[cma-l] DCMS consultation on amendments to Community Radio Regulation.

[Ian Hickling]

I didn't go as far as Royalties, because these aren't strictly statutory matters.
But - as you've brought up the subject - I tend to value Nick's theory that they should be paying us!
No - musicians are really getting the rough end of the stick, but PRS/MCPS/PPL are honestly an irresponsible and autonomous joke.
If we are to pay - then let's pay according to how many people listen to music we play for how long.
And let's have it embodied in Licence Fees - not assessed by a Quango.

------------------------------------
Ian Hickling
Partner
transplan UK


 




Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:33:11 +0100
From: info at a-bc.co.uk
To: jaqui.devereux at commedia.org.uk; cma-l at commedia.org.uk
Subject: Re: [cma-l] DCMS consultation on amendments to Community Radio Regulation.

100% agree with Ian on 1 and 2 - plus I think it needs some good supporting reasons that are "legitimate" in the Government's eyes.  To me the main reason is that CR stations target different advertisers to Commercial stations - ie: the advertising they carry is almost exclusively additional to, not in competition with ILR licences. ie it makes the radio advertising pot bigger.    If we make this point, it MUST be backed-up by evidence - for Gloss FM (the long term RSL that I was involved with) I'm sure we could pull it together, and I'm certain that only 1-2% of Gloss FM advertisers are also advertisers on ILR stations.  Maybe other stations could do the same analysis.


3&4, maybe I'm being overly commercial, but I can't really see the need why to have funding/grants which at the end of the day we, the taxpayer pay for!  Rather than state-funded community radio, provided the revenue rules are removed, leave the grants bit to the plethora of other bodies who provide grants to radio stations and other good causes in order to further their aims.


Thus it could be possible to engineer a "win-win" situation - the Government save money not having to contribute to a central CR fund, while the CR stations are freed from restrictive revenue rules so they can concentrate on delivering good, local, radio.


Two other things for the list 




What about a more accommodating (=less costly) regime for music royalties for CR stations with small audiences?  Or maybe that pub landlady with her Greek satellite dish will deliver that aim for us!
New RSL (and if possible PRS, PPL and MCPS) fees for RSL stations.  Voluntary, "good cause" RSL's should only have to pay similar rates to CR on a pro-rata basis.  Commercial RSL's that make a profit or trialling ILR licences should pay the current, exhorbitant fees.  The difference between these categories could be identified by including some kind of light-touch "Key Commitments" section to the RSL form.  This could be a "difficult sell" to the DCMS, but at least challenge them why RSL's are so expensive compared to CR and make them squirm a bit!.  (If they say it is the cost of allocating a frequency, then they must be grossly inefficient!)


Glyn Roylance
Associated Broadcast Consultants
www.a-bc.co.uk


On 13 October 2011 17:16, Ian Hickling <transplanfm at hotmail.com> wrote:



  
Jaqui.
I think the message to the DCMS is simple:
1 - Remove the restriction imposed on stations who are not permitted to carry advertising.
2 - Remove the 50% Maximum Revenue from Advertising rule.
3 - Institute central sourcing of funding for Community Radio Licensees.
4 - Put realistic and substantial Government funding for CR in the hands of individual MPs who can show a need in a Constituency.


------------------------------------
Ian Hickling
Partner
transplan UK
  

> From: jaqui.devereux at commedia.org.uk
> Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:14:19 +0100
> To: office at ccr-fm.co.uk
> CC: cma-l at commedia.org.uk
> Subject: Re: [cma-l] DCMS consultation meetings on amendments to community radiolaw
> 
> Hi all
> 
> The DCMS meetings will be open to all, presumably subject to space,
> 
> Look forward to seeing you all once we have dates!
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Jaqui
> 


_______________________________________________

Reply - cma-l at commedia.org.uk

The cma-l mailing list is a members' service provided by the Community Media Association - http://www.commedia.org.uk
Twitter: http://twitter.com/community_media
http://www.facebook.com/CommunityMediaAssociation
Canstream Internet Radio & Video: http://www.canstream.co.uk/
_______________________________________________

Mailing list guidelines: http://www.commedia.org.uk/about/cma-email-lists/email-list-guidelines/
_______________________________________________

To unsubscribe or manage your CMA-L mailing list subscription please visit:
http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cma-l


_______________________________________________ Reply - cma-l at commedia.org.uk The cma-l mailing list is a members' service provided by the Community Media Association - http://www.commedia.org.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/community_media http://www.facebook.com/CommunityMediaAssociation Canstream Internet Radio & Video: http://www.canstream.co.uk/ _______________________________________________ Mailing list guidelines: http://www.commedia.org.uk/about/cma-email-lists/email-list-guidelines/ _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe or manage your CMA-L mailing list subscription please visit: http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cma-l 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20111013/8524e010/attachment.html>