30 Rock McMarketing Meets a McFlurry of Controversy

WELL, HERE'S THE tale of a weird little story.

If you watched 30Rock's Valentine's Day themed episode this week, you were treated to a subplot where Salma Hayek and Alec Baldwin waxed poetic on the virtues of the McDonald's McFlurry.
The placement was so obvious that it skeeved me out a little. I mean, this wasn't an in-joke like the Snapple or Verizon placements of 30 Rock's past -- this was a message shoehorned into the ep so hamfistedly that it just felt...ugly.

And when I watched my PVR'd copy, I immediately Twittered my feeling:

Latest: Did anyone else find 30 Rock's McFlurry-shilling this week offputting? I know they've done product placement before, but this one? Feh.

From the power of the internet department, not a minute later I got the first of several tweets back telling me that the placement, in fact, wasn't.

For what it's worth, here's what Tina Fey had to say:

“It gives me great pleasure to inform you that the references to McDonald's in last night's episode of 30 Rock were in no way product placement. (Nor were they an attempt at product placement that fell through.) We received no money from the McDonald's Corporation. We were actually a little worried they might sue us. That's just the kind of revenue-generating masterminds we are.

Also, the upcoming story line where Liz Lemon starts dating Grimace is just based on a recurring dream I have.

Seriously, though, it's not product placement.

Also, whoever is writing my Twitter account is pretty funny, but it's not me.”

But here's where the rubber hits the road with this stuff. It felt so off, and the show's past history with placements before, have made it impossible to tell what's content and what's paid. I said on Q last week that I thought that placements in programs were OK -- or at least a necessary evil, but now, I'm back to being on the fence. The McFlurry thing bothered me a whole lot more than Pepsi's MacGruber SNL bit. When something takes you that out of the action, and when the star has to issue a denial -- where are we? McDonald's clearly wins in this scenario....but I'm not sure that 30 Rock or Tina Fey come out as cleanly.

A lot of these issues were dealt with in a New York magazine article by Emily Nussbaum from October 2008.

Meanwhile the best encapsulation of the current brouhaha came in Nussbaum's response to "ha ha told you so" 30 Rock Defenders on NYMag's Vulture blog:

It made perfect sense to assume that the McFlurry bit was paid placement, since aside from the fact that product integration permeates NBC shows, 30 Rock itself has specifically, repeatedly used paid placements in the past. (Read my article linked to in the original piece for details.)

When I was researching that article, I tried to get Tina Fey to comment on the placements, but she wouldn't. She did, however, give a quote to EW in which she claimed that every time the show does paid placement, it will be specifically called out, so viewers will know it. But that wasn't actually true: the Soy Joy placement was "concealed." It's impossible for me to tell at this point what's "paid" and what's "organic," and THAT'S the problem.

This creates a bizarre conundrum for viewers: either we go "la la la I won't think about it!" -- or we are presumptively cynical. I'm a fan of Tina Fey and I adore 30 Rock as a sitcom, but when it comes to this subject, I'm frustrated and suspicious, especially after the research for that piece. I'm certainly willing to believe the McFlurry reference wasn't a paid placement, but it's absurd for the writers to act as though we should have known that, since they're the ones that created this confusion.

All I know is, "Pop!" I snapped out of the action. And every ounce of TV writer spidey-sense tells me that THAT is a very, very, very, very bad thing to be playing with. We're trained to try and make sure the audience doesn't "bump" for any reason. Letting the bump happen for the sake of shekels strikes me as a bad precedent for future comedy -- and the art form of TV storytelling in general.

CRTC License Game Changer Afoot?

DURING THIS WEEK's WGC council meetings, we discussed various scenarios of what to do when the CRTC released its intentions for the upcoming license renewal hearings. Much of the speculation swirled around whether they would limit the scope of the hearings, or offer relief on CanCon regulations.

Well the CRTC released its brief late Friday afternoon, and I think it's safe to say that it wasn't something anybody was expecting. At first glance, this appears quite favorable to creatives, as it puts the issue of what obligations the broadasters should have front and centre in the proceedings. The other interesting change is the commission's intent to look at each broadcast group's entire holdings, ie: not just CTV, but CTV + MTV, Much, Bravo!, Newsnet, etc. The profit centre that is specialty will be figured into the equation.

This suggests and signals a big change. It's no wonder the broadcasters had 'no comment,' and to tell you the truth, I don't have one either right now. This one, you need to read the article yourself, and mull over what you think. I'm pretty sure we'll be getting into it next week.

Go read Grant Robertson and James Bradshaw's coverage in the weekend Globe and Mail. I've added emphasis to some of the more interesting excerpts below.

In a move that would reshape prime time television, the federal broadcast regulator is considering placing a cap on how much the country's biggest TV networks can spend to acquire hit U.S. shows, such as Grey's Anatomy, The Office and House.

The proposal, which came as a shock to network executives Friday, would require CTV, Global, CITY-TV and others to spend the same amount on Canadian programming as they do on U.S. shows. For every $1 spent on programs from outside the country, a dollar would have to be spent at home creating a domestic show.

The announcement by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission comes just days after new federal data showed the networks spent a record $775-million on foreign programming last year, with most of that content coming from major Hollywood studios.

There are concerns in Ottawa that runaway spending to lock up U.S. shows that do well in the race for ratings is now contributing to network television's financial woes in Canada.

“The commission, at first blush, finds a lot of merit in the idea,” the CRTC said in Friday's announcement, suggesting the proposal could be tested on a trial basis for one year.

Last year, spending on foreign shows hit a record $775-million, compared with $619-million to make domestic programs. The numbers include several commercial networks; CTV, Global, CITY-TV, and French networks such as TVA. Public broadcaster CBC is not included.

The networks refused comment on the CRTC announcement Friday, saying they need more time to study it.

It is also possible that such a move could spark a trade war with the U.S, one executive said, if American networks complained about government intervention in the TV market.

The changes affect licence renewal hearings being held in April. The major broadcasters have argued that the state of conventional network television is in decline, as audiences migrate to cable and the Internet. Most industry revenue growth now comes from specialty channels, which collect small fees on monthly cable bills. CanWest Global Communications Corp. and CTVglobemedia Inc., parent company of The Globe and Mail, have bought up dozens of specialty channels between them to take advantage of the steady revenue they offer.

The CRTC said Friday that it will hold licence renewal hearings that combine the big networks with their cable channels starting in 2010, rather than treating them as two separate businesses. The CRTC said it wants to view the broadcasting operations as a whole to determine their profitability, and whether major concessions are needed.

The regulator also decided to issue one-year licence terms for the broadcasters, citing the financial pressure on the big networks, after a steep drop in profits. Licences are usually issued for a seven-year period for the broadcasters, but the one-year term would allow the networks to come back and seek further changes if their situation worsens.

And the comments are the usual passel of right-wing populist idiocy: bomb the CRTC, sell the CBC, why are they so mean to Conservatives? Jeez Louise, everytime I think of how direct democracy would work I get hives.

Is There Anybody Alive Out There?

SORRY FOR THE light posting. The quotient of time I had for outside activity this week has been sucked up by WGC Council meetings. I've got one outline that I'm reworking, and another set to be writ when that ends -- and my little St. John's sojourn last weekend means I've been working something like sixteen days straight now, so I don't think it's likely we'll have much posting before Monday.

One addendum to yesterday's column in the name of fairness: one of my colleagues at the WGC pointed out that Grant Robertson from the Globe has frequently called the Guild to solicit angles, background, or info for stories. The Globe and Mail is also traditionally the best of Canada's newspapers when it comes to featuring and considering the arguments and positions of writers in the TV landscape.

I also received an email from somebody who tried to register to comment and had it not work for some reason. So I'll post it here:

I also want Canada’s private TV stations to do well. And it’s true their revenues are down 4% from last year. And it’s true that they will have to spend some money on converting to digital within the next few years. But TV revenues are directly tied to changes in GDP – and most Canadian banks (not just the Bank of Canada) are forecasting real economic growth within 12 months, so there is already light at the end of the tunnel, even if it is still somewhat dim. And a large chunk of every dollar spent on digital conversion will reduce the taxes broadcasters pay, saving them money and making their assets more valuable. And the writers’ strike has been settled. And once the three new TV stations that have launched in the last several years find their legs, their total revenues will start to offset their expenditures so we will see some recovery there too.

My problem is that as you point out, private TV broadcasters are setting the stage for the April TV renewals – the sky is falling! There are clouds and tornadoes and no silver linings! We are doomed, doomed, doomed, I say, unless you, CRTC Commissioners, cut us just a tiny bit of slack.

So this is now the argument: just drop those pesky requirements for local news and information and we will do great things for the broadcasting system. Lise Lareau posted a great clip from CHCH-TV which sets out the argument very clearly. We will put all the money we save by firing reporters, laying off technicians and closing down our local operations into … you guessed it, more and better drama. Trust us. Honest. The cheque’s in the mail.

Are Canadians really supposed to believe that after spending more than $5.2 billion (billions!!!) since 2000 to buy each other out, Canada’s media giants actually didn’t know what they were doing? Just why the heck did we all swan into the CRTC's hearing room in Gatineau so many times over the last three years to hear Ivan and Leonard and the Rogers' folk make their pitch to get bigger to be better?

But hey, I guess that once you’ve spent five BILLION on mergers and acquisitions, the prospect of putting one more dollar into the pathetic $86 million spent on Canadian TV drama in 2008 is so onerous you just have to cut … local news and information. It's obvious why: fecause if Canadians really want to know what’s happening at their local city council, or in their local hospitals, or in their local schools, or on their local streets, they will clearly tune into CSI: Toronto (every Wednesday night at 10 pm, subject to cancellation if a US election happens).

Too sad, really, because this pick-your-favourite-kid argument is likely to win. It won’t matter that because of incessant pleas of poverty from private TV broadcasters, the CRTC dropped all requirements for local content except local news in 1991, so cutting local news will pretty much end local programming altogether. Or that it has allowed media consolidation to the point where there are only 13 private TV broadcasters left in Canada (down from 60 or so in 1968). Or that the four largest of these broadcasters pull in 90% (!) of total private TV revenues. Or that beginning this fall ALL OTA TV advertising limits have been dropped. Or that internet income and dynamic ads are not even counted as part of private TV broadcasters’ income. Or that the writers’ strike ended. Or that the CRTC has been fighting access to information requests for annual revenue, expenditure and employment data for individual TV stations for more than two years, so that only it and broadcasters actually knows what’s really happening. Or that the economy will begin to recover in one or two years. Or that Parliament actually says it wants local news in the broadcasting system. Or anything else. (Did I mention the $5 billion in takeover costs? – Just watch me wave my hands and ignore that big elephant in the room, because it clearly has nothing to do with any problems private TV broadcasters are having now.)

No, private broadcasters are likely to win the day because they are putting time and energy where it counts. From July to December 2008, the CAB met with the CRTC’s Chairman, Vice-Chairmen or Secretary General 14 times and CTVgm and Canwest 6 times each. Not to mention another 10 meetings with Astral, Rogers and Corus. (Check out the Lobbyists’ Registry Search engine – easy to use: http://www.ocl-cal.gc.ca/eic/site/lobbyist-lobbyiste1.nsf/eng/h_nx00274.html) What were the meetings about? “Broadcasting”, usually.

I am sure the CRTC will listen to everyone who writes in about the renewals. It will listen to every party at the hearing. It will listen to its staff. And if enough people pull together at this coming hearing, just maybe the CRTC will decide that it does not have to see Canadian broadcasting as a zero-sum game – and that it doesn’t have to believe and should not believe those who say that it must choose between news and Corner Gas. Because that choice will pit everyone in Canada’s cultural sector against each other. Great, perhaps, if you’re a broadcaster. But if you’re not?

Thanks for the comment, M. You raise some excellent points. The link above that shows the extent of the broadcasters' lobbying efforts is worrisome to say the least, and almost raises the question as to whether we have even the appearane of a public consultation process anymore.

And the "choose between drama and news" dichotomy is a total false flag. Which is not to say that we're all not going to walk right into that fight. Sigh.

It is pretty shocking to think that ten years ago, the Nets got the CRTC to change the rules and we went from 12 drama series to 2 overnight, and spent a whole decade painfully rebuilding. Now, having been relieved of every local responsibility save news, they're looking to turf even that.

Depending on what happens over the next few days, and the rumblings that emerge from Hull, we might be having a discussion about why we have Canadian networks at all. Stay tuned.

I'll be back when I've shipped outline out the door.

Is Grant Robertson In The Tank for the Networks? (UPDATE: now with Mea Culpas Below!)

AN ARTICLE IN The Globe & Mail today paints an extremely gloomy portrait of the landscape for broadcast networks in Canada.

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.

The article continues, quoting representatives for broadcast networks.

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.

Mainlander Go Home

THANK YOU TO the several lovely people who wrote with invitations or 'Hey howareya's' on my news of coming to St. John's this weekend. Sorry I wasn't able to meet up or respond -- this was a working trip and the days have been filled with story breaking.

It's not my place to talk about the project, but let's just say that some people have speculated on it fairly recently.

Mostly, besides the old-fashioned head cracking of getting out the beats, there has been laughter. A whole lot of it. Sometimes so much I found it hard to catch my breath. Let's just say that I never knew Nfld. Premier Danny Williams could be so fierce or so funny. Mark Critch, your Danny is great, but it's nothing compared to the run I heard this weekend.

Several times over the last couple days, one or the other of us would stop and remark something along the lines of, "this is a really cool job." And it is. I've got to talk story with some great writing minds, and Actors and Producers who know their thing, and a creator with a clear intent, and the force of character in his head. And in between that, there's been the Ship and the Duke of Duckworth, and Indian food and the Trinity and a whole bunch of laughs and maybe even part of an old Rockford Files episode.

It really does beat working.

I had a three project week last week. Today I'll get on the plane after a few more hours firming up story details, and return to Toronto in time for a story call and notes on another script. And yeah, maybe that's a long day. But the laughs and the sheer joy of it keep you out of the muck of despair. And what more could you ask for in work or in life?

Would that everybody's working weekends gave them that kind of boost!

I have seriously got to get back to St. John's in the summer. We shall see. We shall see.

WGA Award Winners

COURTESY Nikki Finke

Zounds! I Poke Thee

MIKE McPHADEN is a very, very funny playwright and up-and-coming Canadian TV writer, who has written the absolute last word on that Facebook meme I blogged about the other day.

For your dining and dancing pleasure:

Wm. Shakespeare's "Five and Twenty Random Things Abovt Me"

Today, Sponsored By Pepsi!

I'LL BE ON CBC RADIO's Q this morning just after 10am talking about the SNL Pepsi MacGruber Super Bowl spots.

EDIT: the podcast is now up -- it's the first item.

Time and Distance

EVERY ONCE IN a while I feel like I'm really slacking and not doing enough work for the old career. And then I have weeks like this.

Fun fact: furthest distance I have traveled in my screenwriting career for work:

8136.64 miles, 13094.30 km. That's the distance from Toronto to Cape Town, South Africa, where I worked on a Canada-S.A. co-pro in 2004.

Fun fact number two: total distance I will travel to work as a screenwriter in 2009, without leaving Canada: 4590 miles (7314 km.)

And that's in one thirty day period, a month into the year.

See, that's the thing with TV in Canada. Vancouver endlessly complains about having no work because all the work is "back east," and yet writers I know in Toronto are forever hopping planes to B.C. or Halifax or Ottawa or Montreal or Winnipeg or Calgary or whereever.

All of that is a fancy way of saying that after breaking story in Vancouver for one project two weeks back, this weekend I'll be traveling to St. John's, Newfoundland to sit in a room and break story on a totally different project.

All that and the Canadian winter, too.

I'm not complaining, understand. (Well, except for the winter part. But you'd complain about that too if you had snowbird parents who taunted you with Degrees-in-Farenheit messages left on your answering machine.) But it is a pretty weird way to see the country.

"Oh wow, I look around this nondescript room, and you use white boards too! Weird! We use white boards!"

By the way, all you New Yorkers who moan about having to go to L.A. to work...: 2443 miles. 3932 km. And the FCC is a pain in the ass, but at least they're not trying to kill you.

Face it. We're tougher.

Now. I wonder if there's anywhere in St. John's where a guy could have a drink and a few laughs?

Stephen Fry Is Stuck in an Elevator In London, England.

AT THIS MOMENT. How do I know? Well, he told me. And everyone else who follows him on Twitter. He even kindly posted a photo.

The British Comedian, actor, author, and one time performing-partner of Hugh Laurie, before he decided to go the prickly superstar cripple cranky Doctor route, Twitters his wearabouts daily.

I interviewed him once, and I'm delighted to say that his verbosity and wit translates wonderfully to the 140 character screen.

I just hope he doesn't have to resort to cannibalism.

Don't worry, engineers on are their way, apparently.

We live in a strange, strange world.

L'il Erica Scores

LAST NIGHT'S episode of Being Erica was its fifth, and last in the Monday 9pm timeslot. Whether or not it eventually becomes the hit that CBC needs it to be, anecdotally, at least in my crowd, it's got a high level of awareness and a diverging set of critical reactions.

Last night's episode was the first one since the pilot that I've watched beginning til end. (I missed one show altogether, and lost interest halfway through a couple of others.)

Comments from people who've watched the show and decided not to stick with it have pointed to the hour long format as a barrier. I've heard words like "padded", "thin", and "slow-moving" to describe the reaction.

I also heard a word that's gotta be a death-sentence whenever any Canadian utters it: "smug." It seems for a few people I've talked to -- especially a few women, the chirpy v/o's of Erica Strange can range from the cloying to the judgemental. They don't buy the life lessons at the end.

People are divided on Michael Riley. Some like him, some not so much.

Pretty much everybody agrees, though, that the show makes Toronto look beautiful.

I put the snarky up front there -- and contrasted it with my own inability to get through a couple of episodes, in order to let the rest of this post play out the point that I wanted to stress.

I really enjoyed last night's episode.

For the first time, the hour didn't seem padded. The music choice was integrated into the plot, and not just used as aural wallpaper to evoke a certain year.

Now, considering I'm always going on here about wanting to judge Canadian work by the same yardstick as U.S. shows, it bears pointing out that it often takes U.S. shows four or five episodes to settle into its tone...to "lock in", as it were. And full disclosure, the main reason I tuned in at all last night was because my friend Daegan Fryklind had the "written by" on the ep.

But once the episode was over, and I realized I'd really, really enjoyed it, I wanted to figure out why. What made it different, or more successful. And for what it's worth, here's what I came up with.

Relatable problems in the past and present

Past eps have featured Erica regretting not joining a secret literary society and revisting a class where she was cowed by a bully of a professor. The present problems were getting the right job, or being able to speak up for yourself. I half-tuned to both.

Last night, the problem was Erica being hurt that her best friend chose a lesbian couple as godparents over her. She hated being seen as 'the wacky aunt.' When she went back to the past, we were treated to a re-do of Erica's Bat Mitzvah, which she walked out on the first time cause a boy embarrassed and insulted her. Even though a Bat Mitzvah is a religious ceremony that only Jews go through, both problems somehow felt more universal.

Attitude of the protagonists

It struck me watching last night, that everyone -- every character, was acting from a place of good intentions. There were no cartoony bad people, like the uberbitch boss, or the overbearing professor. Instead, as befits a show where the protagonist flips back and forth in time, it's our interpretations of our own actions, and how we misread the intentions of others, that set the tone.

Fun with the Sci Fi element

This has been the element that's gotten me to hang in longer with Erica than I would have normally. In a past episode, she passed off Britney Spears' "Baby One More Time" as her own poetry, which was fun. But in last night's ep, we got the full Freaky Friday element. When she returned to the past, Erica was played not by the winning Erin Karpluk, but by teen Samantha Weinstein. So you were given the great spectacle of seeing a young teen talk like a wizened 32 year old. It juiced the premise just that little bit more.

Make the Music Work for You

Last night, the show featured two very different Karaoke renditions of "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun." Both worked. That is all.


Heart in the Family Story

One of the stories they've goosed along the way is that something terrible happened to Erica's brother, and he died. You don't know why. Well, last night they didn't answer any of that, but in the interaction between older brother and the 13 year old Erica, you saw some of Erica's adoration of her big brother, and it was heartfelt and moving. There wasn't any smugness between the friends, too. The whole thing was very low key, and it suited the tone well.

I'm not sure there's not much more to it than that. The Exec Producers were candid about trying to find the right balance in the stories when they spoke to me for this column. I've noticed in the last couple of eps a desire to "get back to the past already." Not last night.

In relatability, heart, and execution, I really thought last night's show was a high point, and the first show that fulfilled the promise of the pilot -- improving on it in a few key ways, too. I hope they use more of Samantha Weinstein too. As wonderful as Erin Karpluk is, the two of them essaying Erica at different ages is even better.

Hope the move to Wednesdays continues a path to success.

You can watch the Feb 2nd Erica episode online at cbc.ca or buy it on Itunes if you're curious. (Canada only.)

Take a Good Look at My Face(book)

THE TENDENCY FOR social media to explode exponentially is well-documented. MySpace gave way to Facebook and now it's Twitter that's having the adolescent growth spurt. I remember that I joined Facebook, about two years ago, in a flurry of media and TV/Film types rushing to do the same. It quickly became a different way to procrastinate and check in, and a generally harmless to enjoyable social tool.

But like the internet, it's also a place where an idea, or a 'meme' can spread pretty quickly. It all depends if it catches on or not.

For the longest time, I've seen a "25 Random Things About Me" meme bouncing about. A few people I knew attempted it, but it was just another clickable way to spend your Facebook time.

Then a couple of my writer friends did it, and something sort of changed. By the time I did mine, on the weekend, the meme had reached its tipping point.

Now understand, this may only involve a dozen or fifteen people I know, tops. But it's interesting nonetheless because most of them are engaged in the creative fields. So there are intersecting mindsets and approaches.

What strikes me as most interesting is that, given a chance, most writer types will use their "25 Things" to try and articulate the bare bones of some sort of governing philosophy. Now that's something that you just don't generally do. Not in that way, I mean. Not unless you're given to writing manifestos. And let's face it, after the third or fourth one, the only person reading those is that guy working for the NSA. And sadly, he's just skimming for key words.

No, we writers are socialized and prompted to inject that kind of energy into our work. So to see it writ large is kind of like seeing the subtext become text. It's a little thrilling and a lot surprising. I feel like I've learned more about some of my good friends in the last forty-eight hours, than I have in the whole time I've known them.

Writers, most of us anyway, also always know they're writing for an audience. So decoding that layer is tricky, too. There are things that people (myself included) wrote in their lists that clearly reflects not a "world as I see it," but a "me as I'd like you to see me," agenda. There are things that are written from perspectives where you have a counter view, of events or even the basic facts -- but the last thing in the world to do is challenge those items. It would be like wading through someone's cerebellum and kicking the parts of the personality you don't agree with. Brr.

For some, this might seem silly and solipsistic. Just another cry for attention from a group of narcissists who demand too much already.

But there's something else going on in those lists. I've found the details of lives both profound and mundane. Plus beauty, inspiration, undeniable truth, and the unmistakable, comforting tendrils of the common humanity that connects us all.

That's the thing, I guess. You can try to post 25 random things about yourself. But that randomness shatters the moment someone recognizes themselves in you. And I can't help but think that our lives are made better by that.

I Didn't Even Know He Golfed.

STEPHEN COLBERT, riffing on the problems of Iceland, their government's collapse, and the island nation's new openly gay PM, Johanna Sigurdardottir ...

"How many Lesbian Prime Ministers can the world handle? There's already Canada's Steven Harper."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah ha ah ah ah ha ha ah ha!

When The World Ends

WHY YES, it appears that Being Erica is moving to Wednesdays to be paired with The Week The Women Went.

Which means that the fifth estate, CBC's venerable newsmagazine, will move to Fridays.

Is this:

• a) a case of choosing froth over substance, as some claim.
• b) a savvy reading of the competition, competing schedules and opportunity for growth.
• c) further proof of CBC's callous disregard of any viewer over the age of 50.
• d) the end of the fucking world.
• e) none of the above.

Time will tell, I suppose, though my money's on e) with maybe a little backsplash of b).

I do fear, though, that by virtue of agenda steamrolling, we've all lost the ability to talk about the CBC in any logical, dispassionate faction.

Legitimate concerns about attempts to cut the news budget, or emphasize the wrong priorities, are lost when people nervous nelly the movement of one show and equate it with the crumbling of the entire edifice of public broadcasting. God, are we really, truly that provincial?

You've got those on the right who want to pave the place utterly for its many sins of liberalism, and those inside who've breathed the air in there so long that they simply have no clue what the world smells like out here to the rest of us. You have the fogies who hate change versus the focus groups who demand nothing but. Then, of course, there's the healthy portion of Great Canadian Gainsayers who demand their right to just complain toothlessly about everything, every single change, whether they're right or not, credible or not, lucid or not.

It's one show. One timeslot. It occurs to me that ABC has had a newsmagazine on Friday night for, what, 20 years?

Yes, but 20/20, cluck cluck, that's just trash, cluck cluck. Yes. That whole Second Life cheating show last week was pretty riveting serious journalism, no?

The Week The Women Went, indeed.

Oh, and One More Thing.

JANUARY, except for the 20th, you really, really sucked. Good bye and drop dead!

Why TeeVee Should Be Webby

AFTER WATCHING AN absolutely, soul-crushingly awful SNL hosting by Steve Martin, I grabbed my seven hours rack time and was up and at the computer early this morning. I'm fighting to try and finish an outline revision so I can push it out the door before going to enjoy some manly Superbowl, poker, Bruuuuuce, and smack-talk...so I don't have much to add here today except to push links upon you.

First, there's another in a great series the A&L section of the NYTimes occasionally does appreciating characters on TV shows. Today it's the deserving character of Fiona, Michael's muse and partner in crime on Burn Notice, as played by the lovely Gabrielle Anwar. Anybody looking to create their own series should read a bunch of these columns to set the bar. I wish they were all collected somewhere.

Secondly, Jill Golick riffs off a bit of our Web Talk over the last week to tell you "Four Things The Web Can Do for your Television Series."

Enjoy your Sunday.

Why Don't They Block Cemetaries?

YOU PLUG THINGS that are supposed to be game-changing with trepidation. Because, of course, they never are. Rarely in life, even more rarely in art, does anything live up to your expectations.

Which is why, if you weren't watching the Late Show with David Letterman tonight, you missed out.

Dave proved in his interview with Mary Hicks why he is now, and will forever be, the king of the Late Night hosts since Carson. You think of Jay Leno and his big moments and you may cite Hugh Grant, but really, when you thknk about it, that interview was all about Jay acting as a human being and not as a TV host.

It's one of the weird ironies of Late Night TV. Jay Leno, the guy with more ratings, the guy that's personable, with his Jaywalking and non-threatening comedy...is closed and distant when it counts.

And the guy that even those who work with him will describe as "cold" or distant, so often bases big moments on a kind of searing, right there honesty.

Post 9/11, he picked up the pieces. After his heart surgery, he bared soul you didn't know was there. In tucks and eddies and small moments over the last few years, you've heard unbridled joy about his son.

And last night, Dave righted a wrong.

It wasn't just that the simple dignity of Bill Hicks' mother was a pleasure to behold. It wasn't the apology, the complete acceptance of responsiblity, all the things you're not used to seeing on TV today....what was most extraordinary about Mary Hicks' appearance on Letterman last night was just how ordinary it was. She was gracious, and sad. He was stately, and protective.

And then they showed the routine.

And it was glorious.

That material has been floating around for a while now. And maybe it's because I know many comics, and have seen many iterations of their material, but what the Late Show showed last night was a comedian on fire, at the very top of his game, poised for the next thing. It wasn't just a good routine, it was a pitch perfect performance of same. Complete with eye-acting. I mean, it was just...the very height of it.

It was sublime.

I think Dave should tackle real people more often. And full props for a clear eyed apology -- breathtaking tv.

this will probably be taken down by the time you read this...but for what it's worth. Here's the fuss.

part one -- Dave's intro



Part two -- the interview with Bill's Mom:



And part 3. The routine. Bill is on fire.



Thanks Dave. And Bill, whereever you are, thank you. Your CD's still get played. I downloaded you from Itunes today. Aint that a fucking trip?

Never Fails

EVERY TIME I say "too much work, can't post any more," something like this comes up.

From Playback today:

Producers looking to get television dramas pitch-ready for broadcasters may be eligible for cash from a new funding stream recently created by the Cogeco Program Development Fund.

The fund is making money available for dramatic series, miniseries and MOWs in the pre-development stage -- for up to $10,000 per production per year -- with the stipulation that the projects have not yet secured a broadcaster.

Cogeco Fund executive director Andra Sheffer says until now there wasn't a fund in Canada for the "high-risk" early stages of development when all the producer has is a great concept.

"We identified this as an area of need. A lot of producers don't have the cash flow between projects to hire a good writer to develop a concept," Sheffer tells Playback Daily, adding, "We're giving them the opportunity to take some time, so that when they go to a broadcaster with a proposal, it's ready."

The Cogeco Fund did not pump any additional cash into the new initiative, which falls under the same $250,000 funding bracket for development.

What I can't figure out is, so long as it's "high risk" and "early stages," can someone tell me why, for instance, the fund can't be accessed by a Writer to hire a Producer to work through those "high risk early stages?"

Just saying.

Bill Hicks Roars Back from the Dead on Letterman

WELL, I'VE SUDDENLY got two separate outlines to juggle. Always the way. So I'm going to keep this short.

There is only one thing to watch on TV tonight. No, not Flashpoint. (Sorry Mark, you know I love you.)

An infamous Showbiz wrong is being righted, finally. And it also stands to be a prickly and uncomfortable mea culpa.

Bill Hicks, a standup comedian whose tough, take-no-prisoners fearlessness has influenced every comic with an ounce of edge working today, was only 32 years old when pancreatic cancer took him in 1994. In 2003, Virginia Heffernan described his style in Slate thusly:

A hard-left Texan who considered George H.W. Bush an apocalyptic tyrant, Hicks also had an incongruously effortless style. On the many tapes of his club act, he doesn't gear up for a joke at all; he seems indifferent to how he looks. His impressions, too—of a seductive little girl or a loud bird or Jay Leno—appear unstudied, just accurate enough to keep a story moving; it takes a minute to realize they are also pitch-perfect.

Hicks' career was cut short and stalled by his death, but also by another weird footnote in history: he was arguably the only comic ever to have an entire routine censored from David Letterman's show, after it was taped.

Ironically, this happened on the same stage where Elvis Presley was censored in the 50's -- when he could only be shown from the "waist up."

Hicks appeared on Letterman's show 11 times before. But this night, the show judged the comic's entire routine "too much" and had it excised from the broadcast. Five months later, Hicks was dead.

I remember this incident well. I was a big fan of Hicks' comedy at the time (and shared much of his anger) and I remember the censorious move as the first (and probably the last) time I was ever truly disappointed in David Letterman.

Supposedly, that unsavory history has bothered Letterman ever since. So tonight, in recognition of the fifteenth anniversary of Hicks' death, Dave's guest is Hicks' mother, Mary, and the censored last network appearance of her son will finally be shown. Reportedly, Letterman also apologizes to Hicks' stoic and unbending mother.

That's TV history, folks.

Tune and and marvel at what this guy would have had to say about the last eight years under George W. Bush. 11:35, CBS.

Breaking Up Is Hard On You & Can TV Icon Video Special!

THE PODCAST for my latest appearance with Nikki Stafford on CBC Radio's Q is now up. Fun starts at about the thirty minute mark.

And as a special Q Bonus, why not check out a couple of Canadian TV interviews from the TV version of the show...

Jian chats with: The Trailer Park Boys



Brent Butt from Corner Gas



And Kid in The Hall and Less Than Kind showrunner Mark McKinney

Talking 'Bout a Revolution

I HAVEN'T REALLY paid much attention to Variety over the last little while. Its naked and sickening pro-conglom slant during the recent Hollywood Labour disputes blew out its credibility on everything else far as I'm concerned. I prefer checking out Nikki for the skinny. But columnists are another story. Brian Lowry has a thoughtful piece on Revolutionary Road vs. Mad Men, underscoring why, if you're about writing characters today -- TV, and not film, is your medium:

The look and tone of these projects is strikingly similar. At their core, the cable program and the Sam Mendes-directed movie deal with the Drapers and the Wheelers, couples trapped by the social mores and rigid expectations of the Eisenhower/Cold War/pre-Vietnam era -- before the free-love, anti-establishment movement reshaped the country in a manner from which the old guard has never fully recovered.

ACTUALLY, I LIKED "Revolutionary Road" quite a lot, for many of the reasons I enjoy "Mad Men." But while the story resonated, it also suffered for trying to convey the dissolution of a relationship in roughly two hours time.

Frank and April Wheeler, the feuding couple played by Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, are forced to make the turn from loving to venom-spewing at speeds a high-performance car would envy. His office fling comes and goes while leaving that subplot relatively untapped. And amid this marital tumult their young kids virtually disappear, until one begins wondering where the tykes are while mom and dad are going through all this noisy discord.

While mainstream movies have become the understandable vehicle of choice for visualizing comic books and graphic novels, more intricate dramatic storytelling has found a particularly satisfying home in television, capitalizing on the medium's novelistic latitude to develop characters over extended arcs, whether that's "The Wire" -- really the great American novel in TV form -- or programs such as "Big Love" and "Mad Men."

It's been a long road (more evolutionary than revolutionary) to this juncture. Yet after years in which TV has suffered from an inferiority complex vis-a-vis movies, at certain key nodes those lines have been erased -- so much so that many of this generation's finest creative moments are, indeed, being televised.

It's my honest opinion that, idiots like Michel Arpin notwithstanding, the period that started in about 1999 with The Sopranos and the West Wing will one day be talked about in terms not dissimilar to the 1970's in filmmaking. Whether that ride's coming to an end or not is not for me to say.

Being Human and Building Anticipation

FURTHER TO THE ranty goodness below, I want to talk more about promoting shows using the Interwebs.

(And to those who snickered a bit at my...vitriol level in the last post, there's a couple good reasons why I let go like that. The first is that, as I said, it's a network-neutral proposition. You don't have to feel like you're singling out any one Canadian net, cause they all kind of suck at this. Second, I really have been sitting in meetings for fifteen years hearing the same promises about the web, very lofty ideas about community and such and so on, much talk of milking of unicorns, but getting the synopsis, trailer, airdates and times, and cast list up never seems to be within the power of the brain trust. I figure, over fifteen years, I'm owed about two days worth of time from useless git meetings like that.)


I think this also says something about creativity and how to really try something different.

Imagine making a show where you don't back away from the concept?

BBC has done it. Again.

The pitch:

A vampire, a ghost, and a werewolf share a flat.

That's it.

The trailer:



Being Human was piloted in February 2008. Now, the series has started running in the UK. The website's here. Please note all the meat-and-potatoes goodness. (You probably can't play most of the clips if you're outside of the UK)

Now, if you were going to do the YouTubes for a show like this, what would you do? Maybe release a few prequels hinting at the backstory of your characters? Good idea.

Done.




Now.

Any questions?

H/T to Matt Watts

E-Cards That Let You Do The TV Nasty

IT'S MY DEEP and abiding hope that before now, you've become accustomed to the enduring and entertaining wickedness that is someecards.

They are evil and fun to send to people.

But did you know that many of their best cards offer trenchant criticism about the medium that we love?

Well. Now you do. A selection is below. Keep in mind, these are just the ones I felt I could post. Awesome.

Sucky Canadian Broadcast Websites

WHY YES, I AM having focus issues today. Gawrsh, how can you tell?

Jill Golick weighs in with a short piece today on the paucity of follow-through by Canadian broadcasters on their series offerings.

In her case, she picks on Canwest over Global and Da Kink in My Hair, but to be fair, neither of the other major broadcasters, CTV or CBC, do much better.

In short, here's the number one disconnect in the world of Canadian TV, 21st Century style. TV Guide or listings magazines have gone the way of the dodo in record time. Absolutely everybody under the age of about 40 now finds out program info either from some sort of on-screen menu system on their TV or through the web. For the USA, you can go to Zap2it or Futon Critic, but the best way to find out is to go to the network site itself. There, besides streaming clips or downloads, wallpapers, docs, special web content and what have you, you're going to find the synopsis and info that you need. Updated faithfully.

In Canada, smaller network advertising budgets are made even less effective by a haphazard strategy for getting info up on the website and keeping it updated. Back when TV listings books were the rage, you could usually count on the Canadian programs getting shafted. Half the time because they were moved to and fro or pre-empted at the last minute depending on which simulcast was being chased. But the rest of it was timeline stuff. They just wouldn't get the proper listings stuff in on time.

That continues into the digital age. More than fifty percent of the time, when it's a Canadian program on my onscreen PVR menu, if the description of the show (beyond the title and the rating) comes up at all, it's usually a generic series description and not a specific episode description. The info isn't set up on time.

If there is a web page for the show, the info -- next episode, episode descriptions, pictures, whatever other stuff you might have, is usually updated haphazardly. The next page is not programmed and ready to go live after the end of the broadcast of the previous week's show. Information is wrong, or missing. Typos and misspellings are frequent. Cast information, information on the music in the show, credits, synopses, photos -- all the stuff show fans are accustomed to being able to access now -- none of it is availabe.

And like Jill points out, if there is a program forum, nine times out of ten it's a ghost town without any official person designated to answer questions. If you do manage to attract fan attention, it quickly withers because they realize nobody's paying attention.

There's one other major structural thing that excacerbates this whole problem: The Bell Fund.

The Bell Fund is a web/multimedia fund that you can access to partially fund a website for a TV show. The fund has way more projects trying to get funding than it has money to give out. (By about a three to one margin.) The fund also tends to favor out-there weird promotional websites that have some sort of new technology hook....webisodes or some sort of game or virtual space, or proprietary engine with all this wonderful ancillary content. You can see current examples for Canadian Shows like Being Erica or ZOS.

What is often buried in this stuff, is the stuff that viewers actually want when they hear about a new show: meat and potatoes stuff like broadcast times, streams, downloads, and info. Sure, you can go on the virtual journey or share your stories or open your virtual locker or take part in a virtual interrogation or milk a virtual unicorn or something, but when is the fucker on? That's harder to find.

And that's if you GET the funding. Remember, the fund is way oversubscribed. So what sometimes happens is that you get a super-flashy bells and whistles Mr. Kite Magorium Emporium Website Special for your first year, and then that disappears -- or sits unloved or un-updated for months and months afterward.

Then it comes to Season 2. And you have the big comedown. My Ex-show had that this year. The Comedown involves the network off supporting another show, maybe one in its first season. (Remember, there are limited budgets, and Mommy has to feed the baby first.) So instead of animated dragons or hello kitty lite brite scalable profiles and virtual avatars that smack your ass and call you judy, you find yourself begging the network webmaster to change the card on the site that still says, "Season Two will return in Fall 2008!"

In the case of The Ex-show, the network still holds the website, but updating is slow. So the new site -- such as it is, doesn't launch until the day of the broadcast. (And other shows on the same network have their premiere dates come and go before the site is changed.)

Again, they're all like this. No company's better than any other at this stuff. They all kind of suck at it. It's low priority, and the attention to detail on a weekly basis is close to nil.

From that bottom, as the show wears on, you realize that neglect before the first episode was actually the high point. Now, it's a sad and unloved death march to try to get even the simplest things changed: is the synopsis up? Is the episode title right? Have they posted the pictures from the ep? All that basic, meat and potatoes stuff doesn't get done unless you harass, harass, harass.

You might be lucky, like the Ex-show, and have a savvy volunteer that keeps things moving on Facebook or tries their damndest to get the things updated on time. But it's not automatic, and it's never easy.

It's quite a comedown from those heady first season website dreams. Of course, by then the web firm is on to the next Bell Funded project. It's sink or swim time, boys. And as is our custom in the Canadian industry, we usually just sink.

What there isn't, is a recognition on the part of the network that the firmament has shifted. Your website working with up to date program information when viewers want it is part of the cost of doing business.

Except here it's not.

They don't want to pay for it. They don't accept the responsiblity of doing it right. You hear tons of promises, which never materialize, and nobody particularly cares or thinks they're responsible.

And then they go to the CRTC and say the only way to save their business is to get carriage fees.

I've been listening to Web and interactive people make promises about how the synergy between TV and the Web will work since 1994. Seriously. Fifteen years.

The problems now are exactly the same. Nothing's gotten better. The Bell Fund, nice an idea as it is, does nothing to change that. We ignore the meat and potatoes.

And then wonder why we don't get a million viewers for our shows.

If I did my job like this, in every one of the episodes that has my name under the written by, at about the 3/4 mark, actors would just turn to camera and stare, open-mouthed, for three minutes. Maybe somebody would fart.

But hey, the Bell Fund deadline's coming up! Get those applications ready! Oooh, a virtual Rock'em Sockem Dress up your virtual avatar in cheese and crinoline alternate reality roleplay with remixable clips and flash-animated build your own comic book random plotline generator, with exclusive documentary two way Ichat connectivity, XBOX-live hookup capability and echoes of MUD's running on the Grand Theft Auto engine? How delightful!

When's the show on again? And who's the hot chick who plays the scientist?

Oh. Okay.

Thanks anyway.

Wonder what's on FOX?

By the bye, ZOS airs Mondays on TMN and Movie Central. Being Erica is Monday at 9pm on CBC. Da Kink in My Hair returns to Global Feb. 12. Check the volunteer-run, no Bell Funding TV-eh? site for details.

Coooooool.

WHO SEZ DADDY doesn't like science?

OMFG!

OKAY, SSHH. DON'T look. I said, DON'T. Be COOL. COOL, okay? Just act naturally, okay? Deeeep, deeeeeeep breaths. Ready? Seriously. Ready? Okay.

He's totally coming.


OMG! SQUEEEE!

Mad Love

OH, THIS IS lush.

Mad Men valentines!


The Don Draper's my favorite.

But there are plenty of others at this clever man's site.

We have Anna, and a couple of Peggys, Salvatore, Harry, and Joanie too.




H/T to Mark Farrell