On the Dangers of Walled Gardens and Locked Gates

Steve Pratt of CBC Radio 3 has an excellent post on 'walled gardens' vs Setting your content free (which is an old topic/rule but still totally relevant.) Canadian media companies, from my point of view anyway, still haven't fully grasped the concept, or they are still very resistant to it. You should definitely read Steve's post but this one is about something related, but slightly different.

Canada's media juggernauts have done such a terrible job of covering Canadian arts and artists that, in the free and open media environment that we currently live in, more and more of the artists are losing interest in the media Juggernauts. Over at NxEW I talk to musicians, promoters etc., daily that don't really care about the old rules, or even the old media much anymore. They are more than willing to ignore SoCan policies, and the advise of others who 'represent' them in Ottawa and elsewhere. They give their music away freely (to me and others) without restrictions or conditions. They don't care about or want a Canadian DMCA and, while most of them would be more than happy to get coverage from 'old media' they no longer count on or rely on it. Instead they (we) are building their own press, their own audience, their own contacts and this shadow media is growing by the day in terms of size and popularity while traditional media debates how it is going to survive. I've seen evidence of similar things happening in Canadian literature, film, and other areas of the arts.

By paying so little attention to Canadian art and artists, and by fighting so hard to protect their entrenched status, much of Canadian media has essentially alienated themselves. As I said in the comments on Steve's blog, rather than lock the barbarian hordes out, they have locked themselves in. Essentially they have decided to wall themselves away and take all of the 'gold shekels' with them with the assumption that without any shekels the 'hordes' would have to come back to them.

What they don't seem to understand is that media is organic and like Michael Crichton said in Jurassic Park 'life will find a way.' You cannot legislate how people consume media any more than you can legislate how people breathe, it's something people just do, not something they think about (except for a few odd ones like me). If you take away all their media people won't die, they won't even be particularly upset by it, they'll just create their own - which is exactly what is happening. Without any of those 'shekels' people have just created their own currency, their own 'economic system' and life is moving on just as it was before. Meanwhile the old kings behind their well fortified walls are starting to discover that they can't eat shekels and are getting hungry.

As I said above they have locked themselves in and rather than, as they expected, having the upper hand in any negotiations may well have to negotiate their re-entry into the culture, a culture that no longer cares about shekels.

Bad Media! No Cigar

I'm still working on the best way to create that forum on the future of media but a flurry of recent media news, from Canada and abroad, gives me the impression that the brains behind 'media' still don't have a fragment of a clue in most cases.

First 'old media' or 'main stream media' (whichever you prefer) needs to get over the idea that changes are coming. I mean more changes are coming but there is not going to come a point where it stops changing at least in the foreseeable future.

The future is now, the changes have happened and are continuing. All you have to do is read blogs like Technology Futurist, mediacaster and NewTeeVee to know how much things have changed and how rapidly the changes are happening. I listened to a (web) radio show recently where they asked about people's television habits and none of the people under 30 who weighed in still owned a television. They all still watched television programs, but they downloaded them and watched them on their computers. If you are waiting for some kind of order to emerge, for some 'new reality' to show itself you're in for a long wait. The fragmentation of the audience isn't only happening between different channels, it's happening among different modes of media consumption and it's accelerating. Wait and see simply isn't an option.

If you want to play by the old rules you can, but to do that you have to accept that your audience is primarily going to be 45-50+ and be prepared to age with them.

The second thing that old media has to accept is that they are not going to get special treatment. Robert Heinein said, in 1939,

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."

But that is exactly what much of the established media seems to be asking for. According to Ad Age big media companies now want special treatment from Google:

Many publishers resent the criteria Google uses to pick top results, starting with the original PageRank formula that depended on how many links a page got. But crumbling ad revenue is lending their push more urgency; this is no time to show up on the third page of Google search results. And as publishers renew efforts to sell some content online, moreover, they're newly upset that Google's algorithm penalizes paid content.

"You should not have a system," one content executive said, "where those who are essentially parasites off the true producers of content benefit disproportionately."

The Songwriters Association of Canada (SAC) still wants a levy on your internet connection to pay for downloads though they don't say how they would decide who got paid or how much, they don't say what would happen to musicians who weren't members of SAC, they don't say what would happen with other media (such as movies or tv shows) or whether these would require their own levies.

(As an aside a fair - across the board, accountable, trackable levy for everyone might be doable.)

Basically though you can't legislate your way back in time. None of the proposed solutions - from Digital Rights Management (DRM) to traffic shaping, law suits, taxes and levies have proven effective in changing public behavior or in aiding the survival of old media that refuses to adapt.

It might be helpful to consider the possibility that people don't 'decide' how to consume media. Some people might give it some thought, but for the most part people do what works for them, what is most convenient, they consume media in the way that gets them the content they want with the least effort. They may say that they 'never download illegally' but if they get home from taking the survey and realize they've missed the season finale of their favorite show, they will download it. Your task is to find a way to deliver that option.

I'm tired of the headlines and the hearings though. You have to adapt to the world, the world is not going to adapt to you. The revenue streams you have access to are government grants and subsidies, advertising and getting consumers to pay for content (if you can swing it). How you survive though is not going to be settled in Ottawa, it will not be by an act of parliament, or the CRTC it will be by finding a way to deliver good quality content to consumers in a the ways that they want it.

I am all for arts subsidies, for an increased budget for the CBC, and I don't even mind networks get extra help during the recession, as long as it's everyone (including the CBC) and not just the Tories picking the media they like and bailing them out. But all of the subsidies, grants and bailouts in the world will not help traditional media if they don't find a way to adapt.

A Few Random Thoughts on the Shifting Media Landscape

Still working on creating the forum for that Future of Media discussion group. But since these issues have been in the news alot lately I felt the urge to throw out a few thoughts on what is going on in media triggered by recent coverage and observations. Some of these things I've said before but nevertheless:

What is facing media is a media revolution that will make the invention of the printing press look like the invention of the salad shooter, unlike every previous media revolution the only barriers to entry are literacy and a set of computer skills that an average person could pick up in a day.

The recession didn't cause this, it has accelerated the shift but didn't cause it.

This isn't really a public policy issue, there is very little that Parliament or the CRTC can do to change it. They could, if properly persuaded and if they wanted to spend a fortune throw up roadblocks and barricades but it would be an incredible waste of resources, the barriers won't hold back the flood they will only create an adversarial relationship between old and new media. I will always fight for network neutrality and against silly, intrusive copyright laws like C-61 but not because either of these would change anything. If I lose these fights people will find a way to beat the system, things will go on as they are, but the level of animosity created by excessive traffic shaping, or copyright protection would kill just about every current mass media company.

Many in media have criticized the Detroit 3 for being out of touch, not competitive with newer companies and failing to make products that consumers want. Ironically these are the same criticisms that have been leveled at much of the main stream media.

The claims of tradition in the media hold no water. Other than book publishing Journalism is the oldest of the current mass media and Journalism has only slight claim to tradition. The concept of Journalistic objectivity didn't emerge until the 1890s (less than 120 years ago), and the first Journalism school in the world turned 100 last year (2008). I know people have short memories and short attention spans these days but traditions that go back 100 years are hardly sacrosanct.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want media to go away. I don't think it will but the ground has shifted dramatically and people who currently work in media have to understand what has changed and adapt. They have to re-learn much of what they know and they have to learn to compete in a world where many of their "competitors" are operating with little or no budget and few resources. Many of these "competitors" in fact don't even see you as a competitor, they don't analyze in that way. They do what they do because they enjoy it. They cultivate and communicate with their audience and pay little or no attention to what traditional main stream media is doing.

One of the most frequent mistakes I see people in main stream media, including new media projects that are attached to MSM make is placing themselves on a pedestal. The new audience doesn't want to read your resume. They don't care about your education, experience or credentials - only the quality of your output and it's value to them. If you demand acknowledgment and respect from the audience based on what's written in your CV they will likely ignore you completely and, though they won't notice, you will go away.

Future of Media: An Idea Whose Time Has Come (apparently)

So I threw the idea out there about creating a forum for creatives, artists, content creators, journalists, media management folk, tech people and consumers to come together and chat about the things that need to be talked about. Namely how do we make it all work? How do we create a system that meets consumers needs, and is financially and technologically viable?

Ideally all of this would be 'off the record' in the sense that if someone says "I download all the movies I watch" you can't report them to the MPAA, you have to engage them without being insulting and say "Ok, but how are the movie studios going to get money to keep making movies for you to download?" and "I don't know" is an acceptable answer. It's probably the truth and at least you've given them something to think about, if you go on the offensive they'll just go away and nothing has been gained. We also don't want people to be afraid to tell the truth, it would defeat the purpose - we need the real lay of the land here, not judgement or recriminations.

So far today I've heard from dozens of people who are interested in having this chat, a software engineer who wants to design some custom solutions to facilitate it and a few people who are interested in taking it live (public forums and roundtables.)

So it looks like it's all going ahead - details to come.

The Future of Media?

After yesterday's decision to create the Canadian Media Fund I've decided to set up a discussion group on the future of media. The current models, TV, radio, newspapers etc., seem to be broken. The CBC is cutting back annually, local stations are going away, newspapers are laying off and folding and most internet financial models are still unproven.

Most mass media is less than 100 years old (tv, radio, film, recorded music, mass publishing, etc) so the obvious questions are

Is it going away?

Are there economic models that would make it work?

If it is going away and there aren't models to make it work what are we going to replace it with and how?

What are local markets going to do if everything is consolidated into national networks and big cities?

What is the future of public and public service broadcasters?

How is any of this going to work in a deeply fragmented marketplace where audiences are small and demanding?

Calls to increase funding to the CBC by you, me or the Heritage Committee appear to be falling on deaf ears, and calls to increase subsidies are meeting more and more resistance. So if people won't subsidize it, and won't pay for it at all if they can avoid it, how does/should the new model work?

So my question(s) are are you interested in participating in such a group and if so what works best for active conversation? A bulletin board? Facebook Group? Google Group?

If you're interested get in touch.

Is Mass Media Coming to an End?

These are desperate times in media generally. Layoffs, cut backs in service, and even closing the doors altogether are regular daily occurrences. Today the Conservative government, in the first indication that anyone in Ottawa understands what is going on in media combined the Canadian Television Fund and the Canadian New Media Fund into the Canadian Media Fund. I've said more times than I can count that for all intents and purposes there is no longer any difference between television, radio and the internet and this move acknowledges that.

Make no mistake, this is an attack on the CBC. There has, until now, been a part of the Canadian Television Fund earmarked for the CBC. This earmark has been stripped away and will no doubt mean an even lower budget for the CBC.

What all of this means is currently being discussed far and wide so I'm not going to go too deeply into what the CMF may or may not do. What I'm wondering about tonight is: Is there a workable model for mass media anymore? Across North America and around the world media companies of all types are in trouble (public and private). Television, radio, newspapers, publishers, record labels, and film studios (ok not today, wait six months and film studios will be laying off too.) At the same time nearly everyone I talk to is crying out for relevant media, especially smarter media.

I've said before that CBC Radio 3 seems to be doing well. I've had a much easier time generating support for Radio 3 than for the CBC in general but it is unclear, if it were forced to fend for itself, if Radio 3 would be vialble.

It is worth considering that financially viable media is a new concept, it is largely something that occured in the 20th century. For most of human history there was no 'media' except what happened around the campfire. There were also, within the last 1000 years, traveling troupes of actors and musicians (essentially buskers) who would performs in towns, cities and for groups of travelers in exchange for a little money. This is largely where the stereotypes of 'show people' come from. Books happened eventually but had to be hand copied and were primarily the media of monasteries and royalty. Even with the invention of the printing press books were so expensive that even well off merchants, if they were literate, could only afford a few books. Newspapers emerged late in the 18th Century but it wasn't until the 20th century that there was a 'Main Stream Media' - the big newspapers, radio, television, paperbacks, magazines, film were all things that happened in the 20th century and now the model is completely broken.

The internet has changed everything. The models that generated revenue for media in the 20th century have gone away. Everything is now free, or very low cost. People are no longer interested in watching commercials if they can avoid it, and they can. Public funding is still an option (as in the PBS model in the States or CBC in Canada.) But public support for giving these institutions the funding they will need to do what they do well is thin.

The first problem is that with so much media being available for free people are reluctant to devote tax dollars to the cause. The second and much larger problem is that the audience is so fragmented that broadcasters, public and private, are left with the task of being all things to all people.

With the emergence of the internet people have found opportunities to form communities very narrowly. If you like Neil Diamond cover bands, or Chinese films translated into english you can find friends online that agree with you. If media does not cater to your tastes you can all complain together and it gives the impression that "everyone" feels the way that you do. So media companies are faced with the expectation that they will meet the demands of a mammoth variety of groups and individuals. For the most part media companies cannot do it because the financial resources required to produce media are greater than what can be produced from any individual group.

It seems to me that the only viable approach is to target a niche and cater to that niche exclusively and well. Even when targeting a niche the reality is that others will target that same niche. I think that Radio 3, so far, has been successful because it has targeted a niche (fans of Canadian independent music) and has worked hard at community building which engenders a sense of loyalty and helps Radio 3 keep ahead of it's competitors. It seems that this might be a model which media companies could follow, creating inexpensive content and building communities around a variety of interests (other types of music, literature, history, politics etc.). It is unclear though, as I've said, if this is a viable financial model. If everyone took this approach would the overcrowding kill the financial viability?

I'm really asking questions here more than anything. It is entirely possible that 'mass media' was a blip on the radar, that it's window in human history is closing and that it will be replaced with an online 'virtual' campfire. Stories, songs and (unverified) information shared in the evening among people who do other things to make a living. And of course there will be the occasional traveling troubadours.

This may be far fetched. You may be saying 'no someone will find a way' or 'once people realize how serious the problem is they'll be willing to pay'. You may be right, I really hope so, but you also have to realize that most people aren't reading this or anything like it. Most people aren't thinking about it at all, they simply act in whatever way suits them best and 'the financial viability of media' is not a topic they are interested in.

Truth: Sirius Doesn't Think Much of You, or of Canadian Artists

Sirius Canada says that they want you to 'discover music again' in their ad. But the Truth is that Sirius doesn't trust you to discover music on your own, or to choose your own radio stations. They, apparently, don't think enough of Canadian music to think that it can survive if you have other options.

In front of the CRTC recently Sirius Canada argued in favor of Geo Blocking internet radio that doesn't meet Can-Con requirements. Geo-blocking is exactly what it sounds like. People in Canada would not be able to get any internet radio that did not meet Can Con requirements.

"Kerr claimed that the two satellite radio companies in Canada contribute more to Canadian content development than any terrestrial radio company. Further, Sirius plays materially more Canadian content on its channels than does terrestrial radio. Kerr claimed that Sirius’ 65 channels play more CanCon (at 85%) than 65 regular radio channels because it has no commercials and is on the air 24 hours a day. Internet radio, on the other hand, faces no such obligations to satisfy content requirements. Essentially, this is an unfair situation which hurts satellite radio and does little to achieve the goals of Canadian content. Kerr asked the CRTC to question how regulating the tiny satellite radio element of broadcasting satisfies these goals. 

Satellite radio is primarily concerned with the situation where users have unlimited access to content. Traditional broadcasting is relatively closed and limits the user’s access to non Canadian content. This excludes a great deal of content and shapes the listening experience of the user. Kerr admits that any effort to establish symmetry between internet audio broadcasting and traditional broadcasting in the content that is delivered to users would “thrill” satellite radio. The best case scenario for satellite radio would be one where internet audio providers were required to geo-block non-Canadian content. In fact, Kerr said glibly, if such an unlikely course of action were to be taken by the CRTC, Sirius would likely “throw a party” in celebration. Kerr added, however, that she realizes such an approach flies in the face of the principle of an open and neutral internet. But in suggesting such a course of action, Kerr wanted to highlight to the CRTC the dangerous situation that is immediately facing satellite radio."

Make no mistake, this isn't about Can-Con. This is about satellite radio which was never a good idea trying to protect itself from fair competition by a vastly superior technology and asking to be protected by law. They are willing to sacrafice net neturality, sacrafice your options as a consumer and hold back technological advancement in order to protect themselves - all of this in spite of the fact that they have never turned a profit and are not likely to. Not onloy are they unprofitable but the pending doom of their U.S. counterparts and the loss of US audiences and stations would almost certainly mean the end for satellite radio in Canada as well. So, they are willing to sacrifice the freedom of the internet, your choices as a consumer, and to stall technological advancement so that they can put off their imminent demise just a little bit longer.

It is true that internet radio does not have can-con requirements, nor does it have limits to the amount of advertising it airs. However, each internet radio station will be in competition with thousands of radio stations like it and if they do not provide good content or if they run too many ads they will not survive. As for the content, Canadian musicians have more than proven for more than a decade now that they can compete anywhere, and that they have appeal not only in Canada but all over the world.

So, yes, absolutely, discover music again. Discover the world of internet radio out there. Pull the plug on satellite radio before they pull the plug on you and listen to radio online or get yourself one of those wonderful new internet radios if you can afford it. Don't send any more money to a company that is willing to sacrafice your rights and your choices so they can keep going for a little bit longer.

---

This is part of the ongoing Truth campaign in response to Advertising Standards Canada who say:

""Fact is, truth is an essential part of any successful ad campaign. Smart advertisers have known this for years. That's why the advertising industry created the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards. For more than 40 years, the Code has set the standards for acceptable advertising in Canada. It helps ensure that the ads you see and hear are truthful, fair and accurate. Check it out for yourself. Because the more you know about advertising, the more you get out of it."

New Media vs. Old or We're Not Making Cake Today

It can be intensely frustrating trying to talk to old media people about new media. You can talk away and feel like it's sinking in and you are making progress and suddenly it all vanishes in a puff of smoke.

Let's say you were teaching a cooking class and were telling people how to make calzones, so you give everyone an overview, make sure they have all of their ingredients and get ready to start mixing dough. Just as you're about to start someone from the back of the room shouts out, so we're making cake? You step back, start again, and once you are convinced that everyone is on the same page you get ready to start again. 'So why don't we have any frosting? Are we going to make that later?' You sigh, take a deep breath and go back over your overview (repeat ad nauseam).

This is the way it starts to feel after awhile when people keep bringing up things like Cancon requirements, broadcast licenses and the CRTC. All of these things are in their dying days. In ten years anyone with an internet connection will be able to broadcast, the days of having a 'broadcast license' will be over. Broadcast towers will, for the most part, be torn down or used for satellite relay. Cancon requirements will be unenforceable. The CRTC will only exist to enforce net neutrality and privacy laws (or it will not exist at all.)

The good news is that the CBC will still be required to make Canadian shows, and people who want to tap into the Canadian Television Fund will have to as well. In fact everyone will have to produce their own content because there will be no more incentive for show producers in the U.S. (or anyone else) to sell or license their shows. They will be able to deliver them around the world without the need for someone else to re-broadcast them. (The towers are pretty much gone remember).

At home people's televisions, internet, radio, cell phone etc., will all be connected and do the same things. That is how people will get shows and it won't matter where a show comes from. If you want to watch it, you can, regardless of whether it's a Canadian show, US show, British show or other. So, if CTV, City, etc., want people to watch, they will have to make their own shows. Many production companies will even bypass these altogether and go directly to the consumer. Alliance Atlantis, for example, would be able to take CSI directly to consumers without the need to sell or license the content. That means that in house production or (contract) work for hire will be essential to survival.

Again - no broadcast license, no legal Can con requirements (though if they are Canadian they'll need some). This is not a possibility, it's what's happening, it's already begun and unless we run out of all energy supplies and western civilizaiton collapses it's pretty inevitable.

While we're at it I'll make a few more, farther reaching predictions: By 2020-2025 ish, sophisticated animation and graphics programs will allow people with just a story to create photorealistic 'feature films' on their home computers. They will be able to select characters, dress them, shape them, choose their voices and cause them to 'act' with simple instructions. But, once everyone can do it, they will have to be really, really good stories to get any attention.

Shortly after that 'virtual reality' will finally become a real reality and people will be able to plug themselves into story lines, as if they were the lead character and virtually 'live' the stories - living in photorealistic, three dimensional worlds of their own creation where they can do as they please. This is going to be nearly impossible to compete with as a content producer but don't worry. Shortly after this technology hits the market there will be a growing chorus of calls to ban it - when people can plug into a world of their choosing and lead any life they want 'without consequences' it will be hard to get them to stop. In fact even the market for narcotics and alcohol will plummet. An alarming number of people will stop going to work, cleaning the house, taking care of the kids etc.,

After that something else will happen! At any rate, we're not making cake so put the frosting knife away and get over it.

Grasping at Straws or Not the CRTC Has Lit a Fuse

The CRTC and their hearings on the Internet, CanCon and New Media may turn out (whatever the outcome) to be less important than the conversation's they started. For one thing, it's now clear that nothing Rogers says should be taken seriously. They do not tell the 'truth' they say what is convenient and suits their momentary interest.

Beyond that though have a look at Denis McGrath's post on the topic. The post itself may not be as significant as the conversation that followed in the comments section - about net neutrality, broadcast vs. internet, new paradigms and the importance of getting money into new, more creative and flexible, hands.

If the CRTC's colossal overreach finally gets the conversation on where 'broadcast', Can Con, and content creation need to go to survive in this country it will be worth the hundred million - even if the money has little or nothing to do with online Can Con.

Canada Doesn't Need a National Firewall

I found this article via CanCult.ca, the CRTC is apparently considering, once again, whether to regulate Canadian Content online. The short answer is no (actually that's the long answer too. From the Financial Post:

"At issue, according to some, is the very future of Canadian content available on the Internet. Since 1999, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission has exempted programming broadcast over the Internet from the same regulations that apply to conventional broadcasters, which include everything from licences, to the percentage of Canadian channels and programs aired - and at what hours those shows are on - to foreign ownership restrictions.

Part of the reason for this exemption was that the regulator believed "the effect of new media on television audience size would be limited, at least until such time as high-quality video programming could be distributed on the Internet."
That time is upon us."

The only way to regulate Canadian content online is to regulate the entire internet and everything that happens there. It means building the Canadian equivalent of great firewall of China. It would mean the CRTC having a say in everything you might put on your own blog, or Facebook, or twitter or whatever. Even then it would fail, there are ways around the Great Firewall of China. It would set up, in other words, an adversarial relationship between broadcasters and the CRTC on one side and consumers on the other. It would be phenomenally expensive and ultimately futile.

Even having this discussion assumes that the CRTC has hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of dollars to spend regulating the Canadian internet. If they do then Canadian content would be far better served if they put that money into subsidies for the production of Canadian content rather than dumping it into a hole trying to block non-Canadian content.

It has often been said that one of the problems with Canadian television is that there are no natural predators. The argument goes that Canadian television is a club and that, succeed or fail, the same people keep making shows. If one fails they just make a different one. Those days are over. The predators are here. Regulating internet content, in a democracy, is a fantasy. If you are a Canadian content producer you are now in competition with the entire planet. You will never find a more vocal and devoted supporter of Canadian arts and culture than I am, but the free ride is over, the walls that protected you for so long are coming down. It's time to step up and show the world what you've got.

Net Neutrality Comment Deadlines Moved as New Information Emerges

The CRTC has moved the deadline for public comments on net neutrality until the 23rd as new information has come to light. The ISP's argument in favour of traffic shaping relied heavily on the assumption that bandwidth use would continue to grow. They argued that this would clog their systems and force them to pick favorites.

But when forced to reveal actual numbers the results showed:

"The figures from seven ISPs also reveal that annual growth in total traffic volume declined for two consecutive years from 2005-06 to 2007-08 for five of the seven ISPs, in one case dropping from 66 per cent growth in 2005-06 to 21 per cent growth in 2007-08."

Bell, Rogers and Shaw will no doubt try to twist these numbers around to back up their argument. As Evan Esar once said “Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.” But once that falls flat the only argument they will have left is their desire to control what information Canadians are exposed to and to profit from that control. Again, don't forget to tell the CRTC what you think, you have an extra week to do so http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/crtc_submission

Code Blue for Satellite Radio

I've been predicting the death of satellite radio for awhile now (since 2005) but I thought it still had a few years to go.
It appears that I was being too optimistic.

News today out of the US has people speculating about possible bankruptcies for Sirius/MX in the states:

"Rival satellite radio companies Sirius and XM merged last year because of financial difficulties.

But Sirius XM has never made money and it's carrying a debt of more than $3.25 billion US.
In good times, it could manage the debt and pay high-profile shock jocks such as Howard Stern, who makes $100 million annually.

But now there's a deep recession and tight credit markets are hurting the business.

So maybe, in a better economy, they would survive but if the dot com bubble taught us anything it's that a company that has never turned a profit and is $3.25 billion in debt is probably not a good bet, even in good financial times.

It is true that Sirus and XM Canada are separate companies from their US counterparts and the CBC article says that they are considering merger again, but what chance do the Canadian companies stand if their US counterparts go under?

Sirius is currently a private company and isn't required to disclose financials but according to this the two companies between them have just over 1.25 million subscribers. If each of those subscribers pay $15/month that would give the combined company 225 million in gross revenue annually to operate, maintain satellite connections, market themselves and supply content to those listeners.

If the U.S. networks go bust that means that the American stations will go to. Howard Stern (one of the popular U.S. draws) alone gets a reported 100 million annually (as mentioned above) so there is no way the Canadian company would be able to maintain the US programming. Along with a reduction in the number of stations and the loss of US listeners, the Canadian company would be competing with Internet radio - coming this year to Canadian homes and soon to cell phones too. The home units for internet radio will cost more (for now) but will get more stations without a monthly payment and there are already a dozen internet radio applications for iPhone and iPod touch (again more stations without a monthly payment).

While Sirus and XM Canada may want to try a merger to see if they can scrape by Satellite radio is currently on life support and waiting for someone to decide whether and when to pull the plug. What remains to be seen is what this may mean for CBC Radio 3 which is currently offered on Sirius. Radio 3 is the best and most successful (at least since Zed) of the CBC's adventures in the world of new media but it is unclear what the CBC would do if Sirius went bust. (The CBC currently owns 40% of Sirius). The financial blow to the CBC of losing Sirius could make shutting down Radio 3 attractive to them, but Radio 3 is also one of the corps best online initiatives and is available on internet radio (that's actually the only way I listen to R3). Pulling the plug on it would also signal that the CBC was quitting the job of trying to attract a new audience or make the necessary necessary transition to the internet as primary outlet.

A Guide to the New Rules for Media Orgs That Aren't Quite Dead Yet

To those of you who are young, or those of you who are tech savvy, what I'm going to say is going to be pretty obvious but given what's going on with main stream media outlets it apparently needs to be repeated.

When I wrote the post on the dying days of big media I said that you had to start thinking of your media, regardless of the type of content, as a website. At the time I didn't go into much detail on this so just in case people out there didn't understand (and I've heard from a few who didn't) let me explain:

First look around the web. Web sites do not discriminate by media type. Audio, video, and text are all welcome and good web sites use all three. In future when people visit you they won't turn to your television station or your radio station or pick up your newspaper or magazine - they will navigate to an address. As I said there will be no difference between a TV, a radio, a laptop and a portable media device (people used to call them cell phones). So people will visit you the same way they visit a web site now and your content should be ready when they get there.

The first thing you need to do is get rid of your schedule your visitors won't care about your schedule (they don't care now.) So your content is either available right now, or it's not and if it's not your audience won't be happy - you're operating on their schedule now.

Second, stop protecting your content. Streaming is fine, but people may want to take your content with them - let them. If you don't someone else will record your content and share it. Will people cut your content up and do things with it you might not approve of? Only if you're lucky. The reality is that if people don't want to take your content with them, share it with their friends or make their own edits and mash ups of it you're probably not going to survive, so make it easy for people to do these things - they'll appreciate it.

If you're worried about the bandwidth of all those downloads, use BitTorrent. If people like your content enough they'll be willing to share it and they will absorb some of the bandwidth required at no cost to you. Yes this means that it will be harder to track the number of viewers, listeners etc., but media is going to have to grow up and find new ways of tracking popularity. The reality is that if your content has an audience smart advertisers will know and will be interested in working with you. If your content is not popular they won't.

So, again - your web site should now be the focus of your organization. All of your content should be there. It should be easy to find and easy to get at. It should be available on your audiences schedule and at their convenience. It should be available in whatever format they want, and they should be able to subscribe to it easily. If you are going to charge for content make it inexpensive and make it easy to pay - be aware thought that if you charge at all you should not also have advertising.

On the flip side if you are going to have advertising (don't charge obviously and) make the advertising unobtrusive. If you put 30 minutes of advertising into a one hour program people will go to the trouble of editing it out and sharing the ad free version. Do not, whatever else you do, integrate the advertising into the content - you will lose your audience.

Above all be true to your audience. If you are, for example, a news organization your integrity is all you have. You are now in competition worldwide - if the audience gets the sense that you are not honest and reliable you will lose them in droves.

On a final and related note. I also mentioned in my last note that organizations would be "smaller, more flexible and more focused." This is not just an economic requirement. Technology and media technology changes rapidly and will continue to for the foreseeable future, when things change you have to change with them. This means watching your audience and changing to meet their needs but it also means that when the next Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., comes along you can't hold meetings and strategy sessions to find out if you should be there. You should be there. The goal will be to get there quickly and in full force - no time for debates and meetings. If it takes you a year to formulate a strategy to meet the new environment, you're too late. You might get some small benefeit from going forward but ultimately you just have to hope you can catch the next wave.

I know some of you won't believe this or don't like it and want to change the approach but this isn't a strategy, this is reality. You are living through a media revolution that will make the invention of the printing press look like the dawn of the salad shooter and will make the arrival of broadcast look like the ShamWow. Large media organizations in the music industry, the film industry and to an extent the television industry (mostly in the U.S.) have made to colossal mistake of seeing this as a negotiation with the audience. It is not a negotiation, it is a colossal shift in the way people create and consume media and you can't negotiate with it any more than you can negotiate with an earthquake.

On Boost This Week

This week's stuff on Boost (see the bottom of that page if you don't know what that is).




Boost Music:

This week's band is the Calgary 8 piece? Sometimes 10 piece I guess...Woodpigeon. They have a new album out this week "Treasury Library Canada." The video I'm posting is from an older album called Songbook the video is for "Home as a Romanticized Concept Where Everyone Loves You Always and Forever"

Woodpigeon Facebook Fan Page

Woodpigeon on CBC Radio 3 Sessions

Woodpigeon - Home as a Romanticized Concept Where Everyone Loves You Always and Forever



Boost Film and Television:

This week's film nurse.fighter.boy is "an urban love story about the soul of a mother, the heart of a fighter and the faith of a child.

Jude is a single mother who descends from a long line of Jamaican caregivers. SILENCE is a past his prime boxer who fights illegally to survive. CIEL is a boy who delves into music, conjuring dreams for his mother. During the last week of summer, a late-night brawl finds the fighter in the nurse`s care, causing their three fates to be forever entwined."

Facebook Fan Page

Toronto Premeire with Cast and Crew Afterparty - Friday February 6

Nurse.Fighter.Boy



Still in their early days, this week on Boost Literature I sent up Librivox - the Montreal based organization that has volunteers from around the world read books in the public domain and then compiles them into free audio books on Boost: Canadian Art I gave a shout out to artincanada.com with it's links and galleries galore.

---

Boost is a collection of Facebook Groups designed to promote Canadian arts and media. Once a week a message goes out to each group promoting a particular artist, group or resource. The groups include Boost: Canadian Art, Boost: Canadian Film and Television, Boost: Canadian Literature, Boost: Canadian Music, Boost: Canadian New Media.

Interactive Exchange Comes to Toronto in March

From March 17 - 19 the Interactive Exchange will be running at the Carlu (444 Younge Street in Toronto). The Exchange referred to as 'IN 09' (formerly the Interactive Content Exchange) is

"an event dedicated to the business of interactive digital media. In an industry so dictated by the flow of ideas and reinvention, discussion about future trends and re-framing of thought is paramount."

It is an opportunity for interactive and digital content producers, game developers, educators, investors, programmers, and more to gather, talk shop, learn, network and show off new projects. For more information on IN 09 visit inexchange09.com.

Boost This Week

If you don't know what Boost is already check the bottom of this page for details. So, this week:










Boost Music:
the Pack A.D. - Making Gestures



Boost: TV and Film:
Bruce McDonald's Pontypool



Boost: Literature and Boost: Art are still growing fast but given that each has only a few hundred members right now I just sent out links to good resources: View on Canadian Art and the Quill and Quire blog.

Boost: New Media - is just barely getting started - nothing there yet.

---

Boost is a collection of Facebook Groups designed to promote Canadian arts and media. Once a week a message goes out to each group promoting a particular artist, group or resource. The groups include Boost: Canadian Art, Boost: Canadian Film and Television, Boost: Canadian Literature, Boost: Canadian Music, Boost: Canadian New Media.

Boost: New Media

Earlier today I mentioned the other Boost Groups. This one kindof completes the set. It will be the last for awhile, perhaps the last altogether but I've just created Boost: New Media: This one deals with new media in the broad sense: That is to say it is for content that is only available online podcasts, video podcasts, video games, internet radio, web tools and more. In other words it is about Canada's rapidly exploding digital world. Once a week I will send out a new email pointing you to a new online treasure that is either wholly Canadian or has heavy Canadian involvement. (This is the internet after all, it crosses borders frequently.)

I'll also include a blog of the week, it may not be an "art" but it is media and has become an important one. As with the other Boost groups I'll let it grow for awhile before sending anything out, feel free to sign up and spread the word if you're interested.

How to Fix the CBC and How Not Too

The National Post has an interesting piece up this weekend on how to fix the CBC. Articles on 'how to fix the CBC' are almost an annual requirement for every news organization in this country (except the CBC) but this particular one isn't written by a TV critic or political pundit. Instead they asked people with a stake in the future of the CBC how they thought it should be fixed: Among the respondents: Director Bruce McDonald, actor Nicholas Campnell, ex-BBC journalist and current UBC journalism professor Alfred Hermida, fashion designer John Fluevog and talent agent Amanda Rosenthal.

Bruce McDonald's reaction was, to an extent predictable - urging that creative talent have more input.

"We need to be smarter, faster, quicker and braver than other programmers. Give artists permission. Then set them free."
- Bruce McDonald

That it was predictable though doesn't mean it's wrong. I find alot of the CBC's new programming feels like it was created by a calculator rather than a person. Given it's federal subsidies combined with it's ad revenue the CBC can afford to take risks that no other media company in Canada can, but they don't. They seem for the most part to be the best funded but least brave or creative of Canada's 'big media.'

Also predictable was the response from Amanda Rosenthal, president of Amanda Rosenthal Talent Agency Inc. who talked about how Canada needs a 'Star System'. I've heard this argument frequently and don't think much of it. Even the U.S. seems to be tiring of it's star system. The reality is that Canada has a star system and that we will always lose talent to the United States.

I heard it said once that the British have their own star system: That there are alot of 'stars' in Britain who the rest of the world wouldn't have heard of. The same is true in Canada. The biggest TV Star in Canada is Don Cherry - not because he does alot of photo ops and late night interviews, but because he is himself - brash, politically incorect, opinionated and unapologetic.

Beyond Cherry we have Peter Mansbridge, Rick Mercer, Bruce McDonald, Feist, Nicholas Campbell, the various members of the Kids in the Hall, Sarah Polley, David Suzuki, and a great many others. All of them are well known, and respected and have survived Canada's 'tall poppy syndrome' by not getting too tall. They are humble, talented, experienced and hard working and Canadians respect that. In my experience at least Canadians recognize talent and hard work but have little appetite for pretense, garish wealth or celebrity culture.

The U.S. has ten times Canada's population. As a result they have larger budgets, more production and can pay higher salaries. That will always lure many of Canada's best and brightest south. This is not only true in the arts but in science and medicine, sports, business and technology etc. This is not only a Canadian problem - Great Britain, Australia, India, and essentially the entire english speaking world lose talent to the United States.

We do need to make it easier for Canadian talent to stay in Canada, but in most cases that just means making the arts financially viable, we have to enable our artists to stay and make a living, not stay and become ridiculously wealthy - that we can't do. I have with publicbroadcasting.ca have tried in many ways to work on this problem. I know though that no matter what I or anyone else do some will stay in Canada and accept less than they could make in the States, some will leave and some will go back and forth.

Fashion designer John Fluevog helps my case:

"Sometimes, I get a sense CBC is justifying its existence. That, because of government harassment, it has to prove it's ‘Canadian.' CBC has no need to apologize. It's not our culture, that's too much pressure. It's the glue that holds Canadian culture together. Hip is being yourself, it's a naturalness of owning who you are. Be quirky and offbeat, but don't try to be cool - young people smell that a mile away."

The CBC does not need to be like the US, it does not need to be hip. Cool is over. Society, as an early affect of modern technology, is fragmented - everything is cut into niches now and each niche has it's own sense of what is and isn't cool. On the whole I find that those who try the hardest to be cool are the least popular. People respect individuality and creativity and talent and that combination is the closest there is to a definition of cool in 2009.

Take for example the the Bucky Awards. Radio 3 is the CBC's coolest brand. The Bucky Awards are Radio 3's annual music awards. In this years awards, as voted by the audience, Laura Barrett - a talented young musician (who plays the kalimba, an african thumb piano) wears large glasses and doesn't wear makeup was voted Canada's Sexiest Musician - welcome to Canada and the new definition of cool.

The CBC's two biggest challenges are still left: Technology and the Government.

"CBC must stop thinking of itself as a broadcaster. It's a content provider. Of course, in every organization there's inertia. CBC is a cruise liner and there's an iceberg approaching; it takes time to get that ship turned. There will be resistance. At BBC, new media was met with suspicion: Why are we going online? So we found the journalists, editors and producers interested in exploring - we got the early adapters and worked the edges of the organization. Then it spread.

"Newsrooms are notoriously reluctant to change. When change comes, the initial reaction is defensiveness. But BBC changed and so can CBC. It starts with strategy. Don't blog because everyone else does. Innovate! In 2007, the BBC iPlayer streamed programs to hand-held devices which proved tremendously popular - think about getting content out there so it suits the audience. CBC is in the process of re-invention. They have to change how, not what, they do."

Alfred Hermida, assistant professor of journalism at the University of British Columbia

"If Ottawa wants to find a way to get rid of it, CBC only has a 50/50 chance to survive. I got told by a member of Parliament that Paul Martin began planning on how he'd spread the savings once he got rid of CBC. And Jean Chrétien was the worst. I love him, he didn't even call me by name, he'd just yell, ‘CBC!' He'd get so mad talking about it, I'd have to calm him down. He thought they ambushed him at a press conference and made things hard on everyone and brought morale way down.

"There's a prejudice out there against them, like it's CBC so it's not very good or it's a copy of American things. Talking with Don Cherry, he'd say Da Vinci is so good I thought it was American. I'm like, ‘Don, man, that's the worst thing you can say.'

I love CBC and I'm willing to fight for it. Loyal, patriotic Canadians should have something that blows their minds."
- Nicholas Campbell

The CBC has no real political allies - at least the Liberals and Conservatives are not exactly fond of it. It is only public support that keeps the CBC up and running. In order to keep that support the CBC does not need to become cooler, or more American - it needs to remain deeply relevant to Canadians in terms of what content it delivers and how it delivers that content. The way people consume media is changing rapidly and the CBC must accommodate those changes. I've heard a few people say recently that "TV is for boomers" and that is a perception that the CBC cannot allow to stand. I'm sure the temptation is great. The baby boomers had the least exposure to the internet in their youth and are the slowest to adopt new technologies - as a result they make up the bulk of the traditional television audience so the easiest thing to do is to program for them but this is terribly short sighted and would kill CBC television in the longer run.

So going back to where we started - with Bruce McDonald who said the CBC must "give artists permission. Then set them free." The CBC must take the same approach to new media. Even if they start small they must give their new media people permission to try and fail, permission to experiment and be bold. This cannot be an afterthought, these people will create the CBC of the future and there will be trials and pitfalls and colossal failures along the way but that is the only road from here to there and the CBC needs to give some brave explorers permission to go down that road.

On a final note the CBC certainly needs more money from Ottawa. The mere fact that both the Liberals and Conservatives dislike and distrust the CBC means that they are worth keeping around and making stronger. Beyond that if the CBC needs more money in order to experiment and give license to it's creative talent, lower production values are absolutely acceptable. Internationally people are willing to accept lower production values if the ideas are good. In television shows like South Park and the Simpsons started with low production values that grew over time. The original BBC version of 'the Office' and the original Saturday Night Live both had very low production values and films like the Blair Witch Project and Roger & Me have shown that films made on a shoestring budget can be internationally successful. In technology and new media this is especially true. Facebook, for example, was started by a few students in a dorm room. What is holding the CBC back is not purely financial, there is far more 'won't' than 'can't' causing the problems.

Convergence Complete: The Internet Coming to Television

For years now the writing has been on the wall for big media, the audience has been fragmenting, advertising has become less effective and the audiences have been shrinking, with the perpetual growth of the internet large corporations with deep wallets have been forced to compete with amateurs operating out of their basement (or a table at Starbucks.) Film production houses have been having fits trying to keep content from leaking onto the internet, with no success. Perhaps they should have talked to the record companies who have been trying for longer? The RIAA has even stopped suing people and while they'd like you to believe that it's because they've seen the error of their ways, I'm willing to bet that they just can't afford the lawyers anymore.

The general message for about a decade for big media has been "it's all over but the shouting" and now, six days into 2009 the shouting has begun. If you twitter you might want to have a look at @themediaisdying or more locally @Canadianmedialayoffs. If you don't Twitter you can have a look at Time Magazine: An End, and a Beginning, for the Media

"When an earthquake shook Sichuan and terrorists shot up Mumbai, eyewitnesses' texts poured out through Twitter. Some of the biggest scoops and best analysis in the election came from blogs and some of the best satire from YouTube. Political websites took off. The media have never been so ubiquitous or polymorphous. I can access more information on the phone in my back pocket than I could have, as a kid, in my hometown library."

I know that so far I'm not telling you anything you don't know but like television I'm trying to make sure that everyone is caught up first: "Previously on [insert name of formulaic TV show where the same stuff happens every week so it's barely worth re-caping the last episode"]

The thing is, things are about to get harder. The first thing you should know is that digital high def. television you bought on boxing day is obsolete - as is the blu-ray player. According to the Globe and Mail the internet is coming directly to television. I won't bother to quote it, the initial offerings will be minimal but if you've been paying any attention at all to technology for the last several decades you'll know that it's only a matter of a few years before integration is complete.

What it means is that very shortly everything online will be available directly to people in that large box in the middle of the living room. Everyone with a computer will essentially have a broadcast license and large media companies will have to compete directly with everything online. Television shows will have to compete with movies, they will have to compete with online video games, teleconferencing, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Canadian television stations will have to compete with professional and amateur television from around the world and pay-per-view that charges money will be competing directly with torrent sites.

It also means that content will still be king, but it will largely have to be in house content. Alliance Atlantis won't need anyone to 'broadcast' CSI, they will be able to send it directly to viewers and keep all of any revenues generated. US networks won't need Canadian stations to broadcast their shows - producers in Canada, the US, the UK or China will be able to send programs directly all over the world without a local carrier and while great pains will surely be taken to protect content, with the amount of competition out there stringent controls, IP blocking, excessive digital rights management or other such interference will cause your audience to look elsewhere.

This may sound like doom and gloom but I assure you it's not. If you can live within this new landscape it may be the best time of your life. We are in the early stages of a media revolution that will make the invention of the printing press look like the arrival of the Salad Shooter. Entire history books will be written about this. Be good at what you do, be innovate, creative, flexible and don't be afraid to go solo or create your own media if the machine spits you out. Beyond that hold on to your hats, the fun is just about to begin.


Edit: On a related note, in the US at least, online video viewership rose 34% last year.

Graphic Via visualparadox

The CRTC, New Media (and Michael Geist)

If you don't read Michael Geist's Blog. Dr. Geist will keep you up to date on the latest in the law as it pertains to technology and copyright.

Today you would have found out a couple of important things. First the Competition Bureau has warned the CRTC against regulating new media. This is a good thing in that the internet doesn't need to be regulated in the same way television and radio are. The internet is a public forum where anyone can participate and should remain so. It is a bad thing in that, at the moment, a handful of companies in Canada monopolize connections to the internet and bandwidth and they are exploiting that monopoly. They are overcharging for internet use, and trying to control what you may or may not do on the internet - they are, in effect, regulating the internet themselves without any input from government.

The best solution is probably for municipalities to provide internet service (in the same way they provide water and sanitation) - simply make it an essential public service and shut the telecoms out altogether.

The second important and interesting thing you would have found out is that those self same companies have formed an alliance to defend their anti-public monopolies.