Tag: commercial radio

Predicting the radio present, twenty years ago

Whilst looking for some information about the changes wrought by the Broadcasting Act 1990, I happened to find some old press cuttings from that time. What follows are some predictions for the 1990s UK radio industry that I had written in the February 1990 edition of “For The Record” magazine:

RADIO ONE continues to feel the winds of change instituted by the new Head of Music Roger Lewis and a team of younger presenters. It promotes and programmes itself more aggressively now and will continue to lead the way where commercial stations only follow. In the 1990s, it will sever entirely the relationship between its playlist and the current Top 75, thus sounding the death knell for the single as a commercial proposition.

NEEDLETIME RESTRICTIONS, which have held back developments in music radio for so long, will be legislated away, though not without a spirited fight by the record companies. As a result, all-music stations will become the norm in the commercial sector, leaving the BBC as the only producer of serious speech programmes.

MORE STATIONS will fracture the radio market into lots of small pieces, losing forever the kind of huge audiences attracted by the Sunday chart show or “Our Tune”. Record retailers will have to react by stocking a wider range of album releases and developing their specialist sections (a reversal of the 80s trend towards narrower stock). The album chart will increasingly reflect the sum of different sets of fans’ interests, rather than a common pop denominator.

OWNERSHIP of radio will narrow to a handful of large companies, despite the increased number of stations. The 80s saw radio shares treated as profitable propositions for the first time. The existing big boys (Capital Radio, Crown Communications, Trans World Communications) will continue to buy up anything and everything. Publishers (Associated Press, EMAP) will enter the fray, and TV companies will seek lateral integration with radio as a hedge against loss of their franchises. For the first time, radio shares will become an essential part of a media portfolio and change hands rapidly at inflated prices.

FM RADIO will reign supreme. Listeners will remember “medium wave” with the quaint fondness our grandparents reserve for “cats’ whiskers”. Push-button, auto-locate receivers become standard, timeshift recorders are introduced, knob-twiddling disappears, and listeners channel hop endlessly in search of the perfect beat.

SYNDICATED PROGRAMMES already enable David Hamilton to sound as if he works for your very own local station when he is really sat in a London studio. The development of whole syndicated networks in the 1990s means that your favourite rock station in Leeds is actually originated in New York and plays exactly the same records as WLUP Philadelphia.

DISC JOCKEYS will lose their aura as media stars and lose lucrative careers opening supermarkets, hosting TV shows or making their own hit records. Being a radio presenter will carry as much kudos as being a tax inspector.

SHOCK RADIO develops a huge cult following amongst young people, whilst deplored by their parents. The Radio Authority is belatedly forced to curb the phenomenon by introducing a largely ignored “Code of Presentation Conduct”. James Whale makes a film of his life story.

In the December 1989 edition of “For The Record”, I had written:

Asked whether the public service obligations in commercial radio would be abandoned completely, Lord Chalfont [newly appointed chairman of the newly created Radio Authority] has expressed hope that the Broadcasting Act would allow stations to continue with such commitments if they so wished. He added that, in his recent discussions with various MDs of local stations, they had expressed their avowed intent to maintain public service elements. This is a little like a headmaster hearing his class of fourth-formers promise never to drop litter, to always help old ladies across busy roads, and to keep their school uniforms on until they get home.

The issue of public service commitments in radio is important not just from a theoretical point of view, but because it directly affects the listener’s choice. We’re talking about the very things that should differentiate stations from each other.

At the bottom line, commercial radio does not exist to “satisfy” its listeners. It exists to deliver the largest targeted audience possible to the advertisers who pay money to do so. Listeners’ broadcasting needs are irrelevant to the stations’ profitability.

The cheapest form of radio programming is the continual play of well-known pop records linked by young local DJs who aspire to be Tony Blackburn – anything more fanciful than that costs more money and reduces the profit margin. So, in the brave new world where commercial radio is regulated by a “lighter touch”, the cheapest programming appealing to the lowest denominator audience wins hands down. Out go the rock shows, the folk shows, the local band slots and the ethnic language programmes that were necessary to comply with the IBA’s policy of serving all sections of the audience. Out goes anything but a token commitment to local news coverage, information services, off-air activities and social action broadcasting.

Independent Local Radio will increasingly have little that is either “independent” or “local” about it. If a bomb drops on your town at two in the morning, the one place you won’t hear about it is on your local station (unless the story makes the national news). They’ll simply carry on soothing you through the night – probably with a service beamed by satellite from London. ….

We’ll all get to hear more radio in the 1990s. But there are no guarantees to be seen so far that it will be any better for the consumer in its content.

Paying for DAB radio carriage: god only knows

Premier Christian Radio, the London AM station, is planning to broadcast on the national DAB platform from 21 September 2009. In an e-mail to listeners, its chief executive Peter Kerridge explained:

“Beginning in September, we will start to incur the cost to transmit on this digital platform – £650,000 per annum – which is an expense that is over and above our current operating costs. The only way the £650,000 in transmission costs will be covered is through the generosity of friends like you. It is fantastic that God has moved in such an amazing way to provide Premier this national digital licence! Now may you and I be found faithful as we steward this new resource for His glory and for the advancement of His Kingdom!”

DAB carriage remains a costly business. Digital One, the owner of the sole national commercial DAB multiplex, fixes the carriage costs for content providers such as Premier Christian Radio. If £650,000 seems like a lot of money for broadcast on a platform that reaches 33% of adults in the UK and accounts for only 13.1% of radio listening [RAJAR Q1 2009], understand that this is a bargain compared to the expensive contracts some content providers had signed previously. In January 2009, Digital One responded to the government’s Digital Britain initiative by cutting its prices. Acting chief executive Glyn Jones said:

“We’re turning the ideas set out in the Digital Radio Working Group’s report into actions. That includes looking hard at how Digital One can offer lower carriage costs. In turn we’re expecting that stakeholders involved in the Working Group, and other companies with the ambition to launch new national radio stations in 2009, will step up and engage with a view to adding compelling new choice for consumers. We’re expecting that prices will initially be set below Digital One’s 2008 rate card. One reason for that is to help provide an incentive for people to invest in high quality services. But, over time, companies providing new services will be expected to contribute to the costs of a transmitter roll-out plan which was something also identified by the DRWG as important.”

Digital One’s January 2009 press release was ambitiously headlined ‘New National Radio Stations To Launch In 2009’. Seven months later, what stations have stepped forward to take advantage of the Digital One offer? Government-funded BFBS Radio started DAB simulcasting on 20 April 2009, following a three-month trial in 2008. Amazing Radio launched on DAB in June 2009 for a six-month trial period, playing unsigned artists from its music web site. Also in June 2009, Fun Kids, which is normally on DAB only in London, launched a fourteen-week trial simulcast on national DAB. Neither BFBS nor Amazing Radio are participating in RAJAR radio audience research, so it is impossible to know how much listening these services are attracting on the DAB platform.

Have we seen any major media players step forward and put a new mass market radio service on the national DAB platform? Not yet. Why? Because, even at the knockdown rate of £650,000 per annum, it still proves impossible to make a profit from offering radio content on DAB. The table below offers very rough estimates of what digital stations measured in RAJAR (and carried on a mix of broadcast platforms including DAB and digital TV) should and might be earning in revenues. The second column lists the total hours presently listened to each digital station. The third column uses the average commercial radio sector yield (how much revenue was generated from how much radio listening in 2008) to estimate, in theory, what these stations’ revenues should be.


However, the ‘Commercial Radio: The Drive To Digital’ report commissioned from Ingenious Consulting by RadioCentre in January 2009 told us that:

“Incremental revenue from DAB-only stations is negligible at ~£130k per ‘bespoke’ station …”

The list above comprises the 14 digital radio stations that subscribe to RAJAR. Not all of these stations broadcast on DAB (Smash Hits Radio is only on digital TV), not all of them are national (Yorkshire Radio is only on the Yorkshire DAB multiplex, for example), but let us be generous and assume that each station earns revenues of £130,000 per annum. In total, these stations combined would generate £1.82m per annum of revenue. This is substantially less than the £29.7m revenues that would be expected to be generated from them attracting 22.7m hours per week of listening.

The final column in the table estimates how much revenue each station might be earning from the £1.82m total, if revenues were proportionate to hours listened. I must stress again that this only a rough estimate – none of these stations, nor Ofcom, publishes the actual revenues of digital radio stations. What these estimates demonstrate is that, if Planet Rock were (like Premier Christian Radio) paying £650,000 per annum for its carriage on the national DAB multiplex (the financial details of its “long-term” deal with Digital One were not made public), the station is still nowhere near breaking even, not even after ten years on-air.

The Ingenious Consulting report found that DAB-only stations are spending £25m per annum on operating expenses. The above table shows that, if these stations were attracting revenues proportionate to the listening they presently enjoy, collectively they would then be profitable (£29m revenues minus £25m operating expenses). But, in fact, their revenues are presently less than £2m. The Ingenious Consulting report concluded that, as a result, the “annual negative cash flow impact of DAB” on the commercial radio sector is around £27m per annum.

This £27m annual loss attributable to digital radio stations represents around 5% of commercial radio’s revenues, a significant impact on an industry which is only marginally profitable overall at present. The nub of the problem is this: digital radio stations presently account for 5.3% of listening to commercial radio, but digital radio stations attract only 0.3% of commercial radio revenues. Here is a massive economic disconnect that requires much more than a mere increase in productivity or some kind of performance improvement. Doubling or even tripling these stations’ revenues would barely dent the problem.

Maybe DAB is simply not a platform where the traditional commercial radio model can be made to work – the old model of ‘give away free content, pay for it by attracting advertisers to buy on-air spots’. Maybe DAB is not a medium from which traditional UK commercial broadcasters can generate profits from offering content, as they had anticipated in the 1990s. Commercial broadcasters are pushing no commercial product other than their on-air brand (and some music downloads, concert tickets and click-through purchases). Instead, perhaps DAB can only be made to work as a marketing tool to assist companies selling (non-radio) products. So, for example, it would make sense for Universal Music to have a DAB radio station to expose directly to the public the CDs/videos/movies they are currently selling. It would make sense for Amazon to have a DAB radio station to promote all the consumer products it is selling. Then, the £650,000 carriage cost could be considered an additional ‘marketing expense’ for these companies’ core business, rather than a direct operating expense that had to be recouped ON-AIR.

The other possibility is for DAB to be used predominantly by organisations whose objective is something other than breaking even financially. In January 2008, I had written:

“Worryingly, this sudden flowering of ethnic, religious and publicly-funded radio stations on the DAB platform echoes the fate of the ‘AM’ waveband in the 1990s, at a time when the radio industry and the regulator had become convinced that audiences were deserting that platform for the improved audio quality offered by the ‘FM’ waveband. By 2002, declining audiences of ‘AM’ stations had persuaded the regulator to suggest that the platform be used in future “for better serving minority, disadvantaged or currently excluded audience groups, whether defined by their interests, demographics or ethnicity”. The ‘DAB’ platform of 2008, particularly in London, is already starting to resemble the ‘AM’ platform of 1998, suggesting that ‘DAB’ might have already been written off by the sector as a means to reach the ‘mass market’ audiences that national advertisers desire from the medium.”

This trend towards non-commercial content has developed further since then. The national DAB platform has added BFBS Radio (government-funded) and now Premier Christian Radio (religious), but no new permanent digital radio stations operating on a commercial model. Local DAB multiplexes have added Traffic Radio (government-funded), Colourful Radio (ethnic) and UCB (religious). Interestingly, UCB has taken two channels on each of the regional MXR DAB multiplexes, giving it a substantial amount of DAB spectrum. But there have also been ethnic DAB radio casualties since my earlier report – Islam Radio in Bradford closed its DAB service in December 2008, and India’s Zee Radio closed its London DAB service in April 2009. Even for ethnic broadcasters locked out of analogue radio, DAB can prove a struggle.

Premier Christian Radio’s Peter Kerridge hit the DAB nail on the head when Media Week reported:

“Kerridge said Premier Media’s funding meant it was in a better position than other media organisations, as the ‘ad-funded model is smashed’ …..”

The available financial data confirms that, certainly for the DAB platform, an ad-funded model simply is not viable at present. To make DAB work for your content, you need government funding, direct listener financial support, a sugar daddy, or some kind of god smiling benevolently down upon you.

Digital Britain: the Implementation Plan

The government has published the Implementation Plan for Digital Britain, setting out its action plans for the proposals made in June 2009’s Final Report. These are the sections that directly concern the radio sector:

PROJECT 1: DIGITAL ECONOMY BILL
LEAD: Colin Perry

GOVERNANCE
– Bill Project Board oversees the delivery of the Bill. Members are David Hendon (BIS)/Jon Zeff (DCMS) – joint SROs, Carola Geist-Divver (DCMS legal), Eve Race and Jose Martinez-Soto (BIS legal), Colin Perry (Bill Team Leader), Laura Williams (secretariat)
– Bill Management Group tracks progress and drives delivery of the Bill. Members are Colin Perry (Bill Team Leader) chair, Deputy Directors BIS/DCMS, Carola Geist-Divver (DCMS legal), Eve Race and Jose Martinez-Soto (BIS legal), Laura Williams (secretariat). Other policy leads attend as appropriate.

ACTIONS COVERED FROM THE FINAL REPORT [exceprts]:
􀂃 Amending the Communications Act 2003 to make the promotion of investment in communications infrastructure and content one of Ofcom’s principal duties.

􀂃 Ensure the Board of Ofcom has a statutory obligation to write to the Government alerting Secretaries of State to any matters of high concern regarding developments affecting the communications infrastructure and in any event to write every two years giving an assessment of the UK’s communications infrastructure.

􀂃 Encouraging, where appropriate, adjoining radio multiplexes to merge and extending existing multiplexes into currently un-served areas rather than awarding new licences. Grant Ofcom powers to alter multiplex licences which agree to merge.

􀂃 We will make an amendment to the existing legislation to support a change in the localness regulatory regime to allow location in mini regions defined by Ofcom.

􀂃 Grant a further renewal for up to seven years of analogue radio licences for broadcasters which are also providing a service on Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB).

􀂃 Grant Ofcom new powers to insert a two year termination clause into all radio licences awarded or further renewed before the Digital Radio Upgrade date.

PROJECT 6: DIGITAL RADIO UPGRADE
LEAD: John Mottram

ACTIONS COVERED FROM FINAL REPORT [in full]:
􀂃 Develop Action Plan for Digital Radio Upgrade, including a Cost/Benefit Analysis.

􀂃 Invite Consumer Expert Group to extend its current scope to inform the development of the Digital Radio Upgrade.

􀂃 Facilitate the roll-out of the BBC’s national multiplex to ensure it achieves coverage comparable to FM by the end of 2014.

􀂃 Encourage, where appropriate, adjoining local multiplexes to merge and extend coverage into currently un-served areas. Grant Ofcom powers to alter multiplex licences which agree to merge.

􀂃 Allow for the extension of multiplex operators’ licences until 2030, if part of an agreed plan towards Digital Radio Upgrade.

􀂃 Consider with Ofcom the case for delaying the implementation of AIP on DAB multiplexes until after the Digital Radio Upgrade is completed.

􀂃 Grant Ofcom new powers to extend the licence period of all national and local licences, broadcasting on DAB, for up to a further seven years, although this decision will be kept under review. In addition, amend the rules under which Ofcom grants analogue licence renewals to ensure that regional stations which do become national DAB stations do not lose their current or future renewal.

􀂃 Grant Ofcom new powers to insert a two year termination clause into all licences awarded or further renewed before the Digital Radio Upgrade date.

􀂃 Work with broadcasters and vehicle manufacturers to implement the ‘Digital Radio in vehicles: a five point programme’.

􀂃 Agree with Ofcom a two-year pilot of a new output regulatory regime.

􀂃 Reduction in number of locally-produced hours in exchange for enhanced commitment to local news.

􀂃 Ofcom to consult on a new map of mini-regions which balances the potential economic benefits but also the needs and expectations of listeners. We will make an amendment to the existing legislation to support this change.

􀂃 Consultation seeking views on proposals for a new licence renewal regime for community radio. This consultation will include proposals to remove the 50% funding limit from anyone source and the restriction preventing a station being licensed in an area overlapping with a small commercial service and extending our commitment to promoting best practice within the community sector and encouraging self-sustainability by allocating a small portion of the Community Radio Fund to support the work of the industry body, the Community Media Association.

􀂃 Insert two year termination clause into all new licences.

􀂃 Grant Ofcom new powers to extend the licence period of all national and local licences, broadcasting on DAB, for up to a further seven years (keep this decision under review). If by the end of 2013 it is clear the Digital Radio Upgrade timetable will not be achieved we will use the powers, set out above, to terminate licences and the existing licensing regimes will apply.

􀂃 Amend the rules under which Ofcom grants analogue licence renewals to ensure that regional stations which do become national DAB stations do not lose their current or future renewal.

"Above all else, Durham FM will be local" …. a promise is a comfort to a fool

Durham must be unique in Britain in that it once had its own local radio station and then had it taken away. BBC Radio Durham closed down in 1973 when the BBC, then limited to just twenty local radio services around the country moved the station in its entirety to Carlisle. It was reasoned that Durham could be adequately served from the north by Radio Newcastle and from the south by the then Radio Teesside. The same arguments can be heard today when, despite the proliferation of electronic media over the past thirty years, all the mass media serving the Durham area are based on Tyneside, on Teesside, in Darlington or in London. Our research and consultations confirm an almost universal desire for Durham to have its own radio station – for Durham and from Durham.

These words are taken from the winning licence application submitted to Ofcom by The Local Radio Company in January 2005 for the new Durham FM licence. The application continued:

There is an unduly low level of contact between the City of Durham and the many towns and villages which surround it. Those representing the towns and villages in the Districts away from the City also point to a reluctance to travel between those towns and villages. Local people feel marginalised by the existing media. When most local news and information comes from media dominated by out-of-area conurbations is it surprising that local awareness and pride starts to suffer? We see this as a major opportunity for Durham FM to provide an entertaining and informative local radio service which will have wide appeal…..

Durham FM will broaden the range of local commercial radio services by offering the only programming to focus exclusively on Durham City and the surrounding districts. In addition to the full range of national services, the proposed TSA is served by local radio stations based around Tyneside and Teesside. From the BBC there are BBC Radio Newcastle and BBC Radio Cleveland, while from commercial radio Metro Radio, Magic 1152, Century FM and Galaxy 105-106 all broadcast from Tyneside with TFM and Magic 1170 having their studios in Stockton-on-Tees…..

Only 8% of total news time on Metro Radio was devoted to stories drawn
from the proposed Durham FM editorial area…. With slightly more time devoted to news bulletins than on Metro, local news [on Magic 1152] about the Durham area featured a little more frequently, but still only 10% of news bulletin time was devoted to material directly relevant to the Durham FM TSA…. [On Century FM] our independent monitoring agency failed to identify a single reference to anywhere within the proposed Durham FM TSA…. There was no locally relevant news [on Galaxy FM] for the Durham FM area….

Durham FM will focus entirely on Durham and the districts surrounding it. Our programmes will be locally produced and presented from studios in Durham by people who know and understand the area. This independent monitoring of the existing services shows that no other ILR station in the area provides anything approaching the level of relevant local news and information which are demanded by the local population and will be offered by Durham FM. During the period monitored very few local news stories were included and there were very few locally relevant programme items on any of the four ILR services. Durham FM will become established as the only dependable, independent and up-to-the-minute source of information about what’s happening in the towns and villages of the Durham area….

Local material is vitally important to the success of Durham FM. Our detailed quantitative research, detailed later in this application, confirms that a gap exists in the Durham radio market for a greater quantity of Durham city and county news and local information. Whether expressed in terms of speech items that listeners would like to hear or those that they consider ‘essential’ listening it is local Durham and North East regional news, along with local weather forecasts and traffic and travel news for the Durham county area, that head the list of requirements….

All programmes on Durham FM will be locally produced and presented with the exception of a nationally networked chart show during three hours on a Sunday afternoon/evening and one latenight ‘phone-in of three hours duration each week. A limited further amount of appropriate network programming may be added outside weekday daytime once our local audience is established, after the second year on-air, but a minimum of 18 hours per day will always be locally produced and presented.

Following up this written application, Ofcom asked The Local Radio Company explicitly:
Are there any cost-saving sharing of resources planned arising from Durham FM’s close geographical proximity to both Alpha 103.2 and Sun FM?

The written answer from The Local Radio Company was:
It is our intention to operate Durham FM as a separate radio station with its own facilities, staff and objectives.

At its meeting on 7 April 2005, Ofcom’s Radio Licensing Committee [RLC] considered three competing applications for the new Durham FM licence and decided to award it to The Local Radio Company. Ofcom explained that this decision was made because:

…the speech commitments contained in Durham FM’s Format (such as a seven-day local news service) would improve Durham-specific news and information provision in the area, and that the overall programming proposals contained in the Format were both deliverable and would cater for local tastes and interests, as demonstrated by the group’s research. The RLC considered that, in relation to Section 314 of the Communications Act 2003, Durham FM’s programming proposals contained a suitable proportion of local material and locally-made programmes. The station will offer locally-made output for 18 hours per day, and the Format includes commitments to delivering a range of local material. The Committee noted that, after two years on air, the station’s Format gives it the ability to air networked programming at off-peak times, if it so chooses. [emphasis added]


Durham FM launched on 5 December 2005. The station failed to come anywhere close to the audience forecasts made in its licence application (see table). A radio station’s revenues are closely proportionate to the total hours listened to it. On that assumption, Durham FM must have been around 74% below its revenue target for Year Three – a catastrophic performance for a business that is operated on largely fixed costs. So how come The Local Radio Company’s forecasts in its licence application were so wildly optimistic? The application had said:

We have no doubt that these audience projections are realistic and achievable in the light of our experience of comparable services throughout Britain…. We have every confidence that Durham FM’s locally focussed programming, backed by a significant launch budget, will establish a substantial audience within a relatively short period of time.

And how come Ofcom was so confident that the Local Radio Company could meet these targets? Ofcom said:

Durham FM’s audience and revenue forecasts were considered to be achievable, and in this context RLC members noted the excellent ratings performance and track record of both Sun and Alpha in nearby areas which have a line-up of competitor stations very similar to that which the new Durham service will face.

So just how “excellent” were the performances of the neighbouring Sun and Alpha stations owned by the same applicant?


When Ofcom’s Radio Licensing Committee met in April 2005 to consider the Durham licence, it was becoming evident that Sun and Alpha were losing listening at an alarming rate, both stations having peaked in 2002 under previous owner Radio Investments Ltd. Similar audience losses were experienced across most stations owned by The Local Radio Company, following its disastrous decision in 2004 to homogenise the branding and content of its portfolio under the slogan “music:fun:life”. Essentially, the group sucked the quirky ‘localness’ out of its local stations and, unsurprisingly, listeners subsequently turned off in droves.

The end result? Durham FM presently has a 4.0% share of listening in its local market of 201,100 adults. By comparison, Galaxy has a 9.5% share, Magic 6.4%, Century/Real 6.5% and Smooth 4.8%. Metro FM and TFM together probably take 7.5% (Durham FM chooses not to itemise these two stations in its RAJAR report). BBC local radio takes a significant 8.8% share, even though Durham is only on the periphery of both BBC Radio Newcastle and BBC Radio Tees. [RAJAR Q1 2009]

In December 2008, The Local Radio Company submitted an application to Ofcom to move Durham FM’s studios to Sunderland, effectively closing the Durham location, but continuing to provide ‘local’ programmes for Durham from Sun FM in Sunderland. It argued that “the losses for Durham FM are significant”, the details of which had “been provided, in confidence, to Ofcom”. It argued that “this co-location will allow the station to build its audience on a more stable and secure financial basis” because “it has a poor financial history” and that “the proposals will be imperceptible to listeners in the local market place”.

At its meeting on 23 February 2009, following a five-week public consultation, Ofcom’s Radio Licensing Committee refused this request to move Durham FM to Sunderland because it decided that “the case for the existence of exceptional circumstances had not been made”. However, Ofcom did suggest that it could reconsider this request “later in the year” following publication of the Digital Britain final report. Interestingly, Ofcom noted that a previously approved request in March 2008 to allow the Durham station to share programming with Alpha FM in Darlington “has been scrapped by the licensee [so as] to secure all-local programming output on Durham FM”.

With an immediate move to Sunderland now off the agenda, The Local Radio Company moved on to Plan B. Next, it applied to Ofcom to effectively merge the output of Durham FM and Alpha in Darlington into one station to be called “Alpha”. So what would remain of the promised local programming for Durham? “Weekday breakfast programming and four-hour daytime shows on Saturday and Sunday will remain separately and locally produced in Durham….”, said the application. “At all other times, local programming will originate from Darlington”. Boldly, the application argued that “the character of the [radio] services will remain substantially unchanged” and “the essentially local nature of the [radio] services will remain”.

Suddenly, Durham and Darlington were to become a single local radio market:
We believe there is considerable editorial justification in combining much of the local programming of Durham FM and Alpha, and in originating the shared programmes from Darlington. Until 1997, when it became a unitary authority, Darlington was part of County Durham and still very much leans culturally towards the county. Equally, for listeners and advertisers in the county, the attraction of a local radio service focusing on Durham is greatest for those more remote from the Tyneside conurbation, particularly those in the towns nearer to Darlington. The general public, listeners and advertisers are accustomed to the County Durham local press being substantially based in Darlington.

Am I the only one who finds this line of argument totally unbelievable? Firstly, it directly contradicts the opposite assertions made in The Local Radio Company’s application for the licence four years earlier that Durham was not well served by other media in the region. Secondly, the licence application had demonstrated there were few community links between Durham and either Tyneside or Teesside. Thirdly, my personal experience is that, having lived in Durham for seven years, I never visited Darlington (which is 19 miles away by road), though I did go to Newcastle (16 miles) and Sunderland (13 miles) regularly. However, Ofcom barely blinked at the contradictions and was so eager to go along with the story that it approved this proposal without any kind of public consultation, stating:

Durham has already regionalised four of those hours, and the request sets out clearly the affinities between the two areas [Durham and Darlington]…. This is not seen a major change to the stations’ output, and the request is granted.

So, for the second time, Durham has effectively lost its local radio station and now retains only a local breakfast show hanging by the barest thread. I am not trying to argue that Durham must have a local commercial radio station, regardless of how much money it might lose. But, once again, the outcome for radio listeners in Durham seems to raise questions about the robustness of our system of local radio licensing:
· Before advertising the Durham licence in 2004, did Ofcom properly evaluate the potential for local radio advertising revenues in the market?
· How carefully did Ofcom scrutinise the application by The Local Radio Company, before awarding it the licence, in order to separate the ‘spin’ from the reality?
· Did Ofcom monitor and assess the Durham station to ensure that the promises made in its licence application were executed on the ground?
· Why is a ‘promise’ explicitly made in a radio licence application not a contractual promise? Or are the proposals promised in an application simply disregarded by Ofcom once an applicant has been awarded the licence?

The local station in Durham must have failed because either/and:
· It was licensed to fail – no commercial radio station could survive in too small and too poor a local market – in which case Ofcom should never have advertised the Durham licence
· The Local Radio Company did not paint a truthful picture in its licence application of the economics of opening a Durham station, and Ofcom did not critique it sufficiently
· The Local Radio Company’s execution of its business plan for the Durham radio station was badly flawed

In any of these cases, somebody needs to put up their hand and simply admit ‘we got it wrong’. What galls is that both The Local Radio Company and Ofcom appear to have almost connived to come up with a ridiculous new storyline – Durham is a lot closer to Darlington than we realised – which simply contradicts everything that had been said previously, but conveniently glosses over any notion that the present predicament was the result of poor judgement.

To be fair to The Local Radio Company, its latest submission to Ofcom did reiterate:
The present proposal to simply add two further hours of daily weekday sharing is made in the light of the difficult financial situation facing all stations such as these. Relevant financial information has been supplied to Ofcom in confidence.

It might engender much more respect for the parties if, instead of these economic vagaries cloaked in confidentiality, the application to Ofcom to request deconstruction of the Durham station had simply said:
We screwed up as a station owner, you screwed up too as a regulator, and all we can do now is the two of us try and salvage the situation to ensure that the citizens of Durham can at least retain the shell of a local radio service, even if not the substance. Between us, we recognise that all we have done is add insult to injury, repeating the BBC’s unwarranted removal of a local radio service for Durham in 1973. Our sincere apologies to the people of Durham. All we can hope is that, by both of us learning from our mistakes, this travesty will not be repeated either for a third time here in Durham or elsewhere.


What Northeast England now has in the enlarged ‘Alpha’ is the makings of yet another regional radio station that could (if Sun FM were included) cover the huge area stretching from Tyneside down to Yorkshire. It would then become the fifth regional station in the area, adding to Galaxy, Smooth, Magic and Real. As for genuinely local radio serving the Durham area, The Local Radio Company’s licence application already demonstrated very clearly that neither Metro Radio nor TFM cover Durham editorially. This leaves Durham, whose population seriously lacks economic mobility, back out in the local radio wilderness once again. If that isn’t public policy failure, then what is?

Durham must be unique in Britain in that it once had its own local radio station and then had it taken away. ….

Once is an accident, twice is a ……..?

Digital radio switchover: 'you can't move faster than the British public want you to move'

Feedback, BBC Radio 4, 31 July 2009 @ 1330

Sir Michael Lyons, chairman of the BBC Trust, interviewed by Roger Bolton and listeners:

[Do you think the principle of moving across to DAB is a good one?]

The BBC has been a strong supporter of digital radio, believing that it will actually offer an improved service, and …

[Improved in what way? The quality of the existing services will be made better? Or it allows you to provide a range of other services as well?]

I think both. But, of course, you only satisfy the first of those two tests when you’ve actually got the same sort of coverage [on DAB] that you’ve got on FM. And indeed, it’s important to say that the BBC has already picked up what commercial radio was going to do in terms of more investment to get to 90% of the population, and that will be achieved by 2011. But I think we’re going to go on to the question of ‘[FM] switch-off’ because actually that’s a different issue altogether ….

[Well, one of the key things of public service is universal access and, clearly, a lot of people are saying [that] until 2015 there won’t be one because, unlike a television set, perhaps we’ve got five or six radios around the house and a different radio in the car. And are you telling us we are going to have to buy five or six new radios and a new radio for the car in order to listen to something we might not want in the first place? That’s the argument.]

Well, let me underline that I’m not saying that. That’s actually in the government’s Green Paper – they propose a date of 2015. The Trust is very clear actually. Who comes first in this? Audiences and the people you pay the Licence Fee. It is an extraordinarily ambitious suggestion, as colleagues have referred to, that by 2015 we will all be ready for this. So you can’t move faster than the British public want you to move on any issue. So there’s no doubt that 2015 looks challenging.

[Chairman, are you prepared to say, on behalf of the listeners, to the government, whichever government is in power, if they are insistent in pushing this through and you believe that listeners will be significantly disadvantaged, are you prepared to say ‘no, the BBC can’t go along with this’?]

Well, as things stand at the moment, [in] the Digital Britain report, it seems that the BBC will find the money for this final stage, so there are serious discussions to be had about how it’s going to be funded, as well as whether actually 2015 is in any way a realistic timescale. Now, what I can say now, is that those have already formed part of our discussion with Ministers and will continue to form part of our discussions with Ministers.

[But, to repeat my question, are you prepared to say at some point, or countenance saying, to a Minister ‘no, we can’t go along with this because, in doing so, we will provide a disservice to our listeners’?]

Well, I think I’ve said as much I need to say today …..

[…. as a diplomatic chairman …..]

…. and also, you know, it’s very important that I don’t try and conduct any discussion I’m having with Ministers over the air.

Digital Radio Switchover: Parliamentary Question

20 July 2009 : Column 561
House of Commons
Monday 20 July 2009
The House met at half-past Two o’clock
Prayers
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
Culture, Media and Sport
The Secretary of State was asked—
Digital Radio Switchover

1. Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): What his most recent assessment is of progress on digital radio switchover; and if he will make a statement. [287437]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Siôn Simon): The “Digital Britain” White Paper set out the Government’s vision for the delivery of the digital radio upgrade by the end of 2015. We have committed to a review of the progress towards that timetable in spring 2010, and we have also asked Ofcom to review and publish progress against the upgrade criteria at least once a year, starting next year.

Sir Nicholas Winterton: Is the Minister not aware that “Digital Britain” has in fact failed to address the inadequacies of digital radio broadcasting coverage? I am sure that he will agree with that comment. Representations made to me so far suggest that the idea of a switchover is currently very unpopular. Instead of rushing ahead with the switchover, will he take positive action to allow people to see some tangible benefits?

Mr. Simon: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman thinks that we are rushing ahead. We have said that we will move Britain to digital by 2015. That gives consumers and the industry six years to make the upgrade, which we are doing because we are committed to radio, we believe in radio and we love radio, and radio will not have a future unless it goes digital. We are not switching off FM, and we are putting new services on the FM spectrum that is vacated by the services which move to digital audio broadcasting, because we want to see radio prosper and grow in the digital age.

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): Is my hon. Friend aware that switchover is affecting valued services on both radio and television? I have been lobbied by Teachers TV, which fears that it will lose an enormous part of its audience because the Department for Children, Schools and Families is stipulating that it must switch over totally to digital.

Mr. Simon: We are ensuring with radio switchover that community organisations and small community radio stations, which might currently be able to broadcast for only two weeks a year, will inherit the FM spectrum currently taken up by big regional and national FM broadcasters. Precisely such small, commercial, local community organisations will be able to flourish in the digital future in a way that they are technologically constrained from doing now.

Adam Price (Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr) (PC): The Minister is a Welsh speaker, so is he aware of the fears for the future of Radio Cymru, the BBC’s Welsh language national service? It is not currently available on digital and will not be available in large swathes of western Wales for reasons of topography.

Mr. Simon: I have, with personal regret, to tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not really a Welsh speaker. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Dwi’n dysgu, ’de? I should have been a Welsh speaker. We are alive to the particular problems of Wales. There are serious problems with coverage, not just with respect to Radio Cymru but with digital coverage throughout Wales. We have made it clear that the nations and regions that are furthest behind in digital coverage will be the first priority for the most serious intervention, to ensure that they are not left behind when we move to digital. We have made it clear also that we will not move to digital unless 90 per cent. coverage at the very least is achieved.

Mr. Jeremy Hunt (South-West Surrey) (Con): I start by welcoming you to your post, Mr. Speaker—an elevation that was only marginally more likely than man walking on the moon, which happened 40 years ago today. I offer you my congratulations. I am sure that you will want to join me in offering the congratulations of the whole House to the England cricket team, which won an historic victory today—their first victory over the Australians at Lord’s for 75 years. We would also like to congratulate the Minister on taking up his post in the DCMS team. The Government’s own figures state that there are 65 million analogue radios in circulation, and they hope that the cost of digital radios will fall to £20 a set. That means that the cost of upgrading the nation’s analogue radio stock will surpass £1 billion. Who will pay that £1 billion? Will it be the Government, or will it be consumers?

Mr. Simon: Mr. Speaker, I should apologise for having forgotten to congratulate you; I thought that we were taking your position for granted by now, but it is my first time speaking under your chairmanship. I offer my very sincere congratulations. I never thought that your elevation was unlikely.

Mr. Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con): What about cricket?

Mr. Simon: The hon. Gentleman shouts “cricket” from a sedentary position. I can tell him that the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), was at the cricket, which almost certainly accounts for the first English victory at Lord’s since, I believe, 1934. In response to what we might call the “Tory sums” of the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt)— [Interruption.] No, Tory sums. We do not know how many analogue radios are in circulation; it may be 65 million. The first point to make is that those sets will not become redundant. The FM spectrum will be well used for new services that are currently squeezed out. We are working with industry to come up with sets that are consistently priced at £20 or less. That will enable consumers to add to the 9 million digital sets—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I gently say to the hon. Gentleman, who has been extremely generous in his remarks, that I do not want to have to press the switch-off button, but I am a bit alarmed that he has a second point in mind? It might be better if he kept it for the long winter evenings.

Mr. Hunt: The point is that if people use their analogue sets, they will be able to listen to new radio stations, but not the radio stations that they have been listening to for a very long time. Was it not the height of irresponsibility to announce the phasing out of analogue spectrum without announcing any details or any funding for a help scheme, similar to the one that was in place for TV switchover? Will that not cause widespread concern among millions of radio listeners, who will feel that they are faced with the unenviable choice of either paying up or switching off?

Mr. Simon: I shall try to squeeze in my answer at the end of that extraordinarily long question. We will do exactly the same with radio as we did with television: we will carry out a full cost-benefit analysis of exactly what kind of help scheme might or might not be required, and we will proceed accordingly. There are 9 million digital sets in use already. Consumers have six years to decide how much they want to pay, for what equipment, to receive which services.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090720/debtext/90720-0001.htm

Digital Radio Upgrade: everyone's a winner?

For every winner, there is inevitably a loser (or three). The ‘Digital Radio Upgrade’ proposals contained in the Digital Britain Final Report are no exception. It is relatively easy to see who the winners will be from its proposals, as some of these are made explicit in the accompanying Impact Assessment:
• “the beneficiaries of these proposals are primarily [DAB] multiplex operators” (p.12)
• “benefits of £38.9m per annum [to broadcasters] for each year after dual transmission on analogue and DAB ceases” (p.12)
• “cost savings to [commercial radio] national broadcasters of licence extensions approximately £10m” (p.12)
• “cost savings [to local commercial radio stations] of co-location and increased networking £23m” (p.12)

However, the losers are made far less explicit in the fine print of the Impact Assessment:
• “merging [DAB] multiplexes will reduce the overall capacity available for DAB services, therefore reducing the potential for new services” (p.117)
• “reduced capacity on local multiplexes might result in some services losing their current carriage on DAB” (p.117)
• “extending the licence period of existing analogue services would reduce the opportunities for new entrants” (p.119)

There would appear to be a degree of contradiction here. Digital Britain also insisted that:
• “DAB should deliver new niche services, such as a dedicated jazz station …. The radio industry has already begun to agree a pan-industry approach to new digital content …” (p.98 main report)

However, the Impact Assessment admits that amalgamation of existing local DAB multiplexes will reduce their capacity, “therefore reducing the potential for new services”. Worse, it states that some existing stations broadcasting on DAB will have to be bumped off as a result of local multiplex amalgamation.

So the potential losers from Digital Radio Upgrade would seem to be:
• commercial stations presently carried on local DAB multiplexes who might have to be bumped because there is no longer the capacity after amalgamation
• local commercial stations presently carried on their local DAB multiplex who will have to quit DAB because they do not wish to serve the enlarged geographical area after amalgamation of multiplexes (for example, the cost of DAB carriage for Kent/Sussex/Surrey is likely to be considerably higher than Kent alone)
• new entrants

The local commercial radio stations bumped from DAB will fall into two types:
• digital-only stations (such as Yorkshire Radio) whose current regional multiplex will be transformed into a national (or quasi-national) multiplex under Digital Britain proposals – such stations have no analogue broadcast licence and could lose their radio broadcast platform altogether
• analogue local stations who were simulcasting on DAB, but whose multiplex has either bumped them post-amalgamation, or who are not in the market to pay more for increased coverage across a much larger area – many of these stations have had their Ofcom analogue licences renewed on condition that they simulcast on DAB. If they are now forced off DAB, will Ofcom take their licences away?

In the rush to frame proposals in Digital Britain that respond to the circumstances of the large radio players with substantial investments in DAB infrastructure, it might appear that the voices of the smaller local commercial radio stations have got lost in the stampede of lobbying. These stations might be small in number but many of them remain standalone, so they will not benefit financially from the relaxation of co-location rules. Digital Britain is condemning many of them to remain on FM (or AM), leaving the large radio groups to dominate the DAB platform.

Although the proposals in Digital Britain have been framed to ‘help’ local commercial radio, overwhelmingly they will reduce the financial burden of group radio owners with local station operations in adjacent areas, and of group owners who have invested in DAB infrastructure. There is little in the way of financial benefits for independent local commercial stations, or for potential new entrants, both of whom face being crowded out of the DAB platform.

Paying for Digital Britain's 'Digital Radio Upgrade': who, me?

The Digital Britain Final Report published in June 2009 proposed that the UK radio industry embark on a ‘Digital Radio Upgrade’ which would seem to involve (take a deep breath):

· Providing greater choice and functionality for listeners (para.15)
· Listeners who can currently access radio can still do so after Upgrade (para.15)
· Building a DAB infrastructure which meets the needs of broadcasters, multiplex owners and listeners (para.21)
· Redrawing the regional DAB multiplex map (para.21)
· The BBC beginning “an aggressive rollout” of its national DAB multiplex to ensure its coverage achieves that of existing FM by 2014 (para.23)
· Commercial radio to extend the coverage of its national DAB multiplex and to improve indoor reception (para.21)
· Investment to ensure that local DAB multiplexes compare with existing FM coverage (para.24)
· The extension and improvement of local DAB coverage (para.25)
· Measures to address the existing failings of the existing DAB multiplex framework (para.26)
· The merger of adjoining local DAB multiplexes and the extension of existing multiplexes into currently unserved areas (para.26)
· The existing regional multiplexes to consolidate and extend to form a second national commercial radio multiplex (para.26)
· Convincing listeners that DAB offers significant benefits over analogue radio (para.28)
· DAB to deliver “new niche [radio] services” and to gain better value from existing content (para.29)
· DAB to offer more services other than new stations (para.30)
· DAB to offer greater functionality and interactivity (para.31)
· Implementation of digitally delivered in-car traffic and travel information (para.31)
· DAB radio receivers to be priced at below £20 within two years (para.32)
· Introduction of add-on hardware (similar to Freeview boxes) to enable consumers to upgrade their analogue receivers (para.32)
· Energy consumption of DAB radio receivers to be reduced (para.33)
· New cars to be sold with digital radios by 2013 (p.99 box)
· A common logo to identify and label DAB radios (p.99 box)
· Development of portable digital radio converters (p.99 box)
· Integration of DAB radio into other vehicle devices such as ‘SatNav’ (p.99 box)
· Work with European partners to develop a common approach to digital radio (p.99 box)

A lengthy list. And who is going to pay for all this? Digital Britain stated that “the investment needed to achieve the Digital Radio Upgrade timetable will on the whole be made by the existing radio companies” (para.44). This means the BBC and the commercial radio sector. And what exactly do these radio broadcasters think about having to pay for all these proposals without the aid of specific government funding? A seminar organised by the Westminster Media Forum this morning gave us an opportunity to find out. Here’s what was said about the Digital Radio Upgrade issue (speech excerpts):

Caroline Thomson, Chief Operating Officer, BBC [‘CT’]:
“The [Digital Britain] report is clear that there is an ambitious target for analogue switch-off in 2015. It is an ambitious target. Radio switch-off is a very different issue from television switchover, but we are supportive of this ambition and we will work with partners in the industry towards delivering it. And we have already made a lot of progress working with commercial radio to develop the policies on this. But, at the heart of it, we must remember that we must put listeners first and be careful not to damage the ability of listeners to tune in to the content they love. Working with commercial radio to secure the digital future in a way that will work for all our listeners is a crucial part of this. As my colleague Tim Davie, Director of [BBC] Audio & Music, said recently: ‘unless we huddle together for scale, we are going to be in trouble’. The BBC is drawing up our digital rollout plans in radio to see where and when it is possible to extend DAB coverage, and how much it would cost. We are willing partners, and DAB is a good example of an area of the Digital Britain report where we are helping to meet the charge.”

Andrew Harrison, Chief Executive, RadioCentre [‘AH’]:
“The real choice, which Digital Britain identifies, is which broadcast platform do we want – FM or DAB. And here, the genie is out of the bottle. DAB now exists on 10m sets, the BBC will not withdraw 6Music and BBC7 or the Asian Network or Five Live Extra – it never withdraws services – and commercial services will not fold DAB-only stations like Planet Rock or Jazz FM. Digital Britain has been clear in its aspiration – national, regional and larger local stations will have a clear pathway to upgrade to DAB and switch off FM. Smaller players will have a clear opportunity to remain on FM without an obligation to move across to DAB. Strategically, that’s a simple resolution – both will co-exist. So, next we need a plan to work out how we might achieve the migration criteria – on transmitter coverage, set sales and in-car penetration. The devil inevitably will be in the detail. But we need two strong interventions from government – on coverage and on cars – before any migration plan will be taken seriously. On cars, Digital Britain falls short of mandating manufacturers, unlike in France, to put digital radio in all cars from 2013. Encouragingly, Ford and Vauxhall have both confirmed their intent to upgrade in line with the timeline for 2013, but we need government to force the pace. On coverage, Lord Carter has ducked the funding issue. The commercial sector has already built out its national and local multiplexes as far as is commercially viable. So I’m delighted to hear Caroline emphasise that the BBC is supportive of the direction and ambition for digital radio and are willing partners helping to fund the change. It’s now time for the BBC and government to stop their wider dance around the BBC’s future role and theoretical possible future uses of the Licence Fee which have never been paid for before, and [to] instead consider how to broker a coverage plan for digital radio that will make it happen.”

Carolyn McCall, Chief Executive, Guardian Media Group [‘CM’]:
“It’s hard to escape the feeling that what the Digital Britain report has done is just gone: ‘we recognise the issue, big issue DAB’. They said something like that, which is pretty important, but they have just gone: ‘Ofcom, deal with it’. That’s how it strikes me. It just seems that so much of this on radio is being left to Ofcom to deal with. And if what I read is true, David Cameron doesn’t want an Ofcom anyway. So that is quite a serious issue for us as an industry. The most worrying aspect of the report in relation to radio is the assertion that investment needed to achieve the Digital Radio Upgrade will be made by existing radio companies. Effectively, the promise of deregulation is being made conditional on commercial radio funding digital [upgrade], stumping up more money that the commercial industry simply cannot afford. We’ve always had too much regulation for a small industry struggling in an unregulated digital world. While we back DAB, I don’t think any commercial broadcaster is going to feel comfortable about paying for those developments. The final point on radio is that, at a time when that industry in particular needed some clarity, the report does not give us any clarity. What new powers will Ofcom have, what role will they be expected to play, what is the position on the vital issue of Format change, what is meant by greater flexibility in relation to co-location, and mini-regions? The list goes on. I would say to Stephen [Carter], or Ben [Bradshaw], or indeed Jeremy Hunt, we need urgent clarifications on these issues and quickly.”

Q&A session [excerpts]:

[Is analogue radio switch-off going to include the [BBC] Radio 4 Long Wave signal?]

CT: That is the government policy. The policy is to switch off all analogue radios.

[Existing DAB coverage is not good enough?]

AH: Right now, self-evidently, DAB coverage is not good enough for anyone to consider switchover. There is a bill to be paid to deliver that public policy imperative. As long as that bill is met and covered, I think the BBC and the commercial sector would confidently switch over knowing the coverage is better ….

[Unless you start spending money now, and if you are, where is it going to come from, it’s not going to happen, is it?]

CT: First of all, we will not do the analogue switch-off unless it is the case that there are very big thresholds that have already been passed, particularly about car radios. And the challenges of getting to those thresholds by 2013, which is what we’ve said, are enormous, even if we build out the transmission. So let me just be clear. It is not the BBC’s policy to switch off FM or Long Wave until we are secure and clear – that is why I made the reference to listeners in my speech – that that is the policy which will work for listeners. On the money, for now we don’t have the money to build out beyond 90% – that is our current build-out – and the final 10% costs much more per percentage than the previous 90%, but we will look forward to a discussion with the government about it. We would like to be able to do it because, in the long term, as for commercial radio, running dual illumination [FM/DAB simulcasting] costs a lot of money so a switchover in 2020 costs us more than a switchover in 2015. But we won’t do the switchover in 2015 unless we believe particularly that car radios are up …..


CM: This point about digital radio [switchover]. There are no funds. I am not really convinced […noise…] and margins are slim because everyone has been hit by the recession quite badly. I don’t know where the money is going to come from for digital switchover of radio.

AH: I remain confident that where we are now with Digital Britain from the radio perspective is into the negotiation now – who pays for this? Frankly that is a negotiation that is far more likely to be concluded positively in the next few months between the BBC and a Labour government than under a Conservative government, so I remain optimistic that both sides will be brought to the table. In terms of who pays and who can afford this, the reality is that the BBC Licence Fee is £3.5bn, that’s seven times the total income of commercial radio. The cost of DAB coverage build-out is about £5m a year – that’s less than Jonathon Ross’ salary or Michael Lyons’ pension fund – so it’s purely a question of priorities for the BBC. I would have thought that it is quite within the limit of the BBC’s talented management to come up with a solution that can meet the public purposes set out for DAB and still deliver all the wonderful content that we enjoy.

Funding DAB radio improvements: who pays?

At the Radio Festival in Nottingham, the final session on Wednesday 1 July 2009 @ 1215 was a discussion about the future of UK radio that was broadcast live on BBC Radio 4’s Media Show and hosted by Steve Hewlett. Part of the discussion was about DAB in the UK following the publication last month of the Digital Britain report.

Amongst its range of proposals, Digital Britain had recommended:
· “at a national level, we will look to the BBC to begin an aggressive roll-out of its [DAB] national multiplex to ensure its national digital radio services achieve coverage comparable to FM by the end of 2014”
· “where possible, the BBC and national commercial multiplex operator should work together to ensure that any new transmitters benefit both BBC and commercial multiplexes”
· “further investment is required if local DAB is ever to compare with existing local FM coverage”

How will this improved DAB infrastructure be paid for? Digital Britain had suggested:
· in some geographical areas, “the BBC will need to bear a significant portion of the costs”
· “however, the full cost cannot be left to the BBC alone”
· “some [commercial radio] cost-savings must support future [DAB] transmitter investment by the local multiplex providers”
· “the investment needed to achieve the Digital Radio Upgrade timetable will on the whole be made by the existing radio companies”

Interviewed about these issues for the Media Show were:
Tim Davie, Director of Audio & Music, BBC [TD]
Phil Riley, former Chief Executive, Chrysalis Radio [PR]

[Tim, where is this money coming from?]

TD: The truth is that I can’t say I can find it. What I have been saying very clearly is that I can make a case for it. And, where the money comes, or could come, from I think is pretty well articulated in public debate, which is… We have been spending money against broader digital distribution projects – the digital television switchover – and where we spend the Licence Fee beyond content, it’s this thing called the ring fenced fund where we’ve been investing in digital television switchover. Now, as the radio guy, it’s saying ‘we have a case for this medium’. We love radio. We think there’s a really good case for it being there as an investment ….

[This investment has got to happen pretty quickly to stand any chance of getting us to the 2015 date which the government have set us as their target for switching from analogue to DAB. That means quite a lot of things have got to happen by 2013. That’s into the next Licence Fee settlement. So you need to find £100m for your 600 extra [DAB] transmitters, or whatever it is, in this settlement. Have you got it?]

TD: Well, we have said that we don’t think – and we’re yet to see what that looks like because we haven’t done TV switchover that ….

[Have you got the money? You have to start spending now, you can’t leave it because [otherwise] you’re never going to get there, are you?]

TD: We’ve said that as part of Digital Britain – it’s all in the report – it says that in the course of the next 12 months, even if we wanted to spend money at this point, we don’t quite know what we are spending it on. Without getting too technical, if you look at the ….

[On ‘Feedback’, you’ve said 600 transmitters are needed to get to an equivalent coverage of FM and you said the BBC wouldn’t go there unless coverage was roughly equivalent to FM.]

TD: Specifically, the minority of money is those 600 transmitters that gets you on the national multiplex, which is what the big stations like Radio 4 go on, that gets you to 98% cover. The bigger money is in sorting out the regional and local stations which are a bit of a patchwork and that investment – the numbers are loose because we are going to be doing some detailed planning with the commercial sector on ….

[Very briefly, a one-word answer. Do you have any money set aside now to spend on this purpose?]

TD: No.

[Splendid.]

………………………..

[Does commercial radio have any money to spend on this proposal?]

PR: If you read the Digital Britain report in its totality, there are a number of proposals for changing the way commercial radio operates, in terms of co-location and regional licences becoming national networks. Now, bringing all of that together as a piece, will that free up sufficient additional funds for the commercial sector to be able to roll out more digital? I don’t know. You’ll have to ask the other commercial players.

[What’s your guess?]

PR: ‘No’ is the answer at the moment.

[Because one of the issues with DAB surely is that the commercial side of the equation has already, in commercial terms, failed. Increased costs, but no increased revenues. Not even Channel 4 was able to galvanise it to make it change. Is there a commercial model in DAB at all, do you think?]

PR: I think DAB is a terrific platform. The die has been cast. 9 million sets, 20% of all listening. DAB is here to stay. So, we can’t go back to not having DAB so actually we’ve got to go forward and we’ve got to go forward with as sufficient a pace as we can. My concern would be trying to go forward too fast and falling over ourselves.

[The government has said they want to do this in 2015. They have said that by 2013 they won’t press the button to switch off [FM] until …. They will give 2 years’ notice. So, by 2013, I think they want 50% of listening to be on DAB, and 90%+ coverage of DAB across the country. Is that timetable in any way realistic? The BBC say they have no money set aside just now. You say that you don’t. How’s it going to happen?]

PR: I think Tim famously used the euphemism ‘ambitious’ yesterday and I think ‘ambitious’ is the right word for it. Personally, I can’t see us getting to 2013 although, to be fair to the Digital Britain report, it says it will test it every year from 2013 and when we get there, then we will move on to Phase Two.

[Tim, lots and lots of listeners have contacted this programme and other programmes whenever they have been asked and are very very worried about this. They think they might have 3, 4, 5, 10 – 15 in one case – analogue radio sets and they have been asked to go through all the rigmarole of changing them and ‘what for?’ is the question they ask. ‘Why are you asking me to do this? It’s not broke, don’t fix it’.]

TD: If you look at the industry as a whole, you could argue that we are not ready for the future. Actually, although we have some fantastic services on-air now, we have just talked about commercial radio – their financial model looks pretty broken at this point.

[Isn’t the key question ‘content’?]

TD: I think the case to the listener is really clear, which is – digital radio can present a much wider range of national stations, it can offer functional benefits. We’ve seen what that can bring in something like television. There is a real challenge for the industry to step up to the plate and deliver that content, and that has to happen. And, to be very clear, I am very worried, like the listeners, that if you have all these old [analogue radio] sets and there is no benefit, we should not be moving. What’s happened in the last few weeks though, and months, is that the radio industry as a whole has said ‘we’re going to go for DAB and we’re going to try the transition to digital’. We haven’t said that it is actually happening until we’ve earnt that, which will be at a threshold level.

Commercial radio in Germany and Switzerland rejects DAB radio

The commercial radio industries in Germany and Switzerland have both rejected proposals that they should invest in developing the DAB digital radio system in their countries to replace existing FM/AM transmissions. The German argument against DAB was that the significant investment required simply did not justify the lengthy wait for a financial return, based on evidence from other European countries that have already introduced DAB radio.

This news is a blow to UK broadcasters and technological companies who have long hoped that the DAB system would become the pan-European digital radio broadcast standard. In June 2009, the Digital Britain Final Report had proposed the government would “work with our European partners, including the European Commission, to develop a common European approach to digital radio”. This proposal drew on the work of its predecessor, the Digital Radio Working Group, whose Final Report had noted in December 2008 that “Germany has plans to launch DAB+ across the country in 2009, while France will launch DMB audio services at around the same time”.

Not only do the German and Swiss announcements impact the prospects of UK consumers benefiting from economies of scale that could have reduced the retail prices of DAB receivers. They also throw doubt over the willingness of European car manufacturers to install DAB radios in new cars, if the broadcast technology is still only implemented in a handful of countries. A week ago, UK technology company Imagination Technologies, whose processors are used in over 80% of DAB radio receivers, had said that “recent announcements from France, Germany, Denmark and Eastern Europe …. mean that the global market for digital radios and digital radio technology is due to take off”. Frontier Silicon, the UK’s leading supplier of DAB radio chips, had announced a US$10m investment in production of a new advanced DAB chip at the beginning of 2009 and had noted that “penetration of DAB radios in the year continues to rise, with ageing analogue broadcasting systems [due to be] switched off in Switzerland ….” The profitability of both companies is very dependent upon the uptake of DAB technology more widely than only their home market.

In Germany, the association of private broadcasters (VPRT) issued a statement on Thursday which said: “The conditions required for a successful introduction, always a prerequisite, have not been met. … For VPRT’s private radio companies, the significant initial and operating costs are too great. Against the backdrop of the economic crisis, such investments are a certain risk. … The VPRT member radio companies have, therefore, concluded that DAB+ has no economically viable future. Even with significant promotion of the system by public funds for at least the next five to ten years and under regulatory pressure, there is only a slim chance of partially recovering (the costs) within the market. Against this background, the VPRT speaks against the planned introduction of DAB+ in the autumn of 2009.”

The World DMB Forum, the international agency promoting the adoption of DAB technology, describes Germany as “among the leading European proponents of DAB Digital Radio” with 546,000 DAB radios sold to date and 116 different radio services available on the platform. Its June 2009 update said that “it is planned that by 2012 most of the German population will have access to the [DAB] services”. Without the co-operation of commercial radio operators, it now looks unlikely that this target will be met.

In Switzerland, the Association of Private Radios (VSP) issued a statement the same day as the Germans, which said: “Today’s ruling by the VPRT makes even more difficult the launch of DAB+ in the whole German-speaking world and VSP recommends that all members use realistic calculations before beginning.” VSP said that the pursuit of DAB radio could create an additional cost of 5 to 8 million Swiss francs “until break even is reached”. Whilst it acknowledged that such an investment could “make sense for strategic market reasons” for one or two players, for the rest of the commercial sector it felt that the financial requirements “exceed the entrepreneurial risk”.

Switzerland presently has around 20 million FM radio receivers, but only 300,000 DAB receivers and an unknown quantity of newer DAB+ receivers. The commercial radio industry there noted that it anticipates greater competition for radio listening will derive from internet-delivered services. Both German and Swiss commercial radio have warned that a phasing out of FM technology would lead to lower revenues, reduced investment and fewer jobs in their companies, and would thus reduce diversity of media voices in their markets.

At the same time, elsewhere in Europe, the decision by the French government that every new car in France will have to include a digital radio from 2012 is looking increasingly challenging. At the recent EBU Digital Radio conference, it was revealed that the decision had been made by the Ministry of Industry without the benefit of prior consultations with technology companies. The French media regulator, the CSA, is only now meeting industrialists this month to discuss the urgent requirement to manufacture car radios by 2012 that include the T-DMB digital standard (a variant of DAB) adopted in France.

Although both the DAB+ and the T-DMB technologies are part of the DAB family of standards, the overwhelming majority of the 9m DAB radios purchased to date in the UK are unable to process either DAB+ or T-DMB signals and would therefore be of no use in Germany or France. Swiss commercial radio, meanwhile, has expressed more interest in using another technology, ‘HD Radio’, which is not part of this DAB family of standards but is the digital radio broadcast system already used in the US and which requires altogether different radio receivers.

[Many thanks to Michael Hedges for his translations and for his excellent ongoing coverage of these issues in Follow The Media]