Connect with us

Opinion

US Superbowl commercials or local news – what’s more important to you?

Published

8 minute read

Do you know that prior to 2 years ago, you couldn’t watch the Superbowl complete with those amazing Superbowl commercials in Canada.  Before that, you had to wait, maybe catch them online, or the next morning on a local newscast.  I know, it seems like ancient history.  In our thirst for entertainment and information that is widely available “on demand”, we are testing the limits of a terrestrial television system designed decades ago.

The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear the case of Bell Media/CTV and the NFL as it relates to the CRTC’s decision to exempt the Superbowl broadcast from the rules of “simultaneous substitution”.  Called ‘sim-sub’ for short, it is the practice of blocking of US commercials on Canadian TV channels and in their place substituting national and local Canadian commercials. It’s been around since the rise of cable delivery in our country as a way to protect the exclusive licenses that Canadian TV companies have when they purchase the rights to a US network program and air it in Canada. These revenues help offset the cost of local news operations which generally are resource-heavy, low-margin, and in some cases, heavily subsidized programs.

In 2016 the CRTC made an exception to the sim-sub rules, allowing cable & satellite companies to dispense with the practice for Superbowl. Only the Superbowl. Why? Because the CRTC received tons of complaints for years from people who wanted to watch the big budget US Superbowl ads but couldn’t because the Canadian broadcast was full of ads for Tim Horton’s. You know what I mean.

This is in the news now because the Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear the case being made by CTV and its parent company Bell Media, along with the NFL.  They make very good points relative to policy and regulations around this long-standing practice. They negotiated a long term deal with the NFL based on buying the “exclusive rights” to the game and paid big money.  And then the CRTC changed the rules.

Here’s some background.  The Canadian TV system works, complete with its local newscasts and Cancon rules worked because for years, revenue was generated and profits derived largely by purchasing Canadian rights to first-run US network programs and broadcasting them, generally in primetime, in “simulcast” with the originating US station.  You know… you think you’re watching Lucifer on FOX 28 KAYU only to realize you’re watching CTV when a commercial break comes on.  You’re a bit confused, then the show ends and suddenly you’re watching FOX 28 again.  No, it’s not you.  It’s the system.  This practice protects the Canadian TV station’s exclusive rights by blocking all other signals and inserting the Canadian channel over top of them.

Still with me? Ok… now in the case of the Superbowl, the system changed with no apparent warning.

The Superbowl is widely watched, but its for the commercials, as evidenced by the many complaints the CRTC received every year. In their zeal to satisfy the masses and quell the complaints, the Commission in effect  sacrificed CTV’s exclusive right to broadcast the game in Canada, and killed their ability to recoup the massive rights fees they’ve paid.   

What happened next? The Superbowl arrived on a variety of US cable channels, complete with the must-see commercials. And CTV, the only company that actually paid for the exclusive rights to broadcast the program in Canada, was out of luck.  The Superbowl was featured on a number of channels and CTV’s audience took a beating. The value of their commercials went down considerably.  Why? Because of the US channels with the high-budget US ads. The tsunami of production value, A-list talent and of course, those Budweiser horses proved irresistible.

So off they all go to the Supreme Court to sort it out.  Bell Media will surely argue that the loss of revenue from a show like Superbowl directly impacts the funds available to create local newscasts, pay staff, and generate profit for shareholders.

Bell said in a statement it is pleased that the Supreme Court will hear the appeal:

“We look forward to advancing our argument that a broad range of Canadian creators, producers, advertisers and businesses have been negatively impacted by the original decision.”

So what do you think? Is watching US commercials in the Superbowl more important than preserving the regulatory framework that protects our local over-the-air TV system across the country? Because the two really are inextricably linked. By eroding the ability for a Canadian program rights-holder to recoup their investment, as the CRTC did by  making an exemption of Simsub rules for Superbowl broadcasts, it strikes right to the heart of funds available to produce local news programming.

So now the greater question is just how important is local TV in today’s world of digital communication, on demand viewing, tablets, phones, PVR’s, and social media? Audiences and revenues for local Canadian TV stations have been under increasing pressure for years, and few cities realize this more than Red Deer.

While not related to Superbowl advertising, the one local TV station here closed its doors and quit broadcasting in 2009. When it closed, I’m told by a former Commissioner that not a squeak was heard at the CRTC from this local community- not a letter or comment. So was the station even missed? Many will remember (or not) when it was for a short period of time called E! Entertainment, all in an effort to find inexpensive programming.  Ultimately it didn’t work.   CKRD, RDTV, E!, CHCA- it had many aliases, but ultimately struggled to drive enough revenue to continue operating.  That was 9 years ago, and many of the factors that led to its closure have only accelerated since then.

Do you watch local TV news from the remaining stations in Edmonton and Calgary? Are these institutions still important, or would we all rather just watch US commercials and US TV shows and say goodbye to the notion of local TV news programming here in Canada? How have your habits changed? Do you care? Because you really can’t have it both ways for very long.

Lloyd Lewis is President of Todayville, INC.  He was VP/GM of CTV Edmonton from 2005-2015 and GM of RDTV Red Deer from 1997 to 2000. He worked in the local television industry for 35 years. 

President Todayville Inc., Honorary Colonel 41 Signal Regiment, Board Member Lieutenant Governor of Alberta Arts Award Foundation, Director Canadian Forces Liaison Council (Alberta) musician, photographer, former VP/GM CTV Edmonton.

Follow Author

Business

Ottawa’s capital gains tax hike—final nail in ‘business investment’ coffin

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Jake Fuss

From 2014 to 2022, inflation-adjusted total business investment (in plants, machinery, equipment and new technologies but excluding residential construction) in Canada declined by C$34 billion. During the same period, after adjusting for inflation, business investment declined by a total of $3,748 per worker

According to the recent federal budget, the Trudeau government plans to increase the inclusion rate from 50 per cent to 66.7 per cent on capital gains over $250,000 for individuals and on all capital gains realized by corporations and trusts. Unfortunately, this tax hike will be the final nail in the coffin for business investment in Canada, which likely means even harder economic times ahead.

Canada already faces a business investment crisis. From 2014 to 2022, inflation-adjusted total business investment (in plants, machinery, equipment and new technologies but excluding residential construction) in Canada declined by C$34 billion. During the same period, after adjusting for inflation, business investment declined by a total of $3,748 per worker—from $20,264 per worker in 2014 to $16,515 per worker in 2022.

While business investment has declined in Canada since 2014, in other countries, including the United States, it’s continued to grow. This isn’t a post-COVID problem—this is a Canada problem.

And Canadians should be worried. Businesses investment is key for strong economic growth and higher living standards because when businesses invest in physical and intellectual capital they equip workers with the tools and technology (e.g. machinery, computer programs, artificial intelligence) to produce more and provide higher quality goods and services, which fuels innovation and higher productivity. And as firms become more efficient and increase profits, they’re able to pay higher wages, which is why business investment remains a key factor for higher incomes and living standards.

The Trudeau government’s policies—increased regulation, particularly in the energy and mining sectors (which makes Canada a relatively unattractive place to do business), higher and uncompetitive taxes, and massive federal deficits (which imply future tax increases)—have damaged business investment.

Unsurprisingly, weak business investment has correlated with a weak economy. In the fourth quarter of 2023, real economic growth per person ($58,111) officially fell below 2014 levels ($58,162). In other words, Canadian living standards have completely stagnated. In fact, over the last decade economic growth per person has been the weakest on record since the 1930s.

Instead of helping fix the problem, the Trudeau government’s capital gains tax hike will further damage Canada’s economy by reducing the return on investment and encouraging an exodus of capital from the country. Indeed, capital gains taxes are among the most economically-damaging forms of taxation because they reduce the incentive to invest.

Once again, the Trudeau government has enacted a policy that will deter business investment, which Canada desperately needs for strong economic growth. The key takeaway for Canadians? Barring a change in policy, you can expect harder times ahead.

Continue Reading

Fraser Institute

Latest federal budget will continue trend of negative outcomes for Canadians

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

From the third quarter of 2015 to the fourth quarter of 2023, growth in real GDP per-person (a common indicator of living standards) was less than 1 per cent cumulatively versus more than 15 per cent in the United States. This despite—or more accurately, because of—massive government spending including on corporate subsidies

Reading the federal budget, which the Trudeau government tabled last week, is not an activity likely to improve the equanimity of Canadians suffering from over-taxation and anxious about stagnating living standards. The fact is, the budget sets Canadians even further behind with increased costs and higher taxes, which are sure to reduce productivity and investment further.

In terms of taxes, the main headline is the increase to the capital gains tax to a two-thirds inclusion rate for amounts over $250,000 per year. With Canada’s business investment numbers already dismal, the capital gains tax hike makes things worse by discouraging entrepreneurship and distorting economic decisions to favour present day consumption instead of saving and investment. Indeed, because people know the money they earned today will be taxed more heavily when they invest it tomorrow, the capital gains tax hike reduces incentives to work and earn today.

When it comes to costs, the “total expenses” line in the fiscal tables is most instructive. In last year’s budget, the Trudeau government said it would spend $496.9 billion in 2023-24 and $513.5 billion in 2024-25, rising to $556.9 billion by 2027-28 for a total of $2.6 trillion over five years. But according to this year’s budget, its $505.1 billion for 2023-24, $537.6 billion in 2024-25 and $588.2 billion by 2027-28, for a total of $2.8 trillion over the same five-year period, with both higher program spending and greater borrowing costs contributing to the increase.

In other words, the Trudeau government overspent its budget last year by an estimated $8.2 billion, has increased its spending for this year by $24.1 billion, and will now overspend last year’s fiscal plan by a total of $120.8 billion over five years. And that’s assuming the Liberals stick to the spending plan they just tabled. The Trudeau government has a track record of blowing past its original spending targets, often by astonishing margins, a trend continued in its latest budget. So taxpayers might reasonably expect even the significantly increased costs presented in this latest budget are an understatement.

Canadians might find the exorbitant costs of federal spending easier to accept if they saw some benefits commensurate to the spending, but they have not. From the third quarter of 2015 to the fourth quarter of 2023, growth in real GDP per-person (a common indicator of living standards) was less than 1 per cent cumulatively versus more than 15 per cent in the United States. This despite—or more accurately, because of—massive government spending including on corporate subsidies and other initiatives the government claimed would boost economic growth. Clearly, such growth has not materialized.

The latest budget increased spending for the national child-care program, but the thing has been a disaster  from coast to coast, with families unable to find spots, daycare operators in dire straits, and costs to taxpayers ballooning. Similarly, while health-care spending has risen over the years, access to medical care has gone down. Spending and regulation related to climate change have exploded under the Trudeau government, but the environmental benefits of initiatives such as electric vehicle consumer subsidies and plastic bans, if there are any environmental benefits at all, are nowhere near high enough to offset the burden to taxpayers and consumers.

Clearly, the Trudeau government’s ramp-up in spending and increased taxation, as the GDP and investment figures show, have produced severely negative outcomes for eight years. By ramping spending and taxation up yet higher, it will help continue these negative outcomes.

Continue Reading

Trending

X