text:
Speaker by Various Artists

A strong, credible, innovative and independent TVNZ

by Barney

The following is the John O'Shea Memorial Speech delivered by the head of South Pacific Pictures, John Barnett, to last week's SPADA conference. The conference apparently witnessed some bolder statements than usual from the stage, and there were none bolder than those below.

I can't say if I agree with John's radical prescription for public broadcasting in New Zealand, but I'm very happy to re-publish it here, because John is doing something that I suspect the pending select committee inquiry in TVNZ will comprehensively fail to do: take public broadcasting in New Zealand seriously. So, read on - and by all means have a think - RB.

It's my pleasure to speak today.

This annual address is the John O'Shea Memorial Lecture.

I want to take a minute or two to talk about John O'Shea.

He was, as many people know, a pioneer of New Zealand's screen industry. I think my first exposure to his work was in 1959. This was before television had come to New Zealand - it will be a surprise to some of you that there was a time when television did not exist.
1959's big event was the Lion's rugby tour of New Zealand. John O'Shea's company, Pacific Films, would cover the matches at the grounds on Saturday, process at the Film Unit on Saturday night, write and record the commentary on Sunday and by Tuesday/Wednesday the match was screening in cinemas around the country at lunch times for the equivalent of 20 cents admission.

In 1962 I went to see the New Zealand feature Runaway and in 1964 Don't Let It Get You. I can't say that either of them inspired me to join the film industry, but I was aware that John O'Shea and Pacific Films were the lone voice of a New Zealand film industry.

In the 1970's when I was starting out with Endeavour Productions, I approached John O'Shea to co-produce a documentary series we were planning called Women In Power. We lined up world leaders, all women - Indira Gandhi, Imelda Marcos, Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir and some others - but financing it was difficult and although we made an interesting pilot with Indira Gandhi, the project went no further.

But I learnt several things from John O'Shea.

One was that sheer dogged determination was an essential element of the New Zealand producer's lot.

I also observed how John was available to help people and give advice and support where needed.

And I want to start today by talking about something in this vein.

In the past month, I've been approached on a couple of occasions to assist in raising funds for people in the industry who have become ill. Over the past couple of years, we had quite a number of these requests. For my part, South Pacific Pictures will help where we can, but I've been thinking for some time that as an industry, we need to be much more organized and prepared for these types of requests. When one of our compatriots falls ill, suddenly or gradually, we need to have a mechanism which spares them the indignity and more importantly, the fear that inability to work brings.

I would like to see us all join together to create a Benevolent Fund to cover, or at least assist, anyone who needs financial support.

It would work something like this:

Everyone who works in the industry - crew, actors, producers, directors, writers, post production, etc - would contribute a sum, say $2 per day for every day they worked. This would accommodate freelancers who don't necessarily work every day.

The funds would be invested by trustees, who do this regularly, and the interest would be available to meet the needs of those who contribute.

A different group, representing the various sectors of the industry, would make allocations as needed, and within the funds made available by the financial trustees.

I would suggest that a number of the larger production companies, and post production houses, and the TV networks all kick it off with donations, and that becomes the core capital.

My view is that the core capital should be about $500,000. When the industry is running well, there are over 5,000 people working on a daily basis, that is $10,000 per day, $50,000 per week. Over the first year the fund should add another $750,000-$1 million, and this would continue on into the future. In 5 years time, there could be $3-4 million generating a return which would provide the underpinning for misfortune that sometimes befalls industry people.

This doesn't remove the need for personal requests where necessary, but it would be a mechanism that can provide instant support, and can diminish the initial fears and concerns of people.

It won't work unless everyone buys into it. It needs technicians, actors, writers, post people, directors, producers.

The management of it should be pan industry, with all the guilds represented. For my part, if the one thing that came out of this weekend was a commitment to initiate this, I'd feel that the SPADA conference had been the most beneficial event this year.

So having sown that seed, I will address the main purpose of this speech.

I learned from John O'Shea a healthy and highly developed sense of irreverence and scepticism for the bureaucratic entities which controlled so much of the industry.

John had a stutter which he would use to dramatic effect as he fulminated about those b.b.b.bastards in t.t.television or the F.F.F.Film Unit or the T.T.Tax Department. Of course at that time the F.F.Film Unit was owned by the Government, not Peter Jackson.

So, I would like to speak today in the spirit of John O'Shea and his irreverence and scepticism of those who shape our world.

Where to start?

And who to start with?

It's all very tempting, and there are so many targets, that I could speak for a week, but given the time constraints and the events of the past weeks, I will concentrate on the big one, the one whose performance and presence affects all of us - Television New Zealand.

For the past weeks the papers, TV screens, radios and magazines have been full of the shenanigans at TVNZ.

What may have escaped most of you, is that much of this has been covered in the entertainment pages and the news pages.

Hardly any of it has been covered in the business press.

And yet TVNZ is supposed to be a business - the 55th biggest in the country in terms of revenue last year and its governance is as a Crown Owned Corporation.

But its owner, the Crown, through the Government of the day, doesn't treat it like a business.

What I want to talk about, is the dysfunctional ownership and governance structure of TVNZ, the impact that has on those who govern it, and those who manage it, the media who interact with it and report on it, the public who view it, and the independent production industry who depend on it for a good part of their income.

Let me start by saying that one can't just blame the current Government for the mess.

Yes, they should take some blame - certainly some responsibility - but their actions and reactions are formed by a structure which they didn't devise.

Nor can one lay all the blame at the door of the recently departed CEO, or the Head of News, or the Chairman or the Board. Like the owner, the Government, they are all trapped in models which can't succeed in today's climate.

This month's headlines may focus on Ian Fraser and Craig Boyce, but think back for a moment - Norman Geary, Roseanne Meo, Chris Anderson, Ross Armstrong. For the past 10-12 years, we've had a company where Board and Management have distinguished themselves by their mediocrity, and in some cases, their plain incompetence.

There have been some real successes - Hugh Rennie and Brian Corban as Chairmen, Julian Mounter, Brent Harman and Rick Ellis as CEO's, but their efforts and often their legacies, are eroded and discarded by the continuing procession of inadequate appointees.

Let's look at the media landscape in New Zealand today and the influences that dominate it.

Firstly, it's a global business - news and current affairs appear in our homes, offices, cars within minutes of their occurrence.

They are reported by multiple sources and analysed by even more.

They are delivered by print, radio, internet, television and cell phone. No one medium has the dominance in reporting or analysis.

It is true that over the past 70 years, print then radio then television, each had a period of dominance, but today they all compete and none of them has the upper hand.

The same is true of sport, entertainment, documentary, children's programming, movies and so on. They are all globally influenced - not in a negative way - but in their delivery systems and in their trends and influences. Free to air television is just one of the mediums that deliver these programmes to us. It's obvious to a New Zealand audience that sport, movies and documentaries are not dominated by FTA Television.

It's fairly obvious that when we want information we don't wait for a 6pm or a 10.30pm slot on TV1 to find out about a subject.

So the range of providers and deliverers is wide and ever increasing. To run TVNZ at its optimum you must know about all these, and make your plans with the whole landscape in mind.

Secondly, let's look at the ownership of the competition in New Zealand: - In television it's Sky, TV3, Prime, that is Murdoch, CanWest and currently Packer, although that may change shortly - In print it's O'Reilly, Fairfax - In radio it's O'Reilly, CanWest - In internet it's Google, Yahoo and so on.

What distinguishes those operators from TVNZ? It's not just the fact they are overseas owned. The key thing is that they are media companies, who know what their goals are, who make long term plans to achieve them, who can understand and interpret the landscape and whose boards in turn appoint Chief Executives who can implement those plans.

Contrast that with TVNZ.

The owner, that is the Government, changes its own philosophy on a frequent but irregular basis. Since 1985, it's had 3 entirely different philosophies about what TVNZ should be. In that time there have been at least 6 Ministers of Broadcasting, a number of whom have been allowed to let their own personal views influence the direction, style and content of the organization. And in so doing they've mostly diminished the value of the asset, and left it without the ability to plan long term, and meet the new competition, on either the technology or content fronts.

Over the years, these Ministers have appointed the Boards of TVNZ. Not for their knowledge of the media, not for their understanding of the new technology and its impact, not for their understanding of the advertising market and not for their experience in covering or managing organizations with 1500+ employees scattered across the country and not for their ability to direct a complex business faced with competition on every front.

No, the first criteria is usually determined by political acceptability to the Government of the day. So at least half the competent people are immediately out of contention.

Given Government ownership, and the consequent desire to broaden representation and skills, the Boards are selected with gender, geography, ethnicity in mind. Is this the best way to choose the Board of Directors of a company who fights for its share of the patch on a daily basis?

Calling it the Public Broadcaster doesn't diminish the need to generate $1.2 million per day and find programming that meets audience needs and wants. And having selected the "great and the good" to sit on this Board, they are proscribed from "interfering" in the company's day to day management.

The terms of their appointment are set out by the Crown Company Monitoring and Advisory Unit - CCMAU - whose experience is theoretical, not practical.

Writing in the New Zealand Herald last week, Fran O'Sullivan described the Government rules as a "Significant encroachment on the independence that State boards had previously enjoyed".

The suspicion with which Government and bureaucrats view "business" results in appointments that are seen to be free of conflict.

This is a small county. Restrict yourself to the doctrinaire approach of "no conflict" - perceived or actual - and what do you finish up with? Board appointments of people who know little of the media, or little about business.

And then there's the dynamic of this ill assorted group trying to work together. Strong, independent directors are important in any company, but where the mix includes a majority of well meaning but not particularly knowledgeable people, informed debate just doesn't take place.

I've spoken to directors who have had knowledge of certain areas and they tell me that if they wish to pursue a line of inquiry on any issue, they are often shut down by the group dynamic that occurs when the rest of the Board, and particularly the Chairman, can't enter the debate and very quickly loses interest and moves on to another topic.

Can any Government of the past 18 years tell me which Chairman knew anything about transmission or signal delivery?

So how could they debate about Sky's growth and threat? I know of a couple of Chairmen who refused to talk about anything technological.

Over the past 20 years I've met most of the TVNZ directors. If there's one thing I hear year in, year out from these people it's - "it took me 3 years to understand anything and now my time is up".

How efficacious can they be as Board Members? How can they argue for Public Service broadcasting when they don't comprehend the financial/ technological/content drivers of the business?

In the audience today are many producers who run their own companies. Ask yourselves if you would appoint a selection of good, honest, but ill-informed people to run your business.

I need to stress, I'm not criticising the individual Board members here - I'm criticizing the system that selects and appoints them, and then casts them aside when a Government changes, or when new favours need to be repaid, or just because they've "had a turn".

And here's another thing that ought to be obvious to everyone:

Boards come and go, Chairmen come and go, and Chief Executives come and go, but every day the staff at TVNZ know they have to fill a range of functions - sell ads, schedule them, buy programmes, commission programmes, ensure they are delivered and scheduled, keep the signal transmitting and so on and so on. Without this there is no station. So when new Ministers, Boards, chairs and CEO's arrive with half-baked ideas, the staff - most of whom have seen it all at least 3 if not 4 or 5 times before - just get on with their jobs.

You will remember when the Charter was introduced, and it seemed that not all the staff rushed to embrace it. They were referred to as "truculent".

I wonder how much was "truculence" and how much was the simple realization that just doing their everyday job was critical enough to keep the doors open 24 hours a day.

The Board, governed by its bureaucratic masters, restricted from interfacing with the operations, lacking in knowledge of its core business, is always going to be at a disadvantage. Management with both continuity and knowledge can out manoeuvre it. And unfortunately that's never been clearer than in the last few weeks.

But think back again over the past 15 years, and think of some of the decisions TVNZ Boards have made, and what they've cost the company and the country.

Many of you may not be aware that in 1990 TVNZ owned 35% of SkyTV. By 1997 that was down below 171⁄2% and by 1999 they had sold out completely.

Can you imagine TVNZ's strength today if it still owned 35% of Sky?

We would probably have a number of free digital channels carrying every conceivable kind of public service programming.

We may have been able to influence the carriage of major sporting events.

The company would have had a long term revenue base, isolated from the vagaries of the advertising market.

The list of possible benefits goes on and on.

TVNZ paid well under $50 million for its original stake in Sky, and got back under $150 million from the various sales.

In plain economic terms, 35% of Sky is worth about $850 million today.

So on almost any front you want to contemplate, selling Sky TV hardly looks like the actions of a clever, well informed, media savvy board.

In fact, the 2 Chairs responsible for this short sighted decision - Norman Geary and Roseanne Meo - were supposed to be smart business people. That's why they were appointed - that and their relationship to the Government of the day.

But neither of them knew anything about the media or television and the environment they were thrust into.

And there was another factor which was paramount in these actions. Both Geary and Meo knew that their appointments were only for 3 years at a time. How or why, were they going to take a longer time frame into their decisions?

And to further compound the error, when TVNZ under Meo sold 46 million shares in Sky in June 1999, it accepted $2.75 per share, when there was an alternative offer of $2.90 on the table, and a month later the price was $3.19, nearly 20% higher.

The deal was strange enough for the Stock Exchange Surveillance Panel to ask for an explanation.

And having received $103.5 million for the shares, what did the National Government - the then owner - do? It took $70 million as a special dividend.

Of course the Government's advice comes mostly from the same people in Treasury or CCMAU regardless of who is in power. Have these civil servants indicated an ability to understand this company and its business?

The TVNZ Boards also have another important function and that is the appointment of the Chief Executive.

I don't want to focus on individuals - the press has done plenty of this in the last few weeks - but I will take this opportunity to give some advice to this, and the new Board, and the Government.

I've been doing business with the NZBC, BCNZ, TVOne, South Pacific TV (TV2) and TVNZ for over 30 years. I've been patronized by a few Chairmen who have disappeared, leaving only destruction and I've enjoyed relations with 2 other clever, capable chairs.

I've enjoyed interchange with 3 CEOs and watched others treat the company, it's clients, producers and audiences with disdain, and I've watched some CEO's destroy morale and value.

So I reckon I've got some experience to pass on.

Here are some recruitment pointers for anyone who is contemplating applying for the CEO's job:

1. If your work experience is limited to an organization that gets a cheque once a year from the Government - don't apply.

2. If your experience of employing people is limited to being able to see your whole staff when you step out of your office - don't apply.

3. If you can't prove by your track record that you can get the best out of big egos and suppress your own - don't apply.

If you haven't lead a large and diverse organization spread across a number of buildings in a number of cities - don't apply.

5. If you can't read a balance sheet, understand currency hedging, complex financial transactions and the dead weight of inventory - don't apply.

6. If you don't understand that every ad you don't sell today, can never be sold - don't apply.

7. If you don't understand that programmes you bought 23 months ago, and only played once, will bite you in the bum if you didn't write them off at the time - don't apply.

8. If you don't understand how the new Sky recorder, or video iPod sales and downloads, or blogs, or web casting will impact on audiences, revenue, programme acquisitions and commissions - don't apply.

9. If you don't understand the power of local New Zealand programming, and the need to nurture and encourage a local independent production industry - don't apply.

10. If you don't watch Maori TV, to see the latest in innovation and the new talent of the future - don't apply.

11. If you don't understand New Zealand employment law - don't apply.

12. If you don't understand the relationship between a Board and Management - don't apply.

13. If you don't know how to grow succession - don't apply.

14. if you haven't lead an organization that operates in a highly competitive environment - don't apply.

15. If you do understand and can prove that you understand all those things - not some, but all - and quite a few more, then you might be able to work out how to provide strong public service programming to New Zealand audiences.

My list here is not complete - I'm happy to consult to anyone who wants the full list, but there are three more things I'd say to the Board and its recruiters:

1. Please do proper reference checks. Ask all of the candidate's previous employers for references - not just the ones you think will tell you what the candidate wants you to hear. Does that sound elementary? It might, but I can categorically assure you that TVNZ has hired senior management without checking on their complete history.

2. The choice shouldn't be about a relationship with a politician. It's a business and you need to pick the best person.

3. And how about this: If you don't think the candidate could do Brent Impey's job, why offer them a bigger job at TVNZ?

Look, if the key criteria for the CEO is affinity to an ephemeral politician, the owner is failing to do the best for the business and its public.

Read any list of potential candidates being suggested by the print media and you'll find at least one candidate with the qualification "considered out of favour with the Government".

Run that by me again... I thought the organization was independent? I thought the Board got to choose the CEO? What's the point of having a Board if the Government is going to choose the CEO? I don't know what the reality of the Government pressure is, but all the print media seem to think the decision isn't made independently.

Here's another thing that I think is a real indictment on the process. In the past 20 years, only Brent Harman was appointed to the CEO's position from within the organisation.

Surely it's the sign of a strong organization, and a strong Board, and a wise owner, if it grows its own succession?

Why is it necessary to begin a worldwide search every time a vacancy occurs? What happened to the people inside who understand most of the issues without having to get up to speed?

In most good organisations, Boards keep a keen eye on 2nd level executives, and think about who will be the next leader. If your Board appointment is only for 3 years, what part can you play in growing successors? If the CEO is a short term external appointment, why do they care who follows them and in this business 3 years is a very short term.

Now the current Government has a view about what it wants the Public Broadcaster to do.

In 2003 the Government wrote a paper called "Broadcasting in New Zealand - a 2003 Stock Take". It set out the recent history of broadcasting since the late 1980's, provided a current context, and set out principles for public and private broadcasters.

Now I'm a believer in the Government having a role in the Communications arena and as I'll explain later, I think there are some very simple and efficient ways to do it. But I don't see clarity in our systems when the Government owns the broadcaster.

Let's take the switch from analogue to digital.

This isn't an easy task in any country, but in New Zealand, the Government knows that the costs associated with this will have a big impact on its own asset.

The transmission network could manage the switch pretty much now, but another arm of Government has been set up to investigate whether it's feasible.

So the people who are ready and capable of switching, have to wait until the Government does its review to work out that, yes, we will have to switch, and we're now going to tell those companies how to do what they already know.

And of course, the impact on TNVZ's balance sheet is a key driver in the decision process.

In the 2003 Government Broadcasting paper, there are 4 principles for public broadcasters:

1. Universality 2. Diversity 3. Independence/autonomy 4. Quality

Universality is described as: Public broadcasting must be both technically receivable and socially/culturally accessible to all citizens. It addresses the entire population and seeks to be "used" by as many people as possible. This does not imply the maximisation of ratings on a commercial model, but popularity in the sense that it provides a public forum for everyone in reflecting and catering for the full range of social and cultural interests. Public broadcasting should have universal appeal, and should provide programming across a wide range of genres to meet a wide range of needs (e.g. to "educate, inform, entertain").

Diversity is described as: Diversity and universality are complementary principles. In terms of the genres of programmes offered, the audiences targeted, and the subjects discussed, public broadcasting should reflect the diversity of public interests, and address the whole public through the range and diversity of programmes and of the subjects addressed.

Independence/Autonomy are described as: Public broadcasting should provide a credible forum where ideas are expressed freely, and where information is available, where debate occurs, and where quality is valued and creativity fostered. This is most likely to be achieved where public broadcasters are not dominated by commercial pressures or subject to political influence, and where they are enabled to act in the public interest.

Quality is described as: Public broadcasting strives for efficiency as demonstrated by provision of quality services in terms of individual programmes, channel schedules, and the total range of services offered by public broadcasters rather than efficiency understood simply in terms of commercial considerations. Delivery of quality services to an audience, as distinct from delivery of an audience to a broadcaster, may require the independence of public broadcasting institutions from commercial imperatives.

The argument for public broadcasting institutions that this paper makes is that they can best embody the principles of universality, diversity, quality, and independence and thereby protect and promote the capability for, and functioning of, core values, such as democracy and cultural identity, in ways which private/commercial broadcasters are unable or unlikely to provide.

However, the paper doesn't prove these assumptions at all. It is loaded with suppositions and the words "may" and "could" preface very claim.

I am going to argue that all of these principles for a Public Broadcaster can be addressed as principles of Public Broadcasting and I'm going to suggest that Public Broadcasting is entirely feasible with Private ownership.

Universality - well I think all broadcasters - public and private - want technically receivable access to all citizens.

I also suspect that in these times of competing media they would like to be "used" by as many people as possible.

And if you'll bear with me, I'll show how to cater for a full range of social and cultural interests across the whole spectrum.

The Government paper defines public broadcasting as having universal appeal and capable of providing programming across a wide range of genres in order to "educate, inform and entertain".

A month or so ago, just before the election, I was at the launch of the International Documentary Festival. The Prime Minister took time out of what must have been an incredibly hectic schedule to open the conference.

Relaxing for a moment amongst a friendly audience, she spoke of her interest in screen documentaries.

She reflected that she didn't get much time to watch TV, but when she did, she enjoyed and appreciated the documentaries on the History Channel, Discovery, BBC and National Geographic.

Now I agree with her, but it is interesting that her information, entertainment and education is coming from a private provider not the Public Broadcaster.

Diversity - yes, public broadcasting should reflect diversity of public issues, but currently it's impossible to meet a range with 2 FTA channels. Once again, diversity and range can, and does, come from a range of niche channels - channels which specialise and brand themselves. They can't be met from an FTA schedule alone. It also comes from web casting which provides the most topic selective, and universally available information of any medium.

Independence/autonomy - Now it's sad to say, but I don't believe Government ownership with all the shortcomings I outlined earlier about governance, does provide independence and autonomy.

If TVNZ was telling staff prior to the election that it couldn't close employment contracts until after the election, is this autonomy and independence?

If TVNZ told some people it wouldn't play certain programmes until after the election was that autonomy and independence?

If Board personnel or Chief Executives need approval from on high is that indpendence or autonomy?

Let me be clear - I'm not suggesting for a moment that the Government gave them instructions or even knew about these things. But the fact that the Board or the management thought there might be a problem, doesn't give confidence to the notion of independence.

I'd like to think that the Board were entirely misguided in their understanding of this position, but what does it tell us about their perception of their appointment and their lack of understanding of the medium?

I'd venture to suggest that private ownership in multiple forms is a very capable advocate of independence and autonomy in a democracy like New Zealand.

Quality - The paper suggests delivery of quality services to an audience as distinct from delivery of an audience, is more likely to be the domain of a Public Broadcaster. I don't think there is any evidence of that in our current system.

TV3, Prime and Sky all know that a quality service will attract an audience and I think that TV3 and now Prime have both shown a desire to reach for a quality service. And of course, as long as TVNZ's revenue is ad driven and it plays hardball by acquiring programming way beyond its broadcasting capability and then counter programmes against New Zealand or quality programmes on TV3 and Prime, then this argument is a little hard to sustain.

Again, I'm not criticising TVNZ for acting in an entirely commercial manner, but I am trying to highlight the impossibility of requiring it to meet lofty ideals while both allowing and encouraging it to act in the most commercial manner in its dealings with competition.

The Government's paper postulates ideals but provides no definitive evidence in reaching its conclusions.

Now let's look closer at the Charter.

I don't think it's any secret that I've been a sceptic of The Charter since Marian Hobbs appeared at a SPADA conference and talked about the desirability of local brass bands on our State broadcaster.

I understand a desire to stretch the range and diversity of ideas, audiences and content.

I fail to see why that ideal should be confined to one broadcaster and I fail to see how it's possible to measure any aspect of the Charter.

As I said, I've never been a fan of the Charter and much of my concern stems from the emphases placed on a wide range of requirements. The Charter is required to feature the following 10 aims:

1. Programming across all genres that informs, educates and entertains.

2. Programming that serves varied interests and informational needs and age groups within New Zealand society, including tastes and interests not generally catered for by other national television broadcasters.

3. Programming that contributes towards intellectural, scientific and cultural development, promotes informed and many-sided debate and stimulates critical thought, thereby enhancing opportunities for citizens to participate in community, national and international life.

4. Programmes that reflect the regions to the nation as a whole.

5. New Zealand films, drama, comedy and documentary programmes.

6. Programmes about New Zealand's history and heritage, and natural environment.

7. Programmmes that serve the interests and informational needs of Maori audiences, including programmes promoting the Maori language and programmes addressing Maori history, culture and current issues.

8. New Zealand and international programmes that provide for the informational, entertainment and educational needs of children and young people and allow for the participation of children and young people.

9. Programmes that encourage and support the arts, including progammes featuring New Zealand and international artists and arts companies.

10. and programming of an educational nature that support learning and the personal development of New Zealanders.

Now look at the dictionary definition of "feature" and can someone explain to me how it's physically and technically feasible to "feature" all of these requirements? "Feature" normally means making one thing more prominent than the others. Which of the above 10 is the one which the drafters of the Charter consider the most important? It can't be all of them.

And not just for linguistic reasons. There are 2 constraints that shape the delivery and achievement of the Charter.

One is the sheer limitation of available time to schedule all these worthy items in time slots that ensure they are "featured".

And the other is the one that TVNZ staff rightly complains about - money. Making all this programming will cost money and scheduling a significant proportion of it will lose money.

So let's be under no illusion - TVNZ sits between a rock and a hard place as it tries to deliver all these ideals and simultaneously meet the economic objectives required of the company.

And we all know that if the economic objectives are removed, the Broadcaster will cease to maintain a dynamic, progressive, drive.

Let's look at another reality.

Is there any member of the New Zealand public who knows what a Charter programme is? And leaving aside those of you in this room who have been specifically contracted to make a Charter programme, can anyone here tell me what was the last Charter programme - or indeed the first one - they saw?

What's the point of spending $15 million, or $32 million or whatever it is on programmes if it can't be easily identified and recognised by the public?

Is Frontier of Dreams a Charter programme? Is BBC News a Charter programme? Is Insiders Guide To Love a Charter programme? How does the public know?

I can tell you every programme that NZ On Air has funded or Te Mangai Paho or the NZ Film Commission. Most importantly, I can tell you how much NZ On Air spent on every single programme it funded.

They are proud to tell us they've supported a programme and we feel we get value and connection when we see their identification.

So why does the Government and the Broadcaster hide Charter programming? Why is it all such a secret? How can the public "buy-in" if they don't know? Why should we have to go the TVNZ Annual Report to find out which programmes were Charter funded, and even then the information is incomplete.

If NZOA can identify and quantify every single dollar it spends, why should Government allow a lesser criteria for this mechanism? The general industry view is that Charter is just not transparent. We know that 98 cents of every dollar that NZOA receives goes into programme production. Better than that, we know that on top of the 98 cents, NZOA requires a licence fee from a broadcaster of anything from 10-20% and up. So every dollar to NZOA creates $1.10 to $1.20 of programming.

How does Charter funding compare? Is any of it used to buy foreign programming that doesn't get screened but takes it out of a competitors hands? And if that isn't done directly, is it used to buy programming which used to be bought previously anyway, but the additional money subsidises other competitive activity? How do we know? Is any of it used to fund staff in the Commissioning Department? How do we know? We can see that only about 70 cents in each Charter dollar goes into local production if we dig deeply enough, but where does it all go?

I find the lack of clarity and transparency to be less than ideal.

Now let's look at the Susan Wood saga and it's implications.

I don't care what Susan gets paid and if she worked at TV3 or Prime or Sky or Channel 7, 9 or 10 this wouldn't be a carcass for everyone to have a pick at.

Why is this affair in the public eye? Because the State owns the employer.

Why doesn't the TVNZ Board complain at the astounding comments from various Cabinet Ministers? They can't, they're appointed by those same people.

And why don't they defend themselves against silly comments from the Opposition? Because one day, those politicians may have the power to appoint.

How can the Government claim that there is no political interference and then try to publicly jawbone TVNZ into operational policy?

Given that perception is reality in the world of communications, what do the public think? I'd suggest that the public think that the Government is telling TVNZ what do to and they think that the Government should tell them what to do.

Let me quote from Jock Andersen's article in NBR last week. He says after interviewing Professor Bill Hodge, an employment law specialist and member of the Employment Relations Authority "A challenge (to the ERA decision) is seen by some observers as the prudent course for the extravagant and embattled State owned enterprise if it wants to be seen by the public and its political masters to be serious about containing its high salaries culture."

Hang on a minute...I thought TVNZ was independent of Government influence? I thought the 2003 Stocktake Paper said that an ideal public broadcaster should not be subject to political influence.

Everyone is trapped in a continuous circle and the only way out of the mess is to break the links.

Whether the Government thought it was exercising political interference or not, as an observer, it reminded me of the parents who stand at prizegiving or on the sports field, and tell you how hopeless their kids are, and then are surprised when they don't do any better next year.

And has all the shouting from the sideline increased or decreased TVNZ's audiences? As an observer, you have to shake your head in wonder.

And when the Opposition calls for an Inquiry into TVNZ, they are doing no more than demonstrating that they too have no idea what this business is about. What will an Inquiry prove? Will it show that TVNZ has, in the words of Georgina Te Heuheu, "wasted millions of tax pay dollars"? I doubt it! 90% of TNZ's income comes from advertising and commercial revenue.

The tragedy is that the only reason to call for an Inquiry is to attempt to embarrass the Government. Does that help TVNZ? Of course not.

You can't accuse the Government of diminishing the value of the asset and then call for an Inquiry, without being aware that the process of the Inquiry, regardless of the outcome, will do even more to reduce value and morale.

As I say, it's only more evidence of the imperative of removing the ownership of TVNZ from Government and the political arena.

Although if there is now going to be an inquiry, I will be interested to see how long it takes to figure out that changing your accounting policy on programme acquisitions brings extra costs next year and going forward. The best accounting brains I know tell me it definitely won't be a "one-off, non-recurring charge".

There are other fallouts from the Susan Wood affair and they are being felt in every newspaper, radio station, television broadcaster and production company across the country.

Speaking to my fellow producers who run large operations, I can't find anyone who would have conducted the negotiations in the way these were done.

I'm sure each of the parties will point the finger at the other, but I see it all as a consequence of the ownership structure.

An internal HR and legal team not thinking beyond the paperwork.

A Chief Executive declining to get involved and refusing to let the Board instruct him.

A Board being beaten up by the CEO for exceeding authority.

And an Owner frustrated at its complete inability to do anything other than yell from the sidelines.

I know there will be some of you who may feel I've made my point , so let me move on to a solution.

- We need a strong TVNZ - We need Public Broadcasting. Note I said "Public Broadcasting" not a "Public Broadcaster".

And here is how I think it can be done. There are 2 steps to the solution.

Firstly, I believe NZ On Air is the best instrument of Public Broadcasting that exists in this country and possibly anywhere in the world.

It is efficient, it is transparent and it acts with independence.

It exerts its influence across all the free to air broadcasters because of 2 factors:

1. It has money to subsidise or underwrite local programming: and 2. It works hand in glove with the broacasters in only supporting programming that is guaranteed to play on air.

So part one of my suggestion is to significantly increase NZ On Air's TV budget - double it from $65 million to around $130 million - $35 million of the extra $65 million would come from reallocating Charter.

Widen NZ On Air's brief to enable it to fund an enhanced range of programming, including some current affairs. Programmes like Agenda and Eye To Eye. Programmes that are independent in thought, and which shouldn't be hampered by a Broadcaster that fears its Master.

NZ On Air has very clear guidelines on what it funds. It's remit is "our faces, our voices, our places".

If you run the ruler over the whole gamut of NZ On Air's programme funding decisions, you have to agree that its all public broadcasting. It all meets the criteria of the Charter and the idealism of the 2003 stocktake.

It's reach is universal, it's width is diverse, it's independent and the output is quality.

And by using NZ On Air as the instrument, the New Zealand public is served by gaining public broadcasting on TVOne, TV2, 3, C4, Prime, MTS and some regional broadcasters.

Surely that's more desireable than confining it to TVOne or TV2?

Now let me deal with the second part of my solution and the issues of how TVNZ should be owned, and by whom.

2 weeks ago on Agenda, I said "just sell it" and I know that sent a shiver down a few spines so I want to expand and amplify on what could occur.

Firstly, I don't think it should be sold just to generate revenue from an asset sale - that's not a reason to sell and anyway, the current value is artificially depressed.

Secondly, the process of sale is both lengthy and costly and enormously disruptive to staff, suppliers, advertisers, programme makers and eventually viewers.

Thirdly, in a straight sale, the question of competitive interference in the process brings its own issues, and in the New Zealand media bear pit you can be sure that some competitors would string the process out as long as possible, to weaken the seller's position and the asset itself.

So, a straight trade sale is not going to provide a particularly speedy or positive outcome.

But here's my suggestion:

Lease TVNZ to an independent Operator.

Set the terms of the lease which would include the length of that lease and more importantly the expectations the Government requires of the Operator, as they relate to content and coverage and conduct with its public, and suppliers.

That's about all it needs to do. Because the lease has conditions, the Operator's ability to renew would be determined by its performance of those conditions.

Take a one-off fee up front for the lease period and let the Operator retain the annual profits - the reason not to take an annual return is to preserve the broadcaster's independence and to leave the Government free to devise and implement policy. Whether future government policy affects NZ On Air, or digital policy, or technological change, should be able to be determined without concern as to the annual dividend. Currently the Government requires a minimum 9% on its investment of around $270 million - that's about $24.3 million a year. So the fee should be based on that.

The Government of New Zealand, whatever its political shade, would still own the underlying asset which is the right to broadcast TVOne and TV2. Don't get hung up on the buildings - the Operator would decide whether or not they wanted to keep them or relocate.

Would the Operator run the business down? No, because any commercial businessman would want to extend the lease past its initial lease term.

How would this independent operator aspire to or achieve or maintain Public Service Broadcasting? By a mixture of owner - that is Government - imposed terms and conditions, and by access to the NZOA pool.

How long should the term be? Certainly not less than 7 years, probably at least 11 years.

Set up mechanisms, to enable the Government as owner of the asset, to ensure that it is being maintained but restrict the scope of these to broad brush compliance.

Take TVNZ out of the political football arena.

If the Lessee wants to start new channels, let it make its own decisions. If it wants to pay millions of dollars to staff, that's up to it. It no longer impacts on the Government or the public.

I'll keep reinforcing it; NZOA provides the capacity to meet Public Service Broadcasting, both on the newly leased TVNZ and the other channels.

Leasing the whole operation to an independent party will provide the independence the company needs. It will enable it to plan into the future free of artificial constraints and it will enable knowledgeable, experienced and committed media players to grow and preserve the organization.

Who should get the lease? Well like many things, it's easier to say who shouldn't. It shouldn't be the operator of an existing New Zealand television channel. That's about it.

Does it matter if the operator is overseas owned? Personally I don't think so, if the lease terms are transparent, and the conditions are clear, and New Zealand On Air's funding criteria are met, then the New Zealand public will get the outcome that is desired.

A New Zealand Lessee may sound emotionally attractive, but I'm not sure if it's critical. Remember the outcome that is best for the audience, is likely to be the result of having a strong and knowledgeable operator, rather than just a New Zealand operator. Look at the competition and think about how their international links will keep them strong and up to date on technological developments.

Public Service Broadcasting can be achieved, and it will be achieved under this model.

Something I'm really conscious of, is that I've waded into a minefield and I've been extremely open about my views. But those of you who know me, know that I am prepared to take on these issues.

Someone close to me said before the speech, "how do you think they'll react?".

I'm sure some people will be grumpy - probably quite a few. But as I've said several times throughout this morning, I believe the system has created the problems and the blame for that can't be laid at any individual's feet.

From a practical point of view, the issue of a lease should require a lot less due diligence and disruption than a sale, and of course given the desirability of TVNZ, it is possible to limit the scope and duration of the process. Any potential Operator knows how the business has performed, what the ad market is like going forward over time, what the competition is likely to do, and what the Government is seeking to require of the Operator.

In truth I'd like to believe that the governance issues of TVNZ could be managed. But everywhere you go, you see how it is treated by the Government and Opposition of the day and my suggestion is an attempt to free it from this system.

My proposal does break the paradigm, but so did the innovative approach that the Labour Government took when it deregulated broadcasting and introduced NZ On Air in the late 1980's.

I'm going to go for broke and suggest that politicians, TVNZ Directors and Executives and the media all look at Point 11 of the 2003 Ministry of Culture and Heritage Stocktake Paper which says:

"Public broadcasting should provide a credible forum where ideas are expressed freely and where information is available, where debate occurs and creativity fostered."

I would hope that my observations and suggestions would be received and discussed in this environment and that personal agendas and political position taking would be put aside to prove that:

a) We live in a democracy; b) We are interested in free expression and debate; and, c) A strong, credible, innovative and independent TVNZ is important for all of us.

Thank you.


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: text/html

WARC-Type: response

text:
Speaker by Various Artists

The Future

by John Palethorpe

The latest Coen Brothers offering, Hail Caesar!, is a screwball homage to fifties cinema, a careering narrative where in the end almost nothing has changed significantly. Integral to the story are a group of communist screenwriters who first befuddle and then convert George Clooney’s wonderfully gormless matinee star, Baird Whitlock.

To anyone who has attended a left study group or party meeting, it would have all seemed hilarious and yet utterly haunting. The faith in the all powerful dialectic, the academic sterility of the arguments and the unshakeable belief in the theories which explain the past, the present and also predict the future.

The sheer inscrutability of it all to someone not fully immersed and saturated, leaves newcomers with two choices; either fully commit or get the hell out. It’s a gorgeous microcosm of politics as a whole in fact, or at least it seems that way sometimes. Politics is a hierarchy of the serious where your position within the hierarchy is often determined by how seriously other people in politics take what you say.

Politics is attritional. The vast majority of the public seldom care about the daily grind, the seemingly never-ending warfare of examining every interview, commenting on every issue and become increasingly angry, frustrated and isolated when nobody listens to you. This oft-mentioned beltway, or bubble, extends far beyond the Beehive and encompasses the whole grinding industry of political commentary. And most people, most people, don’t have the time to commit.

But we’re all committed, in a helpless fashion, to the future. The future provides us with the particular pleasure of prediction, the chance to exercise the art of telling a story that hasn’t happened and may never. Possibility lies in the future, hope too. And dread, mind you.

Prediction is a game we can all play, it’s a game we all play. There are no losers, unless you consider guessing wrong a dreadful affront to your intellect. So here’s some questions about the future to consider, I’d be fascinated to have your opinion on them;

What does a post-Key National look like and who is in charge?

United Future

Will Peter Dunne become the Hone Harawira of the 2017 election? What does that mean for coalition maths.

Will the Maori Party be able to continue its role as everyone’s coalition partner if they lose any more seats?

Can David Seymour revive the party in an electoral sense, and is he relying on peeling off soft National voters to do so?

Are they ready to win yet, or, can they establish the look of a Government in waiting by 2017? If not, is it Jacinda time?

With Green issues increasingly going mainstream, how can that be translated into electoral success? If it can, where do those votes come from?

New Zealand First

Can NZF continue to punch above its weight without the redoubtable Mr Peters in charge?

Can they come back?

22 responses to this post

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.

warcinfo:
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-24
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May/June 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-88.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.16 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/


text:
0 people discussing
0 people discussing

Add a description

Sorry, no map is tagged with water-samples. You can view other maps here.

Public Lab is open for anyone and will always be free. By signing up you'll join a diverse group of community researchers and tap into a lot of grassroots expertise.

Sign up


WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: application/xhtml+xml

text:
Will Third Candidate Be Stalking Horse?

As this is written, Park Ridge is looking at only its second contested mayoral election in more than two decades, with incumbent Mayor Howard “the Coward” Frimark and Ald. Dave Schmidt (1st Ward) already announced and campaigning.  But last week’s Park Ridge Journal reported some additional intrigue, as an unidentified woman showed up at City Hall to pick up not one but two nominating packets.

From our years of watching Park Ridge government and politics, we know that many things are not as they appear on the surface.  That’s why somebody anonymously picking up two candidate’s packets a scant couple of weeks before the filing deadline raises a number of questions, especially where there already are two mayoral candidates who have staked out positions which provide the voters with some pretty clear choices.

So we’re going to take a page out of the kinky political playbook of our neighboring community, Daley-ville, and rhetorically pose the most fundamental (albeit compound) political question to that mystery woman: “Who are you, and who sent you?”

That’s an important question because a third candidate entering into an already-contested mayoral race will inevitably take votes away from one candidate or the other – which is why the kinky political tactic is for an existing candidate, usually the incumbent, to welcome into the race a third candidate (known as a “stalking horse”) whose positions will align more closely with the opponent’s and thereby divide voters hostile to the incumbent into two minorities which will be easier for the incumbent to defeat, often with less than 50% of the vote.

The fact that the mystery woman took out two nominating packets, however, is unusual because it is unlikely that two candidates competing for the same office would send in one person to get their packets.  Instead, it suggests that each of the two packets was for a different race; i.e., one was for mayor and the other for city clerk. And that suggests the possibility of a return of the Homeowners Party, or perhaps a clone of it operating under a different name.

The Homeowners (or “HO,” for short) Party was founded in the 1970s and led for almost two decades by the late Park Ridge mayor and state senator Marty Butler.  Under his leadership, the Party actually stood for something [pdf]: preserving the residential character of our community, maintaining a level of excellence in our infrastructure and services, protecting our homes and businesses, the tight control of spending for maximum effectiveness at a reasonable cost, and accepting responsibility for the results of their stewardship.

But by the time of Butler’s death in 1998, the Homeowners Party had become unfocused, complacent and irrelevant – ignoring Butler’s founding principles and becoming more of a social club where who you knew was more important than what you knew and believed.  And with titular party leader, then-Mayor Ron Wietech, obsessing over all things O’Hare and ignoring most else, by the April 2003 election the voters had had enough.

They rejected five of the six Homeowners candidates involved in contested races: Anita Rifkind garnered only 32% of the vote in the 1st Ward; Brian Kidd, 14% in the 4th; incumbent Steve Huening, 28% in the 5th, Vince Fontana, 47% in the 6th; and Steve Henley, 17% in the 7th.  The only HO to win a contested race that year was incumbent Rich DiPietro (2nd Ward), whose margin of victory was a slim 21 votes out of a meager 575 cast.

After that, the remnants of the Homeowners Party basically went underground and have not run a slate of candidates since.  But the Illinois State Board of Elections reports that the HO organization – known officially as the “Homeowners Campaign Committee” and overseen by Chairman (and former Park Ridge alderman and Dist. 207 board member) J. Roger Crawford and Treasurer John Heerman – still had almost $16,000 in its account as of its latest public filing [pdf].

In recent weeks rumors have been floating around that some of the HOs have been meeting and re-organizing, with the goal of fielding a mayoral candidate.  Illinois election law (as we understand it), however, requires that any party wishing to run a candidate in a local election must also field candidates for all other offices for the applicable governmental body appearing on that ballot.  So for the HOs to field a mayoral candidate, they would also have to field a candidate for City Clerk.  That could explain the two nominating packets.

As a further sign of the oblique nature of local political alliances, back in 2003 the HOs picked Kidd over Frimark for 4th ward alderman despite Frimark’s having been a long-time HO who had even donated $450 worth of “Packers Game Tickets” back in 2001.  And in looking at the HOs’ financial reports for the last two campaigns in which they ran a slate of candidates – 2001 [pdf] and 2003 [pdf] – you’ll see names of HO contributors (e.g., Crawford, DiPietro, Huening, James Davlin, Dawn Disher, Owen Hayes and John Kerin) which also turned up in Frimark’s 2005 mayoral campaign finance reports [pdf].  That would indicate Frimark and the HOs have buried whatever hatchet may have been laying around since 2003.

So if another mayoral candidate does enter the race in the waning hours before the filing deadline, it might be worth asking him/her a variation of the question we addressed to the mystery woman who picked up those two candidate’s packets last week: “Who are you, and why are you running?”

Because we think the chances are pretty good that such a candidate very well may be a HO, either in full HO regalia or camouflaged to avoid any residual HO antipathy that may still be in the air.  And because we’re pretty sure that such a candidate, whether HO or faux, is far more likely to be a stalking horse for taking votes away from challenger Schmidt than to be the second coming of Marty Butler.


text:
IAG Report 1/2018e The integration of safety and health into education

Nur online als PDF zum Download erhältlich.

  • 2018.04
  • DGUV
  • Englisch
  • p012702

"The European Network Education and Training in Occupational Safety and Health (ENETOSH) offers a platform for systematic knowledge-sharing on issues concerning education and training in occupational safety and health. The ENETOSH network of OSH and education experts currently has 888 examples of good practice on how to integrate OSH into education and learning processes at different life stages.

This study contributes to ‘practical evidence’ of the integration of OSH into education and learning processes at four levels of education (pre-school/school, initial vocational education and training, higher education, and continuing vocational education and training). The study facilitates access to good practice examples, identifies good models and recommends future action for practitioners, disseminators and decision makers."

Infoline der Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung: 0800 6050404
Anfrage per E-Mail


text:
Now, Alia Bhatt enters the singles club

Now, Alia Bhatt enters the singles club
Alia Bhatt
Soon after she made her singing debut with the lilting melody Sooha Saaha, an AR Rahman composition for Imtiaz Ali’s 2014 directorial, Highway, Alia Bhatt has been on the radar of music lovers. The 26-year-old actress soon followed up this song with Samjhawaan Unplugged, from Shashank Khaitan’s Humpty Sharma Ki Dulhania, a version of Diljit Dosanjh’s Ikk Kudi from Abhishek Chaubey’s Udta Punjab, Love You Zindagi for Gauri Shinde’s Dear Zindagi and Humsafar for Badrinath Ki Dulhania. Now, Mirror has learnt that the actress is expanding her repertoire with a series of music videos, starting with Prada, a single composed by the musical duo, The Doorbeen, who hit pay dirt with their 2018 song Lamberghini.

According to a source close to the development, Alia not only features in the music video but has also given playback for it. “This is the first time that she is crooning a non-filmy song. Bosco (choreographer-turned-filmmaker Bosco Martis) has directed Alia,” informs the source, adding that the video was shot at a city studio before the actress flew to Ooty for a film shoot. “The catchy song features Alia dancing with international back-up dancers with car spare parts, bike tyres, an STD booth, photo-frames, radio set-pieces and a guitar, among other things, forming the backdrop.”

On the acting front, after finishing her father, Mahesh Bhatt’s film, Alia will commence work on Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s Inshallah, which features her as a 20-something aspiring actress to Salman Khan’s 40-something Orlando-based businessman. The actress also has Ayan Mukerji’s fantasy, Brahmastra with her beau, Ranbir Kapoor, SS Rajamouli’s multi-lingual period-drama, RRR and Karan Johar’s epic, Takht co-starring Ranveer Singh, which is expected to go on the floors early next year.

You may also like to watch:
Alia Bhatt to romance Ram Charan on screen
Alia Bhatt to romance Ram Charan on screen

Recent Messages ()

Please rate before posting your Review

Sort By:
Be the first one to review.
We have sent you a verification email. To verify, just follow the link in the message
POLLAs schools and colleges move to online education, should educational institutions offer a partial refund?
Pick your favorite and click vote
4 + 2 =


text:
Lightporter (IDIA, #2) by C.B Cook *Blog Tour

I was excited to find out that next book of the IDIA series by C.B Cook was being released, and I was able to participate in the blog tour! I know, I know. I’ve been doing mainly blog tours lately, but I just enjoy spreading the word about a wonderful new book. Let’s get to the review!

Albany and her twin sister, Brooklyn, have gotten more comfortable in the superhero world. But when Blaze starts acting secretive and weird monsters attack, the girls realize there is more going on that they still don’t know about. Before long, they discover that Blaze is hiding something—or someone. With FOE still hiding in the shadows, the girls must decide who they can trust… before it’s too late.

Buy on AmazonAdd on Goodreads

Title: Lightporter

Series (if applicable): IDIA

Author: C.B Cook

Publisher (if applicable): N/A, indie author

Genre(s): Superheroes, Contemporary, Young Adult, Science Fiction, Fiction.

Recommended Age: 12+

My Rating: four stars

My Review:

I have a hard time finding a great and original superhero series. Most of the ones I attempt to read just fall short of my expectations. Lightporter was not the case this round! I was super excited to come back to the characters I had gotten to know in the first book (Twinepathy review here), and I wanted to get to know each of them more. I have to admit I really enjoyed this book more than the last one, and the title was so clever!

Albany, the main character who’s point-of-view is focused on in this book, was someone I sort of liked. She wasn’t necessarily a favorite of mine, but I still want her to somehow end up with Blaze. Anyways, she certainly acted a bit rashly, but that’s is realistic in certain situations. I like her relationship with her sister. You don’t see those enough in books these days.

Blaze was still one of my favorites, and although I had hoped for some more dirt on his backstory this round, we did discover some pretty neat facts such as Ember and the mysterious agent. I still wonder what his real name is, and I hope we’ll see some more of his backstory at some point in the next book. I wonder where he lives and who is family is. Pretty much all that stuff xD.

I thought it was nice for Anvil (Cade) to get some of the spotlight this round. His cookies sound so good (and it’s awesome to discover his recipe in the back of the book). I’m still wondering what his dark past was… I’m also wanting some dirt on him.

I was disappointed that Denver and his parents as well as Ezra weren’t in the book as much this round, but I understand having to balance characters and making sure they have a purpose (instead of being that random one that is useless xD). The story was great overall, but we never got some closure from the memory-loss thing in the previous book.

I think this would be a great read for most people, but there is some violence and that is one of my reasons for recommending it for 12 and older.

Content Warnings: Violence (such as kicking lizards, fighting, etc); Some very, very light mentions of romance (recalling a character use to date this person, Albany being teased about jealousy, etc.

About the Author

C.B. Cook is just a girl trying to find out where her King is guiding her, while writing the stories of the people she creates, the worlds she wants to live in, and the adventures she dreams about. Also known as a mysterious creature called an “author.” She’s a Christian and a home school graduate dedicated to changing others’ lives through the power of the written word.

IDIA Group Pinterest Board:

Twinepathy on Amazon:

Tour Schedule

Monday, June 11th

Writefury – Character Interview and Lightporter Review

Dreams and Dragons – Twinepathy and Lightporter Reviews

Light and Shadows – Book Spotlight and Author Interview

Tuesday, June 12th

Reading Anyone – Lightporter Review

Wednesday, June 13th

Home With Hummingbirds – Character Interview and Book Spotlight

Thursday, June 14th

Ashley Bogner – Author Interview

Faith Blum – Book Spotlight

The Page Dreamer (Deborah O’Carroll) – Lightporter Review

Friday, June 15th

Lights And Shadows – Friday 5s: IDIA Edition

(YOU ARE HERE) Purely By Faith Reviews – Lightporter Review and Book Spotlight

Saturday, June 16th (Release day!)

Marlene Simonette – Lightporter Review and Book Spotlight

Dreams and Dragons – Character Interview

Elven Padawan – Lightporter Review

FTC DISCLOSURE: I received a complimentary copy of this book. A positive review was not required. These are my honest thoughts and opinions. Check out my Amazon Afflilate Link and Reviewer Disclaimer pages.

5 thoughts on “Lightporter (IDIA, #2) by C.B Cook *Blog Tour

  1. OOOh, so you ship Blaze x Albany tooooo?? Nice!!
    I know C. B. has said she’s not really going for that right now, but man, I can’t help but root for it so much!! They’ve got one of those great friends/teammates-that-could-go-deeper relationships that I’m such a sucker for. XD

    Liked by 1 person

      1. I know that she mentioned in the comments section of her blog a little while back that she’s not ready to get them together yet… (I don’t know if you read the short story with Albany, Blaze and Denver that she posted on there? But when she put that up, I believe I remember one of her fans replying that they didn’t really ship Blaze and Albany [because Denver was seeming to do so in the short story], and C. B. mentioned that she doesn’t do so either, and probably won’t get them together for a long time.) But hey, who knows!! Perhaps she’s simply trying to throw us off the trail, or maybe she’ll have a change of heart and the characters themselves will convince her to canonize it for us.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


text:
“Social media advertising has been an effective way for us at Buffer to boost website traffic around top performing blog posts, strategic marketing initiatives, landing pages, and even our podcast. In the past year alone, we’ve used Facebook and Instagram advertising to generate more than 100,000 unique targeted visits to our website for less than $0.25 per click, which has resulted in thousands of leads and hundreds of new customers. Plus, it has had a huge impact on brand awareness and word-of-mouth marketing.”.
A great SEO setup out of the gate is like studying for a test you already knew you were going to ace. You’ll look good either way. Just remember that, like Rome, your website’s ranking won’t be built in a day. Although the tips are 100% sure, it takes time to apply and consistency in your efforts, by regularly uploading fresh and quality content to your site. Patience is the (key)word here.
It’s not enough to just share content through social channels – you need to actively participate in the community, too. Got a Twitter account? Then join in group discussions with relevant hashtags. Is your audience leaving comments on your Facebook posts? Answer questions and engage with your readers. Nothing turns people off quicker than using social media as a broadcast channel – use social media as it was intended and actually interact with your fans.
“It’s all about studying. Studying what people search for in terms of the topic that you are targeting. If there are a lot of searches, you might want to create an article that would cover most of them. If there aren’t a ton of searches around a particular topic, then there isn’t much opportunity to have your page rank for several keywords and bring you a healthy amount of search traffic.”

Hack #1: Hook readers in from the beginning. People have low attention spans. If you don’t have a compelling “hook” at the beginning of your blogs, people will click off in seconds. You can hook them in by teasing the benefits of the article (see the intro to this article for example!), telling a story, or stating a common problem that your audience faces.
Great post Matt, I am just getting more into traffic and seo so reading through most of your content… Just tested my site and it wasnt too good 54/100 mase some changes on the images and now 68/100 with more suggestions to improve on, which I will need to learn more about … I have also added a large image on Yoast seo for Twitter so will see how that goes too… Thanks Again :)
Thanks for the very, very in-depth article. I am a real estate agent in Miami, Florida and have been blogging all-original content for the past 21 months on my website and watched traffic increase over time. I have been trying to grow my readership/leads/clients exponentially and have always heard about standard SEO backlink techniques and writing for my reader, not influencers. Recently, I have had a few of my articles picked up and backlinked by 2 of the largest real estate blogs in the country, which skyrocketed visits to my site. Realizing what I wrote about, that appealed to them, and now reading your article, I am going to continue writing in a way that will leverage those influencers to help me with quality backlinks.
Make it easy to dive deep into your site: As an expert in your industry, you should share your knowledge and insight with others. Not only is this valuable for your readers, but it provides a great opportunity for you to advertise your business within a blog. Make sure the process for a reader to access your website from your blog is effortless. Add links to other pages (your store page, for example) within your article to keep the reader on your website.
Number two is http://flickr.com, a photo sharing site. To get traffic with this site you have to create interesting, niche targeted images or take interesting niche targeted photos or screenshots, sign up, upload the photos using proper tags (keywords) to make the traffic targeted, and say in the description of the photo: “Feel free to use this image, but give credits to http://www.yourwebsite.com.”, and then you’re getting permanent, targeted, free traffic forever from people sharing your photos and crediting your link.
In addition to maintaining a robust social media presence on your chosen platforms, joining social media groups can help you get your brand in front of new audiences and show your industry expertise. Find and join groups related to your industry and volunteer to answer questions or provide insight to create relationships, build brand awareness, and generate website traffic.
While Facebook’s organic reach continues to decrease, as Facebook prioritizes posts from users’ friends and family members, that doesn’t make this platform less of a powerhouse. You can obtain website traffic from Facebook groups, Facebook Ads, Messenger, social media posts, and of course your own business page. For online store owners, you can promote products in buy and sell Facebook groups to help ensure you receive website traffic from people who are interested in buying your products. Also, by combining Facebook ads with consistently posting on your Facebook page, you’ll increase the chances of getting website traffic from various areas in Facebook. Feel free to check out the Facebook Chat app, as you can share links to product pages or blog content to potential and actual customers.
Social media is one of the most popular free marketing tools around, and plays a role in driving traffic to your website. Use Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn to promote blog posts and other useful content on your website. This way you can get your social media followers to your site, as well as users who follow the people who share your content. Creating useful content is free, and is not as hard as it may seem. You are the expert in your product/service; your job is to simplify it for your audience.


text:
In | Socialbaker

Human beings are social creatures, and therefore, are dedicated to creating and participating in “social networks” in order to express and share their ideas. With the rise of the internet, people began satisfying this natural necessity in online communities such as internet forums. The evolution of these social forums resulted in today’s global social networking.

Today, everyone has heard of the most popular social network– Facebook – but there are many more social networks than solely Mark Zuckerberg’s popular website. Some of these are designed for sharing information, some can help you find a new job, some are used for sharing videos, music or pictures, and some are uniting members of a particular interest. Here is a list of the most interesting social networks there are and what makes them so remarkable.

Facebook logo As previously mentioned, Facebook is known to almost every internet user. Facebook is a global social network, which hundreds of millions of users use to connect and share content. Currently, Facebook has more than 900 million users. After registering on Facebook, you may create your own personal profile and add friends that you want to share status updates, photos, videos or chat with. Furthermore, there are Facebook Pages, which you can ‘like’ to become part of a community that has a common interest – favorite actor, popular brand, favorite company, etc. You must be at least 13 years of age in order to create a Facebook account.

Twitter logo Twitter is a social network, but is drastically different than Facebook. It is a micro-publishing system, which allows you to compose short messages of 140 characters that are known as “Tweets.” To create your own Twitter community – you can ‘follow’ someone in order to receive their Tweets in your news feed or you can be ‘followed’ by others and they will receive your Tweets. Another special characteristic of Twitter is the use of hashtags in order to reach a larger audience. By using a hashtag symbol (e.g. #Twitter), other Twitter users that are following that particular hashtag are more likely to see your Tweets.

YouTube logo Although YouTube is not considered a social media platform, it has social media characteristics and is very popular, thus making it worth mentioning. YouTube is a video-sharing website where you can view, share, upload, comment on, like or dislike videos. The majority of the content that is uploaded to YouTube originates from individual persons. However, there are many official YouTube “Channels” for companies, bands, singers, etc. In order to upload, comment or like/dislike videos you have to create a YouTube account. However, unregistered users are still allowed to watch videos. YouTube is included in this list, because it has its own community and similar to other social networks, you can “like” content, interact with other users, and follow the Channels that you find interesting.

LinkedIn logo LinkedIn is a social network designated for “professionals.” This means that part of your LinkedIn profile that is most important is your career, jobs, education and other skills. Many users are no longer sending the traditional Curriculum Vitae to their potential employers; instead they are sending them a link to their LinkedIn profile. Surprisingly, many employers are even requiring job candidates to provide their LinkedIn profile with their cover letter. Besides allowing you to publish your CV, LinkedIn allows users to join groups, use applications, post your business references, and search for any type of business contact. Additionally, this business social network is an invaluable tool for managers and human resource directors. This social network helps many HR officers and headhunters search a large pool of potential employees. However, the basic LinkedIn profile is limited in function. If you want more advanced options then there is a monthly user fee.

Google + logo Google+ is one of the newest social networks, launched by Google in June 28, 2011. The server presents itself as a service that can help you stay in touch with your friends and acquaintances, and discover new interesting people. Once you will register to Google+, you can fill in your personal information, upload your profile picture, add photo albums from Google Picasa Web Albums, and connect your Google+ profile with your Twitter profile and much more. Moreover, you can communicate either just with one of your friends, groups of people, or you can speak to the “whole world.” Depending on your privacy settings you can allow anyone to see your status updates or comments. You also have the option of reading status updates of others even if they are not one of your friends.

Instagram logo Instagram is also a relatively new social networks – launched in October 2010. It is a smartphone application that allows you to take photos, apply various digital filters to a photo, and you can share them with other users on Instagram or other social networks. What differentiates Instagram from other services is the square shape of all the photos, in comparison with the usual 4:3 ratio from regular cameras. In April 2012, Facebook acquired Instagram for a billion dollars.

Pinterest logo Pinterest is a very unique social network. On Pinterest, you have a virtual pinboard, where you can create, manage and share image collections that are related to a particular topic – hobbies, interests, household, etc. Once you are registered, you can browse other users’ pinboards, “like” their photos and “re-pin” their images to your own pinboard. Founders of Pinterest believe it should “connect everyone in the world through the ‘things’ they find interesting.” You can use Pinterest to decorate your home, organize your wedding or search through food recipes. Pinterest has been particularly successful amongst the female demographic.

Yelp logo Yelp is another unique social network, which was founded in 2004. It helps you to find great local businesses like restaurants, hair saloons or shops. As a Yelp user, you can search reviews of local businesses as well as write your own review based on a past experience. Moreover, you can use Yelp to look for various events, lists or just chat with other users. Every business can establish their own account to share photos and messages with other users. Similar to other social networks, the majority of Yelp reviews come from advertising that businesses are purchasing. This has resulted in Yelp receiving criticism that advertisers are affecting the reliability of Yelp’s ratings and reviews. However, Yelp has clearly stated that no one, including paying advertisers, can change or tamper with existing user reviews.

SoundCloud logo SoundCloud is an online sound-sharing service that allows you to record, upload and share music or other audio recordings. Recording and uploading songs to SoundCloud can be done either privately, with specific individuals, or you share them publicly on websites or social networks. The reason SoundCloud was included in this list is that any user can find, create or share music or audio recordings amongst a large number of groups that cover every genre or style. Thus, you can stay in touch with people that are interested in the same music genre, listen to people that are contributing in this genre and comment on the songs or recordings of others.

Flickr logo Flickr is an online photo-sharing and image/video hosting service that allows you to share photos and videos with your friends or others and you can organize the photos in an original way. You may also grant permission to others to organize photos, add notes below a photo or tag photos. You can use Flickr to discover photos from other people, organizations and companies such as NASA. You may also comment on other photos and create a specific community with the people that are sharing your photos.

Badoo logo Badoo was launched in 2006, and today is one of the largest social networks for meeting new people. Badoo’s founders state their mission is “to provide the world’s easiest, fastest and most fun way for people to meet each other.” Thus, Badoo is mainly a dating-focused online service – users of Badoo can chat with each other, set up dates and rate others pictures. Badoo has some 160 million users making it the largest dating-focused social network. Even though, it is open to people that are 18 and higher, there has been criticism that there are a lot of younger users.

Flixster logo Flixster is an online service that combines social networking and movie reviewing. As a Flixster user you can share movie reviews, discover new movies, learn about movies you don’t know about and get in touch with people that are interested in the same movies and movie genres as you. In addition, you can integrate Flixster to your Facebook profile so you can share movies with your Facebook friends, discover movies that your friends are watching and add movie reviews to your Timeline. Furthermore, in 2008 Flixster introduced a new iPhone application, which allows you to access movie reviews, trailers and show-times.

Classmates logo is one of the oldest social networks – it was launched in 1995. This social networking service allows its users to reconnect with their friends, acquaintances and, as the name suggest, classmates from kindergarten through University. At first, the service was designated for American users from American schools and businesses. However, soon the service spread worldwide and now is helping people find their “lost” friends and former classmates not only in United States but also in Canada, Austria, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, France and American/Canadian Schools overseas.

Myspace logo Myspace is a social network launched in August, 2003. At one point, Myspace was the most visited social networking site, surpassing Google as the most visited website in the US in 2006. Shortly after Myspace was surpassed by Facebook in terms of unique visitors and since then, its user rate has constantly declined. In spite of this failure, Myspace set the foundations of today’s mass media social networking services, including its gaming platform that started the success of the present social networking games giant – Zynga. Moreover, Myspace has its own Instant Messenger – MyspaceIM, which is an independent program for Windows as well as a web-based client. You have to be older than 14 years to be able to register to Myspace.

Deviantart logo DeviantART was launched in 2000 and is an online social network for artists and art enthusiasts. It is the largest social networking service of its kind. DeviantART aims to gather, entertain and inspire artists; it is there for them to showcase their work and discuss it with others. DeviantART also integrated chat capability features. As a registered user, you have your own profile, where your works are organized in a category-like structure including digital art, traditional art, photography and even movies. Moreover, you may download numerous stock photos and tutorials.

Foursquare logo Foursquare is a geo-location based social network. The service is designed primarily for smartphone users and other mobile devices. Foursquare allows you to “check in” at various places using the application for devices that support geo-location. The application offers you a list of places nearby and you just click on the one that you are currently in to “check in.” Every time you “check in” at a place, you will gain points (sometimes badges) and you can compete with your foursquare friends to gain more points or badges. Moreover, you can write a comment along with your “check in,” so you can, for example, recommend a good restaurant, post a photo from that place and share your check in on your Facebook profile.

Qzone logo Qzone is a Chinese network created by Tencent in 2005. As a user you are allowed to write your own blog, keep a virtual diary, send photos to your friends and listen to music. Furthermore, you can set your own Qzone background and select accessories according to your own taste. Put simply, your customizing options on this social network are really wide. Nevertheless, most of the Qzone services are for a fee, which really limits your options when you are not willing to pay for your social networking. But be aware, if you are not familiar with Simplified Chinese, you will not find this social network much of good site because it is available only in this language.

Habbo logo Launched in 2000, Habbo is a Finnish-based social network targeted at teenagers. Habbo’s main feature is a “Hotel” that can be accessed by registered users. Once you log in, you are redirected to a screen called ‘Hotel View’ where you can contact other Habbo users using the “Habbo Chat.” Many features of this social network do not appear in the ‘Hotel’ itself – there are User Pages, Groups, discussion forums and various games. This social network is available in many languages. However, there had been some privacy issues and was temporarily shut down. Nevertheless, once the issues were solved, the site was re-launched.

hi5 logo Hi5 is a social networking site which was launched in 2003. It has many similar features to other social networks, like the ability to create a profile to show off your personal information, share interests, join friend networks, share photos, create user groups, post status updates, listen to music and post comments. In 2009, hi5 has added several new features aimed for the gaming and entertainment community. Despite the fact that hi5 was launched in United States, it became more popular in other countries, predominantly in Latin America and Mongolia and in 2008, hi5 was believed to be the third most visited social network.

Vimeo logo Vimeo is a video-sharing service, where you can view, upload and share videos. It is one of the only video-sharing sites that is able to compete with YouTube. Moreover, Vimeo was the first video-sharing website that supported consumer High Definition (HD) videos. The site is popular mainly among indie filmmakers and people with passion for film. This service is, however, available only in two languages – English and Spanish. As a user of Vimeo, you can send messages to other users, comment on their videos, share them on other social networks, create your own Channels and Groups and thus it is a social network disguised as a video-sharing service.


text:
Stream in HD Download in HD

Bustin Loose

Joe Braxton is an ex-con who has been given a second chance to freedom after violating his probation. He has been hired by a school teacher named Vivian Perry to repair and drive an old ...

Duration: 94 min

Quality: HD

Release: 1981

IMDb: 6.1


text:
Skip to main content

A simple client/tool for Let's Encrypt or any ACME server that issues SSL certificates.

Project description

Simple way to get SSL certificates for free.

Table of Contents

  • Supports both Python 2 and Python 3
  • Works with both ACMEv1 and ACMEv2 protocols
  • Can issue wildcard certificates!
  • Easy to use and extend

This is ACME client implementation in Python originally based on code. Now completely different. It's written in pure Python depends on pyOpenSSL and pycrypto and the only binary it calls is ps to determine nginx master process id to send SIGHUP to it during challenge completion.

As you may not trust this script feel free to check source code, it's under 700 lines of code.

Script should be run as root on host with running nginx server. Domain for which you request certificate should point to that host's IP and port 80 should be available from outside if you use HTTP challenge. Script can generate all keys for you if you don't set them with command line arguments. Keys are RSA with length of 2048 bytes. You can specify as many alternative domain names as you wish. The result PEM file is a certificate chain containing your signed certificate and letsencrypt signed chain. You can use it with nginx.

Should work with Python >= 2.6

ACME v2 requires more logic so it's not as small as acme v1 script.

ACME v2 is supported partially: only http-01 and dns-01 challenges. Check

New protocol is used by default.

http-01 challenge is passed exactly as in v1 protocol realisation.

dns-01 currently supports only DigitalOcean, AWS Route53 DNS providers.

Technically nginx is not needed for this type of challenge but script still calls nginx reload by default because it assumes that you store certificates on the same server where you issue them. To disable that behavior please specify --no-reload-nginx parameter.

AWS Route53 uses default profile in session, specifying profile works with environment variables only. Please check

In case you want to add support of different DNS providers your contribution is highly apprectiated.

Wildcard certificates can not be issued with non-wildcard for the same domain. I.e. it's not possible to issue certificates for * and at the same time.

Still supported with flag --acme-v1. Only HTTP challenge is supported at the moment.

Please be informed that the quickiest and easiest way of installation is to use your OS installation way because Python way includes compilation of dependencies that may take much time and CPU resources and may require you to install all build dependencies.

Fastest way

Just download executable compiled with pyinstaller.

chmod +x acme-nginx

Python way

pip install acme-nginx

or manually

git clone
cd acme-nginx
python install

Docker way

You can build docker image with acme-nginx inside:

docker build -t acme-nginx .
docker run --rm -v /etc/nginx:/etc/nginx --pid=host \
	-d -d

There is also single binary in docker image compiled by pyinstaller , you can copy it like this:

docker run --name acme acme-nginx
docker cp acme:/usr/bin/acme-runner acme-nginx
docker rm acme

Debian/Ubuntu way

sudo apt-get install -y python-openssl python-crypto python-setuptools
sudo python install

CentOS/RedHat/Fedora way

sudo yum install -y pyOpenSSL python-crypto python-setuptools
sudo yum groupinstall -y "Development tools"
sudo python install

Simplest scenario: you have neither letsencrypt account key nor domain key and want to generate certificate for and

sudo acme-nginx -d -d

You will see output similar to this:

Oct 12 23:42:17 Can not open key /etc/ssl/private/letsencrypt-account.key, generating new
Oct 12 23:42:17 Can not open key /etc/ssl/private/letsencrypt-domain.key, generating new
Oct 12 23:42:17 Trying to register account key
Oct 12 23:42:18 Registered!
Oct 12 23:42:18 Requesting challenge
Oct 12 23:42:19 Adding nginx virtual host and completing challenge
Oct 12 23:42:19 Creating file /etc/nginx/sites-enabled/letsencrypt
Oct 12 23:42:21 verified!
Oct 12 23:42:21 Requesting challenge
Oct 12 23:42:21 Adding nginx virtual host and completing challenge
Oct 12 23:42:21 Creating file /etc/nginx/sites-enabled/letsencrypt
Oct 12 23:42:23 verified!
Oct 12 23:42:23 Signing certificate
Oct 12 23:42:23 Certificate signed!
Oct 12 23:42:23 Writing result file in /etc/ssl/private/letsencrypt-domain.pem
Oct 12 23:42:23 Removing /etc/nginx/sites-enabled/letsencrypt and sending HUP to nginx

Certificate was generated into /etc/ssl/private/letsencrypt-domain.pem

You can now configure nginx to use it:

server {
  listen 443;
  ssl on;
  ssl_certificate /etc/ssl/private/letsencrypt-domain.pem;
  ssl_certificate_key /etc/ssl/private/letsencrypt-domain.key;
  ssl_protocols TLSv1 TLSv1.1 TLSv1.2;

To renew it simply rerun the command! You can put it in cron, but don't forget about letsencrypt rate limits.

More complicated scenario: you have both account, domain keys and custom virtual host

sudo acme-nginx \
    -k /path/to/account.key \
    --domain-private-key /path/to/domain.key \
    --virtual-host /etc/nginx/sites-enabled/customvhost \
    -o /path/to/signed_certificate.pem \
    -d -d

Wildcard certificates

For wildcard certificate you need to have your domain managed by DNS provider with API. Currently only DigitalOcean DNS and AWS Route53 are supported.

Example how to get wildcard certificate without nginx

sudo acme-nginx --no-reload-nginx --dns-provider route53 -d "*"

Please create and export your DO API token as API_TOKEN env variable. Now you can generate wildcard certificate

sudo su -
export API_TOKEN=yourDigitalOceanApiToken
acme-nginx --dns-provider digitalocean -d '*'

To debug please use --debug flag. With debug enabled all intermediate files will not be removed, so you can check /etc/nginx/sites-enabled for temporary virtual host configuration, by default it's /etc/nginx/sites-enabled/0-letsencrypt.conf.

Execute acme-nginx --help to see all available flags and their default values.

Personally i use following cronjob to renew certificates of my blog. Here's contents of /etc/cron.d/renew-cert
12 11 10 * * root timeout -k 600 -s 9 3600 /usr/local/bin/acme-nginx -d -d >> /var/log/letsencrypt.log 2>&1 || echo "Failed to renew certificate"

Project details

Download files

Download the file for your platform. If you're not sure which to choose, learn more about installing packages.

Files for acme-nginx, version 0.2.1
Filename, size File type Python version Upload date Hashes
Filename, size acme_nginx-0.2.1-py2.py3-none-any.whl (27.1 kB) File type Wheel Python version py2.py3 Upload date Hashes View
Filename, size acme-nginx-0.2.1.tar.gz (15.1 kB) File type Source Python version None Upload date Hashes View

Supported by

Pingdom Pingdom Monitoring Google Google Object Storage and Download Analytics Sentry Sentry Error logging AWS AWS Cloud computing DataDog DataDog Monitoring Fastly Fastly CDN DigiCert DigiCert EV certificate StatusPage StatusPage Status page


text:
Pyton gives free webinar for travel agents and tour operators!

Eindhoven, the Netherlands, October 2016 – The modern travel consumer is his own product manager: with all the content that is available online nowadays, it is easy to create your own perfect holiday. The customer is looking for flexibility and customization, he no longer wants to be tied to the pre-set holiday packages with a set departure day and duration. On top of that, 75% of the leisure travelers orient online on a holiday. No less than 60% of the bookings are made online, of which 22% on a mobile device. The traveler is not only a (potential) customer of travel companies, but also a competitor: he takes over the job of tour operators and (online) travel agent by purchasing directly at suppliers of hotels and flights, or at special-deal-websites and holiday auction websites.

Travel agents

Pyton offers Belgian travel agents solutions that help them respond to this changing consumer. With Dynamic Packaging and Shopping Basket, the travel agent is able to create Dynamic (flexible) packages or to compose a customized holiday by combining components of various suppliers. This packaged trip is offered in the  travel agency or on their website, next to existing tour operator packages. This means the consumer no longer has to make several bookings at different suppliers to create his perfect holiday: the travel agent is offering exactly the flexibility that the consumer is looking for. On top of that, it is easy to increase earnings because as a travel agent, you can determine your own margins.

Tour operators

Pyton’s products also ensure that the traditional tour operator can take its changes in the changing market. By composing Dynamic packages, they respond to the demand for flexibility: they can combine their own travel components such as accommodations with, for example, scheduled flights or Low Cost Carriers (LCCs). This means the consumer is no longer dependent on the set departure days of charter flights, of which the departure time is often known only days before departure. This also means that the duration of the holiday is flexible, because there are considerably more departure days, times, and airports available because of the many connected airlines. The Dynamic packages can be offered next to the existing packages, online or to third parties.

Free webinar

  • Get to know Pyton’s innovating products and learn how to gain customers instead of losing them to one of the many competitors in the market;
  • Explanation of products, demonstrations and the opportunity to ask questions;
  • Free webinar for travel agents on Tuesday, 8 November;
  • Free webinar for tour operators on Thursday, 10 November;
  • Subscribe now via this link!