Toronto Life - The Informer

Insider intel on the politics and personalities shaping the city. Sign up for Preview newsletter for weekly updates

Business

13 Comments

Rogers to the CRTC: take pity on us

rogers-logo

Rogers is in hearings with the CRTC today, negotiating for renewals of 17 of its television broadcast licenses. Unsurprisingly, the media corporation is trying to make the case that some regulatory leniency would help put its TV stations on sound financial footing.

According to the Star, one of the avenues of change Rogers is pursuing has to do with OMNI TV, its network of ethnic stations. The company is asking the CRTC to let it make OMNI less ethnic, in part by cutting the number of language groups served from 20 to 10 and dropping a requirement for 80 per cent ethnic programming during prime time.

And then, in talking about renewal for its other licenses, Rogers Media president Keith Pelley revealed a little more of his company’s situation. He told the CRTC, essentially, that Rogers’ $5.2 billion deal to broadcast all of Canada’s NHL games—the same deal that is about to result in layoffs at the newly hockey-bereft CBC—was done out of pure fight-or-flight terror at the prospect of declining ad revenue. According to the Globe, Pelley told the CRTC that the hockey deal, announced late last year, would enable Rogers-owned CityTV to cut its reliance on expensive U.S. programming by 20 per cent. This would, at least in theory, put the station on more competitive footing with Global and CTV. Pelley claims Rogers has lost $238 million on City since buying it in 2007, a result of a rapidly changing conventional-television market.

Is there a single Canadian who can muster pity for Rogers, a company for which a $5.2 billion purchase counts as evidence of financial need? We’ll find out when the CRTC releases its decision.

  • internetgamechanger

    Bell, shaw, Rogers practically own 90% of Canadian private radio and tv stations and ther content. the internet is the reason for the demise of conventional radio and tv models who cannot compete for expensive exclusive content from specialty channels. the former global network was practically worthless and radio stations are worthless as they have to broadcast cancom that nobody wants to watch with cable TV channels with american movies and american shows. it’s very expensive to produce good content and in small markets the ad revenues doesn’t pay the electriity of the transmission tower.

  • internetgamechanger

    Bell., shaw, and Rogers wants CBC privatize and shut it down..as CBC is taking a lot of eyeballs, they don’t want to run CBC as tv or radio stations but to shut it down. the Canadian market is too small for ad sponsored even for 3 broadcasters. local TV and radio are losing money as people using the internet for radio and eyeballs are leisure time is internet.

  • internetgamechanger

    in the 80′s and 90′s and 70′s these local radio and tv stations and local newspapers were cash cows. what happened. well news is free and better on the internet. and internet websites like facebook,yahoo, and netflix and cable TV compete with limited eyeballs and ad revenues. sports channels people pay to watch live…the problem is the industry has changed. a paradigm shift in the old business model ..Cancom requirements and local content requireements by CRTC just isn’t feasible in today’s market for radio and tv. it may be feasible in the 80′s not today. young poeple spend more time on the internet.

  • internetgamechanger

    there was no cable in Canada til the late 70′s and no pay tv channels til the 80′s CBC was the only broadcaster with nationalwide coverage with TV towers in every town in Canada. so it’ was the only option for hockey in Canada braodcasting and very few people had a need for cable. in the 60′s 70s

  • internetgamechanger

    competition like bell, shaw, rogers wants to bankrupt CBC further and put it out of business and don’t want public funded company competing for same ad revenues or eyeballs. it’s capitalism. which is the reason there was a need for public funded tv radio broadcaster. cause it’s not feasible for private company to waste money with local content tv or radio . and not rely on advertising for corporations.

  • internetgamechanger

    CBC may make less revenue but has a lot of eyeballs, CBC cannot get into other businesss source of revenues and has the CBC mandate so its impossible for CBC to be profitable. CRTC regulations o n the CBC makes it unprofitable. there is no free market.

  • internetgamechanger

    fools want CBC to be privatize,,ignorant fools don’t know that nobody in the private sector wants to buy CBC. why because CBC is regulated and at it’s current form has the CBC mandate , even private tv radio broadcasters cannot make money with all hte cancon rules and local content rules in today’s market. nobody wants to buy money losing CBC radio and tv network. CBC would just shut down and thousands laid off and private companies just take their market share. one less big competitor in the marketplace..

  • internetgamechanger

    CBC is like your local library. funded by the public.. the public library can make money if it started charging people money.

  • internetgamechanger

    Rogers, BEll, shaw,telus are gov’t regulated oligopolies.

  • internetgamechanger

    they are making big bucks. too.

  • Rico_Featherbutt

    Government entities shouldn’t be used as tools of employment. That’s communism. If Canadian content was actually that worthy, then we wouldn’t have to force it down people’s throats at a cost of paying silly actors to pretend they’re entertaining. Real markets are just that.

  • tommygunn123

    I’m sure the CRTC will bend over backwards to please please Rogers. What a hollow piece of garbage it is.

  • Bith Ead

    Although a company like Rogers may own the rights to broadcast content
    doesn’t mean that folks can or will be willing to pay to see it. I for
    one have cut back on my cable packages and mostly unwanted channels to a
    basic tier. This means I no longer receive Sportsnet (and therefore Blue Jays and likely NHL games in future). I love baseball and the Jays and miss watching them, so find it ironic as a Rogers customer that I’m more inclined to pay MLB.com to watch games. No pity from me here.

 

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement