Battle of the broadcasters heats up

John Campbell reporting at the scene of the Christchurch earthquake last September 2010. Photo / Supplied

TV3 has taken a front-foot approach to the fight to win viewers from its rival with an ad campaign comparing its prompt coverage of the the disaster in Japan with TV One, which continued its regular programming.

Flaunting its success on this occasion fits with 3 News' slogan "leading news journalism". But advertising consultant Martin Gillman says the ads may be a case of TV3 taking the chance to "catch up with the game" having been criticised for not moving quickly enough to cover September's Christchurch earthquake. That was a wake-up call, suggests Gillman, and having been first cab off the rank this time, it's taking the chance to send the message that it is awake at the wheel. TV3 has run its ad in the Herald as well as feeding it to viewers of its own channels.

These ads are known in the trade as "proof of performance" promotions where the network lauds its own work. Paul Norris, of the Christchurch Polytech Broadcasting School, says TV3 has ratcheted it up a notch by criticising its rival at the same time. "It perhaps marks a new stage in aggressive competition between the two networks. TVNZ may feel miffed because when TV3 took longer to get up on the first earthquake, it didn't mount this kind of aggressive advertising against them."

It chucks out the old convention that dog doesn't eat dog, says Norris, who notes TV3 has always been more unconventional and adventurous.

Hitting the opposition where it hurts may be a trend in broadcasting. CNN and Fox have been at each other's throats over their coverage of Libya, while in Australia, the Seven and Nine networks have been having a go regarding coverage of the Casey Heynes bullying story.

Gillman suggests the ads are an example of TV3 doing what it can to gain viewers after missed opportunities. "TV3 has had a slow start to the year and news is an incredibly important ingredient for them."

People switch on their TVs in times of major news and he says the default setting for most is still TV One. Hence the assumption that the natural place for a national occasion such as Sir Edmund Hillary's funeral was TV One. Gillman says that's what TV3 must break down. The ads are an example of TV3 doing everything it can to bring people across.

"It's exploiting a series of disasters for commercial gain, but ultimately it is a commercial world."

Ratings data from Nielsen confirms the money-making potential of disaster. For the September Christchurch earthquake, TV3 ran its normal news programme against a One News quake special and had only a third of TV One's audience. For February 22, when both ran live specials from the time the earthquake occurred, TV3 won two-thirds of the viewers of its rival.

TV3's big reward came from recognising early the importance of the disaster in Japan and going with live pictures, commanding 365,000 for its special compared to 319,000 for One News. TVNZ chose to stick to its scheduled line-up until MasterChef MasterClass finished at 8.30pm, though it did maintain a strong rating advantage during the news hour.

The face of TV3's news brand is Mike McRoberts, while John Campbell is Mr Current Affairs. Both did long stints in Christchurch following the February earthquake.

McRoberts pops up at many world news events, such as the earthquakes in Haiti and, this month, Japan. Viewers respond to getting the story from a familiar face, but the company is also aware of the promotional benefits, seeking images of the star at troublespots to make promos.

Prescribing shots for promos doesn't surprise or worry adman Gillman but he says too much stock can be put on celebrity presenters; the lesson from the departures of the likes of John Hawkesby, Paul Holmes, Judy Bailey and Richard Long being that presenters are not key audience drivers. Gillman suggests the style in which the news is presented is more important, but notes there is not much difference between TV3 and TV One. "The only ones comparing them closely are the companies themselves and the journos. "

TV3, along with Four and about half of our commercial radio stations, is owned by MediaWorks which is in turn owned by Australian private equity company Ironbridge. The firm has struggled with huge debts and has made cuts to its journalism budget.

But better times may lie ahead for the industry going by figures from the Advertising Standards Authority that show a recovery from the 2009 media spending slump. The total advertising spend on media increased by around 4.5 per cent, or $92 million, last year. The share of the pie for TV edged up to 28.4 per cent ($607 million) from 27.9 per cent and $570 million. With TV3's news programmes so important in its fight for audience share, expect more ad campaigns whenever the channel manages to give its bigger opponent a blood nose.

Reporters at war
Full-throttle conflict has enlivened television network competition across the Tasman and in Libya, where American reporters covering the world's big new war story are fighting their own battles.

The small-screen brawl in Libya started when Fox News accused CNN reporters of being duped into serving as "human shields" while touring Muammar Gaddafi's compound, forcing British jets to stop bombing raids.

CNN's Nic Robertson shot back, calling Fox "outrageous and hypocritical" by failing to mention that it had sent a camera-wielding security guard on the same tour. Robertson fumed that when you covered a place like Libya "you expect lies and deceit from a dictatorship - you don't expect it from the other journalists".

Returning fire, Fox's Steve Harrigan accused Robertson of being "dull", going on a "propaganda trip" and that his idea of news reporting was "bullshit".

He told the The Huffington Post that his CNN rival was a "dull" feckless reporter who must have a "a screw loose" to suggest that "I'm lazy, that I'm a liar, and that I'm as bad as Gaddafi".

He added that Robertson would have talked to him in person "if he was a man". An indignant Robertson hit back, claiming he saw Harrigan "more times at breakfast than I see him out on trips".

Fox's defence correspondent Jennifer Griffin has apologised for her initial error by admitting that a Fox "security guard" had gone on the visit to the compound.

But she repeated her claim that the Libyans were using journalists as human shields, and that there is "frustration" in the international coalition that journalists are going on government tours.

And the winner from this diversion? Possibly the satirist Jon Stewart, who has a new segment called "When Reporters Attack" on his Comedy Central cable show.

In Australia, two cut-throat television channels have gone toe-to-toe over a bullying story, with an unseemly dispute over lifting each other's rival reports and airing them without attribution.

The row has overshadowed the more serious issue.

On Tuesday, Channel Nine's prime-time show A Current Affair ran a story from Seven's Today Tonight just after it was broadcast.

The interview ran for more than four minutes, and ACA even aired questions and footage by Seven's reporter James Thomas - but blurred out the Today Tonight watermark and "exclusive" tag, replacing them with a Nine and ACA on-screen logo.

Nine's brazen move was retaliation for TT airing footage from an earlier A Current Affair scoop with one of the boys, Casey Heynes, at the centre of the bullying saga with Ritchard Gale.

Host of Nine's show Tracy Grimshaw told viewers "If we wanted to bore you all stupid" then Nine could list all the times Seven has taken bits of its stories, and put them to air.

She said Nine was hoping to get Seven to promise "never use our exclusive vision again".

"Let's not be distracted for one more minute from the far more important issue of bullying ... too many parents are powerless, or clueless, about how to stop it," she said.

Actually the more vital issue is about the dollars and cents issue of ratings.

Seven is beating the pants off its rival and in the dog eat dog world anything seems to go.

The mess may yet end up in court. Seven claims Nine stole its interview, and cannot pass unpunished. It's suing for breach of copyright - and so is Nine.
-Andrew Stone