CRTC threatens future of broadcasting, CTV says

[jdobbin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Speaking Monday before a special hearing of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), Fecan said that competition for advertising revenue has intensified, imperiling broadcasters' ability to produce programming.

"If we can't make money, we have no reason to exist," Fecan said in a prepared statement. "If using our best business judgment we determine that some of our services can never make money, we must exit those services."

Canadian broadcasters are at odds with the CRTC over their ability to develop new revenue streams, in particular so-called "fee for carriage."

Canadian broadcasters, cable and satellite companies have long tried to receive protection from competition while at the same time limiting how much they actually did to contribute to Canadian content in terms of news and programs. Many of them became debt burdened when they went on the acquisition trail in the last numbers of years.

There's no question that a re-thinking needs to be done in terms of broadcasting. The owners should not be bailed out at the expense of Canadian programming.

[Sabre Rider]

Here's a radical idea CTV (and Global), how about producing some programming that we would be interested in watching instead of feeding us constant never ending stream of US pablum? I find it amazing that damn near every nation in the world can produce interesting home grown TV programming and Canadian producers can't. I guess it is just cheaper and easier to piggy back on signals from NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox then to actually go out and create something uniquely Canadian, for that we have to rely on the CBC.

[Smallc]

I find it amazing that damn near every nation in the world can produce interesting home grown TV programming and Canadian producers can't.

Not true anymore. The Border, Being Erika, The Guard, Flashpoint, and several new upcoming series...all being played on US networks and all very popular.

[Sabre Rider]

Not true anymore. The Border, Being Erika, The Guard, Flashpoint, and several new upcoming series...all being played on US networks and all very popular.

Having given up on TV over a year ago I am not aware of these programmes. Are they Canadian progammes set in Canada or are they programmes produced in Canada by US networks and set in the US the way Fox's X-Files was for the most part filmed in Vancouver but never set in Canada?

[Smallc]

Having given up on TV over a year ago I am not aware of these programmes. Are they Canadian progammes set in Canada or are they programmes produced in Canada by US networks and set in the US the way Fox's X-Files was for the most part filmed in Vancouver but never set in Canada?

The Border and Being Erika are CBC and are set inn Canada, but I don't watch them. The Guard is produced by Canwest Global and takes place on the west coast. It is about a coast guard lifeboat crew. Flashpoint, arguably the best of them all, is based on the Toronto ETF. It doesn't advertise that it's Canadian, but it doesn't hide it either. It was the highest rated new drama in the US last year.

[g_bambino]

Not true anymore. The Border, Being Erika, The Guard, Flashpoint, and several new upcoming series...all being played on US networks and all very popular.

Some decent Canadian shows, yes. But, Sabre has a point: there is still a huge amount of bought US programming on Canadian television; the news, in particular, I find. CBC is less guilty of it than the others; CTV and Global are terrible for it.

[Smallc]

CBC is less guilty of it than the others; CTV and Global are terrible for it.

CBC shouldn't be guilty of it at all and I don't know why the government is allowing it. My only point was that Canadian networks do make good programs...but not enough...although...I don't care what they put on, I would still watch House if the Canadian show was on at the same time.

[g_bambino]

CBC shouldn't be guilty of it at all...

Tell me about it.

My only point was that Canadian networks do make good programs...but not enough...

Yes; and this kind of harkens back to my question in another thread of why the CBC can't produce the quality that the BBC puts out. Your response, if I remember correctly, was money. Which then, interestingly enough, cycles back to the topic of this thread.

I wonder if this says that I watch too much television....

[Wild Bill]

I wonder if this says that I watch too much television....

Well, it certainly means that there is at least ONE person watching!

I think everyone in this thread may be too OLD to really know what's going on! The world has changed and the tastes of the up and coming generations are dramatically different from a marketing perspective.

I look at my two daughters, 19 and 13. I also talk to their circle of friends. Their approach to television is far different than it was for me at their age. For the most part, they don't care! They have a few shows they enjoy but it's no big deal if they miss an episode. Those that they enjoy are virtually all "reality" shows that are cheap to produce, like elimination contests to join a girl band or be Paris Hilton's best "girl friend".

The good thing is that they don't take these shows seriously. They treat them as comedies! They find the contestants being shallow and stupid incredibly hilarious! They crack jokes about Paris being a judge on her show inbetween designing rockets for NASA and saving lives as a brain surgeon.

They all watch virtually no sitcoms or dramas.

They DO watch an incredible number of DVD movies! Just not broadcast television.

Now television, like radio has always been a numbers game. The ratings determine the commercial fees that a show can command. The age demographics are important in order for different advertisers to target different markets. Historically, younger folks have bought far more than older people.

So how are tv stations supposed to make money today? We old folks are slowly dying off! The new blood is not there. Who is watching the commercials? If fewer people are watching then why should someone buy an ad, or at least pay so much for it?

My neighbours across the street have 3 children. The oldest is in grade one, the youngest is just over 2. I asked their mother about their tv viewing habits. They enjoy many DVDs but again, almost never watch broadcast television. The oldest is already asking for a video game unit.

There's an argument of course that much of the blame is on the networks for not producing the kind of shows that viewers want but that's not the whole story. There are far fewer viewers in the first place! There is much more competition for entertainment time.

Meanwhile, declining revenues reduces their ability to improve programming anyway!

All these years cable companies have been paying fees to carry cable channels, while re-broadcasting channels from the open airwaves for free! Why shouldn't the on-air channels receive a royalty fee? The CRTC won't change the situation 'cuz it might mean that the cable companies would pass a dollar or two a month on to their customers. So what? What's that got to do with the ethics of what is essentially piracy? How is it different than ripping off music from CDs through some "Napster" style website or getting pirate copies of DVD movies?

The networks are just trying to find new ways of making money in order to survive! If they don't catch a break soon they will be gone!

Then the arguments about better programming and more Canadian productions will be PERMANENTLY moot!

[Smallc]

I look at my two daughters, 19 and 13.

Hey hey, I am only 20. And I hate reality TV.

[Wild Bill]

Hey hey, I am only 20. And I hate reality TV.

And you participate in a political online forum!

That being said, are you going to claim to represent the mainstream of your age demographic?

Do your tastes pick apart my model or my point?

[Topaz]

I heard the head of the CTV, and like he said the cable industry makes 10 Billion last year and there's no reason for them not to pay a fee and NOT have to pass it on to consumers. As a Starchoice holder, I'd pay 3-10 $ more to watch the programs I WANT to watch. It doesn't help me to watch the provincial governments of B.C. Or Alberta, which I'm paying for, when I can't watch the Ontario government!!!!! I also think local news is important to all rural areas.

[Smallc]

That being said, are you going to claim to represent the mainstream of your age demographic?

Do your tastes pick apart my model or my point?

No, I am definitely not the norm. I don't pretend to be...I was just pointing out that I'm not old

[Wild Bill]

No, I am definitely not the norm. I don't pretend to be...I was just pointing out that I'm not old

Well, I certainly am! Still, the young hippy inside me has never totally faded away. Deep inside I'm still high as a kite, groovin' on Foghat or Janis Joplin played SUPER loud!

I still think formal dress means ironing my denim shirt. I will never respect hiphop as an actual form of music and I think that only 'plastic' people would shop at the Gap.

[mikedavid00]

I find it amazing that damn near every nation in the world can produce interesting home grown TV programming and Canadian producers can't.

There is a reason for this.

The CBC drains all the *WOULD BE* funds and resources from our radio and television, thus, there is no money, time, or sufficient resources to be put into 'good' programming.

The CBC 'takes' it all. Our radio stations would *triple* their revenue, staff, and production if the CBC was not arround to take all the ratings (basically ad money).

Ever wonder what happened to that baby on life support?

Ever wonder why there's no follow up on the convicted mississauga 17 terrorists?

That's because the private media is so slim on resources all they can do is report day to day activity. Private media cannot afford to go in depth, follow up on stories, and do other lavish things becuase the CBC simply takes ad money away from private media. It's that simple.

This works out good for the left though. The Canadians are kept with their head in the sand and are told what issues that are supposed to be important by the CBC. The private media can't afford to 'tell you what's important'.

But triple their funding and watch the in depth stories come out exposing our corruption.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, I certainly am! Still, the young hippy inside me has never totally faded away. Deep inside I'm still high as a kite, groovin' on Foghat or Janis Joplin played SUPER loud!

Indeed...I keep a Pioneer SX-1250 at the ready for such occasions.

[jdobbin]

Now television, like radio has always been a numbers game. The ratings determine the commercial fees that a show can command. The age demographics are important in order for different advertisers to target different markets. Historically, younger folks have bought far more than older people.

The death of TV has been overstated. They said the same thing about movie theatres when TV started and look what happened.

Radio was said to be an old medium but has been a consistent performer for years and has evolved to satellite and Internet.

Some say newspapers are dying but I think that the problem for newspapers is as a result of acquisitions when the market was at its peaks, giving away free product and not monetizing their product on the Internet.

[Wild Bill]

The death of TV has been overstated. They said the same thing about movie theatres when TV started and look what happened.

Radio was said to be an old medium but has been a consistent performer for years and has evolved to satellite and Internet.

Some say newspapers are dying but I think that the problem for newspapers is as a result of acquisitions when the market was at its peaks, giving away free product and not monetizing their product on the Internet.

Easy to take the long perspective when it's not your money, jdobbin.

You're right when you say that TV and radio have adapted over the years. That was predicated on them always having options and new ways of approaching market problems.

It is a non sequitur to assume that because something always was it will always be. You're really just expressing your confidence, without having to provide any specifics on how radio and TV can cope with today's market forces. The businesses involved HAVE to cope with those specifics or they will go bankrupt! Someone will pick up the pieces but only if they see a market paradigm that gives them an opportunity to make money. Since the previous businesses were unable to do that it's obvious that without change that simply won't happen.

Meanwhile, the issue is that the CRTC imposes political, non-market forces! That's what this is really all about. It's all very well to say "We think that more Canadian programming is important, so YOU GUYS have to do it!" If it is too expensive for the number of people that watch it and generate ad revenues it is NOT the CRTC who has to worry about making payroll.

It seems to me that the CRTC is still imposing political ideas from the 70's when the markets were completely different on today's markets.

If they don't ALLOW radio and TV to adapt then HOW can it happen?

[Froro]

The reality is for the networks it is cheaper for them to bring in foreign content than to produce homegrown content.

I have always supported Canadian programming and love the fact that some programs are started to get some attention and traction.

There have been some fantastic homegrown productions the last few years but sadly, even successful programs generally have a four season run and are eliminated. There just isn't the money to produce. Once a show becomes successful actors would love to get something more than "scale" which is pretty paltry to be honest and the funds dry up.

My family is involved in the industry and we accept that's just the way it is. The money for day roles is depressingly low, and even lead roles don't make nearly what their fellow actors in the US make...I understand their desire to actually make some money if/when they can but it becomes a double edged sword. Cast want more money when a show becomes successful leading to higher production costs leading to series cancellation.

Nothing I enjoy more than watching television program and seeing programs set locally actually acknowledge that are local and not pretend to be a US city. The talent is here, but sadly there really isn't enough public support for homegrown programming. We can do slick (as has been evidenced by how much US production is actually done here), but in general, Canadians really would prefer House, Grey's, CSI etc.

Children's programs/tweens and teens are strong in Canada though, and do extremely well on the international market.

Unlike another poster though...I'd rather watch Flashpoint, or the Border vs House, Grey's etc and do so.

Reality television is a whole other ball game. It's ridiculously inexpensive to produce vs dramatic serials and that's why the networks LOVE them. We don't watch any reality television other than the Amazing Race.

[jdobbin]

Easy to take the long perspective when it's not your money, jdobbin.

I'd day it is all of our money since CPP, company pensions and private pensions all invest in media.

To say that I was uncomfortable with the amount of debt a lot of these companies was piling on is an understatement.

You're right when you say that TV and radio have adapted over the years. That was predicated on them always having options and new ways of approaching market problems.

People have been predicting radio's death for years.

It is a non sequitur to assume that because something always was it will always be. You're really just expressing your confidence, without having to provide any specifics on how radio and TV can cope with today's market forces. The businesses involved HAVE to cope with those specifics or they will go bankrupt! Someone will pick up the pieces but only if they see a market paradigm that gives them an opportunity to make money. Since the previous businesses were unable to do that it's obvious that without change that simply won't happen.

Radio has adapted for the simple reason that it is one of the best mediums for commuter transport. All the visual and some audio mediums are either illegal or inappropriate while driving. Subsequently, radio has become one of the most chosen mediums for commuting.

It used to be that radio was frequently used at home. Statistics have shown the shift to driving. While true that there is other audio competition in cars from MP3 to CDs, there are none that provide such an ease of information at the fingertips. And all of it is free. That is a very specific reason why radio has not died.

TV is facing a lot more competition at home from other mediums. TV beat back radio to the periphery in the home years ago but now computers, Internet, cell phones and video games offer other choices for the consumer.

TV will never have the same share that it used to have in the home, especially in entertainment. It is why a lot of them have gone multimedia. If today's youth won't watch Gossip Girl on TV (and there is evidence that it is almost never watched live), they catch it on the Internet or by the DVD boxset later on.

TV has to give its advertisers multi-platforms for reach their audience. However, their business model is based on the immediacy of overnight TV ratings. That is where some of their problems lie.

Meanwhile, the issue is that the CRTC imposes political, non-market forces! That's what this is really all about. It's all very well to say "We think that more Canadian programming is important, so YOU GUYS have to do it!" If it is too expensive for the number of people that watch it and generate ad revenues it is NOT the CRTC who has to worry about making payroll.

The CRTC is not responsible for bad decisions in the U.S. or in the world affecting TV.

In terms of Canada, Canadian content guidelines have created a national music industry capable of getting its product on broadcasts in Canada and succeeding around the world. The evidence prior to Canadian content rules for radio was that radio in Canada did not play Canadian artists unless they were successful outside of Canada first. That was their business model.

Despite the complaints of the radio industry, radio has been very profitable with Canadian content rules and the evidence is that more people in Canada listen to radio than the U.S. Direct connection? Perhaps.

TV has been a very profitable industry in Canada for decades. However, one thing is clear: The government owns the airwaves and licence slots on the dial. I know of no industrial nation that allows private industry to own the airwaves. Subsequently, the government can set up rules on how this bandwidth is used. Every nation does this as well.

I have no problems adjusting policy to shifts in how the industry finds success on government owned airwaves but the cries of poverty have been happening for decades and it is not so convincing with the profit margins taken in over the years.

It seems to me that the CRTC is still imposing political ideas from the 70's when the markets were completely different on today's markets.

Some of those ideas are as relevant now as ever. Local content is what gets the ratings in many areas but because companies loaded up with debt, they try to get out of these obligations. Local TV news gets cut.

If they don't ALLOW radio and TV to adapt then HOW can it happen?

Radio has been allowed to adapt and has succeeded.

TV is still looking for that model. The CRTC can be blamed for a few things but much of the damage is the business model that the TV industry embraced world-wide. Getting rid of the CRTC is not likely to make the industry get out if its current mess which is carrying too much debt.

[Wild Bill]

In terms of Canada, Canadian content guidelines have created a national music industry capable of getting its product on broadcasts in Canada and succeeding around the world. The evidence prior to Canadian content rules for radio was that radio in Canada did not play Canadian artists unless they were successful outside of Canada first. That was their business model.

Despite the complaints of the radio industry, radio has been very profitable with Canadian content rules and the evidence is that more people in Canada listen to radio than the U.S. Direct connection? Perhaps.

Oh dear. You touched one of my buttons! I make my living from Canadian musicians so I have a closer perspective than many folks.

You might want to go here: http://www.letsfixcancon.ca/

CanCon today is a dismal failure, if you define success as helping Canadian artists. Perhaps it did in the beginning but today it only helps OLD artists!

The number of plays for a new group or artist on Canadian radio is virtually zero. For years broadcasters fill up their CanCon with the same songs they have played for decades. Occasionally something new may break in the States and THEN get added to the playlists but never given a chance first in Canada.

Artists and groups like Rush, Anne Murray, Rita McNeil and Kim Mitchell do very well by CanCon. Hardly "emerging talent".

The person who created the "Let's fix Can Con" site is from the broadcast ratings industry and has access to all the pertinent numbers. He paints a fascinating and well-documented picture. He also has some realistic suggestions for how to fix the situation.

If the CRTC implemented his suggestions it would provide working incentives to give new Canadian artists a break, that they haven't seen in Canada for perhaps 25 years or more.

I'm not excusing bad management choices on the part of radio and TV execs by blaming it all on the CRTC, although the CRTC is a strong factor. It controls what stations are ALLOWED to do! They cannot adapt to changing conditions without CRTC approval. Still, I would be the first to accuse said managers of being "boneheads".

I just thought you might appreciate some closer perspective on the CanCon situation. I sincerely believe you'll find that site interesting.

[ToadBrother]

Yes; and this kind of harkens back to my question in another thread of why the CBC can't produce the quality that the BBC puts out. Your response, if I remember correctly, was money. Which then, interestingly enough, cycles back to the topic of this thread.

I think the BBC too has gone down the tubes pretty substantially from their heyday, but in Canada, in particular, there really is a culture of mediocrity. Basically, all the real talents in front and behind the scenes are looking to getting to the US as fast as they can, because, quite simply, they can make much more money down there.

I don't know what the answer is. In Canada, any production can, at best, hope to get a few million viewers for any given broadcast. Down in the States, that's greater by a factor of ten, and even down there, traditional network broadcasting is having serious challenges.

[jdobbin]

Oh dear. You touched one of my buttons! I make my living from Canadian musicians so I have a closer perspective than many folks.

You might want to go here: http://www.letsfixcancon.ca/

CanCon today is a dismal failure, if you define success as helping Canadian artists. Perhaps it did in the beginning but today it only helps OLD artists!

Compared to what we had before when artists like Neil Young and the Guess Who had to leave Canada to get success, Canadian content rules have hlped.

I agree that successful Candadian artists don't need help and should be dropped from Canadian content credits after after a certain amount of time. I don't think classic radio is about to drop Neil Young after all this time.

I have no problem with fixing Canadian content regulations. I have suggested they be dropped completely but we have seen what happens in the absence of them before: almost zero Canadian content.

Now, some people think that is totally unimportant but if we want information and entertainment in Canada with no Canadian context whatsoever, we should be asking to ourselves why we are a nation to begin with.

The number of plays for a new group or artist on Canadian radio is virtually zero. For years broadcasters fill up their CanCon with the same songs they have played for decades. Occasionally something new may break in the States and THEN get added to the playlists but never given a chance first in Canada.

Artists and groups like Rush, Anne Murray, Rita McNeil and Kim Mitchell do very well by CanCon. Hardly "emerging talent".

I have no problem having very reduced credits for successful artists who need no help getting on the dial.

The person who created the "Let's fix Can Con" site is from the broadcast ratings industry and has access to all the pertinent numbers. He paints a fascinating and well-documented picture. He also has some realistic suggestions for how to fix the situation.

If the CRTC implemented his suggestions it would provide working incentives to give new Canadian artists a break, that they haven't seen in Canada for perhaps 25 years or more.

I have no problems fixing it. I do have a problem if the solution is to end all rules on broadcasting completely. I don't know that the right wing or left wing would be very happy with the results.

I'm not excusing bad management choices on the part of radio and TV execs by blaming it all on the CRTC, although the CRTC is a strong factor. It controls what stations are ALLOWED to do! They cannot adapt to changing conditions without CRTC approval. Still, I would be the first to accuse said managers of being "boneheads".

Radio has been doing pretty well lately so my sympathies for them are somewhat limited.

I sympathsize with newer artists who have to compete with Canadians who have live in castles in Switzerland and still receive protection on the airwaves.

I just thought you might appreciate some closer perspective on the CanCon situation. I sincerely believe you'll find that site interesting.

I know what the limits from CRTC rules but I don't like the bull in the china shop approach from people in TV who simply want to end all Canadian content while receiving protection from other competitors.

[ToadBrother]

I have no problem with fixing Canadian content regulations. I have suggested they be dropped completely but we have seen what happens in the absence of them before: almost zero Canadian content.

Now, some people think that is totally unimportant but if we want information and entertainment in Canada with no Canadian context whatsoever, we should be asking to ourselves why we are a nation to begin with.

The fundamental issue is consumption. All the Canadian content rules in the world don't mean a thing if the average viewer doesn't watch it. As the age of on-demand video, via the Internet, and the capacity for any government agency to meaningfully do anything about it, and the capacity for any level or branch of government to do anything about it, the question becomes more along the lines "Is the discussion even relevant?"

If someone can completely bypass any of the traditional means by which the CRTC has been able to enforce content rules, then I think the way the war has been waged thus far has come to an end. What I'm watching is a body which really became irrelevant with the rise of Youtube, basically being asked by the traditional broadcasters, as they sink into an economic quagmire, to simply channel money directly to them, and then back away into obscurity.

It's quite possible, by this point, that all of this is going to be meaningless. It won't matter at all whether consumers are forced to pay 50 cents a month for the nearest A Channel signal, because no one will be likely even receive the signal in ten years. Why do you think the telcos and cable companies are pushing ahead with high-speed wireless networks, with upgrading their fiber and other basic infrastructure. It's because it won't be a cable or satellite signal that will be the transmission medium by which you'll be watching whatever it is you watch by 2020. It'll be an Internet connection of some kind; either computer, network-enabled TV, or handheld device, and for the consumer, whether the source of any particular television show is Toronto, Los Angeles, London or Tokyo will be absolutely irrelevant.

And then that works its way back around. If basically picking consumers' pockets is the only way to stay afloat, by using a branch of the government to force 50 cents a piece for these channels, and even if every single cent of what amounts to a TV tax is turned back into Canadian content, it will mean not one damned thing.

For better or for worse, all the traditional broadcasters, here, down in the States, and everywhere, are now going to be competing on a global scale, and notions of "national content" rules (and we're hardly alone in this) will be unenforceable anachronisms. If Canadian content producers want to get people to watch anything it produces, they're going to have to compete on quality. If they can't produce something as popular as the Simpsons, Lost or House, or whatever is passing as entertainment, then at best, they'll become irrelevant leaches, picking our pockets so long as the politicians see fit to permit it.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... If Canadian content producers want to get people to watch anything it produces, they're going to have to compete on quality. If they can't produce something as popular as the Simpsons, Lost or House, or whatever is passing as entertainment, then at best, they'll become irrelevant leaches, picking our pockets so long as the politicians see fit to permit it.

Well, to be fair, the very best (and often overused) CGI rendering of serpentine monsters comes from Canada!