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.

Public Consultation! Huh! What is it good for?

"Absolutely nothing!" I imagine the CBC Radio management chorus responding.

Let's take a moment to consider the value of marketing surveys in the operation of any commercial enterprise which hopes to attract and retain customers.

Suppose you are the President of a corporation that is publicly traded. Your product, chocolate cupcakes, has achieved a 10% market share in the snack foods category. Market share data reveals that your customers are fiercely loyal, tending to be elderly (although it is questionable whether it is really only the elderly that enjoy chocolate cupcakes) and consume a consistent amount of cupcakes each day. Your market share of the snack foods category is not growing, but it is not declining either.

Now, for some unexplained reason, you believe that you will have better success in the market with Hot 'n Spicy Dried Turkey Gizzards instead of chocolate cupcakes. You decide to target the dynamic and sprightly 35 - 49 year olds for your new Hot 'n Spicy Dried Turkey Gizzards and cease production of chocolate cupcakes.

What do you do? Do you first conduct market surveys among your current consumers to see if they would prefer Hot 'n Spicy Dried Turkey Gizzards over chocolate cupcakes? Do you also conduct surveys of your target market, the dynamic and sprightly 35 - 49 year olds to determine if they will purchase your Hot 'n Spicy Dried Turkey Gizzards and, if so, how much they will purchase? Once you have completed your consumer surveys, do you hold focus group sessions to see if your target market, as well as your current customers, like your Hot 'n Spicy Dried Turkey Gizzards? And, following your focus group sessions (assuming they confirm your expectations), do you conduct some trial market studies in selected markets to determine if consumers will do what they said they would do in the focus group sessions, and actually buy your Hot 'n Spicy Dried Turkey Gizzards?

Well, if you have any sense, of course you do all of that, and probably much more. As well, since this represents a major change of direction for the company, you may even consider consulting your shareholders at the next AGM before making such a drastic change in the company's product. If your shareholders are also your customers then it makes even more sense to consult both groups. If you are the management of CBC Radio, do you also follow the same course of action? Apparently not - you know better than your customers and shareholders what they want and need!

In the March 19 2007 Globe and Mail article that I have mentioned previously, there is a quote from Ms. Jennifer McGuire, identified in the article as CBC Radio's executive director of programming (text in italics is my addition, not part of the original Globe and Mail article):

"But the CBC said it has tried to avert some of that controversy this time [referring to previous controversy concerning changes made to the Radio One schedule]. "Everybody is always concerned about change at CBC Radio because they [listeners] are heavily invested in it, and that's a good thing", McGuire said. But "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."

And, in his March 22 response to a comment from Larry, Mr. Jowi Taylor stated (and I'm sorry to appear to be picking on Mr. Jowi Taylor so much in this blog, but when you have so few spokespersons commenting publicly on the Radio Two programming changes, you have to take your CBC Radio spokespersons where you find them):

As for consultation, there was month after month after month of it with all kinds of stakeholders - from listeners to orchestras to presenters to SOCAN to the musicians' association to... you name it.

Well, isn't that wonderful? Months after months of consultion - apparently even some listeners were included! But did you hear about it? When did you first hear of the programming changes? Did you participate in a survey? Were you invited to a focus group session? Were you in one of the test markets where the new programming was trialed before it was launched nation-wide? Did you see the announcement on the CBC Radio web site? Did you hear the Cross-country Checkup program that was devoted to this topic? Did you see the advertisements in the national newspapers that announced these proposed changes, and solicited consumer (and shareholder) feedback? Well, you might have, but I certainly did not, because I don't believe any of those things took place. I'd like to be proven wrong, but I don't see any evidence of that yet.

And what about the consultations that took place with composers, as stated by Ms. Jennifer McGuire? For another comment on this topic, see Ms. Linda Roger's blog entry of April 2, 2007, titled "CBC changes--Letter from the President of the Canadian League of Composers". I will let Dr. Paul Steenhuisen's words speak for themselves, and not reproduce them here.

I would be interested (as a shareholder in the corporation) in seeing any evidence that CBC Radio can present to show that they did in fact perform due diligence to determine that these programming changes would be of interest to the CBC Radio Two audience and to CBC shareholders. CBC Radio spokespersons, are you out there?

What is being reported in the media about the CBC Radio Two changes?

Although I haven't been searching for newspaper articles on the recent changes in the CBC Radio Two evening schedule, I have found several of interest.

The first is from the Ottawa Citizen on May 5. Here are some excerpts:

"More changes are coming the way of Two but nothing CBC radio management is ready to talk publicly about. What they will happily talk about are ratings, which, given current trends in radio, are impressive."

I find this mind boggling! CBC radio management is planning more changes, but they are not ready to talk publicly about these changes! Are they doing surveys? Actively consulting the CBC radio listeners? Announcing these changes well in advance and requesting feedback from the consumer, who also happens to be a shareholder in the corporation? Apparently not.

"While commercial radio listening is down across the board in Canada, CBC has held steady and its listeners have remained faithful: Nationally, CBC radio commands about a 10-per-cent share of the radio audience with larger chunks in some areas -- most notably in the Ottawa region where a quarter of the adult radio listening population is all CBC all the time -- either Oneor Two or a slice of both. The remaining three-quarters is scattered among the myriad of commercial stations."

Imagine this - you have a 10% market share in a competitive industry where consumers can easily switch to your competitors (at the touch of a button!), and yet you are willing to blow off your customers by making radical changes in your product without first surveying your customers to determine if you will lose them as customers! Does no one in CBC Radio management remember past marketing gaffes - for example, the New Coke debacle?

"Nationally, those CBC percentages mean that approximately 2.75 million adult anglophones listen to Radio One each week while about 850,000 tune in to Radio Two. The numbers are approximate because CBC only calculates data in areas of the country where it owns stations."

Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio - are you listening? Would you like to have 850,000 new subscribers?

"Another way of looking at it is that about one in seven radio-listening Canadians regularly tune in to Radio One and about one in 20 listen regularly to Radio Two. That share of the audience hasn't changed significantly for many years but data shows that CBC listeners are tuning in for longer periods and listening less to other stations."

This should be a dream come true for any company. Consumers use your product regularly, your market share may not be growing, but at least it's not declining and the consumer is using your product more each day. What's more, you have a guaranteed source of revenue - the ever-suffering taxpayer!

"Barry Kiefl, a ratings specialist and president of Ottawa-based Canadian Media Research, says it's difficult for non-CBC listeners to appreciate the loyalty that CBC radio commands.

"When you tell people outside of that one-quarter group that CBC radio is No. 1 in Ottawa," he says, "they don't believe you because they never listen to CBC." As with most radio, commercial or public, CBC gets its biggest audiences in the mornings. Anna Maria Tremonti, host of The Current, is the most listened to morning radio host in Canada.

The CBC says it is now in the top three in 14 of the 18 markets in which it has stations. So if it wasn't broken, why fix it? Challenging what appears to be an obvious conclusion, Jennifer McGuire, chief of CBC radio programming, says the Radio Two changes were implemented not to attract a younger audience but a "sustainable" one."

Hmmm, what is more sustainable than an audience that listens to you until the day they die? Do they really believe that the former CBC Radio Two audience, who have very likely abandoned CBC Radio Two in droves, will be replaced by an equal number of 35 - 49 year olds? What incentive is there for a listener to abandon their favourite radio station for CBC Radio Two?

" "The Radio Two audience is good and very important to us," she says, "but the reality is that no new audience is coming in and any new audience that does come in is in the 65-plus demographic. So there are no 50-, 40- or 30-year-olds coming in. Long term that is not sustainable. But we're targeting the service to adults; we're not going after teenagers." "

I find this somewhat laughable. Are we really to believe that there are 65+ year olds who are suddenly deciding to listen to CBC Radio Two, abandoning perhaps Q-107 in Toronto, CHEZ 106 in Ottawa? No, CBC Radio Two is something that you discover relatively early in life. What better sustainable audience is there than a new cohort each year of twenty-something listeners who are looking for an alternative to commercial radio? And by "an alternative to commercial radio" I do not mean a public broadcaster playing music similar to what is already on commercial radio.

"There were two other considerations also, she says: To widen the musical selection of CBC to better reflect the homegrown musical output and to make Radio Two relevant where it currently has no impact -- especially in the Maritimes where its audience is tiny to non-existent. "Radio Two does well in Vancouver but does badly in the Maritimes," says McGuire. "And that matters." Two, she hastens to add, is still 88-per-cent classical but has broadened its jazz content and, with Canada Live, will carry more "regional" music."

Still 88% until CBC Radio management guts the daytime schedule, as they have the evening schedule.

"McGuire's decision to shorten news content on Radio Two is forcing news junkies to flip channels and, according to listener reaction, is a major irritant. Changes at Radio One, adds McGuire, are also being driven by the results of a massive arts and culture study the CBC launched across the country three years ago.

"It had implications for Radio One around comedy, arts journalism and drama," she says. Which is why there will be more drama in morning prime time and more comedy and arts journalism across the schedule. For better or worse, the changes mean that some programs have bitten the dust, including Radio One's trailblazing Global Village that featured world music and mini-documentaries from around the globe. The rest of the CBC schedule simply caught up with Global Village, says McGuire.

"Global Village was a phenomenal success story," she says, "but we found that a lot of the musicians it was bringing to CBC radio are now part of our mainstream. It's the same thing with the stories -- many you'll be hearing on The Current. So the need that created Global Village has morphed into something that's more mainstream." Faithful listeners exact a price for their loyalty and reaction to the changes -- especially on Radio Two -- has not been universally warm. Listeners communicate through Internet discussion groups and blogs -- including the CBC's own blog, which has featured much discussion."

Ha! Just try finding a blog to make your comments! As you will have noticed if you have been reading my entries to this blog.

"Friends of Canadian Broadcasting spokesman Ian Morrison says he hasn't been inundated with complaints but has had "a few e-mails" every day since the changes began. "The writers aren't in cahoots but you notice certain patterns," he says. "

Patterns, for example, such as outrage that, as a shareholder, you were not consulted? Feelings of betrayal after your decades-long loyalty was snubbed?

" "These people seem to feel that Radio Two belongs to them and it's part of their life. If someone mucks around with it, it really pisses them off and they say it's going to the dogs. I'm sureit's not going to the dogs. It's changing and if it didn't change over time it would end up becoming totally irrelevant. Some people really like the changes, I'm sure, but they don't send e-mails to Ian Morrison saying 'what the hell is happening?' " "

"These people seem to feel that Radio Two belongs to them and it's part of their life". Well, perhaps people seem to feel that Radio Two belongs to them because it does in fact belong to them. See clause 3.(1) of the Broadcasting Act, 1991, which states:

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

"Although CBC radio runs relatively cheaply -- Radio One costs about $100-million a year and Radio Two $10- to $12-million -- the publicly funded broadcaster runs a risk, however small, of irritating influential decision-makers.

"CBC is clearly making a determined effort to reach certain demographics," Morrison says, "but in the process they are annoying a lot of very important Canadians -- judges, CEOs, politicians etc. I don't know how to quantify that elite thing but there could be a political implication -- you're annoying people who are the decision-makers or who talk to decision-makers. But in a month or two I think it will settle down and people will be used to it." "

Finally, a point I can agree with. Yes, in a month or two it will settle down - only because CBC Radio Two listeners will have moved to other stations - Espace Musique, Couleur FM in the Ottawa/Gatineau region, Classical 96.3 FM in the Toronto area or Sirius or XM satellite radio across the country.

The second article is from the April 9 Montreal Gazette, by Mr. Hugh Anderson. You may read the entire article here. I fully agree with the sentiments expressed by Mr. Anderson. I wish there were more in the media like Mr. Anderson who would write on this topic.

If you are aware of any other newspaper articles, please let me know. I'll add links to them on this site.

My letter to Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

As I mentioned in my May 4 entry to this blog, I had decided to write to Mr. Robert Rabinovitch, President and CEO and Acting Chair of the Board of Governors of the CBC, after having sent my letters to Ms. Jane Chalmers and Ms. Jennifer McGuire. I decided not to wait until I had received a response from Ms. Chalmers and Ms. McGuire since I did not have high expectations that I would receive a response from either Ms. Chalmers or Ms. McGuire.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch was, at the time that I wrote my letter (March 28 2007), the Acting Chair of the Board of Governors. Since then, a permanent Chair of the Board of Governors has been announced, Mr. Timothy W. Casgrain. I have yet to write a letter to Mr. Casgrain, but intend to.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch had been acting as the Chair of the Board of Governors since the previous Chair, Mr. Guy Fournier, had resigned due to some unfortunate comments made in a column that he wrote in 7 Jours in September, 2006. For those of you who are unfamiliar with these events, they are recounted on this page on the CBC web site.

These comments were apparently the last straw for the Minister of Heritage, Ms. Bev Oda, following comments that Mr. Fournier made the previous May concerning the joys of defecation. This may all seem to be too hilarious to be true, but unfortunately it is not.

But I digress. Back to my letter to Mr. Robert Rabinovitch. I had found on the CBC web site the text of some remarks that Mr. Rabinovitch had made to the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on March 22, 2007, just three days after the new CBC Radio Two evening schedule was launched upon an unsuspecting public. The House Standing Committee is apparently conducting an investigation into the "Role for a public broadcaster in the 21st century". You may read the mandate for the Committee's investigation at this link. (You may find the mandate/study themes somewhat wide-ranging and seeming to lack focus, but hey! that's why you're not an MP!).

You may find the full text of Mr. Robert Rabinovitch's remarks to the House Standing Committee here. The final remarks are worth repeating here:

"Today, CBC/Radio-Canada is at a turning point that no one-year answer, no one-dimensional response will resolve. What is required for CBC/Radio-Canada to reach its potential as an instrument of national policy is a new contract with Canadians. Like all contracts, this would lay out the obligations of all parties and have a specific term of, say, ten years.

Such a contract would provide guidance on the big questions I have just raised. It would be based on principles already enshrined in the Broadcasting Act and serve as the basis for a clearer contract with our 32 million shareholders.

A fundamental principle that underpins any contract is that sufficient resources be provided to be able to meet the expectations set out in the contract. Frankly, if the money isn’t there to fulfil these expectations, the contract will fail.

It is our clear hope that this Committee will see in the idea of establishing a permanent process to review CBC/Radio-Canada’s mandate the opportunity for Canadians to renew their relationship with their national broadcaster, and to clarify, through a new contract, how Canadians can be best served."

Now, to my somewhat naive mind, I find it extremely audacious for the President and Acting Chair of the Board of Governors to request a new contract with - who? Canadians? the shareholders of the corporation? - mere days after CBC Radio had screwed over said shareholders with the new CBC Radio Two evening schedule.

I wonder what might be the obligations that Mr. Robert Rabinovitch is referring to when he states that "Like all contracts, this would lay out the obligations of all parties"? Might one of the obligations be for the CBC to actually solicit feedback from it's shareholders and act upon that feedback? Or are the obligations more one-sided; i.e. taxpayers continue to fund the CBC with our hard-earned money and CBC management will do whatever they think is in our best interest with that money? I'll let you be the judge.

One of the "big policy questions" that Mr. Rabinovitch believes needs to be addressed is the following:

"Or this question: How do we engage Canadians in advancing democratic principles?

A significant part of the magic of our main Radio services is their devotion to providing the forum for the national debate. Whether it is Christiane Charette or The Current or Cross Country Checkup or Maisonneuve en direct our Radio is at its best when it hosts the country in conversation. Increasingly, we will use technology to bring that hosting role to the local level."


Well, they could start by soliciting feedback from listeners, don't you think? Advance some democratic principles in their own backyard, perhaps?

So, having read this, I sent the following letter to Mr. Robert Rabinovitch, President and CEO and Acting Chair of the Board of Governors of the CBC:

"Dear Mr. Rabinovitch

I am writing to express my outrage at the changes that have taken place in the evening schedule of CBC Radio Two. I have listened to the new programming for a full week and I am just as outraged now as I was when I first heard of the programming changes to come.

Why am I outraged? I am outraged because CBC Radio Two listeners have not been given a choice. I would have agreed with the launch of an alternative station to CBC Radio Two with this new programming. As a taxpayer I would have fully supported such an initiative. Alternatively, I would have agreed with the changes to the CBC Radio Two programming if there had been a public consultation with CBC Radio Two listeners, via public forums such as the CBC Radio web site or phone-in shows where the proposed changes could have been announced, discussed with the listening audience and only then, once the listeners had been allowed to express an opinion, changes had been made (assuming that the listeners supported such changes). It appears that nothing of the sort has taken place. As a regular listener to CBC Radio Two I expect I would have been aware of such a public consultation. However, the first inkling that I had of the changes coming to the evening schedule was an announcement by Danielle Charbonneau several weeks before the event that her program would be ending and new programs would begin March 19. I believe the CBC Radio Two listeners were blindsided by such sweeping changes.

In your March 22 appearance before the House of Commons Committee on Canadian Heritage you spoke of the need for an "explicit contract" (I presume between the Canadian public and CBC) and stated that "This is the kind of clarity and predictability that we seek". However, what kind of contract is it that allows one party to summarily change the terms of the contract without any means for the other party to seek redress? Can I withhold my portion of taxes that fund the CBC if I feel that you are not meeting the terms of the contract? No, obviously I can not. You state that you require predictability. Does the CBC Radio Two listener not also have the same right, or at least the right to be consulted about changes to the contract? Apparently not.

I am outraged because it appears that CBC Radio Two listeners have been told by CBC Radio Two that no, our tastes in music are not sophisticated or worldly enough. Instead of listening to classical music while driving home or preparing dinner, we should be listening to jazz. Instead of listening to classical performances after 8:00 PM, we should be listening to live performances, of many different genres, most of which we may have no interest in.

I am outraged that CBC Radio Two listeners have been deprived of a full newscast on the hour, and of the World at Six newscast on weekday evenings. Why would you think that CBC Radio Two listeners are not interested in a full newscast? Why must we switch to CBC Radio One on the hour, just to hear the news, then switch back to CBC Radio Two? You note in your March 22 address the "trend [in] the private sector of gradual withdrawal from local news". Does it help that CBC Radio provides little to no news on CBC Radio Two? I think not.

I am outraged that the Arts Report has been cancelled on Music and Company. Why was this done? What has taken it's place? How does this contribute to the quality of the programming or help keep the listener informed?

I am outraged at the lack of a public forum for listeners to express their views, share opinions and see responses from CBC Radio Two management. I strongly urge you to create a site on the new CBC Radio Two web site where listeners may express their opinions. Will this site reflect all of the opinions being expressed by CBC Radio Two listeners. No, it will not - I expect that many listeners do not have access to personal computers and are not computer and Internet literate and are therefore unable to use this site. I therefore also urge you to scan and post any written letters that you receive (such as this one), with the permission of the author, on such a site. Will CBC Radio Two create a site and go to such lengths to ensure that public opinion is expressed? I sincerely doubt it. Why should you? It is not in your interest, nor will it reflect well upon CBC Radio Two management.

What alternatives does the poor downtrodden CBC Radio Two listener have? Unfortunately, not many. As you may have noticed, there are few radio stations that broadcast classical music programs. In larger centres such as Vancouver, Toronto or Ottawa there may be one or two others. But what about smaller cities? The great value of CBC Radio Two was that it presented an alternative to commercial radio and provided a means for younger listeners to discover classical music. Will a young person discover the evening programming and become a long-term listener? I sincerely doubt it. Yet, in a Globe and Mail article on March 19, Jennifer McGuire (identified as CBC Radio's executive director of programming) was quoted as saying that "... we are trying to have a service that is sustainable, with an audience that regenerates". By presenting a consistent format, with programming that was an alternative to commercial radio, CBC Radio Two was able to do just that - acquire a new audience who would stay with the programming. I believe that the new programming in the evening is not sufficiently distinctive, or consistent, to provide an alternative to commercial radio that will attract new listeners. You state in your March 22 address of "a decade of almost continuous growth in audience share and loyalty". Clearly, then, CBC Radio was not broken - and yet you appear to be trying to break CBC Radio Two in the most egregious manner. As for audience loyalty - well, do you think your audience will continue to be loyal after this betrayal of their trust?

If this were a commercial radio station the outcome would be predictable. Listeners would abandon the station, advertisers would become aware of the declining audience and pull advertising, advertising revenues would suffer and the management of the radio station would realize their mistake. Management that must answer to shareholders would be quick to revert back to the format that was successful in the past, or go out of business. Given the lack of accountability of CBC Radio to the audience, I expect CBC Radio Two management to continue blithely onwards with their plans, unaware of audience interests and unresponsive to those listeners that express their opinions.

So, you may be thinking, what does this listener want? I would be satisfied with nothing less than a return to the former CBC Radio Two evening schedule, reinstatement of full newscasts on the hour, a return to CBC Radio Two of the World at Six newscast and reinstatement of the Arts Report on Music and Company in the mornings. If you want to create a new CBC Radio Four broadcast with the new programming then fine, as a taxpayer I would fully support this. However, I believe Canadians require and deserve an alternative to commercial radio that focuses on classical music that CBC Radio Two formerly provided.

Do I have any hope that this will happen? Yes, a great deal of hope. Do I have any expectations that this will happen? No, none whatsoever. Will I contact as many individuals and government officials as I can to help make this happen? Yes, I will."

Yes, I know that I recycled my letters that I sent to Ms. Jane Chalmers and Ms. Jennifer McGuire, and that the only original content here is some references to remarks that Mr. Rabinovitch made during his March 22 2007 address to the House Standing Committee. But I thought I'd include the entire letter here, just to have everything fully on the record.

Now, I won't leave you in suspense. Did I receive a response from Ms. Jane Chalmers, Ms. Jennifer McGuire, Mr. Robert Rabinovitch, or even perhaps from a spokesperson working at the CBC? Perhaps a letter beginning as follows:

"Dear CBC Radio Two listener and shareholder,

Thank you so much for taking the time and effort to contribute your comments. We appreciate the interest that you are taking in CBC Radio Two. You may rest assured that CBC Radio Two management will carefully consider your comments ..."

But of course I received no response and, the truth is, I did not expect to, based on my experience thus far in dealing with the CBC.

I had exhausted all venues in expressing an opinion to CBC Radio. Where to next? I decided that, since the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is currently conducting "A full investigation of the role for a public broadcaster in the 21st century", some comments from a citizen and listener to the CBC would be in order. Coming up next: my letters to Mr. Gary Schellenberger (who, at the time that I wrote my letter, was Chair of the House Standing Committee), Mr. Maka Kotto (Vice-Chair of the House Standing Committee) and Mr. Jim Abbott and Mr. Andy Scott (Members of the House Standing Committee). I see, however, from the list of members for the Committee that there is a new chair and new set of members for the next session of Parliament. A whole new cast of characters to write to in the hope of getting some results!

Found: A CBC Blog Site!

If you have been following this blog until this point, you will have seen that I have been requesting a CBC Radio Two web site where listeners can post their feedback on the new CBC Radio Two evening programming. I have made this request in my feedback via the "Tell Us What You Think" link on the CBC Radio Two web site and in my letters to Ms. Jennifer McGuire and Ms. Jane Chalmers (and in subsequent letters to Mr. Robert Rabinovitch, which I promised to describe on Monday). Well, lo and behold, there is such as site! I only found it today through some obscure combination of search terms on Google which I neglected to record - however, the site is called "Inside the CBC". It claims to be "The official blog of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation". And yet there is also the following disclaimer:

Inside the CBC is penned by the CBC's technology columnist Tod Maffin. Content here is neither reviewed nor approved by CBC management prior to posting.

And in the "About this Blog" section we may read the following:

Is this really the CBC's official blog?

Yes, this is the official blog for the English media side of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It's meant primarily as a blog for employees, but it's open to the world and you're welcome to join our discussions!

Well, Jesus Murphy! Is it or is it not the "Official Blog of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation"? There's no link to it (that I can find - it may be cleverly hidden) from the cbc.ca web site, and as I mentioned above, I only stumbled upon it through an unlikely search in Google. It seems CBC wants to have a blog which they can, at any time, disavow any knowledge of. "Plausible denial", indeed!

Now, I would not want any of the above to be construed as criticism or a personal attack on Mr. Tod Maffin. I applaud Mr. Maffin's activities in apparently creating and maintaining this web site. What I find immensely irritating is that a web site can be created to solicit the opinion of CBC listeners, and yet it has to be done by the CBC through what appears to be a "skunk works" project initiated by the CBC's technology columnist - thus proving that it can be done, and should be done, if only the CBC would permit it. Now, I come to the most interesting point.

Mr. Maffin also asks the following question in the "About this Blog" page:

Why would the CBC want to put a blog about itself up?

I think they listened to the many employees who said communication could be more direct. And the public, I always felt, wanted the CBC to have more of a human tone. We're not a big faceless corporation, we're a creative group of cool people and maybe this will help showcase some of what they do and what you're doing too.

As well, there aren't really any real-time mechanism for executives to hear directly from the audience on specific topics, shy of weekly audience-reaction reports or focus groups. Now, they can click onto a posting and read your comments any time they like. Er, maybe with a brandy or something. They might need it.

Well, Mr. Maffin sure has hit the nail on the head. There are no real-time mechanisms for executives to hear directly from the audience - except from this hidden web site, that only the dedicated - or outraged - CBC Radio listener can find. And if they don't like what they read, they can say that they haven't read it! Because they didn't know about it! Plausible denial just became that much more plausible.

On this web site Mr. Tod Maffin asked the question: "The new CBC Radio 2 evening schedule: what do you think?" Apparently, the question was posed to those few who were aware of this web site's existence on March 20th, 2007. And did the responses come in! By April 10th, there were 76 posts in response to Mr. Tod Maffin's question. I tallied the results, classifying the comments as either "Positive", "Negative", "Neutral" or "Confused" (where I was unable to discern any meaningful comment). Here are the results:

Positive: 10
Negative: 56
Neutral: 8
Confused: 1

You will notice that the above results do not add up to 76 - this is because one contributor made a follow-up clarification to a comment that I am not including in the above totals.

When I found this (today, May 6, 2007) I thought: Great! Now I have a forum to voice my opinions! And yet I was once again thwarted in my attempts to voice an opinion to the CBC when I found that posting in response to this question is now closed. "What the hell is this?" I thought. Here is a web site soliciting opinions, but is there a statute of limitations on opinions? Did the CBC management finally crack down on Mr. Tod Maffin, telling him that freedom of expression was just fine, as long as there was not too much of it and as long as it agrees with the CBC's already-implemented policies?

When I started reading these posts I thought many of the responses would lament the demise of "Music for Awhile" and "In Performance", just as I had. But I was surprised at the number of comments that mentioned "After Hours", "Brave New Waves" , "Two New Hours" and "Northern Lights". It appears that CBC Radio has been very democratic in implementing these programming changes - everyone has been made equally unhappy, no matter their race, creed, colour, ethnic origin or taste in music. Bravo, CBC!

Have a look at the comments. My favourite is from John on March 21st:

You didn’t know I was out there.
I’ve sent cards, letters and emails since the 60’s. I told you often the things I liked, the things you produced with excellence and on occasion shows that missed your generally high standards.
But you didn’t know I was out there.
Now you’ve taken the Public money, and with your best navel gazing, have decided that I need a tonic, a remedy, to drug me into a world class media mediocracy.
I am leaving.
I will write my cards, letters and emails to my elected representatives. They know I am here.
At first you won’t miss me…you didn’t even know I was out there.

Poetry, John. Pure poetry.

Alternatives to CBC Radio Two

I'll take another break from describing my quixotic attempts to obtain a response from CBC Radio management on the recent changes to the CBC Radio Two programming and discuss some alternatives to CBC Radio Two instead. I thought the steady diet of invective, rage and bitterness in these blog entries may not be that interesting to many readers. I'm trying to make this blog educational as well. I'll document my interactions (one-sided though they may be) with Mr. Robert Rabinovitch, President and CEO and Acting Chair of the Board of Governors of the CBC, next Monday.

So, a big part of your life has been ripped out from under your feet, leaving you dazed and bewildered. What do you do? Well, you start to post (or attempt to post, see some of my earlier entries to this blog) comments on CBC Radio Two's web site, provide feedback to the CBC, write letters, start petitions (see Return Classical Music to CBC Radio) and begin writing a blog (such as the very blog you are reading now). But what do you listen to when you are not doing all of these things? What fills the void left by CBC Radio?

At first, I thought it was simple. I'd get over not having a full newscast at 6:00 AM when I wake up. I'd continue to listen to "Music and Company" in the morning, without the newscast and without the Arts Report. I'd just learn to like it. Well, as it turned out, 15 minutes of news is just what I need to wake up in the morning. Two minutes of news, then classical music lulls me back to sleep. Besides, I like to start the day with some idea of what's going on in the world. So, I thought it would be a simple matter to tune the clock radio to CBC Radio One, wake up to Radio One, switch to Radio Two when the news is over, switch back to Radio One before going to sleep and so on. This plan lasted one or two days, then the radio stayed tuned to CBC Radio One for the duration.

And I'd learn to appreciate "Tonic" (jazz in the daylight!) and the god-awful "Canada Live". This idea lasted for all of about twenty seconds, although I tried listening to both shows for a week. I found my self tuning into "Espace Musique" in the evenings (102.5 in the Ottawa/Gatineau region, see the link to the right) or "Couleur FM" (97.5 in the Ottawa/Gatineau region, another link to the right). I find "Espace Musique" a bit too inconsistent for listening to on a daily basis. "Couleur FM" is pleasant, but it is light classical music and has too many commercials, but this is the price one must pay when the public broadcaster has abandoned classical music in the evenings. In the Toronto area, there is "Classical 96.3 FM", also light classical but enjoyable. For other Canadian cities, well, as far as I can see you might have to go to satellite radio - or carry your PC to every room in your dwelling where you want to listen to classical music over the Internet. If anyone knows of other classical music stations in other Canadian cities, please let me know and I'll put links here. I haven't tried to do an extensive search - I know there are several in the Montreal area. I just don't know the frequencies, Kenneth.

Another alternative is to abandon broadcast radio entirely. To hell with the bastards! If they're going to program crap, I'll create my own programming! To do this, one requires an iPod.

Now, I expect just about all of you have heard of the iPod. I'm no Luddite, but it took me until this past January to buy my first iPod. And what a revelation it is! How brilliant, to be able to have a vast CD collection in a device the size of a chocolate bar (or pack of cigarettes, or small cell phone - whatever is your frame of reference).

It is easy enough to use that even those doddering old fools in the 49+ age group - the ones that CBC Radio Two wants to abandon in the evenings in favour of the dynamic and sprightly 35 - 49 year olds - could use one. Of course, you need a PC, and all of this costs money. And it's not quite as accessible as a $29.95 radio and some batteries or an electrical outlet. But never mind.

The next step in the program-your-own-classical-music project is to purchase an FM radio transmitter for your iPod; for example the Griffin iTrip. This is an amazing little device that attaches to the dock connector of your iPod and can play your music through any FM radio. Of course, the iPod has to be quite close to the radio, and you have to tune the radio to a relatively clear station to use it, but it is extremely easy to use and works well. Again, easily within the grasp of the geritol generation, the 49+ age group, even though their mental faculties may be failing them.

For the car, there's the Monster iCarPlay Wireless FM transmitter. It also works well, in my experience. The only danger here is that of trying to select your next playlist while driving. You're better off to wait until the vehicle is stationary! And of course, I would advise the 49+ age group to have a passenger manipulate the iPod at all times - it's best to keep your eyes on the road, given your failing eyesight, poor hearing and generally diminished response times! (For those of you who have persevered to read this far, I am being facetious. There is no reason, that I can see, for CBC Radio to have singled out the 49+ age group as being a less desirable audience than the 35 - 49 year old. And, for that matter, what about those under 35?)

This has been, by no means, a comprehensive discussion of the alternatives to CBC Radio Two, and I am sure that there are those who can add much, much more on the topic of iPods and wireless FM transmitters. I have not yet investigated Satellite radio - next on my list of things to do. If you have any comments or additions, please feel free to write. And of course, the fact I am discussing alternatives to CBC Radio Two does not mean I am no longer thoroughly outraged at the authoritarianism of the CBC. I am only being practical.

Next week: my letter to Mr. Robert Rabinovitch, President and CEO and Acting Chair of the Board of Governors of the CBC.

Moving up the CBC Radio Hierarchy

Readers who have been following this blog until now will recall that I was planning to write to Ms. Jennifer McGuire, executive director of programming at CBC Radio. (I should have mentioned at the beginning of this blog that it recounts a series of events beginning in late February and continuing until the present. So far, I've only covered the period to March 25. If you want to understand the entire sequence of events, please start at the earliest post and work your way to this one.)

On the morning of March 19, the first day of the new CBC Radio Two evening schedule, I read an article in the Globe and Mail entitled "Radio Two's New Gig". The following is an excerpt from that article:

"The last time CBC Radio made a move toward more contemporary sounds, with the Radio One afternoon show Freestyle and other changes on that network in late 2005, it was met with a wave of criticism from some listeners. One group, including representatives of the Canadian League of Composers, met with CBC executives."

It later states:

"But the CBC said it has tried to avert some of that controversy this time. "Everybody is always concerned about change at CBC Radio because they [listeners] are heavily invested in it, and that's a good thing", McGuire said. But "we have talked to all the organizations. We talked to composers. We talked to them when we started the study [to overhauled CBC Radio] and when we were thinking about what it meant in terms of programming changes ... That conversation continues to be ongoing."

Now, the astute reader and those students who successfully completed Marketing 101 will have noticed something glaringly obvious in the above statement. Who did they miss? Why, the consumer, of course! Those very listeners who are "heavily invested" in CBC Radio Two (as well as the owners, given that the Broadcasting Act identifies CBC Radio as being "effectively owned and controlled by Canadians". Did CBC Radio hold public forums to solicit the opinions of their customers? Did they announce on the CBC Radio web site that these changes were being considered and invite public opinion? Did they announce these changes say, six months in advance on CBC Radio Two and invite comments? Did they dedicate a "Cross-country Checkup" show to this topic? (I would have liked to hear Rex Murphy's opinions on this!) Did they publish ads in the national newspapers to announce these changes? Now, I can't be 100% certain that they didn't do at least one of these things, or all of them for that matter. But since I listen - or, at least, used to listen - to CBC Radio Two from the time I wake up until the time I go to bed, read the National Post and Globe and Mail daily and occasionally watch CBC TV programs other than "The National", I sure as hell think I would have noticed such efforts at public consultation. But I saw nothing of the sort.

Ms. Jennifer McGuire was also quoted in the Globe and Mail article as saying the following:

"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."

Well, crap! I thought. I'm in that target audience! I started listening to CBC Radio Two when I was in my early twenties, not even in the target audience! And I've been listening to it ever since! Do they really think they are going to replace their current audience (most of whom I expect they have lost) with an equal number of 35 - 49 year olds, and furthermore grow that audience? With the mediocre programming that is now being broadcast in the evenings? A return to Marketing 101 for a refresher course is in order, I think. Some courses in Business Strategy wouldn't hurt, either.

So, I composed the following letter to Ms. Jennifer McGuire. I sent this as an actual paper-based letter - I had heard such things were still being done - on March 25:

"Dear Ms. McGuire,

I am writing to express my outrage at the changes that have taken place in the evening schedule of CBC Radio Two. I have listened to the new programming for a full week and I am just as outraged now as I was when I first heard of the programming changes to come.

Why am I outraged? I am outraged because CBC Radio Two listeners have not been given a choice. I would have agreed with the launch of an alternative station to CBC Radio Two with this new programming. As a taxpayer I would have fully supported such an initiative. I would also have agreed with the changes to the CBC Radio Two programming if there had been a public consultation with CBC Radio Two listeners, via public forums such as the CBC Radio web site or phone-in shows where the proposed changes could have been announced, discussed with the listening audience and only then, once the listeners had been allowed to express an opinion, changes had been made (assuming that the listeners supported such changes). It appears that nothing of the sort has taken place. As a regular listener to CBC Radio Two I expect I would have heard of such a public consultation. However, the first inkling that I had of the changes coming to the evening schedule was an announcement by Danielle Charbonneau several weeks before the event that her program would be ending and new programs would begin March 19. I believe the CBC Radio Two listeners were blind sided by such sweeping changes.

I am outraged because it appears that CBC Radio Two listeners have been told by CBC Radio Two that no, our tastes in music are not sophisticated or worldly enough. Instead of listening to classical music while driving home or preparing dinner, we should be listening to jazz. Instead of listening to classical performances after 8:00 PM, we should be listening to live performances, of many different genres, most of which we may have no interest in.

I am outraged that CBC Radio Two listeners have been deprived of a full newscast on the hour, and of the World at Six newscast on weekday evenings. Why would you think that CBC Radio Two listeners are not interested in a full newscast? Why must we switch to CBC Radio One on the hour, just to hear the news, then switch back to CBC Radio Two?

I am outraged that the Arts Report has been cancelled on Music and Company. Why was this done? What has taken it's place? Nothing.

I am outraged at the lack of a public forum for listeners to express their views, share opinions and see responses from CBC Radio Two management. I strongly urge you to create a site on the new CBC Radio Two web site where listeners may express their opinions. Will this site reflect all of the opinions being expressed by CBC Radio Two listeners. No, it will not - I expect that many listeners do not have access to personal computers and are not computer and Internet literate and are therefore unable to use this site. I therefore also urge you to scan and post any written letters that you receive, with the permission of the author, on such a site. Will CBC Radio Two create a site and go to such lengths to ensure that public opinion is expressed? I sincerely doubt it. Why should you? It is not in your interest, nor will it reflect well upon CBC Radio Two management.

What alternatives does the poor downtrodden CBC Radio Two listener have? Unfortunately, not many. As you may have noticed, there are few radio stations that broadcast classical music programs. In larger centres such as Vancouver, Toronto or Ottawa there may be one or two others. But what about smaller cities? The great value of CBC Radio Two was that it presented an alternative to commercial radio and provided a means for younger listeners to discover classical music. Will a young person discover the evening programming and become a long-term listener? I sincerely doubt it. Yet, in a Globe and Mail article on March 19, you were quoted as saying that "... we are trying to have a service that is sustainable, with an audience that regenerates". By presenting a consistent format, with programming that was an alternative to commercial radio, CBC Radio Two was able to do just that - acquire a new audience who would stay with the programming. I believe that the new programming in the evening is not sufficiently distinctive, or consistent, to provide an alternative to commercial radio that will attract new listeners.

If this were a commercial radio station the outcome would be predictable. Listeners would abandon the station, advertisers would become aware of the declining audience and pull advertising, advertising revenues would suffer and the management of the radio station would realize their mistake and adjust accordingly. Given the lack of accountability to the audience, I expect CBC Radio Two management to go blithely on, unaware of audience interests and unresponsive to those listeners that express their opinions.

So, you may be thinking, what does this listener want? I would be satisfied with nothing less than a return to the former CBC Radio Two evening schedule, reinstatement of full newscasts on the hour, a return to CBC Radio Two of the World at Six newscast and reinstatement of the Arts Report on Music and Company in the mornings. If you want to create a new CBC Radio Four broadcast with the new programming then fine, as a taxpayer I would fully support this. However, I believe Canadians require and deserve an alternative to commercial radio that focuses on classical music that CBC Radio Two formerly provided.

Do I have any hope that this will happen? Yes, a great deal of hope. Do I have any expectations that this will happen? No, none whatsoever. Will I contact as many individuals and government officials as I can to help make this happen? Yes, I will."

Yes, I agree the language is a bit over the top at times, and the tone somewhat bitter. But I was still in that stage of anger and denial when I thought something could be done.

While searching the CBC Radio web site, I found the CBC org chart (see the link to the right) and saw that Ms. Jane Chalmers is the Vice-President of CBC Radio. For good measure, I also sent the following letter on the same day:

"Dear Ms. Chalmers,

I am writing to express my outrage at the changes that have taken place in the evening schedule of CBC Radio Two. I have listened to the new programming for a full week and I am just as outraged now as I was when I first heard of the programming changes to come.

Why am I outraged? I am outraged because CBC Radio Two listeners have not been given a choice. I would have agreed with the launch of an alternative station to CBC Radio Two with this new programming. As a taxpayer ..."

Well, you get the general idea. I freely admit I sent the same letter (with minor modifications) to both Ms. Jennifer McGuire and Ms. Jane Chalmers. And, diligent readers of this blog will recognize some sentiments that are recycled from my previous post (or attempt at posting) to Mr. Jowi Taylor's blog and my submission to the "Tell Us What You Think" link on the CBC Radio Two web site. After all, writing these things is time-consuming - I can't be completely original every time. I still have a day job to go to!

So, I wrote the letters and dropped them off at my local Canada Post office. I also decided not to wait for a response from Ms. Jane Chalmers or Ms. Jennifer McGuire. Next, I would go to the top: Mr. Robert Rabinovitch, President and CEO and Acting Chair of the Board of Governors.

If you care about classical music on CBC Radio Two, sign the petition!

I'll take a break from the retrospective nature of this narrative (so far, I have only covered up to March 24 in describing my interactions with CBC Radio Two) to provide a more recent update.

I've started a petition, addressed to CBC Radio management, the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and the CRTC to request that CBC Radio management conduct a series of public consultations on the changes made to the CBC Radio Two evening schedule. The petition is at Return Classical Music to CBC Radio.

In the petition, I've requested that CBC Radio management provide public forums where listeners may express their opinions on the new programming, including (but not limited to):

• a web page on the CBC Radio Two web site where all feedback submitted by CBC Radio Two listeners is presented for all to view, whether or not CBC Radio management agrees with the opinions expressed
• public meetings where CBC Radio Two listeners may express their opinions directly to CBC Radio management
• phone-in shows on CBC Radio One and Two where listeners may express their opinions and exchange views with CBC Radio management.

I've also requested that, if the weight of public opinion gathered from such public forums supports the return of classical music to the evening schedule, CBC Radio management implement these changes and the House Standing Committee on Canadian Culture and CRTC monitor the implementation.

Why such a convoluted request? Why not just demand that CBC Radio Two return to the previous programming; i.e. the "World at Six" at 6:00 PM, "Music for Awhile" at 6:30 PM and "In Performance" at 8:00 PM? Well, truth be told, this was my first inclination. This is what would make me happy. But the whole point of this blog has been to point out the lack of public consultation that preceded these most recent programming changes, so it only seemed democratic to request public consultation in returning to the previous programming. After all, if there is no public support for the previous programming then there is no point in returning to it.

There were many other points I could have made in this petition, but I decided to try and keep it as simple as possible. Other CBC Radio Two listeners have expressed their unhappiness at the cancellation of "Two New Hours", the reduced newscasts on CBC Radio Two as well as other program cancellations too numerous to mention here. I urge these listeners to write to CBC Radio management and the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage (see the links to the right) on these topics.

So, please visit Return Classical Music to CBC Radio and make your opinion known! Tell your friends! Tell your enemies! Tell your relatives and in-laws! Signing the petition only takes a few seonds and it's free!