When I read a report of $25M to be slashed from TVNZ budgets in the next four months I thought, “here’s a story that we should know in some more detail” so I sought an interview with Andrew Shaw at TVNZ.

download/file.php?id=353&t=1
Ed: Now Andrew, you’re head of the commissioners I understand?

Andrew: Not quite. It’s General Manager of Commission, Production and Acquisition. My function here is to supervise the team of commissioners, the internal production unit outside of News and Sport and Maori, and to buy all the foreign programming for the four channels and the on-line.

Ed: You get time at home do you?

Andrew: I haven’t been home since June 1987 … no, no, of course I do, I’ve got a very good team.

Ed: Set me the groundwork by explaining the role of TVNZ Commissioners?

Andrew: Well, we’re all on one little bus here at TVNZ on this floor. The programming team, led by Jane Wilson with John Wright and John Kelly on 1 and 2 – if you like to use an architectural analogy, they’re the home owners. They run those channels, they schedule all the content, they work on the programming strategy for their channels. They tell us, as a team, the sorts of local content they need to populate the channels.
We get a brief for what they’re looking for. They also talk directly with producers, because after all we want the production community to be as well informed as they can be. Then we’ll order a show, or we’ll accept a proposal from a producer which the programmers have said they want, and after that it’s our role to make sure that that is executed on time, on budget, and to the brief that was ordered – or to deal with any hiccups and wrinkles and accidents of fate along the way.

Ed: So, in fact, commissioning and programming is all part of the one team?



Andrew: It’s one team. As much as I might be passionate about certain types of television, you know my arse is not on the line when it comes to the performance of the channels absolutely. It’s Jane Wilson’s responsibility. So I’ve got to make sure my team and I give her the shows that she wants, in the right shape, in the right order, and at the right price so it fits what she’s constructed. She’s like an architect – you know you’ve got the bedroom and the kitchen and you’ve suddenly got someone saying “well, I love decks, so here are three decks.” No good … we’ve all got to work very closely together, so that the combined strength of what we all think we know and love about these channels, turns up on screen. Shows have got to fit. Commissioning cannot work in isolation I’m acutely aware that in certain public service television organisations it is run differently. In the UK and Canada and PBS in the United States, for example, commissioning is “an isolated world”. It fosters ideas and the schedulers, who are different in terms of skills to programmers, place them. That’s not the way it’s done here, because we’ve got to be a very successful company commercially; we’ve got to compete and that’s about the architecture of the channel, the placement and quality of the content. It’s the same thing with the foreign work that I do. I‘ve got to make sure I get for TV One and TV2 and 6 and 7 the shows the programmers need.

Ed: So this curved ball that the government’s thrown you – take some part of $25 million off your budget over the next few months, is something that has effects right across the board – the commissioning and the programming. It’s about not only local production, but it’s also about what you can buy overseas and even what you can make in-house?

Andrew: It’s a global financial bang isn’t it – the only good thing about it is we’re all in the same boat. You know there is no one sector of the industry that’s failing, while another over-achieves. This situation that we’re in, that we have to remedy, requires us to be intelligent about saving money where it does not have a significant negative impact on our capacity to perform as a broadcast platform and online business it requires us to change long-term the way that we run the business, so that we can stay competitive and profitable.

Ed: But I guess also with the change in the value of the New Zealand dollar against the US and the pound, it makes American programmes very expensive and English programmes perhaps a little bit cheaper?

Andrew: We don’t buy in American dollars – we buy foreign programmes in either NZ or Australian dollars, so the impact, although it is there, is not significant in terms of currency. I stopped buying programmes in American dollars in the late 90s, for that very reason – we went through a crisis in the 90s where the dollar fell to 47 and we just can’t afford that level of volatility.

Ed: And the producers in America are happy to accept less money?

Andrew: Do you know anyone who will take less money? – I don’t – but everyone’s waking up to the fact that things have changed for a long time. You know, if you’re selling programmes to me, you’re going to have to sell them for less than you could sell to me during a bull market, and I’m not going to offer as much money as I could in a boom time. Everybody’s in exactly the same situation. I think one of the things that might come out of this, you know, will be different kinds of business relationships and partnerships, because clearly, we need to hook up and work out a way to get through this … in isolation we won’t. If you take an isolationist view, you know maybe some venal, immoral venture capitalists (not that there are any of those) and you go “well, what I’ll do is I’ll buy some failing companies, I’ll get them at like a brick price, I’ll whack the supplier …” You might achieve some instant gains, but long-term, you’re still alone. In this crisis, long term thinking is not only necessary, it’s critical.

Ed: So doesn’t that lead to a greater support of the New Zealand industry and the New Zealand industry helping the broadcasters get quality programmes from a smaller budget, so that they’re ready to go forward when, hopefully, and surely, better times return?

Andrew: I would like to quote Rob Fyfe, the Air New Zealand Chief. He’s a smart guy. I liked his phrase which was in the New Zealand Herald some weeks ago, where he said “There’s no better time to pass your competition than when you’re both going uphill.” You know, if you can get it sorted during difficult times, the moment you start to come over the curve at the top of that hill, you’ll be off.

Television New Zealand is still by far the biggest commissioner of local production in this country; and notwithstanding the severity of the situation we’re in, we’re obviously trying to maintain that position. We are going to try and work with producers to find new ways of doing the television that we need; we know that we’re going to be applying some pliers, but we’re going to try and do it fairly and we’re certainly doing it ourselves. We’re not taking a view where everything inside Television New Zealand will stay the same and we simply want producers to take the hit. Some are going to find it harder than others; some will have greater capacity to work differently and at a lower cost and in new ways, than others. That’s an unavoidable output of this crisis, but it’s our intent to do everything that we can to mitigate that harm where possible.

Ed: There is a perception out there that there is a clique of producers, an “Old Boys Network” of people who are on the speed dial of TVNZ commissioners and they’re the ones who get the jobs, and sadly others, though they try, never get a look in?

Andrew: Yes, I’m sure there are people who believe that. First of all, I don’t think Julie Christie would like you to describe her as an “Old Boy” – she’d be a bit put out. I can think of a number of other women who’d be equally grumpy. There isn’t an Old Boys Club … what there is, is a core of companies in this country of a certain size, who have the resources to spend more than many others on development, that are vertically integrated into international owners – they’ve got relationships which give them greater capacity to bring big ideas to the table; they have the capacity to bring money from not only domestic sources, but offshore; they’ve got international sales, commitments up front. They are at an advantage because of that. There are exceptions, I won’t name names, but I can quote you one person who works virtually alone, who I think is an outstanding success as a documentary maker. His commitment to the genre and his capacity to produce a high quality of product is putting him at the very beginning of the queue in that particular genre of programming. So they don’t necessarily have to be big – track record, reputation, history. For any of us in this business, those are the things that make you attractive. We have a sophisticated system here, anybody who wants to be a professional programme maker in this country can submit an idea to this company and we will study it. Now if they have no experience, we’ll obviously want to push them towards an experienced producer to mentor them or partner them because, after all, it’s our money that we’re risking and if it’s got New Zealand on Air or TMP money or Film Commission money, we’ve got to steward that. So we can’t just hand it out. If it’s a great idea, but it’s come from somebody who’s never made a show. well, you wouldn’t ask somebody who’s a plumber to build your boat – would you?

Ed: What about the idea of workshops where TVNZ can put together a team of people to explain to those interested, how they go about making a programme that is profitable for them, good for TVNZ, good for the public of New Zealand?

Andrew: We work through SPADA who, after all, is the group charged with leading the interests of the screen production industry in this country – more so than me. The days when Television New Zealand, as the sole broadcaster in the country, would take a parental role have gone.
We could go out there and workshop with 500 people and they go off and there’s 20 high rating shows for TV3. It’s not necessarily in my interests to do that.

Ed: But you could charge them for it?

Andrew: I don’t think I could. My commissioners are charged with connecting with the broadest community in their particular area of expertise. That’s their job. We meet the production community in a number of ways. We work through RFPs, we call for submissions when we’re looking at particular initiatives and that goes out via SPADA ,On-Film and our own website and other publications, so anyone interested in taking part has a chance to submit an idea. We will, over the course of the next two years, run some forums – obviously low-cost ones, you know “bring your own sachet of tea and your chair” – where we’ll talk to the production community about the things that are important to us; and we’ll continue to work with SPADA. I don’t think there’s much more we should or could do, because after all, there’s only a certain number of hours we can pay for and play and there’s only so much human resource here that we can deploy in that manner.

Ed: Right, well that certainly shows that there’s some help that you’re prepared to offer to the industry. My next question revolves around high definition and the standards that TVNZ accepts for a programme that is labelled as “high definition” and it seems to be fairly hard. I know that the BBC have these standards and I guess if you want to sell your programme internationally, you need to follow these standards. However, in this climate, isn’t this a way of getting more bang for your buck and allowing, or accepting perhaps, what is still a very high quality of high definition, but not meeting those original two-thirds inch HD 422 criteria?

Andrew: Aaaah the acronym. Let’s assume that I’m a person who walks onto a car lot and says “I just want the blue one” right, so I don’t know anything in detail.
Broadcast Services here researched worldwide what those standards should be, and they are based on programme acceptability in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Europe and Australia. My criteria for producing a programme or having a programme produced in high definition is, in the short term, all about sale. If a programme has no international sale potential, at this time there isn’t a strong argument in it being in high definition. I buy foreign programmes in high definition where there’s special effects, where the nature of the story telling requires it. The American dramas we get in HD but, of course it’s a tiny cost – a tiny cost, compared to local children’s drama that’s got international finance, or children’s drama with high sales potential; programmes of lasting record – for example, when we did Hillary’s Memorial Service in Windsor, that was in high definition, it has historical value.
Those are the criteria, because there’s no point in shooting in HD if there is no financial upside to doing so. I can’t really see Country Calendar in HD (and I know they’re going to hate me saying this, as they’ve asked this question). They shoot in beautiful places, and I’m a sucker for the High Country, the South Island and all that – love it – they make a very good show – thank you boys! – but can’t sell it, therefore why would I increase the production costs by shooting it in HD. There’s no hybrid answer. The technical guys tell me that these are the standards we need because when we broadcast it, you get effects which are not consistent with what we need for TV One and TV2 to look beautiful, and that’s absolutely the most important thing. But if it can’t be sold, and it isn’t of long-standing record, then right now, you can’t justify the extra investment in shooting it in high definition.

Ed: On the sale potential, what programmes are you looking for at the moment?
Andrew: What, to buy or to sell?

Ed: Well to make, to buy, it’s the same thing isn’t it? What programmes from New Zealand are you looking for right now?

Andrew: I can’t answer that question. I’m not even being evasive. As we sit here this morning, we’re looking at what shows we need to keep that we currently make, what core shows we can renew, and we’re looking for shows that can be brought in to replace existing shows in key time periods.
So this is a consolidation and re-engineering period in our history. We’re not on a big push to find a whole load of new shows. We’ve got to make the changes and then we can refresh our eyes with what might be out there. But I think all producers (certainly the ones I talk to) already know, as we sit here, that this is not a time to come thundering in with 12 proposals. This is a time to concentrate on the shows you’re making, and think about “If I want to do a new show, and I have to do it a new way, what’s the new way I can do it that’s going to be less expensive?”
As Bill English said recently – “This frugality is forever.” This is not something that is a six month problem or a 12 month problem and budgets will be back up; we’ll just go and have lunch and it will all go back to what it was. There has to be a new way of doing it. So producers, with us, need to think and talk about whether there’s a different way that we can shoot shows of this nature, that is going to cost less. Maintain the quality and inspire new audiences.

Ed: That’s a big challenge?

Andrew: It’s the biggest. There’s the headline for the newspaper “It’s the biggest challenge the television industry in this country has ever faced.” We have now, a significantly fragmented landscape, which I’m pleased to say Television New Zealand still dominates courtesy of the quality of the content. We’re on the cusp now with TVNZ On Demand and tvnz.co.nz of really beginning to see the potential for the engagement with audiences on-line. We’re learning what’s really happening, and we’re learning what happens when the pace of change accelerates by a quantum leap. So this feels like one of those times where everything’s changed at the same time right round the world. It’s the “Internet Financial Crisis“ isn’t it? As a country, we’re blessed, we have a great creative community, with a fine track record of doing more for less in an innovative way. We’ve got a sound banking structure (thank heavens), so we’re better off than many countries. I’ve spent some time in Australia recently and I feel good when I come back here. I think our attitude to this – not just TVNZ’s attitude but others is much healthier than I see it overseas. If we’re prepared to think smart and act quick and be brave, we can actually create a broadcast structure for TVNZ, in partnership with the independent community, that stands us in good stead for the fragmented digital world. And that might just be the silver lining on the biggest, ugly black cloud.

http://www.tvnz.co.nz