KEY POINTS:
Australia really is the "Lucky Country" if you are a film-maker or a television producer. The Government is about to offer generous new tax incentives that will make the Aussie screen production industry much more lucrative than ours. Some Kiwi producers are wide-eyed at Aussie incentives being pushed through with bi-partisan support and that are expected to be law before the end of this year.
The first part of its deal, including increased rebates for big budget films, came through in June. The New Zealand Government pretty much matched the Aussies so that the two countries had the same pulling power at attracting Hollywood film and TV productions.
But the second half of the generous deal - tax rebates of 40 per cent for film production in Australia and 20 per cent for television - is still unfolding,
And part two is not being matched by our Government. That appears to give the Australian industry a clear advantage for both film and TV production.
The second part aims to attract foreign investment into the Australian production business but it could encourage New Zealanders to shift across the Tasman.
"There are already a few New Zealand producers on our side of the ditch," said Geoff Brown, executive director of Screen Producers Association of Australia.
Brown says Australian producers are backing the tax rebates, which shows that politicians on both sides can see the benefits of supporting the industry.
It is early days, but Brown expects the tax deal will reconfigure the relationship between the Australian and New Zealand screen industries.
Producers approached by the Business Herald thought they were too good to be true.
"If I were younger I would pack up my bags and move to Aussie," one said on condition of anonymity.
Tim Thorpe, of the industry lobby group the Screen Council, representing bigger production companies, said the change could have a big impact.
"But you have to be careful - things that happen in Australia do not necessarily translate into the New Zealand experience," said Thorpe.
An open door?
It's not yet clear how the incentives would affect Australian production by a New Zealand company but they are likely to make co-productions a lot more attractive.
The New Zealand screen industry relies largely on taxpayer grants and has always been happy to hand over taxpayer funding and incentives to foreign-owned companies such as Australian Screentime or Dutch-owned Eyeworks Touchdown. But the Australian screen industry has resisted opening up the market to New Zealanders. Australia's TV industry is built around local content quotas that must be met by networks. Under the new deals there will be subsidies as well.
A classic example of Aussie resistance to New Zealand has been Project Blue Sky - a legal challenge launched by the New Zealand Government in which an Australian court ruled under Closer Economic Relations that New Zealand-made shows had to be treated as local content to meet TV network obligations. The law is one thing, and business is another. The Australian production industry resisted the move.
When the Australian Nine Network played South Pacific Pictures' Outrageous Fortune in prime time over the summer season it faced resistance to classing it as Australian content. Nine faced producer discontent - ultimately it was not claimed as local content.
Give us a break
The UDC Finance ads inside the 100 per cent taxpayer-funded Paul Holmes Show Whatever Happened To ... ? break new ground mixing paid advertising content with editorial content.
The ads incorporated into the show mention an item from recent history - last week it was the first bungee jump - and point out that UDC Finance was around at the time.
They are a little like the old Magic Minutes ads for ANZ Bank.
All credit to UDC ad agencies Saatchi & Saatchi and Mitchell's Media - this was a smart buy. Being part of the show gives the finance company more credibility.
But it was a cheeky sell by TVNZ. The financially ailing broadcaster has no qualms about using incontestable charter-funded shows to dig itself out of financial holes.
Even two high-profile producers are stunned by the state broadcaster's cheek.
NZOA chief executive Jane Wrightson would not comment about Whatever Happened To ... ? but said that where it backed a show it did not expect advertiser involvement to go beyond association or naming rights.
Which is partly true - it ignores product placements such as Vodafone plugs on NZOA-funded bro'Town for TV3, which it says are outside its brief.
We hear that politicians in Wellington have been looking askance at TVNZ's use of charter money for commercial shows - such as $1.2 million for Whatever Happened To ... ? A long-time TV professional said that the UDC ad opened a new door for fusion between ads and programming.
Which will please some ad agencies, but not others, who think there are so many commercial messages on TV it is hard to stand out.
TVNZ says there are no rules and its head of television - and former Touchdown TV marketing man - Jeff Latch, monitors standards. Next year the Broadcasting Standards Authority will be starting a review on the standards for free-to-air television. Maybe it should bring it forward.
Ratings drop
UDC Finance would not have been so pleased with ratings for the second episode of Whatever Happened To ... ? Last week around 13 per cent of the country watched the show and of the people who did watch television one-third watched Holmes.
This week it was watched by 10.7 per cent of the potential audience, a 27 per cent share. The show is watched more by older people. Of all people in the TV One target demographic of those aged 25-54, 8.9 per cent watched Holmes. The show has plenty of critics - blasted by Holmes in his Herald on Sunday column last week - but indications are that it's reason for existence may be sorting itself out.
TVNZ aimed it for the masses to make a profit, but it is developing a following among a forgotten minority of TV viewers - the oldies.
Golden oldies
Speaking of whom, I well remember three or four years back attending a swish new-season programming launch at which TV One paraded its programming to drum up advertiser interest, and being surprised they paid Matthew Ridge to present the event. An ad agency person explained the reasoning pointing to a Maidment Theatre filled with media buyers who were almost universally young women.
The high proportion of young women in media buying has led some television folk aiming at serious fare to groan that the big decisions about shows and their longevity are made by an ad industry that might not understand the media interests and viewpoints of older people.
Two local advertising folk - Simon Healey of Senioragency, aimed at marketing to older demographics, and advertising consultant John Dee - raised the issue this week. They said agency media buyers were typically women in their early 20s who had little rapport with older demographics and media use. Dee said younger marketing people wrongly believed older demographics were entrenched with their brands and traditional media rather than online.
But not everyone agrees. Kath Watson, the head of agency OMD and the media buyer arm of industry body Caanz, doesn't. She says she is well beyond her early 20s. "I read these ideas in an advertising blog," she said. "It's bullshit. We are all professionals and our agency, for one, makes sure that we have a number of older people as well who could advise them. She said ad agencies had global access to information about marketing to different demographics.
