Path: utzoo!telly!tmsoft!mcl!ncc!atha!lsuc!eci386!clewis
From: clewis@eci386.uucp (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: American magazines in Canada
Message-ID: <1989Jun23.125458.7999@eci386.uucp>
Date: 23 Jun 89 12:54:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: eci386.1989Jun23.125458.7999
References: <89Jun19.002358edt.11715@neat.ai.toronto.edu> <2342@uwovax.uwo.ca> <1989Jun21.200421.9494@mdivax1.uucp>
Reply-To: clewis@eci386.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Organization: R. H. Lathwell Associates: Elegant Communications, Inc.
Lines: 48

In article <1989Jun21.200421.9494@mdivax1.uucp> theriaul@mdivax1.uucp (Roger Theriault) writes:
|In article <2342@uwovax.uwo.ca> miller@uwovax.uwo.ca (Greg Miller) writes:
|>that TIME actually produced a Canadian edition with Canadian news not found
|>in the US version.  Thus the effect of the law was actually, in th case of
|>TIME, to eliminate Canadian content?

Canadian content in a popular American owned mag ain't nearly as bad as 
no Canadian content in a popular American owned mag.  And I would contend
that the opposite effect happened - the effect was to *increase* Canadian 
content, for once TIME realized that it needed to be collected anyway, 
it began to bleed back into the American issue (which is a *very* good 
thing) because, inspite of those expatriate Canucks at National Lampoon,
we're not *quite* as boring as they thought.  (well, I guess, at least a bit
amusing if nothing else ;-)

|I believe that this is more related to tax writeoffs for advertising expenses
|by Canadian corporations.  Revenue Canada keeps Molsons (for example) from
|placing ads in US magazines DIRECTED AT CANADIANS or in US border TV stations
|in order to get them to advertise here in Canada, 

At least as far as US border TV stations, that seems pretty pointless.  CRTC
policy has been to allow (if not require) cable companies to substitute Canadian
broadcasts of shows for American.  Eg: If an American and a Canadian station
were broadcasting Dallas at the same time, the cable company would insert
the Canadian feed (with its commercials) into the American's channel on the
cable.  Even if Molson did place ads in US TV to advertise in Canada, we
wouldn't see 'em.  [I always thought that was theft and piracy.  So did the 
Americans.]

|In my humble opinion, TIME is just trying to make more $$ by putting out
|a Canadian (not really) issue.  The ad bucks go to New York, as do our
|subscription fees, and Canadian publishers lose out (but the advertisers
|still get a write-off and some lucky printer in T.O. gets paid:-).

On the other hand, one might say TIME is simply trying to sell its magazines.
As does MacLeans.  The fact that TIME came out with a Canadianized (though,
perhaps not most wonderful thing) version rather than abandoning us dam-commie-
furriners is credit to them.  AND, the upshot of this policy was that
Canadians got jobs and money from TIME - ie: some of the money *stayed* in
Canada.  Not a bad trade.

[I'm of mixed feeling about the law that led to this, but mindless bashing
of the corporations involved bugged me.]
-- 
Chris Lewis, R.H. Lathwell & Associates: Elegant Communications Inc.
UUCP: {uunet!mnetor, utcsri!utzoo}!lsuc!eci386!clewis
Phone: (416)-595-5425