Producers ‘missing the point’ on SAP

Re: ‘Report: feds have failed to boost English films,’ (Playback, Oct. 10, p.2)

In your article, producers dismiss the Screenwriting Assistance Program as ‘wasteful and isolated.’

These producers are missing the point. SAP was never intended to replace the traditional Telefilm Canada process where producers commission scripts from writers.

The Writers Guild of Canada lobbied long and hard for SAP as a way to financially assist professional screenwriters when they write feature film treatments and first drafts. The reality is, many producers want to see a first draft prior to contracting a writer. SAP ensures that these screenwriters get some financial assistance to write these scripts.

SAP also receives a relatively small amount of public funding ($2.3 million) compared to the $85 million the government channels annually to the feature film industry for project development, production and marketing.

On top of that, Telefilm has not marketed the program, and there isn’t even a website to list all the SAP-funded screenwriters and scripts. It’s a wonder producers even know these scripts exist. But most damaging, Telefilm has widened the program beyond its intended reach to include non-professional writers. A script written by an experienced, professional screenwriter is still a feature film’s single best chance of success.

Given these obstacles, and the producers’ lacklustre support of the program, the number of SAP scripts that have been produced – six – actually sounds pretty good.

Rebecca Schechter,

President,

Writers Guild of Canada.

More broadcaster flexibility means less viewer choice

Re: ‘Canada’s private broadcasters look to the future’ by Glenn O’Farrell, president and CEO of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (Playback, Oct. 10, p. 30).

Mr. O’Farrell says Canadian broadcasters need flexibility to remain relevant and to compete. We say enough already.

Canadians have proven they want to watch high-quality original Canadian programming – just look at the success of Corner Gas. Any more flexibility will come at the expense of the Canadian public.

And we don’t buy for a second Mr. O’Farrell’s assertion that private conventional broadcasters have increased spending on priority programming. It’s actually quite the opposite.

The Coalition of Canadian Audio-visual Unions issued a report in June citing CRTC data that showed expenditure on English-language Canadian drama by the conventional broadcasters hit a seven-year low in 2004 – decreasing to $53.6 million from a high of $73 million in 1998. Mr. O’Farrell’s figures are misleading, as they include spending by French-language broadcasters who have significantly increased their expenditures on Quebec dramas.

As for Mr. O’Farrell’s fragmentation fears, Nielsen Media Research cited in the study shows that conventional broadcasters’ audience share has remained steady at about 40% since 1999 despite the threat of pay-TV and specialty stations. The private conventional stations still receive the majority of audience share.

All this goes to show that it’s still pretty lucrative to be a broadcaster in Canada. Broadcasters profit from U.S. simulcasts, and in return for that privilege they are obligated to maintain a specific level of original Canadian programming. Increased flexibility will only result in more money in the broadcasters’ pockets, and less choice for Canadians.

Maureen Parker,

Executive director,

Writers Guild of Canada.