Free-to-air's future

Sir Frank tended to example the top-down approach taken by all media in those days – Channel Nine audiences were shown what expert programmers, such as himself ("I'm an average viewer!), Bruce Gyngell, and Ron Haynes, decided would interest them.

Ratings proved their judgements to be very right, particularly as they tended to use U.S ratings guidelines to set programme placements here, but audiences had no option but to accept what was offered without being able to influence its screening in the short term.

It's a vastly different situation these days. Pay television, direct satellite international feeds, the internet's vast number of specialised web sites, and time-shift recording makes it possible for the viewer to be the programmer.

This is one reason why I do not see any great expansion in the place or role of free-to-air TV, much less a possible fourth commercial channel in cities, because nowadays, that is available already to those prepared to search for items of interest.

Like listening to radio, much of free TV's programming is decided for the audience, not by them. This can provide the benefits of having others select the material, rather than the need to make one's own choices all the time.

It means that a person does not need a large library of material, or need to spend a large amount of time researching viewing sources, which often depends on what the person is seeking – entertainment, education, visual wallpaper, or whatever. If they do not enjoy being at the whim of what a channel offers, they may change easily.

Another factor of free TV is its screening of advertising. This topic is open to huge debate about the question of advertising's desirability, but one fact is hard and proven – shows which attract viewers attract advertisers, and this lies at the heart of broadcasting's economics.

Revenue depends on viewer numbers (ratings) thus profitability depends on audience acceptance and loyalty, which is sometimes driven by topic relevance such as sport, car racing etc., the quality of production, its programming frequency; generally all these have strong entertainment factors, often aimed at mass markets, not smaller more discerning audiences, as a benefit to advertisers.

TV production is expensive by nature – there are really no cheap ways of creating good quality interesting programming, whether live or recorded, produced in house, or purchased from outside suppliers.

Yet money spent effectively in this area can see an enormous long-term cash return to the station. The trick is to know how much, and where to spend.

News is a classic example of expensive live production. It often hallmarks a station's image, credibility, viewability and, hence, advertising saleability. But we also have the converse of this in Australia – our ABC.

The ABC is exceptional; its programming tends to be more informative as well as entertaining.