Call to remove ‘safety net’ of local TV content quotas

Comments

Aaran Creece
17 Oct 11
11:00 AM



The last thing we need is an advertising executive making decisions about what Australians watch on their televisions. All reality TV bar Nines The Block are imported formats. In a time when networks are looking to cut costs dramatically, the removal of content quotas would see networks focus on News and Sport and all drama based content would vanish to be replaced by much cheaper content from OS. If networks don’t have to run local shows trust me they wont. Its not about ratings its about the cost and the risk that a show might fail. I.E. Renovators. Have you seen our multi-channels lately? They are filled with series from the 60′s, 70′s and 80′s and none are Australian. What does that say about our viewing habits? Quotas may appear to be protectionist in nature but they are a must if we value our voice in the broad televisual landscape.

Phil Willis
17 Oct 11
11:23 AM



You know what else rates well? Re-runs of Two and a Half Men and The Simpsons.

Once US shows have recovered their costs from US domestic networks, they can be sold into international markets like Australia for a fraction of the cost it takes to make a local program.

I’m glad Australians like watching Australian content on TV, but removing regulations on local content would mean wall-to-wall American re-runs and have a massive impact on the Australian television industry.

The other benefit to ensuring local content is that Aussie shows that do not necessarily have broad, mass-market appeal still get a chance to be aired. It allows for niche programs that are of interest to certain groups: documentaries, arts, indigenous, multi-cultural and children’s programming.

Advertisers benefit from being able to target a smaller, more focussed demographic that best suits the products they’re selling.

I’m glad Aussie shows are rating well, but the fastest way to see them disappear is to remove regulations protecting local content.

Mac Harwood
17 Oct 11
1:50 PM



Mat Baxter’s article is interesting – but unsupported by real facts.

For example – he is under the mistaken impression that we have Australian content rules – it’s astonishing that he writes an article for the Australian without actually checking the facts first.

If he read up on the subject first he would learn that we no longer have ‘Australian Content’ rules due to our treaty with New Zealand – See the ACMA rules if you want to check the facts.

If you remove New Zealand content from the equation then Channel Ten wouldn’t have met their ‘Local Content’ quota for the past year – which demonstrates that Mr Baxter’s claim that Australian Content is surging beyond the quota isn’t actually accurate.

If he read Screen Australia’s Convergence 2011 report then he would learn that since 2008, the hours of foreign content on free-to-air (FTA) television have increased 154% – greatly outstripping the growth in Australian content at 59%.

Even if he was right then it isn’t logical. He seems to be arguing that ‘The current system produces top rating Aussie Drama – so we change the system’. Does that make sense on any level?

I know – the entire article was just an excuse to get a mention of his ‘put product placement into TV shows’ project , which he managed to mention in the closing paragraphs – despite it having almost nothing to do with the subject of the article.

I wish he had put his product placement spiel in an accurate article instead of one that didn’t make any sense.

Mat Baxter
17 Oct 11
5:15 PM



Mac,

I appreciate your comments but I can assure you I have checked my facts.

The notion that foreign content on Australian TV has surged by 154% is largely irrelevant to this entire debate.

The bigger and more critical question is what sort of content dominates our domestic ratings.

The reality is that our TV networks will support the content that rates because it provides higher advertising yields and is therefore significantly more profitable.

Right now, our networks are enjoying unprecedented audience performance (and advertising profits) from Australian content (this year 95% of the Top rating TV programs were locally produced). This ultimately ensures they will continue to support local content without the need for draconian “quotas” (drama programming included).

I’d welcome the opportunity to discuss the “facts” with you in more detail – so feel free to contact me through my office on (02) 9994 4334.

Mat

Brian
17 Oct 11
6:33 PM



Whether it is needed or not, I like the idea of a quota. It’s nice knowing that the networks will always be forced to produce Aussie content. Without such a reliable assurance, who knows what would happen if advertising revenue dipped one year – maybe the networks would have a couple of seasons of solely imported programming to cut costs. Better to be safe than sorry, and as the saying goes – if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Mac
17 Oct 11
7:22 PM



Mat – You mentioned “The reality is that our TV networks will support the content that rates because it provides higher advertising yields and is therefore significantly more profitable.”

This argument is wrong because it relies on the assumption that “Higher advertising yields means more profitable” .. which is only true if the cost of creating an original drama is the same as showing a foreign import.

Yet that assumption is clearly false – to use a simple example the Series 2 premiere of ‘Offspring’ had 927,000 viewers. Around the same time the repeat of an old episode of ‘The Big Bang Theory’ had 905,000 viewers.

From your analysis you would argue that the Aussie drama was more profitable as it had more viewers ! Clearly this is going to be false – expensive original content isn’t going to be more profitable then a cheaper repeat episode. As a comparison point an old episode of ‘Friends’ can be be shown for under $20k … and that old episode will still bring in plenty of viewers. (Yes – I’m sure the repeat of ‘Big Bang’ cost a bit more .. but it would certainly have been much cheaper than the cost to create a new series)

However, logic aside – let’s imagine that you are 100% right.

Then, logically, you are 100% correct when you say that local content rules aren’t a restriction on the choices that the TV stations make. So then, by definition, the local content rules aren’t draconian .. because they are being happily ignored by the TV stations.

If you are right: Then it doesn’t matter if the rules stay – it won’t affect the decisions of the stations.

If you are wrong: Then the local content rules should stay.

The only logical conclusion, then, is that we should keep the local content rules.

I have a suspicion that Sheldon from ‘Big Bang’ would approve of that logic …

Mac

Nick Bolton
18 Oct 11
3:54 PM



So finally the broadcasters have invested in quality drama, the consumers are voting with their eyeballs, and quality drama content is getting ratings. So why dont we increase the Locally Produced Content Quota so that we get more locally produced dramas, meaning we get less American drivel! No more Two and a Half Men or reality shows. Bliss

Brenton White
18 Oct 11
4:20 PM



The popularity of a particular program is attractive to a broadcaster. And so is that program’s profitability. A cheaper import will provide more profit to a broadcaster than a locally produced program, assuming they achieve the same rating.

It’s a no brainer – the local shows will vanish!

S F Smith
18 Oct 11
4:28 PM



I agree with Mac, if viewers are watching local content in numbers and networks are commissioning local content, the local content rule is not an issue for the time being, however, conditions and times change. Therefore, if Mat is correct in his assumption regarding current local programming and their current ratings, then what is gained by dropping the local contend requirement? Nothing other than the cost of legislation.

Mat Baxter
19 Oct 11
12:52 AM



Mac,

When I said that local content provides our TV network with higher advertising yields I meant exactly that – higher yields, which include the cost of production.

Local content – including drama – commands higher rates for networks (on a cost per thousand basis) than equivalent overseas content because it provides advertisers with unique program integration and sponsorship opportunities that global content simply can’t deliver.

I can assure you Channel 9 makes more money from Underbelly (including the cost of production) than an equivalent rating overseas program. And don’t even get me started on the margins involved in locally produced versions of a MasterChef or X-Factor after the high premium sponsorship packages are sold to clients.

The notion that we should maintain Australian content quotas purely because the networks are complying with them and we therefore have nothing to lose is ridiculous.

Based on that same logic perhaps we should keep every historical law despite Australia’s changing times and circumstances? I hardly think that’s the way a modern, democratic society should operate.

Wherever possible government intervention and legislation should be avoided in place of self regulation and commercial freedom.

If Aussie content is good (and we know it is) what do we have to fear by removing such stringent and archaic controls?

You need to give Australians and our media a little more credit quite frankly.

By the way, the offer to speak with me in person about your views still stands.

Mat

Adrian Sherlock
19 Oct 11
10:03 PM



I always thought the content thing had been removed years ago, there seemed to be so little drama. But I guess the stations manage to meet the requirements in some manner that allows them to make very little.

Douglas
20 Oct 11
10:48 AM



Its a bit Arrogant and simplistic to say If Aussie content is good (and we know it is)..what do we have to fear? Well firstly Mat..Aussie content “can be” good but is more often than not on the “not so great” end of the stick. I hear a wide demographic saying Australian TV is crap..its horrible..its so boring. That is a valid reality and the quality of the content we produce needs to increase, the talent is there for this to be a reality. We can produce great drama (The ongoing Underbelly series is not an example of great drama), suck at comedy and our reality TV is more often than not horrible and we excel at documentaries with the SBS produced “First Australian’s” world class content. The fear is that if these rules aren’t in place, greed will get the better of the networks and slowly but surely the cheaper option will replace local content. Your view is “trust us, we are the media”, thats a bit like saying trust us “We are Lehman Brothers”..seriously look at your argument it basically pivots around the good faith of those pulling the strings in the media and giving them more trust and credit than they are worth. That said I’m all for commercial freedom and self regulation.

Brian
20 Oct 11
5:19 PM



Look, this argument is just absurd and I think Mat really has failed to defend against all the legitimate arguments here.

We actually have evidence of what will happen without the quotas – look at the commercial networks digital channels. Not a single piece of original Australian narrative-driven content. No new bloke comedies on 7mate, no new ‘girls just want to have fun’ dramedy’s on GEM, and no new…err…Aussie Simpsons on Eleven.

These digital channels are jammed full of cheap as chips international content. They say the past is a great indicator for the future and so it is here. Remove quota rule’s and the networks stop local production. It only takes one network (probably Nine, lovers of the cheap American procedural) before the rest jump on board. If only crappy American import shows are on during prime time you’re going to watch it – whether you prefer Aussie content or not.

This argument is just totally unnecessary right now. If anything we should be looking for ways to get more Aussie drama/comedy/scripted entertainment on TV. Add quota’s for the digital channels (for new, non-repeated content) I say!

Have your say