Prime Time in Ottawa 2016

1 Reply

I live tweeted the annual CMPA conference, then Storified my tweets and those of others (twice – I lost the connection on the train and then my work – argh!!) and after thinking about it for a bit put it all into some context in a TV, Eh! post.

On a personal note, while not all the panels were interesting to me (everyone has different assessments based on their level of knowledge and interest), Prime Time is still a ‘must schmooze’ event for me.  I saw lots of people and had both fun and useful conversations.  I was reminded that more people read this blog than show up in the stats because some of you cut and paste posts and circulate them by email.  I’m not saying you shouldn’t but I apparently shouldn’t be discouraged if it just says 36 people read a post.  And I should blog more.  Promise.

 

Advertisement

Diverse Thoughts on a Train

Leave a reply

I don’t know about you, but I live in a diverse Canada.  My mother is Anglo-Indian.  My daughter is Chinese.  My sister-in-law and nieces are from Bangladesh.  My daughter’s friends cover a wide range of ethnicities including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Jamaica and China.  Her boyfriend is Vietnamese and Aboriginal.  I have friends who are Chinese, South Asian, Black, Filipino and yeah a whole pile of white ones.  This is my world.

So it is important to me that my Canadian media is diverse – my television, my websites, my videogames.  All of it to the extent that it makes sense for the story.  It should reflect the audience and not some long ago version of the audience.

Which is why I get cranky (cranky enough that I Facebook posted my annoyance and then on the train to Prime Time stewed about it until I started to write this post) when I read articles about the tv industry in the mainstream media which seems to think that it’s an all-white, mostly male, industry.

Bright, creative young people will not join mainstream media unless they see opportunities for themselves and that means seeing people ‘like them’ in positions both in front of and behind the camera.  They have other options – ask Lilly Singh or Jus Reign – and while I applaud them for pursuing their careers on YouTube I am concerned that not enough of them are trying to tell their stories in mainstream media.  Will my daughter and her diverse classmates at Centennial’s Broadcasting and Film program have careers in film and television or will they too find more opportunities on YouTube? Yes, I can hear Jason Kee (Google Canada) asking me what’s wrong with that but we can’t have truly reflective audiences only on one platform.

Content that reflects the audience can only happen when both employers hire diverse talent and when diverse talent pursue those careers.  So – how do we make that happen?  That’s our challenge.

 

 

 

 

Ontario’s Culture Strategy Consultation

Leave a reply

The Ontario Ministry of Culture launched a consultation back on September 24, 2015.  Sorry – life got in the way or I would have posted earlier.  I appear not to be the only one slowly realizing that this consultation is out there.  I hear few members of the cultural industries have been attending the town halls around the province.  It’s never a good thing to miss an opportunity to be heard by a government so here’s what is going on and how you can participate.

This consultation is aimed at providing the government with input on the development of a culture strategy that will guide the government in its priorities and policy development and in particular guide the allocation of the government’s spending on culture. The Ministry of Culture has released a Discussion Paper that outlines the size and characteristics of the arts and culture industries in Ontario and the questions that it wants answered.  A series of town hall meetings are being held around the province to hear from both individual members of the public and those who work in the arts and culture sector (if you live in Markham, Toronto, London, Kingston, Mississauga or Windsor there are still dates coming up).   There is also a discussion board where people are encouraged to post ideas and vote other people’s ideas up and down the list (which is a format that the Ontario Liberal Party has used to implement grassroots policy development).  Few cultural industries (mainly just music) are showing up in ideas on the discussion board – you might want to think about throwing a few out there.  Finally, anyone (members of the public and stakeholder organizations) are encouraged to file a submission addressing the questions by December 7, 2015.

The Discussion Paper asks the following questions specifically about the cultural industries:

  • What is the Ontario government doing well to support the cultural industries sector?
  • What would you like to see changed?
  • Are there best practices that Ontario could learn from and adapt?

Through the OMDC the Ontario government has been very supportive of the cultural industries with tax credits, the IDM Fund, Export Fund, Research Grants and programs like Digital Dialogue.  Yes, there are tweaks that could and should be done (I think specifically about the OIDMTC preventing co-production with other companies in Ontario and/or other provinces or countries, and the OFTTC expanding to web video) but this is the time to think about new ideas.  What could help the sector, or your part of it, expand, grow, adapt to change, become sustainable?  Yes, more funding but what kind of funding?  Are there gaps in training or skills development?

You might also want to look at the other sections of the Discussion Paper and see to what extent the cultural industries can address those questions.  Can Ontario film, television and digital media be a tool as well as an end in and of itself?  For example, how can the cultural industries be used to inspire youth to create, participate in and consume Ontario culture?  Can the cultural industries help the other cultural sectors better respond to digital challenges and opportunities.  How can the cultural industries help the Ontario government serve the various regions, communities and populations?

You can’t win if you don’t play (which probably quotes a lottery ad but that seems appropriate).

Comparing the Culture Platforms of the Major Parties

Leave a reply

Over at TV, Eh! I have compared the Conservative, NDP, Liberal and Green platforms on culture, to the extent they have them.  I’ve also incorporated additional points from the NDP and Liberals from the Screen-Industries Debate yesterday as well as a few points I’ve received from direct questions to the parties.  I’ll update the post if I receive additional info and let everyone know if there’s more there.

If you work in digital media you are likely disappointed by the lack of discussion of your issues.  There have been brief references to a National Digital Strategy (by the NDP) and to digital being part of the CBC’s mandate (by the Liberals) but nothing specifically addressing the sector.  As outlined by Sasha Boersma in her blog post, some digital media issues overlap with mainstream issues while others are very specific to that sector.  The only way to become part of the discussion (for these and other cultural issues) is to ask candidates and parties where they stand – in person, by email, on twitter etc.  These are the last few days of the campaign but every party wants your vote.

Please do vote October 19th (or October 9 – 12th in the Advance Polls).

UPDATE:  The Canadian Media Production Association compiled their own list of party promises including a lovely and handy one page chart here.  Also, the NDP have released a fully costed platform and you can find the costing for the cultural promises on page 70.

CMF Consultations – Should You Care? Yes.

2 Replies

The CMF Consultation Tour for 2015 launched yesterday with the ‘focus group’ in Toronto.  There will be a road show across Canada as well as topic-specific Working Groups for representatives of industry stakeholder groups. You can see the tour schedule and a copy of the presentation deck here.   As well as in person feedback you can send in your thoughts in a letter or more formal submission or you can tweet feedback using the hashtag #cmfconsults.

Why should you care?

Every two years CMF has a major consultation to inform any necessary changes to their two-year guidelines.  The consultation tour and the Working Groups are a great opportunity for the various stakeholders to get into a room, air their issues and hear the perspectives and explanations of both other stakeholders and CMF staff.  It is also the best opportunity for CMF staff to hear about how their programs are working or might need to be tweaked.

This year though, the CMF is taking on an additional task.  We all know change is coming to how Canadian programming will be funded brought about by changing audience behaviour, technology, business models and regulation (i.e. Talk TV), which will likely all lead to reduced revenues to Canada Media Fund and possibly to broadcasters as well.  Rather than wait for these changes to have a major impact (they have already started) CMF has started thinking about what changes they need to make to stay relevant.  This started with an internal visioning exercise which has resulted in a few new concepts which they would like feedback on from the industry.  Word of warning though – major changes cannot be implemented without the agreement of Heritage because of the limitations contained in the Contribution Agreement between Heritage and CMF, limitations such as requiring broadcast triggers for funding.  It is unlikely that Heritage will agree to major changes in CMF during an election year or during what we all expect to be a minority government.

If little can be done now, then why have this process?  It is actually rare in our world for a funder to look ahead, think about how they need to adapt, and ask for stakeholder input on their ideas.  Even if CMF might only be able to make minor changes this year, if they have a strategy they can make those changes consistent with that strategy.  What a concept! [Oh, for a National Digital Strategy!]

I encourage you therefore to check out the presentation deck and either through your organization or individually share your thoughts with the CMF.  To get you started, here are a few of the highlights from yesterday’s consultation.

The top goals that the CMF sees for this exercise are that the CMF should:

  • support a wider array of linear and interactive content;
  • increase the focus on supporting landmark content; and
  • implement an approach based on supporting content along a continuum, from emergence to growth to sustainability.

Right away I know you are reacting to some of those words but hang on.  The next step in the exercise is to look at those outcomes through the CMF’s three activities:  foster and develop, finance and promote.  The result is a very dense slide (slide 35) of program verticals, targets, project types and objectives.  I’ll try to summarize it.

Going forward, expecting less revenue, the CMF would like to focus on ‘landmark content’ to maximize their resources where they will have the greatest impact now with audiences and with ongoing revenues.  They want to support production companies through the three stages of emergence, growth and sustainability so move beyond just project-specific financing to help the industry reach sustainability.  Project-specific funding should eventually be regardless of platform.  CMF has a role to play in promoting Canadian programming and financing the increased need for promotion in the crowded media landscape.

A lot of time during the consultation was spent on this new concept of ‘landmark content’ and how it differed from what CMF currently funds (i.e. who is going to lose out) and how the definition might need to be adapted depending on genre (i.e. kids or documentary) or platform (i.e. television or videogames).  It wasn’t clear to anyone there who would determine what is ‘landmark’, particularly since ‘high potential for success’ is a rather subjective concept.  Someone in the audience suggested that ‘landmark’ should mean popular like “Big Bang Theory” but the CMF seems to be going in the direction that it means much more than just audience size but also critical acclaim, international sales, longevity and as well popularity within a niche audience.   Feature film, documentary and interactive producers in the room were particularly concerned about what this definition might mean for their sectors.  Even the drama producers, who probably have a better idea of how ‘landmark’ might be defined for them, were concerned that there would be enough development money to ensure the creation of ‘landmark’ content.

A platform-agnostic approach would mean the ability to fund digital-only (or first) linear video content or web series.  Currently only IPF and Cogeco fund web series and they have limited funds and support only some genres.  The CMF can see a role for itself here but needs input on what it should fund and how, if it were to be able to fund web series.  Remember – there’s that pesky Contribution Agreement requiring broadcast triggers.

I found the discussion about potentially moving beyond project-based financing to be very interesting.  The CMF is exploring the idea of slate development or production financing, corporate financing based on a business plan, more financing for marketing and promotion and export development.  Last winter I did some research on different forms of ‘enterprise financing’ in different jurisdictions so I know that this is definitely a timely consideration as funding agencies around the world are trying to supplement traditional project financing with targeted financing that will build the businesses and help create stable and sustainable sectors.  There are many different ways that this could be done with different measurements of success (i.e. revenue generated, jobs, exports, production growth etc.).  If revenues to CMF are going to dwindle with no replacement regime in sight*, then it makes a lot of sense to help businesses need less (not no) government support.

There are no quick fixes to these issues and lots of potential for damage if the wrong decisions are made or impact is not fully thought out.  This is a great opportunity to be part of the planning.  I encourage you to read the materials, attend consultation sessions, ask questions and of course, tweet.  I’ll be following along with great interest.

*In a timely tweet an FCC Commissioner shared a blog post about New Zealand considering imposing a sales tax regime on Netflix, which would be a first step towards confirming that the CRTC had jurisdiction to impose a contribution regime on Netflix and similar non-Canadian OTT services.

Update – Party Positions on Arts and Culture

Leave a reply

Well, some of them.

The Canadian Arts Coalition sent the four national parties a questionnaire to solicit party positions on arts and culture.  The Greens, Liberals and NDP responded and those answers are posted here.  The questions slant towards the Canada Council and don’t take into consideration culture as an economic driver but it is still interesting to read the responses and see to what extent the parties have thought out responses to questions about the Canada Council, international markets, digital content and the CBC.

I will let you come to your own conclusions about who has the most detailed, pro-active response to the questions but honestly, there is good stuff in all three of them.

The Cultural Sector is Missing in #Elxn42 – so far

4 Replies

[Full disclosure, I do belong to a political party but this is a non-partisan post about politics and Canadian media – or at least I’m trying my best for it to be non-partisan.  I think all the parties are failing on this point]

We are 24 days into a 78-day campaign in Canada (if I have my math right).  The top issue is the economy and how each party’s strategy to create economic growth and jobs differs from the others.  There are a few other issues, such as accountability, integrity, the environment and women’s issues (which by the way, I hate as a term since it refers to issues we all are or should be concerned with).  Very little if anything has been said about arts and culture.

What do we do about that?  It is rare for us to see arts and culture make the national stage.  In 2008 Prime Minister Stephen Harper helped make arts and culture a campaign issue when he suggested that ‘ordinary working people’ had no sympathy for rich artists whining about their subsidies while attending galas but that kind of gaffe is rare (it never occurred again).  It is also hard to talk about the need for Canadian arts and culture funding and legislation during a recession as even those of us in the sector tend to think it is not as important as health care, education and jobs – or at least will be perceived that way by voters.

That’s the problem because the cultural sectors are economic drivers that can help stimulate the economy and create jobs while at the same time giving voice to a nation’s stories.  Support for the cultural sectors should therefore be part of any party’s plan to support the economy and not just a throw away line to show they’ve thought about culture (for Liberals, Green and NDP I think that line is ‘restore cuts to the CBC’ while the Conservatives are probably focused on their big planned celebrations for Canada’s 150th birthday in 2017).

Until/unless the parties come up with either detailed platforms relating to culture or incorporate the cultural sector into their detailed platforms on the economy then I think the only solution is for Canadians to ask their local candidates where they stand on arts and culture issues.  Here are a few that I think are important, and yes, I’m going to start with the CBC:

  • The CBC needs more than restoration of its budget cuts.  It needs a new agreement between the government and the CBC to identify its priorities and ensure that it has the necessary funding to meet those priorities.
  • Funding for Canadian content (all the programs at Heritage) is based on archaic methods of distribution. What will the next government do to update those programs?  For example, Canadian film and television tax credits need to include digital platforms as an approved method of distribution capable of triggering those tax credits.  The government’s agreement with the Canada Media Fund should not limit CMF’s ability to support content created primarily for digital platforms.
  • The Copyright Act is scheduled to be reviewed starting July 29, 2017 however in the last budget bill, without any discussion or public consultation, the government extended the copyright term for musical works. The government should commit to make no amendments to the Copyright Act without consultation and review.
  • Yes, we have Netflix and other non-Canadian services which earn revenues from Canadians, pay no taxes in Canada, draw eyeballs away from the regulated and contributing broadcasting system and make no contributions to supporting the production of Canadian programming. We need a solution, not empty rhetoric.
  • Affordable universal access to broadband. You might not think that’s an arts and culture issue but a basic right of citizenship and you would be right, but I put it here because as more and more content migrates to digital platforms, those who cannot afford broadband will increasingly find themselves unable to have the choice to enjoy a wide variety of high quality Canadian programming.  It is important to connect rural communities and the north but it is just as important to make sure that the urban poor (and at current ISP rates, also the not so poor) can have affordable access.  There are programs in many other countries to ensure that citizens have universal access to affordable broadband and we should look at them.

Those are just a few arts and culture topics that you could ask your candidates.  If you have other topics you would like to add to the list, let me know and I’ll update the post.

The CRTC’s Wireline Wholesale Decision and the ISP Levy

Leave a reply

I bet you didn’t think those two were related. If you’re primarily interested in broadcast policy (as I am) you probably didn’t even read the CRTC’s Wireline Wholesale Decision. I will freely admit that telecomm feels like another world and another language to me so I don’t tend to read the decisions and rely instead on the summaries in the news. Then Sasha Boersma pointed out to me Mark Goldberg’s tweet about Commissioner Raj Shoan’s dissent to the decision and I got excited and I just need to share that.

First, the decision. Wholesale wireline services are the part of their network that major telecommunications companies (e.g. Rogers, Bell) have to make available to small independent services (e.g. TekSavvy, VMedia) at a regulated fee to allow the independents to provide competitive voice, broadcast and internet services to their customers. The hearing was to review the policy framework to ensure that it contributed to competition and choice. You can read the press release here for a brief summary – the major issues are expanding the network that must be made available to include fibre and disaggregating the services so that an independent doesn’t have to take all services if they only want, for example, Internet.

Commissioner Shoan’s dissent wasn’t about those two main points but about the decision’s narrow focus on the Internet as a provider of alpha-numeric data and the missed opportunity to revamp policy, or take a first step towards revamping policy in recognition that broadcasting and telecommunications are no longer separate silos. Shoan’s position is that so much evidence was provided by intervenors that broadcasting is now part of the services that the independent providers offer to customers that the Broadcasting Act should have also applied. The world is rapidly evolving to one where there is only one pipe to the home providing all of our communications services and that is not reflected in the policy framework:

“In essence, under the current legislative framework, the Internet, through market forces, consumer use, and industry development, is evolving from a telecommunications service into a broadcasting service. The implications of this evolution are profound for not only the Commission’s regulatory frameworks, but all Canadians and the public interest.”

Commissioner Shoan breaks down Internet services into really three types of services:

  • licensed or exempt IPTV broadcasting (television channels delivered over the Internet by companies like VMedia and Zazeen)
  • exempt broadcasting delivered over the Internet (OTT services like Netflix)
  • non-broadcast Internet (websites, email etc.)

IPTV was a hot topic at the hearing with many independents looking for access to fibre to be able to provide customers with an IPTV offering. They need the bandwidth and speed. IPTV is broadcasting. Shoan’s analysis is that the Commission cannot use the Telecommunications Act to provide access to broadcasting. The Broadcasting Act must apply, specifically s. 9(1)(f):

s.9(1) Subject to this Part, the Commission may, in furtherance of its objects,

(f) require any licensee to obtain the approval of the Commission before entering into any contract with a telecommunications common carrier for the distribution of programming directly to the public using the facilities of that common carrier;

The exempt broadcasting services are exempted by the Broadcasting Act under the Digital Media Exemption Order. S. 28 of the Telecommunications Act provides an obligation on the Commission to regulate the transmission of programming over telecommunications services to guard against undue preference or unjust discrimination (i.e. incumbents favouring their services over the independents). Shoan sees a missed opportunity here to identify what would be undue preference or unjust discrimination “as high-speed networks rapidly transition to becoming predominantly video distribution platforms”. This was an opportunity to create a framework to address problems before they occur rather than after.

Now back to the ISP levy. When the CRTC reviewed the New Media Exemption Order (as it was then called) in 2009 there was a call from creator groups for the CRTC to impose an ‘ISP levy’ on ISPs who were increasingly providing consumers with access to programming without making any contribution to the creation of that programming. The levy would go to fund more programming and replace lost BDU revenues to the CMF and the other independent production funds as consumers increasingly cut or shave the cord. During the hearing the BDUs challenged the CRTC’s jurisdiction to impose such a levy and the CRTC referred the question of jurisdiction to the Federal Court of Appeal.

The Federal Court of Appeal decided in 2010 that ISPs were not broadcasters and therefore the CRTC did not have jurisdiction under the Broadcasting Act over the ISPs (and could therefore not impose a levy under that Act). The decision was appealed by the creator groups (ACTRA, CMPA, DGC, and WGC) to the Supreme Court of Canada, who agreed in 2012 based on their interpretation of the facts that ISPs were not broadcast distribution undertakings [EDIT: earlier version said ‘broadcasting’ but it is more accurate to say broadcast distribution undertakings – sorry for any confusion]. They are merely passive conduits that ‘take no part in the selection, origination, or packaging of content’.  You can find the history of the Digital Media Exemption Order and the Federal Court of Appeal decision here and the Supreme Court decision here.

Now we have a CRTC hearing where independent ISPs looked for access to fibre so that they could provide BROADCASTING services. Shoan’s dissent makes a very good case for applying the Broadcasting Act to ISPs.  [EDIT:  It has also been pointed out to me that there have been some changes in how ISPs operate including how they promote the video content they carry that could justify a re-examination of the case and to what extent they really are only passive conduits.  As well, the growth of IPTV renders the question of whether ISPs are broadcast distribution undertakings moot at least for those services.]  I’m not a telecomm lawyer so there could be flaws in the argument that I can’t see. Perhaps telecomm and broadcast people should have a conversation because Shoan’s analysis undermines the factual underpinning of the Supreme Court’s decision. If anyone is up to the cost of another reference, it could be time to challenge the Supreme Court decision or (and this is less expensive) encourage the CRTC to take a bold step toward creating a regulatory framework that better reflects the services being offered to Canadians and ensures that Canadians will continue to have the choice to watch Canadian programming on those services.

Old White Guy TV – The Senate on the CBC

Leave a reply

I thought of this more irreverent title after I posted the following to TV, Eh! after reading the Senate Committee’s report on the CBC released yesterday (July 20, 2015):

Yesterday the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications released its report on the CBC: The CBC/Radio-Canada in the Twenty-first Century. Despite its title, it seemed mired in the Nineteenth Century.

Well, maybe the mid-Twentieth.

The report described the current challenges that the CBC and all of Canadian broadcasting is facing with the advent of services like Netflix and YouTube but offered no suggestions for how the CBC could better embrace the digital age. There were some good suggestions on eliminating waste, reducing salaries and selling off real estate (which at times came very close to micromanaging) and a worthwhile discussion of governance which correctly objected to the CEO of the CBC reporting to the PMO and not the Board (though it failed to point out that under the Conservative government the CBC’s Board has become a patronage appointment so does not have the expertise to oversee a broadcaster).

However, the core message was that the CBC should be broadcasting what the private broadcasters will not – Canadian historical dramas, nature documentaries, amateur sports such as university athletics, performing arts with an emphasis on symphonies and Reach For The Top. Yes, it specifically suggested Reach For The Top, a show that the CBC broadcast from 1966 to 1989. Old White Guy TV*.

Before you get up in arms, I love Canadian historical dramas and nature documentaries but broadcasts of the Toronto Symphony Orchestra and Reach For The Top are not going to increase CBC’s market share nor will it engage younger, diverse, urban audiences. The CBC needs to be relevant to a wide range of Canadians.

There is no vision in this report. The Committee complained that the Broadcasting Act mandate for the CBC was too broad but its only recommendation for amendment was to include a specific reference to airing more historical drama and Canadian feature film. It did not explain why only those two genres needed to be singled out. It complained that the Broadcasting Act did not contemplate the 21st Century and needed to be updated but gave no guidance on what revisions needed to be made. It complained that witnesses kept saying that the CBC was underfunded, demonstrated that in inflation-adjusted dollars government funding is at its lowest in the past 25 years, but then suggested that new funding models including telethons and corporate sponsorship, should replace the shortfall.

Over the years there have been many studies of the CBC. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage conducted a study in 2008 on the CBC that contained a number of very good recommendations including a memorandum of understanding between the government and the CBC that would set out specific goals and make sure that the CBC was sufficiently funded to meet those goals. The study also looked at digital media, diversity, Canadian programming, governance and accountability. The government declined to implement any of the recommendations.

Is the Senate report more in line with the Conservative government’s position on the CBC. Likely. Should we be worried? I don’t think so. For one thing, we do have an election this Fall and nothing will be done before then or, if a minority government is elected, after then. As well, there is very little in this report that Conservative MPs have not said before (except maybe Reach For The Top, that’s new). For example, they have been advocating for a PBS-style funding model for years. The reality is that many of these recommendations would not be popular with their constituents, who do not want to sit through a telethon to be able to watch Coronation Street.

Yes, it was a wasted opportunity but honestly do we need another study that the government will ignore? Or do we need political will and vision at both the government and the CBC to work together to provide Canadians with the public broadcaster that we need and deserve. Yeah, that.

*With apologies to Senator Betty Unger, the one woman on the Senate Committee.

Digital Canada 150 2.0 – Have They Gotten It Right Yet? Not so much.

Leave a reply

I was going to break down the differences between Digital Canada 150 (released April 4, 2014) and Digital Canada 150 2.0 (released today) but it’s kind of ridiculous. Very little has changed in the past year. It is still more of a ‘look what we did including a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with a national digital strategy but sounds good’ than a plan for ensuring that Canada and all Canadians are digitally literate, part of the digital economy, using the tools and enjoying the content.

Yay – the government connected more rural Canadians to broadband but still no mention of ensuring affordable access to broadband for Canadians regardless of where they live. Increasingly, digital literacy and access are essential elements to exercise of Canadian citizenship and this continued omission supports the digital divide between those who can exercise their citizenship and those who cannot.  [Note – contrast that with the Digital Argentina law of 2014 that, among other things, is aimed at ensuring fair access of all citizens to telecommunications including the Internet.  Under that law the government of Argentina can set the rates for Internet access to ensure affordable access for all.  Just saying.]

Yay – the CRTC (which is an arm’s length tribunal so can’t really be part of the government’s strategy unless it isn’t that arm’s length) has instituted unbundling like the government said it would. No mention of the fact that we really won’t know the consequences of that decision for consumers and for broadcasters until it is implemented in 2016 or explanation of how that relates to a digital strategy.

Yay – the @Canada twitter handle exercises digital diplomacy. I dare you – go check out that twitter handle.

Screenshot 2015-07-15 14.22.22

Yay – the government created digital content through the NFB, funding the Canada Book Fund and the Canada Music Fund and digitizing publications for Library and Archives Canada. They actually have funded a great deal of digital content through the Canada Media Fund and their budget cuts have forced the CBC to be more innovative in using digital platforms but for some reason these are accomplishments the government does not want to brag about. I get the CBC point (it’s hard to brag about what someone has had to do when you slashed their budget) but CMF?? [They do describe Telefilm Canada as an audio-visual industry success story so I do wonder if someone at Industry Canada got confused and thinks Telefilm and the CMF are the same thing and doesn’t realize that Telefilm only funds features.]

The report does cover a number of other issues (I’m not going to even touch the reference to Bill C-51 as an example of Internet Safety) but those are of greatest relevance to an audio-visual industry. BUT. What the audio-visual industry called for in the 2010 consultations was vision and a plan to ensure that all Canadians had access to digital platforms and the choice to enjoy Canadian content when they got there. It asked for an overhaul of the various silo’d funding programs to have a coordinated strategy to fund single platform and multi-platform content in a digital world. It asked for funding mechanisms to ensure that Canadian content continued to be created even as business models and technology evolved.  It asked for training programs that ensured that emerging and more established talent had the skills needed to create and exploit content.

For a quick refresher on the agonizing pace of waiting for a National Digital Strategy that included content, see my post on the release of Digital Canada 150 on April 4, 2014 in response to the Industry Canada consultation in 2010.

So, we’re still waiting for some vision.