OTTAWA – With almost nothing left to lose, CBC/Radio-Canada should take some risks on high impact dramatic programming, Michael Hennessy, president of the Canadian Media Production Association, suggested during an appearance before a Senate committee earlier this week.
Last week the Standing Senate Committee on Transportation and Communications kicked off a study of the challenges faced by CBC in relation to the changing broadcast and communications environment. The review came about after the public broadcaster lost the rights to Hockey Night in Canada (Ed note: Because if there’s one place where the world’s media challenges will be solved, it’s the Canadian Senate…) .
During the more than 90 minute session, several senators wondered what can be done to make the CBC relevant in a world where TV is watched over the Internet and people are turning to other channels for their entertainment.
In response to one question like this, Hennessy noted that it’s up to the CBC to remain relevant to Canadian viewers and perhaps now is the time for the public broadcaster to take some real risks on dramatic programming. “It is incumbent on them to be relevant, and that’s why maybe you have to take the bet on risky drama because there's not a lot left to lose. If you can start demonstrating you have some winners, you can turn things around pretty quickly,” he said.
Hennessy added that one only needs to look at the success of the British public broadcaster for evidence that this can work.
“There's probably high‑risk drama that if they do it right, it suddenly becomes exportable to other countries,” he said. “Look at BBC America and BBC Worldwide. They have reinvented their model by starting from the fundamental premise if I make stuff that sells around the world because people like it I'm going to be successful. You can pretty well follow that model in any market and see some success.”
“I think there is an opportunity, in all of this, to rethink the CBC." – Michael Hennessy, CMPA
But before Canada’s public broadcaster can begin looking in this direction, it needs to first know what its mandate is, and currently it’s being pulled in far too many directions to be effective. And to justify a return on investment from taxpayer money, CBC has focused on attracting audience share and that may not be the best approach.
“I think there is an opportunity, in all of this, to rethink the CBC,” said Hennessy.
In a world without hockey on CBC (and that day is approaching), the public broadcaster is going to have to think hard about what it wants to be to Canadians. Equally, policymakers are going to have to decide what the CBC mandate is so it can go about achieving those objectives. “The past is prologue; but a lot of the recipe is there,” Hennessy said. “I think that’s why you say, if you don't have the money anymore to make big commercial productions, then focus on what it is that you think the market won't deliver and that's the mandate. I would certainly give the CBC team a chance to explain how they can finance through advertising, but it's a tough challenge as long as there are multiple mandates.”
Asked whether that means the government should be stripping away parts of CBC’s list of must-dos, Hennessy said it first must be determined what private broadcasters aren’t going to deliver that is important to the nation. “If we can answer that question, which is tough enough, then at least you can say, okay, maybe that's your mandate. But I think it's difficult to say let’s try to strip things away that are costing too much money because you'd be back into the game of pulling it apart before you've decided what it is you want it to be,” he said.
Funding is also a critical element to be considered.
For CBC “to be truly effective, particularly in English television, it needs to be financed properly in order to be able to take the risks that it takes to hit a ball out of the park or … just put the puck in the net. It is a high‑risk business,” added Marc Seguin, senior VP of policy at CMPA. “If it's not financed properly, if they don't take the risks and work with the people we represent, it will never succeed.”
Hitting on the drama refrain again, Hennessy pointed to the edgy U.S. shows that are shorter in length and cost less to make as a potential opportunity for CBC. “Some of these shows are much smaller in budget and smaller series than the kinds of things that the commercial broadcasters are doing. Rather than walking away from drama, to fill the gap where the risk on doing something really different and really interesting that is riveting, I think there is an opportunity there,” he said.
The loss of Saturday night hockey does open tremendous opportunity for other genres that are in the public interest.
“You have suddenly got room for children’s; you have got room for film; you have got room for documentaries. You could go back to running double features of Canadian movies on Saturday night,” Hennessy quipped of the opportunity afforded by the creation of “hundreds of hours of open space on CBC.”
Future witnesses in front of the Senate include: Friends of Canadian Broadcasting on February 4; Konrad von Finckenstein, former chair of the CRTC on February 11 and Florian Sauvageau and Daniel Cote on February 12. The CRTC and CBC are scheduled to appear on February 25 and 26, but have yet to be confirmed.
