6. Deluded in Vegas

Today we had a class with a prominent New Zealand film-maker who makes Natural History programs for the American market. I say American market and not international because, as he pointed out, there are two TV markets in the world. The Americans are one and then there is everyone else.

The difference between the two markets is that Americans, or at least some of the Executive Producers of the world's biggest wildlife TV companies, don't know what insects are. Call them "Bugs" however, and the animated movie springs to mind and they can now understand what sort of creatures you are talking about.

Whether or not they realise that you will be filming live bugs and not animated ones is anyone’s guess.

For Americans the naked bottoms of white men must be fuzzed, but film a black tribesman and he does not need to be afforded the same privacy, and rule three for all Natural History documentary makers wishing to enter the American market is never be so bold as to make the link between pigs and pork. As far as Americans are concerned (or at least in TV Exec's view), pigs are animals that are pink and go "Oink" and pork is what you buy at a supermarket. They don't think it wise to confuse anyone with the facts.

Lastly, one must make sure that the Natural History programs you make are not, as one American EP put it, "too intellectual". The fact that pork comes from pigs may be an example of this.

While I found these revelations bizarre, the question that I was asking was not whether or not such specifications are reasonable or right, but rather who are these faceless TV executives making decision about what Natural History the American public views and secondly on what, if anything, do they base such bizarre logic?

What's more, how on earth did we get to the point where someone who does not know what an insect is makes executive decisions about what Natural History programs go to air?

One can only imagine that they are the same TV producers who asked Sir David Attenborough if they could dub over his voice with an American one because, to their knowledge, the American public would not be able to understand one of the most eloquent English speakers on the planet!

It was rather fortunate that Attenborough had the piece of mind to decline the generous offer. Surprise! Surprise! The American public understood him perfectly well. In fact, his programs have been some of the most popular Natural History programs ever screened there.

But to answer the first question - who are these executives that decided what kind of Natural History goes to air - I guess I was not surprised to find out that most have a degree in business or marketing and not anything that might lend itself to an insightful understanding of what constitutes a good Natural History documentary, or for that matter, what an insect is.

I was however, greatly relieved to find that their decisions are actually based on something credible. Masses of market research! The examples of market research that our speaker gave were however, less than convincing.

'The People Monitor'test sounds quite legitimate, or would be, if it resembled anything even vaguely close to the choice of 'the people'.

One method of 'people monitoring' used by American TV companies to decide if the public will like a new show, is 'The Vegas' test. The concept is simple enough. Go to Las Vegas (I was already cringing by this stage), ask 30 people on the streets of Vegas if they would like to watch a new TV show and then ask them whether or not they give it the thumb ups.

Las Vegas, for those who have forgotten, is a wonderful place. A city built in the middle of the Nevada desert for the sole purpose of gambling, or getting married under the influence, or both. I believe Brittany took a fancy to one of the above.

One can only imagine that the type of person who frequents such a place must be somewhat delusional. Deluded that they have come to win their fortune, deluded that it's not the booze that makes him so attractive and deluded that taking a holiday in a totally artificial environment that is so far removed from reality is NOT disturbingly disturbing!

The most disturbing part is that the market research for Natural History documentary is conducted on people who are in a place that is totally divorced from reality never mind the natural world!

The results of this kind of 'people monitoring'? The sad state of TV we see today. In which the rest of us are subjected to watching the best of an appalling lot. Take your pick. A bunch of the world's most inarticulate teens on Big Brother, self absorbed men and desperate women on The Bachelor or someone dry retching because they are trying to eat some large hairy insect on Survivor. And all because the 'market research' is based on the views of what must be some of the world's most unimaginative people.

Surely, a better plan would be to take the 'people monitor' to the streets of Harvard or Cambridge, but really anywhere other than Vegas would do. Then the rest of us would not have to be exasperated by the stupid, the dumb and the puerile and instead the Vegas crowd would be forced to watch the worst of an excellent lot.

I have a sneaking suspicion that like all the Americans who could not only understand, but loved, Attenborough that the Las Vegas crowd would actually enjoy some quality programming too.