Search

Qualitative Analysis of CRTC Choicebook

Let’s Talk TV: Choicebook, research conducted by Hill+Knowlton Strategies

1 May 2014

Table of Contents

Basic Subscription Services

Q. Whose views do you agree with and why?

Doreen, Jeannine and Sierra – serving under-served and under-represented

  1. Overall accessibility
    • Principles of fairness / equality; Availability / accessibility for all; Accommodating for disabilities / special needs / impairment
  2. Cultural diversity and representation
    • Respecting Canada’s diversity / multiculturalism; Representing and providing access to ethnic / minority communities; Bilingual services
  3. Balances affordability and accessibility
    • Ensuring affordable / cheap services for all, especially for under-served and under-represented; Providing services for those with low / fixed income

Phan - lowest possible price point

  1. Lowest cost
    • Ensuring access for those with fixed / low income (e.g. seniors); Provides lowest possible price; Current prices / bills are too expensive / increasing; People can’t afford more and are cancelling services
  2. More choice
    • Allowing people to pay for what they want / need (e.g. language, cultural preference); Not forcing channels onto people; People can add / pay for services they need; Cannot meet everyone’s needs
  3. “Basic services should be basic”
    • Everyone should have access to the necessities (e.g. local news, weather) but nothing more; Services should be as minimal as possible; Services should cover the broadest range / majority of people

Q. Whose views do you agree with and why?

“My mother is hearing impaired and I don’t think people should have to pay extra just for the ability to watch TV, such as programming in your own language or descriptive video.”

“We have 2 official languages, First Nations, and impaired people as an integral fabric of our country. Canada is different from other countries because we believe in universal access to the basics of life. Why not extend that to the information network of everyday life?”

“It is important to ensure everyone has access to a diverse, representative experience… If you can’t afford it, you just get the scraps.”

“A low cost package would allow people with low incomes or on a fixed budget (pensioners) to have basic channels. TV is not essential but for many seniors it is their main source for current events.”

“My household is lower income and our cable bill, even without telephone and internet is one of my highest monthly bills… We have to take channels we don’t watch ever to get one or two that we do watch regularly.”

“The word basic says it all. No frills stations that the majority of people want. Why make an English or French area provide English or French services… It’s unreasonable to expect to meet all the needs of all the people all the time.”

Local News

Q. Right now, the CRTC requires that local television stations provide local news coverage. Some say this may be a requirement whose time has come and passed. Who do you agree with more? Please feel free to tell us the reason for your choice.

Andrew and Mary - Local news on TV

  1. Value of local news
    • Need to know / be informed of what’s going on around you; Community first; Leads to more community impact; Hard to find elsewhere; Need to support local stations
  2. Challenges with technology
    • Inaccessible; Unaffordable; Undesirable; Less structured format; Takes too much effort to navigate; Unregulated
  3. Lifestyle and routine
    • Part of daily routine (especially with seniors and families); More relaxing; Provides time for family togetherness / interaction; Spend too much time already in front of computers

Matthew – Global news on smartphone

  1. Convenience and availability
    • Up-to-date, real-time access / no waiting; More variety of information / sources; More diverse opinions less structured format; No commercials; Easier to search for what you want
  2. Dislike for content
    • Poor / deteriorating quality; Fluff / only emotion / “too cutesy”; Too negative / fearmongering; Pointless information; Too much repetition; Lacks insight / depth; Slanted; Censored; Commercials; Not comprehensive
  3. Greater interest
    • More comprehensive; Higher quality; More diverse opinions

Q. Right now, the CRTC requires that local television stations provide local news coverage. Some say this may be a requirement whose time has come and passed. Who do you agree with more? Please feel free to tell us the reason for your choice.

“What do we care about what’s happening in another country if we don’t know what our neighbour does?… We are losing real human contact with all the global news.”

“The best thing about local news is sitting down as a family and watching it on a large screen… and being able to discuss it with others. Smartphones are individualistic.”

“I enjoy being able to watch local news every morning as we prepare to go to work… I enjoy being able to multi-task while doing this.”

“The younger generation is extremely tech-savvy… For those of us who are a bit older, after dinner viewing of news is a way to wind down from the day’s activities.”

“You can find anything you want to know online.”

“I will go wherever I please to seek out news. This is something the traditional cable companies can’t compete with. ”

“Local coverage is too often poor quality and lacks any in-depth analysis or insight. I feel it is not worth the effort.”

“I feel like watching TV is forcing me to watch commercials. I can skip those commercials on my cellphone news app.”

Pick and Pay Options

Q. Considering their situations and perspectives, and your own television habits, which one of these three options would you choose and why?

Pick a pack

  1. More choice and precision
    • Get more of what you want; Accommodates different interests within a household; Not stuck with too many channels / channels you don’t want; Only watch / interested in a few channels; More flexibility to change if needed
  2. Cost savings
    • You pay for what you get / don’t pay for channels you don’t want; More reasonable price

Pick and pay

  1. Greater choice and precision
    • Similar rationales as pick a pack but more focus on getting exactly what you want
  2. Cost savings
    • Similar rationales as pick a pack but stronger emphasis on paying for what you want and not subsidizing others’ preferences / “failing channels”

Large pre-assembled packages

  1. More diversity
    • Provides a broader perspective; Accommodates different interests within household; Offers opportunity for exploration; Ensures educational / information programming; Protects lesser viewed channels; Accommodates changing interests
  2. Most cost efficient option
    • Other packages would be more expensive; Already too expensive

Q. Considering their situations and perspectives, and your own television habits, which one of these three options would you choose and why? Please feel free to tell us the reason for your choice.

“I am very annoyed that we have to pay for so many channels we don’t watch but have to take the package. The cable companies should be more flexible to the consumer.”

“If he or she can afford it, the pick a pack is the most logical choice.”

“I would like the option to choose channels that interest me but like the idea of savings associated with a bundle.”

“I literally watch maybe 10-20 channels but I’m paying for 200. It’s ridiculous.”

“It is not fair to ask people to subsidize each other’s preferred channels.”

“I believe pick and pay is crucial. Sometimes TV providers can bundle one popular channel with a number of unpopular channels in a “package” forcing someone to pay $9 a month for access to that one channel.”

“Cable is already high and [other options] could lead to higher prices.”

“Packages should contain a variety. If we have to pick and pay then we are always limited to the same content and even though we favour certain programs it doesn’t mean we always want to watch those channels all the time.”

Sports Programming

Q. Whose views are more persuasive to you? Why?

Ethan - Major sports as part of basic cable package

  1. Culture
    • Big sporting events bring people together; Being able to support Canadian teams and athletes
  2. Cost and accessibility
    • Not everyone can pay big money for sports; people on low or fixed incomes should have access; People feel they pay enough for TV already
  3. Balance of interests
    • The basic cable package should support a variety of sports, news, drama, culture, etc.; Not fair to force subsidization of some interests but not others; Supports casual viewing / some only interested in sports

Eva - Sports are a choice through specialty packages

  1. Costs
    • Keep the costs of basic cable down; Many see sports as a luxury / choice that should be additional costs
  2. Lack of interest
    • Don’t want to pay for something that does not interest them; Annoyed that sports “bump” regularly scheduled programs; Want to be able to exclude sports from their cable package; Anger at the large salaries and profits of professional sports; Do not consider sports to be culturally important
  3. Major events already covered
    • Feel that big events (e.g. Olympics, Stanley Cup, Grey Cup) are already covered on the basic package and this is sufficient; If people want more or different sports they can pay for it

Q. Whose views are more persuasive to you? Why?

“While I do not regularly watch sports, I do enjoy world event sports; Olympics, World Series, Grey Cup, Stanley Cup, The Brier, etc. Just because I do not enjoy a regular diet of sports does not mean I would not like access to big events and I agree, they should be freely broadcast.”

“Entertainment is very important to those who are on limited incomes and TV has traditionally been an affordable way for the housebound to have access to such entertainment.“

“I believe everyone should be able to watch important Canadian sports events, but no more or less than any other national identity-building programming.”

“As far as I understand, there is no "free TV" in Canada. If one is paying for basic cable, all major sporting events are already aired on basic cable, and that's all I as a consumer would want or need. I certainly wouldn't want dedicated sports channels as part of basic cable.”

“I have never watched broadcast sports, and am completely disinterested in them. Why should I subsidize the viewing of others?”

“It's too contentious to determine which sporting events are "important" - what's important to some people will not be important to others.”

Access to U.S. and International Programming

Q. Do you want more direct access to American channels? Do you want more direct access to international channels (non-US)? Would you want more American and other international channels if this meant paying more? Would you want more American and other international channels if this meant that some Canadian-made shows and channels (and the associated jobs) may no longer be available? Please feel free to explain the reasons for your choice.

  1. Consumer choice
    • Easier access to more channels; If you’re willing to pay for it, you should be able to have it; More options than just Canadian content
  2. Competitive marketplace
    • Let the market / consumers decide; More competition; Quality Canadian content will survive (and thrive); No limitations / regulations; No need for subsidies or support (especially for low quality content)
  3. Canadian content and industry
    • Need to contribute to Canadian culture / identity; Only watch Canadian content / channels; Too much US influence already; “…as long as it’s not at the expense of Canadian industry / jobs”
  4. Cost considerations
    • Don’t want to pay more / it’s already too expensive; Why should it cost more for greater access?
  5. Status quo
    • Don’t need more channels / too many channels already; Canadian / basic channels are sufficient; already enough access to US and international channels as is
  6. International channels
    • Broader / different range of perspectives; Canada is a diverse, multicultural society; more educational; like UK (BBC), Australian and French content
  7. More US channels
    • Better quality / production; more variety; like sports and news content (CNN)

Q. Please feel free to explain the reasons for your choice.

1. Consumer choice

“I do not like to be restricted in what television I can access, like some kind of child. I do not believe that the Canadian identity is so fragile that we cannot be allowed to watch American television.”

“I don’t mind paying for more channels but I believe you should have a choice. If you can’t afford it, then you have to decide what is more important.”

2. Competitive marketplace

“Canadian shows would have to stand on their own two feet. We have had some success and we have as good talent pool as anywhere in the world. Let the market decide.”

“I believe that the world is globalizing and Canada is becoming more multicultural. We need to embrace global culture and stop forcing Canadian content on people’s screens.”

3. Canadian content and industry

“Access to Canadian stations and content must be maximized. They form part of our national identity.” [Translation]

“Keeping Canadian channels and content viable is extremely important – we can’t just open up the market to the extent that all Canadian content is swamped by the US.”

Signal Substitution

Q. Which of these approaches would provide a better balance between protecting programming rights and giving viewers choice?

Signal substitution

  1. Status quo
    • Viewing experience has not been seriously affected by signal substitution; Just want better execution of signal substitution (no losing portions of programs; exception for the Super Bowl)
  2. Ads aren’t as important
    • Do not really watch ads; PVR enables skipping of ads; Super Bowl ads are available online
  3. Protect the Canadian market
    • Keep costs down by allowing Canadian stations to get ad revenue; Don’t want decisions to affect Canadian programming; Don’t need ads for US products or services not for sale in Canada

Pay extra for US stations

  1. More choice
    • People should be able to pay for US shows or ads if they want them; Want to encourage Canadian stations of doing a better job through competition
  2. Signal substitution hurts viewing experience
    • Tired of losing a portion of shows to badly managed signal substitution; Canadian ads are of low quality and repetitive; Want Super Bowl ads

Blackouts

Q. Which of these approaches would provide a better balance between protecting programming rights and giving viewers choice?

Signal substitution

“Only time I disagree is when the Canadian channel cuts a broadcast short because they supposedly have another commitment or when it's commercials run longer and you miss a portion of the broadcast. If you are going to broadcast an American event, broadcast ALL of it.”

“It's a no brainer. If Canadian companies have paid the rights for exclusivity in a region then there should be a way to enforce that or else we have no real exclusivity rights. If Superbowl advertisers want to reach Canadian customers then they should pay the individual channels to carry that advertising.”

Pay extra for US stations

“Although it's not the broadcasters fault that most Canadian advertising is especially bad the result is the same. Frustration, resentment & anger at having to watch bad commercials is an economic problem, not artistic. More eyeballs means more revenue. If you don't have the eyeballs then you have to charge more. If you can't charge more then you get what we now have in Canada…crappy commercials. I would welcome the opportunity to pay for events that offer superior programming at all levels from the production to the marketing to the commercials.”

Online Programming - Standards for Online Services

Q. Should online services be required to provide closed-captioning and adhere to programming standards? Why or why not?

Yes

  1. Accessibility
    • Providing overall accessibility to services, especially for individuals with disabilities; Ensuring equal rights
  2. Consistency in services
    • Ensuring a standard level of services; Fairest approach; Leveling the playing field

No

  1. Too much regulation
    • Enforcing too many regulations; Need to allow consumers to have a choice / control
  2. Higher
    • Imposes higher costs for services; Costs are too high / prohibitive
  3. Available alternatives
    • Consumers have other alternatives / options (e.g. TV, cable, satellite); Technology can provide solutions

Q. Should online services be required to provide closed-captioning and adhere to programming standards? Why or why not?

Yes

“Those with disabilities do not have to pay money for specialized programming and should not be penalized.”

“To level the playing field with regular programming. Otherwise programming will regress to what it was 20+ years ago, i.e. no closed captioning.”

“Why should they be excluded from programming standards, as they are still providing the same service that is like TV.”

No

“We have enough government regulation and perhaps they should stay away from regulating the world wide web.”

“This would make online services uncompetitive in price. Leave online services alone.”

“Closed captioning is available through cable and satellite service. If one is accessing free programming through their internet provider, one should realize that all options are not available. Want those options? Pay your cable or satellite provider!”

Online Programming

Q. If you have another perspective (different from Jenny’s or John’s) about online programming services, please feel free to add your thoughts here.

  1. No new fees
    • Services are too expensive; Costs would keep increasing; “I pay enough already”; Dealing with budget constraints
  2. Do not watch online programming
    • Watch programming on TV, not online; Don’t want to pay for online programming; Issues with the internet and streaming
  3. Issues with ISPs
    • Issues with providers such as corporate profits, unfair and restrictive service (e.g. data caps, usage)
  4. Access to content
    • Need greater access to content; More choice; Choices should be unregulated / unchanged; Want more international content

“I pay enough already for internet and satellite services, I am not willing to pay more! $5 would be the start of an ever increasing fee.”

“I believe the internet cap is very unfair to begin with and don’t feel any more money should be going to internet providing companies.”

“Cable and internet are both ridiculously expensive in Canada. Squeezing the customer and filling the pockets of overpaid executives.”

“I think Canadians should be able to fully access content directly from the source, not an edited Canadian version.”

Closing comments

Q. If you have additional comments about television in Canada, please share in the space below.

  1. High costs
    • Television packages cost too much; Bills are too high; Not interested in paying more; Companies are profiting too much; There are cheaper alternatives
  2. Programming content
    • Too much poor quality programming (including Canadian content); Inappropriate programming (need better content for children); Less reality / talk shows; Too many repeats; More educational content; Need more exposure to different views / background; Not as good as U.S.
  3. More choice
    • Should be able to pay for what you want; Greater access to a wide range of programming options / channels; Need better programming packages; New online technology offered solutions
  4. Canadian content and culture
    • Supporting and ensuring accessibility of Canadian content (in both official languages) and industry; Improvements in Canadian content; Greater access to international content
  5. Regulations and the marketplace
    • Allow more competition / level the playing field; Stop protecting Canadian content (including subsidies) / it is strong enough to stand on its own

Q. If you have additional comments about television in Canada, please share in the space below.

1. Costs

“There has to be more deals and cuts in pricing. People just can’t afford these huge monthly bills.”

“The internet is here. Adapt or die. Forcing us to pay more and more for content that appeals to a small consumer market will make more of us cut our cable.”

“Providers don’t need any more of my hard earned money.”

2. Content

“Broadcasted TV should be an affordable, inspiring window to the world around us… we are what we see, if we can only watch mediocre content, we’ll know no better and turn into mediocre people. STOP the race to the bottom.”

“Too many reality shows, too few family shows, too much offensive, violent and sexual content. I would like more learning programs.”

3. Choice

“I am not native, French, a sports fan, news follower on TV, soap opera fan, game show fan nor do I like Canadian drama so why the heck am I paying for these programs that take up about 75% of channels I receive. Pay for programming you enjoy watching only.”

“I view programming from cable, the internet, DVDs, my laptop… Controlling what the large and growing viewership is watching is a losing proposition.”

Date modified: