Decafinate the CBC

Richard Stursberg, CBC's VP of English Television generated some publicity recently saying that the CBC should be "more like Tim Horton's and less like Starbucks", it is not exactly a new sentiment. There is, however, a deep flaw in it and one that perhaps reflects more of the problem CBC Television is having than Stursburg intended.

The problem with Tim Hortons AND Starbucks is that they are both fast food restaurants. No matter which you prefer neither is particularly good for you. The whole idea behind fast food is the cookie cutter approach. A coffee from a Tim Horton's or a Starbucks should taste just the same in Halifax as it does in Ottawa, Montreal, Saskatoon and Victoria. What else do Halifax, Ottawa, Montreal, Saskatoon and Victoria have in common? Well, apart from being a part of Canada and North America ... not very much.

I live in Toronto and one of the great things about Toronto is the diversity. If I want a cup of coffee, or a bite to eat Toronto is packed with great little coffee shops, some of them are "fair trade" places, some roast their own beans in house, all of them have their own particular flavour, their own regular clientele and their own style. There are also great cafes and pubs, there are restaurants everywhere - some serve more traditional North American fare and others serve a range of ethnic or specialty foods as diverse as the city itself. This is not only true in Toronto though, it is also true in Montreal and Vancouver and, to varying degrees, in every little town, village and hamlet across this country. Canada is a 'patchwork quilt', our 'diversity is our strength' and that doesn't lend itself to a fast food model.

The CBC, if it is to be of any value at all, needs to reflect the diversity of Canada. If it wants to be like (American owned) Starbucks or Tim Hortons then there is no point in subsidizing it. There will always be plenty of private sector companies offering you convenient, inexpensive products (of questionable quality.)

To find an examples of how to be successful and diverse at the same time the CBC needs to look no farther than it's own radio and internet divisions. The CBC's web site, overall, is one of the most popular in the country and one of the most popular news destinations in the world. CBC Radio (1, 2 and 3), with their broad diversity of high quality, informative, thought provoking programming and mutli-regional focus dominate virtually every time slot in virtually ever market in the country. Oh, and while many people may listen to them while drinking a Tim Horton's coffee (or a Starbuck's coffee for that matter) that is where the connection ends.

Stursburg also said, in an interview with the Globe and Mail that

“‘If it’s a public broadcaster and it’s paid for by all the taxpayers, then it has got to make an offer that is the broadest possible offer,’ Richard Stursberg, vice-president of CBC-TV, said in a recent interview reviewing the current television season and defending the network’s still unproven scheme to boost ratings with populist formulas. ‘It’s not a service that is built for elites.’”

But that is not what the CBC is doing at all. In a country of 33 million plus Stursburg has, priviously, pegged the number that constitutes a "hit" at 1 million viewers a week (approximately 3% of the population). There are two problems with this. The first is that most of the CBC's new programming seems to be aimed at the same 3% (or maybe 6-10%) of the population: That segment of the population that likes reality TV, that watches Survivor and that cares about Britney Spears latest foibles seems to be the segment that Stursburg is particularly interested in. That is not the bulk of the population anymore it is only the lowest common denominator.

The days of big audiences and "big hits" is over

...Perhaps the most profound implication of the long tail, however, is its impact on popular culture. As choice expands and people can more easily find niche content that particularly interests them, hits will be less important: so what will people talk about when gathered around the water cooler? In fact, says Mr Anderson, the idea of a shared popular culture is a relatively recent phenomenon: before radio and television, he notes, countries did not operate in "cultural lockstep". And the notion of shared culture is already in decline, thanks to the rise of cable television and other forms of market fragmentation. The long tail will merely accelerate the effect. There will still be blockbuster movies, albums and books, but there will be fewer of them. The companies that will prosper, says Mr Anderson, will be "those that switch out of lowest-common-denominator mode and figure out how to address niches."

What's more the CBC knows it.

President's Message in the 2006-2007 Annual Report
"In just a few years, the landscape of Canadian broadcasting has changed almost beyond recognition. Canadians can now choose from hundreds, even thousands, of television channels, radio stations and websites, and new technologies are allowing them to gain access to that content whenever and however they want it."

I'm sure that Ford, Chrysler and GM would like to return to the days of 25 cent gas, when big sedans were in style and people bought a new car every few years. I'm sure that many in television would like to return to the days of three channels and mass audiences. But time moves on and the successful adapt.
Canada does not need more fast food. Canada needs a public broadcaster, one that reflects the diversity and wide array of different experiences in the country. The CBC cannot be all things to all people, but it can have something for everyone. It can ditch the fast food thinking and, like many of the successful independent restaurants, cafes, pubs and coffee houses in my neighborhood - offer a good, high quality product, on a menu of diverse choices and do it at a reasonable price.