Television Pinch-Penny Profit-Maker

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31121, 26 July 1966, Page 13

Television Pinch-Penny Profit-Maker

(By a Special Correspondent of “The Press)

The N.Z.B.C. is the second biggest customer of B.B.C. TV Enterprises---last year it bought 659 programmes. Australia bought 1100 programmes, but Australia has numerous, competitive channels against New Zealand’s monopoly.

To add insult to injury, Ghana and Uganda bought 572 and 549 programmes from the B.B.C.—50 that New Zealand viewers are forced to rely on more “imported” programmes than so-called under-developed countries.

The B.B.C. last year exported no fewer than 11,000 programmes. How many did the N.Z.B.C. export?—Two at the most. The N.Z.8.C., according to the Minister of Finance (Mr Lake), spent less than £246,000 on television programmes. The television side of the N.Z.B.C. made a profit of well over £3m. So, the N.Z.B.C. is spending the greater part of £250,000 in overseas exchange on buying programmes and exporting few or none of its own. MEDIOCRE EFFORTS The N.Z.B.C. appears to concentrate its own production efforts on fairly mediocre children's programmes (not good enough to be exported) and a mediocre competition series (Family Game). It is becoming increasingly obvious that the N.Z.B.C. is concentrating on buildings and equipment to an extent that local programmes and actors and script writers suffer. The N.Z.8.C., while spending lavishly on buildings and equipment, is adopting a positively pinch-penny policy towards the production of pro-

grammes. Its fees for scripts, freelance cameramen and actors are ridiculously low—compared with overseas fees and fees obtainable in other fields in New Zealand. For instance, its news service journalists are, by and large, paid less than newspaper journalists. The head of the news service is a man imported from Britain, but there is little or no depth in the news services—including the news background features. The Director-General of Broadcasting (Mr G. H. Stringer) announced recently in Dunedin that the N.Z.B.C.'s “resources are strained.” The quality of programmes produced by the corporation’s monopolistic services are such that this pronouncement is patently true. BIG POTENTIAL

But they need not be. New Zealand has plenty to offer in the way of documentary programmes produced in depth which would not only sell well overseas but also put the country in the news. By its parsimonious attitude towards payment for programmes, the N.Z.B.C. is not only cheating viewers of good programmes and costing the country too much in overseas exchange, but also is neglecting the wonderful opportunities that television offers in selling this country abroad. The timidity shown by the N.Z.B.C. in all fields is partly responsible for the mediocre standard of its own programmes—the corporation will not pay a good price for script and production on the grounds that it will make money by exporting the programme. This timidity permeates the N.Z.B.C. —for example, the report of rough play in the Can-

terbury-Lions Rugby match was on the 8.8. C. news three times before It was broadcast on the N.Z.B.C. network—with a reply from the New Zealand Rugby Union chairman. Obviously, the N.Z.B.C. felt it had to wait for a reply before broadcasting such a controversial report The report should have been on

the news sessions on Saturday evening in New Zealand. Until the N.Z.B.C. puts faith in its own staff and the talent it can call on in New Zealand, and pays well for the use of both staff and outside talent viewers will continue to see mediocre native programmes.