<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 4:10 PM fantasy office <<a href="mailto:office@fantasyradio.co.uk">office@fantasyradio.co.uk</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">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.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yeah, completely agree. How DARE the radio industry hide these figures away from us?</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://go.muk.fm/except-actually-they-dont">http://go.muk.fm/oh-wait-here-they-are</a> - 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.</div><div><br></div><div>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:</div><div><a href="https://media.info/radio/news/rajar-dab-growth-boosts-digital-listening-to-40">https://media.info/radio/news/rajar-dab-growth-boosts-digital-listening-to-40</a> - and I mean LISTENING as well as DAB ownership. It's a conspiracy in plain sight. How dare they tell us these very figures?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">Even
digital listening as a whole hasn't yet reached 50% - which means
OVER 50% of listening is analogue.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">And remember - DAB is over twenty
years old now!<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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).</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">As far as cost to the broadcaster is concerned, DAB is completely
outpriced.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">Why would we want to spend money on a local multiplex,
either as an owner</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Because you can rent out the space to other broadcasters and make money from it.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">or as a client? when our FM signal is very good.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">[FM] It's in Stereo and the audio quality is not compromised by reduced
bit rates.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">As for any additional PRS or PPL, or even OFCOM costs for
DAB</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>...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?</div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">I've asked the question before... Where does anyone think the
money will come from? We can't attract more listeners</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>...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? </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">and even if
we could, I doubt if our advertisers would be keen to pay additional
rates because we're on DAB.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">I think the DAB thing, even with the
fine efforts made by the technical people within OFCOM is an
unnecessary compication.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>One that is used over four times as much as online streaming, which is hardly complication-free.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">We also do fine with digital broadcasting - online listening on
computer, ipad, smartphone. Stereo, reasonable bit rate, etc.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">Sorry this has turned into a rant, but quite clearly, we're in
danger of missing the point.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>(And to think that the pro-DAB lobby accuse me of being anti-DAB!)</div><div><br></div><div>//j</div><div><br></div><div>My weekly 'future of radio' newsletter is less ranty: <a href="http://james.cridland.net/">http://james.cridland.net/</a></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><div dir="ltr">-- <br></div><p dir="ltr"><a href="http://james.cridland.net">http://james.cridland.net</a> - get my weekly newsletter<br>
<a href="https://media.info">https://media.info</a> - the media information website</p>
<p dir="ltr">Tel: +44 7941 251474 | @jamescridland</p>