[NeilN]

I said no such thing. I said 1% of the population which is spelled out in this article that shows the highest per minute reading as 328,00 compared to 215,000 before Stursberg took over:

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/08/08/14962161.html

Your interpretation of the numbers is completely incorrect as you're assuming it's the same 328K people watching all the time. Clearly, that's not the case.

 

[trask]

Your interpretation of the numbers is completely incorrect as you're assuming it's the same 328K people watching all the time. Clearly, that's not the case.

You can only decipher so many things through numbers. We don't know how many different people watch at what time. What we do know is the vast majority of people who watch the CBC watch HNIC, which is why the numbers are distorted. Look at the weekly ratings and tell me how many CBC programs you see on there?

 

[NeilN]

As to your other point: Let's see, a poll done by a biased organization toward Canadian programming, that talked to 1200 people is somehow a feather in the pro CBC cap? Get real. All you have to do to see the reality of the situation is look at the numbers of who is actually watching, and they are terrible. There's no amount of spin you can put on this argument to change that.

Try again: "The Friends poll, conducted by the survey firm Nanos and finished two days ago, was based on the Finley question". The results were reported by the National Post, not exactly a CBC-friendly organization. Now, do you have any stats/results to back your claim that, "This is an entity that appeals to a small amount of Canadians... "?

 

[Fry1989]

Nope. As much as you wish it was my opinion, that's not the case. Even the staple of the CBC which was their nightly news broadcast has dropped considerably.

The fact that you don't even post sources is why it's your opinion, nevermind you saying only 1% watches it, which is absolutely retarded.

 

[NeilN]

You can only decipher so many things through numbers. We don't know how many different people watch at what time. What we do know is the vast majority of people who watch the CBC watch HNIC, which is why the numbers are distorted. Look at the weekly ratings and tell me how many CBC programs you see on there?

Evidently you do as you stated that CBC attracts 1% of the population and gave your method of arriving at that number. I'm saying that 1% number has no basis in fact as your method is fundamentally flawed. I don't know how anyone can credibly state that x network attracts y% of the population. Ratings are based on shows, not the entire offerings of a network.

 

[HWP]

This is not the hill to die on...

Trask, you seem like a pretty reasonable guy.

Go outside now and ask one hundred random people if they ever watch CBC.

You'll have trouble finding 1% that doesn't watch it

I accept that you don't support gov't funding ideologically.

But you might have to step back from saying no one (or only 1%) watches it.

An average viewership of 328,000 is not really a bad number for Canadian produced TV shows - it's definitely something to build on. Successful American primetime TV shows in the U.S. get audiences of 6,000,000 to 8,000,000 - about 1%-3% of total population. Successful CBC shows in Canada get about 500,000 - 1,000,000 viewers -- roughly 1% to 3% of population.

Rarely is 33% of Canada watching the same thing at the same time. The 2009 Canadian Football League Grey Cup match (usually one of the most-watched TV programs each year in Canada) had an average audience of 5.1 million (6.1 million including the French broadcast)-- or about 20% of the population of Canada. The January 2010 Super Bowl had an audience of 6.7 million in Canada (Grey Cup was TSN. The Super Bowl was on network broadcast TV in Canada).

Last week the top rated show in Canada was a Big Brother episode with an audience of 1.8 million. CBC's Dragon's Den gets 900,000. Global's Rookie Blue gets 1.5 million. CTV News gets about 1 million. Average TV audiences are not what they used to be. And what is considered a satisfactory audience share in the 500 channel universe has dropped quite a bit.

Last weeks #1 rated TV show in the USA was The Bachelorette. It's audience was 11.7 Million - or about 3% of the population. Number one show.

I'd like you to take the Pepsi Challenge: Watch an hour of The Bachelorette, an hour of Being Erica (CBC), and an hour of Republic of Doyle (CBC). Honestly, tell me which of those shows is the worst?

CBC TV getting 328,000 on average is not too bad. They've definitely got a chunk of the pie - certainly not a trivial audience. CBC needs to work on its image problem so that people will try out their shows. Everyone needs to be continually focusing on quality including CBC shows. But their shows are entertaining and of decent quality - including storylines, acting, and writing. At least average, I would say. And it makes me feel good to find a comedy or dramatic show that's set in Toronto, or Alberta, Saskatchewan, or St. John's when I turn on my TV. And it makes me proud when every now and then I come across comments on the web from Americans who have discovered Corner Gas, or The Border, or Being Erica that say they're hooked on our shows! I'm glad the Canadian TV industry gets some support so we can see stories featuring us on TV.

 

[jaxon9032]

This isn't about Corporate Welfare, this is about the Government providing a service to the people that private companies(whose only imperative is profit) are not interested in...

The reference to corporate welfare was with regard to government subsidizing industry.

I am afraid you and I are at odds philosophically with regard to profit motivve. I am infavour of that being the basis for what services are provided, including broadcasting services, as that is the only way to ensure resources are properly allocated.

Spending the amount it costs to operate the CBC when they provide programming that a limited number of people are interested or that should be provided by profit seeking enterprises (Jeopardy, WOF, HNIC) is a missallocation of resources in my opinion.

 

[HWP]

These are common goods.

The Arts -- not profitable -- yet most support some arts funding.
The CBC -- not profitable -- yet must support some CBC funding.
City Swimming Pools -- not profitable -- Yet most support some public funding.
City Ice Rinks -- Not profitable -- Yet most support some public funding.
Fire Departments -- Not profitable -- Yet most support some public funding.
Police Departments -- Not profitable -- Yet most support some public funding.

 

[jokeDR]

And it makes me feel good to find a comedy or dramatic show that's set in Toronto, or Alberta, Saskatchewan, or St. John's when I turn on my TV. And it makes me proud when every now and then I come across comments on the web from Americans who have discovered Corner Gas, or The Border, or Being Erica that say they're hooked on our shows! I'm glad the Canadian TV industry gets some support so we can see stories featuring us on TV.

Apparently you are not a progressive, cultural sophisticate. If you were a little more "high brow" or urbane, you would not tolerate the glorification of Alberta nor the "country bumpkin" (read:most of Saskatchewan and Manitoba) lifestyle as being Canadian on the CBC.

This is what was explained to us by another poster in this thread.

 

[jaxon9032]

These are common goods.

The Arts -- not profitable -- yet most support some arts funding.
The CBC -- not profitable -- yet must support some CBC funding.
City Swimming Pools -- not profitable -- Yet most support some public funding.
City Ice Rinks -- Not profitable -- Yet most support some public funding.
Fire Departments -- Not profitable -- Yet most support some public funding.
Police Departments -- Not profitable -- Yet most support some public funding.

I think putting the Arts and the CBC in the same category as Police and Fire departments is a bit of a stretch.

As I noted in my first post on this subject, I realize that I am in the minority in my opinions of what government should fund. If it was up to me, the only items on your list that would benefit from public funding would be the last two.

 

[HWP]

It's a bit of a stretch for you, but not for the more libertarian-types out there.

It's a matter of personal values where each of us draws the line. Some of us would let the free market decide how our health system works. Others feel that's a common good best provided by government. I'm generally a free market guy too, but I go for fire departments, police services, libraries, pension plans, hospitals, AND cultural funding AND a national broadcaster.

We could let the free market take care of all of our needs but many of the things I like about Canada would be changed.

We just have to allocate well and not go overbudget.

 

[Fry1989]

The reference to corporate welfare was with regard to government subsidizing industry.

I am afraid you and I are at odds philosophically with regard to profit motivve. I am infavour of that being the basis for what services are provided, including broadcasting services, as that is the only way to ensure resources are properly allocated.

Spending the amount it costs to operate the CBC when they provide programming that a limited number of people are interested or that should be provided by profit seeking enterprises (Jeopardy, WOF, HNIC) is a missallocation of resources in my opinion.

Ask that of anybody in Europe or Australasia, andd they'll disagree. They know how a government-owned Broadcaster is supposed to be, and the sooner we fix the CBC, the sooner it will be considered a service to the nation, rather then a blunder.

 

[nakedgord]

Apparently you are not a progressive, cultural sophisticate. If you were a little more "high brow" or urbane, you would not tolerate the glorification of Alberta nor the "country bumpkin" (read:most of Saskatchewan and Manitoba) lifestyle as being Canadian on the CBC.

Now whose twisting things? Since...

1) Corner Gas was on a private net so that's not related to the CBC

2) The Border was an excellent show and it being cancelled by the CBC is exactlly the type of thing I'm talking about.

Trying to pull others into this when they're not referncing your posts or mine is pretty overkill. Try to chill man.

 

[HWP]

Apparently you are not a progressive, cultural sophisticate. If you were a little more "high brow" or urbane, you would not tolerate the glorification of Alberta nor the "country bumpkin" (read:most of Saskatchewan and Manitoba) lifestyle as being Canadian on the CBC.

This is what was explained to us by another poster in this thread.

I know your reply to me was not really directed at me. Rather you were taking a sarcastic swipe at NakedGord.

JokeDR, you and NakedGord have quite the snit going. But I don't want to be dragged into it. I'm steering clear.

I like highbrow stuff on TV, too. But I also like Trailer Park Boys. I can behave at work and swear on the weekends.

I certainly don't have any problem with seeing Alberta (Heartland), Saskatchewan (Little Mosque..., Corner Gas), NFLD (Republic of Doyle), Nova Scotia (Trailer Park Boys), and Toronto (Being Erica, Rookie Blue, Flashpoint, The Border?, Degrassi, The Bridge) on my TV.

I'd say the networks are doing a pretty good job at representing the regions on prime time network shows.

Plenty of shows are made trying to appeal to the urbane crowd.

Urbane crowds are also capable of enjoying Heartland, too. That show gets good numbers.

Peace everybody. This Torontonian loves ALL of Canada.

 

[GeorgeMx]

You're right. TV is a business. Shows are a product. And if producers can find someone to purchase the rights in another country to rebroadcast the show of course they will sell it. Makes sense to me. That's what I would do, too.

The system still seems like it is set-up to to cost Canadians more than it has to, though. It's not a subsidy. It's not a tax. But it is still $$ out of viewers' pockets.

It is really money out of broadcasters' pockets to buy programming so they have something to show between commercial breaks.

As I said, I'm willing to go along with the system since I am happy to have my CTV and CityTV local news and programming. To CTV's credit, they have produced a lot of quality, entertaining, and marketable programming in recent years (as had CBC).

It's just when I hear about how people defend Canadian private broadcasters saying they shouldn't have to work so hard to compete against a publicly subsidized corporation (CBC) because it's not a fair fight, it seems a little funny to me. Especially since in the next breath the same person will say that everything the CBC produces is junk, unappealing to audiences, and that no one watches it. Then why is it so hard to compete?

I think the CBC subsidy becomes an issue when networks are competing to buy rights for programming like feature films, Wheel/Jeopardy, sporting events like NHL, World Cup or Olympics, and for news programming. I don't think it is an issue when the subsidies are provided for domestic dramatic production.

What about primetime network shows like Dateline NBC or 48 Hours Mystery that don't get picked-up by a Canadian network for simsub? The producers are not blocking their shows distribution into Canada and asserting their rights to sell the show for rebroadcast to a Canadian network.

Shows slipping into Canada is not a big deal in the overall scheme of things. I was really outlining the likely outcome if a policy change resulted in Canada importing US networks but not paying any license fees.

If the CBC network is carried by Buffalo cable operators, are show producers for Being Erika getting paid or otherwise blocking the signal? I think the broadcast rights for Being Erika have been sold to a US cable network SOAPnet. Is CBC's broadcast of Being Erika blacked-out by Buffalo cable operators when it is shown?

I don't know if CBC is carried by any US cable or satellite networks. The normal US local broadcast blackout rules would apply to commercial programming like hockey, Simpsons or Wheel/Jeopardy. Canadian productions would be carried. I don't think US cable or satellite companies apply blackouts at the request of specialty channels.

There is no balance between the amount of US programming not licensed to Canada but carried here by BDUs and the amount of Canadian produced programming carried without a license into the US. The level of viewership and interest is not balanced either. Relatively few Americans will tune to a Canadian station for Canadian produced programming unless it is sports. They will watch a Canadian program like Flashpoint if it is delivered on a US network.

 

[Fry1989]

I don't know if CBC is carried by any US cable or satellite networks. The normal US local broadcast blackout rules would apply to commercial programming like hockey, Simpsons or Wheel/Jeopardy.

both CBC and CTV are carried on some cable providers in border regions in the US, but as for Satellite, no Canadian networks are carried as far as I know. Both Canadian Networks and Canadian speciality channels are commonly carried on both cable and satellite providers in the Carribean and some parts of South America, however.

 

[s40]

One of the satellites in the States used to carry CBC Newsworld, it was re-named I believe, and was on Direct I didn't have Dish so I don't know if they carried it.

 

[mike10]

One of the satellites in the States used to carry CBC Newsworld, it was re-named I believe, and was on Direct I didn't have Dish so I don't know if they carried it.

that was Newsworld International they showed lots of programming from CBC news and some other international news stations

CBC sold it a long time ago

 

[GeorgeMx]

both CBC and CTV are carried on some cable providers in border regions in the US, but as for Satellite, no Canadian networks are carried as far as I know...

I checked Buffalo and both CBC and CTV are still available. They are on low analog numbers but they are not carried in HD.

I think CTV must be blacked-out most of the time with only Canadian programming (mostly news) available to the viewer. US rules don't require simultaneous substitution, they simply blackout the show if it appears within one week before or after the US broadcast. They might have seen Canadian Olympics coverage as it was a separate production from the US version.

A lot of CBC programming would not be subject to blackout so the channel would be watchable except when carrying US shows and sports.

 

[trask]

Try again: "The Friends poll, conducted by the survey firm Nanos and finished two days ago, was based on the Finley question". The results were reported by the National Post, not exactly a CBC-friendly organization. Now, do you have any stats/results to back your claim that, "This is an entity that appeals to a small amount of Canadians... "?

Yes and I already posted them. It's called ratings and the CBC gets lousy ones for pretty much everything not called Hockey Night in Canada. The article I linked also showed you that the average viewership per minute was 325000, which is one third of our country. I didn't realize I needed to spell everything out for you.