Save Local TV?

[fredr123]

I'm sure many of you have seen the advertisements by now. Local TV is on the brink of extinction because the cable companies are allowed to carry the local TV stations' signals without compensation. The time has come to change the way Canadian TV is run and save your local TV stations!

http://savelocal.ctv.ca/

But then again... http://savelocal.ca

Many are now complaining that CTV's campaign is disingenuous and in violation of the Broadcast Act: http://www.financialpost.com/scripts...tml?id=1622160

On the flip side of the coin, it looks like if the local stations had their way the fee for carriage would be directly passed on to the consumer. For the privilege of getting to watch the same newscast three times at dinner time or for watching early morning anchors read the local papers you may be charged more by the cable company to compensate the local stations.

What say you?

[zarrell]

Let it die.

[ken0042]

I find it hypocritical that they say that cable companies take their signal and give them nothing in return. What about signal substitution? I can't watch a network program on a US channel. Have they burned through all that money already?

I say they have been living high off that hog, without giving us more than one quality TV show per decade. Global showing 3 hours of "save the children" doesn't cut it for quality Canadian programming IMHO.

Let them die.

[4X4]

Screw that. Not only do I not want CTV and Global sheltered by the government, I want to see CBC go the way of the dodo. I know full f'ing well what country I was born in and I don't need the government (or government agencies) ramming canadian content down my throat. It's 2009. TV has been around for 80 years. If these companies can't figure out how to survive in the real world, let them die.

What's next? The Globe and Mail or National Post requesting that the government force 7/11 to sell their papers? Give me content I wanna see and I'll buy your channel. Exact reason why I don't pay for MTV but I do pay for Discovery Civilization.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

So if cable companies stop carrying the local stations, that will allow the local stations would thrive?

How much local programming do local stations carry these days? They have their news programming and that's about it.

[Barnes]

Don't Canadian broadcast networks get to have OTA frequencies for free and all they have to do is provide news programing at certain times?

[octothorp]

I get all my local news from Calgarypuck and a couple other local forums, and have no personal attachment to local television. Occasionally I might check cbc.ca for local news. I can't remember the last time I actually made a point of watching a local newscast.

I'm glad you started this thread though, as I was a little confused as to why it's in shaw's best interests to lobby against it. This clears it up somewhat.

[monkeyman]

so they want us to lobby our local MP so they can charge satellite/cable companies a fee, who in turn will charge us more for their service. nice, I'll get right on that bandwagon. Maybe i'll lobby my MP to get the banks and mobile phone companies to increase my fees too while i'm at it. what about all that money they make off advertising.

[Incogneto]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Screw that. Not only do I not want CTV and Global sheltered by the government, I want to see CBC go the way of the dodo. I know full f'ing well what country I was born in and I don't need the government (or government agencies) ramming canadian content down my throat. It's 2009. TV has been around for 80 years. If these companies can't figure out how to survive in the real world, let them die.

What's next? The Globe and Mail or National Post requesting that the government force 7/11 to sell their papers? Give me content I wanna see and I'll buy your channel. Exact reason why I don't pay for MTV but I do pay for Discovery Civilization.

Hmm...I am torn on this. In Calgary it doesn't make much sense, but I grew up in Brandon, Manitoba, and as of the end of August, they are losing their only local TV station.

For some of you that dont know, Brandon is 200 kms west of Wpg, and has a service area of almost 100K people in the SW region of the province. The local CBC station carried local news from the entire region TO the entire region. The city is in a little shock as the dont know how they are going to get local news/advertising out to the public. It is a pretty big hit to the community, and surrounding area.

So I dont think this problem propagates well to Calgary, but in places like Brandon, this really hits home.

....All of this with the Nation coming to town in just 1 short year (Memorial Cup)

[4X4]

Originally Posted by InCoGnEtO

Hmm...I am torn on this. In Calgary it doesn't make much sense, but I grew up in Brandon, Manitoba, and as of the end of August, they are losing their only local TV station.

For some of you that dont know, Brandon is 200 kms west of Wpg, and has a service area of almost 100K people in the SW region of the province. The local CBC station carried local news from the entire region TO the entire region. The city is in a little shock as the dont know how they are going to get local news/advertising out to the public. It is a pretty big hit to the community, and surrounding area.

So I dont think this problem propagates well to Calgary, but in places like Brandon, this really hits home.

....All of this with the Nation coming to town in just 1 short year (Memorial Cup)

I think it opens the door to new, more efficient forms of media. Portable media that comes in from Winnipeg to cover newsworthy events. Afterall, what do you really need a local TV station for? You're posting on the internet, right?
As someone previously mentioned, who even watches the news, anyway? I guess I do, from time to time. But usually when I do, it's almost a joke that I already know almost everything that they report, except for the heartstring-tugging stories about the poor bum that just can't catch a break in life.

IMO, we live in a very entrepreneural country. If something is no longer profitable, it needs to die. Something else will come along to fill the need. Postponing the death of things like this only inhibits evolution.

[Bobblehead]

I think the local stations have been going about this the wrong way.

I'm originally from SW Ont. When I was a young lad, there were TV stations in Windsor, London, Wingham, Kitchener, Hamilton (and of course a ton out of Toronto).

Then a company came in and bought London's station and Wingham. A few years later they bought Windsor. Then that company got bought out. Then, to save money, they closed down the news rooms and consolidate them in London; different newscasts but all from one station. Then they cut staff and it was one newscast broadcast to the entire area.

I have relatives north of London who used to watch Wingham. They don't anymore because the local news segment barely covers their area and they don't care what is happening in Sarnia or Windsor - those are 3+ hours drives away from them.

And so goes the vicious circle. They cut back to save money. Because they cut back, people stop watching. People stop watching so businesses stop advertising. So stations cut back. So people stop watching, etc.

I can local stations lose viewers to satellite/cable. Years ago you would be able to watch a few stations, so those stations had a captive audience. Now with all the different channels, stations need to fight for their viewers. Heck, theoretically satelite and cable helps stations reach a lot more homes. The problem is local advertisers aren't going to sell to too many people in Nanimo or Churchill.

I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I'm not sure forcing Satellite/Cable to pay them is the answer, at least not until I have a choice to receive them. If "local" stations (who, other than news get almost all their programming from the parent network) want to force me to pay an additional amount, I want the ability to say no and remove their channels. Otherwise we will become like the British model.

And it is kind of funny that it is CTV that is pushing for this. Their parent company, Bell, also runs a satellite company Bell Express View. So if you step back they are promoting a rate hike for themselves, AND getting their competitors to pay them, all under the guise of "saving" local TV. Nice spin.

[4X4]

I think it's funny that TV news has failed to remain relevant even though print media survived their onslaught. Obviously I wasn't around in the 30s and 40s and 50s when TV started to become the source for news, but you'd think that the advantage they had over print (potentially up-to-the-minute) would have been enough to entrench themselves into the average home. Not so. Internet has eliminated TV news' usefulness and print media remains because of portability.

Honestly, does anyone watch the evening news anymore? If so, why? Click on google news, or better yet, CP and you'll be linked to everything that's happening. And if you really want to watch television news, there are an abundance of news channels that just loop all day and night. Who actually tunes in at 6pm to hear about stuff that you already read about before leaving the office?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I think it's funny that TV news has failed to remain relevant even though print media survived their onslaught. Obviously I wasn't around in the 30s and 40s and 50s when TV started to become the source for news, but you'd think that the advantage they had over print (potentially up-to-the-minute) would have been enough to entrench themselves into the average home. Not so. Internet has eliminated TV news' usefulness and print media remains because of portability.

Honestly, does anyone watch the evening news anymore? If so, why? Click on google news, or better yet, CP and you'll be linked to everything that's happening. And if you really want to watch television news, there are an abundance of news channels that just loop all day and night. Who actually tunes in at 6pm to hear about stuff that you already read about before leaving the office?

Print media is going down the tubes. Rocky Mountain News shut their doors earlier this year, The Boston Globe is on death's door just for 2 major examples.

Look at the newspaper business in Canada. Almost all the papers are owned by a few companies. There was a time when every major city newspaper would send a reporter to parliament hill. Now a few reporters cover it and their stories get printed in multiple newspapers.

Until someone figures out how to get people to pay for their news through the internet somehow, there are going to be fewer and fewer people paid to gather news stories.

The internet has become a hugely disruptive technology. I don't know what the answer might be, but things are going to change.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Until someone figures out how to get people to pay for their news through the internet somehow, there are going to be fewer and fewer people paid to gather news stories.

Once the economy returns to normal, they won't need to. The New York Times made more money off advertising when they made it free than they did from subscriptions. Online media exists because it is profitable, and it's free because that's the optimum pricing. Heck, Metro is printed and it's free...

[Hack&Lube]

The last local TV I cared about was RDTV because they had really cool shows from the 80s on all the time.

They had awesome retro programming.

Global and CFCN and CITYTV and CBC can screw themselves. I don't watch much TV anymore, much less local TV. TV news is going the way of the dodo-bird for me. It's just too slow. I can read all the complete news stories I need faster than it takes for Darryl Janz to open his mouth and introduce a segment.

Local TV survives in the US because you can get so much good stuff over the air without paying for satellite or cable. They are affiliates of the big 4 TV corporations in the US and for many people, that's all they need. In Canada, I don't really see what purpose local TV serves at all. I don't know when the last time I've ever seen anything on the local newscast that interested me.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by SebC

Once the economy returns to normal, they won't need to. The New York Times made more money off advertising when they made it free than they did from subscriptions. Online media exists because it is profitable, and it's free because that's the optimum pricing. Heck, Metro is printed and it's free...

Their office is in the same building as mine. I doubt there are 20 people in there. 90% of their stories are picked up off the media wire, so other than print it they don't need to do anything beside sell advertising. Heck a person posted in this forum claiming to be from Metro asking what they should write about.

And the NYT are the parent company who are threatening to shut down the Boston Globe. That model may be profitable for the NYT, but they haven't duplicated that success elsewhere.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by SebC

Heck, Metro is printed and it's free...

Because Metro is a toilet rag news tabloid good for reading for 5 minutes on the train or bus and nothing else. It's all brief recycled news stories you see on the front page of google and gossip and recipes, etc. Metro makes money hand over fist globally because it has made itself available to commuters all over the world thus finding a captive audience (people waiting or stuck on trains and buses all over the world).

You aren't going to find lenghty indepth investigative journalism or deep stories in there. It's a completely different beast. But I admit, I read it everyday since I have nothing better to do on the C-Train.

Current online advertising models don't work. Do you ever notice the ads on the sides of pages? No, your mind has grown to block them out. Metro makes money because people still read ads they see in print papers. You have a captive audience trapped on transit that HAS to read your paper and can't navigate away to some other website instantly. Did you know Youtube loses about $2 million dollars A DAY? Google is propping it up with cash daily. Online advertising doesn't work the way it currently is. The economy is bad, but internet advertising wasn't helping the NYT as much as you think it did. Advertisers are wising up and realizing that people don't pay attention to ads as they currently are. Even before the economy went bad, they were paying less and less. Even if large papers like the NYT survives (barely), individual papers and other publications are very likely to go under.

[Dion]

Local TV survived before the invetion of cable TVv? So why are they crying the blues now?

I don't get this save local TV crap.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Dion

Local TV survived before the invetion of cable TVv? So why are they crying the blues now?

I don't get this save local TV crap.

The internet is a far bigger beast than cable TV or Satellite. Local TV is pretty much almost completely irrelevant. 90% of stuff on the local stations is coming from elsewhere. The only way local TV would be relevant if it was 100% community oriented. Sort of like a CNN for Calgary that just played non-stop local content and information.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

The internet is a far bigger beast than cable TV or Satellite. Local TV is pretty much almost completely irrelevant.

I'll admit to watching the supper newscast on CFCN everynight. I realise i could get the same info on the net - guess it's become a routine for me.