The CRTC has famously been known for being meticulous about having Canadian content on Canadian TV channels. In the changing landscape of TV and Internet, the CRTC is relaxing Canadian content standards in an effort to pump up the quality of Canadian programming.
There is a lot of Canadian content that is along the lines of "Storage Wars Canada" rather than efforts to produce distinct Canadian content.
The philosophy at most media outlets, outside the CBC, is to buy U.S. programming, run those shows, make boatloads of money, and then spend that money creating Canadian content. Given the schedules of CTV, Global, and City TV, that strategy has benefited those companies, not those searching for lots of good quality Canadian programming.
The cable channels are even more obnoxious in the ROI for good quality Canadian programming.
Under the new CRTC rules, broadcast channels will go from 55% to 0% for Canadian content during the daytime, but still have to maintain 50% Canadian content in prime time from 6 pm to 11 pm. This includes newscasts as well as programs.
The Canadian content for cable channels ranges from 15%-85%. Under the new rules, all cable channels will have a standardized 35% with no specific restriction for evening hours.
The CRTC will also expand the definition of what qualifies as Canadian-made content to promote larger budget shows with a larger potential audience outside Canada. Yes, film fans will find this strategy sounds familiar, though we don't know if this will mean more "Dallas Buyers Club" and "Wild" or miniseries such as "The Honourable Woman" but with more Canadian content.
---
Last week, Kevin Crull, President of Bell Media (owners of CTV and TSN), said that U.S. networks should be taken off Canadian cable. Crull's argument is that companies such as Bell buy the rights to U.S. shows and then are forced to sim sub them at the times where those shows air in the States to maximize their investment.
In the same speech, Crull also argued that since 99 of the top 100 American TV shows are already available on Canadian networks, the actual signals don't need to be carried.
Theoretically, if Crull got his wish, U.S. shows could be used as a lead-in for Canadian shows to give them a better chance at being noticed.
This wouldn't apply to those Canadian viewers who can get over-the-air signals. There aren't too many markets with that option, outside of Toronto and Windsor.
---
Let's hear from Kelly Lynne Ashton, who weighed in on tv-eh.com:
For both there will be two types of programs that will be certified as Canadian though they do not fall within the guidelines. One is for adaptations of successful Canadian novels and the other is for programs with budgets over $2 million. They must have Canadian screenwriters, one lead performer and 75% of the costs paid to Canadians (not spent in Canada but TO Canadians who might live anywhere) but they do not have to be owned by Canadians. Note that while they are certified Canadian and qualify for broadcast purposes, those productions will not qualify for other domestic funding programs such as CMF or the domestic tax credit (though they will for the production service tax credit) so I assume that the thought is that a U.S. studio or broadcaster will happily finance most of the cost.
I'm very curious to see how often these exceptions are used. Keep in mind that broadcasters have steered away from literary adaptations lately because it is more cost-effective to promote ongoing series than a one off television movie. Also, it is a fundamental concept of government funding that it support the development of a Canadian industry. It is questionable to what extent a big budget drama owned by non-Canadians and created by and starring Canadians living in Hollywood helps the Canadian industry.
---
A goal of CanadianCrossing.com is to get more Canadian TV shows into "American" homes: more shows along the lines of "Orphan Black," "Schitt's Creek", and "Young Drunk Punk."
The joy of Canadian TV programs is that they are Canadian, as in distinct from the United States or England or Australia or France. If we have more "Canadian" content that can make more money but lose the Canadian part, then we really aren't gaining more truly Canadian content.
The CRTC goals align with our goals so we should be happy. However, the reason why Canadian shows are struggling in the U.S. marketplace aren't necessarily satisfied by the CRTC changes.
CW tried out "Seed" recently and "18 to Life" in 2010. The CW is apparently a horrible outlet to build momentum with a show. Both shows might have done well with cable in the U.S., places that would show 13 episodes of a 13-episode run.
"Schitt's Creek" is running on Pop TV without a HD signal (where I live). More people might really enjoy the show if only they could watch it in a normal fashion.
My long-time idea of a Canadian TV channel along the lines of BBC America would be perfect. A cable channel in the States devoted to Canadian TV, old and new. A channel that could be patient with smaller, quieter shows that could find a market in the States. Once something is big in the States, other English-speaking countries will take notice.
No offense to Canadians, loyal readers or otherwise, but there is a distinct possibility that Canadian television is better appreciated on some level by non-Canadians. From anecdotal evidence, you hear some Canadians bad mouth the TV shows and films that the country produces. Clearly, we love most of what Canada produces, and we hope others, on both sides of the border, agree that keeping that voice distinctly Canadian benefits everyone.
Comments