Angry in the Great White North

What is TV for?  We call it an industry, but we don't treat it like one in Canada.  Instead, there are people who seem to think of TV as some sort of social program:

CanWest is also seeking to eliminate rules requiring broadcasters to air local programming in prime time, something Sandra Cunningham, chair of the Canadian Film & Television Production Association, opposes.

"Diverse, high-quality Canadian content produced by independent producers and accessible to Canadian viewers during prime time is the raison d'être for the granting of licences in the first place," she said in an e-mail.

So to people like Sandra Cunningham, the purpose of television is deliver content that she thinks Canadians ought to be watching.  For their own good, of course.

Fair enough.

I would be more impressed if Sandra Cunningham operated her own television network based on this model.  But she doesn't.  She is demanding that CTV and CanWest do this for her.

Indeed, that is their job, according to Cunningham.  The only reason TV licences exist in Canada is to provide a captive audience for independent Canadian producers.

That leads to an interesting question.  Is TV for viewers, for advertisers, or for content producers?

To answer the question, we follow the money, but in doing so, we can see what a mess the CRTC has made of television in Canada, and why the entire conventional TV industry is teetering.

If Canadians paid for conventional broadcast TV, then conventional broadcast TV would be for us, and we would be in control.  CTV and CanWest would be working for us.  But in the conventional broadcast model, we don't pay for TV.  The money to pay for putting programs on the air is coming from advertisers.  CTV and CanWest ought to be working for advertisers, who want to have the most eyes in key demographics watching commercials.

That would work too, if only CTV and CanWest worked for paying advertisers.  But they don't. They work for the CRTC.  The CRTC doesn't pay the broadcasters a dime.  But the broadcasters twist and distort their schedules to meet goals set by the CRTC.  The CRTC in turn works for these "independent producers", and not for paying advertisers.

Independent producers?  Doesn't that mean someone who can't get a job working for a television network?  Just wondering.

You see how twisted this is?  The CRTC works for Sandra Cunningham.  The CRTC makes it the mission of Canadian television not to deliver what Canadians have asked to see, or to deliver what advertisers think will enable them to sell their products, but what Canada's cultural elite thinks we ought to see.

Don't get me wrong.  This is a legitimate model for television.  In many places, and in many times throughout history, entertainment was defined by the authorities, or by an oligarchy of content producers who, either by popular demand or (more likely) by some mechanism of self-appointment, have come to be the arbiters of what is worthy for the masses.

But in this model, the State normally foots the bill.  Except in Canada, where we expect CTV and CanWest to work for the CRTC but to be paid by advertisers.

Well, advertisers are fed up and not buying commercial time.  Who can blame them?

And so CTV and CanWest are hurting badly.

Not that the CRTC cares.  Do you ever get the feeling that the people who run the CRTC don't even like television to begin with?

The twist in these modern times is that with cable and satellite, we are not even a captive audience anymore.   The CRTC-rules-but-advertisers-pay approach might have worked when there were all of three channels to choose from (I guess what Sandra Cunningham would label "the good ol' days"), but today, a click of the remote is all that is needed to avoid being force-fed Canadian content produced by people who think the less popular something is, the more artistically worthy it must be.

No wonder advertisers are abandoning the broadcast networks.  They know no one is watching.  Myself, I usually watch Mystery on the weekends.  I have never tuned in to an episode of 'da Kink In My Hair (admittedly, I'm not the target demographic, but I'd be interested to know if the show, which is not a hit in the conventional sense, would have survived in prime time if it weren't for the obligation to put something, anything, Canadian in that timeslot).

So if television is to survive, this broken model has to be fixed.  Something has to give.

1. Remove advertisers from the equation.  Their needs are not being met, so understandably, they won't pay, and the financial underpinning of the broadcast model is crumbling.  This is the basis of the fee-for-carriage argument, in which cable and satellite providers pay CTV and CanWest for the content being delivered on those systems, restoring economic viability, with that money coming from subscriber fees. 
2. Remove the CRTC from the equation.  If advertisers are paying, they are only concerned with whether Canadians are engaged with the content being broadcast, and not whether bureaucrats working for the artistic community are satisfied.  Unless the artistic community compensates for the revenue lost by obliging that their content be broadcast, they ought to lose that special status and simply compete for space on a broadcaster's schedule on the basis of meeting the needs of the customers of broadcasters, that is to say, the advertisers.
3. Remove viewers from the equation by removing their choices.  Revert to a time when the CRTC-rules-but-advertisers-pay approach worked.  That means going back probably at least 30 years.  Jam all American broadcasters, and remove all American content from cable and satellite.  Limit Canadians two three or four choices on the TV dial (the archaic "dial" being an appropriate metaphor for this flash from the past), and ensure that Canadians can only see content from CRTC-approved independent producers.  Advertisers will also have no choice, and will pay as long as there is a captive television audience.  That the audience is engaged or bored to tears is of no concern, because they don't have a choice.

Only the first option will work.  Advertisers will remain of course, but broadcasters like CTV and CanWest cannot be forced to depend on advertisers for revenue.  Canadians are accustomed to paying for television service, and part of that revenue ought to be used to dilute the role of advertisers in order for Canadian broadcasters to survive.

The second option, appealing as it sounds, is not likely to fly politically.  As patronizing as it is, we are stuck with the CRTC for the foreseeable future, carving out time in the schedule for Canadian producers to air their work.  Of course, they haven't earned this time, and in all likelihood, the networks will lose money as a result, but if advertisers are less important as a source of cash, the inefficiencies won't be fatal.

The third option?  I bet there are a lot of people who would love to go that route.  Thankfully, you are reading this blog post via the Internet, the existence of which guarantees that Canadians won't be held hostage by Canada's cultural elite inasmuch as television content is concerned.  Canadians can, and do, go elsewhere for news, information, and entertainment - the Internet is not (yet) under the control of the CRTC. 

Elitists like Sandra Cunningham seem to think television is the means by which their allotment of adoring fans is delivered, as by divine right.  Their sophistication is all that justifies making television theirs to define, at least in part.  And make no mistake, I firmly believe that they would define television content on all channels 24/7 if given the chance.

They can't be given that chance.  If advertising is drying up as a means of funding the operations of TV companies, then it'll have to be replaced.  Where that replacement funding comes from will represent a shift in power over television.  I don't want to see that power shift even further to the CRTC.  It needs to shift to the viewers themselves.  Over the long term, that will be good for everyone concerned, perhaps even for Sandra Cunningham, even though she probably won't appreciate having to deliver content Canadians actually want to see.