Bang, Bang, You’re F–ked: How The ‘Underbelly’ Ban Is Hurting Nine

When Underbelly premiered everywhere but Victoria on Wednesday night, Defamer Australia’s interstate pals were sending frenzied texts and emails saying things like, “You know how they said it would save Nine? It will”.

Well, in the eyes of the rest of the country Nine may have at least lifted their game in terms of backing locally-produced, quality drama, but the fallout for the network has been greater than just worrying about whether the AFA will get the sooks or if a few pirates will P2P the hell out of the show.

The aftermath of Justice Betty King’s ruling continues, and Nine is being hit below the belt in every possible way – in the ratings war, advertising revenue, and slightly more intangible areas such as the network’s already shaky reputation as a serious contender in terms of content.

As Nine today launches its appeal against the ban, read on for our in-depth coverage (we always wanted to say “in-depth”) of the effect the ruling has had on the beleaguered network.
The Herald Sun reports that the loss of Melbourne viewers was a major injury to Nine’s ratings aspirations, noting that similar drama premieres last year were big ratings winners.

The ban on gangland drama Underbelly in Victoria has robbed Nine of a certain national ratings record.

The two-hour premiere achieved a national audience average of 1.32 million in the capital cities in which it was shown.

Industry experts had tipped Underbelly would crack the 800,000-viewer mark in Melbourne, maybe even the magic million.

That would have pushed it ahead of Channel 7’s Always Greener, which in 2001 set a national record for an Aussie drama launch — 2.06 million.

The launches of Sea Patrol and City Homicide last year lured 1.97 million and 1.64 million viewers.

Underbelly was No. 1 in the key 25-54 demographic, but did not win the ratings night overall. That honour belonged to Seven’s news, which had 1.43 million viewers.

In Melbourne, the movie The Shawshank Redemption filled the Underbelly void but managed only 271,000 viewers.

In other words, while the interstate ratings were pleasing, the loss of Victorian viewers was a notable one – which brings us to the next point.

The ratings issue – which in broader network terms constitutes a bruised ego, since the interstate ratings are holding up – comes coupled with a much more hurtful sting in the tail for Nine: the loss of advertising money.

Nine would have known they were on a surefire winner with Underbelly, if for no other reason than the sort of good-bad publicity the show was receiving prior to the ban, and expected big audiences, so masses of advertising was sold – how much? A hell of a lot, and most of it in Melbourne, where the relevance of the show was to bring in a large viewership.

From The Age:

The embattled network has now lost the jewel in its local programming crown for 2008 and all momentum in its bid to regain ascendancy over Seven in the ratings war.

Channel Nine would have expected almost 2 million viewers, according to media buyer Harold Mitchell. But expensive promotions will go to waste in Victoria, which as home to the gangland war was likely to provide the biggest audience.

“It was meant as a big-budget show to get in the top five programs (of 2008). But they’d be lucky to break even on the cost,” he said. “They had booked almost $4 million in advertising in Victoria and will lose half of that by replacing it with a lesser program.”

So far Nine is said to have lost at least $2-million in advertising cashola, and that’s solely from the Victorian ban.

Throughout all this, however, what is sure to be paining Nine particularly is the fact that, no matter how damaging the ban is to their advertising income or ratings – as Justice King said, “the criminal justice system is more important than your client’s profit margin” – and no matter how garish or inhuman Underbelly makes these characters seem, they are (at least based upon) real people.

And, unfortunately for Nine’s more selfish industry-based instincts, all people deserve a fair trial – even those who say “f–k” a lot and look a bit like Vince Colosimo and Les Hill.

And, ultimately, the issue at hand is that not all people – people who may end up forming part of a jury – know how to distinguish between fact, and fiction that is heavily influenced by fact.

From The Age’s editorial yesterday:

Justice King has also touched on another aspect: that of the capacity of an audience to differentiate between fact and fiction. Courts of law seek facts. A person is found guilty or innocent on the weight of evidence before the courts. It is true that juries in recent times have delivered verdicts in cases in which certain knowledge was already in the public arena. It is then the judge’s duty to direct jurors to make their deliberations free of any prior knowledge and base their judgement only on what they hear in court.

However, in the Underbelly matter, such is the wave of publicity and the climate surrounding it, that it cannot reasonably be expected that a dramatised version of events will not seep into the public consciousness, and from there the belief may form in a person’s mind that the series is a true account of events. It may be an irony at Channel Nine’s expense that the quality of the drama played a part in its suppression; that is, because it seems so real, it must be real. Indeed, Justice King described it as “compelling television”. There is a precedent in this area of delaying a program until all matters before the courts are dealt with. The ABC drama Blue Murder, based on crime and police corruption in NSW, was banned in that state for six years.

Channel Nine said this week it would appeal against Justice King’s suppression order, which is, of course, its right. The Age, however, believes a greater right and principle prevails in this matter: that in the criminal justice system, a person can expect a fair trial, free of prejudice.

Nine’s appeal against the ban launches today.