Editorial: TV rugby deal a winner for all involved

Opinion

The chief executive of Maori Television complains that it has been given "the crumbs" of the 2011 Rugby World Cup coverage under the terms of the joint bid to be filed by three free-to-air channels. It is not clear how he comes to that conclusion. The deal - yet to be welcomed, let alone accepted, by the International Rugby Board - would let Maori TV broadcast all the games also available to TVNZ or TV3 and have two All Black matches to itself.

In fact Maori TV would be the only free-to-air channel permitted to carry all four of New Zealand's pool games. It would share the opening ceremony and match against Tonga with TVNZ, the "grudge" match against France with TV3 and have the matches against Canada and an Asian qualifier to itself. That offers Maori TV a splendid opportunity to build an audience over four weeks, an opportunity not available to the rivals. They will carry just one game in the month of pool competition.

By the time it comes to the quarter-finals, when all three channels will start "simulcasting" the games, Maori TV will need to have caught the imagination of rugby fans so it might retain them against the free-to-air "default" option of TVNZ. That should be possible. For all its experience at promoting sporting events such as the America's Cup - the reason, no doubt, Government ministers want it in the bid - TVNZ's commentators have never quite learned the art of silence and its commercial programming has to pack too many advertisements into build-ups and match intervals.

TV3 faces similar financial demands. To justify its outlay, said to be $1 million, matching TVNZ's, the private broadcaster, too, must have plans of its own to compete for the free-to-air audience.

Of course this whole contest is somewhat academic since Sky Television is the host broadcaster and will carry all 48 matches on its subscription channels. Sky will produce the pictures that all carry. The others will need to distinguish themselves in their style of commentary and the character of their match presentation.

Maori TV would seem better placed than its free-to-air rivals to draw audience from Sky. With financial backing from the Ministry of Maori Development, on top of its funding from other public sources, it can offer fewer commercial interruptions. It must also promote some Maori language to justify its existence. That alone should ensure that the Maori channel offers something different from the familiar televised rugby fare.

But it can do much more, as it has shown with its coverage of ceremonial occasions. The Maori commentary teams do know the art of silence. They do not prattle when something solemn or atmospheric is in the picture. They do not seem to have been handed a file of random data from researchers to fill dead air.

The opening ceremony, with the Tonga match to follow, will have the Pacific character that the organising committee aims to give the whole seven-week festival. Maori TV will have much going for it in that regard.

It remains now for the IRB to be convinced that while it will not be getting competing bids backed with public cash, it could get a keen competition for free-to-air viewers between three channels capable of presenting the World Cup in subtly different ways. If TVNZ offers familiar faces and format and relies on its superior reach, TV3 as well as Maori TV could offer differences that might widen the audience.

With $300 million of public money already committed to the World Cup, the Government must not back this joint bid with much more than the $3 million Te Puni Kokiri has put behind Maori TV's project. If the IRB wants its event to monopolise New Zealand television screens, it will not get a better offer than this. Three free channels plus Sky equals saturation.