Tag Archives: CTV

A time to remember – unless The View is on

November 11, 2011 – 12:31 pm| Posted in Opinion, TV

People who follow me on Twitter know that one of my pet peeves is when the broadcast networks don't air major live news events, preferring to relegate them to their all-news networks (if they have them) and/or websites.

Various arguments have been brought forth to justify this. Very few people don't have access to all-news channels anymore. There's less interest in live coverage of boring things. People who want it can get it online.

In the end, the biggest factor is money, with a little help from the CRTC. Simultaneous substitution rules encourage Canadian broadcast networks not only to run American programming, but to run it at the same time as the American stations do. They also, therefore, discourage Canadian networks from running Canadian programming during peak hours. As a bonus, relegating important programming to cable channels makes it more likely that people will subscribe to those channels, meaning increased subscription revenue.

In short, this is why we see regular-season NFL games Sunday afternoons on CTV, but all CFL games - even the Grey Cup - air on TSN instead. It's not a question of ratings, because the Grey Cup gets huge ratings in Canada. It's because the NFL games are on CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox, while the CFL games aren't.

It's win-win for the networks, while the only people who lose are Canadian viewers.

In the past few years, there has been a trend where live national and regional events don't get carried on the broadcast stations. Elections are a prime example. Often election nights (particularly provincial elections where a local station would likely have to go it alone or in a small group) get little if any live coverage. Other major events not involving attractive British royalty getting married are also less likely to be seen on local over-the-air television stations.

During CTV Montreal's noon newscast on Thursday, it was mentioned that there would be live coverage of Remembrance Day ceremonies at 11pm 11am Friday ... on CTV News Channel.

Sure enough, looking at the schedule, I don't see a Remembrance Day special on CTV's main network.

As it turns out, there was a noting of the occasion on the network, and it was done in the most half-assed way I can think of. It was a video that looked like it had been created in the 90s (it wasn't in HD, though some footage was in letterboxed 16:9) of the national anthem being played over stock footage of old veterans marching, followed by a trumped playing, and then two minutes of silence while old black and white war photos appeared on screen.

The video lasted a grand total of six minutes, from 10:56 to 11:02. Then it was back to regularly-scheduled programming already in progress.

What was so important that it couldn't be pre-empted more than two minutes for Remembrance Day?

The View.

Yeah, that Barbara Walters female-panel talk show. And it's not like it's a special episode or something. No, when CTV cut to it, it was in the middle of a conversation on interracial dating.

The cut was half-assed at the beginning, too. The video cut into the Marilyn Denis show (an original CTV production) in mid-sentence, while they were discussing some fashion makeover. This bothered me a bit more because there's no simultaneous substitution argument. Rather than simply cancel the show for a day, or make it four minutes shorter, or have four fewer minutes of advertising, they let it run as normal and just cut into it.

It's not like this is breaking news they didn't know was going to happen. Remembrance Day is not a surprise.

It's a stunning lack of respect for the viewers of both programs, but that seems pale in comparison to how it treats veterans.

Every year, we get news stories about malls refusing access to veterans to sell their poppies, followed a day or two later by a follow-up story saying the mall's management had changed its mind or that there was a misunderstanding. This year we had stories about people stealing poppy boxes. Each time the news is met with outrage.

Every year, news anchors and reporters wear the poppy religiously, knowing a failure to do so could result in the wrath of viewers.

And here we have CTV, which couldn't be bothered to carry more than six minutes of Remembrance Day coverage because of two entirely forgettable daytime talk shows. It's not like it would have cost them anything, since they were already producing special coverage for CTV News Channel.

Where's the outrage?

How the networks covered Remembrance Day

  • CBC: A two-hour special on the main network and CBC News Network
  • Radio-Canada: A two-hour special on the main network and RDI
  • CTV: Six minutes on the main network, live coverage on CTV News Channel
  • Global: A one-hour live special, plus a half-hour documentary on Canada's last WWI veteran
  • TVA: No live special on main network (outside of regular news coverage). LCN checked in with ceremonies occasionally as it would car crashes or other stories
  • V: An infomercial
  • Télé-Québec: Nothing
  • Sun News: Full live coverage
  • CPAC: Full live coverage
  • Assemblée nationale: Business as usual, minus a moment of silence at 11am
(Not being able to watch a dozen channels at once, it's possible I missed brief acknowledgments of Remembrance Day from some of these stations. If you saw one, let me know.)

The radio stations weren't much better. While CBC and Radio-Canada had moments of silence (which is eerie and confusing on radio), commercial music stations treated the matter briefly. CKBE 92.5 marked the passing of 11am with a call to remembrance, and CJFM 95.9 had a moment of silence (which lasted no more than 30 seconds).

Comments (11)
Tags: ,

CTV Two: The second-rate brand

May 31, 2011 – 4:20 am| Posted in Opinion, TV

BBC Two. ESPN2. CBC Radio 2. TSN2. And now Bell Media has added another broadcaster to the list of brands whose names literally scream out "second-rate stuff goes here": A Channel/ATV will become CTV Two, they announced on Monday.

Of course, A Channel is a second-rate channel, carrying mostly American programming that CTV has the rights to but can't fit into the main network's schedule. And I wasn't exactly crazy about the /A\ branding either, particularly because of how ungoogleable it was.

A poll apparently told Bell that CTV's brand is the most trusted media brand in Canada, and so it has decided to use that brand to maximum effect. It can't turn A Channel stations into CTV stations directly (most are too close to existing CTV stations), so it'll impose its brand and add a number to it because they can't think of anything better to name it.

Another change will be rebranding the newscasts as "CTV News" - so they'll be indistinguishable from CTV newscasts in all the other markets. Whether viewers of the local stations want this is, of course, irrelevant. The decision comes from the top, using the same logic that killed the Pulse News brand in Montreal.

CTV seems to be implying that it will put more effort into the network than it has in the past, giving it higher-profile shows instead of third-rate crap. It promises "one monster acquisition to anchor the schedule" - which I guess means that they're going to give the network a single hit show and otherwise keep the relationship between the two networks unchanged.

Using A as the sloppy-seconds network is the main reason it has never been profitable. And it will probably remain that way. But part of Bell's deal with the CRTC when it purchased CTV's assets was a commitment to keep the unprofitable A Channel stations running for another three years. So we'll see this experiment continue whether or not it's successful.

There may not be a lot of money for newscasts or original programming for the A stations, but apparently there's plenty of money to keep rebranding this network every few years. Hopefully whoever came up with the stupid name and cheap logo didn't get paid too much.

UPDATE (June 2): The announcement of CTV Two programming for this fall contains little of interest. Certainly no "monster acquisition" I can see.

Comments (17)
Tags: , , ,

The convergence utopia

September 15, 2010 – 1:48 am| Posted in Media, Opinion

It probably doesn't matter to most people that Bell Canada's parent company BCE announced on Friday that it was buying 100% of CTV. Bell already owned 15% of it, and had previously acquired CTV back in 2000 as part of a similar convergence play.

Ah, convergence. It's been the buzzword in the big media companies for the past decade or so, with all the acquisitions that have taken place. Bell, a phone company, started up a satellite TV service, a DSL Internet service, and got into the broadcasting game in one giant swoop by acquiring CTV the first time, along with a growing number of TV specialty channels.

Rogers, which had a head start on the convergence business being a broadcaster, cable provider and wireless company, added a baseball team, other cable and wireless providers, and broadcasting assets including the sloppy seconds of the CTV/CHUM acquisition.

Quebecor, once a commercial printer and newspaper owner, bought a TV network, a cable and Internet service provider, and an entire newspaper chain.

Canwest, once a small television broadcaster, built up a national television network, bought a high-profile newspaper chain and a media company with a truckload of specialty channels. Now it in turn (minus the newspapers) has been bought up by Shaw, a cable provider that acquired a satellite TV provider.

With Shaw's acquisition of Canwest and Bell's acquisition of CTV, a pattern is emerging where each of the corporate empires has a TV provider, a wireless service, an Internet service, a national broadcast network, TV specialty channels, and maybe some radio and print assets on the side.

Shaw Quebecor Bell* Rogers
TV network Global TVA, Sun TV CTV, A Channel CityTV/OMNI
TV provider Shaw Cable/Shaw Direct Videotron cable/Illico Bell TV, Bell Fibe TV Rogers Cable
Internet Shaw Internet Videotron Bell Internet Rogers Internet
Wireless (Coming in 2011) Videotron wireless Bell Mobility, Virgin Mobile Canada Rogers Wireless, Fido, Chatr
Home phone Shaw cable VOIP Videotron cable VOIP Bell Canada Rogers home phone
Newspapers None Sun Media, Osprey Media Globe and Mail (15%) None
Other print None TVA Publications Report on Business Magazine Rogers Publishing (including l'Actualité, Maclean's, Chatelaine, Canadian Business)
Specialty TV DejaView, Fox Sports World Canada, Global Reality, MovieTime, Mystery TV, TVtropolis, BBC Canada, BBC Kids, Discovery Health Canada, DIY Network, Food Network Canada, History Television, HGTV Canada, IFC Canada, National Geographic Channel Canada, Showcase/Action/Diva, Slice** LCN, Argent, addiktv, Yoopa, Les idées de ma maison, Prise 2, The Cave (51%) Business News Network, Comedy Network, CTV News Channel, TSN/TSN2, RDS, RIS, ESPN Classic, Discovery Channel (and related networks), BookTelevision, Bravo!, CP24, Comedy Gold (80.1%), FashionTelevision, MuchMusic (and related networks), Space, Star! Biography Channel, G4 Canada (66.67%), OLN, Rogers Sportsnet, Setanta Sports Canada (53.33%), The Shopping Channel
Radio None** None CHUM radio network (about 35 stations including CKGM Team 990 in Montreal) About 50 stations
Online publications None Canoe.ca Sympatico.ca 12 assets, including sweetspot.ca
Other TVA Films, Archambault, Super Club Videotron The Source Toronto Blue Jays, Rogers Centre

*For the purpose of this chart, we'll assume that the Bell purchase of CTVglobemedia goes through as advertised.

**Many people point to the Shaw family's control of Corus Entertainment to suggest that Corus is unofficially a subsidiary of Shaw Communications. But if you think that way, you can add a bunch of specialty channels and radio stations to the Shaw column.

Filling the holes

Rather than worry too much about a telecommunications company wanting to spend billions on media assets when just about all media assets are falling in value, the business world is wondering: What's next? Where is the next big acquisition or merger that puts a fifth column on that table?

Telus is the big name on everyone's lips, because they have the audacity to just be a telecom company at the moment and therefore have a "content gap". But Telus says they won't get in this game.

Besides, there are other options. Just connect the dots as you like:

Telecom

  • Telus (wireless, home phone, TV, Internet)
  • EastLink (cable, Internet)

Publishing

Broadcasting

Telecom and broadcasting

There's also plenty of regional telecom companies, small newspaper publishers, book publishers and specialty TV channel owners that can be scooped up and disappear into the large conglomerates.

How this screws us over

"Today our three largest cable competitors are fully integrated and clearly we are not prepared to buy our content from our competitors"

That quote comes from a conference call that Bell had shortly after announcing the deal to buy CTV. The basic premise behind this deal isn't that CTV is going to make Bell a lot of money by being a profitable business unit, but rather that CTV's content will be a bargaining chip to get people to use Bell's services.

Recently, Rogers launched a new TV channel called Sportsnet One. Even though it's only available on Rogers cable (it hasn't negotiated carriage on the other providers yet), Rogers decided to move Toronto Blue Jays games to Sportsnet One in order to get people to subscribe to the new channel. Since Rogers owns the baseball team, the television channel and the cable provider that carries it, it's the ultimate convergence play.

And it's royally screwing over Blue Jays fans.

Analysts don't think Bell will be using blackmail to get people to switch over to its services. But they could. Want to watch NHL games on your mobile phone? You can't unless you're with Bell. Want TVA shows on demand? You can't unless you have Videotron illico. Anything these companies can buy exclusive rights for, they will do it. The only things keeping them from forcing you to subscribe to a particular telecom in order to get some content are the CRTC (which doesn't regulate mobile or online content) and business models that see more profits in maximum exposure than short-sighted consumer blackmail.

It's not out of the realm of possibilities for one of these companies to pull some move that, like Sportsnet One, requires using a particular service to get something that used to be widely available. And if one company does that (and it's successful), the others would probably follow. We could be a couple of years away from a country where you need to buy redundant services in order to get the content you want.

Save our local TV from ... us?

Remember that "Save Local TV" campaign by the broadcasters who wanted us to convince the CRTC to force the cable and satellite companies to give money to TV broadcasters? And the corresponding "Stop the TV Tax" campaign from the cable and satellite companies to pressure the CRTC the other way? Well, since that campaign, Shaw took control of Global TV and BCE is about to take control of CTV. Quebecor, which owns both TVA and Videotron, didn't participate in either campaign.

Bill Brioux remembers those campaigns, and is particularly pissed that a TV network with a "broken business model" just sold for billions.

They're still arguing against each other at the moment, but how long can we expect that to last?

And there's other concerns too. John Bowman points out that there's little incentive to invest in quality broadcast equipment. And Iain Marlow suggests this may make it easier for the government to relax foreign ownership restrictions.

This kind of stuff will come up at the CRTC hearings into the takeover, though I'm doubtful that the commission will put up a major roadblock to it, despite opposition from opponents to media concentration.

It won't work ... or maybe it will

The biggest negative opinion about this deal is the simple argument that CTV won't be a profitable venture for Bell any more than it was a decade ago. That's what David Olive says, it's what Howard Bernstein says, and Torstar (which sells its stake in CTV) is playing this up as a win for them, as is the Globe and Mail, which is breaking off (mostly) from the empire.

To be fair, some like the Globe's Derek DeCloet believe this might make sense, pointing out that the price isn't as ridiculously high as it was 10 years ago. Other analysts agree.

One of those sides will be proven right in a few years. Let's hope, for the sake of consumer choice and healthy corporate competition, that bigger isn't better.

Comments (7)
Tags: , ,

Hi Daniele

December 13, 2009 – 3:53 am| Posted in TV
Daniele Hamamdjian reporting for CTV in Ottawa

Daniele Hamamdjian reporting for CTV in Ottawa

For those of you wondering about Daniele Hamamdjian, who recently left CFCF for a national reporting job at CTV, I spotted her today on CTV News Channel, reporting on the Olympic torch relay. Here she is closing her eyes and dreaming of a warm bagel from St. Viateur.

Post a comment
Tags: , ,

Polish woman wants to save local Canadian TV

October 27, 2009 – 4:43 pm| Posted in TV, Web design

Continuing my research into the origin of stock photos, I should point out that CTV's Local TV Matters site makes generous use of microstock.

This woman with a bullhorn, which used to adorn its splash page, is from a stock photographer based in Poland.

And that giant "on air" sign is from a 3D animator. It even comes with an off-air version, or one that says "vacancy". There's no French version, though, which forced CTV to kind of awkwardly photoshop their own.

Save local TV!

Comments (3)
Tags: , ,

A dose of reality in the TV debate

October 23, 2009 – 4:47 pm| Posted in Opinion, TV
Half-page ads from Global Montreal appearing in The Gazette

Half-page ads from Global Montreal appearing in The Gazette

CKMI, Global Montreal (formerly Global Quebec) has been heavily advertising the fact that it's now finally on the Bell TV (formerly Bell ExpressVu) network, on channel 234.

Station manager Karen Macdonald says that after 12 years on the air, CKMI finally got added to the dial in late August. CFCF and CBMT have enjoyed places on the dial for years now, and this absence has always been a sticking point for the station. So, she says, "we are very happy."

The reason is obvious: Quebec has a large number of satellite TV subscribers, and this move will give the station a much broader reach, which would translate into higher advertising revenues.

Bell TV isn't paying them a dime to "sell" their signal. They're stealing it. And Global couldn't be happier.

Read More »

Comments (21)
Tags: , , ,

CTV owes its viewers an apology

October 8, 2009 – 12:51 pm| Posted in Opinion, TV

Dave Carroll, the guy who did the United Breaks Guitars video, produces a song about the evil cable companies paid for by CTV. It has aired in full (without explanation) at the end of local newscasts across the CTV network for two days in a row, as if reinforcing the idea that local stations have little say in local programming. You can download the video here.

At 11:30 a.m. Thursday, CTV held a 45-minute news conference in Toronto to make its case for "saving" local television by getting Canadians to support them and support their request (now with CBC and Global) before the CRTC. The complete video is on CTV's website. It started off by using CKX-TV Brandon as an example, making me wonder if proving a point in this campaign wasn't a big reason that CTV decided to pull the plug on the station so quickly. It also included the presentation of two new commercial spots (both of which are comically bad), and ended with the Dave Carroll video above.

Scanning through the TV channels, I found it covered live on only one. It wasn't CPAC, of course, it was CTV News Channel, which cut away from Dan Matheson's show for almost 25 minutes to air these talking heads live. Matheson cut it off just before noon only so he could finally throw to commercials. Before he did, there were three questions from the audience - all from television broadcasters with clear interests here (one was from CityTV, which isn't part of the coalition only because its owner Rogers is more interested in protecting cable revenue than television revenue - the videographer asked if this is a political campaign by broadcasters, and got them to admit that yes, it was).

When CTV News Channel returned, there was no discussion of the topic, no response from cable and satellite companies, and no attempt was made to provide the other side of the debate (even though it's being clearly stated). This despite the fact that the 25-minute presentation included facts that are clearly in dispute, included two commercials (which were not shot by a CTV cameraman pointing at a screen, but fed directly to air), and an admission from CTV itself that this was a political campaign.

It was only at 1 p.m., an hour and a half after the press conference began, that Dan Matheson brought in Phil Lind of Rogers and grilled him for five minutes on the cable company's response. A 25-minute news conference with embedded advertising presented without question versus a five-minute interview with a skeptical news anchor is apparently considered balanced to CTV.

Just after noon on CFCF's local newscast, a brief about the news conference was presented by anchor Todd van der Heyden. Again, CTV's statements were presented without question, no attempt was made to present the other side of the debate, and viewers were encouraged to visit CTV's Local TV Matters website as if it was some reliable source for more information instead of a propaganda campaign by the corporate office.

CTV started by airing one-sided ads on its networks, then holding "open houses" and leveraging local TV personalities to amass large crowds to pretend there's some huge support for their political cause. They aired one-sided reports from local journalists scaring people into supporting them. Now, it seems, they're presenting a news conference (at which nothing new was said) as if it's breaking news.

CTV is continuing to abuse the public trust, and using its power over journalists it employs to get them to ignore journalistic ethics and bias themselves in favour of their employer.

It doesn't matter whether you agree with CTV's campaign, or with fee for carriage, or that local TV is in trouble, or that cable and satellite companies are making too much money. CTV News has a duty to present a fair picture to its viewers, and it is intentionally failing to do so.

This is what you want us to save?

UPDATE: Bell and Rogers respond with a press release saying they give plenty of money to Canadian television.

Comments (12)
Tags: , , ,

Battle of the fee-for-carriage misinformation campaigns

October 5, 2009 – 5:33 pm| Posted in Opinion, TV

The battle for "fee for carriage" - forcing cable and satellite TV providers to hand over money to over-the-air broadcasters - is getting ugly.

A few weeks after CTV got Global and the CBC to join its "Save Local TV" campaign (now rebranded "Local TV Matters"), Bell (which owns the largest satellite TV provider) and Rogers (which owns Rogers Cable) have launched the counter-campaign Stop the TV Tax. Both websites feature "facts" pages with incredibly misleading arguments and statistics about the business model of television, and both are racing against the clock to get people to support their side in upcoming CRTC hearings on the fee for carriage issue.

Notably absent from either side is Quebecor, which owns the TVA television network (and Sun TV station in Toronto) but also the Videotron cable service. CityTV, the other notable absence on the broadcaster side, is owned by Rogers, which has clearly picked the other side in this debate.

The "TV tax" website has prompted CTVGlobeMedia to respond by calling it "misinformation", while in the same release saying that cable companies are charging Canadians for conventional television, which is demonstrably false.

While CTV et al's claims are suspect, the Rogers and Bell throw up some doozies of their own, including fantom quotes saying incorrectly that this is a "one time" fee. Except nobody said fee for carriage would be a one-time fee, and the website provides no source for this supposed quote. They also claim that conventional broadcasters had profits of $400 million last year, but the CRTC put that number at only $8 million (down from over $100 million) when it released statistical data in February. (UPDATE Oct. 6: I asked the Stop the TV Tax people about this, and they pointed to a Canwest quarterly report and an opinion piece about CTV, neither of which break down profit by conventional vs. specialty channels, and on Global's side the operating profit for its non-Alliance-Atlantis TV network - which still includes a half-dozen cable channels like MovieTime and TVtropolis - was about $40 million)

When it comes to choosing between greedy broadcasters and greedy cable and satellite companies, most informed Canadians would prefer to choose neither. These slick (and expensive) lobbying campaigns - just think of how much they're spending to lobby the CRTC directly if they're spending this much on us - only reinforces the fact that both sides have plenty of money to spare.

Comments (22)
Tags: , , , ,

CKX, the TV station nobody wanted

October 3, 2009 – 4:12 pm| Posted in Opinion, TV, Video

The final moments of CKX-TV (the complete newscast starts here).

The news came suddenly: Bluepoint Investment Corporation said on Thursday that it would back out of a deal to buy CKX-TV in Brandon, Man., from CTV. CTV, which had threatened the station with closure if it couldn't find a buyer, didn't waste any time, announcing that Friday's newscast would be its last and the station would go off the air at 7 p.m. All 39 employees are now unemployed, and the community of Brandon is left without a local commercial television station (only the cable community channel, and a community station in nearby Neepawa). While the Brandon Sun still provides reporting for the community, television news for the entire province of Manitoba now originates from Winnipeg.

The news is devastating and humiliating for CKX, which had been a pawn in a bad-faith sarcastic deal negotiated by way of newspaper advertisement between CTV and Shaw. The latter said it would buy the station and two others from CTV for $1 to convince the CRTC that local television did indeed have a profitable future. Then, when Shaw took a look at the stations, it decided it wasn't such a good investment after all.

In July, the station's hopes were raised again when Bluepoint came on the scene, with what seemed like a more serious offer (though for the same nominal amount of $1). But Bluepoint has come to the same realization as Shaw: small-market TV stations aren't worth it.

Bluepoint's official excuse is that they couldn't get carriage guarantees from satellite companies, and since most people in the area get their TV that way, they desperately needed that. I'll leave it as an exercise for readers to determine how much of the decision was satellite coverage and how much was Bluepoint realizing the true economics of conventional TV.

So CKX is off the air, its website replaced with a thank you message and a link to CTV's "Local TV Matters" site (as if a message to everyone that more stations will fall unless local TV is saved). CTV had two stories on the closure, both of which mention the larger issue of conventional television and fee-for-carriage.

For those keeping score, here's how the CTV and Canwest stations threatened with closure this year stand:

That's three stations sold, two kept running and three shut down.

You may not agree with fee for carriage, or that the conventional television model is even broken, but small-market stations are closing down, and nobody is moving in to even rescue them from the trash heap.

CKX logo

Comments (2)
Tags: , ,

Global, CBC join CTV’s “Save Local TV” campaign

September 15, 2009 – 9:28 pm| Posted in Opinion, TV

A few months into its campaign to "Save Local Television", CTV has managed to get its competitors CBC and Global to join its rebranded campaign "Local TV Matters" (there's even a Twitter account!), trying to get public support for CRTC regulatory changes that would allow conventional television stations to charge cable and satellite companies for distribution of their signals.

The website's FAQ lists PR-generated counter-arguments to some common complaints, but seems to ignore the history of conventional television and why it's free in the first place.

Decades ago, before there was cable, conventional television was all there is. Most stations were locally-owned and had powerful transmitters to reach as many homes as possible. Revenue came from advertising, which was fine because everyone watched TV in primetime, and everyone watched the local news.

In the early days of cable, the specialty channels were low-budget affairs and highly specialized. Music videos on MuchMusic, live sports on TSN, non-stop weather updates on the Weather Network. Quality primetime programming came from the conventional networks like CTV, which was back then a cooperative of local stations. Local programming gave way to network (Canadian and U.S.) shows in primetime, but mornings and early evenings were still largely local affairs.

Canadian television network breakdown

The proliferation of specialty channels is a large part of why conventional television isn't what it used to be. The audience is fragmented, and the conventional networks' piece of the pie has diminished, along with advertising.

Specialty networks don't have to provide local programming, though on the other hand they cannot accept local advertising and they cannot transmit over the air.

Now that more than 90% of Canadians have cable or satellite service, the advantage of over-the-air transmitters is outweighed by their cost. And because most advertising is national in scope, and targetted to specific demographics that specialty channels are better at reaching, that advantage too has disappeared.

What's left to give conventional television stations an advantage is the programming itself. But while many people still watch the news, it's not enough to pay for it. In very few markets does local news attract enough advertising revenue to pay for itself. So those newscasts (especially in smaller markets) have been drastically cut. Local news has been replaced by more pre-packaged news packages from the networks. Programming outside of the local newscasts has been all but eliminated.

So what can we do about this? Should we just shut down the conventional networks? Obviously the networks don't agree with that idea, because conventional television is still making them money.

How about a government bailout? Consumers would be opposed to that, and it creates all sorts of problems (should broadcasters be paid equally, or based on the ratings of their newscasts?). Besides, there already is one in the form of the Local Programming Improvement Fund, a 1.5% tax on cable and satellite companies' revenues that goes to help programming in small-market stations.

What CTV et al are proposing is that broadcasters and distributors negotiate a fair market value for carrying their stations. It's not entirely clear what the details are, such as whether consumers would be able to choose which conventional television stations they would pay for (they could pay for none of them and just hook up the rabbit ears to get them free), or whether they would be forced to pay for them like we're forced to pay for CBC Newsworld and CPAC whether we want to or not (such mandatory carriage would leave cable and satellite companies without a bargaining chip, making negotiation difficult).

It's the economics, stupid

The networks' prime argument in launching this campaign is this:

One of the campaign's concerns is that cable and satellite providers continue to charge viewers for our services, yet they pay nothing to local television stations. However, Canadian cable companies pay U.S. cable channels in excess of $300 million a year for their services, and these cable channels are not required to produce any Canadian content. The campaign members are standing up to change this system because they believe local stations deserve fairness so viewers can continue to enjoy local television programming now and in the years to come.

The argument about channels like Spike and CNN not producing Canadian content is valid. Of course, the CRTC takes this into consideration when approving a U.S. channel for distribution here. U.S. networks aren't allowed to compete with Canadian ones on (basic) cable, which is why we didn't have MTV to compete with MuchMusic or HBO to compete with the Movie Network until Canadian versions of those channels launched recently.

But the comparison to conventional television is based on a faulty assumption. People don't pay for conventional television stations as part of their cable bills. People get cable because they want CNN and Spike, not the local news. The bills for basic service cover the physical cable service as well as CRTC-mandated specialty channels like Newsworld and CPAC. Cable and satellite companies don't charge consumers to give them local television stations, because you can't charge people for something they already get for free.

The big irony of the argument is that the CRTC mandates that cable and satellite companies distribute local television stations as part of their basic service at the request of those television stations. In cable's infancy, local TV wanted to be on cable to reach larger markets and get more advertising revenue. They even got the CRTC to guarantee they'd get the lowest spots on the dial, which back then were considered prime electronic real estate.

But I understand times change. Things are different now, the model is broken.

At least, they say the model is broken. CTV and Global haven't released detailed financial reports showing how much money they're losing on conventional television (or if they're losing any at all). We have only their self-serving word to go on here.

The CRTC will be debating the future of local television in November.

Comments enabled

A side note about the "Local TV Matters" campaign: the website (which is WordPress-based) has open comments on its posts, and there's already a lot of them from incredulous consumers asking why they're being asked to pay more when their local programming is being cut to the bone. I'm a bit surprised the comments are still up there, and wonder what it will take for them to shut down dissenting consumer opinion.

Comments (26)
Tags: , , , ,