Producers have "rights" too...don't they?

It Pays To Belong

The heart of any issue comes down to "rights"; who has them and at what price can they be paid/sold for.

For the musician it's "copyright" to the song that he/she has written. For the actor it's the "right" to have their work be compensated in the form of a base wage and a "royalty" for it's commercial exploitation in various "markets". For the auto-worker it's the "right" to be paid a fair wage for his/her time in the creation of each vehicle valued against the "market price" and overall "profitability" of the product. For the producer it's the responsibility to secure the "rights" of everyone involved in the project and be able to provide documentation that a) the "rights" have been secured and, b) the "rights" have been paid for.

It's a real f%@*in' headache!

But a lucrative headache if you know what you're doing.

The CFTPA has its own "rights" collecting body: the Canadian Retransmission Collective.

“A hundred million dollars… and counting! Film and television producers increasingly recognize just how valuable – and essential –retransmission royalties really are.”
- Guy Mayson, President & CEO, Canadian Film and Television Production Association (CFTPA)

Producers collect these very lucrative royalties as the "rights holder" to a project. That means that they have paid everyone out in advance. Organizations such as SOCAN for the rights to a particular song to create a mood. Or the DGC for hiring a director whose vision gave the piece it's shape. Or the WGC for the writer that provided the script. They're even protected against an over-zealous caterer who may feel that they gave the producer some "advice" on set that ended up in the final cut through "E&O insurance". The point is: everyone gets paid the wage that they agree to work for. If a producer feels that the license fee offered by the broadcaster isn't worth the cost of doing business, the producer is within their "rights" not to sell.

ACTRA STRIKE DEVASTATES PRODUCTION IN CANADA?

Dean Ferris, Fox Entertainment Group exec. VP, labor relations (meaning: he's the one that negotiates labour disputes with unions on behalf of Fox - on behalf of Rupert Murdoch, no less), has said on behalf of the CFTPA's American counterpart:

"We're up here in an effort to create employment, and we refuse to fight ACTRA on these proposals. If they don't want us to bring work to Canada, we'll go home. No fight, no problem."

If it's "no problem", then how can we be devastating the industry? If the American producers are up here to "create employment", then how does the responsibility for a faltering industry fall upon those actors who do not create work?

Producer/Actor?

There are Actor/Producers aplenty (think: George Clooney, Drew Barrymore, Paul Gross, Don McKellar), but how many Producer/Actors are there? Point being; do you think there's any correlation at all between actors desiring to produce and producers *not* desiring to act? It may be that the economics of producing hold a better return on investment with more creative control in the long run.

Perhaps it's a bit flippant to speculate at this early date, but suffice it to say, Canadian actors should look at this round of negotiation as an introduction to the costs of doing business from a production standpoint since they may be producing their own projects in the near future. This isn't necessarily a negative outcome, but an outcome that is entirely possible given the radical shift in the industry from "subsidized" production to "market friendly" production.

There are worse things than artist-driven projects, and producer-driven projects will always leave us sitting in the backseat. Maybe this year will bring about a real change for the acting world in Canada and who knows....maybe we'll be able to get a piece of the "hundred million dollars and counting" when we start creating our "Syriana's".

We Are The Machine

Web 2.0

This is an interesting take on the internet as we know it. I wish Marshall McLuhan was still alive.

How we got hosed...I mean "soaked" Pt. 1

The Canadian Television Fund...illegal?

Antonia Zerbisias has brought to light some great info should you be interested to see how corrupt the system has gotten. Keith Mahar has been taking on a huge battle and we would do well to support him in getting his message out there. The following is an excerpt from Mahar's letter to PM Paul Martin regarding CRTC corruption:

CRTC Chairman Keith Spicer addressed the fact the CCTA proposal would allow the cable television industry to overcharge basic cable subscribers in order to subsidize other business ventures that had nothing to do with broadcasting, and that subscribers would probably not even notice this happening. The CRTC Chairman, however, did not object to the industry's unorthodox proposal. He did, however, object that the $100 million amount to be diverted to the Canadian production companies under the industry plan was inadequate in his opinion.

"First we saw $100 million and then we found out very quickly it was over five years. It was only up to $100 million. We learned yesterday it's voluntary. I appreciate that your company made a firm commitment. ...
Still, we haven't got money on the table, numbers on the table that we can count on. I don't think you would ever sign a business deal in which the other guy had to give you $100 million but on a voluntary basis.

"You are asking us to soak -- well, let's say to invite the Canadian subscribers to come up with quite a lot of money for your industry to build an infrastructure which would be used no doubt to defend Canadian programming, but also down the road five years a whole lot of other services that have nothing to do with what normal people call television what with home shopping, banking, and things in which the industry will make some honest money, and good for them. But we should know what we are asking these people to pay for.

"It seems to me the quid pro quo is not as firm as the demand you are making upon the subscriber. Your industry wants the subscribers commitment to the industry to be absolutely firm and to come right off their cable bill. They probably won't even notice it. But the industry's commitment to the subscriber and to Canada and to the creative community, which will be the immediate beneficiary, is very shaky.

"We have to take that into account. If there is anything you can do within the industry to firm up that commitment, that major quid pro quo which I say in the name of my colleagues, we find extremely promising. It's a new door that you have opened. We think it is a very useful and exciting path for the industry to consider. But if we are going to really consider this range of proposals you are putting forward, that among other things would have to be firmed up very considerably." [emphasis added]

*Transcript of CRTC public hearing, CRTC Chairman Keith Spicer, 4 March 1993, p. 1153-54

The climate change of Canadian production

R.I.P. "Producer/Writer"

I just spent the past two days at the NSFDC "Business Issues 2007" meeting (was it a seminar, or a conference?), where I learned more about the business of television in two days as a producer than I did in 12 years as an actor.

The event, moderated by Paul Kimball, was a fascinating discussion on "Maximizing Revenue for your Production Company" that began with Michael Donovan (who was compelling, if not jaundiced, in his stream-of-consciousness take on the industry which was decidedly unencouraging to the "little guy"...perhaps to save us a lifetime of heartbreak), and ended with Stephen Comeau telling us "how easy" it is to promote your wares on YouTube and MySpace (seriously...that's what we call in the acting world - "phoning it in" - no disrespect to the NSFDC intended; they put on a great forum for discussion, but we didn't need two full days of focused discussion to culminate in a "pep talk" of how YouTube and MySpace are "free" and "easy" ways to promote "your property").

What I found most stunning, and ultimately disappointing, was the utter lack of mention for the state of the Canadian Televison Fund under the current circumstances of Shaw Communications and Videotron withdrawing their funding from this fundamental source of financing for all Canadian independent producers. It wasn't until the last moment of the last day when the moderator asked, "any last comments?", that one producer piped up to ask Claude Galipeau of his opinion of the actions by Shaw & Videotron. Galipeau gave an answer befitting a broadcaster (that is ulitmately owned by an American investment bank - and of course, it's shareholders), without burning any bridges within either the private or public sphere, and erred on the side of saying "it's scary for all of us", knowing full-well that his publicly traded company owns a controlling interest in the CSI: Franchise. (Translation: Alliance Atlantis doesn't rely on CTF funding the same way that independent producers do - they have access to capital when the proverbial "shit hits the fan")

How can it be, that "industry experts" (it truly was an impressive gathering of knowledgeable speakers), get flown all the way to Halifax on the taxpayers dime and not one of the discussions were focused on (arguably) the most important issue facing the industry today? How can we even begin to discuss "maximizing revenues" when the funding is "dead" and "gone"? How is it even possible to get a room full of producers to *NOT* talk about the ramifications of the death of the CTF? Why was the CTF not considered a "business issue" in a forum titled, "Business Issues 2007"?

This fund provides 20-30% of an independent producers budget. To be clear, it's not that producers or the presenters didn't have opinions on the matter (some could be overheard in corners during the coffee-breaks), but it wasn't a talking point on the agenda. Apart from Claude Galipeau giving a small (and welcomed), rant on the topic the only other utterance on the subject was Michael Donovan suggesting that we should "be thinking about it morning, noon and night". (uh...we do...why didn't we talk about it?)

The age of "Producer/Market Analyst"

Producers aren't being asked to find good stories anymore; they're being asked to find "their target audiences". Those audiences that we can figure out how to monetize and ultimately seduce advertisers with which to coax the dollars out of. Capiche?

As wonderful as it was to be sitting in a room with people facing the same problems and looking for the same answers, it struck me that we were learning to speak the language of advertisers instead of learning to speak with our own voices. Perhaps I'm slow in coming around to this understanding, while the rest of the producers in the country are miles ahead. I'm young(er), I'll admit that.

Financial Risk Transfer

At the end of the day, all financial risks have to be accounted for by the producer. Who will watch this? Who will pay for advertising around this? Who owns the rights? Who pays the copyright holder? Who has to be paid more and who can be talked into taking less? Who pays for the E&O insurance?

Maybe this all feeds into the CFTPA's resentment of ACTRA since the actor gets an "upfront fee" as opposed to a "backend profit". (translation: the actor is guaranteed payment for a day's work while the producer who has spent years developing the project has no guarantee of payment and all of the responsibility for the finances)

It was truly fascinating to watch Stephen Comeau lecture the room on the new and exciting ways to capitalize on internet-based models for promoting and distributing content throughout the world of new media and still maintain that actors are unreasonable for expecting to negotiate a fair payment structure within this new framework. It's like an Industrialist saying to a labourer, "I've just discovered a way to make a cheaper product and reach a wider consumer base...in light of this, you're getting a pay cut." Sure, the CFTPA's position is that the new media landscape is still too new and unknown, but they are certainly aware of the possibilities on the horizon and are doing *everything* within their power to exploit those possibilities (read: advertising revenue).

There's something happening here, but you don't know what it is.

Hello Highspeed Internet, Goodbye Canadian Television

Not that "I" told you so: "They're" telling us "it is so"

Videotron (who has pulled their funding from the CTF), has announced that they will be introducing a new ultra High-speed internet to its client base that is 400% faster than current service. CBC states, "Videotron said the higher speeds could transform its offerings, especially with the explosion of online video." (emphasis added)

Is media consolidation really happening in Canada?

Yes Virginia, days prior to the announcement of the new ultra High-speed internet service from Videotron, Rogers announced an "on-line content deal" with Videotron's parent company Quebecor (who boasts having former PM Mulroney on its executive staff). The deal bundles, "content from 11 magazines on the Internet, in a deal that will create a major online presence by combining stories from some of the country's best-known magazine websites". Hmmm...what else could they possibly bundle on-line?

I guess it makes sense to pull out of the Canadian Television Fund when you believe that television "ain't where it's at" for your advertising bucks anymore.

You say Goodbye, I say Hello

Where's the CTF money going?

In all fairness to Jim Shaw and Pierre Karl Peladeau (of Shaw and Videotron, respectively), accountability is a fair thing to expect from a fund made up of private and public tax money. I know that the little bit of money that comes from my small income tax return will never amount to the $74 million per year that those guys carve off of their revenues for the money that gets divided among how many independent producers after the "Crown", under the auspices of the CBC, takes their 37% cut.

I share the private sector's beef with the "ceeb" because, truly, the CBC sucks at programming. Big time.

Not that I don't love Peter Mansbridge or enjoy waking up to Heather Hiscox every morning. I won't even hold Jian Ghomeshi responsible for the rash that I get every time I hear is voice (I do however, hold George Stromboulopolous guilty as charged for agreeing to be the face of The Hour), but it truly falls in the laps of those few people at the CBC who make the "decisions" that piss of people like Jim Shaw and Pierre Karl Peladeau. Why shouldn't the private contributors be able to have a hand in influencing the programming that their $$,$$$,$$$ are paying for? Maybe Shaw or Peladeau have some people working for them who know how to make a CBC show that's a) Canadian and, b) entertaining....nah, they'd just program something that the 1st AD on Survivor: The Outback produced in Studio City. But anyway...

The CBC does not know what it means to be Canadian...

...because they keep showing stories about anything *BUT* what is happening in Canada (note: they do however love spinning yarns about what has happened in the past). Why? Because they are a Broadcaster themselves. Why should broadcasters (i.e. - anyone paying into the TV fund) be paying "tax" to another broadcaster?

None of the posts about the CTF in this blog should be construed as praise for the fund, but rather, as an alarm bell for how money gets taken out of Canada by large corporations who could give a s@*t about anything other than shareholder confidence and a "bottom line". It's harsh, I know, I apologize - I do. It's a Catch 22, "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario when discussing out loud - the funding process for production in this country that producers and actors depend on.

We haven't even begun to talk about the audience.

Canadian Art. Canadian Stories. Canadian Canadiana.....let's just start telling stories that we each care about and stop waiting for the government sanctioned broadcaster to tell us that "it's here!".

The following video is an example of Canadian taxpayer funding gone terribly wrong:

Statement following the meeting with the principal funders of the Canadian Television Fund (CTF)

OTTAWA, January 30, 2007

By the Honourable Beverley J. Oda
Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women

Recognizing the importance of the situation last week, I called this meeting and also announced Canada's New Government's contribution to the CTF of $200M for two years. This announcement was made to demonstrate the Government's commitment to Canadian content and the Canadian broadcasting system. It was made to provide some stability to the production of quality Canadian programming.

Our Government is committed to our Canadian production industry and to a strong broadcasting system.

I am pleased to have met with the principal funders of the CTF today. It was an insightful meeting.

I understood that there have been concerns with the CTF for many years, and that those concerns of the private sector contributors have not been fully satisfied.

Today's meeting allowed me to have a fuller explanation of the concerns of some funders from the private sector, and the reasons why their positions are being taken.

As they wrote in their letters that I received, they expressed their concerns regarding the governance of the CTF and the CBC/SRC's envelope. However, they also strongly pointed out that they believe that the broadcasting system's new realities are not being recognized by the current structure of the CTF.

I am looking forward to meet with the Chair of the CTF to pass on to him their concerns and the discussions of today's meeting.