[cma-l] The DAB issue

[James Cridland]

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 4:10 PM fantasy office <office at fantasyradio.co.uk>
wrote:

> And when Digital listening figures are quoted, DAB is always included with
> all other forms of digital listening. No-one ever seems to give us the
> ACTUAL DAB figures. And I mean LISTENING, not just DAB ownership.
>

Yeah, completely agree. How DARE the radio industry hide these figures away
from us?

http://go.muk.fm/oh-wait-here-they-are
<http://go.muk.fm/except-actually-they-dont> - for future reference, it's
on the RAJAR website, under 'listening figures - market trends'. The very
top, 'all radio listening', chart. It's IRRESPONSIBLE to hide the figures
away by publishing them as the top chart on the main radio listening
website and available to anyone.

More evidence that the radio industry is desperately trying to tell anyone
the ACTUAL DAB figures is the top line in the Digital Radio UK press
release:
https://media.info/radio/news/rajar-dab-growth-boosts-digital-listening-to-40 -
and I mean LISTENING as well as DAB ownership. It's a conspiracy in plain
sight. How dare they tell us these very figures?


> Even digital listening as a whole hasn't yet reached 50% - which means
> OVER 50% of listening is analogue.
>

In the London area, analogue listening is 45.9% - that's UNDER 50% - and
digital radio listening is 47.3%, which is MORE than analogue radio.
(There's "don't knows" to bear in mind, by the way). And if community radio
was in RAJAR, your figures would count, but since you're not, they don't.


> And remember - DAB is over twenty years old now!
>

And remember - it took 43 years for FM listening to overtake AM listening
in the US! (So, DAB is growing faster than FM did. A stupid argument, but
facts is facts).


> As far as cost to the broadcaster is concerned, DAB is completely
> outpriced.
>

It's cheaper to broadcast a national radio station on DAB than it is on
analogue. But it is very expensive for smaller local broadcasters. Good job
there's work going on to fix that.


> Why would we want to spend money on a local multiplex, either as an owner
>

Because you can rent out the space to other broadcasters and make money
from it.


> or as a client? when our FM signal is very good.
>

Because you want people to listen? Just as many people never bother
flicking over to AM, households with DAB may never bother flicking over to
FM, and they'll never find you.


> [FM] It's in Stereo and the audio quality is not compromised by reduced
> bit rates.
>

The stereo-ness and audio quality of DAB is up to the broadcaster, it's not
a technology issue. Mono means a reduction of about 40% of the price of
stereo; and if you don't think stereo is worth 40% more, that's up to you.


> As for any additional PRS or PPL, or even OFCOM costs for DAB
>

...you get a great deal on community radio music licences right now, and
there's no such thing as a community radio music licence for DAB. If you
believe you'd be better on a commercial radio music licence, that's
something for the CMA to take up with the relevant companies. And I believe
you pay extra for online streaming too?


> I've asked the question before... Where does anyone think the money will
> come from? We can't attract more listeners
>

...why not? I'll never find you if you're on a tinpot FM transmitter at the
top of a caravan, because I don't listen to FM. How many more people are
there like me? Why do you bother broadcasting online?


> and even if we could, I doubt if our advertisers would be keen to pay
> additional rates because we're on DAB.
>

Why should they pay additional rates for DAB? They pay on results, as any
advertiser does. If you have twice the amount of audience, you should
charge twice as much to advertisers.


> I think the DAB thing, even with the fine efforts made by the technical
> people within OFCOM is an unnecessary compication.
>

One that is used over four times as much as online streaming, which is
hardly complication-free.


> We also do fine with digital broadcasting - online listening on computer,
> ipad, smartphone. Stereo, reasonable bit rate, etc.
>

Yep, just like DAB, the bitrate and stereo is entirely up to you and your
budget. Unlike DAB, however, online radio listening costs you more money
per listener; doesn't have brilliant coverage either; is a fourth of the
size of DAB listening, and is growing slower than DAB listening.


> Sorry this has turned into a rant, but quite clearly, we're in danger of
> missing the point.
>

Sorry this has been a point by point rebuttal, but this type of incessant
whinging, false accusation and fantasy argument highlights how ridiculous
this argument is.

Your job is to make great, relevant content for your audience, and place
that content in a place where the audience want to consume it. That's all.

(And to think that the pro-DAB lobby accuse me of being anti-DAB!)

//j

My weekly 'future of radio' newsletter is less ranty:
http://james.cridland.net/


-- 

http://james.cridland.net - get my weekly newsletter
https://media.info - the media information website

Tel: +44 7941 251474 | @jamescridland
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20150908/c3e10fec/attachment.html>