Posted by RadioActive  October 8, 2024 10:44 am | #1 |
I won't offer any comment on the linked article beyond the fact it argues about whether CBC is good value for Canadian taxpayer dollars and not whether it serves one government party more than the other. A different look at a very old question about whether Canada's national broadcaster is worth all the funding it gets.
I'm not sure about the comments regarding CBC Radio. Its stations tend to be #1 or close to it in many major Canadian markets and that would likely make it worth the money.
A sample excerpt:
"Who’s watching? The CBC itself reported that viewers of CBC English television represented only 4.4 percent of the total Canadian audience, and only 2.0 percent tuned in to CBC News Network. By “total Canadian audience,” they mean all Canadians viewing all available TV programming at a given time. So, the CBC’s 2.0 percent “share” is actually far less than 2.0 percent of all Canadians.
According to CRTC data, between the 2014–15 and 2022–23 seasons, English language CBC TV weekly viewing hours dropped from 35 million to 16 million. That total would amount to less than six minutes a day per anglophone Canadian. Specifically, news viewing fell by 52 percent, sports by 66 percent, and drama and comedy by 51 percent.
CBC Radio One and CBC Music only managed to attract 14.3 percent of the Canadian market. What does that mean? Estimates suggest that between 15 and 25 percent of all Canadians listen to the radio during the popular daily commute slots. So, at its peak, CBC Radio’s share of that audience is possibly no higher than 3.5 percent of all Canadians."
It’s time to change the channel on the CBC
|
Posted by paterson1 October 8, 2024 1:39 pm | #2 |
This is an interesting article. However it should have included similar comparisons for CTV and Global. What percent of the market is currently tuned into the private networks programming every day? And what did they have in 2014-2015?
I have a feeling the story would be similar. Sure the percents would be somewhat higher but still shrinking fast. It is hard to make a case that Canadians don't watch CBC if the private networks are experiencing something similar. Global and CTV have the advantage of simsub for US programming and all indications are that ratings with a few exceptions are tanking.
This is likely why we don't see TV ratings data much in Canada any more. Unless the networks release something, to control the message.
Very interesting how the french network does much better for advertising revenue, both local and national. They do have less competition than the english network, but also still get the ratings from a much smaller pool to draw from. I wonder why nothing was listed for the Radio Canada's discretionary networks ad revenue. Their news and specialty channels have ads.
|
Posted by RadioActive October 8, 2024 1:44 pm | #3 |
paterson1 wrote:
This is an interesting article. However it should have included similar comparisons for CTV and Global. What percent of the market is currently tuned into the private networks programming every day? And what did they have in 2014-2015?
I would love to see those figures, too, especially for local news (CFTO's news intro has for years contained a claim right off the top that it's "Toronto's #1 News." Is that still true? It appears we'll never know for sure.)
At the same time, it can't be ignored that the difference between CBC and its competitors is one receives taxpayer money (and a fair bit of it) while the others are basically on their own. That makes a difference in calculating when it comes to audience numbers and whether that funding is worth it.
|
Posted by paterson1 October 8, 2024 2:06 pm | #4 |
This is an interesting article. However it should have included similar comparisons for CTV and Global. What percent of the market is currently tuned into the private networks programming every day? And what did they have in 2014-2015?
I would love to see those figures, too, especially for local news (CFTO's news intro has for years contained a claim right off the top that it's "Toronto's #1 News." Is that still true? It appears we'll never know for sure.)
At the same time, it can't be ignored that the difference between CBC and its competitors is one receives taxpayer money (and a fair bit of it) while the others are basically on their own. That makes a difference in calculating when it comes to audience numbers and whether that funding is worth it.
True, but it also can't be ignored that CBC is mandated to do a lot of programming that the private networks don't need to produce. Things like educational and children's programming all morning, and broadcasting in two languages in addition to programming in the far north. CBC also intentionally carries virtually no US programming and no simsub, two big advantages that both CTV and Global have. And the private networks are not afraid to step up to the taxpayer trough when money is available from various provincial and federal programs. So we can't really say that they are on their own.
We can't forget that Bell and Rogers also own commercial radio stations across the country that promote the television network programming all day long. Also these two companies own many many more subscription specialty channels than CBC/Radio Canada, and even own the company that delivers the channel to the viewer.
So on balance, the private networks have just as many and maybe more advantages than the tax dollars that CBC/Radio Canada receives.
Last edited by paterson1 (October 8, 2024 2:08 pm)
|
Posted by RadioActive October 8, 2024 2:42 pm | #5 |
This is an interesting article. However it should have included similar comparisons for CTV and Global. What percent of the market is currently tuned into the private networks programming every day? And what did they have in 2014-2015?
I would love to see those figures, too, especially for local news (CFTO's news intro has for years contained a claim right off the top that it's "Toronto's #1 News." Is that still true? It appears we'll never know for sure.)
At the same time, it can't be ignored that the difference between CBC and its competitors is one receives taxpayer money (and a fair bit of it) while the others are basically on their own. That makes a difference in calculating when it comes to audience numbers and whether that funding is worth it.True, but it also can't be ignored that CBC is mandated to do a lot of programming that the private networks don't need to produce. Things like educational and children's programming all morning, and broadcasting in two languages in addition to programming in the far north. CBC also intentionally carries virtually no US programming and no simsub, two big advantages that both CTV and Global have. And the private networks are not afraid to step up to the taxpayer trough when money is available from various provincial and federal programs. So we can't really say that they are on their own...
So on balance, the private networks have just as many and maybe more advantages than the tax dollars that CBC/Radio Canada receives.
True, but they don't get anywhere near the money that the CBC is guaranteed every year. I don't think it's quite the same thing.
As odious as Bell & Rogers can be, I don't think it can credibly be argued they have more advantages than the CBC in terms of funding. They have more ways to raise revenues, but none of their ad money is guaranteed. The CBC knows what it's going to get. Bell & Rogers don't know the bottom line from one year to the next.
And don't get me started on those ridiculous and incredibly generous bonuses that followed all those layoffs. And yes, I know it was contractual. But love the Corp. or hate it, it looked terrible and only serves to strengthen the "defund the CBC movement."
|
Posted by BowmanvilleBob October 8, 2024 4:04 pm | #6 |
Huh? Bell and Rogers have a near monopoly on internet and cellphone service in Canada with virtually no pushback any time they wish to raise rates. Plus, many of the contracts they sign for programming rights are negotiated to last many years, meaning their fixed costs are established and predictable over long periods of time. In contrast, governments of all stripes have shown they are quite capable of cutting the CBC's programming subsidies to deal with changing economic and political circumstances. As paterson1 correctly points out, the private networks have bellied up to the trough frequently when federal/provincial money is available and come back hungry for more.
Frankly, if more people knew of the shenanigans that go on in private broadcasting to allow bonuses to be paid and dividends to handled out to shareholders (and the cuts that are made to allow both of these objectives to be achieved), there would be a lot less bellyaching from right-wing think-tanks like the M-L Institute and more focus on how much money private broadcasters get versus the ROI they provide for Canadian taxpayers.
|
Posted by paterson1 October 8, 2024 4:10 pm | #7 |
CBC's tax money is never guaranteed. Where did you get that from? They live and die with whoever is in power.
I was surprised that the budget for CBC TV was $376,356,000. I thought it would have been a lot higher considering the amount of programming they do. So if the conservatives are looking to defund only CBC english tv, the savings aren't really that much. If they want to defund the whole company, then say so. However, I actually doubt that they will. It will be difficult for the government in waiting to do this. Also odd that they seem to dislike Global and CTV almost as much as CBC.
The private networks have many more ways to raise money and do. Disagree that CBC/RC has more advantages. When you look at programming that they are mandated to do, the private networks have a huge advantage on the programming and revenue side.
I actually wish CBC in particular was a bit more mainstream and more relatable to more Canadians. Radio Canada does this, and look at the results. More ad revenue and much better ratings. CBC should try harder to do the same. Even the much talked about BBC certainly isn't afraid to have some lower brow programming in their schedule.
And as we have seen many, many times CBC/Radio Canada's actual dollar amount they receive from the government is small as compared to other publically funded networks in other countries and regions like the UK, Germany, France, Australia and others. PBS's situation is different and really doesn't matter.
|
Posted by Forward Power October 8, 2024 4:13 pm | #8 |
Also odd that they seem to dislike Global and CTV almost as much as CBC.
Because Global and CTV are among "the MSM" and are not Fox News, Rebel News, Newsmax or The News Forum.
|
Posted by RadioActive October 8, 2024 4:20 pm | #9 |
Well, just to conclude my thoughts on this, I'm against any government money going to Bell or Rogers and they should never see a single cent of taxpayer money. The CBC is a different animal, admittedly, but I would like to see them be able to make it on their own with less dependency on Daddy giving them a yearly allowance.
Like any business, if any of them can't make it on their own in the marketplace, why should all of us have to bail them out? That's not how most companies work and if they can't stay on without government handouts, then they should rethink their business models.
I know that's not a popular stance here, but I just don't understand why broadcasting gets these ever-increasing lucrative handouts, while most other businesses don't and sink or swim on their own merits. (And don't get me started on the auto industry!)
|
Posted by RadioActive October 8, 2024 4:22 pm | #10 |
Also odd that they seem to dislike Global and CTV almost as much as CBC.
Because Global and CTV are among "the MSM" and are not Fox News, Rebel News, Newsmax or The News Forum.
I would trust Global and CTV far more than those other irresponsible outlets you named.
I wonder if we could sue them for having the gall to call themselves "News."
Isn't that false advertising?
|
Posted by paterson1 October 8, 2024 5:00 pm | #11 |
Well, just to conclude my thoughts on this, I'm against any government money going to Bell or Rogers and they should never see a single cent of taxpayer money. The CBC is a different animal, admittedly, but I would like to see them be able to make it on their own with less dependency on Daddy giving them a yearly allowance.
Like any business, if any of them can't make it on their own in the marketplace, why should all of us have to bail them out? That's not how most companies work and if they can't stay on without government handouts, then they should rethink their business models.
I know that's not a popular stance here, but I just don't understand why broadcasting gets these ever-increasing lucrative handouts, while most other businesses don't and sink or swim on their own merits. (And don't get me started on the auto industry!)
Not sure what you are talking about RA. CBC, BBC, ABC (Australia), DW (Germany), Televisions-France, TVO are all public broadcasters and not organized like regular companies. Their purpose was never to make money. So to say something like "that's not how companies work" is wrong. None of them would stay on the air as they are now without taxpayer money (or government handouts as you like to say).
I know you don't agree with this, and that's fine. I do feel that CBC TV should be more popular and it is disturbing that it's news on TV does poorly. One solution might be to get back to reporting the news and save the feature reporting for later into the program. For a long time The National has too often lead the hour with a feature report. This is not why people tune in, they want to see and hear the news. CTV sometimes will do this as well, but normally will begin with a hard and current news story.
Last edited by paterson1 (October 8, 2024 5:01 pm)
|
Posted by RadioActive October 8, 2024 5:50 pm | #12 |
Well this goes back to one of my pet peeves - governments should not be involved in broadcasting. Yes, many countries do it. But it's not right in my mind. Once you accept funding from any government, even if you're 100% fair and balanced in your reporting, there will always be that taint that you're leaning towards the side that funds you.
Better to not accept the money and find your funding elsewhere.
I know that's not the way it works in the world, but governments have no business mandating content requirements or other interference. This is not a Liberal or Conservative thing. Leave broadcasting to the broadcasters and governing to the governors regardless of who's in charge.
Never the twain should meet.
But enough about Shania...
|
Posted by paterson1 October 8, 2024 7:24 pm | #13 |
Well you can find the funding elsewhere which is usually from advertisers. The one advantage for public broadcasters is that federal or provincial governments don't last forever and change is often a different party in power. I don't think many people have ever accussed CBC of being pro liberal and then two years later pro conservative.
Private networks have the same temptation and pressure from their advertisers. Multi national billion or trillion dollar companies could exert pressure on commercial networks to toe the line as well. And unlike governments these organizations and their influence are usually around for a long time.
All businesses have rules and regulations that are mandated by various levels of government. In terms of content requirements, we disagree about this. It is not interference for the government (CRTC) to mandate that Canadian media produce or feature a certain amount of home grown material. Almost every country has similar requirements and broadcasters in these countries do so willingly.
Canada has always been a little unique since we are located next door to the biggest and most successful entertainment giant in the world. And our culture is similar to our neighbour. This makes it a bit harder for Canadian media to compete... but at the same time, it also is a fantastic opportunity that other countries don't have...
