Shaw vs CTV/CBC .....bailout? Who to believe

[DiploDocus]

:confused:

[pitz]

CBC = a bunch of crybaby civil servants whining that they can't suck at the taxpayers' tit as much as they used to. Still lots of fat to cut there.

CTV = part of the Bell Canada empire. Of course they're going to wage as much of a war as they can against the cable TV operators.

Shaw/Telus/Bell/Rogers = not particularly profitable entities. Probably deserve to make more money.

Global = bankrupt.

Media industries are collapsing because of an over-reliance on advertising as a revenue source, in an economy where consumer spending is collapsing. These people (as well as Internet companies) need a more sustainable funding model so they can provide better content.

[DiploDocus]

so how are "We" citizens involved in all this

I keep seeing these attack ads from both sides on TV of trust us, tell your congress

[pitz]

so how are "We" citizens involved in all this


"We" need to come up with a sustainable funding model for media and content industries that everyone takes for granted.

Expecting advertisers to pay the entire bill isn't reasonable.

[BornRuff]

Media industries are collapsing because of an over-reliance on advertising as a revenue source, in an economy where consumer spending is collapsing. These people (as well as Internet companies) need a more sustainable funding model so they can provide better content.

The whole point of TV is advertising. Lower consumer spending is only a temporary thing.

[pitz]

The whole point of TV is advertising. Lower consumer spending is only a temporary thing.

Temporary? Hardly.

And TV can exist without advertising. There just needs to be other ways to pay for it. The advertising business model worked when consumer spending was high, and a disproportionate amount of the economy.

If we go into an economy where most of the spending is business spending, ie: on plant and machinery (to create stuff for export, or to rehabilitate infrastructure), then what? How does a consumer-oriented TV channel make money on non-consumer ads?

[mself084]

so how are "We" citizens involved in all this

I keep seeing these attack ads from both sides on TV of trust us, tell your congress

TV Networks want cable regulated. They want more money from companies like Rogers to continue showing "Local TV" (note the quotation marks!).

Cable companies don't want to pay an extra fee when they are already forced to carry the local stations. If they are forced to, expect your cable bill to go up about $10/month (they call this the "tv tax").

[Pete Jones]

CTV = part of the Bell Canada empire. Of course they're going to wage as much of a war as they can against the cable TV operators.

Actually, Bell only own 15% of CTVGlobemedia which is the parent company of CTV, The Globe and Mail, and other media assetts.

BellTV is actually on the side of the cable companies. They are opposing the whole scheme of fee for carriage.

It should be pointed out that BDU (cable/satellite) penetration in Canada is over 90%. One could argue that it is _because_ of them that over the air TV stations have the audience they do.

BDUs do, in fact, get the local TV signals and don't have to pay for them.

However, in return, they have to provide the following:

They must provide the equipment to receive the signals
They must put local stations on "preferred" spots on the dial
They must substitute programming upon request (simsub)

Without any compensation from the TV stations.

Sound to me like a "one hand washes the other" situation.

So, basically, the television networks want to charge the cable/satellite companies for providing over 90% of their viewers for them.

Personally, if I have to pay for my local channels, fine. I just want the ability to buy all my channels "a la carte" so I get to choose exactly what I want to pay for.

--Pete

[mself084]

Actually, Bell only own 15% of CTVGlobemedia which is the parent company of CTV, The Globe and Mail, and other media assetts.

BellTV is actually on the side of the cable companies. They are opposing the whole scheme of fee for carriage.

It should be pointed out that BDU (cable/satellite) penetration in Canada is over 90%. One could argue that it is _because_ of them that over the air TV stations have the audience they do.

BDUs do, in fact, get the local TV signals and don't have to pay for them.

However, in return, they have to provide the following:

They must provide the equipment to receive the signals
They must put local stations on "preferred" spots on the dial
They must substitute programming upon request (simsub)

Without any compensation from the TV stations.

Sound to me like a "one hand washes the other" situation.

So, basically, the television networks want to charge the cable/satellite companies for providing over 90% of their viewers for them.

Personally, if I have to pay for my local channels, fine. I just want the ability to buy all my channels "a la carte" so I get to choose exactly what I want to pay for.

--Pete

Great post! Definitely in agreement here... especially with picking and choosing channels.

I like local tv, but there is so little of it now that i don't see how stations like A Channel in Ottawa can tell me the station is local. They do a 4 hour morning show 5 days a week and that's it...the rest is American stuff. If they do get money from cable companies/us, will they bring back the local programming that CTV axed, or even pledge to keep the little bit they offer now?

[BornRuff]

Temporary? Hardly.

And TV can exist without advertising. There just needs to be other ways to pay for it. The advertising business model worked when consumer spending was high, and a disproportionate amount of the economy.

If we go into an economy where most of the spending is business spending, ie: on plant and machinery (to create stuff for export, or to rehabilitate infrastructure), then what? How does a consumer-oriented TV channel make money on non-consumer ads?

Increases in business spending would only be temporary without consumer spending to actually buy the things they are making.

[Takami]

You believe in a corporation?

[williamsauga]

pfffffffffffftt......whats a TV?


I stopped watching TV back in 98 when there is something better called theInternet.

but since i moved up north now...........so i guess i will have to adjust my calendar 10 yrs backwards.....sighhh....

[pitz]

Increases in business spending would only be temporary without consumer spending to actually buy the things they are making.

Worldwide, sure. But what if our production gets built for export to China? Or what if production from our factories is used to rehabilitate worn out infrastructure. That doesn't translate into increased consumer demand. That just means that bridges aren't falling down, and Chinese exports and foreign oil continues to wash a'shore.

[Qbit]

If only the broadcasters hadn't spent $150 million buying Olympic rights?

If they want money from cable and sat subs maybe it's time to revoke their licenses to broadcast over the air.

[Pete Jones]

If only the broadcasters hadn't spent $150 million buying Olympic rights?

Don't worry. CTV and Rogers will earn much more than that from the Olys. Not only that, but as a friend of mine in the industry explained to me once, this is a great opportunity for broadcasters to spend money on capital improvements to their facilities and create some nifty tax write-offs.

If they want money from cable and sat subs maybe it's time to revoke their licenses to broadcast over the air.

Now this leads to another point. A lot of the broadcasters are crying about having to upgrade their transmission equipment for the 2011 switch to digital. The CRTC has mandated that only a small number of major markets actually need to switch -- the rest can just fade away.

Consider the fact that over 90% of the population get their TV via cable and satellite. Maybe it's time that we seriously re-thought the whole concept of terrestrial broadcasting.

One company is trying to do it.

http://www.freehdcanada.com/

Considering the cost of a decent OTA antenna, especially if you don't already have a HD receiver, this might actually be quite viable.

My point is, the existing broadcast model is broken. We need some people thinking out of the box to fix it.

--Pete

[fastlayne]

"We" need to come up with a sustainable funding model for media and content industries that everyone takes for granted.

Expecting advertisers to pay the entire bill isn't reasonable.


"We" need to keep our money in our pockets.

Going back to the days when you could only get TV via the rabbit ears, the only source for revenue was advertising.

Companies like Rogers, Shaw, Cogeco invested the monies to provide cable networks and why should the networks get a fee-for-carriage or the local programming funding monies. The fact that a network show is now available on cable increases the eyes on ads - they should be paying the cable companies!

And isn't that why I have to put up with the annoying sim-subbing that inevitably cuts into the program that I am trying to watch due to mis-timing. Sim-subbing gives the networks their local advertising for US-based shows, which was suppose to boost ad revenues.

In addition, I don't see how any new funding model that hits a cable subscriber, but does not hit the user that is pulling their TV channels/shows from the air or over the internet, is fair.

[BornRuff]

Worldwide, sure. But what if our production gets built for export to China? Or what if production from our factories is used to rehabilitate worn out infrastructure. That doesn't translate into increased consumer demand. That just means that bridges aren't falling down, and Chinese exports and foreign oil continues to wash a'shore.

Are we building these bridges with robots? The workers getting paid to build the bridges are going to have money and need to spend it somewhere.

Also, The only things we really export to China are raw materials. The trend is Canada importing manufactured goods from China, not the other way around. Relative wages between China and Canada would need to do a bit of a flip.

[pitz]

"We" need to keep our money in our pockets.

Exactly. It'd be a lot cheaper to pay $20/month for TV stations, than it would be to pay for the same costs embedded in day-to-day household items.

Every bottle of Tide you buy, every Gillette razor, even the petrol you put in your tank, is higher priced than it ought to be, because those industries feel the need to advertise, in order to subsidize the television and media industries.

Either way, you pay.


Going back to the days when you could only get TV via the rabbit ears, the only source for revenue was advertising.


And where do advertisers get their money? From you. Except it filters through a gazillion agencies, ad execs, and middlemen, before it actually makes it to the TV station where they produce the content.


Companies like Rogers, Shaw, Cogeco invested the monies to provide cable networks and why should the networks get a fee-for-carriage or the local programming funding monies. The fact that a network show is now available on cable increases the eyes on ads - they should be paying the cable companies!


Except the TV stations aren't making any money on advertising because the whole economic model is broken. It might have worked for the past 30-40 years, but the name of the game isn't consumer consumption anymore. We live in far more austere times buddy, and the era of big consumption isn't coming back anytime soon.


In addition, I don't see how any new funding model that hits a cable subscriber, but does not hit the user that is pulling their TV channels/shows from the air or over the internet, is fair.

Exactly. We're seeing the same debate, just framed slightly differently, with respect to the CRTC decision to allow Internet throttling. Basically, content providers and infrastructure owners are going to war with each other, and, to some extent, are going to war against their customers (their customers are also going to war against them, by demanding lots of high quality content, but are not willing to pony up what it costs to provide that content!).

[BornRuff]

Except the TV stations aren't making any money on advertising because the whole economic model is broken. It might have worked for the past 30-40 years, but the name of the game isn't consumer consumption anymore. We live in far more austere times buddy, and the era of big consumption isn't coming back anytime soon.

There really isn't any evidence to suggest this. Just because your unemployed doesn't mean the world has come to an end. Recessions are nothing new. Financial collapses are nothing new.

[Pete Jones]

There really isn't any evidence to suggest this. Just because your unemployed doesn't mean the world has come to an end. Recessions are nothing new. Financial collapses are nothing new.

I agree. Seems the market for home theatre, Large Screen TVs and high-end vehicles (BMW, etc.) is doing just fine.

People are still buying stuff and advertising is the driving force behind it. In about a month and change, just watch what happens around here as the boxing day ads start coming out. Oh yeah, nobody has any money to spend.

The problem is one of fragmentation. Our 500 channel universe, PVRs, and other ways of watching TV shows (DVD and video on demand) has watered-down the number of eyeballs that see a particular ad. That is the problem.

There's no denying that there is a problem. I'm just not interested in paying to fix it.

--Pete

[pitz]

There really isn't any evidence to suggest this. Just because your unemployed doesn't mean the world has come to an end. Recessions are nothing new. Financial collapses are nothing new.

I am not unemployed, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that consumer spending isn't going to rebound in any significant way (demographic, and simply because of all of the debt), and I've offered lots of evidence to suggest that the model is broken across all media industries, not just TV and print media, but also online media.

There's no reason for you to resort to personal attacks.

[pitz]

I agree. Seems the market for home theatre, Large Screen TVs and high-end vehicles (BMW, etc.) is doing just fine.


Do we even live on the same planet? The german car industry is collapsing because they can't move that stuff anymore.


People are still buying stuff and advertising is the driving force behind it. In about a month and change, just watch what happens around here as the boxing day ads start coming out. Oh yeah, nobody has any money to spend.


Which is why, every time I drive by the Port of Oakland in the past few months, there's basically no activity. No trains full of containers. Few ships coming in. Etc., etc. Certainly, you must be writing in jest if you think that consumption of high-end goods hasn't slowed down dramatically.


The problem is one of fragmentation. Our 500 channel universe, PVRs, and other ways of watching TV shows (DVD and video on demand) has watered-down the number of eyeballs that see a particular ad. That is the problem.


Well I see it as the model being fundamentally broken. Advertising is like a giant and enormous tax on the economy, and companies are really examining the ROI they receive on it, and realizing that advertising isn't amounting to much more than a hill of beans. Chinese dollar stores are the fastest growing segment in retail because people simply want to buy stuff cheap, and those stores don't advertise. Why spend $8 for a bottle of Tide, when you can spend $5 for some off-brand that works just as well?


There's no denying that there is a problem. I'm just not interested in paying to fix it.


You are paying more because its broken. You'd pay less if it was fixed, and you'd have better quality television and online content.

[Pete Jones]

Do we even live on the same planet? The german car industry is collapsing because they can't move that stuff anymore.

Then explain how BMW sold over 122,000 cars in September -- an increase over august?

http://autos.ca.msn.com/news/canadian-press-automotive-news/article.aspx?cp-documentid=22112372

Which is why, every time I drive by the Port of Oakland in the past few months, there's basically no activity. No trains full of containers. Few ships coming in. Etc., etc. Certainly, you must be writing in jest if you think that consumption of high-end goods hasn't slowed down dramatically.

Meanwhile, Ford just announced $1 Billion in earnings q3 2009.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/ford-rebounds-to-1-billion-profit/article1347869/

Well I see it as the model being fundamentally broken. Advertising is like a giant and enormous tax on the economy, and companies are really examining the ROI they receive on it, and realizing that advertising isn't amounting to much more than a hill of beans. Chinese dollar stores are the fastest growing segment in retail because people simply want to buy stuff cheap, and those stores don't advertise. Why spend $8 for a bottle of Tide, when you can spend $5 for some off-brand that works just as well?

Ok. Now I get it. You're one of those who doesn't believe advertisin works on them. Well I'll bet you, it does. Can you tell me honestly that you have absolutely no brand-name products of any kind in the house?

You are paying more because its broken. You'd pay less if it was fixed, and you'd have better quality television and online content.

How exactly is this going to improve the quality of television? How exactly do you quantify what is quality television and what if that definition differs from mine?

Anyway, this is veering totally off topic.

--Pete

[BornRuff]

I am not unemployed, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that consumer spending isn't going to rebound in any significant way (demographic, and simply because of all of the debt), and I've offered lots of evidence to suggest that the model is broken across all media industries, not just TV and print media, but also online media.

There's no reason for you to resort to personal attacks.

Well, I've tried to understand where your particular brand of ideas come from, and all I can come up with is that you are an unemployed engineer. When I have asked you about this specifically in the past, you have refused to answer what your educational background and current employment situation is, so I inevitably fall back on the most logical assumption.

If there is plenty of evidence to suggest that consumer spending isn't already rebounding, then why can't you provide any? Subjective things like what you think you see when you drive by a port don't really count, because you could just be seeing what you want to see, and even then, you don't know the actual meaning of what you are seeing.

[ItzMe]

No more subsidies, IMO.

If local TV can't generate enough demand on it's own to survive (i.e not enough people would choose it if presented the option to have it a-la-carte) then, sorry - but I don't want to have to pay for it via some kind of tax that will come in on my cable bill.

More competition, less subsidies, and I'm a happy camper :)

Full disclosure: I own shares in Shaw.

[ullyeus]

The whole point of TV is advertising. Lower consumer spending is only a temporary thing.

uhhhhhh I know advertising isn't the reason I watch TV....

[BornRuff]

uhhhhhh I know advertising isn't the reason I watch TV....

Ok, I guess I should specify that from the side of the people who provide TV programing, the shows themselves are just filler between advertisements. They want to provide shows that will get the most people to watch their channel, so they will have the largest advertising base.

[ClubberLang]

How many hours of programming per day do these networks actually dedicate to supposed "local" Television? What, a couple hours in the morning for idle breakfast chat, news at 12:00, 6:00 and 11:00? Every other hour is dedicated to syndicated US sitcoms and dramas.

[dealguy2]

Neither of them. The real problem is the CRTC and the power they have in the first place. I mean this whole thing illustrates the absurdity of the CRTC. You have two large corporate groups lobbying for a government body to regulate the other side. The real solution is to limit the regulator to managing the bandwidth and who broadcasts on what frequencies. The rest should be managed by the companies in a competitive market.