So in all that, let's stop. Let's have a little mint. The reason why cultural industry workers such as myself are saying, "maybe it's a good idea to get some money flowing for people to create content for this arena" is because, contrary to what some would have you believe, there isn't much here currently that's very good, or very well thought out or designed in the realm of supporting TV-like ventures on the net. I had a good steam of a rant about this awhile back.
Today let's look at the issue in micro. Let's take one property.
We'll even take the emotion out of it, and have it not be a "CanCon" thing.
Instead, let's talk about a little program called The Daily Show.
Now, if you're an average habitue of the series of tubes, you've probably come across some news site or other where they talk about a bit Stewart did on this subject or that subject -- Bristol Palin, the latest dumb thing Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh said, the histrionics around the stimulus...whatever. On blogs or on Facebook or Twitter or on any news site, Comedy Central -- the originating cablecaster of Stewart's show, cleverly manages to insert itself into the discussion of these real life breaking news events while building buzz for the show.
It does this by cataloguing topical clips from the previous night's broadcast on the Comedy Central site. Clips are up-to-date and embedable, so you can share them on your website or blog. You can stream full episodes too, but Comedy Central "gets it" in the sense that they know that the way this content is used on the net is in a YouTube, mash-y kind of way. People want a short hit that they can pass around, comment upon, repurpose and add their own spin to. It's flexible, in other words.Now, if you're reading any of those blog posts or news articles with an embedded Daily Show clip from Canada, you're probably familiar with what I'm going to say next. When you click on that embed link, it doesn't play. But it's not that it doesn't play with the dreaded geoblock boilerplate "this video is not available from your location."
It doesn't play because the message reads, "In Canada, Comedy Central Videos are Available on The Comedy Network."
And they are.
Sort of.
But in another way, sort of not. Because when you go to the Canadian Comedy Network site and try to find Daily Show clips, they're not arranged by subject, embeddable, ready to plop into your Facebook or drop into your blog post.You can watch a full episode. On their proprietary player. Or maybe you can search by a bit. Or, um. A correspondent. But. Um. Er. That's it.
In other words, it's shoveled onto the web like you're going to watch it just like you watch it on TV, but only in crappier quality in a tiny window.
The Comedy Network relaunched their site awhile back and actually ran on air promos and a contest saying, "our website doesn't suck anymore," if you can believe it. And it sure is a lot better. But what it isn't is current. And that's purely because of money, and a lack of attention to the product and the different medium.
I don't know what their license terms are for embedding clips, but I do know that cataloguing the clips would have to mean you were paying someone to do that. And the whole point of Canadian broadcasting is to pay as little as possible for everything. Er. Except U.S. programming, which you can buy and put on the shelf to let your competitors not get it.
It's not just with CanCon. The Private nets would be nowhere if they couldn't rely on the advertising and promo spillover from American magazines and promotional efforts.
Let's keep in mind the various comparative ideas about how to meet the challenge of reducing revenue in the challenging broadcasting environment. In the USA, FOX and NBC, not exactly best friends, team up to launch Hulu -- a relatively forward looking streaming site with a kickass, puckish sense of why the Net is cool and friendly to video:
In Canada, Global and CTV band together for what big idea? Carriage fees -- just like the cable channels that...um...they already own. In the former case, viewers at home get a great site with a deep playlist of favorites you can watch, including classic and current shows and embeddable clips. In the latter...um...well, you don't get anything really. Sorry. But they get to stay in business. For a while.
I mean, at least the ISP levy we're proposing goes to creatives, and at the end of it you'll have something new to watch, if you want to. And you will, because I hear we're going to promise Elisha Cuthbert in her scanties. But keep that under your hat. I'm not sure the deal's signed yet.
Now. Let's take a look at what the Comedy Network is doing to maximize its exclusive right to Daily Show online content in Canada.
If you go through the "Latest News" section of the Daily Show minisite on the Comedy Network website, their idea of "latest" is the clip Stewart did on the proroguing of parliament.
That was what, 10 weeks ago?Don't worry though -- the 3rd item down on the "Latest News" portion of the Daily Show microsite is a scorcher! It's Bill Clinton's appearance on the Daily Show -- on September 23, 2008! Oh man! Can't wait to blog about THAT!
So The Daily Show doesn't get to be a vibrant part of the internet discourse in Canada, because it's not thought through and serviced right for the medium.
And that's the whole point. Money. It costs money to do that.
If you're making a program today, you have to have a logical and coherent web and mobile strategy. But the Canadian nets don't pay for it. They have trouble keeping episode descriptions up to date. And Lord help you if you try to navigate and find that show you want to stream easily. It's clunky. It's badly executed. It's ill thought out.
And increasingly, it's going to be the key to connecting with your audience.
It is absolutely essential that that money flow so that when you're making content, you have the room and the spirit to be able to back up the good ideas that you have. It's not enough to have a brilliant idea for how to tie in with your property if the site's not going to be updated in a timely way.
So part of what's being talked about this week from a creative side is, here's something new that needs to be done now. It's definitely an extra cost if you want to do it at all well. How do you pay for it? You can't pay out of your program budget. Those budgets are already screamingly tight.
In the end, the least complex scheme is to say that the ISP providing the pipe, and making the big bucks partly by pulling you in with promises of access to great online content, has some place in paying for it.
"But it's a dumb pipe," the big ISP's like Rogers and Bell and Shaw will say. "We're not broadcasters." Yup. It's just a dumb pipe. Except when it's not. Say one thing when it suits you, one thing when it doesn't.
"Well okay," the next argument comes, "you assess us a levy, and we're just going to pass it on to the consumer and they'll hate you because it's an extra tax." To which we say, you are given protected access to your market under the Telecom act. The government protects you from competition. Competition that might result in lower rates for you and me. And in the spirit of that, the tradeoff -- just as it was for Cable TV, and Broadcasters -- is that you have responsibilities to support the indigenous cultural industries. It is, in fact, part of your cost of doing business.
Yes, the technology and the function the service the ISP's provide is different. But in this case, their responsibilities are the same.
And in the end, maybe it's not just about CanCon shows or Webshows getting funding. Maybe you'll finally get those Daily Show clips served up in the way it makes sense to do for the net.
Ah yes, but wait...there is one more, extreme position... "why am I restricted at all? Why can't I view Comedy Central. Why can't I just visit the U.S. site. Why do I have to bother with Canadian stuff at all! The CRTC is useless."
To which I say: Tough. Fucking. Shit. You DO NOT LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES. If you want to live in the United States, start the process of immigration and good luck. If you are, in fact, Canadian, then man up, grow a pair, and accept that this is the way it is because it's good for your economy and for jobs in one of your largest cultural sectors, full of taxpayers who pay taxes just like you do.
The worst outcome in all this is to be successfully snowed to the point where you shout down the claims and the grabbiness of all the greedy, awful artists, who demand pennies here and there, but give a big fat old pass to the big ISPs and Broadcasters and their much larger shares of corporate Canadian welfare.
I watched FRONTLINE this afternoon. PVR'd it last night. Inside the Meltdown was all about the steps of the Bailout from Bear Stearns to Lehman Brothers to the Bailout.
GREAT website support, BTW. See? There's money for that. Oh, what a 300 Million population will give you! And it's not even geoblocked!
Anyway, It's absolutely sickening to me to look at a situation where trillions of dollars is being hoovered away by people with NO sense of responsibility, who still get bonuses and not a one of them with an ounce of remorse or a prayer of doing jail time...
...but what we really have to get mad at is the Artists. Cause they're going to break the economy. Yup, THEY'RE the ones who have to "face the market."
The MARKET didn't even face the market! Really, what are you people talking about?
Man, sometimes things are so ridiculous I just have to turn to Jon Stewart to make sense of it all.
And I bet I could find the right clip, too. If only...If only...If only...
38 comments:
Oy.
Damn straight, Denis. Whether it's "manning up", "ovarying up"(as a US friend of mine of that gender put it recently)...
Getting on with the creative job here in the meantime...
When they originally started all of this I thought the CRTC was talking about geo blocking and imposing Can Con rules - which so far it sounds like they are not thank god. It would have been an embarrassing failure and a waste of resources.
As for the new media funding, I don't really care one way or the other. I am generally pro-arts funding but I don't really think this hundred million will make much difference. It's a good chunk of change but I've seen little evidence that the people who will get most of it will know what to do with it.
I did post an an idea to my blog that I think would help - not by dolling out grants but by rewarding those who put good content online (from the CBC and the Comedy Network to Dead Things on Sticks). I think that if there was a way to make free content pay that that would spur the kind of thinking needed to move Canadian media forward.
Okay. So. Um. Let's see if I've got this straight.
We Canadian writers are saying, er, "Maybe it's a good idea to get some money flowing for people to create content for this (online) arena."
And one of the reasons we need to do that is because the current Internet rights holders of American shows here don't provide the same level of service and access and, um, "...that's purely because of money, and a lack of attention to the product and the different medium."
So if we put a levy on the ISPs and collect a few million from them and/or their subscribers -- uh -- then Canadian networks will be able to build a stronger online presence in order to deliver their American programming better...?
And being able to have ready access to Jon Stewart in Canada helps a Canadian Comedy writer because...um...because.....
Look, I honestly do get the point of all this and I'm not opposed to finding a lot of money for people who want to create original content for the web. But WHY do we insist on chaining ourselves to clearly incompetent or disinterested broadcasters and an incredibly complex and confusing Broadcasting Act?
Over and over, you make the point that our broadcasters don't/won't pay for anything. Therefore the only way a Canadian presence grows on the web is WITHOUT them.
Creating a fund to enhance their services while being regulated by the CRTC only prolongs their death throes, and prevents us from building artist driven and controlled content in a medium that can maximize their success.
What Jim Henshaw said is sort-of, part-of what I was saying. Based on recent history I expect 90% or so of the money to go to the usual suspects and, also based on recent history, I expect them to do strange-counterintuitive things with it, things that won't work and then they'll go back to the CRTC and claim that 100 million just isn't enough and they need more (even though there are people doing interesting, creative and marginally successful things out there with no budget at all.)
That's kind of what prompted the idea I mentioned above. Whether this hundred million happens or not, my approach would make online content pay. Things that worked would pay well, things that didn't wouldn't pay well and so regardless of what happens with the hundred million, smart innovative people would start to be rewarded and we could start to see what people with a no budget could do with a small budget and what people with a small budget could do with a medium budget etc.,
If a time comes when the big broadcasters fail and small, smart and hungry independents thrive ... so be it.
Fantastic post McGrathster...
I'm not really sure what else to add, other than to say while I appreciate your hope that this fund would help the network websites become GOOD and more current; or Justin's suggestion that the fund should be "rewarding those who create and put GOOD content online", or Jim's constant refrain of "write and produce something GOOD and thus be rewarded"...that good of which you all speak of is such a subjective thing, and thus so difficult to guage and, yes, regulate.
I think most of us would agree that GOOD means either popular or positively reviewed...preferably both together at the same time - a commercial and critical success. Yet we as an industry don't have a great track record in that department. We don't produce a lot of good shows, or movies, or online content. Or the people placed in the position of 'choosing' to air or stream that which is good, don't have a great track record of picking 'good' stuff.
At any rate, if it's for improving the websites themselves or giving those 'creators' scraping by a fighting chance to up their game, it still comes down to the online content needing to be worth seeing and yes, good.
Is it the system? Or is it us? And will any new media fund or dollar for dollar scheme make any real difference?
I really don't know anymore.
Good poast. Telling it straight. Thanks.
What is 'Good' is an entirely subjective question. I guess what I'm saying is something that enough people consider 'good' to call it a success.
I believe, with a proper funding model, that I could create content targeted at a niche market that would have enough of an audience that it would pay the production costs and everyone involved could enjoy a reasonable standard of living. Under the funding model I suggested "Dead Things on Sticks" by itself would probably pay Denis' rent (or pretty close) and who knows - if it started to pay Denis might spend more time on it and it would pay more.
There are a number of people in this country who I think could create successful niche channels. Sadly very few of them are in a position to do so.
I think that big traditional broadcasters problem (other than a general fear of the technology) is that they seem to think there is something other than niche markets left. Some niches are larger than others but it's all niche markets now - even the 'mainstream' is nothing more than the largest niche and it's far from a majority (it's also the most heavily targeted and most competitive niche.)
Come on, Dix, that so smacks of "wow, it'll probably suck so we shouldn't even try."
Really?
I think the difference here is generational. I don't buy the stuff won't be good. The young minds that get the net and will come up with killer apps need MONEY to make anything work.
In Canada we don't have venture cap for this, we don't have people taking risk, we have Safey McSaferson.
Get the money into the hands of the kids who are doing this stuff. Maybe it won't be different. But I'm guessing it will.
See, the new and smart in this realm actually HAVEN'T LEFT THE COUNTRY YET.
Are we going to keep them here or not?
That's the issue; the broadcaster stuff, blah blah blah. That's noise. For NOW it's tied to the broadcasters. This won't save them -- and if they fail then the fund rolls over, and helps whoever replaces them.
It might not work is not the reason to try anything.
Jesus Christ, sometimes I wish this entire industry would just sit the fuck down and watch all 12 hours of From the Earth to the Moon.
Watching that show from start to finish would inspire more than a few people, wouldn't it?
Chances are, it already has. So, like you're saying, let's keep those experimenters here if we can.
Y'know what, DMc -- you're exactly right and there's your answer...
"From the Earth to the Moon" was brilliant television and part of what was cool about it was that it reminded those who were inspired by Kennedy's goal of getting to the Moon and educated those who weren't around for the live version that central to that idea was "This is a whole new game and nobody knows anything, but we're going to do it anyway."
And they didn't give that job to General Motors or Proctor & Gamble. They gave it to people with vision and ideas and no dying paradigms to protect.
Jim's point is part of what I'm trying to get around. Right now the internet providers are saying "we don't want this and if you make us do it we'll pass the costs directly on to consumers". If it goes through they will say "we're paying for this, we should be the primary beneficiaries" and if they are, they will blow it. It's especially troubling in that net neutrality hasn't been settled yet.
We need to get money into the hands of "...people with vision and ideas and no dying paradigms to protect" instead of giving more money to people who have the money now and have shown little to no ability (or interest) in putting it to good use.
A sidebar, but relevant I think:
Around the time of the announcement that the iTunes Store had acquired Lionsgate titles, I wondered if Apple was soon going to open its movie download business to the same kind of music indie submission policy offered to non-majors. So I dug around the Apple website and after an inquiry, got an email address for the movie side of the American iTunes Store. I sent off an email explaining the indie nature of my (meager) library, inquiring about future submission possibilities etc. A cold call, in other words.
I received an email back from an iTunes Store movie acquisitions guy IN TEN MINUTES. And a follow-up email to my subsequent questions THIRTY MINUTES AFTER THAT.
This was illuminating, to say the least.
I do not believe that the Canadian broadcast industry – nor its related ISPs – has the business savvy to engage the new paradigm. It has enough trouble with the current one.
What about if the US broadcaster buys international streaming rights when they buy the US domestic broadcasting rights? If an American network can monetize the program more effectively than the Canadian network, all that's needed is region-specific advertising.
This only addresses the problem of Canadian audiences not having access to the best streams, but why subordinate the audience's demands to those of broadcasters who resell US content?
Because the sovereignty of the nations in which the audience lives still matters.
The complexity, bureaucracy, and byzantine nature of the CRTC hearings shows what happens in ONE country that is trying to grapple with U.S. product and how they handle it.
You blithely throw out three words -- "international streaming rights" like, you know, it's a box they can check and it's done. Easy peasy.
You know, simple. No fuss. International Streaming Rights.
You know, like what was that other totally simple thing that was three words wrong, no fuss, no problem, just get'er done... hmm...
oh right.
The Apollo Program.
or how about
The Marshall Plan.
International streaming rights. Wow. Thanks for my laugh of the day.
All 'international rights' are going to shift anyway, once the Internet and Television same thing (coming very soon) then there will be no reason to license content.
Licensing goes back to traditional over the air broadcast. US towers couldn't reach Canada, and Canadian towers could reach all of the US so shows were sold and licensed. Once anyone, anywhere in the world can go to NBC.com or CBC.ca and watch any of their shows - what is the motivation to license?
This ties back in to what I was saying about niche audiences - Sure you may have a niche audience but if that niche means 300,000 viewers in Canada, another million in the US, 75,000 in the U.K., 2 million in India ...
it doesn't really matter if it's a niche or has a 'cult' following. It's still a huge audience.
Justin, that's what we've heard for years, but I'm sorry, I just don't buy that it's better.
In fact, in every circumstance I see for the future the inescapable conclusion I come to is this:
in the past, advertising supported tv meant you got a whole lot of cool content for free.
in the future, everything will be a la carte and you will pay for it all.
I honestly think that in years to come, people are going to look back and miss how much they used to get back in those bad old days of TV.
All internet giddiness aside.
Just sayin.
Yep, at some point everything will stop being free. I linked earlier to the beginning of a solution: by tying the payment into your internet connection fees so you just automatically pay for what you see without actually having to make a payment every time, but that's just one possible solution.
I'm just trying to say what I see based on technology and current trends, I'm not getting into the 'wouldn't it be nice if things didn't change' or 'weren't things better before' game because that is what is holding many traditional broadcasters back - things change.
The question isn't 'are things going to change?' The question is things are changing, how do we adapt in a way that works for everyone? Traditional broadcasters are too mentally and emotionally tied to the old paradigm to grasp the new one (or so far they have been).
not sure I agree with you there.
canadian broadcasters, for sure.
but the U.S. broadcasters have been far more aware than, say, the record companies were when confronting napster.
I agree. The solution I proposed for Canada is I think the way to beat file sharing. Most people understand the basic economics of it - content costs money and if all content is free then eventually the content will stop.
So, what my proposal was aimed at was making payment inexpensive, automatic and seamless - you don't even have to think about it, you don't have to have your credit card handy or enter your name and password, just watch/listen/read whatever you want and the payment will take care of itself.
I keep bringing it up I know, but it's not because I think it's the only solution - it's just A solution and I happen to think it's pretty good. It would have to be international eventually though.
Sorry. I didn't mean to be blithe. Here's how I understand the situation -- tell me, please, if I have this wrong.
Right now, when a broadcaster buys the right to broadcast a program nationally, they sometimes (always?) also buy the rights to stream the program. These rights are worth more if everyone who streams the programming fences the stream, restricting viewership so that only visitors from the territory for which they've bought the rights has access.
As a result, each national broadcaster has to build a custom site to promote and stream the same program in each market. Stream are generally only available nationally. This is a cost.
The second cost is the hassle of selling and contracting many, many separate national contracts.
The benefit for the producer is that the streaming rights can be sold many times over.
The benefit for the broadcaster is that the show is associated with the right brand. Presumably the broadcaster also tries to sell advertising. Maybe the broadcaster has an edge here, because of a good relationship with media buyers and because the brands being advertised reach the right eyeballs.
Now imagine that Global TV, for example, decides to buy the rights to broadcast Scrubs but isn't given the opportunity to stream the show. ABC sells advertising on the Scrubs stream to a big international brand (say McDonald's) and doesn't fence it. The aggregate rights revenue from Scrubs may be lower, but the new advertising revenue offsets this decline, and there's a savings in transaction costs, because the contracting is easier. Plus ABC gets to spread the cost of building the site over more eyeballs.
I don't doubt that audiences will shift from broadcasting, but I don't think broadcasting will become irrelevant. As long as domestic broadcasting markets are regulated, domestic web markets are not, and both markets are valuable enough to be worth discussing, there will be a rationale for separating the two.
David the first internet TVs will hit the shelves later this year (there are already ways to directly connect your computer to your TV if you know how). Soon, there will be no difference between streaming and broadcasting, what you watch on TV will come via the internet.
Yeah. Uh. No. I don't agree with that at all.
What broadcaster is going to pay top dollar for national rights if the viewer can go elsewhere to see the show? Your solution makes no sense from the broadcaster side or from the prodco side, as it would drive down the value of the property.
It also accelerates the movement from broadcaster to internet. I don't know what the future looks like, but I'm pretty sure that's a non starter.
@DMc: Good point. But broadcasters already stream, so does it make a difference to CTV whether CTV streams or ABC streams, especially if ABC can make more money off the online audience than CTV? If CTV can't monetize the stream as well as ABC, it makes sense for CBC to pay incrementally less for the show by foregoing web rights and for ABC to pay incrementally more. Are you arguing that there will always be a business case for exclusive national rights across all platforms, or are you arguing that it's an industry institution?
@Justin: I think you're overestimating the speed with which adoption takes place. Broadcast audiences will decline, but imagine the sheer volume of consumer electronics that will have to turn over for broadcasting to go away. The available of TV's with Netflix signals the decline of broadcasting, but it doesn't mark its death.
@David - I think you are underestimating the exponential rate of technological change and adoption. In 1990 (for most people) there was no internet. In 2000 almost no one had cell phones. In 2005 the iPhone was just a rumour. The recession will slow things down a bit (and hurt production budgets on the way) but I would guess that the (fully integrated) internet TV will hit the 50 million user level by 2012-13ish. Granted there will be some older people who never adopt, I'm sure in the early-mid 20th century there were some people who refused to buy cars but is anyone going to be interested in that market? For how long?
David, I'm trying to be nice about this but...
Yes. Of COURSE it makes a difference to CTV if ABC streams and they don't.
Now, most of the time these days an American show is owned by the production arm of the network it's run on, but not always, so let's just say this: if the scenario you sketch out was even in the realm of possibility, don't you think, say, Warner Brothers would stream their own shows and retain those rights rather than sell them to the network who runs the show?
The network is worried about their part of the business -- the distribution of content -- going away. They are not going to make any deal that hastens that or pay for any property that includes that. Period. It's a total...complete...uttter non starter.
It's such a non starter that it's almost difficult for me to conceive that you can keep suggesting this is a viable option. It shows a pretty profound lack of understanding of the nature of the issues, practices, history, and current attitudes of the business.
A network that buys a property in a given territory buys exclusive rights. Yes, they would love it if everybody watched on their network or proprietary site. But if their site sucks bad, and they're losing 50% of the audience they could have if the site was better and easier to navigate, they would rather lose that 50% than have that 50% of the audience go somewhere else and get the property that they paid exclusive rights for.
You're thinking like a consumer. Not like someone selling, or buying, a tv property.
seriously, you're terribly off base about this.
First of all, thank you DMc for launching this incredible thread.
It's amazing to be in a position when you think you've got things figured out in the morning and by nightfall, other voices have spun it in directions that just send your own head spinning.
And I have to say, David actually has a point. A production company presently does cede all streaming rights to its primary network on purchase of a show, consider that "international streaming". Traditionally, the primary network then carves off national territories for streaming as it sells the terrestrial rights.
But it doesn't necessarily have to and could hang onto them for future distribution -- not unlike the way nets used to "syndicate" their programming after broadcast.
With the syndication market virtually gone and with creative contracts in place that reduce artist residuals if their work is net streamed, the major American players are already in a position to sell initial broadcast rights and then maximize their own profits by "selling" all future online access through themselves -- on Hulu (for example).
Does it make sense for Global to purchase the broadcast rights without also owning the streaming rights? Of course not, but that's virtually the way they are currently operating. They don't stream all the US product they broadcast and almost none of their Cancon. And as you pointed out today, there are other Canadian nets who aren't maximizing their online usage of content they own.
Complicating this further (or perhaps making life even simpler for consumers and content creators) sponsors are stepping up to purchase the international streaming rights to content so it isn't geo-blocked and is only available from them.
www.crackle.com (Can somebody tell me how to insert a link into a comment) is owned by Sony, available all over the world and streaming content created specifically for them -- at creation rates not far from TV rates.
Other sponsors are readying or debuting similar sites. How much longer before one of them purchases the online streaming rights of a network series in return for an upfront commercial buy of the terrestrial broadcast?
I bet it happens sooner than we think.
And while Justin says the current economic downturn may slow adoption of Internet TV, maybe the opposite will happen.
If I can get everything I want online -- that might be cheaper than the ever increasing cable packages which always include a few channels their purchasers never watch.
It's a whole new world. One where this morning's model is potentially out of date a few hours later.
But Jim, surely that's the point. Never mind what THEY think -- if *I* ran a network and was paying 100K an ep for rights to a show (or whatever) and that doesn't include the GROWING streaming market, then...well...I'm not paying that money.
And so we come back to cloudcuckooland. Again. Yup. Another model is going to emerge. It's not going to be this way forever. It may be five years, It may be 10 it may be three...but it is NOT NOW.
NOW, you choose -- do you want to sell your exclusive rights, or do you want to get way less for your property and gamble that you can make it up through ad-supported streaming.
Pick. One.
You don't get to choose both. That's like trying to nail water.
@Jim I was primarily talking about people going out and buying 'internet ready' TVs and electronics manufacturers being slower to crank out new technology.
I think you're right that people will turn to the Internet more during the recession (they'll just do it on their computer, not their TV). Have a look at CNN and the Times Online
By the way you do links by putting one of these <
and then you wrote a href="url of your link" and then you put one of these > and then at the end of your link you put the same <> symbols again and between them you put /a
Glad to see this discussion happening.
I was at the 2nd day of the hearings (Wed Feb 18th).
This must the 50th or 60th CRTC hearing where the cultural community - writers, directors, actors, producers, crews - have to justify their existence, AGAIN, to the CRTC.
But frustrating participants (please explain again, Mr. Waddell, why good CanCon needs any public support at all) is a great way to discourage them from participating, and from reducing the evidence to the standard chant from broadcasters that, "the sky is falling" again, for the twenty-fifth consecutive year, and we need deregulation, again, because unless you cut our costs, we have no way to make money, because our business plans are based 95% on re-selling foreign content.
The mind boggles, when you hear that CTVgm and CW -- the two ETV broadcasters who together suck up 90% of ALL ETV revenues-- can't seem to make any money.
But instead of looking at the source of these problems -- the CRTC, and its failure both to enforce its existing regulations and to enforce section 3 of the Act, it seems we get caught up again in the same old, blame-the-content argument, whether supporting or opposing it.
I would far rather we focus on the problem -- inadequate regulation.
Why has spending gone down on Cancon? Could it be the 1999 TV Policy -- the one where 'flexibility' for broadcasters won over actual requirements for Cancon drama exhibition and expenditures?
But we all know that. And we know that the solution is still the same as it ever was: regulatory requirements for airtime and money.
But there is another solution too, that no one ever talks about: challenging the licence renewal system.
If we all think that broadcasters aren't stepping up to the plate, why do they get to keep the licences? Aren't those only ever granted for at most, 7 years? Why doesn't the CRTC invite others to apply when, say, a company decides to lay off all its news staff, or replace all its dramas with game shows? Why is that existing broadcasters only ever get to bargain with the CRTC, instead of actually compete for the right to hold the licence at all?
I'm sure the certainty/risk argument will be raised: 'you can't take away broadcasters' certainty in a 7 year renewal, because their banks will not like this risk'. Excuse me? When the CRTC was first created mroe than 40 years ago (has it been fun so far?), it granted cable licences for 2 years at most: Ted Rogers managed to survive that onerous requirement.
And now we are up to 7 years: have those 7 years improved the system? Or do they just delay licence renewals to once a decade, when we all put on our nicest bibs and tucks, appear before the CRTC with bowls outstretched, and ask politely, for some more, please, just a little bit more.
Meanwhile, there are now only 10 major broadcasting companies in the country, controlling most revenues in OTA TV and radio, P&Sp, and distribution too.
Since 2000, this small group of companies has spent more than $5.1 billion on acqusitions. Now, of course, they are too tuckered out with debt to come out and play at the renewal hearings.
My point is this: the real problem is not Canada's private broadcasters. It is not the cultural groups. It is not BDUs.
The real problem is the lack of direction and leadership by the CRTC, the ONLY agency with any authority to make things better. Why are we all letting the CRTC off the hook, when it pleads that its hands are tied because of so much change, and so many crises?
You don't think audiences should be limited in their choice? Funny -neither did Parliament when it drafted the broadcasting and telecom acts. But, equally funny, why then do the same 10 or so companies effectively control all communications -- whether radio, TV, Pay & Sp., BDU or ISP?
This is nothing more than an extremely well-dressed oligopoly that is getting away with pillaging and plundering because it wears such great suits whenever it visits the CRTC's Gatineau offices.
Demand regulation in the public interest.
Demand competitive licence renewals.
Demand real change, to save your jobs.
Good blog, however far to linear. As a new media producer myself, and watching these hearings, there is absolutely no evidence to support regulation at this time.
Canadian Content isn't suffering, in fact it's thriving with regards to the internet. I find SOCAN and the CIRPA's arguments to be very comical, based on and ideological analog approach to this debate.
In order to produce in new media you have to understand the marketplace in new media. In order to make money off of new media projects you again need to understand how to do that.
I would rather see the TV Fund be opened up to new media projects as it stands today, and the 3% of revenue from ISP's thrown into a copyright pool and making file sharing completely legal then to shuttle money to producers who are to "thick" enough to spend this money and still be back at square one because they don't know how new media industry works.
The sky is only falling on creators because they are too tied into the analog world, and asking for things that demonstrate their inability to think past the switch to digital.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxCoCTc3T5Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIqG7WgqQ-w&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XftaEUYLz4&feature=related
If all we do is "hope" that the analog rules can be adapted to new media projects, then regulating will only serve to drive new media productions down even more then they are today in value.
I would strongly suggest that those who are in new media, take an e-business course, and learn how to make money online, then blaming your woes on ISP's, the consumer, and the CRTC.
I am very disappointed to see my peers arguing, and debating something they have yet to fully understand, and if the CRTC does end up regulating that will not solve the problems of incompetence displayed by the people who are representing us in this debate to the CRTC, nor will it solve the issue of funding or revenue for New Media creators and producers in Canada.
We must first embrace the digital world before we can apply any effective regulation to it, and so far very, very few people have the know how to do this. That's not only disappointing, but embarrassing to those in new media.
I hear you Jason, and thanks for your contributions.
But I'll add this caveat: for every "old media" thinker I've met, there's another "new media" thinker who fails to understand some basic truths about audiences and viable business models. And meeting the needs that exist not the fairytale world of what-could-be's.
It does actually go both ways.
There were plenty of new media geniuses who burned through millions and millions of VenCap with NO profitable product at the end of it as the dotcom bubble burst. I was there. It was new media, not old media types who set fire to all that glorious money.
I agree with you that maybe the CTF should be opened up to new media funding -- but in an ISP levy world where there is more money coming in. The CTF is ridiculously oversubscribed as it is. Opening up without an increase in resources would be sheer lunacy.
The generational shakeout in broadcasting completely needs to happen. As is usual with Canada, it hasn't happened here yet as it should. There's a generation of people behind on the TV side who are perfectly comfortable entering the discussion and colloboration phase to come up with hybrid, and new content for the new platforms. But they're not the ones pulling the triggers yet.
But the halfway mark that's going to be the sweet spot is going to leave a lot of fast talking, evangelizing, "you donnnnnn'tt getttt the interrrrneettt maannnn" types behind, too.
A little more conversation and a little less Kool Aid would be great from both camps.
I was there for the dot com bubble too though and that wasn't 'new media' it was business. E-commerce, and the desire to sell stuff online drove the dot com boom and bust. People weren't out there creating content, or trying to deliver existing content in a new way, they were trying to open online pet shops and assuming the world would line up to buy it online.
Of course bulksoup.com failed, or course it was never worth $400 a share. How many of the people behind the current financial fiasco were also involved in the dot com bubble? I'd guess quite a few of them.
Again though, we are talking about a more efficient, more democratic, and more diverse system for creating and delivering audio, video and text. We're talking about doing things in a way that it less expensive and more convenient for both consumers and producers - not selling cat food online.
Respectfully Justin, that's ridiculous. There were plenty of "storytellers" and so-called "narrative geniuses" that were in that fold, too.
And though I understand why you're trying to hive off and restrict the discussion to the stuff you want to talk about, I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. It's just as valuable to look at this -- ALL of it -- as a discussion about MONEY.
Who pays?
How?
For what?
When?
What perecentage?
And who gets to take home the filthy lucre at the end of the day.
Whether it's narrative genius, or bulk food, it's all cat food, man. Every last frame of it.
The big bombs though (in the dot com bust) were people that were trying to sell stuff, online. The only real survivors of that were Amazon (sell EVERYTHING at a steep discount and you'll squeak by) and EBay (Garage Sale Earth).
But the biggest success story of that era was Napster (then came the law suits etc) and shortly after that came Google and YouTube.
Most people, most of the time, don't use the internet to shop, but they do use the internet for media - why? Instant gratification. If I buy a digital album online I get it now. If I buy cat food online it will arrive in 4-6 weeks (ok for me, sucks for the cat).
I understand that there needs to be a money component, as I said I've already gone to the trouble of laying out a plan but it's a plan that doesn't put the bulk of the money into a few hands regardless of whether they succeed or fail.
No Kool Aid here, I warned people all the way through the dot com boom that it wasn't going to work. But at the same time I was telling people that the internet would eventually take over media distribution (tv, film, radio and print).
DMc: Good points. They way I see it, is that not enough training is going on really to merge the old in with the new. To be a successful broadcaster you need to know a little about both IT/web development, and traditional media.
I'm fortunate enough to have education in both areas. It's not that people "don't get the internet" it's more, “not enough is being done on the e-commerce side of things to innovate around what's needed as an industry as a whole”.
A lot of the reason is what's happening with this copyright debate. I have tons of people I know who would love to develop products, productions and services but won't get involved right now due to heavy "restrictions" already in place with regards to new media on a global scale through copyright. To be blunt they are too scared to innovate right now because of the heavy hand of the creative communities and being sued out of existence.
Adding more of these "restrictions" on new media, I believe will only serve to complicate an already complicated system even more, and in fact inhibit Canadian Productions and content online. This is something that I’m getting the hint the CRTC Chair understands in these hearings.
Yeah sure, a funding or grant source would be cool to start new media productions, but what happens when you can't make any money off of it online because the framework for sponsors or investors doesn't exist to the degree it should. Grants only go so far, and as you well know don’t even begin to cover the full cost of production.
This funding into grants would only serve producers to make their productions, but post production revenue would be less due to the lack of innovation, and adequate revenue support (which most of us in new media already know quite well).
If you open up the marketplace by making file sharing legal and ISP's pay into a copyright pool, I think that a flood of new revenue will be available for new media productions outside of any "grants" currently available, and sponsors would be more inclined to participate in this environment since it would be deemed a legal one. I’m all for ISP’s contributing to productions, and profits of new media, but it has to be done in a smart way or it won’t work. Over the past 2 days at these new media hearings all we have been hearing is “wo’s with me” and the blame being put once again on consumers and ISP’s without any evidence to back up what they are saying. Something that hasn’t gone unnoticed by the CRTC Chair. This “attitude” amongst those in the creative communities needs to be readjusted, and they need to understand the true challenges we face as new media producers and independent artists before a system can be developed that would bring everyone together so to speak, otherwise it’ll be left up to the free market, which has already collapsed in many areas and will get worse due to the global recession before a true solution is implemented, and as you know with government that can take another 10 years before we “revisit” the pending 2009 decisions we are debating today.
Just my thoughts from following this..but either way things need to change, and I don't think it'll be regulation that will be responsible for this change once it occurs.
Post a Comment