They do investigative stuff well on things like "Marketplace" and "Go Public." I appreciate that. 

But they spend a lot of taxpayer money on a primetime line-up that very few Canadians watch. That I could live without. 

Narrowcast audiences at broadcast prices.

RadioActive wrote:

Dial Twister wrote:

RadioActive wrote:

But they spend a lot of taxpayer money on a primetime line-up that very few Canadians watch. That I could live without. 

Given that there is an overwhelming number of broadcast sites, streams, etc. directed at the broadest possible audience, what's wrong with some narrowcasting that serves those not so interested in what the masses seem to prefer? Or, must we all watch American imports or the pathetic 'Canadian' franchise of American shows?

Fine with me. I just don't want to be forced to pay for something I don't want or never use.

You always bring that up RA.  Too bad, taxes don't work that way and you know it...We all pay for things that we would rather not through taxes.  And by the way it is obvious that you do use CBC, so I am sure you get your $32 per year worth.

Dial Twister wrote:

RadioActive wrote:

But they spend a lot of taxpayer money on a primetime line-up that very few Canadians watch. That I could live without. 

Given that there is an overwhelming number of broadcast sites, streams, etc. directed at the broadest possible audience, what's wrong with some narrowcasting that serves those not so interested in what the masses seem to prefer? Or, must we all watch American imports or the pathetic 'Canadian' franchise of American shows?

Why would you refer to them as pathetic Canadian franchises.  Shows like Traitors, Masterchef, Amazing Race, Family Feud etc. are franchised around the world.  So why are the Canadian versions pathetic, and especially when they seem popular.  

And one more dig at RA's comment.  CBC English TV's tax allotment is $326 million and for prime time the amount of money spent will be much less.  Is this a lot of money??  And a lot of the US simsubed programming in the evening isn't exactly bringing in a lot of Canadians viewers either.   

No other business works that way???

Want a specific channel on Rogers, Bell, Cogeco, et al, and only that channel?

Good luck breaking out of the bundles!

RadioActive wrote:

They [CBC] do investigative stuff well on things like "Marketplace" and "Go Public." I appreciate that.

RadioActive wrote:

I - and many others - are still paying for a service I don't want and never use. 

hmmm, seems a contradiction, which is it? .. just pulling your chain : )) .. 
 

I never drive on Highway 7 in Ontario. Why am I forced to pay for it?

I never use the TTC. Most Canadians do not. Why does 12% of the revenue come from provincial taxpayers, while 31% comes from federal taxpayers? Shouldn't the actual riders pay for it, RA?

You see, this is how it works in a democratic society. Collectively, we determine what is needed, and then we find ways of sharing the cost.

I'll never pilot a boat through the Trent-Severn, but I don't begrudge some of my federal taxes helping to pay for it.

I'll never again ride Via Rail, but I'm betting some federal tax dollars keep it afloat.

Unused, forced financial support is all around us. The only reason to single out the CBC could easily be (mis?)construed as a political one.

Dial Twister wrote:

I never drive on Highway 7 in Ontario. Why am I forced to pay for it?

I never use the TTC. Most Canadians do not. Why does 12% of the revenue come from provincial taxpayers, while 31% comes from federal taxpayers? Shouldn't the actual riders pay for it, RA?

You see, this is how it works in a democratic society. Collectively, we determine what is needed, and then we find ways of sharing the cost.

I'll never pilot a boat through the Trent-Severn, but I don't begrudge some of my federal taxes helping to pay for it.

I'll never again ride Via Rail, but I'm betting some federal tax dollars keep it afloat.

Unused, forced financial support is all around us. The only reason to single out the CBC could easily be (mis?)construed as a political one.

Not political at all. I'm not one of those who thinks the CBC is a mouthpiece for one party over another. But I get your argument. 

Here's mine: the other things you mention - like Highway 7 or Via Rail - are vital services and a public good. The same way sewer systems or drinking water in Kenora don't help either of us. But they're important public services and a necessity. Even if you don't use them, they keep society moving and running. I'm no longer in public school, but I have no problem paying for it. 

But the same thing can't be said for the CBC. Could I live without the Canadian version of Family Feud? Yeah, very easily. Would Canada come to a halt if the CBC weren't there? Unlike a major highway, I would say no. 

I would prefer The Corp. stick to providing underserved audiences like the Indigenous in the far north where commercial broadcasters rarely venture because there's no money in it. But that wouldn't mean they'd get the multi-millions they currently do to go countrywide. 

This editorial from the Globe & Mail is a perfect case in point. It's from 2023, but it's not so long ago that the numbers are no longer relevant.

"...its share of the national prime-time viewing audience dropped to 4.4 per cent (excluding Saturday), down sharply from 7.6 per cent in 2018, and trending below target for the year. Or, to turn that around: 95.6 per cent of TV-viewing Canadians do not tune in to CBC’s English language prime-time programming."

That bears repeating: 95.6 per cent aren't watching!

"Supper-hour newscasts in English-speaking markets are attracting tiny audiences. In Calgary, the CBC daily broadcast reaches just 20,000 people, on average."

It's my understanding that the local Toronto numbers are not much better per capita.

That's pretty pathetic for the amount we give them. Talk about throwing good money after bad. Again, there's no other business not publicly subsidized that would put up with those numbers. But the CBC doesn't have to worry because they know the gravy caboose is a long train running. And we're paying the freight. 

All wonderful points, to be sure. But the big difference - and it is a big difference - is that CTV, Global, City TV, et al. do not get direct taxpayer money. The CBC does.

It's really not comparable, because if the commercial stations lose money, they'll cut staff and reduce costs. (With the requisite complaints appearing here about the state of the industry!)

The last round of cuts notwithstanding, the CBC just tends to ask for more to make up the difference. 

No one else gets to operate that way. 

I very much doubt, using the Globe's numbers, that Global, City TV and CTV have only 5.1% of the entire viewing audience in Canada watching. 

I recall reading recently that the CBC's The National only draws something like 200,000 viewers across the entire country. That's out of a population of more than 40 million! Remove the fact that it's the CBC for a moment. That's just pathetic for any network, and no one else would let it go on for so long. They'd go out of business.

But the CBC does not seem to think it needs to reconsider what it's doing. 

After all, there's another big cash infusion coming soon. We are not helping them by ignoring this. I'm sure CBC TV could be very good if it was run differently. But it's been pretty much the same for years. If its money was not guaranteed, things might change. But why bother when the next payday is coming? 

Again, all that may be true. Can't say because I haven't seen the numbers.

But again, we are not paying for them. We do for the CBC. If the Globe's numbers are true, are we getting value for the money? I'd say the evidence indicates we're not. 

Whether it's $100,000 or $10, I want my money's worth. I don't feel they're giving it to us with these numbers.

Perhaps the CBC can reconfigure itself and take a look at what it's programming that's not attracting eyeballs. 

Would you throw $32 down the drain every single year? I wouldn't.

The amount, even If accept your numbers, is irrelevant. 

I expect value for my money, no matter what the amount.

The figures prove I'm not getting it now. 

I will repeat this until it sinks in - if the figures show 95% of the viewing pool  is not watching, why are we bothering?

Well, it's not political and you'll just have to take my word for that. 

If you're happy throwing money away on expensive shows no one watches, that's fine. Spend the money. I'll keep mine. 

But of course, I'm not given that choice. 

Hence my problem. 

I do very occasionally tune in CBC Radio - I think Under The Influence is the only program I ever hear - but I made it clear I was talking about the far more expensive CBC English TV service. And the one show I watch on CBC because it takes place in a radio station? I would not miss it if it was no longer on. 

The BBC, on which the CBC is based, does not seem to suffer from this lack of viewership and has great quality shows. Why do we not have that, too?

Despite what you think, I don't actually want the CBC to disappear tomorrow. I just want them to do better and earn superior numbers. The other guys are irrelevant because I don't have to involuntarily contribute to their coffers, regardless of the amount.

If we're going to have this and ding everyone in the country to support it, at least do it right. 

I don't think that's too much to ask. 

paterson1 wrote:

 Tomorrow I will likely be watching their coverage of the US election and CTV News Network more than the US OTA nets and CNN. 

Well, this has been fun, but we're never going to agree. So I'll just conclude by saying I'll be flipping around the channels on Tuesday, not giving preference to any of them. If you want to watch CTV and CBC, that's fine. I'd prefer the American networks, only because it's their election, they have more experience in covering these kinds of things and they have a lot more at stake. 

If they were to ever cover the Canadian race (which they won't) then I'd probably tune in to our media here. But it's their night and that's why I'll be watching them. 

Have a good time, if that's the right way to say it. Although depending on who wins, none of us may be having a "good time" for a long while to come.