Super Bowl ratings drop 39% nearly equal TSN numbers for GC

Just because Bell has known for two years that they were getting screwed doesn’t mean they weren’t getting screwed. They paid for exclusive NFL rights on the basis of having the entire national audience to themselves, which would dictate the amount they could charge advertisers. There’s absolutely no question they had to charge less based on this ridiculous ruling that has absolutely no basis in good public policy. The fact it’s just four hours does not make it right or justifiable. If you were a season ticket holder to a team and discovered once you were at a game you had already paid for that you had to pay more to leave the stadium, would you think, “Oh well, it’s just one game”?

The CRTC absolutely did NOT have “to do something to respond to complaints.” If they had to kowtow to the public, they would have done a lot of things differently over the years, like order the cable companies to stop bundling channels people don’t want and charging for them. This was an outrageous decision and as I said, I expect Bell will ultimately win some sort of court ruling over it.

How come Bell gets to protect only “99.999%” (an exaggeration but whatever) of its revenue while other broadcasters get to protect 100%? Is the CRTC also going to rule out simsub for the Stanley Cup final? Or maybe the Oscars? Just to keep the baying hordes at bay?

It doesn't feel very good does it Bell, having to compete with your American Broadcast Cousins with no protection

100% Spot On - its really terrifying for them - these types of Monopolist Bullies - when a bigger bully tosses them to the side!

Maybe we should let more Americanos into Canada with cheaper internet pricing, cheaper cable, cheaper cell/mobile services. Bell and the rest of the price-fixing, customer-gouging cowards would slither away.

btw - worst monopoly offender = Rogers, Bell is probably tied with or slightly more predatorial than Shaw. :cowboy: immo

Bell wants to build a wall and make Rogers pay for it

Given the availability on cable and over-air of Fox’s broadcast, a 39% drop in CTV’s Super Bowl broadcast viewership does not mean a drop in Canadians watching the game. Your logic is worthy of The Donald.

Hey, if you want to open it up without govt protection, bring it on. But bring it on for all players at all times, not one player on one event. This Super Bowl ruling was not even close to a rational policy decision by the regulator.

Precisely X, you and I have been trumpeting this for years here.
It’s the wannabe USA sellout factor which regrettably that toothpaste can’t be put back in the tube.

Not so as you then must be with the Clinton logic.
Bell/CTV had been promoting the crap out of this game and it still didn’t work.

On what grounds would that be, legally? The CRTC has the legal authority to decide a simsub policy, as simsubs are a privilege, not a right. The policy they set out is that the broadcast has to be equivalent, and not inferior. Apparently, 39% of the audience felt that the CTV broadcast was inferior to the Fox one.

If Bell didn’t consider that regulations can in fact change and aren’t written on stone tablets, that was a foolish decision by their management team. It’s not on the CRTC to write the regulations in such a way that it makes Bell happy.

It's a slippery slope if you want to include unknown Fox ratings as supposed viewers. Numeris does not tabulate ratings for foreign networks, regardless if you're watching over the air, by satellite or cable tv. Why? Because it doesn't matter, it has no effect on Canadians or our companies.

If we want to include foreign ratings let's not forget the Grey Cup was broadcast live on ESPN2 and UK's BTSports...and live-streamed to a reported 2.5M viewers on YouTube & Facebook, which the Super Bowl wasn't.

How many watched on Fox? It could be 10,000 or 10M, we'll never know. People always speculate on mythical ratings of U.S. sports on cable. Sunday night football is one of the top rated shows in America, drawing 50M viewers. In Canada the ratings are poor, usually in the 300k to 500k range on TSN, but some claim "there could be another 500k watching on NBC". But on one Sunday this season the SNF game was on ESPN which is unavailable in Canada, but TSN's ratings were the lowest of the year in the 200k's...and there wasn't anybody watching an American feed. So how many Canadians really watched on Fox?

More importantly the CRTC's ruling leveled the playing field between the North American football championships. The ratings were comparable. So let's level the playing field even more and show the Grey Cup on CTV and have $300k cash & trip giveaways (and not just a suit from Moore's) and see what our own Grey Cup Championship can bring when they pull out all the stops. :thup:

99.999% isn’t an exaggeration at all. 365 days of programming x 18 hrs/day = 6,570 hrs. So, 4 hours is 0.0006% of their inventory and they get to simsub every bit of that as long as their programming matches up. The CRTC DID have to respond to mountains of public complaints about this issue over many years…they are supposed to “cowtow” (I’d call it “responding” but that’s just my word) to the public given they’re a (quasi) gov’t agency. Are you suggesting they should “cowtow” to the broadcasters? Hmmm.

Just so you know, I’ve spent many years in broadcasting, tv and radio, including a few years at Global when we had the SB rights so I know of what I speak. There were many years, just a decade or so ago, when sat and HD cable were still working out, that the simsub wasn’t all that effective so its not like this is a 30 year tradition or anything…it’s always been a moving target. You sound a lot like a friend of mine, an ex CTV guy, who is as enraged as you seem to be which suggests you’re not able to look at the issue without some serious bias.

Your right of course, but IMHO, Bell should just relax and realize the CRTC is doing them a favour by throwing the public a small bone here. The SB is a unique programme with a unique history with regard to commercials. The CRTC has been more than fair with all three major broadcasters in this country for decades so getting into pi$$ing match with them is just dumb especially considering their tri-nopoly in the wireless biz…lord help them if they actually had to face real competition in that field.

The CRTC shouldn’t be changing the rules part way through Bell’s contract with the NFL. Bell would have bid significantly less had they known about the rule change that the CRTC was going to implement for only 1 program.

Bell shouldn’t sign a contract without a clause regarding regulatory changes, considering that Bell knows the regulations can change at any time and that they have no control over it. I’m sure they can make up the loss by trimming the bonuses of whatever incompetent executives approved this deal without taking into account that things can change in the future.

This is a silly argument at best. There are always contracts in effect any time regulations change. Always. Implementing a rule like this would mean no regulation could change with less than ten years advance notice. That isn’t the CRTC’s problem.

Really, on some level, this is Bell’s fault. They spent years putting more promotional muscle into the Superbowl (an American event) than the Grey Cup (a Canadian event). The Superbowl then becomes the biggest thing on television, after supplanting the Grey Cup in that regard (thanks, Bell!).

Bell then acts surprised and uppity when people want the American version of an American event instead of the one from the middleman who adds no value (Bell).

Why do you keep turning it back into why “Bell isn’t supporting the Grey Cup?” At the end of the day Bell is paying good money to the CFL, via TSN for the broadcast rights.

Bell is also trying to cash in on one of the biggest television events of the year, the Super Bowl. As much as this whole board are CFL fans and want to see the league succeed, ultimately the Superbowl is a larger event to many people even in Canada. I would imagine even with both championship games on CTV, CTV could charge more for a Super Bowl commercial. That is now not the case due to the CRTC decision.

If Bell could make more money with the Grey Cup on CTV, it would be on CTV.

We are a small country with a small league next door to a giant. I am happy with how the CFL has been doing and it will only get better. The players are getting better and the difference between ability of the players is a lot less then the salaries. If we did not have the Canadian content rule things would be very different. But I have no problem with the Canadian content.

Bell's fiduciary obligation is to its shareholders, to maximize profits for them. It is not in business to "support" the CFL or any other outside body.

The CRTC's ridiculous decision to change the regulations that have governed Cdn broadcasting for decades, but only for one event -- an event that was already purchased by Bell on the basis of that regulation being in force, allowing it to charge a premium for commercials -- should be struck down in court, and I suspect it will, eventually.

Yeah, and all hours of air time generate the same commercial revenue, right?

I’m suggesting the CRTC follow its mandate to regulate the Cdn broadcast airwaves equitably, in accordance with regulations that have been in effect for decades and applied to all broadcasters equally – until this inexplicable decision to adversely affect a single broadcaster and its shareholders without any justification other than “public outcry.” And again, if the CRTC “did have to respond to mountains of public complaints about this issue,” why did it not also respond to mounds of public complaints about bundling channels consumers don’t want but have to pay for?

Simsub has been a regulation for decades. Whether it always worked as the broadcasters intended is completely beside the point. Cable companies sometimes screwed up and failed to substitute, and HD broadcasts initially couldn’t be subbed. But regardless of those issues, simsub was government policy that applied to all broadcasters, specifically for the purpose of benefitting those very broadcasters by allowing them to sell advertising on the basis that all viewers in the country (apart from a handful using antennas near the border) would see the commercials regardless of whether they tuned to a Cdn or American channel.

I have no personal skin in the game, but I do believe if there are regulations they should be applied fairly and equitably, not arbitrarily changed to the detriment of just one of those being regulated. If I were a Bell shareholder (and I reckon there are thousands of those in this country), I would be demanding that Bell pursue this challenge to the full extent permitted under law. This change damaged Bell’s ability to generate revenue and profit from a property it had already purchased.

“Bell should just relax and realize the CRTC is doing them a favour by throwing the public a small bone here.” What favour is that, exactly? Cutting their revenue is somehow a favour to Bell?

I don’t think that the NFL would ever agree to such a clause. They’re the most powerful sports league in the world.

Since this has never happened before Bell would need to be clairvoyant to have seen this coming.

Bell already made up the loss, they laid off over two dozen people:

[url=http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/fp-tech-desk/blog.html?b=business.financialpost.com/fp-tech-desk/bell-media-cites-crtc-super-bowl-ad-policy-in-latest-round-of-layoffs]http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/fp-te ... of-layoffs[/url]

Just one point of clarification, the CRTC did recently unbundle cable / satellite channels with the Skinny Cable / Satellite.

Yes, in a laughably inept way that makes it possible for the cable companies to make the unbundled packages unattractive to consumers.