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."

Trouble Down At Mill

IT'S BEEN AN odd summer in the Canadian TV writing racket.

Last week, another Showrunner was fired off an in-production Canadian series. Tally up the writers (not all of them Showrunner-level) who have been let go, hustled out, demoted or superseded in the last few months, and so far as I can see the only top level shows that haven't experienced this degree of turmoil are Corner Gas, Murdoch Mysteries, The Border and Little Mosque. (And Little Mosque had a shuffle and turnover between Season 2 and 3.)

These kinds of changes and the unrest they suggest are significant not just for writers, but everybody working in Canadian TV. I believe the below-the-line people will have noticed by now, as the brand-new Filmport Studio in Toronto sits empty -- domestic series production is the only thing keeping people afloat right now.

Vancouver, I know your situation is different. But remember the WGA strike wasn't so long ago. Relying on the foreign service shoot hasn't done your production community any favors lately, either.

I know plenty of people out there are hurting. But it's quite a change from a few years ago when service production kept everyone humming and bought grips and electrics houses, while the writers reeled from the 1999 CRTC decision that cut the number of Canadian series in half overnight. Now, as the domestic picture slowly improves, things should be getting more stable. But yet there's all this turmoil.

What's going wrong? What exactly is the issue out there in writerland?

Some might point to the USA and say that there are replacements and changes made there too. And that's true. And there have been more of them in the last year than in previous seasons. If you read the Stepakoff book or follow Kay Reindl you might have some insight into what's going wrong there.

I think the business has been hurt more than it realizes by the breakdown in the mentoring and rising through the ranks that used to obtain. The WGA Showrunner program is trying to fill a gap that the breakdown in the system has made ever-more evident. The flip in power between network and production company hasn't helped things, either.

But the ratio of turmoil and turnover in the U.S. market is far lower than here. We simply have too few shows here to have the level of turnover we seem to be recently experiencing. Add to that the fact that in our brave new world of making pilots -- we don't actually seem to be fixing any of the problems getting a show up and running that a pilot is supposed to solve, and the elephant in the room becomes: "what really is going on here?"

In Canada, we have programs like the NSI, and the CFC and Canwest's new "Showrunner Training Program" trying to train people. In the case of the latter, though, you have to wonder at the value of the nascent program when it imports U.S. showrunners who don't know the challenges of lower Canadian budgets, or the peculiarities of the system here. Anecdotally, I guess there's some value to hearing how the pros in L.A. do it. But when you mix 'emerging writers' and 'showrunner trainees' in the same group, and don't deal with the real nitty-gritty problems that Canadian shows run into getting made -- the problems that even the networks here don't know about, you have to ask, "is this actually dealing with the problem at hand?"

Similarly, the CFC and the NSI send out new writers with series proposals. Some get optioned, fewer get made. But if there's a problem in talent management and system organization (and clearly there is) what value is there in injecting somone who doesn't have managerial experience, or even real-show experience, into the mix? Even as the CFC currently interviews potential new residents, I worry that when they graduate we're going to be throwing them to the wolves. Is the kind of attitude you see from emerging writers in threads like this and this helping, or is it making the problem worse? I know for a fact that when I came out of the Film Centre that I had a very, very different attitude about how I wanted to conduct the next few years of my career than I hear reflected back to me by the newer crop. Are new writers learning bad habits? Is that feeding the fire, here? Is the infatuation at the networks with "new writers" leading to management problems down the line? Are they being built up too much? Is this the best way to engender and build long careers?

Every series that's fired or replaced a writer this summer has got their own set of challenges and issues...so I don't want to generalize too much...but anecdotally, from what I've heard, I think all those problems have a common root:

Bad communication.

There's a peculiarity to the creative struggle here, that's got a particularly Canadian flavor to it. And that's the dominance of the passive-aggressive personality. Series, even Canadian series, are huge businesses. You're talking about a business that can employ a hundred people, and run through 20, 25 million dollars in the course of a season, in the case of the most expensive shows.

Yet it seems like rather than confronting problems as they arise, and negotiating the perilous creative waters, instead all there is is backroom maneuvering here and there and nothing happens until the drastic change is made.

I once heard what I thought was the best definition of a producer ever: "the person who can have any fight that needs to be had in under five minutes."

Avoiding the fight isn't a solution. Neither is putting off decisions. I've heard story of shows where producers argued over competing visions for what a show should be for the entire run of a show -- never coming to any accomodation or solution. No way you get a good product out of that.

In the midst of turmoil, the fear is that everyone will use this to push back on their own agendas:

• Writers will say that it's an example of not trusting the Showrunner.

• Producers will say that it's an example of writers getting too much power.

• Everyone will say that networks aren't picking the right shows or approving the right writers to staff them.

There's elements of truth in all of these, and probably half a dozen other theories, too. How do agents fit into the mix, for instance? What are they saying to their clients about how to be professional?

Becausee at the end of the day I think that's what this is. It's an issue of communication and professionalism.

Call a problem a problem. Then talk about how to solve it. Out in the open, head on, before it festers. Yes, it might make you uncomfortable. It might even make you feel icky. But there's too much money and creative energy at stake not to do it.

There's trouble down at mill. What are we going to do about it?

Jill Vs The Noobs

JILL GOLICK points out the thing that doesn't often get talked about in Canada; but should give pause to new writers looking to get their start.

Two More Sleeps

Mmmmm.

I still think I'm gonna miss Doakes. But this sure looks ... yummy.

Random Humbling Moment #478

SO IN THE last couple days, we were out on location shoots. And they were tough days. High scene counts, far out in the city, with busy streets that needed to be blocked off or traffic stopped in two minute increments. And there was rain. And bugs. And the fact that we were up against it, much of the day.

I've seen it a few times now. You look at your watch about six hours into the day and think, "we. are. screwed." Visions of having the plug pulled on you at two hours overtime keep you awake and terrified.

And then, slowly but surely, the crew catches up. They hustle a little more. Lighting that was going to take twenty minutes takes ten. The blocking goes quicker. Grips run. Electrics swear and reset mightily. The AD calls for finals and they're already done.

And all of this is done while they're getting more tired.

And you make your day.

It's a pretty impressive thing to see.

And one more random fact: unlike Toronto, where everyone's dire and shot out -- when you shoot on a residential street in Unionville -- the neighbours come out at the end of the day and bring you home baked cookies.

I kid you not.

Thanks, Maple Drive, and Unionville, and the hardworking crew of The Border, now up at Sheridan College, doing what they do. Episode 204, "Nothing to Declare," is wrapped.

The Director, Michael DeCarlo, is on a plane to Calgary, ready to start work on "The Wild Roses," after leaving behind some very classy calling cards. See you in September, Michael. Guest actors Matt Deslippe, Reagan Pasternak, Tamara Bernier Evans, Marie Ward, and Bruce Hunter made me laugh on every take. It seems like a thousand years since we started with David Fox in a former bar on Dundas, even though it was only about 10 days ago. It can be a great lot 'o fun, makin a fun little TV show.

But now, I'm back riding a desk where I belong.

P.S.A. Service To Writers: Clam Bake '08

THERE NOW, my brothers and sisters. My kingdom for some calamine lotion. Those skeeters sure can bite. Today the writer returns to his natural habitat - the warren like office with the Herman Miller chair. Oh how the forest creatures will dance and the mosquitos weep for the loss of so tasty a price.

They can suck it.

If you notice the results of the poll at left, you may note that "Did I say that out loud?" won handily in our poll of the worst clams in movies and tv, with a dominant 40% of poll respondents choosing it over such worthy contenders as "I'm getting too old for this shit," and "I have a bad feeling about this," which tied with 27%. No doubt some of that had to do with the always TV quotable Jaime Weinman weighing in and agitating for a big smackdown against DISTOL?.

Well, Weinman, you got what you wanted. But oh, the price, the price -- because by messing with the forces of nature, you might have something to do with the comparitively minty-fresh score of "Well, that happened," which only annoyed 3% of poll takers.

Writers: "Well, that happened" is still viable. Insert this ironic aside into your scripts immediately via the smart, ironic, funny sidekick with all deliberate speed.

See what you did? Damn you, Weinman!

Actually, I find the concept of the clam to be endlessly fascinating on a wonk/geek writer level. It's right up there with the provenance of slang -- why some slang words and phrases remain evergreen, [see: cool] while others date horribly [vis: rad, homeboy, "let me rap with you,"], others never really break out of their regional usage [chesterfield, bollocks, wicked] and still others wind up, hilariously coming out of the mouths of U.S. presidents. [See W.'s sad romance of the awesome.]

But back to clams. It strikes me that we haven't talked about that for a while, so I'd like to throw that open to the madding crowd. What's the most egregious clam that's out there right now? Now, now -- let's stay on point here, chilluns. I'm not talking story or visual stuff here. Let's keep it strictly on the dialogue-low. Things people say in TV and films that are supposed to be jokes, but that have become so shopworn as to be utter hackery. Go to town.

BTW, I think the whole clammy clam debate really should have been cured by the internet. I remember with glee being on Charlie Jade and being in South Africa and wondering if the dialogue phrase I was putting in was too stock, too cheap. Enter Google-in-quotes, and you see the page count with that exact phrase? Instant perspective my friends. Instant perspective.

Do Not Adjust Your Blog

WELL WELL, so many riches. The WGC contract extension passed -- which is good news for all Canadian writers. Flashpoint is on the move to Thursday, which is probably good move for that show, and the pilot to Pretty Handsome is probably the best thing I've seen since the pilot to Breaking Bad. But all that has to wait as I'm on the road to Mimico. Day 7 of 7.

Normal scribbling resumes tomorrow.

Freelancers, really? Part Three

IN PART ONE and TWO of this post, I went into the value of having a writing class in the Canadian Film and TV industry that can make a living on writing full time, and the economic and creative difficulty of "mandating" a couple of scripts per season for freelancers.

In rereading this discussion in preparation for this final post, I was struck by something new that came to me out of the comments. There were a few "freelance" writers who seemed to get a bit huffy because they thought I was calling them "part time writers." Of course, that wasn't my intent. A full time freelancer who puts together a living from many different sources during a year is, of course, a full time freelance writer. And in the sense that a writer in a story department isn't an employee, but an independent contractor hired for the length of the project, well, hell, they're full time freelancers too. It's just a difference in how you get to the point of making your year.

What we have here is a culture clash. The levers of how story departments work in Canada and how scripts are used to top up anemic salaries means that writers will always scramble for their scripts. So what we have here is a difference of opinion between those who look to staff and work on one project for a few months, and freelance freelancers (hoo boy) who want maximum freedom but access to a pool of greater opportunity.

That's a fundamentally unstable proposition. Neither method is better than the other. Both have advantages and disadvantages. There's just no way to please both groups through the mandating of one or two scripts for a freelancer each season. Whatever you decide to do, one group loses out.

It seems to me that the people who would most like there to be a "mandated freelance script rule" fall into three main categories:

1. Baby Writers who think it will make getting that first break easier.
2. Working, Full Time Freelancers who want the option of the occasional script as well as the freedom to work on their theatre, screenplay, print, or prose projects.
3. True part-time writers, who make the bulk of their money doing something else (acting, producing, crew, etc.)

Is there a way that we could improve the opportunities for these three groups without instituting the mandated freelance script, which would hurt people who mostly try and staff?

Let's take on the Baby Writers first. Guys, Girls, this may not be a thing you want to hear, but here goes:

Things are pretty good for you already.

If you have any talent whatsoever, you may not realize it but the Canadian system is already set up in such a way that it's considerably easier to break in here than it is in the USA. First of all, you have places like the CFC and NSI who are turning out grads each year, pre-vetted, that for some reason are a particularly flavorful fish for Canadian Broadcast Execs. You do have wet-behind-the-ears grads getting development deals all the time. I don't think that's always the best deal for the industry, but that's another subject for another time.

Add to that the fact that many series do look for a junior to put on staff when they're ready to go, for a very good reason: you're cheap. It all comes down to money. They can hire two or three of you for what they'd have to pay me. So there's that.

Then there's the regional nature of Canadian TV production. We have wonderful provincial barriers in this country, straining and groaning to make those tax credits work. If you are a writer from NFLD, or Alberta, or Saskatchewan or Manitoba -- heck, buddy, you may have just won the lottery. There are diversity programs you can take advantage of, if you're from a background that qualifies.

There's also the opportunity to get in at the story-coordinator level, helping a story department. You might even be thrown a co-write. Yup. Provided you actually can write, a little legwork on your part, a bit of bustle in the hedgerow, and you can truly make your own luck. But it really is on you. You have to figure it out. The movement you need is on your shoulder.

The problem isn't in the starting out -- it's the few years down the road when you're not the new thing anymore. When you have a bit of experience and some expectation. Then it gets dicey.

For groups 2 and 3 above, there are things that would make it better.

• We could try to pursue a course where we set minimums or try to raise the salaries for story editors. If the weeklies were higher, then maybe there wouldn't be such a scramble for scripts. But then again, they might hire fewer story editors. The pressure might go back to making everything freelance, with one harried overworked "head writer" having to cobble it all together. That's a sure right to quality. Sigh.
  
  
  
• We could try to take a stand against "writer sweatshops." Monitor shops that hire lots of writers to endlessly come up with story that then has to make it past a non-writing producer, all for a weekly and no script guarantee. The largely unregulated nature of this side of the business is kind of a bit of a scandal, and nobody's talking about it. Agents and business representatives have a role to play in this, too. Many Canadian agents are playing fast and loose and close to the vest when it comes to communication with the WGC. If the guild doesn't know about it, they can't do anything about it. There's a cozyness to producers out there that might not be serving clients exceedingly well.
  
  
• We could develop modes of conduct, education and outreach to people who will be running story departments, or network executives or producers, about the values of thinking about that outside person and what they can bring to the table.

As for all the things that a freelancer can bring to the table, I've often thought that what might be wise in a story department in Canada was to split or stagger contracts. A new director coming into the set can bring new energy. Why not codify that with writers, too?

What if we structured some story departments so that one writer, say, had their work frontloaded, and didn't work the whole season. And another writer came in later and started halfway through, thereby bringing new energy and torque to a show? I think that kind of worked pretty well for Blood Ties, where I joined halfway through the run. Maybe that's something that could be encouraged?

Imagine if, just as you're all getting tired, there's a new infusion of energy? That seems to me to offer the best of all worlds -- getting someone new in to bring fresh ideas and energy, and yet providing the continuity one needs to have a unified vision in the story department.

Anyway, that's what I think. What about you?

Is It Wrong?

THAT I FIND myself wanting to impress Bad Horse?


Probably not a good sign, right?


Whatever.