GATINEAU – Bell Canada’s Mirko Bibic had more than football on his mind this Super Bowl Sunday.
Bell’s leadership is angry with the CRTC’s decision to ban the practice of simultaneous substitution during the Super Bowl broadcasts, beginning with the 2016 season, and so the company’s EVP and chief legal and regulatory officer Mirko Bibic sent an e-mail to commissioners Sunday morning to ask for a meeting to discuss.
Senior sources with knowledge of Bell Media’s NFL contract tell Cartt.ca that ending simsub for the Super Bowl will cost the company $20 million in lost revenue for each of the four Super Bowls it won’t be able to simsub after next year (Bell’s contract with the league ends after the 2019 season, according to a source).
The game still pulls in a huge number of viewers, garnering a record number again this year with 9.23 million viewers tuning in on CTV and RDS, the company reported Monday afternoon.
“I do not often email Commissioners about substantive regulatory issues and I have rarely (if ever) communicated to everyone at the same time to convey concern about a decision,” reads Bibic’s Super Bowl Sunday request.
“You have undoubtedly heard our perspective on the Super Bowl decision and you also had the benefit of the overwhelming evidence presented at the hearing showing the significant impacts that loss of simsub, even for the Super Bowl, would have on Canadian advertisers, promotional opportunities for Canadian content and on Bell Media's revenues,” he wrote.
“While I may often disagree with CRTC rulings, I always respect that the Commission has to take the broader public interest into account. In this case however, I really do believe the negative impacts to advertisers, Canadian content and Bell Media significantly outweigh the convenience to some viewers of being able to watch American ads within the broadcast itself.”
The Commission, however, declined to schedule a meeting, citing the fact that the full CRTC decision on the TV Policy Review has not yet been announced. The rest of the so-called Talk TV decision will come in March.
In saying no to Bibic’s request, senior general counsel and executive director Christine Laizner wrote: “I would note that the decision in question was reached following an extensive public proceeding which examined many options with respect to simultaneous substitution including its complete elimination. The Commission considered all of the evidence and submissions put before it, in that public proceeding.
“I would further note, as indicated in the Commission's decision, there will be further public process to implement the Commission's decision via regulation. As such, the implementation of this decision is still before the Commission. In addition, the Commission has not yet issued its decisions on the many other outstanding issues from the public proceeding,” reads the response.
“In light of the above, it would be inappropriate for you to hold private meetings with Commissioners either individually or collectively to discuss your views on this decision. It would be unfair to other parties to the public proceeding for Commissioners to hold off the record conversations with one party with a view to altering a decision already taken.”
This is not the final word on this matter. Watch Cartt.ca Thursday for more on this decision, which has sent shock waves through the industry.
UPDATE: On Thursday afternoon, Bibic responded to the Laizner e-mail (a response we just became aware of this morning. He wrote:
"I respectfully disagree that the purpose of my email dated February 1, 2015 was to unfairly initiate off the record discussions with a view to altering the Commission's 'Super Bowl simsub' decision. The purpose of my communication, copied openly to all Commissioners, was to convey our sincere belief that the Commission's decision is clearly not in the broader public interest.
"I also do not understand how it furthers the public interest to prevent stakeholders from communicating with Commissioners after a decision is rendered. Sound public policy comes from strong and open communication between regulators, stakeholders and the public at large, and that communication need not be limited to formal hearings. I also note that the proceeding to develop the regulations to implement the 'Super Bowl simsub' decision has not yet been initiated, and is separate from the policy decision itself."
