Time to change channels at the CBC?

[Riverwind]

I completely agree with you about the place for a non-commercial broadcaster in Canada. I just think such a broadcaster can survive with far less money from the government. Look at all the PBS pledge drives. How much money could CBC rake in with one of those every quarter or so?

I am not fundementally opposed to having CBC ask for donations - I just feel that given the nature of the Canadian marketplace that it would not be possible to have a reasonable service based on public donations. Part of the reason is Canadians are much less generous than Americans when it comes to donating money - we tend to expect the gov't to take care of such things. The other part is a big issue that you completely ignore: it costs just as much to produce a show for 30 million as it does for 300 million people. However, an audiance of 30 million people is going provide much less funding. This is a unescapable reality of the Canadian media market.

I also am concerned that there are too many ways to change the funding model that would make it impossible for CBC to survive. For example, if gov't funding is cut to quickly it could force CBC into a death spiral because it can't produce the quality programming to get the donations. That is why it would be difficult for me to support such a change if it was introduced by a gov't that hates the CBC.

[shoop]

That is an expectation that shouldn't necessarily exist.

Look at Corner Gas and Trailer Park Boys. The top two Canadian sitcoms on the air that came into being without the guiding hand of MotherCorp.

Part of the reason is Canadians are much less generous than Americans when it comes to donating money - we tend to expect the gov't to take care of such things. The other part is a big issue that you completely ignore: it costs just as much to produce a show for 30 million as it does for 300 million people. However, an audiance of 30 million people is going provide much less funding. This is a unescapable reality of the Canadian media market.

[Riverwind]

Look at Corner Gas and Trailer Park Boys. The top two Canadian sitcoms on the air that came into being without the guiding hand of MotherCorp.

Yes, but they still get funding from the Canadian govt:

http://www.canadiantelevisionfund.ca/funding/

http://www.cornergas.com/credits/

Produced with the financial participation of

Telefilm Canada Administrator of The Canada New Media Fund

funded by the Department of Canadian Heritage

If Canadians want shows about Canadians then we need to have our gov't subsidize them. If we let the free market rule then we will only see shows that investors know will sell in the US.

[shoop]

Sure, but there is still no need for a Government funded network.

(I actually was going to include a reference about Corner Gas and TPB receiving some sort of funding, but I guessed you would trip over yourself to find this *proof* anwyays. No reason for me to save you the work. )

Yes, but they still get funding from the Canadian govt:

If Canadians want shows about Canadians then we need to have our gov't subsidize them. If we let the free market rule then we will only see shows that investors know will sell in the US.

[Riverwind]

Sure, but there is still no need for a Government funded network.

Actually, I see the current situation as the ideal competitive market. The government tells the managers at CBC that they are no longer guaranteed recipients of gov't funding and they have to fight for it. Meanwhile, the managers at the private networks know that the funding will go back to CBC if they can't produce good stuff. Canadians end up with better choices in Canadian programming.

[wellandboy]

I also am concerned that there are too many ways to change the funding model that would make it impossible for CBC to survive. For example, if gov't funding is cut to quickly it could force CBC into a death spiral because it can't produce the quality programming to get the donations. That is why it would be difficult for me to support such a change if it was introduced by a gov't that hates the CBC.

This begs the question, does the CBC produce quality programming? In English Canada there are two CBC TV venues, regular CBC and Newsworld. If you took the sum total of their best parts, you would still have one mediocre TV outlet. If you take Hockey Night in Canada out of the equation, CBC loses it's biggest market share and financial earner. CBC still gets it's stipend no matter how bad or irrelevant it is.

There is another part of this story and that's the CRTC. As the Regulatory Agency, it has been protective of CBC in some markets. Niagara was recently turned down for a TV station to serve +410,000 people because the cries from Toronto. CBC doesn't play by the same rules as the rest of the broadcasters, yet can influence decisions made by the CRTC to award licenses within it's broadcast area. Hardly fair.

[gerryhatrick]

This begs the question, does the CBC produce quality programming? In English Canada there are two CBC TV venues, regular CBC and Newsworld. If you took the sum total of their best parts, you would still have one mediocre TV outlet. If you take Hockey Night in Canada out of the equation, CBC loses it's biggest market share and financial earner. CBC still gets it's stipend no matter how bad or irrelevant it is.

"irrelevant". Who decides that?

CBC has produced many great TV series and programs.

If you're going to talk about "market share/financial earner" then can you provide any source for your claims?

I would have thought selling Degrassi alone would outweigh Hockey Night in Canada. That's not a claim, just an opinion.

[wellandboy]

This begs the question, does the CBC produce quality programming? In English Canada there are two CBC TV venues, regular CBC and Newsworld. If you took the sum total of their best parts, you would still have one mediocre TV outlet. If you take Hockey Night in Canada out of the equation, CBC loses it's biggest market share and financial earner. CBC still gets it's stipend no matter how bad or irrelevant it is.

"irrelevant". Who decides that?

CBC has produced many great TV series and programs.

If you're going to talk about "market share/financial earner" then can you provide any source for your claims?

I would have thought selling Degrassi alone would outweigh Hockey Night in Canada. That's not a claim, just an opinion.

"irrelevant" the answer's easy, the viewers. As for CBC's great TV programs, I noticed you used past tense. Name one in production today. If you go to www.nielsenmedia.ca and www.bbm.ca , it shows the top 20 shows and Hockey Night in Canada has the only consistent showing. The money advertisers pay is directly proportional to the shows ratings. My argument is, the CBC receives it's Federal stipend regardless of how it actually performs, while the private sector has to actually compete to get their piece of the pie.

I don't understand your reference to Degrassi. It's now a CTV show.

Look, I'm not proposing to shut down the CBC entirely, but I do believe there is very strong evidence to examine the network's value to Canadians. I bet if Canadian's had to pay out of pocket + GST+PST to get CBC into their homes, this wouldn't even be a discussion.

I will point out that these comments refer to the English CBC network. The French network is by the numbers different and I personally have insufficient knowledge to make any determinations.

[sage]

This debate really boils down to any situation where you have a public entity competing in the private marketplace.

I watched an interview on the CBC with Asper (Izzy, Iggy, Ziggy, Zaggy, can't remember the goofy first name), anyway the Canadian media baron and he had an interesting twist to the whole thing.

His comment was that he actually supported a role for the public entity, his difficulty was that it should not be competing in the private marketplace for advertising dollars.

If the fundamental reasoning behind the existance of the CBC is to provide Canadians with programming they cannot find elsewhere, why is it sticking its nose in sectors where there is obviously sufficient private enterprise to deliver certina programming to Canadians.

A simple example: CBC Newsworld.

Why the hell does the CBC need newsworld? The answer is not because Canadians are starved for news coverage, the answer is because the CBC wants to put its version of the news before Canadians. The twists its role from that of simply discharging its civic duty, but rather to an intruder in the Canadian media market.

[shoop]

Great point. CBC does not need newsworld. Newsworld should not exist with the aid of government funding.

If the fundamental reasoning behind the existance of the CBC is to provide Canadians with programming they cannot find elsewhere, why is it sticking its nose in sectors where there is obviously sufficient private enterprise to deliver certina programming to Canadians.

A simple example: CBC Newsworld.

Why the hell does the CBC need newsworld? The answer is not because Canadians are starved for news coverage, the answer is because the CBC wants to put its version of the news before Canadians. The twists its role from that of simply discharging its civic duty, but rather to an intruder in the Canadian media market.

[Riverwind]

His comment was that he actually supported a role for the public entity, his difficulty was that it should not be competing in the private marketplace for advertising dollars.

I agree with this sentiment and would like to see CBC go completely advertisment free. However, that would mean the budget for CBC would likely have to go up to compensate for the lost revenue. I suspect most critics of CBC would be appalled at that idea so we are stuck with a model where CBC is forced to compete for advertising dollars.

All of the cable CBC channels generate a profit that funds other operations. It could go if CBC funding was increased.

[fellowtraveller]

Looks like about 65% want it abolished or pruned, 35% leave it alone.

I liked the comment: 'we're all obliged to pay for something nobody is watching'.

[Riverwind]

Looks like about 65% want it abolished or pruned, 35% leave it alone.

I wouldn't assume that every who selected 'pruned' is against the CBC. I thought about checking that option because there is always room for some improvement. Pruned does not equal dismemberment or a major overhaul.

I liked the comment: 'we're all obliged to pay for something nobody is watching'.

A lot of people watch/listen to the CBC regularily. Saying 'nobody' is watching is a gross exageration.

[fellowtraveller]

Sparhawk, what do you see as the purpose of the CBC today, in 2006, its reason for existence? For simplicitys sake, just English language services. Why must it be a publcly funded braodcaster. What are the specific advantages to me, what added value does the CBC provide that are not freely available from so many other sources?

It is scarcely an instrument of unity, just look at this thread.

Their ratings in most major markets are abysmal, you're right that nobody is watching is hyperbole, but not by much. Do you think the ratings are lies? If it is so loved by Canada, why don't more people listen to radio or TV?

Personally, I'm not agaisnt the CBC, but I do not want to pay for it except by personal subscription, just like I pay for all the rest of the news and entertainment sources out there.