Dialogue: Time to put a stop to advertiser-driven TV

By ROSSER JOHNSON*

Few things aggravate the average New Zealander more than the amount of advertising on television - and with good reason. We have some of the highest levels of advertising in the world.

But the interruptions don't stop when the advertisements do. We also have some of the most sponsorship-saturated programmes in television history.

Television New Zealand's Shaun Brown has announced the future of programmes such as Mitre 10 Changing Rooms, Corbans Taste New Zealand and United Travel Getaway are in jeopardy. He said their "hard-sell" approach was not in line with the Government's desire for more public service broadcasting.

Sponsorship on television is not new. In fact, sponsoring programmes was normal in the early years of broadcasting in the United States - it was the only way to attract money to make programmes. The problem was that these programmes put commercial concerns first.

There are two famous examples. The first was the 1959 scandal over the game show Twenty One. Sponsors gave favoured contestants the answers in order to maximise ratings. This was enormously controversial. (It was also the basis for Robert Redford's 1994 film Quiz Show.) The second was the gas company sponsorship of a drama about the Nuremberg trials. The company demanded all references to gas and the Nazi death camps be omitted.

The lesson is clear. Direct sponsoring means programmes are not made for the audience. They are made for the sponsor. That was the main reason programme sponsorship ended and commercial breaks were introduced.

New Zealand had little sponsorship until the late 1980s. But after deregulation in 1989, programme sponsorship grew very quickly. During the 1990s more and more programmes had obvious sponsor input.

By last year there were nine prime-time programmes that included a sponsor's name in their title: Arnotts Dreams Come True, Bayleys Home Front, Corbans Taste New Zealand, Firth Ground Force, Mitre 10 Changing Rooms, Mitre 10 Dream Home, Unichem Medical File, United Travel Getaway and Woolworths Ready, Steady Cook. It is this type of "sponsored programme" that Mr Brown was questioning.

These programmes blur the line between editorial and advertising. In the past we used to know which was which. The advertisements were separate from the programmes - they played in the commercial breaks.

Now things are not so simple. All the sponsored programmes have a significant amount of advertising within them. For example, 19 per cent of a typical episode of Unichem Medical File is devoted to advertising or product promotion.

This is concerning enough by itself. However, there is another factor at work here - the influence of the infomercial. Traditionally, infomercials have been relegated to early-morning and late-night television. But advertisers and marketers have adapted the formula for the mainstream.

The result is the revenue-enhanced programme, which has an intense level of sponsorship. It breaks even before any advertisements are sold. It is also deliberately intended to introduce infomercial-style programmes to viewers who would not normally watch them.

Obviously, this has enormous advantages for the producers of the programmes and the stations that broadcast them. The production budgets are usually wholly met by sponsorship, so the financial risks are small. Crucially, sponsors and advertisers also benefit - they have more time to devote to their commercial messages.

All the prime-time sponsored programmes have several features in common with infomercials and revenue-enhanced programmes. Of 20 possible features, the nine sponsored programmes averaged just over 13. Some had as many as 17. The most common feature is the call to action - the commercial within the programme.

In a typical infomercial this is the section with the infamous "But wait, there's more," which hypes the product to ever-increasing levels. In the prime-time sponsored programmes, the call to action is usually a lot subtler - but it is still an advertising message. An example is the United Travel deal of the week. This highlights a special deal for one of the destinations viewers have seen. It gives information but that information is commercial.

Mixing the commercial and the editorial content is the core of the prime-time sponsored programme. We have so many of them because there are so few funding options for local television. New Zealand On Air does not have the money to fund every programme. Sponsors fill the gap.

A clear example is the Changing Rooms format. The contrast between the British version and our local one could not be more obvious. What was originally a light-hearted competition between neighbours is now a thinly veiled promotion for Mitre 10.

Of course, these programmes are among the most popular on television. They are good-natured and enjoyable. They also show local culture and local people. Popularity does not, however, alter their essential nature. They remain commercial to the core. In fact, they could not perform a commercial function if they were not popular. The entertainment is the hook to reel in viewers for the sponsor.

No one is suggesting that people should not watch these programmes. But we should be honest about their true nature. They are really programme-length commercials. Their main function is advertising the sponsor's product. Few other countries have such sponsorship-saturated local content.

New Zealand leads the world because there is not enough money available for indigenous programmes. Mr Brown's good intentions are not enough. The Government has to get serious about funding local content. Otherwise, we will witness the next wave of advertiser-driven television.

* Rosser Johnson, an Auckland University of Technology lecturer, has just completed a thesis on infomercials and television advertising.