Traditional media in Canada is not threatened by new media: CBC
UPDATE: CBC responds. See below.
Contrary to most leading opinion in the space, traditional media is not, in fact, being threatened by technologies like Internet television and iPods. Further, it would be a waste of time to create Internet-only content if the goal is to generate advertising revenue.
That’s the CBC’s official position, as articulated in a submission last week to the CRTC titled Reject Old Assumptions About New Media.
The document is a short 13-page PDF document. Here is my summary of its main points.
(CBC management: Like all carbon-based life forms, I make mistakes. I’ve made several here before. If I’ve misinterpreted something, please join the discussion in the comments. And hey, just for fun, shall we assume silence means I’ve got it right? <grin>)
- Traditional TV and radio usage is not being displaced by the Internet.
- Amateur video will never be a substitute for traditional media, particularly entertainment programming.
- It would be a waste time for traditional media companies to create Internet-only content if the goal is to generate advertising revenue.
- Most Canadians use the Internet primarily as a communications and research tool (Ed: Implying that most Canadians do not use the Internet for entertainment.)
- The trend is towards personalizing and controlling media, not developing new ways to consume it.
The points argued by the CBC in its submission appear diametrically opposed to the opinions of most thought-leaders who work in new media and broadcasting. The Corporation, downplaying the amount of opinion to the contrary, admits it stands largely alone in its assessment of the current landscape:
“There appears to be an assumption in some [Ed: Emphasis added] industry literature that broadcasting content found on new media is reducing the consumption of traditional radio and television…. This broad assumption is false, and empirical data refute this hypothesis.”
My opinion: One can’t dispute the hard numbers — they’re sourced from reputable organizations like BBM Neilson Media Research. (Although I’m afraid I just can not accept the stat quoted that fewer than 1% of Canadians watch broadcast television over the Internet.)
More than that, I’m concerned that the submission illustrates only the current reality — there’s no articulation of any vision for the future here.
- We have producers who are winning prestigious international awards as they develop new forms of entertainment media. Did we ask them where they think we should be going? I’d rather put my money on the “gut feel” of those folks than statistical forecasts generated from surveys and focus groups conducted months ago — remember “months” is an eternity in today’s new media world.
- We have an industry-leading media research team in Toronto. Were they tasked to chart out likely scenarious using widely available results from other public broadcasters around the world? Did we meet with the BBC or ABC or NPR to get a sense where we’ll be in ten years? If so, what do they think?
The conclusions in this submission seem way off base to me, and it lack of vision scares me.
Then again, I also have a mortgage to pay. So I’ll shut up now and turn it over to you.
What do you think?
Note: If you’re a CBC insider, consider posting your thoughts from your home computer. I’m just sayin’. Besides, shouldn’t you be working right now and not reading the semi-coherent ramblings of a freelance radio producer?
CBC’s Response
Hey Tod,
I am worried that some of your contributors may be taking your synopsis of our submission, which highlights only a couple of its points, as the sum total of our position.
To be clear, CBC/Radio-Canada believes that the new media world is a large and important part of its future. It is a central pillar of the strategic themes identified in the Challenge Us! process. Providing space for Canadian expression on the maximum number of platforms that Canadians want to use to consume media is, we believe and multiple Parliamentary committees have confirmed, now part of our mandate. As you know, we are expending a lot of energy and creativity on developing new ways of providing that space either using current resources or by finding new ways of generating funds.
Last week’s submission was not our last word on the subject. The Commission will initiate a broad review in the fall and we intend, as usual, to submit a fully developed, forward-looking position that describes our role and how it fits into the larger system.
Last week’s filing was a preliminary one, in response to the CRTC’s initial question of whether it was framing the issues properly. We did not want the public debate to move forward and public policy decisions to be contemplated based on what we perceived to be two faulty assumptions in the Commission’s framing of the issues. And those are:
1. That the consumption of broadcasting content found on new media is replacing the consumption of traditional broadcast media, particularly television; and
2. That new media represents a major business opportunity for Canadian broadcasters.
Today and, to the extent that we can foresee, into the future, the vast majority of high quality broadcast content found on any platform is going to be produced by traditional broadcasters. Public policy decisions based on the assumption that that supply of quality Canadian content will be financed by a one-for-one shift of revenue from traditional to new media would lead to a severe weakening of the country’s main creators of Canadian broadcasting content.
That is not the CRTC’s intention and we want to ensure that the debate from the outset reflects not only the future potential but the current reality of the new media universe.
Thanks,
Steven Guiton
Regulatory Affairs
|
Email This Post |
| Technology, The CRTC |
Point #4 “Most Canadians use the Internet primarily as a communications and research tool” tells me people 25 and older were interviewed for these surveys. What about the 18 and younger crowd? I’d say the majority of that group use the Internet for entertainment … and they’re going to be the CBCs new audience in the not-to-distant future.
Or perhaps not.
Interesting to note too, Tod, that many of the others putting their two cents in as part of this CRTC process feel the CBC is best-equipped (and indeed destined) to play the role of a “public service broadcaster” in the new media realm.
In UK broadcasting parlance, a “public service broadcaster” is one that is motivated less by market factors (i.e. profitability, progressive revenue growth, etc.), and more by a mandate to create art and cultural products, usually with some modicum of public support, and generally “push the envelope” with regards to new platforms, new thinking about content, etc.
I’m not sure if the CBC’s submission supports or rejects that suggestion, but Canada’s public broadcaster seems to have moved away from it after abandoning brave experiments such as ZeD, Exposure, jPod/xPod, etc.
CBC has always been a biased and clueless entity and it really doesn’t matter what CBC says or wants us to believe. Who watches/listens to CBC these days when other private channels are doing way better!?!?
CBC is a loser in this battle.
NPR seems to be heading the same direction, canceling the youth-focused “Bryant Park Project” morning show and generally “protecting” their member stations from Internet competition that might reduce pledges to the stations. Ironically, a few of their affiliates seem to better understand the Internet and the youth market. Just look at some of the things WNYC is doing (Radio Lab, Radio Rookies, The Takeaway, etc.)
The CBC has no such funding excuse for keeping its head similarly in the sand. I’m rather shocked by this CBC submission. What do they think they are protecting?
point #6 – insert head into ass, bury in sand.
On the other hand, a wide variety of CBC Radio shows are available by podcast. CBC News is available by Twitter. The CBC show Spark had an episode written by wiki.
While they don’t think it is in immanent danger of replacing radio and TV, they seem willing to play in the space.
Although they did cancel Search Engine.
That report is astounding. A stunning example of shocking myopia.
And you’re going to stay quiet, Tod? I thought Tod Maffin stood for something.
Do I have to do all the heavy lifting here?
Those two conclusions go a long way in explaining why the CBC is stalled in using the internet – it makes no difference to the bottom line.
So cbc.ca and podcasts are deemed an unprofitable public service.
No reference to the internet being a new dimension in communication. Apparently it’s just another gadget.
It goes to the core of my concern about the CBC.
Am halfway through the document and already the CBC looks more foolish than I was prepared to believe.
This is absurd.
Are they suggesting that cablevision had no effect on the CBC?
So the iPod has had no effect on radio, and neither has XM and Sirius.
That’s like suggesting iTunes has no impact on CD sales.
Progressive is not a word we associate with the CBC. (but Conservative is!) A more appropriate word is Petrified, as in a state of paralysis resulting from fear.
Who wrote this report? The same people who negotiated the licensing agreement for the HNIC theme song?
CBC management seems to be burning both ends at once: first they’re chopping vigorously into the programming that typically appeals to the older crowd, now they’re completely ignoring the big push from the younger demo. It’s getting harder to resist conspiracy theories about by making the CBC irrelevant and then claiming it has to go because it’s irrelevant.
It might be fun to post things that maybe some people should be reading. I’ll start.
This one might as well be titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.”:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080718-major-eu-p2presearch-project-hopes-to-kill-traditional-tv.html
And here we see what happens when old media types get a sudden terrifying glimpse of the future:
http://adage.com/brightcove/single.php?bcpid=1370868150bctid=1655754265
Hey Tod,
I am worried that some of your contributors may be taking your synopsis of our submission, which highlights only a couple of its points, as the sum total of our position.
To be clear, CBC/Radio-Canada believes that the new media world is a large and important part of its future. It is a central pillar of the strategic themes identified in the Challenge Us! process. Providing space for Canadian expression on the maximum number of platforms that Canadians want to use to consume media is, we believe and multiple Parliamentary committees have confirmed, now part of our mandate. As you know, we are expending a lot of energy and creativity on developing new ways of providing that space either using current resources or by finding new ways of generating funds.
Last week’s submission was not our last word on the subject. The Commission will initiate a broad review in the fall and we intend, as usual, to submit a fully developed, forward-looking position that describes our role and how it fits into the larger system.
Last week’s filing was a preliminary one, in response to the CRTC’s initial question of whether it was framing the issues properly. We did not want the public debate to move forward and public policy decisions to be contemplated based on what we perceived to be two faulty assumptions in the Commission’s framing of the issues. And those are:
1. That the consumption of broadcasting content found on new media is replacing the consumption of traditional broadcast media, particularly television; and
2. That new media represents a major business opportunity for Canadian broadcasters.
Today and, to the extent that we can foresee, into the future, the vast majority of high quality broadcast content found on any platform is going to be produced by traditional broadcasters. Public policy decisions based on the assumption that that supply of quality Canadian content will be financed by a one-for-one shift of revenue from traditional to new media would lead to a severe weakening of the country’s main creators of Canadian broadcasting content.
That is not the CRTC’s intention and we want to ensure that the debate from the outset reflects not only the future potential but the current reality of the new media universe.
Thanks,
Steven Guiton
Regulatory Affairs
Gah. That last link should be: http://adage.com/brightcove/single.php?bcpid=1370868150&bctid=1655754265
[...] CBC blog, July 18 2008 [...]
The CBC may actually be right (I know this is hard for many to believe.) A 2006 StatsCan report, Our Lives in Digital Times demonstrates conclusively that “old” media continue to exist quite happily with new media. There is a strong marketing component behind new media that continually depicts it as the wave of the future that will destroy old media. Facts do not bear this point of view out. Check it out on StatsCan’s website.
Triple gah!
There’s a “Challenge US! process” ???
Tod, have you been keeping the good stuff from your readers?
Just for clarity here, are the key words “replace” (as in, new media will not replace traditional media, just supplement it) and “major” (as in, new media is not a major business opportunity, just an opportunity)?
I can buy both those arguments and I guess the original document does leave that impression, but that would all be quite subtle.
Lance Gleich, Toronto ON
@ Lance Gleich:
I found Our Lives in Digital Times (PDF) for anyone else who’s interested….
[...] of bad timing, but just a couple of weeks ago, a CBC submission to the CRTC more-or-less argued Canadians aren’t using the Internet for entertainment. (you can read the CBC’s full position [...]
[...] of bad timing, but just a couple of weeks ago, a CBC submission to the CRTC more-or-less argued Canadians aren’t using the Internet for entertainment. (you can read the CBC’s full position [...]