I’m going to do something here that’s very dangerous. I’m going to conflate two separate stories into one. But follow me through. They are two separate stories, but there are commonalities and themes that run through them.
Today’s Daily Mail (listen to Monday’s I’m Sorry I Haven’t A Clue for more details on what this paper’s readers expect) they published an article claiming that motorists must replace their radios at a cost of £300 or “buy special ‘conversion’ kits that must be attached to the windscreen, often alongside Satnavs, which could also cost more than £100.”
This comes ahead of a speech that is to be given by Ed Vaizey at a conference in London tomorrow where it’s expected that he’ll continue with the previous government’s plans regarding the change to digital. Interestingly, Intellect the company putting on tomorrow’s conference, is the trade body representing precisely those businesses and manufacturers who will be building those digital radio devices.
The Digital Economy Act was passed during the “wash up” period of the last Parliament, and one of the things it allows for is a change to a digital broadcasting platform, much as TV has been changing.
Cue lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth as commentators (some might say “naysayers”) talk about the low level of digital listening (it’s currently at 24.0% of all radio listening) and the fact that we’re not ready to upgrade. Others will say that the technology being adopted out of date.
I’ve been through many of these arguments before, and feel free to peruse this blog to see my rebuttal of many of these points.
Returning to the Mail’s claims today – the £300 figure seems to come from Halfords. And it’s true that the popular motoring store does seem to only stock a single after-market DAB radio which is priced that highly. But DAB radios are available for well under £200 at Argos for example. And the industry is well aware of the issues surrounding car audio. These prices will drop. Major manufacturers will fit DAB radios as standard – some already are in certain lines.
The £100 “converter” price is confusing as the primary device in this market is the Pure Highway – priced at well under one hundred pounds. It’s £80 at Argos and can be had cheaper online. I believe that you can look towards Sat Navs having DAB functionality added to them in the fullness of time. We’re already seeing Freeview added to the devices, allowing a form of digital radio listening to be experienced in car.
In the meantime, some commentators (yup – pretty much the same ones), have read more into the BBC Trust’s interim report on the BBC Strategic Review than perhaps is actually there:
There are big challenges ahead for digital radio too, although the direction of future change is much less clear. The BBC’s newer stations were designed in part to drive digital take up. By 2010, we can see that take up of DAB radio has been slower than expected ten years ago and the BBC’s digital-only stations have not achieved the audiences or impact that was then expected, although the intention behind the Digital Economy Act was to provide new impetus. The BBC is already committed to playing a role in leading the UK radio industry to a fully digital future. A question remains about what that means in the longer term and what the potential is for internet-based radio platforms to evolve. If DAB is to be the future, the BBC can only be one player, alongside Government and the commercial industry, in deciding what the strategy should be for the future shape of investment in both infrastructure and services.
I don’t see that as them saying that DAB is “flop.”
I think that’s probably a fair assessment. Can more be done with DAB? Yes. Should we be looking at internet-based platforms? Of course. But a variety of formats for audio delivery is going to remain critical. Broadband penetration has largely stalled with the remainder either unable to get broadband at an acceptable cost or digitally disenfranchised perhaps on the basis of cost. An over-the-air solution is critical. And unfortunately the mobile networks are teetering with the current mobile data requirements. In their rush to sell us smartphones, their networks – especially in urban areas – aren’t built up enought to sustain the data levels that a push to more streaming media consumption would require. Hence the curtailment of unlimited data plans.
Nonetheless, the UK Radio Player is around the corner and should at least get the paltry 2.9% of listening that’s currently attributable to internet listening up a bit. Whatever the merits of IP distribution, broadcast listening is much more popular, especially amongst those homes who do have a decent broadband connection and are currently underutilising it for radio delivery.
Let me head off on a tangent for a moment, before I meet you at the pass. (Note to self: do not mix your metaphors like that.)
In today’s Evening Standard, Anne McElvoy takes a look at the BBC Trust’s report, and brings up the same ridiculous idea of selling Radio 1 and Radio 2 to a commercial operator as we’ve had before from various otherwise quite sensible people.
I’ve said this before and will say again: this makes no sense.
In the first instance, it’s most often the case that the commentator making the suggestion does not listen to either service. In the commercial sector we always have our “issues” with the BBC, but I think most will admit that in things like their news provision and their support for new music, there are few commercial competitors. There are genuine public service aspects to the stations. Indeed, there should be more.
Earlier in the week I linked to this document and pointed interested readers at page 33. It’s the financials from the BBC’s Annual Report and Accounts. It reveals the cost of Radio 1 at £43.8m and Radio 2 at £52.5m. There is not a commercial station in this country spending anywhere remotely close to that on programming. I’ve no doubt some costs could always be cut in those figures, but it’s not just going on Jonathan Ross’s Radio 2 salary.
A quick look at the Radio 2 schedule reveals regular documentaries, specialist programmes on folk, jazz, big band, soul, country, organ music, big bands, brass bands, and much more. Those things can be expensive to do. Friday Night might well be Music Night, but it sure ain’t cheap.
Furthermore, let’s look at the figures.
According to the Radio Advertising Bureau, commercial radio made £514.9m in the 12 months ending Q1 2010.
RAJAR shows that commercial radio has a total of 418m hours per week. Radios 1 and 2 between them have a total of 270m hours between them – 65% of what commercial radio has.
Hours are important because they dictate how much money a station can make.
It’s hard to imagine a similar scenario in another world, but what we’re looking at here is something akin to a medium sized town that only has small local food shops, most of whom have been actively prevented from expanding, suddenly being subjected to the arrival of both Sainsburys and Tesco. As people who live in small (and big) towns know well – the impact would be devastating.
So if Radios 1 and 2 became commercial, they’d immediately add nearly two thirds to the available inventory. And the advertising “cake” of £514.9m would have to be split very thinly among the current services. That’s a monumental market intervention. It wouldn’t so much upset the market as destroy it.
Agencies would be basically forced into paying what Radios 1 and 2 wanted to charge – think of ITV in the “old” days.
The inevitable result would be dozens and quite probably hundreds of stations immediately going out of business. (Putting this into context – there are only something over 300 commercial stations in the UK).
The advertising would flood into the only two popular music FM bands available. And listeners would have much less choice as the dial emptied of viable competitors.
Furthermore, even if stiff financial requirements were imposed on buyers – for example, the need to switch to digital being added to the licence – the costs would mean that listeners would have an inferior service. Profits would need to be returned to shareholders. Less money would be spent on output. And in general, we’d have a worse selection of services available.
There is simply no way selling off those services makes sense.
Instead, the need for a BBC digital strategy has never been stronger. Those two services should be used to drive digital listening. As that increases, manufacturers would develop those cheap radios that Daily Mail readers are crying out for. And the medium would end up in a much stronger position as we emerge into a digital future.
As always, these are my views, and aren’t necessarily shared by my employer.
The Future of Radio
Tags:
Comments
5 responses to “The Future of Radio”
“Others will say that the technology being adopted out of date.
I’ve been through many of these arguments before, and feel free to peruse this blog to see my rebuttal of many of these points.”
I can’t remember you ever rebutting any points about DAB being out of date. DAB IS obviously out of date. That’s why they designed DAB+. Which bit of that are you disputing?
“I don’t see that as them saying that DAB is “flop.””
I would definitely say that, given the conservative language that the BBC Trust uses, the following sentence amounts to them saying DAB has been a flop:
“By 2010, we can see that take up of DAB radio has been slower than expected ten years ago and the BBC’s digital-only stations have not achieved the audiences or impact that was then expected”
“An over-the-air solution is critical”
But the Digital Radio Working Group final report did not mention the Internet, it was purely about DAB, and the Digital Britain report was purely about DAB as well.
“As that increases, manufacturers would develop those cheap radios that Daily Mail readers are crying out for.”
The only thing Daily Mail readers are crying out over is over the fact that they’re being forced to adopt DAB against their will. Digital radio switchover is and will remain to be incredibly unpopular.
Read this piece for my thoughts on DAB+ and the whole “bogus” argument about technology.
As for DAB being a flop. Nonsense. It hasn’t failed. That’s the definition of a flop. A technology that’s in a third of households cannot be considered as such.
The Digital Radio Working Group report said:
IP delivery to complement the above and provide opportunities for greater interactivity.
And it fed into the Digital Britain Report which explicitly said:
To remain true to that breadth of appeal to listeners, we argue that radio needs a future on its own, dedicated, digital platform – DAB – alongside the many other digital paths over which it can be carried. (My emphasis)
At no point has anybody conflated “Digital Radio” to mean DAB only. DAB is clearly the most important of these technologies, but DTV and IP have their fair share to play. This has been the case throughout.
If the Daily Mail’s readers don’t adopt DAB or any other technologies for digital radio, then switchover won’t happen. It’s as simple as that. We won’t get to a 50% level at which point a Secretary of State might announce a firm date.
I’ve copied my response to your views on technology below. And I’m afraid that there’s no way that the “technology argument” is “bogus” as you suggest.
As for DAB’s “success”, I’m afraid you need to look at its sales figures, and bear in mind the value of the TV advertisign the BBC has lavished upon it – I did a detailed calculation that estimated the value of the BBC’s TV advertising at around £160 million. That’s an average of about £15 per radio sold, which is far more than the profit made per radio – and Pure Digital makes a loss anyway! UK DAB would have gone bankrupt years ago if the adverts had to be paid for… You can’t ignore the value of the advertising when you’re gauging success – you’ve heard the line that anyone can sell £10 notes for a fiver…
Re the DRWG report. They recommended to Government that DAB should become the main digital radio platform. Internet radio was excluded from any of the recommendations made to Government. The Digital Britain report duly rubber stamped the DRWG’s findings, and Internet radio has been duly excluded.
People like Tony Moretta and Lisa Kerr and Tim Davie have slagged off Internet radio at every opportunity that arose.
Since the Digital Britain report came out I’ve seen precisely zero TV adverts for Internet radio listening, so the cumulative total of TV adverts for live Internet radio listening since 2002 now stands at a whopping zero. In contrast the BBC has shown 23 TV advertising *campaigns* for DAB, including a TV (and radio) advertising campaign for the “radio amnesty”.
Please, please don’t try to deny your industry’s extreme bias towards DAB.
Here’s my response to your technical views in the previous blog you linked to:
“Sure, if you were launching digital radio in the UK today, you might well choose DAB+.”
Hardly. If you had the choice between DAB and DAB+ you would *obviously* choose to use DAB+ every time without question. And to suggest otherwise is patently absurd.
“But the only real difference with that is that you can squeeze more stations into the same space – and one thing we currently don’t have is a shortage of space.”
No. DAB+ also allows stations to deliver far higher audio quality at the same bit rate as on DAB, or they can deliver higher audio quality than on DAB but at a lower bit rate than they used on DAB.
“With technology we’re going to be constantly playing a catch-up game. If we backed DAB+ today, “DAB++” would be announced tomorrow and we’d be back to square one.”
The main thing that argument completely ignores is the fact that DAB is simply not up to the job in the first place. About ONE HUNDRED commercial radio stations won’t be able to fit on DAB in the UK. And that’s after the broadcasters chose to decimate the bit rates a decade ago – imagine how many stations wouldn’t be able to fit on DAB if they’d used the bit rate levels that DAB was originally envisaged to use when it was designed – 192 – 256 kbps.
Your industry basically made the fundamental mistake of launching a system that was already about 10 – 15 years out of date – and the AAC audio codec was available from 1997 onwards, whcih would have allowed DAB to be upgraded prior to it being relaunched. Mark Friend actually admitted that your industry made a mistake by adopting DAB – he said it because he wasn’t involved with DAB in the 1990s, those who were involved can’t bring themselves to admit it.
“DAB essentially works on MPEG2 which is the same system that Freeview uses – the phenomenally successful Freeview that is”
I’m sorry, but that doesn’t make sense. MPEG-2 is a set of standards for video and audio. MP2, MP3 and AAC are all covered by MPEG-2 standards, but AAC is a shithot codec whereas MP2 is diabolical.
“What’s under the bonnet doesn’t really matter.”
Says the person who doesn’t understand engineering. In reality, the fact that the UK adopted DAB without upgrading it first is the actual root cause of why DAB has failed so abysmally in the UK – which is because the rest of the world refused to follow the UK in using DAB, and that was because of the fact that it uses outdated technologies. This meant that global sales were very low, so prices couldn’t benefit from significant economies of scale which would lead to further lowering of prices and further increase in sales and so on, and this also meant that DAB wasn’t included in mobile phones or in cars.
I’m afraid it will have been exactly that kind of thinking that led to the UK sleepwalking into adopting DAB in the first place without actually analyzing the fundamental requirements to see whether DAB was actually up to the job or not.
“Sound quality is a well trodden argument. Radio 3 has a high bitrate and needs it. Pop stations tend to be lower”
There’s no scientific or engineering reason why classical music needs to be encoded at higher bit rate levels than pop or rock music. If you suggest otherwise, please explain your reasoning.
“yet even the original recordings these days, are compressed enormously (ironically, so that they sound “loud” on mp3 players and FM radio), so there’s not a lot to be gained or lost, for many pop stations”
I’m afraid that it is incorrect to suggest that audio with a wider dynamic range, e.g. classical music, requires a higher bit rate to encode it to the same level of quality or accuracy as music with a narrower dynamic range, e.g. pop music. Audio encoders use a floating point number scheme to encode the audio samples, and the floating point number scheme consists of a “gain factor” that sets the approx amplitude level of a block of samples, and the other bits provide the precision. So the dynamic range of the audio doesn’t actually matter, so what you’ve said above – and many other people have said the same thing – is in fact incorrect.
“[DAB] has the ability to give us more choice in a format that for most people is an improvement in quality.”
DAB does not provide an improvement in quality at all. What on earth are you talking about?
“If you want to listen in home or at work, then as long as you can get a signal, it’s a perfectly viable replacement.”
A perfectly viable replacement for what? FM? Tens of millions of people get perfectly good FM reception, and for every one of those people they will receive a large reduction in audio quality by switching to DAB. That is completely unacceptable.
Steve, I’m afraid as ever you get far too personal, and I’m therefore stopping you comment further.
You make unfounded allegations about the beliefs of named individuals. You know nothing about my technical background.
And you’ve cut and paste something that wasn’t being discussed here.
I try to keep my website civil, and if you can’t be, then I’m afraid I won’t post your comments.
I have been using DAB for years as a complete FM replacement. Because I found the stereo hiss level too high with every tuner and aerial combination I tried. DAB was exactly what I had been waiting for though I wish the BBC had left bit rates higher, but I enjoy the quality as entirely acceptable. I do not need perfect quality for any practical purpose.