Free-to-air's future

I became part of the television industry when I joined it in 1960 from an earlier career in radio, so electronic communication has been a large portion of my professional life. This article speaks from my historical experience.

Back then, TV was an exciting new technology - it still is- and in those days, to me it established its place very quickly as another vehicle for entertainment, news, education and current affairs - all fields in which I had worked in radio.

It also caused the press to lose its news topicality and immediacy, and resort to a more in-depth analysis of news stories, which radio was disinclined to spend time doing except for a small number of specific news magazine-style programmes. This swung the nature of print journalism from hard news to feature writing.

Television in Australia began as an entertaining mix of cinema, live stage performance, children's entertainment and topical news with the added advantage of illustrative footage and graphic treatment. It still lagged the instant coverage of evolving stories which was exclusive to radio in those times, yet provided mass education in the form of specialised programmes, both filmed and live, as well as documentaries.

The medium lent itself admirably to the coverage of local and international current affairs, with the added benefits of the emotive impact of imagery.

It is hard to accept that helical scan videotape recording did not come into commercial use until the early 60s, and the only way to record programming was either by regular film production, or the newly-developed (no pun) method of kinescope recording, which was achieved by having a 16mm film camera focussed on a high intensity small TV screen, with audio recorded either on synchronised 16mm audio tape, or optically on the film's sound area.

Naturally, the quality left a lot to be desired, but at least it was the sole method of capturing recorded material until videotape came into being.

This meant that a considerable amount of time (and money) was spent on big-crewed live television production of drama, comedy, as well as sport where much development of outside broadcasting occurred.

In the early days, as often now, TV signals were transmitted back to receiving dishes at the stations on the super high frequency bands, using repeater points on hilltops as link sites.

No such thing as satellite technology, or vision over phone lines then!

As a whimsical aside, Channel Nine's then owner, Sir Frank Packer, had such an outside broadcast link path set up from the station to his home, so that he could watch material privately. Sometimes it caused irritations when the equipment was needed for major O.B events, but this also caused him to dig a bit deeper into his ample pockets, and purchase more gear.

I also recall his sometimes humorous irascible nature, such as when asked at a management meeting to approve additional staffing for telecine, the film projection area, because there was someone on leave each month, replying: "then f***ing-well fire him!"

Sir Frank tended to example the top-down approach taken by all media in those days – Channel Nine audiences were shown what expert programmers, such as himself ("I'm an average viewer!), Bruce Gyngell, and Ron Haynes, decided would interest them.

Ratings proved their judgements to be very right, particularly as they tended to use U.S ratings guidelines to set programme placements here, but audiences had no option but to accept what was offered without being able to influence its screening in the short term.

It's a vastly different situation these days. Pay television, direct satellite international feeds, the internet's vast number of specialised web sites, and time-shift recording makes it possible for the viewer to be the programmer.

This is one reason why I do not see any great expansion in the place or role of free-to-air TV, much less a possible fourth commercial channel in cities, because nowadays, that is available already to those prepared to search for items of interest.

Like listening to radio, much of free TV's programming is decided for the audience, not by them. This can provide the benefits of having others select the material, rather than the need to make one's own choices all the time.

It means that a person does not need a large library of material, or need to spend a large amount of time researching viewing sources, which often depends on what the person is seeking – entertainment, education, visual wallpaper, or whatever. If they do not enjoy being at the whim of what a channel offers, they may change easily.

Another factor of free TV is its screening of advertising. This topic is open to huge debate about the question of advertising's desirability, but one fact is hard and proven – shows which attract viewers attract advertisers, and this lies at the heart of broadcasting's economics.

Revenue depends on viewer numbers (ratings) thus profitability depends on audience acceptance and loyalty, which is sometimes driven by topic relevance such as sport, car racing etc., the quality of production, its programming frequency; generally all these have strong entertainment factors, often aimed at mass markets, not smaller more discerning audiences, as a benefit to advertisers.

TV production is expensive by nature – there are really no cheap ways of creating good quality interesting programming, whether live or recorded, produced in house, or purchased from outside suppliers.

Yet money spent effectively in this area can see an enormous long-term cash return to the station. The trick is to know how much, and where to spend.

News is a classic example of expensive live production. It often hallmarks a station's image, credibility, viewability and, hence, advertising saleability. But we also have the converse of this in Australia – our ABC.

The ABC is exceptional; its programming tends to be more informative as well as entertaining.

As it is not dependant on ratings, it may cover a very wide range of topics, and appeal to a broad audience demographic and psychographic; research indicates a high degree of trust placed in ABC TV and radio by audiences.

This broadcaster ranks hugely for credibility, particularly in news and current affairs reporting, as well as for its intention to cater to the widest possible range of interests, all without any commercial imperative. It is an excellent example of the late Keith Jackson's original 'eight cents a day' costing concept.

For all free-to-air- stations, broadcasting is a very costly activity, whether it involves programme creation, or just re-transmission. Yet the feeling of unpredictability and random entertainment value is being built up gradually by television-style internet sites and challenged by the increasing marketing flexibility of pay and satellite reception.

I doubt that free-to-air will remain dominant in the next decade. But to have a good business future, it will have to find ways to do, or do better, those things which its opposition fails to achieve well. But isn't that the basis of all sound business practice?