Is Moses Znaimer a genius?

You may have missed this when it was announced, but Mr. Moses Znaimer (of MuchMusic and City-TV fame) bought Classical 96.3 FM, a classical music station in Toronto.

I noticed the ad to the left in the Globe and Mail last weekend. According to the ad, Classical 96.3 FM is "Toronto's #1 Classical station and Toronto's #2 station Evenings and Weekends overall". The source cited for this rating is the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement's (BBM) S42007 survey.

Now, being Toronto's #1 classical station is not that hard, given the dearth of classical stations in Toronto. But the fact that Classical 96.3 is Toronto's #2 station during evenings and weekends is, I think, highly significant. If this is true - and I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of BBM's survey data or that Classical 96.3 is reporting the results correctly - then there is a significant, under served market for classical music in Toronto. But what about CBC Radio Two, you may ask? They play wall-to-wall classical music, don't they? Well, no, they don't, not since CBC Radio management's ill-advised foray into all-things-to-all-people (and satisfying no one) programming, launched on March 19 2007 and gradually creeping into all facets of CBC Radio Two's programming. In fact, I don't think any one would classify CBC Radio Two an "all classical" radio station during the evenings and weekends anymore - which may be precisely the reason for Classical 96.3 FM's popularity during these time slots.

At the time that Mr. Znaimer made his application to the CRTC to purchase the station, an article posted on the CBC web site stated that:

There are French-language private classical stations in Ottawa and Montreal and CBC's Radio Two, the public broadcaster, is available throughout the country, but no other commercial classical station survives in English Canada.

Well, hah! Guess what? The public broadcaster no longer survives as a classical station in English Canada either, except in the minds of the most self-deluding individuals.

So, back to the topic of this blog entry - is Mr. Moses Znaimer a genius for having invested in a radio station that features classical music? I don't know whether Mr. Znaimer is a genus or not, but I do believe that he has a knack for understanding trends in the market and in providing consumers with what they want. If I could, I would go long on Mr. Znaimer (i.e. buy stock in Mr. Znaimer with the expectation that the stock would subsequently experience price appreciation) and short CBC Radio management (i.e. sell stock in CBC Radio management that I do not own, with the expectation that the stock price will subsequently fall and I will be able to buy the stock at a lower price and replace the stock that I borrowed in the short sale, thereby making a profit).

Mr. Znaimer is also in the process of launching a new multi-media web site, integrating social networking, radio and video in one site. Mr. Znaimer believes that the over-50 generation is being overlooked by mainstream media and is targeting this generation with his new venture. CBC Radio management, are you sitting up and taking notice of this?

As further anecdotal evidence of the popularity of Classical 96.3 FM, I track readership of this blog using Google Analytics. And, do you know what the most popular search term that has lead readers to this site has been during the eight months that I have been writing this blog? Why, "new classical 96.3", amazingly enough! Also, I've found through Google Analytics that this site has been visited 47 times by someone from the CBC. I know you're out there, even if you're too bashful to comment!

CBC Radio Two Listener comments on Euroradio Christmas Music Day

A reader of this blog was kind enough to send me the URL for comments made by listeners during the Euroradio Christmas Music Day. You can judge for yourself whether the comments that were not included in the blog were positive or negative from Mr. Peter Cook’s comment: “Less welcome are personal insults.” Who was being insulted in the comments? Mr. Peter Cook? Mr. Howard Dyck? I find it hard to believe that the CBC Radio Two listeners are the type of people to direct personal insults at the program host, blog moderator or performers. One suspects instead that the personal insults were directed at CBC Management and programmers, for their choice of programming for Canada’s contribution to Christmas Music Day. Wouldn't it be nice to see all of these comments, unedited?

You can read the comments that were allowed on the blog for yourself here.

Nine months later, and listeners are still outraged!

I found this discussion on the "inside the cbc" radio web site. Well, it's good to know listeners haven't forgotten yet what CBC Radio Two used to be like.

Symphony Hall was cancelled? The Singer and the Song cancelled? Well, I can't say that I noticed - or even much care anymore, for that matter - since I quit listening to CBC Radio Two in favour of Sirius satellite radio.

Can CBC Radio Two really survive by gradually cancelling its best programming, until only the dreck remains? Only time will tell.

Euroradio Christmas Music Day

Dear God, what has happened to CBC Radio Two?

I've just been listening to "Joy to the World, Euroradio Christmas Music Day", and of course Canada's contribution had to be a jazz-infused program of non-traditional music.

Has there been an official ban by the CBC on traditional Christmas music and classical music? Must everything played on CBC Radio be contemporary, jazz-influenced, in front of a live audience of screaming yahoos? Did this have to be the CBC's contribution to Euroradio?

As readers of this blog may have realized by now, I have completely given up on CBC Radio, but I had hoped there would be some reprieve from the trash usually featured on CBC Radio Two for this program.

A response from the CBC to my letter to Ms. Jennifer McGuire, Executive Director of Programming

Readers of this blog may recall that Ms. Jennifer McGuire, Executive Director of Programming at the CBC/Radio-Canada, was kind enough to reply to the letter that I sent to her on March 24. You may see the letter that I sent in my May 3 blog entry. Ms. McGuire sent me a reply on June 4 and I subsequently sent a second letter on June 29.

I received this letter this week. Sadly, it is merely a form letter. I was hoping for a further exchange of views with Ms. McGuire, but apparently it was not meant to be. The letter reads as follows:


August 15, 2007

Mr. J. Wooten

Dear Mr. Wooten,

Thank you for your letter of June 29, 2007 to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation regarding changes to CBC Radio 2.

We appreciate the time and effort you have taken to write and share your opinion with us. CBC welcomes all feedback about our programs; without it, we cannot remain sensitive to the needs and wants of our viewers and listeners. We have included your comments in our weekly Audience Reaction report, which is circulated weekly among all senior executives, producers and programmers at (CBC, including the President and CEO, Robert Rabinovitch.

Sincerely,

Hadley Keane
Communications Officer
CBC Audience Relations

I imagine Mr. Robert Rabinovitch is tired of hearing my opinions by now, but at least he has only a few more months to go before he is free of all this! We, on the other hand, must continue to endure the crapulent programming that now pervades CBC Radio Two.

A new President and CEO for CBC/Radio-Canada!

This article appeared in the Saturday August 11 edition of the Globe and Mail. I nearly missed it - thanks go to Ingrid and Brian for pointing it out to me.

You can read the article on the Globe and Mail web site. The article reads as follows:

'It may be the dog-day season of summer reruns, but these are very interesting times at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

The CBC is trying to fill some of the biggest jobs it has - including the one that now belongs to president and CEO Robert Rabinovitch. He's due to step down later this year after eight controversial years.

The apparent front-runner to succeed him is Sylvain Lafrance, the current vice-president of French services (Radio-Canada).

Simultaneously, another search is under way for a candidate to replace Tony Burman, who left the top news job last month after 35 years with the public broadcaster.

The corporation is actually looking for two people replace Burman. The first, an executive director, would function as a publisher might at newspaper, overseeing all aspects of the operation. The second, an executive editor, would run English-language news and current-affairs programming.

The CBC's spokesman, Jeff Keay, this week had nothing to say about either appointment. The splitting of Burman's former job into two, he said, was "not a huge change." He said he expected a short list of candidates to be formulated over the next several weeks. Both positions apparently will report to Richard Stursberg, executive vice president of CBC Television.

How the two positions created to replace Burman will play out remains unclear. As posted on the CBC website, the executive director's job will embrace all news programming resources and operations. It oversees a staff of more than 1,500 people, and budgets totalling more than $200-million, delivering content to English-language TV, radio and new media.

But the executive placement firm CBC hired to find candidates - Egon Zehnder International - prepared a document for the search team that suggests CBC has put more thought into the future of news than has been revealed. It says, for example, that the new executive director - the document calls the job "publisher" - will include "refining and aggressively executing a multi-staged plan combining organizational, technological, operational and human asset components. Included in this transformation will be a significant shift in decentralizing decision rights across the new system and a reallocation of resources to support these changes."

"What is the plan, and why would someone take a job in which he/she would have to execute someone else's plan?" asks Lise Lareau, president of the Canadian Media Guild, the union that represents thousands of CBC workers.

The Zehnder document also says the publisher "and his/her team will identify opportunities for cost savings and operational efficiencies, ensure that new technology is acquired and implemented to support the efficiency drive."

In the absence of substantial information, there is, of course, speculation. Some observers think Stursberg, who often clashed with Tony Burman over budgets, has split the job in order to exert more control over news and current affairs. Indeed, some feel that Burman's exit was precipitated in part because he did not want to preside over a round of expected budget cuts.

Burman was not universally loved at the CBC by any means, notes Lareau. "But he was seen as a fierce defender of news programming. He was prepared to go to war to preserve its integrity," she said.

In the climate of fear and distrust that has characterized Stursberg's tenure at the CBC, there is also concern among staff about how the Burman search is being conducted.

Both the search for Rabinovitch's successor in Ottawa and the new executive director in Toronto have been outsourced to Egon Zehnder.

The EZ team is being led by Tom Long, a former president of the Ontario Conservative party, a former candidate for leadership of the short-lived Canadian Alliance party, and a friend of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Stursberg will ultimately make the hiring decision, but critics wonder whether a short list assembled by Tom Long might be politically tilted in favour of right-wing views. Even the hint of political interference scares many journalists.

"I think CBC management needs to treat its own news department as a public trust and say so," says Lareau. "It needs to be seen to be ensuring its complete editorial independence. And that means going the extra mile to put a process in place that is beyond reproach. That's what's wrong about Tom Long's involvement in the vetting of potential candidates. Is there a plot? Probably not ... but the CBC - and all news organizations - need to be reminded that the signals they send on these important hiring decisions are very important."

Meanwhile, a happy month out of his long tenure at the CBC, Burman declined to comment this week. Just back from a vacation in Costa Rica, he was in London on unspecified business. "I know very little about how the CBC intends to frame my former job in the future," he said. "And I know nothing about possible job cuts beyond the inevitable speculation and rumour, " he said. "However, my Spanish is coming along well."'

I find it interesting that the decision by Mr. Robert Rabinovitch to not seek another term as the CBC's President and CEO has been downplayed in this article - it barely rates a passing mention in the article. Instead, the focus is on the replacement of the CBC's head of information programming. I would have thought that Mr. Rabinovitch's resignation is a much more significant event, given the influence that I assume Mr. Rabinovitch exerts on the operations of CBC/Radio-Canada.

In my August 2 blog I speculated that Mr. Rabinovitch's re-appointment was a foregone conclusion, given the fact that there appeared to be no mention in the press of his decision not to seek another term as President and CEO. Well, apparently I was wrong! I searched again for mentions in the press or on CBC's web site for an announcement of his resignation.

I found a web site that reproduces an article from the March 10 2006 Globe and Mail article that mentions that Mr. Rabinovitch would not seek another term - but then, nothing after that until Mr. Rabinovitch's announcement on July 25 2007, the article in the Globe and Mail and an article in the Toronto Star. If the President and CEO of any publicly traded corporation had decided to step down it would be a major news event for the nation's newspapers, and yet Mr. Rabinovitch's departure is barely noticed - what is going on here? Is there absolutely no interest in the conduct of the CBC/Radio-Canada among the nation's journalists?

In any case, you now have an opportunity to influence the selection of the next President and CEO of the CBC/Radio-Canada! Write to Egon Zehnder and let them know if you believe your interests are being met by the current management of CBC/Radio-Canada!

A new President and CEO for CBC/Radio-Canada?

I noticed the above advertisement in the "Careers" section of the July 27th edition of the Globe and Mail. It was also in the July 28 (Saturday) edition.

CBC/Radio-Canada is recruiting a new President and Chief Executive Officer? At first I thought that the CBC Radio Two listener revolt had borne fruit and that Mr. Robert Rabinovitch, finally recognizing that CBC Radio has betrayed its listeners in revamping the Radio Two programming, had tendered his resignation. Mr. Robert Rabinovitch had, I thought, at last behaved honourably and had recognized that although he may not have been directly responsible for these programming changes, as the President and Chief Executive Officer of the corporation he was ultimately accountable for the behaviour of CBC management and had decided to resign as an act of contrition. Bravo, Mr. Rabinovitch!

But then I searched for news of Mr. Rabinovitch's resignation. I checked the National Post and the Globe and Mail. I looked on the CBC web site. I did a Google search. There was no mention of Mr. Rabinovitch's resignation. The only item I could find is the statement that "The Government of Canada is seeking to recruit a new President and CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada. Please click here to view the selection criteria for the position of President and CEO." on the Board of Directors page of the CBC web site.

I quickly realized that this recruiting campaign must be a mere formality. Mr. Rabinovitch's current term as President and CEO expires in November 2007, since he was reappointed for another three year term in November 2004. I expect that Mr. Rabinovitch is the favoured candidate for another three year term, beginning in November 2007. Thus the low-key recruitment campaign.

Oh, well, I thought, back to the trenches of the CBC Radio Two listener uprising. We former CBC Radio Two listeners will just have to slog on and continue voicing our requests for CBC Radio management to return to the quality programming that CBC Radio Two featured prior to the March 19 2007 programming changes.

But then I had a further thought. If the CBC is in fact soliciting candidates for the President and CEO position, then presumably they should be willing to accept comments on the performance of the current President and CEO, assuming that he is also a candidate for the position? In that case, who is better qualified to comment on the performance of the current President and CEO than the shareholders of the corporation, i.e. the listeners and viewers of CBC Radio and TV? If Mr. Robert Rabinovitch is seeking reappointment to another term as President and CEO, then your opinon and my opinion on his performance in the job must surely carry some weight during the selection process?

So, if you believe Mr. Rabinovitch has excelled during his term of office - if you believe that the relations between management and staff of CBC are improved, if you believe CBC meets your needs as a television viewer or radio listener, if you believe that the quality of programming has improved and you believe that the CBC is responsive to your opinions as a viewer/listener, shareholder in the corporation and taxpayer of Canada, why not write to the recruiter and let them know this?

On the other hand, if you believe that the CBC is not adequately serving the needs and interests of Canadians, that CBC Radio management is not attempting to solicit the opinions of the CBC Radio listening audience in a manner which allows the listening audience to have a meaningful voice in the choice of programming, that CBC Radio management is making programming decisions which do not reflect the needs and interests of Canadians and is doing so based on information that they are unwilling to share with the CBC Radio listening audience and that CBC Radio management is unwilling to let listeners comment on the programming changes that have already been made and is operating CBC Radio in an aura of secrecy that is not acceptable for Canada's public broadcasting system, then you should also write to the recruiter and let them know your opinion. (You may view my opinions on this topic in my letter to the Minister of Heritage, Bev Oda, in my May 17 blog entry.) After all, your opinion as a CBC listner/viewer, taxpayer and shareholder in the corporation should count, shouldn't it?

As noted in the job ad, interested candidates have until August 13 2007 to forward their CV. I assume that the recruiter will also welcome comments from interested parties on potential candidates until this date. The addresses provided in the ad are as follows:

Egon Zehnder International Inc.
BCE Place
181 Bay Street, Suite 3920
Toronto, ON
M5J 2T3

Egon Zehnder International Inc.
1 Place Ville-Marie, Suite 3310
Montreal, PQ
H3B 3N2

Egon Zehnder International Inc.
Petro-Canada West Tower
150-6th Avenue S.W., Suite 3000
Calagary, AB
T2P 3Y7

A reply from the Minister of Heritage, the Hon. Bev Oda

Readers of this blog may recall that I sent a letter (as well as an e-mail) to the Minister of Heritage, Ms. Bev Oda, on May 17 2007. You may read the original letter in my May 17 blog entry. Ms. Oda's office was kind enough to reply to my e-mail on May 24, stating that they had received my e-mail and would follow up with a more detailed response.

I received the following response on July 20 2007 from Ms. Bev Oda's office:

Dear Mr. Wooten:

Thank you for your correspondence of May 17, 2007, regarding Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) radio programming.

I appreciate your advising me of your views on this matter and have carefully noted your comments. While the Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for overall broadcasting policy and legislation, the CBC operates independently of the Government under a framework provided in the Broadcasting Act. As an autonomous Crown corporation, its Board of Directors and senior management are responsible for its day-to-day operations, including its radio programming. In view of the autonomy of the CBC, you might wish to share your views directly with Mr. Robert Rabinovitch, its President and Chief Executive Officer, at the address provided in the enclosure.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is responsible for the licensing, regulation and supervision of all aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system. The CRTC was established by Parliament under the Broadcasting Act as an autonomous body that operates independently of the Government and is responsible for its own day-to-day operations and decisions. The CRTC maintains a record of complaints against licensees and takes these into consideration when broadcasters apply for renewal of their licences. In view of the autonomy of the CRTC, you might wish to share your concerns on this matter directly with Mr. Robert A. Morin, its Secretary General, at the address provided in the enclosure.

I trust that this information is useful. Please accept my best wishes.

Yours sincerely,

Bev Oda, P.C., M.P.

Enclosure

ANNEX

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch
President and Chief Executive Officer
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Post Office Box 3220, Station C
Ottawa, Ontario
K1Y 1E4
Telephone: 613-288-6000
Electronic mail: commho@ottawa.cbc.ca
Web site: http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca

Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)

Mr. Robert A. Morin
Secretary General
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N2
Telephone: 819-997-0313
Toll-free: 1-877-249-2782
Facsimile: 819-994-0218
Electronic Mail: info@crtc.x400.gc.ca
Web site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca

Now, this how I believe a Member of Parliament or Minister's office should operate: they acknowledge your letter and follow with a reply within a reasonable period of time. Well done, Ms. Oda! This is in contrast to some of the other letters that I have sent; for example, the letter to Mr. Robert Rabinovitch, the letter to Ms. Jane Chalmers or the letters to several Members of Parliament on the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, where I received no replies or acknowledgements at all. To give full credit where credit is due, Ms. Jennifer McGuire and Mr. Gary Schellenberger's office also responded to my letters. You may see Ms. McGuire's response in my June 21 blog entry, and my subsequent reply in my June 29 blog entry. My reply to Mr. Gary Schellenberger's response is in my May 15 blog entry.

As for the content of the reply, to tell the truth this is about what I expected to receive. I didn't really expect Ms. Oda to march into the offices of CBC Radio and demand that they alter their behaviour and begin to consult Canadians more often when making programming changes. As Ms. Oda states (or, more correctly I assume, someone in her office) CBC management is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the corporation and operates independently of the government. The reason that I wrote this letter to Ms. Oda's office (and I encourage you to do the same) is so that members of the government will know just how unhappy CBC Radio Two listeners are with CBC Radio management. Perhaps this information will prove useful to the Members of Parliament at some point in the future.

I encourage everyone reading this blog to use the above addresses and write your own letters of protest concerning the changes to CBC Radio Two's programming to Mr. Robert Rabinovitch and Mr. Robert Morin.

Some thoughts on CBC Radio management's strategy for Radio Two

In a Globe and Mail article published in the March 19 2007 edition, Ms. Jennifer McGuire, Executive Director of Programming, is quoted as follows:

"'And we are trying to have a service that is sustainable, with an audience that regenerates.' In other words, McGuire said, Radio Two's target audience is between 35 and 49 years old, yet the majority of current listeners are over 50. So the network is looking to attract a relatively younger, although still adult audience."

Statistics Canada has recently released some interesting data that allows an interested former CBC Radio Two listener to analyse the wisdom of the above statement. The data recently released by Statistics Canada is: (1) a survey of the radio listening habits of Canadians during 2006 and (2) the 2006 census data.

(In the best interests of my readers, I should point out at this point that the rest of this blog entry will very likely bore the pants off you if you are not (a) a thoroughly outraged former CBC Radio Two listener or (b) already working for Statistics Canada or (c) a student of business strategy and/or marketing who is looking for an idea for a term paper. Just for the record, I am in group (a).)

Now, if CBC management's target audience is the 35 to 49 year old age group, then presumably they hope that the 35 to 49 year old age group will be listening to the radio more than any other age group and that there will be more 35 to 49 year olds listening to the radio than any other age group. After all, if you are in the business of offering a product to consumers, you should be targeting the group that (a) has the most members (b) will use your product the most number of times and is also increasing their use of your product and (c) that can benefit from your product the most (if you are a not-for-profit organization) or (d) who pay the most for your product (if you are a for-profit organization).

Given these principles, we would expect that since CBC Radio management is targeting the 35 to 49 year old age group, this age group is (a) the largest (b) listening to radio the most and (c) will benefit from CBC Radio's programming the most. We can use the recently released data from Statistics Canada to check whether this is the case.

Well, guess what? Using the survey of radio listening data and 2006 census data, one can determine that the 35 to 49 year old age group's total radio usage has in fact declined during the years 2002 - 2006! And furthermore, they are not the largest age group - it is the much-maligned 50+ age group that listens to radio the most and, what is more, the 50+ age group's radio usage is increasing! See the graph below. (For those who find the graph too small, my apologies. The top line is the 50+ age group, the middle line is the 35 - 49 age group and the bottom line is the 18 - 34 age group.)

Now so far, CBC Radio management has missed the mark on the target market selection criteria (a) and (b) that I have listed above. But what about criteria (c)? Who will benefit the most from CBC Radio Two's programming? To answer this, we have to look at the listening habits of each age group.

From Statistics Canada's radio listening survey we find that the percentage share of radio listening by format for the 35 to 49 year old age group is as follows (I only list the formats up until we hit the CBC's numbers, there are more formats that I don't bother to list here. The interested reader can see the full data tables at this link.)

Gold/oldies/rock: males 21.7%, females 14.8%
Adult contemporary: males 19.6%, females 35.9%
Album oriented rock: males 10.3%, females 5.2%
Talk: males 9%, females 2.5%
Contemporary: males 8.8%, females 8.3%
Country: males 8%, females 9.8%
CBC: males 7.5%, females 7.6%

(I think Stats Canada meant "Golden oldies/rock" for the first category, but never mind. We get the idea.)

For the 50 to 54 year old the percentage share is:

Adult contemporary: 19.9% , females 32.1%
Gold/oldies/rock: males 17.8%, females 12.4%
Talk: males 12.2%, females 8.6%
CBC: males 11.9%, females 12.8%

For the 55 to 64 year olds the percentage share is:

Adult contemporary: males 20.6%, females 25.1%
CBC: males 16.9%, females 19.2%

And finally for the 65 years old and over group the percentage share is:

CBC: males 22.6%, females 24.6%

Not surprisingly, CBC Radio takes a greater share of each age group as the age groups advance in age - this is what we expected. However, if you are a CBC Radio executive and are trying to decide on a new format for CBC Radio Two, do you really think that the 35-49 year olds will benefit from another radio station moving towards a contemporary format? No, the 35-49 year olds already have a plethora of Adult contemporary/Contemporary/Album Rock/Golden oldie stations to choose from. Those who will benefit are those listeners who do not already have an alternative - i.e. the 50-54 year olds (among whom CBC is #4), the 55-64 year olds (among whom CBC is #2) and the 65+ year olds (among whom CBC is #1). As I've pointed out in previous blog entries, there are very few stations broadcasting classical music - CBC Radio Two presented an alternative to commercial radio, but does not do so any longer.

"Well, this is all just fine", you may be thinking, "but guess what James? The 50+ age group are going to be dying off! What then?"

Which brings me to my final point - demographics. If you consider that the oldest baby boomer is now 61 years old and the youngest is 41, you will see that over the next 10 - 20 years the largest target market will be the 50+ age group. I know this is something that those who are not part of the baby boom generation find intolerable, but it just happens to be fact. As time goes on, and the baby boom generation ages, there will be increasing numbers of the 50+ age group for CBC Radio to draw its audience from - which brings me back to criteria (a) and (b) - the 50+ age group is the group that will be the largest target market and who is actually increasing their radio listening. See the chart below.

(Apparently I can reproduce the above chart as long as I include the following text, as well as a link to the Statistics Canada data:

Statistics Canada information is used with the permission of Statistics Canada. Users are forbidden to copy the data and redisseminate them, in an original or modified form, for commercial purposes, without permission from Statistics Canada. Information on the availability of the wide range of data from Statistics Canada can be obtained from Statistics Canada's Regional Offices, its World Wide Web site at www.statcan.ca, and its toll-free access number 1-800-263-1136. )


"Ah", you may also be thinking, "but what makes you think that the current group of 41 - 49 year olds, 50 - 54 year olds and 55 - 64 year olds will listen to classical music and CBC Radio when they are 55+ or 65+? What makes you think they won't still be listening to Van Halen, the Grateful Dead, Duran Duran (dear God, no) or the Rolling Stones?" (Who, I assume, will still be touring in 2022.)

Well, I don't have any assurances to give you that these age groups will still be listening to CBC Radio and classical music as they age. But I can tell you this: if it's CBC Radio management's goal to kill off interest in CBC Radio and classical music among these age groups, then they're doing a damn fine job of it.

If I can do the above analysis in my spare time using publicly available data and reach the conclusion that CBC Radio management is missing the most desirable target market in their recent decision to broaden the scope of CBC Radio programming at the expense of classical and new music programming, why can't CBC Radio management see this?

If you have any criticisms of the above analysis, or if you are a CBC Radio executive willing to defend your decisions in a public forum, I'd like to hear from you. As I've said before, I'll publish all comments, as long as they are not derogatory, defamatory and do not use profanity.

More comments from listeners on the new CBC Radio Two evening schedule

I'm not sure how I missed this - perhaps because there's no link to the "official" CBC Radio blog on the CBC Radio Two web site and, once you do find this site, the comments are spread out across various topics? - but many CBC Radio Two listeners did in fact have a chance to express an opinion on the new CBC Radio Two evening schedule, beginning March 14 (when the blog entry was posted) until April 3, when responses to this entry were closed. The blog entry is "More details about the new CBC Radio Two shows". It's rather sad that details were disseminated only through this well-hidden web site!

As you may have guessed, the opinion of most of the respondents was that the changes in the CBC Radio Two schedule were ill-conceived, implemented without proper consultation of CBC Radio Two listeners and generally a slap in the face to the loyal listeners of CBC Radio Two. Although there is a comment in the blog that CBC Radio Two executives have been reading these blog entries, has there been any public statement from CBC Radio Two executives in the media or on the CBC Radio web sites to respond to the listener dissatisfaction that is evident to all but the most obtuse? No, it seems they are completely oblivious to what is happening around them - or they are aware, but just don't care.

And the results are in ...

The Bureau of Broadcast Measurement has just released their S2 2007 Top-line market share data covering the period April 16 - June 10 2007. You can find the report here. The report provides market share data, expressed as a percentage of total hours tuned to all radio, for the radio stations in major markets: Montreal, Quebec, Ottawa/Gatineau, Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver. The data covers the period Monday to Sunday from 5:00 AM to 1:00 AM.

Now, this is not that useful to a member of the general public who is interested in the market share for a particular radio station in the evening, for example. However, this is the only report that is released to the public and so it will have to suffice. On the BBM web site it states that:

To become a full, voting member, you must be a radio or television broadcaster, an advertiser, advertising agency, or media buying house. Associate (non-voting) memberships are available to other interested parties, such as industry associations, consultants, government organizations, and U.S. broadcasters.

Each membership category warrants a different range of entitlements. Entitlements may include access to measured diary/meter data, software, data books, area/cell guides, population estimates, reach book, market reports, home market reports, specialty (sp) language reports, BBM newsletters, and a members-only Website.

I expect that a full member is entitled to market share data, by time period, for each radio station in each major market, thus allowing a radio station executive to determine, for example, whether his or her programming decisons (such as the recent changes to the CBC Radio Two evening schedule) have resulted in an increase or decrease in market share.

I've compared the market share data for the CBC Radio Two stations in the markets covered by this survey for S2 2007 with the same period last year (S2 2006) and found the following changes in market share:

Ottawa: down 0.6% (from a 5.2% market share to a 4.6% market share)
Toronto: down 0.6%
Montreal: down 0.4%
Winnipeg: up 0.6%
Calgary: down 1.4%
Edmonton: up 2.8%
Vancouver: up 0.6%

As I mention above, since this data covers the entire period from 5:00 AM to 1:00 AM one can not tell whether the new CBC Radio Two evening schedule is a resounding success or a dismal failure. Personally, I suspect the latter judging from the comments that I have seen on the "Petition to Restore CBC Radio Two", the "Petition to Return Classical Music to CBC Radio Two" and in the comments left on the Inside the CBC blog.

CBC Radio management has commented on the most recent market share results here, but their transparency, as usual, leaves much to be desired. I encourage CBC Radio management to publicize the market share data for the CBC Radio Two stations during the 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM, 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10:00 PM to midnight time slots. If they are confident in the success of their new evening programming then they should share this market data with the public!

A reply to Ms. Jennifer McGuire's letter of June 4 2007

Ms. Jennifer McGuire, Executive Director of Programming at CBC Radio, had sent me a letter on June 4, 2007 in reply to my letter of March 24 (see my blog entry from May 3 entitled "Moving up the CBC hierarchy" for the original March 24 letter).

This is the letter that I mailed earlier today in response to Ms. Jennifer McGuire's reply:

June 29, 2007

Jennifer McGuire
CBC
P.O. Box 500 Station A
Toronto, ON
M5W 1E6

Dear Ms. McGuire,

Thank you for your letter of June 4, 2007. I appreciate the fact that you took the time to consider my letter and respond.

I have seen many references to the arts and culture survey that you mention. If, as you suggest, the results of this survey support the decision to revamp the programming on CBC Radio Two then I encourage you to make this survey available to the CBC Radio audience by posting it (or a summary of its conclusions) on the CBC Radio web site. I believe CBC Radio management should have nothing to fear from making this information available to Canadians, assuming that the results of the study support these decisions.

You also mention that CBC Radio Two listeners were consulted and that "in excess of two thousand people were involved". You also state that the results of this research indicated that "many Canadians did not find the programming on our radio services relevant to them and their experiences". This brings to mind the question: did the two thousand individuals consulted identify themselves as CBC Radio Two listeners? If so, then I would have expected them to find the CBC Radio Two services highly relevant to them since they are already listeners. If the survey sample was not restricted to CBC Radio Two listeners only, and was intended to represent the general Canadian population, then how many of these survey respondents do you believe will become CBC Radio Two listeners with the new programming?

I also contend that a survey with such a limited sample size should only have been the first step in a program of public consultation. While the survey may have identified some necessary changes, I suggest that the next step should have been to make these proposed changes known to the CBC Radio Two audience well in advance of their implementation and to allow the CBC Radio Two audience time to comment on these changes in a public forum, such as the CBC Radio Two web site. This would have allowed CBC Radio management to determine, based on the feedback received, how much of the existing audience would be retained after the new programming was launched. A subsequent step should have been to test market the new programming in some sample markets to determine how many new listeners would be attracted to the new programming. If you are planning any further changes to the daytime programming I suggest that you consider this course of action.

I agree that the mandate of CBC Radio should be to deliver programming that is meaningful to Canadians. What, however, is programming that is "meaningful to Canadians"? Should it attempt to reflect every region, every ethnic group, every musical genre that may be performed in Canada? If you attempt this then it is my opinion that the result will be a musical melange that will be of interest to only a very few. The programming will become so fragmented and unpredictable that you will lose your audience to stations where the programming is more consistent. If you succeed in broadening the scope of the programming, only to reduce the size of your audience, have you truly succeeded in making CBC Radio more relevant to Canadians?

Should the programming attempt to reflect popular culture? I suggest that popular culture is well represented by commercial radio stations and that CBC Radio does not need to attempt to replicate the genres available on commercial radio.

What, then, is the role of the public broadcaster? I suggest that the public broadcaster should attempt to perform one function and to perform it very well: that function being to expose Canadians to music that they can not find on other radio stations and that broadens their cultural horizons. Furthermore, the programming should be of such consistent quality and interest to the audience that it attracts and retains an audience. A public broadcaster that is broadcasting a varied and diverse program but has no audience would not be fulfilling its mandate. I believe CBC Radio Two previously fulfilled its mandate very well, but does not do so now.

Did the previous programming offer Canadians music that they could not find on other radio stations? Yes, I believe it did. There are very few radio stations broadcasting classical music and original works from Canadian composers in the evenings. Will young people discover and be attracted to classical music without CBC Radio Two's consistent broadcasts of classical music in the evenings? Some may, but their opportunities to discover classical music have been greatly diminished. Will young people discover CBC Radio Two's new programming and become regular listeners, thus allowing you to grow the CBC Radio Two audience as you have stated is your goal? I contend that the programming is too inconsistent to attract young people as a regular audience, given the many other source of music available to them.

You also state that the previous programming was "seen as an elite service marked by 'high culture' music". I believe this is precisely the point - the role of the public broadcaster should be to contribute to Canadian culture in areas that the private sector finds unprofitable. Just as the Canadian cultural landscape is enhanced by the existence of the National Arts Centre, the National Gallery of Canada, the Museum of Civilization and the public library system (to name some of the institutions in Ottawa), so too did CBC Radio Two contribute to Canadian culture. Should the National Gallery cancel the Renoir exhibit because it is elitist? Should the National Arts Centre Orchestra be disbanded because it performs 'high culture' music? Should all books written before the 20th century be removed from the public libraries because they are difficult to read? No, of course no one would propose any of these actions and I suggest that reducing the classical music content of the CBC Radio Two evening schedule because it is perceived by some as being 'elitist' is similarly unjustifiable.

What criteria will CBC Radio management use to measure the success of this new programming?. Will it be measured solely by market share? By audience feedback? Do you plan to survey various regions and ethnic groups to determine if you have broadened your audience, albeit at the expense of total listeners? I believe many listeners are interested in questions such as these and encourage you to make this information available in a public forum, such as the CBC Radio Two web site. I believe Canadians, as shareholders in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, are entitled to this information.

Sincerely,

James Wooten

A reply from Ms. Jennifer McGuire, Executive Director of Programming

I recently received the following reply to my letter to Ms. Jennifer McGuire, Executive Director of Programming at CBC Radio, concerning the recent changes to the CBC Radio Two evening programming. You can see my original letter in my May 3 blog entry entitled "Moving up the CBC Radio Hierarchy". I'll save my response for later in the week:



Since the above image is not likely to be readable by most readers (except those with exceptional eyesight), I've scanned the letter using the OCR option on my scanner. Here is the text, as scanned:

Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation
Société Radio-Canada

CBC Radio-Canada

June 4, 2007

James Wooten

Dear Mr. Wooten,

Thank you for your letter of March 24, 2007 to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation regarding the first phase of the refocusing of CBC’s two radio services. I hope some of the information below is helpful.

I would like to begin by clarifying a few points that you present in your letter. First, it is not feasible for CBC to create another national radio network. We have neither the financial nor human resources to support a new network and, furthermore, the radio spectrum is completely occupied in most major North American cities. No frequencies are available.

Secondly, CBC did consult with Radio 2 listeners through a series of face-to-face meetings, and many telephone conversations, in addition to our conferences with staff and arts stakeholders across the country. In excess of two thousand people were involved. I’m sure you can appreciate that, with millions of listeners, we would need to rely on a sampling of feedback.

What we learned from our research into CRC’s reporting of arts and culture in Canada is that many Canadians did not find the programming on our radio services relevant to them and their experiences. CBC Radio 2 had not undergone any extensive changes since the service was introduced in the 1 970s. But Canadian society changed significantly in that time. We have an obligation to all of those who pay for this service to deliver programming that is meaningful to them. Each of the new programs is designed to appeal to a broader range of Canadians.

I would also argue that CBC Radio 2 continues to present an alternative to the commercial music and an avenue to introduce younger listeners to not only classical and serious music, but to other genres and artist not recognized by private radio networks. What better platform for the dissemination of new music in Canada than CBC Radio?

Radio 2 has in the past been seen as an elite service marked by "high culture" music. Our role as a public broadcaster is to program to as many Canadians as possible while remaining within our mandate. Programming for a minority of Canadians simply doesn’t meet our mandate. Much of the classical music that listeners hear now will remain on the service. But we are broadening the scope of music we offer and are satisfied that we have struck the right balance.

That said, I do thank you for making aware of your concerns. CBC welcomes all audience feedback about our programs. Your comments have been circulated among my colleagues in CBC Radio.


Sincerely,


Jennifer McGuire
Executive Director of Programming

On vacation until June 4

I will be taking a break from this blog until the week of June 4. Please come back that week, when I hope to have some further responses from the letters that I've sent, and plan to begin writing more letters.

In the meantime, I encourage all of you to write letters to CBC Radio management, the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, the Honourable Bev Oda, Minister of Heritage, the CRTC, the Board of Governors of the CBC and your own Member of Parliament. You will find links to some of these individuals and organizations on the right hand side of this page.

Let's all work together to return the operation and conduct of CBC Radio to its shareholders, the taxpayers of Canada!

Bureau of Broadcast Measurement - track CBC Radio Two's audience in your city!

The Bureau of Broadcast Measurement provides data on radio station market share data for Canadian cities on their web site here.

The most recent survey only covers the period Jan. 8 - Mar. 4, so it does not reflect the recent programming changes and the effect it has had on CBC Radio Two's market share. The next survey, it appears, will be available mid-June. You can use this data to track CBC Radio Two's market share in your city and see for yourself the impact of the recent CBC Radio Two programming changes!

A response from the Minister of Heritage's office

Readers of this blog will have seen that I sent a letter to Ms. Bev Oda, Minister of Heritage, concerning the recent changes to the CBC Radio Two evening schedule. I neglected to mention in that blog entry that I e-mailed my letter to Ms. Oda's office on May 17 and sent the same letter by Canada Post on May 22.

I received a response today from Ms. Oda's office that acknowledges my e-mail and states "Please be assured that your correspondence will be given every consideration." We'll have to wait and see if Ms. Oda's office follows up with a more detailed response, but I applaud their efforts so far. It is only common courtesy to acknowledge receipt of an e-mail or letter from the public and I'm glad to see Ms. Oda's office realizes this!

A new web site protesting the CBC Radio Two programming changes

There is a new web site that has been created to serve as a forum for those CBC Radio Two listeners who are concerned about the programming changes that have taken place on CBC Radio Two. The link to the web site is listed under "Links" on the right hand side of this page and is also here. I encourage all of you to visit this site and make your opinions known!

The authors of this web site have begun a petition to protest these changes, and I have to admit their petition is more successful than my own - 242 signatures as of the time I write this! You can find a link to it under "Links" on the right, and also here.

New Classical Program on Sunday Afternoons on CBC Radio Two!

The "official" CBC Blog has announced a new program of classical music on Sunday afternoons.

The blog entry announces:

"Classical lovers, rejoice! CBC Radio 2 is going to air at Sunday-afternoon show featuring high-quality classical performances.

The Sunday show, to run from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., is as yet unnamed, but will feature classical performances from the best Canadian and international symphonies and chamber orchestras.

CBC Radio program director Jennifer McGuire said the goal is to grow younger audiences by drawing them into classical listening with better-quality and more contemporary works."

The description of this new show - "classical performances from the best Canadian and international symphonies and chamber orchestras" - sounds promising, but I'll wait until I hear the first broadcast before passing judgement.

Having said that, I really have to wonder just what is going on at CBC Radio. When the new evening schedule was launched (replacing "Music for Awhile" with "Tonic" and "In Performance" with "Canada Live") the rationale given at the time was that CBC Radio Two was trying to appeal to a younger audience, and the new programming - jazz and live performances of more contemporary music - was supposed to do just that. Jennifer McGuire, CBC Radio's executive director of programming, is said in a March 19 2007 Globe and Mail article to have stated that "CBC Radio Two's target audience is between 35 and 49 years old, yet the majority of current listeners are over 50. So the network is looking to attract a relatively younger, although still adult audience." - implying that the classical programming previously broadcast appealed to the to over-50 set, while the new programming would appeal to the 35 - 49 year old age group.

And now we are told that "the goal is to grow younger audiences by drawing them into classical listening with better-quality and more contemporary works." On Sunday afternoon? After church, perhaps, while waiting for the Sunday dinner served at 5:00 PM? This is 2007 folks, not 1927! If CBC Radio really wanted to "grow younger audiences by drawing them into classical listening" what was wrong with the classical music that was featured on "Music for Awhile" and "In Performance"? I suppose we'll just have to wait and see what is meant by "better-quality and more contemporary works".

There are two excellent comments made in response to this announcement by individuals who, from their comments, appear to be in precisely the age category (early twenties, I assume) that the CBC should be aiming for if they want to have a sustainable audience, and yet clearly both are unhappy with the programming changes that are taking place on CBC Radio Two. You can read their comments here. CBC Radio Two management, are you able to admit that you have made a mistake and return "Music for Awhile" and "In Performance" to the evening schedule of CBC Radio Two?

Letter to the Hon. Bev Oda, Minister of Heritage

May 17, 2007

The Hon. Bev Oda
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A6

Dear Ms. Oda,

I am writing to bring to your attention the following points:

1. I, and many other Canadians, do not believe that CBC Radio is adequately serving the needs and interests of Canadians.

2. I do not believe that CBC Radio management is attempting to solicit the opinions of the CBC Radio listening audience in a manner which allows the listening audience to have a meaningful voice in the choice of programming.

3. I believe CBC Radio management is making programming decisions which do not reflect the needs and interests of Canadians and is doing so based on information that they are unwilling to share with the CBC Radio listening audience.

4. I believe that CBC Radio is unwilling to let listeners comment on the programming changes that have already been made and is operating CBC Radio in an aura of secrecy that is not acceptable for Canada's public broadcasting system.

I provide the following as evidence for each of the above points:

1. I, and many other Canadians, do not believe that CBC Radio is adequately serving the needs and interests of Canadians

Please see the petition concerning the increasing amount of pop music played on CBC Radio One at the following web site: http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/stopcbcpop.

To date (May 17) this petition has been signed by 1,905 individuals.

Please see the comments made concerning the recent programming changes to the evening schedule of CBC Radio Two at the following web site: http://www.insidethecbc.com/platforms/radio2/r2evenings/

I have reviewed the comments and find that out of the 76 comments made, 10 comments are positive, 56 are negative and 10 are neutral. This web site has been closed to further comments since April 10 2007; otherwise, there may have been many more comments posted.

Please see the newspaper column written by Mr. Hugh Anderson in the Montreal Gazette on April 9 2007 at this address: http://www.publicairwaves.ca/index.php?page=1838

2. I do not believe that CBC Radio management is attempting to solicit the opinions of the CBC Radio listening audience in a manner which allows the listening audience to have a meaningful voice in the choice of programming.

The recent changes to the evening programming of CBC Radio Two were made without consulting the CBC Radio Two listening audience and without providing advance notice of the planned changes. There was no opportunity for the CBC Radio Two listening audience to comment on the planned changes before they were introduced. Instead, these programming changes were launched on March 19 2007 as a fait accompli.

3. I believe CBC Radio management is making programming decisions which do not reflect the needs and interests of Canadians and is doing so based on information that they are unwilling to share with the CBC Radio listening audience.

CBC Radio management has alluded to public consultation that was done prior to the programming changes being announced. I refer you to an article in the March 19 2007 Globe and Mail in which Ms. Jennifer McGuire is quoted as saying: "we have talked to all the organizations. We talked to composers. We talked to them when we started the study [to overhaul CBC Radio] and when we were thinking about what it meant in terms of programming changes ... That conversation continues to be ongoing." However, conspicuous by its absence is any mention of consulting the CBC Radio listening audience.

CBC Radio management has also referred to an "arts and culture study" which is driving many of the recent programming changes. In the meeting report of the New Music Community and CBC Radio, it is reported that CBC Radio is unwilling to make this study public as it is an "internal document". You may view the entire meeting report at the following web site: http://www.stopcbcpop.ca/CBC_New%20Music_Dec05.htm

4. I believe that CBC Radio is unwilling to let listeners comment on the programming changes that have already been made and is operating CBC Radio in an aura of secrecy that is not acceptable for Canada's public broadcasting system.

Although the new CBC Radio Two evening schedule was launched on March 19 2007, there has been no public forum accessible from CBC Radio Two's web site for listeners to comment on the new programming. There is a web site (http://www.insidethecbc.com) that claims to be the "official" CBC Radio blog, but this site has been closed to further public comments on the new CBC Radio Two evening schedule since April 10, 2007. Furthermore, since there is no link to this web site on the CBC Radio Two web site, I do not believe it is known to many listeners or users of the CBC Radio Two web site. There is also a link to provide feedback to CBC Radio (the "Tell Us What You Think" link) but this does not allow one to read comments left by other listeners, and there is no means to see replies left by CBC Radio management.

I am writing to protest against the behaviour of CBC Radio management since, by excluding the listening audience from partcipating in programming decisions, CBC Radio management is not adhering to the requirements of the Broadcasting Act, 1991. I am referring specifically to the following clause:

3.(1) It is hereby declared as the broadcasting policy for Canada that
(a) the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians

The Broadcasting Act, 1991 also states:

40. The Corporation is ultimately accountable, through the Minister, to Parliament for the conduct of its affairs.

I therefore urge you to take the following specific actions in correcting the behaviour of CBC Radio management:

1. Request CBC Radio management to establish a web site where listeners can post comments. All comments should be permitted, except those that are derogatory, defamatory, use profanity or are otherwise unacceptable in a public forum. The comments should be visible by all users of the site.

2. Request CBC Radio management to post the "arts and culture survey" mentioned earlier on the CBC Radio web site, with a link that is easily found on the main page of the CBC Radio web site.

3. Request CBC Radio management to release any other surveys of the listening audience that have been done in the past three years and that are being used to justify any further programming changes.

4. Request CBC Radio management to announce any further programming changes three months in advance of their implementation. These announcements should be made on the CBC Radio web site, with a link that is easily found on the main page of the CBC Radio web site.

5. Request CBC Radio management to solicit listener feedback on any programming changes before they are implemented and display this feedback on the CBC Radio web site, with a link to this feedback that is easily found on the main page of the CBC Radio web site. Request that CBC Radio management should not implement any future programming changes if the weight of public opinion, as determined through the feedback received, is not in favour of the proposed programming changes.

6. Request CBC Radio management to establish a Listener's Council, formed from volunteers from the listening audience, performers and members of the arts and culture community to participate in the discussion and implementation of any future programming changes.

I believe that the above recommendations, if implemented, will return CBC Radio to those who deserve to have a voice in the conduct of the corporation - the shareholders in the corporation, who also happen to be the taxpayers of Canada.

Sincerely,



James Wooten

This I Believe

If you have been following this blog until this point you will have seen that the primary point that I'm trying to make is that CBC Radio management did not consult the public prior to making the programming changes implemented on March 19, 2007 and has not provided adequate means for the listening audience to comment on these programming changes in an open, public forum.

I believe it is the duty of CBC Radio management to consult the listening audience prior to making any changes in the programming for two reasons: (1) the listening audience are the owners of CBC Radio (see clause 3.(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act, 1991) and (2) it is just a good business practice to make sure that the product you are offering to your customers is one that they will want to consume. Organizations in competitive markets ignore this second point at their peril. CBC Radio apparently believes it can afford to make mistakes such as this without consequence.

I believe it is the duty of CBC Radio management to provide a forum for the listening audience to comment on these programming changes in a forum where other listeners can view the comments and where CBC Radio management can respond to the comments made by listeners. I believe it is the duty of CBC Radio management to provide this forum since the listening audience are the shareholders - not just stakeholders - in CBC Radio. True, there is the "Official" CBC Radio blog site, but as you may notice from the site, comments on the recent schedule changes have been closed on this site since April 10 and there are no responses from CBC Radio management.

I believe CBC Radio Two should have it's own blog site, with a link to it on the main page of the CBC Radio Two site, where listeners can comment on these programming changes with no time limit imposed on the period for making comments. I believe it is also the duty of CBC Radio management - who are employed by the shareholders, the taxpayers of Canada, to run the corporation - to respond to these comments.

A secondary point that I make is that I believe CBC Radio management has, quite simply, made a mistake in the programming that they are offering to the CBC Radio listening audience. I have focused on the cancellation of classical music programs during the evening since it is the classical music programs ("Music for Awhile", "In Performance") that I appreciated. Others, it appears, are equally unhappy about the cancellation of "Brave New Waves", "After Hours", "Northern Lights" and "Two New Hours". See the comments concerning the cancellation of these programs on the "Official" CBC blog site.

I believe CBC Radio management has therefore failed its listening audience in several important respects:

- it did not adequately consult the listening audience prior to making these changes

- having made these changes, it has not provided a public forum where the listening audience can submit feedback, for all listeners to view

- in failing to properly gauge the interests of the listening audience it has failed to provide programming that will be of interest to its shareholders, the taxpayers of Canada

This is what I believe.

Finally, a reply!

After having sent letters to Mr. Gary Schellenberger, Mr. Maka Kotto, Mr. Andy Scott and Mr. Jim Abbott requesting that the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage "encourage CBC Radio management to make it possible for CBC Radio Two listeners to express their opinions in an open, public forum" I found I was at a loss. What should I do next? CBC Radio management was proving to be very efficient at ignoring my letters. I took a break from my new-found hobby of public activism.

Then, in mid-April, I received a letter from Mr. Gary Schellenberger, chair of the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. My faith in the system was, for the briefest moment, renewed! Until I read the letter.

Now, I have to give credit to Mr. Gary Schellenberger (or his office) for responding to my letter. I appreciated very much the fact that my opinions were being acknowledged and that someone was taking the time to respond. This is how democracy should work! Yet, the response seemed somewhat lacking in thoughtful consideration of what I was requesting. The response read, in part, as follows:

As I am sure you are aware, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is a Crown Corporation that acts at arm's length from the Government. If Parliament were to intervene in a day-to-day operations decision, it would ruin its independence.

Now, wait a second, I thought. I am not requesting that the CHPC interfere in day-to-day operations of the CBC! I am merely requesting that the CHPC "encourage CBC Radio management to make it possible for CBC Radio Two listeners to express their opinions in an open, public forum"! If it is not the CHPC's mandate to remind the CBC when they are not meeting the expectations of their shareholders, then whose responsibility is it? Given the mandate listed on the CHPCs web site, I thought this well within the mandate of the CHPC.

So, I sent the following reply to Mr. Gary Schellenbergers office shortly after April 27, 2007:

Dear Mr. Schellenberger,

Thank you for your April 16 letter in response to my letter sent March 28. I very much appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to consider my letter and to respond.

However, I am afraid that there is a misunderstanding of my request. I am not requesting that Parliament interfere in the day-to-day operating decisions of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I am instead merely asking that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage consider the opinions of Canadians with respect to the manner in which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is carrying out its mandate. Given the Standing Committee's investigation of the role of the CBC/Radio-Canada as a public broadcaster in the 21st century, I thought that the opinions of CBC Radio Two listeners would be especially relevant at this time. I thought it would also be of interest to the Standing Committee to know that there are some CBC Radio listeners who believe that CBC Radio is not fulfilling its mandate and is not taking into consideration the opinions of Canadians.

As I noted in my earlier letter, I am only requesting that the Standing Committee "... encourage CBC Radio management to make it possible for CBC Radio Two listeners to express their opinions in an open, public forum." I do not believe that CBC Radio Two is considering the opinions of CBC Radio Two listeners or enabling CBC Radio Two listeners to express their opinions in an open, public forum. Considering that the mandate of CBC Radio is to be responsive to the needs of Canadians, I expect CBC Radio to actively encourage the flow and exchange of opinion on many topics, with the content and programming of CBC Radio Two being one such topic for public debate. Currently, CBC Radio does not provide any means for listeners to exchange opinions on the content of CBC Radio programming and does not encourage the free exchange of opinions in a forum that is accessible to all listeners. Given that, as stated in the Broadcasting Act, "the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians", I find this state of affairs most lamentable.

Sincerely,

James Wooten

To date (May 15) I have not yet received a reply.

Are there other listeners out there who are similarly upset with CBC Radio management and their unresponsiveness to listeners and CBC Radio shareholders? The evidence seems to suggest this - see the few posts that were allowed on the "official" CBC Radio blog site. See also the news media reports concerning listener response to the new schedule - Mr. Hugh Anderson's April 9 2007 column and the April 22 2007 Ottawa Citizen article. See the "Stop CBC Pop" web site and Ms. Linda Roger's April 2 2007 blog entry which reproduces a letter sent by Dr. Paul Steenhuisen of the Canadian League of Composers to the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Without a site on CBC Radio's web site where listeners can exchange opinions with CBC Radio management and with other listeners, we frustrated listeners must resort to these samizdat-like blogs, posting wherever we can to find an audience and trying to find links to other disaffected individuals. When and where will it end? When the last CBC Radio listener finally tunes his or her radio to a commercial radio station, connects his or her PC to another radio station that broadcasts music more to his or her liking on the Internet, or plays the music of his or her choice on his or her iPod/CD Player/MP3 player? Is a radio station broadcasting into the empty void the best use of taxpayers money?

The House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

If you have been faithfully following this blog until now, you will remember that I had not received any replies to the letters that I sent to CBC management (Mr. Robert Rabinovitch, Ms. Jane Chalmers or Ms. Jennifer McGuire), nor any replies to the feedback I submitted on the CBC Radio Two "Tell Us What You Think" link. My posting to Mr. Jowi Taylor's blog had not been posted on the CBC Radio Two web site either.

Feeling thwarted by the unresponsiveness of CBC Radio management, I decided to turn to the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage next. According to the CHPC web site, the mandate of the CHPC for the 1st session of the 39th Parliament is as follows:

Mandate

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), Standing Committees are empowered to study and report on all matters relating to the mandate, management and operation of the department or departments of government, which are assigned from time to time by the House. In general, the committees shall be severally empowered to report on

- the statute law relating to the department assigned to them;

- the program and policy objective of the department and its effectiveness in the implementation of same;

- the immediate, medium and long-term expenditure plans and the effectiveness of implementation of same by the department;

- an analysis of the relative success of the department, as measured by the results obtained as compared with its stated objectives; and,

- other matters, relating to the mandate, management organization or operation of the department, as the committee deems fit.

In addition, Standing Order 108(3)(b) states:

The mandate of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage shall include, among other matters, the monitoring of the implementation of the principles of the federal multiculturalism policy throughout the Government of Canada in order:

- to encourage the departments and agencies of the federal government to reflect the multicultural diversity of the nation; and

- to examine existing and new programs and policies of federal departments and agencies to encourage sensitivity to multicultural concerns and to preserve and enhance the multicultural reality of Canada.

As well, the CHPC is conducting "A Full Investigation of the Role for a Public Broadcaster in the 21st Century". You may see the scope of this study here.

Now, interestingly enough, the mandate of the committee in the 1st session of the 38th Parliament is described as follows:

Mandate

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage ("the Committee") plays a central role in supporting cultural, artistic and civic activity in Canada, and in preserving and protecting Canada’s cultural and natural heritage and shared history.

The Committee studies and reports on matters referred to it by the House of Commons or on topics the Committee itself chooses to examine. It is a permanent committee established by the Standing Orders of the House.

Powers

The power of the Committee to examine any matter referred to it by the House is found in Standing Order 108(1). The Committee can report to the House, send for persons or records, and delegate its powers to subcommittees. It can sit whether the House is sitting or adjourned and may sit jointly with other standing committees.

Under Standing Order 108(2), the Committee also has the power to study and report on the policies, programs and legislation of the department and agencies assigned to it, as well as other matters relating to the mandate, management, organization or operation of the department and agencies, as the committee deems fit. This includes examining expenditure plans and assessing the success and effectiveness of a wide range of organizations, programs and policies. Key examples are:

· Department of Canadian Heritage
· Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
· Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board
· Canadian Museum of Civilization
· Canadian Race Relations Foundation
· Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
· Library and Archives Canada
· National Battlefields Commission
· National Film Board of Canada
· Status of Women Canada

A comprehensive list of organizations, programs and policies administered through the Department of Canadian Heritage and which the Committee may study can be found on the Department's Web site.

In addition to its cultural and civic mandate, the Committee may also study and report on the Public Service Commission, which reports to Parliament through the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The Committee also has the specific mandate to monitor the implementation of the principles of the federal multiculturalism policy throughout the Government of Canada. The object of this, as set out in Standing Order 108(3), is:

- to encourage the departments and agencies of the federal government to reflect the multicultural diversity of the nation; and

- to examine existing and new programs and policies of federal departments and agencies to encourage sensitivity to multicultural concerns and to preserve and enhance the multicultural reality of Canada.

Did the mandate change from the 38th Parliament to the 39th Parliament? I don't follow the inner workings of the Standing Committees of the House of Parliament on a regular basis - if you do, please feel free to comment here - but I suspect that it did not. I assume the differences are just due to wordsmithing.

In any case, given that the CBC falls within the mandate of the CHPC, and given that the CHPC is currently conducting "A Full Investigation of the Role for a Public Broadcaster in the 21st Century", I thought the committee members might be interested in the opinions of a taxpayer and shareholder in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

So, I decided to send letters to the members of the CHPC. I decided to begin with letters to:

- Mr. Gary Schellenberger, Chair of the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

- Mr. Maka Kotto, Vice-chair of the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

- Mr. Andy Scott, Vice-chair of the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

- Mr. Jim Abbott, Member of the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

I sent the following letter to Mr. Gary Schellenberger on or about March 28, 2007. I enclosed a copy of the letter that I had previously sent to Mr. Robert Rabinovitch:

Dear Mr. Schellenberger,

Please see the enclosed letter, as sent to Mr. Robert Rabinovitch, concerning my opinions on the recent changes to the CBC Radio Two evening schedule.

I believe it is especially important that you consider the comments of the CBC Radio Two audience at this time, given Mr. Rabinovitch's recent appearance and statements before the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

As I remark in my letter to Mr. Rabinovitch, I am outraged at the changes that have taken place in the CBC Radio Two evening schedule and the lack of public consultation preceding these changes. I am further outraged at the lack of a public forum to express these opinions, and urge that CBC Radio management foster a public debate on the merits of these changes and any further planned changes to CBC Radio Two programming.

I would be very grateful if you could assist in this matter, and could encourage CBC Radio management to make it possible for CBC Radio Two listeners to express their opinions in an open, public forum.

Sincerely,

James Wooten

Now, I did not think that I was asking for a lot here. I was not asking for the CHPC to demand that CBC Radio Two revamp it's evening schedule and return the programming that existed prior to March 19, 2007. No, I simply asked that the CHPC "encourage CBC Radio management to make it possible for CBC Radio Two listeners to express their opinions in an open, public forum". The form of the encouragement could be anything that the CHPC members deemed appropriate - perhaps a friendly word in the hallway the next time Mr. Robert Rabinovitch appeared before the CHPC? Perhaps something along the lines of "Well, you know Bob, the citizens are a little upset about what's going on with CBC Radio Two. Couldn't you just give them a web site where they can express their opinions? Answer their letters? Make them think someone's listening?". Or some similar words of advice. Was this too much to ask? Considering that the CBC seems to fall within their mandate, and given their current study topic, "A Full Investigation of the Role for a Public Broadcaster in the 21st Century"? Shouldn't the CHPC know that the taxpayers (who are also voters, as well as shareholders in the CBC) are just a little bit peeved with the CBC?

As you may have guessed, I sent the same letter to all of the committee members listed above. Did I receive a response? This will be the subject of the next post to this blog.