Tag Archives: Canadian content

New CIPF Regulatory Framework – But What Does It Mean?

Yesterday, August 25, 2016, the CRTC released its new Broadcasting Regulatory Policy (2016-343) – a Policy Framework for Certified Independent Production Funds (“CIPFs”).  There are some minor and major changes to how CIPFs will be managed and the kinds of productions they will be able to fund going forward.

First, the framework sets the rules for how a CIPF has to be set up in order to be certified by the CRTC.  A fund needs to be certified to allow BDUs to allocate some of their mandated contribution to it.  A fund does not need to be certified if it does not need or want those contributions.  For example, while the Independent Production Fund is certified as a CIPF, its funding is based on an endowment so its management is outside of this framework.  However, most of the CIPFs do rely on BDU contributions so will need to abide by the new framework.

There are two types of changes to the framework:  1) new requirements in order to be certified and 2) new permissions which a CIPF may wish to take advantage of.  With that in mind, let’s look at each of the changes in turn.

Requirement: Eliminate Licensed Broadcaster Commitment

Going forward, CIPFs must no longer require a broadcast licence or development commitment from a licensed broadcaster as a condition of funding.  This is to allow greater flexibility in funding by producers as they can access OTT services provided that those services are accessible to Canadians (so yes to Netflix Canada but no to Hulu).  However, tax credits still require a licensed broadcaster so there will not be many productions that will be able to take advantage of this new flexibility at the moment.  It may provide more opportunities for web series, however.  Additionally, CIPF funding is awarded as part of a subjective assessment and each one may decide that in its assessment it will reward a licensed broadcaster commitment with more points as evidence of greater potential audience.  It may be difficult, though not impossible, for a project with a non-traditional broadcaster to be competitive with projects with traditional broadcasters.

Requirement:  Redefining “new media project”

I find this one odd.  “New Media Project” has now been re-categorized as “non-programming digital content” by removing programming content such as webisodes from the definition.  While the Notice of Consultation asked intervenors to consider whether the current definition of “new media project” needed to be updated and many said that it did (mobisode anyone?), the CRTC makes no reference to any intervenor asking for “new media project” to be redefined in that way.

It is more troubling because those who work in interactive digital media (“IDM”) know that most IDM associated with television includes video content either as clips or even within the IDM.  Walls between forms of content are breaking down and this redefinition feels like a belated attempt to put up a wall that the industry does not need or want.  Those in Ontario are currently experiencing a similar challenge with changes to the Ontario Interactive Digital Media Tax Credit draft regulations which attempt to remove streaming sites from eligibility but went too far and remove digital media with any form of video from eligibility.  Standalone web series may still be financed through the change to the broadcaster requirement (and because IPF is outside this framework) but as the new definition (‘innovative projects such as story-driven videogames, interactive or customizable web content, apps and all other similar types of non-programming content’) is very brief it is not clear whether the inclusion of video within ‘non-programming digital content’ will exclude it from eligibility.

Requirement: Maintain cap of 10% on non-programming digital content

CIPFs were limited to spending no more than 10% of their fund on ‘new media projects’ or now ‘non-programming digital content’.  A number of the CIPFs wanted greater flexibility to allocate more or less of their funds to digital media while on the other side the broadcasters wanted to keep the cap to ensure that most of the funds stayed within the licensed system.  The cap is being maintained, though for the more restricted definition of non-programming content.

Permission:  Canadian content certification points

Sigh.  How many times do we have to talk about this?  OK, so the CIPFs can now fund projects with a minimum of 6 CAVCO points.  But will they?  The decision says, without evidence, that the current limit of 8 points ‘excludes many productions that could otherwise be of high quality and qualify as Canadian’.  What exactly isn’t getting funded?   Bueller?

For those of you who were around during the Canada Media Fund review in 2008 (which excludes all of this current Commission), you will recall that when parties argued that CMF needed to lower its point count because lower point count shows would sell better, lots of evidence was presented to show that in fact 10/10 point Canadian programs sell better than 6 point (what we used to call ‘industrial’) programming.  It is hard to get more Canadian these days than “Murdoch Mysteries” and it sells all around the world.  When we used to produce a lot of 6 point productions there was a market internationally for “Andromeda” and “Mutant X” but it has pretty much dried up as international markets focus more on domestic production.  A high quality production that reflects a distinct domestic voice such as “Murdoch Mysteries” or “Motive” but also “Doctor Who” or “The Bridge” or “Wentworth” sells better internationally. It just does.

On a more practical note, how will these 6 point projects get financed?  For one, CMF still requires 8 points. Will the 6 point projects be competitive in the selection process with 8 and 10 point projects with greater sales potential?  A key sentence in the decision is “CIPFs will continue to have the discretion to finance the productions of their choice, based on their expertise and measurements of success”.  So only time will tell as to whether this change will have any real impact.

Permission:  Eligibility of Co-Ventures and Co-Productions

While the discussion in the decision is about treaty co-productions and co-ventures, the actual decision is only about co-ventures, this current Commission’s pet project.  This is probably because treaty co-productions are not actually ineligible for CIPF funding, though the CIPFs have rules to ensure that only majority Canadian co-productions benefit from Canadian funding.  Co-ventures have not been eligible.  Few productions use co-ventures (a system that allows Canadian producers to partner with non-treaty producers, i.e. from the U.S.) because they are too hard to finance. As well, the control that is then given over to the U.S. partner is not that attractive.  The Canadian partner must have 50% of creative control and profits but realistically co-ventures are U.S.-driven projects.

Time will tell whether CIPFs will actually allocate more funds to co-ventures or whether this is flexibility they really did not want or need.

Permission: Script and Concept Development

Previously, the requirement for a broadcast licence prevented CIPFs from funding early stage development except through non-BDU funds (i.e. endowments).  The removal of the requirement for a broadcast licence automatically frees up CIPFs to allocate more funds to early stage development, or even slate development, if they so wish.

Permission:  Promotion Funding

CIPFs have not been able to specifically fund promotion, an increasingly important part of any production in the crowded marketplace.  However, the CIPFs have limited funds and many stakeholders are concerned about money being reallocated from production to promotion.  It is therefore up to each CIPF as to whether it wants to reallocate any of its limited resources specifically to promotion.

Requirement:  Measurement of Audience Success

CIPFs each make subjective assessments of projects and decide to fund the ones that meet their criteria, including the greatest potential for success.  CIPFs were concerned that any formalization of that process would impede the subjective analysis but also attempt to standardize what are inherently non-standard funds which cover many different niches of programming and audience.  The CIPFs are likely relieved that the decision is instead to require the CIPFs to report on the audience success criteria used rather than to change them in any way.

Requirement:  Accessibility

CIPFs will now have to ensure that all programming that they fund is closed captioned and includes described video.  They are not required to fund it but to disclose it.  While broadcasters require closed captioning and described video, by requiring CIPFs to ensure that a project has it before it is funded, the theory is that this rule will ensure that productions are developed with accessibility guidelines in place rather than dealt with after the fact in post-production.  This will have little effect on CIPFs except as a check box on their application form but may have a positive effect on production planning for accessibility.

Requirement:  Reflection of OLMCs

There are no requirements currently to reflect in any way Official Language Minority Communities (OLMCs).  The new framework will require that one person on the selection committee for a CIPF will be responsible for ensuring that OLMCs are properly reflected in decision making.  Annual reports will now have to track OLMC projects.  There is no quota system so it is not clear how the Commission will define ‘properly reflect’ and what penalty there might be.  Many CIPFs already fund OLMC projects on a regular basis so this may only be an added reporting requirement.

Requirement:  Governance

The Notice of Consultation hinted at possible major changes to the governance of the CIPFs, which worried many intervenors who could not see any problems that needed to be fixed.  However, with vertical integration there were some concerns about how the Boards of the CIPFs were constituted in order to ensure that they remain independent of their contributors.  Two thirds of Board members must now be independent, rather than previously no more than one-third could be members representing BDUs.  The definition of independent excludes employees, officers, directors etc. of a contributor or its affiliates.  For example, an employee of CTV would be independent of Bell under the old rules but not under the new rules.

Additional wording was also added to the conflict of interest language to require that decisions are made ‘absent of actual or perceived conflicts of interest’ but without setting any specific criteria to abide by.

Requirement:  Reporting

While most CIPFs publish annual reports there was no requirement to do so nor any criteria for those reports.  This is now standardized with few additional criteria beyond what most CIPFs already report on.  They will also have to submit audited financial statements.  The Commission understands that this could be an administrative burden for smaller funds which might not be able to cover the cost of an audit, particularly with the cap of 5% on administration costs.  These smaller funds can apply for an exemption from the audit if they can prove it would be unduly burdensome.

 

This revised policy framework will go into effect September 1, 2016 however it will take time for the funds to review and implement the changes into their guidelines, and have those changes approved by their boards.  There are no transition rules so it is not clear how quickly the CIPFs will have to change those parts of their guidelines that must change, before the Commission declares them offside of the new policy framework.  The only real penalty is being de-certified so hopefully the Commission will give the CIPFs at least one fiscal year to implement all the necessary guideline changes and possibly even board changes.

Advertisements

Prime Time in Ottawa 2016

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.

 

Let’s Talk TV – Let’s Talk About It ALL!

Well, it’s ambitious. I’ll say that for the Let’s Talk TV consultation. It can even said to be HUGE!

To recap, yesterday the CRTC released both the Notice of Consultation on the third stage in the Talk TV consultations (the first stage being the online discussion board and the second stage being the Choicebook) and as well released its response to the government’s s. 15 order to report on the feasibility of pick and pay. These two releases need to be read together.

First, to reiterate, the s.15 request  was for the CRTC to provide the government with a report on the impact of any pick and pay measures for pay and specialty services and how any such measures would still ensure that the majority of services received were Canadian and that BDUs continue to give priority to Canadian services. The report is only the next stage of the process and not the final stage. The CRTC’s proposal for pick and pay options will be discussed as part of the Talk TV consultation and after receiving evidence from various stakeholders (deadline June 25, 2014) and discussing it at the hearing (starting September 8, 2014), the CRTC will then make a decision.  It could easily be a decision to not implement any pick and pay because of the expectation of harm to the system (I doubt that but it’s possible).  What it will not be is a decision to implement full pick and pay because of the social policy goals of the Broadcasting Act.   I’m saying this because the gap between public perception and the reality of the process annoys me.

So, what is the CRTC’s proposal? The CRTC proposes that BDUs offer:

–       A small, all-Canadian basic service that includes only the local Canadian conventional stations, the mandatory carriage services, the provincial edunets and in some cases community channels and provincial legislatures services.

–       Promote the availability of the small Canadian basic

–       Allow pick and pay on pay and specialty services

–       Allow consumers to create their own packages for pay and specialty services

This proposal gives Canadians the option to stick with their packages or if they really really don’t want all of those channels go to a skinny basic and pay for individual pay and specialty services. The hearing will review specific issues with this proposal such as the impact on more niche specialty services, the impact on BDUs and the impact on program producers from such a proposal. It will be interesting to see how the consumer groups respond. I hope they all try and conduct some studies or economic modeling to put some evidence behind their responses but practically there are limits to what evidence can be provided. We just don’t know how consumers will behave if offered this proposal. How many would reduce their packages and buy just a few services, especially if those services by necessity have to be more expensive when sold on their own? I like tv and a choice of services so I’m not likely to do it. I know sports fans who might. How many are in each camp – does anyone have a clue?

This topic on its own could fill a hearing with each sector of the industry weighing in because of the potential impact of any pick and pay system. It isn’t the only topic. On the assumption that you have not read the Public Notice I’ll skim over the issues.

–       Increased access to non-Canadian services

–       Remove Simultaneous Substitution completely (which allows broadcasters to replace the US ads on the US programs they buy with Canadian ads they have sold – I honestly did not think removing it would ever be discussed in my lifetime) or replace it with Non-Simultaneous Substitution (which allows them to replace the ads whenever the Canadian broadcaster airs the US program)

–       The importance, or not, of local programming

–       How will programs be delivered in the future and do we need to change the funding model for support of Canadian programming to keep up?

–       Does the CRTC need to continue to require exhibition of Canadian programs or is funding enough? Should there be regulation of promotion?

–       Support of underserved audiences such as OLMCs, Aboriginal audiences, third language communities and persons with disabilities.

–       Is support for independent programming and distribution services required (i.e. VI Code).

–       Enhanced measurement of audiences using set-top boxes and the privacy issues that are triggered by that discussion.

–       Maintain, or not, the Genre Exclusivity Policy (i.e. should History be allowed to morph into Discovery and Showcase to morph into Space)

–       Simplified licensing of services

–       Better communication of changes to consumers by services and BDUs

–       Improved parental controls

–       Competition within the BDU market

–       Dispute resolution between BDUs and subscribers

Each one of these topics could be a hearing on its own. They do relate to each other and impact each other so I understand why they are bundled together but this is going to be a difficult hearing for most stakeholders. I’ve participated in these ‘all you can eat buffet’ style hearings and they are hard. You just don’t have the time or resources to address every issue so you pick your top issues and hope that other stakeholders address the ones that you can’t get to. Reading all of the other submissions alone is time-consuming but necessary. The Commission did remind smaller groups that they can apply to the Broadcasting Participation Fund for financial assistance (and I remind you as well) but it is still going to be a costly year for stakeholders.

On the upside – I’m definitely looking forward to some interesting discussions during the September hearing.

 

The CRTC’s 2013-2016 Three-Year Plan

The CRTC’s updated Three-Year Plan was released yesterday.  This is a useful document for stakeholders to get a general idea of when larger policy hearings are intended to be conducted.  It can help in budgeting, though there will always be more hearings than are in the plan, and in research planning.  For those who haven’t read it, from a broadcasting perspective these are the CRTC’s planned activities that I think are worth noting for stakeholders (under the CRTC’s heading ‘Create’):

–       There will be a ‘conversation with Canadians’ about television in 2013-14.  I have no idea what that means but I assume that we will hear shortly.

–       The genre protection policy was to be internally reviewed in 2013-14 but that has now been postponed to 2014-15.

–       The policy for Cat A services will be reviewed in 2015-16 to see if it is time to license more of those services.  Cat A’s have priority carriage and CanCon obligations that Cat B’s don’t have.

–       In 2013-14 there will be a written consultation on the commercial radio policy

–       The CRTC will internally research Cultural Diversity policy in 2013-14, possibly undertake a public fact-finding consultation in 2014-15 and may then have a public hearing on cultural diversity policy in 2015-16.  There already is in place a cultural diversity policy that aims at ensuring that broadcasting is cultural diverse in employment and programming and the broadcasters have reports that they have to file each year to demonstrate their activities to that end.  It will be interesting to see if this policy is working well or not.

–       The CRTC will undertake the same research, fact-finding, public consultation process for Ethnic Broadcasting, both television and radio.

–       There will be a review of Native Radio Policy in 2015-16.

–       The Tangible Benefits Policy will be reviewed by written consultation as will the valuation policy, in 2013-14.  A new policy will not be implemented until 2014-15.  The knee jerk reaction is to suggest that there will be no more major transactions by that time but every time someone says that the market turns around and presents us with another major acquisition.  It isn’t going to hurt to have greater clarity on what are acceptable benefits package allocations and on how the CRTC assesses valuation of assets for determining the amount of those benefits.  I was on a panel at the 2012 Law Society of Upper Canada’s Biennial conference on Communications Law and Policy where both stakeholders and broadcasters called for greater clarity and consistency in both valuation and tangible benefits policy.

–       Rogers’ TV licences are up for renewal in 2014-15.  They have added several new stations since they were last licensed so expect a call for a higher commitment to Canadian programming and their resistance to that.

–       In 2015-16 Bell, Shaw and Corus have their group licences up for renewal.  We have not yet seen the reports of the first year of their licence term so it is early to speculate on what the issues will be for renewal – but there will be issues.

The headings for Connect and Protect have quite a few topics as well.  Feel free to review the Plan if you’re interested in what the CRTC has planned for telecomm, pay phones, broadband performance,  wireless code of conduct, 911 services and more.

I’m going to not think about the CRTC for the rest of the day.  Next week it’s Bell-Astral2 for the whole week so I don’t know about you but I need just a little break after almost two weeks of #91h.