The “New” New Media Fund
Across the industry, discussion, concern and confusion is mounting in regards to the new “Canada Media Fund.” What does it mean for Canadian content producers? Is it a much needed kick in the pants that will help position Canada as leaders in the increasingly-critical-to-a-property’s-success digital extension landscape? Or is it another set of expensive hoops for producers — with budgets already stretched to breaking — to jump through when accessing funding?
While much is still in flux at the time of writing, here is our take on the new CMF and what producers with hopes and concerns can do to ensure the developing guidelines for the fund will address their needs.
What It Is
Taking the 10,000 foot view, the existing “Canadian Television Fund” (CTF) and “Canadian New Media Fund” (CNMF) are merging into one funding body, which will be called the “Canada Media Fund” (CMF.) The CMF will be a $135 million fund, governed by a unique board of directors and administered by Telefilm Canada: its mission is to provide funding to television and new media projects.
The fund will be split into two streams — the “convergent stream” and the “experimental stream”. The convergent stream will cover television properties with a broadcast license commitment, and the experimental stream, expected to be smaller, will cover “everything else.”
The fund will officially open on April 1st 2010, with the guidelines for first submission being published March 1st 2010. At this time the first application deadline has not yet been announced.
What It Means
In a nutshell, what this fund means for producers of television content is that they will no longer be able to apply for project funding unless they have an accompanying new media/digital extension strategy. The “convergent stream” requires that all properties have “at least two distribution platforms” (one of which must be television) and that the content be unique to the platforms — in other words, simply streaming your TV show online or reselling it on the iPhone won’t cut it.
For producers of new media content, we honestly don’t know what the new CMF means yet… the guidelines governing the catch-all “experimental stream” have yet to be established.
During the online “town hall meeting” of August 6th 2009 the CMF was asked about their board’s lack of new media experience. The response was: “New media producers are being consulted through the CMF consultation process.” Optimistically, this is another way of saying it will be up to the industry at large to ensure the that CMF board has the information it needs to make informed decisions when ratifying or rejecting CMF guidelines.
Why This Is Happening
As CTF CEO Valerie Creighton states: “Times are changing and the world is moving this way.”
The CTF is aware that audiences are changing the ways in which they interact with content, as well as diversifying the vehicles by which they absorb content. Desirous of ensuring that Canadian content remain competitive and relevant on the global stage, the CTF decided to alter their guidelines to make digital extensions a requirement for funding going forward.
“But wait!” many are saying, “the CTF could have simply increased funding envelopes for digital extensions, why force producers to have digital extensions?”
The answer to that is simple — they are concerned that given the upfront time and expense involved, producers would abandon digital strategies as an unrealistic “nice to have,” causing Canada to fall behind other countries… and this has certainly been the case. The new fund vows to “reward success and require innovation” from Canadian producers, and has already publicly released some of the guidelines by which future applications will be judged:
ROI
The CMF will favour projects that have the highest chance of a return on investment. Comedy, Drama and Children’s Programming as well as digital projects with a clear path to monetization are the preferred candidates going forward.
High Definition
The somewhat nebulous statement “HD programming is favoured” has been released by the CTF, from which we can infer that those interested in CMF funds should probably switch to shooting in HD.
Multi-Platform
All programming seeking funding through the convergence envelope must exist on TV and at least one other platform. No exhaustive list has been provided as to what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable platforms for distribution of content: however in the town hall meeting XBox Live, iPhone/Blackberry, web and VOD were cited as acceptable media.
Audience Outreach
Securing, maintaining and growing an audience is a concern that comes up quite frequently in the CMF documentation. Arguably the heart of the reason for the CTF/CMF switch, audience retention may be the number one mission of the CMF. All programming must have a concrete strategy to secure an audience, and be able to prove the efficacy of this strategy. The metrics by which the CMF will determine the success of digital extensions are still, like much else, to be determined.
Industry Consultation.
In fact, a lot about the new CMF remains to be determined… and may need to be re-determined several times over the coming year. So, buckle up.
One solid: the board is quick to admit that they do not pretend to have all the answers. A very large portion of the guidelines that will govern the allocation of the $135 million dollar fund will be developed via a cross-Canada consultation process with industry. Book your seats now.
The following thirteen topics have been identified as having question marks which will need to be addressed and resolved before the guidelines can be drafted:
1. Size of program allocations — convergent and experimental streams
2. What is convergent content?
3. How will video-on-demand play into the equation?
4. Measuring audience success and return on their investment
5. Funds allocated for marketing and promotion
6. Allocations by genre for television content
7. How to fund documentary productions?
8. What will be required Canadian elements for CMF projects?
9. Will third-language productions be eligible?
10. How to treat “in-house” broadcaster productions
11. Eligibility for performance envelopes
12. Emphasizing first-run, prime-time programming
13. English regional production policy
The CTF has also created a “Stakeholder Submissions” section on their site where they will post all letters submitted with concerns, hopes, and questions from new media and television producers.
Rather than evaluate each of these discussion points, we will highlight a few of the most common opportunities and pitfalls identified during the town hall Q+A session. There is a full briefing document available online, which goes though the above 13 points and the associated questions the CMF wishes to resolve in detail.
Potential Opportunities & Pitfalls
A common refrain heard in response to questions asked at the town hall was:
“We welcome input on this issue through the written submission process and focus group sessions.”
Blah.
Here are a few of the more interesting questions that met with this response. If any of these questions deal with issues near and dear to your own heart, we suggest you write in with your concerns/proposed responses to avoid the adoption of guidelines that will make things difficult for your productions in the future!
Q. Will the funding model provide for extra funds to support the multiple platform approach?
A. We welcome input on this issue through the written submission process and focus group sessions.
Our take: this means that while they are requiring money to be spent on developing programs across multiple media they haven’t decided yet if they will provide funding for this… but they are open to suggestions.
Q. Is it the intent of the new fund to allow independent producers to be able to access all of the new streams of CTF funds without a Canadian broadcast license i.e. outside of the broadcaster envelopes?
A. We welcome input on this issue through the written submission process and focus group sessions.
Our take: a lot of the debate surrounding the CMF has centered on the issue of the BPE (Broadcaster Performance Envelopes) and concerns that these put much of the funding power in the hands of the broadcasters. The CMF maintains that BPE’s should not be viewed as “broadcasters allocating funds” because ultimately the CMF has to green light those projects. Opponents see this as irrelevant because whether CMF has a veto or not, it is the broadcasters who exclusively make the call as to which projects to bring forward for evaluation.
Kinda obvious, really.
Q. Can a US corporation acquire or purchase a Canadian production that has been funded by the CMF?
A. We welcome input on this issue through the written submission process and focus group sessions.
Our take: let’s say you’ve created a separate parcel of content to support your TV series on another platform, or your TV show has completed its run in Canada and you wish to resell it to an American distributor, the CMF may or may not allow this, depending the results of the industry consultations.
Q Do you know how the percentages of funding for convergent projects will compare to experimental projects?
A. We welcome input on this issue through the written submission process and focus group sessions.
Our take: if the CMF requires broadcast licenses for all “convergent stream” applications, then all the funding for TV programming that does not yet have a broadcast license will have to come out of the “experimental stream” envelope. This is particularly important for producers wishing to use digital media as a way of developing audiences and properties prior to securing a broadcast license (or indeed as a way of convincing broadcasters that a property should have a broadcast license.) It may not have occurred to the CMF board that the experimental fund could be used in this way, so it will be up to the industry to make that point.
Q. What methodology will be used to measure audience success on the internet?
A. We welcome input on this issue through the written submission process and focus group sessions.
Our take: since ROI and audience draw is such a significant focus for the new CMF, the industry will need to ensure that they have realistic benchmarks for what constitutes an online “success”. And not all projects are alike: metrics for success should be agreed upon on a project by project basis.
Q. Will the fund have policies that protect the rights of independent producers, as it has in the past where there were restrictions on what rights a broadcaster could demand?
A. The CMF will seek input from the industry regarding the role the CMF should or should not play in terms of trade issues.
Our take: this is a very interesting question… and the fact that they are punting is even more interesting. Basically the question refers to the fact that there are different rights associated with each incarnation of a property in different media — and it is unclear as to who ought to de-facto get those rights. The digital components could be monetized very differently from the television component — even resold in different markets separate from the TV component. Does the broadcaster’s license fee give them automatic claim to these rights as well, or do they need to become equity participants, and if so, how does that affect tax credits?
Short answer, they don’t know. But since it is safe to say that all parties involved will want as many rights as they can get, the real question is whether or not the CMF should have a role in arbitrating these matters up front.
The Bottom Line:
The industry consultation schedule is listed below. Register your concerns and recommendations in writing now via: ctf@ctf-fct.ca and be sure to attend the industry consultation in your city. If you are unable to attend in person, you may be able to participate online – check the website for updates.
September 2009
8 Regina SK
9 Winnipeg MB
21 Halifax NS
22 Fredericton NB
23 Charlottetown PE
24 St. John’s NL
25 Iqaluit NU
28 Calgary AB
29 Vancouver BC
30 Vancouver BC Aboriginal Focus Group
October 2009;
2 Whitehorse YT (NT included)
14 Toronto ON
15 National Focus Group (Toronto)
21 Montreal QC French Market Focus Group
28 Montreal QC English Market Focus Group
29 Ottawa ON French Language Producers Outside Quebec
November 2009
5 National Focus Group (Ottawa)
25 National Focus Group (Montreal)