WHY YES, I AM having focus issues today. Gawrsh, how can you tell?
Jill Golick weighs in with a short piece today on the paucity of follow-through by Canadian broadcasters on their series offerings.
In her case, she picks on Canwest over Global and Da Kink in My Hair, but to be fair, neither of the other major broadcasters, CTV or CBC, do much better.
In short, here's the number one disconnect in the world of Canadian TV, 21st Century style. TV Guide or listings magazines have gone the way of the dodo in record time. Absolutely everybody under the age of about 40 now finds out program info either from some sort of on-screen menu system on their TV or through the web. For the USA, you can go to Zap2it or Futon Critic, but the best way to find out is to go to the network site itself. There, besides streaming clips or downloads, wallpapers, docs, special web content and what have you, you're going to find the synopsis and info that you need. Updated faithfully.
In Canada, smaller network advertising budgets are made even less effective by a haphazard strategy for getting info up on the website and keeping it updated. Back when TV listings books were the rage, you could usually count on the Canadian programs getting shafted. Half the time because they were moved to and fro or pre-empted at the last minute depending on which simulcast was being chased. But the rest of it was timeline stuff. They just wouldn't get the proper listings stuff in on time.
That continues into the digital age. More than fifty percent of the time, when it's a Canadian program on my onscreen PVR menu, if the description of the show (beyond the title and the rating) comes up at all, it's usually a generic series description and not a specific episode description. The info isn't set up on time.
If there is a web page for the show, the info -- next episode, episode descriptions, pictures, whatever other stuff you might have, is usually updated haphazardly. The next page is not programmed and ready to go live after the end of the broadcast of the previous week's show. Information is wrong, or missing. Typos and misspellings are frequent. Cast information, information on the music in the show, credits, synopses, photos -- all the stuff show fans are accustomed to being able to access now -- none of it is availabe.
And like Jill points out, if there is a program forum, nine times out of ten it's a ghost town without any official person designated to answer questions. If you do manage to attract fan attention, it quickly withers because they realize nobody's paying attention.
There's one other major structural thing that excacerbates this whole problem: The Bell Fund.
The Bell Fund is a web/multimedia fund that you can access to partially fund a website for a TV show. The fund has way more projects trying to get funding than it has money to give out. (By about a three to one margin.) The fund also tends to favor out-there weird promotional websites that have some sort of new technology hook....webisodes or some sort of game or virtual space, or proprietary engine with all this wonderful ancillary content. You can see current examples for Canadian Shows like Being Erica or ZOS.
What is often buried in this stuff, is the stuff that viewers actually want when they hear about a new show: meat and potatoes stuff like broadcast times, streams, downloads, and info. Sure, you can go on the virtual journey or share your stories or open your virtual locker or take part in a virtual interrogation or milk a virtual unicorn or something, but when is the fucker on? That's harder to find.And that's if you GET the funding. Remember, the fund is way oversubscribed. So what sometimes happens is that you get a super-flashy bells and whistles Mr. Kite Magorium Emporium Website Special for your first year, and then that disappears -- or sits unloved or un-updated for months and months afterward.
Then it comes to Season 2. And you have the big comedown. My Ex-show had that this year. The Comedown involves the network off supporting another show, maybe one in its first season. (Remember, there are limited budgets, and Mommy has to feed the baby first.) So instead of animated dragons or hello kitty lite brite scalable profiles and virtual avatars that smack your ass and call you judy, you find yourself begging the network webmaster to change the card on the site that still says, "Season Two will return in Fall 2008!"
In the case of The Ex-show, the network still holds the website, but updating is slow. So the new site -- such as it is, doesn't launch until the day of the broadcast. (And other shows on the same network have their premiere dates come and go before the site is changed.)
Again, they're all like this. No company's better than any other at this stuff. They all kind of suck at it. It's low priority, and the attention to detail on a weekly basis is close to nil.
From that bottom, as the show wears on, you realize that neglect before the first episode was actually the high point. Now, it's a sad and unloved death march to try to get even the simplest things changed: is the synopsis up? Is the episode title right? Have they posted the pictures from the ep? All that basic, meat and potatoes stuff doesn't get done unless you harass, harass, harass.
You might be lucky, like the Ex-show, and have a savvy volunteer that keeps things moving on Facebook or tries their damndest to get the things updated on time. But it's not automatic, and it's never easy.
It's quite a comedown from those heady first season website dreams. Of course, by then the web firm is on to the next Bell Funded project. It's sink or swim time, boys. And as is our custom in the Canadian industry, we usually just sink.
What there isn't, is a recognition on the part of the network that the firmament has shifted. Your website working with up to date program information when viewers want it is part of the cost of doing business.
Except here it's not.
They don't want to pay for it. They don't accept the responsiblity of doing it right. You hear tons of promises, which never materialize, and nobody particularly cares or thinks they're responsible.
And then they go to the CRTC and say the only way to save their business is to get carriage fees.
I've been listening to Web and interactive people make promises about how the synergy between TV and the Web will work since 1994. Seriously. Fifteen years.
The problems now are exactly the same. Nothing's gotten better. The Bell Fund, nice an idea as it is, does nothing to change that. We ignore the meat and potatoes.
And then wonder why we don't get a million viewers for our shows.
If I did my job like this, in every one of the episodes that has my name under the written by, at about the 3/4 mark, actors would just turn to camera and stare, open-mouthed, for three minutes. Maybe somebody would fart.
But hey, the Bell Fund deadline's coming up! Get those applications ready! Oooh, a virtual Rock'em Sockem Dress up your virtual avatar in cheese and crinoline alternate reality roleplay with remixable clips and flash-animated build your own comic book random plotline generator, with exclusive documentary two way Ichat connectivity, XBOX-live hookup capability and echoes of MUD's running on the Grand Theft Auto engine? How delightful!
When's the show on again? And who's the hot chick who plays the scientist?
Oh. Okay.
Thanks anyway.
Wonder what's on FOX?
By the bye, ZOS airs Mondays on TMN and Movie Central. Being Erica is Monday at 9pm on CBC. Da Kink in My Hair returns to Global Feb. 12. Check the volunteer-run, no Bell Funding TV-eh? site for details.
18 comments:
Clarity - you've been hearing about it since 1993. I was there.
"They don't want to pay for it. They don't accept the responsiblity of doing it right. You hear tons of promises, which never materialize, and nobody particularly cares or thinks they're responsible."
You got that half right, and half wrong.
It's true nobody wants to pay for it. Networks can't figure out if that activity is communications, marketing, or content. So every year or so, they bounce the teams back & forth, and usually reduce the budget. It's not true that people don't care. Usually the one person who built the site is working in a completely new department when things fall apart.
Unlike writing for a show (hey, it has a start & a finish) this whole web thing for tv just turns into a mounting pile of content that needs managing. So in fact, the budgets need to keep *growing*, not shrinking due to the additive nature.
Or, the scale needs to reduce.
I'm with you about the meat & potatoes of what a tv site should be. Tell people when it's on, show them the show after it airs.
The rest? Well, start by budgeting it for a full 7-year license support.
Try getting a 7-year commitment from a broadcaster.
Right.
ROCKING.
Oh yes, you are ABSOLUTELY right. I was on such a roll there that I didn't want to break flow by stepping outside my perspective. But that's the reason why this has been going on since 1993, because everybody plays that game of "who's responsibility is it?" and everybody points fingers in a different direction.
And because it was nobody's clear resp. to CARRY the ball, you see, it's nobody's FAULT when the ball gets DROPPED.
Sadly, the people at the top who otherwise pore over every possible report or data thingee completely miss the boat that if you want to get ANYONE under 40 and drive them to you, THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO.
Good add, man. Thanks for stepping in. Spot on.
...and, I should add, the Americans have figured it out. Most new Brit shows have kickass sites attached. They get the meat and potatoes out the door.
Oh Canada, when? when?
Not only does the budget have to be planned well in advance, but so does the web arm of the series. That should be planned in development with the TV aspects of the series. And who says the web components should only go up just prior to launch. That's old fashioned marketing/promo-think. Why not launch the web-arm during development or prep. Then you can really start building a community and a buzz around the series.
I could go on... but I do have my own digs for ranting and this is Denis's special place.
Embarrassing that the web developers don't provide a way for less costly, easy to update functionality. You sacrifice a little bit of shazam and wow for the ability to develop continuity and a relationship with the audience.
The big problem is without a dedicated personality to moderator and lover of the program, the community cannot interact with the website. So interaction is better arranged as a one-way channel, and using contact forms and email communications as a metric to identify what aspects need to be better communicated.
Such as, for instance, dates, scheduled showing, actor names, interviews, plot synopses, and even behind the scenes aspects like writer interviews.
Standardizing some aspects makes it easier for the audience to find other shows they will engage with, and still allows for creative impulses and excitement for some pieces.
But if, ultimately, the whizzbang whirlygigs are unsustainable, it's a bad marketing aspect. You need the metrics to be able to determine if that waste is, though, a true waste.
If the whizzbang whirlygigs bring in the viewers, and they stay because they like the show, they can drop off and the audience will stay. In which case, although pricey at the beginning, they are worth it.
If ab testing shows that people are coming through another channel (e.g. word of mouth through Facebook, Twitters, your blog), and no one is using the whizzbang whirlygigs, then your answer is demonstrable -- put the money where the people are, instead of on neat little gewgaws.
But without that sort of testing, things just continue to bleed, people get pissed off, and that feeds into sentiment about the show.
Global just recently went through and did a horrible hack job of adding dates to header images. It looks bad, but I was thrilled to see it. Because I'd been waiting. I wanted to know when those shows would be back, when to look for them, and now I know.
Their shows don't have much that's special -- just the episodes and some lightweight guides. What more do they truly need?
A better graphic artist who could update their images professionally, but that's a little catty on my part.
Crap, I need an editor. Hopefully not a tl;dr for you.
There's an old story told of a private school teacher asking his students, all the sons and daughters of the ambassadors to his country, to write an essay about Elephants.
The son of the British Ambassador wrote an essay entitled "How Elephants helped build the British Empire. The French Ambassador's daughter wrote one called "How Elephants Make Love". The American ambassador's kid wrote one entitled "Raising Elephants for Fun and Profit".
The one he got from the Canadian kid was "Elephants: A Federal or Provincial responsibility?"
We always want some level of our governments to pay for everything. Until it's about actually tossing in the ante actually required to get into the game, Canadian broadcasters will prevent us all from achieving the audience and success we could achieve.
Perfect timing Denis. I'm currently up to my eyeballs in writing Bell Fund proposals.
Fortunately, I agree with everything you say, and do everything I can to include sustainability when I architect an online plan, so that if the show does get another season there is a simple content management system so that some intern can keep the information fresh. And I always make sure things like cast and crew bios and "when the hell is this show on?" elements are front and centre.
Rest assured, there are people (or person -- it might just be me) working to help producers and broadcasters understand what this interactive stuff really means to their business. When someone asks me my title means -- Cross-Media Content Specialist -- that's exactly what I tell them I do.
I have to ask, though: if funding like the CTF is a good thing for producing homegrown TV -- because without it would anything get made? -- surely the same argument must also apply to the new media side.
Without the Bell Fund, would anything get made?
On that front, I saw today that the new Federal budget not only includes keeping up CTF funding (which incidentally has a new interactive component), but also keeping the Canada New Media Fund operating as well.
That can't be bad news.
You have to take my weary sarcasm and combine it with Henshaw's joke. I don't think that there's anything inherently wrong with the Bell Fund. The problem is that the goals do not match up, and like Jim says, we have networks (not just networks, it's everywhere) a mentality that the government should pay for things.
A flashy, bells and whistles website is whoop de do wonderful, but it's not what's needed. What's needed is meat and potatoes. But when you have a network that only funds a ridiculously low license fee and has tax credits, foreign sales, and the public make up the rest, what happens is -- do you stick the production with the cost of the maintaining website too? Well, no. That doesn't make sense either. And if you take money off the screen and put it toward the site that's not a great use of resources either.
There is a problem that there's very little entrepeneurial in the mix.
Now I'm not an expert financier for film and TV, but say nets cough up a 25% license fee. (Check other countries, they're much higher) You're going to be in a position where foreign sales probably cover the cost of the show, but nobody makes big money.
Now what if the rules were changed so that the nets had to invest more of their own money, but say that more than they make now made them equity partners in the foreign sales. Would the producers go for it? Probably not because it means opening the books. But it might actually introduce some stake into the system.
Right now the Bell Fund is an ancillary product for something that the networks don't really want. And that's pretty cynical.
But if they don't wake up, the model waiting in the wings is my new Apple TV -- where the website is really important because that's how you get the info. And the subscription is revenue stream. And...um....well...where's the the network in that?
Mmm. You got me.
The fact that there's not a single network in 2008 that understands and does a passable -- not good -- passable job on their website stuff is scandalous.
The Bell Fund and the New Media Fund could deal with some of these issues except...wait...it's not their problem either.
It's nobody's problem, see?
Welcome to Canada. We can point at the problem and tell you what it is. And then we all sit around and bitch about it and how someone should be doing something about it -- probably the guvmint. And nothing gets done.
And THAT, Mark my friend, is why Daddy Drinks.
If you navigate to the Little Mosque website today, you will actually find (once the content loads) a promo card telling you what the next episode is and when it is airing, with a link to the episode guide.
The next thing that comes up is the page directing you to watch episodes online. Then as you get deeper you get to the bells and whistles and games and webisodes and all that.
This is exactly as it should be.
Unfortunately, what's up on the site now actually represents a course correction that did not happen until some time in the past two or three weeks (the last time I checked the site was, I believe, not long after Christmas). In other words, the season is/was already halfway done. For the first half of the season, it was damn-near impossible to find airdates or episodes on the site without much mucking about (in fact, I never could find streaming episodes on the website during the first half of the season, in spite of the fact that CBC promoted this during every single broadcast.)
It gets worse. Mere days before the launch of the 3rd season (in fact, on the VERY DAY of launch of the first season) the flashy site that stands today didn’t exist AT ALL. What stood on the day of the premiere was a version of the show’s original site, encouraging viewers not to miss “season two,” “now airing.”
The new bells-and-whistles site (funded, I believe, by, yes, the Bell Fund) didn't actually appear until the day AFTER the season premiere. A melon scratcher, I’d say.
Once the new site finally did launch, it sure was bright and fancy and cool, but it wasn’t doing much to push viewers to, you know, WATCH THE SHOW. Trying to find a time and airdate for a new episode of LMOTP was like searching for a needle in a (very nicely flash-animated) haystack.
The problem, I suspect, is that quite often the people in charge of these sorts of websites clearly don't want to be in the promotion business, which isn't terribly fun and doesn't sound like a cool job when you tell someone about it at a party. They wanted to be in the "content creation" business. Well, who doesn't? It's fun to be creative. Why should the people who actually write and produce and perform the show have all the fun?
The answer, in case you feared I didn’t have one, is that the good old-fashioned television show is still the thing that (ideally) makes money for the production company and the network. The website is hence there to PROMOTE THE SHOW.
Now, having ranted, I have nothing against online games and webisodes on a show's website per se, as long as they are "added value" and not an end in themselves. I will also say that the people who produced said material actually did a pretty nice job -- much of it is entertaining and funny. But when it comes at the expense of doing the simple task of telling people when the television show is airing, and what it’s going to be about, I simply can’t abide it.
The brain trust in question have, as I stated off the top of this comment, finally addressed this issue, and I suppose it’s better late than never. But, yeah, we’ve got to keep our priorities straight.
I guess this is the long way of saying I agreed with the post.
"Milk a virtual unicorn" made me laugh out loud, so thanks for that.
You are so right man, I can't count the number of mistakes on the Global site. Also, I was on the subway the other day and it was covered with CBC ads, all for 2nd season Border, Sophie, Little Mosque.
Matt is right. It's a struggle between promotion and content.
You can promote the show in many ways. I wouldn't expect a bunch of tv guys to think any other way - you want the air time promoted. A lot of people spend time thinking about "engagement" and deepening a relationship, trying to haul in new viewers. That's ok too, but remember to not ignore the fans you've got.
As for the Bell Fund, I would point out that the broadcasters don't apply for them - they are written and created by the producers or a hired interactive partner. Guys like Mark do a good job of making sure the basics are there, while shooting to add some value.
Try to make sure you add a little thing called "maintenance." It's even less sexy than promotion.
I'm loving this thread from this wicked post right now...nice.
Am I naive to think that the people who own the show should also own and manage the main (or "best") web presence for the show?
Why count on a network web site to provide anything more than a promotional blurb with broadcast times? The show's owners should invite all viewers (e.g. Flashpoint viewers from both CBS and CTV) to the same destination -- a single "home" on the web. If all goes well, a Canadian show might someday be simultaneously available on a Canadian network, a US network, on iTunes and on DVD. How do you manage that?
CornerGas.com anyyone?
Unless CBC own more than 50% of Being Erica, the producers should welcome the promotional sites managed by the CBC, but also register BeingErica.com and make it the absolute best online destination for people interested in the show.
(The casual viewer has to be trained to go to cbc.ca/beingerica -- why use that address?)
I hesitate to use BSG as a model, because I know it's not typical, but consider the Ron Moore podcasts, which provide a direct connection between producers and viewers, with no NBC/Universal/Space intermediary.
I think more of this would help combat the problem of "I wonder when it's on." It's your show -- why can't you manage that for your loyal viewers?
The answer is probably money -- the networks have more than the producers, at least at first. It looks like a bargain to have CTV manage your show's streaming video and in the short run it is. But if you give up control of streaming rights you're not allowed to complain when the network(s) mismanage it.
If the show site isn't getting updated, it's ultimately the fault of the show's owner. Do it yourself or accept the fact that giving up control may bite you later.
Dear Erica -- if you could go back in time and sell your show to the network again, how would you do it differently?
As of this writing, EricaStrange.com is still available, by the way.
definitely tl;dr. sorry
Often I think CBC frowns upon running a separate site for your show. This is problematic because in my dealings at least cbc.ca has its own agenda -- they seem to be judged by eyeballs to the site, they really have no stake in the show doing well. I've actually heard them say "the website is not about promotion."
The Mercer Report promoted the cbc.ca/mercerreport website on air for the first three years. Then the producers got frustrated with cbc.ca and for the last two Rick pushes his own site, rickmercer.com, on the show. The cbc still runs and streams the show at the cbc.ca site, but the show itself doesn't promote that site anymore.
Rick can do this because he's Rick Mercer, but I think other independent producers would have to think twice about aggravating the network by running their own site -- it's a problem.
On the other side of things I never heard about corner gas getting any blowback from CTV about running an independent site. That show was originally funded by the Bell Fund so I think they HAD to have an online component, so maybe that's why it was never a problem.
Aside from the fact that this post made me laugh so hard it set of a five-minute coughing fit...
I go to a bells-n-whistles-loaded site once. Maybe twice. Poke at a bell, maybe a whistle. If it doesn't have the meat 'n' potatoes available with two clicks (one for a clear menu, one for the specific information I want)? I find somewhere else to get the information and never go back to the official site again. Usually that means "hmmm, who's running a decent fansite?"
Five years ago, it was the fansites that tended to be eye-bleeding collections of design don'ts that sent me crawling back to the official site. Now, in the age of idiot-proof authoring and CMS tools already installed on many hosting services, that usually only happens if there's no fansite.
American networks are still damned annoying sometimes. Two. Clicks. Most of them only seem to be getting it in the last couple years. If the people doing the site builds in Canada, like Mark over there, keep hammering it home, we can hope that it'll eventually take its place in the decision-making process at the Bell Fund and supplant the dazzle factor. Not a solution, but at least an increment.
Totally agree with Sandy's observations about the producers' and creators' interests in this.
Remember the old days, way back before anyone heard the word 'monetize' on an hourly basis?
I believe it was in early 2001, a kids' show called Edgemont premiered on CBC, helmed by Ian Weir/Michael Chechik/Omni. Even before it was out of the gate, the series had a kick-ass, youth-oriented website up and running; a site that recreated the kids' neighborhood so fans could interact and become a part of the characters' world in every way.
The site offered a main course, lots of ‘cake’ for kids' and was a popular entity all on its own.
Pretty sure the driving force behind the initiative came from the creator/producers and was part of the shows’ early planning stages...That was more than eight years ago.
GREAT entry. Love the discussion from the various angles.
It really is a fine balance and very difficult to manage - I've been on both sides, being at the Bell Fund for 5 years, and then moving over to the interactive producer realm.
It all comes down to partnership. Partnership between the TV producer and the broadcaster, plus that of the Interactive Digital Media producer (if different from the TV producer). And even more than that - partnership with the WRITERS of the television series to help create some fun, interesting, relevant add-ons. Big part of that partnership is that everyone needs to LISTEN to each other's ideas and needs. Sometimes a big fancy site is relevant. Sometimes not.
What determines it? What the show is. How can it extend online. What the broadcaster's online strategy is. What technology is feasible. What the timeline is. What the international broadcasters want out of it. What indie options are available
URLs can get dicey - more and more broadcasters are paying web licenses for exclusice web content - just like TV shows. so while sure, producers can make stand-alone sites, it all depends on the deal with the broadcaster. (which means, everyone has to get smarter and talk about the terms and possibilities EARLY).
Maintenence & updates has come up - yup, there is totally a way to make it easy to do updates. Its' called planning ahead. When you plan to add content in the future, developers can easily set up databases and administration panels to make updates a snap. But not so easy when the site is already done and built.
Planning who is updating the site and how that is going to happen isn't a decision a day before launch, but a decision for even before a proposal goes into the Bell Fund or CNMF or OMDC or whomever. That involves serious meetings with everyone involved.
A big part of all of this is understanding your market. You are bang on Denis that for the prime time audience, most really only want some basic info about the show, stream some video, and *maybe* one cute little app.
The problem is, EVERYONE in this system gets hung up on the fact that kids play games, kids sites are fun to make, fun to play with, so everyone should have a site that a 12 year old girl would want. Its not just the agencies, but all of us as content creators who can get carried away. Then we tell the agencies this is fabulous for our audience, without really RESEARCHING what that audience wants or does.
And the sad thing is, when we get carried away, it is indeed our audience who loses out.
Note though, the agencies have caught on to exactly what you have brought up.... you definately should do a follow-up post to this one in about a year... (see if things are better or worse!)
Excellent and witty analysis. I think there is too much "flashturbation" going on with these sites while it being all on the taxpayer's dime.
It comes down to the approval process. There should be a much for refined screening process instead of encourgaging applicants to come up with the next shebang-that'll-blow-your-balls-off so that they can stand out from the pack.
Post a Comment