Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook
Register
Results 1 to 20 of 47

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204

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


    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.

    Last edited by TVViewer; 04-20-2015 at 07:49 PM. Reason: removed full article

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post

    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post

    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.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    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 word
    s 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.
    Last edited by TVViewer; 04-24-2013 at 01:40 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post

    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    I never said they didn't pay taxes themselves,
    I'm just clarifying your point, it could be misinterpreted.


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post

    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 word
    s 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.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,791
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    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!
    "It's not a rerun if you haven't watched it yet." (© 2010 by TVViewer)
    "Ne jamais s'obstiner avec un épais. Il va vous abaisser à son niveau et vous battre avec l'expérience."

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •