Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Symbol of the Government of Canada

Common menu bar links

Home > Media > Speeches

Speech

by Stephen B. Simpson

Regional Commissioner for British Columbia and the Yukon
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission


to the International Institute of Communications’ Telecommunications and Media Forum

panel on “Content futures: Who will be content king?”

 

 

Washington, D.C.

 

December 15, 2011

(Check against delivery)

Thank you very much. It would be my guess that as the last few generations of young children learned their alphabet, their most frequently used letters would be T-V.

It’s been said that television is a mirror that reflects society. I’d go so far as to say it has helped shape our modern society.

TV was, almost literally, the hearth around which our families sat and shared common entertainment and information experiences. While much of its early offerings  may be forgettable, those of us who can remember coverage of events such as JFK’s fateful visit to Dallas, Texas or Neil Armstrong’s first words from the moon can attest to the searing memories formed by these experiences.

As advertisers learned how to harness its power—think Mad Men, the original guys, not the 21st century cover version—television became the driving force behind consumer demand, fuelling everything from tobacco sales to the auto industry.

TV has so thoroughly infiltrated our lives that it is now almost impossible to imagine life without it. Television has been dominant at the top of the media hierarchy through the dovetailing of technology and compelling narrative structures, in the form of half-hour and one-hour shows, fits so comfortably with human nature. Other than the telephone, television is perhaps the easiest of all media to use.

This simplicity not only made it easy to use, but unlike telecom it is relatively easy to regulate.

In the case of Canada, our regulatory regime includes a mandate to promote and maintain Canada’s culture, including its multicultural and multilingual diversity. 

We require broadcasters to spend defined amounts on Canadian programming. During the evening, at least half of the programming hours on conventional TV during prime time must be devoted to Canadian content.

Cable and satellite companies must also contribute a percentage of their revenues to funds that support the production of Canadian programming.

As I said, the regulation of TV was relatively easy—until the Internet came along. It now seems that broadcasting as we once knew it will never be the same again.

Not only is the television industry undergoing change. TV, as an appliance, is essentially becoming a large-screen computer that can handle multiple, concurrent applications. Plus, it can interact with, and be controlled by, other devices such as tablets and smartphones.

Say goodbye to the over-the-air buddy box, and eventually the ubiquitous cable box, and get ready to say hello to a world of on-board apps that will share real estate in the new TV appliance.

Broadcasters of the future will have to learn to share their audience for news, sports and situation comedies as viewers also scan newspaper headlines, catch up on business e-mail, play games, listen to music, and chat with friends on Facebook. Viewers can also opt for alternative entertainment provided by over-the-top competitors such as Netflix and Apple TV.

We are witnessing a ‘platformization’ of the Internet, aided by new mobile technologies like smartphones and tablets. Any one of these devices can meet our multi-faceted information and entertainment needs.

The same ease-of-use considerations that put the television and the telephone at the top of the hierarchy are now applicable across our work and family life, which engages us both as citizens and as consumers. All of our interests and needs can be served in a platform-driven media landscape.

Even more revolutionary, our content is becoming increasingly contextual as it becomes more social. Facebook and Twitter are only the tip of the iceberg, as new media morphs into the traditional television space. Today’s platforms are a carousel of media choices, pushing contextualized information at us from sources we trust. We can create online expressions of who we are, or pretend to be, in a rich and sophisticated way. If television used to be the reflection of our society, disintermediation makes TV more like a kaleidoscope than a mirror. There is no homogeneous view of society anymore.

Not only can we manipulate what we want the world to know about us. We can be manipulated in ways that post-war Mad Men could never have imagined. Now, influential bloggers and strategically placed opinion leaders on Twitter threaten to displace traditional advertising forms to create demand for the latest consumer products. Or to provide intelligence to manufacturers about how to improve their products and better target them to an audience that has already bought in. 

So the question bears asking: In this scenario, do businesses still need a mass media middleman—traditional TV broadcasters—to reach their target audiences?

The power of these new platforms to reach and motivate target audiences extends beyond commercial interests. Just ask those involved in grassroots political campaigns such as Occupy Wall Street or the protests that put a halt to the Keystone XL pipeline. Or the startling phenomenon of the Arab Spring. They all have discovered that new media have the power to change the course of history.

The implications of these trends for traditional broadcasters are massive.

They are already being challenged on the entertainment front from new competitive IP-based services, while social media is encroaching on the breaking news front from the other direction. This is impacting the relevancy of broadcast news and public affairs.

So what happens if television simply isn’t as important to people as it once was when audiences gathered around the hearth every night to be informed, entertained and persuaded?

Presently, networks and distributors still largely determine what content gets made and whether it reaches audiences. They, along with non-linear services, continue to lock up the majority of conventional program rights. 

However, when new platforms tie our many different contexts into a single extension of ourselves, will their dominant control of content creation and distribution be enough to stave off competition for the viewer’s eyeball? When ABC’s promotion of a show competes not only with over-the-top providers, but with Facebook and Farmville, how will the ecosystem change and evolve?

It is my belief that TV programming, as a genre, will not disappear anytime soon. But it’s important to recognize that technology is pushing content developers to create new and innovative formats.

It’s almost certain that these new narrative forms will take their place alongside the traditional ones, creating even more choice for audiences. But in a platform environment, how will narratives be created and disseminated, when our media lives are much more sophisticated? At a minimum, broadcasting may be forced to become more defined and specialized. 

Pressure will not only be applied on content producers and exhibitors to experiment with new forms. The real question for broadcasters and regulators is: What will become of the current broadcasting ecosystem when it no longer controls how consumers access programming? 

The question presented to this panel is: Who will be content king?

How will traditional broadcasting remain profitable when it is competing with non-television content, all being delivered within the new TV ecosystem?

There is no question that the corporate cultures of traditional media companies will be under stress in the immediate future, if they are not already.

As we see continued disintermediation in the relationship between content producers and content consumers, linear and non-linear broadcasters will struggle to control content with rights and ownership strategies as they try to keep relevant content within their ecosystems.

In the end, there is a strong argument for the case that the real king will be content itself, and the consumer the ultimate beneficiary of change.

Broadcasters aren’t the only ones being challenged. Technology is the key driver in shaping market forces and competitive opportunities. Regulatory policy invariably lags behind these innovations. The question confronting regulators is whether to try to catch up to real-time or consider adopting a different role in the process.

We are already becoming more focused on competitive frameworks as they impact consumers. But, more fundamentally, to what extent will being a broadcasting regulator continue to be relevant? 

Should regulators try to continue to act as gatekeepers for the broadcasting system in a universe where content is global? In a borderless world, how can you confine regulations to your domestic borders? Will regulation even be possible?

We don’t know all the answers, unfortunately. But of one thing I am sure. Just as TV must continue to evolve to remain competitive—maybe just to survive—our toolset as regulators also has to change to reflect a fast-changing and irreversible environment.

In the meantime, I take comfort in the thoughts of Roman Emperor Marcus Aurlelius Antoninus, who wisely said, “Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.” 

Thank you.


- 30 -

 

Follow us on Twitter @crtceng

Media Relations:
   MediaRelations, Tel: 819-997-9403, Fax: 819-997-4245

General Inquiries:
   Tel: 819-997-0313, TDD: 819-994-0423, Fax: 819-994-0218
   Toll-free # 1-877-249-CRTC (2782)
   TDD - Toll-free # 1-877-909-CRTC (2782)
   Ask a question or make a complaint

This document is available in alternative format upon request.

  Date Modified: 2011-12-19

Top of Page
Important Notices