CBC/Radio-Canada +$3.7 Billion

[August1991]

The report, released Wednesday, is the first major study of the CBC’s economic role commissioned by the public broadcaster and pegs its overall economic impact at $3.7-billion. The CBC (which includes Radio-Canada) receives $1.1-billion in government funding every year toward its budget of $1.7-billion – the difference is mainly made up from TV ad revenue – and Deloitte, using standard measures of direct and indirect impact, estimates that budget generates $3.7-billion of activity in the Canadian economy.

CBC

First, I will refer to such self-serving reports. ("CBC reports that the CBC is important.")

I will second comment on how Radio-Canada (in the 20th century) was a critical institution in French North America.

Third, how do people measure "economic impact" nowadays? If I spend $2 for a litre of milk in my local depanneur and the Korean owner (who speaks good French, BTW) uses the money to pay her son's tuition fees and then the private school pays the salary of the secretary....

How many iterations count as a stimulus? If the secretary buys a widescreen TV made in Korea, does that count? What if she takes a holiday in Charlevoix? If she goes to Deerfield Lodge in Huntsville, does that count double?

-----

What is the cost/benefit of CBC? The cost is all the money we collectively pay for it. And the benefit is all the enjoyment/enlightenment that we receive. I am upset when people measure a benefit of governemnt according to "spinoffs", the money spent/jobs created. By that logic, I could spend the money in my pocket and argue that I'm creating billions of jobs. (So, why tax me?)

The benefit of the CBC/Radio-Canada is the pleasure/enlightenment it offers to listeners/viewers.

-----

I have often wondered what would happen if TV/radio could measure its audience when listeners (ie. me) suddenly turned it off. For example, the Internet measures hits. What if radio presenters could see in real time how many listeners they in fact have?

I am waiting for the day when the CBC sees the statistics for listeners switching to another station at 9:13 am, or simply turning the radio/TV off, when Michael Enright, for example, embarks once again on his obvious anti-Canadian, anti-American, lapsed Catholic, leftist crusade.

Edited June 16, 2011 by August1991

[Shwa]

What is the cost/benefit of CBC? The cost is all the money we collectively pay for it. And the benefit is all the enjoyment/enlightenment that we receive. I am upset when people measure a benefit of governemnt according to "spinoffs", the money spent/jobs created. By that logic, I could spend the money in my pocket and argue that I'm creating billions of jobs. (So, why tax me?)

Companies reporting on their benefit to society is as old as commerce itself. Are you surprised that the CBC can do the same thing? Seriously, how about major oil companies putting on glossy media campaigns about their benefits to the environment?

The benefit of the CBC/Radio-Canada is the pleasure/enlightenment it offers to listeners/viewers.

Sure. But there is also an economic factor as well as they have pointed out. The problem with the economic factor is that it nicely counters the blase argument the CBC is all about spending 'our tax money' and government shouldn't be funding culture; or that it is a waste of tax payers money because of the 'obvious leftist bias' and on and on.

But even IF you can count a single interation of the economic benefits of the CBC - is is still an economic benefit. That the money it receives and spends, helps stimulate the economy. If you have a problem with the iterations then it becomes incumbent on you to read the report and be specific about your criticism. You have failed to do so and can only address their specific argument in a general, philosophical way.

I have often wondered what would happen if TV/radio could measure its audience when listeners (ie. me) suddenly turned it off. For example, the Internet measures hits. What if radio presenters could see in real time how many listeners they in fact have?

Cable and satellite could likely do this with a connection oriented protocol, but I am not sure if the capability exists for this in broadcast over-the-air AM/FM radio.

I am waiting for the day when the CBC sees the statistics for listeners switching to another station at 9:13 am, or simply turning the radio/TV off, when Michael Enright, for example, embarks once again on his obvious anti-Canadian, anti-American, lapsed Catholic, leftist crusade.

Why would this matter when you have already stated that the, "...benefit of the CBC/Radio-Canada is the pleasure/enlightenment it offers to listeners/viewers." Seems you are contradicting yourself. If Michael Enright offers pleasure/enlightenment to his listeners/viewers, then all should be as right as rain.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Shwa

[Michael Hardner]

CBC has seen much benefit from hiring a charming Canadian right-winger - Kevin O'Leary. They should hire more.

[Shwa]

CBC has seen much benefit from hiring a charming Canadian right-winger - Kevin O'Leary. They should hire more.

Absolutely. I mean, look what that gruff right-winger Don Cherry does for them.

[segnosaur]

The benefit of the CBC/Radio-Canada is the pleasure/enlightenment it offers to listeners/viewers.

But even IF you can count a single interation of the economic benefits of the CBC - is is still an economic benefit. That the money it receives and spends, helps stimulate the economy.

Whatever supposed economic "benefit" that we receive from CBC funding/spending must be weighed against alternative uses for that funding; e.g. if the tax dollar that would have gone to finance the CBC either went to other projects, or was returned to taxpayers to be used in other ways.

Now, the article in the opening post does attempt to deal with it... it points out that tax dollars diverted from the CBC to other government projects would produce less benefit "according to the government’s current spending profile.". The problem is, CBC money wouldn't necessarily be divided the same way the rest of government expenditures are.

Furthermore, there were additional claims made by the CBC which are questionable... For example, they claim that if the CBC were privatized, more money would be spent on obtaining foreign material. However, there is no guarantee that without the CBC other broadcasters won't take the opportunity to pick up Canadian shows. (The existence of shows like Corner Gas shows that there is interest in Canadian content.)

[Battletoads]

For years it's been "The CBC is wasting out money"

Now it's "let's judge their value by their entertainment value"

Seriously, you right wing kooks are pathetic.

[RNG]

My sister was a long term CBC employee, she retired some years ago. And she is the one who told me a valid criticism was that since they do get public funds, they charge less for advertising, which then inhibits the ability of the private broadcasters to raise funds.

On the other hand, working in the far north of Alberta, Saskatchewan and BC, it was fairly common to only have CBC since those areas didn't have sufficient populations to support a private facility.

Cost/benefit?

[segnosaur]

My sister was a long term CBC employee, she retired some years ago. And she is the one who told me a valid criticism was that since they do get public funds, they charge less for advertising, which then inhibits the ability of the private broadcasters to raise funds.

Are you sure it was because of their public funding that they charged less for advertising?

After all, advertising rates are influenced by the number of viewers (both predicted and measured). Given the fact that CBC is often lower in the ratings than other Canadian broadcasters would mean that they would be charging less anyways.

On the other hand, working in the far north of Alberta, Saskatchewan and BC, it was fairly common to only have CBC since those areas didn't have sufficient populations to support a private facility.

Might have been an issue half a century ago. Now, with the advent of satellite TV and other technologies such 'remote' areas now have alternatives.

And even if there was a need to provide service in remote areas, is the public funding of a complete network the best use of taxpayer resources? After all, there are private broadcasters in metropolitan areas, so there's no need for CBC "overlap" in those areas. They could (in theory) provide a scaled back CBC broadcasting only to the remote areas, or they could pay private broadcasters to extend their coverage to areas they weren't serving before.

[segnosaur]

For years it's been "The CBC is wasting out money"

Now it's "let's judge their value by their entertainment value"

Seriously, you right wing kooks are pathetic.

What makes you think that the "right wing" is some monolithic organization where each member expresses the same opinion?

One of the posters made a statement about "entertainment value". That does not mean that every "right winger" is likewise more interested in "entertainment value" than the economics.

[RNG]

FTR, I'm against subsidizing the CBC. Some years ago, maybe, but the technology argument forwared by Segnosaur is very valid.

[Battletoads]

What makes you think that the "right wing" is some monolithic organization where each member expresses the same opinion?

Not the same opinion, but the majority of the right's wingers have views not supported in anyway by facts or evidence.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Not the same opinion, but the majority of the right's wingers have views not supported in anyway by facts or evidence.

Example: My local newspaper is a sorry excuse for anything that can be called 'news'. It is a conservative propaganda piece, nothing more.

Recently, on the front page it had an article attacking a teacher's union for encouraging them to take sick days to volunteer for anti conservative campaigning in the upcoming provincial election. If you read the story fully by taking the time to flip to the back of the dumb newspaper, eventually you find out this is not true. Union representatives clearly state that calling in sick without legitimate reason is fraud, and would has never and will never be encouraged. So then why is the accusation left clearly on the font page? to misinform and enrage conservative sheep. Nothing more.

Next week, I'll read letters to the editor with people aghast that teachers call in sick for political activism... *sigh*

Edited June 17, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[CPCFTW]

Not the same opinion, but the majority of the right's wingers have views not supported in anyway by facts or evidence.

Example: My local newspaper is a sorry excuse for anything that can be called 'news'. It is a conservative propaganda piece, nothing more.

Recently, on the front page it had an article attacking a teacher's union for encouraging them to take sick days to volunteer for anti conservative campaigning in the upcoming provincial election. If you read the story fully by taking the time to flip to the back of the dumb newspaper, eventually you find out this is not true. Union representatives clearly state that calling in sick without legitimate reason is fraud, and would has never and will never be encouraged. So then why is the accusation left clearly on the font page? to misinform and enrage conservative sheep. Nothing more.

Next week, I'll read letters to the editor with people aghast that teachers call in sick for political activism... *sigh*

Yes we're all just conservative sheep. Please enlighten us oh great wise ones. Only all-knowing high school teachers, and regular CBC watchers (or 1st year university philosophy/history/social sciences/pol.sci students) could possibly have opinions supported by facts and evidence.

No wonder you guys still think your party is entitled to govern after losing an election, you think everyone who doesn't vote your way is too stupid to vote.

Get over yourselves.

Edited June 17, 2011 by CPCFTW

[Battletoads]

Yes we're all just conservative sheep. Please enlighten us oh great wise ones. Only all-knowing high school teachers, and regular CBC watchers (or 1st year university philosophy/history/social sciences/pol.sci students) could possibly have opinions supported by facts and evidence.

No wonder you guys still think your party is entitled to govern after losing an election, you think everyone who doesn't vote your way is too stupid to vote.

Get over yourselves.

Well this is a prime example of a typical Con, many accusations with not a shred of evidence to back them up

The funniest part is I'm not a liberal, and I consider most arts degrees/certificates to be worth less than the paper they're are printed on.

Not the same opinion, but the majority of the right's wingers have views not supported in anyway by facts or evidence.

[M.Dancer]

Not the same opinion, but the majority of the right's wingers have views not supported in anyway by facts or evidence.

Citation please

[cybercoma]

The entire purpose of the CBC is to have a venue for Canadian broadcasting, so we're not overwhelmed by the American cultural machine (so to speak). With a much larger population and more money spent on cultural products, coupled with our population primarily gathered around the border, it's easy to see how this is a very real possibility. However, given the shift in cultural consumption from radio to television to internet, I think it's plain to see that good Canadian productions will always have a market. Perhaps it was important to have sheltered media in the nation-building days, but I think it's less important now and find the whole idea of protecting 'Canadian heritage' to be antithetical to our valued notions of diversity.

[Battletoads]

Citation please

Easy enough to find

[August1991]

Whatever supposed economic "benefit" that we receive from CBC funding/spending must be weighed against alternative uses for that funding; e.g. if the tax dollar that would have gone to finance the CBC either went to other projects, or was returned to taxpayers to be used in other ways.

I agree absolutely.

For years it's been "The CBC is wasting out money"

Now it's "let's judge their value by their entertainment value"

Seriously, you right wing kooks are pathetic.

Call it entertainment or information value. But that should be the measure of the CBC.

-----

As I said in the OP, in the future, radio people will be able to see in real time, when they shift to a particular topic or a particular player, how many listeners turn it off. The CBC has had a free ride for too long. The Internet is different. Bloggers get instant feedback.

[August1991]

My sister was a long term CBC employee, she retired some years ago. And she is the one who told me a valid criticism was that since they do get public funds, they charge less for advertising, which then inhibits the ability of the private broadcasters to raise funds.

On the other hand, working in the far north of Alberta, Saskatchewan and BC, it was fairly common to only have CBC since those areas didn't have sufficient populations to support a private facility.

Cost/benefit?

Broadcasting is cheap. Presumably, people in southern Canada will pay a few pennies to have a radio signal in Northern Canada in the small chance that they may some day be in Northern Canada, or they may meet someone from Northern Canada.

FTR, I'm against subsidizing the CBC. Some years ago, maybe, but the technology argument forwared by Segnosaur is very valid.

BTW, I favour subsidizing the CBC. I reckon that we can pay for TV through advertising, or through taxes (ie. cable fees).

I find advertising irritating unless it's good. I wish it were far more focussed.

The entire purpose of the CBC is to have a venue for Canadian broadcasting, so we're not overwhelmed by the American cultural machine (so to speak).

Cybercoma, that's a sad and pathetic argument. American cultural machine?

Without the CBC or a State broadcaster, Bulgarians survived under Islamic/Ottoman rule for 500 years.

If Canada is to survive, you are foolish to believe that a State broadcaster is critical to its survival.

Edited June 18, 2011 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

....Cybercoma, that's a sad and pathetic argument. American cultural machine?

Without the CBC or a State broadcaster, Bulgarians survived under Islamic/Ottoman rule for 500 years.

If Canada is to survive, you are foolish to believe that a State broadcaster is critical to its survival.

Indeed, as there is no such thing as an American cultural machine. Unless of course, one perceives that the equally nonexistent Canadian cultural machine has failed.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Indeed, as there is no such thing as an American cultural machine. Unless of course, one perceives that the equally nonexistent Canadian cultural machine has failed.

Well, at least until you consider that the US spends a lot more on programming than Canada.

It is very easy for Canadian content to get brushed aside when American content already exists.

That being said, Canada doesn't really have much culture content. Our culture is entirely fabricated in an attempt differentiate us from the States, when we are infact very similar.

Edited June 18, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Shwa]

Whatever supposed economic "benefit" that we receive from CBC funding/spending must be weighed against alternative uses for that funding; e.g. if the tax dollar that would have gone to finance the CBC either went to other projects, or was returned to taxpayers to be used in other ways.

Fantasy. The report says that the CBC provides an economic benefit right now. Today and in the past . It doesn't rely on day dreaming or wishful thinking about what could be with those mytical tax dollars, it is justifying itself as a positive economic factor in the present.

As one of those fiscal conservative types, this is what I like to hear. Show me the money so we can at least see that our collective investment has some tangible economic value in the field.

As for Canadian culture being subsidized, so? At least the money is being circulated here at home, resulting in economic benefit to Canadian production. Gawd, I bet you blow out your spleen over the National Film Board, eh?

[Topaz]

Sure none of this has to do with SUNTV than the CBC? I've watched both and I still like CBC better. ON the topic of politics, I go from CTV and CBC from 5:00PM-600PM.,go back and forth from CBC to local channel. SunTV I don't think they are going to get the viewers like CBC because after the freeies are over, many people can't afford to buy it. Beside, I like the way Evan, on CBC, he does ask the hard and direct questions, Canadians want to know. Now, that I've said all this Tories will probably make us pay.

[August1991]

Fantasy. The report says that the CBC provides an economic benefit right now. Today and in the past . It doesn't rely on day dreaming or wishful thinking about what could be with those mytical tax dollars, it is justifying itself as a positive economic factor in the present.

As one of those fiscal conservative types, this is what I like to hear. Show me the money so we can at least see that our collective investment has some tangible economic value in the field.

As for Canadian culture being subsidized, so? At least the money is being circulated here at home, resulting in economic benefit to Canadian production. Gawd, I bet you blow out your spleen over the National Film Board, eh?

Shwa, the money would circulate just as much if it went from my wallet into the world instead of taking a circuitous route through my taxes to the CBC.

By your logic (and the logic of this CBC report), it would be good for the economy if I emptied your bank account and used the money to buy maple syrup to fill my swimming pool. As you said, the money would circulate in Canada and result in economic benefit to Canadian production.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, at least until you consider that the US spends a lot more on programming than Canada.

I sure hope so...the USA's population is 312,000,000 with many more media markets.

It is very easy for Canadian content to get brushed aside when American content already exists.

Content is content...should I be concerned that some media in America is produced in Canada? Or the U.K.? Or New Zealand?

That being said, Canada doesn't really have much culture content. Our culture is entirely fabricated in an attempt differentiate us from the States, when we are infact very similar.

Almost agree, but the same dynamic can be seen in Quebec for similar reasons / objectives. I wonder if this dynamic is peculiar to Canada.