What was our astonishment to read in yesterday’s newspaper an article stating that canceling a show brought more money to broadcasters than presenting it.
The article brings to the attention of readers certain cases where, for various reasons, the cancellation of performances offers more generous financial assistance to the broadcaster than if he presented them.
We would like to qualify this assertion.
Let’s establish from the outset that the support measure for the broadcasting of Quebec shows implemented in 2020, which supports the business model of broadcasting, is a good measure, and that it is unanimously that the entire performing arts sector wants it to continue as long as necessary.
Without this measure, implemented quickly and in an exemplary manner by the CALQ teams, no presenter would have had the temerity, in this changing and uncertain context, to commit to a program, to hire artists, to redo sales and, suddenly, to prevent our entire ecosystem from devitalizing completely. This measure was more than a lifeline: our oxygen.
There are many business models in the broadcasting sector in Quebec. It is not a monolithic block. Claiming unilaterally that it is better to cancel than to present shows is therefore not at all in tune with the nuanced reality on the ground. Does this measure generate, for some, perverse effects? Unfortunately yes. Is it perfectible? Without a doubt ; and the CALQ teams have continued to refine it over the past 18 months. Was it able to support all the artists and artisans of the living arts? Unfortunately not.
It must be understood that this measure is degressive. It is therefore by nature more generous when the rooms are completely closed, because it reimburses 75% of the tickets that cannot be put on sale.
It is also very complex. The amounts of assistance granted vary according to criteria as specific as the average price of tickets in recent years, average sales, etc. It is possible, at the dawn of this third reopening in 22 months, that the budgetary and promotional choices of certain broadcasters place them in front of difficult financial decisions to make.
Since the start of the pandemic, broadcasters have been under pressure. They know and recognize the importance of each of their decisions on the whole ecosystem. They took artistic risks in order to support as many artists as possible in as many disciplines as possible. When they cancel a show, it’s because all other avenues have been studied.
Because our broadcasters know how much it costs them to cancel a show.
It costs them to see, powerless, all the bonds of trust developed with the clienteles crumble each time a little more.
It costs them to exhaust their ticketing resources and staff.
It costs them to put an end to years of creative effort because a work will never find its audience.
It also costs them to lose the very meaning of their work.
In short, we would like to reaffirm it: supporting, even imperfectly, one of the sectors hardest hit by the pandemic with this distribution aid measure, and continuing to broadcast shows will always pay more, for all , than not to do so.
* This letter is also supported by: Étienne Legault, president, Les Voyagements-Théâtre de création en tour; Rachel Morse, Co-Chair, Quebec Theater Council; Joachim Tanguay, President, United Theaters Childhood Youth; Danièle Drolet, President of the Association of Theater Specialists; Françoise Henri, President, Quebec Music Council; Marie-Claude Bouillon, President, En Piste – National Association of Circus Arts; Paul Caskey and Fannie Bellefeuille, co-presidents, Regroupement québécois de la danse; and Michel Sabourin, spokesperson, Association of independent performance halls of Quebec.