CTV hijacks SuperBowl [MRG]

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

I think it is the right decision, to be honest. Why would a Canadian broadcaster pay big bucks for the rights if they can't have exclusivity to run their own ads to make good on that investment? And why would the NFL allow the value of their product to be watered down like that?

I can't imagine another broadcaster from any other country in the world buying the rights for something and then being told that a foreign feed with different, unpaid ads would be running against it in the same market. It just wouldn't fly.

Perhaps, but how is a Canadian broadcaster going to re-coup "big bucks" on crappy cross-promotions of "This is Us"? What do they pay exactly?
Why do other US broadcasts just show the regular US (local Seattle or Spokane) commercials? I don't really get it.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Perhaps, but how is a Canadian broadcaster going to re-coup "big bucks" on crappy cross-promotions of "This is Us"? What do they pay exactly?
Why do other US broadcasts just show the regular US (local Seattle or Spokane) commercials? I don't really get it.

Well there are obviously actual ads that are bought from Bell for the Superbowl, in addition to the annoying promotions for shows we'll never watch. There's no question that the Canadian ads are not of the same calibre or hype of the US ones.

But Bell bought the rights (yes, for big bucks) and should be able to sell advertising on it in the Canadian market with exclusivity. American ads were paid to CBS or whoever for the US market.

Personally I don't watch the Superbowl anyway, and I don't have a lot of love for Bell as a company either. But I can see the business behind it and don't blame them for fighting for it.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

Well there are obviously actual ads that are bought from Bell for the Superbowl, in addition to the annoying promotions for shows we'll never watch. There's no question that the Canadian ads are not of the same calibre or hype of the US ones.

But Bell bought the rights (yes, for big bucks) and should be able to sell advertising on it in the Canadian market with exclusivity. American ads were paid to CBS or whoever for the US market.

Personally I don't watch the Superbowl anyway, and I don't have a lot of love for Bell as a company either. But I can see the business behind it and don't blame them for fighting for it.

If they stop allowing simultaneous substitution, there will be way less money that goes from the Canadian broadcasters to the NFL/US networks for the super bowl.

That doesn't seem like an intrinsically bad thing to me. Although I do think they should keep the rules for however long the current deal is, since ctv bid based on the current rules.

[ken0042]

My issue is that for Super Bowl- the ads are part of the show. Case in point- CTV will spend more time on their Monday morning news showing us the best ads, than they will spend showing us football highlights.

It also begs a few questions- what benefit do I get from CTV picking up the local broadcast rights? I get the US networks as part of basic cable. There is the argument that the money they make allows them to create Canadian content; however we all know that the reason they show 7 hours of new per day is to fill their Cancon requirement and be able to show us more American programming. (Which once again is available via cable TV, and has been since the 70s.)

[GGG]

Originally Posted by ken0042

My issue is that for Super Bowl- the ads are part of the show. Case in point- CTV will spend more time on their Monday morning news showing us the best ads, than they will spend showing us football highlights.

It also begs a few questions- what benefit do I get from CTV picking up the local broadcast rights? I get the US networks as part of basic cable. There is the argument that the money they make allows them to create Canadian content; however we all know that the reason they show 7 hours of new per day is to fill their Cancon requirement and be able to show us more American programming. (Which once again is available via cable TV, and has been since the 70s.)

You don’t pay the cable company for the content on US channels. The US channels do not own the rights to broadcast almost anything in Canada. Your beef really is that the cable company tries to convince you they are giving you a product of the US networks. They aren’t.

The answer to the question of what do you get from CTV picking up the broadcast rights is irrelevant. The NFL gets more money from CTV to broadcast in Canada then they would get from NBC. CTV makes money off broadcasting the Super Bowl. It’s that simple.

The companies purchasing the adds decide if they want to spend on Canada. So perhaps you have a beef with them.

[Northendzone]

I get the beef, but aren’t some/most/all of the ads posted to YouTube by game day anyways?

[Barnet Flame]

The alternative could be blocking US network broadcasts into Canada completely.

The government and the courts have a duty to safeguard Canadian interests.

This is a sensible accommodation.

On a personal note, I find the Super Bowl to be unwatchable given the amount of breaks and the stupid elongated half time show.

I’m a sports fan and don’t GAF about Budweiser frogs or whatever. If I want a music show, I’ll go to one and it’ll be someone I actually want to see rather than some lameass dross carefully selected to not offend American puritanical sensibilities.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

I get the beef, but aren’t some/most/all of the ads posted to YouTube by game day anyways?

Yeah, this whole argument is about 20 years too late.

Every ad is on YouTube within 5 minutes of airing during the game, if not released as a "sneak preview" a week before the game.

Also, in recent years, it seems that a lot of companies are just using their Super Bowl 30 second ad to promote a longer-format version of the ad on their own website or YouTube channel.

[calgaryred]

The commercials are overrated thought the ones last year where meh.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by GGG

The answer to the question of what do you get from CTV picking up the broadcast rights is irrelevant.

And that's the problem with the Canadian broadcast industry. Giving Canadians the entertainment they want is irrelevant. And I go back to my earlier statement that the commercials are entertainment for me; as proven by the broadcasters showing said commercials the next day.

Some people may not find them entertaining; and that is fine. Some people may also get just as much enjoyment out of watching them on Youtube; also fine. I enjoy seeing them during the game; to the point where I will spend more time watching the commercials than the actual game. (If I am hosting a party, I'll tend to the food less during the American commercials.)

The Cancon rules have worked for other forms of media. Cancon rules on radio stations has resulted in a disproportionate amount of the music I buy being Canadian. Probably about 30-40% of my music is Canadian. It has also allowed Canadian bands to flourish. I would be OK with the TV Cancon rules if it provided more actual Canadian content. On the specialty channels it has- as an example HGTV's Cancon obligations brought us Mike Holmes and Bryan Baumler. However on the traditional broadcast channels like CTV, it has brought us 7 hours of news.

Perhaps if those rules had brought us more good Canadian programming, people would be a little more receptive. Instead we get told our entertainment preferences are irrelevant.

Sounds like the Borg.

[DoubleK]

Totally fine with this. The fact that the Cablecos show US network TV shouldn't undermine the local rightsholder.

I'd be more fine if the companies buying up the CTV ad spots were actually doing something unique. The fact that CTV is cross promoting their own shows during the NFL broadcasts makes me think that the spots aren't that valuable in Canada.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by ken0042

And that's the problem with the Canadian broadcast industry. Giving Canadians the entertainment they want is irrelevant. And I go back to my earlier statement that the commercials are entertainment for me; as proven by the broadcasters showing said commercials the next day.

Some people may not find them entertaining; and that is fine. Some people may also get just as much enjoyment out of watching them on Youtube; also fine. I enjoy seeing them during the game; to the point where I will spend more time watching the commercials than the actual game. (If I am hosting a party, I'll tend to the food less during the American commercials.)

The Cancon rules have worked for other forms of media. Cancon rules on radio stations has resulted in a disproportionate amount of the music I buy being Canadian. Probably about 30-40% of my music is Canadian. It has also allowed Canadian bands to flourish. I would be OK with the TV Cancon rules if it provided more actual Canadian content. On the specialty channels it has- as an example HGTV's Cancon obligations brought us Mike Holmes and Bryan Baumler. However on the traditional broadcast channels like CTV, it has brought us 7 hours of news.

Perhaps if those rules had brought us more good Canadian programming, people would be a little more receptive. Instead we get told our entertainment preferences are irrelevant.

Sounds like the Borg.

The Cancon rules have nothing to do with this.

It’s purely who owns the copyright for the super bowl broadcast in Canada. Your beef should be with the advertisers who refuse to pay CTV to air their adds.