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.
Showing posts with label CBC Radio market share. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CBC Radio market share. Show all posts
Friday, August 5, 2011
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Latest CBC Radio 2 survey data: the "S9 2010" results
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.
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.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
CBC Radio Two market share - the "Spring 2010" results
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.
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?
Sunday, June 20, 2010
The CBC Radio 2 new programming - success or failure?
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.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
CBC Radio 2 market share: the BBM "Fall" survey
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.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Latest review of CBC Radio 2 market share
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.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Found: CBC Radio's Nov. 27 Press Release
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!
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
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.
"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.
Monday, October 6, 2008
4 Days Later: Still no response from the candidates in Carleton-Mississippi Mills
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."
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."
Monday, May 5, 2008
My summary of the CHPC meeting with CBC execs held May 1 2008
Mr. Hubert Lacroix, President and CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada, Mr. Richard Stursberg, Executive Vice-President, English Services and Mr. Sylvain Lafrance, Executive Vide-President, French Services, appeared before the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on May 1 2008.
I was not able to attend the meeting but instead watched the video of the meeting on the Parliament video site here.
I’ve attempted to summarize those portions of the meeting relevant to the changes in the CBC Radio Two programming that have taken place over the past year and those changes that have been announced for September. I have based this summary on the notes that I took while watching the video since I do not have access to a transcript of the meeting; consequently, any errors or omissions are mine alone. If you know where a transcript of the proceedings can be found, please let me know.
During his opening remarks, Mr. Schellenberger reminded the committee members that questions that overstepped the bounds of the committee’s mandate according to the Broadcasting Act, or that threatened the CBC’s operational independence, were out of order and would not be considered.
I find it interesting that Mr. Schellenberger felt it necessary to make this remark. The Broadcasting Act clearly states:
40. The Corporation is ultimately accountable, through the Minister, to Parliament for the conduct of its affairs.
So, if Members of Parliament are not allowed to question CBC Executives concerning decisions that are relevant to “the conduct of its affairs”, then who is? Who is to oversee the CBC, if not the elected representatives of the taxpayers, namely, the Members of Parliament?
Fortunately, the Members of Parliament ignored the instruction of the Chairman and proceeded to ask questions concerning recent operational decisions of the CBC.
Mr. Hubert Lacroix then made an opening statement, during which he commented on the Committee’s recent report and the proposed MOU between the government (I assume) and the Corporation. Mr. Lacroix also stated that during the four months that he has held the position of CEO he has met with employees and “stakeholders that work in broadcasting” across the country. It is interesting, however, that at no point in his opening remarks did Mr. Lacroix state that he had met with Radio Two listeners to attempt to understand their concerns, even though there have been protests concerning the Radio Two programming changes taking place for the past year, and certainly within the last month. Are the CBC listeners not important to the conduct of the Corporation?
Mr. Lacroix also stated that in the four months since he has become CEO the CBC has focused on three priorities: its people, its programs and its push to move forward with its strategic initiatives. Once again, conspicuous by its absence is any mention of serving the needs of listeners. Where are the CBC Radio listeners in Mr. Lacroix’s priorities? Clearly not among the top three.
Mr. Lacroix also alluded to the recent protests by the CBC Radio Two listeners on April 11, stating that not all listeners are satisfied with change. However, Mr. Lacroix stated, CBC management will not shy away from making hard changes. What does this mean, precisely? Even if the majority of CBC Radio Two listeners are not in favour of the programming changes, CBC Radio executives are determined to push their changes through? Where will it end? Until there are no listeners left?
During the questions from the committee members that followed, Mr. Bill Siksay, Member of Parliament for Burnaby-Douglas, questioned the CBC executives about the recent changes that have been made to classical programming on Radio Two. Mr. Siksay reminded the executives that in many rural areas there are no alternatives to CBC Radio as very few commercial radio stations feature classical music. Mr. Siksay asked the CBC executives why listeners were being abandoned, especially in Vancouver, where listeners have been loyal to Radio Two?
Mr. Lacroix replied that the recent changes to the Radio Two programming are intended to make Radio Two the greatest showcase of Canadian music in the country and to expose listeners to other genres. Mr. Lacroix also reiterated the point that classical music will remain the most important genre on CBC Radio Two. Furthermore, Mr. Lacroix stated, in September the CBC will begin a streaming audio service on the internet to “stream classical music 24/7”.
This seems to be the crux of the CBC’s argument. (I find it interesting that the CBC executives have not felt the need to promote this viewpoint with Canadians prior to making the programming changes, but instead believe it’s acceptable to make the changes first, then explain their rationale. But this is another topic for discussion later.) Their argument, as I understand it, goes like this: the CBC is Canada’s public broadcaster. Therefore, it is the CBC’s mandate to promote Canadian artists, from every musical genre and every ethnic group represented in Canada. If this means that CBC Radio Two becomes a hodge-podge of music, everything from country music to jazz to pop to classical, so be it. It’s all in the name of cultural diversity! So what if no one actually listens to it!
The problem with this, of course, is that there is no focus on the listener. What does the listener want to hear? There is no focus on the quality of the music. Is it of sufficient quality to be played on Canada’s national broadcasting service? There is no focus on educating the listener. Is the music being featured on Radio Two accepted as being one of the great performances that deserves to be heard?
What if this approach to content was taken by, for example, the National Gallery of Canada? Suppose the National Gallery decided to focus primarily on Canadian artists, rather than considering the merits of the art? Would Canada be better served by being exposed to more Canadian art, albeit at the expense of other works of art from other countries, including the great masterpieces from Europe from previous centuries? Would this not be considered a somewhat provincial attitude?
What if this approach to content was taken by public libraries? What if public libraries in Canada decided to feature Canadian writers, at the expense of other authors from other countries. Would Canadians be better served by having access to more Canadian authors, even if best-sellers from other countries or the classic literature from other countries and other eras was not available, or was still available but not as widely?
Mr. Ed Fast, Member of Parliament from Abbotsford, pointed out that four of the finalists from the “Canadian Idol” competition had backgrounds in classical and choral music. Mr Fast also expressed concern that, as CBC scales back on classical music, fewer Canadians would develop an appreciation for classical music. Mr. Fast asked the CBC executives how they would measure the impact of their decision to reduce classical music on CBC Radio Two.
Mr. Lacroix reiterated his statement that Radio Two would become a showcase for Canadian talent in other genres and that “classical is not going away” on Radio Two, merely sharing the airwaves to better reflect other genres.
Mr. Fast then asked whether the same goal could not have been achieved by establishing another FM channel, leaving Radio Two as a mostly classical channel. Mr. Fast asked whether other options were considered and what consultation took place before these changes were implemented.
Mr. Stursberg stated that studies and consultations took place over the three previous years and that these consultations were the “most far-reaching” in the history of the CBC. Mr. Stursberg also reiterated the point that access to classical music would continue on Radio Two and that a new classical channel would be featured on the internet. Mr. Stursberg also pointed out that 30,000 pieces of music are released in Canada each year, yet only 240 pieces are played on radio. Mr. Stursberg stated that there is a “vast commercial landscape that is not heard” and that the shift in strategy on Radio Two was not meant to denigrate classical music, but instead intended to expose Canadians to music that they have had little access to in the past.
Well, this is all very interesting. If studies and consultations had taken place in the three years prior to the programming changes being implemented, don’t you think your or I (as loyal Radio Two listeners) would have heard about it? Don’t you think there would have been discussions on the CBC web site, on CBC Radio Two itself, in newspaper articles, in town hall meetings, on phone-in shows (on “Cross-country Check-up” perhaps) ? Instead, the changes to the CBC Radio Two programming that were introduced on March 19, 2007, were sprung upon an unsuspecting listening audience with little or no warning. This constitutes the “most far-reaching” consultation in the history of the CBC? What does the CBC do when it want to surprise someone?
As for the statement that there are 30,000 pieces of music released each year yet only 240 get commercial airplay, well, perhaps there is a good reason that only 240 get commercial airplay (if indeed these statistics are true, I have no way of knowing). Could it be that only 240 deserve to be heard? Is Radio Two to become a dumping ground for Canadian content that no one else wants?
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia, Member of Parliament for Lac-Saint-Louis, stated that he has noticed the change in mix on Radio Two and that if one is looking for classical music, it is getting to the point that “Radio Two is not the place to go” as it is becoming “hit and miss – lounge music, then jazz”. Mr Scarpaleggia also suggest that if the music mix becomes too broad, then in major markets it will get to the point that listeners will disengage from Radio Two and CBC Radio Two’s audience share will fall. Those who want to hear pop music will go to commercial radio. Mr. Scarpaleggia wondered: what will happen if the CBC executives appear before this committee in the future, after CBC Radio’s market share has fallen to one percent (from the current three percent)?
Mr. Lacroix replied that CBC Radio is attempting to replicate the depth and analysis currently devoted to classical music in other genres and that classical music will remain in the 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM timeslot. CBC Radio Two listeners will still know where to go to hear classical music. Mr. Lacroix stated that he would be disappointed if Radio Two listeners moved to other channels and did not “open up to other genres”.
Mr. Scarpaleggia replied that the CBC Radio Two listener may not be able to listen to CBC Radio Two during the 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM timeslot and may want to hear classical in his or her car, or on the kitchen radio. In that case, will the CBC Radio Two listener be lost forever? (The answer to that question is yes, of course the listener will be lost forever. But I realize it was a rhetorical question.) Mr. Scarpaleggia asked if the CBC would create another radio station, if it had sufficient funding.
Mr. Stursberg stated that the CBC could not afford to build another FM radio network. Mr. Stursberg also stated that, as a result of market research, it was becoming clearer that the CBC Radio Two audience was becoming older. It was also clear that the prevailing view that the audience would “grow into Radio Two” was not taking place. Radio listeners in their 40s and 50s were not moving to Radio Two. Therefore, Mr. Stursberg stated, Radio Two would have to be repositioned and, by doing so, would serve the Canadian music industry better. Mr. Stursberg also stated, surprisingly, that he was “not too worried about losing the audience”.
Mr. Michal Chong, Member of Parliament for Wellington-Halton Hills, made several points concerning Radio Two. Mr. Chong compared CBC Radio Two’s decision to revamp its programming to Coca-Cola’s decision to introduce “New Coke” in 1985, stating that the CBC was alienating its core audience. Mr. Chong asked why, if the CBC was interested in showcasing new artists, they were putting new artists on FM radio instead of on the internet. Mr. Chong pointed out that FM listeners tend to be an older demographic, whereas younger listeners tend to listen on-line more often. Mr. Chong also suggested that if the CBC wanted to showcase diversity, a third FM band would be required as is commonly the case with public broadcasters in Europe.
Mr. Siksay then asked whether the CBC executives had any market share data available to judge the success of their programming changes. Clearly, the subject of the discussion had been the changes to CBC Radio Two, yet Mr. Stursberg persisted in trumpeting the audience share of CBC Radio One and CBC Television before finally stating, with an apparent straight face, that no erosion had been seen in the Radio Two audience, and none was expected!
Mr. Siksay asked whether audience erosion had not occurred in Vancouver and Mr. Stursberg replied that it had not. Mr. Stursberg also stated that the CBC would not have a clear sense of the CBC’s market share “until the beginning of next year”, after the new programming had been launched in September.
Mr. Siksay then asked: when did the changes to the CBC Radio Two programming begin? Mr. Stursberg, showing himself to be a master of the understatement, replied that some “small changes” had been made in the past year.
Mr. Siksay then asked whether the CBC did not survey its audience to determine the reaction to these changes and Mr. Stursberg replied that the CBC does not survey its audience, relying instead on the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement. Mr. Stursberg reiterated the point that the CBC has not seen any erosion in market share.
I find Mr. Stursberg’s remarks preposterous. Of course the CBC executives have access to market share data and of course they can assess the impact of the changes in the programming on CBC Radio Two’s market share! They have a full year’s worth of data to assess, from the 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM timeslot, when “Music for Awhile” and “In Performance” were replaced by the crapulent “Tonic” and even the more crapulent “Canada Live”. Unfortunately, members of the public do not have access to this data. While it is true that the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement (BBM) provides access to its "Top Line Radio Reports" here, the fact is that this data covers the time period from 5:00 AM to 1:00 AM Monday to Sunday as one single value - hardly granular enough for a member of the public to determine if, for example, CBC Radio Two has lost listeners in the 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM timeslot during weekdays. One would expect that if the effects on audience share of the move away from classical music would have been felt, it would be in this timeslot. And, the fact is, the BBM have compiled a full years' worth of data for the CBD to analyze - and the CBC, as a subscriber to their service, receives data that is much more specific than available to the general public. If the changes in CBC Radio Two’s evening schedule, first launched on March 19 2007, were such a smashing success, as the CBC executives would have us believe, doesn’t it make sense that the CBC executives would be willing to highlight this success? Or perhaps this experiment has not been so successful after all, and the CBC executives are unwilling to admit this?
After further questioning the meeting was adjourned, and Mr. Schellenberger thanked the witnesses for appearing before the committee.
I find all of this quite astonishing. After a year of programming changes we finally hear, in a public forum, CBC Radio management’s rationale for the changes that have been taking place on Radio Two. If you were the executive of a large corporation planning to implement an unprecedented change in your product, wouldn’t you prepare your customers carefully for such a change? Wouldn’t you advertise this change well in advance, preparing your customer for the change so that, when it did happen, the customer would be prepared for it and perhaps even be looking forward to it? And, before making such a change in your product, wouldn’t you survey your customer base to make sure that your customers were receptive to such changes?
Nothing of the sort has happened in this case. Instead, CBC Radio has attempted to force these programming changes down the throat of their audience and, what is worse, appear to be completely oblivious to the impact that it has had on their audience. They are not willing to change their course and it appears that there is no government body that is willing or able to make them change their course.
What is the Canadian taxpayer to do when a Crown corporation begins to run amok?
I was not able to attend the meeting but instead watched the video of the meeting on the Parliament video site here.
I’ve attempted to summarize those portions of the meeting relevant to the changes in the CBC Radio Two programming that have taken place over the past year and those changes that have been announced for September. I have based this summary on the notes that I took while watching the video since I do not have access to a transcript of the meeting; consequently, any errors or omissions are mine alone. If you know where a transcript of the proceedings can be found, please let me know.
During his opening remarks, Mr. Schellenberger reminded the committee members that questions that overstepped the bounds of the committee’s mandate according to the Broadcasting Act, or that threatened the CBC’s operational independence, were out of order and would not be considered.
I find it interesting that Mr. Schellenberger felt it necessary to make this remark. The Broadcasting Act clearly states:
40. The Corporation is ultimately accountable, through the Minister, to Parliament for the conduct of its affairs.
So, if Members of Parliament are not allowed to question CBC Executives concerning decisions that are relevant to “the conduct of its affairs”, then who is? Who is to oversee the CBC, if not the elected representatives of the taxpayers, namely, the Members of Parliament?
Fortunately, the Members of Parliament ignored the instruction of the Chairman and proceeded to ask questions concerning recent operational decisions of the CBC.
Mr. Hubert Lacroix then made an opening statement, during which he commented on the Committee’s recent report and the proposed MOU between the government (I assume) and the Corporation. Mr. Lacroix also stated that during the four months that he has held the position of CEO he has met with employees and “stakeholders that work in broadcasting” across the country. It is interesting, however, that at no point in his opening remarks did Mr. Lacroix state that he had met with Radio Two listeners to attempt to understand their concerns, even though there have been protests concerning the Radio Two programming changes taking place for the past year, and certainly within the last month. Are the CBC listeners not important to the conduct of the Corporation?
Mr. Lacroix also stated that in the four months since he has become CEO the CBC has focused on three priorities: its people, its programs and its push to move forward with its strategic initiatives. Once again, conspicuous by its absence is any mention of serving the needs of listeners. Where are the CBC Radio listeners in Mr. Lacroix’s priorities? Clearly not among the top three.
Mr. Lacroix also alluded to the recent protests by the CBC Radio Two listeners on April 11, stating that not all listeners are satisfied with change. However, Mr. Lacroix stated, CBC management will not shy away from making hard changes. What does this mean, precisely? Even if the majority of CBC Radio Two listeners are not in favour of the programming changes, CBC Radio executives are determined to push their changes through? Where will it end? Until there are no listeners left?
During the questions from the committee members that followed, Mr. Bill Siksay, Member of Parliament for Burnaby-Douglas, questioned the CBC executives about the recent changes that have been made to classical programming on Radio Two. Mr. Siksay reminded the executives that in many rural areas there are no alternatives to CBC Radio as very few commercial radio stations feature classical music. Mr. Siksay asked the CBC executives why listeners were being abandoned, especially in Vancouver, where listeners have been loyal to Radio Two?
Mr. Lacroix replied that the recent changes to the Radio Two programming are intended to make Radio Two the greatest showcase of Canadian music in the country and to expose listeners to other genres. Mr. Lacroix also reiterated the point that classical music will remain the most important genre on CBC Radio Two. Furthermore, Mr. Lacroix stated, in September the CBC will begin a streaming audio service on the internet to “stream classical music 24/7”.
This seems to be the crux of the CBC’s argument. (I find it interesting that the CBC executives have not felt the need to promote this viewpoint with Canadians prior to making the programming changes, but instead believe it’s acceptable to make the changes first, then explain their rationale. But this is another topic for discussion later.) Their argument, as I understand it, goes like this: the CBC is Canada’s public broadcaster. Therefore, it is the CBC’s mandate to promote Canadian artists, from every musical genre and every ethnic group represented in Canada. If this means that CBC Radio Two becomes a hodge-podge of music, everything from country music to jazz to pop to classical, so be it. It’s all in the name of cultural diversity! So what if no one actually listens to it!
The problem with this, of course, is that there is no focus on the listener. What does the listener want to hear? There is no focus on the quality of the music. Is it of sufficient quality to be played on Canada’s national broadcasting service? There is no focus on educating the listener. Is the music being featured on Radio Two accepted as being one of the great performances that deserves to be heard?
What if this approach to content was taken by, for example, the National Gallery of Canada? Suppose the National Gallery decided to focus primarily on Canadian artists, rather than considering the merits of the art? Would Canada be better served by being exposed to more Canadian art, albeit at the expense of other works of art from other countries, including the great masterpieces from Europe from previous centuries? Would this not be considered a somewhat provincial attitude?
What if this approach to content was taken by public libraries? What if public libraries in Canada decided to feature Canadian writers, at the expense of other authors from other countries. Would Canadians be better served by having access to more Canadian authors, even if best-sellers from other countries or the classic literature from other countries and other eras was not available, or was still available but not as widely?
Mr. Ed Fast, Member of Parliament from Abbotsford, pointed out that four of the finalists from the “Canadian Idol” competition had backgrounds in classical and choral music. Mr Fast also expressed concern that, as CBC scales back on classical music, fewer Canadians would develop an appreciation for classical music. Mr. Fast asked the CBC executives how they would measure the impact of their decision to reduce classical music on CBC Radio Two.
Mr. Lacroix reiterated his statement that Radio Two would become a showcase for Canadian talent in other genres and that “classical is not going away” on Radio Two, merely sharing the airwaves to better reflect other genres.
Mr. Fast then asked whether the same goal could not have been achieved by establishing another FM channel, leaving Radio Two as a mostly classical channel. Mr. Fast asked whether other options were considered and what consultation took place before these changes were implemented.
Mr. Stursberg stated that studies and consultations took place over the three previous years and that these consultations were the “most far-reaching” in the history of the CBC. Mr. Stursberg also reiterated the point that access to classical music would continue on Radio Two and that a new classical channel would be featured on the internet. Mr. Stursberg also pointed out that 30,000 pieces of music are released in Canada each year, yet only 240 pieces are played on radio. Mr. Stursberg stated that there is a “vast commercial landscape that is not heard” and that the shift in strategy on Radio Two was not meant to denigrate classical music, but instead intended to expose Canadians to music that they have had little access to in the past.
Well, this is all very interesting. If studies and consultations had taken place in the three years prior to the programming changes being implemented, don’t you think your or I (as loyal Radio Two listeners) would have heard about it? Don’t you think there would have been discussions on the CBC web site, on CBC Radio Two itself, in newspaper articles, in town hall meetings, on phone-in shows (on “Cross-country Check-up” perhaps) ? Instead, the changes to the CBC Radio Two programming that were introduced on March 19, 2007, were sprung upon an unsuspecting listening audience with little or no warning. This constitutes the “most far-reaching” consultation in the history of the CBC? What does the CBC do when it want to surprise someone?
As for the statement that there are 30,000 pieces of music released each year yet only 240 get commercial airplay, well, perhaps there is a good reason that only 240 get commercial airplay (if indeed these statistics are true, I have no way of knowing). Could it be that only 240 deserve to be heard? Is Radio Two to become a dumping ground for Canadian content that no one else wants?
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia, Member of Parliament for Lac-Saint-Louis, stated that he has noticed the change in mix on Radio Two and that if one is looking for classical music, it is getting to the point that “Radio Two is not the place to go” as it is becoming “hit and miss – lounge music, then jazz”. Mr Scarpaleggia also suggest that if the music mix becomes too broad, then in major markets it will get to the point that listeners will disengage from Radio Two and CBC Radio Two’s audience share will fall. Those who want to hear pop music will go to commercial radio. Mr. Scarpaleggia wondered: what will happen if the CBC executives appear before this committee in the future, after CBC Radio’s market share has fallen to one percent (from the current three percent)?
Mr. Lacroix replied that CBC Radio is attempting to replicate the depth and analysis currently devoted to classical music in other genres and that classical music will remain in the 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM timeslot. CBC Radio Two listeners will still know where to go to hear classical music. Mr. Lacroix stated that he would be disappointed if Radio Two listeners moved to other channels and did not “open up to other genres”.
Mr. Scarpaleggia replied that the CBC Radio Two listener may not be able to listen to CBC Radio Two during the 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM timeslot and may want to hear classical in his or her car, or on the kitchen radio. In that case, will the CBC Radio Two listener be lost forever? (The answer to that question is yes, of course the listener will be lost forever. But I realize it was a rhetorical question.) Mr. Scarpaleggia asked if the CBC would create another radio station, if it had sufficient funding.
Mr. Stursberg stated that the CBC could not afford to build another FM radio network. Mr. Stursberg also stated that, as a result of market research, it was becoming clearer that the CBC Radio Two audience was becoming older. It was also clear that the prevailing view that the audience would “grow into Radio Two” was not taking place. Radio listeners in their 40s and 50s were not moving to Radio Two. Therefore, Mr. Stursberg stated, Radio Two would have to be repositioned and, by doing so, would serve the Canadian music industry better. Mr. Stursberg also stated, surprisingly, that he was “not too worried about losing the audience”.
Mr. Michal Chong, Member of Parliament for Wellington-Halton Hills, made several points concerning Radio Two. Mr. Chong compared CBC Radio Two’s decision to revamp its programming to Coca-Cola’s decision to introduce “New Coke” in 1985, stating that the CBC was alienating its core audience. Mr. Chong asked why, if the CBC was interested in showcasing new artists, they were putting new artists on FM radio instead of on the internet. Mr. Chong pointed out that FM listeners tend to be an older demographic, whereas younger listeners tend to listen on-line more often. Mr. Chong also suggested that if the CBC wanted to showcase diversity, a third FM band would be required as is commonly the case with public broadcasters in Europe.
Mr. Siksay then asked whether the CBC executives had any market share data available to judge the success of their programming changes. Clearly, the subject of the discussion had been the changes to CBC Radio Two, yet Mr. Stursberg persisted in trumpeting the audience share of CBC Radio One and CBC Television before finally stating, with an apparent straight face, that no erosion had been seen in the Radio Two audience, and none was expected!
Mr. Siksay asked whether audience erosion had not occurred in Vancouver and Mr. Stursberg replied that it had not. Mr. Stursberg also stated that the CBC would not have a clear sense of the CBC’s market share “until the beginning of next year”, after the new programming had been launched in September.
Mr. Siksay then asked: when did the changes to the CBC Radio Two programming begin? Mr. Stursberg, showing himself to be a master of the understatement, replied that some “small changes” had been made in the past year.
Mr. Siksay then asked whether the CBC did not survey its audience to determine the reaction to these changes and Mr. Stursberg replied that the CBC does not survey its audience, relying instead on the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement. Mr. Stursberg reiterated the point that the CBC has not seen any erosion in market share.
I find Mr. Stursberg’s remarks preposterous. Of course the CBC executives have access to market share data and of course they can assess the impact of the changes in the programming on CBC Radio Two’s market share! They have a full year’s worth of data to assess, from the 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM timeslot, when “Music for Awhile” and “In Performance” were replaced by the crapulent “Tonic” and even the more crapulent “Canada Live”. Unfortunately, members of the public do not have access to this data. While it is true that the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement (BBM) provides access to its "Top Line Radio Reports" here, the fact is that this data covers the time period from 5:00 AM to 1:00 AM Monday to Sunday as one single value - hardly granular enough for a member of the public to determine if, for example, CBC Radio Two has lost listeners in the 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM timeslot during weekdays. One would expect that if the effects on audience share of the move away from classical music would have been felt, it would be in this timeslot. And, the fact is, the BBM have compiled a full years' worth of data for the CBD to analyze - and the CBC, as a subscriber to their service, receives data that is much more specific than available to the general public. If the changes in CBC Radio Two’s evening schedule, first launched on March 19 2007, were such a smashing success, as the CBC executives would have us believe, doesn’t it make sense that the CBC executives would be willing to highlight this success? Or perhaps this experiment has not been so successful after all, and the CBC executives are unwilling to admit this?
After further questioning the meeting was adjourned, and Mr. Schellenberger thanked the witnesses for appearing before the committee.
I find all of this quite astonishing. After a year of programming changes we finally hear, in a public forum, CBC Radio management’s rationale for the changes that have been taking place on Radio Two. If you were the executive of a large corporation planning to implement an unprecedented change in your product, wouldn’t you prepare your customers carefully for such a change? Wouldn’t you advertise this change well in advance, preparing your customer for the change so that, when it did happen, the customer would be prepared for it and perhaps even be looking forward to it? And, before making such a change in your product, wouldn’t you survey your customer base to make sure that your customers were receptive to such changes?
Nothing of the sort has happened in this case. Instead, CBC Radio has attempted to force these programming changes down the throat of their audience and, what is worse, appear to be completely oblivious to the impact that it has had on their audience. They are not willing to change their course and it appears that there is no government body that is willing or able to make them change their course.
What is the Canadian taxpayer to do when a Crown corporation begins to run amok?
Monday, July 16, 2007
And the results are in ...
The Bureau of Broadcast Measurement has just released their S2 2007 Top-line market share data covering the period April 16 - June 10 2007. You can find the report here. The report provides market share data, expressed as a percentage of total hours tuned to all radio, for the radio stations in major markets: Montreal, Quebec, Ottawa/Gatineau, Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver. The data covers the period Monday to Sunday from 5:00 AM to 1:00 AM.
Now, this is not that useful to a member of the general public who is interested in the market share for a particular radio station in the evening, for example. However, this is the only report that is released to the public and so it will have to suffice. On the BBM web site it states that:
To become a full, voting member, you must be a radio or television broadcaster, an advertiser, advertising agency, or media buying house. Associate (non-voting) memberships are available to other interested parties, such as industry associations, consultants, government organizations, and U.S. broadcasters.
Each membership category warrants a different range of entitlements. Entitlements may include access to measured diary/meter data, software, data books, area/cell guides, population estimates, reach book, market reports, home market reports, specialty (sp) language reports, BBM newsletters, and a members-only Website.
I expect that a full member is entitled to market share data, by time period, for each radio station in each major market, thus allowing a radio station executive to determine, for example, whether his or her programming decisons (such as the recent changes to the CBC Radio Two evening schedule) have resulted in an increase or decrease in market share.
I've compared the market share data for the CBC Radio Two stations in the markets covered by this survey for S2 2007 with the same period last year (S2 2006) and found the following changes in market share:
Ottawa: down 0.6% (from a 5.2% market share to a 4.6% market share)
Toronto: down 0.6%
Montreal: down 0.4%
Winnipeg: up 0.6%
Calgary: down 1.4%
Edmonton: up 2.8%
Vancouver: up 0.6%
As I mention above, since this data covers the entire period from 5:00 AM to 1:00 AM one can not tell whether the new CBC Radio Two evening schedule is a resounding success or a dismal failure. Personally, I suspect the latter judging from the comments that I have seen on the "Petition to Restore CBC Radio Two", the "Petition to Return Classical Music to CBC Radio Two" and in the comments left on the Inside the CBC blog.
CBC Radio management has commented on the most recent market share results here, but their transparency, as usual, leaves much to be desired. I encourage CBC Radio management to publicize the market share data for the CBC Radio Two stations during the 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM, 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10:00 PM to midnight time slots. If they are confident in the success of their new evening programming then they should share this market data with the public!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)