Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook
Register
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 39 of 39
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=InMontreal;66639]

    Yeah, but that became a problem over time.
    Back in the 90's, the CRTC received dozens of applications for new analog specialty channels. Companies such as CHUM, Alliance Atlantis and Netstar worked hard to expose their case and justify the subscription revenues per subscriber and predicted advertisement revenues in exchange for a high minimal amount of original canadian productions, giving jobs. They were given very good channel positions and packages priorities on cable and satellite. In 2000, companies also worked hard to get a new digital Category 1 specialty with guaranteed carriage privileges and also an amount of cancon commitment.

    Unfortunately, almost all analog specialties has been brought by either Bell, Shaw or Corus.

    If companies are given freedom to change their nature of service however they want, Bell Media would have kept CatA CTV Travel (Travel+Escape) specialty and given it another purpose instead of selling it off to Blue Ant Media. Where are the opportunities for new independent companies who will want to run a new specialty ? Let's say I'm launching a channel about alien theories (for example sake). It's gonna take me at least a year to get carriage on all major providers, and I'd have to prove the success of my channel to get it added to those cheap BDUs with limited bandwidth, which mean at least 5+ years. Bell could take their dormant CatA BookTV channel, already carried everywhere, and rebrand it for alien theories purposes, outbid me from my primary programming source and obviously, not carry my channel at all. I'll run into financial trouble and be forced to shut down. One year later after my shutdown, there's no more interest for Bell to acquire new programming so the channel will run into BookTV rerun state until the next purpose.

    I have to ask (well point out), since you have made it so clear you are against BDU's bundling channels, why are you claiming to be concerned about the future of independent specialty channels? Small independent specialty channels have the most to lose with the elimination of the packaging system. You always like to use Bell Media's Book TV as an example of a channel that is staying alive due to the package system, and while this may be true, these independent channels you claim to support are right there with Book TV and are only financially viable because they are packaged with more popular conglomerate channels. Independent specialty channels are absolutely terrified of a pick and pay system. I don't see how you can say you support independent broadcasters while at the same time support destroying their business model. You can't have it both ways, you either care about the future of independent specialty channels or you don't.

    Shaw Media already does that with Showcase, co-producing shows with american Syfy (Haven, Lost Girl, etc.) which also co-produce other shows with Space (Being Human, Sanctuary, etc.)


    Gusto TV (Knight Enterprises) launched back in december 2013. While Food Network took a reality TV turn, Gusto goes back to what a channel about food is about, with also HGTV-themed shows..
    Food Network is still what a food channel should be about. All their reality programming is food/cooking related, and they still air cooking shows. Gusto TV is trying to be a direct competitor to a specialty channel with genre protection (and I say trying because audience wise they are not a competitor) without the same Canadian programming spending and broadcast requirements. I’m not even sure if Gusto has any original Canadian programs on their schedule.

    Funny how you say you are against broadcasters airing whatever they want, yet then go on to praise Gusto. Gusto is supposed to be a channel devoted to “luxury” yet they made it very clear in their promos that they are a direct competitor to Food Network If Shaw was using a category B luxury licence to compete against a category A independent food channel I have a feeling you wouldn’t be very supportive of it.
    Last edited by TVViewer; 08-08-2014 at 03:19 PM.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,461
    Isn't it already too difficult for new independent specialty channels to simply find fresh content that isn't already owned by the major players that enough people would want to watch?

    For example, when Travel & Escape (or whatever it was called way back when) first launched, I hated the fact that it was missing many of the fresh US Travel channel content. However, now that Shaw used its Scripps pull to gain the fresh US Travel channel content (hello, DTOUR), I wouldn't even bother with Travel & Escape if I was a cable subscriber.

    Did Shaw add DTOUR simply because it has deep pockets and was finally ready to air fresh US Travel Channel content based on its relationship with Scripps (great deals between partners)?

    Can Travel & Escape buy any of the fresh US Travel Channel content if it wanted to, or is it an unwritten rule that Scripps only deals fairly with Shaw Media?

    And although I don't watch cooking shows, doesn't Shaw own the rights to many of the Cooking Channel shows (still owned by Scripps?), even though some of them might still not air in Canada? Perhaps shows like My Grandmother's Ravioli ... I see it listed for free streaming on the Cooking Channel website (geo-blocked) and on YouTube (geo-blocked) for $1.99 per episode, but have no idea if that's something that anybody would want to watch here.

    Does Shaw Media air any exclusive Cooking Channel content on its various channels, or is that something that Gusto could buy the Canadian rights for? Would the rights be too expensive for an independent to afford, and that's why they might choose to instead go after UK content, or content from the ION US channel, etc., simply to save money.
    Last edited by PokerFace; 08-08-2014 at 05:32 PM. Reason: typo
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,741
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    I have to ask (well point out), since you have made it so clear you are against BDU's bundling channels, why are you claiming to be concerned about the future of independent specialty channels? Small independent specialty channels have the most to lose with the elimination of the packaging system.
    Who talked about the elimination of the packaging system ?

    I do support the pick & pay and the "pick a pack" system.
    If you service provider requires you a level of "Tier X" that you need to purchase in order to get that one specialty channel that you want, that's just wrong.
    Anyone should have the option to take the skinny basic service, pick a 10-channels package, pick your favorite 10 channels you're actually watching, and that's it.
    There will always be a family somewhere who will want to get all channels (or just the popular ones depending on their budget) so they won't be missing anything. Elimination of the packaging system is just stupid.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    You always like to use Bell Media's Book TV as an example of a channel that is staying alive due to the package system, and while this may be true, these independent channels you claim to support are right there with Book TV and are only financially viable because they are packaged with more popular conglomerate channels. Independent specialty channels are absolutely terrified of a pick and pay system. I don't see how you can say you support independent broadcasters while at the same time support destroying their business model. You can't have it both ways, you either care about the future of independent specialty channels or you don't.
    Ooooook... let's take an example with numbers.

    - Greedy provider : basic service includes all of Bell's Cat A specialties, including TSN. 40$ per month. If you want that independent Cat B specialty, you need to pick a minimum of 3 packages for 8$ each. Total : 64$.

    - Cool provider : basic service includes only the CRTC-mandatory channels. 20$ per month. You take the Pick 10 package for 15$, including the Cat B specialty you want. Total 35$.

    If your budget for television entertainment for your low-income household is limited to 50$ and you don't watch sports, it's unlikely that you'll pick the greedy provider, but if you do, you'll most likely stick with the basic service, and forget about that indpeendent Cat B specialty. Your money ends up in Bell's pockets. Independent broadcaster gets nothing.

    How fair is that ?

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Funny how you say you are against broadcasters airing whatever they want, yet then go on to praise Gusto. Gusto is supposed to be a channel devoted to “luxury” yet they made it very clear in their promos that they are a direct competitor to Food Network If Shaw was using a category B luxury licence to compete against a category A independent food channel I have a feeling you wouldn’t be very supportive of it.
    Hmmm... So, Bell, Shaw and Rogers are 100% respecting their nature of service and their licence conditions ?

    - How is Corus turning around that "OWN" channel lately into an educational channel ?
    - How does Bell justifies the usage of a "talk" channel with MTV reality and scripted shows ?

    Why do you worry about Cat B Gusto competing against Cat A Food considering only Bell, Telus and Eastlink are carrying it ?
    "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."

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by PokerFace View Post
    Isn't it already too difficult for new independent specialty channels to simply find fresh content that isn't already owned by the major players that enough people would want to watch?

    For example, when Travel & Escape (or whatever it was called way back when) first launched, I hated the fact that it was missing many of the fresh US Travel channel content. However, now that Shaw used its Scripps pull to gain the fresh US Travel channel content (hello, DTOUR), I wouldn't even bother with Travel & Escape if I was a cable subscriber.

    Did Shaw add DTOUR simply because it has deep pockets and was finally ready to air fresh US Travel Channel content based on its relationship with Scripps (great deals between partners)?

    Can Travel & Escape buy any of the fresh US Travel Channel content if it wanted to, or is it an unwritten rule that Scripps only deals fairly with Shaw Media?

    And although I don't watch cooking shows, doesn't Shaw own the rights to many of the Cooking Channel shows (still owned by Scripps?), even though some of them might still not air in Canada? Perhaps shows like My Grandmother's Ravioli ... I see it listed for free streaming on the Cooking Channel website (geo-blocked) and on YouTube (geo-blocked) for $1.99 per episode, but have no idea if that's something that anybody would want to watch here.

    Does Shaw Media air any exclusive Cooking Channel content on its various channels, or is that something that Gusto could buy the Canadian rights for? Would the rights be too expensive for an independent to afford, and that's why they might choose to instead go after UK content, or content from the ION US channel, etc., simply to save money.

    Shaw Media now has a content deal for Travel Channel programming but before this content deal was in place there was nothing stopping Travel+Escape from buying this programming from Scripps (and they did buy some shows), however as you point out Travel+Escape was not doing this which meant the vast majority of Travel Channel's original programming was not available in Canada until DTOUR was launched.

    The U.S. content on Food Network Canada primarily comes from the U.S. Food Network and not The Cooking Channel, however many Food Network Canada original series air on The Cooking Channel. It wouldn't make much sense for Scripps to sell programming to Gusto TV as the channel is a direct competitor to Food Network Canada and Scripps owns a 20% stake in Food Network Canada (Shaw Media owns the remaining 80%)
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=InMontreal;66775]

    Who talked about the elimination of the packaging system ?

    I do support the pick & pay and the "pick a pack" system.
    If you service provider requires you a level of "Tier X" that you need to purchase in order to get that one specialty channel that you want, that's just wrong.
    Anyone should have the option to take the skinny basic service, pick a 10-channels package, pick your favorite 10 channels you're actually watching, and that's it.
    There will always be a family somewhere who will want to get all channels (or just the popular ones depending on their budget) so they won't be missing anything. Elimination of the packaging system is just stupid.


    Ooooook... let's take an example with numbers.

    - Greedy provider : basic service includes all of Bell's Cat A specialties, including TSN. 40$ per month. If you want that independent Cat B specialty, you need to pick a minimum of 3 packages for 8$ each. Total : 64$.

    - Cool provider : basic service includes only the CRTC-mandatory channels. 20$ per month. You take the Pick 10 package for 15$, including the Cat B specialty you want. Total 35$.

    If your budget for television entertainment for your low-income household is limited to 50$ and you don't watch sports, it's unlikely that you'll pick the greedy provider, but if you do, you'll most likely stick with the basic service, and forget about that indpeendent Cat B specialty. Your money ends up in Bell's pockets. Independent broadcaster gets nothing.

    How fair is that ?
    Again, small independent specialty channels benefit from being put in bundles with popular channels. A system where people have a skinny basic and then pick the 10 or 15 or 30 channels they watch does not benefit independent specialty channels as less people watch independent specialty channels. If you support this system that's fine, but you are supporting a system that hurts small independent broadcasters while claiming to be concerned for independent broadcasters at the same time.

    Hmmm... So, Bell, Shaw and Rogers are 100% respecting their nature of service and their licence conditions ?

    - How is Corus turning around that "OWN" channel lately into an educational channel ?
    - How does Bell justifies the usage of a "talk" channel with MTV reality and scripted shows ?

    Why do you worry about Cat B Gusto competing against Cat A Food considering only Bell, Telus and Eastlink are carrying it ?

    I'm not worried, I'm just pointing out how hypocritical you are. You say you are against specialty channels being able to air whatever they want, yet then praise Gusto for being a direct competitor to Food Network with a "luxury" licence.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,741
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Again, small independent specialty channels benefit from being put in bundles with popular channels. A system where people have a skinny basic and then pick the 10 or 15 or 30 channels they watch does not benefit independent specialty channels as less people watch independent specialty channels. If you support this system that's fine, but you are supporting a system that hurts small independent broadcasters while claiming to be concerned for independent broadcasters at the same time.
    As expected, you failed to see the big picture...

    Videotron is a provider that offers skinny basic with packages and pick-a-pack options. Apparently, 50% of their customers decided to pick their own channels. End results: :
    - french-language only customers don't have to pay for any other english-language channels than mandatory basic ones (TWN, CBC News, APTN, etc.), whether they pick the "franco" package or pick n pay.
    - low income customers can access and financially support to those independent Cat B specialties.
    - high income customers who choose a package with everything are already financing all of those popular and less popular specialties eventho they watch only 5 of them regularly.

    Everyone wins. The channel is way more easily accessible, to anyone. The customers don't have to inflate his cable bill to pay for channels he don't want. The service provider makes 100% profits regardless.
    How do you fail to see that ?


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    I'm not worried, I'm just pointing out how hypocritical you are. You say you are against specialty channels being able to air whatever they want, yet then praise Gusto for being a direct competitor to Food Network with a "luxury" licence.
    CRTC gave a licence to CHUM to air music videos with MuchMusic. What do they air instead ? Comedies. If an independent broadcaster actually wants to air music videos, why would Much current owners oppose the application ?
    CRTC gave a licence to Alliance-Atlantis to air historical-related programming. What do they air instead ? Home improvement reality shows ? Pawn shows ? If ANY independent broadcaster actually wants to launch a specialty channel to air actual history-related shows, they are more than welcomed.

    I don't see the problem with Gusto.
    "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."

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=InMontreal;66780]

    As expected, you failed to see the big picture...

    It's not the "big picture", it's just another one of your theories. You are trying to justify this as a win for independent stations despite the fact that independent stations are against the model!


    Videotron is a provider that offers skinny basic with packages and pick-a-pack options. Apparently, 50% of their customers decided to pick their own channels. End results: :
    - french-language only customers don't have to pay for any other english-language channels than mandatory basic ones (TWN, CBC News, APTN, etc.), whether they pick the "franco" package or pick n pay.
    - low income customers can access and financially support to those independent Cat B specialties.
    - high income customers who choose a package with everything are already financing all of those popular and less popular specialties eventho they watch only 5 of them regularly.

    Everyone wins. The channel is way more easily accessible, to anyone. The customers don't have to inflate his cable bill to pay for channels he don't want. The service provider makes 100% profits regardless.
    If everyone wins then everyone would already be doing it.

    How do you fail to see that ?

    Independent stations fail to see it. I will always fail to see your theories because I know what you base your theories on. You make up a theory on your own and then stick with it regardless of the facts. You have convinced yourself that this is a good thing for independent stations even though you have no idea if it actually is. I shouldn't be surprised as this fits in perfectly with the vast majority of your posts on this forum.


    CRTC gave a licence to CHUM to air music videos with MuchMusic. What do they air instead ? Comedies. If an independent broadcaster actually wants to air music videos, why would Much current owners oppose the application ?
    CRTC gave a licence to Alliance-Atlantis to air historical-related programming. What do they air instead ? Home improvement reality shows ? Pawn shows ? If ANY independent broadcaster actually wants to launch a specialty channel to air actual history-related shows, they are more than welcomed.

    I don't see the problem with Gusto.
    You are the one who said broadcasters shouldn't be allowed to air whatever they want so they don't compete against other independent channels. Now you are saying they should be allowed to compete against channels, as long as they compete against Bell Media and Shaw Media channels. Gusto can use a luxury licence to compete against Food Network, but Bell Media shouldn't be able to air whatever they want on their channels because they could use a licence to compete against an independent.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post
    - Merge the activities of Much, MTV, M3 and E! in the same channel. Much is still licenced as a music channel but wants to do comedies, MTV Canada is licenced as a talk channel but wants to air music-related shows but cannot air music videos whenever they invite an artist in the studio, and E! is about the showbusiness, music and movies related, exactly what Much was covering. M3 was licenced as an adult-oriented music channel, so it makes no sense to target teenagers.
    At the very least, they should rebrand MTV back to a talk channel like it's supposed to and move all the music related programming back on Much. There's LOTS of topics which could be covered by talk shows such as technology, politics and health. They could also run some syndicated U.S. "judge" shows and late night talk show reruns. Bell is actually making things worse by having both MTV and Much compete against each other with the music genre which only has enough room for one player in Canada.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by DrSat View Post
    At the very least, they should rebrand MTV back to a talk channel like it's supposed to and move all the music related programming back on Much. There's LOTS of topics which could be covered by talk shows such as technology, politics and health. They could also run some syndicated U.S. "judge" shows and late night talk show reruns. Bell is actually making things worse by having both MTV and Much compete against each other with the music genre which only has enough room for one player in Canada.
    Part of the issue is there a demand for an all talk channel look at how all news channels are doing now its not great.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,741
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    If everyone wins then everyone would already be doing it.
    Then why are canadians worried about ever-increasing cable bills ? That's because greedy BDUs like Shaw force their subscribers to level up their number of packages that includes Bell, Shaw and Corus specialties in order to get the ones from independent. The BDU wins with tons of profits, but the customer pays for a loaded s**t of channels he doesn't need, and Bell-Shaw-Corus always wins with those bundles.

    Why would Shaw Cable/Direct want their customers to reduce their bill ?

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    You are the one who said broadcasters shouldn't be allowed to air whatever they want so they don't compete against other independent channels. Now you are saying they should be allowed to compete against channels, as long as they compete against Bell Media and Shaw Media channels.
    Well, Bell and Shaw are currently taking hostage the protected "nature of licence", then are airing anything else on those channels except what it was created for in the first place. They love the value of their Cat A licences, but want to go too mainstream and lose focus on what "specialty" means.

    Quote Originally Posted by ottawasnowdog View Post
    Part of the issue is there a demand for an all talk channel look at how all news channels are doing now its not great.
    I'd say no. It's actually a funny story.

    Baton Broadcasting Inc was awarded a Cat A analog specialty licence on september 4, 1996 : http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/1996/db96-612.htm
    specialty television service devoted to talk programs. The programs broadcast on the proposed service will explore a wide range of topics, including social trends, relationships, daily news events, technology and controversial issues facing Canadian society.
    It launched 4 years later, Sept 1st, 2000, at a time when the CRTC was reviewing and approving new Cat A & Cat B digital licences. By 1998, Baton & CTV already merged, and by early 2000, CTV Inc was acquired by Bell Canada. Obviously, talkTV launched as an OPPORTUNITY licence which gave them an advantage of carriage on analog systems, while all other subsequent channels launching would be digital only. Digital penetration was low back in the days. Its schedule was basically a rerun service for whatever aired on CTV and Star!, was a money-losing specialty due to original productions nobody watched.

    TalkTV rebranded as MTV Canada on March 21, 2006, a few months after the other MTV Canada rebranded to Razer after CHUM purchased Craig Broadcasting that cancelled the MTV affiliation. Bell purchased CHUM in the summer of 2007.

    Just like CHUM launched Fashion, Book, SexTV, Drive-In, which were all scrapped after being purchased by Bell, well, Baton most likely had an idea for TalkTV, but its new owners don't know what to do with them... So no, there's no demand for an all-talk channel.

    On the other hand, if Bell ever moves MTV somewhere else (like Much) and reverts that licence back to TalkTV, there are lots of syndicated programming they can rerun :
    Daytime : Live with Kelly, Marilyn Denis 3 times a day, The Social 2 times a day, eTalk, Dr. Phil, The View, Ellen, Dr. Oz, Bethenny, Katie, Steve Harvey, Maury, Judge Judy, Rachael Ray, The Talk, Doctors, Chew, People's Court, The Test, Inside Edition, ET, Access Hollywood, Steve Wilkos, Jerry Springer, Judge Mathis, TMZ, The Insider... plus whatever original they have on E!
    Late Night : Letterman, Ferguson, Kimmel, Fallon, Meyers, Daly...
    And add whatever show they are allowed to air as MTV...
    "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."

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=InMontreal;66788]
    Then why are canadians worried about ever-increasing cable bills ? That's because greedy BDUs like Shaw force their subscribers to level up their number of packages that includes Bell, Shaw and Corus specialties in order to get the ones from independent. The BDU wins with tons of profits, but the customer pays for a loaded s**t of channels he doesn't need, and Bell-Shaw-Corus always wins with those bundles.

    Why would Shaw Cable/Direct want their customers to reduce their bill ?

    Well, Bell and Shaw are currently taking hostage the protected "nature of licence", then are airing anything else on those channels except what it was created for in the first place. They love the value of their Cat A licences, but want to go too mainstream and lose focus on what "specialty" means.
    And this is the problem with every single thing you post. You have a clear bias against certain broadcasters, you use this bias to form all the assumptions you make up without any facts. You convinced yourself that conglomerate channels with significantly higher ratings are benefiting from bundles because people have to buy them to access the independents, while ignoring that far fewer people actually watch these independent channels. Your theory is wrong and based on zero logic, but if that's what you want to believe fine, it fits in perfectly with everything else you post here, but just like everything else you post, don't expect me to ignore the facts and take this seriously. Keep on thinking the way you do.
    I'd say no. It's actually a funny story.

    Baton Broadcasting Inc was awarded a Cat A analog specialty licence on september 4, 1996 : http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/1996/db96-612.htm


    It launched 4 years later, Sept 1st, 2000, at a time when the CRTC was reviewing and approving new Cat A & Cat B digital licences. By 1998, Baton & CTV already merged, and by early 2000, CTV Inc was acquired by Bell Canada. Obviously, talkTV launched as an OPPORTUNITY licence which gave them an advantage of carriage on analog systems, while all other subsequent channels launching would be digital only. Digital penetration was low back in the days. Its schedule was basically a rerun service for whatever aired on CTV and Star!, was a money-losing specialty due to original productions nobody watched.

    TalkTV rebranded as MTV Canada on March 21, 2006, a few months after the other MTV Canada rebranded to Razer after CHUM purchased Craig Broadcasting that cancelled the MTV affiliation. Bell purchased CHUM in the summer of 2007.

    Just like CHUM launched Fashion, Book, SexTV, Drive-In, which were all scrapped after being purchased by Bell, well, Baton most likely had an idea for TalkTV, but its new owners don't know what to do with them... So no, there's no demand for an all-talk channel.

    On the other hand, if Bell ever moves MTV somewhere else (like Much) and reverts that licence back to TalkTV, there are lots of syndicated programming they can rerun :
    Daytime : Live with Kelly, Marilyn Denis 3 times a day, The Social 2 times a day, eTalk, Dr. Phil, The View, Ellen, Dr. Oz, Bethenny, Katie, Steve Harvey, Maury, Judge Judy, Rachael Ray, The Talk, Doctors, Chew, People's Court, The Test, Inside Edition, ET, Access Hollywood, Steve Wilkos, Jerry Springer, Judge Mathis, TMZ, The Insider... plus whatever original they have on E!
    Late Night : Letterman, Ferguson, Kimmel, Fallon, Meyers, Daly...
    And add whatever show they are allowed to air as MTV...
    They can't rerun programming Shaw Media has the rights to. Both Bell Media and Shaw Media have had very little success repeating CTV and Global's talk shows and other daytime programming on their specialty channels, an entire channel with just talk show repeats is not going to do well. Most of the people who watch these shows either watch them on CTV or Global (or the U.S. network) or watch them on the CTV and Global online and VOD service. It's just more effective to reach people who missed these shows during the day with Online and Video on Demand than it is repeating them on a specialty channel.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,741
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    And this is the problem with every single thing you post.
    Are you done discrediting me everytime you get the occasion ? It's getting old...

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    You have a clear bias against certain broadcasters, you use this bias to form all the assumptions you make up without any facts. You convinced yourself that conglomerate channels with significantly higher ratings are benefiting from bundles because people have to buy them to access the independents, while ignoring that far fewer people actually watch these independent channels.
    Well, DUH ! Independent channels are already less accessible since the big conglomerates already own the majority of Cat A / Cat C specialties !
    Bell Media is bullying independent BDUs into carrying their own channels in basic service is NOT helping.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    It's just more effective to reach people who missed these shows during the day with Online and Video on Demand than it is repeating them on a specialty channel.
    Canwest learned that lesson when they operated the Global Reality Channel. :o

    Keeping that in mind, that still don't explain the existence of Mystery TV (will become Crime + Investigation) : It's a rerun channel for all the show that airs on Global/Showcase : NCIS, Under the Dome, Extant, Beauty+Beast, Haven, Rookie Blue, Continuum, Elementary, and the same movies that aired on MovieTime... I admire your logic !
    "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."

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=InMontreal;66792]
    Are you done discrediting me everytime you get the occasion ? It's getting old...

    Well, DUH ! Independent channels are already less accessible since the big conglomerates already own the majority of Cat A / Cat C specialties !
    Bell Media is bullying independent BDUs into carrying their own channels in basic service is NOT helping.
    Okay, keep thinking like that if you want.

    Canwest learned that lesson when they operated the Global Reality Channel. :o
    Which is example of Shaw Media's extremely high standards. If a channel could be doing better, let alone low rated, it gets sold/shut down/re-branded, it's not kept alive like Book TV or Fashion Television.
    Keeping that in mind, that still don't explain the existence of Mystery TV (will become Crime + Investigation) : It's a rerun channel for all the show that airs on Global/Showcase : NCIS, Under the Dome, Extant, Beauty+Beast, Haven, Rookie Blue, Continuum, Elementary, and the same movies that aired on MovieTime... I admire your logic !

    My logic is the facts that repeats of soaps, talk shows, and celebrity newsmagazines have all performed poorly on specialty, It was tried and it simply didn't work so they were pulled from the schedule. Dramas and movies, especially the dramas aired on Mystery TV have been proven to be much stronger repeat performers. That being said, Mystery TV is re-branding to Crime + Investigation with new original programming to do even better, another example of Shaw Media's extremely high standards, a channel that performs well is getting a re-brand to do even better.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,461
    Shaw and Bell seem to be doing a variety of things to make sure that cable/satellite TV remains a desirable commodity, as well as also increasing their online presence, by adding more content.

    Shaw no longer really "needs" the Mystery channel because Shaw improved upon its online deals with the various broadcasters. Extra revenue comes in from the apps they license and then TV subscribers now have access to extra online episodes (of certain shows, anyway) for a longer period of time than in the past. The official websites of the Canadian broadcasters are now able to behave more like a PVR, by offering more VOD content.

    There are still going to be content gaps (with the online offerings) because there are still many American or UK shows that the Canadian websites don't have the online rights for (or they are very limited rights); that's where the Canadian specialty channel reruns (and perhaps some Cable TV VOD offerings) can come in handy for the viewers looking to fill those content gaps ... without having to perhaps locate the desired content on a foreign website that might require a VPN, etc., to access it. Sure, Showcase is one of the many Canadian channels guilty of stockpiling some fresh summer content for the fall, etc., but most cable/satellite subscribers seem to be willing to wait for the later Canadian debuts (obviously, some Canadians won't wait, and will instead jump online to the foreign or pirate sites to get what they want, without the wait).

    Most first-run talk shows on the major and minor networks tend to air at times when the competition is much weaker. So, if you turn on your TV to watch LIVE TV in the morning or afternoon (or perhaps repeated content in the wee hours of the morning), you might find yourself killing time with a Live talk show with an interesting guest, before you turn on your PVR to watch last night's Tonight Show, TV drama, or instead decide to access the Internet to watch something you missed on TV, via a Canadian website. If that same talk show you watched earlier in the day, had aired in primetime on a specialty channel, you're more likely to not have even noticed it, simply because you were instead watching something LIVE, or at least more popular in primetime.

    With so much content to choose from, it's not surprising that the broadcasters want to diversify all of their channels (as well as sharing unrelated content on each of their channels), yet still maintain the illusion of following the CRTC guidelines. It's like the broadcasters are all using steroids, simply because they know that the CRTC isn't trying that hard to enforce the rules of the game.

    As the major players get rid of even more of their less popular channels (even if they're profitable), so that they can be rebranded into something perhaps more popular, it will be the independent channels that most Canadians will want to ignore ... often because the really popular programming (and some less popular, perhaps unwanted foreign content) is tied up by the major players. It helps to have big bucks and great content partners to maintain a winning team in the big leagues.
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,741
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Which is example of Shaw Media's extremely high standards. If a channel could be doing better, let alone low rated, it gets sold/shut down/re-branded, it's not kept alive like Book TV or Fashion Television.
    Huh. To be more accurate, Shaw shuts down Cat B specialties after keeping it in Zombie state on life support (CoolTV, X-treme Sports, Fox Sports World, Global Reality Channel). Dejaview is one of the remaining Cat B overlooked channel re-running the same library of shows 10+ years later and kept alive for the few millions in pocket change of subscription revenues it generates.

    But they keep Cat A specialties on life support and renew its content with a rebrand, stetching its nature of service.
    - Prime became TVtropolis, then Dtour. It targets 50+ demographics per nature of service, but kept having identity crisis. Now it's a Travel channel.
    - Discovery Health Canada became Twist TV, a sorry excuse for a Slice rerun channel. It becomes FYI next month, but how FYI relates to "health, wellness and medicine" is to be proven...
    - IFC Canada is another Cat A licence. It basically airs movies from Hollywood studios like 20th Century Fox... It get more renewed content than Dejaview, but just like BBC Canada, it distances itself (miles away) from its american counterpart.
    "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."

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,461
    Okay, time to be less positive and embrace the darkness ...

    Canada certainly has some sorry excuses for tv channels. Many of them seem even more redundant, now that the Internet has become a huge source for content. I like the term "Zombie" channels ... they are all walking dead. How do you kill a Zombie channel on life-support? You cut the cord, and say goodbye to cable/satellite tv.

    IFC Canada could easily be yet another generic independent channel that most people wouldn't want to pay for, but it is owned by Shaw. Many channels seem to exist, simply to air older HBO and Showtime content, mixed in with some movies that act as even more filler.

    BBC Canada: God bless the Queen, but Mike Holmes is the King of BBC Canada. A Shaw disaster, but still filled with watchable content that often airs much later than it should ... in glorious SD.

    DejaView/Comedy Gold: The US OTA channels do indeed do retro-TV much better than Canada, but since there were many upset Canadians when Tvtropolis was rebranded, DejaView can fill a void for those not willing to buy/borrow DVDs, or watch the content elsewhere.

    CosmoTV (Corus/Hearst): It's a channel ... I don't know what else to say.

    BiteTV (Blue Ant Media): An independent channel that seems to be trying to make a name for itself, even though the current content could easily be aired on many of Shaw's weaker channels.

    Still, some people watch these channels, either because they flip through all the channels they subscribe to (in a theme pack, etc.), and then eventually land on one showing something that they haven't seen in years, or perhaps they've been in a coma for the last 20 years and want to sample a bunch of things that they have slept through.

    As long as rebranded channels air fresh content, it doesn't really matter if I'd watch that content or not. Canadians deserve the right to watch the same crap that the Americans watch, including the crap that I watch online. We miss out on a lot of quality content as well, but that's part of our cultural identity. We're never going to be #1 when it comes to gaining access to fresh content, but thanks to Shaw, we'll always have Mike Holmes.
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [QUOTE=InMontreal;66795]

    Huh. To be more accurate, Shaw shuts down Cat B specialties after keeping it in Zombie state on life support (CoolTV, X-treme Sports, Fox Sports World, Global Reality Channel). Dejaview is one of the remaining Cat B overlooked channel re-running the same library of shows 10+ years later and kept alive for the few millions in pocket change of subscription revenues it generates.

    It's a top 20 most watched digital channel. It has more people actually watching it than all those independent channels you personally think are better. Any channel just sitting back and surviving off subscription revenue from people who don't watch it (aka: almost every single independent channel) is a waste for Shaw Media as they could be making more money with a channel people actually watch, which results in even better subscriber fees in addition to advertising revenue.


    But they keep Cat A specialties on life support and renew its content with a rebrand, stetching its nature of service.
    They re-brand the weakest performers within Shaw Media (and what Shaw Media considers a weak performer is a strong performer for most other broadcasters) to do even better and serve more audiences. That's what it's all about, serving audiences with programming they want. They wont please everyone, and they clearly don't please you but pleasing you would be idiotic as you are complaining about the programming schedules of the most popular specialty channels on television.

    - Prime became TVtropolis, then Dtour. It targets 50+ demographics per nature of service, but kept having identity crisis. Now it's a Travel channel.

    TVtropolis was re-branded to DTOUR to improve ratings, but travel programming is PERFECT for a channel that appeals to viewers 50+. This is a demographic that loves to travel and has the time to travel not to mention the money to take an extended family on vacation. Their licence does not allow them to air a lot of the scripted programming viewers over 50 enjoy, so they are going with the programming the station is allowed to air, and they are doing a very good job at airing programming that still does well with Adults 25-54 (necessary to exist) while also appealing to the 50+ demographic.

    - Discovery Health Canada became Twist TV, a sorry excuse for a Slice rerun channel. It becomes FYI next month, but how FYI relates to "health, wellness and medicine" is to be proven...

    Twist TV was an improvement over Discovery Health, and FYI is going to be an even bigger improvement with a full new lineup of fresh content (which is already doing well in the U.S.) You are against conglomerate channels surviving off subscriber fees with nobody watching, yet then you complain when they change their schedule to bring more viewers to the channel. If Shaw Media operated this channel under your narrow unrealistic definition of its licence then it would be one of those channels only surviving off carriage fees.

    - IFC Canada is another Cat A licence. It basically airs movies from Hollywood studios like 20th Century Fox... It get more renewed content than Dejaview, but just like BBC Canada, it distances itself (miles away) from its american counterpart

    Since you complained about the Canadian HISTORY (Canada's #1 non-sports specialty channel and a huge contributor to popular Canadian content) airing top rated programming from the U.S. HISTORY channel that in your personal opinion does not fit within the nature of service for HISTORY I'm sure if IFC Canada was airing all the same programming as the U.S. IFC you would be complaining that IFC isn't following its nature of service, the U.S. IFC re-branded long ago and confirmed that IFC no longer stands for Independent Film Channel and is just simply a brand. So you would be complaining regardless.
    Last edited by TVViewer; 08-12-2014 at 10:01 PM.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,461
    Hasn't the soul of IFC Canada already been ripped from its being? Isn't it in fact an actual Zombie channel feeding on unsuspecting victims? In this age of Netflix, and other online choices for stale movie releases, how many "movie" channels does a typical cable/satellite subscriber actually want or need.

    I think it might be best for many of the Canadian channels, like IFC Canada, to literally be kicked to the curb, for the greater good. What actual movies/shows would only ever air on IFC Canada that couldn't air on other (Shaw, etc.) channels? If IFC Canada was somehow the #1 rated Canadian specialty channel, what would that say about Canadians? And if it was indeed the #1 rated channel, that would be scary.

    Rebranded channels often get higher ratings, but in some cases it might simply be because the viewers are now willing to watch to see what's changed. If the viewership remains solid for many years after the rebrand, that's a good sign, but at some point, another rebrand might also increase the ratings.

    The fresh content is the key to any channel, but when the content consists mostly of older movies and heavily-rotated repeat programming that the average viewer is bound to be sick of, at some point, the CRTC would be wise to step in and pull the plug on the license.

    If we had only 20 specialty channels to watch and they were all like IFC Canada, I assume that the majority of cable/satellite subscribers would cut the cord, and stick with Netflix, public libraries, etc.

    If we only had 20 specialty channels like DTOUR and History (reality or family-based programming), I don't think that the majority of subscribers would cut the cord.

    If we only had 20 specialty sports channels like TSN and Sportsnet, then I'm not really sure what would happen. Perhaps 50% would cut the cord, simply because they were not sports fans.

    If we only had 20 (Premium) Movie channels like HBO and no other specialty channels, the high price of each Premium movie channel might be enough to force the majority of the cable/satellite subscribers to cut the cord and get those movies elsewhere, unless they stayed subscribers to order some of the PPV On-Demand movies (movie kiosks, anyone?).

    It's obviously best to have a greater variety of specialty channels to keep subscribers from cutting the cord (though some without OTA or Internet access, still need cable to watch the major networks), but when there are so many specialty channels that are duplicated to such a degree, that there's very little difference between them, eventually somebody in charge has to say: Enough is enough! Kill those Zombie channels!

    Until the Americans cut down on the amount of "garbage" (no real definition, it's more of an experience thing) content that they produce, I hope that Canada will continue to let us sample it all. However, the Zombie channels both in Canada and the US, do NOT need to be duplicated in such large numbers, and regardless of what the ratings are, the actual content is not special or original enough to warrant the existence of so many of these Zombie channels (like IFC Canada and CosmoTV).
    Last edited by PokerFace; 08-12-2014 at 11:23 PM. Reason: typo
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto area
    Posts
    1,047
    "Zombie channels" -- good phrase.
    I've seen some comments comparing what has already happened in the music business to what is now starting to happen in the TV business. Like record companies, TV channels will still exist, but the number of them will shrink and they'll probably ignore anything "niche" and only be involved with whatever the TV programming equivalent is of the type of music acts that appear on the MTV Awards. The broadcast networks are already like that.

    While I was recently at Mosport, where the track announcers are broadcast on a low power FM frequency but sometimes shut off for a few minutes between races, I flipped around to see what other radio stations I could get. It made me think, if music video TV channels are becoming a thing of the past thanks to the internet and other technology, how and why do music radio stations survive?
    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...it-used-to-be/

    I can understand people in their cars listening to news, sports, and talk stations. But in 2014, who wants to be stuck listening to songs you don't choose and may not like, being played over and over again with repetitive ads and DJs interrupting, even if it may be the genre of music you like? I don't.
    Last edited by Donovan's Monkey; 08-19-2014 at 03:53 PM.

 

 

Posting Permissions

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