Advertisers and sponsors played a larger role at CBC during Richard Stursberg’s rule, but will ads on Radio 2 make up the shortfall if hockey and Jeopardy aren’t there to bring in big viewer numbers?
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 (read part 1 here).
How would you characterize your tenure with CBC?
For me it was a tremendous experience and I enjoyed it enormously. It was very difficult, very stressful and exciting and occasionally thrilling. I was very pleased where it landed – we seemed to manage to turn around all the declining audiences and significantly improved public attitudes towards the Corporation.
The last data I saw said the people found the Corporation now, compared to what it was eight years ago, more essential, more distinctively Canadian and higher quality, as well as watching more of the shows and listening to more of the radio than they ever did. At the end of the day, the only real test of these things is what do the people who own it think about it?
In retrospect, is there anything you would have done differently?
I might have tried to go a little further a little faster. But it’s a big organization – it takes a while to make change and bring people along.
Advertising, too, was a real growth area under your leadership.
We had had a bad relationship with the agencies and advertisers, and we worked hard to try to make that relationship good. When Marketing voted us Media Player of the Year in 2009, I was very pleased by that recognition. It was a big turnaround for us.
Are there some examples of advertising programs that you think were done really well?
We put a huge amount of emphasis on doing clever integrations and extensions. We were doing Kraft Hockeyville and then we did an episode of Little Mosque on the Prairie where the little town of Mercy applies to be Kraft Hockeyville. Nobody can do that except the CBC. Those kinds of things I was really pleased about because I thought they were really clever and they brought real value for our sponsors.
Any anecdotes that characterize the state of the relationship between the CBC and its advertisers?
By the time I left we were able to sit down with the agencies on a regular basis and we would have really good conversations about extending the nature of the relationship. The big issue to this day is engagement: How do we get more engagement so that we deliver more value to sponsors, and how do we measure that engagement collectively in a way we’re more comfortable? Just before I left we were in the process of trying to kick off a really serious conversation about all that. Where it has landed since I don’t know.
One of the CBC’s stated objectives in the wake of a reduction in government funding is to raise $50 million in new revenue. One proposed idea is allowing ads on Radio 2. What do you think about that proposal?
A few years ago we did a very detailed comparison of the CPMs we were getting versus those being obtained by Global and CTV, and then did a quick sizing of where we thought we should be. My sense is they’re in pretty good shape – I think they’ve done a good job of maximizing their existing revenues. But when they say they’re going to find another $50 million, and Jeopardy’s gone and if, God help them, they lose Hockey Night in Canada, it’s not altogether clear where it comes from. A few ads on Radio 2 are not going to get you there.
Does that mean that Radio 1 might ultimately become an advertising source?
I suppose it is. I haven’t heard anyone mention that.
• The Stursberg Files – Part 1
• The Stursberg Files – Part 3
