualitative research by Qualitative research by genregenre

Source: Attitudes to NZoA Funded TV Programming 2002

1515

NZ model - strengthsNZ model - strengths

• Contestability and competitionContestability and competition

• Diversity of programmingDiversity of programming

• Growth of independent sectorGrowth of independent sector

• Significant impact for $60mSignificant impact for $60m

1616

NZ model -weaknessesNZ model -weaknesses

• Broadcasters are gatekeepersBroadcasters are gatekeepers

• Range of programmes inadequateRange of programmes inadequate

• Emphasis on local content, not qualityEmphasis on local content, not quality

• Subsidises private commercial interestsSubsidises private commercial interests

• Dilutes concept of public broadcastingDilutes concept of public broadcasting

• Public broadcaster seen as cash cow by Public broadcaster seen as cash cow by government government

1717

TVNZ as SOETVNZ as SOE

$0

$20

$40$60

$80

$100

$120$140

$160

$180

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 0 1 2

profit $mdividend

Source: TVNZ Annual Reports

1818

Reforms of 2000-2003Reforms of 2000-2003

• TVNZ – from SOE to CrOCTVNZ – from SOE to CrOC

• TVNZ Charter from March 2003TVNZ Charter from March 2003

• TVNZ – direct govt. funding $11-15mTVNZ – direct govt. funding $11-15m

• NZoA – additional fundingNZoA – additional funding

• Voluntary quotas for local contentVoluntary quotas for local content

1919

Lessons from New Zealand?Lessons from New Zealand?

Caveats:Caveats:

• Ecology of broadcasting in NZ very Ecology of broadcasting in NZ very different to that in UKdifferent to that in UK

• NZoA has been public broadcastingNZoA has been public broadcasting

• Quantum of public fundingQuantum of public funding

2020

Public funding as % of GDPPublic funding as % of GDP

0.000%

0.050%

0.100%

0.150%

0.200%

0.250%

0.300%

Fin

land

Den

mar

k

Nor

way

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Ger

man

y

Hun

gary

Aus

tria

Gre

ece

Sw

eden

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Net

herla

nds

Sw

itzer

land

Bel

gium

Japa

n

Aus

tral

ia

Irel

and

Italy

Fra

nce

Kor

ea

Spa

in

Can

ada

Por

tuga

l

Pol

and

New

Zea

land

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Source: Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage Report Jun 03

2121

Lessons from New Zealand?Lessons from New Zealand?

• Use multiple mechanismsUse multiple mechanisms

• Funding agency must be proactiveFunding agency must be proactive

• Contestability + competitionContestability + competition

• Efficiency – competitive tendering Efficiency – competitive tendering keeps costs transparent and under keeps costs transparent and under controlcontrol