It Aint Me, Babe.

MAD PULP BASTARD Bill Cunningham sounded the alarum with two interesting new articles from WIRED about the future of TV and the Web. Alex put his take up as a follow up.

Gotta admit, I found both articles very interesting, but even though there's a persistent doomsaying tone, I'm not feelin' the worry. I'll get to why in a minute. First, here's some of the first article, with the charming, not-at-all alarmist title: "Fitting Network TV For a Toe Tag."

It may be time to perform an autopsy on network TV, which some have pronounced officially dead at age 60, the victim of a lifetime of big spending, hard living, and bad planning. Here's the coroner's report: The evening newscasts have been mowed down by cable's heat, spin, and round-the-clock immediacy. In prime time, nobody watches reruns anymore—and reruns, along with syndication, used to be the only way comedy and drama series, the heart of a network's prime-time business, made money. (The way they make money now is...well, the networks will get back to you as soon as they figure that out.)

Speaking of old-school, half-hour sitcoms: Once, 50 of them were on the air at a time. Today, they're all but gone. Suddenly, people just stopped liking them. Prime-time news magazines? Barely holding on. "Protected" time slots? Viewers accustomed to Web surfing and channel flipping at hyperspeed aren't going to watch a new show just because they're too lazy to change the channel after The Biggest Loser. The audience for daytime soaps, a profitable staple since TV's infancy, has shrunk so dramatically that the form may vanish within a few years. This is all very bad news for a medium that hasn't come up with a fresh format since 2000, when CBS launched Survivor, the gold rush in reality-TV competitions. (P.S.: Survivor isn’t what it used to be either.)

It's unlikely that a broadcast network is ever again going to create a megahit like The Cosby Show, which at its mid-’80s peak drew as many as 50 million viewers an episode. For several years now, TV's top event has been Fox's American Idol. Last season, it drew 28.8 million viewers a week.

Conversations about the future of television tend to vault way past next week or next year into a world where schedules don't exist and 10,000 programming options are all available at any moment, half of them fully interactive. (Not enjoying this episode of Law & Order: Moonbase? That's OK—you can change the plot!)

It sounds like fun. But in reality, the number of cable channels has topped out. And the number of households that subscribe to basic cable—about 65 million—hasn't budged for a decade. That's roughly 58 percent of all American TV households and it's a much higher percentage of the total households that advertisers actually care about. People who have something to sell are attracted to viewers who have already demonstrated their willingness to buy something (like cable TV). The cable business is booming: Annual advertising revenues have jumped from $8.1 billion in 1997 to a projected $28.6 billion this year.

So network TV and the act of being everything to everybody is dead, but cable's topped out and may be next. Okay. Check.

Why am I not so concerned?

Well, a couple reasons. First, there's concern fatigue. See, I'm of a generation who's been told their whole lives that it was the worst time for everything.

There were fewer of us, sandwiched as we were between the "look at me" Baby boomers and their kids. So when I was younger, after I outgrew "kids programs" there wasn't really a lot of programs aimed directly at me. It was not a great time for "tween" tv. The word tween didn't exist. I watched M*A*S*H and Three's Company reruns and tracked my growing maturity by when I finally cottoned onto the fact that the former was a whole lot funnier than the latter.

When I was in High School, it was generally acknowledged that it was one of the worst times for fashion, and music. And just as people my age were about to start having sex for the first time, we were told it was the worst time ever to have sex in like, 40 years, because even though there was the pill, now Sex was going to kill you.

Then I went to University, and tuition was rising and it was a bad time. I got out in the middle of a recession. Worst time to seek a job. I quit my job and decided to be a writer for TV in Canada a year or two after the networks successfully bamboozled the CRTC into changing the rules so that they didn't have to do drama anymore. Dramas disappeared from Canadian airwaves. Worst time to try and be a writer.

Oh, and the first run syndication market collapsed.

So, you know, I've heard about worst case scenarios before. And yes, in Canada we have a government now who's absolutely hostile to anything cultural. And the dollar's strong, so Americans aren't coming here to shoot anymore.

And I say, "enough."

The reality is that in our history of media, there are some important distinctions to make, but they're not going to necessarily kill you, especially if you're a sensitive creative type.

When a new medium comes along, it does not replace an old medium. Television did not kill Radio. Television did not kill film. Film did not kill live theatre. And despite what you read, P2P and the Ipod did not kill music.

All of these things still exist and people still make money doing them. There are people doing theatre. There are careers in Radio, and there are musicans doing what they do...making music.

What we're really nervous about, is systems. Theatre didn't die, but Vaudeville did. Radio did not die, but Drama on radio did. Music didn't die, but packaged media, and the CD format, and huge expensive accounts and questionable accounting for major labels...well, it'd be rude to pronounce it yet, cause there's still breath on that little mirror. Barely.

Television will not die.

Network TV? Yeah, that might be toast.

But if you're creative, that's not your problem. I don't think Alex is going to have to start writing speeches. And neither do I think we're all going to go to pay-per-view. If you're a creative person, you should look at all the articles like the one above and keep abreast of what's going down...but don't get all suicidey about it.

Because it aint you they're coming for.

Now there are those who stand to lose. The writer boom of the 90's, with sick, crazy money -- is done. But that was over already. But the tradeoff is that maybe the cable series you write is more fulfilling creatively. Whatevs.

I don't necessarily think that the whole thing is going to be people working harder and harder in the salt mines to come up with content -- because it's hard enough. If you're smart enough and talented enough to be good at writing for TV, if that doesn't pay, you'll find a way to be good at writing for something else. And you're telling me that things like The Dark Knight are never going to happen again? The new reality is exactly the same as the old. What the market will bear. And once a market emerges, if more than one person wants what you're selling, you're gonna make dosh.

Maybe it won't be, you know, small South American Country GDP dosh, but what would I do with eight houses anyway?

What's interesting is that if you read the rest of the article, and then think about it in terms of the article on branding I came up with a couple weeks ago, the inescapable conclusion is this:

You think the U.S. networks are screwed?

That's nothing compared to Canada.

We're already the last place that scoops up all those U.S. shows, no matter how crappy. Everybody else in the world these days waits to see what shakes out -- waits for the C.S.I.'s to rise above the Kidnappped's, before buying in.

Now they've got a business model with nothing else behind it, based on someone else's decision making. I would HATE to be a Canadian network person right now. They've never really had to think about their business before, and now it's almost too late.

And come to think of it, it's not like the Cable Lords are doing much better. I mean, how badly has Rogers handled the IPhone intro? And bungled the attempt to bring NFL games to Canada? And Shaw certainly has his little P.R. problems, too.

These are the captains of industry? And every newspaper article you read has plenty of trogs complaining about artists with their head in the trough. (Not, you know, networks asking for money on your cable bill or continued protections, or cable co's demanding that their protected monopolies continue.)

Interesting times, man. My skill's portable. I'm fine, Chico. It aint me you're looking for, babe.

The casualties to come are the people who insist that carbon paper will live forever. If you can write, or direct, or act -- relax, you're going to be fine. You may have to move -- because the people running your government or your regulatory organizations or your BDU's aren't exactly stone cold Brainiacs, but hey, that's hardly the same thing.

The second article, on Web series, is arguably more interesting. And here's the most interesting bit to me, at least from a craft point of view:

A seasoned film and television writer, Friedman left Hollywood three years ago for Electronic Arts, where he wrote the best-selling Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars and the soon-to-be-released Tiberium. At EA, he had to relearn scriptwriting, because the conventions of TV don't work in interactive media. In a one-hour drama, he explains, "you put the characters together over some beers and let them bring out the plot. It's exposition disguised as dialog." But games dispense with the entire first act, the part that sets the plot in motion. "When the story begins, you're in-world — you have a gun, all hell is breaking loose, and your job as a player is to stay alive and figure out where you are." Web video gets subjected to that same compression algorithm. "We're starting every episode with Anna on the run," Friedman says. "She's already in the second act — the part where everything goes wrong."

But Friedman's ambition is to merge television with videogames in a form of storytelling that engages audience members on multiple levels — and not just with the narrative but with each other. So while Anna dodges "sims" (simulated life-forms, with their telltale orange stigmata) and agents from the mysterioso outfit known as Gemini Division, fans will be able to log on to the show's Web site and get transmissions from Anna's partner in the police department. Users will be recruited as Gemini agents themselves, at which point they can talk with other agents — er, users — by webcam. "I think this is where entertainment is heading," he says. "It's where I want entertainment to head, because that's what I want to experience."

See, the writing part is interesting to me, about starting in the 2nd act. But the whole experiential thing? Uh. I guess. I don't know. Really? Be interesting to see if he's right. And if he is, fine. I'll adapt. And so will you.

There was an article in the NYTimes on the weekend. A profile of Peter Gabriel. Gabriel's always been forward thinking on technology, always pushed his music or business strategies in new directions. A lot of those directions haven't paid off. But then again, one just made him 40 million dollars.

I interviewed Peter Gabriel about 15 years ago, in my past life, for a show I was working on at the time. He didn't know where it was going, either, for him. But he wasn't worried. And what do you know? He might not be top of the charts, but it's worked out fine for him.

If you're a creative storyteller, these are your dating years. Don't get married. Have lots of irons in lots of fires, don't get locked in. And if there's a bit of time to fill, well, say a little novena or two for the Canadian types who've ignored the creative world for so long.

Sure, it's ironic that the kind of thinker they need right now is exactly the type of person they've done everything to ignore. Yup, the digital marketers and branders and what have yous are way, way, way behind here, because they've never cultivated anything other than the safe before. You could call that Karma. But I'm going to try not to do that. Don't be so petty as to hate them for it, or to enjoy their coming misfortune. It's sad, and they've got enough to worry about.

Hope, instead, that they find some peace in whatever they wind up doing in their next careers.

And then, when the dust settles, it'll be us, the cockroaches, and Ryan Seacrest standing.

Believe it.

The Line

I'VE GOT A WEIRD day today. Lot of triage, going back through dailies, thinking ahead, fretting, lathering, rinsing, repeating. Maybe a bit of weeping, gnashing of teeth, donning the hair shirt, throwing yourself histrionically at the bed and mouthing the words, "murther..."

Anyway, a bit of a do.

But the other night I was out with a couple of delightful friends and somehow we got talking about lines from TV shows...not favorite lines, not lines that you found memorable or even well-written, but lines that fucked you up.

I'm talking game changers here ... earworms that flipped across the transom of your mind and never left. They just stayed, and took up permanent space in the mindscape like kudzu.

For me there's two. One comic, one dramatic.

The dramatic one is one that I still think about just about every day. It hit me like a hammer and I feel like I'm still vibrating from the impact.

It's when the ghost/phantasm of Nate from Six Feet Under appears over Claire's shoulder as she prepares to get into her brand new Prius in the show's finale.

"You can't take a picture of this," Nate/Claire's inner Nate/Whatever tells herself. "It's already gone."

Messed me up.

Then there's the great comic construction from 30 Rock, the sensei/grasshopper moment that is funny and I'm not even sure why.

It's when Tracy Jordan tells Kenneth:

"Well well, the manatee has become the mento."

Laugh? I thought I'd die. And I'm not even sure why.

So I'll throw it open to you. Not your favorite line. Not the line you wish you'd written. The Television line that fucked you up.

We All Fall Down

JUST AS I vow that maybe I'll try to take a break from the "industry-saving," (yes, yes, that's why it's in quotes, dumbass.) along comes Our Glorious National Government's Latest Debacle.

It's not the kind of thing that makes big news, especially when you assiduously try to bury it by leaking it on a Friday.

So the Conservatives continue the cynical policy that began with Bill C10 -- trying to punish those that might espouse a point of view that veers one iota off their approved right-wing script. Despite what people might write, this isn't just a matter of bloody minded punishment to dissenters or red meat to the base-- it's actually a calculated gambit for survival.

If you poll Canadians on most social issues, little has changed -- the populace, by and large, tacks left of centre on most issues. The Conservatives are in power because of the vagaries of the multi-party system at play in this country. They can count on their base, but outside of it, most people are left of their stated positions on just about everything. The only hope is to cynically frame things in terms of trumped-up cultural outrages. If you tamp down and cut off speech that disagrees with you, then maybe you have a chance of fooling people a little longer -- and squeaking out another election win.

You cut two programs designed to fund arts organizations, and export CanCulture abroad, and cynically claim (as is this government's only refrain -- that you're spending more on the arts than the previous Liberal government.)

As it was put in Michael Posner's Globe & Mail article:

Mr. Feldman disputed the contention that the Tories have been more generous to the arts. "If they are spending more, it's in adjusted-for-inflation dollars. This is about some right-wing troglodytes in the party overcome with self-righteous indignation that people like [Toronto broadcast journalist] Avi Lewis received funding." He estimated that programs like Trade Routes deliver a 10-to-1 return on investment. "Would we not love to get that from our stock portfolios? If these cuts will save the country's economy, God help us. We're in worse shape than I ever thought."

Mr. Lewis, now reporting for the English-language affiliate of the Al-Jazeera network, said the cuts were "a window into the Machiavellian political tactics of killing a small but crucial government program."

Public funding for the arts is a proven economic and cultural stimulus that the majority of Canadians embrace, Mr. Lewis said in an e-mail yesterday.

"The government knows ... that if the story is framed honestly, there will be little support for killing the program. And so, in the middle of a summer when Canadians are having trouble paying for gas, they find a few examples of grant recipients that will enrage their conservative base ... and use that as a political rationale for doing something that would otherwise hurt them politically. Now they've succeeded in framing the story in terms of who deserves public funding, rather than who supports it - and that is cynical in the extreme."

Director Ken Girotti managed to connect a few of the dots over at his digs. Small investments in culture -- as is understood in just about every country in the world -- including the USA -- pay off in a big way. But this government's stewardship of the economy is shortsighted in other ways.

Item one: "That popping sound you hear is canada's commodity bubble" is a piece written by Jim Stanford in Report on Business. It shows how effectively our current leaders have set up the Canadian economy for the fall.

Item two: two stories, but really one message: fuck the arts and pass the light sweet crude. Simon Houpt has a piece entitled, "without the arts our image grows dim abroad," and coupled with Michael Posner's story, "Ottawa axes second arts subsidy in two weeks," it paints a dim picture of this government's sickeningly narrow point of view.

Together these articles illustrate how completely parochial Stephen Harper's world view is. To save a few nickels the Conservatives cut arts programs set up to sell Canada around the world, while at the same time they preach to the choir with their complete shift of economic priorities to the resource economy.

Parochial, and Provincial, are two words that get thrown around an awful lot. But in the case of culture, when it comes to Canada, it's sadly the norm, and set to go even further down that road.

Canadians tend to have this charming view that "everyone thinks of Canada as a great place to live," etc, etc -- they're stories that Canadians treasure, told in shopworn anecdotes about backpackers greeted with glee at the sight of Canadian flags moving through Europe; or the once-upon-a-time national myth that "Canadians are renowned as peacekeepers."

In its own way these comfortable Canadian fictions have always been this country's own version of the charming tendency of Americans to declaim "we're number one" in everything, whether it's true (military spending!) or not (great health care system!)

Its these comfortable fictions that actually make it easier for the Tories to kill the two programs. For the reality behind it, you have to actually listen to some people who've, you know, been there and not drunk the Kool Aid.

First, let's take J. Kelly Nestruck first, a twentysomething journalist now writing Theatre Reviews for the Globe and Mail:

Now, on the subject of touting our artistic accomplishments abroad, I am baffled and infuriated by the news that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade has axed its $9-million Trade Routes and $4.7-million PromArt program, both of which help send artists abroad.

Here's why: When I moved to England a couple years ago, a friend of mine who was returning from a few years there told me to prepare myself for a shock. "Canada is never mentioned," she told me. "You never hear anything about it. It's completely off the map."

Well, she was right, and she was wrong. Sure enough, Canada came up in the news only on very rare occasions, usually when there was a quirky story like a whole bunch of feet washing up on the coast of BC.

As an example of how Canada is often viewed, take the reaction I got from my boss's boss when I resigned to move back to Toronto and take up this here post. "You're leaving to go back to Canada?" he said. "But it's barely in the G8!" (Before you get too aghast, it was a joke. Kinda.)

And yet, and yet - while Canada rarely made the international news pages in the UK, I came across Canadians in the pages of the major newspapers on a daily basis. Where? In the arts section.

In London, I was working mainly on a music website, so this struck me most in terms of our musicians. If Neil Young or Feist or even Holy Fuck passed through London, they got reviewed. There were reverent articles about Joni Mitchell and Leonard Cohen from the older generation and Arcade Fire and Crystal Castles from the younger. The appeal of Nelly Furtado was analysed at length. Rufus Wainwright was adored - much more so than he is here. NME put out a special Canadian issue with a CD of music stuck to its cover. My site did a special podcast on Canadian music - and it was my editor's idea, not mine.

All this made me - and I know this is very unCanadian - proud of where I came from.

Our artists are our ambassadors abroad. Without them, on the international stage, Canada exists as a bus beheading and a video of Omar Khadr. Is that what we want?

Simon Houpt, New York based writer for the Globe and Mail, put it this way:

It's hard to overstate how low a profile Canada has abroad. If that's the way the government wants it, that's their decision. But if we want our voice to have influence in the rest of the world, to be the moral beacon we believe it is, that requires marketing Brand Canada. Sending artists and writers abroad is an integral part of that marketing that happens to be extremely cost-effective.

A little while ago Pamela Wallin told me that when she served within DFAIT as the consul-general of New York, culture was an indispensable tool to create a broader understanding of Canada within the United States. “It's all about presence; it's all about being top of mind. The more stages we continue to take ourselves off of, the more difficult the overall mission becomes,” she said.

“In order to be more than the Great White North, or more than just a trading partner like others, I think we have to show how interwoven the connections are, and how broad that cultural mix really is.”

She noted that the consulate also often used Canadian artists visiting New York to soften potential trading partners.

“It's an entrée point, it's a way to deal with people other than at the office, nine-to-five, about economic matters.”

That's why it was smart foreign policy to have Feist headline the Canada Day show in Central Park back in 2006, shortly before she became the iPod girl and a four-time Grammy nominee.

Even the United States, which invented the globalized free market in culture, has a long tradition of spending government money on so-called cultural diplomacy. During the Cold War, the U.S. State Department sent jazz musicians Louis Armstrong, Thelonious Monk, Miles Davis and others to the Middle East, Asia and Europe to spread American values. The U.S. is spending more than half a billion dollars a year on TV and radio broadcasts that bring American music, comedy, and drama to the Arab world and other territories.

This is lost on DFAIT, where PromArt and its antecedent programs were never really understood. One long-time bureaucrat in the department told me recently: “Anyone caught doing culture, it was a career killer.”

So separate and apart from the ego-reasons for Canada sending artists abroad. (They like us, they really like us!) with Houpt and Wallin, you see the foreign affairs implications. Again, it's something that's easier to sneak by because of this persistent view that somehow, Canada is in fact thought of as something other than "America's Hat."

It's not.

My own experience with cultural exchange was a particularly frothy and funny one. (At least it was to me.) When I was in South Africa working on Charlie Jade, we had an interesting crew made up of a lot of South Africans, some Quebecers, a few American/Canadian dual citizens, and a group of Other Canadians.

The South Africans kind of understood the Quebec separatism thing, while still (due to their history) being leery about the desire to separate on linguistic or ethnic lines. But the real fun came with tracking their utter bemusement when the Canadians would try to define and explain how they really, really were different than the Americans. The South Africans, of course, saw no difference whatsoever. The more the Canadians tried to explain, the more mystified the South Africans got.

Anybody know any New Zealanders? Yup. Same thing.

There is a school of Canadian thought that is outward looking and internationalist in view. Part of that sensitivity to world events comes from living next door to the most self-absorbed country in the world. But there is also that constant fight -- because you have a culture that negatively defines itself (Here's what we're not, not what we are) it makes it harder to make your case on the world stage, because you're not sure who you are yourself.

I've known a number of musicians and actors and other performers in my time who went abroad. And, strangely, once you get out of your comfort zone, the warm self-defeating, don't be a tall poppy, oh well, everbody loves us blanket of Canada, something changes. Every artist I know who's spent time abroad comes back more focused with a better sense of themselves. I think that's probably true of everyone who travels, not just artists, but artists offer an opportunity to judge them through their work, rather than just through their personality -- which is subject to all sorts of other factors, and can always be concealed or affected...

Once upon a time, too, Canada's outward looking nature gave rise to some of the most trenchant observers of social trends and, especially, media trends. Harold Innes, Marshall McLuhan, Naomi Klein...even people like Cory Doctorow and Malcolm Gladwell...it's amazing that such a small country has produced so many forward thinkers. People who come to shape the larger, world culture.

It's when we look outward, as Canadians, that we find the best in ourselves. So, in a sense, the Tory program killing isn't just small-minded and parochial, it's practically self-annihilating.

We live at a time when the key to our continued economic strength is going to be yoked not to manufacturing or commodities but to the kinds of people and thinkers Richard Florida talks about in The Rise of the Creative Class.

The programs that were just killed encouraged this kind of thinking, travel, exploration and development of artists. And in return, it helped Brand Canada. That's a huge payoff for something that was a very small line item in the overall Canadian budget.

But it threatens a party and a government that needs to count on people remaining parochial and provincial. And if it drives even more of the free thinkers Florida says are the future to emigrate or seek their fortune elsewhere, well then, sure, maybe it does sell out the future...

...But it sure makes it easier to control a message and win an election.

Canadian Internet Journalists Cost Me Money

WELL, ONE INTERNET PUBLICATION kind of scooped the news that I was hinting at back in June.

When that story broke, I was of the mind to say, "we need to get out in front of it." Because, of course, I'm used to those rabid, crazy American fans who parse and goose and shred every piece of info and blog it to death six ways to Sunday.

I made a fatal mistake, it seems. I forgot: Canadian show, Canadian bloggers, Canadian "meh." We stand on guard for, you know, whatever. Man, I lost that bet, hardcore.

On the other hand, it took about six seconds of the Canadian Press picking up the "official" press release-word of Battlestar Galactica's Grace Park's multi-episode stint on The Border for me to read an article that was in German talking about the news. The French article came next. Seriously, wire copy, man -- you can't beat it.

It's no secret that in 2008, with the net, it's hard to keep a secret. Unless, I guess, you expect a Canadian blogger to run with it!

So, welcome Grace. Everybody at THE BORDER is way excited to be working with you. It's a great character and a great jolt for what's shaping up to be a really interesting, intense season. Grace is on a tear with really different and exciting, sexy roles in both the A&E show The Cleaner and The Border. We're psyched to have her aboard!

And good for you, Canada -- for keepin' the secret. I'm serious.

Sorta.

As for you Sci-Fi Fans, who may have never ever heard of THE BORDER before and might be surfing in now from a stray hit on Grace's name, I can say in all seriousness that maybe, just maybe, you might find something in THE BORDER to love. It's a show about Canadian action heroes on the front line of fighting terrorism and threats to North American security.

...and believe me, in some politcal circles, that certainly qualifies as science fiction...

On The Take

WHY CAN'T I free your doubtful mind and melt your cold, cold heart?

Hank Williams knew what he was talking about. But of course, sometimes the coldness isn't a lack of romantic ardour. Sometimes it's a deadness caused by too little exercising of the muscle. We all verge toward our comfort zones. It's human nature. But it's also the nature that can seriously muck up a writer. And that cold, cold heart gets colder sometimes, simply by virtue of where you're sitting.

One of the things that I truly feel is the responsibility of any writer is to get the heck out of their comfort zone and go do something. You don't have to die scaling K2, but for pity's sake, get out of your garret and go talk to some different faces now and again.

I live in a place that makes that inordinately difficult. Toronto is a famously cold city, and I'm not talking temperature. Toronto is one of the only places I've ever been where you can go out with a group of four reasonably gregarious people and find that at the end of the night, you've only talked to those people. Attempts to rectify this are rebuffed. There's a standoffishness that prevails, a pass down from the city's disapproving Orange roots. It says, "keep to yourself, don't challenge, don't engage, let everyone be." That's a way to get along, to be sure. But it's no way to create, or to set yourself an atmosphere in which to create.
The worst thing about this, though, is that daily routine conspires to make this seem normal. You forget that other places, other cities aren't like this. The coldness gets inside. After a while you forget that once upon in a time your doubtful mind wanted to melt something. What was that again? Hmm?

Though Toronto's my city (for now) and I've lived here many years, it's one of this burg's least attractive qualities.

Of course, the only problem with that analogy is that the city that could engage in a little foot-stomping glee over that, Vancouver, is actually a thousand times worse.

Please don't write me paeans to either city pointing out how wrong I am, how I've only been talking to the wrong people, etc, etc, I realize that I'm making a massive generalization here. And it doesn't mean that either city isn't lovely. They are. But my generalization here is borne out with much experience of both cities, and a lot of discussion of same with former and current residents.

The thing is, where you're from and what you experience has a lot of influence over your 'take.' And when you're a writer, your take is the most valuable thing you have. If you're from a place where new ideas are suspect and everyone acts or demands to be regarded in some orthodox way, that shrinks your take. It's why most artistic people find the need to leave their small towns and travel to somewhere where they feel they can fully express themselves.

But you can fool yourself by going to the big city, too -- if the city doesn't have a warm spirit, an openness, an energy that encourages mixing rather than many solitudes, you miss it. It dulls your take. And it causes you to think provincially.

Montreal has a lot going for it in this regard. People do talk. You can't walk anywhere in the summer without hitting some sort of street festival. But there's that language barrier that makes it not quite perfect. Spending time in Montreal always makes me curse the fact that my French isn't better. I feel like I'm missing the most interesting conversations.

Because, um...I probably am.

When Canadians venture to New York or London and get drunk on the feeling and excitement there, I think that's what they're feeling -- not the city's size. Toronto has a few festivals each year -- Pride, Caribana, Doors Open and Nuit Blanche, where part of the visceral excitement seems to be that the invisible barriers between people come down, and you can smile at a stranger or engage them in conversation without getting an alarmed "You're clearly a serial killer and I'm reaching for my whistle" expression in return.

I just got back from another city like that. For the last few days I've had laughs with strangers, explored a vision of optimism and wonder and seen stuff that made me vibrate with the joy of being alive, and the joy of living in a beautiful teeming city. I'm hoping to carry that forward with me for a few days, to not succumb to the Toronto shrink as quickly as I can. We'll see how it goes.

Lest you think I'm just engaging in a bit o' Canada bashing here (because Lord knows, that defensive muscle doesn't need a lot of pressure to be exercised) one of the most provincial places I think I've ever been is Los Angeles... L.A. is a town where the solitudes don't mix, ever. As an industry town, you may find yourself cheek to jowl with exactly the calibre of people you want to be in business with, but all they want to do is talk about the business. And I think you see that in the creative that comes out, certainly over the last little while. There's a great number of people who once upon a time might have had a truly different, truly original take who've been seduced by the easy living or the comforts of the like-minded. L.A. is a bubble, and a bubble is never a place that lets you hone your take.

Changing location is one way to burst that bubble, but it isn't the only way.

A few weeks ago I was at a local watering hole with a group of writers, and one particularly, perennially dyspeptic friend of mine demanded that we not talk shop, for once. And we didn't.

And the conversation that ensued was glorious and different and odd and touching... surprise, surprise ... get together with a group of smart articulate people and if you mine it a bit, turns out they have all sorts of things to say that could really rock your world.

I've had girlfriends and other civilians suffer through tablefuls of writer shop talk with rolled eyes and pinched faces -- blowing past this very simple truth. And yeah, I know, everyone talks shop. But office workers who get together and never seem to get much past the topic of how much of a dick the boss is aren't in the business of trying to create worlds and characters, and interesting daily situation. And that's why, for writers there's an extra burden of not falling back into that comfortable, shopworn view of the world. You must remember an essential truth:

Sometimes changing the mind's landscape is all it takes to refresh your take.

But every once in a wild, when you've built up too much crap, the sharp corrective of the landscape change does the job nicely. Kind of like changing the oil. Or descaling. Or... well, you get the idea. All I'm saying here is that if you're a Toronto guy or an L.A. girl or a Vancouver...TG...sorry, I went there... you have to remember that -- like people who live near the highway or down the street from the nuke plant -- you're at a heightened risk of dulling your take.

If you're a writer and you haven't been challenging your bubble lately -- if you've grown comfortable in your routine and don't engineer some kind of upending now and then, it's time to book a flight or drive your car or hitch to somewhere different. See who you are there.

Remember that every story we craft is all about a protagonist who suddenly has their world upset in some way. How can we do that if we blithely cruise along in our own little bubbles of smug self-satisfaction, or rectitude, or religious ecstacy, or liberal pride, or smug marriedom, gay camp, punk nihilism or hipster chic?

Refresh your take.

And if you do, I highly recommend taking in a Cubs game.

Almost Back.

SO, ANYTHING HAPPEN while I was away?

Sadness for Bernie Brillstein, and Bernie Mac and Issac Hayes too. Interesting thoughts following the Canwest business story over the last week. (Wouldn't it be wonderful if someone other than a doing-it-for-free blogger took at look at this from, say, a creative point of view? As in, "hmm, what happens when your easy-money business plan goes away and you have nothing else behind it?" Ah, never mind.)

Will's got a post up on the definitive Canadian show. Terms of Trade discussions aren't going well, if you cotton to this skinny from commenter Caroline (who also filled in one of the blanks in a topic we had raging a few weeks back, about how Canadian nets have some of the lowest license fees in the world):

The CFTPA intended to negotiate a minimum standard of terms of trade with each broadcast group ... if you as a producer could better your deal, great, but it was supposed to set at least a benchmark. The broadcasters have banded together and refuse to negotiate as individual companies and are instead insisting on one common terms of trade agreement for each genre. Quite unfair given the very different financial and business situations at each network. I know it will probably be unpopular to say, but the producers are getting squeezed even harder than writers and if they don't get some support, the pain is just gonna trickle down the line. I'm already hearing bad bad stuff about CanWest demanding a 50/50 back end split and not even allowing enough margin in distribution and expenses to get yourself a decent international distributor.

With regard to Australia, they have a similar system to us ... not quite tax credits but a tax based scheme. Inherent difference is that Aussie shows consistently outperform most foreign ones so the broadcasters can justify spending big dollars on them because they get viewers and ergo advertisers. When last I checked, broadcasters were kicking in 40-70% of budget, averaging 50%. With tax kickback and a small (10-20% worldwide) distribution advance, you are pretty much at budget there.

I've also been thinking a lot of where I want to go next, with this little blog. There's a lot about it that's had me quite dissatisfied for the last little while. I might share some of that or I might not. In the short term, I think I might take a tack toward some more craft-related stuff. We'll see.

Regular posting resumes later this afternoon.

Flash! Ah-hahh.

DIDN'T WANT TO leave on that last post. So we'll make this the last til the end of hiatus. (Barring any implosion of the industry or anything.)

Flashpoint last night BUILT from the week before, and retained its lead in from CSI.

In the words of Mediaweek's Marc Berman:

"There is every reason to now believe the broadcast networks will rely more on quality Canadian programming in the future."

So now here's the $64 000 Question. (Yes, I continue my habit of making cultural references from before my time. It's part of my charm, and it helps me relate to the people who actually watch Television...OUCH, SNAP! YES HE DID)

...it's a question I leave you to ponder over the next ten days:

From now on, which network do you pitch first? Hmm?

This might also be a good time to remind anyone reading from, oh, I don't know, somewhere...

...Daddy's Dual.

By the time I blog back the Olympics will be on so maybe it's time to leave you with that hoary old Chinese saying:

"May we live in interesting times."

Crikey

WELL, THAT HUMPS it.

You try to do a funny little poll. And it turns into ... what, exactly?

Judge for yourself.

You know media constructs come easy. Peter Mansbridge is bald, so we make jokes about that. Tom Cruise jumps on a couch and he's a nutbag. Howard Dean lets out a whoop and it ends his run for the Presidency. Journalists deal in these easy tropes every day, and depending on who you read, Naomi Klein or Matt Drudge, they either support the hegemonistic power structure of their corporate masters, or, you know, they're left wing pinko idiots. Or both. Or neither. Whatevs.

Alison Cunningham is a wonderful journalist, who has many avid fans out west, and now that she blogs, people out of that market get to read her too. That's fab.

She's also extremely well regarded by her peers. I ran into John Doyle the other night and he slyly said, "I voted for Alison."

So the thought that wording of a jokey poll or a critic critique would take on dark overtones because of one woman being included among many men suggests something is...well. It's all a little over the top for me.

I feel a little like I did when I read Kate Taylor's article about How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria? The one that went on and on about the use of the word "girls" to describe the Maria-wannabes. It's like somewhere in there we all went from zero-to-conspiracy. Paging Deborah Tannen. Are things really this hair trigger toxic? Still?

A while ago there was a discussion about why it was that there seemed to be so few female newspaper writers writing about TV. It's a fair point; after all, as the TV viewing audience skews ever more female, you'd think that would be better reflected.

I wish there had been another female Canadian TV journo, with an online presence, that I could have put in the poll. If there had been, would that have short circuited this odd intimation, reading in of bias or malice or sexism or whatever in what is, let's face it, a stupid blog poll?

I don't know. I don't even have the heart to riff on the ironies here. I've written so many times about how awful it is when creators put out something and then are thin skinned about their reviews, and then, you see...

...fuck it. I really can't. This is just awful, awful and dumb.

For the record, and I cannot for the life of me believe I'm actually having to write this -- I was making absolutely no point, veiled or otherwise, through the wording of my poll, or my amused recitation of the results. I was not intending to question the journalistic or critical bonafides of Alison Cunningham. And though I have a hard time believing that a credible leap was made here, the truth is that I certainly did not mean to offend, and I'm sorry that Ms Cunningham apparently is offended.

To be safe, I guess I should also walk back the other things I said in my follow up post, I should clear up that I do not, in fact, really hate Vancouver, nor do I think Vancouver is adorable, or consider Vancouverites children. I am not RSS-ist. I simply don't know how Blogger works. Oh, I also do not really think that Rob Salem and Alex Strachan need to use more swears to boost their popularity in either their daily columns or my goddamn blog poll.

I do hate cats. That I absolutely stand behind. Not all cats. Not even some specific cats. But cats in general. The idea of cats. Hate them. Unreasonable? Okay. Fanfic, too. But we're not getting into that again.

After tomorrow my production hiatus starts, and it clearly can't come soon enough.

I was thinking I would continue to write here but suddenly I've got this wild feeling that maybe this is a good time to take a break. It's pretty outside. There are patios, and I've barely cracked the David Sedaris or Havana Nocturne.

Be good to each other. Tip your servers. Lower Raise your thermostats. Carpool more. Watch Mad Men. See ya on or around August 10 or 11.

Things That Depress Me

IF YOU READ this blog regularly, you're probably also aware of the TV, eh? website. It's run by House-fanatic and Canadian TV agnostic (we used to just call them, "viewers") Diane Kristine. It's a clearing house for info about indigenous Canadian TV - links to articles and stuff. Historically it's been impossible to find that kind of info, so how sad is it that things have gotten 100% percent better just because one woman decided to volunteer her time to do it?

And she doesn't even LIKE most Canadian TV!

Anyway, I received one of the best compliments I ever got the other day from somebody when I was complaining, as I sometimes do, that I'm really interested in discussing problems in the Canadian TV world and trying to talk about how it could be better, and it's frustrating because it so often seems like it's just a big bitchfest. Everyone wants to rehash, and blame, and nobody wants to take responsibility and say what they could do better.

Anyway, this person said to me, "that's the good thing about what you do. you don't whine -- you do it from a POV of trying to find the positive."

Well, shucks. I do have a dog in the hunt, so it's also self interest. But for Diane it isn't. Which is why the article she wrote on her experiences trying to get interviews for the site should give one pause.

I'm not naming names because I'd love for things to get better, not worse, but here's a few frustrating examples:

1. There's the network publicist whose response to my interview request gave me the impression she'd never heard of TV, eh?, even though media releases have been coming to the site from her email address for two years. I've heard nothing since sending site information months ago. I have contacted production companies responsible for shows on that network, had immediate positive responses, and those interviews went ahead anyway. For shows where I can't find alternate contact information, I give up.
   
2. I contacted a network publicist for an interview. He said he would pass the request on to the unit publicist for the show. Silence. I contacted the unit publicist directly. Silence. Over a month after the initial request, I contacted my desired interviewee directly and the interview was set up within a day. The day after that, I got an email from the unit publicist offering to set up the interview ... the interview that I had just set up myself. And yes, she knew that I'd already set it up.
   
3. Another dirty little secret: when comments come through the TV, eh? site, I see the IP address it originated from. Some of those glowing "fan" comments responding belligerently to negative comments have come from the IP of the network that airs the show.

Since I've learned so much from these experiences, here's my small tip for the industry: maybe it's time to put some of that reactionary energy into publicizing the show in the first place, so more actual viewers can form an opinion about it and perhaps leave comments that aren't feeble attempts at PR disguised as fan reaction.

Whaddya think? Mickey Mouse? Or Simply Goofy?

Give me an "oy!" Give me a "vey!"

Criticals, Massed...

WELL THE RESULTS of the Dead Things Labs Critic-poll are in. It should be no surprise to anybody that, (as always on the internet) the babes rule. (Although I also suspect Canadian Idol-like block voting from the Left Coast. Oh Vancouver, you're ADORABLE. Go on...make that face!)

Alison Cunningham came out on top with 38% of voters. John Doyle from the Globe is nipping at her heels though, with 30%. Bill Brioux gets to feed his family a little longer thanks to his 12% showing, though Jaime Weinman of Macleans has the perspective to patiently explain to you when 12% was actually 16 minutes longer and therefore way funnier.

As for Rob Salem and Alex Strachan -- tied for 2% -- maybe you guys need a gimmick?

I suggest using more swears.

Best Earthquake Joke I've Heard So Far

COMES COURTESY of Henshaw:

According to accountants at the MPAA, yesterday's 5.8 earthquake was actually only a 4.3.

Awesome.

This one's even better than Judge Judy. H/T to Walts.

Louise Clark

IS SOMEONE whose name you likely will only know if you're a writer or producer in this country. She's been a development executive at CTV for several years, and recently she's been heading up the development at CTV from Vancouver.

She's leaving CTV. Officially, for a sabbatical, a change and something new. Man, if I was a Production Company in this country, I would snap this woman up fast as you can.

I only had one meeting with Clark, for a project that I was briefly involved with last fall. But she was well liked and well respected -- arguably the most respected development exec in Canada. In a world where a lot of people jump to take credit for it -- those in the know would point to Louise Clark as the person most responsible (on the Network side) for bringing Corner Gas to CTV.

This isn't the best news for creatives. I hope that CTV, a place that's had a lot of turnover in the last year, finds its way. There's some good people there, and I guess though there's never a great time for this kind of thing, at least it's happening when they have the blush of recent success.

And Lo, The Earth Opened and The Judy, Yea, She Was Judged

OF COURSE it goes without saying that I'm real happy that all my Angelino friends are ship shape after their little shakeup yesterday. But I can't stop watching this "Judge Judy" clip and wonder, you know...what might have...

No. I can't go there. Can I?

No. I guess not.

18 To Life

I'M COMING A bit late to this story, but there you go:

Derek Schreyer and Karen Troubetzkoy created the show and will serve as executive producers. Peter Wellington ("Slings and Arrows") will direct the single-camera pilot.

The show is the third Canada-created series to make its way onto a U.S. network in recent months. CBS has found some success this summer with the drama "Flashpoint," and NBC has another drama, "The Listener," on its schedule for the coming season. Additionally, 20th Century Fox TV is planning to remake the Canadian comedy "Little Mosque on the Prairie" for American audiences.

I've heard some great things about this script, though I haven't read it. But it sounds charming. The writers certainly have a track record and Wellington proved with Slings that he's got a nice comic directing touch.

I have to admit, I think somewhere down the line I might have opined that these Can-America deals wouldn't last out the strike, but it appears I called that one wrong. Dead wrong.

The more I think about it, too, the more I think this kind of partnership might actually work for comedy better. The drama bar -- you're going to see a lot of the same criticisms you saw with FLASHPOINT. I think TV drama is about our fears and obsessions and Canadians and Americans' obsessions are just different. But we tend to laugh at the same stuff.

And for anyone keeping track, that's two program sales and a format sale for CBC vs. two program sales for CTV.

Uh...go team?

Getting Brandtastic -- Better For Viewer Choice, But What About Networks?

BRANDING. IT'S ONE of those words that just won’t seem to go away. And outside the advertising industry, it’s not a concept that’s very well understood in the media in Canada.

The old joke says that it takes whatever is the hot trend two years to travel from the United States to Canada. But in the case of broadcast branding, it’s even further behind. I would argue that the last truly successful Canadian broadcast brand that launched was Muchmusic.

Part of the problem with branding successfully is that you really have to know your audience – you have to have solid research, broken down and parsed exactly, and then you have to follow-through with programs – either self-produced or acquired – that almost selfishly and monomaniacly conform to that brand.

In Canada, where the norm is to buy programs and spread’em across your broadcast outlets, shoving square pegs into round holes galore – the dilution of the brand begins almost immediately. This is where you get Alliance Atlantis (now Canwest) jamming CSI:NY and NCIS reruns onto History and calling it “history programming.” When I worked at SPACE, every month or two you’d have to shake your head at some kind of moonshine movie or other inappropriate thing jammed onto the air because it was part of a movie package. Bravo! (who, unlike its U.S. counterpart, didn’t take the savvy step of re-inventing itself as a gay or gay friendly network) fell from running “TV too good for TV” to any kind of crappy movie, so much so that you’d scratch your head and say, “what am I watching?”

The over-the-air broadcast channels don’t do any better, most of the time, for different reasons. Some are ego-related, and some are economic. Actually, most of the time there’s a combination of the two that come into play.

If you look at the U.S. networks, for all their current troubles, most of them have an immediately recognizable brand. ABC has more shows that appeal to women. Most ABC shows have a high-female appeal. CBS is the home of traditional, almost stodgy procedural cop shows, and CSI. It’s no wonder that Flashpoint, despite scoring not-so-stellar American reviews, managed to score in its first few airings: it’s actually a really great fit for CBS.

When the WB morphed into the CW, it lost most of the lustre of the former’s laser-sharp branding of shows designed to appeal to the American teen. And NBC remains mired in the basement largely because its brand is diffuse: the channel that once-sported “must see tv” came late to the reality game, and let its 90’s hit grow too long in the tooth without viable replacements. Same with HBO.

Shows, not Promos -- Make the Brand

Turn to cable and you see branding even more starkly, because they hang the identity on fewer shows. Damages, Rescue Me, and The Shield all scream F/X – a channel that’s supposed to be not quite as anything-goes as HBO, and delivers programs that speak to that edginess exactly. Then look at USA – who have perfected a formula of off-kilter light detective shows – Monk, Burn Notice, and Psych.

Then there's TNT -- with female friendly tough detectives Kyra Sedgwick (The Closer) and Holly Hunter (Saving Grace). The Closer's the biggest show on cable right now. It MAKES TNT.

The shows make the brand, and the brand makes the money.

But in Canada, for better or worse, the channels here buy from lots of different sources – which means lots of different brands. CTV and Global both have shows from all the U.S. networks, and in some cases, the cable channels too. That means that they try to hang their brand on ephemeral, who gives a shit stuff like promos. (which help to define the channel, but not as much as shows.)

They fire off press releases quibbling over numbers because there really isn’t too much to set them apart.
There’s way less data, too. At a Canadian network you don’t have the spooky drill down psychographic data on viewership that is commonplace at all the U.S. nets. There is the ratings information, which any journalist will tell you is information guarded like the crown jewels, another difference between here and the USA, where the availability of ratings numbers is downright promiscuous.

There’s lots of games to play with ratings, and lots of reasons why you play them, too. Canadian numbers just don’t sound as impressive, first of all, because the country’s a tenth the size of the USA. Second, there’s often games played, like adding together the number watching on your channel, and –thanks to simsub – the U.S. channel too. (This is why CBC will always lag behind the privates – they don’t get to add the people watching on a whole other cable position into their numbers.)

Over the last couple weeks, I was collecting examples from newspapers talking about fashion, TV, music, advertising – all quotes by people explaining how the U.S. was way better at this branding thing than Canada is – but of course, I’ve lost the clippings. D’oh.

Nevertheless, from the inside – there really is not much of a comparison. It’s like calling the guy who took a Cessna up with someone else handling the takeoff and landing calling himself a pilot when he’s sitting beside a USAF Colonel who flies experimental black aircraft out of Nellis AFB in Nevada.

What got me thinking about branding again in the last couple weeks were a few recent events. The first was the extraordinary emergence of AMC over the last year as a new home for top-quality drama. Mad Men and Breaking Bad – just two shows – have erased the image of AMC as that place that shows all the badly edited movies. That’s the power of what a signature program can do for you.

Two Audiences?

The second thing was the Emmy nominations. John Doyle wrote about the growing split between the families of TV drama – the quality, small audience niche shows that gobble up nominations, critical acclaim, and loyal discerning viewers, and the networks, who increasingly seem to be retreating into cheeseburger tv – which still pulls way more viewers, but in the end, is what it is.

Just as there are now two kinds of TV being made, there are two kinds of audience. There are those who watch CSI or Law & Order, and might watch Wipeout; and there are those who watch only Mad Men, The Shield, Damages and all those HBO dramas.

Though I think he's largely right, I shy away from the us and them of it all, because I think it plays into a very reductive view of TV. It's true that many of the large audience for Broadcast TV would never cross over to one of the more challenging cable dramas...but I'm not sure that it goes the other way. I like to think that the number of people who will watch Mad Men but not CSI or House, or whatever -- is small. They'd have to be terrible snobs, and I'm not sure the terrible snob demo is as big as, well...snobs think it is.

Just as the right wing Republicans don't have a complete hold on "people of faith," neither does the cable audience have a hold of "the smart people" while network tv serves "the dumb people." (Remember this the next time someone starts screaming about the 'dumbing down' of the CBC.)

What I'm saying is that the fight between Cable and Broadcast shows is way more about branding than about the shows themselves. We just happen to be at a historical moment where the explosion in viewing choices and the technologies challenging TV for viewer/citizen attention combine in such a way that - the brand is ever-more important. Men of a certain age will watch Spike and Cartoon Network and nothing else -- unless you give them the show that brings them to you. Then, having brought them, you have to want to keep them and work at it.

I’m fine with both types of TV, by the way. I’ve written one miniseries that aimed for the "cable kind of feel" and I’ve gladly written episodes of the more populist network tv show. (I think the show I’m currently working on is a really good cheeseburger. I’m not sure that’s the opinion of everyone involved, but then again, it’s easier for me to say that because, hello – cheeseburgers are delicious.)

Which brings me to the other side of the TV branding discussion, Canadian flava.

See, all that data and all that money down in the USA has a very focusing effect. It’s all about the Benjamins, honey. And if putting a program that’s off-brand costs you X dollars, well, then that’s a branding driven X-dollar limo to the ash heap for that show.

But none of the Canadian networks – in their original programming – are driven by money. Not exactly. Not completely. Not really.

For CTV and Global, let’s face it, Canadian programming is a loss leader. They make their gelt entirely on those simulcasted American shows. They grudgingly do what Canadian programming they have to do. But that’s not where they make the dosh. And in a world where the brand was less important, that was fine.

The CBC has a different problem. Seeing as they’re funded a little bit by advertising and a lot by you and me, they have a whole mandate under the Broadcasting Act they have to fulfill. They have to reflect Canada. That’s why everybody fights about the CBC – because everyone has an idea of what they should be doing that would better fulfill those rather vague terms. Of course, they also can’t simsub, and they (during the regular season, at least) don’t rely on American programming in prime time.

What else drives the networks? Well, something that also plays in the USA (but not as big as money.)

Ego.

How Ego Can Wreck a Brand

Citytv was a local Toronto brand that took the superstation mentality and ran with it long before Ted Turner thought to do the same thing. From the news to the promos to the very character of the station, Citytv looked like nothing else in the world.

It ran magazine shows like FT or Movie Television that eschewed chirpy v/o and polished film look, for “authentic,” “handheld” and “street level.” (Also: cheap.)

But even before Citytv founder Moses Znaimer was slowly forced out, things started to change. The parent company, CHUM, wanted to be more of a player. They wanted a more corporate look. Instead of “A City tv production,” (a brand that had some funky history) shows started being tagged by “CHUM Television.” (a brand that had none.) And the slice of life people-in-the-city promos were replaced by flashier graphics, similar brand and promo elements. Lot more shooting on film. Lot less heart.

The people then in charge “upscaled the look” of the station. When acquisitions of other stations in other cities caused them to become rebranded Citytv’s, they went for a unified look – promos that used to be charming and idiosyncratic became…just like other stations. They brought in the same news consultants selling the same snake oil they’d sold all over the USA – weather porn, action news-style stuff. They lost what was special about the place, and added a whole wack of Vice Presidents. The ratings went down. There wasn't anything special anymore. No mythos, no heart. I remember in the ten years I taught University -- at the beginning it was the best students saying, "how do I get into Citytv?" and by the end... the ones asking were no longer the best, the brightest, or even the hippest. They'd found other places to go. Hubris and a desire to be a mini-network bled out what was once charming and special about the place.

Now the Citytv’s belong to Rogers, CHUM the corporation is no more (most of it having been absorbed into CTV Globemedia) and though viewers might not know the word “brand” in this context, most would probably agree that the stations that Rogers bought just weren’t the special things they’d been maybe fifteen years ago.

So, as much as we can, when we take a look at the state of the Canadian Broadcast Brands, what do we see?

CBC

CBC identified a problem and a strategy. The problem was that nobody under 50 was watching. (That's a problem for most of TV, but when your funding comes from the Government, it's a much bigger problem -- it allows them to cut you and say you're not relevant.) The strategy it decided on was that it needed to raise its 18-49 but mostly its 25-54 viewing numbers. To show its relevance to Canadians, it would program a middle of the road, straight down the pike strategy of dramas and comedies and information/entertainment programs that tried to have the widest appeal possible. If you talk to Kirstine Leyfield, as I did back in June, she's pretty laser-clear about this. That's what they're doing. They're a year into it. And after having nothing to see on the channel for years, younger viewers are going to take a while to come back. At the very least, you have to view this as a 2 or 3 year rebuilding process.

Now, is that the right strategy? Not for me to say. Plenty of people to argue against it. But the level of argument against the CBC can sometimes be kneejerk and pretty childish -- every interest group wants the thing that it wants, and the worthy arguments (are they starving the news to pay for comedy and drama, and is that a good idea?) gets lost in the ridiculous or provincial (classical music is inherently better and should be played on Radio Two all the time even if only 40 000 coast to coast ever listen)

In this example, then, the CBC is most like a U.S. network, ironically -- they are trying to please the widest possible segment of the populace, and they're pursuing a strategy to that end. Remains to be seen if it ultimately works.

CTV

has grown to super-hegemony by buying the right shows, and by buying up other shows they didn't want to run just so competitors wouldn't get them. They also got lucky with a few homegrown shows that actually hit with an audience. They cherry picked a few cable dramas to give a taste of that kind of programming to the sched, too, with varying results -- The Sopranos did well for them, but Dexter and Mad Men, so far, not so much.

Now their strategy seems to be to aggressively pursue these U.S. deals for indigenous shows. It's a smart win-win, because it allows them to do what they love to do (make money by simulcasting with the U.S. networks) and put the best face on the numbers (Flashpoint scores over a million because you get to count the people watching on CTV PLUS those watching on CBS!)

But these shows, these ersatz American shows, are never going to be loved in the USA. So long as you do shows that are *like* the USA's but slightly...off...that's going to get reflected in the U.S. reviews.

So you win on the bragging rights for the money and the eyeballs - but you're never going to get the love.

And the success of this strategy -- and here's the funny part -- does nothing to build your brand. The thing about Flashpoint is that they can put out as many pressers as they want, but now, boys -- that's a CBS show. You win. But it doesn't help your brand. You're yoked to the USA farther than ever. And in a marketplace moving away from 'casting and toward production -- this baby step aint gonna get you to where you need to be when the floodgates really open.

Global

I don't know. The brand seems to be identical to CTV, but less successful at the moment. They do better with the E! channels -- but even there, it's really borrowed robes, innit?

Let Ego Lead You To The Brand?

Now. Remember when I talked about ego and branding? Here's where the other part comes into it.

Mad Men draws a million viewers in the USA. That's a Canadian-sized number. On CTV, it premiered strong around 750 000, but dropped like a stone. It's drawing 200 000 or 300 000 now. Dexter gets in that range too.

Herein lies the number one-brand problem when it comes to Canadian networks pushing material:

They all ask for Six Feet Under, but they want it to get CSI numbers.

It's a fundamental disconnect. A misunderstanding of the marketplace.

Those challenging, cable-like dramas are never going to get network numbers. Which in Canada means 1 million to 3 million viewers. It's NEVER going to happen. Ever. Ever. Evah.

But Lordy, they do get respect. So it strikes me that there's an opportunity here. Either the CBC, CTV, and Global can all lemming-like, try to place these dramas that are American-lite, that will get put on in the summer and tepidly reviewed and worsen the problem of being exactly the same.

Or...

Somebody can step up and try to be bold and say, "we're not going to go for big number viewers on this show because who cares, that's not how we make our money. We're in the simulcast business. But we're also going to develop and air and fund only the best, most interesting, edgy or funny or scabrous dramas and comedies. They're going to win awards. They're going to get great reviews. They're going to be things that we can be proud of."

Somebody can make Six Feet Under. And promote it, and air it, and know that it might only get 200 000. But it will win Emmys and travel round the world ...

...and you might get an honest to goodness brand out of it.

Intelligence drew just as many viewers as Mad Men & Dexter

The path has been blazed. Personal shows like Slings & Arrows, or Trailer Park Boys have already been noticed. DaVinci's Inquest shows at 3am in the USA, but those who find it say, "whoa, this is actually different." In the UK, BBC 2 and BBC 4 and Channel 4 all have vastly different brands in the public's mind based on their original programming.

One more thing: in the context of those numbers, CBC already did this and turned away: Intelligence, with its faithful audience in the 250 000 range -- was, in fact, a cable niche show on the CBC. You could make the case that Jpod was the same thing (I wouldn't, but hell, you could -- and maybe if more Jpod eps had been like the ones I saw at the end of the run, maybe I'd agree.)

But CBC has set their strategy -- they want the populist numbers. So those are the shows to take to them. Now, would that they are wise enough to greenlight those kinds of shows.

But Global or CTV could be the F/X of Canada in original production, while still making their dosh in their real business -- at least until that business goes away.

Realign the thinking of executives and creatives and you could wind up with good reviews, stroking of the whole ego, and shows you could actually hang a brand on.

Again, all it takes is someone to be bold.

In Canad..

oh shit.

Why We Made The IPA Deal.

TERMS OF TRADE. Get used to that phrase, since if you work in Film and TV production in Canada, you're going to be hearing a lot about it over the next little while.

Basically, what's happening right now is that Producers are trying to set down rights sharing agreements with the Broadcasters -- specifically in the area of new media.

Through other decisions, notably by allowing the mergers that eliminated first Craig, then Chum, then Alliance Atlantis as independent broadcast entities, the CRTC has created a powerful class of broadcaster goliaths who seemingly can call all the shots in dictating what they require from a Producer to make a sale.

Producers in the last few years have seen the demands from channels increase: webisodes, various rights and ancillary materials are being requested for a shrinking pot of money. It's made the margins Producers have to exploit their wares razor thin.

There's other stuff going on behind the scenes, too. Did you know, for instance, that Canadian broadcasters put less of their own money into license fees than just about any other commissioning broadcaster in the world? It's true. In some cases these days it's dropped to less than thirty percent of the budget. I'm sure somebody somewhere has the details from country to country -- but the last time I saw them they were astounding.

Anyway, this fight right now is why the CFTPA and the corresponding Quebec union gave Writers a good deal on the 1 year extension of our IPA.

A backgrounder on the "terms of trade" negotiations is available here. An excerpt:

Last week, various unions and guilds representing professional performers, directors and screenwriters wasted no time throwing their "strong support" behind Mayson and his team.

"We support the independent producers' position that equitable terms of trade agreements are needed to secure fairer deals for program rights," stated Stephen Waddell, national executive director of ACTRA.

"Reaching fair terms for granting rights is a struggle with which we are familiar."

Brian Anthony, national executive director of the Directors Guild of Canada, said terms of trade deals are key to ensuring the production sector continues to have sufficient "financial capacity."

The framework agreements, they added in a joint statement, would help diminish "severe imbalances in negotiating power" caused by a wave of mega-mergers in the broadcasting sector in recent years.

Notable transactions include the $2.3 billion acquisition of Alliance Atlantis Communications Inc. by CanWest and United States investment bank Goldman Sachs & Co. There was also CTVglobemedia's $1.4 billion takeover of CHUM Ltd. and a subsequent deal under which Rogers Media Inc. bought five Citytv television stations from CTVglobemedia for $375 million.

Maureen Parker, executive director of the Writers Guild of Canada, suggested that broadcasters have become the "gatekeepers" of Canadian programming.

"This in itself gives them powerful leverage when dealing with producers, and the imbalance of negotiating power has only been exacerbated by the broadcaster mergers of recent years," she said.

"If producers are pressured into granting broadcasters program rights for little or nothing, screenwriters and the creative community are impoverished as a result."