The article continues, quoting representatives for broadcast networks.The financial decline of Canada's major commercial television networks accelerated last year, with profits falling more than 90 per cent amid the onset of a slowing economy and the migration of TV audiences and revenue to cable channels.
The national conventional TV networks, including CTV, Global, CITY-TV, and French broadcasters such as TVA, saw their biggest-ever drop on a percentage basis in profits before income tax. Those profits, which are reported each spring by the federal broadcast regulator, fell to $8.04-million from $112.94-million last year.
That drop comes after CTV and Global warned regulators last year that the financial model for network television was breaking down. Pretax profits were consistently above $200-million for the industry prior to 2005.
The networks argued to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission that they should be allowed to charge the cable companies fees for their signals, something specialty channels are allowed to do. Their proposed fee of 50 cents a month per customer was turned down by the CRTC.
Meanwhile, the cable industry argued that they would pass that fee onto consumers, who wouldn't stand for such price increases. Since then, Rogers Communications Inc., which told the CRTC its customers would cancel service if the fees were added, has recently announced several price increases on many of its channel packages.
Now, there's a whole lot that's scary and depressing in that article. But like a lot of Grant Robertson's pieces, what's most interesting is not what's in the article, but what's left out of it.
Specifically, the article seems to lay out the case for why the CRTC was wrong not to give the Canadian networks carriage fees. The point it makes about rising cable rates is silly; a carriage fee is not comparable to the fee charged for the service, no matter how you compare it.
But what's really weird is the essential context that's left out. Profits are falling because viewers are fleeing to cable channels -- which are owned by the same companies that own the networks. Also, no mention whatsoever of the fact that those figures reflect the fallout from the WGA strike, which caught Canadian nets flatfooted and without an alternate plan because they rely so heavily on American product. There would have been a dip anyway, but not that much of a dip. Nor does it account for the fact that there was a massive consolidation in that timeframe, with CTV buying Chum, and Global buying Alliance Atlantis.
Are the profit figures low because of the inclusion of those sales? I don't know. I don't have the context. But it sure makes me suspicious when I read a news article and realize that it's sourced from basically one set of stakeholders: the broadcasters.
I want Canadian broadcasters to do well. I really do. But doing well by demanding more money from your shrinking viewership base is not the way.
This article reads like a plant -- it couldn't be more broadcaster-centric if it had the CTV logo attached. And considering that the paper and that network is owned by the same company, it makes for seriously queasy optics. I mean, where's the standard disclaimer line about "we're owned by the same company" like Entertainment Weekly always does when it writes on issues or shows pertaining to Time Warner?
A few weeks ago, someone predicted (I forget who) that one of the three U.S. networks would cease to be in the next three years. That's a pretty dire prediction, but not totally out of line.
And those networks are all diversified -- they're all also in the content producing business.
Are we ever going to have a discussion about broadcasting in this country that involves all the real issues? And that posits new solutions? The failure of original thinking here is simply epic.
I thought I learned in basic Economics back in High School that raising your price was the last thing you did because it forced the consumer to look at your product anew and re-evaluate whether it was worth the cost.
I'm not sure Canadian nets want customers re-evaluating their worth right now.
Man, where are the outside the box thinkers? And why does Grant Robertson never, ever, ever interview them?
EDIT: it's been pointed out to me that "in the tank" is perhaps a bit strong, considering the focus is business. I concede the point.
A FURTHER EDIT: and a Mea Culpa -- Bill Dunphy upbraids me a bit below -- and I concede my haste in this matter. I went too far out on a limb on this one, and I apologize. But actually, Bill makes that case better than me so I'm just going to append his comment here:
Denis, Denis, Denis. Please do not slip into the easy comfort of carelessly impugning the motives of someone whose analysis you don't agree with or who fails to meet your standards.
"In the tank" (to take a dive) for the Networks" is more than "perhaps a bit strong" - to a journalist its defamatory.
And needless.
And factually incorrect.
Robertson does disclose who owns the Globe:
"It doesn't take into account what is happening now; 2009 is going to be even worse," said Paul Sparkes, executive vice-president of corporate affairs at CTVglobemedia, the parent company of CTV, which also owns The Globe and Mail "
He also brings in the profits of the specialty channels - although he doesn't stretch himself enough to detail the interconnectedness you mention.
But to leap to the conclusion that a dull, weak effort of journalism may be evidence of ownership interference in news is to demonstrate a deep failure to understand what goes on in newsrooms and the fierce and sometimes suicidal refusal by most good reporters to pay any attention to who owns them when they chase their stories. You don't need to touch on motives (conspiratorial or otherwise) to offer a sharp - and possibly deserved - criticism of his reporting.
And frankly, the slurs aside, I prefer your analysis to the flat and context-free reporting evident in that article.
It's just that you lower the tone so needlessly when you haul in the boogey men. Life is rarely that simple.
5 comments:
Did you come across the article yesterday -- I think it was the NY Times -- where Les Moonves opined that CBS might move itself to be an entirely cable-based network by 2015, essentially throwing its affiliates to the wind?
Wonder if the Canadian nets are having similar thoughts as most of their programming is on their specialty nets anyway, and they're already grumbling about shutting down their smaller-market stations.
I heard the President of Tivo predict the demise of one of the US nets at NATPE, so you might've heard that from me.
But his prediction was in the context of a call for these guys to take a hard look at the way they do business. People are using Tivo's to skip ads and time-shift -- deal with it. That Genie's not going back in the bottle.
The guy also had a ton of ideas on how Tivo could enhance the position of broadcasters. But I'm not sure if anybody accepted his offer.
And I'm not sure that "in the tank" was too harsh. Not only are both our "National" papers in bed with a broadcaster, the Globe is part of a conglomerate that includes a major ISP and cable com.
With that kind of media control, Mr. Robertson and his editors are ethically obligated to inform you who's paying their salary -- and maybe why he didn't bother talking to anybody else with a rooting interest.
"This article reads like a plant -- it couldn't be more broadcaster-centric if it had the CTV logo attached."
Well, the Globe and Mail is owned by CTV globemedia, the same parent company that owns CTV. Jimhenshaw is right, the Globe is violating the standards of ethical journalism by not stating this conflict of interest in the article.
If Nikki Finke covered the beat up here, I think she'd be able to devise an analogy between whats going on here and Variety magazine and its bias and allegiances
Denis, Denis, Denis. Please do not slip into the easy comfort of carelessly impugning the motives of someone whose analysis you don't agree with or who fails to meet your standards.
"In the tank" (to take a dive) for the Networks" is more than "perhaps a bit strong" - to a journalist its defamatory.
And needless.
And factually incorrect.
Robertson does disclose who owns the Globe:
"It doesn't take into account what is happening now; 2009 is going to be even worse," said Paul Sparkes, executive vice-president of corporate affairs at CTVglobemedia, the parent company of CTV, which also owns The Globe and Mail "
He also brings in the profits of the specialty channels - although he doesn't stretch himself enough to detail the interconnectedness you mention.
But to leap to the conclusion that a dull, weak effort of journalism may be evidence of ownership interference in news is to demonstrate a deep failure to understand what goes on in newsrooms and the fierce and sometimes suicidal refusal by most good reporters to pay any attention to who owns them when they chase their stories. You don't need to touch on motives (conspiratorial or otherwise) to offer a sharp - and possibly deserved - criticism of his reporting.
And frankly, the slurs aside, I prefer your analysis to the flat and context-free reporting evident in that article.
It's just that you lower the tone so needlessly when you haul in the boogey men. Life is rarely that simple.
Post a Comment