KEY POINTS:
Many a critic of Television New Zealand, from the Prime Minister down, might be reminded now of the adage: Be careful what you wish for, you might get it. This week the company reported its worst financial result, its first annual loss. Those who carp on about TVNZ's pursuit of profits perhaps now like what they see.
To be fair, the Prime Minister did not want the company to be unprofitable, merely to stop paying outrageous sums to its presenters and to accept a charter from her Government that would temper its profit motive with the social purposes of public ownership. She at least has got her wish.
The board appointed by her Government took note of her pre-election condemnations of presenters' salaries and within a few years the company's flagship channel TV One began to lose the highly paid faces that had fronted its early evening news programmes for many years. By the time they had all gone, One was losing elements of its audience to TV3 and the state channel's executives have been struggling ever since to stem the flow.
Helen Clark implicitly admitted her error more than a year ago when the Government brought back as chief executive Rick Ellis, the boss of TVNZ in the "bad old days" when it paid exorbitant salaries to its front people and its dominant position still seemed unassailable.
Reporting a $4.5 million loss this week after his first full year back in the job, Mr Ellis made no secret of the damage he has to repair. TV One, he said, "had lost its way as a brand".
That is exactly what professionals warned would happen if politicians interfered in the remuneration of people who gave the channel its human face and attracted a prime time audience. Those who scoffed at that reasoning should look at One now. It is probably no coincidence that Mr Ellis' company is bringing back Paul Holmes to do a nostalgia programme.
But a brand, once shattered, cannot be restored exactly as it was. TVNZ's flagship channel will have to find some new ingredient if it is ever to be the country's primary public broadcasting network again. Many of its critics would like One to become a non-commercial channel dedicated to a diet of worthy social programming that need not attract a large audience. That would spell the end of its popular reach.
The Government and TVNZ's new management remain committed to the charter's twin goals of profitability and public service. Both Mr Ellis and Broadcasting Minister Steve Maharey sound confident that the financial loss in the year to June 30 can be attributed to redundancy pay-outs to more than 100 staff, a saving which is expected to put the company back in the black in the current year.
When One lost its way as a brand, says Mr Ellis, it became difficult to commission the right programmes. Many viewers will know what he means. He is confident new programmes, locally produced and imported, will help the turnaround. We will see.
One's main rival, TV3, disgracefully barred from TVNZ's financial result announcement, has some advantages in commercial links abroad that it is enjoying now with exclusive rights to the Rugby World Cup. Sport is one area of profitable public interest which TVNZ has relinquished perhaps too readily. It may not be able to bid competitively for rugby and cricket but there are other sports for which televised national competitions could be designed.
TVNZ faces a hard climb back. Critics should draw a lesson from their role in its downfall and think better next time they are tempted to meddle in a business they barely understand.
