Everything about Industry News, eh?

Link: CRTC Just Plain Wrong On New Canadian Content Regulations

From James Bawden:

CRTC Just Plain Wrong On New Canadian Content Regulations
I’m convinced the only regulation the CRTC should insist on is a demand from all private networks that they spend as much on Canadian programming as they spend in L.A. snatching up all the U.S. series.

Last year that figure was almost $700 million –I would be surprised if the private networks spent a third as much on Canadian shows. Continue reading.

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail

Link: CRTC’s new plans: Quality over quantity? Good luck with that

From John Doyle of The Globe & Mail:

CRTC’s new plans: Quality over quantity? Good luck with that
If there’s a sinking feeling in some quarters of the Canadian TV racket following the announced CRTC regulatory changes, that’s wrong. The challenge presented is to be better, not entitled.

Excuse my rant but vast fortunes have been made in the sweatshop environment of Canadian content made for broadcasters, particularly specialty channels, who have been obliged to air locally made content. An easy dollar for producers and many of those involved. Continue reading.

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail

Link: Canadian producers ‘excited, but nervous’ over CRTC’s new CanCon move

From Teddy Wilson of the National Post:

Canadian producers ‘excited, but nervous’ over CRTC’s new CanCon move
Thursday’s Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission announcement saw the relaxation of Canadian content regulation on the small screen. While CRTC chair Jean-Pierre Blais delivered the news with great optimism a speech in Ottawa, industry insiders are apprehensive.

“I’m excited, but nervous at the same time,” said Barry Avrich, a film producer and CEO of Melbar Entertainment Group. Continue reading.

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail

CRTC “Let’s Talk TV” – The Way Forward?

From a media release:

Earlier today CRTC Chairman Jean-Pierre Blais spoke to the Canadian Club of Ottawa about the future of the Canadian television industry. The decision, titled “The Way Forward – Creating Compelling and Diverse Canadian Programming,” is the second of several decisions stemming from the CRTC’s “Let’s Talk TV” initiative, begun in 2013.

The decision is complex, and its many implications will become clearer in the coming weeks and months. At this juncture, a positive is that a cornerstone of the Canadian programming support framework — expenditure requirements for “programs of national interest” (PNI), which include drama and documentary programming — is being maintained.

Recognition of the screenwriter was evidenced through a new Canadian certification process for two “pilot projects” of certain live-action drama/comedy productions. One is based on the adaptation of best-selling, Canadian-authored novels, and one involves shows budgeted at over $2 million/hour. In both cases, a Canadian screenwriter will be required. Nonetheless, the WGC was surprised that the certification process, and the undermining of the terms of trade agreement for producers and broadcasters, were part of this announcement. Both decisions were made without notice or meaningful discussion in the preceding hearing.

Less unexpected, but also of concern, is what Chairman Blais has referred to as a “quality over quantity” approach, underscored in today’s decision. The WGC maintains that quantity and quality are linked concepts, as there is no one recipe to create a hit show, and creating fewer shows may serve to reduce the chances of a single show’s success.

Of greatest concern in today’s decision is the continuation of a two-tier broadcasting model, with “over-the-top” services like Netflix, CraveTV and shomi remaining almost entirely outside of the regulatory sphere. As Chairman Blais said today, Canada’s regulatory regime must be forward-looking, and Canadian content still requires support to survive and thrive. If more and more viewing migrates to unlicensed platforms, and those services have no requirements to make Canadian shows, the WGC questions how such an approach is sustainable in the medium to long term.

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail

Shomi and CraveTV – CRTC Hybrids

I wanted to do the Hybrid VOD part of today’s decision separately because I think it warrants a little more context. As you will recall from my earlier post You Can’t Always Get What You Want, Shomi and CraveTV were oddly set up from a regulatory perspective. I struggled to understand how they were licensed and then finally it became clear to me (with some help from friends in the know) that both services were actually two services rather than one. The VOD service on your set-top box was regulated as a VOD service and the OTT service on your tablet/computer/phone was exempt under the Digital Media Exemption Order. That created the very odd situation that the VOD service had CanCon obligations but the OTT version did not but the consumer thought it was all the same service.

Very confusing, right? Even executives at Shomi and CraveTV were confused as they publicly stated that they had no CanCon obligations at both Banff Connect and Prime Time (though Bell’s Kevin Goldstein had no doubts about the twin-spirited nature of CraveTV).

The other problem though was that as an authenticated service (you have to identify yourself as a subscriber of a cable or satellite company that has a business agreement with Shomi or CraveTV as the case may be), if you were a subscriber of say Rogers then you could not subscribe to CraveTV. Or vice versa.

Today’s decision focused on the issue of exclusivity, which is a third issue that addresses the problem that, for example, Bell subscribers have no way of seeing “Transparent”, which is exclusive to Shomi. The CRTC’s argument is that it is ok if Netflix has exclusive content (e.g. “The 100”) because any Canadian can access it through their choice of internet provider. The same cannot be said of the exclusive content licensed by Shomi and CraveTV.

So the CRTC created a new licensing category for these ‘Hybrid VOD’ services, which makes total sense to me. The CRTC reiterated that to operate in Canada a service has to be authorized by the CRTC under a licence or an exemption order and then it must abide by the rules of that authorization (*cough* Netflix *cough*).   If a service is going to operate under the Digital Media Exemption Order then it has to be available to all Canadians over the internet. So a Hybrid VOD service can only take advantage of the Digital Media Exemption Order (and therefore no CanCon obligations) if it is ‘offered on the Internet to all Canadians without authentication to a BDU subscription’. Those exact words are key because Bell Media has always said that they offer CraveTV to Rogers and Shaw and it’s not their fault that Rogers and Shaw aren’t interested. The CRTC has sidestepped the whole issue of competition by saying that no BDU subscription can be required.

The exact wording of the new exemption has to still to be agreed upon and that could be contentious as Bell, Rogers and Shaw all fight to stay both exempt and not exempt. And we know that Bell is not afraid to appeal. So don’t expect any changes overnight but they could be coming.

 

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail