The Michael Geist Article The CMPA, ACTRA, and WGC Don't Want You to Read!

[TVViewer]

For example, most of the funding for the record amount of Canadian English-language television programming came from taxpayers and broadcasters, not the original producers of the content. According to Profile 2012, an annual report on the state of the industry, only ten per cent came from private funding such as production companies and private investors. Canadian distributors covered 18 per cent of the total costs, with foreign distributors kicking in an additional nine per cent.

That still represents less than half of the total financing costs for Canadian English-language television programming. Federal and provincial tax credits provided the largest chunk of funding, covering 29 per cent of the cost, while broadcaster licence fees constituted another 25 per cent. The Canada Media Fund, which is jointly funded by the taxpayers and cable and satellite providers, covered the remaining ten per cent.

http://www.thestar.com/business/tech...ete_geist.html
------[/QUOTE]

Just to clarify, this is about scripted Canadian shows. Other types of Canadian programming like reality shows & news do not qualify for funding from the Canadian Media Fund, ect.., also should point out that not only are broadcasters funding this content, but they also lose significant amounts of money on it each year.

[Mayhem]

Just to clarify, this is about scripted Canadian shows. Other types of Canadian programming like reality shows & news do not qualify for funding from the Canadian Media Fund, ect.., also should point out that not only are broadcasters funding this content, but they also lose significant amounts of money on it each year.

I understand the point, but when your a corporate conglomerate who owns every aspect of creation to delivery like Bell, Rogers, Shaw and Quebecor. It's hard to feel sorry that they're losing money.

So next time you see a Canadian actor, writer, producer, or director, they should thank you for paying their salary.

The misconception with this is, people who think if you work for ACTRA or WGC, you somehow stop paying taxes; if that was the case I would have switched careers years ago. The fact is, they pay taxes on their income like everyone else, and once it goes into general revenue you don't know where your actual tax dollars are being spent.

[TVViewer]

[QUOTE=Mayhem;61680]

I understand the point, but when your a corporate conglomerate who owns every aspect of creation to delivery like Bell, Rogers, Shaw and Quebecor. It's hard to feel sorry that they're losing money.

But it should be important to point out how much the broadcasters are funding this content and how they lose so much money from it. By the way, one of the most vocal critics to the current system is Keith Pelly from Rogers. He shares the same view I do about how the current regulations favor the independent producers and are unfair to the broadcasters. The biggest issue Rogers has is how they have to buy shows from independent producers, lose money on them, and then the independent producer can go sell the show internationally and the broadcaster gets nothing. Right now the system is win-win for the independent producer and lose-lose for the broadcaster. If the Canadian show performs poorly for the Canadian network the independent producer still gets paid while the Canadian network loses millions, and if the show is a hit on the Canadian network the independent producer can sell the show internationally and keep all the profits while the Canadian network still loses millions of dollars.

The problem I have with ACTRA, WGC, CMPA, ect.. is the people who represent them have this huge sense of entitlement. In this country these groups within the Canadian production industry benefit at the expense of Canadians, the distributors of their shows (broadcasters), and cable and satellite companies, but they are ALWAYS complaining they don't have enough. They are always complaining to the CRTC (and now they have Twitter accounts ensuring that they have a place to complain in between CRTC submissions) how scripted Canadian shows deserve more funding. They even campaign to take away funding from other forms of Canadian programming (resulting in job losses in that sector) and direct it to the scripted programming they make (despite the fact that scripted Cancon in most cases brings in a smaller audience). They should be grateful that there are regulations in place which allow them to make shows which are unprofitable for the companies that buy them, and it's about time someone else points out how little these independent production companies actually spend to make these shows.

The misconception with this is, people who think if you work for ACTRA or WGC, you somehow stop paying taxes; if that was the case I would have switched careers years ago. The fact is, they pay taxes on their income like everyone else,

I never said they didn't pay taxes themselves, but that fact is irreverent to my argument. The fact that they pay taxes as well doesn't change the fact that they benefit from tax dollars. Tax dollars are still funding their line of work.

and once it goes into general revenue you don't know where your actual tax dollars are being spent.

I don't see any logic in this argument. Fact is taxpayers are partially funding their salary. Just because the money you personally paid may not go to the production of scripted Canadian shows shouldn't mean people don't have any right to complain, I think if you pay taxes you have a right to complain about where tax dollars are spent. Using your logic nobody should be allowed to complain about wasteful spending by the Government because the Government may not have used "their money" for the wasteful project.

[TVViewer]

By the way, here's an article about how Rogers feels about current regulations and a response from the CMPA from The Wire Report. I don't agree with a lot of what Rogers does but I certainly support them trying to make Canadian programming viable for the broadcaster as well and not just the producer.

--------

Rogers Communications Inc.'s broadcast division is unhappy with the industry's terms of trade agreement with independent producers and will seek a bigger share of production revenues when the contract expires next year, said Keith Pelley, president of Rogers Media Inc.“The terms of trade agreement, which expires in 2014, I feel is a little one-sided to the independent production companies and communities,” Pelley said during a panel discussion on Canadian broadcasting at an event to promote the Banff Media Festival.

“From a broadcaster's perspective, I think it's something that we have to address in terms of the revenue share.” In April 2011, Rogers and other private broadcasters agreed to a terms of trade agreement with the Canadian Media Production Association (CMPA) that outlines how broadcasters and independent producers share revenues from projects the broadcasters commission as well as licence fees the broadcasters pay to producers. The deal does not apply to CBC/Radio-Canada or to the French language market.

Pelley said a problem with the agreement is the cost of licence fees, which can make Canadian content more expensive than American. Broadcasters can no longer afford those costs, he said, due to “structural changes” in the industry caused by a shift in advertising dollars towards online media. He said the broadcasters' terms of trade agreement with the independent producers can be “very rewarding” to producers who make good content and collect a licence fee, tax credits, funding from the Canada Media Fund, and profits from international distribution agreements. Canadian broadcasters are often forced to acquire Canadian content to serve regulatory obligations, he said.

“I think what the entire industry wants to get away from is us looking at Canadian programming as, quote -unquote, a tax,” he said. The CMPA, which hosts its annual, national Prime Time conference in Ottawa next week, says on its website that its terms of trade deal is with Bell,Astral Media Inc., Corus Entertainment Inc., Rogers, and Shaw Communications Inc., and that it became effective June 1, 2011. It was an “historic deal that will redefine the relationship between producers and broadcasters,” the website says. The terms of trade agreement, which the CRTC encouraged the two sides to reach, is important to independent producers as they work with larger companies in an industry experiencing consolidation, the CMPA says. The agreement means to “restoring some measure of balance in negotiating power between independent producers and media conglomerates, by establishing minimum commercial terms for development and broadcast licence agreements,” the CMPA’s website says.

In an emailed response to questions Wednesday, Pelley said the “biggest challenge” with the agreement relates to revenues from foreign distribution. The terms, he said, are “one-sided” in favour of the producers.“In a very challeng[ing] advertising industry, we need to determine how we can make Canadian programs economically viable for the broadcaster, as the current agreement does not allow for that,” he said. “Ancillary
revenue beyond licence fees and tax credits should first be given to the broadcaster until they recoup their investment, and then both parties can take part in revenue sharing."

Michael Hennessy, the CMPA's president and CEO, said in an email to The Wire Report Wednesday that Pelley's call for a bigger share of revenue is “as predictable as it is outrageous.”
He said it is “sad” that Rogers is turning its “guns” on independent producer partners as “the enemy.”

“You would think that given our success elevating the status of Canadian programming we would be building on our strengths, not going to war,” Hennessy wrote. “Perhaps this is just an inevitable outcome of vertical
Integration, where broadcasting becomes an appendage to drive cell phone, cable and internet sales.”

Hennessy said both sides surrendered “key items” during the negotiations that led to the agreement.“Now it seems everything the broadcasters gave must be clawed back to regain the status quo when producers
had no rights,” Hennessy said. “The problem with vertical integration whether you are a producer, independent broadcaster or a non-aligned BDU [broadcast distribution undertaking] is that vertically integrated carriers don't understand there is a difference between a negotiation and capitulation. I guess that is the bottom line on vertical integration. If you are not vertically integrated you are screwed whether you are a supplier or a customer.”

-------
I love how any group with no solid argument will just put the blame on "vertical integration". "Vertical integration is a scary word and the CRTC is concerned about it so let's just say vertical integration is to blame and maybe we will get our way, and if we really have no argument to stand on we will throw in the words consolidation and conglomerate" is what every single non vertically integrated company appears to be thinking. Also, Michael Hennessy is a perfect fit for the CMPA, before he was making ridiculous complaints for them he was making ridiculous complaints for Telus as their VP of regulatory affairs.

[Mayhem]

But it should be important to point out how much the broadcasters are funding this content and how they lose so much money from it. By the way, one of the most vocal critics to the current system is Keith Pelly from Rogers. He shares the same view I do about how the current regulations favor the independent producers and are unfair to the broadcasters. The biggest issue Rogers has is how they have to buy shows from independent producers, lose money on them, and then the independent producer can go sell the show internationally and the broadcaster gets nothing. Right now the system is win-win for the independent producer and lose-lose for the broadcaster. If the Canadian show performs poorly for the Canadian network the independent producer still gets paid while the Canadian network loses millions, and if the show is a hit on the Canadian network the independent producer can sell the show internationally and keep all the profits while the Canadian network still loses millions of dollars.

Broadcasters can still use losses as write-offs for income tax purposes. They're problem, as you mention before in other posts, is they don't own the programming, which means they have no creative control, or rights over online streaming, something that they really want in this day and age.

The problem I have with ACTRA, WGC, CMPA, ect.. is the people who represent them have this huge sense of entitlement. In this country these groups within the Canadian production industry benefit at the expense of Canadians, the distributors of their shows (broadcasters), and cable and satellite companies, but they are ALWAYS complaining they don't have enough. They are always complaining to the CRTC (and now they have Twitter accounts ensuring that they have a place to complain in between CRTC submissions) how scripted Canadian shows deserve more funding. They even campaign to take away funding from other forms of Canadian programming (resulting in job losses in that sector) and direct it to the scripted programming they make (despite the fact that scripted Cancon in most cases brings in a smaller audience). They should be grateful that there are regulations in place which allow them to make shows which are unprofitable for the companies that buy them, and it's about time someone else points out how little these independent production companies actually spend to make these shows.

The whole sector, from broadcasters to producers, have a huge sense of entitlement. When a new competing channel wants to launch, Bell, Rogers and Shaw can file a complaint that it would hurt their existing channels. What other industry can do that? You may be right that independent producers have it a bit better than the broadcasters right now, but both broadcasters and producers benefit at the expense of Canadians.

I never said they didn't pay taxes themselves,

I'm just clarifying your point, it could be misinterpreted.

I don't see any logic in this argument.

That's my point. I always see this argument that people use "my tax dollar paid for this" but there is no evidence to say that your's or mine individual tax dollar paid for that exactly.

Fact is taxpayers are partially funding their salary. Just because the money you personally paid may not go to the production of scripted Canadian shows shouldn't mean people don't have any right to complain, I think if you pay taxes you have a right to complain about where tax dollars are spent. Using your logic nobody should be allowed to complain about wasteful spending by the Government because the Government may not have used "their money" for the wasteful project.

This is a complex issue that could go on forever. But the basic idea is to give companies tax credits that can create tax paying jobs and to stimulate local economies. But if you think that waste of money, you should see what general business pay for taxes and what they can write-off that you or I can't do; you'll probably get a little more steamed.

I love how any group with no solid argument will just put the blame on "vertical integration". "Vertical integration is a scary word and the CRTC is concerned about it so let's just say vertical integration is to blame and maybe we will get our way, and if we really have no argument to stand on we will throw in the words consolidation and conglomerate" is what every single non vertically integrated company appears to be thinking. Also, Michael Hennessy is a perfect fit for the CMPA, before he was making ridiculous complaints for them he was making ridiculous complaints for Telus as their VP of regulatory affairs.

Remember you ranted awhile ago that mobile phone prices where too high in Canada? It will be the same thing with your BDU subscription after vertical intergration.

[TVViewer]

[QUOTE=Mayhem;61703]

Broadcasters can still use losses as write-offs for income tax purposes. They're problem, as you mention before in other posts, is they don't own the programming, which means they have no creative control, or rights over online streaming, something that they really want in this day and age.

They don't own the programming because they aren't allowed to own the programming. This doesn't mean they have no creative control though, the network does have involvement. The broadcasters play a major role in ensuring the series is a hit and I agree with Rogers that broadcasters should see some of the benefit from international sales, especially since it's much easier for the production company to sell shows at higher prices if the series is successful on the Canadian network.

The whole sector, from broadcasters to producers, have a huge sense of entitlement. When a new competing channel wants to launch, Bell, Rogers and Shaw can file a complaint that it would hurt their existing channels. What other industry can do that? You may be right that independent producers have it a bit better than the broadcasters right now, but both broadcasters and producers benefit at the expense of Canadians.

In what kind of industry are businesses FORCED to buy something that will lose them millions of dollars? They ask for and receive protection because they operate in a regulated industry where they are forced to accept money losing requirements. Almost all of the protection they have is related to CRTC Canadian programming regulations. You can't have it both ways, if you want a free market then say goodbye to CRTC regulations.

I'm just clarifying your point, it could be misinterpreted.

That's my point. I always see this argument that people use "my tax dollar paid for this" but there is no evidence to say that your's or mine individual tax dollar paid for that exactly.


This is a complex issue that could go on forever. But the basic idea is to give companies tax credits that can create tax paying jobs and to stimulate local economies. But if you think that waste of money, you should see what general business pay for taxes and what they can write-off that you or I can't do; you'll probably get a little more steamed.

You are basically saying taxpayers should not be able to complain about where tax dollar money is spent, I disagree with your opinion, I think if tax dollars are being spent on something tax payers have the right to criticize it.

Remember you ranted awhile ago that mobile phone prices where too high in Canada? It will be the same thing with your BDU subscription after vertical intergration.

After vertical integration? We have vertical integration and it is not the reason for higher prices.

[PokerFace]

I've read many articles about how Flashpoint was huge winner for the producers, as compared to CTV, but that's the way the ball currently bounces.

Talking about vertical integration is always a good way to paint the BDUs as the bad guys, and it works well for me. Tax credits, write-offs and other clever manipulations of the system, keep the money rolling for both sides. Stopping this madness is next to impossible, but if it means fewer Canadian productions and more American/UK imports, that's fine with me. I'd love to see the Cancon rules eliminated, or at least weakened, but that doesn't necessarily mean that quality/fresh foreign content would instead be imported to replace the stale Canadian content that we've been force-fed for decades.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle9189322/
[Independent TV producers feeling the squeeze – again]

Excerpts from the above link:

Keith Pelley, the president of Rogers Media, which owns the City television network and a bunch of specialty channels such as Sportsnet, opened a panel discussion hosted by the Banff World Media Festival by declaring that the framework under which most of the private broadcasters buy rights to TV shows needs to be renegotiated, even though it was only signed two years ago.

“The industry is going through a structural change,” Pelley explained: The advertising dollars that used to support TV programming are rushing off to find targets through a myriad of other channels, many of them online. “Three billion dollars is spent on the Internet, of which 70 per cent is going to the likes of Google, Facebook, XBox – these are dollars we’re not even playing in,” he told the assembled producers. (Private broadcasters’ advertising revenues remained essentially flat between 2007 and 2011, around $2-billion, according to the CRTC; numbers are not yet available for 2012.)

“How does that affect all of you?” He mentioned Seed , an original Halifax-based single-camera comedy now airing on City that the network believes could be a breakout hit. “The actual licence fee is considerably higher than if we were to buy an American show.” In many cases, the ratings for original Canadian productions are woefully low, even when (like Seed ) they’re sandwiched between big U.S. shows to help raise their profile. He argued that the broadcasters need to be able to share in the revenue that comes from international sales. Currently, that money flows back to the independent producers unless the broadcaster pays a so-called “super-licence” fee.

Paul Robertson, the president of Shaw Media, nodded in agreement. “The terms of trade do need to evolve,” he said. Kevin Crull, the president of Bell Media, said he isn’t looking to producers for sympathy, but is understanding of the challenges facing broadcasters. “I don’t want to have an industry solution that whacks costs, because I don’t think your costs of production are going down,” he acknowledged. Still, “if we’re not growing revenue, there’s either a day of reckoning, or there’s constant tension.”

The next day, I got in touch with the man who will represent the producers in any future negotiations. “I found Keith’s sentiment to be as predictable as it was outrageous,” said Michael Hennessy, the president of the Canadian Media Production Association. Under the deal, he explained, in exchange for a flat licence fee, broadcasters receive the right to play shows as many times as they want, on whichever platforms they want (TV, online, mobile devices, Netflix-like services, etc.) for five years. The one major right the producers retain is the ability to sell their shows internationally.

“What they’re really saying is, we should go back to the [previous] status quo, where we take the scraps, and we should be happy with that,” Mr. Hennessy said. “It does lead you to the question: Is there anything that will ever be enough?”

-------------

http://www.entertainmentmedialawsign...erms-of-trade/
[The Terms [of Trade] They are A-Changin' (?)]

Michael Hennessy, the President of the Canadian Media Production Association, noted that, in exchange for a flat licence fee, broadcasters already receive the right to play shows as many times as they want, on whichever platforms they want (including TV, online, mobile devices, Netflix/OTT services, etc.) for a five year term. At the same time, producers have the opportunity to earn further revenues from other avenues of exploitation, including selling their shows internationally. However, under the current Agreement, broadcasters have the ability to access a whole host of additional revenue streams including from an international sale if they agree to offer a "super-license fee" to a producer. The super-license fee entitles the broadcaster to enter into negotiations for a share of profit participation in a number of areas of exploitation which are otherwise exclusively reserved to the producer.

With respect to the foregoing forms of exploitation, then, the payment of a super-license fee effectively opens a window for the broadcaster, allowing them to increase their participation rate from 50% to a maximum of 75%.

Super License Fee Negotiation possibilities ...

The rights in respect of which the broadcaster can obtain a higher share of revenue are the following:

• transaction-based non-linear on-demand exhibition on all platforms (ie where the customer has only temporary access to content, as opposed to a permanent copy)
• electronic sell-through or download-to-own platforms
• in-flight
• DVD/home video
• producer-created revenue-generating original digital content
• non-promotional games*
• merchandising*

[Mayhem]

In what kind of industry are businesses FORCED to buy something that will lose them millions of dollars?

An industry where you don't have to compete and re-package American content as your own should at least have some sort of flaw to help ground it to reality.

You are basically saying taxpayers should not be able to complain about where tax dollar money is spent, I disagree with your opinion, I think if tax dollars are being spent on something tax payers have the right to criticize it.

You've misunderstood my point, having the right to complain is one thing, but assuming that your paying for it directly out of your own pocket without any facts that its coming from your own as pocket shouldn't be the bases of your argument, (this argument wasn't directed to you, it was directed to everybody).

But lets agree to disagree that you don't have the right to complain where taxpayers money is spent. (j/k)

After vertical integration? We have vertical integration and it is not the reason for higher prices.

It's like that old saying "Rome wasn't built in a day"; some effects are already seen like Rogers customers for example have to wait long for VOD content from Bell media properties than Bell customers. Increased prices don't happen overnight, they have to make up a reason Remember the Usage-Based Billing fiasco from Bell?

This is also gearing up for completion of mobile video service down the road, as more people start using their iPhone/iPad, Android phone/tablet; mobile providers need exlusive content to keep customers with their services. You want to watch TSN? Buy a Bell smart phone. Want to watch Sportsnet? Buy a Rogers smart phone, etc etc. If you want to watch Show Case programming....buy a Rogers smart phone.

[InMontreal]

They're problem, as you mention before in other posts, is they don't own the programming, which means they have no creative control, or rights over online streaming, something that they really want in this day and age.

Hmmm, in the US, studios are selling their shows to the networks. You can see some Fox studios productions on ABC, Gaumont on NBC, ABC studios on The CW... but still, the broadcaster calls the shots (number of episodes, storyline guidelines, appropriate timeslot, promotion), and if they throw shows back and forth in the schedule (ex: Happy Endings, Don't trust the B) or but their successful shows on long hiatus and change the timeslot for no reason (ex: Grimm), they're responsible for the advertisement sales and... the show's cancellation.

Then comes syndication rights. Episodes can be sold 1 million per episode rerun on specialties! Then comes DVD/Blu-Ray sales.
If CBC, Bell, Shaw and Rogers keeps producing scripted comedies and dramas in-house, well, they'll just allocate syndication runs to themselves, keep the revenues of DVD sales to themselves, and the producers won't shop around for a new responsible broadcaster if they get cancelled, they're simply out of work.

Then comes a "classic television" specialty channel. Bhell will draw cancon shows from... whatever they produced in-house... what a bore and lack of diversity!

[TVViewer]

[QUOTE=Mayhem;61706]

It's like that old saying "Rome wasn't built in a day"; some effects are already seen like Rogers customers for example have to wait long for VOD content from Bell media properties than Bell customers. Increased prices don't happen overnight, they have to make up a reason Remember the Usage-Based Billing fiasco from Bell?

You can't blame vertical integration on things that happened before vertical integration. CTV content wasn't available on Rogers even before Bell took over. CTV's VOD content is however available on Shaw cable and Shaw Direct. In fact CTV VOD is available on Shaw Direct despite not being available on Bell's satellite TV service. This isn't a case of Bell keeping content away from their competitors, its a case of Rogers not having enough interest to pay a fair market price for CTV's VOD content, they weren't interested when CTV was owned by CTVglobemedia and nothing has changed since Bell took ownership.

This is also gearing up for completion of mobile video service down the road, as more people start using their iPhone/iPad, Android phone/tablet; mobile providers need exlusive content to keep customers with their services. You want to watch TSN? Buy a Bell smart phone. Want to watch Sportsnet? Buy a Rogers smart phone, etc etc. If you want to watch Show Case programming....buy a Rogers smart phone.

You keep saying this but you are ignoring that they aren't allowed to keep mobile rights exclusive. You are also ignoring recent actions by the 3 major VI companies. Rogers offers City programming for free via apps to anyone with an iPhone, iPad, or Android device. Shaw and Bell do the same with CTV and Global's programming to anyone with an iPad or iPhone. All of the broadcasters keep repeating that it financially does not make sense for them to keep their content exclusive.

Vertical Integration has been good for the industry. Independents are using vertical integration as an excuse to try and get advantages they didn't have before vertical integration, and so far it's working, independent broadcasters and distributors have been given several advantages they don't deserve just because their competitors happened to make an investment that also happened to save thousands of jobs. It's been good for consumers as well, if they didn't do so much advertising most wouldn't even notice that Rogers, Shaw, and Bell own City, Global, and CTV.

[TVViewer]

Michael Hennessy, the President of the Canadian Media Production Association, noted that, in exchange for a flat licence fee, broadcasters already receive the right to play shows as many times as they want, on whichever platforms they want (including TV, online, mobile devices, Netflix/OTT services, etc.) for a five year term. At the same time, producers have the opportunity to earn further revenues from other avenues of exploitation, including selling their shows internationally. However, under the current Agreement, broadcasters have the ability to access a whole host of additional revenue streams including from an international sale if they agree to offer a "super-license fee" to a producer.

It takes years for the Canadian networks to re-air shows over and over again for them to to even come close to breaking even. The reality is if repeats/syndication rights, along with online, VOD, and mobile rights were separate from the broadcast licence fee not only would broadcasters not buy them but it would also mean that they would buy less scripted Canadian shows overall since they would be even less viable than they are now.

Repeats/syndication and online/mobile/VOD streaming BENEFITS the independent producers as they build audiences for their shows (which results in renewal from the Canadian network), so it's in the best interest of the independent producers to include them in the broadcast licence fee, if they didn't then their shows simply wouldn't be available via syndication/online/mobile/VOD and the broadcasters would buy less Canadian shows since they would lose even more money on them. International sales is where the money gets made and that's why the independent production companies don't want to share any of the profits with the broadcasters. They shouldn't need to pay more with a "super licence fee" for shows that they already lose millions of dollars on to earn a share of the revenue from international sales, especially when you consider the fact that the Canadian network footing most of the bill for the show is the entire reason why independent producers are able to sell shows internationally, the fact that Canadian networks are putting up the bulk of the cost allows the producers to sell their shows to international broadcasters at reduced prices (allowing international broadcasters to turn a profit on shows Canadian broadcasters lose millions on). Add in the fact that the whole reason the show exists is because the Canadian network commissioned it and the fact that the Canadian network help makes the show a hit via promotion and scheduling and it's pretty clear to me that the Canadian broadcasters deserve some of the revenue through international sales. If the producers didn't have the Canadian networks they wouldn't have any shows to sell.

[InMontreal]

You can't blame vertical integration on things that happened before vertical integration. CTV content wasn't available on Rogers even before Bell took over. CTV's VOD content is however available on Shaw cable and Shaw Direct. In fact CTV VOD is available on Shaw Direct despite not being available on Bell's satellite TV service. This isn't a case of Bell keeping content away from their competitors, its a case of Rogers not having enough interest to pay a fair market price for CTV's VOD content, they weren't interested when CTV was owned by CTVglobemedia and nothing has changed since Bell took ownership.

Vertical Integration has been good for the industry.

Oh, maybe BDUs found common ground in english-canada, but vertical integration is a burden over here.

Quebecor owns Vidéotron, which owns TVA network. TVA on demand is exclusive to Videotron customers, but Videotron doesn't cover the whole province. There are Cogeco areas, Cablevision areas, cooperatives areas, and the Bell and Telus IPTV services.

As for Vidéotron's own Video on Demand service, CTV, Global and City on Demand simply don't exist. At all.

It took years, even after Radio-Canada launched Tou.tv service to add Radio-Canada sur Demande. Being the major french-language service provider, they signed a deal with Astral and other french-language providers so that if you subscribe to one of their specialty but not the other (example, Ztélé but not Historia), then you can only access the channel's on-demand content you're subscribed to. Unlike Space or Showcase, there are no full-lenght episodes on their respective websites (except webseries), content is username/password access restricted.

I don't see any benefit to vertical integration that you are praising here.

From the latest CRTC hearings, Bell, Shaw and Rogers are hard against Netflix since it compete against their own VOD service, and since they own most of canadian productions, you won't see any of their content on Netflix... but Netflix subscriber base keep increasing. Aren't they supposed to reach subscribers where they are instead of trying to control the industry ?

[TVViewer]

[QUOTE=InMontreal;61718]

Oh, maybe BDUs found common ground in english-canada, but vertical integration is a burden over here.

Quebecor owns Vidéotron, which owns TVA network. TVA on demand is exclusive to Videotron customers, but Videotron doesn't cover the whole province. There are Cogeco areas, Cablevision areas, cooperatives areas, and the Bell and Telus IPTV services.

As for Vidéotron's own Video on Demand service, CTV, Global and City on Demand simply don't exist. At all.

It took years, even after Radio-Canada launched Tou.tv service to add Radio-Canada sur Demande. Being the major french-language service provider, they signed a deal with Astral and other french-language providers so that if you subscribe to one of their specialty but not the other (example, Ztélé but not Historia), then you can only access the channel's on-demand content you're subscribed to. Unlike Space or Showcase, there are no full-lenght episodes on their respective websites (except webseries), content is username/password access restricted.

I don't see any benefit to vertical integration that you are praising here.

I was referring to English Canada. Quebecor has a monopoly in Quebec so unfortunately French Canadians don't have the same benefits of vertical integration, but that has more to do with Quebecor as a company, not vertical integration in general. In English Canada vertical integration is working out just fine.

From the latest CRTC hearings, Bell, Shaw and Rogers are hard against Netflix since it compete against their own VOD service, and since they own most of canadian productions, you won't see any of their content on Netflix... but Netflix subscriber base keep increasing. Aren't they supposed to reach subscribers where they are instead of trying to control the industry ?

Really? This is ridiculous even for you. Netflix is a competitor to the broadcasters. Not giving their competitor access to their content is not "trying to control the industry", it's acting like a business. The broadcasters make their content available on several platforms (for example Global Television, GlobalTV.com, Global Video App, Global VOD service) they shouldn't have to make it available on their competitor as well. That would be like saying "CTV and Global have more viewers than City, so City should let CTV and Global air their content to reach viewers where they are instead of trying to control the industry". Netflix has a few original series which are exclusive to Netflix, since Canadian broadcasters have more viewers should Netflix sell their content to the Canadian broadcasters to "reach viewers where they are instead of trying to control the industry?" Of course not, there is nothing wrong with Netflix keeping their original series exclusive to Netflix just like there is nothing wrong with Canadian networks keeping their content exclusive to their platforms. It might benefit them if Netflix was willing to pay as much for Canadian shows as they do for the U.S. content they purchase but that's not the case, so it doesn't make sense for the Canadian networks to hurt the platforms they own (on demand, website, mobile) just so people can watch their shows on their competitor. This also has nothing to do with vertical integration. CTVglobemedia, Canwest, and CHUM wouldn't want people watching their content on Netflix instead of their network/website/app/vod service either.

[InMontreal]

Really? This is ridiculous even for you. Netflix is a competitor to the broadcasters. Not giving their competitor access to their content is not "trying to control the industry", it's acting like a business. The broadcasters make their content available on several platforms (for example Global Television, GlobalTV.com, Global Video App, Global VOD service) they shouldn't have to make it available on their competitor as well.

You lost me here. In your previous message, you praise vertical integration, you praise syndicated reruns "benefits the independent producers as they build audiences for their shows", you agree that Bell, Shaw and Rogers Media should make the last 3 episodes of their content available on their competitor's on-demand platform (ex: Rogers on Demand), but you find it ridiculous for producers to make their shows available on Netflix, the whole seasons so the viewers can watch them at their own pace... Hey ! They're making extra money ! Why would it be wrong ?

Well, Bell is acting as a business, and if it wasn't for CRTC rules on vertical integration, Bell would keep their CTV content exclusive to their own satellite/IPTV subscribers, so would Shaw and Rogers.

By the way, Netflix's drama "House of Cards" is scheduled to air in Belgium on BeTV and in France on Canal+, both channels being a The Movie Network equivalent. It's not THAT exclusive. They produce then sell their shows to international broadcasters. Except for the "canadian contribution fund", I don't see the problem here.

[TVViewer]

[QUOTE=InMontreal;61746]

You lost me here. In your pevious message, you praise vertical integration, you praise syndicated reruns "benefits the independent producers as they build audiences for their shows", you agree that Bell, Shaw and Rogers Media should make the last 3 episodes of their content available on their competitor's on-demand platform (ex: Rogers on Demand)

You are lost because you don't know how it works.

Making their VOD service available to other cable/satellite companies is not the same as making their shows available on Netflix. One has advertising, the other does not. The network benefits if their on demand service with advertising is available on several providers. Global does not benefit if people watch the same show on Netflix without advertising instead of watching it with advertising via Global's on demand service on Shaw, Rogers, Shaw Direct, Cogeco, ect

but you find it ridiculous for producers to make their shows available on Netflix, The whole seasons so the viewers can watch them at their own pace...?

The entire seasons of Canadian shows are already available on CTV and Global's websites, on their VOD service, and on their video apps. So viewers already have the ability to view every episode and watch at their own pace. It's only the U.S. shows which have a limited number of episodes available (City appears to have made a voluntary decision to set time limits on Canadian shows). GlobalTV.com and CTV.ca are offering the same thing Netflix can on the same devices as Netflix except unlike Netflix they make the shows available online for free.

Hey ! They're making extra money ! Why would it be wrong

Online streaming rights are included in the broadcaster licence fee. Selling the show to Netflix isn't always good financially because if they are watching the show on Netflix it means they are not watching the show on the other platform. It's not good for CTV if less people view the show on CTV.ca because it's now available on Netflix. If Netflix was willing to pay a price that would offset the lost revenue from the other platforms then maybe it would be something they would consider but right now it doesn't make sense for them to drive people away from CTV.ca to their COMPETITOR.

Well, Bell is acting as a business, and if it wasn't for CRTC rules on vertical integration, Bell would keep their CTV content exclusive to their own satellite/IPTV subscribers, so would Shaw and Rogers.

No, because it doesn't make sense for them to do that (you always compare what happens in the U.S. or Quebec to the rest of Canada and ignore how the circumstances are totally different) They want as many people as possible to view their shows on demand, limiting it to one provider doesn't make sense from a business perspective. But anyways, we don't need to worry about it because the CRTC does have rules in place which ensure that they aren't allowed to keep content exclusive. Why bring up something that can't happen anyway?

By the way, Netflix's drama "House of Cards" is scheduled to air in Belgium on BeTV and in France on Canal+, both channels being a The Movie Network equivalent. It's not THAT exclusive. They produce then sell their shows to international broadcasters. Except for the "canadian contribution fund", I don't see the problem here.

Netflix isn't available in those countries. Where Netflix is available the show is exclusive to Netflix. Kind of ridiculous to complain about Canadian broadcasters not putting their content on Netflix when they already make it available on their own platforms available on the same devices as Netflix when Netflix keeps their original content exclusive to Netflix.

[InMontreal]

Making their VOD service available to other cable/satellite companies is not the same as making their shows available on Netflix. One has advertising, the other does not.

If I understand you well, canadian broadcasters wants to OWN the canadian shows with a 5-years you-can-do-whatever-you-want-with-it broadcast licence so they can fill their cancon requirements on 3 other specialty channels they own at the same time and make tons of money, while the producer have no other income than DVD sales and international TV broadcast sales. But with CTV and Global offering all episodes for free on their VOD/App platforms and the endless reruns on specialties, it makes no sense for the home viewer to buy the DVDs. So, off course broadcasters are against Netflix buying shows from the producers because the broadcaster can't make money for their own pockets.

Wow. Canadians do sell their soul to Bell, Shaw and Rogers.

It's not tomorrow that we'll see syndicated reruns of Corner Gas on CHCH or Bomb Girls on Joytv, for example...

[PokerFace]

DVDs and Blu-rays still have extras (deleted scenes, commentaries, etc.) that are not shown on television. While it's true that the majority of people don't care about the extras, it's still convenient to have the episodes on discs, also without the on-screen clutter and commercials. Since the public libraries, DVD kiosks and Internet provide alternative ways to view content, it makes less sense for me to let the big 3 line their pockets with my money. However, since they also have their hands on my Internet and phone service, they still get a piece of my soul ... it just doesn't bother me as much because I pay a reduced rate that would be affordable for the majority of Canadians.

[PokerFace]

House of Cards is also on Germany's Sky Deutschland (Sky Atlantic HD ... I noticed the logo while watching some of the episodes online, with English audio and a smooth frame rate). The UK/Ireland version of Sky Atlantic obviously doesn't have House of Cards, since the UK/Ireland has Netflix.

http://www.sky.de/web/cms/de/serien_highlight_47448.jsp
[House of Cards now available in the "German Sky"]

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/comp...canada-part-3/
[Part 3 of Why Netflix Won't Conquer Canada article]

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publicatio...s/rp110331.htm
[Developments in the Canadian Program Rights Market 2011]

The affiliated interests of U.S. and Canadian broadcasters are also starkly different. Vertical integration in the U.S. is largely studio to broadcaster; while in Canada it is broadcaster to BDU/ISP. As long as it increases overall revenues, U.S. studio/broadcasters are at least somewhat pre-disposed to support OTT, even if there is some negative impact on cable. In Canada there is little such predisposition. For the most part, broadcaster and BDU interests are aligned in doing as much as possible to limit or preclude foreign OTT providers from obtaining Canadian rights to recent TV programming. In any event, neither the U.S studio/broadcaster nor Canadian broadcaster/BDU sector is interested in a $70 cable bill turning into a $10 OTT bill.

[TVViewer]

[QUOTE=InMontreal;61752]

If I understand you well, canadian broadcasters wants to OWN the canadian shows with a 5-years you-can-do-whatever-you-want-with-it broadcast licence so they can fill their cancon requirements on 3 other specialty channels they own at the same time and make tons of money, while the producer have no other income than DVD sales and international TV broadcast sales. But with CTV and Global offering all episodes for free on their VOD/App platforms and the endless reruns on specialties, it makes no sense for the home viewer to buy the DVDs.

You don't understand because you don't understand the reality of how unprofitable scripted Canadian programming is. They don't make "tons of money" re-airing Canadian shows over and over again, they usually don't come close to breaking even doing that. They lose millions and millions of dollars every year buying Canadian shows from independent production companies. There is however money to be made selling shows to international broadcasters. The independent production companies make shows which lose millions of dollars for the Canadian networks and then go and sell those same shows to international broadcasters and turn a profit, some broadcasters such as Rogers feel that the broadcasters should get some of the revenue made from the international sales, and I agree with them since unlike you I actually know the economics of scripted Canadian programming and how unfair it is for Canadian broadcasters.

So, off course broadcasters are against Netflix buying shows from the producers because the broadcaster can't make money for their own pockets.

Right now online rights (the rights Netflix would acquire) are held by the broadcasters, online rights are included in the broadcaster licence fee because scripted Canadian programming already loses so much money for the Canadian networks, if the producers were to exclude online rights from the licence fee and sell them to Netflix instead it means the Canadian network would lose EVEN MORE money on scripted Canadian programming. It would make Canadian programming even less viable for Canadian networks and the end result would be them spending less money on Canadian programming and buying less Canadian shows, which is bad for the independent producers.

Also, the independent production companies know that they wouldn't get much for online/VOD/mobile/syndication rights if they were to be sold separately, so when you add that to the fact that Canadian networks would spend less on Canadian programming without those rights included it really makes little sense for the independent production companies to not include them. The real money is made in international sales, and that's why they want to keep all the profits themselves.

Wow. Canadians do sell their soul to Bell, Shaw and Rogers.

No, you just have some delusional hatred against the networks. Canadian independent production companies have it ridiculously good. They get to use all that taxpayer money to produce their shows, sell the shows to the Canadian networks despite the fact that the networks lose millions of dollars on them, and then go and turn a profit selling those same shows at a reduced rate to international broadcasters. Independent production companies turn a profit thanks to subsides from taxpayers, Canadian networks, and Canadian cable and satellite companies. Yet somehow you think the broadcasters have it good and that the rules should be even more favorable to the independent producers? Wow.

[InMontreal]

The independent production companies make shows which lose millions of dollars for the Canadian networks and then go and sell those same shows to international broadcasters and turn a profit, some broadcasters such as Rogers feel that the broadcasters should get some of the revenue made from the international sales, and I agree with them since unlike you I actually know the economics of scripted Canadian programming and how unfair it is for Canadian broadcasters.

Unfair ?
Boundaries. The original broadcaster will do whatever it can to make the show a success, will order the number of episodes to be produced, will schedule the show in an appropriate timeslot and sell advertisement at a high price... Their involvement is crucial here, but the show does not belong to them. What does belong to the broadcaster is the local/national news and whatever they produce in-house (eTalk, ET Canada, Focus).

Why would Global make money if RTS in Switzerland is airing Rookie Blue? Global did not produce the show, and Global won't pay the actors and producers for their great work (which made the show a success) with that extra money, it's unfair! They just aired the show in its originating country.

if the producers were to exclude online rights from the licence fee and sell them to Netflix instead it means the Canadian network would lose EVEN MORE money on scripted Canadian programming.

Your "if this, then something-negative-for-the-network" song is getting repetitive.
Does the producer get a better deal selling ALL their rights exclusively to Global than selling additional rights to OTT providers ?

You also keep repeating the same song : ALL scripted canadian shows are a CRTC-required money-losing necessary evil, while the network makes tons of money from ALL american shows it buys, which is why 18 out of 19 hours of sun-fri primetime programming is american.

Let's see...
- The Listener was dumped by NBC after 8 episodes in 2009, but the show made the BBM Top 30 everytime and will roll out its 4th season this summer.
- Saving Hope was also dumped by NBC after 11 episodes, but not only CTV renewed the show, they ordered additional episodes.

If they're losing a loaded sh*t of money like you pretend to be the case, why would they renew the shows ?

Why aren't they dumping canadian shows to, let's say saturday 10pm when nobody watches TV, along with repetitive "depression hurts" commercials (just like on City Montreal, thanks guys!), community bulletins and public service commercials, and then cry out loud they don't make money ?