Following months of consultations, roundtable meetings and a cross-country tour, the $350 million Canada Media Fund finally opened the door for business on April 1, laying out plans to support Canuck content through its experimental and convergent streams. The stakes are high for the CMF, which amalgamates the perpetually troubled former Canadian Television Fund and the Canada New Media Fund to become the single most important funding body for producers of screen-based content.

Ottawa set out to change the mandate of the fund – financed by Canadian cable and satellite distributors and the federal government – to favor ratings-driven projects on more digital platforms that achieve a high return on investment.

While 2010 will be a transitional year, Playback wanted to know: How does the new CMF measure up? We turned to stakeholders including TV and interactive producers, broadcasters, and cable and union execs for their thoughts.

HAS THE CANADA MEDIA FUND IMPROVED COMPARED TO THE FORMER CANADIAN TELEVISION FUND?

David Paperny, producer, Paperny Films
Yes. The consultation process was done with rigor and intensity. All voices were heard. Having $350 million annually invested in Cancon through the fund is very good news for independent producers, and bringing new media into the fold with a convergent and an experimental stream is forward-thinking and innovative.

Jamie Brown, producer, Frantic Films
Not everyone will love all aspects of the new programs, but I think they’ve done an admirable job balancing all the competing interests. There was a mandate for change the CMF was required to address, and while the jury is out on how well some new elements will work, I can’t readily suggest how they could have responded better.

Corrie Coe, VP of business and legal affairs, CTV
The new policies announced by CMF clearly represent their new mandate and the fund has done a commendable job of accommodating many different industry stakeholders and interests. The guidelines look promising, but it is still too early to make a direct comparison.

Serge Sasseville, VP of corporate affairs, Quebecor Media
No, it’s even worse in some ways. In French we would say ‘The elephant gave birth to a mouse.’ There is more flexibility for the broadcasters in their envelope [at] 50%, but we asked for 100% flex because broadcasters know how to reach their audience. It makes no sense in the new digital universe to tell a broadcaster that he should spend so much money in children’s and documentary and drama and variety.

Maureen Parker, executive director, Writers Guild of Canada
The CMF board and staff have looked at the way the entertainment landscape is changing and they have moved forward, trying to ensure that we’re producing content for all platforms. That’s a positive step.

WHAT CONCERNS REMAIN?

Richard Stursberg, EVP of English services, CBC
When the transition [was made] from CTF to CMF, the policy was to put emphasis on calculating the envelopes based on the performance of first-run, original primetime Canadian shows. Unfortunately, [the CMF] has not put the new rules in place yet. It’s weird that we should find ourselves in a circumstance where the one broadcaster that is pursuing precisely the policy that the new fund is supposed to support, is the one that finds its money going down.

David Paperny, producer
The major concern I have, and that many of us producers have, is the new rule allowing broadcast in-house production. I do not see the public policy reason for this. I think it will actually reduce diversity of voices, and in the end it will mean funding dollars will go to the broadcaster’s bottom line instead of onto the screen.

Ken Stein, SVP of regulatory affairs, Shaw Communications
Over the next five years – together with federal and provincial tax credits and the CMF – the total money going into this sector is going to be over $4 billion. If that [money] continues to be used as a subsidy, then at the end of five years we’re going to be in the same situation that we are now, which is not good. Our view is that the money has to be used as an investment strategy to build an industry, so that at the end of five years it doesn’t need subsidies anymore – it exists on its own. The fund should be established as a total investment fund [and] it’s up to the industry to deliver.

Maureen Parker, WGC
We’re very concerned that there is enough money available for television production, because although content must be available over multiple platforms, television is still the driver, and English-language production TV budgets have increased. We don’t want to see [funds] dispersed over different platforms and basically not being able to serve the majority of the audience, which is television.

Patrick Crowe, co-president, Xenophile Media
We are somewhat concerned with Telefilm’s involvement in administering the digital media element of the fund. We have issues with their knowledge base about new media production in general, and as with most companies in this space, we experienced great frustrations with them in their administration of the Canada New Media Fund. We think they really have to ramp their game up so as not to be a bottleneck in the growth of this fund’s potential.

Serge Sasseville, Quebecor Media
CMF did not give more importance to the audience success factor [because] it’s only for the kind of programming that they deem worthy of being financed. For example, TVA has a show called Star Académie, the biggest success in the history of television in Quebec. But because there is voting in that show it was [considered] reality TV programming and it’s not counted as audience success. Star Académie is variety programming; it’s not reality TV. So the way they consider the audience success [puts] broadcasters at a disadvantage.

HAVE YOUR NEEDS BEEN MET?

Corrie Coe, CTV
At first glance, our needs have been fairly met. We’re happy that in-house production and broadcaster-affiliated production qualify, [and] we’re pleased that there is now more flexibility with respect to genre, up from 15% to 50%. It allows us to commission the best creative for our audience, regardless of the genre.
The CMF has made an effort to recognize the role of broadcasters both as an exhibitor on multiple platforms and in creating digital-only content and experimental projects. We aren’t boxed in to an area that is out of sync with our strategic objectives.

Richard Stursberg, CBC
What I would like for them to do this June is to implement the new rules on first-run original primetime shows. The direction the minister wants to take it in is totally right, we just would like to see the board implement [the new rules]. We don’t think it’s any ill will, it’s just a complicated process and [the CMF] wanted to give enough time to the rest of industry to adjust.

Patrick Crowe, Xenophile Media
To a degree. The main structure of the fund still revolves around television as a primary platform for the establishment of new entertainment properties and brands. Of course this is becoming less and less relevant as the entertainment world evolves, but because the BPE program is tied to broadcaster envelopes, it limits Canadian producers in exploiting the ever-increasing array of choices in introducing new content to audiences.