Source : Toronto Star

There has been a great deal of commentary recently about the CBC, almost all of it based on subjectivity, questionable polling data and an incomplete understanding of TV viewing data. Since politicians and policy analysts tend to pick up on this subjective commentary, rather than studying the facts, there is little understanding of viewing patterns, public opinion about TV, especially CBC TV, and what Canadians want from their public broadcaster.

That situation also seems to apply to the internal workings of the CBC itself. Some years ago, managers would examine public needs and interests before setting out on a course. Today, the corporation seems to be caught up in political and organizational imperatives that don't reflect the interests of the broad Canadian public.

So what are the critics saying? Mostly that CBC's share of the audience has shrunk to, at best, 6 per cent, compared with 15 per cent 20 years ago, and thus has become irrelevant. No one is watching, they say, so no one cares about CBC TV.

The critics add that, during the recent eight-week lockout of CBC's staff, virtually all of the feedback and letters to the editor concerned CBC Radio; people could care less about CBC TV or CBC Newsworld.

To support their opinions, critics, including some at the Star, quoted a Decima omnibus poll, conducted a few days after the lockout began, which claimed Canadians didn't consider the lockout an inconvenience. In all my years of designing audience-survey questions, I can't ever recall seeing a question that asked whether something was "inconvenient." Radio and TV respond to a wide spectrum of needs and interests, and many respondents likely would have had difficulty understanding the meaning of this ambiguous question, especially given the timing of the poll.

A more meaningful survey would have been done a few weeks, rather than a few days, after service disruption. Decima conducted its interviews from the fourth to the seventh day after the start of the lockout, and over a weekend, when CBC TV programming is generally not as strong as it is on weekdays.

Moreover, a few questions in an omnibus poll like the Decima one cannot begin to produce an understanding of Canadians' complex behaviour and attitudes about radio and TV. Thus, the level of analysis by pollsters and commentators concerning public use of and attitudes toward CBC TV has been superficial and facile, and fails to understand the role that TV, let alone the CBC, plays in the lives of Canadians.

It's a given that the broadcasting world has changed since the days when CBC TV's fuzzy, black-and-white offering was the only domestic channel available to Canadians. In 2005, we can choose from hundreds of channels, thousands of DVDs and, soon, limitless videos-on-demand from cable, telephone companies and Internet providers. In this brave new TV world, will the CBC become an anachronism, if it hasn't already?

In that context, let's deal with the 6 per cent market share figure. What market share does another example of the national media, the Globe and Mail, have in Canada? NADbank, the newspaper audience measurement service, says that just under 1 million people read the Globe on a daily basis in 2004. That's about 5 per cent of the English-speaking population. However, if you take into account that television share refers to time spent watching each station, and calculated the Globe's share of all newspaper reading in Canada, including weekly and community papers, it would be well below 5 per cent.

NADbank also reports that more than 2 million people read the Globe at least once a week in 2004. This is a measure of audience "reach" rather than share.

Well, the average weekly reach of CBC TV is more than 10 million viewers; this is the number of Canadians in a typical week last TV season who watched CBC or CBC Newsworld for 30 minutes or more, according to ratings data by Nielsen Media Research, a world leader in TV audience measurement that has measured audiences in Canada since 1960.

The 30-minute weekly audience reach of CBC news programming on the main channel and Newsworld will typically be 3 million viewers or more, larger than the weekly audience reach of the Globe. Of course, comparing newspaper readership and TV network viewership is fraught with difficulties. Comparing CBC TV to other broadcasters is more straightforward. So how does it stand up?

First, many critics of CBC TV claim, wrongly, that overall TV watching is declining, which, if it were true, means that the CBC is doubly doomed.

Ten years ago, Canadians watched roughly 22 hours of TV a week. Starting in 1998-99, the weekly hours spent with TV increased to more than 23 hours per week, and almost each year thereafter grew by about an hour per week, peaking at 26.7 hours per capita in 2002-03.

The next year, viewing declined very slightly, and in 2004-05 levels declined somewhat more (perhaps related to the absence of NHL hockey). However, viewing levels this past season were still well above the levels of the mid-1990s. This may surprise those who find themselves or their kids spending time with the Internet, their iPod or their XBox. But the reality is that TV viewing levels are higher today than they were before the widespread adoption of the Internet or those other new gadgets. Quite simply, Canadians today find TV more compelling than ever. Despite all the press about the imminent death of TV because of Internet delivery of video, personal video recorders, etc., in my view it will be many years, if at all, before a decrease in TV viewing is likely to occur in anything more than a minority of Canadian homes.

Another argument is often coupled with the erroneous claim that TV use is in decline: that hundreds, and soon thousands, of channels will fragment the audience, and so no channel can hope to attract broad viewership.

Well, despite all the reports of their demise, the old-fashioned networks are maintaining substantial market share. CTV, Global and CBC TV capture roughly 25 per cent of all English TV viewing in Canada. (CTV and Global, whose prime-time lineups are mostly U.S. fare, have 12 and 8 per cent, respectively.) That's on a typical day. On days featuring major national events, like elections or NHL playoffs, the big three represent as much as 40 per cent of the audience.

The rest of the TV audience is divided up among many dozens of other channels; some of them, like A&E or CNN, have 2-3 per cent audience shares and are considered vital by the many Canadians who pay to watch them on cable or satellite. The same critics who say that CBC has become irrelevant would never suggest turning off CNN because it has a small audience share (half that of CBC TV).

Other channels, such as CBC Newsworld, Discovery, Bravo! or Showcase, have 1-2 per cent shares, and they too are considered important viewing by a large number of people, who might choose to watch only one or two times a month but nonetheless consider them valuable. (CBC Newsworld, it should be noted, is available only to homes with cable or satellite and has one national program feed, unlike the main CBC TV channel, which is available to all homes and can provide local and national programming.)

Still other channels, such as VisionTV, The Weather Channel or ROBTV, have less than 1 per cent of the audience but are considered by many to offer a valuable public service. So, given the nature of the 300-channel universe, a 6 per cent share of a growing industry is a good thing, not a reason to despair.

Then there's the way people feel about CBC TV and other channels. My company, Canadian Media Research, conducts an annual national survey of public attitudes toward TV called the TV Quality Survey. The sample consists of more than 1,500 respondents chosen scientifically, and the survey adheres to stringent methodological standards. The CBC has no involvement.

The survey lists all the channels available in Canada and asks respondents if they're aware of them, how they rate them and, most tellingly, whether they would pay $1 more per month to view them.

In 2004, CBC TV was not considered the most "valuable" channel overall. That honour went to CTV, with 34.8 per cent saying it was worth paying extra for. But CBC was not far behind at 33.7 per cent, actually within the statistical margin of error, as was Global at 33.8 per cent. Note that it was the old-fashioned networks that people found the most valuable; most other channels had considerably fewer numbers of people saying they were worth paying extra for.

In the most recent TV Quality Survey, 49.6 per cent said the CBC has the best national news, far ahead of CTV, the next highest at 24 per cent. (Global is at less than 10 per cent.)

Among all channels, CBC was also considered to offer the best Canadian programming (58.3 per cent) and to be the best at reflecting the different regions of Canada (46.6 per cent).

In areas such as local news, international news, sports and, especially, prime-time drama and movies, respondents chose other channels ahead of CBC TV. But in several key areas clearly related to CBC's mandate, there is broad public support and willingness to pay for CBC TV.

Then why not have people pay a monthly subscriber fee as they do for premium pay TV channels, like the Movie Network, as critics suggest? Because this dusty argument misunderstands how the TV industry works. About 9 in 10 Canadians are willing to pay a monthly fee to cable or satellite companies for a basic package of TV channels, but that's as far as they seem willing to go. Only about one in four Canadian households actually subscribes to a monthly pay TV service, such as The Movie Network or Movie Central. Fewer than one in four say they ever order a pay-per-view movie or event (only about 7 per cent say they do so on a monthly basis), according to the 2004 TV Quality Survey.

Thus, the cost to the CBC of developing and marketing a pay-per-use system would be so high as to be inefficient.

Other countries, such as Britain, collect a universal licence fee from every TV set owner to pay for the public broadcaster but, again, substantial costs are incurred collecting this fee - including paying for special monitoring trucks that wander British streets trying to detect unlicensed television sets.

A licence fee could work in Canada, but the present system used to fund the CBC Ñ a hybrid of federal grants, advertising revenues and subscriber revenues for channels like Newsworld Ñ also works. Perhaps the only weakness in the present approach is that CBC tries to bolster ad revenues with strategies such as airing Hollywood movies, which flies in the face of its mandate to broadcast Canadian shows. In recent summers and during last season's NHL lockout, CBC turned over Saturday night and other nights to Hollywood movies that brought in ad revenue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This brings me to how CBC TV can improve itself.

First, it should phase out advertising from all but sports programming, simulcast programming from other networks, and occasional programs earmarked as revenue-generating.

Some of the time freed up by dropping commercials should be filled with a short local newscast at the top of each hour, during the day and in prime time. Local news is the most important category of TV programming, according to the TV Quality Survey, and one of the reasons CBC Radio is so successful is the hourly local news and information carried by most CBC stations. CBC Radio stations in each city could contribute resources to the hourly newscast on local CBC TV stations.

To make up for diminished ad revenue, CBC should significantly streamline its organization, beginning with those areas associated with generating ad revenues. Several levels of bureaucracy should be done away with, starting at the network centres and in head office. An objective viewer would be hard-pressed to find many head-office Ottawa jobs that are not duplicated in CBC Toronto or Montreal. New technology and modern organizational techniques have made much of the CBC bureaucracy redundant. Many jobs that do not require a full-time person should be outsourced. Every manager in CBC TV should have at least 25 people working for them, and they shouldn't get a Blackberry unless they do.

What remains of head office should then be moved to either Toronto or Montreal; significant savings in travel costs would result. Following consolidation in Toronto and Montreal, the board of directors should determine whether the role of the CBC president is required; perhaps it could be filled by the chair and the two senior managers at the network centres.

Second, CBC should give its creative people - its producers, journalists, writers, researchers - an environment that will stimulate creative output. Management must recognize, as the recent lockout of creative staff demonstrated, that the heart of the CBC is the creative staff that is willing to devote their lives, or a good part of it, to public broadcasting. The future lies in their hands, not in those of the suits, and the latter have a responsibility to create an excellent working environment.

Management must have the trust of its employees and be unguarded about how it manages the corporation. To do this, CBC TV should be transparent about its costs and revenues, and report detailed financial information in its annual report to Parliament. If we know how much the CBC pays Don Cherry or Ron McLean, then we have a right to know everything about CBC costs and the revenues.

CBC's annual planning and reports should follow the model created recently by the BBC: Set measurable objectives and report openly and honestly on how well it meets the objectives.

In programming terms, however, CBC should stop comparing itself to the BBC or other public broadcasters. The BBC accounts for almost 50 per cent of all TV viewing and radio listening in the U.K., which is why it can justify public funding many times greater than the CBC's on a per capita basis.

As a rule, public broadcasting in Europe and the rest of the world cannot be easily compared with the Canadian situation, because the U.K, Italian, Australian and other television universes are not nearly as fragmented as ours.

Third, CBC TV needs to adjust its prime-time programming strategy. As audience ratings and public opinion survey data show, CBC TV does not perform well in the key program areas of prime-time drama and movies.

In the past two TV seasons in prime time (7-11 p.m.), CBC TV aired an average of only one hour per week of Canadian drama series and 1.5 hours of Canadian drama specials or movies. That amounts to 2.5 hours out of 28 hours of prime time per week. CBC's schedule had twice as much foreign drama.

CBC TV's prime-time schedule should devote as much time each week to Canadian drama as it does to news and public affairs or sports programming, which in each case is about eight hours.

CBC should also quadruple the amount of money it spends on English TV drama, money that initially should be found largely from within existing CBC budgets. The lockout proved that the CBC could be run more efficiently, and that most managers could be spared to do other things. The corporation should require all managers to reduce overhead by an average of 20 per cent, creating a $50-$75 million annual fund to produce English domestic fiction.

Only fully scripted drama would be produced with this special fund. The CBC would undertake productions in-house and/or with independent producers, focusing on innovative program concepts. Priority should be given to drama specials and movies, which have long been proven to outdraw Canadian drama series.

The first successful Canadian made-for TV movie was 1985's Anne of Green Gables, whose ratings astounded everyone in the industry. At least once a month, and more in the peak fall and winter viewing seasons, CBC should air a major Canadian drama special or movie to remind Canadians where they'll find the best domestic drama.

In recent years, CBC was fortunate to have two or three such special events per year. The lockout delayed the start of the 2005 season and has allowed the network to schedule several specials in just a few short weeks this fall, a glimmer of what I am suggesting.

If its prime-time strategy showed signs of success, CBC would seek additional grants from the federal government to develop and broadcast Canadian drama series and specials.

To make room for Canadian drama, CBC TV's main channel would have less foreign drama, news and public affairs, which should make for improvements in the overall quality of CBC news and public affairs.

News and public-affairs programming on CBC TV and Newsworld should revisit successes like The Journal and This Hour Has Seven Days, not to mention CBC Radio. There should be more in-depth interviews with intelligent, well-spoken Canadians; more panels using the best commentators from academic, political and media circles; and more serious documentaries. What draws people to CBC Radio, and what drew them to CBC TV programs like The Journal, are the spontaneous comments of remarkable people in conversation with respected interviewers not afraid to ask provocative questions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Objective audience statistics and public opinion data show that CBC TV continues to have a broad, appreciative audience. A 6 per cent share is still a large audience in today's broadcasting environment, especially given that a more comprehensive examination of the ratings data reveals that more than 10 million Canadians watch CBC TV for 30 minutes or more in a typical week.

Our polling data, which we've been tracking for the past five years, reveal that CBC TV is one of the most valued TV channels, the best network for national news, the best at reflecting Canada's regions, and the best network for Canadian programs, by a wide margin.

Why, then, do critics accuse it of being irrelevant and out-of-date? The answer: prime time. When Canadians turn on their televisions during the most important viewing hours of the day, CBC TV is found lacking. Only a minority of Canadians consider CBC's drama output to be the best. Yet Canadians, and especially those who consider CBC TV to be "very important," have a strong interest in made-for-TV movies and drama specials in particular, and quality Canadian drama in general.

Within the CBC, management and creative staff need to take a serious, long-overdue look at both the way the organization is structured and the way it spends its resources. Not because CBC Television has become irrelevant, but precisely because it is as relevant and vital to Canadians as it has ever been.

http://www.canadianmediaresearchinc.ca

© Toronto Star