Speech
Notes for an address
by Charles Dalfen
Chairman, Canadian Radio-television
and Telecommunications Commission
to the Banff Television Festival
Banff, Alberta
June 14th, 2005
(CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY)
Good afternoon. It's always a pleasure to come out to this festival in Banff, and I'm delighted to join you again today.
It's a particular pleasure this year, now that breakfast with the CRTC has at last become lunch with the CRTC. A sincere thank you to Bob and Janet and their teams, from this non-morning person.
The subject that I want to focus on today makes me think of a scene from an early episode of Corner Gas.
Lacey, the hip young woman from Toronto who's dealing with the culture shock of living in Dog River, Saskatchewan, walks into the town bar looking for a glass of wine.
“What's your house red?” she asks.
“Not sure,” the bartender says.
And then he shouts back to the kitchen.
“What's it say on that bag of wine over there? No, not that one – that's ketchup.”
To which Lacey replies, “Never mind. I'll have a beer.”
Sometimes, when the market isn't supplying what we'd really like to have, we settle for something else. That's as true in television as it is in beverages.
I'm convinced that many Canadians would love to have a wide range of quality Canadian drama productions to watch.
And I'm equally convinced that if this were the case, then Canadian, English-language productions would win a lot more than the roughly 11 to 12 percent share of viewing to all English-language drama that they get today.
Three years ago, almost to the day, I spoke to this same television festival, and I urged you to provide us with a television series that would crack the top 10 in the viewer ratings for regularly scheduled dramatic series.
This year, you did it! Corner Gas – produced by Prairie Pants Productions and aired by CTV – broke into the top 10 four times. Congratulations to everyone involved.
We need more successes like this.
We need more Canadian drama productions that can compete for viewers with the best American shows, which attract the vast majority of English-language viewers.
We welcome the Government's focus on this important goal in its response to the Lincoln Report, and by the total commitment to it by our Minister, the Honorable Liza Frulla, as a means of maintaining and enhancing Canada 's cultural sovereignty.
Like everyone here I was delighted to hear Minister Frulla announce the one-year extension of funding for the CTF, as well as her commitment to work with her Cabinet colleagues to secure long-term funding.
We've been wringing our hands for decades about getting English-language viewers to watch Canadian, rather than American, drama.
The picture is different for French-language Canadian drama, which routinely captures about half of the audience for all drama on French-language television.
The CRTC – in line with the objectives of the Broadcasting Act – has tried in many ways over the last 25 years to issue policies and decisions that would lead to more Canadian TV sets tuned to more Canadian English-language dramas.
But the outcome has been consistently disappointing because the total audience has never surpassed about 12%.
What can we conclude from this? And where do we go from here?
I suppose some might say: “Look, there's no arguing with popular taste. If most Canadians want to watch American programs, then so be it. Stop banging your head against a wall.”
Well, I'm not ready to throw in the towel just yet.
When I became the Commission's chairman three years ago, one of my priorities was to give a boost to the success of English-language Canadian drama productions on television. And my colleagues on the Commission have been fully supportive of that priority.
Home-grown drama is – or ought to be – the cornerstone of our broadcasting system, for two very important reasons.
First, our data show that on any given evening, Canadians on average are more likely to be watching a drama production than any other genre, be it news, variety or sports.
Second, Canadian television drama is, if you like, a meeting place – a nightly electronic gathering of creators, artists and audiences – telling and listening to stories about ourselves, our values and our day-to-day life as Canadians.
Our broadcasting system ought to reflect “Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity.”
Parliament endorsed that principle when it passed the Broadcasting Act of 1991. A fair interpretation of this principle is that we need to see more Canadian viewers looking forward to more great English-language Canadian drama productions that speak to our experiences, our sense of humor, our joy and sorrow, our rich cultural diversity and our images of ourselves. We're not going to get to that point by way of Desperate Housewives, The Apprentice or The Swan.
I know you feel as strongly about this as I do, and I know you agree that the fruits of your imagination, your creativity and your technical skill ought to be occupying a bigger piece of the collective Canadian TV screen.
So what do we do? And “we” really is the operative word here. The challenge is beyond what the CRTC can, or should, handle on its own.
The recipe for success, though difficult to execute, is simple to state: broadcasters must demand more Canadian drama content give it pride of place in their programming and promote it vigorously; the production community must produce great content. And, most of all, viewers must want to watch it.
As for the Commission, we want to help bring about conditions that will spur broadcasters, producers and artists to collaborate in creating and airing Canadian dramas that will compete with the best that the Americans – and the world – have to offer.
Let me talk for a moment about the CRTC's approach to drama.
In broad terms, there are three roads we can go down – and over the years, we've traveled them all.
The first is to do nothing.
We could impose no requirements on broadcasters and offer them no inducements related to English-language Canadian drama.
That's what the Commission did up until 1979 – when we first imposed minimum requirements of hours of original Canadian drama on CTV, by condition of licence.
As some of you may remember, our proposal was contested in the courts, but was finally upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, and went into effect in 1982.
And that, of course, is the second approach, which is to mandate a minimum supply of English-language drama, either by requiring a minimum number of broadcast hours or of spending on English-language Canadian drama productions.
The Commission adopted these regulatory approaches for nearly 20 years. It's interesting to look at what happened during that long period.
In 1982, the year that the first drama conditions of licence went into effect at CTV, viewing to Canadian drama was about 4 percent of viewing to all television drama.
And now, over two decades later, our most recent data tell us that the figure has just touched 12 percent.
All of the growth in viewing to Canadian drama happened mainly in two spurts. The first was from 4 to 7 percent, and it occurred between 1984 and 1986. The new CTV conditions of licence may have been a factor. But it's also important to note that the growth began one year after the launch of the $60 million Canadian Broadcast Program Development Fund in 1983.
After 1986, viewing to Canadian drama was virtually flat through to 1996. This despite the fact that in 1987, Global TV's new conditions of licence related to hours and spending on Canadian programming (including drama), came into effect, and new CTV conditions related to spending on Canadian programming (including drama) came into force.
On top of that, the Commission imposed minimum requirements for hours of Canadian drama – Global's requirements became effective in 1992, and CTV's in 1994.
Even with these regulatory requirements, the share of viewing to Canadian drama was only 1 percentage point higher in 1996 than it was, 10 years before, in 1986.
The second spurt in viewing – from 8 percent to 11 percent – occurred between 1996 and 1999.
That coincided with the launching of the $100 million Canadian Television Fund in 1996.
The only relevant regulatory action during that period was a small increase, in 1996, of Global's minimum broadcast requirement for Canadian drama from 3.5 hours per week to 4 hours.
In the year 2000, the new TV policy came into effect, introducing requirements for “priority programming” rather than specific targets for drama.
Well before that point, the share of viewing to Canadian drama had started to flatten out: it was 10 percent in 1997 and 98, and 11 percent in 1999 and 2000.
Viewing remained at 11 percent in 2001 and 2002, and just bumped up to 12 percent in the fall of 2003.
What story do these statistics tell us?
Although it's difficult to prove exactly what caused changes in viewing to Canadian drama, it is at the very least interesting to note that:
- each of the two significant up-ticks in viewing to Canadian drama coincided with the introduction of a major funding mechanism; and
- none of our regulatory actions in the late 80s and early 90s related to minimum hours and spending appear to have been associated with a meaningful rise in viewing.
Where does that leave us?
Doing nothing is not an option, as far as I'm concerned.
But imposing spending and airtime requirements on broadcasters has yielded disappointing results.
A third approach is to motivate, but not force, broadcasters to show more new Canadian drama productions that viewers will want to watch.
The tool is financial incentives.
The idea is to make it more attractive for broadcasters to invest in, broadcast, and draw viewers to, Canadian drama.
That means making new resources available that broadcasters can choose to invest in drama.
And then we monitor the results – in terms of drama hours, spending and viewing – and pose the necessary questions to broadcasters regarding drama production at licence-renewal time.
The Canadian Television Fund has been part of this approach, and so has the CRTC benefits policy – which requires that anyone applying to acquire or take control of a broadcast undertaking must make a financial contribution, equal to 10 percent of the value of the transaction, that will generate “clear and unequivocal tangible benefits”.
And over the last year, we reinforced the approach of motivating rather than compelling broadcasters by introducing the new drama incentives.
The incentive policy focuses strictly on drama, while the scope of the CTF and the benefits policy is broader.
I know that some people in this room might wish to see the Commission return to requiring minimum Canadian drama hours or spending – the approach that we followed before the CRTC's televison policy came into effect in 2000.
I can tell you that we will, in the course of reviewing our major policies, certainly be reviewing the television policy. English-language drama is of course just one part – albeit an important one – of that policy.
And where English language drama is concerned, the old approach – as I described a moment ago – appears to have done little, if anything, to increase the viewing by Canadians of Canadian drama productions.
And so, we need to try something else, and see if it will result in viewing levels that we were unable to achieve with the mandatory approach.
The new incentives for English-language drama are a big part of the “something else”.
As you know, broadcasters who choose to sign up for the incentives will be rewarded with additional advertising minutes in return for more broadcasting hours of original English-language Canadian drama, more spending on it, and more viewing to it.
Creating incentives related to viewership is an important new element – and we will be watching closely to see if it encourages broadcasters to make promotional and scheduling decisions that help ensure that new shows are not only produced and aired, but also watched.
Incentives were also designed to account for the fact that demand for CTF money outstrips the supply. Broadcasters are offered extra advertising credit for drama productions that are not funded by the CTF.
At the same time, we didn't want to award additional advertising minutes in exchange for a level of English-language Canadian drama that broadcasters might have aired anyway, even without the incentive program. That's why incentives for CTV, CHUM and Global – the largest licencees – are only applicable to programming above and beyond a baseline of 26 hours of English-language Canadian drama in a given year.
As you know, we also announced incentives related to original, French-language Canadian productions.
The purpose was different than for the English-language incentives. The French-language incentive program aims to help ensure that the relatively high viewing of Canadian productions is maintained, and to encourage the production of high-cost programs or series.
Now comes the question: is an incentive approach going to be effective, particularly for English-language television where the imbalance between domestic and foreign drama programming is so acute?
I won't be able to answer that until we get some experience with the incentive program under our belt.
All of the major private broadcasters have applied to participate in it. We will monitor developments closely, looking to see how, and how widely, the incentives are used, and what impact they are having. We believe that a 5-year evaluation period is appropriate, combined with annual reviews and progress report.
Renewal hearings for the CTV and Global broadcasting licences will take place about two years from now, and that will be an appropriate time to assess whether we need to adjust the incentive program, or introduce some other regulatory action in order to ensure that Canadian drama flourishes.
I have taken note of the CCAU report that was released yesterday and this morning I met with the unions that commissioned the report. I'm always pleased when interested parties put time and effort into making a substantive contribution to the public debate about broadcasting, and I look forward to the unions' ongoing participation in this important area.
At the end of the day – and especially on the English-language side – it's all about attracting a bigger share of viewing to more hours of original Canadian productions.
Our goal is that five years from now, we will have gained a substantial increase in viewing to Canadian drama.
As we indicated in the Public Notice issued in November, the incentive program will reward broadcasters who contribute to the overall goal by increasing viewing to Canadian drama on their own services.
We will shortly be issuing a viewing objective for the industry as a whole and for the different ownership groups as well as proposed expenditure targets.
Even though it's too early to form judgments, what reason do I have to be optimistic that we are on the right track now as far as English-language drama is concerned?
I'd be naive, or dreaming, if I were to say I'm convinced we've finally got it right. But I feel guardedly optimistic, because there are recent signs of a resurgence in the production of original Canadian content for TV – in drama, and in other genres as well.
Demand for CTF funding is a useful bellwether.
The CTF announced last month that it will back 10 one-hour drama series on English-language television next year – that's up from six last year. As well, the CTF agreed to fund 12 half-hour drama series, up from nine last year.
Positive signs are also coming from the production of Canadian feature films. It's reaping major benefits from the rapid growth of video-on-demand, pay-per-view, and pay television services.
The Commission's licensing requirements for these services generated a contribution of $85 million to Canadian programming expenditures and Canadian production funds in 2004, compared to just $27 million in 2000. Most of this funding goes to Canadian feature films.
To put this in perspective, total box office receipts of Canadian feature films in 2004 were $41 million.
The benefits policy – which I mentioned a few minutes ago – has pumped over $500 million into the Canadian broadcasting system since the policy was revised in 1999.
The transfer of CTV to BCE in 2000 – alone – spun out $140 million in benefits to priority programming.
It's fair to say that Corner Gas might never have happened – or might never have enjoyed so much success – if it hadn't been for the benefits policy. We're also seeing a revival of the long-form documentary on Canadian television. Before 2000, there were few, if any, Canadian long-form documentaries broadcast on the flagship stations of CTV, Global and TVA.
But data that we'll be releasing soon will show that these three stations broadcast 228 hours of Canadian long-form documentaries in prime time last year.
Congratulations to Peter Raymont for winning the Best Feature Length Documentary and the Best Canadian Program at the Rockie Awards last night for “ Shake Hands with the Devil: The Journey of Romeo Dallaire.”
To be successful, both drama and documentary – like all television – must accurately reflect the society from which it emerges. That's why the CRTC has made cultural diversity a priority for our broadcasting system.
And we are pleased that broadcasters and producers are taking up the challenge.
All of this makes me feel that Canadian programming, and in particular drama, still has a fighting chance to break out of the pack. Canada has the talent, creativity and entrepreneurial drive to make it happen.
To the extent that resources have been an obstacle, the Commission has focused on augmenting those resources through its incentive-based approach.
I continue to believe that we can – and must – work together to help Canadian drama claim a prominent place in the TV landscape.
The Commission is going to continue down an incentive-based path for the time being.
If we're going to be successful, producers and broadcasters will have to pick up their end of the bargain.
There's no question that the pull of American drama programming is strong. For decades we've been unable to draw even a large minority of viewers away from it. Canadians aren't going to change TV habits overnight, but I'd like to think that we could win them over, series by successful series.
Which brings to mind, again, a scene from Corner Gas …
Emma LeRoy, the formidable wife of Oscar (the cantankerous former operator of the gas station) is mocking her husband's skills as an amateur carpenter.
“You've been building that same bookshelf for 13 years,” Emma says.
“Well,” replies Oscar, “do you want it done fast, or do you want it done right?”
Our broadcasting system hasn't “done it fast” in Canadian TV drama, but I'm hopeful that we're on track now to do it right.
Thanks very much.
- 30 -
Media Relations:
MediaRelations@crtc.gc.ca, Tel: (819) 997-9403, Fax: (819) 997-4245
General Inquiries:
Tel: (819) 997-0313, TDD: (819) 994-0423, Fax: (819) 994-0218
Toll-free # 1-877-249-CRTC (2782), eMail: info@crtc.gc.ca
TDD - Toll-free # 1-877-909-2782
This document is available in alternative format upon request.
Date Modified: 2005-06-14
|
