[This commentary was also published at Cartt.ca]
Waves
of both excitement and trepidation spread through Canada's interactive digital
media and broadcasting sectors on March 9, 2009 when the Honourable James Moore,
Minister of Canadian Heritage, announced the creation of the Canada Media Fund.
Now, about a year and a half later, trepidation remains but, for many, the
initial excitement has been replaced by bewilderment and disappointment.
The
road from the initial CMF announcement to where we are today took many twists
and turns. As CMF president and CEO Valerie Creighton said last month at the
Merging+Media conference in Vancouver, while addressing the magnitude of the
change, "it's been a very messy year and it's going to get messier". No doubt.
The CMF staff has done a commendable job in the face of
an overwhelming challenge. They've engaged stakeholders across the country at
all levels and ensured that everyone's voice could be heard, even if their
specific desires couldn't always be accommodated. And they've done all this
while trying to minimize the destabilization of the already unstable television
industry.
The
resulting policies reflect compromise on many levels and have been influenced
by a vast range of stakeholders with often very disparate interests, some
inspired by genuine recognition of the need to change and others by
self-interests that are tied to the preservation of the status quo and
declining business models.
There
are many facets to the CMF but the focus of this commentary will be limited to
the convergent stream as that's where I have the greatest concerns.
Richard
Stursburg, until recently the head of English language programming at the CBC,
said last week at the Insight Telecommunications Forum in Ottawa, "people don't
watch Canadian [dramatic] television". That's certainly debatable, but if true,
it's not because our shows lack the tacked-on interactive elements that are the
thrust of the convergent stream. Rather, it's either because the content isn't
of interest to the audience or because it doesn't reach the audience when, where
and how they want to consume it.
TV
content still isn't always easily available to a new breed of consumer on the
terms and devices that suit them. This has certainly improved in the last year
and a half, and the CMF may indeed have accelerated the pace of change. As
promised by Moore, we have definitely made progress toward the goal that
"Canadian viewers will have better access to Canadian programming on all media
platforms". BDU-based on-demand offerings that are tied to digital set-top boxes
do nothing to reach analogue cable customers or those who have opted out of the
BDU system entirely.
Online
streaming helps to address this void. It was introduced as a transitional measure
but may not be continued going forward. For most shows, though, this is the optimal solution to reach a wider
audience and I hope that Heritage and the CMF decide to continue this policy.
It is, hands down, the best way to ensure that CMF-funded television content is
available to the vast majority of Canadians, whether they be BDU customers or
not. To be effective in reaching a wide
audience though, it can't be limited to online streaming alternatives that are
only available to BDU subscribers. Alternative on-line only subscription or a
la carte billing options must be considered.
Regardless
of where the fund goes with respect to streaming, a plan is on the horizon to
force the majority of TV projects to change their very nature by requiring that
they incorporate "rich and substantial" interactive elements - a shot-gun
marriage of traditional and digital media. "Rich and substantial" can mean many
things, involve a wide range of budgets, and lead to over-building the
interactive beyond what's appropriate or, conversely, falling short by delivering less than what's
really needed. Worse, though, building these elements for projects where they
aren't warranted in their own right will force broadcasters to divert scarce
funding to ancillary interactive components that may have little demonstrable
value. It will also force TV producers to find ways to cover the 40% interactive
financing shortfall that will usually exist after the mandatory broadcaster minimum
10% contribution triggers the CMF 50% maximum contribution.
When
"rich and substantial" is warranted, that's great, and something worth funding.
The Bell Fund already does a great job of supporting these projects and the
decision as to whether to pursue a digital media path is left up to the TV
producer and the broadcaster - as it should be. Top-up funding from the CMF
could help to finance these projects without putting a significant drain on the
available resources.
TV
already does what TV does best and it's not realistic to try to change the
nature of television. The limitations imposed by broadcast lead-time, coupled
with a linear narrative, won't go away. These aren't limitations that can be
fixed with the wave of a magic wand; these are the limitations of people, tight
budgets and the nature of the medium.
Moore's
objective to "focus the investment on what Canadians want" is laudable - but
what do Canadian's really want? It's doubtful that the majority of Canadians
want a hybrid mix of traditional and digital media that, will, due to the
battle for dollars, actually tend to undermine the potential quality of each.
As the CMF is now considering the policies under which
the fund will operate next year, I offer these suggestions to the Ministry of
Heritage and to Minister Moore, knowing full well that, as with anything to do
with the CMF, many in the industry will disagree with me.
First,
we must annul this ill-conceived shot-gun marriage between TV and interactive. If
we go down the road as planned, the same limited funding resources will be
spread across a much greater number of hybrid projects next year, likely leading
to an abundance of mediocrity. Syphoning money away from core TV programming to
support mandatory but often unnecessary ancillary interactive elements will do
a great disservice both to television programming and to interactive
development.
Secondly,
let's let TV do what TV does best, and let that story-telling medium go where
it will, for better or worse. We should, of course, encourage and perhaps even
mandate distribution across multiple platforms, provided that everyone in the
value chain is properly compensated, but let's not pretend that we can make TV into
something it isn't.
Finally,
to truly realize the Minister's objective of rewarding "success and
innovation", we must give interactive media an unfettered and well-funded opportunity to grow into its
role as a key story-telling vehicle of the future and allow Canadians to use it
in creative ways to tell stories to our fellow Canadians and to the world - without
shackling these initiatives to the inflexible medium of television.
Recent Comments