Speaker 1: Welcome back to TV Reload. My name's Benjamin Norris, and
Speaker 1: on this podcast I'll be going behind the scenes with
Speaker 1: the biggest players in television today. On the show, I
Speaker 1: have broadcasting and senior management consultant Tim Kluchus, who has
Speaker 1: over forty years experience in the TV business. Some of
Speaker 1: his career highlights include his role as executive producer of
Speaker 1: the nineties TV series Sex, where he challenged Australian audiences
Speaker 1: with taboo topics that gave us the answers to questions
Speaker 1: we felt too embarrassed to ask. Feeling confident about Sex
Speaker 1: led to a show called Money, a hugely successful show
Speaker 1: which gave millions of Australians control and confidence over their
Speaker 1: finances in a world where ignorance was preyed upon by
Speaker 1: the powerful and corrupt. It'd be hard not to talk
Speaker 1: about what he did next, As he said about making
Speaker 1: TV for a new century, Bringing Big Brother to Australia
Speaker 1: was groundbreaking television which paved the way for unscripted drama
Speaker 1: that would change the face of TV forever. Dancing in
Speaker 1: some pretty impressive circles, Tim allowed us to feel a
Speaker 1: part of the programs you made, and reinvented ways in
Speaker 1: which Australia could feel enriched by the topics he covered.
Speaker 1: I'd like to welcome to the show, television mastermind, Tim Klucas.
Speaker 2: This is the best job in the world. I'm making
Speaker 2: television today and welcome to money. You had most of
Speaker 2: the nations sitting down in front of the television every night, Marlin,
Speaker 2: are you going to speak? If you gave them good content,
Speaker 2: they gave you ratings. When it comes to a better
Speaker 2: sex life, wouldn't you rathers do it with a tend
Speaker 2: We certainly could have given the audience credit for being
Speaker 2: more intelligent, the.
Speaker 3: Heaviest contestant in Biggest Loser history.
Speaker 2: Yes, the storm was coming, but there was no one
Speaker 2: or two or three things we could have done. I
Speaker 2: don't believe.
Speaker 4: How are you mate? Are you good?
Speaker 2: I'm good. I'm good as good as a bloke can
Speaker 2: be at.
Speaker 1: This age, with forty years in the business and a
Speaker 1: resume that proves that you have made such a monumental
Speaker 1: impact when it comes to working with television network, What
Speaker 1: does a career in television feel like for you at
Speaker 1: this stage?
Speaker 4: Kind of looking back.
Speaker 2: I got to say that, looking back, I feel that
Speaker 2: I had the best years of the television business. I
Speaker 2: don't know that for a lot of younger people in
Speaker 2: the mainstream television business, I don't believe that most of
Speaker 2: them can look forward to at limitless horizon, to exciting
Speaker 2: opportunities things like that. It may come, but it will
Speaker 2: be in very different forms to the way that I
Speaker 2: experienced the business. And so I've got to say, I
Speaker 2: think people of my generation probably did have the best
Speaker 2: of times. Television was that little special box in the corner.
Speaker 2: There was no Internet, there was no streaming. You had
Speaker 2: most of the nations sitting down in front of the
Speaker 2: television every night, and so they were a willing, grateful audience.
Speaker 2: If you gave them good content, they gave you ratings.
Speaker 2: And that was a great time in television.
Speaker 1: Interesting did you say that because people have turned away
Speaker 1: from freeedoware television, we're now celebrating shows that are making
Speaker 1: six hundred thousand, no longer celebrating shows that go over
Speaker 1: a million. What would you say, looking back at some
Speaker 1: of those key moments that people did look for other
Speaker 1: places to find story.
Speaker 2: I think the writing was on the wall for a
Speaker 2: long time. All of us in television were saying Hey, look,
Speaker 2: there's going to be streaming services. The internet is going
Speaker 2: to be once you had decent broadband, people are going
Speaker 2: to just be able to watch content from anywhere in
Speaker 2: the world. They don't need to watch seven, nine, ten abcsps.
Speaker 2: We were all talking about it, and it was sort
Speaker 2: of like we had a head in the sand. We
Speaker 2: all knew it was coming, but we just sort of
Speaker 2: pretended it wasn't And instead of setting about reinforcing the business,
Speaker 2: the networks are basically just tried to cannibalize the business,
Speaker 2: you know, fighting over viewers in a diminishing market. Maybe
Speaker 2: that's what they have to do for their business, but
Speaker 2: doesn't grow the market. It's not a common sense approach
Speaker 2: to making your business successful into the future. You can
Speaker 2: get your ratings this week by putting a cooking show
Speaker 2: against a cooking show, or a renovation show against a
Speaker 2: renovation show. Yeah, you might win this week's ratings, but
Speaker 2: at the end of the day, you're losing the audience
Speaker 2: over a longer term.
Speaker 1: You have been such an amazing contributor to storytelling. Are
Speaker 1: there moments now when you're sitting back and looking at it,
Speaker 1: we could have done something different.
Speaker 2: I think hindsight is a wonderful things we all know,
Speaker 2: not a characteristic that anyone in television is blessed with again,
Speaker 2: and I think it's that driver for the ratings. Eight
Speaker 2: thirty tomorrow morning is much more important than five years
Speaker 2: down the track, ten years down the track. And so
Speaker 2: I couldn't point to any one moment or two or
Speaker 2: three moments in the business when we could have reversed
Speaker 2: the bus and gone down another road. Because it was
Speaker 2: death thousand cuts. Yes, the storm was coming, but there
Speaker 2: was no one or two or three things we could
Speaker 2: have done. I don't believe we certainly could have given
Speaker 2: the audience credit for being more intelligent. They don't appreciate
Speaker 2: us saying the show finishes at eight thirty and then
Speaker 2: we keep it going to a quarter to nine. They
Speaker 2: don't appreciate us scheduling programs that are like each other
Speaker 2: against each other. They don't appreciate us doing obvious product
Speaker 2: placement just to get money in the door. They resent
Speaker 2: all that, and they don't see that happening on their
Speaker 2: streaming services. They don't see the streaming services just playing
Speaker 2: with start times to suit themselves or to suit their advertisers,
Speaker 2: or to suit their competitive instincts against another network, and
Speaker 2: so I think longer term, had we treated the audience
Speaker 2: with more respect, I don't think they would have been
Speaker 2: so happy to just abandon and pay each week every
Speaker 2: night for a US streaming services when there are twenty
Speaker 2: something free to wear channels that should offer everything possible,
Speaker 2: but they don't, and so people are paying for television
Speaker 2: when it used to be free.
Speaker 1: Is it too ridiculous to think that competitive television networks
Speaker 1: should have been programming things differently instead of doubling up
Speaker 1: on content that's too similar. Do you think it's too
Speaker 1: simplistic or it's too nice to think that they could
Speaker 1: have programmed things differently.
Speaker 2: It's probably naive to think that, because the end of
Speaker 2: the day, they're competitive businesses, and if one network is
Speaker 2: doing a really good job with a show that's rating
Speaker 2: really well, well, another network will have to take that
Speaker 2: slot on with either a similar show to try and
Speaker 2: dilute the audience of the opposition, or an alternative show,
Speaker 2: which then gives the audience that frustration. Well, now I
Speaker 2: like them both, and I can't watch them both because
Speaker 2: at the same time, and they're probably stripped shows, and
Speaker 2: so I can't record one and watch the other because
Speaker 2: I'll never catch up, and so I have to not
Speaker 2: watch that show, and that leaves that sort of resentment.
Speaker 1: It's definitely diluted the audience because you know, you're looking
Speaker 1: at the moment, We've got Holly Molly married at first sight,
Speaker 1: an amazing race. All three shows reality shows stripped taking
Speaker 1: up people's minds, you know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, look, we used to do a lot. I don't
Speaker 2: know how much research does actually go into audiences now
Speaker 2: because it's it seems to all be run by the
Speaker 2: advertisers rather than the networks. But we used to find
Speaker 2: you would put out your promos for a new series
Speaker 2: and survey companies would survey likelihood of watching, and you'll
Speaker 2: get amazing numbers. People will see a promo and they go, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: I'll watch that, and then they didn't. And when you
Speaker 2: go back, they were saying, well, I was worried that
Speaker 2: if I liked it, I'd get hooked on it and
Speaker 2: then it would just take the next eight weeks of
Speaker 2: my nights out of the picture. And I didn't want
Speaker 2: to get hooked on it, so I didn't watch it.
Speaker 2: That is a funny situation to be in because that's
Speaker 2: good news for the network, meaning we got the show right.
Speaker 2: Bad news is they're not going to watch it, and
Speaker 2: there's lots of examples of that, and I think again
Speaker 2: there are economic revenue reasons why the stripped reality shows,
Speaker 2: which I was molding right at the start, why the
Speaker 2: networks ran with those, but they also had a habit
Speaker 2: of killing the audience.
Speaker 1: What is interesting about television from being my age is
Speaker 1: that it always felt aspirational to me, being the viewer
Speaker 1: at home. Do you think that the people sitting at
Speaker 1: home these days are less likely to want to be
Speaker 1: the people that they see on TV?
Speaker 2: Oh? Sure, sure, And there's no doubt about that. And
Speaker 2: that's probably an evolution of our society too. I mean,
Speaker 2: in the days gone by, when the television was that
Speaker 2: magic box, people would look at Graham Kennedy or Burt Newton,
Speaker 2: Don Lane and look up to them. But that doesn't
Speaker 2: necessarily bring your eyes. These days, you are more likely
Speaker 2: to get eyes, particularly within a younger audience, with road
Speaker 2: crash and so you're not going to successfully have married
Speaker 2: at first sight unless you have people brawling on it
Speaker 2: and look at it and look at you know, bachelor,
Speaker 2: Bachelorette you know those shows. They're all about the brawl,
Speaker 2: not about finding love or whatever.
Speaker 1: I also think it's more accessible these days for people
Speaker 1: as well, because you can actually be on these shows.
Speaker 1: There's so many of them. So you sitting at home
Speaker 1: before couldn't be Daryl Summers because that was impossible. But
Speaker 1: then you could be Sarah Marie. You know, you could
Speaker 1: be Guy Sebastian. The idea of making television that way
Speaker 1: also probably diluted the audience's ability to go I'd love
Speaker 1: but it's out of reach.
Speaker 2: Well yes and no. Yes, it makes it a platform
Speaker 2: for many people rather than few. But the fact is
Speaker 2: ninety nine point ninety nine nine percent of those people
Speaker 2: aren't a Daryl Somers, you know, they aren't. To Graham Kennedy,
Speaker 2: they are not performers. We always used to talk and
Speaker 2: when we'd be casting Australian Idol or X Factor or whatever,
Speaker 2: someone who get up on the stage and you could say, well,
Speaker 2: they've done a lot of singing into their brush in
Speaker 2: the bathroom. Whereas those old timers like the Daryl Summers
Speaker 2: and the Graham Kennedy's, you know, they they were seasoned
Speaker 2: performers and they it was their life it was running
Speaker 2: in their blood. And that's different to watching something on
Speaker 2: the internet and thinking I could do that, or filming
Speaker 2: yourself in your living room and getting twenty followers and thinking,
Speaker 2: oh gee, I'm a star. That's not doing it in
Speaker 2: front of a thousand people live or anything like that.
Speaker 1: I think for some people, they think that they're interesting
Speaker 1: when they're not, and that I've got friends who think
Speaker 1: that they're uninteresting and they're fascinating.
Speaker 2: And like I say, that is the result of doing
Speaker 2: something in your bedroom and putting it on TikTok or
Speaker 2: whatever and people thinking you're really interesting, but you're not.
Speaker 1: I think it's also really funny that TikTok has shown
Speaker 1: us that a five second piece of content and content
Speaker 1: creators making those shorter pieces are excelling. However, your stripped
Speaker 1: shows are getting longer. You know, it was only probably
Speaker 1: eight years ago that they extended your regular reality shows
Speaker 1: from a sixty minute broadcast to now ninety minutes, and
Speaker 1: that it seems like these shows go longer, and you think,
Speaker 1: but the education and the knowledge that's out there is
Speaker 1: that people want to digest things in a shorter period
Speaker 1: of time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but that's simple economics. You know, you get a
Speaker 2: situation where stripped reality show A series one and two,
Speaker 2: the network twenty million dollars for fifty hours. They have
Speaker 2: to sit down some bean counter somewhere we'll go, We'll
Speaker 2: hang on. You know, twenty million dollars for fifty hours.
Speaker 2: Do the maths? What's that four hundred thousand an hour?
Speaker 2: I don't know. I've probably got that completely wrong. On
Speaker 2: the top of the head.
Speaker 4: I'm not a mathematic.
Speaker 2: Clearly I'm not either. But they're saying, well, that's we
Speaker 2: need better revenue per hour than that. The secret is
Speaker 2: go back to the production company. Okay, for series three,
Speaker 2: we're still only paying twenty million, but we want sixty
Speaker 2: hours next year. And so then they turn their sixty
Speaker 2: minute shows into ninety minute shows. They do this, they'd
Speaker 2: look for specials, they look for whatever they can do
Speaker 2: to milk more content, and stuff that should have gone
Speaker 2: to the cutting room floor ends up on television. And
Speaker 2: that causes two problems. One, it's boring, and every editor
Speaker 2: and producers instinct was that's not gonna make it. But
Speaker 2: we've got to get it up to ninety minutes this week,
Speaker 2: so that's in. And then the solution to this is
Speaker 2: really boring. Okay, let's promo the crap out of it
Speaker 2: and make it out to be how many times have
Speaker 2: you listened to network promos going unbelievable, never before seen events,
Speaker 2: You will not believe what happens on blah blah blah,
Speaker 2: and the audience goes, oh, well, this is good, but
Speaker 2: actually you've promoted the crap out of the dull bit
Speaker 2: because you're trying to justify its existence in the show
Speaker 2: the network. The audience watches that and goes, ah, that's
Speaker 2: not so interesting. What's on the other channel? Flick flick flick,
Speaker 2: And the minute they're flicking, they're gone, and that's and it's.
Speaker 4: Hard to get them back.
Speaker 2: The other factor, maybe maybe not so much something like
Speaker 2: Holy Moly, but certainly the reality shows is that there's
Speaker 2: no way they can be flexible and respond to the
Speaker 2: audience from w wick like the original Big Brother could
Speaker 2: because the audience was telling you every night what was happening,
Speaker 2: and you could adjust your edits, your content, whatever. But
Speaker 2: now the obsession with these reality shows is overproducing. They've
Speaker 2: got to be graded so they look like they've been
Speaker 2: shot by Bruce Beresford, and that doesn't happen overnight, So
Speaker 2: those things sit in the edit room being worked and worked.
Speaker 2: And then the other problem is if Billy Bloggs says,
Speaker 2: I think Rachel's a pain in the ass, we need
Speaker 2: now and go and find a shot of two other
Speaker 2: people turning their heads sharply not to what he said.
Speaker 2: It could have been a week ago, but we need
Speaker 2: a reaction. So now we have got to overcut, an overcut,
Speaker 2: an overcut, and everything is changed in the edit. So
Speaker 2: these shows are shot six nine months in advance, and
Speaker 2: they spend so long in the edit suite to meet
Speaker 2: the network's expectations of the look, the grading, and it's
Speaker 2: got to be everything's got to have reaction. Everything's going
Speaker 2: to so there's no way you can reshoot something. Course
Speaker 2: it finished six months ago, that everyone's gone home or
Speaker 2: everyone's gone off to do other things. So it's all
Speaker 2: in the in the edit suite, and that's taking away
Speaker 2: the flexibility. So shows can't respond they live or die
Speaker 2: or what they did, and so then they're going to
Speaker 2: go over the top just in case.
Speaker 1: And you know, you know, and it's interesting that you
Speaker 1: say that, because what would you pick? Would you pick
Speaker 1: something that is absolutely cut and shot to be amazing
Speaker 1: or a human moment.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah. And it also adds to the problem that
Speaker 2: the audience just starts to feel like we've seen this before.
Speaker 2: It was another series, it might have been another subject
Speaker 2: and another network, but it all seems familiar. So and
Speaker 2: so does this, so and so does that, and then
Speaker 2: the retrospective interview. The greatest crime against TV making in
Speaker 2: the business, and we started it on you know, when
Speaker 2: we took a one hour show out of America and
Speaker 2: turned it into a strip called The Biggest Loser. And
Speaker 2: I've never forgotten the day we were in the edit
Speaker 2: suite and Paul Franklin was the supervising executive producer of
Speaker 2: the show. We were looking at the first cuts and
Speaker 2: it was a way in and a person was talking
Speaker 2: about it, and someone had recorded it in a sort
Speaker 2: of present tense, and Paul had intercut that with the
Speaker 2: way in, and it was like the people being weighed
Speaker 2: in were almost narrating their own way in, Like there
Speaker 2: were sports announcers calling their own way in. And instead
Speaker 2: of saying I didn't know what to think when that happened,
Speaker 2: it became walking up to the days and I don't
Speaker 2: know what to think, what's going to happen Now this
Speaker 2: is recorded afterwards, we know he knew that person knows
Speaker 2: what happened. But and so that became a staple of
Speaker 2: all of these shows. Instead of letting the events happen,
Speaker 2: now they've got to intercap them all with retrospective interviews
Speaker 2: as o people. And not many people can do a
Speaker 2: retrospective interview very well, let alone say it. So they
Speaker 2: become quite fake. And now it's the dance. The audience
Speaker 2: has seen this dance for fifteen years. Let's move on.
Speaker 2: Bob and I decided it was your best to split
Speaker 2: the group in two. Okay, Shannon, you take the guys,
Speaker 2: I'll take the girls.
Speaker 3: They listen out train I thought, oh well, I'm a
Speaker 3: bit on easy.
Speaker 1: Stay that attitude tooll be the first one to go on.
Speaker 2: You know, let's maybe try telling a story differently. You know,
Speaker 2: maybe we don't open the reality show with two big
Speaker 2: doors at the end of a kitchen or a lego studio.
Speaker 2: What have two big doors opening and people running in excitedly.
Speaker 2: So you know, we have these producers, because they're being
Speaker 2: told not to mess with success, they make the same
Speaker 2: show every time, might be a different name, might be
Speaker 2: a different network, different subject matter, but it feels like
Speaker 2: I'm watching the same show all the time.
Speaker 1: You Know what's really fascinating for me was I was
Speaker 1: watching what documentaries are doing at the moment, and I
Speaker 1: watched this documentary Don't Fuck with Cats, which evolved so
Speaker 1: quickly because and it was fascinating. Were they retelling something
Speaker 1: that had happened twenty years ago? Probably, but what they
Speaker 1: were doing was giving the audience what happens in real
Speaker 1: time with real technology as we were the investigators. Yea,
Speaker 1: that is fascinating. You think about what you did in
Speaker 1: two thousand to two thousand and three, particularly revolutionized reality television,
Speaker 1: and yet I think people have now photocopied your ideas,
Speaker 1: not just yours. I know you collaborated, but then they
Speaker 1: haven't taken it to the modern day to watch these
Speaker 1: sows evolve in real time. And I think technology, you know,
Speaker 1: they're still making Big Brother and they haven't given them phones.
Speaker 1: You know, they haven't given them technology or real life
Speaker 1: situations that brings the audience and the contestants into a
Speaker 1: modern day.
Speaker 4: Is that a.
Speaker 2: Mistake, Well, yes, although I don't think that would help
Speaker 2: that approach. I think the isolation, and that's true to
Speaker 2: the format. But the problem for Big Brother is that
Speaker 2: what I was talking about earlier, that need to grade
Speaker 2: the stuff so it looks beautiful on air, that need
Speaker 2: to find every little reaction and inter cut It is
Speaker 2: really hard. Out of twenty four hours. I don't care
Speaker 2: how long it takes, find me a shot of him
Speaker 2: looking sideways suddenly, because I want it to make it
Speaker 2: look like he's reacted to what she just said. You
Speaker 2: can't do that in an overnight turnaround show like Big Brother.
Speaker 2: So what they've done, as you know, is they're just
Speaker 2: making Survivor in a house. Now. It's shot in advance,
Speaker 2: it's not live. It's cut to buggery. The audience doesn't
Speaker 2: have a say. The network that producers are in complete control.
Speaker 2: And the joy of Big Bra there was we weren't
Speaker 2: in control. Big Brother wasn't in control. Those housemates were
Speaker 2: in control, and that's what made the show work because
Speaker 2: you didn't know what was going to happen. You just
Speaker 2: knew it was going to happen, and that was why
Speaker 2: it worked, and that's why the audience is like Big Brother,
Speaker 2: I've seen this before. I think it was on an island. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and they're in swimmers with coconuts. But I think I've
Speaker 2: seen this before, and that's the problem. Making programs for
Speaker 2: the network and for the producers instead of for the
Speaker 2: audience is the slippery slope downhill.
Speaker 4: I think you.
Speaker 1: Flipped the switch a couple of times in your career, though,
Speaker 1: like I thought, Sex with Sophie Lee was really a
Speaker 1: fascinating moment because it was groundbreaking television. It was content
Speaker 1: that we hadn't seen. It was stuff that people felt
Speaker 1: it kind of like, I need to watch that by myself.
Speaker 1: But the topics that you were discussing in there, which
Speaker 1: would have been HIV and things like that, or people's
Speaker 1: sexuality and gender. You were doing that show in the nineties,
Speaker 1: you know, it's still possible, I think, And I wondered
Speaker 1: whether you think to find those things that people truly
Speaker 1: want to know and the answers to you know, do
Speaker 1: those shows kind would they work now?
Speaker 2: Well? A lot has been said and written about this
Speaker 2: because the magazine shows, particularly the Australian style magazine shows
Speaker 2: of the late eighties early nineties, were incredibly unique. We
Speaker 2: were doing them in primetime if the world was burying
Speaker 2: them in off air afternoons or on the weekends. We
Speaker 2: were leading the way in terms of ratings. I mean,
Speaker 2: I've never forgotten that first year of Money because when
Speaker 2: I finished two years of seasons of Sex, the next
Speaker 2: show that I pitched was Money and it went to
Speaker 2: where in ninety three from memory And in that first
Speaker 2: year there was only I think we made twenty episodes
Speaker 2: half hour episodes of Money and seven weeks out of
Speaker 2: the fifty two weeks of the year, it was the
Speaker 2: most watched nonsport, non news show on Australian television. But
Speaker 2: the story you're about to see tonight has got to
Speaker 2: be one of the most disturbing investment tales ever. You know,
Speaker 2: two point four two point five million people watching every episode. Now,
Speaker 2: that was a time when you didn't have the internet
Speaker 2: to just easily. I mean, yes there was the Internet,
Speaker 2: but it wasn't anywhere near as effective as it is
Speaker 2: now in terms of researching stuff. But we did have
Speaker 2: this this family disintegration where I don't have my mum
Speaker 2: or my dad, or my granddad or anyone to ask,
Speaker 2: so how do I know what to do and how
Speaker 2: to do it? And I remember being asked by a
Speaker 2: journalist when we were launching money. I was asked, you,
Speaker 2: you've gone from doing sex now to doing money. They're
Speaker 2: so different, really, I said, no, they're identical because they're
Speaker 2: both subjects that people feel they should know lots about.
Speaker 2: They don't know lots about, but they're embarrassed about revealing
Speaker 2: their lack of knowledge. So people won't ask someone else about, Hey, look,
Speaker 2: my husband wants me to do this in the bedroom.
Speaker 2: Do you think that's normal. They won't ask their friend that,
Speaker 2: and they won't ask their bank manager for a better
Speaker 2: interest rate.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I fucking at my house loan.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know. They won't demand stuff in the bedroom,
Speaker 2: and they won't demand stuff in the bank manager's office.
Speaker 2: Or they use car salesfe because they don't feel they
Speaker 2: have the knowledge or the right to do it. So
Speaker 2: any show that came along and gave them a little
Speaker 2: bit of knowledge and our phrase was enough to bluff.
Speaker 2: If you could bluff your way through a session in
Speaker 2: the bedroom, you could bluff your way through a meeting
Speaker 2: with the bank manager. Then it was valuable information and
Speaker 2: the audience lapped it up because we were giving them
Speaker 2: what they really really wanted and needed.
Speaker 1: Interesting though that, you know, we talk about the Internet
Speaker 1: being that space that we can go to now to
Speaker 1: not feel so stupid, so we can gather that information.
Speaker 1: Are there programs that we should be still having on
Speaker 1: television like that though? There are there cornerstones that we
Speaker 1: can touch upon, or are there taboo subjects that can
Speaker 1: be told in real time that you think would be
Speaker 1: palatable on free to air? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Ironically, I was talking about this with a friend not
Speaker 2: long ago, that the Internet and the availability information killed
Speaker 2: the magazine shows and so they morphed into so called
Speaker 2: factual based soap operas like The Block. You're not going
Speaker 2: to learn a thing about renovating watching The Block. It's
Speaker 2: all in the follow up on the go to the
Speaker 2: website you can find that. But it's a soap opera
Speaker 2: with renovation at its core, and that's how they get
Speaker 2: an audience in. But those shows that sort of disappeared
Speaker 2: in information based shows that disappeared because of the Internet
Speaker 2: are probably just as important because now there is so
Speaker 2: much crap on the Internet that you'll get twenty five
Speaker 2: different opinions about what you should do with your bank,
Speaker 2: and so a Paul Clithoro coming along and telling you
Speaker 2: this is how you get a better deal in the
Speaker 2: bank manager's office probably is relevant now no network would
Speaker 2: buy it. Then.
Speaker 1: It's interesting though that you say that, because I think
Speaker 1: about anytime I have something wrong with me, I would
Speaker 1: go to the internet. Maybe ten years ago I could
Speaker 1: probably diagnose myself on doctor Google, but these days you're
Speaker 1: absolutely right.
Speaker 4: It's a conundrum. You know, it's too much.
Speaker 1: Information and it's not the right information and you end
Speaker 1: up going away from it and being like, oh, you know,
Speaker 1: looking back though over your career, you know you've worked
Speaker 1: with so many people who have been facilitators have changed
Speaker 1: when it's come to making content. Who are some of
Speaker 1: the people that you've really collaborated with and it's clicked like,
Speaker 1: I know there's people like David Mott who you mentioned before,
Speaker 1: and Stephen Tank.
Speaker 4: There's lots of people. Is there is there a.
Speaker 1: Person in your mind that you go, Wow, that was
Speaker 1: a synergy between two people and we made good TV.
Speaker 2: Well you mentioned David Mott, Yes, that time of Network
Speaker 2: ten in the early two thousands. I came back from
Speaker 2: working in Britain in two thousand and one and I
Speaker 2: got a three month gig at ten to talk about
Speaker 2: what was happening overseas in television and foreign programming trends,
Speaker 2: and it just happened to be at a time when
Speaker 2: they were looking at their business and saying what do
Speaker 2: we need to do? They were number three sixteen thirty
Speaker 2: nine and they were number three total people, and David
Speaker 2: Mott was excited, enthusiastic. He's unique when he was in
Speaker 2: the programming business because he just loves the business and
Speaker 2: it runs in his veins. You know, He's been in
Speaker 2: the TV business since he left school, has never been
Speaker 2: out out of it, and he the idea of being
Speaker 2: a program at him was just like this, this is
Speaker 2: the best job in the world. I'm making television and
Speaker 2: people were watching it. And so the coincidence of him
Speaker 2: being programmer there, John Mcallipine and the CEO of ten
Speaker 2: decided to get aggressive and chase an audience. Wanted us
Speaker 2: to identify what that audience it was and the emergence
Speaker 2: of fascinating new programming approaches overseas, and so I got
Speaker 2: to know David and eventually stayed there and became a
Speaker 2: head of factual for him. And one of the first
Speaker 2: things we talked about was Big Brother, and at the
Speaker 2: time Big Brother was doing well in Britain and obviously
Speaker 2: had already done well in Europe, and nine and seven
Speaker 2: the networks were chasing it hard. They were sending people
Speaker 2: overseas and everything like that, and ten came to the
Speaker 2: party quite late, but came with such enthusiasm. This we
Speaker 2: saw Big Brother as that pivotal show that could change
Speaker 2: everything for ten, because seven and nine were talking to
Speaker 2: End of Mill overseas about it being a show that
Speaker 2: was going to run nine point thirty at night, maybe
Speaker 2: a couple of times a week, and they were looking
Speaker 2: at it almost with game show producers, whereas we went
Speaker 2: hard and I've never forgotten that the meeting with the
Speaker 2: End of More people in Hilversum in their office in Hilveson,
Speaker 2: this one guy comes in and he was a fairly
Speaker 2: lowly ranked character and he said, I'm not sure why
Speaker 2: you're here. Seven and nine have been talking to us
Speaker 2: for six months and.
Speaker 4: You're late.
Speaker 2: You're late, you haven't shown any interest in the show.
Speaker 2: Why should we be talking to you. It's rude. The
Speaker 2: others are clearly ahead of you. And I said, look,
Speaker 2: I know what they're pitching to you. We are the
Speaker 2: complete opposite. We make one of the world's most popular
Speaker 2: scripted soap operas. It's called Neighbors. We run it at
Speaker 2: six thirty at night till seven. And he said, yes,
Speaker 2: I know, Neighbors. I said, we want to run the
Speaker 2: world's most popular non scripted soap opera straight after it
Speaker 2: at seven o'clock at night, five nights a week, with
Speaker 2: a Sunday night eviction, because we think Big Brother can
Speaker 2: be a family show. We don't think it's a late
Speaker 2: night slee show. We think it's compelling soap opera and
Speaker 2: it will work with us because we have a young
Speaker 2: audience that are ready for this show. Seven to nine,
Speaker 2: and you have to be lie in these things. Seven
Speaker 2: nine have old audiences. They won't get this show and
Speaker 2: they'll just run it late at night. And he just
Speaker 2: looked at me, and I've never forgotten. He said, you
Speaker 2: stay here, and he went out, and about seven people
Speaker 2: in suits came in. We had to move to another room.
Speaker 2: And it turned out that they had been aching for
Speaker 2: someone to see this as not a late night show,
Speaker 2: that this was exactly what they're talking about. What I
Speaker 2: was saying is what they envisaged, envisaged Big Brother being
Speaker 2: a daily soap opera, and it was almost almost impossible
Speaker 2: not to win the bid then, even though we'd come
Speaker 2: in late, because we saw the show the way they
Speaker 2: saw the show, and that's the show we made. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it moved on after that first series, but it was
Speaker 2: a daytime sud and that neighbor's audience stayed straight through
Speaker 2: to Big Brother, and it brought other people, and so
Speaker 2: there are lots of other things we did that made
Speaker 2: it successful, but understanding the audience and what the audience
Speaker 2: was craving was key to it. And that was a
Speaker 2: new time in television, was that younger audience wanted something
Speaker 2: that was theirs to a Big Brother became theirs to
Speaker 2: one because it was on the right network at the
Speaker 2: right time and in the right country and everything just
Speaker 2: it all came perfect storm for that show, There's no
Speaker 2: doubt about it.
Speaker 1: And then, interestingly enough, it's now been on nine, it's
Speaker 1: been on seven, and they've all had a turn, you know,
Speaker 1: and it looks like, you know, different takes of that format.
Speaker 1: But ultimately, I think it never will go back to
Speaker 1: the purest form of that show. And it can't go
Speaker 1: back to the purest form of that show, and that's
Speaker 1: because the show became quite controversial in certain ways. I
Speaker 1: mean the turkey slap, that is one of the things
Speaker 1: that people talk about when they think about Channel ten's
Speaker 1: big brother. But also I thought the Merlin eviction was
Speaker 1: so interesting to watch as well, because that was another
Speaker 1: opportunity for people to see something happening in real time
Speaker 1: that no one had control over, and it felt so
Speaker 1: real and you just think, how did that something like
Speaker 1: that happen? I mean, did Channel ten in any way
Speaker 1: do you think know that Merlin was going to do that?
Speaker 2: Oh God no, no. In hindsight, we wouldn't have stopped
Speaker 2: it if we'd known it, But we would have had
Speaker 2: we known. And it was very it was brilliant. They
Speaker 2: all had their suitcases had to be inspected and people
Speaker 2: were looking for you know, drugs or alcohol or physical
Speaker 2: signs or something that they might No one opened all
Speaker 2: of their t shirts and folded them out to see
Speaker 2: if anything was stuck in there. And he sat on
Speaker 2: that all that time, And I mean, again, that's the
Speaker 2: joy of a show like that. You didn't know what
Speaker 2: was coming, but something was coming, something was always coming,
Speaker 2: and you put that environment and you put a host
Speaker 2: like Gretel Colleen super intelligent quick on her feet, and
Speaker 2: you just ran with it.
Speaker 4: We had a slide hiccup.
Speaker 1: And then Merlin came out of the house.
Speaker 3: As he was walking down the ramp towards the eviction stage,
Speaker 3: he took some black masking tape no War and put
Speaker 3: it over his mouth and held up a sign that
Speaker 3: said free the refugees, which is completely and ugly valid.
Speaker 1: It's still one of my favorite moments to rewatch. I
Speaker 1: go back and watch it on YouTube to watch it
Speaker 1: all happen. And Gretel is so on brand on this show,
Speaker 1: like as in watching her think on her feet is amazing.
Speaker 1: Do you think in some ways though, that she got
Speaker 1: a little bit too close to big Brother? There seemed
Speaker 1: to have been a point where she either had enough
Speaker 1: or the maybe producers had enough of working with her.
Speaker 1: But essentially there was definitely a point where she walked away.
Speaker 2: Well because you pointed out that the show could never
Speaker 2: be what it was in that first year, maybe the
Speaker 2: second year, and it became more of a program where
Speaker 2: to some extent, you were turning a sausage machine wheel.
Speaker 2: Every show does no matter what newsrooms, turn the sausage
Speaker 2: machine wheel. If there's no big news happening, and what
Speaker 2: excited Gretel about the show was the unpredictability, the intelligence
Speaker 2: of the setup. What was possible watching these people unravel
Speaker 2: and then rebuild themselves all live on television in front
Speaker 2: of the nation in isolation. She I think it's sort
Speaker 2: of like got too boring. She wouldn't use the word,
Speaker 2: but it certainly wasn't the amazing experience of those first
Speaker 2: couple of years. And I would say that we were
Speaker 2: lucky to have Gretel for so many years, for as
Speaker 2: long as we did, because it didn't challenge her like
Speaker 2: it did in those first few years. It didn't challenge
Speaker 2: anyone to that same extent because you were making it
Speaker 2: up as you went.
Speaker 1: I think COVID would have been really an interesting thing
Speaker 1: to see reality shows done live, because I think we
Speaker 1: would have been able to see on television people reacting
Speaker 1: the way that we did. And then there was so
Speaker 1: much shows being produced at the time that COVID hit Australia,
Speaker 1: and all of those reality shows were pre recorded, so
Speaker 1: we never got to see a real human moment, We
Speaker 1: never got to interact with something that unfolded as it
Speaker 1: unfolded for us, So that how we felt could be
Speaker 1: seen by other people on television discussing how they felt.
Speaker 1: And I think that's an element of television that's truly missing.
Speaker 2: Oh and that was one of the great advantages of
Speaker 2: Big Brother, that total isolation. Because if they'd gone in
Speaker 2: there when no one knew about it and came out
Speaker 2: three months later with the world lockdown, no one allowed
Speaker 2: out of their houses in parts of the world, that
Speaker 2: would have been gold. That alone would have been worth
Speaker 2: doing the series again in the old way.
Speaker 1: What do you think about now that you've worked on
Speaker 1: all of these shows that are getting rebooted essentially like
Speaker 1: you look at it now, like Celebrity Apprentices to being shot?
Speaker 1: Do you think that they have a place on TV?
Speaker 1: And if they do have a place on TV, what
Speaker 1: is it that you would do differently?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm really torn by this. Instead of doing any
Speaker 2: let's just rehash the old stuff that worked. It work.
Speaker 2: They need to work now. And that's why you're looking
Speaker 2: at audiences are five hundred thousand, not you know, one million?
Speaker 2: You know, And it is part of that fear that
Speaker 2: networks feel of we're a diminishing business. How do we
Speaker 2: keep the money coming in the doors at least till
Speaker 2: we get to retirement and then someone else's problem. I
Speaker 2: think there are shows that are worth doing again.
Speaker 4: Is Celebrity Apprentice one of them?
Speaker 2: No, I don't think so. The audience I think is
Speaker 2: over the celebrity thing because we've seen them eat worms
Speaker 2: in South Africa, We've seen them run around the streets
Speaker 2: in Celebrity Apprentice. We know that if you get the
Speaker 2: right celebrities, there's nothing they won't do. And if you
Speaker 2: get the celebrities the network wants you to get because
Speaker 2: it makes a good promo, they won't do anything. You know,
Speaker 2: they won't get their hands dirty. So I think the
Speaker 2: audience is with.
Speaker 1: That finishing the podcast. I always ask for, like a
Speaker 1: funny story or something you dust off to tell your
Speaker 1: friends over dinner conversation. Is there something that would surprise
Speaker 1: people from back in the day, maybe working on that
Speaker 1: show Sex with.
Speaker 2: Sophie Lee, incredibly intelligent individual, like so intelligent it's frightening.
Speaker 2: I remember going to see her once in her dressing
Speaker 2: room in Melbourne and I walked in and she was
Speaker 2: sitting there in a dressing gown, waiting for makeup or something,
Speaker 2: reading the Asian Wall Street Journal, and I said what
Speaker 2: are you reading. I'm just reading what's going on in
Speaker 2: business in pasi Ah. And you know that the ability
Speaker 2: to work with someone like that's so smart, such a
Speaker 2: good communicator, so aware of the medium and what it
Speaker 2: could do, and then and also so passionate about the
Speaker 2: subject matter. It was great to work with someone like that.
Speaker 2: And I wonder where those sorts of hosts are A
Speaker 2: host like that, like Sophie. Yes they're intelligent, and yes
Speaker 2: they're going to question what you're asking them to do,
Speaker 2: and so they should. But that's hard. It'd be very
Speaker 2: easy to get someone who'll just agree to do whatever
Speaker 2: you tell them to do, but that's, you know, the
Speaker 2: downhill path.
Speaker 1: Well, it's an absolutely a pleasure to have sat here
Speaker 1: and talked to you. I think you have still so
Speaker 1: many stories to tell, and I think you've got a
Speaker 1: lot to educate people, because I think you've got a
Speaker 1: lot to teach people. So thank you for taking the
Speaker 1: time today with me. And I think that other people
Speaker 1: out there that will be listening to this will have
Speaker 1: appreciated as well.
Speaker 2: Soasu're talking to you