Innovating for Money and Audiences - Recorded Live at the 2025 Spada Conference

The path to profit, growth, and career longevity lies through audiences. Our panel  discusses how understanding your audience can unlock elusive private investment. Panel: Paul Wiegard (Madman Entertainment), Jas McSweeney (Umbrella Entertainment),  Dr David Court (Compton School). Moderator: Rosie Hole (Hinterland). 

Recorded live at the 2025 Spada Conference held in Auckland, NZ, on 20 & 21 November 2025.

www.spada.co.nz

Subscribe for more screen industry conversations from Spada (Screen Producers NZ).

Transcript

0:02

The 'Innovating for Money and Audiences' discussion features Paul Wiegard, Jas McSweeney, Dr David Court and Moderator Rosie Hole. It was recorded live at the 2025 Spada Conference. Tēnā koutou katoa, kia ora My name is Rosie. Welcome to this panel on innovating for Money and Audiences. Before I introduce our panelists today, I thought it could be helpful to start with a snapshot of how New Zealand films have been performing over the last ten years. So this, slide shows New Zealand films against the total New Zealand box office. The line in blue is the percentage of New Zealand films as a percentage of the total releases in New Zealand. And the line in green is our share of box office. So there's a few points on this timeline that I think are worth focusing on. So in 20 2021, no surprises. We had Covid. And you can see that New Zealand films took a much greater share of the market. Of course, we know that studios were holding back their releases. And so our local films were competing against a much smaller pool of big global blockbusters. Generally, though, across the ten year period we seem to be hovering somewhere between 3 to 4% share of number of releases and around 2 to 3% share of total box office. There is, except for either ends of the graph. When there's something interesting that happens. So in 2015/16 and 24/25, you can see that New Zealand films take a larger share of the total box office compared to a number of releases. What's that about? So the answer is two extraordinary New Zealand films whose performance blows everything else out of the water. Those films are, of course, hunt for the Wilderpeople and Tinā And you can see when I take them out of the data just how much that skews result. And then if we look at Tinā in particular against the films, it was up against, over the past year. You can see how exceptional that performance was. And it's clear that this kind of performance is unusual. If we look at our top ten New Zealand films in the past five years, in that post Covid era, Tinā is the only film to break 2 million. And actually, the last four on that chart don't even get to a million. So the question is, how do we get more Tinā's more hunt for the Wilderpeople films that really connect with their audiences. And careful with it. How do we finance these films at a time when funding levels are static at best, and spending from the market is contracting? So joining the panel, we have Paul Wiegard who should be pretty happy because he released both of those films. Co-founder and CEO of Madman Entertainment. Jasmine McSweeney, who leads local and international acquisitions for Umbrella. And of course, known to many here previously as head of marketing at Te Tumu Whakaata Taonga, New Zealand Film Commission and David Court who is the co-founder, the founder of Compton School and co-founder of Wiser. He's the, chair of Screen Canberra and previously the head of screen business at AFTRs the Australian film, Television and Radio School, and Sydney. And I wanted to open this discussion, with. With what? There is a new entrant, Pike River. Of course. Which is Pike River is outside of this data set It just to be clear, just to be clear. Moving with the times, there’s a new entrant in that top five So yeah. No. Fantastic. So I'm going to open with a question. Making films for an audience. It sounds really obvious. Like what we're all trying to do, and straightforward. And why why is it not in practice? I don't know if you. You'd like to kick that off. That we're not making films for audiences. Or. That we're not making films that get that kind of connection like those two films have. I mean, it's always about, I guess, a portfolio, right? So not not all films, you know, what are the objectives of the films and not all films are going to appeal to all quadrants, for example. And it's fine. I think the actual the ratio of, performances is good if you compare it to many other territories around the world and, and in the US, hopefully not debunking all of your, your thesis here. But, you know, compared to Australian cinema, for example, which, you know, which is, where I'm, based, but have a couple of our, my Kiwi colleagues are in the, in the audience here. I think the Australian films are, about even more so than, than the NZ films we're probably like-for-like are probably about 60% of those levels. So at most, I didn't quite get the volume of films versus the share of box office. But so it's a similar numbers, you know, 30 to 40 films a year being being made. And the Australian films are probably, yeah, they're probably struggling to be a 2% of the gross box office. And to not have a film in Oz that's achieving at least 20 million at the box office is like this. There's something amiss there. At least we're seeing that when we have films that do appeal to audiences. New Zealand audiences, there's there's seemingly very little in the way of cultural cringe. They want to support local stories and proud to see their stories on screen. I’d almost say that one of the bedeviling natures of the New Zealand market is because the population is relatively small. The ability to make a whole lot of films and enough films is is part of the challenge. A bit like you think about it as a pyramid, you know, the bigger the base, the you know, the higher the peak. And we don't. I would almost argue, we're not making enough films in this marketplace. That and that has a whole other series of things that sort of run off that in terms of you making more films in your own practice, you better you craft, you more likely to sort of craft stories that are going to be largely, better told. for, for mine, I don't think it's, broke one of the in terms of, the audiences do have a demand for the local films. The challenge is obviously the financing part of it. There aren't clearly enough doors to knock on in this territory. So how do you I guess the biggest challenge, how do you make very specific local stories for the primary audience, which is the New Zealand audience and also attract international money to help fund these films to be made in the first instance? I think that's the that's the issue that we need to sort of try and problem solve and I won't speak for 60 minutes and not block my colleagues out. But the one of the things when as from a Madman perspective, when we're looking at any New Zealand film, is like one of our ambitions is for every one of these films, including Tinā and, hunt for the Wilderpeople. Performance in Australia and the Australian market should equal in terms of just revenue, that of the NZ marketplace, you know, and which is which has proven to be the case and and hopefully will be the case for Pike River, when it's released next, Easter. What was the question? I guess why are we not making more of those kind of films like Tinā? I think, well, making films for an audience, I think that we aren't making more of those films, and I think that it's probably because, where, well, a lot of, most of our funding, the majority of our funding comes from the New Zealand Film Commission, and it's a cultural agency. So we and I think that we, so when we write, when writers or producers develop a project, they're not thinking about the audience first. They're thinking about the cultural and the creative elements of that and the plot and the structure of how that was going to fit. So, I think that, we know so the films that are very successful that you bought out with films like Hunt for the Wilderpeople, also Boy, as well as Tinā, and Pike River. Those films knew the audience and they knew what they were, and they knew what they were going to, what they were trying to say from the screen to the seat in the cinema. So, you know. And do you think that, or did you have something to add. No. Do you think that we're doing enough to foster and develop our local audiences? I noticed that, recently the, UK, I think it's the culture, Media and Sport Committee recommended that the UK tax credit be extended to cover P&A. And so as part of the problem that we're spending a lot of money making the films, but maybe not getting them to the audience. Yeah. I think we need to spend more time, learning about audience and understanding what audiences are doing and how they're consuming what the conversations that they're having, the pressures and the challenges and respond to that. Because if you don't understand who your audience is and if you don't understand what moves them and what they care about, they never going to be able to, to connect with your story. Do you agree? Yes. You know, I sort of like I was I think about the Brits. The Brits are incredible when it comes to exporting the storytelling. And I don't know why that was. It's like, the why of just. And in doing so, they attract a lot of international investment into their projects. It's funny from Australians perspective, looking at the NZ market, it's actually relatively inexpensive here to to connect with audiences. The cost of media and in, in NZ is far less than what it is in, you know, so the ability to actually have deep rich and the number of impressions, in the local marketplace there. So I don't think that's as much of a hurdle. It's just I don't know whether we're making enough films, frankly. I mean, it's, And of course, you know, we're in, we're we're in the southern hemisphere here. And so much of our media and all the stuff which really seen last panel, so much that's being generated internationally, it's so noisy with so much of, you know, information coming in to, our very screens. It's it is overwhelming. I mean, one of those sort of stats which you didn't quite have in your, in your first couple of slides. There. You know, if you went back, ten, 15 years ago, there'd be 300 films a year. And we're always talking about feature films here and feature, documentaries. There'd be 300 films a year hitting our screens. Now, in terms of all the various, because of the digital projection across all of the different formats is up to a thousand titles a year that are new that are hitting our screens. So it's even a lot more competition just in terms of what's hitting the marketplace. And on top of that, in a repertory sense, films that are coming back for, that are restored or, you know, live events or other things that are hitting our screens from, from, from yesteryear. There's another 2000 titles. So over the course of the year, 3000 different types of films that are programmed for our box office. So it's just, it's just noisy. But I would say and one of the things which is been rather than working with the New Zealand Film Commission, is they're very supportive of local, supporting local productions into release. And I guess they consider it, an insurance play on their investment into the productions in the first instance, isn't it? It's one thing, you know, investing in your local films, but if you're not also investing into the release of them, then I guess it's a bit of a misstep. But there's this there's there are mechanisms in place which which are good actually I constantly say to Screen AUS you should take the example from NZ. So pat on the back to the Kiwis That fell on deaf ears. Yeah. Let's give a round of applause for that. Generally like Park River just to say that, okay, that ongoing concern leaning into it, I think it works for the producers and it works for for everyone involved. Jas, you were talking about, the two films we mentioned and others that, have been successful and that they really knew their audience. What does it look like when you put audience at the center of the film from the very beginning? I guess, from your experience as distributors? And maybe your previous experience, what how can you tell that that's what a producer or what a team is doing and that they've got it right. Well, when you when you have a project and you recognize what who the audience is right from the very beginning, from the script stage, then you can start working with the producer on how you create the content, how how you find the audience. So the audience is always part of the conversation when you're having the marketing conversations, what does the poster look like? What is what's the trailer going to look like? How are we going to create those content? Where are they? What do we need to have? Why are we in production, etc. etc. it just makes it much more easier. I know you did that for Hunt for the Wilderpeople. You banked so much content, which you probably haven't used all of it Paul, but you can create a wealth. of material. Yeah there’s a certain filmmaker Who really had a specific idea of what he wanted. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And it's funny, you know, it's it's not always, And not just the director. Also, the producer was there, and the producer was driving those creative choices and contributing ideas. Phoning me up. I was at the film commissioner at town phoning me up and saying he had done research. And this is where this community of people lived, who he thought that would connect to, even overseas. He would say in the States, I've just these loads of people who are from New Zealand and the state because blah, blah, blah. So really getting into the the middle of how are we going to find the audience and how are we going to capture them? Yeah, I mean, a lot of the criteria for us investing into films is it is the creative team, representatives of the audience, are they the audience and they genuinely, deeply know and embody the themes of the project that they are working on and with that, you know, if you are two thirds of the way there, I think that then becomes obviously it the job of executing on that, that idea. Yeah. And, I love the idea that, you know, your producer is kind of talking to you about where they think the market might be. How do you think producers should take more responsibility for finding their audience and for marketing to them? And how do they do that alongside you as a distributor? Yes, I do think the producers should take more responsibility. You know, you don't just drop the film off and leave it with us. They definitely need to be to understand who the audience is for the film. They're making them where they are. How can they contribute to that? You know, the the Film Commission has just introduced a new producer impact fund, and that is all being that's something that the producer has to apply for. But they work in tandem with the direct with the distributor on, how they and that fund is used. So sitting down and we've been having conversations, we are going to try and access that for a film that we're, going to distribute. But so we've been sitting down and having conversations with the producer and the director around, who do we do the audiences? What does it look like? What are those one of those knowledge gaps that we need to plug and where we can we enhance our knowledge and we can we, spread our reach and that we can use it in a way which is efficient, fast, and going to be effective and not too time consuming, because sometimes people have fantastic ideas, but it's just a fantastic idea. Yeah. I mean, it can be a lot of time to sit around talking about doing stuff without doing things. So it's very important put a line down the ledger and go on this side These are the responsibilities of the producing team. These are the list of things that the distributor will do. But I think it's amazing what a producer and creative team can do, contribute to the release and the roll out of a of a project. You know, it's the simplest one is just, frankly, talent wrangling and working with talent and all the idiosyncrasy intricacies with with just that. And, I guess the, the counseling that goes with it as well. And, but every one of these films would not be the success that they have been with that if it wasn't the if it didn't have the involvement of the local producing teams. But the it does come a point where the producer has to say to the distributor, I've done my job now you do your job and you release, because sometimes if you have those two, it can be quite become quite tense and incredibly stressful. And the film and the release of the film will suffer. So I wanted to ask a question that sort of taps into a debate that comes up every so often. I think everywhere that has a public funding system, and certainly a sort of sane chatter about it recently with the BFI, should funding agencies support commercial films regardless of the cultural value, or do you think they should find their own way. To ensure films films can have cultural. Value as well? No. Yeah, exactly. Yes. I agree, yes they should. And I think that that's I think they want to I think funding agencies in 2025, my experience anyway, is that they want to reach audiences. The days where you would make a film for three people, and I and I'm one of those three people that love those arty films, are gone. You know, you want to go into a cinema and watching a film together, especially a film which is centered on, people who live in your community and your country is an incredibly incredible way to be a community and to have a chat and to have a conversation about how other things, how things are affecting people that may not be in your immediate sphere. Yes. But, you know, I mean, it's like it's a portfolio, so it's just a mix. You can't in everything in life, particularly the role of the, the funding bodies is to, is to manage a portfolio of interests. So just, you know, what's that bandwidth between the level of investment. And I would say that there's there's so much public money going into, production, attraction incentives to show what exactly the language is, is just to incentivize productions to be shot in, in, in NZ. So it's effectively it is happening but through a different strand. So yes, you know, I mean it's interesting. Now you probably the question then to ask is what is a, a New Zealand story or a local story. Is it a South Island story. Is a North Island story. Is it, is it a and just what is what is that cultural? Remit now? Is it the same as what it was ten years ago now? Certainly in Australian marketplace, it's the very much there is a changing face of, the composition of the population. So that needs to be represented on our screens as well. Yeah, I'd say yes. And, and there's a reason why, which is that, you know, we operate with a social license, which justifies the public subsidy that occurs. And I'm thinking here more about Australia, where we are bumping along at a couple of per cent share of the box office. And it's hard to see how that really, pays the dividend to Australian taxpayers. And I think, you know, what's giving us cover in Australia is the fact that so many Australian actors, you know, appeared in international films and that creates the the social good will for the industry. But if you took away that cover, I think the 2% bump is really not enough to, to maintain over time. The, the, you know, the public commitment to filmmaking. So I wanted to touch on some of the things that came up, in the previous session with Frances Valintine, she presents a number of AI tools that, are now available to us as an industry. Do you think that, I guess from your your corner of the the industry are there tools out there that could help us better identify audiences, better deliver to audiences? Throughout the process, I guess from the very beginning. We already use it, and it's it's almost implicit within every single marketing channel that we're using through social that there's AI tools there that are identified links and groups. And then, you know, the messaging is becoming even more personalized. I wouldn't say it's one specific, specific tool. It's funny, in the world of distribution, so much of what we bring to the table is almost like operational excellence. So the, you know, the tools are being used across, legals. A lot of it's around, analysis, a lot of it's around. So we use lots of big data sets. One of the big mandates of, at least in my business over the last 20 years is sort of developing out, B2C, interests is in that direct communication with audiences. So we can have that direct, dialog and it through, and it can be through the old fashioned mailing lists and EDM lists through to just, you know, the following groups that we have across, you know, the YouTube, channels. And then and now we have our own sort of streaming platform Doc Play which is specializing in, feature documentaries and docu series from around the world. And it's been amazing for those in the feature documentary space. You know, we we talk to about 130,000 people across Australia, New Zealand, twice a week. And these are people who have declared their interest in documentaries and, and local stories because, you know, 35% of that content on that platform is Australian, on New Zealand. So, it's, it's, it's, it's in everything we're doing in one way or another now. So, if it means it helps fast track, we often use it in a marketing sense as well. Just with is sort of fast tracking, thinktank ideas. But yeah, my concern is, you know, with all these sorts of things, how much of it is just looking to review mirror and the one thing in distribution is in creative ideas. You just. Can't be following the trend. It just you end up being sort of lost in the, in the, the backwash of it all. So, you know, I just I'd hate I don't like the idea of a big the lazy default. We can't have a thought of our own and we have to run through an AI tool before we do anything. So there's a real need to saying okay, well what why is this of interest and what are, what are the human insights. But there's so many other things that can get us to the point where we can have, have those deeper conversations because we've got to you know, a lot of that sort of grunt work might have been done. Jas are you using any tools? To speed up research like Paul says, if you know that you're trying to find a community and we they will we the population as will use it. But mostly I use AI to listen to social media. So I have it set up. So I know that AI knows I'm listening to certain people, and every morning they report to me, tell me who's been saying what about what's. Yeah, yeah. Just to be slightly contrary. I think, you know, lots of the information we need about audiences or the data. The insight is actually sitting in about 100 silos out here. And, you know, our problem is how do we centralize, how do we share, how do we make the most of what we what we already have? In terms of understanding, you know, what audiences want, where they're going, how we can keep up all those sorts of questions. I think it's, you know, gathering together, collective-ising If you like me, you know, the the distributed insights of, of in particular the producing community. So this panel's about innovating for money and audiences. So looking at, how we take that and, and look at, you know, opening up other sources of capital for, our films with the success of films like Tinā, do you think we should be doing more to promote private investment in films? And do you think that, you know, the success of Tinā sort of makes that conversation with investors a bit easier? Look, you know, we're gamblers. We only talk about the wins. So I guess we do that. Yeah, it's it's the biggest unlock, hopefully, for going into production is attracting, it's, private interest, other sources of revenue, not just coming out of a couple of commissioning pots. The more private money that you can pull into the, into the system, into the ecosystem means it's more likely that you're going to control the intellectual property ongoing for for a longer period of time. So, we the studios don't go down this path because they need our own rights outright, and it's more of a commission. So the checks are larger upfront, and then it's, you know, thanks for that. Goodbye. And there are some residuals, obviously, that get negotiated. But for the producing pool in Australia and New Zealand, you know, the more that they can own their own, intellectual property and have control in it. And frankly, you know, are empowered because they’re bringing third parties the better. So. We struck arrangements with, both with, Wilderpeople producers and, Tinā that they were participating from, dollar one. So there's an alignment of interests. Is it enough to attract, significant sums? What's. It's a high risk enterprise. So you've got to sit down there. I think fundamentally sit down there with whoever the potential parties are that you're attracting into a project and go, what are the objectives here? If it's just purely a financial investment and you're stacking it up against are I investing into residential property? Well, maybe this is not for you, I will, I will, although it is going to be a bust when who knows. You know, I mean, just let's go back and look at 1929 and you know it's going to come. But just when and it's... That was last session. So, so, the, the, the, the, the most productive and busiest producing teams that we see have a cohort of private investors that, support their vision. And they basically, reinvest. So they've had that experience, and then they return and they reinvest into the next project following the next project. So bring it on. I'm I think I think it's, it's it's a tough discussion to have, and how to make it work. But if we can solve and I think that's what's needed and it means it's more of an industry, frankly, in the US, it's clearly an industry for a lot of. But then there's that wildcard of us, you that the land of the billionaires. Right. So you get all these sort of false economies happening at the site in the same breath. So that this territory, it's it's vital. And I don't think I can't think of a, a major Australian and New Zealand film that we've been involved with in the last five years that didn't have a significant amount of private investment. I can put some, Australian numbers around this. There's that currently. Well, typically in Australia, there's about $20 million of private investment in films each year, and that's typically about 5% of the total, which I think is is a very low number. I don't know what the comparable numbers are here in Aotearoa but I imagine that comparable similar. And, you know, on the converse, I would say that if you look historically to see which have been the most successful films, in almost every case there is that alignment of producer with distributor and investor, and it's the three together, the three, you know, drivers, the trifecta of producer, distributor and investor that have driven the big films, the big successful commercial films. So beyond that, like having a great sort of investor relationship that continues, and Paul said it's a risky business given the checkered history of private investment in films, what do you think, David, it would take to build, an investment market for New Zealand films? Is there more of a portfolio approach that we need to look at? Certainly there would have to be a will to do it just to start with. But I think there's some simple things we can do relative to when I say simple and not that simple, but, you know, from an investment perspective, clearly one would wish to be offered as an investor a portfolio of opportunities rather than single opportunities. And this is, as Paul says, a high risk sector and the highest risk way to go about that is to invest in just one film. So a portfolio I think is fundamental to attracting any kind of organized professional capital to the sector. And second, we typically drop investors in at the equity level. You know, the first money in lost money out. And, that's not a happy place to be most of the time. So I think we need to offer, you know, a range of opportunities to investors, you know, at all levels of the waterfall. So not just equity. But beyond all that, we need to have a, you know, an attitude to this which is embracing and opening, and we need more transparency. We need more data. I mean, money ultimately is driven by information. And if there's not enough information, then all you can ask for is blind punts and you won't get much of that. Do you think our films, right size in terms of scale and budget for the, size and expectation of our audiences here in New Zealand? One I thought what was interesting when I showed the slide with the films that Tinā was up against last year, I mean, you're looking at, you know, multi multi-million blockbusters and this lovely little film that was able to compete regardless of that scale. It's interesting item. So the the budgets aren't big enough in, in, in NZ like just the, the such a humble culture in many ways that the, The first sort of cut of the budgets are a little bit to, modest, almost like shoot a little, a little larger. Sometimes it's actually easier to fund a bigger budget. Interesting enough, because you might have a few more elements in there that do attract private money. And then it can be seen the vision and the opportunity for the project arguably is, is larger. So it comes with less risk. And that's why, you know, just look at Hollywood and it's returning IP and them budgets are huge. And you know in in in many ways it's seemingly in the, in the management of risk, there's less risk, that is involved. So, for the best part, I would say thereabouts, right size if not, they should be larger. And then when it comes to this, the feature documentaries, the biggest cost is, is, the human cost and time and giving your project enough time because it just requires exactly that. Because most great docs is almost like longitudinal studies, and they, they're better for that time. Yeah, I would agree. I would say that. I mean, the thing is that when we look at the box office figures, like we did, you'll be showing New Zealand films, which you kind of on average what, shot for $6 million, against Hollywood or bigger budget films. And so when you look at Tinā and Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Pike River, that shows how amazing those films have done for the budget to reach that, I think I mean, more concern for me is, the money go round and making sure that the producers who are involved with those films that are making it that are, finding the audience at the box office, are getting their returns fast, so that they can continue to, to, to make more films and to have a pipeline, which is what David is talking about, which will then encourage to have investors who will, who are part of that pipeline and who know. And the producers can have some surety that these films are coming through and that they know that they can get they can make a film in 2024 and make another film in 2025 and 2026. And that's how the business works. And they can have a workable model that they can be confident and and they can talk to their investors about. And so we talk about box office a lot because I guess it's the most, easily accessible data we have. Do you think that's the most important metric? Should we be looking more about return on investment or some other measure? I mean, you know, the Blumhouse model was make them small and then overdeliver, but. And make a shit ton of money. Yeah. Well, yes, there's a particular feature docs and the objectives, that impact social change, you know, legacy stories. There's all sorts of motives as to why, yeah. I mean, it's like I would say most films should be looked at. Over at least a sort of not not in that first week of, box office performance, but over at least a, a 3 to 5 year timeline to really appreciate whether there's been the level of acceptance in a number of different windows that have been exploited in the different ways it's found audiences. So I and that is back to the point. There's probably not enough pooled data, to put it into a coherent, sort of case study on each of these performances of the films. So we, you know, most in most cases, when a distributor takes on the rights to represent a film, it's somewhere between 7 and 15 years, depending on the order of investment. And and that's for the reason that we see that there's a number of windows that we need to exploit. And and it's complicated now with, a VOD and premium VOD and EVOD looked that definition up. That's a new one. All the VODs And then there's the airlines. So and then actually for Madman in particularly in their interest in the feature doc area. So the question of the, of the reach and performance, a lot of it's actually seen in the, success within the education systems, in secondary and, and tertiary. And it is really meaningful in terms of the longevity of these projects. Do you mean. Remaining so in terms of revenue as well? Oh, yeah, as well, you know, and Screenrights I think, who are represented today do a fantastic job in trying to grow that size of the pie for particular feature documentary, market in terms of its use. And, and then there's a knock on impact. And what had how is that enabled? Will you know, the right study guides and the way in which that was presented to teachers who were very busy to then take it out to the in the school. So, yes, there's no, there's there's should be multiple ways of looking at projects in terms of the, success and the objectives depending on, you know, what the substance of the material is. Yeah. I agree, because it's all about, you know, there are some films that should be made and should be told, and which are not going to the audience, they're not going to achieve the box office. But box office is a measurement and it's really important. And it can drive good ancillary sales, especially in Australia. That they were required to have a authentic theatrical release. And it's important to those buyers. So yeah, it is a measurement. But also, you know, we have some films which we know when we put them into the cinemas that it's probably A22 week fast turnaround because the audiences at home. Yeah. So I want to ask a question to each of you, and this is if you could make one big change to the way the industry works. And I guess in relation to what we're talking about, finding, reaching audiences and attracting investment, what would your big change be? The first thing, you know, the big change I would like to see is for us to embrace as an industry, private capital. And the reason for that is that, you know, public capital serves policy goals, which is great. It's that's it's job. Private capital is for growth. It's for expansion. It's for risk taking. It's specifically for risk taking and for the sorts of, ambition that we should, as an industry, continue to embrace. So I think if we, you know, my ideal industry would be one where we didn't that we, we attracted maybe 3 or 4 times the 5% of private investment with the we're attracting now. So somewhere between 10 and 20% private capital to fund not just the films but also the production companies where that's appropriate and, and to fund, film adjacent activities. So other ways of exploiting the same underlying intellectual property and empowering producers to take that longer run perspective of what they're doing, get more deeply involved in it, in developing and exploiting the intellectual property and not having to jump film, to film, to film for the next fee. So I think that's, you know, that's not what I think private capital can do for us. But it would take, you know, it would take the ambition to achieve that. It would take the will to, to achieve that. And then the following sort of settings and changes that would need to be made, not just to policy and practice, but as I say to expectations and beliefs. Okay, my big change would be that when a film gets development funding or has development funding applied to it, that at the same time that marketing funding is applied so that marketing research can happen around the audience and, yeah, and it's yeah. Okay. I'll be the, the uncouth Aussie, this issue of the New Zealand On Air contribution is pivotal, pivotal. And many of these projects would not happen without that support and is incredibly important cultural door to have to knock on and has led to incredibly, you know, important and valued, works. But it also is inadvertently sort of, sort of kneecapping some of the upside for producers downstream because it's locking up certain rights into a free-to-air sort of investment, or like an approach which is you make these films to be seen, of course, but it just means that you're a bit hamstringed in terms of the level of investment from, again, very much from a distributor perspective, where you would like to put more investment into the project, but you got limited downside because you don't have that potential ancillary sale further down the track. So it might require constitutional legislative change around that, because there should be a little bit more flexibility. Not to say that's completely stringent in its in its application, but I think that would potentially, you could potentially find the best of both worlds. But again, I understand why was established in that way because it was okay. We want to make sure that investment to social, you know, capital and what have you that these projects were being seen and it was democratized and that was being seen for free. But there can be that step. But at what point in terms of the timeline of, of a project thinking that, you know, we think about these projects over multiple years, not just, at the box office. Wonderful.