Comments on: Now I, too, have watched Seven Sharp and have an informed opinion on it

By: Clunking Fist

Clunking Fist — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 07:08:42 +0000

Eh? Most shills do it for the publicity/cause.

By: Gregor W

Gregor W — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:46:57 +0000

Probably can’t afford it, CF. Paying for two shills costs at least two shillings.
If they are losing viewers then advertisers wont want to pay for the spots.

By: Clunking Fist

Clunking Fist — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 23:36:40 +0000

“1.The problem is that the shills they get on are unlikely to ever be challenged, thats not the point of the show.”

Are they too lazy to at least get one shill from each side?

By: deepred

deepred — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 08:27:39 +0000

bob: “TVNZ is the only SOE I would support being sold off, and I’m to the left of Karl Marx. They serve no purpose I can see.”

Then again, if the Packers or the Murdochs wouldn’t see any money in it, what then? Why not go a step further, scuttle it (ie, voluntary administration/liquidation) and start afresh?

In its current form, TVNZ has devolved far too much to be salvaged now. Kidzone and Heartland are behind a SKY TV paywall. Ian Fraser was the right man for the job not too long ago, but he was handed an impossible task. The transmission arm has already been spun off into Kordia, so all that’s left is studio space.

By: bob

bob — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 03:50:44 +0000

Like Sacha and MeToo, I’ld be keen to see anything supporting the notion that da youf have the cash to burn to payback advertisers for keeping TVNZ in vino…
And what evidence is there that under 40s are actually watching TV at that time? A lot of my mates are still out, either working late or getting dinner out, or at the beach, etc. They are far more likely to watch the late night news.

TVNZ is the only SOE I would support being sold off, and I’m to the left of Karl Marx. They serve no purpose I can see.

By: Ben Wilson

Ben Wilson — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 02:26:58 +0000

>Don’t get me wrong – I didn’t like it and I’ll never watch it again but in terms of news value it didn’t seem worse than your average episode of Close-Up.

Gold. The chances of me liking such a show, given that I never have before, are so small as to make even one viewing unlikely.

I’m settling for an opinion formed by everyone else, frankly. I consider it like a poll of polls, actually more accurate than me running my own poll. Essentially, I can’t stand how slow information arrives via the TV. I find I get just as much information in an hour of TV news as I would in 5 minutes on the net.

By: MeToo

MeToo — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 01:35:22 +0000

I’ve tried to watch it – in the name of research – but my better half won’t let me. So last night we watched Campbell Live say our local fruit and vege shop in Massey North was in Coatesville. Who cares about accuracy when you’re playing the outrage card.

Re money – I have a lot more disposable income now I’m nearing 50 than I had when I was 18-29. Added bonus for the advertisers: I also support my teenager’s spending habits, so they get me at both ends of the age spectrum.

By: eszett

eszett — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 22:09:23 +0000

Sasha, just ask any media buyer what demographics they are buying for their products.
Unless it’s specialised product for the 50+ and even if it is, there are far more better (i.e. cheaper and more effective) programs.

By: Sacha

Sacha — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 20:57:10 +0000

“Those people don’t buy the products that Seven Sharp’s advertisers sell.”

Citation needed – seriously interested to read any sources that justify TV’s ignoring of the over-50s as a market.

By: awbraae

awbraae — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 19:42:22 +0000

The problem is that the shills they get on are unlikely to ever be challenged, thats not the point of the show.