Richard Stursberg says he fought hard to keep Hockey Night In Canada at CBC, but how tough will it be for the broadcaster to hold onto it? And if it does leave, how big a hole does it leave to fill?
Richard Stursberg oversaw some of the most drastic changes in CBC’s history during his six-year tenure leading its English-language operations. He rethought what Canada’s pubic broadcaster could and should be, and is having his say in a new book, Tower of Babble (Douglas & McIntyre). He spoke with Marketing at length about his tenure, the fights, the opportunities and his legacy.
In the third and final installment our Q&A series, Stursberg talks hockey broadcast fights, the example set by the BBC and why “mandate” is a dirty word (read part 1 and part 2).
Your book talks in great detail about the protracted negotiations with the NHL and Commissioner Gary Bettman to secure your current rights agreement (which expires in 2014). Will the CBC be able to retain its biggest property when the next round of negotiations gets underway?
I think it’s going to be tough for two reasons. With properties like the CFL, networks like TSN have proven they can get audiences as big as the CBC was getting. When the CBC does the business case for professional sports, all the revenue is advertising revenue – you can’t put any of the public subsidies into it because that would be wrong. [Competitors like TSN and Sportsnet] have two revenue streams: the advertising stream and the cable fees. Number two – it’s pretty clear that now, in these integrated groups, they think sports rights are really important. I think it’s going to be tough to hold it.
We’re talking about a property that, by your own admission, accounts for nearly half of the CBC’s advertising revenues? What does a post-HNIC future look like?
They loss the net revenue, but the other problem is they’ve got 400-450 hours of programming to fill. What are they going to fill it with? Rick Mercer can’t do a 400-hour long rant. I bet Cherry could though. Maybe they should get him out there. But it’s going to be very challenging for them to figure out what they do if the lose Hockey Night in Canada.
In your book you talk about your desire to eliminate the word “mandate” from the CBC’s vernacular. Do you feel the CBC is less a mandate-driven broadcaster today?
I think it’s less so, but what worries me is that it [could] fall back into that kind of thinking. The forces pushing it back are pretty strong. I think the public wants exactly what it is the CBC is doing, which is big shows. But people are still saying ‘Why isn’t there any ballet dancing on TV?’ Honestly, I don’t understand why people want that. It’s not the nature of television, but there are forces that aren’t really friends of television that want to turn it into something other than what it is. It’s like saying ‘I don’t like this novel, it doesn’t have a good tune.’ It sounds like you’re more suited to private broadcasting. That’s not true.
People ask me if I would have been happier at CTV, and the answer is no. The reason for that is what do CTV and Global actually do? They go down to Los Angeles and buy shows. That’s okay, but commissioning, making and developing your own shows is way more fun and interesting.
Of all the shows that arrived on CBC during your tenure, what are you most proud of?
In the early days the one I liked the most was Little Mosque on the Prairie. That was the first big breakout. I also loved Heartland. I wanted a family show. I loved Battle of the Blades. I just thought it was completely over the top and crazy. I was very fond of The Border, I was very sorry it didn’t do better than it did.
What’s your hope for the CBC in the future?
My hope is that what would happen is there would be some real decisions taken about the CBC. What would happen is the government – and it has to be the government – would say ‘We’d like a big, popular CBC that celebrates who were are as Canadians, that celebrates our history, our sense of humour, our sensibilities and makes big drama and comedies and news. We don’t want some marginalized, elite CBC. We want a big popular one that fits a big, successful optimistic country.’
Then they would talk about what that might mean. The way they do it in Britain, which I think is a really good way to do it, is they say in general terms what they want the BBC to do and then create a conversation – hearings before the regulator, parliamentary committees, people writing in with their views. Then they grind it all down and set very clear and specific objectives. The government says it agrees with that and gives it the money necessary and then they enter into a contract, which lasts for 10 years. At the end of the seventh year, they begin the process of negotiating the next one. It’s very transparent, everybody’s agreed as to what it is they’re trying to do, the money is appropriated to allow that to get done. I think that would be a really good model for having a conversation around the CBC.
You’re currently on tour supporting the book, but any desire to return to the broadcasting fray at this point?
I don’t know. It’s a smaller world than it used to be. All of these businesses are among the most interesting businesses you could possibly imagine.
• The Stursberg Files – Part 1
• The Stursberg Files – Part 2
