OTTAWA – Announcing the most recent round of Let’s Talk TV decisions last week, CRTC chair Jean-Pierre Blais spoke about the need to create fewer, higher quality Canadian TV shows instead of a larger number of mixed quality television – and to build a more sustainable production sector populated by larger, well-capitalized firms.
In essence, he was saying less is more. However, those who make the shows believe, conversely, less will only lead to less.
Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2015-86, released on March 12, made a number of significant changes to Canadian content rules. Chief among them was the elimination daytime Cancon expenditures with a 55% spending floor in primetime, harmonizing Cancon for discretionary services at 35% and the removal of genre exclusivity provisions. However, the decision also gave broadcasters the right to opt out of Terms of Trade and it announced two pilot projects aimed at creating big-budget dramas and comedies that don’t have to follow Cancon certification rules, or CAVCO.
The Canadian Media Production Association (CMPA) is understandably miffed at the Terms of Trade decision, since it battled for years to achieve it and then it was barely discussed during the hearing. As Michael Hennessy, president and CEO of the CMPA, said to Cartt.ca in an interview, “it came out of left field.”
“From a procedural fairness perspective, it’s awful.” – Michael Hennessy, CMPA
“They never asked us a question and then the next day they turned around and started talking about it with Rogers,” he said. “We are the signatory to the deal on behalf of the independent producers yet they only questioned the party that was complaining and never talked to the other signatory. From a procedural fairness perspective, it’s awful.”
More substantially though, Hennessy stressed that the Commission has taken away any leverage smaller independent producers have in their negotiations with the broadcasters. In essence, the broadcasters are going to get a bigger piece of the status quo, meaning they will now be able to secure both domestic and international rights.
The decision recommended the adoption of mechanisms to create larger, more well-capitalized production companies and while the CMPA isn’t opposed to those efforts, removing Terms of Trade may actually be barrier to achieving this objective. Hennessy questioned whether a fewer number, but larger production houses would actually partner with broadcasters to make big budget dramas.
“I don’t believe that,” Hennessy said, agreeing that the scaling up of the production sector as expressed in the decision, combined with allowing broadcasters to opt out of Terms of Trade is going to have the perverse impact of doing the exact opposite.
Rather, he added, the vertically integrated broadcasters may end up swallowing a large chunk of the independent production sector.
“That’s a recipe, I think, for disaster.” – Hennessy
“That’s the problem and you don’t want to end up with a situation where all the decisions are being made by the vertically integrated carriers or perhaps four or five preferred producers. That’s not going to get you the scale, the risks on edgy content or anything else that the commission is looking for. That’s a recipe, I think, for disaster,” he argued.
The Terms of Trade ruling wasn’t the only element of BRP 2015-86 to come as a surprise. The two pilot projects – one for a Canadian novel adaption and another for big-budget drama/comedy – caught the Directors Guild of Canada (DGC) off guard. The collective questioned why the Commission didn’t include directors and other key professionals as required Canadian elements in these projects.
Dave Forget, director of policy at the DGC, wondered what the Commission was thinking when it decided to announce these pilots.
“What’s being proposed by the CRTC right now does not in our view meet the standard of a story told by Canadians. It’s great that the screenplay be written by a Canadian, it’s great that the intellectual property be controlled by a Canadian company, all those things are fine. But one actor … does this sound like a Canadian voice?” he asked rhetorically.
The DGC agreed that shifting to spending requirements recognizes that more and more people aren’t watching TV in a linear way, but wondered if broadcasters would actually spend that money on big budget dramas. Forget suggested that if the Commission wanted more drama on TV, then it could have used PNI rather than “a round about way of saying we’re going to relieve [broadcasters’] burden in one place on the hope that they’re going to spend some of the resources that we’ve created to do more drama.”
The Writers Guild of Canada (WGC) was surprised to see some elements of the decision come with little or no consultation at all, in particular the pilot projects, but generally was satisfied that the ruling highlighted the significance the writer has in the Canadian system.
“We were quite happy to see that the pilot projects really seemed to recognize the important position of writers in Canadian television. So they both require a Canadian screenwriter for the novel adaptation and the big budget one which we think recognizes the age of writer and the showrunner in television,” said Neal McDougall, policy director at the WGC.
“If we wind up putting tonnes and tonnes of money into very few shows, and then some of those shows don’t work, then we have a different sort of problem.” – Neal McDougall, WGC
While the CMPA and the DGC questioned the merits of quality over quantity, Writers were less concerned.
“It doesn’t appear that the actual policy will drastically reduce quantity which is good,” said McDougall. “We think that will be the outcome but we will see. If we wind up putting tonnes and tonnes of money into very few shows, and then some of those shows don’t work, then we have a different sort of problem.”
Shaw Communications didn’t respond to a request for an interview and Bell Media was unwilling to talk at this time, pending the release of the rest of the TV Policy Review.
The CRTC will release its next series of decisions on March 19 at 4 p.m. They will focus largely on pick and pay and bundling.
