10 Things That Would Make Canadian TV Better

I made this recent post about Canadian Tastes vs. American Tastes, and the floodgates opened in the comments section. Add to that the contretemps a few weeks ago over at the TV, Eh? site, and you've got a big bowl of seething what-have-you. I like my what-have-you a little spicy, so what the hell -- let's dive in.


10 Things That Would Make Canadian TV Better


1) Honest Peer and Critical Review

A lot of people wouldn't start here, but brothers and sisters, it's necessary. One of the pervasive barriers to the industry maturing here is what I call "agenda reviewing." There are TV critics out there who review Canadian shows "lightly," ladling out faint praise, which damns as faint praise always does. There are other critics who have an axe to grind, like a few who really do make it their mission to come down hard on everything the CBC does, good or bad. Still others are a little close to some producers, and they give them a pass.

We're a long way from the days when a major newspaper TV critic was pitching programs at the same time as he was reviewing others, but this inconsistency in critical approach isn't helpful. One of the things that we have to overcome as an industry is a lingering feeling in some of the population that "if it's a Canadian show it automatically sucks." It doesn't. But part of the reason that's out there is because anyone arguing the oppostie view seems compromised. Program makers have a vested interest in the subject, and the audience, whether they know it or not, smells the agenda in writing about Canadian TV and knows it's not really honest or accurate.

When it comes to peer review, it's the same thing. I've heard stories of Producers lodging complaints with the Globe & Mail because they didn't like John Doyle's review. Or going up to critics at industry events to bitch. Or when Doyle or someone else points out some newsworthy gaffe the CBC has made, dismissing the whole thing as evidence of "his anti-CBC bias."

This kind of thing simply has to stop. It's terribly unprofessional. Critics must have the space to judge, as they see fit. Cleaning out those who really do have an agenda will increase the credibility of those who, like Doyle, call it as they see it. (I remember at least as many columns where Doyle praised CBC as when he took it to task.) As for us, we have to cowboy up. It is not the job of critics to booster homegrown tv. It's their job to tell us if it's good or bad. And it wouldn't hurt all of us to be honest about that, either.

In the long run, we will get further if we don't pressure those who criticise into having to fulfill any other agenda than critical review. The struggle with that is enough.

Finally, I think WGC and Networks should push for more features written on cast, directors, etc, pre-premiere. They should not be written by the TV critic who will review the show. Keep that relationship pure. And once the reviews are beyond reproach, we can actually attack one of the other problems. (I'm going to quote a former Film & TV publicist, "Recovering Hack," here, from a post she made over at TVEh?)

Getting coverage from the media is another hurdle, as they’ll run big, splashy front page articles and photos of Top 10 (almost always) American shows while Canadian shows are relegated to small write ups buried somewhere deep in the Entertainment section. Granted, it’s not always the case- one Canadian MOW I worked on nabbed three TV book covers the same week despite being up against a star-powered American Hallmark Xmas special airing the same time - but more often than not, the media chooses to focus on the American stars and shows.

2) Shorten Development Timelines


In the United States, every year they have a development system that starts, and a few months later there's a pilot, and then the pilot gets picked up, and then it's on the air and succeeds or fails with the audience. The cycle takes about a year.

In Canada, you often have series in development for two years or more. Then sometimes the show gets shot and delayed, ie: it sits on the shelf for a while before it goes to air.

There's a lot of reasons for this. We don't do pilots a lot of the time, they're trying to program around the U.S. broadcast season, they develop a lot of scripts, and notes, notes, notes.

But all of this blows what is the essential strength of storytelling in the TV medium: its immediacy.

It's become a cliche how Law & Order's "ripped from the headlines" stories work, but they do work. TV is supposed to be a responsive medium, and a lot of the time shows catch on because it's the show that people want, even if they didn't know they wanted it. Much was made this season of a lot of dark dramas reflecting "the USA finally dealing with 9/11..." I think it's far more likely that it's anxiety over the war in Iraq, and the polarized, unsettled, and demoralized state of the American mindset. So you have HEROES and JERICHO, one escapist, one a reflection of our darkest fears. You also have UGLY BETTY, which gets to be purely escapist, while still dealing with the roiling unsettled feeling people have about the drift of modern celebrity culture. Ugly Betty has an awful lot to do with Paris Hilton, in my estimation.

In Canada, by the time a show actually gets to air, it doesn't really reflect what people are thinking about. At best, it reflects what the writer was thinking about two, sometimes three years ago.

Intelligence, a rare Canadian show with a current-ish hook

3) Change the Development System


Okay, that's all well and good. Move up those timelines. But how? We can't adopt a U.S. style development system. There aren't the resources. Or as commenter and TV writer Matt Watts put it:

Let's assume that 1 in 10 shows is worth watching.

Canada can't compete with those odds.

If the States makes 100 pilots, that gives them 10 that might make it. Here, we make 10 shows, that means we're lucky if we've got one decent show.

As writers, we've got to take some of the blame. Sometimes we write crap.

Not because we're crappy writers, but because we don't have the same system in place for developing talent that the States does.

We don't have "staffs" or "teams" it's usually just one writer, with maybe a story editor.

We've got a lot going against us. From start to finish.

But what irritates me is no one wants to admit that maybe, sometimes, the show just isn't that good and it's not worth watching.

We have to figure out how to make the system work for us, and stop worrying about how we can't compete with the States. Because we can't.

Thanks for that, Matt. Let's take off from Matt's last comment.

If we can't develop in a U.S.-like system, is there another way? Can we invent one?

Here's what happens now in the Canadian development system:

You get a deal, which usually puts you on a deal to write a pilot script, a bible, and another script. Sometimes you go for a second round, and they develop more scripts. The bible discussions are usually quite protracted. Networks want endless explications of backstory and minute details of all the characters.

Now, common sense dictates that even the best script in the world, is just a script. There's still a lot of ways to screw it up. Or make it better. But very few of them, I believe, involve giving the writer more time to write.

I can write an hour long script in about two weeks, if I'm working off an outline. Maybe a pilot would be a bit longer. And in a development deal, it's usually structured so you're working off a detailed outline. Now. That script I write is not going to be any better if you give me a month to write it.

I'll tell you what would make it better: other voices.

But not in the way the system currently works. A lot of times, Telefilm or other agencies allows for the services of a story editor. A story editor in this context is an outside person who reads and recommends changes. (Like a dramaturge for a play.)

In effect, it's one more person giving you notes.

Depending on the show or the deal, the person performing this function could be paid anywhere from 3 to 5 thousand dollars.

It's a waste of money. You don't need one more person giving you notes. I've got a better way to use that money. But first...What are the other problems in the development system?

Okay. Remember that incredibly detailed bible? Well, by the time you get anywhere near casting, you're casting blind for a character who's incredibly, annoyingly specific. This goes against every instinct of how you work with Actors. This isn't a movie, where you only need to tell one two-hour story about this person. You're casting a system -- a person who will hopefully grow, and change within the role. So you need a really good actor.

But really good actors are really good. Which means, a lot of them are hitting development season down south, every year. You can do all this incredibly detailed work developing the script (or scripts) and you finally get a greenlight, and then you're at the mercy of who's available. The same is true with Directors.

So what if upend all of this? How about if you have your idea, maybe even have your pilot script, and then you go out and try to find your lead? What if you pre-cast? Work out a system where you maybe bring the two leads or the two most important characters together. Pay them to work with you. Run scenes. Improv situations based on the plot, the characters. You do all this within a short period of time, say, three months. You meet a few times with your actors, do this work, have your director there too, and figure out if you've got something that pops.

Every series has the momet where they go to the floor and suddenly change on the fly: two minor characters pop and you want to write more for them. (Think Janel Moloney with Bradley Whitford in West Wing) Or the leads you have don't have any chemistry. Don't you want to find that out before you shoot six episodes? Remember, this is predicated on the knowledge that you can't film a pilot. But you have to do something. You can't think that you're trying to put together and cast an ensemble for one hour or two or six. You have to think that you're putting together an ensemble who would work for the next five years.

It's the difference between waiting til you get sick, or trying some preventative medicine. A little work up front can save you down the road.

The timelines are important, too, because you're trying to catch lightning in a bottle here. Directors are going to want to find work. Actors too. And writers. A development deal does not pay you anywhere near enough to live on for the amount of time the network has you in development. Shorten those timelines. Get the material on its feet. See what pops. See what you want to change.

And remember that money for the story editor? How about paying other writers? Bring them in for a week. Five thousand dollars, you could hire two or three writers to come in and punch up, work the concept for a week. Put the script to the room. Harness the power of more than one mind. Make development something dynamic. Throw out the film or playwriting model... use the model that works for TV. Put together a room.

And do it in a concentrated enough timespace that everyone can give you their full attention, because it makes economic sense to do so. Yup, this would require Network people to be on their toes. And it would certainly require funding agencies to be more responsive. But come on, the American system is wasteful and can't be replicated. We have to try something different.

And this way, maybe you too could have a shot at actually casting a Rachel McAdams before she becomes a big American star. (Think about how few Canadian actors achieve any sort of fame or success as a lead in a Canadian series before they go south. It's because everything takes too long. Actors have a shelf life, you know.)

Slings & Arrows -- an example of a successful show where the writers & actors developed the whole thing together (mainly because two of the main writers were also actors in the show.)

4) Change the Regulatory Framework


To everyone else in the stakeholder game: the WGC, ACTRA, DGC, etc -- this would probably be number one. I'm hesitant to even put it at number four. Because even if they do adopt a new CRTC policy mandating that Canadian Broadcasters spend 7% of revenues developing homegrown shows (the current proposal,) that's not going to fix anything unless we fix the other flaws in the system -- including the ones that have to do with the creators themselves.

That being said, it's hard to deny that the 1999 CRTC Policy change that allowed Canadian stations to classify magazine and reality shows as CanCon, same as Dramas and Comedies, was a disaster. The entire domestic industry imploded, practically overnight.

Canadian networks have a pretty sweet deal. They get to buy the best of the U.S. crop every year, at a fraction of what it would cost to make their own shows. They get to substitute their signals over the air of the U.S. nets when they simulcast, which means they even get to piggyback on the U.S. promotion machine -- from E.T. and their ilk, to coverage in American magazines and news sources. Their entire business model is subsidized. There's no sense talking about the free market here, since what they've got right now is pretty much the free market plus a huge allowance from Dad.

Commenter Caroline provides some razor-to-the-wrists context:

Here's the seedy little secret of our industry. The networks don't really want to make Canadian shows. Period. They do it because they have to in their conditions of license.

In fact, it's even better for the broadcasters when CanCon fails, because they can whine and kvetch to the CRTC about how they try so hard but the viewers won't come.

Shows like Degrassi and Instant Star and Corner Gas are anomolies. Instant Star's conception and developmen was driven by the US net, CTV hopped on board after the fact and bet on a proven horse. And nobody could have been more shocked at Corner Gas's success than CTV.

Sad, but true. Yet I believe establishing hard-and-fast guidelines compelling Canadian channels to show domestic drama and comedy isn't the complete answer, either. Not long term. Because the TV business is changing too. So I think there should be a sunset in any change of regulatory provision. If the CRTC mandates spending of 7% of revenues on domestic production, I think they should automatically say that this policy should be reviewed in seven years.

You know why?

Well, I was related a very interesting conversation at the Gemini Awards last week. A guy was telling me that he was talking to a Canadian sales guy for one of the networks, and he admitted that domestic Canadian production was about to become a lot more important. Because the rise of legal downloads in the U.S. -- a market that didn't exist a year ago -- everything is changing. American production companies aren't going to be too eager to sell download rights to 24 or Prison Break or E.R. or Heroes to Canadian broadcasters. And why should they?

If you want to get into that market -- oh and they dooo, they dooo! -- you have to have your own product. And it has to be product people actually want to watch.

Listen to the salespeople. It could be that the regulatory relief we need is not longterm. If we can pull our own bootstraps up, a change in the landscape could also help our industry mature.


5) Let Culture Take Care of Itself


The bureaucratization of the system here means that the whole "tell Canadian stories" thing has become ludicrous. Bureaucrats like everything to be bureaucratic. Bureaucrats hand out the money. So writers spend a lot of time having to defend and explain how their project is "visibly Canadian." For funding, "visibly Canadian" is way more important than "appealing to an audience."

This is a guaranteed recipe for failure.

Rather than spend time counting beavers and hockey pucks in each script, the system needs to be re-framed around quality. The first step is accepting that the stories that Canadians tell -- stories that involve Canadian actors, writers, directors, etc...are Canadian because we're the ones telling them. The story doesn't have to say something about Canada. That's not a restriction that anyone puts on CanLit. It's not a restriction that anyone puts on Canadian music. To put that didactic burden on television is to strangle creative ideas in the crib.

This is a holdover from the bad old days of the tax shelter movie -- where huge amounts of money were given out for a bunch of crap that was embarrassing. Later, when the industrial market was in its heyday, there were all these shows that were shot here and went for tax credits and qualified as Cancon, but were always set in New York for international sales. And the bureaucrats hated that.

Well, you know what? Get over it. Canadians, from Marshall McLuhan to Harold Innis, have always been an observing culture. And we're next to the biggest petri dish in the world. I guarantee you, if we make a movie set in the U.S. -- it will have a different point of view than a movie made in the U.S. by an American.

People have said this over and over: FARGO could have been a Canadian movie. NORTHERN EXPOSURE could have been a Canadian show.

If the bureaucrats were removed from the approval process, and everyone was allowed simply to focus on quality for five years, at the end of that time you would have series on the air that were way more "visibly Canadian" than the current obsession with counting beavers and hockey pucks. Audience and entertainment value first. Cultural significance second. Let the people decide, and stop trying to feed people their vegetables.


6) Put Writers in Charge


Kids, it's what works. Directors are in the business of making a cool piece of film -- not in worrying about that Character's arc and how something in this episode will pay off five episodes down the road.

Line Producers who suddenly decide they're going to be creative, without knowing how stories are structured, pay off, set up, or how they're entertaining -- are killing the business in this country.

When the writer doesn't have the final say on the story, the creative will get muddy. It will not be sharp. It will not be appealing to an audience. A "Head Writer" who has to answer to an elevated numbers person who decide they're now going to be a creative genius, and say all sorts of things that are important -- well...that's a recipe for disaster. The reason why the business has evolved this way is because it's so damned hard to put together the financing here that the art of the deal is made more important than the script, or the casting, or the acting.

True partnership between writers and producers is possible. But as it stands now, writers are brought on too late in the process, and they don't have enough power. Series are created by Producers who didn't come up through writing. And the deal is inevitably more interesting than the show. We've got this pear-shaped. Years of shows where the person who has final say isn't the main creative voice hasn't worked. But then again, the writer-showrunner class in Canada is very thin on the ground right now. So this point really goes in tandem with:


7) Use Longer Episode Orders To Train People Up


This is back to economics. Used to be that most Canadian series orders were 13 episodes. Lately, the norm seems to be 8 or even 6 episodes. It's all down to economics.

But these shorter orders, combined with the length of development, means that there's no pie to give out. If you're a writer/creator, if you're going to make enough money to live on, you're going to have to write most, if not all, of the episodes yourself.

This results in a couple of things that hurt the industry. First, if there aren't a lot of freelance scripts available, it means that it's hard for writers to learn from more experienced writers, and work their way up and improve their craft by working with talented people further along in their careers.

Second, it makes the focus of any young writer's career the development deal. If there isn't a lot of freelance work around, then your best option for work is to create your own. So you have people creating these proto-shows (most of which never make it out of development) way before they're ready.

It also means that many writers move up, without ever really seeing too much production. In the U.S.A., you move through the chain, gradually gaining more and more producer responsbility, so that by the time you've completed your journey from staff writer to co-exec producer or supervising producer, you're grounded in a lot of other stuff besides writing. It makes you a better writer, a better manager, a better business person, and a savvier commodity.

The only area of Canadian TV that is really amenable to new writers is animation, because they are traditionally readied for export and given longer episode runs. You can improve your craft in animation -- though even there, there's not a lot of cross pollination, because there generally aren't writers rooms or too much contact between writer and production.

So long as the writer is kept at a low level freelancer, not involved or integrated into other aspects of the production, you won't be able to take advantage of a creative mind that can also "speak production." Television production is infinitely complicated, with far more problems than solutions. The writer can be part of that solution, but only if they're properly trained.

Focusing on the art is nice, but writers need a helping hand if they're also going to become masters of their craft.

In the short term, if longer episode orders, and more widespread writers rooms aren't feasible, then how about more targeted tax breaks? Structure financing so that if, say, you hire one new writer (define it as someone with less than five hours of produced television under their belt) per production, part of their salary, even part of their writing fees, are covered.

This is why, in the USA, the WGA mandates that a certain number of outside writers have to be given scripts. We need a Canadian equivalent. We actually need it more, because there is so little other structure in place that helps train writers to improve their craft.


Corner Gas, a tv show where writers are in charge of the creative, where they use story rooms, and where they have trained people up. How's that workin for them?


8) Stop Giving TV Series to People Who Want to Make Canadian Films


This is a really important pet peeve of mine. We know what Canadian film is. It's not mainstream. It's full of auteurs that make movies that owe way more to the European art house than the American multiplex.

The problem is that the audience for TV is way more multiplex than art house. The transaction is very different. You are not going out to a theatre where you expect to be challenged...you are sitting in your living room, wanting to be entertained. And flipping the channel is way easier than getting up and walking out of the theatre and trying to talk your way into the Bruce Willis movie next door.

I'm not saying that Canadian Film is good or bad, here. I don't have a dog in that hunt. I have no desire to work in Canadian Film, and very little desire to work in American film, for that matter. I'm a TV writer. I love the medium. Which means things like act breaks, and character arcs are important to me. It means that I venerate the story above all else, because I know it's the stories that keep people coming back, and that all the interesting cool shots and all the interesting character moments in the world are not as important as telling a compelling story that the audience can understand and appreciate. It means that I want to entertain people more than I want to 'say something.' (Not saying I don't want to 'say something,' just saying the desire to entertain people comes first.)

It means that when a producer friend of mine describes his series as "a solid double," I know exactly what he means, and I don't turn up my nose at that. It means I have a TV sensibility. And I will not apologize for that.

It means, sure, I love Six Feet Under and Sopranos, but I also appreciate that Everybody Loves Raymond is a funny, well-written show even if it's not to my personal taste. I recognize why people who love it, love it. It means, again, that I'm way less concerned about my art, than my craft.

And it never, ever, ever, ever means I get to turn up my nose and say, "I don't really watch/like television."

Fuck you, then. Go make a movie. TV is awesome.

If you don't think that, you shouldn't be making a TV show -- in Canada or anywhere else.


9) Get Really, Really High (Concept)


Let's face it. The clutter is insane. There is simply no way a Canadian TV show can compete for promotion with an American show. Period. Not to say we don't need to get better at promotion. (See below) But one way that could help is if we greenlit a couple of shows that were easy to understand from the pitch.

Canadian TV shows tend to be execution shows. You have to explain DaVinci a bit. This is Wonderland had three seasons, and beyond being a black comedy set in the courts, I'm still not sure what it was.

Rent-A-Goalie comes closer. Trailer Park Boys, well, that's pretty easy to understand right there.

High concept shows are shows that you can understand in a sentence. "People discover extraordinary powers just as a dark force threatens to destroy the world." "The moon splits into three pieces, causing everyone to live their life as if each day is their last." "A man who ages backwards tries to keep his family together." "Jack Bauer has to save the world -- in real time."

High Concept shows need less promotion, and are easier to cut through the clutter. Remember Snakes on a Plane? As Sam Jackson said, "You either want to see that or you don't."

Yeah, yeah, I know. SoaP didn't exactly live up to expectations. But hell, what could?

Going high concept doesn't mean that you can get away with doing a mediocre show. It just means that you've got a hook. If you've got a hook, maybe it's easier to get an initial tune in. And after that point, it's up to you.

Point is, we haven't really tried it in Canada. Why not? Execution shows require explanation. And there's a lot of noise out there.


10) Evangelize Within and Without


One of the most interesting things about Bill Carter's Desperate Networks was the revelation that practically every show that's a hit, only made it on the air because somebody took a leap. Usually that network person wasn't the man or woman in charge, but someone below them, who really, really believed in the project. This is true of Desperate Housewives. American Idol. Survivor. Even CSI. You name the show, I'm telling you, it wouldn't have seen the light of day if not for an inside advocate.

Anil Gupta, a guy who was at BBC, came to the Film Centre last year and described how reluctant everybody at BBC was to put Ricky Gervais and The Office on the air. They kept passing. He kept pushing.

So in other words, this isn't a strictly Canadian phenomena. Not by a long shot. But unfortunately, Canada's not a big risk taking country. But if there's no one inside a network willing to really fight for a show that you love, then we're not going to have any hits. It's part of the process that's desperately needed. Will somebody step up? And if they're right, will the networks they work for reward them for it?

It's way harder to pick a show from a script and stand up for it, than it is to go down to the L.A. screenings and write a cheque to buy a show that's already made. But the buyers are celebrated, and the Development Execs in this country toil mostly in anonymity. We need to start giving Development Executives credit when they make a good call. Their job is hard.

Then there's publicity. Oy. See, the hard-smacking truth is that because they can piggyback on American publicity for their U.S. buys, most Canadian broadcast publicity isn't very good. Even people who want to write about Canadian shows find that they have trouble getting what they need to do so. The websites aren't updated regularly. There isn't enough great, camera-ready art. They won't fly in stars for pressers.

As commenter Caroline said:

The only network who's credibly promoted a Canadian series lately is CTV, and they're using public benefits money to do it. A friend recently had a documentary run in their W-5 slot. They gave him an army of publicists, a decent license fee and actually got decent numbers when the program aired. Even on a relatively low-profile one off, the system works if you actually try to make it work.

Yesterday, I spent the day in a session working on refocusing a series that a friend of mine has in development at a Canadian network. It was a good day, lots of great work that I hope puts my friend's show on the fast track -- but the thing that struck me driving to the meeting was that between my home and where we were meeting, I saw five billboards for Corner Gas. Five. It was really something.

But then again, before we all bow down in praise before absurdly successful CTV, let's read commenter blueglow's take:

We opened a season of Cold Squad with a million viewers. a million. which for Canada is not bad considering the the ratings winner that week in the US had thirteen million -- in Canuck terms that's 1.3 million if you play with the 30 mill Canucks vs 300 mill Americans.

What did our Canuck broadcaster do with a million viewers (competing head to head with HNIC)? They took us off the air and replaced us with an American buy.

Cold Squad was also decent enough that there's a very, very similar series that's now a hit on CBS. But let's not go there.

Canadian writers and producers Do know how to make shows that connect with Canadian viewers but the delivery systems we have to operate with are severely flawed.

For example, for seven years, SEVEN, Traders was one of the most well reviewed series on canadian TV, for that full seven years it was slotted against ER, there was no way that show could have been a success in that environment and the broadcaster made no attempt to move it because to move it and see more eyes go to that show would have weakened his arguement in front of the CRTC that he should not be obliged to make Canadian shows because TRADERS was demonstrable proof that Canadians didn't want to watch them.

Traders also trained Hart Hanson, and David Shore, two Canadians who are now having great success in the U.S. system.

Now, to a large extent, that was the bad old days of Canadian broadcasting. I truly believe that the demand for on demand and streaming content is going to make domestic product more palatable and desired -- even at the private networks in Canada. But just as I think we writers and creatives need a kick in the ass, and the networks need to be less cynical in their scheduling, we also need to step up and evangelize with better publicity. That means the publicists need to do better. (And, um, you know, a place like CBC should probably un-fire some of theirs.) But then again, it's not always the publicist's fault. As commenter "Recovering Hack" put it:

Publicity in this country is one of the last line items on the production budget and I always felt like the publicity department had to go hat in hand. Not having a budget for publicity or marketing does seriously affect getting the word out to the general public. How can you generate public interest if we can’t even schedule time for gallery shots (set-up shots with the starring actors as opposed to the stills that are shot while the cameras are rolling)? The Americans will spend days even a week just doing gallery shots as they know how important good art is to garnering coverage. With Canadian productions, it’s often trying to grab galleries in-between scene set ups, and losing the actors as soon as the cameras are about to roll (frustraing and impossible to get a flow going with the actor and photographer). Producers want a tonne of publicity but fail to understand that it takes money - if they can’t find enough money to pay for at least one day’s worth of focused photography, how can they expect any decent media attention? The Americans have PR and marketing down to a fine science and it’s one that requires money - Canadian producers all too often expect silk from a sow’s ear.

Given the number of Canadian writers/actors/producers/directors in the US (and many are at top levels in the industry there), there is no question that Canadians are capable of creating quality entertainment. Unfortunately, there is still the stigma attached to talent in Canada - as I had one acquaintance ask me, “If they’re so good, what are they still doing here?”
If the Canadian media and public won’t support Canadian shows and talent, who will?

Canada also lacks the outlets for publicity we see in the US, where there is a multitude of national morning/ afternoon/late night talk shows, entertainment magazines (as well as magazines on everything imaginable where actors can be profiled), TV books (getting a cover on TV Guide in Canada? good luck) as well as entertainment shows (ie E! Now , Entertainment Tonight, etc.). With fewer media outlets (where you generate publicity) , that leaves Canadian productions turning to marketing (which takes $$$) to get the word out. And since there is never any kind of real budget for marketing…well, you get the picture.

No doubt, there is room for improvement on the quality of many Canadian productions. However, there are some outstanding shows of international quality but no one knows about them and therefore, they aren’t watching them. Perhaps we can learn something from Australia, to see how they successfully nurtured their industry in the face an avalanche of US and British culture. Given Canada’s talent, we should be able to do just as well if not better.

Let's avoid more stories like this one, from blueglow (edited for length):

Look at October 1970...

First you take a subject matter that only a small percentage of the English speaking population is going to be interested in (say one in fifty) and then learn you are going to have to shoot the whole thing in English because RadioCanada won't touch it well you have a probem...

When you add to this the selection of a timeslot that puts October up against CSI, Grey's Anatomy and Deal or No Deal it's gonna hurt. Now time slot is the easiest whine one can make but y'know, it's a legit whine -- you start adding the numbers of those shows and it's almost the entire Canadian audience. Obviously FLQ as a mini would have played better on its more natural Sunday nite slot -- a place where CBC has traditionally put its historical dramas. That is where folks who are interested in seeing this sort of thing have, in the past, almost always found it.

It's also a problem when you put in on the air without a single promo or advertisement (it is not our policy to promote mini-series!! yes, they said that) until we surprised them and actually got good reviews (Doyle -- remarkable, the French Press -- who would have thought a bunch of Anglo's would have done so well --which is pretty great praise from La Belle Province). So, finally had to relent and did ONE promotional spot on Dragon's Den the night before the show. That, to date, has been the extent of their "ad campaign".

An eight hour mini series about French Canada that went to air with one "on air" promo, no print ads, no nothing is not going to get eyeballs. (the conspiracy theorist says -- this was also the last mini series bought by the old regime so it was really not in the new regime's interests that this do well. If it did it would fly in the face of their "no coloured faces, no more boring history on the CBC becuase we know niether of these play in Oakville" mandate. Jozi H also fell victim to this mandate.

We did try and promote it ourselves which was the only reason that reviewers in the Province where this event actually happened got screeners. This action also caused grief and in future there will be provisions written into contracts that no contact with the press can be made without prior approval of the network.

In terms of press, we didn't do badly, but reviews are only one quiver in the arsenal needed to promote TV shows. You need a print, radio and TV campaign on air at least six weeks before the thing airs. In this case there was one ad. So the broadcaster and major financial investor ie, producer took ten million dollars of taxpayer's money making a show they had no intention of promoting.

There's the perfect storm of Canadian TV...no accountability on any level. The politics behind those decisions, the incompetence in the promotional end -- the fact that self-promotion was discouraged...

...someone should lose their job over this. Sigh. Okay. One more.

11) Accountability From Everyone Involved

Writers. Broadcasters. Reviewers. Producers. Publicists. Networks. The problems are complex. So are the solutions. But nothing will change unless somebody -- everybody -- becomes more accountable -- to each other, to the audience, and to the process itself.

Whew. Have at it in the comments below.
I'm going to make an omelette. (Feel free to grok the symbolism.)