Offline
As if they haven't already done enough damage to the broadcast properties they've taken over and slashed to the bone. Now they're unhappy with the very regulations they once agreed to abide by.
"Bell's asks on programming, which have yet to be ruled upon by the CRTC, include reducing its spending obligation on Canadian content and dropping requirements for a set number of hours per week of local news broadcasting."
Bell Media Seeks Appeal To CRTC's Renewal Of Broadcast Licences
Offline
Bell needs to stick to the telephone business and leave broadcasting up to the professionals.
Offline
A big mistake was allowing Bell/CTV to own all the affiliated stations. They were a much healthier operation when the affiliates were owned by smaller broadcasting groups and affiliated with the network but not owned by them.
Over the past ten years CTV local news operations have made almost all the cuts they can, cut staff to the bone, sold buildings and land, and still can't make any money. So much for the synergies, efficiencies and the promises Bell made to the CRTC when buying CTV for the second time.
Unload most of the affiliated stations, keep a few of the big ones and let smaller/local broadcast owners run the local news operations.
Offline
paterson1 wrote:
A big mistake was allowing Bell/CTV to own all the affiliated stations. They were a much healthier operation when the affiliates were owned by smaller broadcasting groups and affiliated with the network but not owned by them.
Over the past ten years CTV local news operations have made almost all the cuts they can, cut staff to the bone, sold buildings and land, and still can't make any money. So much for the synergies, efficiencies and the promises Bell made to the CRTC when buying CTV for the second time.
Unload most of the affiliated stations, keep a few of the big ones and let smaller/local broadcast owners run the local news operations.
This is correlation without causation. There is nobody to buy these stations.
Offline
RadioAaron wrote:
paterson1 wrote:
A big mistake was allowing Bell/CTV to own all the affiliated stations. They were a much healthier operation when the affiliates were owned by smaller broadcasting groups and affiliated with the network but not owned by them.
Over the past ten years CTV local news operations have made almost all the cuts they can, cut staff to the bone, sold buildings and land, and still can't make any money. So much for the synergies, efficiencies and the promises Bell made to the CRTC when buying CTV for the second time.
Unload most of the affiliated stations, keep a few of the big ones and let smaller/local broadcast owners run the local news operations.This is correlation without causation. There is nobody to buy these stations.
It is a process and the affiliates wouldn't necessarily be up for sale at the same time. Bell could take a haircut, but they already are. Wouldn't be surprised if they get out of the broadcast business altogether or start to scale down significantly.
Odd they seem to be putting a lot of money into Crave original productions. Bell Media is small potatoes compared to the rest of the company, and if it isn't turning a decent profit watch for the dismantling to begin. I could see them pushing for a loosening up of foreign ownership restrictions so properties would be easier to sell.
Offline
Bellk keeping the parts that make money and selling those that don't is not a sound business decision for a buyer.
Over the past ten years CTV local news operations have made almost all the cuts they can, cut staff to the bone, sold buildings and land, and still can't make any money.
So someone else can?
The internet has depressed ad rates to the point where they can't pay the costs of traditional TV. A theoretical buyer with higher per-station costs can't solve this,
Last edited by RadioAaron (October 16, 2023 8:10 pm)
Offline
I really wonder if this shouldn't be a bigger story. If the CRTC grants Bell's request, how long before Rogers, Corus and other lesser owners go hat in hand to the Commission asking for the same thing?
Broadcasting is already being done on the extreme cheap.
But a licence comes with some responsibility to serve the public and letting them out of the requirements to save a buck will help them - but not the listeners the CRTC is supposed to also represent.
Offline
RadioAaron wrote:
Bellk keeping the parts that make money and selling those that don't is not a sound business decision for a buyer.
Over the past ten years CTV local news operations have made almost all the cuts they can, cut staff to the bone, sold buildings and land, and still can't make any money.
So someone else can?
The internet has depressed ad rates to the point where they can't pay the costs of traditional TV. A theoretical buyer with higher per-station costs can't solve this,
Regardless, the set up with CTV owning all of the affiliates is not working and Bell should sell some of the stations and phase out of local news. Bell's only solution so far is to cut operations, which also is not a solid business plan. Ratings and rates will never increase with a poor on air product.
You say there will be no buyers for affiliated stations? Put a few on the market and find out.
And the internet depressing ad rates? Isn't that what the new internet laws are trying to correct? I think we agree that so far the government has done a poor job handling this and it has backfired on them. However the two bills, C-11 and 18 were intended to level the playing field and introduce some regulations for new media. Eventually this will happen and already is in some countries.
Offline
paterson1 wrote:
Ratings and rates will never increase with a poor on air product.
You say there will be no buyers for affiliated stations? Put a few on the market and find out.
The ratings for local news are actually quite healthy. The money needed to maintain those ratings, minus a few exceptions, can't be made back.
Also, the stations are always for sale. Bell, Rogers, and Corus are all publicly traded companies. The boards would demand a sale if there were qualified buyers.
Offline
paterson1 wrote:
However the two bills, C-11 and 18 were intended to level the playing field and introduce some regulations for new media. Eventually this will happen and already is in some countries.
No it won't. The Australia experiment will end soon when the current deals run out soon and Meta and company have found out they weren't worth it.
Offline
RadioActive wrote:
As if they haven't already done enough damage to the broadcast properties they've taken over and slashed to the bone. Now they're unhappy with the very regulations they once agreed to abide by.
"Bell's asks on programming, which have yet to be ruled upon by the CRTC, include reducing its spending obligation on Canadian content and dropping requirements for a set number of hours per week of local news broadcasting."
Bell Media Seeks Appeal To CRTC's Renewal Of Broadcast Licences
So Bell is pleading poverty to the CRTC to get rid of some programming and news commitments. Yet the ratings say they're #1 in Canada, so you have to presume they're making some kind of money off it.
"Headlined by a strong primetime schedule every night of the week, CTV wins six out of seven nights across all conventional networks."
Now granted, that's not the whole year and this isn't exactly a normal season. But if they can be that far ahead with mostly reality and sports programming, I find it hard to believe they can't afford to do what they promised.
CTV Remains Canada's #1 Network with Top 4 New Series this Fall