The free market isn’t buying what they’re selling and they’re blaming it on the market. It’s an old story that keeps repeating. Subsidizing the horse and buggy (legacy media) producers of predictably progressive bilge will not change the demand. It's why censorship disguised as regulating disinformation is the latest thing.
Radio Canada seems to be the beneficiary of a larger slice of the pie than its target audience would warrant but that’s the reality of Canada.
But, given that CBC receives a good chunk of change for creating new material, why are we subjected to endless reruns or imported stuff like ‘Coronation Street’ and ‘The Great British Baking Show’? The latter two are probably popular but they don’t really attract eyeballs to advertising - everyone I know records favourite cable tv shows and then fast-forwards through the commercials - and certainly don’t contribute to CanCon requirements.
So, sports and current affairs it is then. I say that we no longer need the CBC to bring us those.
The idea that the CBC sucks resources from other broadcasters needs elaboration.
Either their viewership is *high*, meaning they draw advertising dollars away from other private broadcasters who could benefit from having the eyeballs (and who don’t cost tax dollars), or it isn’t high, but your argument is that the subsidy money should just be directly funnelled into these broadcasters. Otherwise it isn’t obvious where the zero sum competition is.
The value to Canadians isn’t just rural or minority, for what it’s worth. We are effectively a minority market beside the cultural behemoth to our southern border, and their produce overwhelms what Canadian “broadcasters” would themselves be capable of producing.
With much of our acting and directing (and musical) talent, Canada basically acts as a farm team for the US entertainment industry. That’s fine for what it is, but for the CBC to fill an unfilled niche, my inclination would actually be to fund it more and let it take greater risks a la A24, producing content that is Canadian and more memorable than just a EDI box-ticking exercise.
I also think you can’t get high quality journalism without shelling out for it. I’m not arguing for the overwhelming quality of most of its journalism, especially the stuff published online, but it is at least as good as anything from Post Media.
CBC has the potential to fill a niche for local news that actually would be very beneficial to society and to the quality of our politics.
> Either their viewership is *high*, meaning they draw advertising dollars away from other private broadcasters who could benefit from having the eyeballs (and who don’t cost tax dollars), or it isn’t high, but your argument is that the subsidy money should just be directly funnelled into these broadcasters. Otherwise it isn’t obvious where the zero sum competition is.
Interesting point. I think the argument could be made that the CBC shouldn't compete for advertising dollars with private businesses - regardless of what kind of viewership numbers CBC gets. That's because private broadcasters have fewer possible revenue sources and subsidies give CBC an unfair advanatge.
> We are effectively a minority market beside the cultural behemoth to our southern border, and their produce overwhelms what Canadian “broadcasters” would themselves be capable of producing.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. Netflix, for instance, just canceled tens of millions of dollars on investment in Canadian film and TV production because of Bill C-11. The private sector is willing to produce domestic content, but they don't feel they should *also* be subject to (what they consider) excessive taxes. And as I've written elsewhere (https://www.theaudit.ca/p/evaluating-federal-arts-funding), all the funding in the world is meaningless (and wasted) if content producers can't get people to actually consume their product.
> I also think you can’t get high quality journalism without shelling out for it. I’m not arguing for the overwhelming quality of most of its journalism, especially the stuff published online, but it is at least as good as anything from Post Media.
Journalism subsidies, of course, potentially come at the cost of independence. But I agree it doesn't have to cost much. I feel the type of journalism I'm doing isn't without its value <cough, cough>, but it's not costing the government anything.
MG, you say, in part, "I also think you can't get high quality journalism without shelling out for it."
It seems to me that the Ceeb IS shelling out massively for "journalism" [italics are deliberate] but it further seems to me that those public dollars are very deliberately [please note the use of that word] not oriented towards impartial reporting of the news.
So, my question of you is, a) precisely what quantum of "shelling out" do you believe to be appropriate; b) how do you propose to ensure impartiality [I respectfully request that you do not try to tell me that the Ceeb is impartial now]; and c) why is PostMedia a comparator touchstone for you and other defenders of the status quo when clearly PostMedia is a zombie organization that should have been put out of our misery long ago?
I did some digging on that a few months ago. I do know that they're using Google Display Network for nearly all of their website revenue and the ads are purchased by all the regular Canadian advertisers (Belair Direct insurance, Loto Quebec, etc). My best guess is that they're earning a bit less than a penny per visit, which is probably more or less the industry norm.
It would be interesting to compare those viewing stats with CTV and BBC. At the very least CBC has to change its staid formatting, get snappier, faster, and appeal more to those born after 1990. Their audience is literally dying.
Useful analysis, thank you. I used to be a huge fan of CBC radio and now I never turn it on. Too woke and boring.
The free market isn’t buying what they’re selling and they’re blaming it on the market. It’s an old story that keeps repeating. Subsidizing the horse and buggy (legacy media) producers of predictably progressive bilge will not change the demand. It's why censorship disguised as regulating disinformation is the latest thing.
After looking at the polls and viewing data for the CBC I can only conclude that Canadians value the CBC, but not enough to watch it.
Radio Canada seems to be the beneficiary of a larger slice of the pie than its target audience would warrant but that’s the reality of Canada.
But, given that CBC receives a good chunk of change for creating new material, why are we subjected to endless reruns or imported stuff like ‘Coronation Street’ and ‘The Great British Baking Show’? The latter two are probably popular but they don’t really attract eyeballs to advertising - everyone I know records favourite cable tv shows and then fast-forwards through the commercials - and certainly don’t contribute to CanCon requirements.
So, sports and current affairs it is then. I say that we no longer need the CBC to bring us those.
The idea that the CBC sucks resources from other broadcasters needs elaboration.
Either their viewership is *high*, meaning they draw advertising dollars away from other private broadcasters who could benefit from having the eyeballs (and who don’t cost tax dollars), or it isn’t high, but your argument is that the subsidy money should just be directly funnelled into these broadcasters. Otherwise it isn’t obvious where the zero sum competition is.
The value to Canadians isn’t just rural or minority, for what it’s worth. We are effectively a minority market beside the cultural behemoth to our southern border, and their produce overwhelms what Canadian “broadcasters” would themselves be capable of producing.
With much of our acting and directing (and musical) talent, Canada basically acts as a farm team for the US entertainment industry. That’s fine for what it is, but for the CBC to fill an unfilled niche, my inclination would actually be to fund it more and let it take greater risks a la A24, producing content that is Canadian and more memorable than just a EDI box-ticking exercise.
I also think you can’t get high quality journalism without shelling out for it. I’m not arguing for the overwhelming quality of most of its journalism, especially the stuff published online, but it is at least as good as anything from Post Media.
CBC has the potential to fill a niche for local news that actually would be very beneficial to society and to the quality of our politics.
> Either their viewership is *high*, meaning they draw advertising dollars away from other private broadcasters who could benefit from having the eyeballs (and who don’t cost tax dollars), or it isn’t high, but your argument is that the subsidy money should just be directly funnelled into these broadcasters. Otherwise it isn’t obvious where the zero sum competition is.
Interesting point. I think the argument could be made that the CBC shouldn't compete for advertising dollars with private businesses - regardless of what kind of viewership numbers CBC gets. That's because private broadcasters have fewer possible revenue sources and subsidies give CBC an unfair advanatge.
> We are effectively a minority market beside the cultural behemoth to our southern border, and their produce overwhelms what Canadian “broadcasters” would themselves be capable of producing.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. Netflix, for instance, just canceled tens of millions of dollars on investment in Canadian film and TV production because of Bill C-11. The private sector is willing to produce domestic content, but they don't feel they should *also* be subject to (what they consider) excessive taxes. And as I've written elsewhere (https://www.theaudit.ca/p/evaluating-federal-arts-funding), all the funding in the world is meaningless (and wasted) if content producers can't get people to actually consume their product.
> I also think you can’t get high quality journalism without shelling out for it. I’m not arguing for the overwhelming quality of most of its journalism, especially the stuff published online, but it is at least as good as anything from Post Media.
Journalism subsidies, of course, potentially come at the cost of independence. But I agree it doesn't have to cost much. I feel the type of journalism I'm doing isn't without its value <cough, cough>, but it's not costing the government anything.
MG, you say, in part, "I also think you can't get high quality journalism without shelling out for it."
It seems to me that the Ceeb IS shelling out massively for "journalism" [italics are deliberate] but it further seems to me that those public dollars are very deliberately [please note the use of that word] not oriented towards impartial reporting of the news.
So, my question of you is, a) precisely what quantum of "shelling out" do you believe to be appropriate; b) how do you propose to ensure impartiality [I respectfully request that you do not try to tell me that the Ceeb is impartial now]; and c) why is PostMedia a comparator touchstone for you and other defenders of the status quo when clearly PostMedia is a zombie organization that should have been put out of our misery long ago?
Is there any way to measure their advertising revenue per eyeball? Ie how effective is their internal advertising mechanism?
I did some digging on that a few months ago. I do know that they're using Google Display Network for nearly all of their website revenue and the ads are purchased by all the regular Canadian advertisers (Belair Direct insurance, Loto Quebec, etc). My best guess is that they're earning a bit less than a penny per visit, which is probably more or less the industry norm.
It would be interesting to compare those viewing stats with CTV and BBC. At the very least CBC has to change its staid formatting, get snappier, faster, and appeal more to those born after 1990. Their audience is literally dying.
Actually, the data I see tells me that 70% of CBC's online visitors are under 55 years old. TV viewing is probably a very different mix.