[cma-l] FW: Silk FM's coverage / CCR Advertising restrictions

Wed Oct 12 19:10:26 BST 2011

Dear All

Firstly, many thanks to Alex, the two Martins and everyone else who has
shown an interest in our cause over the past five years. Can I just at this
moment in time that I by nature am not a charging in guns blazing person,
however, when one has been banging their head against a brick wall for a
long time with people whose views appear to be both insulting, condecending
and patronising ones approach changes slightly. It's called fighting fire
with fire.

I personally am fully aware of all of the rules, I also understand the MCA /
TSA regulations and understand how it all leads to a complete, total and
utter mess. This exercise of ours is not technically a silk fm bashing as it
could easily be the case elsewhere in the Country .. however, the hypocrisy
and goalpost moving that has gone on over the past few years makes the mind
boggle.

We clearly have got both silk fm and imagine radio battling over these areas
at the moment with imagine running roadshows right in the heart of
Macclesfield which includes places like Gawsworth to the south and silk in
Bramhall and Stockport ....... if these areas are not COMMERCIALLY covered
by them then why are they there trying to gain listeners. If they manage to
gain listeners then this surely actively takes them out of the protection
laws.

If they want the restrictions, then fine, but stay in your own area, be it
MCA or whatever ..... Off go the goalposts again.

Typical as well if what Alex says is true ?? maybe ??        Ofcom being
concerned about overlap with the Manchester big boys but not really giving a
monkeys cuss about our trials and tribulations. Having said this, Ofcom have
been very reasonable with us and I do think they sympathise. The fact that
Key103 are booming over the top of us in Macc seems to have no concern for
anyone                 except us of course.

We have three arguments and approaches on the go at the same time here :-
the bottom line though being that if the restrictions were just
''got-shot-of''    then all this would simply 'go-away'                me
included !                           we shouldn't be arguing about these
figures anyway      they are a nonsense            

1)       The debate regarding the actual MCA / TSA .... in the fact that the
DCMS and Ofcom chose the MCA, which from the outset never gave 16 Community
Radio Stations a fighting chance. We were chasing our backsides from the
outset

2)       Once the figures were established those under the 150,000 threshold
were stuffed !      however, as I have always said, if the numbers are low
for silk / commercial station then they are equally as low for us ... it is
relative, so where is the problem ?      I don't see one

3)       There are ways of actually having on-air advertising .....    just
simply give it away ....... I personally would rather do that than have a
situation whereby we get nobbled and local community businesses suffer as
well. The rule is paid for on-air advertising.

There could be an argument that the rules are deliberately being bent .I
think you may find it is called a loophole... however, our 19 current
stalwarts plus the other eighty odd that have come and gone will have a
timeline and check back as to what package they were on. It is clear and
true that they were on a OFF-AIR ADVERTISING PROMOTIONAL Package. We can
prove that.

We will prove that, and when we do it won't be Canalside who are stuffed as
the boot will be on the other foot and the RULES will get a taste of their
own medicine. To apply loopholes one has to have a timeline and a reference
... that we now have and my word, it is a long one.

My Grandad once told me that 'patience was a virtue'    and hey presto ..
Here it is staring you right in the face. We have waited 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 years
.. knowing full well that the day would come when we can prove a timeline,
an evidence of our supporters and what exactly they have paid for, what they
pay for now and what they still will be paying for ........ The fact that we
choose to give them more     FOR FREE    on-air or off is no business of
anyone else. The free stuff will not be in any contracts.

In fact we could add another free advert ....... printed across my backside
as I bend over on the Town Hall steps               we don't charge for
this, it is free. This is the contempt that I now have.

Of course the money that we receive has some relevance to broadcasting .....
we're a Radio Station ... not a hairdresser or a car-wash or a taxi firm
but a Radio Station. Talking of taxi firms ..... we have a philanthropic
thankyou going round on our system at the moment. The guy (John) kindly
continues to support us but did ask why his telephone number wasn't on there
... I said ''we're not allowed''                           what use is a
mention for a taxi firm when it doesn't have a phone number on it ......
It's a joke !

We will give FREE adverts to our 19 supporters. If this is paid for ON-AIR
ADVERTISING ... then prove it !       the money has already been paid, the
document signed for the OFF-AIR items only                                

On a final note what I will say is this :- what a sad sad sorry state of
affairs when bastions of this Governments Big Society are being persecuted &
criminalised for volunteering, helping their community, training unemployed
youngsters, providing activities for many with disabilities and
difficulties,  promoting community spirit & actively assisting other
community groups.

The people responsible for this are sick in the head and those who STILL
preside over it, and dither, are even sicker in the head. They have listened
to the debate now as long as we have and still they don't give a flying
cactus.

I keep saying ladies and gentlemen, you either play them at their own game,
get in the boxing ring or roll over and die.

We ain't ready for dying yet .... there's plenty more steam in our boiler !
in fact, I personally am more fired up than ever before because next week we
are up for an award for the work that we have done with children and
youngsters who have serious disabilities and illnesses. Take me out of the
equation, these are the guys I'm fighting for. Do you think that our Heidi,
Brian, Chris, Matt, Zack, Nathan, Will, Phil, Mike etc etc etc are going to
be bullied around              er ?   think again ?

Regards         :-)

Nick

  _____  

From: Two Lochs Radio [mailto:tlr at gairloch.co.uk] 
Sent: 12 October 2011 17:43
To: Heidi Reid
Cc: Office - ccr-fm
Subject: Re: [cma-l] FW: Silk FM's coverage / CCR Advertising restrictions

MCA is measured coverage area - it's the area in which Ofcom agrees there is
a satisfactory signal strength. The lie of the land means that Silk's signal
is below the officially required strength to serve Poynton, Alderley Edge
and Wilmslow. It isn't to say that the signal won't be receivable there,
especially for example in cars or on high ground, but it doesn't meet the
required level to count as in the primary coverage area.

The TSA is the total survey area - the area included in marketing and
audience surveys, and is chosen by the station. It is less accurately
defined, but is always larger than the MCA. Their own media pack pushing the
station to advertisers says population of 179,000 (though they may have
included children, which Ofcom discounts). This will be their TSA.

If you have a strong case that Silk is actively editorially serving the
wider area it might be worth discussing with Ofcom and seeing what they
think. They may be more concerned with the overlap Silk has into Manchester
than anythign else, but since it could make a clear difference to you
whether those other three areas are included, it's worth making a friendly
approach to them (not charging in all guns blazing!).

Alex

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Heidi <mailto:heidi.j.r at googlemail.com>  Reid 

To: Two Lochs Radio <mailto:tlr at gairloch.co.uk>  

Cc: Office - ccr-fm <mailto:office at ccr-fm.co.uk>  

Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 3:29 PM

Subject: Re: [cma-l] FW: Silk FM's coverage / CCR Advertising restrictions

So what does MCA mean? I'm confused when we all know that Silk does
broadcast to Bramhall, Poynton & Wilmslow why this isn't seen as included.
Again, is this a question for Ofcom?

Heidi

On 12 Oct 2011 12:20, "Two Lochs Radio" <tlr at gairloch.co.uk> wrote:

Just for info, Ofcom's spreadsheet used for identifying and calculating
overlaps shows Silk's current MCA as 116,157, and so does the station's
format, so there would usually still be a restriction on your advertising.

As far as I can see, the coverage map Heidi refers to does not show Poynton,
Alderley Edge nor Wilmslow as within Silk's MCA, which accounts for why
Heidi got to a much higher total of 164,000. If you remove those you get
close to the declared figure. I think it may also include only part of
Bramhall.

Alex

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Office <mailto:office at ccr-fm.co.uk>  - ccr-fm 

To: 'CMA-L' <mailto:cma-l at commedia.org.uk>  

Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 9:04 PM

Subject: [cma-l] FW: Silk FM's coverage / CCR Advertising restrictions

Dear Everyone

I just thought I would ping this over to you all ..... It is an e-mail
exchange between a number of our volunteers / staff  etc etc .....   it
proves a number of things

1)       That I actually am not some lone 'nutcase' in a cocoon rambling on
about the same old thing with no one around me in agreement. This e-mail
came out-of-the-blue from Heidi / Brian and others and I had no doing in it.

[snip...]

-

So are Ofcom genuinely saying that Silk broadcast to an area with a populus
less than 150,000?

Just checked out the MCA for Silk here:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/radiolicensing/mcamaps/al213.pdf

It includes Macclesfield (50,688), Congleton (25,750), Bollington (7,300),
Alderley Edge (4,409), Bramhall (25,500), Poynton (14,433), Holmes Chapel
(5,669), Wilmslow (30,326) = A populus of 164,075.

Can we go back to Ofcom and ask them to reconsider the restrictions in the
light of these figures?

Heidi

-- 
Canalside Community Radio 102.8 fm
www.ccr-fm.co.uk 

01625 576689

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20111012/6866d611/attachment.html>