Tag: DAB

DAB: there is no alternative?

The most startling suggestion in the recent report on “The Drive to Digital” commissioned by RadioCentre is the part that details the prerequisites for commercial radio to “forge ahead with DAB”:

“This requires changes to terms of trade and the active support of the other principal players in radio – the government, Ofcom, the BBC and Arqiva – including commitment not to pursue alternative technologies to DAB” [emphasis added].

In other words, commercial radio considers that the way to make the DAB platform a successful technology is to force the remaining stakeholders – notably the BBC – to stop using other alternative digital delivery platforms (the internet, Freeview, Sky, FreeSat, mobile phones) to distribute radio. This would effectively force consumers who want to listen to, for example, digital station BBC7 to purchase DAB radios whereas, at present, the station can be received on the full range of digital platforms.

This sounds like an extreme solution to a challenging problem, beating consumers with a DAB ‘stick’. After almost a decade, the industry has had to reluctantly admit that its ‘carrot’ approach has failed to convince the public of the value of DAB radio. The RadioCentre report acknowledges that “[DAB] has been plagued by a damaging combination of slow take-up, poor coverage, high costs and uncompelling content” and that “there is not as much DAB-only material as hoped, and very little that’s truly compelling – there’s no ‘must have’ content as with sports & movies on Sky [TV]”.

The notion of forcing, rather than persuading, the public to use the DAB platform had been touched upon in the Final Report of the Digital Radio Working Group published in December 2008. It noted that “many of the consumer groups believe that, once an announcement [of an AM/FM switch-off date] is made, no equipment should be sold that does not deliver both DAB and FM”.

Such a proposal would prove impossible to put into practice. Most consumer electronics hardware is made by global companies whose models benefit from ‘universality’ and not from having to manufacture a special UK-only version that would incorporate the DAB platform. Right now, there is not a single mobile phone on sale in the UK that includes the DAB platform, and that situation is unlikely to change because Nokia, Samsung, Sony, LG and Motorola understandably consider FM radio to be the universal radio platform.

A similarly unrealistic proposal for DAB surfaced in March 2008, when Channel 4 Radio commissioned an independent report that proposed:

“to distribute one digital (DAB+) radio set [free of charge] to each household – approximately 26 million sets in total – to stimulate mass take up of digital radio. The sets would be provided over a period of three years, starting in 2010, with 80% distributed over the first two. The total cost of the ‘switch-on’ plan (DAB+ sets, marketing campaign and administration) would be £383m […]. Preliminary thinking is that distribution would use vouchers that would be redeemed in larger retail outlets or via promotional codes online”.

The report anticipated that such a mass consumer giveaway “could result in 60% digital listening by 2012” whereas, without it, “digital listening may not reach 60% until 2017, with analogue switch-off no earlier than 2020”. However, the hypothesis failed to consider that a household given a free DAB radio might not necessarily use it, if there were no radio content of sufficient appeal broadcast on the platform. Given that the average household has six radio receivers, a free distribution such as this might simply result in a glut of unused DAB receivers advertised on E-bay.

Such unrealistic proposals only serve to demonstrate a phenomenon highlighted by a web site that is currently nominating DAB radio for the ‘Fiasco Award 2009’ in Spain:

“The fact that a technology is possible does not necessarily mean that people is willing to pay for it, and the fact that Institutions and Companies support it does not mean they did the necessary previous research: they were probably just thinking that they didn’t want to be left behind.”

In the case of the DAB platform, its forced take-up would be the last opportunity remaining for the largest UK commercial radio owners to throw a protectionist cloak around their assets. Through their joint ownership of the DAB platform infrastructure in the UK, this handful of companies hope to limit UK citizens’ future radio listening to their content broadcast on their stations received via their DAB platform. To make this scenario work, of course it would be essential to eradicate competing digital radio platforms.

And why are radio owners so desperate? An excellent US article this week by Seeking Alpha’s Jeff Jarvis expressed the reasons most eloquently:

“We’ve been wringing hands over newspapers and magazines, but TV and radio aren’t far behind. Broadcast is next. It’s a failure of distribution as a business model. Distribution is a scarcity business: ‘I control the tower/press/wire and you don’t and that’s what makes my business.’ Not long ago, they said that owning these channels was tantamount to owning a mint. No more. The same was said of content. But it’s relationships (read: links) that create value today. Young [Broadcasting, filing for bankruptcy with $1bn debt] tried to build relationships, once upon a time. At WKRN in Nashville, Mike Sechrist did amazing work starting blogs, building relationships with bloggers, training the community in the skills of the TV priesthood. But he left and all that disappeared. Been there, done that, I can imagine executives saying as they try to stuff the hole in the dike with borrowed dollars. Didn’t work. The local TV and radio business, once a privilege to be part of, is next to fall. Timber.”

As if that was not enough, the credit crunch has exposed the flimsy financial arrangements of recent radio acquisition deals. This was perfectly explained by Jerry Del Colliano’s consistently provocative US blog in an entry entitled ‘Radio: bankrupt in 6 to 12 months’:

“Consolidated radio groups are facing bankruptcy because some will not be able to restructure their massive debt — the debt they acquired in the first place when they paid too much for overvalued radio stations. No one worried about it then. But now, it’s time to pay the piper. Why else do you think radio people who know better are hunkering down for what they know is coming — default.”

“One reader, a radio executive, claims New York money types are not just talking about the possibility of radio groups defaulting, but the probability. Some think it can happen within six months to a year. Radio groups like Cumulus, Univision, Clear Channel, Entercom — in fact, most of them — have structures that make it difficult to survive if debt cannot be restructured. And in case you haven’t noticed, money is hard to come by these days…….”

“Radio groups are more susceptible because they are leveraged to such a high degree. That’s the reason that the stock prices are so low. Shareholder equity is zero as every single penny of cash flow currently goes to servicing debt. Soon, they won’t be able to service the debt and/or they will be in violation of covenants with the banks and/or equity lenders who will seek to take the stations back.”

If this sounds like cross-Atlantic doom-mongering, I assure you that there are UK banks out there already demanding their pound of flesh from more than one indebted UK radio group. 2009 will not be a pretty year. Particularly when Quarter 4 2008 UK radio revenues were down 15% year-on-year, their lowest quarter since 1999.

In these troubled times, proposing radio sector policies to preserve broadcasters’ oligopolies, or to artificially stifle the development of competing delivery platforms, is not what is needed. Sure, you might wish to be the only ship on the ocean but, if your rust bucket has a hole in its hull, you will drown anyway.

[thanks to The Guardian’s Jack Schofield]

Localness: please, sir, can I have some less?

The government’s announcement that an independent review group will look at the ‘localness’ issues relating to content on commercial radio could re-ignite a war of words between the stakeholders that a year ago ended in a tense ceasefire. Last time, hostilities between the large radio owners and Ofcom became elevated to such an extent that the regulator’s chief executive Ed Richards even used the Annual Ofcom Lecture to chastise the commercial radio industry for its persistent lobbying to loosen its ‘localness’ obligations:

“Some [radio owners] have called for a huge relaxation in relation to localness, some in the industry even call for a complete removal of all regulation. They believe that localness is either no longer valued or that its value is significantly outweighed by its cost. The problem is that the evidence is to the contrary. What our research tells us is that people continue to want to hear local programming. …. But we are not convinced that the market alone will deliver this if left to its own devices. We recognise very clearly the significant economic challenges faced by the radio sector, but our forthcoming proposals will not involve eliminating the obligation to deliver local programming or its reduction to a negligible level.”

Ofcom subsequently published its policy statement on localness in February 2008 and although, on the surface, it might have looked as if a ceasefire had broken out between the two sides, behind the scenes the industry’s lobbying for further reductions of its ‘localness’ obligations continued regardless. Ofcom had estimated that its policy changes would save the radio sector £9.4m to £11.7m per annum from a cost base of around £620m. For the radio industry, these potential savings were simply not enough. Andrew Harrison, chief executive of RadioCentre, argued that “the heavy burden of the existing localness regulation and legislation [..] is holding back current profitability and future investment in the sector”. By December 2008, industry lobbying had succeeded in persuading the Digital Radio Working Group to recommend in its Final Report that:

“commercial radio must be given greater freedom to shape its digital future to provide a sustainable future for local radio in a digital world through a relaxation of analogue localness requirements………”

and to comment that:

“…. a model which focuses so heavily on where content is made may not be the best way to deliver either what listeners will most want in the future or allow the industry space to grow. We therefore recommend that the commercial radio sector, Ofcom and the government should look closely at the current localness regime in the coming months……..”

What proved interesting about last week’s government announcement of the independent review into ‘localness’ was that it contained no mention of Ofcom whatsoever. Even though the press release noted that the review would examine “to what extent are the current requirements for a pre-determined number of hours of local content, and the locality in which content is produced, appropriate and sustainable”, as implemented by Ofcom, it did not mention the regulator by name. This omission is downright weird. The Communications Act 2003 states clearly that:

“It shall be the duty of OFCOM to carry out their functions in relation to local sound broadcasting services in the manner that they consider is best calculated to secure: (a) that programmes consisting of or including local material are included in such services but, in the case of each service, only if and to the extent (if any) that OFCOM consider appropriate in that case; and (b) that, where such programmes are included in such a service, what appears to OFCOM to be a suitable proportion of them consists of locally-made programmes.”

Furthermore, the Act states that “OFCOM must: (a) draw up guidance….” and “OFCOM may revise the guidance from time to time”, but it “must consult” licence holders and stakeholders beforehand. The legislation is crystal clear as to where the responsibility resides. What we are seeing in the government announcement is an intervention at a higher level as a result of perceived dissatisfaction with the way that Ofcom has implemented its responsibilities on this “particularly contentious” issue, as Ed Richards described it

Ofcom’s 2007 consultation on ‘localness’ in radio had elicited 43 responses and the regulator “noted the calls from the commercial radio industry for a reduction of locally-made programming….” Ofcom stated determinedly: “We believe that our proposed guidelines already represent a substantial deregulation of locally-made programming in many cases”. However, it looks as if further lobbying has undermined the Ofcom position, and the regulator is now being sidelined by direct government action on this issue, which could lead to new legislation or to new implementation of existing legislation.

So what precisely does the commercial radio industry want changed by Lord Carter in Ofcom’s localness requirements?

  • local commercial stations required to broadcast no more than 4 hours a day of locally made programming
  • regional commercial stations not required to broadcast locally made programming
  • local news broadcasts on local stations can be produced in centralised newsrooms
  • stations serving populations of less than 750,000 (i.e.: two thirds of the UK’s stations) permitted to locate their studios outside the area they serve
  • the 4 hours a day of ‘local’ programming can be simulcast across co-located stations and still count as locally made programming.

And what concessions would the commercial radio industry offer Lord Carter in return for its newly, co-located, networked content, ‘local’ stations?

  • news bulletins (not all local) 13 hours a day on local stations
  • news bulletins 24 hours a day (not all regional) on regional stations (13 hours a day on specialist music stations)
  • extended news bulletins (of unspecified length)
  • a commitment to safeguarding stations’ remaining local content (weather, traffic, what’s on, charity appeals, community information)

However, these demands and concessions position the ‘localness’ issue strictly in the context of content regulation. In fact, there is a much bigger game being played out, which concerns the further investment required in the DAB platform to try and make it a success with consumers. Essentially, the commercial radio industry is trying to put a gun to Lord Carter’s head and is demanding: ‘we won’t invest any more money in DAB to make it work, unless you stop Ofcom making us do local things we don’t want to do’.

The initial response to the commercial radio lobby was likely to be: ‘you acquired all these local radio stations, knowing that they had localness obligations. If you wanted a national radio station, why didn’t you buy one of those instead?’ It does seem a bit like Stagecoach begging the government to transform its local bus routes into a national coach service. However, Lord Carter is trying to grapple with the issues and forge a compromise whilst still insisting that “government can not, nor should it, be the main driving force for digital radio”.

The biggest danger here is that the ‘localness’ issue becomes a mere sideshow to the much more politically and commercially significant decision over the future of the DAB platform. As such, ‘localness’ risks becoming a mere pawn in a complex set of negotiations that are essentially designed to maintain the balance sheet valuations of the largest radio groups which have already made significant investments over a decade in costly DAB infrastructure.

Sadly, this is not the first time that the ‘localness’ issue has been invoked merely as a quid pro quo within a much bigger game. In the original Bill that became the Communications Act 2003, there was no ‘localness’ clause for local radio, just as there never had been in previous broadcast legislation. It was inserted at the last minute as what the then Minister for Broadcasting, Dr. Kim Howells MP, admitted was “the quid pro quo for greater liberalisation in the radio market”, allowing more concentrated ownership of local radio than the Bill had originally proposed. In the ensuing House of Commons debate, Michael Fabricant MP successfully stoked the flames of fear:

“What if Clear Channel – a United States organisation for which I have a considerable respect, but which the [UK commercial radio] industry is rather concerned about – were to acquire a number of radio stations and found that it could pull in large audiences, based in the US, and not be all that local? Its presenters could be based in New York, for example, and it could put in pre-recorded local identifications. Everything could be done on a PC-based system. The stations would sound like local radio, even though they were not; and, because they had a good playlist, they might pull in a big audience. Would we not want back-stop powers in such a case?”

Six years later, neither Clear Channel nor its competitors have bothered to enter the UK radio market. Instead of the then touted prospect of US-financed global radio, we now have Irish-financed Global Radio wanting to run as much of its UK local radio empire as possible from Leicester Square. At the end of the day, for the listener, does the distinction matter whether a local radio station’s studio is in New York or New Bond Street? If I were a listener in NorthEast England, when I choose to listen to local radio, rather than national radio, if it does not fulfil my desire for ‘local’, then it offers me zero utility. If I am digging my car out of a three-foot snowdrift and the jolly ‘local’ radio presenter does not mention the inclement weather from her faraway studio, it simply isn’t local radio.

Surely, a ‘localness’ policy for radio should put the citizen/consumer/listener at the heart of its doctrine, something which Ofcom policies to date have failed to do. But neither does the commercial radio industry come out of this smelling of roses. I have yet to see one UK case study backed with evidential data which demonstrates that a decrease in local content on a local radio station has resulted in audience growth. Reduced costs? Yes. Improved profit margins? Yes. But local commercial radio stations have always been gifted scarce analogue radio spectrum for free, in return for their public service content commitments. A local radio station that is not trying to maximise its audience but, instead, aims to maximise profits by reducing costs, cutting local content and knowing full well that its audience will inevitably decline, would seem to be misusing valuable spectrum.

It remains to be seen whether this latest initiative to review radio’s localness requirements will result in new regulation that finally puts the listener at the centre of its policies, rather than simply responding to the needs of either the box-ticking regulator or the de-localising, large radio groups.

On a personal note, over several years I researched the issue of ‘localness’ and ‘localism’ in local radio, and I wrote an unpublished paper a year ago that examined the issues and suggested a way forward that would reinstate the local radio listener at the heart of localness regulatory policy. If the laws or regulatory regime do have to be changed, my only hope is that they are changed for the better, and not for the worse.

DAB: the medium of consumer choice?

It appears there may be a factual error in the Digital Britain Interim Report. I assume it was an accidental mistake in drafting. Obviously, a government document would not deliberately misrepresent the facts.

The Interim Report states on page 32:
“Dedicated analogue radio sets are no longer part of the retail mainstream: analogue continues to be used in bundled products (e.g. radio alarms). But, in dedicated radio, DAB has become the medium of consumer choice.”

There are two distinct assertions here:

  • “dedicated analogue radio sets are no longer part of the retail mainstream”
  • “DAB has become the medium of consumer choice”

The second assertion was made by the Interim Report strictly in the context of “dedicated” radio hardware, but the statement was quickly abstracted as a standalone fact. The Guardian wrote that the Report “said DAB had become ‘the medium of consumer choice’”. The Telegraph wrote that “the Report states that DAB digital radio has ‘become the platform of choice’ for radio listening in the UK….” and, in a separate article, said that “Ministers claimed that DAB radio is now ‘the medium of consumer choice’” though it questioned the assertion. Marketing Week wrote that the Report “says DAB has become ‘the medium of consumer choice’ in the UK….” This same assertion was repeated on web sites such as Broadcasting World and Radio-Info.

ASSERTION 1
“dedicated analogue radio sets are no longer part of the retail mainstream”

I have sat through several Powerpoint presentations at radio conferences, both in the UK and overseas, which claimed that analogue radio receivers (AM/FM) have almost disappeared from retail outlets in the UK. The facts tell a very different story.

A survey of electronic consumer goods on sale from the web sites of three of the UK’s most prominent consumer electronics retailers reveals that the analogue radio platform is still alive and well. In fact, at Argos and Comet, electronic goods incorporating the analogue radio platform solus continue to outnumber those with digital platforms.

Interestingly, when DAB radio receivers were first introduced, most models were single-platform (such as the ‘Pure Evoke 1’). This has changed significantly, so that the vast majority of DAB radio receivers presently on sale are dual-platform (mostly DAB + FM). This change provides a significant ‘safety net’ at all levels of the value chain, should the DAB platform fail to develop into a mass medium for radio broadcasting.

For consumers, the incorporation of the FM platform into DAB radios should encourage hardware purchase, removing the perceived risk of platform failure (viz ITV Digital). However, the continued availability of the FM platform in ‘DAB radios’ is likely to impact consumer usage of the DAB platform. If a consumer buys a ‘DAB radio’, but they continue to use the FM platform incorporated within the hardware for part of their radio listening, they are contributing to the DAB platform’s struggle to gain sufficient traction that FM broadcasting can ever be switched off.

Additionally, one wonders how many RAJAR respondents use their ‘DAB radio’ to listen to stations on the incorporated FM platform, but report this listening in their diaries incorrectly as ‘digital’ rather than ‘analogue’. Surely, if I buy a ‘digital radio’ which clearly says ‘digital radio’ on its facia, then all the content I listen to using that radio must be ‘digital radio’? No wonder the marketplace is confused.

Examining the other side of the retail marketplace, in terms of consumer purchases of DAB radios, an appendix attached to the Digital Britain Interim Report demonstrates (page 41) clearly that the vast majority of radios purchased in the UK are not DAB, according to data collected by GfK for the Digital Radio Development Bureau. The graph below updates this same data:

The data show that 79% of radio receivers purchased in the UK during the last twelve months were analogue and did not incorporate the DAB platform. The vast majority of radios sold in the UK continue to be analogue, not DAB, which is why, as demonstrated above, electronics retailers continue to stock so much hardware incorporating analogue radio. In some types of hardware, notably personal media players, the market is still almost entirely dominated by analogue radio (in those models that include radio).

In conclusion, the assertion made in the Digital Britain document that “dedicated analogue radio sets are no longer part of the retail mainstream” seems incorrect.

ASSERTION 2
“DAB has become the medium of consumer choice”

The latest RAJAR radio audience data from Q4 2008 demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of radio listening continues to be consumed via the analogue platform, not via DAB.
In the case of commercial radio, 10% of hours listened are via the DAB platform, whereas 68% of hours listened are via analogue.
For BBC radio, 13% of hours listened are via the DAB platform, whereas 70% of hours are consumed via analogue.

In conclusion, the assertion made in some press coverage that “DAB has become the medium of consumer choice” is incorrect.

SUMMARY

Analogue radio is alive and well in the UK because consumers continue to demand and purchase electronic goods that incorporate the analogue radio platform; and because radio listeners are consuming content predominantly delivered via the analogue platform. These are the facts.

Digital Britain: the devil is in the indefinite article

Commenting last week on the publication of the government’s Digital Britain report, RadioCentre Chief Executive Andrew Harrison said that “the devil will be in the detail”. Absolutely true because, sometimes, a single word can tell you more about the direction that government policy is taking than a weighty tome. In the case of DAB, the wording of the Digital Britain report raised one such question: does the government want the DAB platform to supplement FM/AM radio, or does it want DAB to supplant it?

The Final Report of the Digital Radio Working Group last December had recommended:
“DAB as the primary platform for national, regional and large local stations” [emphasis added].

However, last week’s Interim Report of Digital Britain made a commitment:
“to enabling DAB to be a primary distribution network for radio” [emphasis added].

This may seem like an insignificant detail but, for the radio industry, it certainly is not. If DAB is to be the primary platform, the implication is that if your radio station is not available on the DAB platform, your business will be marginalised. It implies that the FM and AM platforms will be closed down, which would be a disastrous outcome for smaller commercial radio stations who may not be able to afford the cost of DAB transmission and/or who cannot find space on their local multiplex (if that multiplex even exists) [see ‘Committed to its listeners’].

On the other hand, if DAB is to be a primary platform, the implication is that it will be available to consumers as an adjunct to existing FM/AM radio and to IP-delivered content. In this scenario, the ideal radio receiver of the future will be one which, to the user, is ‘platform neutral’ but has capabilities to receive DAB, FM/AM and IP. The user would simply select “Radio 4: live” on the radio’s interface and the radio itself would determine which was the most reliable delivery platform in that location to serve Radio 4 live. Or, the user might select “Radio 4: The Archers” and it would deliver the most recent episode by IP.

Strangely, the subtle difference between “a” and “the” seemed to be ignored by some stakeholders:

Laurence Harrison, director of consumer electronics at Intellect, said:
“This commitment to DAB as the primary distribution network for radio is exactly the sort of strong and decisive leadership we wanted to see from government” [emphasis added]

Frontier Silicon, in its first press release:
“…..welcomed the Government’s commitment to DAB as the primary distribution network for future radio broadcasting in the UK” [emphasis added]

Frontier Silicon, in a second press release:
“…..the Government’s endorsement of the digital migration of radio and commitment to DAB as the primary distribution network for future radio broadcasting” [emphasis added].

The precise wording was also reported badly by some media:

The Guardian’s Media Monkey wrote:
“….DAB radio was the ‘primary distribution network’ for radio….” [emphasis added].

The Sunday Times wrote:
“….DAB digital technology, set to become the ‘primary distribution network’ for radio….” [emphasis added].

The Daily Mail wrote:
“Lord Carter, the Communications Minister, said: ‘We are making a public commitment to DAB as the primary distribution medium’…” [emphasis added].

The Telegraph wrote:
“The Digital Britain report…… gives a firm commitment to digital radio (DAB) as the primary way of listening to content in the future” [emphasis added].

The BBC wrote:
“The culture secretary said digital audio broadcasting (DAB) will become the ‘primary distribution network’…..” [emphasis added].

No wonder the public is confused. The potential implication of the Digital Britain report on areas of the UK where DAB reception is presently non-existent is just starting to be realised. “FM reception in Eden Valley may disappear” said one local Cumbria newspaper headline yesterday. More coverage like this will inevitably follow.

How many civil servants must have scoured the precise wording of the Digital Britain report before it was published? The change of emphasis from “the” to “a” is unlikely to have been accidental. If the DAB platform were to fail (no acceleration in consumer take-up, no increased exclusive content), then the government will find it needs a ‘get out of jail free’ card. The word “a” provides it with the perfect caveat, next month, next year, whenever.

Warning! Digital radio objectives may appear closer than they are in reality

By coincidence, the Interim Report of Lord Carter’s Digital Britain team was released on the same day as the latest quarterly RAJAR radio ratings data. The former focused optimistically on the inevitability of the UK replacing its existing analogue radio system with the DAB platform. The Digital Britain report stated:
“We are making a clear statement of Government and policy commitment to enabling DAB to be a primary distribution network for radio” and “we will create a plan for digital migration of radio…….”

This coincidence of timing between Lord Carter and RAJAR offered a perfect PR opportunity for the radio industry to emphasise just how successful its drive towards digital migration has been to date. But where exactly were the stories of dazzling digital radio success?

The RAJAR press release noted that “digital listening hours [are] up 10% year on year” and “DAB ownership [is] up 35% year on year”. The brief RadioCentre press release avoided mentioning digital radio altogether. The BBC press release only mentioned digital radio in the context of its digital-only stations, but nothing specifically about the DAB platform. The Digital Radio Development Bureau [DRDB] press release was headed “Digital listening and hours up” and noted that “radio listening via a digital platform has increased year on year while remaining stable quarter on quarter”. The Bauer Radio press release avoided all mention of the DAB platform. So, not much evidence today of digital radio’s success.

What about the DRDB’s statement that digital platform usage is “stable quarter on quarter”? Only two months ago, DRDB announced the launch of a joint BBC and commercial radio Christmas marketing campaign “aimed at driving sales of DAB radios this season”. Although DAB radio hardware sales in the final quarter of the year had subsequently proven disappointing, might not the campaign have also encouraged some consumers to use the DAB platform more, if they already owned the DAB hardware?

Apparently not. Whilst it is true that the latest RAJAR data show increases in listener usage of digital platforms year-on-year, that growth is nowhere near fast enough to make DAB “a primary distribution network for radio” anytime soon, as Lord Carter has advocated. The Digital Britain report has simply decided to endorse wholesale the earlier proposals contained in the Digital Radio Working Group’s Final Report, as it stated:
“We will create a plan for digital migration of radio, which the Government intends to put in place once….. 50% of radio listening is digital”.

Furthermore, the Report pledged the Government to “work with industry to satisfy the migration criteria by 2015 and, where possible, identify initiatives which could bring forward the migration timetable”.


These are bold words. The RAJAR data shows digital platforms’ share of listening was 18.3% in Q4 2008, down from 18.7% the previous quarter, but up from 16.6% year-on-year. If this last year’s rate of growth is projected and compounded into the future, the 50% criterion would not be attained until 2019. To achieve the desired outcome by 2015, let alone before 2015, would necessitate a remarkable change in radio listening habits, the likes of which have not been witnessed to date.

DAB is presently, by far and away, the most significant platform for digital radio listening (the others are digital TV, the internet and ‘digital’ mobile phone). As a result, Lord Carter’s anticipated increase in digital radio listening is heavily dependent upon consumer purchase of DAB radio receivers, rather than simply a switch from one available technology to another. However, the disappointing sales of DAB hardware last quarter point to sales growth being unlikely to move into positive territory during 2009.
DAB receiver sales in 2008 did not meet the forecast made by the DRDB in 2007, let alone the more optimistic forecasts of previous years. The DRDB did not publish a sales forecast in 2008, but there is little doubt that the growth trend is beginning to look more linear than exponential. DAB receiver uptake is presently the main pre-requisite for growth in digital radio usage and one that is looking increasingly uncertain.

The other essential factor is consumer usage, not just ownership, of DAB radios. If owners continue to listen on their other analogue radios (the average household has six radios) rather than via DAB, it will still take a long time to reach the 50% threshold. It surely must be the exclusive content available on the DAB platform that will promote its usage (though other factors such as DAB’s ease of use and signal strength will play a part). However, 2008 saw a significant reduction in available DAB content, precipitated by GCap Media/Global Radio’s decision to withdraw almost entirely from the DAB content market.

Somewhat surprisingly, given this reduction in available content, the DAB platform’s share of commercial radio listening showed a significant increase last quarter (to 9.9% from 9.2% the previous quarter) but the aggregate usage of digital platforms has stayed remarkably flat during 2008 at around 19%. Put simply, we are not seeing much, if any, growth in digital platform usage for commercial radio. (NB: much of the apparent growth in the graphs above and below derives from re-distribution of earlier ‘unspecified’ respondent data in recent quarters.)
If commercial radio’s success with digital platforms seems ‘stuck’, then the BBC could be in an even worse position. In the last quarter, usage of both the DAB and internet platforms declined, leading to old fashioned analogue radio having accounted for a greater proportion of listening than in the previous quarter (up from 68.8% to 69.6%). This is particularly alarming, given the BBC’s much more extensive cross-promotion of its digital platforms across all media, and given the integration of radio into the BBC iPlayer in 2008. It is true that one quarter’s data alone might only prove to be a statistical aberration, but it is worrying news to arrive on the very day that Lord Carter chose to pin his colours to the ‘radio must be DAB’ mast.
Digital-only stations are not proving to be as attractive to listeners as they need to be in order to drive up usage of digital platforms quickly towards the desired 50% criterion. Year-on-year, hours listened to national digital-only stations are down 7%, yet DAB receiver ownership increased by 35% over the same period, according to RAJAR. In aggregate, 16 national digital-only stations accounted for 33 million hours listening per week last quarter, a drop in the ocean compared to radio’s total 1 billion hours listened per week.

So, the reason it might have been so quiet today on the digital radio PR front is that there really was not much good news from RAJAR to be shouting about, from either the BBC or commercial radio perspective. And the plan laid out in the Digital Britain document, which might look great in theory, still depends upon:

  • increased consumer expenditure on DAB radio hardware
  • increased investment in DAB content
  • increased investment in DAB transmission infrastructure

and thus does not appear to be a plan at all steeped in reality, in a time when discretionary expenditure (personal and corporate) is less forthcoming than ever.

The priority for the radio industry in 2009 must be survival, pure and simple. For commercial radio, it is survival in the worsening struggle against the twin evils of falling listening and declining revenues. For the BBC, it is the struggle to ensure that the commercial radio sector survives. Without a successful commercial radio sector, the BBC’s own radio services could be under threat.

Let us hope that the Final Report for Digital Britain incorporates a greater dose of realism and pragmatism, or unfolding events might easily catch up with it even before its publication.

DAB radio receiver sales suffer negative growth

DAB radio receiver unit sales fell by 10% year-on-year in the final quarter of 2008 in the UK, jeopardising the digital platform’s future as a mass market replacement for analogue radio. This is the first quarter to have recorded negative year-on-year growth since DAB sales records began six years ago. It marks a significant setback for DAB stakeholders who had invested in a six-week marketing campaign during the run-up to Christmas which promoted the DAB platform heavily on BBC and commercial radio.

The Digital Radio Development Bureau, the trade body charged with promoting the DAB platform, issued a press release today stating that the “one ray of sunshine in a gloomy Christmas season for retailers was DAB digital radio”. Its statement failed to mention the negative growth experienced in what is traditionally the most critical quarter of the year for DAB radio sales. Retail data collected by GfK for the DRDB clearly show the declining growth rate of DAB radio sales having started in the second quarter of 2008, a trend that is likely to have been further exacerbated by the ‘credit crunch’.

However, this disastrous sales performance has not prevented those UK companies who are pushing the DAB platform from continuing to talk up the success of their technology. Imagination Technologies, the parent company of the Pure Digital brand of DAB radio receivers, today announced “record export growth for 2008” and that it “had more than tripled overseas sales in the year ending 31 December 2008”. Hossein Yassaie, Chief Executive of Imagination Technologies, said: “Our strong overseas growth is further evidence that DAB digital radio is gaining traction worldwide, and that the transition to digital radio is inevitable.”

However, overseas markets account for only 15% of Pure Digital sales (half-year to end October 2008), so why did Imagination Technologies feel it worthwhile to issue a press release for a relatively insignificant revenue stream? It is probably because Imagination has to convince Lord Carter that the government should back DAB radio technology as part of his recommendations within the forthcoming Digital Britain report. Imagination Technologies has bet the farm on DAB becoming a successful, global technology. If the UK government does not decide to force radio listeners to migrate to DAB technology, Imagination could lose its shirt.

Imagination Technology’s interim results, published six weeks ago, admitted that revenues from its Pure Digital DAB radio receivers were up only 2% year-on-year, a result it attributed to “the downturn” in the UK market, which still accounts for 85% of its global sales. Chief Executive Hossein Yassaie said there had been a “UK slow-down” of DAB radio receiver sales and noted that “the introduction of lower price radios and the onset of the recession meant that the increase of the UK DAB market was less than 5%”. Pure Digital Marketing Director Colin Crawford said this week: “Our [DAB] sales at Christmas were good, though a little bit down on last year.”

Disappointing sales figures seem only to have encouraged the DAB protagonists to push the boundaries of their government lobbying beyond the limits of truthfulness. In its latest annual report, Imagination Technologies claimed that “DAB has reinvigorated the now rapidly growing UK radio market and effectively replaced analogue radio”. The latter statement is untrue. According to industry data, only 21% of radio receivers sold in the UK during the last twelve months were DAB, the remaining 79% being old fashioned analogue. The overwhelming majority of radios in use in the UK remain analogue, and DAB is nowhere near having “effectively replaced” them.Another corporate victim of over-enthusiastic government lobbying for DAB is Frontier Silicon, whose Chief Executive Anthony Sethill was quoted in a company press release issued in December 2008 as saying: “Digital radio is here to stay, with DAB sets outselling analogue models by six to one”. Once again, the industry data demonstrates this statement to be a blatant untruth, and simply part of a desperate campaign by a clutch of inter-connected companies to convince the government that DAB technology is already a ‘success’ in the UK.

Frontier Silicon is a privately owned UK company which describes itself as “the world’s leading supplier of innovative semiconductor, module and software solutions for digital radio and connected audio systems”. Its electronic modules are in 80% of all DAB radios, making it “the number one supplier to the DAB/DAB+ market”. In 2003, Imagination Technologies took a 17% equity stake and £1.25m of loan stock in Frontier Silicon. Imagination has an 80% share of the worldwide market for the intellectual property on DAB chips, which are then incorporated into Frontier Silicon’s modules. However, in 2008, Imagination’s stake in Frontier Silicon had to be written down from £7 million to £3.6 million, likely a result of slowing DAB take-up.

Another of Frontier Silicon’s ten investors is Digital One, the owner of the UK’s only national commercial radio DAB multiplex. Digital One is controlled by Global Radio, the UK’s largest commercial radio group, owner of one national station, dozens of local stations and with stakes in the majority of local DAB multiplexes. For Imagination Technologies, Frontier Silicon, Digital One and Global Radio, a decision by the UK government to implement a forced consumer migration to DAB radio would have a hugely beneficial impact on their financial performances. For Imagination, which reported its first profitable year in 2007/8 (£1.88 million pre-tax profits), it might even turn the company’s forecast 2010/11 pre-tax profit of £11.84 million into a reality.

More than a decade ago, the idea of a few bright sparks in the government’s Department of Trade & Industry was that DAB radio technology could be quickly made a hit in the home market, take-up would then spread globally, and DAB would become a hugely profitable technological export for the UK. This dream continues to be espoused by Intellect, the trade association of the UK technology industry, which told Lord Carter in December 2008:
“The UK is the home of the major chip manufacturer of DAB silicon, as well as two leading receiver manufacturers and, as such, is uniquely positioned to benefit from the potential expansion of DAB not just in the UK, but globally. We believe that this example of high value manufacturing could make a substantial contribution to the UK’s future prosperity………….”

Unfortunately, the dream is not working out as planned. DAB take-up in the UK market has proven laboriously slow and is in danger of being superseded by newer technologies. Worse, overseas markets have shown little interest in DAB. In Europe, only Denmark has a DAB market as developed as the UK’s. Globally, Australia is about to launch DAB but the largest market, the US, has chosen a different digital radio standard. Several countries have experimented with DAB and since abandoned the technology.

With overseas markets looking less likely to prove a source of significant export revenues, the UK technology companies pushing DAB have become increasingly desperate to ensure that their products at least succeed in their home market. Hence, their desperation to persuade the government to force a consumer switchover from FM to DAB. The average household owns six radios, and a government-backed FM switch-off will force all six to be replaced with shiny, new DAB radios. That’s a lot of potential revenue for a select number of UK technology companies.

DAB radio: now you hear it (in-store), now you don't (in-home)

The Digital Radio Development Bureau [DRDB] announced yesterday that, after a one-year trial, Ofcom “has agreed to put in place a permanent licensing regime for all retailers across the country” to install DAB repeaters that will boost the signal in-store. According to DRDB:
“Many electrical retailers suffer from poor analogue and DAB signal strength due to the steel framed infrastructure of the building or their basement location. Installing a DAB repeater on the roof of the store means a signal can be boosted in-store and DAB radios can more easily be demonstrated, thus increasing sales potential.”

Currys owner DSGi’s Trading Manager Amanda Cottrell said:
“We know from experience that demonstrating DAB radio in-store is the best way to show consumers the benefits of more station choice, ease of tuning and clean, digital quality sound. Consumers like to get hands-on with new technology and these DAB repeaters will help us to maximise sales in areas where demonstration was a problem.”

I understand the retail sales floor problem, but am I the only one worried that the solution implemented here might not be quite appropriate? I admit it is a very long time since I studied consumer law (1981, Durham Technical College), but my thinking is that these actions could potentially lead to consumer redress under UK legislation. Have the legal eagles at Ofcom considered this fully?

Under Section 15 of the Sale Of Goods Act 1979, when goods are sold by ‘sample’ (ie: consumer sees in-store demonstration sample of DAB radio receiver, but store supplies consumer with sealed, boxed good), “the goods must correspond to the sample in quality”. The law requires “that the goods will be free from any defect, making their quality unsatisfactory, which would not be apparent on reasonable examination of the sample” [my emphasis].

Under the new ‘repeater’ system, when the consumer examines the in-store sample of the DAB receiver, the receiver will be capable of offering ‘perfect’ reception of DAB radio stations. This is due to the installation of special in-store equipment. A fixed antenna has been installed on the roof of the building, pointed directly to the nearest DAB transmitter mast, and its received signal supplies a relay transmitter (transmitting the same stations) placed on the shop floor adjacent to the DAB radio receiver demonstration area.

When the consumer takes the sealed, boxed DAB radio home, they may open it and find that reception of radio stations on their hardware is not as good as it was in-store. This is because their radio is not receiving the DAB signal from a relay transmitter only metres away from the receiver, as it was in-store. Instead, it is receiving signals from the nearest DAB transmitter, probably miles away, and that signal may or may not penetrate the building in which they are using the radio.

The consumer could theoretically apply to Ofcom to install a relay transmitter in their home, in order to replicate the precise conditions in which the sample DAB receiver was demonstrated in-store. Ofcom’s response to the consumer’s application would certainly be ‘no’. Thus, the in-store ‘sample’ DAB receiver was purposefully demonstrated to the consumer under an artificially created environment that cannot ever be reproduced within the consumer’s home.

This would not be the first time that the marketing of DAB radio in the UK has come under legal scrutiny for potentially misleading consumers. In 2004, Ofcom banned an advertisement broadcast on London station Jazz FM which had claimed falsely that DAB radio offers consumers “CD-quality sound”. In 2005, the Advertising Standards Authority upheld a complaint against DAB multiplex owner Switchdigital for a misleading radio advert which had claimed that DAB radio was “distortion free” and “crystal clear”. In its verdict, the ASA said it had “received no evidence to show that DAB digital radio was superior to analogue radio in terms of audio quality”.

The problems concerning the paucity of DAB reception in some circumstances (basements, steel buildings, built-up areas) have been known to the broadcast industry for a long time. At the 2006 TechCon event, Grae Allen, then manager of digital distribution at EMAP Radio, had explained that “[the] Wiesbaden 1995 [radio conference] and all the other DAB planning dealt with mobile reception – in-car and portable outdoors. It made assumptions about aerial heights being just above ground level and, to provide good service to 99% of locations, the conclusion was that it required 58dbųV per metre to maintain that quality of service, and it made some assumptions about the performance of receivers and aerials.” In practice, he said, “some receivers do not quite live up to expectations – some have lossy aerial systems and suffer from self-noise.” Grae said that 2006’s European Regional Radio Conference “[was] moving DAB to become a truly indoor medium. The new planning model has around 10dbųV higher field strength than was envisaged in the original plan.”

In 2006, BT Movio had been about to launch a mobile TV service using DAB spectrum, and Grae said: “That raises a question. We are seeing increasing numbers of hand-held receivers, such as the BT Movio receiver, that do not have an aerial of any significant size. So, in some areas, we may have to go to higher field strengths to deliver to handhelds indoors. So how are we going to improve the coverage? Unfortunately, the people who fill in RAJAR diaries don’t tend to live in large numbers alongside the sheep in the fields [where DAB transmitters are mostly located]. They live in the cities and the urban sprawl, and that’s where we need to deliver the high field strengths that are required for the types of receivers that are becoming popular, and the level of service that is expected. In the future, as I envisage it, we will see a need to put more and more [transmitter] sites inside the cities in areas where we actually need significant power where people are living and working.”

Mark Thomas, then head of broadcast technical policy at Ofcom, admitted at the 2006 TechCon event that the original DAB power allocations had proven too low: “The Radio Authority had no data of how [DAB] receivers performed, so it had to make some very broad-brush assumptions. More recently, now that we have a lot of receivers in the market and we can see how they behave, an industry group has been working under Ofcom’s chairmanship for the last two years to look into the issue in more detail and come up with some modus operandi for new transmitter sites”. Mark concluded: “The Ofcom approach is that the industry co-operates between commercial operators with each other, and with the BBC, in identifying the sites that will improve field strength of DAB services to consumers and will also avoid the issues surrounding Adjacent Channel Interference. ACI also adds to the investment challenge that all of this spectrum development is building.”

Now zoom forward from 2006 to December 2008 and read the Final Report of the Digital Radio Working Group, which said:
“We believe that action is needed to improve the quality and robustness of the existing [DAB] multiplexes’ coverage. We recognise that such a request has significant financial implications for multiplex operators…”

So, it would appear that, from 2004 onwards (when Mark acknowledges Ofcom was aware of the problem), the UK radio industry has continued to market and sell millions of DAB radios to UK consumers, in the full knowledge that its DAB transmission infrastructure requires a significant upgrade to provide consumers with sufficiently robust DAB radio reception in built-up areas and in homes.

The latest DRDB ‘repeater’ sales initiative merely tackles the symptom of poor DAB reception which has existed for years, and the solution is limited entirely to electronics retailers. What is still missing is a solution to the core problem of the “quality and robustness” of DAB radio reception….. for consumers.

The Digital One DAB radio multiplex – fixing 'market failure'… ten years too late

Digital One is the owner of the UK’s first and only national commercial radio DAB multiplex. If you produce commercial radio content that you wish to make available nationally on the DAB platform, you have to go to Digital One and agree a price and a contract. That price is set by Digital One, not by Ofcom or any other regulatory body. Digital One is the national DAB ‘gatekeeper’ and it decides what commercial radio brands we hear and what we don’t hear on DAB. It would be hard not to consider Digital One’s operation monopolistic.

Furthermore, Digital One is part of a vertically integrated business. Its controlling shareholder is Global Radio (formerly GCap Media, formerly GWR Group), the UK’s largest commercial radio group. In this way, Digital One/Global Radio’s business is an end-to-end operation that includes: generating radio content (‘stations’), some of which are carried on the DAB platform; selling advertising space around that content, some of which is carried on the DAB platform; owning the national DAB platform in the UK; and owning the ‘gatekeeper’ role for other radio content providers wanting access to that national DAB platform. (This ‘gatekeeper’ role was bestowed upon the DAB multiplex owner, rather than Ofcom, by the 1996 Broadcasting Act.)

Does Digital One’s business work in the interests of a competitive broadcasting sector or the listening public? Is this not a case where some kind of intervention by the regulator is appropriate? Within Ofcom’s own definition of ‘market failure in traditional broadcasting’, one of the main six reasons it uses to justify regulatory intervention is where:
“Restricted access to spectrum makes entry impossible on market grounds and, without competition, the ability of the market to deliver the most efficient solution is impaired”.

Ofcom then explains this issue in more detail:
“A tendency towards monopoly/oligopoly. Economies of scope and scale are inherent in broadcasting and will tend to encourage the concentration of ownership in large, often vertically-integrated companies. The result of an unregulated market might therefore be reduced competition, less choice for viewers and either higher prices or lower quality than would be available in a competitive market”.

Is this not exactly what has happened with the national commercial radio DAB platform? Digital One seems to have operated its ‘gatekeeper’ monopoly over the platform in a way that that has reduced competition, offered less choice to listeners, and maintained high carriage prices. The end result? After a decade of operation, there is only one radio station that has elected to contract with Digital One to be carried on its DAB platform of its own volition. There is enough bandwidth on the multiplex for a clutch more national stations, but that capacity remains unused.

Digital One was awarded a 12-year DAB licence in June 1998 to operate the “first and only national commercial digital multiplex licence”. It promised to pay the regulator a licence fee of £10,000 per annum. However, until very recently, if you had approached Digital One and asked the cost of putting a radio station on its multiplex, you would have been expected to pay more than £1 million per annum. Furthermore, if your proposed content competed directly with that of Digital One/Global Radio’s own digital radio stations, carriage might not have been offered, even at that price.

Therefore, it proves somewhat surprising to see today that Digital One issued a press release and published an advertisement inviting “expressions of interest from companies ready to contract and launch digital radio stations in 2009” on its DAB multiplex. It is even more surprising to learn that “capacity is available for mainstream stations, as well as more specialist channels appealing to a diversity of tastes and interests”. And it is shocking to read that “Digital One is reviewing its charges for capacity” and that “it is anticipated that prices will initially be set below Digital One’s 2008 rate card, in order to provide an incentive for approved applicants to invest in high quality services….”

The appropriate time to have published such a ‘call for content’ was June 1998, immediately after Digital One was awarded the DAB multiplex licence by the regulator. Perhaps then the sad story of the DAB platform’s slow development in the UK would have turned out differently. By now, Digital One might have fostered a broad range of audio content on the national DAB platform provided by a variety of producers, creating a ‘compelling consumer proposition’ that could have motivated the public to purchase DAB radios in significant numbers. But, unfortunately, it did not turn out that way and now, after a decade, DAB remains barely off the starting blocks.

Instead, for a decade, Digital One has clung on to the notions that:

  • its monopoly over the DAB infrastructure is valuable in itself, even if the capacity is mostly unused (is a rail network valuable without trains?)
  • its ‘gatekeeper’ role enables it to push its own digital services to listeners, at the expense of competitors and potential competitors
  • high carriage fees for external users will quickly put them out of business
  • listeners will lap up its own controlling shareholder’s content on the DAB platform, however little is invested in its production (one computer + 100 CDs = digital radio station)
  • ‘control’ of a broadcast platform is alone sufficient to create a profitable monopolistic business

It hardly inspires confidence in the Digital One DAB platform that Global Radio’s predecessor, GCap Media, closed three of its own digital-only stations carried on its platform last year, and sold Planet Rock to an entrepreneur with no other radio interests. Neither is it a good advertisement for Digital One that its platform “providing coverage to 90% of the population of Great Britain” only succeeds in securing a peak half-hour audience of 79,000 adults for its last remaining digital-only audio contractor, Planet Rock.

Digital One’s licence for the “first and only national commercial digital multiplex licence” will expire on 14 November 2011. Would I sign a contract with a company that has unashamedly hogged the UK DAB national multiplex for its own selfish ambitions since 1998, but now suddenly wants to offer me capacity on its multiplex, just as its own life is expiring? My attitude would be: so you’ve screwed up almost a decade of your 12-year monopoly and lost everything but your shirt in the process, but now, on your deathbed, you want me to pay you good money for carriage on a platform that you yourself have helped ruin?

Digital One’s announcement today reminds me of those grocery stores that put cans of food in a 10p bargain bin that are not only damaged, but are also only a few days away from their expiry date. You expect me to buy these? I guess we will see if there is somebody out there desperate enough to take the bait. I can think of many radio formats unavailable on AM/FM that should have a national platform in the UK. Would any of them work on DAB? Ten years ago, yes, they might have done. Now, no. The DAB platform has proven to be a failure with consumers, and Digital One has played a very large part in making it so. And yet, Digital One has decided now to advertise its newfound enthusiasm for “enhanced choice, variety and innovation” on its DAB platform.

A case of: too much, too little, too late…….

Classic FM – always check the expiry date before purchase

When Global Radio paid £375 million for GCap Radio in 2008, the portfolio of stations it acquired included Classic FM, the most listened to and most profitable of the UK’s three national commercial radio stations, and the only one of the three on FM. Classic FM was almost the only jewel remaining in GCap’s tarnished crown, after its management had destroyed the audiences/revenues of Capital FM and its other city FM stations by implementing disastrous content and commercial strategies. Classic FM presently has an 11% reach, a 3.8% share, 66% of its adult hours listened derive from the desirable ABC1 demographic, whilst 85% derive from ‘housewives’. Its only competitor in the classical music format is national BBC Radio Three, which has only a 4% reach and a 1.2% share but, of course, carries no commercials. Classic FM is a cash cow. [ratings: RAJAR]

There is only one problem for Global Radio. Classic FM’s licence expires on 30 September 2011 and it cannot be automatically renewed. This is a big problem. Whereas local commercial radio licences are still awarded (and re-awarded) by Ofcom under a ‘beauty contest’ system, national commercial radio licences are not. The system for national commercial radio licences is simple. Sealed bids are placed in envelopes. Ofcom opens the envelopes. The bidder willing to pay the highest price wins the licence. That’s it. This system is enshrined in legislation. Even if Ofcom wants a different system, it cannot change it without legislation.

As Classic FM’s new owner, Global Radio definitely wants a different system that will enable it to hang on to this most valuable asset. Global has been busy bending the ears of anybody and everybody who it might be able to persuade to interpret the broadcasting rules in a way that lets it keep Classic FM after 2011. Even Ofcom has had its lawyers busy examining the legislation to see what flexibility it has to interpret the rules in a way that might maintain the status quo.

Unfortunately, the legislation in the Broadcasting Act 1990 is quite specific:
“[Ofcom] shall, after considering all the cash bids submitted by the applicants for a national licence, award the licence to the applicant who submitted the highest bid.”

There is one, and only one, caveat in the legislation:
“[Ofcom] may disregard the requirement imposed by subsection (1) [above] and award the licence to an applicant who has not submitted the highest bid if it appears to them that there are exceptional circumstances which make it appropriate for them to award the licence to that applicant; and where it appears to [Ofcom], in the context of the licence, that any circumstances are to be regarded as exceptional circumstances for the purposes of this subsection, those circumstances may be so regarded by them despite the fact that similar circumstances have been so regarded by them in the context of any other licence or licences” [emphasis added].

Nothing more explicit is mentioned in the legislation about these possibly “exceptional circumstances”. The problem facing Ofcom is that, if it were to award the licence to Global Radio in a hypothetical situation where it had not been the highest bidder, whoever was the highest bidder would be likely to seek a judicial review, forcing Ofcom to explain in front of a set of judges the precise nature of the “exceptional circumstances” it had invoked. This would not be a pretty sight. There are no precedents because this part of the legislation has never been used before.

So what is the precise meaning of the ‘cash bid’ that has to be submitted to Ofcom in a sealed envelope? It is an amount to be paid annually by the winner throughout the licence period (increased annually by the rate of inflation). When Classic FM won the licence in 1991, it agreed to pay £670,000 per annum, plus 4% of its revenues as demanded by the regulator.

Later on, the Broadcasting Act 1996 allowed the regulator to extend Classic FM’s licence once, but on new terms, if the station agreed to simulcast its output on DAB. The regulator set Classic FM’s new licence payment as £1 million per annum plus 14% of its revenues from 1999. This new licence would have expired in 2007.

Then, the Communications Act 2003 allowed Ofcom to extend Classic FM’s licence again for a further four years but, once again, it could re-set the terms. Ofcom reduced Classic FM’s licence payment to £50,000 plus 6% of its revenues from 2007. This is the licence that expires in 2011.


Why did Ofcom decide to reduce the payments so substantially in its 2006 decision? It argued that the growth of listening via digital platforms was “leading to a decline in the scarcity value of the analogue spectrum”. Additionally, it argued that the licensee’s “share of advertising, derived as a result of access to the analogue spectrum, is likely to fall.”


Ofcom had forecast in November 2006 that digital platforms would account for 33% of radio listening by 2008, and 50% by 2010. By the time the Classic FM licence was due to expire in 2011, Ofcom anticipated that digital platforms would be responsible for 60% of radio listening overall. In other words, the FM licence would, by 2011, be accountable for only the minority of listening to Classic FM.

Ofcom’s forecast proved to be extremely wide of the mark. By Q3 2008, only 18.7% of radio listening accrued from digital platforms, little more than half of what Ofcom antcipated. The 50% threshold is unlikely to be reached even by 2015, and certainly not by Ofcom’s target of 2010. As a result of these forecasting failures, Classic FM (along with the other two national commercial stations) is now paying Ofcom an amazingly discounted rate for the licence fee to use analogue spectrum. The combined licence fees of the three national licensees would have been £7 million per annum under the previous regime, whereas these were reduced by Ofcom to less than £1.5 million (by Ofcom’s own estimate).

The net result of these changes is that Global Radio has a bargain licence on its books. Classic FM probably generates more than £20 million revenues per annum, but Global now pays only £1.3 million for its licence. The bad news is that Global Radio’s cash cow will end in September 2011. If Global does not win the re-advertised national FM licence, the value of its balance sheet could be up to halved. On the other hand, to keep this prize asset it will have to bid significantly more than the £50,000 annual licence fee it is paying now, so that Classic FM’s future profitability would be impacted anyway, even if Global managed to keep the licence.

However, there are plenty of other media owners out there who would like to have the UK’s only national commercial radio FM licence in their portfolio. The fact that the DAB platform has not grown anywhere near as quickly as anticipated in the UK simply makes this FM licence more valuable. The last time the licence was advertised in 1991, bids were only open to European Union applicants. Since then, legislation has opened up the bidding process worldwide. The licence format does not have to be classical music – the licensee can operate any format of its choice, apart from pop music (this caveat is in the legislation).

The fly in the ointment is that Ofcom adopted a new policy in 2007 that all its analogue local and national radio licences would be scheduled to expire on 31 December 2015, or five years from their commencement, whichever is longer. For Classic FM, this means that its next licence period would theoretically run only from 1 October 2011 to 1 October 2016. If a new bidder won the licence by offering the highest cash bid, five years is hardly enough time for a nascent business to establish itself and become profitable, particularly if it were to adopt a format other than classical music. The Ofcom policy seems unworkable in practice, and also seems biased in the incumbent’s favour.

Now, with an understanding of Global Radio’s desperation to hang on to its Classic FM licence almost at any cost, it is useful to re-read Paragraph 2.3 of the Final Report of the Digital Radio Working Group. Remember that Global Radio owns about 50% capacity of the UK’s commercial radio DAB transmission capacity and Global Radio accounts for 39% of commercial radio listening. The Report said:

“In exchange for its ongoing and future commitment to DAB, we believe the radio industry must have greater certainty and control of its future. Therefore, we propose that the government must relax some of the existing legislative and regulatory burdens placed on the radio industry, which will require parliamentary time, as outlined below and Ofcom should consider how to reduce some of the existing regulatory burdens.

First, the commercial radio industry must be granted a further renewal of its analogue services which are carried on DAB, and of DAB multiplex licences. [emphasis added]”

Now read this quote once more but replace the phrase ‘the radio industry’ or ‘the commercial radio industry’ with ‘Global Radio’. Aha! Wouldn’t it be great for Global Radio if the government could be persuaded to step in and somehow automatically renew its “analogue service” Classic FM licence, thus avoiding a licence auction in 2010? Even moreso if Global could be allowed to continue paying only £50,000 per annum (plus 6% of revenues) for the FM spectrum it uses? If you were Global, would you not be eager to offer the government a deal whereby you maintain your costly DAB infrastructure (and maybe even extend it) as the price you have to pay for securing the future of your most significant balance sheet asset?

From reading its Final Report, it certainly looks as if the Digital Radio Working Group bought into this argument. The next hurdle for Global Radio is to persuade Lord Carter and his Digital Britain team to buy into the same deal, which is: we promise to keep the DAB platform alive, despite it losing us a small fortune, if you ‘arrange’ legislation that enables us to keep the Classic FM licence for another decade. Thus, the government avoids the embarrassment of the DAB platform failing in the UK, and Global Radio might stand a better chance of staying in business.

To date, the other commercial radio owners have seemed happy to go along with this plan. They, like Global, would get to renew their radio licences automatically too (although none of their licences are as individually valuable as Classic FM’s). On the other hand, they too will be burdened with the continued costs of simulcasting their services on the DAB platform, with almost no financial return. However, despite most radio owners’ private dislike of the whole DAB ‘fiasco’, publicly they continue to stress their continuing support. Nobody turns down a ‘free lunch’, and a free licence renewal is an enticing offer for a radio industry still built upon oligopoly power rather than open competition.

The only question now is whether the government considers it politically worthwhile to ‘help’ the commercial radio sector with new legislation that would extend the licence status quo, in return for forcing onto consumers a ‘new’ DAB radio technology that is more than a decade old and has long been superseded by innovation.

Lord Carter’s pronouncements during the next fortnight might give us an idea of how important/unimportant it is to the government to: 1) bale out privately held Global Radio; 2) force further investment in improving/developing the DAB platform.

Shipwrecked on desert island DAB

One important question was sidestepped by the Digital Radio Working Group in its enthusiasm for the DAB platform in the Final Report: if DAB only comes to be adopted in a handful of countries, what are the ‘opportunity costs’ for UK consumers? In other words, if UK consumers are forced by government policy to purchase DAB receivers to replace their analogue radios, what other consumer hardware will they not purchase, either because it does not incorporate DAB radio, or because they have already spent their allocated budget replacing all five or six analogue receivers in their household with DAB radios?

The answer might be provided by the annual International Consumer Electronics Show [CES] taking place this week in Las Vegas, which describes itself as “the world’s largest consumer technology tradeshow” with 2,700 exhibiting companies, 500 expert speakers and 200 conference sessions.

The Digital Radio Working Group had written in its Final Report that:
“…. the DAB standard used in the UK and all three variants will be receivable on [radio] sets which manufacturers will be producing from [2009], so creating a European-wide market for digital radio.”

You might imagine that such innovations in DAB radio hardware would be reflected at this week’s CES event? Apparently not. Only 6 out of the 2,700 exhibiting companies list ‘DAB’ in their descriptions – the UK’s Frontier Silicon (“the leading supplier of audio processors for digital radios powering over 70% of all DAB radio products”); Germany’s Fraunhofer Institute (“audio/video compression technologies”); Taiwan’s Joycell (broadcast antenna manufacturers); China’s Blue Tinum and Shenzhen Baoan Fenda which manufacture DAB/FM/internet radios; and Hong Kong’s Kenwin Industrial which makes plastic injection moulds for electronics products. Additionally, not one of the 200 conference sessions at CES is about DAB. The reality is that, for most of the 130,000 people attending the event, DAB will simply not exist.

But, if you do a search for ‘internet radio’ at CES, you find a list of 393 exhibitors, 320 products and 32 conference sessions. Now compare that with ‘DAB’: 6 exhibitors, 8 products, 0 sessions. Furthermore, the newly formed Internet Media Device Alliance, a group of companies significantly involved in internet radio, will be launching at CES. One of its steering committee members is Anthony Sethill, CEO of Frontier Silicon, who said: “Frontier’s role in the formation of the IMDA affirms our position as the leading supplier of Internet radio connected audio products to the global consumer electronics market.” The significant word there is ‘global’. Despite its current dominance of the largely UK market for DAB, Frontier needs a global market for its product lines…. something that DAB’s limited take-up will never offer it.

So why does the Digital Radio Working Group want to shipwreck UK radio listeners on a desert island of DAB (for accuracy, I should add that you can take your DAB radio to Denmark or Norway and it will work there too)? The answer might be in paragraph 3.10 of its Report, which states:
“We strongly believe that in order for radio to preserve the qualities which make it such a valued part of our everyday lives, and to allow it to build a strong future, it must have a space where it can be the master of its own destiny and have the freedom to take risks” [emphasis added].

If you replace the word ‘radio’ with ‘the BBC and UK commercial radio companies’ and then read this sentence again, it becomes perfectly clear that what the Working Group is advocating is protectionism of the British radio broadcasting industry – protectionism from unregulated radio content delivered from non-UK sources via internet radio. Heaven forbid that we UK residents might prefer listening to Ryan Seacrest over Johnny Vaughan, because the government will seemingly do as much as possible to stop such an outrage happening.

If you think this is a fantastical notion, I suggest you read paragraph 3.9 of the same Report, which is unapologetically ‘patriotic’:
“Radio is an important part of the national discourse and perhaps an even more important voice in local democracy. These principles are the bedrock of radio in the UK and we believe they are something which citizens not only value, but expect”.

The fact is that UK radio, much more than television, offers an easy platform for politicians and their policies to be propagated to mass audiences of voters (viz Radio 4’s Today programme). Incredibly, the Central Office of Information has long been commercial radio’s biggest advertiser! The best way to preserve this cosy relationship is to build a wall around it.

For the mandarins, it might look like a nice walled garden to play in. For us consumers, it has all the hallmarks of a content prison.