Archive

Author Archive

The Growth of the Network Media Economy in Canada, 1984-2012

Cross-posted from the Canadian Media Concentration Research Project blog.

Has the media economy in Canada become bigger or smaller over time? Does the answer to that question, one way or the other, apply across the board, or to only a few of the dozen or sectors that make up the network media economy: i.e. wireline and wireless telecoms; internet access; cable, satellite & IPTV; pay and specialty television; conventional television; radio; newspapers; magazines; music; search engines; social media; internet advertising and online news sources?

Which of these sectors are growing, which are stagnating and which are in decline? To illustrate these trends over the period from 1984 until 2012, this post hones in on rising new media services (IPTV), those that have seen their revenues stay relatively flat over the past few years (conventional television) and those that appear to be in long-term decline (newspapers). I also examine whether the media economy in Canada is big or small relative to global standards.

This post also aims to set down a baseline of data to underpin a series of posts to follow over the next few weeks. Similar to what I have done for the past two years, the next post examines trends within and across the TMI industries from 1984 until 2012 to see if they have become more concentrated over time, or less (for previous versions, see here and here). The post after that zooms in on the top sixteen or so companies with one percent or more market share across the network media in Canada. Such firms account for 86% of all telecom, media and internet revenues. Rank ordered on the basis of revenue, they are: BCE, Rogers, Telus, Shaw, Quebecor, the CBC, MTS, Cogeco, Google, Torstar, Sasktel, Postmedia, Astral, Eastlink, the Globe and Mail, Facebook and Netflix. You can see a past version this discussion here).

In addition to updating our analysis for a complete set of the 2012 data, our goal is to break new ground. This year we do so by adding a new post that examines the state of media, telecom and internet concentration in Canada relative to the preliminary results of a thirty country study by the International Media Concentration Research Project, in which I served as the lead Canadian researcher. There are some surprising results that that smash a few shibboleths while confirming other elements of what we know from past research.

Finally, another new dimension for this year is a break out of data and analysis for the English- and French-language telecom, media and internet (TMI) markets. For the most part, similar questions to those introduced above are addressed about media growth and concentration trends between 2000 and 2012, while the leading firms in both of these regions are profiled in terms of size, ownership, the media, telecom and internet sectors they operate in, and how they each fit into the Canadian mediascape overall. 1

While we cite our sources below, by and large, the following documents and data sets underpin the analysis in this post: Media Industry DataMedia Economy DataSources and Explanatory Notes and the CMCR Project’s Methodology Primary.

Canada’s Network Media Economy in a Global Context

Canada’s network media economy has grown immensely over time. Between 1984 and 2012, it nearly quadrupled from $19.4 billion in revenue to $73.3 billion (current $). Adjusted for inflation, the rise was from $39 billion to $73.3 billion last year (2012 $).

While often cast as a dwarf amongst giants, the network media economy in Canada is large by international standards: tenth largest in the world as of 2012, as the overview in Table 1 below illustrates.

Table 1: Canada’s Ranking Amongst 12 Biggest Network Media Economies by Country, 1998 – 2012 (billions USD)

CDN NME Ranking Globally (2012)

Sources and Notes: OECD Communication Outlook 2013; ITU Revenues 2012. PriceWaterhouseCooper’s Global Entertainment and Media Outlook, 2012 – 2016 (plus 2011, 2010 and 2009 editions) for media and internet. P = preliminary estimate for countries, except Canada. See CMCRP Media Industry Data and methodology primer for Canadian data and analysis.

Canada’s network media economy is obviously small relative to the U.S., at one-twelfth the size. However, relative to the rest of the world, it is amongst the biggest, right after Australia, Italy and Brazil and just ahead of Spain and South Korea.

The growth of the network media economy was especially swift from the early-1990s well into the first decade of the 21st century but like most other countries on the list, it has slowed since 2008, mostly on account of the economic instability that has followed quick on the heels of the Anglo European financial crisis (2007ff). Indeed, worldwide network media revenues fell 5% between 2008 and 2009 and half of the countries listed in Table 1 saw their media economies actually shrink over the following years: the US, Germany, France, the UK, Italy and Spain.

Collectively, these countries’ media economies shrank by around $67.2 billion between 2008 and 2012. Some of this lost ground was regained by 2011, but only on account of increases in the US and France while the media economies in the other four countries (Germany, the UK, Italy and Spain) continued to be smaller than they were before the financial crisis.

In sharp contrast to much of Europe, the US and, less so, Canada, the media economies of Australia, South Korea, Brazil and China have been largely unscathed by the financial crisis. Indeed, these countries and a few others such as Turkey, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and Russia have been going through something of a ‘golden media age’ over the past decade, with most media, from internet access, to the press, television, film and so on undergoing an unprecedented phase of fast-paced development (OECD, 2010).

The Network Media Economy in Canada: Growth, Stagnation or Decline?

As noted above, the network media economy in Canada has grown enormously from $19.4 billion in 1984 to nearly $73.3 billion in 2012 (current $), or from $39 billion in 1984 to just over $73.3 billion last year (2012$). Figure 1 below charts the trends using current dollars.

Figure 1- Growth of the Network Media Economy 1984-2012

Source: see Media Economy DataSources and Explanatory Notes and the CMCR Project’s Methodology Primary.

Entirely new sectors – wireless, internet access, pay and specialty tv services, internet advertising – have added immensely to the increase. The most significant source of growth is from the platform media elements (wireless, ISPs, IPTV, cable and satellite), especially after the mid-1990s, but television has also grown enormously regardless of where we start the time line.

Music has also grown slightly, at least once a full measure of all of its subsectors are included – recorded, live, digital/online and publishing – as shown below, while radio has stayed mostly flat. In contrast, wireline telecoms, newspapers and magazines have declined, the first very sharply since 2000 and the latter two gently since sometime between 2004 and 2008, depending on whether trends are looked at from the point of view of real dollars or current dollars.

Table 2 below summarizes the state of affairs across the network media economy as things stood at the end of 2012 in terms of whether each sector covered in this post appears to be growing, stagnating or in decline.

Table 2: The Network Media in Canada: Sectors Experiencing Growth, Stagnation or Decline

Table 2: The Network Media in Canada: Sectors Experiencing Growth, Stagnation or Decline

The Platform Media Industries

The platform media industries – the pipes, bandwidth and spectrum used to connect people to one another and to devices, content, the internet, and so on — of the network media economy grew from $13.8 billion to $51.5 billion between 1984 and 2012. In real dollar terms, revenue grew from $26.8 billion to $52.5 billion. Table 3 shows the trends.

Table 3: Revenues for the Platform Media Industries, 1984 – 2012

Platform Media Industries, 1984-2012

Sources: see Media Economy DataSources and Explanatory Notes and the CMCR Project’s Methodology Primary.

Accounting for 72% of revenues, the platform media sectors are the fulcrum of the media economy, as is the case in most of the world. This is why Bell, Rogers, Shaw, Quebecor, Telus, SaskTel, MTS Allstream, Eastlink, Cogeco, etc. are so fundamental to the media economy.

While some might think that the over-sized weight of the platform media in the media economy is of recent vintage, their share of the network media economy in 2012 was basically the same as it was in 1984, i.e. 71-72%, albeit within the context of a vastly larger media economy. This is mostly because of the steep decline in wireline telecom revenues, from $21.2 billion at their peak in 2000 to $15.9 billion in 2012.

As plain old telephone service (POTS) has gone into decline, however, some pretty awesome new stuff (PANS) has come along to more than pick up the slack.  Wireless is the best example of this, with revenues skyrocketing after 1996, as Figure 1 and Table 2, above, demonstrate.

Indeed, wireless revenues have nearly quadrupled from $5.4 billion in 2000 to $20.3 billion last year. A corresponding rapid growth in mobile voice and data traffic reinforce the impression. Voice and data traffic were up in Canada 69% and 85% in 2012 over 2011, respectively, with the latter rising considerably faster than the worldwide average (70%)(sources cited here are silent on the other).

The growth in wireless is fast on account of the expanding array of devices that people use to connect to wireless networks: phones, smartphones, tablets, wifi connected PCs, and so on. In short, personal wireless mobile communications are quickly moving to the centre of the media universe. These are the social, economic and technological foundations underpinning the wireless wars that are now in full-swing in Canada.

Some have recently argued that the rate of wireless growth has slowed since 2008, arguing that this is mainly because it is becoming a mature market (Church and Wilkins, 2013, p. 40). Relative to the torrid pace of growth from the late-1990s through the most of the 2000s, this is true. However, it is well known that the pace set during the early commercialization of new technologies cannot be sustained forever. More than this, however, the flattening of growth coincides perfectly with the financial crisis.

This reality simply cannot be ignored. As indicated earlier, revenues for the network media economy worldwide declined between 2008 and 2009 and many of the world’s largest network media economies are still smaller today than they were five years ago (Germany, UK, Italy and Spain), have stalled (Japan and France) or are only modestly larger now than they were five years ago (US, Canada and Korea). Therefore, a modest let-up in the pace of wireless growth amidst such conditions is not surprising.

That said, wireless revenues have not been hit as hard as other media sectors by either the collapse of the dot.com bubble in 2000 or by the Anglo-European financial crisis (2007ff). Only the pace of development has slowed relative to past trends.

Internet access displays similar patterns of massive growth, albeit for not as long or to the same extent. Internet access revenues last year were $7.6 billion, up substantially from $6.2 billion in 2008 and quadruple what they were at the turn-of-the-21st century ($1.8 billion).

The most notable development in the past two years is the rapid growth of the telephone companies’ Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) services, albeit from a low base.  IPTV is the incumbent telcos’ managed internet-based tv services: e.g. Telus, Bell, MTS Allstream, SaskTel, and Bell Aliant. Revenues have nearly tripled, from $231 million to $638 million, over the past two years. The number of IPTV subscribers has followed suit, rising sharply from 200,000 in 2008, to nearly a half-million at the end of 2010, to just under 1.2 million at the end of 2012.

These figures are slightly higher than those in the CRTC’s Communication Monitoring Report (pp. 110-111) because the CRTC’s figures for subscribers are taken from the end of August in each year as opposed to the end of the year. More importantly, the CRTC’s estimated revenues (ARPU) are lower than those the telcos cite in their annual reports (see CMR, pp. 110-111).

Tables 4 and 5 below show the trends for IPTV growth in terms of both subscribers and revenues, respectively.

Table 4: The Growth of IPTV Subscribers in Canada, 2004–2012

2004

2006

2008

2010

2011

2012

Bell Fibe TV

13,000

50,644

248,298

Bell Aliant

46,575

68,199

107,391

Telus

 63,000

266,000

453,000

637000

MTS Allstream

25,422

59,442

82,278

89,604

93,244

95,374

SaskTel

22,850

48,980

68,408

83,610

91,854

93507

Total IPTV Connections

48,272.0

108,422

 213,686

498,789

756,941

1,181,570

Sources: see Media Industry DataSources and Explanatory Notes and the CMCR Project’s Methodology Primary.

Table 5: The Growth of IPTV Revenues in Canada, 2004–2012

 

2004

2006

2008

2010

2011

2012

Bell Fibe TV

8.9

22.7

120.2

Bell Aliant

14.9

27.6

55.7

Telus

14.3

101.6

202.2

314.7

MTS Allstream

8.4

29

50

59.0

70.6

78.5

SaskTel

7.6

23.9

37.1

51

63.7

74.3

Total IPTV $

16

52.9

97.2

231.3

380.0

638.1

Sources: see Media Industry DataSources and Explanatory Notes and the CMCR Project’s Methodology Primary.

The growth of IPTV services is significant for many reasons. First, the telcos are finally making the investments needed to bring next generation, fiber-based internet networks closer to subscribers, mostly to neighbourhood nodes and sometimes right to people’s doorsteps. If the distribution of television is essential to the take-up of next generation networks, as I believe it is (for better or worse), IPTV will be a key part of the demand drivers for these networks (see below).

Second, the addition of IPTV as a new television distribution platform brings the telcos deeper into the cable companies’ dominion. IPTV services accounted for 7.5% of the TV distribution market in 2012 (the CRTC’s Communication Monitoring Report publishes a slightly lower number at 6.7%, p. 110 for reasons explained above). The competitive threat posed by IPTV services, however, is more prominent in the western provinces where Telus, SaskTel and MTS are deploying IPTV in direct rivalry with Shaw versus the provinces from Ontario to the Atlantic where Bell’s decision to manage the introduction of IPTV in ways that are as least disruptive to its existing satellite operations as possible has moderated the impact on Rogers, Quebecor and Cogeco.

While the telcos’ IPTV services appear to have cut into the revenues of some cable companies, they have also contributed to a substantial expansion of BDU revenues from $8.1 billion in 2010 to $8.7 billion last year. Growth in 2012, however, was slow. Against the hew and cry about cord-cutting in industry pleadings for regulatory favours, and in so much of the journalistic coverage that uncritically repeats such claims, the losses of a few incumbent cable providers should not be mistaken with an industry in peril. Even if it was, growing competition is to be encouraged rather than something to shed tears over.

While IPTV services finally appear to be taking off, we must remember several things. First, the small prairie telcos, followed by Telus, have taken the lead in deploying IPTV. For Sasktel, MTS and Telus, IPTV now make up a significant 13.9 percent, 6.6 percent and 5.9 percent, respectively, of their revenues from wireline network access services (Wiredline + ISP + Cable). Bell lags far behind, with 1.5 percent of its revenues coming from IPTV services, including Bell Aliant, in 2012 (see Table 5).

Indeed, Bell launched IPTV late via its affiliate Bell Aliant in 2009. It slowly rolled out service for the next two years in the high-end districts of Montreal and Toronto, half-a-decade after MTS and SaskTel began doing so in the prairies. More cities were added in 2012 and subscriber numbers for the Bell Fibe service grew as a result from just under 120,000 the year before to about 356,000.

Innovation and investment in Canada came first from small telcos on the margins and Telus, not Bell. This replays a long-standing practice for new services to start out as luxuries for the rich before a mixture of public, political and competitive pressures turn them into affordable and available necessities for the public generally (see Richard John with respect to the US, Robert Babe for Canada). From the telegraph to next generation fibre Internet infrastructure, the tendencies, conflicts and lessons have remained much the same. The wireless wars that are now in full-swing are just the latest iteration of an old, old story (Winseck ReconvergenceWinseck and PikeJohn or Babe).

IPTV remains under-developed as a critical part of the network infrastructure in Canada, accounting for only 2 percent of the $32.2 billion in wire line network access revenues (i.e. wireline+BDUs+ISPs) (see Table 3 above). Less than two percent of broadband connections in Canada use fiber-to-the-home (see CMR, p. 142). The OECD average is 15 percent. In countries at the high end of the scale (Sweden, Slovak Rep., Korea, Japan), thirty to sixty percent of all broadband connections are fiber-based. The OECD ranks Canada 24 out of 34 countries in terms of fiber-connections out of the total number of subscribers as of December 2012. The following figure illustrates the point.

Figure 2: Percentage of Fibre Connections Out of Total Broadband Subscriptions (December 2012)

Figure 2: Percentage of Fibre Connections Out of Total Broadband Subscriptions (December 2012)

Source: OECD (2013). Broadband Portal.

For those who might be dismissive of such figures, it is useful to remember that the data presented in Tables 4 and 5 about IPTV are based on the Canadian telcos’ own audited numbers from their annual reports. While it has become something of a sport in Canada to cast aspersions on the OECD data (see herehere and here), the UK regulator Ofcom comes to similar conclusions: 5% of Canadian households subscribed to IPTV in 2011 versus France (28%), the Netherlands and Sweden (11%), Germany and the US (6%) and Spain (4%) as of 2011 (p. 136). The prairie telcos and Telus are part way to the OECD average, but in many ways, especially given its size and presence from Ontario to the Atlantic, it is Bell’s poor performance over the past half-decade that has dragged Canada down in the global league tables.

The Content Media Industries

The remainder of this post looks at the content media industries (broadcast tv, specialty and pay tv, radio, newspapers, magazines, music and internet advertising). For the most part, they too have grown substantially, although the picture has become murkier for a few sectors in the past few years.

In 1984, total revenue for the content industries was $5.6 billion; in 2012, it was $20.8 billion in 2012. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the revenues basically doubled from $11.3 billion to $20.8 billion over this span of time. Growth was steady throughout this period, with no discernible major uptick or downturn at any given point in time except for the years between 2008 and 2010, for reasons discussed above. Figure 3 depicts the trends.

Figure 3: Revenues for the Content Industries, 1984 – 2012 (Millions $)
Content Media Industries, 1984-2012

Sources: Media Economy DataSources and Explanatory Notes and the CMCR Project’s Methodology Primary.

The rise of the internet and the confluence of its impact with the advertising downturn after the Anglo European financial crisis led many to claim that conventional TV is in a death spiral. Over-the-top services such as Netflix and supposedly rampant cord-cutting further compound the woes, or at least so the story goes.

Such doomsday scenarios, however, have been wide of their mark. Advertising revenue has gyrated in lockstep with state of the economy: plummeting by 8.5% from 2008 to 2009 followed by substantial increases of 9.2% and 7.7% in 2011. Things, however, stalled in 2012 amid ongoing economic uncertainty (-2%), fitting the patterns described earlier perfectly (on economic recessions, advertising revenue and the media economy see PicardGarnham or Miege).

Beyond advertising, the picture is clearer. The amount of time people watch television has stayed remarkably steady across all age groups and outstrips time with other media — the internet, radio, newspapers or other media – by a considerable margin, according to the most recent Canadian Media Usage Study. Ofcom’s latest international monitoring report shows that TV viewing was up in 13 of the 16 countries it surveyed, including Canada (p. 162).

In “Why the Internet Won’t Kill TV”, Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. senior analyst Todd Juenger writes, “so far teens are following historical patterns, and in fact, their usage of traditional TV is increasing”. Their use of computers, smart phones and tablets to do so is adding to, rather than taking away from, how much they watch television, he states.

Internet equipment manufacturers Cisco and Sandvine suggest that television and online video are driving the evolution and architecture of the internet. The proliferation of devices is expanding the time and space for television in people’s lives, not taking away from it. Elsewhere, I have called this the rise of the prime time internet. The fact that Netflix is engineered to be viewed on 800 devices helps illustrate the point.(2)

Conventional broadcast TV revenues have been basically flat since 2008. In real dollar terms, they have slid from $3,562 million to $3,407 in 2012 – a 4% decline. The real growth has been in subscriber fees and the pay-per model of TV (Mosco), as has been the case around the world – a point returned to immediately below.

For now, however, four points can be highlighted to explain the stalled growth of conventional TV when measured in current dollars or slight decline when ‘real dollars’ are used:

  1. dip in TV advertising in 2012;
  2. budget cuts to the CBC (p. 8);
  3. the phasing out of the LPIF between 2012 and 2014;
  4. the big four commercial TV providers – Shaw, Bell, Rogers and Quebecor –backing of the rapidly growing pay, specialty and other subscriber-based forms of TV (i.e. mobile, IPTV), while edging away from broadcast TV (see the CRTC’s CMR, pp. 100-102 and Individual Financial Summaries for a list of the 116 pay and specialty channels the big four, in total, own 2012).

That the TV in crises choir is wide of the mark is clearer yet once we widen the lens to look at the fastest growing areas of television: i.e. specialty and pay tv services (HBO, TSN, Comedy Central, Food Network, etc), mobile TV, and television distribution. Pay and specialty television services have been fast growing segments since the mid-1990s and especially so during the past decade. Their revenues eclipsed those of conventional broadcasting in 2010, when revenues reached $3,474.6 million. Last year, that figure was half-a-billion dollars higher at $3,967.5 million.

Adding conventional as well as specialty and pay tv services together to get a sense of ‘total television’ revenue as a whole yields an unmistakable picture: total TV revenues quadrupled from $1,842 million in 1984 to $7,375 million in 2012; using ‘real dollars’, total TV revenues doubled from $3.7 billion to $7.4 billion last year — hardly the image of a media sector in crisis. The fact that such trends persisted steadfast in the face of the economic downturn also points to a crucial point: the importance of the direct pay-per model (Mosco) and its relative imperviousness to economic shocks in comparison to the hyper-twitchy character of advertising revenue.

Add cable, satellite and IPTV distribution and the trend is more undeniable. In these domains, as indicated earlier, the addition of new services, first DTH in the 1990s, followed by IPTV in the past few years, plus steady growth in cable TV, means that TV distribution has grown immensely. Indeed, revenues for these sectors expanded twelve-fold from $716.3 million in 1984 to $8,695.7 million in 2012 (in current dollars).

“Total TV” and TV distribution revenues accounted for just over $16.1 billion in 2012. To put this another way, in 1984, all segments of the TV industry accounted for just 7% of revenues in the network media economy. That figure rose to 14% in 2000; by 2012, it was 22%. Table 6 illustrates the trends.

Table 6: Television Moves to the Centre of the Network Media Universe, 1984 – 2012 (millions current $)

Television Moves to the Centre1Sources: see Media Economy DataSources and Explanatory Notes and the CMCR Project’s Methodology Primary.

Television is not dead or dying. It is thriving, and remains at the core of the internet- and wireless-centric media universe. Moreover, television and online video are driving the development and use of wireless and internet services. This is why Rogers, Telus and Bell are all using television to drive the take-up of 4G wireless services, and IPTV for the latter two. To paraphrase Mark Twain, rumors of television’s demise are greatly exaggerated.

Of course, this does not mean that that life is easy for those in the television business. Indeed, all of these sectors continue to have to come to terms with an environment that is becoming structurally more differentiated because of new media, notably IPTV and over-the-top (OTT) services such as Netflix, as well as significant changes in how people use the multiplying media at their disposal.

While incumbent television providers have leaned heavily on the CRTC and Parliament to change the rules to bring OTT services into the regulatory fold, or to weaken the rules governing their own services (see Bell’s submission in its bid to take over Astral Media, for a recent example, notably p. 22), OTT services have not cannibalized the revenues of the industry. They have added to the size of the pie. Based on an estimated 1.6 million subscribers at the end of 2012, Netflix’s Canadian revenues were an estimated $134 million – about 1.8 percent of “Total TV” revenues. Reports by Media Technology Monitor and CBC as well as the CRTC’s (2011) Results of the Fact Finding Exercise on Over-the-Top Programming Services lead to a similar conclusion.

Part of the more structurally differentiated network media economy is also illustrated by the rapid growth of internet advertising. In 2012, internet advertising revenue grew to $3.1 billion, up from just over $2.7 billion a year earlier and $1.6 billion in 2008. At the beginning of the decade, internet advertising accounted for a comparably paltry $110 million, but has shot upwards since to reach current levels. Similar to wireless services, however, internet advertising revenues continue to grow fast, although even here the pace has slowed appreciably since the onset of the Euro American financial crisis.

To be sure, these trends have given rise to important new actors on the media scene in Canada, notably Google and Facebook, among others, who account for the lion’s share of internet advertising revenues. Indeed, based on common estimates that Google takes about half of all internet advertising revenues, the search engine giant’s revenues in Canada in 2012 were in the neighbourhood of $1,542.5 million.(3) This is significant. It is enough to rank Google as the eighth largest media company operating in Canada, just after the CBC and MTS, but ahead of, in rank order: Cogeco, Torstar, Sasktel Postmedia, Astral, Eastlink, Power Corporation (Gesca) and the Globe and Mail.

For its part, Facebook had an estimated 18.1 million users in Canada at the end of 2012. With each Canadian user worth about $12.70 to the company a year, it’s revenue can be estimated as having been $229.7 million in 2012, or 7.5% of online advertising revenue – an amount that gives it a modest place in the media economy in Canada and near the bottom of the list of the top twenty TMI companies in this country.

While it is commonplace to throw digital media giants into the mix of woes that are, erroneously, trotted out as bedeviling many of the traditional media in Canada, the fact of the matter is that Netflix’s impact on television revenues is negligible, while those of Google and Facebook are mostly irrelevant except for three areas where they are likely quite significant: music, magazines and newspapers.  For the latter two, this is because of the direct impact on advertising revenues, while for music it is not advertising that is at issue, but how online distribution and the culture of linking is affecting the music industry. The following and concluding sections of this post sketch out trends in each of these domains.

Music

While many have held up the music industry as a poster child of the woes besetting ‘traditional media’ at the hands of digital media, the music industry in Canada is not in crisis. The picture over time, however, is mixed but getting better from a commercial standpoint.

Using current dollars, the sum of all of the main components of the music industry – i.e. recorded music, digital sales, concerts and publishing royalties – the music industry has grown modestly from $1,214 million in 1998 to $1,523.2 million in 2012. The current trend is slightly up, but the trend over the past decade-and-a-half has been unsteady, with considerable oscillation between record highs and contemporary lows.

Revenue dropped after the collapse of the dot.com bubble between 2000 and 2002, for instance, but then rose again until hitting a peak in 2004 of $1,379.3 million where they stayed flat for the next four years, when they began once again to climb. By 2010, music industry revenues had grown to $1,458.2 million; they have edged upwards from there ever since: to $1,480.4 million in 2011 and to $1,523.2 million last year – an all time high. Figure 4 illustrates the trends over time based on current dollars.

Figure 4: Total Music Revenues, 2000, 2006 & 2012 (millions$)

Music Industry Revenues in Canada (2000)

Music Industry Revenues in Canada (2006)

Music Industry Revenues in Canada (2012)

Sources: Recorded Music from Statistics Canada, Sound Recording and Music Publishing, Summary Statistics CANSIM TABLE 361-0005; Stats Can., Sound Recording: data tables, October 2005, catalogue no. 87F0008XIE; Stats Can, Sound Recording and Music Publishing, Cat. 87F0008X, 2009; except for 2012, from PriceWaterhouseCooper,  Global Media and Entertainment Outlook, 13th ed., 2012; Concerts from Stats Can, Spectator sports, event promoters, agents, managers, and artists for 2007, 2008, and 2009; Publishing from Socan,  Financial Report (various years); Internet from PriceWaterhouseCooper, Global Media and Entertainment Outlook, 13th ed (various yrs).

The picture is less rosy when we switch the metric to ‘real dollars’, which results in revenues reaching a high of $1.6 billion in 2004 before dropping to their lowest point in over a decade: $1, 455 million in 2008. Yet, since then, revenues have once again been on the rise and in 2012 reached $1523.2 million – less that 4% off their peak in 2004.

This is a slight decline since the all-time high in 2004, of course, but certainly not a calamity. Moreover, the trend from 2008, whether measured in current or real dollars is all in one direction: up! One reason for this might be because of all the media covered by the network media concept, the music industries embraced digital/internet sources of revenue earlier and more extensively than any other. Worldwide, by 2012, the industry obtained about 15% of its revenues from online, mobile and digital sources.

There is and has been no crisis in the music industry. In fact, conditions in Canada now mirror those in the music industry worldwide. To be sure, certain elements within the music industry – recorded music, for instance – have suffered badly, but publishing has plugged steadily along with modest increases and digital/online/mobile have exploded. Even recorded music now appears to be holding steady. Moreover, whereas recorded music has long been the centre of the industry that place has now been usurped by live concerts, as shown above. Even the music industry’s main lobby group, the International Federation of Phonographic Industries states in its most recent Digital Music Report that in 2012 “the music industry achieved its best year-on-year performance since 1998” (p. 5).

Radio

Radio stands in a similar position to the music industries a few years ago. Revenues grew until reaching a peak in 2008: $1,990 million (includes CBC annual appropriation), a level at which they have basically remained ever since. Revenues in 2012 were $1,946 (current dollars). Change the measurement from current dollars to inflation-adjusted, real dollars, however, and the picture changes, with revenue declining from $2,088.3 million in 2008 to $1,946 million in 2012 – a fall of 6.8%.

Magazines

Magazines appear to stand in the same position as the music and radio sectors as well, although I have not been able to update my revenue data for the sector for either 2011 or 2012. Yet, extrapolating from trends between 2008 and 2010 to obtain an estimate for 2012, revenues have declined slightly on the basis of current dollars (from 2,394 million in 2008 to $2,100 in 2012). PriceWaterhouseCooper, in contrast, shows a slight uptick in revenues between 2011 and 2012. Back to estimates using Statistics Canada and the drop of nearly 17 percent from $2,522.4 million in 2008 to $2,071.1 last year seems pronounced.  The Internet Advertising Bureau shows a net drop in advertising between 2011 and 2012 of 3%. In other words, the evidence is mixed but leans toward the ‘media in decline’ side of the ledger.

Newspapers

Perhaps the most dramatic tale of doom and gloom within the network media economy, at least in terms of revenues, is from the experience of newspapers. Readers of this blog will know that in earlier versions of this post, and other posts, I have been skeptical of claims that journalism is in crisis. I still am. Generally, I agree with Yochai Benkler who argues that that we are in a period of heightened flux, but with the emergence of a new crop of commercial internet-based members of the press (the Tyee and Huffington Post, for example), the revival of the partisan press (e.g. Blogging Tories, Rabble.ca) as well as non-profits and cooperatives (e.g. the Dominion) and the rise of an important role for citizen journalists signs that journalism is not moribund or in a death spiral. In fact, these changes may herald a huge opportunity to improve the conditions of a free and responsible press.

At the same time, however, I also believe that traditional newspapers, whether the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star or Ottawa Citizen are important engines in the network media economy, serving as the content factories that produce news, opinion, gossip and cultural style markers that have the ability to set the agenda and whose stories cascade across the media in a way that is all out of proportion to the weight of the press in the media economy. In other words, the press originates far more stories and attention that the rest of the media pick up, whether television, radio or via the linking culture of the blogosphere, than its weight suggests. Thus, problems in the traditional press could pose significant problems for the media, citizens and audiences as a whole.

While I have been reluctant to see newspapers as being in crisis, mostly because in previous years I have felt that the trends had not been long enough in the making to draw that conclusion. I also believe that many of the wounds suffered by the newspaper business have been self-inflicted out of a mixture of hubris and badly conceived bouts of consolidation. Nonetheless, I began to change my tune last year and the results this year offer no reason to change course now.

The revenue figures for the newspaper industry, as one industry insider who tallies up the data told me, are  “a mess”. The problems are mostly terminological in nature, such as how to define a daily, community or weekly newspaper while allocating revenue to each category accordingly. They also reflect concerns with how to present the industry in the least damaging light but without sugar-coating harsh realities. That said, using a mixture of data from Newspaper Canada and Statistics Canada allows us to arrive at good portrait of the newspaper industry over time and its main players, although it’s also important to point out that the Statistics Canada data for 2011 and 2012 are preliminary estimates that must wait until next year when it releases newspaper industry revenues for these years.

The data I use is drawn mostly from Statistics Canada, but Table 7 below shows both Newspaper Canada and Statistics Canada data so that readers can see the difference and also to reveal online revenues. Further discussion of why these differences exist can be seen in the relevant sections of the documents here and here.

Regardless of differences, both sources show that newspaper revenues have plummeted. In current dollar terms, Statistics Canada shows that newspaper revenues peaked at $5,482.3 million in 2008, and have fallen substantially since to an estimated $4,978 million last year. They fell another $180.7 million in 2012 – 3.6% — a decline of 12.5% since 2008. Table 7 illustrates the trends over time since 2004, while the full data set based on Statistics Canada data from 1984 can be seen under the relevant heading here.

Table 7: Newspaper Revenue — Newspapers Canada vs Statistics Canada, 2004-2012

($ million CND) 2004 2008 2009 2010 2011

2012

Daily Newspaper (Adv$)

2,611

2,489

2,030 2,102 1,971

2,019

Daily Newspaper (Circ$)

745.1

808.3

867.2 836.9 829.5

829.5

Community Newspaper ((Adv$)

961

1,211

1,186 1,143 1,167

1,253

Community Newspaper (Circ$)

Total

42.6 42.9

42.9p

Online Newspaper*

-

180.7

212.7 246.0 289.3

277.3

Newspaper Canada

4,317

4,689

4,509 4,616 4,589

4,422

Statistics Canada Total $

5033.9

5482.3

4,938.5 5009.8 4978.5

4797.8

Sources: see Media Economy DataSources and Explanatory Notes and the CMCR Project’s Methodology Primary. Online Newspaper revenues includes daily and community papers. 2012 data for Community Newspaper circulation revenue based on estimate of flat year-over-year growth.

In real dollar terms, the fall is more pronounced, with the decline setting in earlier and the drop being steeper. According to this measure, newspaper revenues basically flatlined between 2000 and 2008, with a small drop, but have shrunk greatly since by just under $1 billion – or 17%. This is the most clear cut case of a medium in decline out of the sectors of the network media economy reviewed in this post.

The results of these trends in 2012 were clear:

  • Postmedia cut the Sunday edition at three of its papers (the Calgary HeraldEdmonton Journal and Ottawa Citizen) adding to those where such measures had already been taken in the past few years (e.g. the National Post);
  • Postmedia also made deep cuts to journalistic staff across its chain;
  • the Globe and Mail adopted a voluntary program with the hope that sixty of its journalists would take the hint and leave (and here);
  • Quebecor’s Sun newspapers cut 500 jobs and centralized its printing operations in a smaller number of locations;
  • Glacier and Black swapped a number of smaller papers to consolidate their own operations.

Perhaps the most significant change to take place in 2012 is the extent to which dailies were put behind paywalls in Canada. Prior to 2011 there were no dailies with paywalls; in 2011 there were 5 covering under 1/5th of daily circulation; by 2012 the number had grown to 11 dailies and more than half of daily circulation. By August 2013, the number had grown 26 dailies accounting for more than two-thirds of daily circulation – a rate that is considerably higher than either the US or the UK (see Picard and Toughill). Table 8 illustrates the point.

Table 8: The Rise of the Great Paywalls of Canadian Newspapers, 2011-2013

Newspaper Lang Paywall Owner

Weekly Total

Daily Avg.

Times Colonist, Victoria English May 2011 Glacier Media

168,003

28,000

Daily Gleaner, Fredericton English Nov 2011 Brunswick News Inc.

33,042

5,507

Times-Transcript, Moncton English Nov 2011 Brunswick News Inc.

1,813,141

302,190

New Brunswick Telegraph Journal English Nov 2011 Brunswick News Inc.

1,017,394

169,566

Gazette Montreal English May 2011 Postmedia

288,639

48,107

% Circ behind Paywall (2011)

17.9

19.2

Vancouver Sun English Aug 2012 Postmedia

103,106

17,184

Province, Vancouver English Aug 2012 Postmedia

184,485

30,747

Ottawa Citizen* English Aug 2012 Postmedia

313,017

52,169

Journal de Montréal French Sept 2012 Quebecor/Sun Media

987,040

164,507

Journal de Québec French Sept 2012 Quebecor/Sun Media

853,800

142,300

Globe and Mail English Oct 2012 Globemedia Inc.

1,184,530

169,219

Ottawa Sun English Dec 2012 Quebecor/Sun Media

106,343

17,724

Toronto Sun English Dec 2012 Quebecor/Sun Media

683,327

113,888

Winnipeg Sun English Dec 2012 Quebecor/Sun Media

764,473

109,210

Calgary Sun English Dec 2012 Quebecor/Sun Media

853,800

142,300

Edmonton Sun English Dec 2012 Quebecor/Sun Media

358,018

51,145

% of Circ behind Paywall (2012)

52.3

54.4

National Post English May 2013 Postmedia

2,503,284

357,612

Calgary Herald English May 2013 Postmedia

987,040

164,507

Edmonton Journal English May 2013 Postmedia

337,021

56,170

Windsor Star English May 2013 Postmedia

1,015,625

145,089

Guardian, Charlottetown English May 2013 TC Media

249,589

41,598

Leader-Post, Regina English May 2013 Postmedia

337,021

56,170

StarPhoenix, Saskatoon English May 2013 Postmedia

358,018

51,145

The Daily News, Truro English July 2013 TC Media

290,101

41,443

Toronto Star English Aug 2013 Torstar Corporation

2,014,592

287,799

Chronicle-Herald, Halifax English Aug 2013 Halifax Herald Ltd.

770,132

110,019

Total Circulation

18,574,648

2,875,390

% of Circ behind Paywall (8/2013)

68.8

68.3

Source: Newspaper Canada 2012 Daily Circulation Report.

Some Concluding Comments and Observations

Several observations and conclusions stand out from this analysis.

First, the network media economy has grown immensely over time, whether we look at things in the short-, medium- or long-term. In the short- to medium-term (1-5 years), however, things have been less rosy. The effects of the economic downturn in the wake of the Euro-American centred financial crisis have hit every sector, except, it would appear, and ironically, music, which began to recover shortly afterwards. Otherwise, the effect has been to slow the rate of growth in the fastest growing sectors (wireless, ISPs, internet advertising, television) and to compound the problem in those media already under stress (newspapers, magazines and radio).

Second, while the network media economy in Canada may be small relative to the U.S., it is large relative to global standards. In fact, it is the tenth biggest media economy in the world.

Third, while most sectors of the media have grown substantially, and the network media economy has become structurally more complex on account of the rise of new segments of the media, a few segments have stagnated in the past few years (broadcast TV, radio and music, with apparent light at the end of the tunnel in the last few years with respect to the latter). It is now safe to say that two sectors appear to be in long-term decline: the traditional newspaper industry and wiredline telecoms.  Magazines probably fit the latter designation but it may still be too early to tell, with some good sources suggesting that it too, like the music sector, might be poised for a turn-around.

These ambiguities give good reason for why the CMCR project will continue to update our research on these matters annually. As we have said before, we can know of few better ways to gain an intimate understanding of our objects of analysis – the network media and all of its constituent elements – than to peer deeply and systematically into the data, while providing a theoretically and historically informed analysis of the data and trends that emerge over as long a period of time as we reasonably can.


1 Brazil telecom estimated at 12.5 percent growth from 2004 to 2008, and 5 percent per annum for 2010 through 201; China’s revenue estimated for 2010-2012 based http://www.cmcrp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Sources-and-Explanatory-Notes.docxon 10 percent per annum growth rates. Internet access revenues before 2004 are estimated for each country, except Australia and Canada, based on the prevailing CAGR for this sector within each country at the time.

2 Corey Wright, Director of Global Public Policy, Netflix, guest lecture given at School of Journalism and Communication, Carleton University, September 2013.

3 The Globe and Mail’s publisher, Phillip Crawley told the World Publishing Expo in Berlin that Google takes 60% of internet advertising in Canada. Evidence for this claim do not seem to have been presented, but I am all ears if a good case can be made for revising the estimates upwards to this figure.

Canada’s Wireless Wars: Bell Media Exec’s Memo to News Directors

Since reports in mid-June that Verizon might be poised to enter the Canadian wireless and mobile phone market, Bell, Rogers and Telus have fought tooth-and-nail against that happening. That opposition, as this post shows, not only includes the full-on public relations assault, but a series of emails from Bell Media President Kevin Crull calling on the telecom and media giant’s news directors to cover a report favourable to the incumbents’ main arguments as well. 

Key elements of this summer’s wireless wars are well-known: Telus has launched a lawsuit against elements of the Government’s wireless policy that prevent the incumbents from acquiring Wind, Mobilicity and Public. Rogers, Bell and Telus have held private meetings with Industry Minister James Moore to plead their case that the Conservative Government’s wireless policy is chock-a-block full of loopholes that give unfair advantages to foreign telecom giants such as Verizon at the expense of Bell, Rogers and Telus — and Canadians. Full page adverts taken out by the incumbents are appearing daily in newspapers across the country in a bid to convince Canadians of the same points. 

BCE CEO George Cope penned an open “Letter to Canadians“; BCE Director Anthony Fell excoriated the Harper Government for its supposedly unfair wireless policy; the Globe and Mail and Toronto Star have editorialized in support of the big three telcos’ position as well; the Canadian Council of Chief Executives took the unusual step to write the Prime Minister in order to do the same. The Communications Energy and Paperworkers Union, the largest union representing telecommunications workers in the country, is also singing from the same page as the big three on this issue. The Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA) — the industry association that represents the collective interests of Bell, Rogers and Telus — has been selectively plucking evidence about cheaper wireless rates in Canada relative to the U.S. while distracting attention from the fact that, relative to the rest of the worldprices for nearly all cell phone service plans in Canada and the U.S. are high. 

So far, however, these tactics appear to have backfired. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Industry Minister James Moore have lambasted the companies’ campaign as dishonest, while pledging to stay the course. The Conservative Party has launched a website to counter the incumbents’ public relations campaign and trumpet the Government’s position. Views opposing the incumbents’ position have also been getting some play as well (see here and here). Canadians also appear open to the idea of a new player such as Verizon entering the market (here). 

While there is certainly room for debate, by and large, Harper, Moore and the incumbents’ critics are correct, and Canadians’ sentiment in the right place. The rules the incumbents are grousing about are neither new, novel, nor filled with loopholes. For well-over a decade the consensus in international circles has been that the more competition in wireless, the merrier. The policy at home has taken some time to catch up with this reality, but the rules now being cast as unfair have been the cornerstones of the Conservative government’s wireless policy since 2007.

The only real differences are that Canada embraced these ideas late in the game relative to others, no doubt due to the incumbent’s intransigence, while foreign ownership rules continue to be far more restrictive in Canada despite last year’s decision by the Government to relax them “for companies that have less than a 10 percent share of the telecommunications market”.  The basic ingredients of the international consensus are straight-forward, although everywhere their introduction has been fiercely contested by incumbents bent on maintaining their dominant market positions:  spectrum set-asides for new entrants, reduced foreign ownership restrictions, network tower sharing agreements and open interconnection rules.

To get a glimpse of the vintage of these basic principles and rules, take a look, for example, at the OECD’s Communication Outlook from 1999 (p. 28), and every volume since then, or the authoritative collection of chapters in William Melody’s edited Telecoms Reform from 1997. I will write more about the finer points of wireless policy in the near future. The point that I want to stress for now, however, is that the big three’s scorched earth approach on this issue is leading to other interests and important principles being thrown under the bus.

Some employees at Rogers and Bell, for instance, report being brow-beaten by managers to email a form letter in support of the companies to the government. More troubling, and a point that has not yet seen the light of day, is a chain of emails originating from Kevin Crull, the President of Bell Media — the largest media enterprise and one of the largest news organizations in the country — calling on news execs and journalists across CTV, CTV2 and local TV channels and radio stations across the country to cover a study that suggests that the state of wireless in Canada is not as bad as its critics claim. A copy of the emails, with the names of non-executives removed, can be found here.

The emails begin by setting out a couple of definitional issues and then distill the two key talking points to be covered: (1) that cellphone rates in Canada have fallen in recent years and (2) that they are generally cheaper than in the US. By the end, the message is clear: “Kevin Crull our President wants us to give this report some coverage….” and “Kevin is asking if this report can get some coverage today on Talk Radio. National news is covering for TV”.

By the time the chain of emails is done, a veritable whose who of BCE’s executive suite have been brought into the loop:  Wendy Freeman, President CTV NEWS; Richard Gray (Head of News, CTV2); Ian Lurie (COO Astral Radio); Kevin Bell (General Manager/Sales Manager CTV Vancouver Island/C-Fax and KOOL FM); Eric Proksch, (VP and GM for Bell Media Radio); Charles Benoit (Astral); Chris Gordon, (President of Radio and Local TV news); Mirko Bibic (Executive VP and Chief  Legal and Regulatory Officer).

Perhaps this is not all that surprising. The stakes are high, given estimated wireless revenues of over $20 billion in 2012. Moreover, with the combined market capitalization of Bell, Rogers and Telus tumbling by roughly $8.4 billion (from $85 billion to $76.6 billion) between June 17 when Steven Chase and Rita Trichur at the Globe and Mail first broached the possibility of Verizon entering the Canadian wireless industry and yesterday, August 26th, the companies are doing whatever it takes to preserve their entrenched dominance of the Canadian wireless market and the bloated market capitalization levels that go along with a cozy oligopoly.

While it is understandable, perhaps, that BCE would deploy its journalistic resources to protect its place within the wireless oligopoly, this is not good for journalism or Canadians. It casts a cloud over the independence of CTV national news as well as news programs across the CTV2 network and Bell Media’s local tv and radio stations across the country. While we know of this particular instance, how many other directives from on high have been sent over not just this issue, but other ones in which Bell sees its interests at stake?

Ultimately, the problem is this: with revenues from wireless, wiredline, Internet, IPTV, cable/satellite services at BCE in 2012 of $17.4 billion, nearly eight times its $2.4 billion in revenues from TV and radio, news is a minor cog in BCE’s corporate machinery. Journalism, in other words, is subservient to the company’s attempts to prop up the value of the ‘transmission’ and technology side of its business.

Perhaps the fact that journalists and the news divisions of such TMI conglomerates will be deployed to protect dominant market positions and capitalization might not be all that surprising, but it should still be concerning to journalists and the rest of us who need them to offer views of the world unvarnished by their corporate overlords. That the execs at BCE and Bell Media news divisions went so cheerily along with Crull’s memo serves neither journalism nor the public well.

Jeff Bezos Buys the Washington Post: The New Philanthropy, or Power and the Press in the New Gilded Age?

Jeff Bezos, the CEO and controlling share-holder of internet giant Amazon bought the newspaper last weekend that broke the Watergate story, published the Pentagon Papers (along with the New York Times) and, in June of this year, helped to break the story on the NSA’s mass surveillance practices: the Washington Post. He paid $250 million for it, 1/100th of his net worth ($25.2 billion) in 2012.

Most commentators appear hopeful that Bezos will use his enormous personal wealth — he is the 12th richest person in America and 19th in the world — and business acumen to turn the floundering Washington Post around and chart a renaissance for the beleagured press in the United States more generally. Most seem to think that he will operate the paper in a way that is consistent with the traditions and requirements of a free press.

Indeed, in the press release announcing the deal on Monday he said that is exactly what he will do:

“I understand the critical role the Post plays in Washington, DC and our nation, and the Post’s values will not change . . . . Our duty to readers will continue to be the heart of the Post, and I am very optimistic about the future.

Donald Graham, the CEO and Chair of the Board at the Washington Post Company, summed up the mood in the press release announcing the deal:

”Jeff Bezos’ proven technology and business genius, his long-term approach and his personal decency make him a uniquely good new owner for the Post”.

Bezos also undoubtedly won favour in the executive suite by agreeing to bring several senior executives at the Post with him to the new company he will set up independently of Amazon: Katharine Weymouth, the current CEO and Publisher of The Washington Post (and heir to the Graham family that currently holds the dominant stake in the paper’s parent company, and niece to family patrician Donald Graham); Stephen Hills, President and General Manager; Martin Baron, Executive Editor; and Fred Hiatt, Editor of the Editorial Page, will all retain their jobs. For how long, however, he did not say. His pledge to the newspaper’s 650 journalists that there would be no lay-offs for a year also no doubt helped to allay whatever concerns might have arisen among journalists.

The journalistic rank-and-file in general seem to be on board with Bezos’ acquisition of the PostCarl Bernstein praises him as “exactly the kind of inventive and innovative choice needed to bring about a recommitment to great journalism on the scale many of us have been hoping for.”

Fred Hiatt, the editorial-page editor who will stay with the Post under its new ownership arrangements, put matters thus: “We’ve all been looking for a way to marry quality journalism with commercial success in the digital era, and it’s hard to think of anyone better positioned to figure that out than Jeff Bezos”. Columnist and editor of Wonkblog, Ezra Klein: “For now, I’m hopeful.”

Bob Woodward distinguishes good moguls like Bezos from bad ones: “This isn’t Rupert Murdoch buying the Wall Street Journal, this is somebody who believes in the values that the Post has been prominent in practicing, and so I don’t see any downside.” James Fallows goes a step further, hoping that Bezos acquisition of the Washington Post “signifies the beginning of a phase in which this Gilded Age’s major beneficiaries re-invest in the infrastructure of our public intelligence.”

This is Bezos as the 21st century version of the Carnegies, Rockefellers and Fords. Whereas they built libraries, foundations and schools, he is revitalizing a landmark press institution in the U.S., the Washington Post, and, if all goes well, lighting at least part of the path to recovery for the rest of the newspaper business.

Economic Woes at the Post, Malaise Across the U.S. Press

The Washington Post is in financial trouble. Revenues for the newspaper segment at it’s parent company, the Washington Post Company, peaked at $961.9 million in 2006. By last year, they had plunged to $581.7 million. The division has not turned a profit since 2008, either (Washington Post Company’s Annual Reports).

Declining advertising revenue has led the way; paid weekday circulation has declined sharply from 768,000 copies in 2002 to around 450,000 today (Steve LadurantayeAnnual Report 2012, p. 21). Online revenues have grown greatly, but from a low base and are nowhere near covering the losses.

The paper’s role within the overall Washington Post Company has shrivelled as well. Whereas it accounted for a quarter of total revenues in 2006, by last year it accounted for just 14%. The education division (55%), cable television (20%) and other activities (10%) accounted for the rest. 

The company as a whole continues to be profitable, however, and even during the financial crisis years of 2008 and 2009, it turned profits between 5-6%. Profit levels have been in the 10-15% range for most of the years before and after that, but last year they fell to under 4% — half the rate of the year before (Annual Report 2012, p. 1). They are down further yet this year, with newspapers and broadcast television the biggest drags on the company’s balance sheet (Ladurantaye). 

Of course, the woes of the Washington Post reflect the woes of the US newspaper industry in general. The U.S. and UK press have suffered the most amidst the ‘crisis of journalism’ afflicting much of the Euro-American world. A 2010 study by the OECD indicated that the woes of the press set in earlier in the US and UK than in most countries, 2005-2006, and have been unrelenting since. The growth of internet advertising relative to other media also started earlier and tends to account for a bigger share of all advertising spending in both countries as well (see Ofcom, International Communication Market Report, p. 187).

U.S. newspaper industry revenues peaked in 2005 at $61.2 billion. Last year they were $32.8 billion — a fall of almost half (46%), according to the Pew Research Centre’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.

Figure One below shows the trend.

US Newspaper Revenues (1979-2012)

The toll on the number of working journalists has also been grim. Figure 2 shows the trends.

PEJ Total Newspaper Workforce

While there is no doubt, then, that both the Washington Post and the U.S. press in general are in dire straights, the idea that Amazon CEO is the white knight he is being made out to be is questionable for at least three reasons.

1. The Return of the Mogul and the Quest for Political Influence and Power

Bezos purchase of the Washington Post puts him amidst the swelling ranks of uber-rich individuals who have stepped in to scoop up newspapers that have fallen on hard times. Just days earlier, hedge fund operator and owner of the Boston Red Sox, John H. Henry, acquired the Boston Globe from the New York Times.  

This revival of the new breed of billionaire newspaper owners also includes real estate tycoon Sam Zell, who scooped up the LA Times and Chicago Tribune in 2007, only to drive them further into the ground (see here). It also includes partisan zealots like the Koch brothers, David and Charles (tied for sixth on the Forbes’ list of billionaires worldwide with a network of $34 billion each), who are circling newspapers in distress in the hope of taking them over and harnessing them to their right wing conservative causes.  

The hopeful, however, appear to divide the new breed of press mogul into “bad” and “good” capitalists, with Bezos apparently firmly in the latter camp. Like Warren Buffet, the folksy investment guru of Omaha, who acquired Media General’s 63 dailies and weeklies (except for The Tampa Tribune and its weeklies) and several other papers last year, Bezos occupies such a place because he says he values the role of daily newspapers in the communities they serve and because he has supported some progressive causes, notably gay marriage, and operated Amazon as an open bazaar when it comes to books and literature, while refusing to buckle to censorious moralists.  

According to Eli Noam, in Media Ownership and Concentration in Americathe number of owner-controlled media firms fell from 35 percent to just 20 percent between 1984 and 2005 (p. 6). The revival of the press baron in the past few years reverses this trend of the last half of the 20th century when media moguls were steadily being replaced by share-holder owned, managerially-controlled corporate media.

The problem with moguls, however, is that the drive for profits are often tempered by the personal quest of newspaper owners for political influence and power. This clouds the independence of the press and turns journalism into the plaything of the rich and powerful. Like other internet giants, Amazon’s annual lobbying budget has risen steeply in the past few years. In 2008, for instance, its lobbying budget was $1.8 million; in 2012, it was $2.5 million. It also doubled the number of lobbyists from 12 to 25 over the same period.

While still modest compared to Google ($16.5 million in 2012) or Microsoft ($8.1 million), the fact that Amazon’s lobbying budget is high relative to other companies, and that it has risen steeply in recent years, suggests that its appetite for influence over politics, policy and public opinion is growing. Bezos acquisition of the Washington Post could add to that mission.

2. The Content Industries are Being Subsumed by the Tech and Internet Industries

There is a fundamental difference between the press barons of the 21st century and those of the past, however. Unlike the Pulitzers, Hearst, Browns, McCormicks and so forth who made their fortunes in the newspaper business, Bezos, Buffett, Zell and Henry have made their’s from the internet, finance and real estate, as Dean Starkman and Ryan Chittum have observed.

The press is being sucked into the orbit of far larger enterprises as a result. The Washington Post case exemplifies the point given that not only is Bezos’ net worth a hundred times greater than the price he paid for the paperAmazon’s revenues in 2012 — $61.1 billion — were nearly double those of the entire U.S. newspaper industry ($32.8 billion). 

Newspapers, in other words, are no longer stand-alone operations. They are minor appendages in much larger business empires. The possibility that the component parts of these entities may not always be aligned raises the question as to how journalists will be treated when conflicts of interest arise. 

The Washington Post could benefit mightily from such arrangements if it is able to use Amazon’s hyper-efficient distribution infrastructure as a way to cut the enormous cost of delivering the paper to readers down to size.  However, this could also be another case where “content” is sublimated to technology and distribution, a mere tool used to promote the acquisition and use of technology, similar to how ‘free radio programs’ served such a purpose for the manufacturers of radio transmission and receiving equipment in the early days of radio history. As John Cassidy asks, is the Washington Post‘s new role primarily to prime the pump for the sale of more Amazon Kindle e-readers? 

Amazon’s clout in online book retailing illustrate the point even better. In this domain, Amazon’s ability to effectively set prices and rule the book publishing industry with an iron fist has put it at war with publishers. 

This is not hyperbole, but  the conclusion recently reached by Judge Denise Cote in a decision that found Apple guilty of colluding with the ‘big five’ book publishing giants in the U.S. — Harper Collins (NewsCorp), Simon & Schuster (Viacom), Hachette, MacMillan and Penguin — to form a scheme intended to break Amazon’s stranglehold in online book retailing. Indeed, the book publishers’ “abhorence of Amazon’s pricing” drove them to join forces (collude) with Apple to devise a plan that would “eliminate retail price competition”, raise prices, hold back books for online distribution, and establish a whole new business model. All of this was to be accomplished in an astonishingly short period of time — 4 months — to coincide with when Apple “launched the iPad on January 27, 2010″ (p. 10).

Apple wanted a secure line of content from top publishers to help drive uptake of its new devise, the publishers wanted to regain control over their industry from Amazon (pp. 10-13). A win-win for them, but a loss for Amazon and consumers / readers because of higher book prices and the triumph of collusive behaviour over competitive market forces. Underneath it all, however, lays the idea that technology and capital are in charge, not content or even Bezos for that matter. 

Those who hold out Bezos as a saviour ignore all of this. 

3. Amazon’s Treatment of Wikileaks in 2010 does not bode well for the Network Free Press in the Days Ahead

Lastly, while many commentators point to Bezos’ liberal stance when it comes to gay marriage and his track-record of standing down pressure to censor books as a good sign for the values of the free press, it is essential to remember the entirely different stance Amazon took towards the whistle-blowing site Wikileaks.  In this case, Amazon’s web hosting service, AWS, far from standing up for the free press, banished Wikileaks’ content that had been stored on its servers. It did so the same day (December 1, 2010) it received a letter from Senator and Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chair, Joe Lieberman (2010) calling on any “company or organization that is hosting Wikileaks to immediately terminate its relationship with them”.  That Amazon so dutifully and quickly did so raises questions about Bezos’ self-professed commitment to free press values (Benkler, 2011).

Given that dubious track record, we can also wonder about how supportive Bezos would have been in relation to the Washington Post’s ground-breaking coverage of NSA contractor Edward Snowden’s leaking of documents detailing the agency’s secret program of mass surveillance and metadata collection, worldwide and in the United States, over the past few months? (see here, here and here, for example). In the face of intense pressure from the U.S. government, would Bezos have stood firmly behind Washington Post journalists or buckled as in the past to protect the vastly larger interests of the company he created, leads and still controls? 

KeyWords: Bell and Astral Discover the Public Interest

In March, media, telecom and internet policy wonks across Canada busily poured over Bell and Astral’s revised application asking the CRTC to approve Bell’s renewed bid to acquire Astral Media.

Along with a few graduate students at the School of Journalism and Communication, Carleton University, I pored through the voluminous application by Bell and Astral — about 75 documents in all that you can find here. And in painstaking detail, we assembled evidence on the state of competition and concentration in broadcast tv, pay and specialty tv, radio and across the network media in English- and French-speaking areas of the country as a whole. Working right to the wire, our evidence was filed with the CRTC moments before the deadline on April 5 (see here).

I won’t repeat our findings and evidence here, but instead will point to something else that I found very interesting as we read through the cornerstone of Bell and Astral’s application: a 74 page Supplementary Brief that crystallizes their main arguments for why their proposed combination ought to be approved by the CRTC.

As those among you who have been paying attention, the proposed transaction is different than the one put forward last year. Gone, for instance, is some of the high-flying rhetoric.

Now in the foreground is Bell and Astral’s claim that the sale of several of Astral’s marquee Pay and Specialty TV channels to Shaw (Corus) (e.g. the bilingual Teletoon/Télétoon, Teletoon Retro and Cartoon Network (Canada), Télétoon Rétro, Historia and Séries+), and the divestiture of several others (e.g. Family Channel, Disney XD, Disney Jr. (English)) as well as ten radio stations in a handful of cities across Canada (Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa), ought to alleviate any worries that the CRTC might have about this deal. Indeed, the dispersal of these assets, they argue, should mitigate worries about excess media concentration or the possibility that acquiring Astral will confer undue advantages to Bell for its own integrated sweep of services that stretch from broadcasting to telecoms and the internet.

The public record is chok-a-blok full of what parties across the country thought about that issue, and Bell’s claims, but for here I want to highlight something else that struck me as particularly interesting about the revived bid: the extent to which it is peppered with references to the keywords of the public interest, citizens, consumers, culture and even democracy.

Strategically, this makes sense because last October when the CRTC denied Bell Astral 1.0 (news releasefull decision), it did so not just on the grounds of excess media concentration and concerns about vertical integration that had not been satisfactorily addressed, but because it failed to meet the Commission’s standards of the public interest. Moreover, the CRTC’s announcement of its hearings into the revived proposal in May made it clear that similar concerns would once again be front and centre in the Commission’s deliberations.

Obviously, if the public interest was a big concern then, it would have to be given emphasis in the Bell Astral 2.0 application, and it is.

To look into this question further, using key word/phrase searches, I looked for evidence of how these ideas fare in Bell and Astral’s new application compared with last year’s application as well as their most recent annual reports (see here and here).

Table 1, below, shows what I found.

Key Word Search
Word/Phrase Bell Astral 2.0 Supp. Brief Bell 1.0 Supp. Brief BCE AnnRpt 2012 Astral Ann Rpt 2012
Public Interest 21 (on 15pp) 1 3 (2pp) 0
Consumers 80  (35 pp) 4 30 (2OPP) 2 (2pp)
Citizen 19 (17 pp.) 0 0 0
Cultur* 17 (12 pp) 0 0 1
Democra* 3 (3pp) 0 0 0

Sources: See below.

As the table shows, Bell’s first application referred to the public interest just once and to consumers four times and to citizens, culture and democracy not at all.  In the new and improved version of Bell Astral 2.0, we find references to:

  • the public interest 21 times on 15 pages,
  • to consumers 80 times on 35 pages,
  • citizens 19 times on 17 pages,
  • culture 17 times on 12 pages,
  • and to democracy 3 times on 3 pages.

Bell and Astral’s embrace of the public interest and similar terms in their new application is clear, but whether or not this embodies a genuine corporate cultural conversion or just an opportunistic gambit designed to win CRTC approval and the more general battle for hearts and minds surrounding Bell Astral 2.0 remains to be seen. We can be sure of one thing, however, and that is that the CRTC’s forthcoming decision will turn a great deal on this difficult concept. Whether or not the Commission will have found BCE and Astral’s invocations of the public interest convincing or not, we’ll have to wait and see.

Sources:

BCE & Astral (2013). Supplementary Brief. Filed for Notice of hearing, Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2013-106 <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3WCF51KmyImME5hVEpfak9EekU/edit&gt;; BCE Inc. (1 May 2012). Bell Application 2012-0516-2, Appendix 1, Supplemental brief. Filed for Notice of hearing, Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2012-370.  <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TVgld3nyT4IWoI5LElzE_yP1ILzokJMQKXgLFXo8eu0/edit?usp=sharing&gt;; BCE (2013), Annual Report 2012. <http://www.bce.ca/assets/investors/AR-2012/BCE_2012_AnnualReport_accessible.pdf&gt;; Astral (2012). Annual Information Form. http://www.astral.com/assets/094b7718a2994611a5667677b91f3321_AIF-YE-2012—2012-11-29—FINAL.pdf

Methodenstreit: A Reply to a Question from Greg O’Brien @ Cartt.ca about Media Concentration Research Methods

I have changed this post since putting it up last Wednesday (May 23, 2013). I have not done so substantively. Indeed, I have left all the data and main claims as they were.

What I have done, however, is remove some of the snark at the top and the bottom that I directed at Greg O’Brien at the outset. It’s unnecessary, and as a few colleagues, friends and others with my interests close to heart have kindly suggested, we need more civility in the internets, not less (see Blayne Haggard’s thoughts here).

Btw, the picture in Blayne’s post of a guy pounding away at a keyboard struck a chord; Kristina, my wife, will nod disapprovingly for sure; and its effect would be even greater still if you put five more words at the end of the word bubble: “about telecom, media, internet concentration”. I’ll think about that.

The revised version follows. A link to the original is here.

Last Friday afternoon, just as I was settling in for the first long holiday weekend, Greg O’Brien, sent me an email asking about media concentration research methods. Greg is the founding publisher and lead writer over at Cartt.ca — an industry trade paper that serves the telecom, media and internet industries here in Canada. The question is an important one and so I began to sketch out a reply.

I was advised, however, that it would be best to wait. The final replies to the Bell Astral hearings had yet to be submitted and, thus, addressing questions of methodology directly bearing on the hearings in public was out of bounds until the proceedings closed. No need to tip your hat to others about what you’re thinking. It was another in a long string of moments when my ‘academic’ persona tugged hard to break free of the short leash imposed on experts appearing before the CRTC.

The advice I got was superb. My advisors were dead right and I was wrong. While my inclination is always to just reply immediately and as fulsomely as I can, that is not always the smartest thing to do. Ask any journalists who knows me, or anybody for that matter, and they will tell you that I always freely share my ideas and don’t play coy.[1]

The advice I received was right. Bell was poking around in the same spot that O’Brien was and raised the same question that O’Brien does about the HHI thresholds used by “consumer groups” (they don’t refer to me or the consumer groups by name, nor do they speak of public interest groups) (See Bell Final Reply, page 2).

The core of his original email is below. My reply follows.

Date:       Fri, 17 May 2013 12:11:23 -0400

From:    “Greg O’Brien” <greg.obrien@cartt.ca>   Block Address

To:          “Dwayne Winseck'” <dwayne_winseck@carleton.ca>

Subject:   Research question

Hi Dwayne,

I just wanted to point out an issue I came across about the research on media concentration that is part of PIAC’s presentation to the Commission on Bell/Astral and a big part of the CMCRP, too. I did a little digging into Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), to figure out what it was and came across some info below that it looks like, from the links, the HHI index itself was changed or updated back in 2010 by the Federal Trade Commission and US Department of Justice.

Your research paper says the HHI and the thresholds of media concentration fall into three levels:

HHI < 1000 = Un-concentrated

HHI > 1000 but < 1,800 = Moderately Concentrated

HHI > 1,800 = Highly Concentrated

However, these links here, here and here seem to show that back in 2010, those HHI thresholds were altered so that:

HHI < 1500 = Unconcentrated

HHI > 1500 but < 2,500 = Moderately Concentrated

HHI > 2,500 = Highly Concentrated

That puts the HHI scores for many of the media mentioned in your report in the moderate or low range, I think.

To be honest with you, this is a bit too deep in the regulatory research weeds for a story in Cartt.ca. But I was wondering if you could explain the difference to me? Am I missing something? If not, does the research need to be altered/updated? Please let me know if I am wrong, or if we use different numbers for Canada.

Thanks,

Greg

My Response

Hi Greg,

Thanks for your inquiry.

Before I begin, please let me ask you to address specific questions about methodology or data to me since it was me that was hired to prepare evidence and write a brief in support of the public interest and consumer advocacy groups’ intervention opposing Bell’s revised bid to take-over Astral. My response is done solely in my capacity as a scholar and director of the Canadian Media Concentration Research (CMCR) project.

I wanted to send you my response earlier but was advised that it best to wait until the Bell Astral proceedings closed. Turns out, Bell was poking around in the same spot you were (see Bell Final Reply, page 2).

Let me also say, though, too, I was a bit hesitant about replying to you on account of the fact that the only other time you’ve spoken about my data, method or research at all was when you tweeted one of Bell’s allegations about my CBC revenue data at the very end of the reply phase for Bell Astral 1.0. That you tweeted about it then without asking me first about my views, and that your question now falls again at the very end of the reply phase, feels funny to me and I don’t quite like it. 

However, let me put that aside and try to answer your question because it is a good question.

I am aware of the new U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission’s guidelines. David Ellis, who you also know, sent them to me earlier in the year. Please ask him about that.

Guidelines do change from time to time. While the U.S. replaced the revised 1997 version guidelines in 2010, there are a couple of reasons why they have not seeped into the scholarly literature and my research methodology specifically.

For one, when guidelines change academics will always take time to decide if the changes adopted are suitable to the field we’ve been working in. There has been a long-standing argument amongst scholars that the DOJ’s existing guidelines were already inappropriate for communication and that a ‘weightier’ test was required because of the freight communications media carry with respect to free speech, the free press, privacy, democracy, their role as public spaces vital to citizenship, many non-market attributes and other such concerns. I share such concerns (also see Eli Noam and C. Edwin Baker on this point; or Compaine and Goldstein for opposing points of view).

Second, the International Media Concentration Research (IMCR), of which I am a part, and which is, as you know, led by one of the world’s foremost experts in this area, Professor of Finance and Economics, Eli Noam at Columbia University (New York), set sail in 2008. Changing course midstream and with the larger debates just referred to still hanging in the air would have been unwise. The fact that the project has forty or so scholars studying long-term media concentration trends in as many countries around the world also suggests that you don’t change things just because things in the U.S. change. 

Of course, we must take heed of what the U.S. does, but it does not determine things everywhere else. Historical and international comparative references, amongst other things, are crucial too. You might also ask Professor Noam as well why the project stuck with the existing standards rather than change to the new ones midstream?

In short, one doesn’t jump from a set of standards over which there is already a lot of debate to looser ones without a great deal of thought. That said, one should not cling to outmoded ways of thinking either, and so I have been looking carefully at the new guidelines with an open mind.

Indeed, I brought the new DOJ/FTC guidelines with me to Montreal two weeks ago and was reading them in the run-up to and during Bell Astral 2.0.  As you will see on page 19, the guidelines not only set the thresholds at the higher levels you recite, but tell us what constitutes significant consolidation by pointing to the degree of change, i.e. transactions that move the dial 100 or more points in markets that are already modestly to highly concentrated.

Here’s what the new guidelines say with respect to transactions in:

Moderately Concentrated Markets: Mergers resulting in moderately concentrated markets that involve an increase in the HHI of more than 100 points potentially raise significant competitive concerns and often warrant scrutiny.

Highly Concentrated Markets: Mergers resulting in highly concentrated markets that involve an increase in the HHI of between 100 points and 200 points potentially raise significant competitive concerns and often warrant scrutiny. Mergers resulting in highly concentrated markets that involve an increase in the HHI of more than 200 points will be presumed to be likely to enhance market power (emphasis added, p. 19).

The chart below created on the basis of 2012 revenue data shows that, contrary to what you say in your email, none of the sectors implicated by the Bell Astral deal are at the low end of the new guidelines, except radio – as I never fail to mention.

More importantly, the Bell Astral transaction will move several sectors from moderately to highly concentrated status even by the looser standards of the new guidelines, i.e. an HHI score above 2,500, as the chart below illustrates. These sectors are:

  • English-language Specialty and Pay TV (2525.2);
  • French-language Specialty and Pay TV (4085.1);
  • total Specialty and Pay TV (2512);
  • the total French TV sector is already above 2,500 but would be pushed further to 2801.7.

It is also important to point out that the Competition Bureau in Canada does not use the HHI to set fixed benchmarks but rather to help it “to observe the relative change in concentration before and after a merger” (emphasis added, p. 19, fn 31). The Bureau does, however, state that when the four-firm concentration ratio (CR4) passes 65% it may step in to examine whether a merger “would likely . . . enhance market power, and thereby . . . lessen competition substantially” (p. 19, fn 31). You can look at the data in the chart below and reach your own conclusions on this point.

In addition, in terms of relative change, as the DOJ guidelines quoted above state, a transaction that moves the dial in moderately or highly concentrated markets by more than 100 – 200 points will “potentially raise significant competitive concerns and . . . be presumed to be likely to enhance market power” (emphasis added, p. 19). Based on the 2012 data shown in the chart that follows immediately below, here is a list of sectors implicated by Bell’s proposed take-over of Astral that would move the dial between 200 and 1200 points (change in HHI noted in parentheses):

  • English-language Specialty and Pay TV (+416 points);
  • French-language Specialty and Pay TV (+1215.1 points);
  • total Specialty and Pay TV (+608.5 points);
  • English-language Total TV (+236 points);
  • French-language TV (+207.5 points);
  • Total TV (+298 points);
  • French language vertical integration between BDUs and broadcasters (+361 points).

Changes in Concentration Levels: Before and After Bell Astral, 2012 Revenues 

2012 Revenues

Bell Mrkt Share Before

After

CR4 Before

CR4 After

HHI Before

HHI After

CR4 2008

HHI 2008

Conv TV        
ENG

30.7

30.9

90.7

90.9

2337.2

2347.2

96.1

2724.9

FR

0

0

95.1

95.1

4403.4

4403.4

94.5

4005.7

ENG + FR

22.6

22.8

82.9

83

2287.9

2293.5

86

2367.4

Spec & Pay TV

 

 

 

ENG

28

33.8

83.1

84.5

2109.2

2525.2

73.2

1543

FR

27.1

59.2

97.9

97.7

2870

4085.1

87

2755.1

ENG + FR

27.9

38

81.5

83.8

1925.7

2534.2

71.9

1451.7

Total TV

 

 

 

 

ENG

29.2

32.5

81.9

86.2

1891.2

2127.2

77

1762.2

FR

11.1

24.4

91.7

92.9

2594.2

2801.7

85.2

2389

ENG + FR

25.4

30.8

76.8

83.3

1691.5

1989.5

70.9

1486.7

Radio

 

 

 

 

ENG

9.8

21.9

51.6

59.6

822.6

1014.4

56.5

970.8

FR

0

27

84.1

84.1

2406.6

2406.6

90.1

2704.9

ENG + FR

7.9

23.2

53.4

62

825.3

1127.3

60

1047.2

VI & Network Media (2011)

 

 

 

 

ENG

31.3

31.8

83.2

84.2

1984.4

2014.9

N/A

N/A

FR

35.2

40.1

71.8

76.7

1872.1

2233.1

N/A

N/A

Also take note of the big changes not just by the standards of regulatory authorities but those of the recent historical past as well, i.e. since 2008, and notably for pay and specialty tv, total tv and radio.

As you can see, Greg, if this was purely an issue of methods and numbers, the CRTC should be very busy. And it is. This is why the Bell Astral 2.0 deal has received the critical attention it deserves, by the Commission and by people such as myself.

Finally, as I am sure you will have noted, I have updated and made the CMCR’s analysis of the 2012 data available on our website. I have the French- and English-language market 2012 data that corresponds to each of the sectors that we released the other day (radio, broadcast TV, specialty and pay TV, total TV), and for vertical integration between BDUs and broadcasting in both English- and French-language markets as well as for Canada

I really would be delighted to share all of our data sets with you under appropriate circumstances once the CRTC completes its deliberations on the current transaction. Doing this kind of research is not easy. There is much judgment involved and reams of data to be managed. I would like to trust that your question comes from a good place but I’m also acutely sensitive to the fact that there are many who toss barbs at researchers and, especially, critical ones, all the time. It really needs to stop, and if a full prof with tenure and a good salary can’t stand up to such attacks, who will? 

Ultimately, I always aim to improve my work and what I put out under the auspices of the CMCR. If you ever see anything in need of improvement, correction, qualification, etc., please let me know and I will, as is our standard practice, fix things while publicly acknowledging any errors we have made and your role in setting things aright.

Best wishes,

Dwayne

[1] To put a more scholarly spin on it, questions about research methods are difficult and often boring, but they can be really helpful when they clarify how we know what we know. They tend to be open ended (and wordy, too) which leads in many unforseen directions. German philosophers originally called such activities “methodenstreit”, or “methods dispute”, hence the title to this post. The notion of methods disputes is now common across philosophy and the social sciences and yes, that includes economics (see here and here).

CMCR Project 2012 Data Release: Concentration Trends in the Telecom-Media-Internet Industries in Canada, Part 1

Highlights (original posted to Canadian Media Concentration Research Project website)

The CMCR analyzed the financial results for Canada’s biggest TV providersradio broadcastersspecialty, pay and video-on-demand services as well as cable, satellite TV and IPTV providers released by the CRTC in early April. Our analysis shows that concentration levels in 2012 remained high in all areas, except radio.

Using two standard research tools to assess media concentration – concentration ratios and the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) — our analysis shows that:

  1. Concentration levels for all of the industry segments for which the CRTC released data, except radio, remained high in 2012;
  2. However, such levels eased slightly in all segments addressed relative to 2011, except for specialty and pay TV services.

You can access all of our raw data not just for 2012, but from 1984 onwards here.

Discussion

Coupled with the annual reports of publicly-traded companies, the CRTC’s 2012 data allows us to construct a fairly comprehensive portrait of the current state of telecom, media and internet concentration in Canada.[1]

While concentration levels remain at the high end of the spectrum according to both the CR and HHI measures, and by international standards, there was a slight uptick in competition in four out of the five areas covered by the CRTC’s data for 2012:

  • In the $3.5 billion conventional TV sector, the CR4 declined from 87% to 83%, while the HHI score dipped slightly from 1966 to 1943. The decline is likely due to the fact that Bell and Shaw saw small declines in their revenues and market share, while two mid-size TV stations that were formerly a part of Canwest have continued to carve out a spot for themselves: the employee-owned CHEK TV in Victoria and Channel Zero’s CHCH in Hamilton.
  • A small dip could also be seen in the $7.5 billion total TV segment (an amalgam of conventional TV with specialty and pay TV), where the market share held by the big four — Bell, Shaw (Corus), Rogers and Quebecor — declined from 79% to 77%, with a corresponding decline in the HHI score as well.
  • Trends for the $8.7 billion cable, DTH and IPTV pointed in a similar direction, with the big four’s share declining modestly from 83 percent to 81 percent, largely due to the growth of Telus, MTS and Sasktel’s IPTV services in western Canada and Bell’s IPTV offering in Ontario and Atlantic provinces.
  • Finally, the $2 billion radio industry continued its long-term downward drift, with the CR4 sliding from 55.5% to 53.4%.

Concentration levels in the $4 billion Pay and Specialty TV services – the fastest growing and most lucrative segment of the TV industry – stayed steady at the high end of the CR4 (81.6%) and HHI (1905) scales. This is likely due to the fact that the growth of newcomers such as Blue Ant and Channel Zero was offset by a rise in Bell’s share of pay and specialty TV services, largely because of the substantial increase in revenue at its English and French-language sports channels, TSN and RDS, respectively.

The preliminary analysis offered thus far is important because the CRTC released the 2012 data in early April, just days after its deadline for submissions regarding BCE’s renewed bid to acquire Astral Media. As a result, none of the interveners was able to include it in their formal, written submissions to the public hearings that took place last week, except for Bell.

Bell filed an updated analysis based on the 2012 data with the CRTC in its Reply to interveners on April 16. In doing so, it used the new data to repeat and buttress its rejection of critics’ claims that the deal gives Bell too much market power:

. . . close review and analysis of the post-divestiture Bell-Astral in each of the English and French television markets – regardless of the metric employed – proves otherwise (Bell Reply, para 46).

Consequently, Bell asserted, there are no barriers from the standpoint of media concentration that should stand in the way of the CRTC approving the deal (Bell Reply, 2013, pp. 4, 11 – 20; also see the report Bell submitted from its consultant, CMI here, Appendix 3, or here). With today’s release of the CMCR data, readers can examine the evidence for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

Regardless of whether you agree with Bell’s view of the world or not, the fact that Bell and nobody else could update the public record for the Bell-Astral hearings using 2012 evidence is deeply troubling. I will have more to say about these issues in a series of upcoming posts. However, as the Commission settles in to make its decision on the Bell-Astral transaction, the public should have as much access as possible to the evidence upon which key elements of the decision will turn.

The CMCR project does not just present the relevant data company by company, or on the basis of ‘before’ and ‘after’ snapshots to gauge, for instance, the one-off impact of the Bell-Astral transaction on Bell’s stand-alone share of the TV market. Instead, our analysis of the 2012 data relies on two fundamental tenets of good scholarship on media concentration:

(1)  a long-term focus on concentration trends over a 28-year span from 1984 to 2012;

(2)  using two standard research tools to examine the structure of media markets rather than changes in the stand-alone market shares of individual media firms: Concentration Ratios and the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI).

These research methods are essential because snapshots of just one or two media sectors or firms are often selectively used to make unwarranted generalizations about the larger media ecology. Moreover, ‘before’ and ‘after’ snapshots fail to capture dynamic trends over time. These are precisely the kinds of commonly used techniques that serve to muddy the waters, and that sound methodology in media concentration research is explicitly designed to counteract (Noam, 2009, chs. 1-3IMCR, ndCMCR, 2012).

Analysis of the 2012 data also reconfirms the existence of a fundamental problem in the CRTC’s data for pay and specialty TV: key aspects of it cannot be reconciled with the results found in the audited annual reports of several companies covered by the Commission’s data sets. Tallying up the CRTC’s data for Astral, for example, yields a figure of $540.9 million, while the company’s Annual Information Form indicates a figure of $562 million, after the revenues from its two conventional TV stations, in-house advertising and online segments are excluded (see p. 8 and PWC, 2012, pp. 45, 52 and PWC, 2013, p. 60).

Nor is the Astral example an anomaly, as I will show in a subsequent post. This is not a view that we reached lightly but only after lengthy discussions with a Commission analyst well acquainted with the Individual Pay, Pay-per view, Video-on-Demand and Specialty Services Financial Summaries being referred to.

We hope readers will find our analysis of the 2012 data helpful in relation to other matters, as well. In the next week we will also release our analysis of the 2012 data for vertical integration between cable, satellite and IPTV distributors (BDUs) and TV and radio broadcasters in English- and French-language markets, and for Canada as a whole.

Our analysis will also be updated as new data becomes available for the remaining telecom, media and internet industries covered by the CMCR project: wireless and wired telecoms, Internet access, search engines, music, newspapers and magazines.


[1] The CRTC released total revenue figures for pay and specialty TV and broadcast distribution services; it did not do so for conventional TV or radio. To estimate revenues for these two sectors, we used last year’s cumulative annual growth rates cited in the Communications Monitoring Report, while checking that figure against other quality sources such as PriceWaterhouseCoopers’ (2012) Global Entertainment and Media Outlook, 2012 – 2016 to help ensure the reliability of our estimate.

Netflix and Canadian TV: Menace or Messiah?

We hear a lot about Netflix, and we hear it often, by both those who love and loathe it. It has become a fixture on the Canadian media scene in a very short time.

Indeed, there has been much gnashing of teeth since Netflix’s inception in this country in 2010, including the tightening up of bandwidth caps, inquiries by the CRTC, as well as the constant invocation of the streaming video on demand service (SVOD) in regulatory proceedings, from the CRTC’s 91h hearings just last week and no doubt in the one that it is set to start next week for Bell and Astral’s proposed amalgamation.

With roughly 1.6 million subscribers at the end of last year (IHS Screen Digest), it’s revenues can be estimated to have been about $134.3 million in 2012. This is a sizeable amount for sure, but where does it fit within the existing $7.5 billion industry (not counting the carriage and distribution side of the biz)?

So, the question for our post today: Netflix, menace or Messiah?

Netflix’s estimated 1.6 million subcribers, no doubt lean toward the latter view, even if they have to endure deliberately downgraded quality (i.e. no HD) to ensure they don’t blow their monthly bandwith caps and a slimmer catalogue to choose from. Even those in the TV biz regularly tell investors that they don’t expect any short- to mid-term harm, while the long-run is still anybody’s guess. 

However, look further and read the pages of leading newspapers in this country (take this piece by Andrew Coyne from the National Post just two days ago for starters), and Netflix is often cast as ushering in the death of “old TV” and as the spearhead of a much bigger ‘video revolution’ that is poised to bring Canada’s big four vertically integrated media goliaths to their knees: Quebecor, Rogers, Bell and Shaw.

The long list of new content acquisition deals, and charts showing internet traffic attributable to Netflix going through the roof (here and here), all seem to have a point, and who knows, maybe all of the kerfuffle is on the mark. I don’t want to offer anything definitive on the point other than to say that, me, I’m skeptical.

However, what I do want to know is something a bit more systematic about where things stand. And so as I’m won’t to do, I’ve encouraged my students to have a look at things and recently, one of them, Patrick Foley, did a real bang up job putting together the following chart showing Netflix’s content acquisition and development.

I’ve added to the table here and there and then developed some commentary of my own afterwards, but I think it’s good to, first, take a deep breadth and take stock of what kinds of content deals that Netflix has and hasn’t done. Otherwise, I’m afraid that a compendium of disparate press releases will add up to the impression that there are barbarians at the gate and unless we do something fast, they’re gonna tear the place apart – that “place” being the “Canadian television system” as we know it.

So here we go, a selection of Netflix’s content acquisition and development deals over the past few years.

Netflix’s Content Acquisition and Development Deals

Year Library Content
Starz 2008 2008  5 yr. deal. $30 million per year. Access to 2,500 titles, including “classic films” such as “Scarface” and “Beetlejuice”
NBC Universal 2010 Renewed contract for 5 additional years, worth $1 billion. Rights to titles from Paramount, MGM, and Lionsgate studios. Also acquires rights to old and new episodes of ”SNL,” “30 Rock”, “The Office,” and other popular shows. Can offer SVOD (streaming video on demand) 90 days after airing on Pay TV.
CBS Corp. 2011 4 yr. “Pay- as-you-go” deal with The CW Network (jointly owned by CBS and Time Warner) 700 hours of old CW programming and rights to new episodes. Older shows like “Cheers” can now be streamed. So too for newer ones, e.g. “Gossip Girl” and “Vampire Diaries”
Time Warner 2013 “Pay-as-you-go” deal between Netflix Turner Broadcasting & Warner Bros (TW subsidiaries) ($100s millions). New and old Warner Bros content produced for TV (i.e. shows already aired on ABC, NBC, FOX, HBO, Cartoon Network, TNT, etc.), including “666 Park Avenue” “Revolution”
Disney 2012 $200-$300 Annually Classic Disney titles and access to newly released Disney movies for 3 years (7 months after theatre release). Latter came its way after Disney’s contract with Starz ended. Classics like ”Pocahontas”, ”Alice in Wonderland” and LucasFilms productions available for internet streaming.Beginning in 2016 Netflix can exclusively stream films from Pixar, Marvel, DisneyNature, and Disney Animation Studios.
Starz 2013 Netflix did not renew contract Netflix loses rights to 2,500 “classic films” such as “Scarface” and “Beetlejuice”
2012 Arrested Development Former Fox TV series revived. May be prequel to movie.
Media Rights Capital 2011/12 – 2013 House of Cards Adaptation of previous BBC miniseries of same name. First TV series to premier on Netflix, beginning Feb. 1, 2013.
Viacom / Dreamworks 2013 Turbo F.A.S.T. (Kids animation series)  Original animated series based on forthcoming Dreamworks’ movie, Turbo.

Sources: Edwards (2012). Bloomberg; PR Newswire 2012; Kang (201). Washington Post. Villarrea. (2013). LATimes. Gruenwedel (2013). Home Media Magazine.

There’s much to be said about the above list of activities. Instead of writing another of my trademark long, long posts, however, let me distill a few points that I think are the most important.

Characteristics of Netflix deals:

  1. Acquire old, classic, established libraries of content.
  2. Acquire rights to air new episodes from ongoing TV series, and newly produced movies, after time delay.
  3. Youth/kid/teen oriented content is really important.
  4. ‘Old TV’ is the main ingredient of ‘new TV’, with established TV series revived and remade into new ones (Arrested Development; House of Cards) and forthcoming movies become TV series before they even hit the box office (Turbo F.A.S.T).  In other words, original content is derivative of existing content.

Make Peace Not War: or how the Traditional US (but not Canadian) TV and Film companies learned to live with Netflix

  1. Netflix breathes new life into classic/old content.
  2. It opens a new distribution window: ‘streaming video on demand’: SVOD, slotted into the pre-existing, window-based Hollywood model that staggers the release of movies between regions and across time.  Hollywood always learns to, at least eventually, embrace these new windows, even if late in the game, as my professor Janet Wasko taught us many years ago. Why? Because they are new markets, sources of revenue, that’s why (see here for latest evidence of growth of new windows relative to box office.).
  3. Netflix is complementary because Netflix subscribers tend to watch more TV rather than less, as the MediaTechnologyMonitor studies have repeatedly shown. As the most recent MTM study says, for instance, “Netflix customers are not so-called cord cutters. . . . In fact, Netflix users were found to be more likely than other consumers to shell out for a premium TV package, even while paying $8 a month for the streaming service”. UK communication and media regulator, Ofcom (see p. 3), has come to similar conclusions (also see here with respect to UK).
  4. Netflix may increase “packaged-media sales” (DVDs, DVD box sets, etc.) and cable VOD by sizeable amounts (15-30%), some Time Warner execs have claimed, although some of the scholarly literature I have read seems less convinced.
  5. Adds foreign films that lack North American theatrical release (thanks Patrick).
  6. Enables time-shifting and space-shifting via Microsoft’s Xbox 360, the Nintendo Wii, Sony’s PS3, Blu-ray disc players, and internet-based video players like Apple devices (again, thanks Patrick).
  7. And some stalwarts of the ‘traditional mediacos’ have a position on Netflix’s Board of Directors alongside internet and tech companies and that affords them at least a small lever of influence and control: e.g. Ann Mather (Walt Disney, Pixar, Google, MGM, Village Roadshow Pictures), Leslie Kilgore (Amazon, LinkedIn), Jay Hoak (Technology Crossover Ventures) A. G. Battle (Ask Jeeves, Expedia), Reed Hastings (Netflix, Facebook, Microsoft) (Netflix, 2012).

Why Canada’s Vertically-Integrated Players Continue to Hate Netflix:

  1. Must compete with Netflix over rights to new distribution window vs. treating them as an inexpensive bolt on to the existing suite of rights they acquire.
  2. They don’t have much original content of their own so must compete even more with Netflix.
  3. Netflix seems to give media workers more creative autonomy in their work and a bigger slice of the pie and more say afterwards.
  4. The creation of a new window – SVOD – increases pressure to compress ‘old windows’, especially VOD – a lucrative cash cow for existing BDUs’ specialty and pay TV services that continue to rake in operating profits in the mid- to high-20% range (see p. 1).
  5. Netflix enables time-shifting and space-shifting on other company’s devices —  Microsoft’s Xbox 360, the Nintendo Wii, Sony’s PS3, Blu-ray disc players, Apple, etc. – rather than their own.
  6. Finally, Canadian media execs seem to loathe Netflix because they have no position of influence or control at Netflix, or anything like it.

Does this mean that nothing’s changing? Absolutely not! Television and how it is made, circulated, controlled and consumed is changing dramatically.

Fast disappearing is the old scheduled model of tv programming punched out by vertically-integrated tv cos modelled on the Fordist approach to car production (ownership of everything from inputs to manufacturing and dealerships), with highly unionized workforces and subsidized consumption brought to you courtesy of advertisers and government funding.

And what’s coming online? Hold your breath, folks, but it just may be the the centuries’ old  ‘publishing model’. In this model, TV execs function as commissioning editors signing contracts and royalty cheques with creative talent. Most media work becomes more and more precarious, less unionized and less well paid. Disappearing are the “old days” when union bosses negotiated long-term contracts for media workers with durable media jobs and clear roles and back are the really old old days when everybody had to fend for themselves.

In addition, in the publishing model, as with books, people pay for what they get while the ratio of advertising and government subsidies to public service media steadily declines. Audiences’ preferences become more closely aligned with what they pay for as a result, but the gap between the media rich and media poor expands.

Think catalogues of movie and TV program titles, not a linear scheduled flow of appointment viewing. Long live TV, while everything changes.

So, Netflix, Menace or Messiah? You be the judge.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 130 other followers

%d bloggers like this: