Tag: Global Radio

Roll up! Roll up! Enjoy the radio industry pantomime: ‘DAB Radio’

The Ministerial Group for the government’s Digital Radio Action Plan will meet tomorrow. That meeting has all the hallmarks of a radio industry seasonal pantomime, with participants dressed up in their gladrags to play the appropriate parts. A select audience has been hand picked, though the ending of the story has still to be written.

Pantomime often brings out a sense of déjà vu, of having seen the same thing during previous Christmases. This winter’s DAB radio marketing campaign has that feeling. The 2010 slogan is:

“There’s a digital radio for everyone this Christmas”

While the UK radio industry’s Christmas campaign for 2009 had been:

“Struggling to think of the perfect gift for Christmas? There’s a digital radio for everyone …”

Pantomime often stages a sleight of hand, where you are not quite sure if what you saw was real or just some cheap trick. This winter’s DAB radio marketing campaign has that feeling. On 18 November 2010, the press story was:

“The commercial radio campaign [for DAB], which breaks on November 22, covers Global [Radio], Bauer [Radio], Guardian Media Group [Radio], Absolute [Radio], UTV [Radio] and many local commercial stations.”

But, within days, that story had changed so that the campaign:

“… will run across major commercial groups” and “commercial radio stations including Absolute, UTV, Orion.”

What happened to Global Radio, Bauer Radio and Guardian Media Group Radio? Well, every pantomime has its jesters who do their best to spoil the rest of the cast’s fun. This winter’s DAB radio marketing campaign has that feeling. Two days after the Christmas DAB campaign had started, The Telegraph broke the story that:

“Leading commercial radio groups [Global Radio, Guardian Media Group] have refused to promote DAB radio …”

Every pantomime has its bully, who picks on people mercilessly and prevents them from going to the ball. This winter’s DAB shenanigans have that feeling. Commercial radio trade body RadioCentre offered its story as to why its members, Global Radio and Guardian Media Group, had pulled out of the marketing campaign:

“Commercial radio operators are currently in discussions with government about the funding of local DAB coverage. Until those discussions are resolved, we understand that some stations felt it would be inappropriate to run the digital radio Christmas campaign.”

Er, isn’t that blackmail rather than negotiation? Is it not transparent that, if you really cared about making DAB radio a success, you would think twice about cutting off your nose to spite your face by deliberately NOT promoting the very DAB platform that you have been attempting to palm off on the public for the last decade? In essence, you are trying to convince consumers that you care so much about your backward 10-year old offspring that you intend to starve it to death. In pantomime, such a tragedy might give the audience a laugh. In reality, it would be time for Social Services to intervene. It cannot be good PR for the commercial radio industry to be so convincingly playing the part of The Wicked Witch of The West.

RadioCentre’s lack of parenting skills has been evident in recent weeks:
* Its children had refused to attend the government’s Digital Radio Stakeholders Group meeting on 1 November [see my earlier blog];
* Last Friday, its children refused to participate in a Westminster conference on ‘the future of UK digital radio’ organised for 7 December, resulting in the event’s postponement until April 2011.

And here is what the school notes said to explain these absences:
* “Following the announcement of the [BBC Licence Fee] settlement, RadioCentre has been in discussions with Government about the funding of local DAB coverage. As these discussions are ongoing, RadioCentre members felt it would be inappropriate to attend the Digital Radio Stakeholder meeting.” [Campaign];
* “Sensitivity of current negotiations on the future of digital radio” for the conference pull-out.

The evident paradox in this radio pantomime is that:
* The radio industry is spending £55m between now and 2015 to try and convince the public that DAB radio is the best thing since the cat’s whisker [see my earlier blog];
* The radio industry big boys will not stand up in front of other stakeholders in the media sector, or in front of a conference, and explain what, why or how they are pursuing (or not really pursuing at all) the government’s DAB dreams;
* Commercial radio has been demanding for several years that the BBC pays for fixing the deficiencies in commercial radio’s own DAB local transmission system. (Yes, this is the same BBC that RadioCentre has lambasted for years about its interference in commercial activities. Yes, these are the same commercial radio big boys who invested heavily in DAB in the 1990s in the hope of making profits for their shareholders.)

Pantomime is pure theatre, and tomorrow’s meeting will doubtless provide much entertainment for all involved. The only unresolved issue is how it will all end. Will the government Minister play the part of Scrooge, insisting that the commercial radio big boys should work longer hours for their living and must pay for improvements to their DAB system themselves? Or will the government play the wicked stepmother, compromising the BBC’s independence by forcing it to pay for an expensive sticky plaster to fix a commercial media sector DAB problem that has been all of its own making?

My feeling is that, in these austere times, it would be opening up another big black hole for public money to now finance such massive deficiency issues with DAB radio that could and should have been anticipated and fixed a decade ago. It is simply too expensive to commit unknown quantities of cash to transform the ugly DAB frog into a handsome prince who might never be fit enough to rival FM radio. Anyway, the BBC has already made a public commitment to not spend any more Licence Fee money on yet another ‘makeover’ show. In which case, our Cinderella DAB may not be going to the ball.

Or is all of the above just a pantomime within a farce? Is all this play-acting merely intended to allow commercial radio to walk away from DAB altogether, pointing the finger of blame elsewhere (and smug that the Classic FM automatic licence renewal is nearly almost within its grasp)?

David vs Goliath: commercial radio spends £27 per hour on programmes, BBC Radio 2 spends £4,578

There has been an abundance of fighting talk from the commercial radio sector in the press in recent weeks. Commercial radio seems determined to pick another fight with BBC Radios 1 and 2, two of the three most listened to radio stations in the UK.

Guardian Media Group Radio announced that “by broadcasting on National DAB, Sky, Freeview and Freesat, Smooth Radio will provide a strong commercial alternative to BBC Radio 2.” Chief executive Stuart Taylor said:

“We are still at war with the BBC and we still compete for listeners tooth and nail, as we always will.”

The press headlines affirmed:
* “New national network makes a Smooth attack on Radio 2” (Telegraph);
* “Forget Radio 2: in five years’ time, we’ll all be going Smooth” (Independent);
* “Smooth Radio takes on Radio 2 in national rollout” (Marketing Week);
* “Radio Two faces fight, warns new Smooth news chief” (Press Gazette).

Then, Global Radio announced that its local FM stations will be re-branded ‘Capital Radio’ in 2011. Chief executive Ashley Tabor said:

“With the launch of the Capital network, there will now be a big national commercial brand seriously competing with Radio 1.”

The press headlines responded:
* “Capital Radio will go national in bid to challenge Radio 1” (Evening Standard);
* “Capital Radio set to rival BBC Radio 1 in move to broadcast nationally” (Daily Mail);
* “Global to take on Radio 1 with Capital Network” (Marketing Week);
* “Capital Radio to form first national commercial radio station” (ITN).

Both the GMG and Global Radio statements achieved the intended sabre-rattling headlines in the press though, for me, these sentiments are remarkably hollow. This ongoing phoney war between the BBC and commercial radio is like a war between a one-eyed giant and an over-exuberant mobile phone salesman. The giant will win every time. Commercial radio can huff and puff all it wants, but the BBC knows it is perfectly safe in its house built from Licence Fees. It can afford to chuckle loudly at every challenge like this lobbed at it by commercial radio. Why?

Firstly, you could only ever hope to seriously compete with the existing formats of BBC Network radio stations if you had access to their same abundance of resources. This is something that Channel 4 belatedly realised after having promised for two years that it would invent a new commercial radio station to compete with BBC Radio 4. Then it scrapped its radio plans altogether.


The huge gulf between the funding of commercial radio content and BBC Network Radio content makes direct competition simply pointless. In a recent report for the BBC Trust, I noted that commercial radio spends an average £27 per hour on its content, while BBC Radio spends an average £1,255 per hour. There is no way that commercial radio can make programmes that will sound like Radio 2 on a budget that is 170th of the latter’s £4,578 per hour.

Secondly, what sort of message do these press headlines send to consumers? To me, they say ‘we realise that Radios 1 and 2 are fantastically successful, so we want a slice of their action’. Or maybe even ‘you really like Radios 1 and 2, don’t you? Try us, because we want to be just like them.’ So where is the Unique Selling Point [USP] for your own product? Don’t you have enough faith in it to tell us why it is so good, rather than comparing it to your much bigger, much more successful rival? Or is this the Dannii Minogue method of marketing?

I had always been taught that the cardinal sin of radio was to mention your competitors to your audience. Every reference to your competitor tells the audience how much you respect them and their success. Ignore them! Pretend your competitor does not even exist! Plough your own furrow and concentrate on making a radio station that is genuinely unique. Then you will create a brand that has a genuine USP, rather than being merely a pale imitation of Radio 1 or 2 without their big budgets. ‘I can’t believe it’s not Radio 2’ is not a tagline to which to aspire.

Thirdly, neither Capital Radio nor Smooth will be genuinely ‘national’ stations, as in capable of being received on an analogue FM/AM radio from one end of the country to the other. So why pretend to consumers and advertisers that they are ‘national’? In the case of Capital, its proposed FM network presently covers 57% of the UK adult population. In the case of Smooth, RAJAR tells us that DAB receiver penetration is presently 35%. Just how little of the UK population can you cover and yet still describe yourself as ‘national’?


Fourthly, don’t keep looking at Radio 1 and 2’s huge audience figures and dreaming of how much money you could make if only you could monetise their listenership. Part of the reason older listeners probably like Radio 2 is because there are no advertisements. Accept the fact that Radios 1 and 2 together account for a quarter of all radio listening in the UK. Compared to those mammoths of radio, both Capital and Smooth are mere termites. Live with that fact and, instead, seek out commercial clients who are not merely frustrated because they cannot advertise on BBC Radio, but who actively want to use your radio station because your audience is intrinsically valuable to them.

Finally, invest the time and money to develop your own on-air talent rather than simply hanging on the coattails of others’ successes. Whatever his next gig might be, Chris Moyles will forever be remembered as ‘the saviour of Radio 1’, just as Chris Evans will always be remembered for his Radio 1 breakfast show, not for his subsequent time at Virgin Radio. Find new people who are good at radio and put your faith in them. Why does Smooth’s schedule have to resemble Frankenstein’s monster, stitched together with a bit here from Radio 1 in the 80s, and a bit there from Radio 2 last month?

What your radio station should be doing is not competing with Radio This or Radio That for listeners, but competing directly for consumers to spend time with you because you are ‘you’. Radio is not like selling soap powder or yoghurt pots, where your business model can be built upon undercutting the price of a competitor’s product, however low-quality your own cheapo version might be. There is no price of admission in radio. Your content needs to be ‘different’ rather than ‘the same’ and it needs to create its own unique place in the market.

You should not think of your market competitors as radio stations, but as each and every opportunity a consumer is presented with to pass their leisure time. A winning station must be able to convince a consumer to listen to it, rather than watch television, read a book or simply sit in silence. Because radio is ‘free’, the competition for radio is everything else that is also free to consumers at the point-of-use.

To offer a practical example, when I worked on the launch of India’s first commercial radio network, Radio City, the advertising agency produced an excellent marketing campaign that extolled the virtues of the station over other radio stations. But the campaign had to be rejected and the agency briefed in more detail. Why? Because we were launching the very first radio station on the FM dial in a city such as Bangalore, so the overriding challenge was to persuade people to use ‘radio’ at all, or to persuade people to buy an FM radio for the first time, or to persuade people to switch off their television and turn to radio instead.

This philosophy seems to be a million miles away from the current UK commercial radio strategy which seems to focus on berating BBC radio for being too successful, whilst wanting to somehow achieve part of that success through osmosis. If only half this war effort was put into developing policies to make the commercial sector’s stations successful on their own account, the BBC would soon cease to matter.

Instead, RadioCentre is now demanding that commercial radio be allowed to re-broadcast old Proms concerts recorded by BBC Radio 3. But how many of our 300 commercial radio stations play classical music? One. And which Proms concert do you recall that would fit into Classic FM’s playlist of short musical extracts? What next? Will Capital FM be asking the BBC for the rights to re-broadcast some old Zoe Ball Radio 1 breakfast shows?

In September 2010, the government’s Consumer Expert Group criticised RadioCentre for having proposed a policy for the BBC’s Strategy Review that, it felt, would have “bullied” listeners.

Trying to bully listeners? Trying to bully the BBC? This is the war of the playground, not of a mature media industry that has a strategy of its own making, a plan, a roadmap for its future success. “It’s not fair. Your willy is bigger than mine.” No, it probably isn’t fair, but life deals you a hand, you have to stop whining, get on with it and make the best of what you’ve got.

Just accept this reality: commercial radio’s willy is never going to be as big as the BBC’s. So competing directly on size alone is a complete waste of time when, instead, you should be developing your own individual ‘technique’.

Having DAB cake and eating it: temper tantrums in the Global Radio playpen

Most of us mere mortals spend our lives trying to persuade people to give us what we want. We have to persuade our parents to buy us a new toy, persuade a potential employer to offer us a job, persuade the bank manager to give us a business loan. To make these things happen, we are taught to always be careful what we say – “Mind your P’s and Q’s”, our parents told us.

For the wealthy, there is little need for self-control over what comes out of their mouths. Whereas our only power derives from what is in our head, the power of the wealthy derives from what is in their offshore bank accounts. “P’s and Q’s” are barely a necessity when a platinum credit card can be flashed. Money obviates the need for persuasion. So the wealthy can pretty much say what they like, knowing that ‘money talks’ on their behalf, and it certainly seems to talk more loudly than any persuasion that the rest of us can muster.

This week we saw an outburst in The Guardian that would have done any rich, spoilt brat proud. But no, this was the founder and CEO of Global Group, Ashley Tabor, which owns Global Radio, the UK’s largest commercial radio group, demanding that the BBC “put their money where their mouth is” and invest more in DAB radio:

“Tabor said his company, which owns Heart, Classic FM, Capital and LBC, would not invest in new digital services until the DAB signal was sufficiently strong and widespread to match that currently provided by FM. He said the cost of the rollout of DAB and the strengthening of the signal in areas which can already receive it – estimated at between £150m and £200m – was the sole responsibility of the BBC. […]

‘Global has stepped up and said we are absolutely doing it, we have great new ideas of things we could do on digital but we are not going to bloody do it until our listeners can hear it in decent quality and that is something that we have been clear from the start the Beeb will need to do,’ said Tabor, the Global Group founder and chief executive. ‘They have always said yes [and] now is the time to do it. A lot of pressure is building on them to now actually put their money where their mouth is. It’s not actually a lot of money because it’s amortised over 10-12 years. I think it will happen’” [The Guardian removed he word ‘bloody’ from later editions].

Was I the only one baffled by Ashley’s line of argument? Although commercial interests own the lion’s share of DAB in the UK, the largest commercial radio group is insisting here that the cost of fixing DAB to make it work properly is the “sole responsibility” of the publicly funded BBC. Furthermore, Global Radio will only launch new commercial digital radio stations, from which it must expect to make a profit, once the BBC has underwritten the huge cost of making the DAB system fit for purpose using public funds. I remain baffled.

This was by no means the first time, and will probably not be last, that Global Radio has talked rubbish publicly about DAB radio. In its PR, Global paints itself as a driving force behind digital radio and is constantly demanding that DAB switchover be implemented as quickly as possibly. However, in practice, Global has shown no interest in developing DAB as a replacement for FM, having sold off the majority of its DAB licences. This hypocrisy has been documented on previous occasions in this blog, during which time Global’s attitude towards the BBC has shifted from ‘carrot’ to ‘stick’. History speaks volumes.

In October 2007, Global Radio cancelled the contract with Sky inherited from its acquisition of Chrysalis Radio that would have created a national Sky News Radio station on DAB. A Global spokesperson said then that “Global was not prepared to make the necessary investment in this project.”

In December 2007, Global Radio dropped live presenters from the digital radio station The Arrow which it had also acquired from Chrysalis Radio. The Arrow was removed from DAB in London in May 2008, removed from DAB in Scotland in February 2009, removed from satellite and cable TV in June 2009, and removed from DAB in the West Country in February 2010. It is now available over-the-air on only 5 local DAB multiplexes.

In January 2008, Global Radio dropped dedicated shows from the digital version of its Galaxy Radio brand, replacing them with simulcasts of local FM output.

On 31 March 2008, the day after Global Radio’s offer to acquire GCap Media had been accepted, the latter’s two remaining national DAB radio stations Capital Life and TheJazz were closed. GCap had already closed another national DAB station, Core, in January 2008.

In March 2009, Global Radio dropped digital-only station Chill from DAB multiplexes in Leicester, Nottingham and West Wiltshire. Chill was then removed from further local DAB multiplexes in July 2009, and from cable TV in July 2010. It is now available over-the-air on DAB only in London and Birmingham.

However, in April 2009, Ashley said that he appreciated that the BBC had the capacity to make a significant contribution to facilitate Digital Britain from a radio perspective, and that Global Radio was prepared to play a leading role. Confusingly, this was the same month it was announced that Global Radio had agreed terms to sell the majority of its DAB multiplex licenses.

In May 2009, in an interview bizarrely headlined ‘Global evangelist for digital radio: Ashley Tabor has a clear vision for his group…’, he said:

“I am really confident now that all the right things are happening that will get us to where we need to go. We are in favour of [analogue radio] switch-off, so can we do it quickly please?”

That same month, Ashley’s right-hand man at Global Radio, Stephen Miron, told a radio conference:

* “The future of our sector is intrinsically linked to the successful implementation of the government’s digital strategy and to the successful migration to DAB”;
* “We need more of this in the coming weeks and months. Not just words, but action”;
* “We need to get our act together to make the best possible case for consumers to switch to digital”;
* “Global is up for the challenge and, as the largest commercial player, we are prepared to lead this charge.”

In July 2009, Global announced the completion of the sale of its DAB licences, the largest ever transaction of its type, which drastically shifted the dominant ownership of the UK’s commercial radio DAB system from the commercial radio sector itself to transmission specialist Arqiva.

Global Radio sold:
* its 63% shareholding in Digital One, the sole national DAB multiplex for commercial radio;
* its 100% shareholding in Now Digital Ltd and Now Digital (Southern) Ltd, its local DAB multiplexes;
* 12% of MXR Holdings Ltd.

These transactions left Global Radio with a 51% shareholding in MXR, owner of five regional DAB multiplexes, a half-stake in 3 CE Digital local multiplexes and a minority stake in Digital Radio Group, owner of one London multiplex. At a stroke, Global’s role in DAB had been reduced from the dominant player to an also-ran. However, this did not prevent Ashley from stating in the press release announcing these disposals:

“As a company we are leading the commercial radio industry in its drive to digital.”

Neither this press release, nor the Annual Accounts, revealed how much Global Radio commanded for its sale of these assets. All we know is that the last, shortlived chief executive at GCap Media, Fru Hazlitt, was so disenamoured of DAB that she had planned to sell the company’s controlling stake in the DAB national multiplex licence for £1 in January 2008 (the transaction was halted by Global’s offer for GCap).

None of these closures and disposals seemed to change Global Radio’s public enthusiasm for DAB radio. In July 2010, a government press release on digital radio included a quote from Ashley saying:

“We look forward to working with the government and other partners to bring the benefits of digital radio to a growing group of listeners.”

So what precipitated the change of heart in Ashley’s previously collaborative noises to the BBC from a ‘carrot’ into the ‘stick’ evident in his interview this week? Well, less than 24 hours earlier, the government had published a report on DAB radio switchover that was critical of many radio sector stakeholders for the lack of progress that had been made during the last decade. Those criticised included commercial radio, its trade body RadioCentre, the Digital Radio Development Bureau and its successor, Digital Radio UK. Some people can take measured criticisms like this in their stride. But others cannot.

Not only does Global Radio account for 38% of UK commercial radio listening, but the group funds a substantial portion of RadioCentre (£2.8m in subscriptions between September 2007 and March 2009) and of the Digital Radio Development Bureau and Digital Radio UK. Even so, why did this new government report exercise Ashley so much? Because:
* Global Radio needs DAB switchover to succeed for the company to hang on to its valuable analogue radio licences;
* The responsibility for making DAB switchover happen now lies elsewhere, so Ashley has decided to pin the tail on the BBC.

Maybe Ashley is a graduate of the Malcolm McLaren and Stevo school of negotiation. This is the strategy where you make the most outrageous demands and the other person caves in for fear of not being invited to your party. This might work in the unregulated music business, where excess is viewed as a virtue, but in the radio industry there are laws and rules governing large parts of the business.

What would be the response of record companies if a radio owner were to march in and tell them that they should pay radio stations for playing their music, rather than the other way around? Or if you were to tell record companies that your radio stations would no longer play ‘hit’ records that line their coffers but, instead, would deliberately play unpopular songs that they did not want on the radio. Record company bosses would probably laugh in your face and ask their legal department to show you a filing cabinet full of royalty agreements with commercial radio dating back to 1973.

Getting your own way, all the time, only works when you have been given absolute power over your fag. Ashley phoning a journalist, stomping his feet at the BBC and demanding that it do this or that will have no effect whatsoever. His demands about DAB must have had BBC radio managers laughing their socks off on Wednesday morning. As Scott Taunton, the straight-talking managing director of UTV Radio, said of Ashley in 2009:

“He is a guy who is used to getting his own way. He isn’t from the same school of business, the same school of negotiation, that I am.”

So why exactly does Global Radio need DAB switchover to happen? Because:
* Global Radio was created by Ashley’s millionaire father for a son who is a radio obsessive (“I would literally have a radio in my [school] bag and the second I was allowed to put it on I would actually phone [presenter] Pat Sharp in the studio at whatever time, 10.30, 11.30, just to say hello and develop a relationship with him. He thought I was nuts,” said Ashley);
* Global Radio overpaid to acquire GCap Media in June 2008 for £375m, a mis-managed company whose performance was dropping like a stone, and whose market capitalisation had fallen from £711m in 2005 to £200m by year-end 2007;
* Global Radio has already had to write down its assets by £194m in March 2009, reducing the group’s net book value to £351m from the total £545m it had paid for Chrysalis and GCap in 2007 and 2008 respectively;
* Global Radio “is primarily funded by debt”, its accounts state, and external bank debt was £110m in October 2009, an amount that must be repaid in quarterly instalments by October 2012;
* Global Radio has been hit hard in 2010 by the new government’s sudden 50% cut to its advertising spend (“The COI change has been larger than expected, very abrupt. It’s been pretty severe, more than 50%,” said Ashley)
* Ofcom is presently re-evaluating the price of Global Radio’s Classic FM licence, the most profitable in commercial radio and, if DAB switchover is abolished, the cost of that licence could be increased from its current £50,000 per annum to nearer £1m per annum from 2011 to 2018;
* The Digital Economy Act 2010 renewed commercial radio licences for a further seven years only on the basis that DAB switchover will happen. If switchover does not happen, the government has the power to terminate all renewed licences by 2015 (or by two years’ notice, if later). However, in its accounts, Global decided to write off the ‘goodwill’ of its GCap acquisitions over twenty years.

For Global Radio, which owns more analogue licences than any other commercial radio group, this means that the value of its business could be reduced drastically if DAB switchover does not happen. Its one national licence would become a lot more expensive and then might have to be publicly auctioned, while its dozens of local licences could be terminated earlier than anticipated. Global needs DAB switchover to happen at all costs.

However, at every opportunity, Global decided to forgo investment in the DAB platform and, instead, to dispose of the majority of its DAB assets. This has left it with almost no remaining leverage to ensure that DAB switchover will ever happen. Furthermore, Ashley has alienated commercial radio competitors such as UTV, precipitating its resignation from the trade body RadioCentre in 2009. UTV’s Scott Taunton described Ashley as a “rich man’s son” and explained:

“For us it came down to Global, as the largest funder of the RadioCentre, making sure that the policies of the RadioCentre were in the interests of Global Radio. At times, for me, that meant the [trade body] was pursuing an agenda that wasn’t necessarily in the interests of all its members.”

So, Global Radio needs DAB switchover to happen in order to maintain the value of its analogue radio business. But it can do little itself directly, its biggest competitor Bauer is unlikely to help, and its smaller competitors have been alienated. Global had succeeded in wrangling a very beneficial deal from Lord Carter in the Digital Economy Act, but Carter exited quickly and the whole government has changed since then. The sting in the tail was that parliament included a get-out clause (if DAB switchover does not happen …) and now that clause looks more likely than ever to be invoked.

The pheasants look as if they might be coming home to roost at the Tabor estate. And what does a young man do when the train set his father made for him is not working the way he wants? He stomps his feet. He shouts. He issues demands. This week, the BBC has been on the receiving end. It should feel honoured. Ashley has demonstrated his belief that the BBC can do more to fix the DAB disaster than the whole of the commercial radio sector and its trade and marketing agencies added together. But, remind me, why should part of my BBC Licence Fee go to fix his plaything?

And what might Ashley think of doing next if the BBC does not bow to exactly what he wants? Will he be demanding that BBC director general Mark Thompson stands on his head in the corridor during short break, or runs around the perimeter of White City in his underwear fifty times in the pouring rain, or sits in the BBC library after work copying out chapters of ‘Paradise Lost’ by hand?

Are any of these shenanigans a strategy for the future of radio? All they demonstrate to the world is that large parts of the UK commercial radio sector seem to have completely lost the plot.

[declaration of interest: I was paid to advise DMGT on the offer made for GCap Media by Global Radio in 2008]

Back to the future of radio – the FM band

Help seemed to have arrived for those consumers who are confused by the contradictory messages they are receiving about DAB radio, digital switchover and the future of FM/AM radio. The government created a ‘hot topic’ web page that addresses these issues in the form of a ‘FAQ’. Does it help clarify things?

The government FAQ states:
* “We support 2015 as a target date for digital radio switchover” but, in the next sentence, it says that 2015 is “not the date for digital radio switchover”;
* “FM will not be ‘switched off’ … and will continue for as long as it is needed and viable” but then it fails to explain the reason the government is calling it ‘switchover’;
* “We believe digital radio has the potential to offer far greater choice and content to listeners” but then it asserts that “quite simply the listener is at the heart of this [switchover] process”;
* “11 million DAB sets [have] already [been] sold” but, in the next sentence, it deliberately confuses ‘DAB radio’ with ‘digital radio’ which, it states, “accounts for around a quarter of all radio listening” [DAB accounts for only 16% of all radio listening];
* “Car manufacturers have committed to fit DAB as standard in all new cars by 2013” but it does not explain that only 1% of cars currently have DAB radio;
* “Some parts of the country are not served well by DAB” but it then admits that “switchover can only occur when DAB coverage matches [existing] FM [coverage].”

Well, that makes everything crystal clear now. Switchover is not switchover. 2015 is the date but is not the date. It is the government that is insisting upon digital ‘switchover’ but it is a consumer-led process. Almost no cars have DAB now but, in 2+ years’ time, magically they all will. In parts of the UK, DAB reception is rubbish or non-existent, but ‘switchover’ will not happen until somebody spends even more money to make DAB coverage as good as FM … even though FM is already serving consumers perfectly well.

Sorry, what was the point of DAB?

While the UK government ties itself in increasingly tighter knots trying to explain the unexplainable, and to justify the unjustifiable, most of the rest of the world carries on regardless, inhabiting reality rather than a fictional radio future. In May 2010, a meeting in St Petersburg of the European Conference of Postal & Telecommunications Administrations considered the future usage of the FM radio waveband [which it refers to as ‘Band II’] in Europe. Its report stated:

“Band II is currently the de facto analogue radio broadcasting band, due to its excellent combination of coverage, quality and low cost nature both in terms of current networks available and receivers in the market. It is well suited to local, regional and national programming and has been successfully used for over forty years now. FM receivers are part of our daily lives and millions of them populate our households. FM radios are cheap to manufacture and for the car industry FM still represents the most important medium for audio entertainment.”

Its report concluded that:
* “Band II is heavily used in all European countries;
* For the current situation the FM services are still considered as satisfactory from the point of sound quality but the lack of frequencies hinders further development;
* There are no wide-spread plans or strategies for the introduction of digital broadcasting in Band II;
* No defined final switch-off dates are given so far.”

Two paragraphs in the 28-page report seemed to sum up the present UK situation:

“The FM band’s ability to provide high-quality stereo audio, the extremely high levels of receiver penetration and the relative scarcity of spectrum in the band combine to make this frequency band extremely valuable for broadcasters.”

“As FM in Band II is currently, and for the foreseeable future, the broadcasting system supporting the only viable business model for radio (free-to-air) in most European countries, no universal switch-off date for analogue services in Band II can be considered.”

In the UK, we have just seen how “extremely valuable” FM radio licences still are to their owners. Global Radio was prepared to promise DAB heaven and earth to Lord Carter to ensure that a clause guaranteeing automatic renewal of its national Classic FM licence was inserted into the Digital Economy Act 2010. It got what it wanted and therefore avoided a public auction of this licence. Then, when expected to demonstrate its faith in the DAB platform, Global sold off its majority shareholding in the national DAB licence and all its wholly-owned local DAB licences.

Now the boot is on the other foot. Having succeeded in persuading the government to change primary legislation to let it keep commercial radio’s most valuable FM licence for a further seven years, Global Radio has now had to argue to Ofcom that analogue licences will become almost worthless in radio’s digital future. Why? In order to minimise the future Ofcom fee for its Classic FM licence. The duplicity is breath-taking.

When it last reviewed its fee for the Classic FM licence in 2006, Ofcom reduced the price massively because, it explained, it took

“the view that the growth of digital forms of distribution meant that the value associated with what was considered to be the principal right attached to the licence – the privileged access to scarce analogue spectrum – was in decline.”

In 2006, Ofcom had published a forecast for the growth of digital radio platforms which has since proven to have been wildly over-optimistic. It had predicted that 42% of listening would be digital by year-end 2009, whereas the outcome was 21%. In 2006, as a result of the steep decline it was forecasting in analogue radio’s usage, Ofcom reduced the cost of Classic FM’s licence fee by 95% from £1,000,000 to £50,000 per annum (an additional levy on the station’s revenues was also reduced from 14% to 6% per annum). The losers were UK taxpayers – the licence fees collected by Ofcom are remitted to the Treasury. The winners were Classic FM’s shareholders, who were gifted a cash cow by Ofcom bureaucrats who misunderstood the radio market.

Fast forward to 2010, and Ofcom is undertaking yet another valuation of how much Classic FM (plus the two national AM commercial stations) will pay during the seven years of its new licence, following the expiry of the current one in September 2011. Has Ofcom apologised for getting its sums so badly wrong in 2006? Of course not. Will it make a more realistic go of it this time around? Well, the signs are not good.

In its consultation document on this issue, Ofcom has repeated the same errors it made in other recent publications about the take-up of digital radio. In Figure 1, Ofcom claims that analogue platforms’ share of all radio listening has fallen from 87% in 2007 to 76% in 2010. This is untrue. As noted in my previous blog entry, listening to analogue radio has remained remarkably static over this time period. Ofcom’s graph has completely ignored the existence of ‘unspecified’ platform listening, the volume of which has varied significantly in different surveys. The graph below plots the actual numbers from industry RAJAR data.

Exactly the same issue impacts the accuracy of Figure 3 in the Ofcom consultation, which purports to show that analogue listening to Classic FM fell from 86% to 72% between 2007 and 2010. Once again, this must be factually wrong. Once again, the volume of ‘unspecified’ listening to Classic FM has simply been ignored and the decline of analogue listening to Classic FM has probably been overstated by Ofcom.

Confusingly, the platform data for Classic FM cited in Figure 3 differ from data in a different Ofcom document [Figure 3.34 on page 33 of The Communications Market 2010] which state that, in Q1 2010, 65% of listening to Classic FM was via analogue, 26% was via digital and 9% was unspecified. In Figure 3, the values for the same quarter are stated as 72%, 28% and 0% respectively. It is impossible for both assertions to be correct.

These inaccuracies have the impact of painting a quite different picture of Classic FM’s transition from analogue to digital listening than the market reality. These matters are not academic. They will have a direct and significant impact on the perceived value of the Classic FM licence over the duration of its next seven-year period. Sensible decisions about the value of the station’s licence cannot be made on the basis of factually inaccurate market data published by Ofcom.

Undeniably, Ofcom is between a rock and a hard place:
* An admittance that, in 2006, Ofcom got its digital radio forecast and its sums badly wrong and, as a result, has already lost the Treasury millions of pounds in radio licence fees, would require humility (and humiliation);
* Not admitting that, in 2006, Ofcom got it wrong would necessitate it to now fix the Classic FM licence fee at the same low rate as in 2006, or even lower, denying the Treasury millions more in lost revenue between 2011 and 2018;
* Increasing the cost of Classic FM’s licence fee would be a tacit admittance by Ofcom that its entire DAB ‘future of radio’ policy is simply not becoming reality and that FM spectrum will still remain “extremely valuable for broadcasters”.

In 2006, the low valuation of Classic FM’s licence fee was built upon a top-down bureaucratic strategy which insisted that the UK radio industry was ‘going digital’, whether or not consumers wanted to or not. Now, it is even more evident than it was then that consumers are not taking up DAB radio at a rate that will ever lead to ‘digital switchover’ (whatever that phrase might mean).

However, reading the Ofcom consultation document, it is also evident that the regulator remains wedded to its digital radio policy, however unrealistic:

“We consider that this [Digital Radio] Action Plan is relevant when considering future trends in the amount of digital listening since it represents an ambition on behalf of the industry and Government to increase the amount of digital listening in the next few years.”

In the real world, Classic FM’s owner understands precisely what the international delegations who met in St Petersburg also knew – FM will remain the dominant broadcast platform for radio. Only the UK government and Ofcom seem not to accept this reality, still trying to go their own merry way, while the rest of Europe has already acknowledged at this meeting that:

* The FM band is “extremely valuable for broadcasters”;
* The FM band is “currently, and for the foreseeable future, the broadcasting system supporting the only viable business model for radio (free-to-air) in most European countries”;
* “No universal switch-off date for analogue services in Band II can be considered.”

[thanks to Eivind Engberg]

Choice FM R.I.P.: the birth and near death of licensed black music radio in London

31 March 1990 was the memorable day when London‘s first licensed black music station, Choice 96.9 FM, arrived on-air. Until then, the availability of black music on legal radio had been limited to a handful of specialist music shows, even though about half of the singles sales chart was filled with black music. The decision by then regulator the Independent Broadcasting Authority [IBA] to license a London black music station was part of a huge government ‘carrot and stick’ campaign to rid the country of pirate radio. On the one hand, new draconian laws had been introduced that made it a criminal offence even to wear a pirate radio T-shirt or display a pirate radio car sticker. On the other hand, the establishment knew that some kind of olive branch had to be offered to the pirate stations and their large, loyal listenership.

Many pirate stations, having voluntarily closed down in the hope of becoming legitimate, were incensed when the IBA instead selected Choice FM for the new South London FM license. Its backers had no previous experience in the London pirate radio business, but had previously published ‘Root’ magazine for the black community in the 1970s. Although it was impossible for one station to fill the gap left by the many pirates, Choice FM tried very hard to create a format that combined soul and reggae music with news for South London’s black community, which was precisely what its licence required. The station attracted a growing listenership and it brought a significant new audience to commercial radio that had hitherto been ignored by established stations. With Choice FM, the regulator succeeded in fulfilling two aspects of public broadcasting policy: widening the choice of stations available to the public; and filling gaps in the market for content that only pirate radio had supplied until then.

In 2000, Choice FM won a further licence to cover North London with an additional transmitter. For the first time, the station was now properly audible across the whole capital and had access to more listeners and more potential advertising revenues. Its listening doubled and, at its peak in 2006, Choice FM achieved a 2.8% share, placing it ahead of TalkSport and BBC London in the capital. Choice FM had no direct competitor in London, although indirectly some of its music had always overlapped Kiss FM. The station’s future looked rosy.

However, the Choice FM shareholders must have realised just how much their little South London station was worth, at a time when commercial radio licences were being acquired at inflated prices. Already, in 1995, Choice FM shareholders had won a second licence in Birmingham, but had then sold the station in 1998 for £6m to the Chrysalis Radio group, who turned it into another local outlet for its network dance music station Galaxy FM. At a stroke, the black community in Birmingham had lost a station that the regulator had awarded to serve them. Black radio in Birmingham was dead. The die was cast.

The then regulator, the Radio Authority, had rubber-stamped this acquisition, stating that it would not operate against the public interest. The Authority requested some token assurances: at least one Afro-Caribbean member on the station’s board; an academy for training young people, especially from the black community, in radio skills; and market research about the impact of the format change on the black community. None of these made any difference to what came out the loudspeaker. Birmingham’s black community was sold down the river.

Changes in UK media ownership rules were on the horizon that would soon allow commercial radio groups to own many more stations within a local market. As a result, in 2001, the UK’s then largest radio group, Capital Radio plc, acquired 19% of Choice FM’s London station for £3.3m with an option to acquire the rest. In 2003, it bought the remaining 81% for £11.7m in shares, valuing the London station at £14.4m. The Choice FM shareholders had cashed in their chips over a five-year period and had generated £21m from three radio licences. What would happen to Choice FM London now?

Graham Bryce, managing director of Capital Radio’s London rock station Xfm (which Capital had acquired in 1998 for £12.6m), said then:

“Our vision is to build Choice into London’s leading urban music station, becoming the number one choice for young urban Londoners. Longer term, we intend to fully exploit the use of digital technology to build Choice nationally into the UK’s leading urban music station and the number one urban music brand.”

Capital Radio and subsequent owners seemed to want to turn Choice FM into a station that competed directly with Kiss FM (owned by rival EMAP). But they never seemed to understand that Kiss FM was now a ‘dance/pop’ station, whereas Choice FM had always been firmly rooted in the black music tradition of soul, reggae and R&B. Such semantics seemed to be lost on Choice FM’s new owners and on the regulator, but certainly not on Choice FM’s listeners, who had no interest in Kylie Minogue songs.

In 2004, Capital Radio moved Choice FM out of its South London base and into its London headquarters in Leicester Square. The station’s final link with the black community of South London it had been licensed to serve was discarded. In 2005, Capital Radio merged with another radio group, GWR plc, to form GCap Media plc. In March 2008, Global Radio bought GCap Media for £375m. In July 2008, Choice FM managing director Ivor Etienne was suddenly made redundant. One of the station’s former founder shareholders commented:

“I’m disappointed that the new management decided to relieve Ivor Etienne so quickly. My concern is that I hope they will be able to keep the station to serve the community that it was originally licensed for.”

However, from this point forwards, it was obvious that new owner Global Radio had no interest in developing Choice FM as one of its key radio brands. In the most recent quarter, the station’s share of listening fell to an all-time low of 1.1% (since its audience has been measured Londonwide). Sadly, the station is now a shadow of its former self, even though it holds the only black music commercial radio licence in London (BBC digital black music station 1Xtra has failed to dent the London market, with only a 0.3% share).

This week, news emerged from Choice FM that its reggae programmes, which have been broadcast during weekday evenings since the station opened, will be rescheduled to the middle of the night (literally). One of the UK’s foremost reggae DJs, Daddy Ernie, who has presented on Choice FM since its first day, will be relegated to the graveyard hours when nobody is listening. From 2003, after the Capital Radio takeover, reggae songs have been banished from the 0700 to 1900 daytime shows on Choice FM. Now the specialist shows will be removed from evenings, despite London being a world centre for reggae and having more reggae music shops than Jamaica.

Station owner Global Radio responded to criticism of these changes in The Voice newspaper: “Choice [FM] has introduced a summer schedule which sees various changes to the station including the movement of some of our specialist shows.”

Once again, the regulator will roll over obligingly and rubber-stamp these changes. For Global Radio, the endgame must be to transform the standalone Choice FM station into a London outlet for its Galaxy FM network. At present, London-based advertisers and agencies can only listen to Galaxy on DAB or via the internet. A London Galaxy station on FM would bring in more revenue for the brand as a result of more listening hours and its higher profile in the advertising community. It would also provide a direct competitor to Kiss FM London (ironic, because Galaxy FM had been launched in 1990 by an established commercial radio group as an out-of-London imitation of successful, London-only Kiss FM). Global Radio’s argument to persuade the regulator will probably be that Choice FM’s audience has fallen to uneconomic levels. And whose fault was that?

Already, Global Radio’s website tells us that “Choice FM is also included as part of the Galaxy network” which “consists of evolving mainstream music supported by entertaining and relatable presenters.” And yet, according to Ofcom, Choice FM’s licence is still for “a targeted music, news and information service primarily for listeners of African and Afro-Caribbean origin in the Brixton area but with cross-over appeal to other listeners who appreciate urban contemporary black music.” How can both these assertions be true of a single station?

For the black community in London, and for fans of black music, this will be the final straw. Just as happened in Birmingham, the new owner and the regulator will have collectively sold Choice FM’s listeners down the river. Another station that used to broadcast unique content for a unique audience will have been wilfully destroyed in order to make it almost the same as an existing station, playing almost the same content. We have many commercial radio stations, but less and less diversity in the music they play. Radio regulation has failed us.

For Choice FM, the writing was on the wall in 2003 when Capital Radio bought the station and one (unidentified) former DJ commented:

“Choice [FM] was there for a reason [to be a black music station for black people], but that reason changed [since] 13 years ago. That’s why you’ve got over 30 pirate stations in London. If Choice FM kept to the reason why they started, you wouldn’t need all them stations. But Choice has become a commercial marketplace. They’ve sold the station out and they should just say they’ve sold the station out. What’s wrong with that? They have sold the station that was set up for the black community and they know they’ve done the black community wrong. But they’ve made some money and they’ve sold it. Why not let your listeners know?”

For me personally, as a black music fan and having listened to Daddy Ernie for twenty years, I am much saddened. In the 1970s and 80s, I had found little on the radio that interested me musically, so I listened to pirate stations and my own records. During those two decades, I actively campaigned for a wider range of radio stations to be licensed in the UK and, by the 1990s, I had played a direct role in making that expansion of new radio services happen successfully. Where did it get us? Now, years later, I have gone back to listening mostly to pirate radio and my own records (and internet radio). I am sure I am not the only one.

The radio industry and the regulator seem not to understand one important reason why radio listening and revenues have been declining for most of the last decade. They need to examine how, through their decisions, they have consistently sold down the river their station audiences and the very citizens whom their radio licenses were specifically meant to serve. Listeners vote with their ‘off’ buttons when station owners renege on their licence promises and the regulator lets them. Choice FM is sadly just one example.

In 2006, a lone enlightened Ofcom officer, Robert Thelen-Bartholomew, had asked at a radio conference:

“Is there room to bring the content of illegal stations into the fold? One way or another, whether we like it or not, we have a large population out there listening to illegal radio. Why do they listen? We are trying to find out. But, if you listen to the stations, they are producing slightly different content and output [from licensed stations]. Some of it is very high quality. Some of it is very interesting. So, what options are there for bringing some of that content into mainstream radio?”

Seemingly, none. The last FM commercial radio licence the regulator offered in London was more than a decade ago. Last year, when two small South London FM stations (one licensed for a black music format) were closed by their owner, the regulator unilaterally decided not to re-advertise their commercial radio licences (see the story here). A pirate radio station has not been awarded a commercial radio licence by the regulator for two decades.

Why do pirate radio stations still exist? Because, just as in the 1970s and 1980s, there are huge gaps in the market for radio content that – in spite of BBC radio, commercial radio and their regulators – remain unfilled. It is no coincidence that the share of listening to ‘other’ radio stations (i.e. not BBC radio and not commercial radio) in London is near its all-time high at 3.1%.

Farewell, Choice FM. I knew you well for twenty years.

And, irony of ironies, we are in Black Music Month.

[thanks to Sharleen Anderson]

Digital Economy Act 2010: a smokescreen for backroom radio ‘deal’

On 8 April 2010 at 1732, the Digital Economy Act was given Royal Assent by Parliament. Who exactly will benefit from the radio clauses in the Act? Certainly not the consumer.

“The passing of the Digital Economy Bill into law is great news for receiver manufacturers,” said Frontier Silicon CEO Anthony Sethill. As explained by Electronics Weekly: “Much of the world DAB industry revolves around decoder chips and modules from UK companies, in particular Frontier Silicon. These firms can expect a bonanza as consumers replace FM radios with DAB receivers.” Frontier Silicon says it supplies semi-conductors and modules for 70% of the global DAB receiver market.

Sadly, the Bill/Act was not really about digital radio at all. For the radio sector lobbyists, it was all about securing an automatic licence extension for Global Radio’s Classic FM, the most profitable station in commercial radio, so as to avoid its valuable FM slot being auctioned to allcomers. The payback on this valuable asset alone easily justified spending £100,000s on parliamentary smooching. It was interesting to see one Labour MP acknowledge the true purpose for all this parliamentary lobbying in the House of Commons debate when he congratulated “[Classic FM managing director] Darren Henley for making a cause of the issue.”

The clauses in the Digital Economy Bill on the planned expansion of DAB radio and digital radio switchover were simply promises that Lord Carter had insisted upon as the radio industry’s quid pro quo for government assistance to Global Radio’s most profitable asset. The existence of this ‘deal’ between Lord Carter and Global Radio was confirmed by Digital Radio Working Group chairman Barry Cox in his evidence to the House of Lords:

“Lord Carter did not like to do [the deal] immediately. As I understand, he wanted to get something more back from the radio industry. I think there is a deal in place on renewing these licences, yes.”

However, the quid pro quo promise to develop DAB radio will never come to fruition. Now that Global Radio has got what it wanted, over the coming months, the radio industry’s commitment to continue with DAB will inevitably be rolled back. Every excuse under the sun will be wheeled out – the economy, the expense, the lack of industry profitability (having spent nearly £1billion on DAB to date), consumer resistance, the regulator, the Licence Fee, the government (old and new), the car industry, the French, the mobile phone manufacturers, whatever …….

The reasons that digital radio migration/switchover will never happen are no different now than they were before the Digital Economy Bill was passed into law. For the consumer, who seems increasingly unconvinced about the merits of DAB radio, this legislation changes nothing at all. Those reasons, as itemised in my written submission to the House of Lords in January 2010, are:

* The characteristics of radio make the logistics of switchover a very different proposition to the television medium;
* The robustness of the existing analogue FM radio broadcasting system;
* Shortcomings of the digital broadcast system, ‘Digital Audio Broadcasting’ [DAB], that is intended to replace analogue radio broadcasting in the UK.

More specifically:

1. Existing FM radio coverage is robust with close to universal coverage:
* 50 years’ development and investment has resulted in FM providing robust radio coverage to 98.5% of the UK population.

2. No alternative usage is proposed for FM or AM radio spectrum:
* Ofcom has proposed no alternate purpose for vacated spectrum;
* There is no proposed spectrum auction to benefit the Treasury.

3. FM/AM radio already provides substantial consumer choice:
* Unlike analogue television, consumers are already offered a wide choice of content on analogue radio;
* 14 analogue radio stations are available to the average UK consumer (29 stations in London), according to Ofcom research.

4. FM is a cheaper transmission system for small, local radio stations:
* FM is a cheaper, more efficient broadcast technology for small, local radio stations than DAB;
* A single FM transmitter can serve a coverage area of 10 to 30 miles radius.

5. Consumers are very satisfied with their existing choice of radio:
* 91% of UK consumers are satisfied with the choice of radio stations in their area, according to Ofcom research;
* 69% of UK consumers only listen to one or two different radio stations in an average week, according to Ofcom research.

6. Sales of radio receivers are in overall decline in the UK:
* Consumer sales of traditional radio receivers are in long-term decline in the UK, according to GfK research;
* Consumers are increasingly purchasing integrated media devices (mp3 players, mobile phones, SatNav) that include radio reception.

7. ‘FM’ is the global standard for radio in mobile devices:
* FM radio is the standard broadcast receiver in the global mobile phone market;
* Not one mobile phone is on sale in the UK that incorporates DAB radio.

8. The large volume of analogue radio receivers in UK households will not be quickly replaced:
* Most households have one analogue television to replace, whereas the average household has more than 5 analogue radios;
* The natural replacement cycle for a radio receiver is more than ten years.

9. Lack of consumer awareness of DAB radio:
* Ofcom said the results of its market research “highlights the continued lack of awareness among consumers of ways of accessing digital radio”.

10. Low consumer interest in purchasing DAB radio receivers:
* Only 16% of consumers intend to purchase a DAB radio in the next 12 months, according to Ofcom research;
* 78% of radio receivers purchased by consumers in the UK (8 million units per annum) are analogue (FM/AM) and do not include DAB, according to GfK data.

11. Sales volumes of DAB radio receivers are in decline:
* UK sales volumes of DAB radios have declined year-on-year in three consecutive quarters in 2008/9, according to GfK data.

12. DAB radio offers poorer quality reception than FM radio:
* The DAB transmission network was optimised to be received in-car, rather than in-buildings;
* Consumer DAB reception remains poor in urban areas, in offices, in houses and in basements, compared to FM.

13. No common geographical coverage delivered by DAB multiplexes:
* Consumers may receive only some DAB radio stations, because geographical coverage varies by multiplex owner.

14. Increased content choice for consumers is largely illusory:
* The majority of content available on DAB radio duplicates stations already available on analogue radio.

15. Digital radio content is not proving attractive to consumers:
* Only 5% of commercial radio listening is to digital-only radio stations, according to RAJAR research;
* 74% of commercial radio listening on digital platforms is to existing analogue radio stations, according to RAJAR research.

16. Consumer choice of exclusive digital radio content is shrinking:
* The majority of national commercial digital radio stations have closed due to lack of listening and low revenues;
* After ten years of DAB in the UK, no digital radio station yet generates an operating profit.

17. Minimal DAB radio listening out-of-home:
* Most DAB radio listening is in-home, and DAB is not impacting the 37% of radio listening out-of-home;
* Less than 1% of cars have DAB radios fitted, according to DRWG data.

18. DAB radio has limited appeal to young people:
* Only 18% of DAB radio receiver owners are under the age of 35, according to DRDB data;
* DAB take-up in the youth market is essential to foster usage and loyalty.

19. DAB multiplex roll-out timetable has been delayed:
* New DAB local multiplexes licensed by Ofcom between 2007 and 2009 have yet to launch;
* DAB launch delays undermine consumer confidence.

20. Legacy DAB receivers cannot be upgraded:
* Almost none of the 10 million DAB radio receivers sold in the UK can be upgraded to the newer DAB+ transmission standard;
* Neither can UK receivers be used to receive the digital radio systems implemented in other European countries (notably France).

21. DAB/FM combination radio receivers have become the norm:
* 95% of DAB radio receivers on sale in the UK also incorporate FM radio;
* 9 million FM radios are added annually to the UK consumer stock (plus millions of FM radios in mobile devices), compared to 2 million DAB radios, according to GfK data.

22. DAB carriage costs are too high:
* Carriage costs of the DAB platform remain too costly for content owners to offer new, commercially viable radio services, compared to FM;
* Unused capacity exists on DAB multiplexes, narrowing consumer choice.

23. DAB investment is proving too costly for the radio industry:
* The UK radio industry is estimated to have spent more than £700m on DAB transmission costs and content in the last ten years;
* The UK commercial radio sector is no longer profitable, partly as a result of having diverted its operating profits to DAB.

24. DAB is not a globally implemented standard:
* DAB is not the digital radio transmission standard used in the most commercially significant global markets (notably the United States).

These factors make it unlikely that a complete switchover to DAB digital terrestrial transmission will happen for radio in the UK.

With television, there existed consumer dissatisfaction with the limited choice of content available from the four or five available analogue terrestrial channels. This was evidenced by consumer willingness to pay subscriptions for exclusive content delivered by satellite. Consumer choice has been extended greatly by the Freeview digital terrestrial channels, many of which are available free, and the required hardware is low-cost.

Ofcom research demonstrates that there is little dissatisfaction with the choice of radio content available from analogue terrestrial channels, and there is no evidence of consumer willingness to pay for exclusive radio content. Consequently, the radio industry has proven unable to offer content on DAB of sufficient appeal to persuade consumers to purchase relatively high-cost DAB hardware in anywhere near as substantial numbers as they have purchased Freeview digital television boxes.

Additionally, it has taken far too long to bring DAB radio to the consumer market, and its window of opportunity for mass take-up has probably passed. Technological development of DAB was started in 1981, but the system was not demonstrated publicly in the UK until 1993 and not implemented for the consumer market until 1999. In the meantime, the internet has expanded to offer UK consumers a much wider choice of radio content than is available from DAB.

In this sense, DAB radio can be viewed as an ‘interim’ technology (similar to the VHS videocassette) offering consumers a bridge between a low-tech past and a relatively high-tech future. If DAB radio had been rolled out in the early 1990s, it might have gained sufficient momentum by now to replace FM radio in the UK. However, in the consumer’s eyes, the appeal of DAB now represents a very marginal ‘upgrade’ to FM radio. Whereas, the wealth of radio content that is now available online is proving far more exciting.

The strategic mistake of the UK radio industry in deciding to invest heavily in DAB radio was its inherent belief in the mantra ‘build it and they will come.’ Because the radio industry has habitually offered content delivered to the consumer ‘free’ at the point of consumption, it failed to understand that, to motivate consumers sufficiently to purchase relatively expensive DAB radio hardware would necessitate a high-profile, integrated marketing campaign. Worse, the commercial radio sector believed that compelling digital content could be added ‘later’ to DAB radio, once sufficient listeners had bought the hardware, rather than content being the cornerstone of the sector’s digital offerings from the outset.

In my opinion, the likely outcome is that FM radio (supplemented in the UK by AM and Long Wave) will continue to be the dominant radio broadcast technology. For those consumers who seek more specialised content or time-shifted programmes, the internet will offer them what they require, delivered to a growing range of listening opportunities integrated into all sorts of communication devices. In this way, the future will continue to be FM radio for everyday consumer purposes, with personal consumer choice extended significantly by the internet.

The Digital Economy Bill: let the horse-trading begin, says Shadow Minister

Ed Vaizey MP for Wantage & Didcot
Conservative Party Shadow Minister for Culture
23 March 2010 @ Imperial War Museum North

In today’s radio industry, brands have been shaped more by scarcity of analogue spectrum than necessarily by the market. Brands have been built as much on the frequencies they occupy as much as the characteristics of their content, and commercial revenues have tended to stay limited to local markets.

We very much support the move to digital switchover, both because we believe it is important obviously to upgrade the technology, but because we also think that it will encourage plurality and expand listener choice. We have got to be concerned that people will be ready before any switchover takes place and that there won’t be literally millions of analogue radios which suddenly become redundant. As you know, the government has set a provisional target date of 2015 and we are sceptical about whether that target can actually be met. That is not to say that we are sceptical about digital switchover. We simply think that 2015 might be too ambitious. But we are delighted to see that Ford Ennals is now chief executive of Digital Radio UK, after having steered digital television switchover so successfully, and we hope that all hurdles can be overcome.

We hope that the advent of new digital stations will bring significant new opportunities for independent radio production and it will also free up commercial radio spend. At the moment, as I understand it, the commercial sector spends nearly 10% of its annual revenue on analogue transmission. In the battle for ratings in the new digital world, we would hope that great programming would be at the forefront and that therefore a good proportion of the £40m annual cost of analogue broadcasting will go to independent radio production.

At the moment, the BBC holds four out of the five available national FM licences, and it has the only national digital multiplex. So the aspiration as we move over to digital is as much about making more space for plurality in radio broadcasting as it is about new technology. And if new stations are broadcast, we hope there is plenty of scope for new exciting radio production.

We are also keen obviously not to switch off FM, but to maintain FM as a spectrum particularly for local radio. As you are probably aware, there has been a lot of lobbying during the passage of the Digital Economy Bill about that. I’m pleased to say, as well, that some of the new technology that seems to be coming on-stream, with radios that can switch seamlessly between digital and FM broadcasts, will ensure that there will still be a place for ultra-local FM broadcast stations.

Obviously, many of you will also be interested in what will happen with the Digital Economy Bill as we approach the dissolution of Parliament. My understanding is that the Second Reading will happen on the 6th of April, which I think is also the date that Gordon Brown drives up the Mall to see the Queen to call for the dissolution of Parliament if he wants an election on the 6th of May […] We will have this rather surreal Second Debate in the House of Commons and then we will go straight into what is now called the ‘wash up’ where we horse-trade over the various clauses of the Digital Economy Bill to be passed by the 8th of April. But I can assure you that the deregulation of radio clauses in the Digital Economy Bill have strong cross-party support so, if anything is going to go through, it will be those clauses.

[…]

Q&A

Q: It’s interesting that you touch on digital radio as a platform going forward. Once we find the larger stations, commercial and the BBC, make the switch to digital, and they leave the FM spectrum, do you feel that the majority of listeners will move to digital radio when they vacate their homes, as most cars don’t come with a DAB receiver, so obviously the commercial sector and the BBC are going to be losing listeners because the majority of times listeners tune in to these station is in the car? Furthermore, with DAB, it’s reported and seen by some people in the media/press as being a failed format, competing with new technologies such as DRM. With these changes, do you think that, when people do make the migration to DAB, that smaller stations are going to lose out and that the money from the commercial side is going to be re-invested in programming and we’re not going to lose the quality of the content…

A: Well, I think the problem in the last few years has been a kind of half-way house, so people weren’t really sure what the future of digital radio was going to be, particularly with commercial radios stations that were having to make a double investment which was costing them a lot of money, so we supported the government in making a firm decision that we were going to move over to digital switchover. As I said in my remarks, I think that 2015 might be a bit ambitious.

Your particular point about converting cars to digital radio is, I think, the crucial point. We have got to get to a stage where new cars are fitted – as the French have now mandated, for example – with digital radios and that it gets easy to convert to digital in the car. I think that 2015 is going to be ambitious, but that does not mean that we are sceptical about switchover.

The other point about FM, as against DAB. I think that there will be… There are radios on sale now that switch seamlessly between FM and digital as if you were simply changing channels. I think that, particularly as FM will then be, broadly speaking, a spectrum used by the local radio stations, that won’t be such a problem if you’ve only got a digital radio in your car, as you tend to listen to a local radio station when you’re at home – or you can de-construct that remark. The point you make about whether DAB is the right technology or whether we should be using DAB+, to a certain extent I slightly take the view that we have gone down this road, so let’s leave it. I think the pain of trying to move to DAB+ or beyond will be too much, given how far we’ve come.

Q: I also found it quite interesting that you had the idea that there were going to be more digital-only services. In the past, we have seen digital services such as Capital Life and Core which have come and now gone again because they were not commercially profitable. Do you think that is not going to have an impact when most people make the migration to DAB? Do you think that the local full-scale FM operators are going to suffer?

A: Er, well, er, I hope that they won’t. There will be a distinction between national or big regional radio stations and local stations, and there is already a distinction between local and community which is ultra-local. As I say, we want to put in place a platform that will also enable cross-media ownership at a local level that will enable local media companies to create scale. So, what I hope is that, across the range of media. there will be opportunities for any good radio station that is likely to command a loyal audience – whether that be an ultra-local audience, a regional audience or a national audience – because, in terms of Capital Radio coming and going, I think that was frankly a symptom of that we were in a half-way house about digital. We need to drive digital, which I think is now underway.

[…]

Renewal of national commercial radio licences: debated in the House of Lords

House of Lords
8 February 2010 @ 1723
Digital Economy Bill
Committee (7th Day)

Clause 31 : Renewal of national radio licences
Debate on whether Clause 31 should stand part of the Bill.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, before I propose that the clause not stand part, I must apologise. As a result of the way in which the business of the House has been organised today, I shall not be able to be here for about two hours of the Committee’s proceedings. I very much regret that, as many important matters remain to be debated. However, since the business was switched at extremely short notice — I hope that the Whips are whipped for it in some future incarnation —

Lord Davies of Oldham: Oh!

Lord Clement-Jones: I am of course not referring to the noble Lord, Lord Davies. Moving this business from Tuesday to Monday at very short notice is not a happy situation. I therefore hope that Ministers will give full and frank responses as if I were present. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Addington, who has kindly agreed to step into the breach when I am not able to put the arguments. I propose that Clause 31 should not stand part. Under this clause, the national analogue radio stations talkSPORT, Classic FM and Absolute Radio are receiving valuable seven-year extensions to their licences. In exchange, the existing licensees have been asked to give their support to an early switchover, with the proposed 2015 date coming much earlier than that recommended by the Government’s 2008 Digital Radio Working Group. However, there is a view among some operators that extensions to these licences are not worth the damage to radio of a digital switchover policy which assumes an unrealistic timetable for digital switchover and which fails to provide solutions that allow all local radio stations to move to digital. They do not accept that as a reasonable quid pro quo for an early switchover. They believe, on the contrary, that the industry’s engagement with the digital radio switchover proposal has been distorted by its interest in licence extensions which are essentially to do with the attractiveness of the current analogue model for radio rather than the proposed digital model. Their view is that Clause 31 will deprive the Government of revenue due from re-auctioning the licences for these national analogue stations. However, the Government have failed to publish an assessment of how much revenue will be lost to the Treasury under this approach. The Government need to justify the advantage of the clause against the background of the following factors: that the sums lost to the Treasury will clearly amount to tens of millions of pounds over the lifetime of the extended licences; and the lack of evidence about whether digital investment by the holders of these licences will continue without the extensions. On the face of it, many are already, contractually or otherwise, committed to digital even without this.

Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, although I share a number of the noble Lord’s concerns, I do not think that removing the clause would be helpful. It is a facilitating clause that enables the move to switchover at a later date, and it does not set in stone when the switchover will take place or indeed that it must happen. It is more important that the Secretary of State considers a range of issues before nominating a switchover date than that the process in its entirety is stopped. I believe that the level of digital radio listening should be much higher than the Government have suggested. It would also be very much better if the fact that the FM spectrum will remain in use for local and community radio stations was on the face of the Bill. More progress should be made in creating a help scheme and a recycling scheme. We should be focusing on these issues rather than on an attempt to derail the digital switchover process completely.

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I recall that last week the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I supported each other’s amendments, but sadly that relationship is about to be broken albeit, I hope, temporarily. To allow the Bill to pass without this clause would pose a real problem for the entire digital radio project. The three commercial stations currently granted national analogue licences cater for a broad range of tastes, from Beethoven and Brahms to Bon Jovi, via the latest soccer score from Bolton Wanderers. Their collective appeal has been vital to encouraging digital take-up by listeners, with around a fifth of their current audiences now listening via a digital platform. To disrupt that migration would be rather unwise. Re-advertising these national licences with just a few years to run before we expect to switch off the service seems to be sending the wrong signal to both the industry and to listeners. It seems to suggest that we are not fully committed to digital as the future, that we doubt whether we will be in a position to switch over the bulk of national stations in seven years, and that we can expend less energy on the steps that are undoubtedly still needed to get listeners to switch to digital, especially through pushing down the cost of DAB radio sets and through getting DAB into more cars as standard. I do not think that any of those things are the right course. If, as I understand it, the message from the legislature to the private sector is to be, “We want you to invest in this new technology, market it to your listeners and encourage them to adopt the new listening platforms”, surely we cannot keep expecting these companies to keep on writing blank cheques. We all appreciate that digital platforms are still in their relatively early days. It has to be remembered that not one digital radio station has yet posted a profit. For their pioneering endeavours, they deserve the stability that this reprieve offers them. One does not often hear pleas for breaks for business from these Benches, but this is a case of tidying up the licensing regime to make it serve the purposes of the digital age.

Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the consumer panel of Classic FM. This panel is entirely independent of the company. It is devoted to maintaining the standards of Classic FM and the widespread broadcasting of classical music by the independent sector. If this clause does not stand part of the Bill, your Lordships should be aware that the future of Classic FM will be severely compromised because it is a requirement of existing law that the analogue licences are auctioned. As at present conceived, analogue licences do not have a clear format specification. There is not a licence for classical music. There is simply a licence for non-speech, which is the licence held by Classic FM. If these national stations were to be auctioned in the near future, I would be willing to bet the noble Lord who is opposing that Clause 31 shall stand part of the Bill at least a bottle of claret that this licence would be secured by a pop music station, and that Classic FM would disappear. I wonder whether the noble Lord has taken into account that possibility in his proposal.

Lord Young of Norwood Green: My Lords, key to supporting the drive to digital is to encourage and to allow broadcasters to invest in their digital futures. Experience shows that licence renewals, which are linked to the provision of a digital service, are a key incentive. At a time when the Government are asking the industry to contribute to a focused and intense drive towards digital, we believe that it would be wrong to remove this incentive. Clause 31, alongside Clause 32, would allow Ofcom to grant a further renewal period of up to seven years to analogue licence holders who also provide a digital service. Clause 31 relates specifically to the national analogue licences, although the rationale for the decision for extending the renewal is identical for both national and local licences. I do not want to take up too much time because noble Lords who have contributed to this debate have put many of the arguments excellently. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, talked about the necessity to maintain the clause. The right reverend Prelate displayed a very catholic — I hope he does not mind me using the word — taste in music from Beethoven to Bon Jovi, which I liked. In his analysis of the need for Clause 31, he is absolutely right. As he said, we cannot expect companies to carry on writing blank cheques. We need to give them an incentive. My noble friend Lord Eatwell’s analysis of Classic FM was exceedingly apposite. We believe that this clause is essential for the reasons stated by a number of noble Lords. In those circumstances, I support the Motion that this clause stands part of the Bill.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I also thank other noble Lords for contributing to the debate with some fairly bloodcurdling prospects. However, I do not think that the Minister has answered the question about why these extensions are required. I put this proposal somewhat as a devil’s advocate. By and large, I believe that the majority of the radio industry is behind the scheme as put forward by the Government, but there is a significant minority of interest which is not. That is why I put forward the clause stand part debate. But if I was in their shoes, listening to what the Minister had to say, I would consider that his arguments were entirely circular and that the Government have done this because they needed to and that this was the best way forward. I do not think that any real forensic argument has been put forward by the Minister. I could probably put forward rather better arguments than the Minister has. I certainly could have put my finger on areas where investment is needed, since I have been briefed by some of the major radio players. The Minister has been extremely half-hearted in responding. This is the one bit of this Bill which is the Government’s opportunity to set out their stall in terms of their digital radio policy, other than the amendments we have already dealt with. We had quite a useful debate on our last Committee day, but the Minister has not really answered the questions in a robust way. Certainly, he has not set out the stall for the Government’s policy in terms of the extensions of these national analogue radio stations. We are talking about digital radio switchover. What is it about these extensions that will make those radio stations invest more when they migrate to digital? That is what it is all about. The Minister did not even attempt to talk about the amount of money that the Treasury would forgo. Some estimates have put that as high as £73 million, which is a large amount of money. I do not think that the Minister dealt with that either. The Minister has been extremely disappointing. I do not think that that minority of radio stations will be particularly happy to hear the Minister’s lack of engagement with their arguments. It is almost as if he has taken a view that only a minority of radio stations is concerned, that the bulk of the radio industry is quite happy and that therefore that minority will be overridden without so much as a buy your leave. That is an unfortunate position to be in. This House, above all, is about rational debate and about putting forward the arguments. To be frank, in previous amendments to this clause, the Minister put forward some useful points — he certainly did in response to some of mine — but when I have tried to elicit an overarching policy, he has been lacking and I have been somewhat disappointed.

Clause 31 agreed.
Clause 32 agreed.
Amendment 241B not moved.
Clauses 33 and 34 agreed.

Clause 35 : Local radio multiplex services: frequency and licensed area

Amendment 241C
Moved by Baroness Howe of Idlicote
241C: Clause 35, page 39, line 3, leave out “local”

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, this amendment, which relates to the provisions for digital radio, seeks to allow for the efficient use of the radio spectrum and for a potential increase in radio listening choice for the people of Northern Ireland. Although national BBC services are available via digital radio in all four parts of the United Kingdom, the national commercial multiplex is unavailable in Northern Ireland. The reasons for that are historical and technical, and relate to how the same frequencies were used in the Republic of Ireland. The result is that stations, including Absolute Radio, Planet Rock, BFBS radio and Premier Christian Radio, cannot be heard digitally in Northern Ireland. There is some hope that the spectrum position will change. However, as currently worded, even if that spectrum were to become available, Ofcom would not have the powers to allow it to be used by the national commercial multiplex. That is clearly an anomaly and, I suspect, an oversight. It would result in the inefficient use of spectrum and an artificial restriction on the radio-listening choice for some citizens. This amendment seeks to correct the situation and, without obliging, would enable Ofcom to increase the coverage of the national commercial multiplex. Were this to become technically possible, Ofcom would follow the process already proposed for similar expansion of local digital radio or multiplexes using the framework already in the Bill. This amendment, while modest and not contentious, will have benefits for the people of Northern Ireland and clearly will be welcomed by the radio industry, so I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept it. I beg to move.

Lord Young of Norwood Green: My Lords, this amendment would allow Ofcom to vary the frequency or licensed area of national, as well as local, radio multiplex licences. On the face of it, this is not an unreasonable change and would potentially enable the national commercial radio multiplex to extend its coverage to Northern Ireland. However, Clause 35 was structured specifically with reference to local radio multiplexes so as to allow them to merge or be extended in order to close the gaps in local radio multiplex coverage in the UK not currently served by DAB. Simply removing the word “local” from the text may not be the best way to achieve the desired result. Consideration needs to be given to what variation powers Ofcom should have with regard to national multiplex licences and to the basis on which such powers should be exercised. We have some sympathy with what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve and the Government will consider this issue before Report. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I am pleased to hear that, even if this amendment is not entirely appropriate according to the Minister, serious consideration is going to be given to how this can be made possible. Under those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 241C withdrawn.
Amendments 241D to 241F not moved.
Clause 35 agreed.

Clause 36 : Renewal of radio multiplex licences
Debate on whether Clause 36 should stand part of the Bill.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, Clause 36 deals with the renewal of radio multiplex licences and it inserts a new Section 58A after Section 58 of the Broadcasting Act 1996. The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which we always listen to with some respect, had some interesting words to say about this clause: “It is impossible to tell from the Bill whether the policy is that the licences should or should not be renewable at all, let alone for what period or on what grounds. Indeed, paragraph 56 of the memorandum candidly admits that the relevant policy decision has yet to be made. We draw attention to the skeletal nature of the power in clause 36, to enable the House to examine it further and determine whether it is justifiable in this context”. I am merely a humble hand maiden of this House in tabling this clause stand part debate, and I hope that the Minister can give us further enlightenment.

Lord Young of Norwood Green: I have never had to respond to a hand maiden before in this House. I am still wrestling with that analogy. The Government stated in the Digital Britain White Paper that we would work with the industry to agree a plan to build out the DAB infrastructure to current FM coverage. We recognise the need to limit as much as possible the impact of such build-out on radio stations. One way this can be achieved is to allow multiplex operators to spread the cost of the investment in the new infrastructure by extending the period of their licence. We have suggested that licences could be extended up to 2030. The renewal of multiplex licences as a means to support digital radio was first introduced in the Broadcasting Act 1996. However, these renewal powers only apply to licences which were granted within 10 years of the 1996 Act coming into force. Therefore, there are a number of multiplex licences which are currently not eligible for a renewal. If renewals are to provide a real support to the build-out of DAB coverage to FM levels, they need the flexibility to achieve three objectives: first, to allow the extension of the licence period for those licences which are already eligible for, and in some cases have already been awarded, a renewal under the existing terms; secondly, to allow the renewal to apply to all multiplex licences, including those not currently eligible within the existing provisions; and thirdly, to ensure that any further renewals are awarded with conditions which link them to the progress to digital radio switchover, and more specifically to an agreed build-out plan and timetable. The link to a DAB coverage plan for switchover, which is likely to take a year to agree, is why we believe these powers are most appropriately applied via an affirmative order. I note concerns about the breadth of the order-making powers and I hope that I have satisfied noble Lords that they are justified because of the range of changes needed to implement this policy.

Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that brief but — I hope to discover on reading Hansard — informative statement. As somebody who is not fully conversant with the radio multiplex licence variations, that was not the clearest possible answer I could have asked for. I hope that it will make sense on further consideration. It seemed to tell me that the Government need the maximum possible flexibility without having determined exactly which licences require extension. I am not sure that takes us a great deal further than what the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said, but perhaps, as I say, on reading Hansard it will all become blindingly obvious.

Clause 36 agreed.
Clause 37 agreed.

Radio in the Digital Economy Bill: three more amendments tabled

The following amendments to the Digital Economy Bill will be considered at Committee Stage in the House Of Lords, scheduled for 20 December 2009 and 6, 12 , 18 January 2010.

CLAUSE 30: DIGITAL [RADIO] SWITCHOVER

What does Clause 30 do? According to the government’s Explanatory Notes:

“Clause 30 allows the Secretary of State to give notice to OFCOM of a date by which digital switchover must occur for services specified in the notice. In making a decision to nominate a switchover date, the Secretary of State must take account of any reports by the BBC and OFCOM about the future of analogue broadcasting.
The date for digital switchover is the date after which it will no longer be appropriate for the service in question to be broadcast in analogue form.
The Secretary of State may nominate different switchover dates for different types of radio services and may withdraw a nomination of a switchover date.
After a switchover date has been set, OFCOM are required to vary the licence periods of all licences for the services specified by the Secretary of State so that they end on or before that date. However, OFCOM cannot shorten the duration of a licence so that it would end less than 2 years from the date on which OFCOM give notice of the variation, unless the licence-holder consents.
OFCOM may not vary a licence period so that it ends after the switchover date.”

A.      Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Razzall have proposed an amendment to Clause 30:

Page 33, line 19, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State may not nominate a date for switchover—
(a) unless it can be established that all local commercial radio stations will have the opportunity to move to digital audio broadcasting,
(b) until the proportion of homes in each of the four nations of the UK able to receive—
(i) national BBC services,
(ii) national commercial radio services,
(iii) local BBC services, and
(iv) local commercial radio radio services [sic],
via digital audio broadcasting is equal to the proportion able to receive them via analogue broadcasting.
(c) until digital audio broadcasting accounts for at least 67 per cent of all radio listening, and
(d) until digital audio broadcasting receivers are installed in 50 per cent of private and commercial vehicles.”

Page 33, leave out line 21 and insert—
“(a) must ensure that all commercial and BBC radio services broadcasting in the UK have the opportunity to switchover on the same date,”

Page 34, line 1, leave out “2” and insert “4”

In (my) plain English, this amendment would prevent the government from announcing a single digital radio switchover date until:
• Listening via DAB accounts for two-thirds of all radio listening
• DAB radios are installed in 50% of cars
• 50% of households in each nation have access to a DAB radio
• All BBC and commercial stations, large and small, have been offered the opportunity to migrate from analogue to DAB.
In practice, none of these criteria could possibly be met within the next decade, which would effectively scupper the notion of a digital switchover date. Additionally, a four-year termination notice period would be inserted into renewed commercial radio licences (instead of the government’s proposed two-year period).

B.      Lord Cotter has proposed a separate amendment to Clause 30:

Page 33, line 33, at end insert—
“97AA Disposal and recycling of domestic analogue radios
(1) Following a decision to give notice to OFCOM under section 97A of a date for digital switchover, the Secretary of State must devise a scheme for the disposal and recycling of domestically owned analogue radios.
(2) The scheme must include provision for a financial incentive for domestic owners of analogue radios to purchase a radio suitable for digital audio broadcasting following disposal and recycling of their analogue radios.
(3) The financial incentive must be based on any profit made from the disposal and recycling of analogue radios and must not be derived from public funds.”

In plain English, consumers will have to be paid something for all those analogue radios they will be expected to no longer use.

CLAUSE 31: RENEWAL OF NATIONAL RADIO LICENCES

What does Clause 31 do? According to the government’s Explanatory Notes:

“Clause 31 allows the further renewal of national analogue licences for a period of up to seven years. All of these licences have already been granted a renewal of 12 years under the powers in section 103A of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”). ……”

Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Razzall have proposed an amendment to Clause 31:

“The above-named Lords give notice of their intention to oppose the Question that Clause 31 stand part of the Bill.”

In plain English, this amendment would delete the proposal in the Bill to automatically renew the three national commercial radio licences for a further seven years. Instead, the licences would have to be auctioned individually to the highest bidder, as required by existing legislation. The greatest impact would be on Classic FM, whose licence would have to be advertised by Ofcom in 2010, if this amendment were passed. Its owner, Global Radio, would be faced with Hobson’s choice – either to bid a significantly higher amount (maybe £10m+ per annum rather than the present £2m+ per annum) to win/retain the licence, thus diminishing its ‘cash cow’ status, or to lose the single most profitable licence in commercial radio. Either option might seriously undermine Global Radio’s ability to trade profitably and to service its debt.