Canadian Cholito

The CRTC hearings that will decide the fate of Canadian television began last week. I’ve already written about the TV “tax” debate, but the issue is worth revisiting. In case you’re unfamiliar with the issue, or you need a reminder, I recommend this article in the Globe and Mail. It provides a pretty good breakdown.

So as the two sides battle, adamant that their position is in the best interest of Canadians, it has become obvious that there is no right or wrong in this debate. There is no good guy, despite what those clever TV tax ads suggest. Canadian broadcasters and the cable and satellite distributors — also known as broadcast distribution undertakings (BDUs) – are part of the same content industry in Canada that is expected to provide some programming  that represents the cultural experience of its citizens.

This is why the “bailout” commercials are so ridiculous. The Stop the TV Tax movement (BDU’s) wants to position the broadcasters as failed businesses that are seeking government help. But if the broadcasters are deemed failures, it is just as much a reflection of the BDU’s incompetence and inability to adapt.

Broadcasters and BDU’s need to adapt, and they need to do so by working together.

Each side agrees that this is a matter of a flawed and outdated model for broadcasters. The disagreement lies in who’s responsibility it should be to fix the problem. Negotiating a fee-for-carriage is a start, in that it at least gets the two sides talking, but on its own, it is not a sustainable solution. It is a temporary fix that does nothing to address the underlying problems.

Real progress can only come by way of revamping an outdated and ineffective broadcast model. Which is why this issue is  about more than a potential “tax” for consumers. It’s about the future of Canadian television.

The Good News

If you’re a cable subscriber in Canada, you likely wish you had more choice over which channels you could include in your basic package. Why should we have to pay so much for a basic cable package that has only five or six channels you actually watch?

Michael Geist suggests that the solution may lie in implementing a “a-la-carte” model, where cable subscribers could pick and choose the channels they want. This way, cable companies could provide a basic, all-Canadian package. Anyone interested in supporting local programming could do so by subscribing to this package. This would also prevent cable subscribers from being forced to pay additional fees for channels they didn’t want in the first place.

Canadian broadcasters would receive compensation for their signal and consumers in Canada would have more choice in programming.

The broadcasters have even proposed a similar model. In fact, on November 3, the CBC proposed a “pared-down” model, similar to the one suggested by Geist.

However, this proposed model would not only give the consumer more choice, it also lets them decide the fate of Canadian programming.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater

I’ve seen a lot of reaction online from people who argue that the broadcasters are failing because their programming isn’t good enough. In other words, they don’t deserve any more support because the content they provide isn’t worth saving.

It’s a fair argument.

The only problem with type of thinking is that TV in Canada has always been used as a way of defining and preserving our national identity. Ever since television was first introduced to the world, regulations were put in place to combat the influence from the U.S.

It’s the reason we have a public broadcaster and the reason why every broadcaster is required to provide a certain amount of Canadian content.

But if a new a-la-carte system is put in place, the success of local programming would rely on subscribers. So with an obligation to provide local programming, and a need to increase their number of subscribers, Canadian broadcasters would have to evolve by putting a greater emphasis on producing great content.

With this new model in place, buying syndicated episodes of Seinfeld, and repeating it five times throughout the day, would no longer be a viable option. First, because as a subscriber you could receive American programming by selecting American channels, instead of watching the Canadian feed. Second, anyone paying for an all-Canadian cable package would expect to receive more Canadian content.

If the broadcasters fail to provide local and entertaining programming, they could end up becoming completely irrelevant (even more so), which would arguably compromise our ability to preserve a collective cultural identity.

Whether or not you agree that television should be used to influence cultural identity, there’s no denying that television does have that ability. Which is why every Canadian has a vested interest in saving Canadian television.

Now what?

Revamping the current model for Canadian television should do more than just create better cable packages. The current model for broadcasters is no longer profitable, and part of the reason for that stems from a lack of cooperation between Canadian broadcasters and BDU’s.

The TV Tax debate can be annoying at times (especially those ridiculous ads). But this debate has shown us that there’s more at stake than who’s right and who’s wrong. This is also about more than a potential TV “tax”.

The TV Tax debate has highlighted some seriously outdated approaches to programming that need revision. If the two sides can stop playing the blame game, this debate actually has the potential to reconstruct the current Canadian television system as a whole. In that way, this debate is a good thing.

I’m hopeful that Canadian television is entering an age of improvement. If broadcasters need more engaging and entertaining content, while still representing the Canadian experience, programming needs to evolve. We need a Canadian content industry that is more than just an afterthought or an obligation.

If we really do rely on television as a way of preserving our cultural identity, it’s time to make a successful content industry the priority. The first step is for the broadcasters and BDU’s to start working together, instead of spreading fear to gain public support.