The CRTC has released a “what we heard” report on their consultations surrounding Cancon. The report leaves out digital first creators and consumers.
One of the major, albeit boring sounding, elements in the Online Streaming Act (formerly Bill C-11) debate is the definitions describing what is considered “Cancon” (Canadian Content). It’s an important element in this debate because it causes a lot of the controversy surrounding the new law.
In 2021, I published an article fully detailing the downranking problem of the legislation. The report included great big pretty pictures showing exactly why this downranking problem is such a huge controversy. Rather than helping to promote content produced by Canadian creators, as supporters of this new law have long falsely claimed, it actually suppresses content produced by Canadian creators.
In short, government certified speech gets promoted over content produced by Canadian’s. This is typically content produced by Digital First Creators who have already either making a living on producing content for platforms like TikTok, Twitch, or YouTube or are in the process of doing so.
The natural question at this point becomes why not simply have digital first creators go through the Cancon process. The answer is that the Cancon certification process through CAVCO is so convoluted and exclusionary, almost no one who is a Digital First Creator would even qualify. In fact, I run through these steps in painstakingly detailed steps back in 2022. In short, the existing rules ensure that digital first creators would never be certified.
This would be an obscure and unrelated debate to the interest of Canadian’s if this was simply solely tied to streaming platforms like Netflix. The problem is that the CRTC, and the rest of the Canadian government for that matter, is ordering all platforms, including YouTube and TikTok, to manipulate their algorithms to show their government certified speech over everyone else’s speech – including Canadian made content. This, of course, is not even a point that’s up for debate after the CRTC chair confirmed this to be true back in 2022.
This is what makes this already thorny issue of defining what Cancon is all the more thorny. Whose work is going to be used to silence my work as a Canadian? What are the reasons why the Canadian government concludes that my speech needs to be suppressed in favour of other people’s speech?
Recently, we learned of a report issued by the CRTC which is entitled a “What We Heard” report. Apparently, the CRTC underwent a series of consultations to talk to various stakeholders – largely legacy media company stakeholders – to talk about what changes are needed for Cancon definitions. The report can be read here. While the document itself is quite long, what is especially telling is what it didn’t say. For instance, the only mention of Digital First Creators was mentioned at the beginning when discussing who they heard from:
Workshops were held separately in French (three) and English (14) given the notable differences in experiences and views between the two language markets. Participants included various members of the Canadian AV sector including domestic broadcasters, showrunners, producers, directors, screenwriters, digital first creators, actors, foreign online streaming services, screen composers, editors, directors of photography, animators, content distributors, domestic online broadcasters and funding bodies, among others. These workshops only discussed issues relating to AV content such as television programs, films, documentaries, or various content available on online platforms and services. Issues pertaining to audio content such as music and talk radio, audiobooks, or podcasts were excluded. In addition to the workshops, participants had until the end of April 2024 to submit to Ipsos clarifying comments, feedback, or statements to a dedicated email address created for these sessions.
This is literally the only time Digital First Creators were ever mentioned throughout the report. A cursory reading of the report suggests that audiovisual content was almost exclusively looked through the lens of what the platforms are wanting and what legacy media companies are wanting. This definitely shows, yet again, just how biased the system is in favour of legacy media companies and against new and emerging creators – particularly those who use the internet to find their audiences.
If that weren’t bad enough, consumers were never mentioned at all. A CTRL+F word search reveals that “consumer” reveals no search results at all. So, it is pretty safe to say that they weren’t actually really considered. If anything, the report conflates the interest of legacy media company interests with consumer interests as if they are one in the same (nothing could be further from the truth).
One particularly telling section of the report is this:
Reactions to “flexibility” being added to CRTC’s CanCon definition
Many participants (especially producers, directors and writers) reacted negatively at the idea of introducing more flexibility in CanCon definitions. These participants were concerned that there is likely already enough flexibility in the current points system and that any further flexibility could “dilute” CanCon. Some went on to repeat their concern that increased flexibility would result in greater foreign presence and in turn undermine the historical importance of the French language in Canada. These participants were vocal and called for retaining or even strengthening current CanCon definitions.
Nevertheless, as highlighted in previous sections, there remained some openness to adding flexibility within the CRTC’s CanCon definition in the future. If the benefits of flexibility resulted in more opportunities for Canadian production companies and creators, then these would be welcomed as it would contribute to safeguarding Canadian-made content moving forward.
If anything, there should be a mechanism to include smaller creators such as Digital First Creators or adjust the system so that people who are sole creators of their content (or employ a small team of, say, 2 or 3 people) could easily qualify as “Cancon”. That is very obviously needed moving forward. Yet, what the CRTC said they “heard” was that adding flexibility to the system was strongly pushed back against – explicitly citing legacy media types as among those who pushed back against this idea. This was further compounded by earlier comments which looked at streaming services as a hostile entity:
Introducing flexibility and adaptability: for whom and for what?
Discussions on how flexibility and adaptability could be integrated in an updated CanCon definition were at times emotionally charged. At the heart of the debate was the question of “Who benefits from greater flexibility?”. Some Canadian creators and producers who had long-standing experience with the current CanCon certification process equated flexibility with “diluting” or “weakening” the process. They feared this would benefit the non-Canadian online streaming industry, mostly at the expense of the homegrown Canadian creative industry and Canadian culture.
Some streamers and participants who were newer to the broadcasting system, including online creators, were more open to adding elements to the current points system provided that an updated definition continues to incentivize productions to fill a majority of key creative positions with Canadians. Several participants also saw opportunities for integrating flexibility in the definition in ways to benefit regional creators, creators who belong to equity-deserving groups and Canadian productions companies who are more likely to reinvest in the Canadian AV system.
This ultimately highlights just how pro-legacy media this process ultimately was. The problem of “Canadian in name only” has long been a problem that existed in the Cancon system. It highlights how it is a system designed to be abused. One fantastic example is how “Gotta Love Trump”, a documentary about Donald Trump is certified Canadian content when an Amazon series about the Toronto Maple Leafs is not. Ultimately, for a system supposedly designed to help promote the telling of Canadian stories, examples like these (and there are plenty of other examples too) highlight just how broken the system is on this front today. Yet, the talking points about how changes to this system might cause such a problem in the first place highlights the level of ignorance the state of the system is already in. It’s a bad system and the Canadian government should feel bad about how it is today. It excludes content produced by Canadians and includes content made by international interests.
What is badly needed is a complete re-imagining of what is and is not “Cancon”. The fact that many of the voices being listened to by the CRTC saying that the system is either just fine or needs further restrictions to exclude more Canadian voices is a huge red flag of how broken this consultation process really is.
On top of all of this is the fact that this is a system that is being forced on consumers – a stakeholder that has been even more excluded from the process than Digital First Creators. They will feel the full brunt of the force feeding of content whether they like it or not. The general thought process in the document (and often repeated elsewhere in this debate) is that platforms aren’t promoting “Cancon” enough to global audiences. If they did, then people would somehow appreciate their content more and it would lead to more widespread acclaim. Ultimately, they apparently felt, if it weren’t for those dastardly platforms not promoting their content more, they’d be overwhelmingly successful. To put it another way, the legacy media feels that their content is perfect in every way and it is not their fault that people haven’t been consuming their content enough.
This, ultimately, is very standard par for the course ignorance of legacy media companies. Simply put, if their content was so great and wonderful, then we wouldn’t even be having these discussions in the first place. People would, in droves, be continuing to subscribe to legacy broadcasting services and continuing to consume things like television and radio content, among other things. In fact, the polar opposite situation has occurred. As we noted earlier this year, Canadians are continuing to cut the cord and rely exclusively on online streaming platforms and internet services for their entertainment. The projection of that report suggests that cord cutters could make up the majority of audiences by the end of 2026.
To put it another way, Canadian’s are leaving legacy media content in droves and realizing that online services provide a much better service for their cash strapped budgets. More and more people have realized that traditional broadcast programming is godawful and not worth watching. This problem (for traditional broadcasters), arguably, would be worse if sports didn’t have so many exclusive deals with traditional broadcasters (a situation that has been gradually changing for the last few years).
The reality is that things like traditional television programming in Canada has been garbage for years and people are dropping it more and more, tuning out. The statistics really tell the story. Moreover, people are moving to online services because, in part, the content is just that much better.
Compounding the problem for legacy producers is the fact that platforms have found a way to tailor their content to more audience types. One example is YouTube where people can produce content of any kind they like. As long as it fits within the comparatively broad set of rules, they are free to publish what they think audiences are asking for. Thanks to this, the diversity of content is absolutely massive on platforms like YouTube. YouTube, for their part, has various algorithms that connect audiences who would be receptive to that content with the content itself. If you like video game content, then you might be recommended things like Gameranx or Your Era Gamer. On traditional TV, you are more likely to get content telling you that you are some coke head deadbeat or a murdering psychopath for even liking video gaming content in the first place. The choice for those who are interested in video game content is quite obvious.
This ultimately means that the user experience is tailored to your interests. Your interests are more likely to be satisfied on these platforms far more than the “content for everyone is content for no one” type content on traditional television. It’s a vastly superior experience in the end.
The problem arises when those algorithms are disrupted by government mandates. If you are into power mechanic video’s and are being promoted Canadian Heritage moments, you’re naturally going to be asking, “what the heck is this?” before either downvoting it or clicking on the “don’t recommend” button. It leads to a worse user experience. Throughout the Online Streaming Act debate, the response to this problem by legacy media corporations is one of “not my problem” and simply sluffing that responsibility off onto the platforms to sort out.
The problem is that it is, in fact, their problem. When Canadian audiences (at minimum) routinely give negative reviews of your content, the platform is naturally going to conclude that the content in question is of poor quality and will recommend that content to fewer people internationally. This when the reality is that it was recommended to the wrong audiences and people are downvoting it for not being relevant to their interests.
Legacy media companies will likely respond to this reality by simply dismissing it altogether and saying that everyone likes their content, end of story. When this inherently comes to bite them in the rear in precisely this manner, I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if they blame the platforms afterwards when this is a mess of their own making. After all, they don’t hesitate when they talk about how they are being paid “a pittance”, so what’s stopping them from blaming platforms when audiences all over the world won’t instantly fall in love with their terrible content? Ultimately, the audiences reaction will eventually be their problem sooner or later and no amount of dismissing it as a “platform issue” is going to solve it.
It’s about on par with someone handing a marketer $20 and telling them to make sure that their website is at the top of all search results. It’s delusional and pure ignorance to how the internet works. The fact that the legacy media clearly isn’t learning the first time with the increasing wave of cord cutting means that things won’t likely turn out as well as they expect the second time around when they ram their crappy video’s into everyone’s recommendation feeds.
At any rate, reading this report does not inspire confidence anything good will come from this element of the debate. The CRTC is choosing to hear from a very narrow set of stake holders and casting aside anyone who dares to say otherwise. It’s precisely this head in sand approach that got legacy media in trouble in the Online News Act debate. In this case, we are seeing evidence that they haven’t really learned anything and the CRTC is just following the marching orders of their legacy media pals. All I can see is the CRTC putting in place a set of rules that will ultimately blow up in everyone’s faces. This will invariably lead to people like me writing “we told you so” reports while monitoring the damaging implications of these ignorant decisions. It’s what we’ve been doing for many years now and the forecast suggests that more of the same is coming down the pipeline.
The CRTC is the Sgt. Schultz of regulators. It sees nothing and knows nothing.