Revisiting CKLN (Part two)

Episode 52 of This Is Toronto is now available!

This latest edition is part two of a two-part series that revisits CKLN. The Ryerson-based station was forced to vacate 88.1FM, but will still broadcast online.

www.thisistorontopodcast.blogspot.com

NEXT EPISODE: June 3, 2011

More Good News

Episode 42 of This Is Toronto is now available!

This latest edition revisits Good News Toronto, a not-for-profit newspaper that features inspirational stories and celebrates everyday heroes.

www.thisistorontopodcast.blogspot.com

NEXT EPISODE: Jan. 14, 2010

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.

The Key to Media Profitability is Respect

I talk to alot of people in various media. Most of them don't really care about file sharing one way or another. The thing I've found, with music, is that most of the people I know buy alot of CDs (physical or digital) from artists that they like because they respect the artists and they know how hard they work. They know that most artists (unless you're U2 or Coldplay) are not wealthy and make their money by a combination of recorded music sales, merchandise and concert attendance. So the fans show respect to the artist by buying something. Some may download the music for free but they go to live shows and buy t-shirts. The artists, in turn, respect their fans and will accept this partial payment - the artists know that their fans are also not made of money. The artists also know that there is little they can do about file sharing and would rather remain on good terms with the audience that create an adversarial relationship over a few dollars.

This is the kind of relationship, based on mutual respect, that needs to exist for your media company (in whatever medium) to survive. Sometimes it is the audience that needs to show more respect. To download an unreleased album or an unreleased film shows a lack of respect for the artists. It is up to the creator of the content to decide when it is done and when it is available to the public. You wouldn't want someone reading your rough drafts - or making them available to the public at large.

Most of the time though it is a lack of respect on behalf of the media. To actually expect fans of your film to pay to see it in the theatre and then to buy it on VHS, and DVD, and Blu-Ray and then to buy another .mp4 copy for their iPod shows a lack of respect for the audience and it should come as no surprise if that lack of respect is returned.

I have bought Sandanista by the Clash three times - on Vinyl, then on CD, then on CD again. If something should happen to my copy I should be able to download another one. I have shown my respect to the creators of the album three times over. But according to the big record labels I should not only buy it again, I should buy the CD and then buy it in digital form if I want it on my computer and then buy it yet again if I should if I want it on my portable MP3 player. That shows an intense lack of respect for the audience and it should come as no surprise if that lack of respect is returned (especially when the record companies have a poor track record on supporting artists.)

I pointed out in my last post that the problem that big media is facing is not due to downloading, it is due to their inability to adapt to the increased competition of the million channel universe. Taking your problems out on your fans and your best customers (and taking $222k from a single mom because you lost $8) is the ultimate show of disrespect and if that disrespect is returned at the same level your company will not survive.

To date big media (record labels, movie studios, and others) have shown almost no respect to the audience, but they demand back full and total respect, even a little bit of awe. I do not, at this moment, believe that most of these companies will survive. If one day I rent a DVD and, instead of an anti-piracy advertisement, see the head of the MPAA on his knees begging forgiveness and offering free downloads of all films made prior to 1990 - I may change my mind. I'm afraid though that it would take something on that level for me to have any confidence that Fox, Vivendi, Universal, etc., are going to be around in 20 years.

If you, as a content producer in any media want to have a lasting career and a growing audience that is willing to pay - not because they have to but because they support you - try earning the respect of the audience. If you create intelligent, meaningful, worthwhile media and show respect and appreciation for everyone in your audience you'll be fine.

Canwest's Ship Starts to Sink

Yet another reason why a fully funded CBC is necessary: the CBC was originally created as a uniting force in a large and sparsely populated country. Even today there is very little that unites this country from coast to coast to coast and reminds us that we are not part of the United States. Some will argue that that we no longer need the CBC, that it's function has been taken over by private broadcasters. Those people are wrong. First of all the private broadcasters primarily show American programs, second of all they are not financially viable: BMO Capital Markets analyst Tim Casey wrote in a note to clients today that CanWest's stock is essentially worthless and, whether his analysis is correct or not the company is so deeply buried in debt that its survival in its current form is nearly impossible.

"Canwest has another debt deadline looming Tuesday, by which time it must pay $30.4 million (U.S.) in interest to holders of its 8 per cent senior subordinated notes. The payment was originally due March 15, but the company missed it.

If it doesn't pay Tuesday, the investors can demand the repayment of about $761 million of outstanding principal on the notes. This could further exacerbate the crisis facing the company...
While critical, the looming interest payment is only the tip of the iceberg for Winnipeg, Manitoba-based Canwest, which has a debtload of about $3.7 billion (Canadian), some of it dating back to its 2000 acquisition of newspaper assets from Hollinger International."

Canada still needs a voice of it's own, and a uniting force for the country. A fully funded CBC is the only way to insure that we have that.

Associated Press Declares Itself Obsolete

Considering the line of work they are in it's somewhat ironic that the Associated Press has, apparently, not being paying much attention to what is going on in the world for the last few decades. That is, apparently, the case though. From Bill Doskoch and the New York Times comes word that the Associated Press has adopted litigation as a method of protecting it's intellectual property from the internet.

"Taking aim at the way news is spread across the Internet, The Associated Press said on Monday that Web sites that used the work of news organizations must obtain permission and share revenue with them, and that it would take legal action against those that did not.
A.P. executives said they were concerned about a variety of news forums around the Web, including major search engines like Google and Yahoo and aggregators like the Drudge Report that link to news articles, smaller sites that sometimes reproduce articles whole, and companies that sell packaged news feeds.
They said they did not want to stop the appearance of articles around the Web, but to exercise some control over the practice and to profit from it."

Asking for compensation from people who copy their articles in whole is fair and reasonable but going after those who link to articles, or who quote them and link to them shows a complete lack of understanding of how the internet and the modern information economy works. It is a policy that essentially says that if you do free advertising for them, they will sue you. Perhaps when visited by the AP's lawyers Google should ask for compensation from the AP for all the publicity they have been getting?

In the interim, until the Associated Press figures this out or goes out of business you might want to find another news source to link to online.

Whatever Happened to CMG?

Does anyone remember the 2005 CBC Lockout? I do. I was there. There were rallies, demonstrations, protests and concerts. Alot of unions and various organizations sent representatives out to support the CBC. All of this was organized and run by the Canadian Media Guild. At this stage I'm wondering what happened to them?

When the problems began in the auto industry there were rallies and demonstrations, with most of these directed at the government (not their employer.) Canadian Autoworkers spokespeople were all over the news and the media responded with intensive coverage of the issues.

But when the media problems started - when news organizations started laying off people the CMG (who, in addition to the CBC, represent employees of APTN, Canadian Press, Can West Television, TVO, and Thompson Reuters amoung others) was silent. They remained silent when the CBC shortfall was announced, remained silent through the process as individuals tried to persuade the government to intervene and are still silent now.

Ok they aren't totally silent, there are a few notes on their website and some good reads on the blog of CMG President Lise Lareau. But with 800 people about to be lockout out of the CBC permanently, that appears to be it. One of the headlines on Lareau's blog reads "The fight to save local news is on" - cool! Where? The first headline on Lareau's blog reads Radio silence on media crisis - it's about the lack of media coverage of the crumbling media but her 'About Me' section reads "President of the Canadian Media Guild - a union representing 6,000 media workers in public and private broadcasting and news services - and a TV producer."

So why has there been no coverage? You evidently have some good media contacts in the rolodex, all you have to do is give them something to cover : rally? press conference?

I know, from 2005 that the CMG and Ms. Lareau care about these issues, but I do not understand why they have opted to stay out of it.

Exposing The Bias at the CBC

Ok so the CBC's conservative detractors continually say that the CBC has a left wing bias. It's the same stuff that conservatives in the states say bout the media in general and PBS in particular.

These same people claim that the majority of the public doesn't support the CBC - never mind that the polls disagree - that a slim majority of Canadians, including 41% of conservatives support more funding for the CBC. These people will still say that the overwhelming majority of Canadians think the CBC should be shut down.

These Canadians come from the Fox News school of reality. The Fox News school of reality goes like this: Rather than do research, or read a book, or even think about things much you just say the first thing that pops into your head. It should be something short and punchy that sounds good and that reinforces what you already think. (government is bad, tax cuts are the only thing governments should do, hand guns are a good toy for toddlers etc).

Then you repeat this silly thing, whatever it may be, over and over again and get your friends to do the same (in the states they refer to said friends as dittoheads - they are called this for a reason.) So once you have repeated your invented 'fact' often enough that you and your friends all firmly believe it's true. Then you go on the offensive against anyone who disputes them.

So, if you turn on the CBC and they say thing like

Evidence suggests that the world is more than 6,000 years old

Evidence suggests that toddlers should not play with hand grenades

Apparently there were no WMD's in Iraq

According to recent polls the majority of Canadians think the government should do more to end poverty

This means that they are obviously biased against conservatives - obviously. Because you know the 'facs' and they ain't reportin em. And you know that no Canadians support the CBC because you axed your dad, your mom and your sister and neither of them like it.

Fortunately the majority of Canadians do read books, listen to scientists on questions of science and clergy on issues of spirituality and not the other way around and the majority of Canadians do support the CBC (and health care, and welfare, and employment insurance etc.)

This rant has been brought to you by the National Post - not the article itself, but the comment section where there is so much venom and so little knowledge that I didn't know where to start.

But by the time the current economic depression recession is over I'm pretty sure that 3 things will be true:

1) The CBC will still be around (though it may be bloodied)
2) The National Post will not still be around.
3) CBC News will still be biased in favor of reality!

What Does Internet Radio Mean: Technological Implications for the Larger Media

I have written a couple of times now about the arrival of internet radio: The devices that look like old school radios and use a wi-fi connection to deliver tens of thousands of radio stations from around the world. Similar solutions are hitting the streets for iPhones and other portable devices.

The arrival of internet radio and the looming death of satellite though is not what media companies need to focus on. It already happened and, if their planners know what they are doing, they've made the necessary adjustments and are already there.

The important thing to look at, as with all new technology, is what it means. What does it imply for what's coming down the road? The answer here is a fairly easy and obvious one. First it will shortly mean internet television : television delivered directly via the internet (and of course the ability to use your television to access other internet services). If it can be done with radio it can be done with TV - to a 'television' or a mobile device but internet radio and television delivery is just the start.

The more important signal here is the end of the need to store media on a portable device. Customizable audio and video libraries and playlists stored in the clouds and accessible from anywhere will shortly follow. This means unlimited storage capacity and much smaller portable devices.

For content producers this is great news. It is a huge opportunity and maybe the last shot at redemption for 'big media.' Because none of the media people consume will be stored locally people will largely get their content via streaming. They will be able to have their own libraries of media and stream it to themselves but you may be able to save them the work.

Think of the cable model, with a provider giving consumers access to hundreds of 'channels' for a fee. This could work on the same basic model, with content producers bundling their content into libraries and a content provider providing bundles of those libraries to consumers who can then pick and choose from the available content and access it via customized playlists or on demand.

Yes consumers could do this on their own but if you can save them the time of downloading everything and storing it somewhere you will have an audience. If you can provide them a library containing everything and available all the time most consumers, I believe, will pay a monthly fee for that service rather than creating their own. The pitfall to be aware of though is overplaying your hand.

1) Do not overcharge. The more you charge the more consumers will go around you.

2) Don't try to strengthen your position by blocking out your competitors and/or smaller companies - the idea here is to offer consumers everything they are looking for and trying to strengthen your hand by limiting their choices will be fatal - it's the kind of priggish arrogance that caused the problems you are facing now.

Who gets paid how much is something that producers and distributors will have to work out between them. It is also important to remember that technology will continue to change and something could happen that alters this. However, there is finally the semblance of a potential business model emerging. Old/traditional/big media has, over the last few decades, acquired a well earned reputation for being slow to move, for turning opportunities into liabilities and for trying to legislate their way back in time. Can we take a shot at breaking that mold?

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.

CBC News Sunday on the Death of Newspapers

CBC News Sunday did a report yesterday on the plight of newspapers.

"Newspapers are laying off staff and, in more and more cases, they're folding up. What lies ahead for this traditional bastion of journalism? And would the death of newspapers mean the death of news?"

There was some good commentary on what's going on with newspapers and what it means for the future of journalism and news. Obviously the death of newspapers does not mean the end of news. What's sad/funny/ironic though is that what was said about newspapers applies to all media. Just as the film and television industries didn't get that what started happening with the music industry over a decade ago was also going to happen to them CBC News doesn't seem to understand that what is happening to the newspapers is also happening to music, film, television, radio ...

This is not a newspaper issue, it is a media issue. One of their commentators said for example that it was primarily people over the age of 40 who were propping newspapers up. The same could easily be said for broadcast radio or television (probably DVD rentals too). It's not a holy grail, it doesn't explain all you need to know but try watching the video and insert radio for newspapers, or television, or insert 'drama' for news. Everyone's in the same boat but remember: a decade ago the recording industry claimed that it was all going to lead to the death of music (the big companies still make that claim.) They were wrong, music is alive and thriving. The large companies that would not or could not adapt are not.

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.

A dying breed of identity

Staying on topic of yesterday's post about the long life of Denver's Rocky Mountain News having it's final day on Friday, north of the U.S. border our own continual decline in the news and radio business is taking a downward spiral as the CBC looks to the federal government for bridge financing, willing to be paid back once the economy picks up, but this a tune the Prime Minister seems is not willing to sing.



The federal government would rather see the CBC have significant programming and staff cutbacks with potential job losses of six to 700 of senior staff members then to agree to bridge funding to keep them afloat.



As usual, the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party do not take this seriously enough to apply any of the stimulus money to continue keeping Canadian media protected in this serious time of trouble that has not yet reached the depth of doom.



The Conservatives are at denial stages once again and will do only what will end up harming Canada and the demise of Canadian programming in the future, something they are becoming famous for.



According to Hubert Lacroix, President of the CBC during his luncheon in Toronto at the Empire Club of Canada -Canada has the 4^th lowest level in public broadcasting funding per capita a mere $34 dollars while the BBC gains $124 per British citizen and funding in France receives as of 2007 $65 per citizen and announced due to the financial downturn will be raised to $77 dollars. Both these public broadcasting networks operate in only one official language unlike the two Canada broadcasts in.



For the CBC to receive funding equal to these two other countries it would have to double to match the French funding and multiply by 4 to match the BBC funding, something the Canadian government has no intention of doing but instead will allow the end of the CBC to bring in American TV shows, something Ian Morrison, spokesperson for Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, an industry watchdog group, said he doesn't think Canadian taxpayers will be willing to pay for.



As the economy swings into the depths of the abyss we cannot allow our public broadcasting of news media and entertainment to be sabotaged by lack of funding when a stimulus plan of spending to encourage growth and restructuring is what the government should be doing.



With many of the media hurting in lost revenue and the potential for the closings and layoffs of private media companies on the brink of bankruptcy protection, public broadcasting and more important continuing Canadian content is not only logical for the future of our country and citizens, but crucial to our survival as independent programming with potential of increased Canadian arts and entertainment of the future.



As a supporter of CBC and public broadcasting the breaking down of this Canadian life means bit by bit the end of our Canadian identity.



When will this Conservative government stop and smell the crap they're shovelling instead of pretending to plant rose gardens throughout the country.

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.

A Proposal on Making Free Content Pay

There is a post this morning from Bill Doskotch about a Toronto Star article (which also mentions other articles.) The basic gist of it all is how to make newspapers pay. Newspapers have been declining for decades now, very few of them charge for online content and quality journalism costs money to produce. There are alot of comments on the Star article of the 'evolve or die' variety and it's true that all media must evolve or die. This isn't advice, it's reality, if media fails to evolve it will die. However, media cannot going on forever producing content for which there is no way to get paid.

Doskotch wonders, in particular, about whether newspapers should charge for online content. They shouldn't. That discussion has been over for a decade. If, for example, the Toronto Star decided to start charging for content tomorrow they would get a few subscribers but most people would simply go to the thousands of online news sites that don't charge (especially in a recession.) So, how do you pay for all the work that goes into that journalism? Ads alone won't do it. Internet advertising simply doesn't pay that well. If it did news organizations wouldn't have been slashing budgets and staff for the last decade, but there is another way.

The Songwriters Association of Canada put forward another unacceptable proposal. They called for a fee to be added to everyone's internet bill to pay for 'illegal' downloads'. Their proposal is not acceptable primarily because the suggested fee would go to the SAC who would then decide on their own how to distribute it. How does the SAC know how many times a particular song has been downloaded? They don't know. They would have to guesstimate and what about Canadian musiciains who weren't members of SAC? They would have to join if they wanted to get paid and then - what about films? what about television programs? e-books? etc., do we set up separate fees given to various organizations to divy up as they see fit? The short answer, and the long one, is no. We simply cannot institute what would basically be a new tax to be distributed according to the whim of a private organization. However, they are not far off the mark.

What might work is a centralized fee for all content. So, let's say (as a starting point) that $5 / month was tacked onto everyone's bill. According to this there are 28 million internet users in Canada, the collected fees would come to 1.68 billion annually. So that is the pool to be divided. The Internet Service Providers would be required to pay the administration costs.

The administration would be set up as a bureaucracy that ran something like Google Adwords. The regulating agency would provide a snipit of code that would track your traffic - not just by visitors but by bandwidth. So large files would count for more than small ones. A feature film, or a new music album is incredibly time and cost intensive and it simply wouldn't be fair to only pay the hosting site for a single visitor when someone came and downloaded an entire feature film. So, bandwidth used would be measured and the site would be paid based out of the pool based on that.

Like Google's adwords there would also be rules. Sites that tricked people into visiting them, or set up robot software to artifically increase their traffic would be kicked out of the program. Sites that used other people's (unlicensed) content or sites that deliberately made their files larger than they needed to be would also be removed from the program. Sites that already charged for content would be intelligible etc.

Initially this would only be available for Canadian web sites but that could change. If other countries wanted to adopt similar rules, and if mutually acceptable guidelines could be found then the program could become international in scope. This would discourage the 'not available in Canada' messages we sometimes see.

On the whole this would allow consumers to pay for content without even thinking about it - no forms to fill out or credit cards. It would also encourage content producers to put their best stuff online. It would encourage, for example, television producers to put their shows online, it would encourage recording artists to put their music online and it would make all internet content pay, without the content producers actually having to do much - no ad sales required, no elaborate licensing contracts - you put good content online and you get visitors and when you get visitors you get paid, automatically.

I think that a program like this would answer the questions asked by Bill Doskotch and countless others almost since the birth of the internet: "How do you make money providing free content ?" My answer may or may not be the best one, but it is an answer - if you don't like mine, please tell me yours.

Can Con as Endangered Species

So the TV people are all a twitter about the CRTC's proposals to revamp Canadian TV.

"In a move that would reshape prime time television, the federal broadcast regulator is considering placing a cap on how much the country's biggest TV networks can spend to acquire hit U.S. shows, such as Grey's Anatomy, The Office and House.

The proposal, which came as a shock to network executives yesterday, would require CTV, Global, CITY-TV and others to spend the same amount on Canadian programming as they do on U.S. shows. For every $1 spent on programs from outside the country, a dollar would have to be spent at home creating a domestic show."

It's a good idea, because Canadian television needs more exposure and because this is really the last chance. The days when the CRTC can do anything to protect Canadian content are rapidly drawing to a close. Broadcast networks are continuing to lose viewers to cable:

The financial decline of Canada's major commercial television networks accelerated last year, with profits falling more than 90 per cent amid the onset of a slowing economy and the migration of TV audiences and revenue to cable channels.

The national conventional TV networks, including CTV, Global, CITY-TV, and French broadcasters such as TVA, saw their biggest-ever drop on a percentage basis in profits before income tax. Those profits, which are reported each spring by the federal broadcast regulator, fell to $8.04-million from $112.94-million last year.

It should be noted that that's just cable. It doesn't take into account what happens when the media convergence is complete and broadcasters are competing directly with everything on the internet for viewers. Once that happens protecting Candadian Content (except on the CBC) will simply not be possible. In order to compete globally against everything people will have to do whatever works best for them financially. The broadcast audience will simply not be significant enough to continue broadcasting over the air in the traditional sense. Of course the networks, or what is left of them, will also have to supply almost 100% of their own content, so the proposed CRTC regulation will be good for broadcasters in the long run. (I get the sense that most of them would create none of their own content if they could help it.)

The point here though is not about broadcasters or the CRTC. The primary reason I created publicbroadcasting.ca back in 2005 (and all of the facebook groups, Myspace pages etc) was to hilight the good things going on in Canadian arts and culture. Once the CRTC packs up the Can-Con requirements (probably less than 10 years) the only way that Can Con will survive is with broad public support. If, at that point, there isn't a sufficient audience in Canada or Canadian television, film, music, literature, and art it will simply go away. Canadians who want to work in film and television will go to Los Angeles, Canadians who want to be successful in music will go to New York or London. That means that Canada will cease to exist in media. Canada will not be the setting for films (even if they are shot here), Toronto stories will be rewritten as New York stories, and we'll have to catch Canadian artists as they come through on tour.

There will still be the CBC (if the Conservatives don't kill it) which will have some Canadian content in exchange for their large subsidy but that will be all, or very nearly. So when I watch the Hour and see Tom Cruise or Lily Allen instead of Canadian actors and musicians, or I watch the Scene and see no Canadian arts news at all (there is frequently none unless of the Maple Syrup - Canadian makes it in the States variety) or I visit cbc.ca/arts and see maybe 2-3 Canadian stories out of 10 I take it as a defeat for Canadian Artists and the future of Can Con. On the other hand when it's Feist on the hour, or Ed Broadbent or Rick Mercer or when I listen to the all Canadian all the time Radio 3 I take it as a victory.

Pierre Trudeau famously said of the United States "Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt." I question whether Canada, if it ceases to exist in the media, if it's stories aren't told, if it's artists all go south, if it is never the setting for any story - how long will it really exist at all? How long will it take for the elephant to roll over and smother us completely?

How Not to Use Twitter: For Journalists and Media Types

Torontoist has all the screencaps from today's Twitter conversation between David George-Cosh, the tech writer for the Financial Post and product marketing consultant April Dunford. It would appear that Ms. Dunford failed to return a call to Mr. George-Cosh. The Twitter world didn't really see how it started, but did see how it ended.

Again you can have a look at the conversation on Torontoist or Mediastyle.ca (probably elsewhere by now too) but a snipped includes such gems as

"sirdavid: @aprildunford hey april - fuck you. seriously. fuck you.

sirdavid: @aprildunford if u can’t handle any heat from what u post and immediate hang up, fuck u. u know my number. u call if you want to settle. 

aprildunford: @sirdavid Re-read what you have just Twittered. Then re-read what I Twittered. Deep breaths David. Calm."

If you work in journalism or media you should print the screen cap and post it up on the wall, just to remind everyone that Twitter is a public forum and probably not the best place to have a blow up with a source.

Traffic Shaping Will Not Preserve the Big Media

I know that the thought of net neutrality will have some big media types salivating. They may object out of principle (it is pretty objectionable) but there are parts of it that some might think sound pretty good from a self-preservation viewpoint. I've heard from and read some in old/big media lamenting the new age and wishing things would go back to where they were. People who honestly believe that they are the guardians of culture and information and believe that position should be enshrined in law and tradition. Some of these people may look at the net neutrality debate and say 'that's our ticket, we pay a little extra and our dominant position is insured.'

I'm happy to tell you that it won't work. Even if Canada's big ISPs are allowed to regulate traffic the web will find a way around it. The internet started out, originally, as a way for the military and science labs to communicate. Internet culture developed around the sharing of ideas, the spread of information and free speech. Almost since the beginning the users of the internet have found their way around obstacles put in their way. The first hackers were not out to steal credit card info, only to find information they were being denied access to. Over the years avid internet users have developed open source software in response to Microsoft's monopoly, they have found their way around every DRM system devised, have engaged in and grown the practice of file sharing regardless of any laws, lawsuits, or obstacles presented, and have even broken through the great firewall of China. The best, brightest and most creative people have never been on the side of the status quo and control.

Traffic shaping by the ISPs would be an insult to the audience, it would be a pain in the ass, and it would be expensive for some but it would not change the game - only serve to drive a further wedge between Canada's media and the Canadian public. Over the last half century most western institutions (political, religious, media and other) have had their bright spots but have ultimately received a failing grade from the public. Support from these institutions for online traffic shaping or other controls will only serve to deepen the divide between themselves and the public and will hasten their demise rather than preserve them.

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.