Explained: Is RNZ suffering from mission creep?

Sunday, 13 October 2024

Mission creep is thrown around by journalists to describe all sorts of unnecessary expansionism, whether it’s police, politicians, militaries, corporates, inquiries or construction projects.

It’s a great way to explain how something has grown beyond its original intention.

In this explainer, I’m using it to ask a question about a key institution in the New Zealand media landscape: Is our sole public service broadcaster suffering from mission creep?

The state-owned, taxpayer-funded radio station is a public service broadcaster by design. It has a charter that sets out its role. It’s not commercially driven and it’s not allowed to have advertisements on its sites.

RNZ is funded by the Government. This year, it received $73 million. That’s $20m higher than last year - a boost which came after the last Labour Government kiboshed its merger with TVNZ. It’s budgeted to rise to $96m next year as a result of possible asset sales.

Over the last decade, it’s changed its name from ‘Radio New Zealand’ to ‘RNZ’ to better show its focus on all mediums, not just radio. It does video. It does podcasts. It does written stories. It does social media.

As a public service broadcaster, it has the funds and resources to cover stories that commercially-driven media can’t always do. Investigations. Council meetings. Court proceedings. Ultra-local stories. Niche stories. Stories that are in the public interest but don’t necessarily need to be justified based on revenue.

(Not to say that Stuff and the NZ Herald doesn’t do these types of stories. This is a 2500 word piece on a public broadcaster I’ve spent a few days on, and the work my in-depth colleagues do is pretty bloody epic.)

Recently though, a number of media commentators have noticed RNZ expanding into the news mediascape that’s already well-served by commercial news sites. Former NZ Herald boss Tim Murphy and former 3 News boss Mark Jennings have talked about it. So has former NZ Herald editor Gavin Ellis. The Spinoff’s Duncan Greive has spoken about it too.

The crux of it is that RNZ’s news website, which has seen an injection of funding, is chasing audience with stories that aren’t very RNZ-y and it’s coming at the expense of Stuff and NZ Herald. This is despite RNZ’s chief executive Paul Thompson saying last year it would be“a real mistake” for RNZ’s website to become more like the commercial players.

What types of stories are un-RNZy? VMA must-see looks, cocktails celebs are drinking at the US Open, Taylor Swift watches tennis, the model-turned-human trafficker, and whether fruit and veges need to be washed.

It begs the question: What is the rationale of a taxpayer-funded, non-commercial product eating into the traditional space of commercial news media? Why isn’t it spending its money on core ‘public-interest’ journalism?

Is this just RNZ adapting to the volatile mediascape or is RNZ trying to justify its existence by aggressively growing its online audience?

The numbers

Clicks. Clicks are the lifeblood of commercial news websites. The more clicks, the more advertising can be sold for. And when RNZ starts eating into those clicks (and not making money from it), you can see why the bosses at Stuff and NZ Herald might be concerned.

Let's look at RNZ’s growing piece of the shared audience pie based on Nielsen DCM 15+. Shared audiences are people who consume news stories from multiple websites (Stuff group, NZ Herald, 1 News, and RNZ News).

In August 2022 and 2023, 35% of those shared news consumers visited RNZ as part of their media diet. By August 2024, that figure had risen to 56%. That’s a significant jump of people putting RNZ on their plate from the news media buffet who weren’t the year earlier.

RNZ’s unique audience (those who consume news only from RNZ’s website and nowhere else) has moved slightly from 0.9% in August 2022 to 0.7% in August 2023 to 1.7% in August 2024.

It’s worth noting here that this is not audience share. That is a completely different thing and one that’s hard to calculate in the digital space.

RNZ’s daily page views are still miles behind Stuff and NZ Herald. For example, last Wednesday, there were 775,000 page views for RNZ compared to 6.2m for Stuff and 5.6m for NZ Herald.

What this suggests is RNZ’s audience is rather transient and those who read a story don’t stick around on the website to read more. It also suggests this traffic is coming from links posted on social media like Facebook.

RNZ’s strategy

There was talk late last year of RNZ progressing a “new digital experience” that would sit somewhere between Stuff and Facebook. But RNZ chief executive and editor-in-chief Paul Thompson has confirmed that project has been shelved (for now).

“Instead, we are focused on enhancing our current apps, website, social media and broadcast channels. The RNZ Charter requires us to ‘take advantage of the most effective means of delivery’, so adopting a multimedia approach is therefore essential,” he says.

The company has launched upgrades to its audio player and has a new podcast site too. It’s also in the process of updating its 25-year-old editorial software.

I ask if RNZ is concerned its new strategy is cannibalising the market already well served by existing commercial media, and Thompson makes a veiled dig in his response.

“We are prioritising trust, fair and balanced information and the value that RNZ provides – these are different key drivers to those behind other models,” says Thompson.

“What we offer is a distinctive, advertising-free public media choice for audiences. Our mix of content will always look and feel different.”

Why is RNZ paying for Facebook ads?

One way RNZ is trying to drive traffic to their website is through Facebook advertisements. You can see their active ads here.

While social media ad spending happens at Stuff and NZ Herald (to drive traffic, to boost clicks, to sell more ads, which is how they survive), why does RNZ need to do it when there’s no commercial reason for it?

RNZ’s advertising and publicity budget was $762,000 last year, and its spend on Facebook ads “was less than 10%” of this, which means it’s around $70,000. Is that a wise use of taxpayer money?

“[Our Facebook spend] is restricted to paid advertising campaigns for our brand or for the promotion of specific video or podcast programmes,” Thompson says. “We do not pay for boosted posts or for paid advertising for news or opinion articles”.

He adds that RNZ advertises on billboards, buses, street furniture, displays, print, and digital. The point? “Telling people about the content we provide is part of ensuring New Zealanders engage with it where they spend their time”.

Has RNZ’s editorial style changed?

Historically, RNZ has played it straight and safe with its website.

Has that changed? Mark Jennings and Tim Murphy think so. “RNZ has broadened its online offering, changing the types of stories it promotes at the top of its previously hard-news website to also include lifestyle, celebrity and social media-based articles,” they wrote.

One story RNZ is giving prominence to at the moment is the case of P Diddy. They have scores of articles and they’re typically placed high on its website. This is pretty un-RNZ behaviour.

The Spinoff founder Duncan Greive has noticed this too. “Absolutely it has to be covered, it’s just about the prominence given from the state broadcaster. The public is interested in it but is it duplicative of what is already happening?,” he says on his podcast The Fold.

I asked RNZ if it’s prioritising page views over public service journalism.

“No we are not,” says Thompson. “We do, however, prioritise rich engagement with all New Zealanders. If you look at the content you can access through RNZ channels it is incredibly broad, we publish tens of thousands pieces of content every year.”

Is there a new editorial directive towards content that will get clicks?

“This is not a new editorial directive,” says Thompson. “But what probably feels new is that we’re doing a better job of bringing some of this content to the homepage and our social channels.

“We have covered music, entertainment, food, travel, lifestyle and popular culture, alongside our investigative journalism, current affairs, cultural programming and news explainers for decades.”

When asked about the prominence of the P-Diddy story in RNZ’s coverage, Thompson says they’ve always covered stories like that.

“To give one example, we covered the Beatles tour in 1964, something that wouldn’t have been of interest to all of our audience but certainly was to some. More recently, we featured the great high school talent at the Big Sing competition. We will continue to provide a broad and deep range of content that is informative, entertaining and enlightens Kiwis,” he says.

Is RNZ doing anything wrong?

RNZ is governed by the RNZ Charter.

The charter says RNZ needs to “take account of services provided by other broadcasters”. But given websites aren’t technically broadcasting, RNZ’s not in breach of that element.

There’s also a conundrum that if it altered its own coverage because of the concerns of commercial media companies, it could be in breach of this part: “Ensure that it is not influenced by the commercial interests of other parties.”

Ultimately though, RNZ’s purpose is to “serve the public interest”. And that really can mean anything.

“Our Charter states we must take advantage of the most effective means of delivery and the research points to digital media use being a core part of New Zealanders’ daily media consumption,” says Thompson.

“Sometimes there is a misconception that public media should only focus on niche content, but our Charter is very clear that we are here for all New Zealanders and that is very important to us.”

There’s also the case of RNZ’s Statement of Performance Expectations for 2024 which says RNZ’s services “are complementary to and collaborative with private media”. Surely that one is in breach?

“No,” says Thompson. “What we offer is complementary to private media. Our digital offering and our story selection will continue to be different because as a public media organisation we are guided by a Charter that outlines obligations around content.”

He’s also quick to point out that RNZ’s stories are published on commercial news sites - including Stuff - so more people can consume RNZ content.

Are Stuff and NZ Herald worried?

Stuff. It’s not lost on me that I work for Stuff and my livelihood depends on Stuff making money. That’s not my motivation here though - I’m just fascinated by the mediascape.

It’s also not lost on me that a dozen or so former Stuff staff now work at RNZ, which might help explain why it’s becoming more Stuff-like.

Regardless, I reached out to Stuff’s comms team for comment on whether they are concerned by RNZ’s website. They did not wish to comment.

NZ Herald. I reached out to NZME, but after consideration, they didn’t want to comment.

Do politicians care?

As mentioned, Minister Goldsmith is refusing to comment because he is a shareholding minister. So is Associate Finance Minister David Seymour who’s not commenting either.

But ACT’s broadcasting spokesperson Todd Stephenson says RNZ’s approach shows why a state-owned broadcaster may be no longer needed.

“When RNZ competes with commercial media, it has an unfair advantage because it is taxpayer funded and doesn’t run ads. On the other hand, RNZ needs to reach large audiences to justify its funding, and in practice this means evolving and competing.

“There are no good options for RNZ here. This problem raises the question of whether it’s a good idea for taxpayers to fund a media organisation in the first place. ACT is unconvinced,” says Stephenson.

Former Broadcasting Minister and Labour MP Willie Jackson says what RNZ is doing is just par for the course.

“In my view, the potential ‘threat’ of RNZ’s digital experience shouldn’t come as a surprise to Stuff and the NZ Herald, as they too are shifting to online-digital in response to global shifts in news consumption,” he says.

Is Jackson concerned RNZ’s lost its focus of being a public service broadcaster?

“There is always room for improvement. Funding provided certainly makes it clear that they are to create more content that reflects - and is important to - New Zealanders,” he says.

Is RNZ more focussed on clicks? “RNZ does not rely on advertising revenue, so it can prioritise the development of more New Zealand news and content and is able to take risks and trial new ideas,” says Jackson.

Are media commentators concerned?

Knightly News host Gavin Ellis. The former NZ Herald editor doesn’t believe RNZ is cannibalising the current commercial audience and thinks it’s just the market readjusting to the absence of Newshub, which used to be third behind Stuff and NZ Herald.

“We have to be careful looking for simplistic reasons for these things. All bets are off when it comes to those online audiences. The reasons why people go to a certain website are many and varied,” says Ellis.

He believes what’s happening is the result of RNZ choosing one of two paths when it came to its news website. One is a “pure, Catholic approach” where the website solely features public interest journalism that no one looks at. The other option is a “mixed diet to lure people in” and hope those people see the other important stories.

There’s a risk RNZ could go too far though, he says. “It’s a fine balance. They need to be mindful to not let the quest for eyeballs surpass the need for public service journalism”.

Ellis does have a warning for RNZ about its radio audiences. “They ignore that broadcast audience at their peril. They have two audiences now, two very distinct audiences,” he says.

The Spinoff’s Duncan Greive. He says from a radio content perspective, little has changed. “It's still a pretty outstanding product but I speak as a heavy consumer.”

What has changed, he says, is RNZ’s digital offering. While commercial media have had to do more with substantially less, RNZ has enjoyed a near 50% increase in funding. Greive believes that resource is being used to help close the online audience gap between RNZ and both Stuff and NZ Herald.

“The technique that it’s using to do that is very much a commercial technique. It is looking at what is big on search, what is big on social and sort of flooding the zone with that kind of content,” he says.

“I was thinking particularly about very heavy coverage of the P-Diddy trial and the Polkinghorne trial. These are stories that are saturation covered in other media. There's a lot of coverage out there and in terms of RNZ's remit, it doesn’t necessarily fit. [That remit] is to cover this country and really do public interest journalism that isn't being done elsewhere,” says Greive.

He asks whether duplicative stories that add nothing extra - “empty calorie stories,” he calls them - are worth RNZ’s time and effort. Greive believes what it probably comes down to are KPIs issued from the board. That board has just welcomed new members including Brent Impey, the former chief executive of commercial media giant MediaWorks (his partner Wendy Palmer is the current MediaWorks chief executive).

“He comes from a commercial background, and commercial radio background is bent on growing audiences,” says Greive.