News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 1.1K     5 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 838     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 1.7K     0 

Canadian media & the CRTC

syn said:
Could this be the end of Much Music? I can't see them both surviving in the same building, fighting for the same market. CTV shouldn't have been allowed to keep both of them.
Click to expand...

I'm not thrilled with the same company owning MTV Canada and the Much channels, but I don't see CTV letting the Much brand wither away. I read last week (I wish I remembered where, so that I could link it), that CTV is busy test-marketing a new brand for the A-Channels across Canada -- "Much TV". More mainstream programming than the other Much channels, including local news, but linked to the Much concept, and targetted to the younger demos that CTV had intended to go after when it sought the City tv channels.

I can only imagine that if the local A-Channel in Barrie become Much tv, City tv will be even more anxious to move into Torch, given that 299 Queen West would be plastered with the competing Much logo.

So bizarre to think of the Much and City brands as competitors.
 
299 bloor call control. said:
To complicate matters further, in October, CHUM/CTV/Rogers applied for this:



Note that CHUM = CTV now, they had to do these dealings under the CHUM name still because the takeover deal hadn't been completed at the time of this filing..

But this means for the time being, Rogers will own 20% of CP24, though CTV will control the station. I wonder if this will be an ongoing arrangement or did they have to do this during the transition period in order to allow CP24 to continue airing CityNews and City programs....
Click to expand...

I seem to recall that Rogers had some involvement with CP24 way back when the station launched. It turns out that Rogers did not (it was Sun Media that owned a slice of it), but my search did turn up this on Wikipedia:

In September 2007, the CRTC announced the filing of an application by Rogers Communications to acquire 20 per cent of CablePulse 24. This application apparently stems from an earlier option agreement between CHUM and Rogers dating back to 2000, and not (at least directly) to Rogers's acquisition of Citytv. To date neither CTV nor Rogers has commented on whether this application will change future plans for the channel.
Click to expand...

I know that it's Wikipedia, so take it with whatever grain of salt you feel advisable.
 
Skeezix said:
I'm not thrilled with the same company owning MTV Canada and the Much channels, but I don't see CTV letting the Much brand wither away. I read last week (I wish I remembered where, so that I could link it), that CTV is busy test-marketing a new brand for the A-Channels across Canada -- "Much TV". More mainstream programming than the other Much channels, including local news, but linked to the Much concept, and targetted to the younger demos that CTV had intended to go after when it sought the City tv channels.

I can only imagine that if the local A-Channel in Barrie become Much tv, City tv will be even more anxious to move into Torch, given that 299 Queen West would be plastered with the competing Much logo.

So bizarre to think of the Much and City brands as competitors.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Much and City are based on the same concept. This is CTV's way of creating their own version of CityTV without actually owning it.

I'm not sure how good they'd be at it though. They've been trying for years to be more "hip" and have failed miserably.
 
171766.jpg


..case in point.
 
Skeezix said:
I'm not thrilled with the same company owning MTV Canada and the Much channels, but I don't see CTV letting the Much brand wither away. I read last week (I wish I remembered where, so that I could link it), that CTV is busy test-marketing a new brand for the A-Channels across Canada -- "Much TV". More mainstream programming than the other Much channels, including local news, but linked to the Much concept, and targetted to the younger demos that CTV had intended to go after when it sought the City tv channel.
Click to expand...
Yikes! I guess this mini-network of Much-TV's will be very similar to CanWest's network of E-Channels. So we'll basically have two mini-broadcast networks looking and acting like American speciality channels. :(
 
The A-Channel network, a collection of seven small television stations that have been punted around in the takeover of CHUM Limited, are expected to be given a makeover as its new owner; CTVglobemedia looks to revitalize the struggling broadcaster.

In September 2007 CTV opted a survey of "Much TV" a possible new name for A-Channel which will be rebranded likely for the 2008/2009 TV season. The brand would derive from it's sister cable channel MuchMusic; otherwise the prospective relationship between the two outlets is not yet apparent.

The A-Channel stations include CKVR in Barrie, CHRO in Ottawa, CKNX in Wingham, CHWI in Windsor, CFPL in London and CIVI in Victoria, British Columbia.

The second-tier network was originally sold to Rogers Communications Inc. in April for $137.5-million to ease regulatory concerns about CTVglobemedia Inc. owning too many stations across Canada. CTVglobemedia is the parent company of CTV and The Globe and Mail. On June 8 2007 the CRTC approved the CTV takeover of CHUM but it had added a condition that CHUM Television's Citytv stations to be sold to another buyer. Rogers Communications opted to acquire 5 Citytv stations from CTVglobemedia Inc last June.

The Citytv stations are CITY in Toronto, CHMI in Winnipeg, CKAL in Calgary, CKEM in Edmonton and CKVU in Vancouver. These are where the CTV stations are based in these same cities.

CHUM Limited officially ceased it's operations on June 22 2007.
Click to expand...

The CRTC must stop this serious abuse by the national broadcasters of their local television licenses. A local television license is NOT for marketing their digital lifestyle-oriented brands, it is for programming unique to their markets. CHUM started with a very intensely local brand (The New Net) which is what got these licenses approved in the first place.. and now the subsequent brands have continued to whither the license to nothing by bubble gum pop crap for the sole purpose of marketing. Seriously, the CRTC should threaten to revoke the licenses of the former New Net and the E! channels... this is just pathetic.
 
"Second-tier" networks are now unique here. In the US, they are the entities of separate companies (such as the CW, formerly UPN and WB), rather than the dumping ground for shows from their parents' first-tier brands (CTV, Global). We used to have the same sort of thing, where CHCH was owned by WIC (as onTV) and CHUM owning City and the New Channels, which had that local feel to them. Craig had A-Channel, which was a regional variation of that system.

The CRTC ought to yank many licences of cable and broadcast channels. CrapWest's "E!" network, the "Much TV" network, "Slice", "MTV Canada", "TVtropolis" are the first to come to mind. But they won't, making another strong argument for their dissolution.
 
OK, it was a little hard to do, but I felt the need to seperate discussion regarding the new use for the Torch complex from discussion related to the CRTC and media consolidation in this country. I think most of us are in agreement that Projects & Construction topics shouldn't veer too far away from the building at hand.

Therefore, we now have this thread that you are reading to discuss issues around media consolidation and the CRTC. A few of the posts in our former super thread talked about both, so the split hasn't been perfect, but I did it as best I could.

For discussion about City-TV/OMNI's new home, please go here.

Hope that makes sense!
 
I'm seeing those incredibly annoying Rogers commercials on more channels now. They makin' me CraZy!
 
Yes they are incredibly stupid and annoying. I also loathe those Best Buy ones depicting gift shoppers and they start shreiking..! Who writes this annoying shit- it' s not amusing.. it's not anything.. ? ..Where's the MUTE..Mute!
 
They are clearly produced to annoy, and grab the viewer's attention. There are Rogers spots for one of their radio stations which shows an older woman vacuuming then tripping or knocking something over & it had enhanced volume on the sound effect of things falling to the ground, it used to drive me crazy hearing that ad every 15 or 20 minutes. They've altered it now, the older woman doesn't knock things over anymore. I won't even get into the Bob McCown spots for FAN 590AM that have been driving me loopy for over 2 years.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top