Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

Canadians largely ignore them and their funding bleeds their competition dry: How the CBC Spends its Public Funding

Published

9 minute read

 

If we want to intelligently assess the value CBC delivers to Canadians in exchange for their tax-funded investment, we’ll need to understand two things:

  1. How CBC spends the money we give them
  2. What impact their product has on Canadians

The answer to question #2 depends on which Canadians we’re discussing. Your average young family from suburban Toronto is probably only vaguely aware there is a CBC. But Canadian broadcasters? They know all about the corporation, but just wish it would lift its crushing hobnailed boots from their faces.

Stick around and I’ll explain.

For the purposes of this discussion I’m not interested in the possibility that there’s been reckless or negligent corruption or waste, so I won’t address the recent controversy over paying out millions of dollars in executive benefits. Instead, I want to know how the CBC is designed to operate. This will allow us to judge the corporation on its own terms.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

CBC’s Financial Structure

We’ll begin with the basics. According to the CBC’s 2023-24 projections in their most recent corporate plan strategy, the company will receive $1.17 billion from Parliament; $292 million from advertising; and $209 million from subscriber fees, financing, and other income. Company filings note that revenue from both advertising and legacy subscription pools are dropping. Advertising is trending downwards because of ongoing changes in industry ad models, and the decline in subscriptions can be blamed on competition from “cord-cutting” internet services. The Financing and other income category includes revenue from rent and lease-generating use of CBC’s many real estate assets.

The projected combined television, radio, and digital services spending is $1.68 billion. For important context, 2022-23 data from the 2022-2023 annual report break that down to $996 million for English services, and $816 million for French services. 2022-23 also saw $60 million in costs for transmission, distribution, and collection. Corporate management and finance costs came to around $33 million. Overall, the company reported a net loss of $125 million in 2022-23.

The corporation estimates that their English-language digital platforms attract 17.4 million unique visitors each month and that the average visitor engages with content for 28 minutes a month. In terms of market relevance, those are pretty good numbers. But, among Canadian internet users, cbc.ca still ranked only 43rd for total web destinations (which include sites like google.com and amazon.ca). French-language Radio-Canada’s numbers were 5.2 million unique visitors who each hung around for 50 minutes a month.

Monthly engagement with digital English-language news and regional services was 20 minutes. Although we’re given no visitor numbers, the report does admit that “interest in news was lower than expected.”

CBC content production

All that’s not very helpful for understanding what’s actually going on inside CBC. We need to get a feel for how the corporation divides its spending between programming categories and what’s driving the revenue.

The CRTC provides annual financial filings for all Canadian broadcasters, including the CBC. I could describe what’s happening by throwing columns and rows of dollar figures at you. In fact, should you be so disposed, you can view the spreadsheet here. But it turns out that my colorful graph will do a much better job:

As you can see for yourself, CBC spends a large chunk of its money producing news for all three video platforms (CBC and Radio-Canada conventional TV and the cable/VOD platforms they refer to as “discretionary TV”). The two conventional networks also invest significant funds in drama and comedy production.

The chart doesn’t cover CBC radio, so I’ll fill you in. English-language production costs $143 million (roughly the equivalent of the costs of English TV drama/comedy) while the bill for French-language radio production came in at $94 million (more or less equal to discretionary TV news production).

CBC Content Consumption

Who’s watching? The CBC itself reported that viewers of CBC English television represented only 5.1 percent of the total Canadian audience, and only 2.0 percent tuned in to CBC news. By “total Canadian audience”, I mean all Canadians viewing all available TV programming at a given time. So when the CBC tells us that their News Network got a 2.0 percent “share”, they don’t mean that they attracted 2.0 percent of all Canadians. Rather, they got 2.0 percent of whoever happened to be watching any TV network – which could easily come to just a half of one percent of all Canadians. After all, how many people still watch TV?

According to CRTC data, between the 2014–15 and 2022–23 seasons, English language CBC TV weekly viewing hours dropped from 35 million to 16 million. That total would amount to less than six minutes a day per anglophone Canadian. Specifically, news viewing fell by 52 percent, sports by 66 percent, and drama and comedy by 51 percent.

CBC Radio One and CBC Music only managed to attract 14.3 percent of the Canadian market. What does that actually mean? I’ve seen estimates suggesting that between 15 and 25 percent of all Canadians listen to radio during the popular daily commute slots. So at its peak, CBC radio’s share of that audience is possibly no higher than 3.5 percent of all Canadians.

recent survey found that only 41 percent of Canadians agreed the CBC “is important and should continue doing what it’s doing.” The remaining 59 percent were split between thinking the CBC requires “a lot of changes” and was “no longer useful.” Those numbers remained largely consistent across all age groups.

It seems that while some Canadian’s might support the CBC in principle, for the most part, they’re not actually consuming a lot of content.

CBC Revenue sources

CBC’s primary income is from government funding through parliamentary allocations. Here’s what those look like:

Advertising (or, “time sales” as they refer to it) is another major revenue source. That channel brought in more than $200 million in 2023:

But here’s the thing: the broadcast industry in Canada is currently engaged in a bitter struggle for existence. Every single dollar from that shrinking pool of advertising revenue is desperately needed. And most broadcasters are – perhaps misguidedly – fighting for more government funding. So why should the CBC, with its billion dollar subsidies, be allowed to also compete for limited ad revenue?

Or, to put it differently, what vital and unique services does the CBC provide that might justify their special treatment?

It’s possible that CBC does target rural and underserved audiences missed by the commercial networks. But those are clearly not what’s consuming the vast majority of the corporation’s budget. Perhaps people are watching CBC’s “big tent” drama and comedy productions, but are those measurably better or more important than what’s coming from the private sector? And we’ve already seen how, for all intents and purposes, no one’s watching their TV news or listening to their radio broadcasts.

Perhaps there’s an argument to be made for maintaining or even increasing funding for CBC. But I haven’t yet seen anyone convincingly articulate it.

Share

Subscribe to The Audit.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Trudeau leaves office with worst economic growth record in recent Canadian history

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Ben Eisen

In the days following Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s resignation as leader of the Liberal Party, there has been much ink spilt about his legacy. One effusively positive review of Trudeau’s tenure claimed that his successors “will be hard-pressed to improve on his economic track record.”

But this claim is difficult to square with the historical record, which shows the economic story of the Trudeau years has been one of dismal growth. Indeed, when the growth performance of Canada’s economy is properly measured, Trudeau has the worst record of any prime minister in recent history.

There’s no single perfect measure of economic success. However, growth in inflation-adjusted per-person GDP—an indicator of living standards and incomes—remains an important and broad measure. In short, it measures how quickly the economy is growing while adjusting for inflation and population growth.

Back when he was first running for prime minister in 2015, Trudeau recognized the importance of long-term economic growth, often pointing to slow growth under his predecessor Stephen Harper. On the campaign trail, Trudeau blasted Harper for having the “worst record on economic growth since R.B. Bennett in the depths of the Great Depression.”

And growth during the Harper years was indeed slow. The Harper government endured the 2008/09 global financial crisis and subsequent weak recovery, particularly in Ontario. During Harper’s tenure as prime minister, per-person GDP growth was 0.5 per cent annually—which is lower than his predecessors Brian Mulroney (0.8 per cent) and Jean Chrétien (2.4 per cent).

So, growth was weak under Harper, but Trudeau misdiagnosed the causes. Shortly after taking office, Trudeau said looser fiscal policy—with more spending, borrowing and bigger deficits—would help spur growth in Canada (and indeed around the world).

Trudeau’s government acted on this premise, boosting spending and running deficits—but Trudeau’s approach did not move the needle on growth. In fact, things went from bad to worse. Annual per-person GDP growth under Trudeau (0.3 per cent) was even worse than under Harper.

The reasons for weak economic growth (under Harper and Trudeau) are complicated. But when it comes to performance, there’s no disputing that Trudeau’s record is worse than any long-serving prime minister in recent history. According to our recent study published by the Fraser Institute, which compared the growth performance of the five most recent long-serving prime ministers, annual per-person GDP growth was highest under Chrétien followed by Martin, Mulroney, Harper and Justin Trudeau.

Of course, some defenders will blame COVID for Trudeau’s poor economic growth record, but you can’t reasonably blame the steep but relatively short pandemic-related recession for nearly a decade of stagnation.

There’s no single perfect measure of economic performance, but per-person inflation-adjusted economic growth is an important and widely-used measure of economic success and prosperity. Despite any claims to the contrary, Justin Trudeau’s legacy on economic growth is—in historical terms—dismal. All Canadians should hope that his successor has more success and oversees faster growth in the years ahead.

Continue Reading

Business

Greenland Is A Strategic Goldmine

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By John Teichert

President-elect Donald Trump recently snapped the gaze of the national security establishment to an often-overlooked geographical feature — Greenland.

Trump’s comments have been enough to start a long-overdue conversation about the semi-autonomous territory owned by Denmark, a landmass that retired Admiral James Stavridis, who served as the Supreme Allied Commander for NATO, has called “a strategic goldmine for the United States.” Stavridis was speaking both literally and figuratively.

Trump has likely done something that many of the so-called national security experts have never considered: He has looked down on a globe from the top. The traditional U.S.-centric view does not tell the full story nor provide the proper perspective. A top-down glance unveils key observations that reveal the wisdom of focusing on a geographic feature that has been brushed aside for far too long. 

Greenland and the entire Arctic region are typically considered simply rugged and quaint. Yet, their significance must be properly elevated as a fundamental component of U.S. national security and economic interests. Trump has done just that.

A North-Pole-centered perspective reveals that Greenland is the largest geographical feature in the Arctic region. As a result, it holds oversized strategic significance in controlling land, sea, air, undersea and space domains for a substantial part of the planet. Proper utilization of the Greenland landmass creates opportunities for multi-faceted dominance of the entire region.

This same perspective reveals a massive trade route, given the right climatic conditions and ice-breaking capabilities. It provides a maritime shortcut between the East Coast and the West Coast of the United States, and similarly for trade between Europe and Asia.

The Houthis in Yemen have reminded the world of an important economic truth — the ability to shut down transit through a key trade route can have ripple effects on the global economy. Suffocating transit through the Red Sea has tripled the cost of shipping from Asia to the East Coast of the United States, enacting huge global inflationary pressures. These negative impacts would be dwarfed by a nation that could control and restrict transit through the Arctic Ocean.

The view from the North Pole also enlightens the viewer about the closer-than-expected proximity between Russia and North America. The protective buffer of the Atlantic Ocean does not tell the full story, and the distances between the United States and Canada and their Russian adversary are much shorter than would otherwise be understood.

Through this literal worldview, Greenland looms large in its significance. This is especially true when it is properly viewed as the primary barrier between Russia and the east coast of the United States. Such positioning provides the rationale for the United States Space Force’s posture on the island with its early warning radars and space control systems – situated to protect against strategic surprise.

Trump’s strong statements about proper economic and strategic utilization of Greenland have been informed by such strategic orientation. These statements are also a natural extension of his rightful insistence that European NATO members pay their fair share to meet collective defense requirements.

While the United States has a commendable 75-year history of supporting European and collective security, fair share also means that America’s European allies must support North American security. That starts with Greenland and continues with a robust strategic focus on the Arctic region.

None of this addresses the largely untapped and abundant natural resources in the Arctic region, from oil and natural gas to precious metals and rare earth minerals, which are desperately needed to sustain a thriving modern global economy. Calling it a goldmine is not hyperbole.

Not only have Trump’s comments gained our attention, but they have also captured the attention of Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte Egede. Egede has eagerly proclaimed that his territory is poised to enhance its collaboration with the United States regarding natural resources and security efforts.

Thus, with just a few words informed by a properly oriented security perspective, Trump has already motivated and cultivated a collaboration that could strike gold for American interests.

United States Air Force Brigadier General John Teichert (ret) is a prolific author and leading expert on foreign affairs and military strategy. He served as commander of Joint Base Andrews and Edwards Air Force Base, was the U.S. senior defense official to Iraq, and recently retired as the assistant deputy undersecretary of the Air Force, international affairs. General Teichert maintains a robust schedule of media engagements, and his activities can best be followed at johnteichert.com and on LinkedIn. General Teichert can be reached at [email protected].

Continue Reading

Trending

X