CBC Radio Two & Me

CBC Radio 2 Market Share - the Fall 2011 Survey

2012-01-27T15:27:00.000-05:00

Once again it is time for us to review how successful CBC Radio has been with their restructuring of the CBC Radio 2 programming.

Those of you who have been following this blog through its intermittent postings will know that we are examining the audience for CBC Radio 2 in the major cities surveyed by the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement. We are comparing the current audience for CBC Radio 2 stations in the most recent survey done by the BBM with the audience for CBC Radio 2 stations before the CBC began their program of restructuring. In this case, we are comparing the audience for CBC Radio 2 stations with the audience that the stations had in “S2” 2007, the last survey performed by the BBM before the CBC introduced its new programming. For those of you who have not been following this blog: now you know.

The idea is this: if the CBC Radio 2 programming restructuring has been successful, the audience will have increased. After all, this was the stated intent of the programming restructuring. If the CBC Radio 2 audience has fallen since the restructuring, then the initiative was unsuccessful.

“But wait” you may be saying to yourself “people are listening to radio less and less. The decline in the CBC Radio 2 audience may be due simply to the decline in the overall radio audience itself, not due to the decline in the CBC Radio 2 audience.”

So indeed we have examined this as well. We have compared the total radio audience from S2 2007 with the total radio audience for the most recent survey performed by the BBM to determine if people are listening to the radio less often. As the results show, this is the case. But more importantly, the decline in the CBC Radio 2 audience has been greater than the decline in the audience for radio programming in general. This, as you probably may realize yourself, is not good.

The results are summarized below.

While the total radio audience in Montreal has actually increased by 6.2% since S2 2007, the CBC Radio 2 audience has declined by 46.5% since S2 2007. Not good.

In Vancouver, the total radio market has dropped by 17.2% since S2 2007. The audience for CBC Radio 2 has, however, been decimated, falling by 54.2%. This should be alarming to CBC Radio management, no?

The only bright spot for CBC Radio is Ottawa, where the audience for CBC Radio 2 has actually increased by 5.8% since S2 2007, in a market that has declined by 7.6% since S2 2007. We’ll have to watch this to see if it’s just a one-time blip, or a trend.

A word about the survey data: Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary are surveyed using the Portable People Meter, or PPM. Winnipeg and Ottawa are surveyed using Radio Diary Data. For an explanation of the differences between the two methods, see the BBM site.

Radio Diary Data is issued twice a year, in the Spring and Fall. The latest BBM Fall survey covers the period from September 5 2011 to October 30 2011, while the most recent PPM data covers the period from August 29 2011 to November 27 2011, termed for the purposes of this analysis as “S8 2011”, to be consistent with previous BBM naming conventions.

This analysis therefore uses the Fall survey for Winnipeg and Ottawa and calls this data “S8 2011”, as well as the PPM data for the remaining cities.Data for S4 2010 is included in the Summary above since this was the most recent survey for which we did the analysis and which also included Diary Data for Ottawa and Winnipeg. We missed performing this analysis for the Spring 2001 Diary Data survey. We may add this analysis some time in the future, just to be complete.

Coming to a Garage Sale near you! The CBC's collection of LPs and CDs!

2012-01-24T08:46:00.000-05:00

From the January 24 2012 Globe and Mail:

CBC dismantling LP, CD archives
GUY DIXON
Published Tuesday, Jan. 17, 2012 5:00PM EST

The CBC is quietly dismantling its archives of LPs and CDs across Canada – a cultural treasure trove built over decades – even as it prepares to launch a major new music service online.

With uncertainty over levels of funding from Ottawa, CBC management has told archivists to winnow the music collections at regional bureaus by the end of March. This could mean donating, selling or discarding thousands of records and CDs – a cost- and space-saving measure as recordings are increasingly digitized.

This is happening just as the CBC’s need for music could grow heavily, as the broadcaster gears up to introduce a number of new music channels streaming online, possibly as many as 35, sources familiar with the project say.

While CBC management would not confirm that a new service is in the works, sources say it is expected to provide a number of musical formats (one for Canadian rock, one for Canadian hip hop and so on) all accessible from one central CBC website.

Some CBC archivists see irony in the fact that they are being asked to dismantle regional record collections just as producers will be coming to them for music. Many old LPs won’t be digitized, they say, and producers and announcers won’t be able to hold the physical albums and see liner notes and information that can’t be fully captured in a database.

“We believe that they are jumping the gun quite a bit by doing this,” said archivist John MacMillan, who has spent much of his career looking after CBC Vancouver’s music library. “We understand that at some point the hard-copy collection would not be needed any more, and the usage of the CDs has gone down. But the content in this virtual music library – as it’s known – is still far below the needs of the users.”

There is also a risk, some fear, of losing some valuable recordings when such large collections – some with tens of thousands of titles – are broken up. As one archivist said, not for attribution, it’s a question of whether CBC management sees the collections as a valuable archive for Canadians or simply as a resource for CBC producers.

CBC spokesman Chris Ball said that the cull isn’t affecting its Toronto-based archive, and the CBC will continue to maintain an extensive physical collection. At the same time, he notes, the CBC has been relying less and less on CDs and albums and more on digitized music, like much of the industry. The broadcaster’s digitized library is said to already contain about 1.5 million titles.

“We’re going to look at what content has historic value, what has a programming value to us,” Ball said. “The goal here is that we are digitizing that content in the virtual music library. What that’s going to be able to do is give everybody across the country [in the CBC] desktop access to our entire music library.”

Out of the approximately 650,000 CDs housed in CBC bureaus, only 140,000 CDs are unique to those libraries. The rest are duplicates of discs already housed in Toronto, Ball said. Unique physical titles will be shipped to the CBC’s permanent collection in Toronto, which currently has about 135,000 unique CDs.

He added that the physical library will continue to add new discs. “This isn’t the end point. … We’re still going to support regional artists who want to provide us with their music,” he said.

So the push is now on not only to scour the bureaus’ collections for records to ship to Toronto, but to simultaneously digitize more of those titles. This isn’t expected to eliminate many, if any, jobs since most CBC archivists also maintain other collections, such as TV and radio archives.

CBC’s popular online Radio 3 service, which features new music and has a largely separate collection, is expected to integrate more of its library into the CBC’s larger digitalized music system.

So far, the dismantling of regional record collections only applies to the English-language side. The question is whether there’s enough time to input enough of the rare LPs into the virtual music library by the end of March, and how much of the information in the liner notes will be lost.

MacMillan acknowledges that this kind of information is not necessarily used every day. “But the point of this, and I think with any library, it’s there for next year or the year after when someone goes ‘Oh, how about …?’ and they can look up something that is here and readily available, something that iTunes just will never have, ever,” he said.

The collection in Vancouver, for instance, has an unusually large array of South American titles and other music from around the world. These could be viewed as extraneous when the collection is dismantled. It also has a large number of 78-rpm records and Edisons (early 78s recorded without amplifiers or microphones).

“I can think of one or two collectors in Vancouver who would love to have them and preserve them,” MacMillan said. “Some records are in such poor shape that they may have to be thrown out. But [with] much of it, we would endeavour to try to save it as best we could and to make sure it went into a collector’s hands or [to] a university.”

He added that “it is a time-consuming process to go through, to make sure that we’re not tossing something away that doesn’t exist in a modern format … The thing about this that is most rankling to me is that, sure, we knew that this had to happen. But it is happening way too fast.”

Joy to the World, Sunday Dec. 18 on CBC Radio Two

2011-12-16T08:36:00.003-05:00

One of the few programs on CBC Radio Two that survived the Great Purge of 2007 - 2009 is Joy to the World, the annual program of Christmas music broadcast by the European Broadcasting Union and carried by CBC Radio Two.

This year's broadcast is this Sunday, December 18. Here is the schedule for the program, copied from the CBC Radio Two site:

Joy to the World: EBU Day of Seasonal Music, December 18, 2011

9:00 HELSINKI, Finland: The Helsinki Chamber Orchestra and soprano Maria Cristina Kiehrat present a program of vocal and instrumental from the 16th and 17th centuries at the Kallio Church. Our day begins with the Kallio Church bells.

10:00 ENSCHEDE Netherlands: The Discantus Ensemble with director Brigitte Lesne present medieval Christmas music for voice and handbells at the Grote Kerk in Enschede.

11:00 RIGA Latvia: Percussionist Rihards Zalupe, sax player Oskars Petrauskis and keyboardist Raimonds Petrauskis perform a program called "Mixed Christmas" live from the studio at Latvian Radio.

12:00 REYKJAVIK Iceland: The Carmina Chamber Choir with director Arni Heimir Ingolfsson and lute player Karl Nyhlin present an Icelandic Renaissance Christmas from Langholt Church in Reykjavik.

13:00 TALLINN, Estonia: The Rondellus Early Music Ensemble present a live program of medieval music with fiddle, hurdy-gurdy, psaltery, bagpipe, lute, percussion and voice from St Nicholas Church in Tallinn.

14:00 MONTREAL Canada: The annual Sing-In from the Church of St Andrew and St Paul features musicians and audience in music for the season.

15:00 COPENHAGEN Denmark: The Danish Radio Vocal Ensemble and the Middle East Peace Orchestra led by Henrik Goldschmidt presents a program of seasonal music in Danish, Arabic, Hebrew and English at Christian's Church in Christianshaven.

16:00 PRAGUE, Czech Republic: Musica Florea and soloists will present 2 choral works by baroque composer Jan Dismas Zelenka at the historic Church of St Simon and St Jude, dating from the 1620s.

17:00 WATERFORD, Ireland:The world-acclaimed celtic Danύ Ensemble presents a concert of Irish Christmas music at The Local pub in Dunvargan, County Waterford, Ireland.

Will Kirstine Stewart save the CBC? - Globe and Mail, July 29 2011

2011-08-05T08:32:00.005-04:00

This article appeared in the July 29th edition of the Globe and Mail. The decline in market share for CBC Radio 2 is mentioned, almost as an aside. Clearly, radio is not that important!

Will Kirstine Stewart save the CBC?
Michael Posner
Globe and Mail Update (with correction)
Published Friday, Jul. 29, 2011 7:08PM EDT

Some years ago, a young Canadian television sales executive found herself at a trade market in Hong Kong. At an industry party, she and a colleague decided to visit a fortune teller.

The colleague, Isme Bennie, was told that she would soon confront several major transitions in her life, including moving house. The predictions all proved accurate.

And the young exec? Kirstine Layfield (now known by her maiden name Stewart) was told that she would one day become prime minister of Canada. That, needless to say, hasn't happened – yet.

What Ms. Stewart has become is executive vice-president of the CBC's English services. Arguably the most powerful job in Canadian broadcasting, it has never before been held by a woman. Not only is it the most powerful, it is, without doubt, the most daunting job. As the CBC prepares to celebrate its 75th anniversary this fall, it may be approaching a historic crossroads.

“The best she can do is keep the CBC in the game,” one CBC insider says.

Ms. Stewart remains optimistic. “Everyone is engaged by the same questions,” she allows in a recent interview. “It's a big brain challenge. But there's real opportunity here, to remake the modern public broadcaster and keep it relevant.”

The eldest daughter of British immigrants to Canada, Ms. Stewart, just 42, has a degree in English literature from the University of Toronto. With her former husband, teacher Ken Layfield, she has two daughters, Brigitte and AnnaLise. After each birth, she returned to work within six weeks, while her husband took paternity leave. “I wouldn't necessarily recommend it,” she once explained, “but it was what I needed to do to keep doing what I was doing.”

The marriage effectively ended several years ago. Earlier this year, she became engaged to Zaib Shaikh, star of Little Mosque on the Prairie. She says a wedding date has not been announced – a polite way of saying she does not want to discuss her private life.
Since winning the job last year, her first order of work seems to have been housecleaning. In the past year, the heads of CBC drama (Sally Catto), sports (Scott Moore), digital (Steve Billinger) and radio (Denise Donlon) have all departed.

“What we've done is take out a layer of management,” Ms. Stewart explains. “There were multiple levels reporting to me and we wanted to flatten that out.”

Ms. Stewart's conversation tends to sound like that. Outwardly cool, if not icy, she has clearly mastered the vocabulary of modern corporatese, all those “bottom lines” that, “at the end of the day,” will allow us to “move the yardsticks.”

But Isme Bennie, who hired her as a receptionist in 1988 at Paragon Entertainment, straight out of university, cautions against any impulse to underestimate Ms. Stewart. “Kirstine started by answering our phones and left as president of distribution,” she says. “She is smart and resourceful. She takes initiative.”

At the CBC, Ms. Stewart succeeded Richard Stursberg, a brilliant Machiavellian who had been, in roughly equal measure, feared, respected and loathed.

Mr. Stursberg departed suddenly last August, after CBC president Hubert Lacroix, the public broadcaster's government-appointed and largely invisible power behind the throne, grew weary of his gamesmanship. Mr. Lacroix nurses an ambitious agenda, which is to reshape the corporation for the 21st century. Rightly or wrongly, he decided Mr. Stursberg was not the person to realize that agenda.
Enter Ms. Stewart, then head of network programming. Before joining the CBC in 2006, she had earned her spurs as a VP at Alliance Atlantis (overseeing eight channels), Hallmark Entertainment (managing a budget of $300-million (U.S.) and a staff of 750), and Trio, a now-defunct U.S. channel.

Under Mr. Stursberg, she scored largely with reality shows, although one gamble – a simulcast with ABC's The One: Making a Music Star, hosted by Mr. Stroumboulopoulos – backfired. The show was cancelled after two weeks.

Critics, among them Ian Morrison, spokesman for Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, also complain that the CBC's ratings gain has been built on the back of cheap, lowbrow American imports, such as Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy.

Yet the ad revenue generated by these game shows, Ms. Stewart argues, helped the CBC underwrite five other shows that yielded million-plus audiences – Battle of the Blades, Dragons' Den, Rick Mercer Report, Republic of Doyle and Heartland. As part of its effort to Canadianize its prime-time schedule, Ms. Stewart has promised to cancel the game shows next year.

As things stand, the CBC's numbers are doing well – BBM Canada surveys indicate it has vaulted past Global in prime time. “The jump in ratings was all Kirstine's doing,” a former CBC senior executive says. “She's a very smart programmer. Richard … listened to her.”

Those who monitor the CBC's often Byzantine politics think that Mr. Lacroix has followed a time-honoured tradition in cultural institutions – choosing a leader distinctly different than the one being succeeded. “Hubert did not want another Richard,” says an industry executive close to the corporation. “Kirstine is a safer pair of hands, and will dutifully and efficiently carry out the mandate.”

Howard Bernstein, a former TV producer who has worked for the CBC and other broadcasters, is highly critical of the corporation's leadership. In a recent post on his media criticism blog, he wrote, “Today, in the post-Stursberg CBC the Stursberg philosophy lives on: go light, get numbers, avoid depth and at all costs don't allow serious culture anywhere near the lineup. …”

He also writes, “Kirstine Stewart, once Stursberg's leading yes woman, is surprise, surprise carrying on as if Stursberg were still telling her what is what.”

Any suggestion that she might be “Sturs lite” makes Ms. Stewart bristle. “I'm surprised by that association,” she says. “Richard had a huge beneficial effect on the CBC, in terms of processes. But people are looking for programming leadership. That's where I come from. The future is about content.”

And in a follow-up e-mail, she adds, “The label ‘lite' is one I've seen levied too often at female execs to now let pass by without comment. … It's an awfully convenient way to put someone, in this case me … in a box. It trivializes and makes diminutive the goals I have for the CBC and for this role … I won't be a copy of anyone, lite or otherwise.”

The challenges Ms. Stewart faces are also far from trivial. In a world run amok with television choice, she must simultaneously maintain the CBC's thin market share, stay competitive in the increasingly vital digital sphere, strengthen ties to the regions, reflect the fast-changing Canadian demographic while fulfilling its triple-barrelled legislated mandate – “to inform, enlighten and entertain.”

And that's just the big picture.

Critics, such as The Globe and Mail's own John Doyle, have noted that while prime-time TV ratings have soared, the once-thriving oasis of serious arts and culture programming has become a wasteland; audiences have evaporated. In news and current affairs, which has borne a disproportionate burden of budget cuts, morale is moribund. And Radio 2's ratings have collapsed, since abandoning its largely classical music format in 2007.

Then there is Hockey Night in Canada – the CBC's most popular show (accounting for 30 per cent of its audience) and its single most powerful engine of advertising revenue. The broadcaster's contract to cover the National Hockey League expires in June, 2014. A bidding war for rights is inevitable, one the cash-strapped corporation will be hard-pressed to win, without allies.

Looming over it all is Stephen Harper's Damoclean sword. The Conservative government may act on its ideologically driven impulse to destroy public broadcasting by slashing the CBC's annual $1.1-billion appropriation. (It earns an additional $700-million from advertising and other revenue.)

Meanwhile, the corporation's fundamental dilemma remains: To the extent that the CBC must justify its federal subsidies and attract advertisers, it must be populist. But to the extent that it is populist, it risks becoming a clone of commercial broadcasters, and forfeits its signature identity as Canada's cultural lodestone.
Until she seeks political office, as her fortune teller predicted, it will be Kirstine Stewart's burden to find a balance for an organization whose own future prospects appear less auspicious.

Michael Posner is a Globe and Mail feature writer.
Editor's Note: Kirstine Stewart, executive vice-president of the CBC’s English services, has not dated George Stroumboulopoulos. The original newspaper version and an earlier online version of this article have been corrected.

Four years later, and what have we learned?

2011-04-29T13:47:00.008-04:00

It has been over four years since the CBC implemented the first phase of the restructuring of CBC Radio Two and four years since we began this blog. What have we learned during that time?

I doubt that the CBC has learned very much from this experiment or taken the experience to heart. I’ll try to state some of the more obvious points that I believe the CBC should have learned.

First of all, listen to your customers. This is a basic point that is taught in business schools, preached by management consultants and ignored to the detriment of corporations. Bitter experience has taught most corporations – the ones that survive, at least – that a corporation ignores the opinions of its loyal customers at its own peril. I’ve referred to the example of New Coke as the classic (no pun intended) example of a company misreading the tastes of its customers. Corporations have learned this lesson many times over since then.

Not so the CBC. When the CBC Radio Two restructuring was announced there was a storm of protest. Letters were written to the newspapers, petitions written (including mine), web sites started (including this one), FaceBook groups begun. Protests were held on the streets of major Canadian cities in support of the “old” CBC Radio Two. Hearings were held in Parliament. All was for naught. The CBC did not change its course. The CBC stubbornly stuck to its guns in spite of impassioned pleas from its audience.

And what was the result? The audience for CBC Radio Two has been decimated. In Vancouver, the audience for CBC Radio Two has fallen 61.7% from its pre-restructuring levels, while the total radio listening audience in Vancouver has fallen only 24.1%. An audience decline such as this is nothing short of astounding. The same is true for the other major cities for which we have recent audience data: Montreal, down 44.1%, Toronto, down 44.2%, Calgary, down 59.8% and Edmonton, down 40%. The only bright spots for the CBC seems to be Winnipeg and Ottawa, for which we have no recent data. We await the spring radio diary data for recent audience data for these cities. Results such as these are the raw material for future business school cases.

The second point is that the public broadcaster exists to offer an alternative to commercial radio stations. A public broadcaster that does nothing more than offer a pale alternative to commercial radio is in danger of having its funding cut. A declining audience certainly doesn’t help.

What is to become of the CBC? I expect that it will muddle along, becoming increasingly irrelevant. There will be ever-more persistent attempts to cut its budget. CBC executives will continue to plead the case for a public broadcaster before Parliamentary committees. The public will become increasingly indifferent to the plight of the CBC, having been driven away by the dictatorial decisions of CBC management. Eventually the CBC will fade away, existing only as archived shows on .mp3 files on iPods, iPads and iPhones, as a new audience discovers the glory of what once was a revered Canadian institution.

The $75 iPod Tax - the Big Lie!

2011-01-25T10:23:00.003-05:00

You may have seen the recent Conservative Party attack ads on TV that state that the “Michael Ignatieff-led coalition” wants to introduce a “$75 iPod tax”. Where did this supposedly new tax on iPods come from, and why is it $75?

Well, like much of the Conservative Party advertising, this “iPod tax” is an immense stretch of the truth. On March 16 2010 the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage voted to include “devices with internal memory” in the definition of “recording medium” in the new copyright legislation, Bill C-32. The purpose of this revised definition was to ensure that devices with internal memory, such as the iPod, are considered as recording media, just as blank cassette tapes and CDs are considered recording media.

There is currently a tax on blank cassette tapes and CDs which is apparently intended to compensate recording artists for material that is copied onto the blank cassette tapes and CDs. With the definition of “recording media” broadened to include “devices with internal memory”, recording artists might also be partially compensated for performances that are copied onto a variety of devices, including MP3 players and iPods. So it is highly misleading, if not an outright lie, to refer to this as an "iPod tax" since it will, I assume, cover every device that can be used to record digital music, including your PC.

Why should we, as former CBC Radio 2 listeners, care about Bill C-32? And what does this have to do with CBC Radio 2, the subject of this blog?

Well, first of all, all those who care about classical music should be interested in ensuring that performers receive fair compensation for their recordings. While I am sure that the Rolling Stones are not going to be impoverished by the explosion of digital music sharing and downloading, the average performer of classical music could see their livelihood threatened. So we should all be in favour of Bill C-32, at least in this provision.

What has this to do with CBC Radio 2? Well, if we are ever to see CBC Radio 2 return to its past glory, I would like to think that there are musicians who can make a decent living by recording classical music.

Now, onto the Conservative Party attack ads. I think the following video captures the essence of the issue quite well. Have a look.

"Joy to the World" program schedule for Dec. 19 2010

2010-12-17T08:59:00.004-05:00

One of the most popular programs on CBC Radio 2 seems to be the annual “Joy to the World” program of choral music presented by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU).

This year the “Joy to the World” program will be broadcast Sunday, Dec. 19, beginning at 9:05 AM. I found this courtesy of Li Robbin’s post on the CBC web site. The schedule for this year’s program is as follows:

Sunday, Dec. 19 2010
9:05 (9:35 NT) - Helsinki - Lahti Brass Quintet, organ, soprano
10:00 (10:30 NT) - Oslo - Oslo Philharmonic Orchestra and Chorus
11:00 (11:30 NT) - London - BBC Singers, organ
12:00 (12:30 NT) - Prague - Ensemble 18 in 18th-century seasonal music
13:00 (13:30 NT) - Reykjavik - Icelandic Music Old and New
14:00 (14:30 NT) - News (runs 4 min, 30 sec.)
14:05 (14:35 NT) - Frankfurt - Frankfurt Radio Big Band: "Swinging Christmas"
15:00 (15:30 NT) - Graz - Graz University Chamber Choir
16:00 (16:30 NT) - Madrid - RTVE Chorus: Carols from Spain and the New World
17:00 (17:30 NT) - Montreal - Orchestre Symphonique Montreal; Montreal Children's Chorus; Susan Graham; Kent Nagano, conductor

The remainder of the holiday programming schedule is:

Friday, Dec. 24 2010
6:00 pm - 6:54 pm - Being Jann's Christmas with Jann Arden
7:00 pm - 7:54 pm - Past & Presents with Jurgen Gothe
8:00 pm - 9:55 pm - A Christmas Eve Tonic with Tim Tamashiro
10:00 pm - 10:55 pm - O Soulful Night with Nana Aba Duncan
11:00 pm - 11:55 pm - A Celtic Christmas with Francesca Swann

Saturday, Dec. 25 2010
12:00 am - 12:55 am - A Yule Night with Nora Young
6:00 am - 8:54 am - Christmas Morning with Molly Johnson
9:00 am - 10:54 am - CBC Christmas Sing-In with Katie Malloch
11:00 am - 11:54 am - Christmas from Notre-Dame Basilica in Montreal with Peter Togni
12:00 pm - 2:45 pm - Handel's Messiah with Julie Nesrallah
2:45 pm - 3:00 pm - Queen's Message with Bob Mackowycz
3:00 pm - 3:55 pm - Noël Premiere - Canada's First Carol with Bill Richardson
4:00 pm - 5:55 pm - Highlights from EBU "Joy to the World" with Peter Togni
6:00 pm - 6:55 pm - Season of Song: Canadian Tenors and Friends with Andrew Craig
7:00 pm - 8:55 pm - Christmas Classics with Katherine Duncan
9:00 pm - 9:55 pm - This Is My Christmas Music with Laurie Brown
10:00 pm - 10:55 pm - Bowls of Cheer with Stan Carew
11:00 pm - 11:55 pm - A Susie Arioli Christmas with Katie Malloch

I found the holiday schedule listed above in this post on the CBC web site.

One wonders why the CBC couldn’t display this a bit more prominently on their web site, instead of forcing people to search for it. Ah well, there isn’t anything that the CBC does that surprises me anymore.

The new host for "As It Happens" is, as it happens, also a former actor

2010-12-16T15:13:00.006-05:00

Long-time listeners to CBC Radio One’s “As It Happens” were understandably upset when it was announced by the CBC March 29, 2010 that Ms. Budd’s contract would not be renewed. After a twenty-six year career with the CBC, seventeen as the co-hose of “As It Happens”, Ms. Budd was apparently being let go from the corporation because the CBC wanted a co-host with a background in journalism. As stated in a Globe and Mail article from April 5, 2010:

“My performance was never called into question during these discussions,” she adds. “Over the last while, the corporate spokespeople and the senior management have always been very clear that they’ve been fans of mine.”

But the CBC wants more journalists on air as opposed to “presenters,” which is how Ms. Budd, who is an actor, has been described. It’s a delineation that slightly rankles. “I haven’t studied journalism, but I think that, on the job for 17 years, after being so closely entrenched in the show, people might assume that there’s a certain amount of journalism that’s rubbed off on me.” Still, she’s not bitter. “I knew I wasn’t the journalistic part of the duo. I didn’t quibble with it because I loved what I was doing, and in listeners’ minds, there’s never any distinction between those roles.”

Ms. Budd, a 58-year old former actor and mother of a seventeen year old son with special needs, had spent twenty-six years of her career at the CBC. Now, it seems that she was to be tossed out on her keister. The same Globe and Mail article from April 5, 2010 also stated:

Ms. Budd’s termination is another sign of the corporation’s efforts to update its programming, observers have noted. “It isn’t enough to have the audience that you have,” she says, explaining her take on the CBC’s rationale. “[But] it’s not as if As it Happens doesn’t already have [younger people] listening and writing in.

Today it was announced by the CBC that another former actor, Jeff Douglas, has been named as the new permanent co-host of “As It Happens”. An article in today’s (December 16, 2010) Globe and Mail states that:

When it was announced in March that Budd’s contract wasn’t going to be renewed, the rationale given by CBC executives was that they wanted another journalist in the co-host chair. Yet Douglas, like Budd, comes from an acting background.

Denis Donlon, general manager of CBC Radio, said Wednesday that CBC executives never specified it had to be a journalist.

“We need a person in the role who can actually make a contribution to the production of the show”, she said. “And we purposely left it really wide that way. It could have been a journalist. It could have been somebody who’s really good in social media. It could have been a chase producer [who tracks down stories]. We needed more hands on deck in terms of the overall production of the show.”

Carol Off, the co-host who fulfills the journalist role on the show, had this to say about her new co-host, also according to today's article in the Globe and Mail:

“And then he has this range in his voice. I actually thought he reminds me of Jim Carrey. It’s elastic.” Off said. “It brings this other range to that position. This guy can do anything. He can announce. He can read. He can present with authority, and yet he can make you laugh.”

Mr. Douglas is described in the Globe and Mail article as being best known for having performed what has since come to be known as the “Joe Canadian rant” in a beer commercial. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this commercial, you may view it on YouTube.

Hey,
I'm not a lumberjack, or a Furtrader,
and I don't live in an igloo,
or eat blubber
or own a dogsled.
And I don't know Jimmy, Sally or Suzy from Canada,
although I'm certain they're really, really nice.

I have a prime minister... not a president,
I speak English and French, not American
and I pronounce it About, not A-boot.

I can proudly sew my country's flag on my backpack,
I believe in peacekeeping, not policing,
diversity not assimilation,
and that the beaver is a truly proud and noble animal.

A toque is a hat,
a chesterfield is a couch,
and it IS pronounced Zed,
not Zee... ZED!!
Canada is the 2nd largest land mass,
the 1st nation of hockey,
and the best part of North America.

My name is Joe...
and...I......AM......CANADIAN!

Thank you.

As I’ve said before in this blog, I couldn’t even begin to make stuff like this up.

Radio 2 Cummings and goings

2010-12-09T09:32:00.006-05:00

While in Toronto today I tuned into CBC Radio 2 – for about fifteen minutes, which was all that I could take. I heard the last fifteen minutes of Radio 2 Morning with Bob Mackowycz, during which I heard a song performed by Buffalo Springfield (Buffalo Springfield!) and someone named, I believe, Virginia Gore.

The song performed by Buffalo Springfield was "For what it's worth" by Stephen Stills. (“stop, hey, what’s that sound, everybody look what's going down”) and I was immediately transported back to the late 60’s, at least for several minutes. I remember the sixties, likely because I was too young to be doing drugs at the time, thus disproving the saying that if you remember the sixties, you probably weren't there. Or was that Woodstock? Perhaps both. I mention this not out of nostalgia for the 60s, however, but because I have to wonder: how does playing a song from the 60s that you can hear on any JACK FM or similarly derivative station make CBC Radio 2 more relevant to Canadians?

I thought the song by Virginia Gore was by Feist, but it wasn’t. Have you noticed that there is now a new generation of female singer/songwriters who sound like Feist, who in turn seems to have been influenced by Bjork? Just something that I’ve noticed.

Radio 2 Morning ended and I was pleased to hear that Joe Cummings is now reading the news. I was afraid that Mr. Cummings had been unceremoniously dumped from the CBC after the Arts Report was canned. Good to see you’re still there, Mr. Cummings!

I began to wonder what happened to Tom Allen. I searched the CBC web site and found that Mr. Allen is, according to the CBC web site, hosting either “Radio 2 Shift” (where he is the host) or “Shift with Tom Allen” (where he is apparently the anchor). Both programs seem to occupy the same time slot. Whichever it is, I’m happy to see that Mr. Allen is still with the CBC.

So then I looked up Mr. Cummings on the CBC web site. Apparently Mr. Cummings is the host of the “Arts Report”, which according to the CBC “provides CBC Radio Two listeners with up-to-the-minute coverage of the arts in Canada and abroad”. Who knew?

The web site goes on to say that:

With contributions from arts reporters in major centres across Canada as well as from freelancers abroad, The Arts Report covers everything from cultural politics on Parliament Hill to a new art exhibit in Vancouver to a play première in Halifax.

During its 23-year history, listeners have come to rely on The Arts Report to provide a broad-based, regionally balanced account of artistic life in Canada.

In 1993, The Arts Report won the Imperial Oil Award for Excellence in Arts Journalism, presented by the Canadian Conference of the Arts.

It would be nice if it were true, wouldn’t it?

How have you adapted to the demise of CBC Radio 2?

2010-11-28T10:15:00.010-05:00

How have you adapted to the demise of CBC Radio 2?

For many long-time listeners CBC Radio 2 was an integral part of their lives. When a part of your life is taken away from you, you have to adapt. Generally, you find a substitute for what has been taken away. If Coke is not available, you drink Pepsi. If Pepsi is not available, you might drink a no-name Cola. There are usually substitutes for most products or services.

Not so for Classical music radio stations. In the case of classical radio, CBC Radio 2 was the only game in town in most Canadian cities. I wrote one of my early blog entries on this subject on May 4 2007. What do you do without a source of classical music? Some readers suggested playing CDs. Others suggested listening to your iPod. I discovered other radio stations in the Ottawa/Gatineau area but I eventually found each of these wanting.

I soon discovered the pleasures of Sirius Satellite radio and wrote about it in a blog entry on Nov. 24 2008. It took some time, but I eventually developed my Sirius Satellite radio installation to be an acceptable substitute for CBC Radio 2, with the help of a roof-top satellite antenna and a radio repeater installed in the attic. I eventually grew my Sirius Satellite radio installation to three radios: one for the bedroom, one for the kitchen and one roving unit for car. It’s true that you could use a single unit for all three purposes, but I prefer leaving the house units where they are. I’m sure Sirius is happy with this arrangement too.

Even though I was very satisfied with Sirius Satellite radio, I found another source of Classical music: WiFi internet radio. While some may think of internet radio as listening to music streamed over the internet on your PC, in this case “WiFi internet radio” refers to a device which is dedicated to receiving internet streamed music over your home WiFi router. It looks just like an AM/FM radio, except that it connects to the internet and can receive any radio station worldwide which streams its programming over the internet. The internet radio also has an FM tuner and can play MP3 files, but I use it for internet radio only.

I soon had some favourite stations, which I described in a post on Jan. 16 2009. Ottava from Japan, Radio Stephensdom from Austria, Bayern 4 Klassik from Germany, Concert FM from New Zealand and ABC Classics from Australia. I must admit, I even broke my self-imposed ban on all things CBC by listening to CBC Radio Classical. I began to narrow my listening to just a few stations. Ottava was interesting at first, but I found there are long periods of spoken introduction to each piece. Unless you are a student of Japanese and are practising your verbal comprehension of Japanese, it starts to become tedious.

The same is true of Radio Stephensdom and Bayern 4 Klassik. At first I enjoyed listening to the news and trying to follow the broadcast using my extremely limited knowledge of German. But I don’t know enough to follow, and the spoken broadcasts became less interesting.

Concert FM from New Zealand and ABC Classics were interesting to listen to too. It was refreshing to hear news from the other side of the world, and to hear the weather forecasts for cities in Australia during the depths of the Canadian winter. (I learned that broadcasters in Australia will use the term “and fine” to refer to, I assume, sunny weather; for example, “The forecast for Brisbane today is 34 degrees and fine.”) I still listen to ABC Classics from time to time.

As I note above, I broke my self-imposed boycott of all things CBC Radio by listening to CBC Radio Classical. I eventually realized, however, that this is the white bread of radio broadcasting. It has no character, no context, nothing but the same top-40 classical hits streamed over the internet. It’s not radio; it’s Muzak for classical listeners. The periodic interjection of “This is so-and so and you are listening to CBC Radio 2 Classical” became annoying in the extreme. Even so, I continued to listen to CBC Radio Classical until, not surprisingly, my internet radio would no longer connect to the site. Can’t the CBC get even this right?

So what am I listening to now? When I’m in Toronto, I listen to 96.3 FM, CFMZ FM, Moses Znaimer’s classical music station. When I’m at the cottage, I listen to CFMZ. And I recently found that I can tune into CFMZ over my internet radio when I’m in Ottawa. So we listen to CFMZ.

It’s true, the announcers on CFMZ can be a bit irritating at times – I won’t name names – and the commercials can be even more annoying. But I find it comforting to hear Robert Upward’s traffic reports for Toronto, even when I’m in Ottawa and they’re of no use to me. Jean Stilwell has the sexiest voice in perhaps all of Canadian broadcasting and I would tune in to her program just to hear her read names from the telephone book. Even some of the commercials become part of the fabric of your life.

Which brings me to the point that I have been leading up to all along, in a somewhat long-winded and round-about manner: radio is all about ambience, context and connections. We listen to radio stations because we have some connection to the announcers and programming that is meaningful to us in a context that is familiar or because we have developed such a connection over time. The programming and announcers become part of our own history and the daily fabric of our lives, whether it is listening to Joe Cummings and the Arts Report and Tom Allen’s ‘Cage Match’ while you are shaving in the morning, Howard Dyck and Choral Concert while preparing breakfast on Sunday morning, Jurgen Gothe talking about the cats while you are driving home in the evening, Robert Upward reading the traffic report and telling us about the congestion on the DVP, Jean Stilwell laughing her husky laugh while you are drinking your second coffee of the morning or Danielle Charbonneau (the previous holder of the 'Sexiest Voice in Canadian Broadcasting' title) while you are drinking your pre-dinner drink. Radio is all about context, ambience and connection with your day-to-day life.

Overseas radio stations can be enjoyable but it’s much more difficult to make a connection to a foreign broadcaster or foreign country that makes the station integral to your life. CBC Radio 2 Classical is just too bland to ever make a meaningful connection. The new CBC Radio 2 is too variable, too unpredictable and too annoying to ever make that connection, at least with me. The old CBC Radio 2 had those connections but broke them forever for many listeners. This is what the management of the CBC has failed to understand and what has led them to make some disastrous decisions, in my opinion.

Latest CBC Radio 2 survey data: the "S9 2010" results

2010-11-24T09:13:00.007-05:00

Two years have now passed since the CBC completed their restructuring of the CBC Radio 2 programming.

As you may recall, the first phase of the changes to the CBC Radio 2 programming occurred in March 2007. The last survey of the CBC Radio 2 audience listening to the “old” programming conducted by the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement was, in the BBM’s terminology, S1 2007. The most recent survey available on the BBMs web site covers the period from July 26 – October 24 2010 and includes data for Montreal, Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver and is based on data compiled using the Portable People Meter, or PPM. Radio audience survey data for Winnipeg and Ottawa is based on data compiled using diary data and so is not available for this period, the last survey period for these markets covering the period March 1 – April 25 2010. I term the period from March 1 – April 25 2010 “S4 2010”, to be consistent with prior survey naming, but it should be noted that the BBM does not use this term.

Anyone interested in the success or failure of the new programming on CBC Radio 2 can therefore compare the current audience for CBC Radio 2 with the audience for the “old” Classical format. Since the goal of the restructuring of the CBC Radio 2 programming was apparently to increase the total audience, we would expect that the CBC Radio 2 audience has increased in the major markets surveyed by the BBM. At the time of the programming changes, the management of the CBC admitted that they were going to alienate many loyal listeners, but contended that they would gain additional listeners and would therefore increase the total audience for CBC Radio 2. So what actually happened?

As readers of previous entries to this blog are no doubt aware, the audience for CBC Radio 2 has plummeted. Changes in the survey methodology from diary data to the PPM data are no doubt one factor, but the decline in the CBC Radio 2 audience was evident even before the changeover to the PPM measurements. The audience has declined 41.4% in Montreal, 39.4% in Toronto, 67.1% in Vancouver, 56.3% in Calgary and 45.2% in Edmonton. This is a decline in market share of almost unheard of proportions. The charts below summarize the results for S9 2010. Note that the last survey for which full market data is available is S4 2010, which included data for Ottawa and Winnipeg.

While it is true that the total radio audience has declined in each of these markets, with the exception of Montreal English broadcasting stations, the decline in Radio 2's audience has been much more dramatic.

Many former listeners of CBC Radio 2 will not be surprised by this. You may recall that listeners protested the changes in most large Canadian cities in April 2008. There was a public outcry when the extent of the CBC’s plans were revealed to the Canadian public. Although the audience was vociferous in their condemnation of the CBC’s plans for the new programming, the CBC management proceeded with the restructuring in the face of overwhelming public opposition.

Consider how other corporations have implemented change and how they have reacted when their customers reacted negatively to such change. The most well-known example of a marketing debacle is, of course, the introduction of “New Coke” in the late eighties. For those few who may not know the story: Coke attempted to increase the market share for Coca-Cola by introducing a new formula for Coke that they dubbed “New Coke.” Their customers were outraged. New Coke sales plummeted. Coca-Cola relented and reintroduced “Coke Classic” to placate their customers, offering both “New Coke” and “Coke Classic”. Sales recovered and “New Coke” was quietly retired by an abashed Coca-Cola corporation.

Consider a more recent example. The Gap recently decided to change their logo. Their logo! Customers were outraged and protested. The Gap, having learned something during the past twenty years from other corporate missteps, quickly retreated, admitted their mistake and reinstated their old logo. Note that nothing apparently had changed with respect to the merchandise, shopping experience or pricing. The only thing that was altered was the logo! Yet the management of The Gap was quick to realize that they had made a mistake and recovered from the mistake in order to keep their customers happy.

Not so the management of the CBC. Not only did they ignore the public outcry that greeted the initial announcement of the restructuring of the CBC, but have apparently been oblivious to the declining audience of CBC Radio 2, judging by the lack of public statements to their shareholders, the taxpayers of Canada.

You can’t get away with stuff like this if you are a company operating in a competitive environment. If you’re a corporation that lives off the public purse, apparently you can.

Globe and Mail readers react to the departure of Mr. Stursberg

2010-08-09T11:01:00.002-04:00

From the August 9 edition of the Globe and Mail:

For devotees of CBC Radio 2’s intelligent, mature presentation of serious classical music programming on offer before his arrival and subsequent reckless drive for popularization, Richard Stursberg’s departure is unimaginably sweet music to our ears (Top CBC Executive Leaves Broadcaster – Aug. 7).

Clifford Garrard, Ottawa

As a former dedicated CBC Radio 2 listener, the sudden departure of the head of English-language services is good news indeed. Perhaps now there will be a slow and imperceptible move (to preserve reputations) back to quality programs, replacing so many recent mindless ones, and making that nauseating promo spot every half-hour unnecessary.

Malcolm Niblett, Kingston

The importance of the departure of Richard Stursberg as head of CBC’s English-language services and the manifestation of his enduring legacy I can now state in one sentence: “Peter Mansbridge, you may now sit down.”

Bill Casselman, Dunnville, Ont.

The Bushification of CBC Radio Two

2010-08-08T11:27:00.004-04:00

I recently decided that the English language needs a word that succinctly describes the case when a corporate manager, leader of a country, religious leader or other zealot assumes control of an organization, country or religious group, makes significant changes to said organization or country and then rides off into the sunset, leaving the organization, country or religious group in significantly worse condition than before.

Since Sarah Palin is busy ‘refudiating’ the policies of those Godless Communists, the Obama administration, I thought I would step in here and offer a term. In honour of George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United Sates, I offer the term ‘Bushify’.

I thought I was being original. Of course, the term has long since been coined. I see it has already been defined as “To get something very wrong, in any area of life” (unwords.com) and “the act of taking a word that wouldn't normally have "ificate" or "ify" at the end and adding one or both said suffix's’ (urbandictionary.com). However, I think my definition is broader in scope, and certainly more useful.

Consider the origins of the term ‘Bushification’ or “to Bushify’. When George W. Bush assumed office, the U.S. was running a budget surplus, unemployment was at record lows, the U.S. was at peace with the rest of the world and the future seemed bright for the U.S. Of course, we all know what happened. Tax cuts for the wealthy, budget deficits, two wars in the Middle East, a housing bust, a financial system meltdown and record unemployment. Don’t you think that the U.S. was really, truly Bushified during the Bush administration?

On Friday, August 6 2010, the CBC announced that Richard Stursberg, executive vice-president for English language services, was leaving the CBC, effecitve immediately. The announcement included this statement:

“When Richard was appointed executive vice-president of CBC Television six years ago,” said Mr. Lacroix, “he brought with him a revolution that shook the foundation of the organization and eventually of the whole of our English services. He challenged every premise, attacked conventional wisdom, and uprooted whole parts of the internal culture.”

Wouldn’t if have been more succinct to have simply said “Mr. Stursberg thorougly Bushified the CBC during his tenure.”? I find the term “Bushify” to be much more evocotive, and concise, than Mr. Lacroix’s more long-winded statement. (In fairness to Mr. Lacroix, I should also note that he is also quoted as having said “Six years later, the institution is better off than it was. I want to acknowledge his success in turning CBC Television around and thank him for his contribution.” But I think we can all read between the lines of his statement and see the thinly veiled reference to the Bushification of the CBC.)

What other applications can we think of for this term? Stephen Harper’s Conservative minority government has thorougly Bushified Parliament? Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are attempting to Bushify Statistics Canada? The possibilities are endless.

So remember: Bushification, the act of Bushifying an organization or country. You heard it here first.

CBC Radio Two market share - the "Spring 2010" results

2010-08-08T10:35:00.005-04:00

After I completed my last entry on this blog analyzing CBC Radio 2’s market share, I tried once again to access the Top Line Radio data on the BBM web site and, lo and behold, I was able to access the site. The “Spring 2010” radio diary data is now available on the BBM site, as well as new PPM survey data for Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton. The “Spring 2010” survey (former the “S2” survey using the BBM’s terminology) covers the period March 1 – April 25. PPM data is available for the periods January 25 – April 25 and for March 1 – May 30 for those cities surveyed using the PPM. (Note: I wrote this blog entry at then end of June, then neglected to post it. The BBM now has data for March 29 - June 27 and for April 26 - July 25 for those markets surveyed by the PPM on their web site. I'll analyze these results in a subsequent blog entry. Sorry about that.)

As I mentioned in my last blog entry, the BBM previously released four surveys per year to the general public, terming these surveys S1, S2, S3 and S4. The surveys relied on listener diary data.

The introduction of the PPM, first in the Montreal market, then in the Vancouver, Toronto, Calgary and Edmonton markets, meant that the survey data no longer aligns precisely with the S1, S2, S3 and S4 periods previously used. To date, there are surveys based on PPM data covering the periods Nov. 28 2009 – Feb. 28 , Dec. 28 2009 – March 28 2010, January 25 – April 25 and for March 1 – May 30. There is a single survey based on diary data. I term the surveys based on PPM data “S1 2010”, “S2 2010”, “S3 2010” and “S4 2010” for consistency with past analyses. It should be noted that the BBM does not use these terms. I am aligning the “Spring 2010” survey with the “S4 2010” survey, for the purposes of comparison with past years. Once again, this is not the BBM’s terminology, but mine.

As you may recall from past blog entries (S2 2010, S4 2009, S3 2009, S1 2009, S3 2008), we are comparing CBC Radio 2’s market share, as measured by the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement in their latest survey, with CBC Radio 2’s market share before the first phase of the program restructuring was implemented in March, 2007. The last BBM survey to measure the CBC Radio 2 audience listening to the “old” programming (i.e. the programming before Phase I of CBC Radio 2’s restructuring was introduced) was, using the BBM’s old terminology, the S2 2007 survey. The latest survey data is taken from the BBM’s web site, at http://www.bbm.ca/, for the major radio markets surveyed by the BBM for S4 2010.

As I mentioned in my last blog entry, the stations included in the BBM surveys have varied from survey to survey. Please see this entry for a discussion of how I have compared the total listening audience for stations surveyed by the BBM between survey periods.

Now, onto the results.

I find the results for the latest survey absolutely astounding. Consider this: while the total listening audience in the major markets surveyed by the BBM has fallen 8.6% compared with S2 2007, the last quarter during which CBC Radio 2 featured the “old” classical format, CBC Radio 2’s audience has fallen a remarkable 40.2%, from a total of 710,800 listeners to 425,400 listeners. Consider the Vancouver audience: the number listening to CBC Radio 2 has fallen by 62.3%. 62.3%! Isn’t that just a stunning reversal of fortune for CBC Radio 2 in the Vancouver market?

While the change to the use of the PPM has been identified by some media commentators as one cause for the change in listener totals, one has to assume that this is only part of the cause. Another reason? I suspect that the radio listening audience is simply abandoning CBC Radio 2, finding the programming too similar, and not as enjoyable, as commercial radio stations.

Given that the CBC management implemented this programming restructuring to broaden the appeal of CBC Radio 2, can we not therefore conclude that this experiment has been a big, fat, resounding failure?

The CBC Radio 2 new programming - success or failure?

2010-06-20T18:53:00.008-04:00

Time once again to review how CBC Radio 2’s new programming has fared amongst the listening audience.

As you may recall from past blog entries (S4 2009, S3 2009, S1 2009, S3 2008), we are comparing CBC Radio 2’s market share, as measured by the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement in their latest survey, with CBC Radio 2’s market share before the first phase of the program restructuring was implemented in March 2007. The last BBM survey to measure the CBC Radio 2 audience listening to the “old” programming (i.e. the programming before Phase I of CBC Radio 2’s restructuring was introduced) was, using the BBM’s terminology, the S2 2007 survey. The latest survey data is taken from the BBM’s web site, at http://www.bbm.ca/, for the major radio markets surveyed by the BBM.

Now, here’s where it becomes a bit complicated. The BBM previously released four surveys per year to the general public, terming these surveys S1, S2, S3 and S4. The surveys relied on listener diary data.

The introduction of the PPM (Portable People Meter), first in the Montreal market, then the Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton markets, meant that the survey data no longer aligns precisely with the S1, S2, S3 and S4 periods previously used. As well, the BBM has announced that the “Summer” surveys will no longer be issued for those markets relying upon diary data. So, in this latest blog update, we have only the S4 2009 data for Ottawa and Winnipeg. We have two more recent surveys for each of Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton, one covering the period Nov. 28 2009 – Feb. 28 2010 and the second covering Dec. 28 2009 – March 28 2010. I term these surveys “S1 2010” and “S2 2010”, respectively, simply for convenience and consistency with past terminology. It should be noted that the BBM does not use these terms.

Furthermore, the stations included in the BBM surveys have varied from survey to survey. This means that if you are trying to compare the total audience surveyed by the BBM in a major market (Toronto, for example) in S2 2007 to S2 2010 then you have to exclude stations that were included in the S2 2007 survey but not surveyed in the S2 2010 survey. This ensures that you are making a valid comparison when calculating the growth or decline of the total market surveyed. As an example, using the Toronto data again, the S2 2007 survey included CJBC and CJBC FM, but these stations were not included in the S2 2010 survey. So, to compare the total audience surveyed in S2 2010 with S2 2007, I have subtracted the radio audience for CJBC and CJBC FM from the S2 2007 totals to enable a valid comparison of S2 2010 totals with S2 2007 totals.

My analysis of the BBM survey data was delayed by that fact that I haven’t been able to access the BBM web site from any of the personal computers (a total of three) from which I have posted these blog entries. Strange, eh? I had to go my local branch of the public library to download the data. There may in fact be more recent survey data available on the BBM web site, but I haven’t been to my local branch of the public library lately. (Shortly after writing this blog entry, I discovered that I again had access to the BBM web site from my home PCs. So I will follow this blog entry with an analysis of the latest data from the BBM.)

As I mentioned in my previous blog entry, the introduction of the PPM data revealed some dramatic changes in audience for some stations compared to the previous diary data. Some in the media have speculated on the reasons for such disparities and I described some possible causes that have been suggested by media commentators in my previous blog entry. Since these disparities do not seem to be specific to any specific radio stations we can assume that it is a systemic anomaly and we will not let ourselves get sidetracked by this. We’ll assume that the survey data is a correct representation of the market share for any specific station.
What does the data show? Using the S4 2009 data, CBC Radio 2’s audience has fallen 38.4% in those major radio markets surveyed by the BBM since Phase I of the CBC Radio 2 programming changes was implemented. In comparison, the total audience for those major radio markets surveyed by the BBM declined by only 8.5%. Pretty bad results, eh? What about the latest survey data?

The S2 2010 survey data confirms this trend. While the total audience has fallen by 16.8% (using the S4 2009 figures for those cities not surveyed by the BBM in the S2 2010 data), CBC Radio 2’s audience has declined by 49.3% since Phase I of the CBC Radio 2 restructuring was implemented.

As I have noted time and again, the purpose of the CBC Radio 2 programming restructuring was apparently to broaden the appeal of CBC Radio 2, presumably being intended to increase Radio 2 listenership. And yet just the opposite has happened. As a shareholder in the CBC, don’t you think you have a right to see your tax dollars spent in an efficient and productive manner? Don’t you think you have a right to have a say in how the CBC is managed? Don’t you think that the CBC Board of Directors, Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and Minister of Canadian Heritage have a duty to sit up and take notice that this grand experiment in dictating programming to the Canadian people has been a resounding failure? You would think so, but apparently not.

CBC Radio 2 market share: the BBM "Fall" survey

2010-01-30T19:52:00.007-05:00

Readers of this blog may ask: why does he keep this up? Why continue to track CBC Radio Two’s market share, when apparently no one gives a damn? Well, the answer to that question is this: someone has to keep track of the success or failure of the CBC’s grand experiment in their attempt to dictate their tastes to the CBC listening audience. If I don’t, who will? The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage? Members of Parliament? The Board of Directors for the CBC? You would think so, but as far as I can tell none of them are doing this. So it’s up to me, as Don Newman used to say, to “keep them honest”.

You may recall from past analyses (S3 2009, S1 2009, S3 2008) that we are comparing CBC Radio 2’s market share from S1 2007, the last quarter before the CBC began to restructure CBC Radio 2’s programming, with the latest quarter’s market share (the “Fall Survey”, as measured by the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement). The CBC initiated the CBC Radio 2 programming restructuring in March 207 to make CBC Radio 2 “more relevant to Canadians”. One would assume, therefore, that market share is the primary means to determine whether CBC Radio 2 is “more relevant to Canadians”, correct? After all, if fewer people are listening to CBC Radio 2 then, by definition, it must be less relevant to Canadians.

If you have been following these analyses you may have noted a consistent trend. While the total radio audience in the markets tracked by the BBM has been flat or increasing, CBC Radio 2’s market share has fallen. The latest quarter is no exception. While the total radio listening audience has decreased by 3.2% in those markets surveyed by the BBM since S1 2007, CBC Radio 2’s audience has declined by a whopping 38.4% since S1 2007! The following chart tells the tale:

It should be noted that the latest quarter’s results include a change in survey methodology by the BBM. In the past, the BBM relied on listeners to maintain a diary to record the stations that they listened to during the survey period. The BBM has now introduced the PPM (“Portable People Meter”) to record audience listening habits. The PPM does not rely on the survey respondent to record what they are listening to; instead, it automatically records the stations that the respondent is listening to.

Recent news reports (National Post, Dec. 17 2009) have highlighted the differences observed between the diary survey data and the PPM data. Some have suggested that respondents were previously fudging their diary reports, either intentionally or unintentionally, to appear more sophisticated. So, instead of saying they were listening to “CDUD, Classic Rock from the 70’s 80’s, 90’s and today”, they may have been saying that they were listening to “COOL, Cool Jazz for the Urban Über Hipster”. Or they may simply have unintentionally been over or under-stating their listening habits. Whatever the reason, there are some glaring differences between CBC Radio 2’s audience numbers for S3 2007, the last survey to used diary data (with the exception of Montreal, which has been using PPM data in all recent surveys) and the Fall 2009 survey, where PPM data is used for Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton for the first time. It should also be noted that the drastic decline in CBC Radio 2 listenership was also observed for the Montreal market when the Montreal survey changed from diary data to PPM data, so we can only assume that the PPM data from those markets which are now using PPM measurements is correct.

What, then, does this tell us? It seems to indicate that the CBC’s experiment with CBC Radio 2 has been a big, fat, resounding failure. Why does no one seem to care about this? Have CBC managers been denied their bonuses for this year because of this abject failure? Did their managers note in their performance review that they completely misread the market and should try to improve their performance in this area? Has anyone been reprimanded for destroying a much-loved Canadian institution, that being CBC Radio 2?

And what have the CBC Board of Directors been doing all this time with respect to overseeing the operations of the CBC? What oversight of the CBC has the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage provided? What have our Members of Parliament been doing? As far as I can tell, no one has been paying attention, with the exception of those former listeners to CBC Radio 2 who have given up on CBC radio in disgust. I may be wrong and I wish someone would tell me that I am. But as far as I can tell, no one seems to give a flying hoot.

CBC Radio 2 Overhaul - more cheerleading from the desperate

2010-01-15T09:20:00.003-05:00

The following article appeared in the January 11 edition of the National Post. You can read the article on the National Post’s web site here. I’ve also copied the text below in case the link to this article is ever broken, as often happens in the world of the internet.

CBC Radio 2: The mix fix

16 months after CBC’s overhaul of Radio 2, it’s like the all-classical version never existed — in a good way

T’cha Dunlevy, Canwest News Service
Published: Monday, January 11, 2010

"Hi, I'm Laurie Brown. Welcome to The Signal." These are a few of my favourite words. And I can hear them six nights out of seven on what just might be the best show on Canadian radio.

It's The Signal, like the lady said, on CBC Radio 2. Therein, Brown presents an array of evocative sounds, from the simply pretty to the esoteric and experimental, all with a fluidity and grace that can take you to unexpected places.

Much like Radio 2 these days. The dust has settled following the station's controversial makeover 16 months back, when it completed the transformation from an almost all-classical format to more varied programming featuring everything from indie-rock to folk, jazz, world and pop, with a little classical thrown in for good measure. The overarching emphasis is on Canadian content.

Brown arrived in 2007, at the early end of the change process. A veteran arts reporter for CBC-TV, it was her first foray into radio.

"I came to CBC and said I wanted to be able to do a music show that was capable of playing any kind of music, that was all about new music and about discovery," she says.

To her great surprise, her words fell on open ears: "For the first time in my entire career, CBC management was totally in sync," she said. "I hit the magic word: 'discovery.' I can't tell you how refreshing that was."

Another key player in Radio 2's overhaul is Rich Terfry, host of the station's recently expanded afternoon Radio 2 Drive. Also known as acclaimed rapper Buck 65, Terfry took over from revered DiscDrive host Jurgen Gothe in September 2008, replacing the classical symphonies of yore with a more youthful playlist.

He has been settling into his "first real job" ever since, weathering the initial storm of protest by keeping his head down, and emerging with one of Radio 2's most popular shows in the process.

"I don't look at emails," he said, reached at his Toronto home last week. "But I do get a sense of the people in the country, all over the country. After a while, you feel like you're beginning to develop a relationship with the whole country."

That's music to the ears of CBC programming director Chris Boyce, who sees Radio 2's metamorphosis as an opportunity to redefine the station's relationship with Canadians.

"We went into this with the theory that there is an amazing range of music being made in Canada," he said, "and very little of it is being heard by Canadians over the airwaves. We've been able to broaden the range of music being played on the station, being played on radio. It's been fantastically successful, if that's the measure."

It's not, or not the only one. Ratings matter, too, and Radio 2's are more or less on par with what they were before the change. The station reaches just over one million Canadians per week -- which is down 10% with a 2.7 share of the national market compared to its previous 3%.

So almost the same number, if not the same people, are tuning in. The average age of your typical Radio 2 listener before the facelift was a golden 65. It's now a sprightly 52.

"It's getting more evenly distributed," Boyce said. "To me, changing our audience is as important as increasing it. Is it about chasing younger listeners? No, we're a public broadcaster -- it's about serving all Canadians."

One of Radio 2's biggest coups has been its newfound support of Canadian independent music. A recent edition of Radio 2 Drive featured songs by Sarah Slean, Sarah Harmer, Chantal Kreviazuk, Native pop singer Elisapie Isaac, Sam Roberts, Joel Plaskett, K'naan, Stars, Feist, as well as established Canadian and international acts including Kate Bush, Wilco, Bob Dylan, Charlotte Gainsbourg, The Police and Drive hero Neil Young, who gets a daily tribute.

"Speaking not so much for myself but for Radio 2," Terfry said, "and listening to what management has to say, they want the show to be [one where] if people really want to know what's going on in Canadian music, what's up-and-coming, who are the artists making an impact, listen to this show and you'll know.

"The problem with that, the challenge from the beginning, is to get people to care about Canadian music. The average person doesn't."
The average person hasn't had much of an opportunity to care. Spin your way across the radio dial and you'll find station after station playing a mind-numbing loop of chart-topping pop, most of it from south of the border.

So for our national station to be presenting a homegrown alternative is a sort of quiet revolution. There has been resistance to Radio 2's makeover, from both the media and hardcore classical fans.

The latter can still hear their music during the daytime and on weekends, it should be noted, and all the time online on the first of Radio 2's four specialty channels: classical, jazz, Canadian songwriters and Canadian composers.

What's harder to hear is the emerging dialogue of a country coming to terms with its multi-textured musical identity. From Bob Mackowycz (weekdays) and jazz singer Molly Johnson's (weekends) eclectic Radio 2 Morning show to mezzo-soprano Julie Nesrallah's Tempo, Tom Allen's genre-spanning ( "from Bach to Bachman, Haydn to the Hip") early afternoon Shift, Andrew Craig's Canada Live and Katie Malloch's jazz show Tonic in the evening, there is lots to listen to.

Weekend offerings include Newfoundland musician Tom Power's Deep Roots, Bill Richardson's Saturday Afternoon at the Opera, Randy Bachman's Vinyl Tap and the ever-gregarious George Stroumboulopoulos's new Strombo Show on Sunday nights.

It's a lot to fit into a week without coming off like an allover-the-place college station. The trick is to have it all make sense, and create a flow from one show to the next.

DIRECTOR'S TAKE

General manager and executive director of CBC Radio's English services Denise Donlon has come a long way from co-hosting CityTV's The New Music with Laurie Brown in the late '80s. She became MuchMusic's VP and general manager in 1997 before becoming president of Sony Music Canada from 2000 to 2004. She arrived at CBC in September 2008, just after Radio 2's transformation:
Her opinion "I agree with the changes. [Radio 2] was really a service that was very niche before -- which is great for commercial radio, but as a public broadcaster, it meant so much Canadian music had no other area for exposure."

On the naysayers "You can't make everyone happy. ...We're trying to please not only our audience, but the Canadian cultural community, independent artists, major label artists, the classical community. We're serving many masters to celebrate the best of Canadian music."

On the bright side "There's a real depth of conversation and richness of programming; any other station would be racing to commercials, while we're talking about all kinds of things."

The most remarkable statement from the article is this:

Ratings matter, too, and Radio 2's are more or less on par with what they were before the change. The station reaches just over one million Canadians per week -- which is down 10% with a 2.7 share of the national market compared to its previous 3%.

As I pointed out in my letter to the National Post, it should be remembered that the goal of the CBC’s restructuring of CBC Radio 2 was to make Radio 2 more “relevant” to Canadians. Presumably, one measure of relevance is the number of Canadians listening to Radio 2. After all, how can Radio 2 be relevant to Canadians if no one is listening?

Yet, as T’Cha Dunlevy states in the news report, CBC Radio 2’s audience share has fallen 10% (according to his/her figures) since this grand experiment was initiated. In fact, recent BBM results indicate a more alarming loss of market share of approximately 38.4% in the major markets surveyed by the BBM. See my next blog entry to follow. For the sake of argument, however, let’s assume a loss of market share of 10%.

In a public corporation, any corporate initiative which resulted in a loss of market share of 10% would result in those responsible for the intiative being sacked, or at least being given other responsibilities where they can do less damage. Has this happened at the CBC? Apparently not – management at the CBC is too busy patting themselves on the back at the so-called success of the Radio 2 experiment. Meanwhile, formerly loyal CBC Radio 2 listeners have abandoned CBC Radio 2 for other media which are more to their liking, such as satellite radio or Wi-Fi radio.

Please, tell me again – how is this good for CBC Radio?

Latest review of CBC Radio 2 market share

2009-11-26T15:42:00.001-05:00

Well, it’s that time of year again, the end of a quarter and time for us to review how CBC Radio 2’s market share has changed since the CBC management embarked upon the disastrous restructuring program that was initiated in March 2007. As you may recall from previous analyses featured here, we are comparing CBC Radio 2’s market share from S1 2007, the last quarter before the CBC began to restructure CBC Radio 2’s programming and the latest quarter’s market share (S3 2009, as measured by the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement).

You may also recall that the CBC management initiated the program changes to broaden the appeal of CBC Radio 2 in an attempt to make CBC Radio 2 ‘more relevant to Canadians’ and, presumably, to gain more listeners. We now have a full ten quarters of market share data with which we can assess the success of Phase I of the restructuring and four quarters of data to use in assessing the success, or lack thereof of the final phase of the restructuring, Phase III.

So, how has the restructuring program fared? Not so well, as it turns out. While total radio listenership has increased 3.4% (or by 695,800 listeners) in the cities surveyed by the BBM, the total market share for CBC Radio 2 in these same cities has declined by 13.1%, or by 92,800 listeners. Obviously, this is not good if your intention when initiating these changes was to increase listenership.

What can we say about this? That CBC management was misguided in initiating these changes? That they should have consulted the listeners of CBC Radio 2 before launching this new programming? That, once begun, CBC management should have listened to the storm of protests that resulted from the announced changes? That CBC should recognize their errors and try to correct them? That those responsible within the CBC for making these changes should be held accountable for the havoc they have wreaked? All of the above, and much more.

The new 'CBC News Network', aka 'CNN'

2009-10-31T10:29:00.003-04:00

Ms. Jennifer McGuire, fresh from her success in restructuring CBC Radio Two, has apparently moved on to tackle the stodgy, moribund CBC News Division, renamed the ‘CBC News Network’, or 'CNN' as it will hitherto be known. Here are her remarks concerning the recent changes that have taken place at CBC News, as submitted in Letters to the Editor of our national newspapers.

First, the National Post, in a letter published Friday, Oct. 30 2009:

Re: Thanks For Watching, And For Tweeting, Oct. 22.

We're grateful that your reporters have taken the time to weigh in with their views of recent changes at CBC News, including CBC News Network and The National. We knew going in that many in our audiences would have an opinion and be happy to share it. In fact, we celebrate this extraordinary engagement as proof that Canadians have a strong connection with and sense of ownership about CBC News.

We don't expect consensus on the colour of new graphics or whether anchor and chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge should be reissued a chair (the focus of quite a bit of commentary thus far) but are encouraged by the significant increase in viewership (double, in some cases) to many of the new programs. As we settle into our new forms, however, we can unequivocally say that we remain committed to authoritative and trustworthy public service journalism. And that we will continue to bring news that's relevant to Canadians to them in all the various ways they now demand.

Jennifer McGuire, general manager and editor-in-chief, CBC News, Toronto.

Next, from the Globe and Mail, Thursday, Oct. 29 2009:

We’re grateful your reporters have taken the time to weigh in on recent changes at CBC News, including CBC News Network and The National. We knew going in that many in our audiences would have an opinion and be happy to share it. In fact, we celebrate this extraordinary engagement as proof that Canadians have a strong connection with, and sense of ownership about, CBC News.

Change can be difficult. We don’t expect consensus on the colour of new graphics or whether Peter Mansbridge should be reissued a chair, but we are encouraged by the significant increase in viewership (double, in some cases) to many of the new programs. As we settle into our new forms, however, we can unequivocally say we remain committed to authoritative and trustworthy public service journalism.

Jennifer McGuire, general manager and editor-in-chief, CBC News, Toronto

I particularly enjoy the ability of some executives to use language in such a way that a public outcry of disbelief, shock and outrage can be made to sound like a happy occasion (‘we celebrate this extraordinary engagement as proof that Canadians have a strong connection with, and sense of ownership about, CBC News’)! Just as I celebrate my extraordinary opportunity to visit the dentist every six months, or to pay my taxes each year.

Welcome to The Happy Hour

2009-10-28T13:26:00.003-04:00

Just when you thought things couldn’t get worse, they do. I’m referring of course to the CBC’s re-vamp of CBC Newsworld and 'The National'.

While the topic of this blog is the restructuring of CBC Radio Two and my essentially futile interactions with CBC management, Members of Parliament and other concerned organizations in protest of the CBC Radio Two changes, I have to comment on what the CBC has done to 'The National'.

‘The National’ was my only remaining link to the CBC. I’ve long ago given up on CBC Radio Two and, for that matter, CBC Radio One. I’ve switched to Wi-Fi Internet radio and Sirius Satellite radio for radio. For TV news, I still depended on ‘The National’, watching each evening at either 9:00 PM or 10:00 PM.

Once again, CBC has taken us by surprise, announcing the new CBC News programming merely days before the event – sort of a blitzkrieg of restructuring. While apparently there are many new programs, and changes, on CBC Newsworld, I have only experienced the changes to ‘The National’ to date.

It seems that the management of the CBC has decided that the previous version of ‘The National’ was too serious and that Mr. Mansbridge and the correspondants should ‘lighten up a bit’. How else can one explain the almost bubbly exchanges that take place between Mr. Mansbridge and Wendy Mesley, or the fluffy segments featured on the newscast? The broadcast on Tuesday evening included many examples, such as the report on teeth whitening parties. Surely, there are events taking place in the world of greater importance than the emergence of unlicenced practitioners of teeth whitening? Yet, as far as I noticed, there was not a single report concerning events in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Africa or South America on Tuesday night’s broadcast. Are we to believe that there are no news-worthy events taking place in these regions?

As well, it seems that someone within the CBC is seeking revenge against poor Ms. Mesley. That is the only possible explanation for dressing up Ms. Mesley in an H1N1 protective suit and sending her out on the streets to determine the reactions of passers-by on Monday’s broadcast, or for sending her out on the street again on Tuesday’s broadcast to ask people to deposit a token in either a jar representing the U.S. budget for Education or a jar representing the budget for NASA. At this point, I found the whole thing too silly to continue watching and turned it off. There may have been more serious news in the remaining fifteen minutes of the Tuesday evening broadcast, but I doubt it.

Sadly, this re-vamp of CBC News follows hard on the heels of the CBC’s similarly disastrous restructuring of CBC Radio Two. Did the CBC not learn anything from the CBC Radio Two experience? Who is responsible for these bungled attempts to make the CBC more relevant to Canadians and, more importantly, why are they allowed to continue wreaking havoc within the CBC?

CBC Radio Two: doing less with less

2009-07-24T09:47:00.006-04:00

What's going on with CBC Radio 2 lately? I have to admit I haven't been paying much attention - the car radio is tuned to my Sirius satellite radio preset frequencies and at home we listen to internet radio using the Wi-Fi receiver, so I haven't had much interest in following changes to the Radio 2 schedule. On those occasions when I'm in the car without my satellite radio, I sometimes encounter Radio 2 while scanning the FM frequencies.

I see that Tom Allen is now doing double duty, on "Radio 2 Morning" and a new program, "Shift", from 2:00 - 3:30 PM. "Tempo" runs from 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM instead of, I believe it was, 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM. And "Radio 2 Drive" is now on until 7:00 PM, followed by "Canada Live" until 8:00 PM. Finally, "Tonic" and "The Signal" close out the evening.

What is behind all of this schedule tweaking? Is it an attempt to recover lost audience share by trying to find the right time slot for these programs? Could it be that it is not the time slots, but the content of the programming, that is responsible for the lost audience share?

I see also that "Tonic", now beginning at 8:00 PM instead of 6:00 PM, promises a mix of "Jazz, Soul and R&B to wind down your day" - I seem to remember that it began life as strictly Jazz. Could it be that there isn't a large audience for an all-Jazz format? Could it be that CBC Radio 2 is finally admitting that no one really wants to listen to Jazz at 6:00 PM?

You will also notice from the program schedule that CBC Radio 2 now covers 18 hours of Monday-to-Friday programming with only six announcers. I seem to recall CBC Radio 2 having more program hosts before the CBC Radio 2 restructuring, which began March 19, 2007. I suppose you could cite this as an example of doing less with less. Aren't there labour laws to prevent organizations from cutting back staff and dumping the same amount of work on the remaining staff? Isn't there a union for radio hosts? Perhaps not.

And what happened to Jurgen Gothe and "Farrago"? I can't find any announcements on the CBC Radio 2 site concerning the fate of Mr. Gothe. I suppose Mr. Gothe was unceremoniously dumped by the corporation, or perhaps decided to leave on his own. We are all, of course, poorer for this.

Two years later - have the CBC Radio Two changes been a success?

2009-04-05T16:03:00.008-04:00

As I mentioned in my March 30 blog entry, it has now been two years since the CBC initiated its program of Radio 2 restructuring.

Phase I of the restructuring began March 17, 2009 with the cancellation of the "World at Six" news broadcast, the replacement of "Music for a while" with "Tonic", the replacement of "In Performance" with "Canada Live", the cancellation of "Two New Hours" and the introduction of "The Signal", the cancellation of "Brave New Waves" and the cancellation of "Northern Lights". Phase III was completed in September 2008 with the cancellation of "Here's to You", "Studio Sparks" and "Sound Advice" and the replacement of "Disc Drive" with "Radio 2 Drive" and "Music and Company" with "Radio 2 Morning". So, you may be wondering, has it all been worth the pain and agony that the CBC has inflicted upon its audience? Has the new programming been successful?

To answer this question I continued the analysis of CBC Radio Two's market share that I first did in my October 30 2008 blog entry using audience share data from the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement. Since we now have market share data including the period Sept. 1 2008 - Oct. 26 2008 (S4 2008, in BBM's terminology) and Jan. 5 2009 - March 1 2009 (S1 2009), we can compare CBC Radio Two's market share before the changes were implemented; i.e. before Phase I of the restructuring was implemented and the market share after the changes were implemented; i.e. after Phase III was completed. Since we have data for S4 2008 and S1 2009 we can get a good picture of how CBC Radio Two's market share has changed as this represents seven months of elapsed time since the completion of Phase III.

Much to my surprise, I found from the BBM data that radio listenership has actually increased in the major cities surveyed by the BBM, increasing from 20.7M in S1 2007 to 21.4M in S1 2009, an increase of 3.3%! In an era of MP3 players, internet radio and ubiquitous CD players this should be considered nothing short of astounding. It seems that there is a place for good old broadcast radio in our era of new technology after all!

But what about CBC Radio Two? How has it fared? Well, not as well. In a period of increased radio listenership CBC Radio Two actually lost listeners, losing a total of 49,000 listeners, or 6.9%, during the period from S1 2007 to S1 2009. As anyone with a lick of sense will tell you, to lose listeners in a growing market is very bad indeed, especially if you are trying to become more relevant to your audience, as the CBC apparently is trying to do. The chart below summarizes CBC Radio Two's market share during the period S1 2007 to S1 2009, as well as the total radio listenership in the major markets surveyed by the BBM. You can check this data for yourself using the BBM Top-Line Reports at the BBM web site.

The CBC has responded to reports of declining market share for CBC Radio Two in the past by saying that CBC Radio Two "needs to find its audience". One would think that if the "new 2" hasn't found its audience six months after its launch, it's never going to find it.

Most public corporations have a predictable response to a failed strategy. Either they admit their mistake and revise the strategy, or management is replaced or the corporation fails. The management of CBC Radio - answering to no one, apparently - has the luxury of being able to continue on their merry way to self-destruction, oblivious to declining market share and the ire of their audience. (For radio, that is, television is another story, as recent events have borne witness.)

An anniversary to remember.

2009-03-30T08:29:00.007-04:00

An anniversary for the CBC passed recently and I didn't mention it in this blog. What anniversary was that, you might ask? Why, it was the second anniversary of Phase I of CBC Radio Two's disastrous attempts at restructuring its programming, which began March 19, 2007.

Of course, we didn't know at the time that it was simply Phase I of a larger program. No, the CBC Radio Two listening audience merely thought it was an ill-advised restructuring of the evening programming - the cancellation of the "World at Six" news broadcast, the replacement of "Music for a while" with the much-reviled "Tonic", the replacement of "In Performance" with the cretinous "Canada Live", the cancellation of "Two New Hours" and the introduction of the crapulent "The Signal" and the cancellation of "Brave New Waves" and "Northern Lights". Oh, and I forgot to mention: the cancellation of the "The Arts Report" and Joe Cummings during the "Music and Company" morning broadcasts. Well, I suppose it was unfair that the evening schedule should bear the brunt of the restructuring.

Following Phase I of the CBC restructuring was Phase II - the cancellation of "Symphony Hall", "The Singer and the Song" and the removal of Howard Dyck from "Saturday Afternoon at the Opera". And, following swiftly on the heels of Phase II like a rabid dog chasing a postie came Phase III, the cancellation of "Here's to You", "Studio Sparks" and "Sound Advice", and the replacement of "Disc Drive" with "Radio 2 Drive" and "Music and Company" with "Radio 2 Morning". The announcement of Phase III, of course, resulted in a storm of protest, letters written to the editors of newspapers, protests in the streets on April 11, 2008, the creation of Facebook groups in protest and much general hand-wringing. But it all came to naught. The CBC continued on its merry way in spite of the protests of its listeners.

Two years have passed since the beginning of Phase I and the CBC is very much in the news lately. Last week the CBC announced program cancellations and staff reductions in response to a budget shortfall, blamed by CBC management on the loss of revenues from television advertising during this global recession. The CBC has even announced that they may have to resort to asset sales - the sale of buildings owned by the CBC - to meet their budget. Of course, global recession aside, the lack of funding increases for the CBC over the past several years and the Conservative government's refusal to provide additional funding to the CBC during this time of crisis can also be blamed for the current mess the CBC finds itself in.

But who is really to blame for the crisis at the CBC? Greedy mortgage lenders, bankers and insurance companies who precipitated the global financial crises leading to the current recession and the resulting loss of advertising revenue? Sub-prime borrowers who borrowed too much money to buy houses they couldn't afford and whose subsequent defaults on their mortgages lead to the uncertain value of the asset-backed commercial paper that the banks invested in? Alan Greenspan, for lowering interest rates in 2001, only to initiate a program of interest rate increases in recent years leading to sub-prime borrowers being unable to meet their mortgage payments when their adjustable-rate mortgages reset to a higher interest rate? Canadian voters for electing governments who failed to increase funding for the CBC over the past several years? Or perhaps CBC management, for failing to adequately manage their working capital such that they could withstand a recession?

I suspect that the answer is, to some degree, all of the above. But there is another aspect to consider.

Imagine this scenario. Imagine that a right-wing government is in power, a government which does not believe in the need for a public broadcaster and which does not have the moral courage to propose the dismantling of the public broadcaster, but instead prefers to let the public broadcaster wither and die through lack of funding. Suppose too that the public broadcaster, in a misguided attempt to make itself more relevant, has gutted its programming, replacing a classical music schedule with a hodge-podge of contemporary, bland music, thereby alienating its core audience to the extent that that core audience feels compelled to protest the public broadcaster's actions to their Members of Parliament, to the Minister of Heritage, to the national newspapers, to the public broadcaster's Board of Governors - in short, to anyone who will listen. The right-wing government, seeing the public dissatisfaction with the public broadcaster, views this as a green light to continue their program of starving the public broadcaster in order to eventually abolish the public broadcaster through attrition. Suppose that the public broadcaster's once-loyal audience, who would have previously protested job layoffs, program cancellations and regional station closings and may have attempted to counter the right-wing government's attempts to kill the public broadcaster just can't be bothered anymore because they feel they have been betrayed by the public broadcaster and are no longer willing to stand up for the public broadcaster. Would the public broadcaster find itself in a state similar to the state that the CBC currently finds itself in? Perhaps. Could the public broadcaster be blamed for not only giving the right-wing government the ammunition with which to shoot it, but also giving it the gun and instructions on how to use it? Most certainly. As ye sow, so shall ye reap. What goes around, comes around. Insert your favourite aphorism here.

Of course we're all losers in this scenario, especially those CBC employees still working at the CBC, the CBC employees who have taken early retirement, either forced or in disgust at recent actions of CBC management, as well as the laid-off CBC employees who are all entirely blameless for the misguided actions of CBC management during the last two years. Oh, but I almost forgot, there are some winners. Namely, those members of CBC management who will still receive their bonuses for 2008.

Whither the CBC? Wither the CBC!

2009-03-22T09:58:00.008-04:00

The National Post has been running a series of articles and columns for the past week on the future of the CBC. The title for this series was "The State of the CBC", but it could just as easily have been titled "Whither the CBC" or, more appropriately, "Wither the CBC". In any case, a number of well-known columnists, commentators and pundits have written about the current state of the CBC and its prospects for the future.

On Saturday, Mr. Robert Fulford provided this article, titled "An on-air bureaucracy". His submission was accompanied by a column titled "What Canada wants" by Ms. Kirstine Layfield, identified at the foot of the column as being an "executive director of programming for CBC Television".

I've copied them both below. Have a look at both, and see for yourself whether Ms. Layfield's column is not a sterling example of the type of CBC-speak that Mr. Fulford decries.

First, Mr. Fulord:

An on-air bureaucracy

Robert Fulford, National Post Published: Saturday, March 21, 2009

Ottawa won't close down the CBC, no matter how many contributors to the National Post yearn to see the end of it. A minority government could never stand the storm of public anger that would follow, egged on by an army of self-righteous journalistic defenders.

CBC viewers and listeners, it's true, are a minority, but even if only 100,000 Canadians actually love it, 100,000 Canadians can make an unbearable amount of noise, particularly if they believe they are on the side of virtue, truth and "Canadian values." Even governments with large majorities, while despising the CBC for chronic unfairness, have never seriously threatened its existence. They have grudgingly allowed it to remain alive -- though keeping it, from the CBC's point of view, on starvation rations.

That also means that Ottawa won't substantially increase the CBC's funds in the imaginable future, no matter how much the company's president begs. A generous grant to the CBC in this economic era would be even more politically troublesome than killing it, even if Stephen Harper wanted to be generous.

For now, at least, change will have to come from inside. That's just as well, because that's where the problems lie. The most profound failures, in style and attitude and ambition, can be found among CBC employees, both junior and senior, and the corporate culture they have jointly created. It's true the government sometimes interferes and has always burdened the corporation with far more tasks than it can be expected to accomplish. But that's nothing beside the self-created atmosphere in which CBC employees work.

They are over-managed and over-manipulated, wretched servants of focus groups and demography charts. So far as a viewer and a listener can tell, they are not excited about their work and do not expect that we will be. Many crucial figures among them are pure managers who could work anywhere with equal satisfaction.

They lack the animation that comes from a belief that what you are doing is unique and valuable.

In mass communications, which demands spontaneity and imagination, they show little originality and barely a hint of daring. This comes through when they acknowledge, condescendingly, that they are appealing to the young. The melancholy results usually appear to be the work of 30-year-olds instructed by 45-year-olds on how to appeal to 20-year-olds.

Broadcasters who came to the CBC with dreams of making great programs instead find themselves conscripted into a nightmare of sclerotic bureaucracy in which everything matters more than broadcasting. What counts most is the endless, baffling shuffle of titles and responsibilities, a byzantine turf warfare.

To work at the CBC is to live in a world of memos, usually concocted by bosses whose insecurity dictates that they write in incomprehensible gibberish. Memos explain that the bosses want to "Ensure that all managers have development plans based on leadership competencies according to identified timelines," which are "part of ongoing efforts to better align resources and workflow with evolving needs." (I've lifted two sentences from two different --but both actual--CBC memos.) The tone is deadening, joyless, self-defeating.

We can see the results on The National, the news flagship of CBC television, an emblem of all that's wrong. The journalists delivering the news are afflicted with an emotional flatness that seems to be built into the regulations. Feeling has been so carefully banished that every story is delivered in the same tone, right down to the sing-song ending. Journalists manage a thin smile when there's an item intended to be amusing and pull a long face when describing death. That's their emotional range, A to B. They apparently imitate the sternest and dullest of the U. S. network journalists. They look as if they're terrified that something bad will happen -- not in the news, but to them.

Richard Stursberg, the vice-president of English-language services, knows the CBC culture has to change and hopes to lead the revival. Despite his curious habit of declaring programming triumphs that nobody else has noticed, he's emerged as an average executive with average plans whose results will be average, if that. The only hope of those dreaming about a resurrected CBC is that there are fresh and largely unknown talents sprouting inside the corporation and that their up-from-below pressure will eventually work serious changes. No one else is going to do it.

Next, Ms. Layfield:

What Canada wants

Kirstine Layfield, National Post Published: Saturday, March 21, 2009

People say the CBC is chasing eyeballs. Personally, I have never met an eyeball. I have met Canadians from across our great country who have eyes -- and ears and hearts and minds. They have a thirst to understand their world from a Canadian perspective and a desire to hear their own stories and music. This is the audience of the CBC.

Lately, there has been much debate concerning the CBC. Many politicians have suggested that the CBC should focus on "service," not "ratings." Yet of all people, politicians should know only too well that being a public service requires the support of the public. The public needs to be engaged, its needs and desires need to be understood and acted upon. Its support and approval needs to be earned. In the case of politicians, the public votes to give them a mandate.

In media terms, a public broadcaster needs to have the input, support and the "vote" of its public audience to know that it is on track and providing a valued service. Success for a public broadcaster must be measured by the extent to which the public supports and endorses its programs.

The BBC understands this.

The BBC is fully supported by U. K. taxpayers. It is in the envied position of requiring no advertising dollars to pay for the service. BBC Television, widely regarded as the best public television service in the world, makes provocative documentaries, thoughtful dramas, engaging comedies and is renowned for its news coverage. But that's not all: Last week, it ran the Hollywood film Meet the Parents. It airs U. S. series -- Damages, The Wire and Family Guy -- back to back. On weekends, it runs Formula One racing and professional sports such as football.

The BBC is not chasing "eyeballs for advertisers." Rather, it is in service of its public, providing a wide breadth of programming.

And its content looks similar to what the CBC has been broadcasting these past few years. We too respond to our Canadian public with a variety of great content -- a range of genres from arts to quiz shows, the classics to popular music, a vast majority proudly homegrown and broadcast across multi-platform services.

The CBC is battling for ground in the ad market because if we didn't, half of our television budget would disappear. Services such as Radio 3 and commercial-free CBC radio, programming in eight aboriginal languages and commercial-free kids programming come with a cost that the government appropriation does not entirely cover at a price of $34 per Canadian. And it can't be imagined in these economic times that our government funding would, or even should, increase.

So the CBC competes with private broadcasters. But what is a private broadcaster in Canada anyway?

Nordicity, an independent firm specializing in broadcasting, valued the federal regulations that provide private broadcasters with the right to substitute U. S. content at between $270-million and $330-million. Other provincial and federal government subsidies such as tax credits and the Canadian Television Fund add another $165-million in cash support to the privates. Canada, in short, has a heavily subsidized media industry in which private companies compete for public money, and the CBC, in turn, competes for advertising dollars.

And by all measures, the CBC is working, engaging more radio listeners than ever. We are producing the most Canadian content -- indeed, our spending on Canadian programs is more than all the privates combined. Our television shows are watched by 30% more Canadians than just three years ago. In fact, for the first time in our history an overwhelmingly Canadian prime-time schedule of homegrown dramas, comedies, documentaries, current affairs and sports has drawn more Canadian viewers than the overwhelmingly U. S. schedules of the privates. Cbc.ca is the number one news and information Web site in Canada.

A young man named Amaar remarked that when watching CBC's Little Mosque on the Prairie, for the first time he heard his name describe a character who was not a terrorist. Family viewers gather to watch Heartland from Calgary. Viewers watch 50-year legacy Hockey Night in Canada and yell at Ron and Don in English -- and in Punjabi. People hear more variety of Canadian music on Radio 2 than they ever had access to before.

People are talking about the CBC. Canadians are watching and listening to the CBC. And for the CBC, that is the vote that counts most of all.

Aside from the irritating rah-rah tone of the column, I find a couple of factual points to dispute. The first is the statement:

"Nordicity, an independent firm specializing in broadcasting, valued the federal regulations that provide private broadcasters with the right to substitute U. S. content at between $270-million and $330-million. Other provincial and federal government subsidies such as tax credits and the Canadian Television Fund add another $165-million in cash support to the privates. Canada, in short, has a heavily subsidized media industry in which private companies compete for public money, and the CBC, in turn, competes for advertising dollars."

The right of private broadcasters to substitute U.S. content may indeed be worth $270 - $330 million, but of course this is not cash in the hand for the private broadcaster. So no public subsidy here.

Secondly, tax credits have value only in so far as income is earned - once again, it is not cash in the hand paid out by the government to the public broadcaster. So, once again, no public subsidy.

Indeed, the Canadian Television Fund may provide cash to the private broadcaster, but I have no information on the extent of this funding or what percentage of the $165 million it constitutes. I'll leave that as an exercise for the interested reader to pursue.

Another point I object to is this:

"And by all measures, the CBC is working, engaging more radio listeners than ever."

Well, perhaps for CBC Radio One, but CBC Radio Two has been a dismal failure, losing listeners in all of the major Canadian cities surveyed by the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement. Why not address this point as well.

And finally, I find these statements laughable:

"Lately, there has been much debate concerning the CBC. Many politicians have suggested that the CBC should focus on "service," not "ratings." Yet of all people, politicians should know only too well that being a public service requires the support of the public. The public needs to be engaged, its needs and desires need to be understood and acted upon. Its support and approval needs to be earned. In the case of politicians, the public votes to give them a mandate.

In media terms, a public broadcaster needs to have the input, support and the "vote" of its public audience to know that it is on track and providing a valued service. Success for a public broadcaster must be measured by the extent to which the public supports and endorses its programs.

The BBC understands this."

Well, clearly, the CBC doesn't. How do you account for the protests that have been taking place for the past two years over the changes in CBC Radio Two? Are these protests not an example of the "input" and "vote" of its audience?

The CBC must be able to face up to reality if it's to be successful, and Ms. Layfield's column is an indication that the CBC will continue to delude itself into believing that it has the support of Canadians.

Advertising on CBC Radio Two? Why not?

2009-03-21T09:41:00.004-04:00

The following letter appeared in today's "Letters to the Editor" section of the Globe and Mail:

Tuned in, tuned out

GERHARD BASSLER

March 21, 2009

St. John's -- It is difficult to understand why CBC president Hubert Lacroix is so eager to keep assuring us there will be no advertising on radio (CBC Plan To Freeze Executive Salaries, Cut Bonuses Gets Poor Reception - March 20). He might as well introduce advertising on Radio 2; it goes with the kind of wishy-washy pop music that has replaced the CBC's unique and culturally distinct classical music and jazz programming.

The new listeners Mr. Lacroix is trying to attract would most likely not object to having the programming spiced up with advertising.

Advertising would have the additional advantage of funding bonus payments to reward CBC executives for having successfully gotten rid of an old community of loyal listeners and dedicated supporters.

Well said, Mr. Bassler!

The CBC: Who cares?

2009-03-16T12:45:00.006-04:00

I noticed several articles about the CBC in the National Post and Globe and Mail over the last several days. On Saturday, the National Post carried the article "CBC tunes in to a new reality". Also on Saturday, Jeffrey Simpson's column in the Globe and Mail, entitled "A beleaguered CBC should ask itself: Who cares?". And today, in the Globe and Mail, there was an article about the cancellation of a meeting between the Heritage Minister, James Moore, and the CBC's board of directors.

Now, I'm not sure what prompted this sudden spate of articles on the CBC - I was out of the country for two weeks, so may have missed something - but is seems to have been prompted by the fact that the CBC recently requested an advance on its annual public funding to compensate for falling advertising revenues and the fact that this request was turned down by the Minister of Heritage, Mr. Moore.

Also, it appears that there is some controversy over the decision by the CBC to run more U.S. programming in the evening television schedule, in the hope of attracting a larger audience share and thereby boost advertising revenues. Mr. Moore is quoted in today's Globe and Mail article as having said the following on Tout le Monde en Parle:

"The reason that taxpayers provide a subsidy to the CBC is to give each Canadian, in every part of the country and in both official languages, the opportunity to see [Canadian] news, stories and dramas. Frankly, I can tell you I don't like it when I see the CBC cancelling Canadian content, and we see Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune."

Well said, Mr. Moore.

There are several points raised in the articles mentioned above that I could elaborate upon, but since this blog is primarily concerned with CBC Radio Two (or "CBC Radio 2" as the CBC insists on calling it) I'll focus on Mr. Simpson's column.

I found Mr. Simpson's column so insightful that I've copied it below. Have a look.

A beleaguered CBC should ask itself: Who cares?

Jeffrey Simpson

March 14, 2009

Heritage Minister James Moore rejected more funding for the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. this week. Nothing new in that.

Governments have been saying no to CBC for decades. Why?

This government said no in the context of a stimulus budget that showers money everywhere. The few groups that were ignored - academic and medical researchers, for example - complained. Their complaints echoed in the media and in Parliament.

CBC, by contrast, really didn't complain. It just asked quietly for an advance on next year's allocation, according to news reports. In the meantime, the corporation's board will meet Monday to ponder the impact of declining advertising revenue.

The public broadcaster's ongoing dilemma is clear and painful, its response clear and counterproductive.

CBC's public allocations have been declining for years. Per-capita public funding is about a quarter that of public broadcasters in Britain and Germany and less than half that in France. Only New Zealand supports its state-financed public broadcaster less, according to a study by the Nordicity Group, a consulting firm specializing in broadcasting.

CBC executives argue that between 1995 and 2004, CBC received 9 per cent less government funding, while public money for the arts in general rose by 39 per cent. Said CBC president Hubert Lacroix earlier this year, "the last permanent increase in our basic funding goes back to 1973."

Seven years ago, the government gave CBC a discretionary, yearly sum of $60-million for Canadian programming. The Commons heritage committee recommended a per-capita increase to $40 from $33 in CBC's appropriations, instead of the yearly, discretionary sum. The government ignored the committee.

Presidents, chairpersons and CBC union leaders have exhausted themselves pleading CBC's case to governments of both political stripes over many years - to very little, if any, avail.

After Ottawa climbed out of deficit in the mid-1990s, almost every public policy and institution received more money, except CBC, including under the supposedly tight-fisted Harperites. So a shortage of public money cannot explain CBC's woes.

CBC's defensive answer, given privately of course, is that governments always hate the broadcaster because they don't like its news coverage and think that they can penalize it because CBC is a public agency.

A sliver of truth resides in that observation, but that sliver does not explain why other countries' public broadcasters get more. Nor can the explanation be solely that the Harperites have a special grudge against CBC, as they do, because CBC didn't get much from the Liberals either.

Much more plausible by way of explanation is that in the age of media proliferation, CBC is not nearly distinctive enough, so that increasingly people ask: Who cares? The sound that greets CBC's fate has been resounding silence, including from those whom you might expect to defend it.

Listen to NDP Leader Jack Layton, who likes all things public and has seldom seen a cause for which more public money was not needed.
Said he of more money for CBC: "We'll have to look at any request that comes forward very carefully." In other words, even Mr. Layton isn't willing to go to bat for CBC.

Think of Dean Acheson's memorable quip that "Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role" and apply it to CBC. It has disillusioned core audiences but not found others that really care.
CBC's answer to funding problems has been massive popularization in the search for audience maximization. A deep disdain for intellectualism pervades both English-language television and radio - or what CBC executive Richard Stursberg, quoting a British government white paper, called "worthy" programming.

The result is an ersatz, albeit Canadianized, private broadcaster calling itself a public one. A tiny handful of CBC board members sharply disagree with this direction, but they have been beaten down. The entire management of English CBC believes in the strategic direction and defends it vigorously.

Management changed Radio 2 into an ersatz private network (minus commercials), but has not (as yet) increased audience share. What CBC achieved was to alienate a chunk of its core audience - the one that really cared about CBC - and replace it with another that is only indifferently attached to CBC because so much of the programming is available elsewhere.

The same phenomenon besets television. The Hour, for example, could just as easily be on MuchMusic or CTV. Political commentary apes that of private television, with discussions revolving not around substance but who is winning, what are the political calculations, who is up and who is down - questions that for most viewers evoke the response: Who cares?

As long, therefore, as CBC pursues this strategic direction, it will have the worst of all worlds in the search for public money. It will have alienated core audiences who might have cared enough to fight, and exchanged them for audiences for whom CBC is just one choice among many, and therefore not worth getting excited about.

Mr. Simpson has captured the very essence of what is wrong with the CBC. In attempting to popularize CBC radio in an attempt to capture a larger audience, the CBC has alienated its core audience and ensured that it will become even more difficult for it to convince the government (and taxpayers) to fund it.

Imagine what would have happened in March 2007 if CBC management had issued an appeal to its listeners, telling its loyal audience that it required more funding to maintain its current programming. Imagine if the CBC had put it as bluntly as this: if we don't get more funding from the government, we'll be forced to cancel classical programming on CBC Radio Two, start importing game show programming from the U.S. for evening television broadcasts and will not renew our licensing agreement for the Hockey Night in Canada theme song.

What would have been the result? Why, Canadians would have been up in arms! Letters would have been written to the editors of the national newspapers, to Members of Parliament, to the Minister of Heritage in support of the CBC, demanding increased funding for the CBC! Loyal Radio Two listeners would have donated money to the CBC in response to PBS-style campaigns for donations! There might have even been people marching in the streets in support of increased funding for the CBC!

Well, if you've been reading this blog or paying attention to recent events, you know what happened. Instead, CBC management tried to implement their programming changes without explaining what their overall plans were and without prior announcements making it clear to listeners what was happening until it was too late. First came the March 2007 programming changes. Then - as best I can recall - further changes in the autumn of 2007, finally culminating in the destruction of the CBC Radio Two programming in September 2008.

What was the result? Of course, letters were written to MPs, to the Minister of Heritage, to the newspapers. People started blogs (such as this one) in protest. People marched in the street in protest. But they were not marching in support of the CBC. No, they were writing letters and protesting against the CBC. So the CBC lost one of its most valuable assets in any fight with the government - the support of its listeners, who also happen to be taxpayers and, more importantly, voters.

So Mr. Simpson is correct. Who cares about funding for the CBC now?

Well, I for one care. In fact, I care quite a bit. I resent the fact that I am funding a public corporation with my tax dollars that does not care one whit for my opinion and that seems determined to run itself into oblivion.

The National Post article states that the CBC funding is currently $34.00 per capita. Note that that is not $34.00 per taxpayer, but $34.00 for every man, woman and child currently living in Canada. If you're a taxpayer, how much are you contributing to the CBC?

Just as a quick check on the figures, we can take the 2008 budget for the CBC as $1,115,424,000 and the population of Canada as 33,212,696 (as of July 2008). The per capita funding thus works out as $33.58. So the figure of $34.00 per capita seems to be correct.

However, if we take the labour force participation in Canada (18,245,100) during 2008 as a proxy for the number of taxpayers, then the CBC funding per taxpayer works out as $61.14. (Yes, I know that this does not include retirees and others who are not in the labour force who also pay taxes, but as I said, I'm using the labour force participation rate as a proxy for the number of taxpayers in Canada. If you have a figure for the number of taxpayers in Canada, you can do the calculation yourself and figure out how much each taxpayer is paying.) So you, if you are paying taxes in Canada, paid (on average) approximately $61.14 for the CBC in 2008.

Well, I for one would like my money back.

WiFi Radio: The Death of Broadcasting, Part II

2009-01-21T09:12:00.004-05:00

The following article appeared in this morning's National Post. It uses the term "WiFi radio" to refer to the "internet radio" that I used in my blog on the "The death of broadcast radio":

Radio in tune for digital revolution: Deloitte

'It's The Future'

Grant Surridge, Financial Post Published: Wednesday, January 21, 2009

While the vast majority of radio listeners in Canada still tune in to old-fashioned analogue signals, some observers say the medium may finally be on the verge of a digital revolution. And radios that connect to the Internet will push such change forward.

"Radio is really the last medium to go from analogue to digital," John Ruffolo, Deloitte's senior technology leader, said yesterday.
The accounting firm predicted the widespread adoption of so-called WiFi radios as part of an annual list of predictions for media and technology trends.

The devices in question look like normal radios, with digital displays, speakers and tuning knobs. But they pick up thousands upon thousands of Internet radio stations from around the world free of charge.

"It's the future of radio," said Alex Bowden, a salesman at Bay and Bloor Radio in downtown Toronto. He said the store has seen an uptick in sales of the devices, especially over Christmas, as prices have gone down.

The cheapest units retail for about $200. They connect to the Internet on their own or through an existing wireless router.

Analogue radio has stood down the advent of television, satellite radio and various digital incarnations. But Mr. Ruffolo contends WiFi devices will present a solution to consumers who are unwilling to pay for satellite radio, but tired of a limited selection of analogue signals.

Jacques Parisien heads the radio business at Astral Media Inc., the country's largest radio broadcaster.

He said WiFi radios present an opportunity for broadcasters to expand their analogue audience.

However, for the time being, Astral remains focused on analogue radio, where the vast majority of advertising and listeners are still situated.

In the first three quarters of last year, the U. S. Radio Advertising Bureau said online ad revenues accounted for about 9% of total radio income.

Mr. Parisien said that figure is likely even smaller in Canada.
David Bray, a radio industry analyst based in Toronto, called the idea that WiFi radios would herald a widespread shift in the way people listen to radio "wildly improbable."

He said he expects that there will eventually be a digital shift in the radio business, but it is far too early to tell if consumers will spend several hundred dollars to buy new radios.

He said that where there is no WiFi coverage -- such as outside of large cities -- such portable devices would be useless. "You're limiting yourself to urban locations where WiFi coverage is in place," he said.

According to data from the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission, about two-thirds of Canadian households subscribe to high-speed Internet connections.

There are still issues to be resolved over tariffs broadcasters must pay to musicians to compensate them for playing their music over the Internet, Mr. Bray said.

The challenge for radio broadcasters who want to compete in a cyber universe filled with thousands of stations will be to organize themselves so that consumers can find them.

"They'll have to be categorized in an easily searchable format. Absolutely," he said.

Of course, I fully agree with Mr. John Ruffalo, the Deloitte analyst who wrote the report and predicts that WiFi radio will replace today's analogue radios. Although the cost of WiFi radio is relatively expensive when compared to analogue radios, the cost will come down as production ramps up. Remember when LCD TVs cost over $4,000? The same TV can now be purchased for less than $1,000.

Mr. David Bray missed the point entirely, however, when he states that WiFi (or Internet) radios will be useless in areas outside the Metropolitan regions where WiFi coverage is not available. WiFi radios will, I expect, be only used in conjunction with WiFi transmission from your own in-house wireless router, not with commercial WiFi services. And, although the penetration of wireless routers may not be that high yet, I expect that soon every household that has broadband internet will soon have a wireless router in the home. When every child in the house, not to mention adult, has their own laptop, it will become impractical to connect to the internet through wires - hence the widespread deployment of wireless, and wireless routers. WiFi radio will just ride this trend.

The other point not mentioned in the article, and the point that I was trying to make in my previous blog entry, was that WiFi radio (or internet radio, as I called it) will mean the death of broadcasting. A broadcast radio station could not, for example, play U2 exclusively since the audience within broadcast range would be too limited, and the resulting advertising revenue too small. However, if you can reach U2 fans world-wide, then you can tailor your advertising to that segment of the population which are also U2 fans, and who are in the target market segment for your product. This is, of course, the dream for every advertiser. So, with the emergence of WiFi radio, I expect that radio stations will move to the internet, expand their reach, narrow their focus and consequently be able to target their advertising more precisely. Thus the advent of narrowcasting, as opposed to broadcasting.

What has this to do with CBC Radio Two? Well, as you can see, CBC Radio Two has moved in precisely the opposite direction - becoming a 'broader' broadcaster, attempting to reach an even wider audience with its mish-mash of every conceivable musical genre available in Canada, in the end satisfying no one. CBC Radio Two is not evolving, rather, it is accelerating its own devolution into a dinosaur.

Articles from the "Audio Ideas Guide" Web Site

2009-01-19T08:54:00.005-05:00

A reader of this blog was kind enough to bring my attention to some articles on the "Audio Ideas Guide" web site.

The first, "The Noo Radio Tiew, Amateur Radio Paid for by You", begins with the following letter to the editor from the Globe and Mail:

"When I was growing up, bodily functions were discreetly referred to as number 1 and number 2. In this vein, the new programming for CBC Radio 2 is definitely number 2.

Sandra Levy, Victoria"

Hah! That made my day. And it's still early in the day.

Other articles on the Audio Ideas Guide web site on the topic of CBC Radio Two are "Wrecking Radio 2: The Sequel & Growing Opposition" and "CBC Radio Two: Intelligent Music Selection becomes a Sausage Factory". Have a look. They're well-written, informative and funny to boot.

ABC - Australia Beats Canada? Anything but CBC?

2009-01-16T11:21:00.009-05:00

No, ABC is "Australian Broadcasting Corporation". Similar to our CBC in Canada.

It has now been just over two weeks since I began listening to internet radio and I’ve quickly developed some preferences for the radio stations that I listen to.

I initially saved Ottava (Japan), Bayern 4 Klassik (Germany), RNE Radio Clasica (Spain), Radio Classique (France), Radio Stephansdom (Austria), Sveriges Radio (Sweden) and Radio New Zealand Concert FM into my list of favourites. But it is ABC Classical FM (from Australia) that has become my everyday, all day station.

Why? Well, first of all, it’s due to the selections that are featured on ABC Classical FM. Selections are played, for the most part, in their entirety. And it is not the “Top 40” classical format that you may hear, for example, on Classical FM in Toronto.

There’s also something enjoyable about hearing news from Australia. While you still hear the world news, you also get the local news stories from Australia that can be an interesting change, compared to the mundane local news available in Canada. And it’s refreshing to know, for example, that the high temperature will be 39 celsius in Alice Springs today, when it’s -30 degrees celsius in Ottawa.

The format of ABC Classical FM reminds me of CBC Radio Two, before the CBC’s disastrous attempts at restructuring CBC Radio Two. I became curious – just how successful is ABC Classical FM in Australia? To answer this question, I took a look at the AC Nielsen radio surveys in Australia.

There are some differences between the surveys done in Australia and the ones done by the BBM in Canada. For a start, there are eight surveys done each year in Australia compared to four in Canada. In Australia, both regions and major metropolitan areas are surveyed, whereas only major metropolitan areas are surveyed by the BBM.

So, I decided to compare the market share of ABC Classical FM in Sydney (population 4.2M) with that of CBC Radio Two in Toronto (population of the GTA 4.8M). I could have done similar comparisons between Canberra and Ottawa, perhaps, and Melbourne and Montreal, Brisbane and Vancouver, but I have only a limited amount of time that I can devote to this blog. So I only compared Toronto and Sydney.

Not surprisingly, both ABC Classical FM and CBC Radio Two had a similar market share in the S8 2005 (S4 2005 for Canada) survey – 2.2%. But, as you can see from the graph below, the trend for CBC Radio Two in Toronto has been declining, while the trend for ABC Classical FM in Sydney has been increasing.

What’s wrong with those aussies? Don’t they know that classical music is dead? Don’t they know that they have to represent all musical genres in Australia, to showcase music performed by Australian musicians? Don’t they know that their role, as a public broadcaster, is not to feature music that will not normally be programmed by commercial radio stations and that will enlighten and educate their listeners, but is instead to try to appeal to the widest possible audience by featuring a mish-mash of genres spread out over various times of the day?

Apparently they don’t – and thank God for that.

CBC Radio Two: for the Geography-challenged.

2009-01-06T17:16:00.001-05:00

From the Letters to the Editor section of the Globe and Mail, Tuesday, Jan. 6 2009:

Tune in to geography?

MAX TITBORK

January 6, 2009

Ottawa -- So CBC Radio 2 has a scheme to send 49 songs from above the 49th parallel to Barack Obama to make him more aware of Canada (Naming Those Tunes That Define Canada - Review, Dec. 30).

Mr. Obama probably knows this, but it appears the CBC does not: Most Canadians live south of the 49th parallel; music that originated in Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Moncton, Halifax, St. John's or anywhere in PEI wouldn't qualify. Even places like Sault St. Marie, Sudbury and Chicoutimi lie south of the 49th.

The CBC management should realize that when ordinary Canadians feel compelled to ridicule their programming choices in the national newspapers, something is seriously wrong. And it's not something wrong with the ordinary Canadians.

Have we no pride? Apparently the CBC doesn't.

2009-01-02T09:35:00.003-05:00

From the "Letters to the Editor" section of the Friday, Jan. 2 2009 Globe and Mail. Even the Americans are outraged at the CBC Radio Two restructuring, not to mention puzzled by the idiocy of CBC management in implementing these changes:

Have we no pride?

ROBERT J. MULVANEY

January 2, 2009

Columbia, S.C. -- Will CBC Radio 2's current tsunami of idiocy never cease (Naming Those Tunes That Define Canada - Dec. 30)? Having just heard the dazzling Canadian soprano Measha Brueggergosman sing in Beethoven's 9th Symphony on U.S. National Public Radio, and having recently seen the brilliant Michael Schade on the stage of New York's Metropolitan Opera House, I find myself exasperated and embarrassed by the CBC's offer to send the next American president 49 songs - and this to let Americans know about Canadian culture.

Canadians, please note: Your high art is known everywhere on Earth. Its virtual abandonment by CBC Radio is shameful and ridiculous. Forget the 49 and this silly contest, and remember the dozens of world-class performers from one sea to the other, take pride in them and bring them back to the airwaves, at least for the sake of Canadians getting to know their own artistic glory.

CBC Radio Two contest: 49 Songs from North of the 49th Parallel

2008-12-30T10:13:00.004-05:00

Apparently CBC Radio Two is holding a contest. This is the text of the contest announcement from the CBC Radio Two web site:

49 Songs from North of the 49th Parallel

Canadians choose 49 songs from North of the 49th parallel that defines Canada to the new President.

Beginning Monday, January 5, CBC Radio 2 invites Canadians to help select the top "49 songs from north of the 49th parallel" that would best define our country to the incoming U.S. President Barack Obama.

His playlist could definitely benefit from some Canadian content, especially given the depth of our musical offerings – spanning a wide variety of genres and representing our culture from coast to coast.

"One of the best way to know Canada is through the depth and breadth of our artistic expression," says Denise Donlon, Executive Director, CBC Radio. "We're excited about the new President and we want him to be excited about us, so we're asking our audience to help compile the list of our most definitive Canadian songs!"

After having read this announcement, I imagined the following conversation that might take place between President-elect Obama and one of his advisors during their morning workout:

Hey, Barack, did ya see this? (Advisor is reading the Chicago Tribune while on the stationary bike.) Canada is holding a contest to develop a playlist of Canadian music for you.

Say again? A playlist of Canadian songs? For me?

Yeah, CBC Radio is holding a contest to choose 49 songs that best define Canada for the incoming president. That would be you.

Why me? I already know about Canada. We have briefing papers coming out the ying-yang about Canada. And why 49 songs? What, one for every state in continental North America? Are they excluding Hawaii for some reason?

No, no, it has something to do with Canada being north of the 49th parallel.

I see. Well, it seems very odd. But why me? Why now?

Well, you know how it is. Canada has always been a little bit unsure of itself. It's always had to try to define itself by its relationship to America.

I see.

And there's always been a deep-seated anti-American aspect to the Canadian identity. It all comes from the United Empire Loyalists who flooded into Canada after the War of Independence. They were anti-American, and the trait has persisted through the generations. So Canadians often feel the need to assert their identity, often through anti-American sentiments. Remember the ad, what was it, that we saw that one time when we were in Buffalo? Remember? That beer ad? The guy in the lumberjack shirt ranting about Canada?

Oh, yeah, I remember. How very odd, and sad at the same time.

Yeah, so I suppose this contest is just another one of Canada's strange attempts to assert its identify, but they have to do it in relation to America, and to you, to let you know they exist.

Well, it still seems very strange. Why can't they celebrate their own achievements without us? Canada is a great country. They have many things to be proud of. It would be like us, trying to celebrate ourselves in relation to, say, England, or France. Can you imagine such a thing?

No, I can't, but that's Canada for you.

Yeah, I guess. (Barack ponders for a moment.) I know what the problem is. Canada has a self-esteem problem. Yes, that's it. It's all a matter of self-esteem. We can fix this! I know we can! OK, here's what I want you to do. After the inauguration, I want you to start working on a program to build up Canada's self-esteem. We'll have a Canada Appreciation Day, and we'll invite famous Canadians to the White House for a dinner. We'll invite Avril Lavigne, Jim Carrey, Margaret Atwood, Burton Cummings, Joni Mitchell, Michel Bublé, we'll have a dinner and show afterwards.

OK, I'll get some other names together.

We'll invite the Canadian Prime Minister, Harper, to Washington, first thing in January.

Well, remember, Canada's going through a bit of a political crisis right now. Harper might not be the Prime Minister after they introduce their next budget.

Right, I forgot. OK, hold off on the Harper invitation until after the situation in Ottawa becomes a bit clearer.

I think that's a good idea.

And we'll have an exhibition hockey game. We'll get all the Canadians who play on U.S. teams to play for Canada, and all our guys to play for the U.S. Shoot, we can even make it an eight game series!

I'll get right on that. I'll talk to the NHL Commissioner.

What about inviting some CFL teams to play exhibition games in border cities? Show everyone that the CFL can be more exciting than the NFL, what with all the passing that the Canadians do?

Yeah, that's an idea for next summer.

And Gretzky. Does he play ball? We can invite him over sometime.

I don't know if he plays, but I'm sure he'd give it a shot. He's a great athlete.

Good! I'm excited about this! I just know we can make a difference for Canada! Now, let's go shoot some hoops.

The death of broadcast radio

2008-12-29T15:14:00.004-05:00

Jon Landau famously wrote in 1974 "I have seen rock and roll's future, and its name is Bruce Springsteen." This, of course, was before Bruce Springsteen became famous outside New Jersey and the household name that he is today.

While this statement might have been a bit overdone, there's no doubt that Mr. Landau was prescient in predicting Bruce Springsteen's later impact on rock and roll. This statement was written by Mr. Landau after having seen Mr. Springsteen and the E-Street Band perform in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The performance must have been a revelation for Mr. Landau - a moment when he realized nothing would be the same, ever again, for rock and roll.

Well, I too have had my moment of revelation, when I realized that nothing would be the same, ever again. What it that, you ask, that will never be the same, ever again? Why, broadcast radio, of course.

It's becoming increasingly clear, at least to me, that broadcast radio will soon be dead, both in the sense of broadcasting to reach a wide audience and broadcasting over the AM and FM bands of the radio spectrum. I doubt that I'm the first to reach this conclusion. But it was my moment of revelation, and I insist on enjoying it while I can.

The fact that broadcasting to reach a wide radio audience will soon be dead can be seen from radio's sister medium, television. The increasing number of specialty channels on television and the trend towards program distribution over the internet signals the demise of television broadcasting. Television viewers now have the choice of specialty channels to meet every interest, with additional channels being added each year. If you doubt this, take a look at your local cable provider's lineup or what's available on the internet.

Television broadcasting, in the sense of the television signal being broadcast over the air, has long been replaced by cable television except among those die-hards who refuse to pay for cable and still have an antenna on top of their house, or rabbit ears on their TV. I expect cable will soon become the primary medium for internet access and television viewing, rather than simply for program distribution.

"Broadcast radio is still alive and kicking", you might tell me in response. Yes, but just give it time. I expect broadcast radio over the FM band to rapidly diminish in the next few years, just as AM radio gave way to FM radio. What will cause the death of broadcast radio? Internet radio. Yes, my moment of revelation came this past Christmas when I received my latest toy as a present, an internet radio.

If you've been reading this blog up until this point, you will know how enthusiastic I have been about my Sirius satellite radio. Well, I'm sorry to say, internet radio just blows satellite radio away. While my Sirius satellite radio gives me Symphony Hall, classical music 24/7, with internet radio I now have the choice of classical music from Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Holland, Italy - well, you get the picture. Radio from all over the world. All that you need is an 802.11b or 802.11g wireless router, an internet connection and an internet radio and you're off, never to listen to broadcast radio again.

While I don't believe internet radio is available for your vehicle yet, there have been several announcements of internet-enabled vehicles and WiMax networks to distribute the content. Just give it time.

What does this mean for CBC Radio Two? Well, the tremendous irony in all of this is that it was the CBC's decision to decimate classical programming on Radio Two that caused me to investigate satellite radio and internet radio in the first place and to become an adopter - a mid-to-late adopter in the case of satellite radio, an early adopter in the case of internet radio. Talk about driving your customer base into the arms of your competitor!

Yes, CBC Radio has hastened its own demise. Sorry, CBC Radio, but there it is.

Why does CBC Radio Two need an audience?

2008-12-23T11:17:00.004-05:00

Why does CBC Radio Two need an audience?

The answer seems obvious, right? But is it so obvious?

First of all, the CBC is publicly funded. While a commercial radio station sells advertising to survive, CBC Radio is not saddled with this constraint. The CBC gets a big pot of money from the taxpayers each year to do with as they want - in Fiscal Year 2007, the CBC received $948 million in annual funding approved through Parliamentary appropriations, plus an additional $60 million for "Additional non-recurring funding for programming initiatives". So, theoretically, CBC Radio Two could have no listeners at all in Canada and still get it's share of the big pot of money.

Or could it? At some point, you would think someone - perhaps the Minister of Heritage - would sit up and take notice that the Canadian taxpayer was not getting much bang for their buck. But how low would CBC Radio Two's market share have to fall before anyone started to question the value of funding this enterprise? Would it have to fall to zero? How about one percent? Two percent? What is the cut-off point where CBC Radio Two no longer deserves to be funded by the Canadian taxpayer?

The CBC has reported, in their own press release, that CBC Radio Two's market share fell to 2.9% according to the latest BBM survey.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, as the Hon. John Crosby used to say.

Comments on CBC Radio Two's broadcast of the EBU "Joy to the World" program

2008-12-21T12:13:00.002-05:00

Although I'm presently enjoying CBC Radio Two's broadcast of the European Broadcasting Union's "Joy to the World" program, I can't help but wonder why it was necessary for CBC Radio Two to dump Mr. Howard Dyck from the program.

Peter Togni is doing a fine job at hosting this year's broadcast, and I always enjoyed Mr. Togni as a program host, going back to the time that he hosted the 6:00 AM - 9:00 AM weekday time slot currently occupied by Mr. Tom Allen.

But it seems that CBC Radio Two has been carrying out a pogrom (yes, 'pogrom') against it's most respected radio hosts. Why? Why was this necessary? There is a lot to be said for maintaining some traditions and continuity, which the CBC seems determined to destroy with a vehemence seldom seen, other than in third world dictatorships.

Schedule for CBC Radio Two broadcast of Euroradio "Joy to the World"

2008-12-20T16:17:00.006-05:00

The schedule for CBC's broadcast of Euroradio "Joy to the World" is on the CBC web site here. Apparently there will be more detailed information on the program on the CBC blog site. The full program can also be found here on the EBU site.

The schedule, as copied from the CBC web site, is as follows:

6:00 am AUSTRIA Domkantori & Solamente Naturali

7:00 am PORTUGAL Vozes Alfonsinas Chorus European Renaissance songs

8:00 am BULGARIA Bulgarian National Radio Children's Choir

9:00 am FINLAND Helsinki Chamber Chorus Finnish and International carols

10:00 am USA Chanticleer various Christmas songs

11:00 am DENMARK Danish National Vocal Ensemble

12:00 pm CZECH REPUBLIC Collegium Marianum with Advent and Chrismas songs in the Baroque Tradition

1:00 pm NORWAY Oslo Philharmonic Orchestra and Chorus

2:00 pm HUNGARY Bartok's Men's Chorus, Pecs Chamber Chorus, and UniCum laude Ensemble

3:00 pm SWEDEN Swedish Radio Chorus and Orchestra

4:00 pm POLAND Radio Chorus and Wroclaw Baroque Orchestra with Polish carols

5:00 pm CANADA Les Violons du Roy - La Chapelle de Québec

Thankfully, it appears that the CBC's contribution will not be a jazz-influenced modern mish-mash of non-traditional music, as it was last year.

Found: CBC Radio's Nov. 27 Press Release

2008-12-19T20:17:00.002-05:00

Just so that everyone doesn't write all at once, I thought I should let you know that I've found the CBC Radio news release from November 27 that was mentioned in Russell Smith's article below on the "Friends of Canadian Broadcasting" site.

Although the news release was apparently issued on Canada Newswire, I find no record of this press release on the CNW Group web site.

The mystry deepens!

Are the CBC Radio Two programming changes successful? - Part II

2008-12-19T10:47:00.007-05:00

The following article appeared in the Thursday, Dec. 18 edition of the Globe & Mail:

"Pop made your numbers go down

RUSSELL SMITH
December 18, 2008

Well, I admit I am surprised. Even I didn't predict quite how dramatic a failure the new CBC Radio 2 would be. I expected that after the change to programming dominated by easy-listening pop, folk and blues, the number of listeners would rise. I was all prepared to argue that this didn't indicate anything of value: I was going to attack the value of numbers-based programming; I was going to argue that of course the numbers would rise if you started playing pop music instead of classical, but that numbers are not how you define the value of anything; and that an avenue of access to educated music for people living outside educated circles was still crucial to a nation's general sophistication. I would have said that if you want the greatest number of listeners, all you need to do is play the stickiest of commercial pap and then you obviate government involvement of any kind. And now I don't need to. Because the numbers have gone down.

On Nov. 27, the CBC distributed an exuberant press release boasting of the great market success of Radio One. This network, according to the fall research results released by the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement (BBM), is doing just great: There are more listeners than last year for a large number of shows on Radio One.

There is a little aside down at the bottom of this triumphant report: Radio 2 is not doing as well. Overall numbers of listeners are the same as they were before the change (around 1.2 million listeners), but the market share - the percentage of people with radios who tune into your network - is down.

The executive director of CBC Radio, Denise Donlon, claims this decline was totally part of the plan. "When you change a radio station as we did with Radio 2, you have to expect a dip in listening patterns before you gain new listeners," says Donlon in the press release.

My schadenfreude knows no bounds.

But then when you think about it, it really isn't that surprising. They expected the million or so old listeners of Radio 2 to tune out. But then they expected several more million younger listeners to tune in. Why would young people do that? Young people are already used to choosing their own popular music from multiple Internet streams. They chafe at the pop playlists of others. They have mostly forgotten what radios are.

Furthermore, the new music of Radio 2 is not very young. The few boomers I know really love it. All that Neil Young - it's just like being back in college! This new network is to middle-aged guys what the Lawrence Welk show was to their parents.

But there are a whole lot of other easy-rock networks out there. And the desperately sought 18-to-39s are still AWOL, glued to their iPods.

When CBC management was trying to placate the couple of million fans of classical music it was alienating, it tried to distract them with the Internet. Look, it said, you can have as much classical music as you want, you just have to get your grandson to tell you how to hook up your computer to your car radio. Classical will be on the Internet, they said; pop will be on the radio.
But isn't that the opposite of what they should have done? If the audience for pop is a bit younger, shouldn't it be they who are more comfortable with online music and the technological know-how required to get it into their cars? Isn't an older audience more likely to listen to radio generally?

Wouldn't it be a good idea to have a CBC-funded all-pop music station completely online? It would cost very little. You could call it, say, Radio 3. (Rule one of CBC public relations: Don't mention Radio 3. Radio 3 does fine without us. We don't talk about Radio 3, got it?)

As for the remaining classical programming - the midday weekday ratings dead zone occupied by a giggling Julie Nesrallah - it's apparently not meant to target either young or old, but the teachers of elementary-school children who want to introduce their charges to the most-played music of all time. A great idea, but you could also buy one of those Favourite Classics compilations that Starbucks puts out. So I'm not surprised it's not bringing former listeners - most of whom have already heard Beethoven's Fifth and Dvorak's Ninth a few more times than they need to - back.

It's those crazy 18-to-39s the managers really want anyway. That's why the top brass of CBC Radio are pushing really commercial music on the unfortunate Tom Allen, who hosts the morning music show on Radio 2. They want to make that show the flagship. My spies tell me that the programmers of that show are not happy with the pressure coming down from on high to play more of the likes of Nelly Furtado and Jann Arden. (The pressure seems to have increased at around the same time as the appointment of a former MuchMusic and Sony Music Canada executive as head of radio.) Their point, I imagine - and I can't disagree with them - is that you can hear Nelly Furtado, indeed must hear her, in any Aldo shoe store in any mall in Canada. Why should the government pay for it?"

I'm not surprised at this turn of events - my analysis of CBC Radio Two's market share showed the same results. What surprises me, however, is that CBC Radio issued a press release in which they admitted Radio Two's loss of market share.

Now that my interest had been piqued, I began to search for CBC Radio's elusive press release. My first thought was to go to the CBC Corporate site, where CBC Press Releases are archived. Much to my surprise, there was no press release from Nov. 27 2007 listed.

I noticed that the CBC did, however, take the time to respond - to each newspaper or news organization that carried the story, no less - to the newspaper articles alleging excessive spending by Mr. Sylvain Lafrance. But no press release from Nov. 27 concerning CBC Radio Two's decline in market share.

Of course, my next step was to perform a Google search. Nothing relevant found.

I went to PR Newswire - nothing. I searched Market Wire - nothing. I went to the Announcements page on the CBC Radio site - nothing.

Now, I don't doubt that this Press Release exists. It just seems that the CBC, having issued the Press Release, isn't proud enough of it to include it on their web sites. Nor should they be, demonstrating as it does the failure of CBC Radio's program to revamp Radio Two programming.

This illustrates a point that I have made several times in the past - the shareholders of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have no means to determine whether or not the Corporation's strategy is successful or not, unless we go to the data sources such as the BBM to attempt to determine it for ourselves. We can not rely on the CBC to tell us whether or not the strategy is successful - either they don't, or the information is not widely disseminated. And a press release such as the Nov. 27 2008 press release seems to get buried quite quickly.

The Big Lie continues.

Where is the CBC/Radio-Canada Annual Report for 2007/2008?

2008-12-19T10:43:00.003-05:00

Idly surfing the CBC Corporate web site, I happened upon the page containing the CBC/Radio-Canada Annual Reports.

I noticed something interesting - the 2006/2007 Annual Report is archived here, but there's no report for 2007/2008.

Given the fact that the Corporation's year end appears to be March 31, I would have thought that the 2007/2008 Annual Report would have been available by now.

An inspection of the "properties" information for the 2006/2007 Annual Report .pdf file reveals that this file was created July 23 2007 and modified Oct. 17 2007, and presumably released shortly afterwards. So where is the 2007/2008 Annual Report, considering that there are only 12 days left in 2008? Will we have to wait for 2009 for the 2007/2008 Annual Report?

Does anyone out there in cyberspace have any knowledge of what's going on in the CBC to have delayed the Annual Report?

"Sound Advice" Lives On!

2008-12-15T09:44:00.001-05:00

For all those who have missed Rick Phillips' excellent program, "Sound Advice", I recently discovered that Mr. Phillips is continuing this program on his web site, www.rickphillips.ca.

You can download programs in MP3 format and import them to your MP3 player or iPod. Of course, not everyone has a PC, internet connection or MP3 player or iPod, so Mr. Phillips program is not as accessible as it once was. But that's the 'new 2' for you.

Euroradio "Joy to the World", Sunday Dec. 21 2008

2008-12-13T10:25:00.002-05:00

CBC Audience Relations sent the following reply to my inquiry concerning CBC Radio Two's plans for broadcasting the Euroradio "Joy to the World" broadcast:

"Joy to the World" traditionally airs the Sunday before Christmas. This year, it will be heard on December 21, starting at 5:55 am. A three hour abridged presentation will be heard Christmas day at 7:00 pm.

Li Robbins also replied to my earlier post.

Thanks to both Li and CBC Audience Relations for their response!

Hypocrisy reigns supreme in Ottawa

2008-12-12T11:14:00.002-05:00

Recent reports from Ottawa suggest that Mr. Stephen Harper is planning to appoint eighteen senators before the resumption of Parliament in January. If Mr. Harper fills these Senate vacancies then indeed Mr. Harper's hypocrisy and abuse of power will know no bounds.

Mr. Harper and the Conservatives promised to implement Senate reform during the 2006 and 2008 election campaigns. In the past three years in office, Mr. Harper avoided filling Senate vacancies in accordance with this pledge. Now, Mr. Harper apparently plans to renege on these promises and fill these Senate vacancies, fearing that his government may be defeated when Parliament resumes in January.

What is even more galling is that Mr. Harper was permitted by the Governor General to prorogue Parliament without any conditions placed on the government during the interim period until Parliament resumed. Perhaps the Governor General believed the Prime Minister would behave honourably and that it was not necessary to explicitly state the conditions under which the prorogue request was granted. An honourable man would not now abuse this trust and fill the Senate with his Conservative cronies before his government is defeated. However, as Mr. Harper has demonstrated by his past actions, he is not an honourable man.

This will be my last comment on the political shenanigans taking place in Ottawa - my last comment, that is, until the next outrageous act of the Conservative government and Mr. Stephen Harper.

Euroradio "Joy to the World" and CBC Radio Two

2008-12-11T08:55:00.007-05:00

Update: see this post for the 2008 "Joy to the World" broadcast on CBC Radio Two.

I've noticed over the past month that readers find this blog by using the search terms "Euroradio", "Joy to the World", "CBC Radio Christmas programming" or a similar combination of search terms. I counted 34 instances of such search terms, out of 160 unique search terms, over the past month. (In fact, readers found this blog using 340 unique search terms during the past month, but I got tired of counting after looking at 160 search terms.) Clearly, there's quite a lot of interest from CBC Radio Two listeners in CBC Radio Two's plans for Christmas day programming.

Yet, when you go to the CBC Radio Two site, there's nothing to be found for Christmas day programming. Under the "Concert Calendar" link for December 25 there is only a statement that the "schedule is pending". A search of the CBC site for "euroradio" results only in references to the 2007 programming (and CBC Radio Two's contribution to that program left much to be desired). This causes one to wonder what CBC Radio Two is planning for Christmas day which, after all, is only two weeks away.

So, in the spirit of public service, I sent an e-mail to ask CBC Radio Two whether the Euroradio "Joy to the World" program would be carried by CBC Radio Two this year. I sent my question on Tuesday via the "Contact Us" link and, as of today, Thursday Dec. 11, have not received a reply.

C'mon, CBC Radio Two, don't leave us in the dark! Let us know what's being planned for Christmas day! Or will CBC Radio Two be the Grinch that stole "Joy to the World" from CBC Radio Two listeners?

Contact CBC Radio Two at the "Contact Us" link if you want to know what CBC is planning for Christmas day.

Some comments on the current political crisis in Ottawa

2008-12-04T14:38:00.004-05:00

During the most recent election campaign the Conservatives portrayed Stéphane Dion as an inept, bungling, dangerous candidate for Prime Minister.

Since the election, a mere seven weeks ago, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has managed to foment a political crisis on top of the economic crisis that we currently face. As it now appears likely that the Conservative government will prorogue Parliament, having obtained the consent of the Governor General, the Conservative government under Prime Minister Harper has narrowly averted a constitutional crisis. Still not satisfied with the current dismal state of affairs, Prime Minister Harper is raising the spectre of a renewed national unity debate with his continued references to 'separatists' participating in the Liberal/NDP coalition. Has Prime Minister Harper no shame? Who now is the inept, bungling, dangerous Prime Minister?

We should all bear in mind the following points when considering the political crisis that we now find ourselves in and the possible responses to this crisis:

First, Prime Minister Stephen Harper violated his own election promise to hold elections on a fixed schedule by calling the October 2008 election, citing a 'dysfunctional' Parliament as the reason for holding an election.

Second, in spite of having had over two years to win the trust of the Canadian electorate, the Conservative government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper failed to gain the support of over 62% of the Canadian electorate, obtaining only 143 seats, insufficient for a majority.

Third, although Prime Minister Harper vowed to participate in a more civil Parliament, within days of opening the current session of Parliament the Conservative government introduced motions in their economic update that were mean-spirited, partisan and clearly designed to fracture any spirit of co-operation among the political parties. Furthermore, the economic update failed to provide any meaningful vision or plan for dealing with the worst economic crisis that Canada has experienced in the past fifty years.

Fourth, the other three parties in the House of Parliament represent Canadian voters and have been duly elected by over 62% of the Canadian electorate. It is their duty to attempt to form a government if a majority of the members of Parliament have lost confidence in the government.

Fifth, to deny the legitimate right of the other three parties to attempt to form a government because of their political views, no matter how much we may disagree with them, is to attack the very heart of parliamentary democracy and is the response of tyrants and demagogues.

Clearly, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative government have lost the confidence of those who have been elected by the voters of Canada to represent them in Parliament. The Liberal/NDP coalition must now be given the opportunity to form a government. To do any less would violate the system of parliamentary democracy which has served us well for the past 141 years.

I realize, of course, that this posting has nothing to do with CBC Radio Two, but it must be said.

Alternatives to CBC Radio, Part II: Satellite Radio

2008-11-24T12:07:00.015-05:00

I've been promising to write about my experience with satellite radio as an alternative to the classical music programming previously offered by CBC Radio Two. Well, I see it's been over a year since I made this promise, so I believe it's now time to talk about satellite radio in more detail.

For those of you who have tried listening to CDs, your iPod or streaming audio over the internet and have found all of these alternatives wanting, satellite radio may just be the alternative that you're looking for.

First, you will want to choose between Sirius and XM satellite radio if you're living in Canada. In the U.S., Sirius and XM have merged but it has yet to take place in Canada. Go to the Sirius or XM web sites and register for a trial subscription. You can listen to both on your PC (and I use the term "PC" here to refer to both Apple computers and non-Apple computers, although there are some anal-retentives who have been brainwashed by advertising and believe that the term "PC" refers only to personal computers which use a Microsoft OS, which is simply not true). Listen during your trial subscription and decide which is best for you.

The next step is to do as I advise, not as I did. What did I do, you may ask? I started small, going step-by-step. I should have jumped directly to my final installation, but I had to go through the learning process of each step before I found this out. You can save yourself several steps by learning from my experience. Or not.

First, I bought a satellite radio for the Sirius service, as well as a home kit. I installed the car kit (which comes with the radio) in my primary vehicle and set up the home kit with the Sirius receiver in the kitchen.

The home kit comes with a window antenna. The window antenna, as the name implies, can be installed inside the home on a window sill, or can be installed outside on the roof of the house. To install the antenna outside, you will likely need to purchase an extension cable as well as find a way to run the cable through the exterior of your home or apartment, condominium, thatched hut, cardboard box under a highway overpass, or wherever you happen to be living at the moment.

Wherever you install the antenna, it should have a clear view of the sky, the direction depending on the region of North America that you live in. In my region (North East Canada) the antenna needs to be facing West, Northwest or Southwest. I experimented with different locations for the antenna, finally settling on the interior of the house, just inside the first floor dining room window, even though the dining room window faces another two storey home and did not offer a completely unobstructed view of the sky. To improve the view of the sky I had to set the antenna on top of a step ladder.

This worked well for a time, but I would periodically lose reception. This typically seemed to occur between 7:00 PM and 9:00 PM. There would be sudden silence, and one was never sure whether it was a quiet segment of the piece being played or a loss of reception. Slight movement of the antenna to the left or right would often restore reception, but it was annoying to have to adjust the antenna several times a day. Also, the step ladder did not fit with the decor of the dining room. Of course, the problem was that dining room window did not offer a completely unobstructed view of the West, Northwest or Southwest. But then, if you consider your own dwelling, you will realize how difficult this may be to achieve.

I decided that a rooftop antenna was the only solution. I ordered a rooftop antenna from Dogstar Radio. There are other stores which sell the antenna, including Sirius, but the antenna was out of stock at Sirius when I needed it. Dogstar Radio had the antenna in stock, shipped it quickly and it was a hassle-free transaction. I highly recommend Dogstar Radio.

Once I had received the antenna in the mail, the next step was to install it on the roof. If you have a satellite TV mast, TV antenna or other such object on your rooftop, this should not be a problem. I, however, had nothing of the sort. You can, of course drill holes in your roof and screw the satellite radio base directly the roof or to the fascia on the roof siding, but this did not appeal to me.

Instead, I purchased a 45-degree ABS Y-coupler used for plumbing and a length of 2 inch diameter ABS pipe from Home Depot and installed the Y-coupler on the plumbing vent on the roof. I cut the 2 inch pipe to approximately 2 feet, stuck it into the smaller pipe of the "Y" and attached the antenna to the 2 inch pipe using the fittings provided with the antenna. Thus, no permanent damage was done to the roof.

I ran the cable through a vent in the roof and into the attic. Now, here's where I made another mistake. Having only one radio (in the kitchen) I decided to run the cable down through the second floor, down to the first floor kitchen where I could attach it to the radio. To do so, I had to remove one of the kitchen cabinets, drill a hole through the kitchen ceiling/second floor, run the cable under the bedroom carpeting, into a closet, then up through another hole in the bedroom ceiling and into the attic. While this wasn't a huge amount of work, as you will see later, I could have made my life much simpler.

After installing the satellite antenna, extension cable and satellite receiver in the kitchen, life was good. However, there was a problem - I had satellite radio only in the kitchen. I also wanted satellite radio in the bedroom (as do we all).

I could have purchased a cable splitter, then run another length of cable into the bedroom, but this was now becoming complicated. I discovered that there is a signal repeater system, also available from Sirius, called the "Sirius Echo". It consists of two devices - the Echo Transmitter and the Echo Antenna. The Echo Transmitter attaches to your satellite antenna, and the Echo Antenna attaches to your satellite receiver. The Echo Transmitter transmits the signal received over your antenna to the Echo Antenna attached to your receiver. You can have several Echo Antennas receiving from the same Echo Transmitter, and thus multiple satellite radio receivers spread throughout the house. So I ordered an Echo Transmitter (which comes with an Echo Antenna) and another Echo Antenna from my friends at Dogstar radio.

I set up the Echo Transmitter in the bedroom closet, although I could have just as easily set up the Echo Transmitter in the attic, and avoided the hassle of running the cable down into the second floor bedroom. I placed the first Echo Antenna in the kitchen, next to the satellite receiver, and the second Echo Antenna in the bedroom, next to my second satellite receiver.

The cable running down from the second floor bedroom into the kitchen now became unnecessary, since I had wireless transmission from the bedroom to the kitchen.

You can see now what I should have done from the beginning:

- decide how many satellite radios you wish to install in your abode

- install a rooftop antenna from the beginning

- purchase an Echo Transmitter and install it in central location, easily reached by the rooftop antenna. In my case this would have meant installing the Echo Transmitter in the attic, and avoiding all of the cable installations.

- purchase as many additional Echo Antennas as you need and install them throughout your abode

I installed all of this over a year ago - in September 2007, to be precise - and it has worked flawlessly since then. I highly recommend this set-up.

It should not need to be said, but I'll say it anyway: I have no relationship whatsoever with Sirius Satellite Radio, XM Satellite Radio or Dogstar Radio. I'm just a satisfied customer, of Sirius and Dogstar, at least. I never tried XM Satellite Radio, although I'm sure the service is just as satisfactory as Sirius. When organizations, products or services perform well, they should be praised and publicized. And when organizations (such as CBC Radio), products or services not live up to expectations, they should be castigated.

How did we almost miss this?

2008-11-21T18:19:00.004-05:00

The above article appeared in Thursday's Globe and Mail. I've reproduced the text below:

"The new Minister of Canadian Heritage is warning CBC executives to rein in their expenses after reports of heavy spending on theatre tickets, meals and travel.

James Moore has written to the public broadcaster in response to a news story detailing lavish spending by Sylvain Lafrance, executive vice-president for French services.

"I am sure that you are sensitive to the fact that, at a time of fiscal restraint when Canadians are struggling to maintain their jobs and savings, this sort of reported excess does not sit well with them," Mr. Moore wrote in a letter released yesterday to the media.

Reports this week detailed how Mr. Lafrance signed off on almost $80,000 in 2006, including $28,000 on hotels, travel and meals."

I find this interesting not in the spirit of schadenfreude, but for another reason. I conclude from this report - perhaps overly optimistically - that the new Minister of Canadian Heritage, Mr. James Moore, is willing to exercise his duty to oversee the CBC and is willing to remind the CBC executives that, as a Crown Corporation, they are ultimately responsible to the Minister.

Bravo, Mr. Moore! Now, if only the CBC executives could also be reminded that they are also responsible to the shareholders of the CBC, the taxpayers of Canada, namely, you and me.

Just who reads this blog, anyway?

2008-11-19T17:03:00.006-05:00

If you're wondering who reads this blog, I have some information to share with you. Through the miracle of Google Analytics, I have been tracking readership of this blog since its inception on April 28, 2007. Now, never fear, Google Analytics does not allow one to trace readership of this blog to an individual or a specific computer, but it can show where the blog reader happens to be at the time of reading. And this can be quite interesting indeed.

Since April 28, 2007, this blog has been visited 6,058 times, with a total of 10,799 page views. Not hundreds of thousands of visits, as I might have hoped for, but still encouraging. The average time spent on the site is 2 minutes, 15 seconds, probably long enough to read one or two pages and move on. Well, actually 1.78 pages, since this is the average number of pages visited per visit.

Had enough? Well, if not, then I find it interesting that this site has been visited 186 times by readers from the CBC - yes, the dear old Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Average time on the site by readers from the CBC is 1 minute 9 seconds, with an average of 1.95 pages visited. Readers from the CBC must read faster than average, or else they're just skimming. 65.59% of the visits from the CBC are new visits, meaning either that this blog has somewhat wide readership within the CBC, or else it's the same person hopping from computer to computer.

Twenty visits came from the House of Commons, although they've done a good job of ignoring me until this point, with some notable exceptions. Four visits came from the Privy Council Office. Two visits from Industry Canada. Someone in the government has an interest in the fate of CBC Radio Two, or just idly surfing?

Readers from the Globe and Mail (not readers of the Globe and Mail, but readers from the Globe and Mail, the company) have accounted for nine visits. The Toronto Star, not to be outdone, has visited three times. And a reader (or readers) from the New York Times have visited five times, no less! When will I see an article in the NY Times about the continuing controversy over CBC Radio Two in the Great White North?

Someone from Canwest Global Communications has visited six times, and someone from CTV two times. Probably just commiserating with their radio colleagues.

Someone from the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement has visited three times, but has spent only an average of 16 seconds on the site. I assume just checking up on references to the BBM on the internet.

Interesting, no? (Well, I at least find it interesting.)

CBC Radio One - how mediocre can it get?

2008-11-05T12:37:00.003-05:00

While the topic of this blog has been CBC Radio Two, the programming changes which have been taking place over the past year and a half and my interactions with CBC management and Members of Parliament over these changes, I feel I also have to comment on CBC Radio One at this point.

I've been listening to CBC Radio One from 8:00 AM to, at times, 6:00 PM while refinishing some kitchen cabinets for the past three weeks. Why CBC Radio One? Well, as you may know from reading other entries on this blog, I find CBC Radio Two intolerable, with the exception of Julie Nesrallah's show, Tempo. And, sad to say, I can not afford to put a Sirius satellite radio in every room of the house, including my basement workshop where I'm doing most of the work.

I begin the day with 'Ottawa Morning' and its perky host, Kathleen Petty. I find it a generally interesting and informative program, well worth listening to.

Unfortunately, it's all downhill from there. 'The Current' (with Anna Maria Tremonti) has its moments, but at times it can be silly and downright embarrassing. Take today's post-election coverage - do we really need to hear the views of drunks in bars in Chicago on the Obama election? There was also a segment in which a CBC reporter telephoned various people to get their views on the Obama win. At one point the reporter woke up a McCain supporter in California to interview her, and played the entire conversation, apparently uncut, including her poor husband telling us that the woman was asleep. Do we need to hear this?

I find 'Q' an increasingly vacuous, vapid, mindless attempt at entertainment. Do I really care about Axl Rose's upcoming CD, 'Chinese Democracy'? Do I want to hear the latest CD from AC/DC? The answer is, I believe, 'no' to both. And who is this Mino (Mimo? Nemo? Super Mario?) guy that Jian features on 'Q' from time to time? Do I give a damn about his opinions on anything whatsoever? Once again, no.

'The Point' I find rather pointless - sorry to make the obvious bad joke. Take the interview with the author of a book about rowing across the Atlantic ocean that was featured last week on either 'Ottawa Morning' or 'The Current'. While this was an interesting interview, the topic of rowing across the Atlantic was held up for ridicule on 'The Point'. Could someone please tell me what was the point of that, and why it's entertaining?

I'm sorry to say that CBC Radio is becoming a waste of radio spectrum. But you probably know this already, if you're reading this blog.

Are the CBC Radio Two programming changes successful?

2008-10-30T12:29:00.025-04:00

So, you may be wondering, have the programming changes that the CBC implemented on Sept. 2, 2008 been successful? What is their definition of success, anyway?

Well, in numerous statements to the press and to concerned citizens, CBC management has stated that the programming changes introduced on March 19, 2007 (the cancellation of 'Music for a while', 'In Performance', the 'Arts Report' and the 'World at Six' news broadcast on CBC Radio Two) and on Sept. 2 2008 (too numerous to list here) were intended to make CBC Radio Two more relevant to Canadians and to attract a wider, 'more sustainable' audience. CBC have thus defined one of the criteria upon which they are to be judged: number of listeners. Ergo, an increased number of listeners means success, a decreased number of listeners means failure. Dismal, abject failure. Has the CBC been successful, according to this criteria?

For an outsider, it's hard to tell. One source of data is the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement, which makes 'Top Line Radio Statistics' available on their web site. What are 'Top Line Radio Statistics', you ask?

The BBM 'Top Line Radio Statistics' is a list of the radio stations in a given market (called the 'Central Market Area' by the BBM) and the number of listeners who have tuned into that radio station 'for at least one quarter hour during the week'. The time period that the BBM releases to the public is Monday - Sunday, 5:00 AM to 1:00 AM. So, if you tuned into a given radio station sometime during the day, on any day of the week, you could be counted by the BBM as having listened to the station.

I realize this data is not sufficiently detailed enough to draw many conclusions, but it's all we poor plebes have. Has Tom Allen's new show, from 6:00 AM to 10:00 AM, drawn more listeners, for example? Is Rich Terfry's new show, 'Drive', a roaring success? We listeners don't know. We have to rely on the CBC to tell us.

But we can start to draw some conclusions, even with the limited data that we have. Did CBC increase their audience after the March 19, 2007 programming changes? The BBM stats can give us some indication. The BBM Top Line data is now available for the third survey period in 2008, which includes July 7-20 and August 4-31. The second set of CBC programming changes, of course, took place on Sept. 2 2008, so are not covered by this survey. It will be interesting to take a look at the S4 2008 data once it's available.

Let's take a look at each major CBC market, starting with Ottawa, which I have a particular fondness for. The BBM Top Line data is available here, but I have put this data into the form of a graph to make it easier to digest. What are the results? Well, as it turns out, CBC Radio Two has lost 13,300 listeners in the Ottawa market, comparing pre-change listenership (before March 19, 2007, using S1 2007 as the last data point) to post-change listenership (using S3 2008 as the final data point), or approximately 20.8%. Not surprising, given the crap that is being played on CBC Radio Two these days.

"But", you may be saying to yourself, "if the total number of radio listeners in the Ottawa market is down, then it would make sense that CBC Radio Two listenership is down, wouldn't it?".

Yes, that is very true. However, as no doubt your investment advisor is telling you right now, if your mutual fund's value has declined, but less than the overall market, then that's a Good Thing. If your mutual fund's value has declined more that the overall market, then that's a Bad Thing. And what happened to the radio market in Ottawa during this period? It declined 4.5%, making the 20.8% decline in listenership for the CBC Radio 2 station in Ottawa a Very Bad Thing indeed.

How about Toronto:

Listenership for CBC Radio Two in Toronto decreased 29,100, or 14.0%. The total market in Toronto is down 2.6%. Bad Thing for CBC Radio Two.

Vancouver? Listenership decreased 49,100, or 21.4%. (Vancouver is a noted hotbed for CBC Radio Two listnership. It must be the Jurgen Goethe connection.) The total market was down 1.6%. Bad Thing for CBC Radio Two.

Montreal? Listenership is down 16,400, or 32.6%. The total market is down 9.7%. Bad Thing for CBC Radio Two.

Winnipeg? Listenership is up 3,100, or 8.3%. The total market is also up 4.8%. Good Thing for CBC Radio Two. (What's going on in Winnipeg, you might wonder? A bad mosquito season kept everyone indoors this summer, listening to the radio?)

Calgary? Listenership for CBC Radio Two is down 9,100, or 13.9%. The total market is down 5.5%. Bad Thing for CBC Radio Two.

Edmonton? Listenership for CBC Radio Two is down 19,200, or 34.2%. The total market is down 1.3%. Very Bad Thing for CBC Radio Two.

So, success, or dismal, abject failure? If you are from Winnipeg, as Mr. Chris Boyce is, you might call this a success. However, if you live in any of the other urban centres surveyed by the BBM, you might consider the CBC programming changes a dismal, abject failure.

As I mention above, the stats are available on the BBM web site. You don't have to take my word for it - look at the data yourself. As Mr. John Gordon used to say, "let the numbers speak".

Scenes from a protest: CBC Radio 2 Protest, April 11, 2008

2008-10-29T09:07:00.008-04:00

OK, I know it's been six months since the nation-wide CBC Radio Two protests that were held on April 11, 2008 and that I've been remiss in not sharing this video earlier. But what can I say? I've been busy with other things; namely, work, travel, home renovations and just generally trying to keep my head above water.

Now that the protests over the 'new 2' seem to have died down and the election and corresponding controversy surrounding the plans of the Harper government to cut funding to the arts is over, I thought it would be appropriate to remember that we can still get out in the streets and protest.

On this cold, snowy, early winter day we can remember another cold, rainy, late spring day in the Nation's Capital when Canadians marched in the streets to protest the high-handed actions of CBC Radio management.

I took this video at about 12:30 PM. By this time the crowd had thinned out since it was raining and quite cold - too cold to be staying out too long on the Sparks Street Mall. And I assume people had offices to go back to, lunch to eat, kids to be fed.

Note the police car early on in the video. Yes, the police were present for this protest! What did the CBC think was going to happen - raging grannies, moms and dads, music students, lovers of classical music were going to storm the gates of the CBC?

This just in! Responses from all four candidates in Carleton-Mississippi Mills!

2008-10-10T17:07:00.010-04:00

Just as I was beginning to lose hope of ever receiving an answer to my question, I received my copy of the Kanata Kourier-Standard, a community newspaper serving the community of Kanata, this afternoon. I had also sent the same question to the Kourier-Standard on Sept. 24 since the newspaper was soliciting questions from Kanata residents, to be submitted and answered by the candidates in Carleton-Mississippi Mills. And, wondrous to behold, my question had been submitted to the candidates and the candidates responded!

The question as printed by the Kanata Kourier-Standard, read as follows:

"There has been considerable controversy in recent months concerning the recent programming changes on CBC Radio 2. Could you please tell the voters of Carleton-Mississippi Mills what you intend to do, if elected, to ensure that CBC management is made more responsive to the wishes of it's audience, the Canadian taxpayer."

The responses were as follows. First, from the incumbent, Mr. Gordon O'Connor, of the Conservative Party:

"The government finances the CBC each year, but we don't tell the CBC what to broadcast. They are bound by CRTC rules and we will not interfere with what they broadcast."

Well, this was the kind of answer I expected from Mr. O'Connor. Short, succinct, rather arrogant, and obviously neither he nor his staff has made any attempt to understand the issue or why Canadians are so angry at the CBC. I would expect Mr. O'Connor to be defeated in the next election, were it not for the strong support he receives from the rural residents of this riding. Mr. O'Connor gets an F, a failing grade, for this response.

From Mr. Jake Cole, of the Green Party:

"Our principle is grassroots democracy; Canadians should have a say in what affects them. Any changes should reflect what people want."

This is considerably better than Mr. O'Connor's response, although Mr. Cole does not state what he would do. However, I give Mr. Cole a B+ for this response, for having the right attitude. It is not surprising that the Greens have come from nearly nowhere to become a serious contender in some ridings.

From Mr. Paul Arbour, of the NDP:

"Our government has acted in the past through an order council to change the practises of Canada Post because they weren't serving the Canadian public and I am prepared to move an order in council, if necessary, so that the CBC can continue to serve Canadians."

Much better. I don't know if what Mr. Arbour says is correct; i.e. an order in council can be used to change the CBC, but I give Mr. Arbour full marks for having the right attitude and being prepared to act. Mr. Arbour receives an A-.

And finally, from Mr. Justin MacKinnon of the Liberal Party:

"The CBC is a Canadian institution and they have to respond to the needs of the country. You have to give them some flexibility, but if they are ignoring the wishes of Canadians, I would stand up and address that."

Well done, Mr. MacKinnon. You get full marks for having the right attitude, although your response is lacking specificity. Consequently, Mr. MacKinnon also receives an A-.

I note that three of the candidates did not feel it necessary to answer my e-mail as well, and were only moved to answer the question since it has been posed to them by the Kanata Kourier-Standard. However, I realize that they are all busy and forgive them for this lapse. Mr. Arbour gets full marks for courtesy, having answered my question in an e-mail that he sent to me, with substantially the same response as appeared in the newspaper.

How would I have answered this question? This is my response, assuming that I had sent the answer directly to the sender:

Dear Mr. Wooten,

Thank you for your e-mail. It is always a pleasure to receive e-mails from the voters in Carleton-Mississippi Mills and to be able to address the issues that are of concern to the constituents of Carleton-Mississippi Mills.

I agree with you that the CBC has acted in a precipitous manner in instituting the programming changes on CBC Radio 2. While they have not violated the letter of the Broadcasting Act, 1991, or their license as granted by the CRTC, I believe they have certainly ignored the CBC Radio 2 audience in implementing these changes and have therefore violated the spirit of the Act and their license. At this moment, however, the programming changes have been implemented and it would be disruptive to reverse them.

If elected, therefore, I would work to implement the following actions:

The CBC would be required to report on the success (or lack thereof) of their initiative by displaying audience share statistics, according to time slot, comparing audience share for programs available before the changes and after the changes on the CBC web site for all to view. The audience share statistics that are presented would be those available from the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement, an independent firm. This market share data will also be included, by time slot, in the Corporations annual report.

The CBC would be required to establish a Listener's Council, one each for CBC Radio 1 and CBC Radio 2, to participate in the strategic decisions of the Corporation. The Listener's Council would be made up of volunteers from the CBC audience, cultural organizations and performers. The Council members would be remunerated for expenses only, as this is a volunteer position. Volunteers would be appointed from a list of applicants by the Minister of Heritage's office.

The CBC would be required to display all comments from CBC listeners, screened only to remove those comments that include profanity, racial slurs or irrelevant comments, on the CBC web site for each program.

The CBC would be required to apply for funding each fiscal year, using a zero-based budgeting approach.

I believe these actions, if implemented, would result in a CBC that is more responsive to Canadians and an institution that we, as taxpayers, could once again be proud of.

The CBC would be given a suitable period - I suggest a year - to show that the programming changes have in fact revitalized CBC Radio 2 and have resulted in a larger, sustainable audience. If the market share data does not show this, then the CBC would be directed by the Minister of Heritage to review the programming to ensure that the interests of Canadians are better met. This could, of course, also include a return to the programming that had previously existed on CBC Radio 2.

I thank you for your support and look forward to serving as your Member of Parliament in the next House.

Sincerely,

etc., etc.

Now, that wasn't difficult at all, was it? I whipped that off in - let's see - under ten minutes? Why couldn't all of the candidates have done the same?

Oh well, perhaps I'll run in the next election - which I predict will be in another two years time.

7 Days Later: Only the NDP has responded

2008-10-09T20:27:00.007-04:00

Seven days have passed since I sent my original question to the candidates in Carleton-Mississippi, Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Conservative), Mr. Justin MacKinnon (Liberal), Mr. Paul Arbour (NDP) and Mr. Jake Cole (Green). Only Mr. Arbour replied to my question, for which I thank Mr. Arbour.

I'll continue the conversation between Bob and Ted from the other day:

"So, Ted, how's the response to that Wooten guy coming?"

"Still working on it, Bob."

"There's only one work day left before the election, Ted. Think you'll get it finished before the weekend?"

"Yeah, no problem. But it's a bit more involved that I thought at first."

"Oh, yeah? How so?"

"Well, I've been digging into the history behind the CBC programming changes a bit. Seems this has been going on longer than we thought. It seems the first programming changes went back all the way to the summer of 2006. The CBC first replaced the Friday evening time slot of "In Performance", which had been all classical music before then, with a version of the current "Canada Live". At first, everyone thought this was just a summertime replacement for "In Performance" on Friday evenings - you know, to give the host, Eric Friesen, a bit of a break. But come September, "In Performance" did not come back to the Friday evening time slot and "Canada Live" was there permanently."

"Didn't the CBC announce this programming change?"

"Not as far as I can tell. It seems they tried to slip it in, under the radar so to speak, hoping no one would notice."

"So it was a bit of a trial balloon. To see if any one complained."

"Yeah, it seems so. Probably people noticed, of course, but maybe very few complained. After all, it was just one evening out of five. Perhaps they thought it was only for the summer at first and then, when they realized it wasn't, just decided to live with it."

"So what happened next?"

"Well, then, things went on as before. Then, in March 2007, CBC went whole hog and replaced 'Music for a while' with a jazz program, 'Tonic', and the remaining four evenings of 'In Performance' with 'Canada Live'. They also cut the evening newscast, 'The World at Six', from thirty minutes to five minutes and cut the 'Arts Report' out of the morning broadcast."

"Did the CBC announce these changes beforehand?"

"They did, sort of. A few weeks before the changes the announcers of the programs that were being cut had to announce that they wouldn't be there after March 19 and that there would be new programs."

"That's a bit cruel for the program hosts, isn't it? Having to announce your own cancellation?"

"Yeah, I guess it was."

"And no big press releases? No announcements on the CBC web site? No big hoop-lah to announce a major shift in strategy?"

"Nope, nothing, nada, nicht, zip, zero. Tried to fly it in under the radar."

"You've got to admit they're smart. Learned a thing or two from the government. Release bad news on a Friday afternoon, before a long weekend, in the hope that no one notices it or that it gets minimal coverage from the press. Better than the stealth bomber for flying in under the radar."

"Yeah, but in this case people did notice. Petitions were started, a few newspaper articles got written, this Wooten guy started his blog. But once again, the CBC got away with it."

"Then this Sept. 2 thing happened?"

"No, this time the CBC announced their changes well in advance, early in 2008. They also announced that the CBC Radio Orchestra was being disbanded. That's when the shit really hit the fan."

"How so?"

"Well, this time people really sat up and took notice. The evening schedule for classical music had already been decimated, but now classical music was being canceled during the daytime schedule. Classical music was going to be relegated to the 10:00 AM - 3:00 PM ghetto. The morning and evening time slots were given over to more contemporary music - supposedly, to showcase Canadian artists that were not being heard elsewhere."

"Interesting. Was there any evidence that Canadians actually wanted to hear 'Canadian artists that were not being heard elsewhere'?"

"CBC points to an 'Arts and Culture' survey that they say they did that supports these changes, but refuse to release it."

"Interesting. Sounds like the technique of the 'big lie'. It reminds me of the prelude to the second World War - no one objected when Herr Hitler annexed Austria - "it's only Austria, and after all, they're both German-speaking countries" government leaders in Europe said. And when Germany invaded the Czechs, everyone thought that Herr Hitler would be satisfied. But when Germany invaded Poland, then, people took notice. But by then it was too late."

"That's a little extreme, isn't it Bob? Comparing the CBC to the Nazis?"

"I'm not comparing the CBC to the Nazis, not at all. There's no comparison at all, of course. It's just the technique seems similar - take a small bite, see if any one notices, take another bite, see how much you can get away with, then take it all."

"Well, I agree, as an exercise in change management it was either an extremely poorly executed example of how to implement change in a large organization. Or else is was extremely devious, and extremely well done."

"So which was it?"

"The former, I think. You remember, I worked as a consultant in change management before taking this job."

"Was that your uncle, the candidate's company?"

"No, that was my other uncle, on my mother's side."

"Oh, yeah. I forgot."

"Well, getting back to the CBC. People did take notice, and they did object. There was a national day of protest on April 11. CBC listeners protested in most of the major cities in Canada - there's a Facebook group devoted to the protest. Can you imagine! Raging grannies on the streets of Canadian cities! But, in fact, it wasn't just grannies out protesting. It was students, the middle-aged, moms and dads with their kids, as well as the older folks, as you might expect."

"Come to think of it, I remember being on the Sparks Street mall last winter and seeing a crowd protesting outside the CBC building. But it was raining hard at the time - a combination of rain and sleet - so I didn't stick around."

"Remarkable, isn't it, that Canadians would feel so strongly about anything that they would get out into the streets and protest? Well, that wasn't the last of it. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage got involved and held a special hearing on the CBC changes."

"No kidding? I must've missed that one. What happened?"

"As you might expect, there was a fair amount of blustering questions by the MPs, evasive, self-important, self-congratulatory answers from CBC management, a few non-sequiturs from some of the other MPs, and finally the whole thing just petered out. I saw the broadcast on the web. That Wooten guy also did a synopsis of the hearing, but of course his view is a bit biased."

"So what's the situation now?"

"It seems both sides have retreated into their corners. The listeners have done all they could but no one has taken up their cause. The CBC has bulldozed ahead with their master plan to change the face of public broadcasting in Canada."

"And is it working?"

"That's just the thing! Is it working? How do we know? The only way we could tell if it's working or not is by looking at audience market share, both before and after the programming changes. And market share data isn't available to you or me - it's only available to the broadcasters themselves, such as CBC."

"Sweet. Makes it easier to maintain the 'big lie'. You can claim your strategy is successful, because only you have access to the data to show that it is, or is not. And your competitors aren't going to challenge you - they don't necessarily care to make it known that the CBC's strategy isn't successful. After all, it's in their best interests to see CBC's audience share decline."

"I think you're the one that's been reading too many thrillers now, Bob."

"Maybe. Anyway, I'm impressed, Ted. You've been doing your homework."

"Well, you know, you can only get so far on nepotism alone."

"Right you are Ted."

6 Days Later: Conservatives, Liberals and Greens still silent in Carleton-Mississippi Mills

2008-10-09T08:26:00.004-04:00

Six work days have elapsed (Oct. 1 - 3, Oct. 6-8) since I sent my question to the candidates in the riding of Carleton-Mississippi Mills to ask the candidates to explain their policy on the recent programming changes on CBC Radio Two and, more importantly, how they would reign in a Crown Corporation that no longer listens to the wishes of it's owners, the Canadian taxpayer.

Only Mr. Paul Arbour, the NDP candidate in Carleton-Mississippi Mills, has responded so far. I'll keep readers of this blog posted on responses that I receive - but with only two days left before the election (today, Thursday Oct. 9, and tomorrow, Friday, Oct. 10) I'm not optimistic that there will be any responses. (I'm assuming that the candidates and their staff will take the weekend off for Thanksgiving. If they're not planning to, they should.)

Bob and Ted were out distributing leaflets door-to-door yesterday, but will continue their conversation later today.

5 Days Later: A response from the NDP, still no responses from the Conservatives, Liberals or Greens

2008-10-07T19:57:00.007-04:00

Shortly after I posted yesterday's blog entry, Mr. Paul Arbour, the NDP candidate in Carleton-Mississippi Mills, sent a reply to the question I sent concerning each candidate's position on the recent programming changes on CBC Radio Two. Bravo, Mr. Arbour! Now, I still have to receive responses from Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Conservative party), Mr. Justin MacKinnon (Liberal party) and Mr. Jake Cole (Green party).

I have not posted Mr. Arbour's reply here since he did not explicitly give me permission to do so. I will post it if Mr. Arbour sends me another e-mail giving his permission.

I'll continue my imaginary discussion between Bob and Ted, two members of one of the campaign staffs, from yesterday. In case there are some who have not realized this yet, Bob and Ted are fictional characters. Any resemblance to any persons, either living, dead, or CBC management, is purely coincidental. However, at least we know now that they're not NDPers.

"So, Bob, how's the wife these days?"

"Carol's fine, Ted. How's Alice?"

"Good, good. Carol's still home with the kids?"

"Yeah, that's right. Bobby's four and Britney's three."

"Must be tough to be at home all day with two pre-schoolers."

"Yeah, it is. I couldn't take it. Carol claimed that listening to CBC Radio Two kept her sane. That was, at least, until CBC made their changes to the daytime programming on September 2nd."

"So what did she do?"

"Well, she tried listening to the 'new 2' for a while, but the new programming drove her up the wall. She told me that if she wanted to listen to middle of the road crap, she could tune to any of the other commercial radio stations that are out there."

"So that's where you got that 'middle of the road crap' statement."

"Yeah, I guess so. Anyway, I told her to listen to CDs instead. She tried that, but she said she was constantly having to go back to the CD player to put on another CD and, anyway, it didn't seem spontaneous, having to select your own CDs and make up your own playlist. And then Bobby put and end to that."

"What did he do?"

"Put apple sauce in the CD player and pushed 'play'. He'd heard us talking about the Apple iPod, Apple iPhone, Apple iTouch so much that he thought apple sauce might have some innate musical qualities."

"Must take after you. So why didn't Carol listen to streaming audio on the internet instead? CBC says they're playing just as much classical music over the internet now as they used to play over the air."

"Well, that's fine for you and me who are tied to our desks most of the day and glued to our PCs. But Carol, she's running all over the house. She's not near the PC that often. And we can't put a PC in every room."

"I guess not. So what's she doing now?"

"Well, the whole thing finally came to a head one day when I came home and she greeted me at the door with a bottle of Wild Turkey in her hand."

"Jeez, no! She didn't start drinking home alone with the kids?"

"No, of course not! She was just waiting for me to get home so that I could look after the kids. Then, she poured herself a drink."

"What about her parents? I thought they lived nearby."

"Yes, they do, and they're pissed off at CBC too for changing the programming. Vern, as you may remember, used to be a minister and wouldn't normally even say the words 'pissed off', but he's royally pissed at CBC right now."

"No, no, I'm not talking about the CBC, I mean, don't they help out with the kids from time to time."

"Well, sure, they used to, but since Vern retired they've been hard to pin down. They're either at the cottage, driving to or from the cottage, or on vacation somewhere. Just this summer Vern and Martha drove out to Vancouver. Then, when they came back, they went out to St. John's for a couple of weeks. Vern described it as 'listening to CBC Radio Two, coast to coast'.

"So, they're big CBC Radio Two fans too, huh? Must run in the family."

"Well, they used to be Radio Two fans. CBC Radio Two was always a big part of their daily lives - they always had a radio going on in the house, tuned to Radio Two. Until, that is, CBC replaced 'Music for a While' and 'In Peformance' with 'Tonic' and 'Canada Live'."

"What, that happened sometime back in 2007, didn't it? In March or April of 2007? I've been reading this guy Wooten's blog, and he's been harping on this ever since then."

"Yeah, that's right, Vern first mentioned it sometime in the spring last year. This summer, he finally got so irritated by the crap (as he puts it) that they feature on 'Canada Live' that he threw the radio into the lake from the cottage porch. And that took some throw - must've been 30 yards or so. He used to QB his high school football team, y'know."

"Well, that's impressive for an old guy."

"Yeah, and the even more impressive thing is that he spent the whole next day diving to find the radio. Martha said she didn't want the radio polluting the lake, because of all the lead and whatnot in the radio."

"So what are you going to do about Carol. Wild Turkey is no replacement for CBC Radio Two."

"Well, problem solved. I went out the next day and bought her three Sirius satellite radio receivers and put one on every floor of the house. Now, she can have Classical music from 'Symphony Hall' or Opera from 'Met Opera Radio' 24/7."

"It's a bit expensive, isn't it, to have a subscription for three receivers, not to mention the three receivers in the house?"

"Well, yeah, it's not as cheap as having a $29.95 radio in every room of the house and receiving music for free over the air. That's one of the things that bugs Carol and me so much - now we have to pay twice - we support CBC Radio with our tax dollars, but don't use their service, and have to pay for satellite radio."

"CBC is one of the owners of Sirius, isn't it? Maybe the programming changes were a clever plot to promote Sirius satellite radio subscriptions."

"I think you've been reading too much Grisham, Ted. But I'll look into it once I'm an ADM."

4 Days Later: Still no response from the candidates in Carleton-Mississippi Mills

2008-10-06T19:20:00.008-04:00

It has now been four days since I sent my question asking the candidates in the riding of Carleton-Mississippi Mills their policy on the recent programming changes on CBC Radio Two, without having received a response from any of them.

As I stated in my original question: I realize that some may think this is a small issue, but it has affected the lives of many people, more so than many of the other issues that preoccupy politicians and candidates for the riding. As such, it deserves some thought and response since, if the incumbent or candidates can not address this issue, then why should we vote for them? And, as I mentioned in my Sept. 10 2008 blog entry, we should hold the Conservatives responsible for these changes since the changed occurred during their minority govenment, even if the changes were carried out by CBC management with no direct involvement of the Parliament, Minister of Heritage or minority government.

I continue to speculate on what could be going on in the various candidates offices. I imagine a scene such as the following in one of the candidate's offices:

"So, Ted, you haven't forgotten about that question from that Wooten fellow, have you?"

"No, Bob, I haven't. I've just been so busy on our Afghanistan policy. Then, after that, I've got to work on our South Waziristan policy, our policy on trade relations with Kazakhstan and Uzbehkistan - all these 'stans are killing me, man."

Ted starts singing softly to himself: "Make a new plan, Stan. No need to be coy, Josée, don't listen to CBC! Hop on the campaign bus, Gus. No need to discuss much! Just drop the writ, Steve, and get yourself free!" Ted chuckles silently to himself over his wit.

"Where did you get that, Ted?"

"Just a bit of classical music from the '70s that I heard on the 'new 2'. I've been doing some research for my response to that Wooten guy. I'm not, like, totally ignorant, y'know."

"Ted, you're a living example of the point I was trying to make the other day concerning the value of Classical music on the old CBC Radio Two."

"Whatever, Bob" (Ted rolls his eyes.) "Speaking of points, I didn't get the point you were trying to make the other day about parliamentary and government oversight of the CBC. Surely, as a Crown Corporation, the Parliament and Minister should have no influence over the day-to-day operations of the CBC, right? The CBC should be completely independent of government influence, right? If it wasn't, well, the government of the day could influence the CBC in inappropriate ways - for example, to support it's own policies. Right?"

"Right you are Ted. The CBC should be independent of government influence. We're not going to give them, for example, playlists and tell them to play this or that. But we shouldn't treat them as a sacred cow, either, and adopt a completely hands-off policy. As a recipient of taxpayer dollars, the CBC should serve a public need that is not met by other, commercial organizations, much as other public institutions do - libaries, or the Museum of Civilization, or the National Gallery. The CBC should fill a role that commercial radio does not - not to just simply become another commercial radio station wanna-be, playing the same middle of the road crap that commercial radio stations play."

"Well, Bob, your 'middle of the road crap' is someone else's music, music they happen to enjoy."

"Yes, I'm not denying that, it's just that Canadians already have a wide range of commercial radio stations that play middle of the road crap to choose from. The CBC doesn't have to join them."

"So what are you suggesting, Bob."

"OK, it's this. The CBC has made their choice. There's not much we can do about it now. But, the fact is, they have stated that they have made these programming changes to boost their share of the radio audience. So it's clear that the success or failure of their changes should be measured by the audience share that they get. And it should be the responsibility of the government and Parliament to monitor their success or failure. After all, this is just good governance - you want to see some sort of return on your investment, in this case, the taxpayer's dollars. If there's no return, then what's the point? You might as well cut them loose and use the money somewhere else."

"Bob, you shock the hell out of me! Are you suggesting that the CBC should be privatized? That's what you mean by 'cut them loose', isn't it?"

"Well, no, not really. I'd hope that if this latest venture by the CBC isn't successful, we can redirect management back to what was previously successful; i.e. providing an alternative to commercial radio that features classical music."

"Yeah, right, as if that's ever going to happen. I'll see the Rhinos in office before that's going to happen. Whatever happened to the Rhinos, by the way."

"Merged with Reform. But the point is, Parliament and the government should be monitoring the impact that the CBC programming changes have had on their market share. And, as far as I know, no one is doing this."

"And just how to you propose to do this, Bob?"

"Simple. Market share data is available from the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement. Just compare maket share before the programming changes, for specific time slots, against market share after the programming changes for the same time slot. An increase in market share is success, a decrease is failure. Simple, no?"

"Do you want to be an ADM, Bob?"

"Sure, Ted. But let's get this election over with first, though."

3 Days Later: Still no responses from the candidates in Carleton-Mississippi Mills

2008-10-05T08:53:00.010-04:00

It has now been three days without receiving any responses from the candidates in the riding of Carleton-Mississippi Mills to my question concerning their policy on the CBC Radio Two programming changes. (For the record, I am only counting weekdays - I sent the original question on Tuesday, September 30, so three working days have elapsed without receiving a reply.)

I imagine a scene in one of the candidate's offices. Bob and Ted, two of the candidate's staff, are at their desks:

"Hey, Ted, have you answered that question yet from that guy, Wooten?"

"Lemme check. (Ted thumbs his Black furiously.) Woodhead? The guy that believes that flatulent Beavers are a major cause of global warming and wants to develop GMO Aspens with Simethicone in the bark to relieve the Beaver's excess gas? I forwarded that question to the Green Party - more their territory."

"No, not Woodhead. Wooten. It came last Tuesday."

"Let's see. (Ted continues to work his Black.) How about this one, from the Reverend Woodside, who claims that all the members of his congregation are "his children" and wants to be able to claim the child tax credit for all 352 of them. Is that it?"

"No, no! Wooten! W-O-O-T-E-N!"

"OK, here we go. Wooten. The guy who's complaining about the CBC Radio Two programming changes. Is that it?"

"Yeah, that's the one."

"What, he doesn't like Jian Ghomeshi?"

"No, no, that's CBC Radio One. He's talking about CBC Radio Two. Y'know, the one that plays Classical music. The dead white Europeans. The three B's. The music that shaped our culture."

"What, the Dead Kennedys? The Beastie Boys? The early Stones, Led Zep, Aerosmith? I listen to that stuff all the time." (Ted starts to jive in his chair, moving to an imaginary rhythm.)

"No, no! Classical Music! The compositions of Brahms, Beethoven, Bach! Mozart! Sibelius! He's complaining that the CBC has gone commercial, and taken away from Canadians the only nation-wide source of Classical music! He says that the CBC did this without consulting Canadians and, what's more, that Canadians are the owners of the CBC and should have a voice in the direction of the CBC!"

"Hah! What drugs is he on? The CBC is a Crown Corporation! As such, it's day-to-day operations are hands-off as far as Parliament and the Minister are concerned."

"Yes, but the government of the day has the responsibility to ensure that the taxpayer's dollars are being spent responsibly. That means providing some oversight over the Crown Corporation, to make sure they're not doing crazy things! To make sure that they live up to their mandate! To make sure they're serving a useful purpose, not just emulating popular culture! Right?"

"Ah, taxpayers, shmackpayers. What are they good for? Just vote for us and don't worry."

"Ted, how did you get this job again?"

"The candidate is my uncle. Remember?"

"Yeah, yeah, I remember."

2 Days Later: Still no responses from the candidates in Carleton-Mississippi Mills

2008-10-03T11:27:00.006-04:00

It's now been two days since I sent my question asking the candidates in Carleton-Mississippi Mills (the Honourable Gordon O'Connor, Jake Cole, Justin MacKinnon and Paul Arbour) their policy on making CBC Management more responsive to the wishes of Canadians, and still no reply.

Some may consider this a small, picayune issue - but how many other issues are there that (a) affect your lives directly and (b) the members of Parliament and government of the day can actually do something about?

Sure, health care and the lack of doctors is an issue - but will this issue be fixed overnight? No, it is the result of 30 years of neglect of health care that has led to the present crisis.

The price of gas? Candidates may posture, make promises, bluster in aggrieved tones, but again, there is no simple solution and, the fact is, the price of gas is determined by global market forces and can not be controlled by the government of the day.

The war in Afghanistan? Once again, there's no easy solution. Of course, promises can be made to end our involvement - I believe the latest date is 2011 - but the truth of the matter is that Canada's role in NATO and our relationship with the U.S. will determine our policy here.

Food prices? Again, prices fluctuate due to global demand, the cost of production, the impact of market speculators, the weather - once again, for the most part factors that can not be controlled by the government.

Making the CBC more responsive to the wishes of its shareholders, the taxpayers of Canada? Restoring funding to the CBC Radio Orchestra? Reversing the cuts to the Arts programs that have recently been instituted by the Conservative government? Now, these are things that can easily be done with a telephone call and several meetings between the Minister of Heritage and CBC management.

Is this still such a small issue that it can be ignored? Will voters care? Or will voters rise up in righteous wrath and vote for a candidate and party that will actully reflect their wishes?

1 Day Later: No responses from the candidates in Carleton-Mississippi Mills

2008-10-02T09:10:00.005-04:00

Nine seconds after sending my e-mail question to the Honourable Gordon O'Connor, Member of Parliament for Carleton-Mississippi Mills, I received this reply from Mr. O'Connor's constituency manager, Mr. John Aris:

"On behalf of Gordon O'Connor, thank you for your e-mail message. Mr. O'Connor always responds to correspondence from constituents first. In order to prioritize inquiries, we ask those wishing to receive replies to provide their complete name and mailing address.

If you have not done so in your original e-mail, please send us a quick note indicating this information.

Thank you again for contacting Gordon O'Connor, your Member of Parliament for Carleton-Mississippi Mills. We value your opinion, and will make note of your comments."

So, I dutifully sent a reply e-mail to Mr. O'Connor's office with my mailing address within the next 30 minutes.

So far I have not received any replies from Mr. O'Connor, Mr. Cole, Mr. MacKinnon or Mr. Arbour.

Oh, well, I know they're busy with only 12 days left before the election. Although this is an important issue to many Canadians, as it is a fundamental question that we should consider in a democracy - how do you ensure that proper oversight and controls are put in place on a Crown Corporation which is spending your tax dollars and which should be reflecting your wishes as a taxpayer?

A question for the candidates in Carleton-Mississippi Mills

2008-09-30T18:02:00.007-04:00

In my September 10 blog entry I suggested that we all ask the candidates in our ridings what their policy is with respect to the recent programming changes on CBC Radio Two. So, following my own advice, I sent the following e-mail to the candidates in my riding, Carleton-Mississippi Mills:

There has been considerable controversy in recent months concerning the recent programming changes on CBC Radio Two. While this may seem to be a small issue to some, it directly affects the lives of many former CBC Radio Two listeners, including senior citizens and retirees, for whom CBC Radio Two was an integral part of their daily life. Given that:

Canadian taxpayers are, according to the Broadcasting Act, 1991, the effective owners of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
CBC Radio management has been singularly unresponsive to the protests of CBC Radio Two listeners over the past six months
the members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Heritage are unable (or unwilling) to influence the day-to-day operations of the Crown Corporation

Could you please tell the voters of Carleton-Mississippi Mills what you intend to do, if elected, and what your party would do, if it forms the government, to ensure that CBC Management is made more responsive to the wishes of it's audience, the Canadian taxpayer?

I am sending the same question to all of the candidates in Carleton-Mississippi Mills. I am also posting the question and the fact that I have sent this question to all candidates on my web site, cbcradiotwoandme.blogspot.com.

With your permission, I will also post your reply on this web site.

Thanks in advance for your consideration.

I sent this e-mail to the incumbent, Gordon O'Connor (Conservative Party), Jake Cole (Green Party), Justin MacKinnon (Liberal Party) and Paul Arbour (NDP), this afternoon.

There are, of course, other points that could have been made in this e-mail, but I wanted to send a simple, direct question and receive a direct reply.

We'll see now what responses we get!

DIY Protest: 10 things you can do to protest the CBC Radio Two changes

2008-09-10T08:23:00.013-04:00

Are you outraged about the changes that have taken place on CBC Radio Two this September? Are you wondering what you, as a shareholder in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, can do to protest these changes? Well then, here are some possible actions to take:

1. Stop listening to CBC Radio Two.

I know that you may have done this already, but if you are still listening to CBC Radio Two, then stop. Listen to Classical 96.3 FM instead, if you are fortunate enough to be within broadcasting range, or Radio-Classique 99.5 FM in Montreal or Couleur FM in the Ottawa-Gatineau region. If you are living in another part of the country where these radio stations are not available, see the list of classical radio stations to the right.

If you can afford the start-up cost and fees associated with satellite radio, consider subscribing to Sirius or XM satellite radio. As a subscriber to Sirius satellite radio for over a year now, I find it very much worth the cost.

You may be asking: Why stop listening to CBC Radio Two? Ms. Julie Nesrallah's new program "Tempo" is still available, and it's still a very good program. Why stop listening, even though it is only between 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM? There are two reasons to stop listening. The first reason is simply a matter of principle. Even if no one knows that you have stopped listening, you will have the inner satisfaction of knowing that you no longer support or are in any way associated with the CBC.

The second reason is so that you can truthfully respond, if asked, that you no longer listen to the CBC; for example, if you are lucky enough to be asked by the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement (BBM) during one of their frequent quarterly surveys.

2. Join the CBC Radio Two protest.

See the Stand on Guard for CBC web site. This is the best one-stop-shopping site for all things related to the CBC protest. See also the other sites listed to the right.

3. Join the CBC Radio Two protest on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/).

If you are not already on FaceBook, sign up and join the groups "Save Classical Music at the CBC" and "Save the CBC Radio Orchestra".

4. Write a letter to the Minister of Heritage, the Honourable Josée Verner.

Tell Ms. Verner that although you understand that the CBC is a Crown corporation and therefore the Minister can not become involved in the day-to-day operations of the CBC, remind her that it is the job of the federal government and Parliament to ensure that our tax dollars are being spent responsibly and in a way that reflects our wishes as Canadian taxpayers. Remind Ms. Verner that this whole CBC Radio Two fiasco occurred while the Conservatives were in power, even if in only a minority government, and that Canadian voters will hold the Conservatives responsible for this outrage perpetrated on the loyal CBC Radio Two listeners. See the earlier letter that I sent to Ms. Verner's predecessor, Ms. Oda, for inspiration.

5. During the federal election campaign, ask the candidates in your riding what their position is on ensuring that the government and Minister of Heritage provides proper oversight on the action of Crown Corporations, including the CBC.

See the above. Remind the Conservative candidate that Canadian voters will hold the Conservatives responsible for the changes that have taken place on CBC Radio Two since these changes were implemented during their minority government. Don't let any promises of further tax reductions be used as a consolation for the changes that have taken place on CBC Radio Two. A two cent per litre reduction in the tax on diesel fuel, indeed!

6. Write to the members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

See my posts on this topic on May 14 2007 for inspiration.

7.Write a letter to the CBC management team. See the list to the right for the CBC Radio management hierarchy.

See my letters to Mr. Robert Rabinovitch, Ms. Jane Chalmers and Ms. Jennifer McGuire. Sadly, none of these folks are still in a position to reverse the changes that were instituted during their reign, but their successors - who are even more militantly in favour of the programming changes, it seems - may see the light if enough people write to them.

8. Write a letter to the CBC Board of Directors. See also the list to the right.

9. Write a letter to "Contact Us" on the CBC web site.

See my letter to TUWYT. Of course, I never received any response from the folks behind the scenes at TUWYT, but it's worth a try.

10. Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper.

There has been some coverage of the CBC Radio Two changes in national newspapers, but not enough my opinion. See some of the articles that have been published in the list to the right. Let's make this issue more visible!

To summarize, there is a great deal that you, as a shareholder in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canadian taxpayer and CBC listener can do to protest the changes. The current election is an especially opportune time to make your views known!

Third day listening to the "new 2"

2008-09-04T22:02:00.005-04:00

9:45 AM: I leave for Montreal. I tune in to Mr. Tom Allen's new program, "Radio 2 Morning". Among the pieces that I hear before the program ends at 10:00 AM is a cover of Johnny Nash's "I can see clearly now". Is this the much-vaunted Canadian content that CBC management has been trumpeting over the last six months? Covers of hits from the '60s and '70s?

10:00 AM: Ms. Julie Nesrallah's new show, "Tempo" begins, and once again Ms. Nesrallah reaffirms that this show is the gem in the new daily schedule. Although, it occurs to me - why was it necessary to replace "Here's to You" and "Studio Sparks" with a single program, and replace two program hosts with one? Is this a case of thinly-disguised cost cutting - replace two highly paid, veteran hosts with a single neophyte? (No offence is intended to Ms. Nesrallah, whom I already admire - I'm just wondering about the possible economics behind the change in programming.)

approx. 12:00 PM: I lose reception of the CBC Radio Two station in Ottawa, 103.3 FM. Once again, I have forgotten the frequency of the English-language CBC Radio Two station in Montreal and scan the FM frequencies for the station in Montreal. I find Radio-Classique, 99.5 FM in Montreal. Initially, I confuse this with CBC Radio Two, but the presence of commercials (and commentary) in French make me realize this is a commercial radio station. I give up on searching for CBC Radio Two and continue to listen to Radio-Classique for the rest of my trip.

approx. 4:15 PM: I leave for Ottawa, with a detour through Cornwall. I continue to listen to 99.5 FM until I lose reception. By this time it's 6:00 PM and I don't even bother trying to listen to Ms. Katie Malloch's "Tonic". I've listened to it enough times since its initial introduction in March, 2007, to know that it's not for me. I listen to a CD of the soundtrack from the movie "Across the Universe" instead, for the rest of the journey home.

Now, I should mention that the past three days have by no means been usual for me - a Toronto-Waterloo-Toronto drive, followed by a Toronto-Ottawa trip, followed by an Ottawa-Montreal-Cornwall-Ottawa journey is quite out of the ordinary. But it highlights one point - CBC management has been trumpeting the fact that classical music is available 24/7 on the web via streaming audio - but it doesn't do one much good, does it, if you are not tied to your PC/web-enabled PDA/iPhone.

So, once again, I return to the main points that I have been trying to make to the CBC management, members of Parliament, Minister of Heritage and to anyone elso who will listen for the past 18 months: the changes to the CBC Radio Two programming were made without proper consultation of the shareholders of the corporation (i.e. you and me, the taxpayers of Canada), the changes were made without allowing feedback to be solicited and displayed on the CBC Radio web site both prior to and after the changes were implemented and, furthermore, the changes are ill-advised and will drive the once-loyal CBC Radio Two audience away, with no replacement likely.

Will I listen to CBC Radio Two after this week? No, I will not, since I have found alternatives that are much more to my liking - Sirius satellite radio, Classical 96.3 FM in Toronto and now, Radio-Classique 99.5 FM in Montreal.

My own personal "Groundhog Day"

2008-09-04T07:43:00.004-04:00

The start of my third day listening to the "new 2". We get up at 6:30 AM, having driven from Toronto to Ottawa the day before. As is my habit when at home, I make coffee, turn on Sirius satellite radio to "Symphony Hall" and read the Globe and Mail and National Post. Forty-five minutes elapse before I remember that I'm supposed to be listening to the "new 2" in my attempt to give CBC Radio another chance. I tune into Mr. Tom Allen's new program, "Radio 2 Morning", just in time to hear the Stampeders and "Sweet City Woman". There is a brief moment when I think I have been doomed by CBC to my own personal version of "Groundhog Day" in which I play the Bill Murray character - will I be condemned by CBC to hear "Sweet City Woman" at least once a day on the "new 2"?

I see my letter to the editor is published in the National Post. Here is the full text, as published in the Post:

Re: I Survived The CBC's New Radio 2, And So Can You!, Adam McDowell, Sept. 3.

Adam McDowell hit the nail squarely on the head with his final assessment of the new CBC Radio 2: "radio is all about having to sit through stuff you're not necessarily keen to listen to." This is precisely the problem with the new CBC Radio 2 programming. In an era of narrow-casting, how will a radio station that attempts to be all things to all people attract and keep an audience?

Commercial radio stations understand this and focus their programming to a specific audience and musical genre. CBC Radio 2 previously did this and did it reasonably well. Now, by trying to squeeze every possible musical genre into the daily schedule, I expect CBC Radio 2 will lose its audience to more focused commercial stations.

But will the federal government realize that if no one is listening to the "new 2" it no longer deserves to be funded with our hard-earned tax dollars?

James Wooten, Kanata, Ont.

I will leave for Montreal later this morning. During the drive I will continue to give the "new 2" a second chance.

A second day of the "new 2"

2008-09-03T18:18:00.003-04:00

Second day of trying to be open-minded and give the "new 2" a chance. Driving back to Ottawa from Toronto, I tune into Julie Nesrallah's new program, "Tempo", at 11:45 AM. I listen to Ms. Nesrallah's show until I begin to lose reception of CBC Radio's Toronto station somewhere east of Toronto.

A second day of listening to Ms. Nesrallah's show confirms my first impression from yesterday - this is excellent programming, and precisely the type of program CBC Radio Two should be offering to it's listeners, not only during the 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM time slot but throughout the day and evening.

When I lose reception of 94.1 FM I turn to Sirius satellite radio, "Symphony Hall".

Sometime after 3:00 PM, and still driving to Ottawa, I search for the CBC Radio Two station from Kingston. I used to have all of the CBC Radio Two stations stored on my car radio, so that I could switch from Ottawa to Kingston, then from Kingston to Toronto while driving from Ottawa to Toronto. But it's been so long since I've listened to CBC Radio Two that I've forgotten the frequency for Kingston's Radio Two station. I scan the frequencies, searching for Radio Two, then realize the problem - when CBC Radio Two sounds like any other commercial station on the radio, how do you find it by scanning the dial? Wait until the hourly news, then scramble for five minutes to find the station? Continue to scan until you hit one of those annoying promos for CBC Radio Two's new programs? I give up in frustration and return to Sirius.

Closer to Ottawa I tune in to the Ottawa CBC Radio Two station, 103.3. FM and listen to Mr. Terfry's new show. It's not intolerable, but I hear Lyle Lovett, followed by a barely-recognizable cover of Murray McLauchlin's "Down by the Henry Moore", performed by Blackie and the Rodeo Kings. Is this the long-awaited Canadian content that the CBC has been promising? U.S. performers and covers of Canadian hits from the '70s?

But then Mr. Terfry also plays Hawksley Workman - and I admit I've never heard of Mr. Workman, until now, and I enjoy Mr. Workman's performance. Then, a song by Amos Lee (I was distracted by driving, I may have misheard the name) followed by a bit of eclectic wierdness, which I believe was "Banjo Girl".

All in all, Mr. Terfry's show fills a need - a need for eclectic, out-of-the-ordinary music - that I previously filled by listening to university radio stations. I may listen again from time to time, but I still hold a grudge against the CBC for cancelling so many fine programs and for destroying my - yes, my - CBC. As I have previously stated in other blog entries, as well as letters to CBC management, I would have supported the creation of a CBC Radio 3 to feature programs such as Mr. Terfry's. But I do not support the destruction of CBC Radio Two, to replace it with an inferior offering.

My first day listening to the "new 2"

2008-09-02T21:49:00.006-04:00

12:30 PM: The truck is loaded and we're on Highway 401, somewhere between Mississauga and Waterloo. I remember that I'm supposed to be listening to CBC Radio Two's new programming. I tune the radio to CBC Radio Two, to Julie Nesrallah's "Tempo". Mozart's Symphony No. 41 is playing and apparently all four movements are to be played today. Ms. Nesrallah's comments between the second and third movement are insightful and concise. This is how CBC Radio Two used to be, and should be! Too bad it is only between 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM.

When it was first announced that Ms. Nesrallah would be hosting a show for five hours a day, five days a week, I wondered how Ms. Nesrallah would find the time to select pieces for the programming and write commentary on each. Perhaps it is cynical for me to think that this task is to be accomplished by playing all pieces in their entirety and by keeping commentary to a minimum. However, I have no objection to this and welcome this approach to programming. Please keep it up, Ms. Nesrallah! Unfortunately, we arrived in Waterloo at 1:00 PM and I had to turn the radio off, to move things into Alex's apartment.

4:10 PM: Driving to Canadian Tire to pick up charcoal for the barbecue while Ingrid and Alex shop for food at Food Basics. I tune to CBC Radio Two, to listen to Rich Terfry's new program, "Radio 2 Drive". I hear a performance that I initially believe to be a novelty act, either a precursor to Tiny Tim, or perhaps a Tiny Tim impersonator. I arrive at Canadian Tire and thankfully turn off the radio.

approx. 5:30 PM: Driving back to Toronto from Waterloo. I turn on the radio, again back to Rich Terfry's "Radio 2 Drive". We hear a singer that Rich describes as the "Voice of Cuba". Ingrid thinks that it's Cuban rap and asks me to turn the volume down. I tell her that it's all part of the "new 2" experience and we should listen. I turn the volume down. This is how CBC Radio features new Canadian content?

approx. 5:45 PM: Mr. Terfry introduces a collaboration between Robert Plant and Allison Krause. We listen. It's enjoyable.

approx. 5:55 PM: Mr. Terfry closes the program with a rendition of "Sweet City Woman", originally recorded by the Stampeders in 1971. I cringed when I heard this during the '70s and it still makes me cringe. Dear God, no, is this what the drive home show is going to be like?

To summarize my first day of listening to CBC Radio Two, or what little that I was able to listen to during our busy day of moving Alex from Toronto to Waterloo: as I expected, the new morning programming is too eclectic and inappropriate for the time of day. If I want to listen to Bob Dylan at 8:00 AM, I'll put on a CD or tune to a station that features '60s classic rock. If I want to listen to soul, or R&B, or jazz between 6:00 AM and 10:00 AM, I'll do the same.

Rich Terfry's show had it's moments, but as I say, listening to one enjoyable piece only to be followed by an irritating, nauseating recording causes me to lunge for the next button on the radio. Dangerous when driving on the 401 during rush hour traffic.

Ms. Nesrallah's show was the only truly enjoyable moment of the day, at least for me. I may even start listening more often, switching from my much-beloved Sirius satellite radio "Symphony Hall". But then I, as a retiree (albeit at the ripe old age of 51), have the luxury of being able to listen to classical music during the middle of the day. The vast majority of Canadians don't - and that's the sad part of this whole sorry affair known a the "new 2".

Masochism? Or trying to be open-minded?

2008-09-02T08:41:00.002-04:00

In the spirit of attempting to be open-minded and to give the "new 2" a chance, I tuned the radio to CBC Radio Two while in Toronto today, instead of the usual Classical 96.3 that we listen to while in Toronto. We woke up to Tom Allen's new show; I listened to it while drinking my morning coffee; while eating breakfast; while writing this blog. And, although I respect and previously enjoyed Mr. Allen's "Music and Company", I have to say that it is an ordeal to continue to listen to this new programming.

The only high point was Bob Dylan's "Like a Rolling Stone", although the CBC CD player managed to mangle this performance, making it a less than satisfactory experience. Although I still enjoy hearing Bob Dylan from time to time, is 8:00 AM really the time that CBC Radio Two listeners want to hear Bob Dylan?

I'll continue to try to give CBC Radio Two a chance today while we drive Alex to Waterloo; move him into his apartment and drive back to Toronto. I suspect, however, that the eclectic and rather irritating music that the CBC seems to be featuring now will wear our patience to the breaking point and we will have to turn to Classical 96.3 FM at some point during the day.

CBC executives nestled all snug in their beds, while visions of sugar plums danced in their heads

2008-09-01T20:03:00.004-04:00

On the eve of the launch of CBC Radio Two's new programming, one wonders what must be going through the minds of the CBC Radio Two executives that are responsible for these changes. Are they going to sleep tonight, secure in the knowledge that the programming changes that they are inflicting upon their once-loyal audience are best for the CBC, for their listening audience and for the Canadian taxpayer? Do they believe that the storm of protest that has resulted from the announcement of the new programming is just a small speed bump on the road to greater relevance of the CBC and a greater share of the listening audience? Do they dream of even greater glories for CBC Radio Two, with even more alarming changes in store for their unsuspecting audience, to be announced perhaps in six months time? Or are they beginning to question whether the choices they have made are correct, and are they beginning to worry that they will have to justify the radical changes they have made to the CBC programming, and the subsequent decline in market share that may ensue?

Well, I have no inside knowledge of what is going through the minds of the executives of CBC Radio Two - your guess is as good as mine. Interestingly enough, however, the CBC is advertising for a Research Analyst who will "analyze and report general audience data for internal and external clients using BBM and comScore audience ratings databases" and "analyze and interpret the data, and verify its statistical validity and communicate research findings by means of written reports in both French and English". This is a temporary position, until May 2009.

Now, it could be that this is just business as usual for the CBC. Alternatively, it could be that the CBC is feeling some pressure from the Minister of Heritage to justify its recent decisions and is intent on compiling data to prove that it has indeed increased its market share, as a result of the new programming.

No matter whether this is simply business as usual or a new initiative of the CBC, don't you think that, as shareholders in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, we should be able to see for ourselves the results of this analysis? CBC, will you not put these reports on your web site for all to see, and to prove to us that your new programming is resulting in increased market share for the CBC?

The CBC begins to be responsive!

2008-06-14T13:11:00.003-04:00

Well, will wonders never cease to exist! The CBC is now advertising upcoming programming changes on the CBC.ca web site, in advance of their implementation, and actually allowing listeners and/or viewers to comment! This is, of course, a change from past practice when the only comments that were allowed were via the "inside the CBC" web site, which proclaimed itself as the "official blog of the CBC".

A case in point of the CBC's apparent change in policy is the announcement of the new hosts for the weekday and weekend programming. The CBC announced on June 10 that Tom Allen would continue to host the weekday morning show, from 6:00 AM to 10:00 AM, although the new show will feature a "mix of musical genres".

Julie Nesrallah will host a new classical daytime show during weekdays from 10:00 AM. to 3:00 PM.

Rich Terfry, who records under the name "Buck 65", will host a drive-home show from 3:00 PM. to 6:00 PM.

Molly Johnson will host the new weekend morning shows from 6:00 AM to 10:00 AM.

Peter Togni will be the new host of Choral Concert on Sunday morning.

Jurgen Gothe will host a new show on Sundays from 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM.

I wish the new hosts well in their new ventures, but I (as a formerly loyal CBC Radio Two listener) will not be there to tune into their new programs. As I have mentioned on this blog, probably ad nauseum, I have defected to Sirius satellite radio, where I find programming much more to my liking. However, I continue to protest the changes taking place at CBC Radio Two since I believe my rights as a shareholder in the corporation are not being respected by CBC management. What are those rights? Why, the right to be consulted on such programming changes and the right to voice an opinion on the proposed programming changes, in an open and democratic forum.

It is the final point - the right to voice an opinion on the proposed programming changes - that has finally changed at the CBC (or so it seems, based on this latest announcement). CBC Radio Two listeners can now register on the CBC.ca web site and actually make comments on the proposed changes! Of course, it seems that the CBC management is continuing their past practice of ignoring the comments, but at least this is a good start!

It is interesting to read the comments that listeners have left on this site regarding the new programming - the comments are overwhelmingly opposed to the new programming. CBC management, when will you sit up and take notice that you have embarked on a voyage of self-destruction?

The gang that couldn’t shoot straight, Part II

2008-06-11T08:37:00.002-04:00

The twists and turns that this story takes! It was reported yesterday (on the front pages of the Globe and Mail and National Post, no less) that CTV had stepped up to the plate, so to speak, and bought the rights to the Hockey Night in Canada theme song, reportedly for $2.5 - $3.0 million. The deal struck with Ms. Dolores Claman gives CTV the rights to use the theme song “in perpetuity” for their TSN and RDS broadcasts. It was also reported that CTV had, just days earlier, reached agreement with the NHL on a six-year deal to broadcast 70 NHL games per season on TSN.

So, you might ask, just how much was the CBC paying Ms. Claman for the use of her theme song on HNIC broadcasts? It was also reported that the CBC was paying $500 each time the theme song was played, as well as “other undisclosed fees”. Over an 85 game HNIC schedule and assuming that the theme is played twice per game, that works out to be $85,000 per year! Peanuts, you might say!

What if the CBC had decided to buy the rights to the theme song, as CTV has done, “in perpetuity”? How much should they have been willing to pay? At the paltry sum of $500 per use, over an 85 game season for 100 years, and assuming that Ms. Claman (who I presume is a retiree) would be happy earning the 30-year T-Bill rate of interest (currently 4.17%), the present value of this 100-year income stream is approximately $2 million.

Now, I have no way of knowing whether this would have been acceptable to Ms. Claman – perhaps she considered $500 per use of the theme song much too low – but it seems that the CBC missed out on a golden opportunity to secure the rights to the much-beloved HNIC theme song at a perfectly reasonable price. Instead, CTV put a move on the CBC that left the CBC standing at the blue line with their shorts around their ankles. Good on yer, CTV!

I realize that the last two blog entries have been somewhat off-topic, given that this blog is devoted to protesting the demise of classical music on CBC Radio Two, but is there any better illustration of the mismanagement of the CBC than this most recent fiasco?

The gang that couldn’t shoot straight

2008-06-09T12:20:00.004-04:00

In my April 28 2007 blog entry, I speculated on the probable result of a decision by CBC TV to cancel “Hockey Night in Canada”. Of course, I was being facetious and never expected such a thing to happen, but one should never underestimate the CBC management team!

While the CBC has not taken that drastic action (just give them time!), they have done something that is equally likely to raise the ire of Canadians. Of course, I am referring to the decision by the CBC to replace the Hockey Night in Canada theme song with a song to be chosen in a contest, to be held later this year. Apparently the CBC cannot come to an agreement with the song’s composer, Ms. Dolores Claman, on appropriate remuneration for the use of the song during broadcasts.

In the week or two since this decision was announced there have been newspaper articles published bemoaning the loss of our cultural heritage, letters written to the editor of our national newspapers, petitions started, perhaps even protests in the streets by now (I was away on vacation for the last two weeks, so I’m not fully up to date on all the news). Sound familiar? Well, of course it does! The CBC has managed to alienate hockey fans nearly as much as they have alienated their classical music fans. This is no mean feat, given that these groups are often (not always, of course) widely divergent in tastes and interests. Who is left in the current or former CBC audience for the CBC to annoy? The “Friendly Giant” fan club? (Oh, sorry, I forgot that the Friendly Giant fan club is already pissed off by the CBC’s use of Rusty the Rooster and Jerome the Giraffe in a 2007 Gemini awards skit which showed the two smoking, drinking and having sex. I wish I was making this stuff up, but I’m not.)

In a recent article in the National Post, it was said that “Scrapping a TV theme song is like losing a good friend”. Robert Gjerdingen, a professor of music theory and cognition at Northwestern University in Illinois, was quoted as saying “The theme song becomes like someone in your family. It’s like meeting somebody you know. So if the song is like your friend Bill [and is cancelled], suddenly it’s like ‘Where’s Bill? Who took Bill’”?

Well, exactly. What if it’s not just the theme song? What if it’s the entire program? Such as “Music for a while”, for example? Or “In Performance”? For the CBC Radio Two listeners, cancellation of these shows is similar to losing a member of the family.

If we weren’t all being affected by these missteps taken by CBC management, it would be great fun to sit back and watch how they could further screw up the corporation.