While it’s been popular sport to bash Trina McQueen’s report Dramatic Choices since its release at the end of May, kudos to her for highlighting the need for a more concerted effort in the area of ‘audience building.’

This is not to say that the report to the CRTC on Canadian drama is flawless. Indeed it is surprisingly brief and, while it gets to the heart of what ails the industry, the recommendations could have gone considerably deeper. That said, the study is just the first step in what will, it is hoped, spin off into a full-scale review and revamping of the funding system that underwrites Canadian production.

But for articulating the benefits of creating a dedicated $30-million pool toward script development for dramatic programs and the production of pilots, McQueen nailed it.

As I have said in this space before, it is hard to imagine any other industry full of so many sharp business people that puts so little into the front end of its product. Broadcasters and producers, beyond anecdotal information, have little idea of what the end user really wants.

Certainly we know that Canadian audiences love dramas because they watch plenty of them, usually U.S. product. But it’s been much more difficult to consistently deliver winning programs originating north of the border.

According to McQueen, the reasons include the fact that a Canuck drama is made for a fraction of the budget for a similar show in the U.S. and is ‘lucky to afford four’ writers, much less the six to 12 working on any one U.S. show. Moreover, U.S. networks can afford to commission 100 scripts and upwards of 20 pilots. Canadian networks cannot afford anything approaching this. So trying to mimic that model is a mug’s game.

But, what of other industries?

Let’s pick something inherently Canadian yet extremely successful such as beer. Does Molson spend millions commissioning 100 new beer formulas and 20 new bottled varieties each year to be tested by consumers? The answer, of course, is no. But the brewer most certainly does spend millions on research and development on the few brands it does produce, finding out what consumers want and how best to market to them.

There’s no reason broadcasters can’t approach their programs the same way.

But audience building cannot stop with R&D. While McQueen is correct that money needs to be spent on top talent and increased production values, cash also needs to be allocated to fully integrated marketing strategies.

Typically, Canadian shows are marketed through a combination of cross-promotion on a network’s properties – usually TV, newspaper or Internet – with the occasional bus shelter thrown in for good measure. But it shouldn’t stop there. Grassroots, below-the-line approaches – in other words, those outside traditional media – pay huge dividends.

Good research should provide a very accurate guide for how best to market a show – where the target audience members reside and how best to reach them.

Broadcasters should treat their homegrown shows as the brands they are. Our national funding agencies should set money aside for that and give these shows a fighting chance.