The tribal mind: The mystery of the media

Wednesday May 9, 2007 04:08 PM

Who We Are

To learn what the world would be like if there were no Australia, go to Who We Are.

by David Dale
This column always wants to know about records being broken, so we leapt to attention last week when we received a press release headed "Australia's Next Top Model most-watched program ever on subscription TV".
The release went on to announce that the two hour finale of a show in which a girl accused of bullying was rewarded by her accusers, a host vanished due to stage fright, and fill-in host Charlotte Dawson showed she was Pay TV's answer to Sonia Kruger (ie. sexy, smart and funny) had averaged 309,000 viewers across the country.

That figure didn't look like much to get excited about, given all the publicity Top Model had attracted, but the Pay TV people live in a world of their own. Apparently, when a prime time show attracts 309,000 viewers, the Pay programmers open champagne. If it happened on free to air TV, the programmers would open a vein.

The smallness of the audience kept nagging at me. The record breakers on FTA television have included the 2004 final of Australian Idol, which drew 3.3 million in the mainland capitals, the 2003 final of The Block, with 3.1 million, and the 2004 final of Big Brother, with 2.9 million. If 27 per cent of Australian homes subscribe to Foxtel or Austar, you'd expect Pay's top shows to attract 27 per cent of the audience of FTA's top shows.

As it turned out, the headline was wrong. When I searched through the chaos that is my filing system. I found that last year, a soccer match between Japan and Australia drew 419,000 viewers to Fox Sports 2. So the headline on the press release must have meant Top Model was the most watched program that was not a sporting event. No, that can't be right either. Last year an episode of Parkinson in which he interviewed Shane Warne drew 415,000 to UKTV and a showing of the movie High School Musical 2 drew 314,000 to the Disney channel.

What the headline should have said was that this year's season of Top Model was the most watched series ever shown on Fox 8, which is the most popular Pay station. An over-enthusiastic publicist has done the Pay industry a disservice by drawing attention to the fundamental mystery of Australian media: if 2.2 million households, containing more than 6 million people, are paying at least $60 a month to receive at least 60 extra channels by cable or satellite, why do Pay's regular shows attract such tiny audiences?

Pay has, after all, been the only true success story in television this decade. Between the first half of 2003 and the first half of 2008, the total prime time audience of Nine, Seven and Ten has dropped from 3.35 million to 3.08 million (down 7 per cent), while the pay audience has risen from 514,000 to 772,000 (up 50 per cent).

So why has no Pay series ever been able to attract more than 309,000 viewers, a figure that wouldn't even satisfy SBS? Why, when Pay offers such a dazzling diversity of content, do most subscribers use it most of the time for rugby league, soccer, and The Simpsons? Are Pay viewers the most boring people on the continent?

If you can answer these questions, go to Comments.

David Dale is the author of Who We Are -- A snapshot of Australia today (Allen and Unwin). To discuss Australian attitudes, go to http://blogs.sunherald.com.au/whoweare.

COMMENTS

Tou sort of answered your own question. Free to air TV only has 5 main channels, therefor if an audience of say 5 million was divided between the 5 channels it would be far more than an audience of 5 million divided by the 60 odd channels pay tv has. Yes some channels on pay tv do better than others, but with 2.2 million people flicking through 60 channels, having 300,000 on any one channel would have any producer popping champagne.

by Matt on July 06, 2008 at 11:06 PM

I'd say an increase from 514,000 to 772,000 would be more like 50 per cent rather than 9 per cent, wouldn't you agree?
It's not pay TV viewers who are the most boring on the continent - it's pay TV channels. If they didn't show English Premier League football, I'd unsubscribe right away. Apart from the odd doco on the History Channel, and the occasionally useful weather channel, there's almost nothing worth watching.
Diversity can be as dazzling as you like, but diverse crud no more interesting or entertaining than homogeneous crud.

Tribal Mind replies: Ooops, I should have used a calculator. I've corrected it, thanks.

by Steve C on July 07, 2008 at 06:36 AM

There are so many pay tv channels that the viewers are sdpread out much more thinly. Instead of only having 5 channels to pick from, we have 50+. When you at the Plus 2 channels, that's even more.

We actually rarely watch Fox 8, apparently the most popular pay tv station, Lifestyle and Lifestyle Food get much more viewing. Like most people, we got it for sport (A league and AFL since we are in non AFL turf) but now I can't live without my 24 hour cooking shows!

by Bluie on July 07, 2008 at 08:21 AM

The decrease for Free-to-air from 3.35 million to 3.08 million is 270,000 viewers. Not all that different from the growth in pay TV from 514,000 to 772,000, or 258,000. So TV lost 12,000 viewers to 'other activities' and quarter of a million viewers were siphoned off to pay TV. A very different conclusion.

by BobL on July 07, 2008 at 08:53 AM

I have no intention of subsribing to pay TV because there isn't much on it that would interest me. What i have seen of Foxtel at my parent's place is
lots of advertisements which i don't need to pay to see,
Sport - which i'm not a fan and there is too much american content on most other channels unless you subscribe to UK tv or other language channels.

And, i'm not at home long enough to get my money's worth out of pay tv.

by Blah! on July 07, 2008 at 09:01 AM

I watch a fair bit of PayTV (sport, UK-TV, History, and news) but get a little tired of constant repeats. My main criticism is aimed at the so-called award winning news where they put the sport section on a continuous loop while the presenters are out, probably having a nap or a cuppa. The outcome inlcudes half-time scores when the game is over and the result known, no results for games that are being shown as a repeat or delayed telecast, and sometimes results that are the wrong way round.
The news channel also manages to completely butcher overseas bulletins to the point that the newsreader announces what is coming up, but no details follow.
Treating viewers as idiots is not going to get audience numbers up.

by Millsy on July 07, 2008 at 09:24 AM

Are Pay viewers the most boring people on the continent?
Are you saying that FTA viewers--i.e. the millions who watched Australian Idol, Big Brother and, cough, The Block--are thus the more interesting breed? I think I'd pass on any dinner invitations to your house, thanks all the same.

Tribal Mind replies: So if you were invited to dinner, you would insist on watching television?

by colujomes on July 07, 2008 at 09:26 AM

Pay TV is about choice, and a lot of it. I hate English Premier League, but I love the American Gridiron. If either was dependent on ratings, then we'd never see them on free to air. When pay TV has 80% penetration like the USA, then we can really start comparing ratings properly.

by Tim on July 07, 2008 at 09:31 AM

I got into the habit of scribbling down how many hours a day I watch Pay TV from the time I first became a subscriber back in '95 with Galaxy TV. I figured that way I could see whether I was getting my money's worth. I've been a reasonably satisfied subscriber all these years and only my packages have varied because of the choices on offer and the repeat cycle kicking in. From that perspective, I would say Pay TV subscribers are more interesting because they have such a diverse range of interests being catered to although they do overlap on certain "switch the brain off" shows. If I had to pay for what goes on FTA, my susbscription would be limited to only two channels and I'd constantly be sending them complaints about their inability to stick to the programming schedule. (ABC & SBS can be accessed on Foxtel). Ten would be dumped to avoid having to send additional e-mail complaints about how they also move shows all over the place or leave series hanging mid-season.

by Yuri on July 07, 2008 at 10:08 AM

I subscribed to Pay TV so I wouldn't have to suffer all of TEN's shameless and relentless BB cross promotion - now it's up to about 9 separate programmes! (5 nites a week at 7, Sunday and countless late-nite spin offs with cast offs from previous shows whose only claim to fame is their own buffoonery)I don't watch ANY sport...but then 'm not "most people" I guess. I love Showcase and other channels that run all of the drama and comedy that the Nine network decimates so they can integrate cricket updates and that 7 programmes in the middle of the night because they could be too cerebral for "most people". I love my Foxtel and don't find it boring. I love the option of all kinds of movies, classic tv and current and complete series that the free to air stations often drop mid-season without explanation.
The few ads are nothing compared to the free to airs!

by Kira on July 07, 2008 at 10:10 AM

David i can't believe for the last few years you haven't stopped harping on about the pay tv numbers. Are you on the FTA payroll or what. If FTA had 40 channels they would never crack 500k for a show. The only reason FTA shows get ratings in the millions is because there is no choice. It is immaterial that not one channel rates like SBS. You know what really matters is how many total viewers pay has. By the way i only have pay tv for the a-league,premier league,uefa and socceroos football games.

by steven on July 07, 2008 at 10:26 AM

Even in the US with it's 80% Pay TV penetration, the biggest cable shows would be lucky to crack 5 million viewers.
For instance - Californication, gets more actual viewers here than in the states! Battlestar Gallactica (a very expensive show) is considered a hit with only 1.5 million viewers an episode, compare this the 15 - 20 million really big FTA shows pull stateside.
I also thoroughly agree with colujomes, the top FTA shows have always been uncreative lifestyle or reality trash, give me cable anyday.
Also I wonder if you would be able to tell us if Arena has improved it's audience share since their relaunch last month?
Cheers

by Jason Oliver on July 07, 2008 at 10:29 AM

I don't understand how anyone can claim ratings for any program shown on pay TV. Everything is repeated, that's the point. You don't have to tune in at, say, 8.30 on Monday night to watch whatever, you can watch it at 10.30 on the 'plus 2 hours' channels (and that won't attract ratings). Or you can watch it next day - twice - or you can watch any of the zillions of repeats that will follow.
Take last night. We watched Man of the Year at 8.30 and followed with Pirates of the Caribbean 3 on a plus 2 channel at 10.30. If we hadn't wanted to watch Pirates last night we could have opted for today's midday rerun or the later plus 2 channel rerun. Or we could have waited until next Saturday night/Sunday afternoon reruns.
Ratings are meaningless for pay TV because no-one HAS to tune in at just one time. I won't even start on the latest FoxHD/MyStar arrangements that allow you to record several programs at the same time as you watch another show.

Tribal Mind replies: I take your point, but when there's a hugely publicised live event like the Models final, it's puzzling that only 309,000 out of 6 million bother to watch it.

by meg on July 07, 2008 at 10:33 AM

Aussie Pay TV in comparison to O/S is deplorable. If it wasn't for sport I don't think it could continue to exist on its constant never ending replays of yesterday's TV. The cost cirtainly is not related to the quality of programming.
Australia's Next Top Model is sure to stay on Pay as Free to Air could not justify the almost certain low ratings it would draw.

by Arthur on July 07, 2008 at 10:34 AM

FTA will win because it pays out the money to get the name football and cricket. Pay TV is more like SBS, catering to the minorities - hard core sports and movie fans, cooking and house/selling/buying/building/renovating minorities, and the British heritage and tastes, as well as what Rosy called "the Hitler channel". I enjoy watching Fox News, seeing the right wing at play, oblivious to their own biases and coming down red of claw on those daring to think differently.
Combinations of minorities don't make for majorities for one show at one time.

by Peter on July 07, 2008 at 10:50 AM

The only reason Pay TV survives is because of sport. Without it nobody would buy it. The movies are rerun after rerun, the docos have been seen before and the rest is rubbish. I must be getting old because I much prefer the Australian content on the ABC and SBS. This cheap and nasty reality TV on 9,7 and 10 is devoid of entertainiment and interest. Self promotion and celebrity (mostly minor) is all that seems to matter to the commercial TV stations.

by Spike on July 07, 2008 at 10:56 AM

I don't subscribe to Pay TV, simply because I hate sport and the cheaper subscriptions all include sport channels. I'm interested in the history channel, National Geographic and would opt for no sport if that was allowable. Until it is, I won't be getting Pay TV.

by Jo on July 07, 2008 at 11:46 AM

Spike - what?!

I subscribed to Foxtel so I could get *away* from sport! That's all FTA is! Sport, sport and more sport! And Big Brother. I recall when I had FTA trying to watch TV on a weekend. There was never anything on but sport. Awful.

And I didn't watch the ANTM final on the night because I taped it with my IQ and watched it later so I could fast forward through the ads. I suspect a lot of people would have done the same. Or watched it 2 hours later on +2. Or another of the repeats later on.

And 2.2 million households divided by 60 channels is an average of 36,666 for each channel. I'd be ecstatic too if my channel were receiving over 300,000. That's nearly 10 times the average. Compare that to the total FTA audience divided by 5 channels, and you'll soon understand why they get so many viewers - there is simply not much other choice but for them to watch the "popular" program on at the time.

by Angelina on July 07, 2008 at 11:49 AM

Like most people I know.....(yes they are all male!)......Rugby league , Super 12 Rugby & The English Premier League really are the only reasons they subscribe to pay tv.

by Newman on July 07, 2008 at 12:24 PM

The US 'basic cable' ratings aren't much different to Australia's or I imagine the rest of the world. You've got the occasional shows like High School Musical (~17m) but for the most part it's sport and cartoons (Rupert Murdoch's business model was right!). Pity US-MTV now does famewhore reality programs.
For Australia, the prevalence of sport must be due to subscribers being mostly entertainment establishments like pubs and clubs.

by canoli on July 07, 2008 at 12:48 PM

I forgot to add to my earlier comment, the figures for the model program are not bad considering the very limited audience such a show would attract. I'm a woman of 47 and have completely no interest, but probably younger females and males would be.

by Jo on July 07, 2008 at 01:24 PM

'Tribal Mind replies: I take your point, but when there's a hugely publicised live event like the Models final, it's puzzling that only 309,000 out of 6 million bother to watch it.'
Maybe all the other 5 million plus viewers had the intelligence to work out that this show was pure, undiluted crap and preferred to watch something better.
Maybe a few million decided to watch it later. With pay TV you have that option. The ratings machinery just can't cope with viewers taking up the option to watch when it suits them.
Maybe no-one was interested. Who cares if garbage like this is live or not? Live crap is still crap.

by meggsie on July 07, 2008 at 02:11 PM

1/ far greater amount of channels. FTA gives you a choice of 5. foxtel as you stated gives you over 60 channels including FTA.
2/ penetration rate. foxtel only has 6mil people subscribing to it which gives it what, 25-30% penetration for the total population? Given that statistic you would have to multiply the foxtel audience by at least 3-4 times what it actually is to get a (still very innacurate) comparison.
Dexter got 930,000 people watching it on ch10 last night. what were its foxtel numbers when it premiered a year ago? obviously nowhere near that.
You say free-to-air networks wouldnt go near a show that got over 300k on foxtel. aren't ch7 making their own show which appears to be a rip off of next top model?
On a side note most people get foxtel for sport. At least most people who i know do. Foxtels tv shows are either those which have already been shown on FTA or those that which they didn't want for whatever reason. They get movies before FTA but the rare good ones are shown all the time and people can always just see them at the movies or get it from the video store.
Whereas sport is the only thing they can get with some sort of exclusivity. if you are a soccer fan for example you need foxtel as they have the rights to basically everything to do with the sport.

by Matt on July 07, 2008 at 02:39 PM

Perhaps not the most boring people on the continent, but certainly not the sharpest tools in the shed. If we had any real competition in pay TV I might consider it, but I'll not line the pockets of the Murdoch/Telstra/Packer monopoly thank you. FTA TV and the internet provide more than enough entertainment for any sane person.

by David S. on July 07, 2008 at 03:34 PM

Perhaps this apparent discrepancy in viewing numbers points to errors in the free-to-air rating rather than some problem with pay TV programming or consumers.

By its nature and technology Pay TV is far more accurate in estimating rating information: People pay a monthly charge to have access to the service and presumably would not pay if they did not gain some value from the service. Likewise, the set-top box provides more detailed information on viewing patterns.

The free-to-air model relys on customer samples rather than considering the full audience and these samples require action by the sampled viewer. As the entire economics of the free-to-air industry depends on ratings there must be a temptation to overstate the viewer numbers.

by Craig on July 08, 2008 at 07:48 AM

Just noted that Jo mentioned she wasn't a subscriber because she doesn't want to pay for a sport package. She obvioulsy hasn't checked out what's on offer for a long time, because sport is now a $17 add-on. Don't want it? Don't pay for it. I only have it on during the league season, then dump it.

by Yuri on July 08, 2008 at 08:04 AM

Any more inflammatory comments to make tribal mind? To insult one group of TV viewers in your own "TV article" seems quite ironic. I imagine the most boring people in Australia are those that watch, talk and write about the drivel on both pay and fta TV. I'd say anyone writing about Television is up there for the most boring people in Australia

Tribal Mind replies: Much of what appears on this blog is designed to provoke response from readers and in this case it seems to have worked.

by Dave on July 08, 2008 at 10:55 AM

David S. is spot on!ppl are ridiculously ripped off with PAYtv.But they usually dont care they earn so much.

by kay wiles on July 08, 2008 at 11:08 AM

I love watching sport, but with Foxtel you have to pay for all they other drivel they offer, so to pay over $50 a month for sport is simply ridiculous. Little wonder so few people subscribe and why so much propaganda flows from the spin doctors in suits at Fox. And why would anyone in their right mind actually pay to watch advertisements?
It's very brave of David Dale to take the Pay TV propagandists head on. No doubt the ugly bully boys and girls at News Ltd who masquerade as objective Journalists are being instructed this very moment to exact revenge. Expect the retaliatory propaganda to flow thick and fast. After all money is at stake.

by Peter on July 08, 2008 at 02:03 PM

Peter says "FTA will win because it pays out the money to get the name football and cricket".
Don't forget though that FTA is heavily protected by the current anti-siphoning legislation which means that while FTA networks do have to pay, a host of major sporting events and club competitions cannot be bought exclusively by pay tv. Can you imagine the take-up rates if Fox Sports could buy the exclusive rights to, say, the AFL or NRL?
And just briefly, I think that one possible reason the 'best' series still don't rate that well on pay tv (apart from the multiple screenings issue which must dilute the numbers) is that increasingly people seem to prefer to watch good tv on DVD - no interruptions, can watch when it suits etc. Tribal mind - do you know if there's anything other than anecdote to support/refute this?

by Kat on July 08, 2008 at 04:07 PM

Pay TV is about choice - with the fragmentation of audience due to all those channels (not to mention other media these days), why is 309,000 enough to make a FTA programmer cut a vein? I catch a whiff of FTA bias in your articles. In fact, they always seem anti Pay TV. What's wrong, did they cut you off their service or something?!
As far as I know, pay TV ratings don't include recorded shows (which isn't a functionality currently available to FTA audiences) so it really understates the actual viewing audience on the night.
Some of the most interesting people in the world are those that are different and that's something pay TV does cater for - niche audiences. So if I'm boring to you David, I'll take that as a compliment!

Tribal Mind replies: I watch Pay often. I'm simply puzzled that so few others do.

by Jessie on July 08, 2008 at 05:06 PM

The reason pay tv has so view watchers is that instead of having 5 channels with nothing much to watch now I have 150 or so..all with little of interest for more than 1/2 hr at a time..channels seem to change program times, drop them etc etc..I'd rather read a book..or play on the computer...so much money to pay for Cable..so little enjoyment to be had!

by Peter on July 08, 2008 at 08:23 PM

You may be too young to know that many people migrated to cable because it had NO commercials. What a CON that was. Not only have we now been inundated with clap commercials, but the quality of cable programmes have gravitated towards the cheap end of town. At least USA cable has C-Span, but no such service is offered here. As a gauge of standards, the History Channel commercials have recently referred to "infiniteness." Perhaps this also is a reflection of something missing in the programme evaluation process?

by Reg on July 10, 2008 at 11:58 AM

We subscribed to Foxtel so hubby could watch sport which was either not on FTA, or on but butchered.
I hate sport and never watch any.
But, I do love Foxtel!
Sure, I don't watch the SciFi channel cause it's not widescreen, I don't watch Arena cause their watermark is not only stupid, but often covers peoples faces....
But then there's Showcase.
No ads, no watermarks, and terrific programs.
Our Platinum package (over $100 a month) is worth it just for Showcase.
I still watch a bit of ABC, and rarely SBS (too many ads for faulty penises). But 7, 9 & 10?
Long gone.

by Sal on July 10, 2008 at 05:42 PM

I agree with Sal, the ARENA watermark isnt even much of a watermark, a huge orange box in the corner of my tv. Its annoying and atleast the older version was smaller. Also in regards to the HD channels, i pluged my regular avi cords into my tv just to see if i got the HD channels without having to have a HD cable and or TV and they worked, meaning channels are witheld for more money under the pretence you need to pay more because they are HD only. Well i shouldnt complain, thats why they call it "PAY TV"

by Matt White on July 21, 2008 at 10:54 AM

The Sun-Herald

Who We Are

The tribal mind: The mystery of the media

COMMENTS

POST A COMMENT

Comments Terms & Conditions

RECENT ENTRIES

ARCHIVES