The 20 highest rating funded television programmes on air last week, 2 – 8 April 2015
From that list Country Calendar is the real star coming in number 1 and number 11 as a repeat beats. a lot of other programmes I haven't seen either.
Perhaps the key word there is *funded* TV 3 news & CL are probably unfunded.
Thanks Russell – so there are 3 indicators that count.
Nielsen measures live viewing (with a sample of 600 Peoplemeter households) and also time-shifted viewing, via a smaller panel.
On-demand viewing over the internet is measured separately by the broadcasters and third-party companies. But it’s still typically a fraction of the broadcast audience.
How then does one get to be on a people meter panel? One commenter (Alfie) mentioned their parents were on one for 8 years. That doesn’t sound very efficient.
I also recall some mention of viewer engagement which alludes to media buzz on social channels. And what about the brand value angle noted by Bart Janssen?
Am I correct in noting that TV3 news ratings are down because it doesn’t have a soap before it to get viewers. That must have a flow on effect to CL as well- surely.
I wonder if CL would be better in a different time slot and in my view better would be more hard hitting stories. I have watched less of CL lately because unless a politician is getting roasted or there is a meaningful topic I won’t stay for the whole programme.
I think that the days of live broadcast TV are definitely numbered although that could change if global mode gets turned off.
At present 90% of viewing in our household is online via AppleTV. I get most of my news via twitter and some from radio (but only while driving.) NZ TV news from any channel is not a patch on Al Jazeera.
CL is pretty much the only show on mainstream TV that I still watch but only if the topic suits. I suspect that the fluff stories on CL are an attempt to prop up numbers and be more like 7sharp which I have never watched.
If MediaWorks wants to get to a younger demographic they need to be on YouTube or another streaming channel because that is what the kids watch now.
Except that the same forces at work here were / are keen on closing down RNZ I thought?
Thanks Again Paul & Ian, I had seen some of these on twitter but not all and it was great to find them here in one place.
Best not to give these shows any more oxygen. I note that MediaWorks are the same company attempting to resurrect Paul Henry for some more trolling around the media dregs so it obviously works for them.
Netflix, Hulu and other streaming channels are killing broadcast channels, We are just watching the death throes of the old business model or not if you have already switched.
Not sure about anyone else but based on the 3 reports that were released yesterday there is zero accountability shown by Key, Collins or the Corrections department. Releasing 3 reports in a day like that is extremely cynical and the mark of an untrustworthy and lying government.
I'd prefer to have a PM I could trust. if I recall correctly the late Hunter S Thompson mentioned that Richard "Nixon was so crooked that he needed servants to help him screw his pants on"
I'm in deep despair about the lack of integrity in government. Ironically Key leaked the original info about the SIS briefing to call Goff a liar and now that it has been shown he lied and had the SIS lie on demand that is sick and not in a good way.
If the content is worth paying for I don't mind subscribing but the system has to actually work and be easy to use for both staff and readers.
On the Herald online this morning they had the headline
"Tobacco giant vows to find $23b award"
and now I see it has been changed to "Tobacco giant vows to fight $23b award" but there is a big difference between those two. At times it looks like the content on the herald looks like it is on auto pilot.
Very few stories there have any depth and that I would guess is a big challenge for daily news sites. There is almost zero analysis of stories on say the Herald. A few columns are not the same thing but those columnists rely on being widely read to have any influence so it is not a simple editorial puzzle.
It would be very good to know how other local paywalls are working or not. The NBR has been operating that way for a while with most of their content blocked from free access and they do seem to have some exclusive stories or analysis.
The Listener also operates a paywall. I have tried to pay for access there and the least expensive deal they can do is $5 for 5 days. Unfortunately after paying and getting a login I still can't get access but since it was a $5 test it is not worth the hassle.
I did talk to a subscription person but they kept referring to their supervisor and clearly knew nothing about digital subscriptions and I was quoted 3-5 days* to process which means the subscription would expire before they could look at it.
They should be able to extend subs to cover their slow process times but the over all impression is of an out sourced subs team with no clues. *After waiting longer they got it down to 24hrs but that is still too long in 2014 when the logistics should be simple and fast.
I have some experience of using bandcamp for music projects and formula there is pay $x or more. Quite often "subscribers" there pay more than the named price. Not always but that is always welcomed.
I did try using "flattr" which operated a micro payments system. It was recently taken over by someone else and the latest changes to their terms and conditions made it too much hassle to use.
So for anyone looking at these systems they need to be able to have a:
clear paid content strategy
technology / support systems that are easy to use
ideally a micro payment system of some kind (prepaid wallet?)
These would all be good things to know.
I see where you are coming from. I just thought that the overall tone showed progress as there is a hint of an apology towards Maggie later in the column.
I disagree with Rodney on most things but surely his opening sentence and second paragraph are positives in the light of the current discussion. From todays Herald.
"I have reluctantly concluded that New Zealand does suffer a rape culture.
It’s not an “all men are rapists” and “I am sorry for being a man” type of thing. Rather, it’s the way men can commit sex crimes and get away with it. The system works to protect the privileged and powerful."
and later Rodney again says
"And there’s our rape culture. Our system protects the offender and puts women at risk. “
You may disagree but it does sound like progress. If we make any discussion on this topic an absolute minefield to talk about then no one will.
Also in the Herald today Indecent act man calls in lawyers
Thanks to Katrina, Emma and the other brave women here who have shared their stories. It is distressing to hear their experiences of the legal system. As a law graduate(a very long time ago) I am mortified that the legal system and the wider culture is still so obviously hostile to victims.
The prominent Otago man case referred to earlier is an example of a privileged person buying name suppression. Very few people have the resources to overturn a conviction by going to the Court of Appeal and then getting referred back to District Court for a discharge without conviction AND permanent name suppression.
I’m shocked and dismayed that conversations I had at university in the 70’s and 80’s are being repeated 40 years later. I thought we had moved on as a society.
I hope we are not giving up on the idea of changing culture for the better. Surely there are some standards of behaviour that we as a society can aspire to.
I’m also thinking of a recent example of sexism in the media. I also don’t want to sidetrack the conversation but it seems to me that these topics are part of a larger continuum.
In that example viewers seem to be letting Paul Henry “off the hook” because they expect a lower standard of behaviour from him. I don’t think that is OK.
If rape culture is about entitlement then Paul Henry needs to be called out too.
I looked up the code of ethics for Media Works and it is all about business dealings none of it is about respecting other people.
The Broadcasting Standards Authority programme allows for complaints on several grounds for example but it does seem very vague.
Good taste and decency.
Discrimination and denigration
And a number of other elements but the difficulty is that Joe Public seems most of these items as a matter of opinion.
Has there been any research on the “Its not OK” campaign in whether it has been successful in changing community attitudes towards family violence ?
I hope so and I hope that all of us can change NZ culture for the better.