The latest report from the CRTC came down hard on simultaneous substitution, arguing that inserting Canadian commercials into U.S. shows undermines homegrown programming and efforts of the entire industry to produce and promote it. CAB was as quick to criticize the report (‘irresponsible…without any rationale’) as ACTRA was to cheer (a ‘first glimmer of hope’). So we ask:

‘Simultaneous substitution – lifeblood of the industry or an albatross around its neck?’

[Dropping it] would force us to go against the U.S. networks, and then the customers would wonder where the U.S. programming is. Take, for instance, the Super Bowl. It’s where you see the most creative and expensive commercials of the year, and the people are missing out on local commercials for Pizza Hut.
Jim Shaw, CEO, Shaw Communications

I don’t mind simultaneous substitution…but the consequences are not great for the system as a whole. The schedules of Global and CTV are driven by the U.S. networks. They have to put on the shows when the U.S. networks put them on in order to do simultaneous substitution, so they don’t have much flexibility…that makes it harder for Canadian shows to get into deep primetime.
Richard Stursberg, EVP of television, CBC

The report correctly identifies some major problems, but not necessarily the right solutions. While the existing simulcast rules do create some harmful side effects, the answer is not to restrict simulcast but actually to expand it – require Canadian signals including the Canadian ads to displace the American signals, not just for simultaneous broadcasts, but also for any and all broadcasts that same day.
Stephen Stohn, president, Epitome Pictures

We don’t enjoy it and I don’t think anyone does. It’s weird that the question was posed after the OTA hearing, and I think that’s illustrative of a bigger question: What contributions will non-Canadian services and channels make to the broadcast system?
Ken Murphy, CEO and cofounder, High Fidelity HDTV