UK commercial radio revenues Q3 2010: still no sign of "renewed growth"

2008 had been a bad year for commercial radio revenues, down 6% year-on-year. 2009 was a worse year, when revenues fell a further 10% year-on-year. So how is 2010 shaping up? Radio Advertising Bureau data for Q3 2010 demonstrate that, although revenues are likely to be up marginally for the calendar year, they have yet to regain the substantial losses suffered during those previous two years.

Why? Because commercial radio’s falling revenues are largely the result of structural decline, something that the ‘credit crunch’ of 2008/9 merely exacerbated. Adjusted for the impact of inflation, commercial radio revenues peaked in 2000 and, by 2009, were down 32% in real terms. The single-digit improvements we might see in 2010 will claw back only a tiny part of these enormous losses.


Q3 2010 TOTAL REVENUES
· Up 3.2% year-on-year to £124.1m, but remember that Q3 2009 had been the sector’s second lowest this millennium

In May 2010, the Radio Advertising Bureau had told us that “the [commercial radio] sector has turned a corner and not only halted [revenue] decline, but moved into renewed growth …”

Industry data has yet to validate this assertion. The last two quarters produced the third and fourth lowest revenue totals of the decade, showing that the radio sector is certainly not out of the woods yet. More than anything, the industry’s revenues still seem to be bumping along the bottom. “Renewed growth” is not on the horizon yet.



Q3 2010 NATIONAL REVENUES
· Up 5.0% year-on-year to £62.8m

Q3 2010 LOCAL REVENUES
· Up 3.1% year-on-year to £36.8m

Q3 2010 BRANDED CONTENT REVENUES
· Down 1.2% year-on-year to £24.5m


The revenue data for the long term [see graph above] illustrate clearly the transformation of the commercial radio sector from a healthy growth industry in the 1990s to one that stagnated after 2000, and which has subsequently moved into decline. Whilst revenues from local advertisers have simply stalled in recent years, revenues from national advertisers seem unlikely to ever recover from substantial declines suffered since their peak in 2000. This has necessitated significant restructuring of the commercial radio sector in recent years.

For those larger commercial radio stations that depend upon national advertisers the most, the outlook continues to look bleak. Data from Nielsen estimated that advertising spend by the government’s Central Office of Information [COI] fell by 47% in 2010 year-on-year. COI expenditure has been a greater proportion of commercial radio revenues than of any other medium, making radio particularly vulnerable. In May 2010, I had predicted:

“A 50% budget cut to COI expenditure on radio would lose commercial radio £26m to £29m per annum, 6% of total sector revenues. A 50% budget cut to all public sector expenditure on radio would lose commercial radio £44m to £48m per annum, 9% of total sector revenues.”

Not only have these cuts been realised, but the Cabinet Office is continuing to pursue a plan for the BBC to carry public service messages for free, rather than pay commercial broadcasters for airtime [also predicted here in May 2010]. This could lose commercial radio a further 6% to 9% of revenues.

In 2009, even before these drastic cuts to government expenditure on advertising, commercial radio was attracting only 4% of total display advertising expenditure in the UK, one of the lowest proportions globally [see Ofcom report]. What is UK radio doing so wrong that Ireland, Spain and Australia achieve more than double that amount? And why was that percentage already falling before the COI cuts, demonstrating the radio medium’s comparative lack of appeal to potential advertisers?

There could not be a worse time to be a commercial radio station dependent upon national advertising. Yet now is the precise time when several large commercial radio owners are busy transforming their local and regional stations into national ‘brands.’ As a response to the sector’s structural challenges, this is tantamount to cutting off your nose to spite your face. ‘Localness’ has consistently been shown to be the most important Unique Selling Point of local commercial radio, according to Ofcom research. Throw that localness out the window and all that remains is a music playlist which can be generated by any computer application.

UK commercial radio has always been good at making ‘cheap and cheerful’ local radio, but has been rubbish at making national radio that could compete with the BBC’s incredibly well resourced national networks. The recent decisions of commercial radio owners to switch from production of local radio services with a track record of success to production of ‘national’ ones that have a history of relative failure create massive risks for an industry already in decline.


History tells its own story. The launch of the UK’s first three national commercial radio stations between 1992 and 1995 had much less of an impact on radio listening than had been anticipated. By 1997, Richard Branson had decided to sell Virgin Radio (for £115m) – it was obvious that national commercial radio was not going to be a massive moneyspinner. In 1997, Virgin Radio’s listening share had been 2.6%. Last quarter (Q3 2010), it had fallen to 1.2% (renamed Absolute Radio after another sale in 2008 for £53m), while the combined share of the three national stations was 6.8%. [source: RAJAR]


BBC national networks account for almost half of all radio listening. The only time that their share has not exhibited long-term growth was during the early 1990s, when Radio 1 self-destructed under the management of Matthew Bannister. Since that disaster, the BBC’s national networks have been successfully clawing back listening year-on-year.

The current scenario in which the owners of commercial stations that were licensed to serve local audiences have decided to subvert that purpose to take on the might of the BBC national networks is either brave, or madness, depending upon your viewpoint. What I see is a monolithic BBC that has existed continuously for nearly a century, and then I see three national commercial radio stations that have had a succession of at least three owners each during their almost twenty-year struggle to attract listeners.

National commercial radio. Just why are parts of the commercial radio industry so eager to emulate an idea that has only led to well documented failure?

UK Commercial Radio Revenues Q3 2009

Commercial radio revenue figures for 2009’s third quarter have been published.

Q3 2009 DATA
£120.2m total revenues
£35.7m local revenues
£59.8m national revenues – lowest quarter since Q1 1998
£24.8m branded content

YEAR-ON-YEAR
Total revenues – down 12.5%
Local revenues – down 3.8%
National revenues – down 16.5%
Branded content – down 13.3%

QUARTER-ON-QUARTER
Total revenues – up 0.4%
Local revenues – up 2.6%
National revenues – down 0.3%
Branded content – no change

FOUR-QUARTER MOVING AVERAGE DATA
£497.5m total revenues – lowest since Q1 2000
Down 14.6% year-on-year (last quarter: down 13.4% year-on-year)

Have we hit the bottom yet? That is the thorny question. The answer is not easy. Yes, this most recent quarter’s revenues have halted their recent terrifying decline, demonstrating a tiny 0.4% improvement over the previous quarter. But one ‘okay’ quarter does not necessarily signal a turnaround. You would be risking your shirt to announce that the radio advertising market is going to improve from now on.

The one bright spot was local advertising, which accounts for 30% of total radio revenues. It improved quarter-on-quarter by 2.6%, although it was still down 3.8% year-on-year. Nevertheless, it is local advertising which has held up better during this recession, exhibiting only single digit percentage declines year-on-year. If you are looking for ‘grass shoots’, you might find them here.

By contrast, national advertising (50% of total radio revenues) continues to be an unmitigated disaster. This was the sixth quarter in succession to record double-digit percentage declines year-on-year. National radio advertising in Q3 2009 was at its lowest point for eleven years (longer, if you factor in inflation). Neither is this a purely cyclical phenomenon – out of the last 20 quarters, only six have exhibited year-on-year growth. In aggregate, during three and a half out of the last five years, radio has suffered declining national revenues.

Where does that leave the UK commercial radio industry? Well, for the small local stations that have continued to fulfil the remit of their original licences by serving local listeners and local businesses, if they have survived this far, they might yet live to see another day. It is impossible to predict that ‘the worst is over’, but it might be that ‘the worst of the worst is over’. Local advertising is never going to migrate wholesale to digital TV or to the internet, and the yields that a successful local radio station can extract remain high.

The outlook is not so good for group owners of local stations who started to spend less on the shoe-leather necessary to secure local advertising contracts in the 1990s, dazzled by the lucrative opportunities presented by big-name national brands. Unfortunately, the national advertising market is fickle and media buyers now have a longer list of options than ever before, at more competitive prices than ever before. It’s all very well for some current owners to be busy ‘transforming’ local radio licences into national brands, but the market for national radio advertising has shrunk by 40% over the last six years. Now, a much smaller cake has to be divided by a greater number of national radio brands.

The revenue data also contradicts the message repeatedly broadcast by Ofcom in recent years that national radio brands represented ‘the future of radio’. Betraying a lack of understanding of the radio advertising market, Ofcom ignored double-digit declines in national advertising revenues that were evident as early as 2005, instead insisting that national brands on digital platforms were what listeners and advertisers wanted. To date, not one commercial digital radio station broadcast on DAB has produced an operating profit, and consumers’ preferred source for national radio remains the BBC. Commercial radio used to be good at genuinely local radio, so deliberately giving it up was never a sensible idea.

One characteristic that too much of UK commercial radio presently lacks is ‘excitement’, for both listeners and advertisers. More so than ever in these days of media overload, you have to create a distinct ‘buzz’ around your product to attract attention. Being in the marketplace is simply not enough. I only realised how much I have missed that kind of radio excitement when I stumbled across a local commercial station this week that entertained me enough to make me stop what I was doing and listen intently. It even played three of my all-time favourite songs in a single hour.

Unfortunately for the financial health of the UK radio industry, that station serves Lafayette, Louisiana – metro population 257,000. Deservedly, it ranks #2 in the market.

Digital Britain: the Implementation Plan

The government has published the Implementation Plan for Digital Britain, setting out its action plans for the proposals made in June 2009’s Final Report. These are the sections that directly concern the radio sector:

PROJECT 1: DIGITAL ECONOMY BILL
LEAD: Colin Perry

GOVERNANCE
– Bill Project Board oversees the delivery of the Bill. Members are David Hendon (BIS)/Jon Zeff (DCMS) – joint SROs, Carola Geist-Divver (DCMS legal), Eve Race and Jose Martinez-Soto (BIS legal), Colin Perry (Bill Team Leader), Laura Williams (secretariat)
– Bill Management Group tracks progress and drives delivery of the Bill. Members are Colin Perry (Bill Team Leader) chair, Deputy Directors BIS/DCMS, Carola Geist-Divver (DCMS legal), Eve Race and Jose Martinez-Soto (BIS legal), Laura Williams (secretariat). Other policy leads attend as appropriate.

ACTIONS COVERED FROM THE FINAL REPORT [exceprts]:
􀂃 Amending the Communications Act 2003 to make the promotion of investment in communications infrastructure and content one of Ofcom’s principal duties.

􀂃 Ensure the Board of Ofcom has a statutory obligation to write to the Government alerting Secretaries of State to any matters of high concern regarding developments affecting the communications infrastructure and in any event to write every two years giving an assessment of the UK’s communications infrastructure.

􀂃 Encouraging, where appropriate, adjoining radio multiplexes to merge and extending existing multiplexes into currently un-served areas rather than awarding new licences. Grant Ofcom powers to alter multiplex licences which agree to merge.

􀂃 We will make an amendment to the existing legislation to support a change in the localness regulatory regime to allow location in mini regions defined by Ofcom.

􀂃 Grant a further renewal for up to seven years of analogue radio licences for broadcasters which are also providing a service on Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB).

􀂃 Grant Ofcom new powers to insert a two year termination clause into all radio licences awarded or further renewed before the Digital Radio Upgrade date.

PROJECT 6: DIGITAL RADIO UPGRADE
LEAD: John Mottram

ACTIONS COVERED FROM FINAL REPORT [in full]:
􀂃 Develop Action Plan for Digital Radio Upgrade, including a Cost/Benefit Analysis.

􀂃 Invite Consumer Expert Group to extend its current scope to inform the development of the Digital Radio Upgrade.

􀂃 Facilitate the roll-out of the BBC’s national multiplex to ensure it achieves coverage comparable to FM by the end of 2014.

􀂃 Encourage, where appropriate, adjoining local multiplexes to merge and extend coverage into currently un-served areas. Grant Ofcom powers to alter multiplex licences which agree to merge.

􀂃 Allow for the extension of multiplex operators’ licences until 2030, if part of an agreed plan towards Digital Radio Upgrade.

􀂃 Consider with Ofcom the case for delaying the implementation of AIP on DAB multiplexes until after the Digital Radio Upgrade is completed.

􀂃 Grant Ofcom new powers to extend the licence period of all national and local licences, broadcasting on DAB, for up to a further seven years, although this decision will be kept under review. In addition, amend the rules under which Ofcom grants analogue licence renewals to ensure that regional stations which do become national DAB stations do not lose their current or future renewal.

􀂃 Grant Ofcom new powers to insert a two year termination clause into all licences awarded or further renewed before the Digital Radio Upgrade date.

􀂃 Work with broadcasters and vehicle manufacturers to implement the ‘Digital Radio in vehicles: a five point programme’.

􀂃 Agree with Ofcom a two-year pilot of a new output regulatory regime.

􀂃 Reduction in number of locally-produced hours in exchange for enhanced commitment to local news.

􀂃 Ofcom to consult on a new map of mini-regions which balances the potential economic benefits but also the needs and expectations of listeners. We will make an amendment to the existing legislation to support this change.

􀂃 Consultation seeking views on proposals for a new licence renewal regime for community radio. This consultation will include proposals to remove the 50% funding limit from anyone source and the restriction preventing a station being licensed in an area overlapping with a small commercial service and extending our commitment to promoting best practice within the community sector and encouraging self-sustainability by allocating a small portion of the Community Radio Fund to support the work of the industry body, the Community Media Association.

􀂃 Insert two year termination clause into all new licences.

􀂃 Grant Ofcom new powers to extend the licence period of all national and local licences, broadcasting on DAB, for up to a further seven years (keep this decision under review). If by the end of 2013 it is clear the Digital Radio Upgrade timetable will not be achieved we will use the powers, set out above, to terminate licences and the existing licensing regimes will apply.

􀂃 Amend the rules under which Ofcom grants analogue licence renewals to ensure that regional stations which do become national DAB stations do not lose their current or future renewal.

Radio in Digital Britain – sense and sensibleness

In the 13-page radio section of the Digital Britain Final Report published yesterday, there was not one mention of the word ‘switchover’ in the context of ‘digital radio switchover’. Neither was there a single mention of the word ‘switch-off’, as in ‘FM radio switch-off’. Throughout the document’s radio section, the new buzz phrase is ‘Digital Radio Upgrade’, meaning a drive to make DAB radio better and improve its consumer take-up. In Digital Britain, the notion of switching off FM radio broadcasting, notably for local stations, has been buried for good.

Not that you would have realised this fundamental policy shift by reading some of the press reports. “FM radio switched off by 2015”, said the headline in The Telegraph. “Government sets 2015 as digital radio switchover date”, said the headline in Media Week. “Digital radio switchover set for 2015”, said the headline in Broadcast. “Analogue radio switch-off set for 2015”, said the headline in The Guardian. These bold press assertions are contradicted by the Report’s recommendations that “FM spectrum is to be re-planned to accommodate the current MW services” (paragraph 43) and that “a new tier of ultra-local radio [which] will occupy the FM spectrum” (paragraph 39). The report is perfectly clear that FM is not to be switched off (at least, not in my lifetime).

It was almost as if the lobbyists for FM switch-off – the large commercial radio groups, most notably Global Radio – had written the press headlines the way they had wanted the outcome, regardless of the actuality. This was reinforced by an article that appeared in Media Week yesterday morning – only hours before Digital Britain was published – in which “a well-placed source” predicted “a schedule for the shutdown of FM radio” under the headline “Digital Britain to give radio licensees guaranteed protection”. That source proved not to be so well-placed.

The Media Week headline referred to the owners of the three national commercial stations who had been lobbying to have their licences extended by another term in order to avoid the impending auction of their frequencies, as required by existing legislation. I have written previously about Global Radio’s determination to seek an automatic renewal of its Classic FM licence, which otherwise expires in September 2011. So did Digital Britain give Global, TIML and UTV the renewals that they wanted?

The answer appears to be both ‘yes’ and ‘no’. Digital Britain will:
· extend all commercial radio licences, national and local, “up to a further seven years” for stations that simulcast on DAB
· insert a two-year termination clause into all new licences
· review all licences in future and determine whether the Digital Radio Upgrade is likely to be achieved by the end of 2013
· terminate licences if the Digital Radio Upgrade is not achieved
· then re-advertise the national licences under the existing auction scheme.

Not only does this add considerable strings to licence extensions of “up to” seven years, not only does it allow those extended licences to be terminated at two years’ notice, but it also puts the onus squarely on the licensees to make sure that the DAB platform succeeds (something which has not been achieved in the last decade). If the Digital Radio Upgrade does not hit its targets, the licensees lose their stations. This is a poker game that, whilst offering national stations a potential second life, also threatens to take that life away not so far down the line. For an owner trying desperately to convince its bank lender of the long-term value of its national commercial radio licence, Digital Britain has not offered anything in the way of future guaranteed revenue streams. As a result, indebted radio owners now have two guns pointed at their head – one from their bank manager and the other from Lord Carter.

Worse, even the licence renewals proposed by Digital Britain require new legislation to be enacted. If there is renewed turbulence in government, and with the ever-present threat of a snap general election, it is looking doubtful whether media legislation will be a priority in a Parliamentary timetable that will be rushing to legislate more significant political issues during this government’s final days. If new legislation doesn’t happen soon, then Ofcom will have to rush to advertise the Classic FM licence in an auction by early 2010 at the latest.

Furthermore, even if digital platforms do succeed in accounting for more than 50% of radio listening by the end of 2013, which station owner (either commercial or BBC) is going to be prepared to switch off their analogue signal and lose 50% of their listening at a stroke? In the case of a commercial station, losing 50% of listening would mean losing 50% of revenues, an idea that nobody will entertain. In this way, regardless of the speed with which the 50% criterion is reached, the outcome is the same – stations will have to simulcast on both analogue and digital broadcast spectrum for many years to come, a necessity that is almost doubling transmission costs during a period when sector revenues are falling precipitously.

For smaller local analogue radio stations, the future remains rather unclear. Another Digital Britain proposal (paragraph 26) to amalgamate local DAB multiplexes into bigger geographical units makes sense in order to bring economies of scale to multiplex owners, but unequivocally transforms DAB into a large-scale broadcast platform for national or regional operators. A local analogue station in Bridlington, for example, will find it even more expensive and inefficient to be on a ‘Yorkshire’ multiplex, thus restricting that local station’s future distribution platforms to FM broadcast and online. Neither will such a local station benefit from the automatic analogue licence renewal promised only to stations simulcasting on DAB. If anything, such stations’ predicament will ensure that FM continues to be the consumer platform for local radio, which still accounts for 40.7% of all radio listening [RAJAR Q1 2009].

Digital Britain’s acceptance of the important citizen benefits of local radio broadcasting is underlined by its (unexpected) proposal to license “a new tier of ultra-local radio” on FM and to re-plan the FM waveband if existing stations (ever) migrate from FM to DAB. Although the report is at pains to explain that it does not intend to “blur the lines between commercial and community stations”, it makes sense in the long run to consolidate a third tier of radio with the flowering of a whole new set of radio stations that genuinely want to serve local communities. With many small local commercial stations now barely breaking even, it might make sense to turn some of them into companies limited by guarantee and thus let them seek public subsidy from local councils and regeneration schemes.

Such an expansion of radio content in local markets could potentially invigorate the entire radio medium, making ‘local radio’ more of a ‘must have’, particularly following cutbacks in local news provision by local newspapers and regional television. It is also a potential antidote to the continuing transformation of many of our former local commercial radio stations into regional or quasi-national services (see the example of Radio 210 in my previous article on ‘Heart-ification’). As Digital Britain commented: “Today’s radio industry has been shaped more by the scarcity of the analogue spectrum than by market demand” (paragraph 4).

On the issue of public subsidy, the biggest disappointment for commercial DAB radio owners/operators must be Digital Britain’s insistence that “the investment needed to achieve the Digital Radio Upgrade timetable will, on the whole, be made by the existing radio companies” (paragraph 44). The report acknowledges that “this will require a significant contribution from the commercial operators” (paragraph 21) but suggests it should be funded by:
· savings from the negotiated 17% reduction in transmission charges as a result of the Arqiva/National Grid Wireless merger (paragraph 22)
· future savings from the ending of simulcast analogue and DAB transmission (paragraph 22)
· cost savings from the anticipated relaxation of co-location rules and the automatic extension of analogue licences (paragraph 25).

Although there is a brief mention of “residual access” to some of the funds left over from the BBC’s Digital Switchover Help Scheme being used to support DAB infrastructure build-out, the overwhelming message is ‘you guys are on your own to make DAB work’. The worry is that, when times were relatively good in the late 1990s/early 2000s, commercial radio did not manage to develop sufficient traction for the DAB platform. How is it ever going to succeed now in an environment where sector revenues are falling so rapidly?

So the conundrum continues, same as it ever was. Everybody wants DAB to work. Nobody except the BBC wants to pay for it. Commercial radio simply isn’t making a profit anymore. We can argue about how/why it got to that desperate situation, but nothing changes the fact that there is no surplus cash slopping around ready to invest in either DAB infrastructure or exclusive digital content. Without an ongoing commitment to both, even the limited migration of national radio services from analogue to digital transmission proposed in Digital Britain is unlikely to ever happen. Consumers follow content, not platforms (or, as Digital Britain says: “consumers will adopt new technologies when they are affordable and the benefits are clear” (paragraph 8)).

This is not at all to imply that Digital Britain does not offer a lot of sensible recommendations. Whereas the outcome of the Digital Radio Working Group in December 2008 was a remarkably theoretical report that appeared to bypass the harsh economic realities of the radio sector, the Digital Britain document is realistic and pragmatic, telling the radio sector that much of what it needs to do to make the DAB platform a success is in its own hands. How the radio sector moves forward with these issues in the coming weeks will determine how much further we continue to plod along the long DAB road. There is an increasingly stark choice for commercial radio – to give up now and accede the DAB platform to the BBC and Arqiva, or to press on and further endanger the viability of the entire commercial radio sector.

Lord Carter proffered a lot of home truths in Digital Britain and he threw down this gauntlet: “Any good business will invest in its future if it understands that future and the potential returns from its investment” (paragraph 8). What he did not do was throw commercial radio a map to get it to the buried treasure.

——————————-
On a purely personal level, I was pleased to see Digital Britain embracing several policies I had advocated for the radio sector:
· the two-year pilot scheme for an output focused radio regulatory regime takes up the idea of the Local Impact Test I proposed in November 2007
· the proposal to use the surplus from the Digital Switchover Help Scheme and the savings from the Arqiva/NGW merger for DAB infrastructure build-out was a strategy I
suggested in October 2008
· the notion that ‘localness’ will prove a commercial radio station’s Unique Selling Point in the future global media village is a scenario I have included in client briefings and conference presentations for several years.

For the purpose of transparency, I contributed radio sector analysis to two documents that were part of the Digital Britain process – a pre-consultation overview and the regulation of local radio.

First Love Radio (aka South London Radio) R.I.P.

Two local commercial radio stations in London – South London Radio 107.3 and Time 106.8 FM – closed forever on 3 April 2009 with little fanfare. South London Radio had launched in 1999, initially to serve the Borough of Lewisham, but its roots were in South London’s black music pirate radio stations of the 1980s. Time 106.8 had launched in 1990, serving the Thamesmead area of Southeast London, but it had been part of the cable community radio experiment of the 1970s. The closure of these two stations leaves London with only two local FM/AM radio stations based south of the River Thames (Radio Jackie in Kingston, Spectrum Radio in Battersea). Even Choice FM, launched in 1990 specifically to serve the Afro-Caribbean community in Brixton, is now relocated to Leicester Square, its latest owner having closed the station’s studios that had always been located south of the river in Borough High Street.

At first glance, the closures of South London Radio and Time might seem simply an expected outcome of the current pressures faced by many local media, particularly radio and newspapers, particularly in the UK’s largest and most crowded media marketplace. More local commercial radio stations have gone out of business in the last month than in the previous two years, with the Credit Crunch inevitably blamed for declining local advertising revenues. However, if you scratch a little deeper, the recent closures of these two stations were horribly inevitable, almost from the day they opened. What surprises me is that they managed to last this long, having struggled with a succession of owners who failed to turn them into successful businesses, and under a radio regulatory system that failed to ensure that South London’s population was offered the local radio services it had been promised.

I must declare a personal (non-financial) interest in both stations. I live within the coverage area of South London Radio and listened to it on the last occasion only days before it suddenly closed; and I had worked a one-year contract at Time’s forerunner, Radio Thamesmead, as Head of Programmes in 1986 when it was still a community cable radio station. Before they closed this month, each of these two stations was losing more than £100,000 per annum. Their accumulated losses since launch ran into millions. Yet, only five years ago, their combined market value was over £1m. How does that make sense? Their closures speak volumes about the UK commercial radio system and its inability to satisfy consumer demand for radio content via a regulated licensing system that seems to fail listeners again …. and again …. and again. Although these two legal local commercial stations are truly dead and buried, the FM airwaves of South London nevertheless remain alive with the sound of dozens of unlicensed ‘pirate’ radio stations, many of which seem to know exactly what content their audiences want and know how to give it to them.

‘Pirate radio’ had been the starting point of South London Radio, though it might have been hard to believe if you had listened to the station in its final years. Between 1986 and 1990, a pirate station named Rock 2 Rock had broadcast from the roof of the three 24-story tower blocks behind New Cross station. Its programmes of soul, reggae and community information attracted a loyal following in South London and, although the station might not have been as well known as competitors such as LWR, Horizon or Solar, its signal reached across the capital, and its DJ roster exhibited a love of the music they played at a time when legal radio continued to shun black music almost totally. “Most of the people who were involved in [Rock 2 Rock] lived or worked in the Lewisham Borough,” DJ Inspector Scratch-It told me in 1992. “I don’t even really know what the secret [of our success] was. It was just something [indefinable].”

In the late 1980s, local resident Stella Headley had walked into her local reggae record shop, Sound City in Deptford, and asked if she could present a show on pirate radio. Despite having no radio experience, but armed with a passion for jazz music, Stella was offered a show on Rock 2 Rock where she called herself Lady X. The station quickly became ubiquitous in the area. “The way that we had broadcast was so down-to-earth and friendly,” Stella recalled when I interviewed her in 1992 [Radio Scan, City Limits #562, 16 July 1992]. “It was something that everyone could relate to.”

In late 1990, the government of the day introduced draconian laws that made it a criminal offence to be involved in the promotion or broadcast of pirate radio, with the possibility of a prison sentence even just for wearing a pirate station T-shirt or having a pirate radio sticker on your car. Rock 2 Rock, along with dozens of other pirate stations of the time, decided voluntarily to close down. “It was pressure,” explained Inspector Scratch-It, “realising that things could really start getting bad if we did get caught”. Some of the station’s twenty DJs moved on to work at new, legal ‘incremental’ stations that had just been licensed to satisfy previously unfilled gaps in the radio market – Mistri, one of the most popular club DJs of the era, joined short-lived WNK in North London; and I recruited Angie Dee to the launch of the legalised London ex-pirate KISS FM. Ten others, including Stella, started a new venture called First Love Radio which went on to campaign for Southeast London to be given its own commercial radio station.

A £5,000 grant from South Thames TEC enabled the group to organise formal radio training for local residents. A temporary, one-month FM licence (under the Radio Authority’s Restricted Service Licence scheme) showcased to residents of the Borough of Lewisham the content which the station wanted to be able to broadcast legally. Inspector Scratch-It explained: “We’ll be doing things we would have liked to have done when we were a pirate. Now we can plan ahead and use more people from the community, without fear of being arrested. I know how hard it was to maintain the [Rock 2 Rock] station. Every time there was a knock on the door, your heart was going thump, thump, thump”.

First Love Radio completed several, successful one-month local broadcasts, and by 1997 the Radio Authority was sufficiently impressed to advertise a small-scale commercial radio licence for Southeast London. To be sure of winning the licence, Stella involved commercial radio group UKRD as a partner and majority shareholder who, in turn, recruited community radio consultant Des Shepherd to write the licence application. In January 1998, the Radio Authority announced that it had selected First Love Radio as the winner from amongst eight applicants. The Authority noted proudly that “this is the 22nd ILR [Independent Local Radio] service to be awarded covering Greater London or parts of the capital”.

However, the station’s winning licence application promised, somewhat surprisingly, that its output would “represent the diverse tastes and interests of its target audience by providing a dynamic music mix from the 60s through to the 90s with high quality local news and information for the Borough of Lewisham”. Gone was any specific commitment to serving the substantial Afro-Caribbean community within the Borough. Gone was any specific commitment to playing soul and reggae music. It seemed that, while the Radio Authority was busy congratulating itself that it had licensed its 22nd station in London, it had condemned First Love Radio to become simply another tiny little station in the UK’s biggest radio market that would be playing the same pop music hits that everyone else was. The eventual fate of First Love was sealed there and then.

Whereas Rock 2 Rock had embodied a quite Unique Selling Point in its music format, First Love Radio was destined to be ‘all things to all people’. As one writer noted of its music policy, “this is perhaps as diverse as a radio station can get”. Owner UKRD was not really interested in the business of operating a black music station for Lewisham. UKRD was in the business of collecting local radio licences. A London licence held intrinsic value, whatever you did with it, and the cost of a licence application was probably no more than the low tens of thousands of pounds, while the scarcity value of any London licence made it worth millions. UKRD was an investment machine, turning paper licence applications into valuable licences, rather than a turnaround specialist turning poorly performing radio stations into success stories.

First Love Radio launched as a full-time station in 1999 but achieved dismal ratings so, in 2000, UKRD sold it to Fusion Radio Holdings, a new company established by radio salesman Nigel Reeve to acquire local radio licences. Stella Headley tendered her resignation from the Board little more than a year after her station had launched, abruptly bringing to an end her decade of hard work to secure a local station for Lewisham. The ideals of First Love Radio were already dead. Veteran radio presenter Roger Day was appointed Programme Controller of the station, whose name was quickly changed to Fusion 107.3. Reeve said: “We are delighted to have acquired two radio stations [Lewisham and Oxford] with huge growth potential. Plans are in place to build revenue and increase audience figures….”

In 2001, Fusion Radio Holdings and its three stations (Lewisham, Thamesmead and Oxford) were acquired in a deal worth £4.1m by another corporate collector of local licences, the Milestone Radio Company, which was run by former radio presenter Andy Craig. Media Business reported that the deal “puts an end to industry speculation concerning the demise of Fusion Radio [Holdings], following the move from its West End location to Lewisham”.

In 2002, Fusion 107.3 was instructed by the Advertising Standards Authority to withdraw a poster campaign that featured “a photograph of the naked torso of a woman” whose “nipples were airbrushed out and radio dials were positioned at the bottom right-hand side of her breasts”. Complainants had objected that the poster was “sexist and demeaning to women”, though the station’s owner argued that “the poster was designed as a high-impact campaign to attract new listeners” and that the model’s “radio dials [were] pointing south east to emphasize the geographical range of their broadcast”.

Three owners in three years were still failing to make First Love Radio/Fusion 107.3 a success. In 2003, Milestone raised £8m from an AIM share listing, despite admitting that it had “limited revenues to date and … accumulated net losses”. The pre-AIM company had suffered pre-taxes losses of £5m in 2001 and £4m in 2002, on turnover of £0.6m and £1.7m respectively. By 2003, Fusion 107.3 was still only attracting 6,000 listeners per week in a local market of 322,000 adults. The station was already losing more than £300,000 per annum, so Milestone put it up for sale.

In February 2004, after a year on the market, Sunrise Radio acquired both the Lewisham and Thamesmead stations for £1.2m. Sunrise (coincidentally an ex-pirate station) had run a successful, legal Asian radio station in London since 1989 and wanted to diversify into mainstream radio formats. In January 2004, former Radio Authority finance director Neil Romain had been recruited to head new Sunrise subsidiary London Media Company which would manage these stations.

Once again, the station’s new owner appeared to miss the opportunity to imbue the station with a Unique Selling Point to differentiate it from its many competitors in the London market. The station was renamed South London Radio and its web site was branded “All Time Favourites”, a radio format similar to that already offered in London by Heart FM, Magic FM, Gold London and Smooth Radio, amongst others. As a result, in 2006, the station was given a ‘Yellow Card’ sanction by Ofcom because it was found to be failing its mandated music format. Ofcom said the station “should have a distinct musical sound” whereas “over 50% of the daytime output fell within the Hits/Pop genre”.

As well as the change in station name, the new owner asked Ofcom’s approval in 2006 to temporarily move the station’s studio out of its Lewisham service area to share premises with co-owned Time 106.8 in Thamesmead. There was a subsequent period when the station operated from a business centre in Croydon. At the same time, it appears that improvements to the station’s transmitter were granted that enabled the station to be heard across a wider area that included parts of the Croydon and Bexley boroughs for the first time, extending the potential audience to 645,000 adults. Eventually, the station returned to co-location in Thamesmead.

During this whole period, the station’s music policy continued to be a bizarre mish-mash of current hits and the oddest selection of ‘black music’ that seemed scheduled purely to satisfy Ofcom’s prescribed Format requirement to appeal to “listeners with a preference for soul/Motown, R’n’B, reggae and dance hits”. So the daytime output might make transitions straight from Nat King Cole to Lily Allen, or from Dionne Warwick to the Pussycat Dolls. Whilst I personally like eclectic mixes of music styles, South London Radio ended up sounding particularly schizophrenic. Five years under the same owner should have provided plenty of time to make the station at least sound consistent and instil it with a sense of purpose. Neither Romain, without prior radio management experience, nor Sunrise, without experience in black music formats, achieved a successful turnaround of the Lewisham station.

In 2008, a notice appeared on the consumer-facing homepages of the Lewisham and Thamesmead stations, informing interested parties that both were up for sale and inviting bids. Sunrise Radio’s Avtar Lit explained: “They are good local businesses but they do not fit in with our portfolio. Traditionally these stations have always made losses but we have reduced those losses dramatically. The days of large companies running a number of local radio stations are gone, simply because the decision-making process is too far removed.” There was at least one bid lodged for South London Radio, but the offer deadline passed and no transactions were reported. Precisely what happened next is open to interpretation…………

The official web site of South London Radio includes a message which explains (in part):
“Both stations were sold on 22 February [2009] to an individual who, after seven days of ownership, informed staff that he could not afford to fund the stations and would need to sell one station to fund the other. At this point, staff had already not been paid for the month of February. Since the announcement, staff have been working at the station free of charge in the hopes a new buyer would be found. After a lot of work, a potential buyer was found who was very keen to acquire the stations and take them forward. Several obstacles were put into their way which saw the sale of both stations put on hold……”

The Radio Today web site initially reported on 4 April 2009 that both stations had closed because they had been “up for sale but no suitable buyer was found”, though its storyline was later amended to match the explanation on the stations’ web sites.

According to the Company Register, on 22 February 2009, Sunrise Radio’s Avtar Lit, London Media Company’s Neil Romain and Company Secretary Sonia Daggar resigned as directors of South London Radio. On the same date, Arvind Kumar Audit was appointed sole director of South London Radio, and a loan to the value of £1,029,704.61 was made from Sunrise Radio to South London Radio which gave Sunrise first call on the station’s assets. Staff at the stations have suggested that a relative of Lit was brought in to manage the Thamesmead operation, though this allegation remains unsubstantiated. For the brief period the two stations remained on-air, Audit was listed in their Public Files as Station Manager. However, Ofcom did not publish a Change of Control review for these transactions.

In legal terms, it would appear that Sunrise Radio/London Media Company sold the stations weeks before they closed, though why someone would decide to purchase a loss-making station that had a £1m loan outstanding to its previous owner remains a mystery. Nevertheless, the circumstances make it impossible to suggest that Sunrise Radio/London Media Company themselves closed these stations (as Radio Today had initially stated) because the stations were not officially under their control when the plugs were pulled. This subtlety might hold some importance to Sunrise or Ofcom, but it remains wholly irrelevant to the local people of South London who no longer have a local commercial radio station, whatever did or did not happen.

Admittedly, listeners to South London Radio were few in number as a result of the station’s consistent failure to connect with an audience. Its market share only surpassed 1% during two quarters of its decade on-air, though most of the time it registered less than 0.5%. In the station’s launch year, its listeners numbered less than 1,000 adults per week although, by the time it closed, that number had risen to 19,000 within its significantly enlarged coverage area. These numbers would still prove too low to adequately finance a local radio business in London. The station had never stood a chance from the time that UKRD saddled it with a pop music format in its licence application.

South London Radio never made an operating profit from airtime sales, not even in its earliest days. The only period of positive cashflow occurred in 2004 and 2005 when £1.7m compensation was received from its landlord when the station was forced to vacate its premises, presumably before its tenancy had expired. Ironically, this windfall was twice the size of the advertising revenues received by the station during its entire lifetime. Although, in recent years, its owner had managed to substantially reduce the station’s overheads, revenues had fallen to as little as £1,000 per week by then. There are pirate stations in South London that earn more money than that.

South London Radio’s final owner (or ‘penultimate’ owner legally) seemed to know where the blame lied for the station’s failure. In one set of Annual Accounts, its directors said:
“Despite significant investment by the management, the station has continued to perform below expectations. The impact of illegal broadcasters compromising the transmissions of this station is the main reason for the poor financial performance. The Directors are continuing to lobby the regulators in an attempt to find a solution”.

It was this lobbying by Sunrise Radio (a former pirate) of Ofcom which led to the transmitter power increase that significantly extended the station’s coverage area. Its owner then increased the survey area for the station’s RAJAR audience ratings from 304,000 to 1,472,000 adults, but the station’s weekly reach stubbornly remained at around 1%. Perhaps the owner thought that a station which claimed to reach 1.5m people across South London was more likely to find a buyer than a station that served only the relatively poor Borough of Lewisham. Whatever, South London Radio eventually closed with accumulated losses estimated at almost £2m, a figure that would have been twice the size, had it not been for the windfall settlement the station received from its previous landlord.

So it’s all over now, a sad end to Stella Headley’s dreams and also the death of what was supposed to be my local radio station. Hopefully, some lessons can be learned from this sorry tale. Some of these ‘lessons’ seem so glaringly obvious that it is almost embarrassing to point them out, but the 36-year history of commercial radio in the UK is so littered with repeated failures that it is worth spelling out some of the things that evidently went wrong. First Love Radio is just one of many local stations that have failed with both audiences and advertisers because of structural and procedural faults within the UK’s commercial radio system.

POSSIBLE LESSONS

1. CAN A DESIGNATED LOCAL MARKET SUPPORT AN ADVERTISING-FUNDED COMMERCIAL RADIO STATION?
Before advertising a new licence for a specific geographical area, the radio regulator did not evaluate whether there were sufficient local advertising revenues to support a commercial radio station for that area. This was true of Lewisham when the Radio Authority advertised this licence in 1997. A decade later, it was probably just as true of Ofcom when it awarded new licences for a talk station in Edinburgh (now closed), a rock music station in Plymouth (never opened), a station serving a population of 65,000 adults in Barrow (now closed), or a station serving a population of 30,000 adults in Northallerton (now annexed). Whether it was the Radio Authority or Ofcom, the regulator was issuing ‘licences to fail’ that never stood a chance of being successful, standalone businesses.

2. LOCAL RADIO GROUPS ARE FODDER FOR THE AMBITIONS OF COMMERCIAL RADIO GROUPS
First Love Radio is not the first local radio group to have organised short-term broadcasts in their area, organised training, raised public funds and raised local awareness of it campaign for a local station. Then, when it comes to writing the licence application, many such groups jump into bed with a commercial radio group that has no understanding of the group’s aims, the proposed station’s format, or the local marketplace. The radio group is interested in the licence, and the local group believe that such an alliance will ensure that licence will be won. An outside ‘consultant’ is brought in to write an application that is likely to win the licence, rather than an application that tells the truth.

3. NEW LOCAL COMMERCIAL RADIO LICENCES ARE AWARDED TO APPLICANTS THAT ALREADY HAVE COMMERCIAL RADIO LICENCES
To those that already have shall be given …. again and again and again. How many of Ofcom’s 39 new local radio licences between 2004 and today were awarded to applicants that did not already own a radio station? Ony one. It’s a regulatory gravy train of licence awards, which works great for those lucky few who already have a seat on the train. For those genuinely local radio groups who simply have a desire to run a radio station in their local area, the message is – you don’t stand a chance of winning a licence on your own.

4. MOST LOCAL RADIO GROUPS’ EXPERTISE IS IN COLLECTING LICENCES, NOT IN TURNING AROUND LOCAL RADIO STATIONS
As noted previously, the cost of making a licence application is usually a five-figure amount, whereas the balance sheet value of a radio licence is either a six- or seven-figure sum. The ‘business’ skill of most local radio groups has been based upon turning paper radio licence applications into valuable intangible assets to add to their balance sheets. Sadly, it has not been based upon launching successful local radio stations (‘successful’ meaning profitable), or upon turning around unsuccessful stations.

5. RADIO LICENCE APPLICATIONS ARE GENERALLY NOT GROUNDED IN REALITY
The promises made in most licence applications are mostly over-optimistic ‘waffle’. The lavish programming, the potential profitability, the audience targets – most of these are written purely to fit what the applicant radio group thinks the regulator wants to hear. Almost every licence applicant promises that its business will break-even within three years, despite evidence that there are very, very few newly-launched stations that have achieved such a performance in the last 20 years. Rule Number One of licence applications – never let the facts get in the way of a good story. As a result, the performance of most start-up stations is more than dismal. The graph below shows the percentage plus/minus achieved in hours listened versus the forecast hours listened in the station’s licence application for new local stations licensed during the last five years. Only four stations managed to beat their targets. (The crosses represent stations that have closed.)

Because of the untruthfulness of most licence applications, if you were to submit a more realistic assessment of your business plan within a licence application, it would look very gloomy compared to your competitors. Do you get any credit for being realistic (i.e. honest)? No, you are unlikely to be awarded the licence.

6. THE REGULATOR DOES NOT ‘POST MORTEM’ ITS LICENSING DECISIONS
When the Independent Broadcasting Authority licensed the ‘incremental’ stations, did it publish a report to show why so many of them went out of business within their first year? No, it didn’t. When the Radio Authority licensed the ‘regional’ stations, did it publish a report to show why these stations had no impact on enabling commercial radio to be more competitive for audiences against the BBC? No, it didn’t (I did my own research). Now that Ofcom has licensed so many new local stations, has it published research to show why so many are already proving unviable and whether awarding new licences to existing licensees had proven the appropriate regulatory policy? No, it hasn’t (see research in John Myers report). In all these cases, there seems to have been no attempt to learn from past experience, and thus no attempt to assess the positives and negatives of regulatory policy. To an observer, the attitude might look remarkably like ‘OK, that didn’t really work, so let’s try something different now’.

7. A LOCAL RADIO LICENCE ONLY ACQUIRES INTRINSIC VALUE IF YOU DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE WITH IT
Local radio groups can play the game of putting inflated values for their local radio licences on their balance sheets. But unless you can actually find someone who is willing to pay that inflated price, your licence in reality is worth nothing at all. After an era of crazy acquisition prices during the 1990s, we are now in a period where there have never been so many station sellers, but almost no buyers for the majority of small local radio licences. The ‘house of cards’ that was carefully constructed over the last two decades is already falling down. The radio licence gravy train bears some similarities to the vulnerability of a Ponzi scheme. Now that Ofcom is no longer offering new local radio licences, the ability of radio groups to continue to improve their balance sheet valuations through more licence wins has ended abruptly. As a result, their existing stations are now revealed to be worth a lot on paper, but worth almost nothing in reality because there are no buyers (i.e. other local radio groups with similarly over-inflated balance sheets). The underlying fallacy of the licence award system is now revealed.

8. THE TRACK RECORD OF MOST SMALL LOCAL RADIO GROUPS IS NOT GOOD
There is simply no money to be made from owning a number of small local radio licences, unless you have proven turnaround skills. Plenty of companies have raised millions of shareholder funds, promising to return them a profit from a cluster of loss-making local radio stations. The profits never arrived. Laser Broadcasting went bust. Forever Broadcasting went bust. The Wireless Group sold out. Golden Rose sold out. Milestone sold out. The Local Radio Company is on its knees financially. You might think that this history of failures would be sufficient warning to future investors that adding X number of loss-making local commercial radio stations to Y number of loss-making local commercial radio stations does not equal profits. Apparently not.

9. THERE IS A WIDENING ‘REALITY GAP’ BETWEEN WHAT THE REGULATOR IS REGULATING ON PAPER, AND WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING IN LOCAL RADIO MARKETS
On paper, each of the UK’s 300 commercial radio stations has a distinct ‘Format’ it has to follow, theoretically offering it a unique position in its local market. In this highly regulated system, Ofcom is supposedly ensuring that a diverse range of consumer demands for radio content are being simultaneously satisfied in each market. Even a casual radio listener realises that this system is a fiction. London has a large number of local commercial stations, and many of them sound remarkably similar, despite on paper them being meant to be different from their competitors. If South London Radio had offered different content and satisfied local demand for content, it might have thrived. Despite its Yellow Card sanction, Ofcom failed to ensure that South London Radio was satisfying the demand in South London for a local, black music station.

10. THE CLOSURE OF A LOCAL STATION IS THE FAULT OF BOTH ITS OWNER AND THE REGULATOR
It is very easy for the regulator to step back and say that the commercial failure of a specific local radio station is not its responsibility because it does not interfere in the business operations of its licensees. Frankly, this is a cop-out. Eight applicants applied for the Lewisham licence awarded to South London Radio. Seven were never even given the opportunity by the regulator to create a successful local radio station. Our public servants in the regulator were supposed to use their knowledge and expertise to select the applicant that was most likely to ‘win’. Ofcom even has a web page where it explains why it selected one applicant above the others for each licence. If the regulator’s choice was misguided, mistaken or ill-informed, it should have to explain what went wrong (a bit like this blog entry?). Surely, the regulator owes such an explanation to the listeners the station was supposed to serve and also to the unsuccessful licence applicants who, as a result of the regulator’s judgement, have no ‘second chance’ to put their own proposals for a radio station into action.

11. RADIO STATION OWNERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO SELL STATIONS, RATHER THAN CLOSE THEM
I have heard several radio group executives say that they would rather close down one of their loss-making stations than sell it for £1. There are several issues at play here. Firstly, closing a company creates an opportunity to move some liabilities from elsewhere in the group before the station is made insolvent. Secondly, radio owners don’t want the embarrassment of someone else successfully turning around a station that they had not managed to make profitable over several years. Thirdly, if an owner paid £1m for a station, it is embarrassing for the CEO to have to tell their Board that it had to be sold for £1. The end result, as in South London, is that listeners no longer have a local radio station at all, rather than the baton being passed on to someone else to try and make the business work. Again, it is the listeners and the unsuccessful licence applicants who lose out.

12. THE SCARCITY OF LOCAL RADIO LICENCES HAS TURNED THEM INTO TROPHY ASSETS
If you want to start a local newspaper, you simply start it. You don’t need a licence. If you want to start a local radio station, you cannot. You have to wait for Ofcom to decide to offer a licence for your area, then you have to apply for it, and then you have to win it. In this case, Ofcom is unlikely to offer another South London FM licence to replace South London Radio. That opportunity came and went in 1997. As a result, there are far too many owners coveting local radio licences because of their scarcity, hoping that at some point in the future a ‘white knight’ will still ride over the horizon and pay an outrageous sum for it, regardless of the fact it is losing money every year and has accumulated losses of millions. After the Communications Bill opened up UK radio ownership to non-European Union stakeholders, there were several radio owners who were waiting for a global media company such as Clear Channel to ride into town and offer them a small fortune for their failing businesses. It never happened, and sadly there was no ‘Plan B’.

13. THE LACK OF CREATIVITY IN COMMERCIAL RADIO
There is a terrible lack of creativity within the commercial radio sector that is severely holding back its ability to compete with the BBC, let alone to compete with the flood of audio content available via the internet. It is far easier for radio companies to simply do either the type of content that they have always done and/or the content that everybody else is doing, rather than to be innovative or creative. In the case of South London Radio, I understand that its owner was approached last year by at least one radio consultant (not me) with a plan to resuscitate the station by returning it to its original roots as a black music outlet. That proposal was rejected.

14. THE REGULATOR PRETENDS TO ADOPT A ‘LIGHT TOUCH’ APPROACH TO COMMERCIAL RADIO REGULATION
If the regulation of commercial radio in the UK were genuinely ‘light touch’, then it would be appropriate that the regulator makes no attempt to intervene in the failure of individual stations. However, the system of radio regulation (even under Ofcom) intervenes heavily in almost every aspect of the commercial radio landscape, down to such detail as whether a particular station can play a specific song within its output. In such a highly regulated market where Ofcom exercises such a high degree of control, the regulator should surely have a responsibility to the citizen/consumer to ensure that the relatively small number of stations it selects to license (compared to the total number of applicants) continue to exist in some shape or form. It is not consistent to intervene at every moment of a station’s existence, except when it is finally threatened with closure as a direct/indirect result of the regulatory system.

15. NO CONSULTATION WITH LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS
Ofcom makes a big noise about its consultation system and its willingness to listen to the opinions of a wide range of stakeholders. However, when a station is threatened with closure, has the regulator ever consulted with local advertisers to consider the impact on them, with local community organisations who used the station to inform the local population of their activities, or with the local population itself? Would it not be useful to talk to Stella Headley now and canvas her opinion of what precisely had gone wrong with First Love Radio since 1990 (I tried to locate her for this blog entry but failed)?

The irony of South London Radio’s closure is that, over a ten-year period, things have already gone full circle. South London Radio was born from the experiences of pirate radio in the Borough of Lewisham, and now it is the pirate stations once again that are carrying the torch for those of us living in this area of South London. There is presently a great pirate station in Lewisham that sounds like the natural successor to1980s pirate Rock 2 Rock, playing reggae and soul music for ‘big people’. I can listen to this station on FM or via the internet (telling you its name would break the law) and it entertains me in a way that the latter day South London Radio never achieved. I used to listen to Rock 2 Rock in the 1980s, and now I am listening to its successor.

First Love Radio R.I.P.

It appears that our highly regulated and interventionist commercial radio system has:
* completely failed the people who originally put the idea together for First Love Radio
* completely wasted the public money invested in training people from the local community in Lewisham to make radio programmes
* has completely failed the population of Lewisham and beyond who should have their own radio service.

These failures in public policy will continue to have to be filled (though not fully because of the threat to those involved of criminal prosecution) by the efforts of unlicensed radio stations in Lewisham. A document published by the publicly funded Creative Lewisham Agency lamented that “television and radio is a very small Creative Industries sub-sector” in the north of the Borough ….. but then it noted that pirate radio is “a contributor to the Creative economy” and “is certainly vital for networking and showcasing”. When you find public bodies extolling the citizen value of pirate radio, you know for sure that something in our radio licensing system has gone very badly wrong.

As Inspector Scratch-It recalled of his Rock 2 Rock days: “We even had links with the police and [Lewisham] Council. They used to send us information that was relevant to read out, even though we were a pirate.” Twenty years on, it is still pirate radio filling that gap.

Localness: please, sir, can I have some less?

The government’s announcement that an independent review group will look at the ‘localness’ issues relating to content on commercial radio could re-ignite a war of words between the stakeholders that a year ago ended in a tense ceasefire. Last time, hostilities between the large radio owners and Ofcom became elevated to such an extent that the regulator’s chief executive Ed Richards even used the Annual Ofcom Lecture to chastise the commercial radio industry for its persistent lobbying to loosen its ‘localness’ obligations:

Some [radio owners] have called for a huge relaxation in relation to localness, some in the industry even call for a complete removal of all regulation. They believe that localness is either no longer valued or that its value is significantly outweighed by its cost. The problem is that the evidence is to the contrary. What our research tells us is that people continue to want to hear local programming. …. But we are not convinced that the market alone will deliver this if left to its own devices. We recognise very clearly the significant economic challenges faced by the radio sector, but our forthcoming proposals will not involve eliminating the obligation to deliver local programming or its reduction to a negligible level.”

Ofcom subsequently published its policy statement on localness in February 2008 and although, on the surface, it might have looked as if a ceasefire had broken out between the two sides, behind the scenes the industry’s lobbying for further reductions of its ‘localness’ obligations continued regardless. Ofcom had estimated that its policy changes would save the radio sector £9.4m to £11.7m per annum from a cost base of around £620m. For the radio industry, these potential savings were simply not enough. Andrew Harrison, chief executive of RadioCentre, argued that “the heavy burden of the existing localness regulation and legislation [..] is holding back current profitability and future investment in the sector”. By December 2008, industry lobbying had succeeded in persuading the Digital Radio Working Group to recommend in its Final Report that:

commercial radio must be given greater freedom to shape its digital future to provide a sustainable future for local radio in a digital world through a relaxation of analogue localness requirements………”

and to comment that:

“…. a model which focuses so heavily on where content is made may not be the best way to deliver either what listeners will most want in the future or allow the industry space to grow. We therefore recommend that the commercial radio sector, Ofcom and the government should look closely at the current localness regime in the coming months……..”

What proved interesting about last week’s government announcement of the independent review into ‘localness’ was that it contained no mention of Ofcom whatsoever. Even though the press release noted that the review would examine “to what extent are the current requirements for a pre-determined number of hours of local content, and the locality in which content is produced, appropriate and sustainable”, as implemented by Ofcom, it did not mention the regulator by name. This omission is downright weird. The Communications Act 2003 states clearly that:

It shall be the duty of OFCOM to carry out their functions in relation to local sound broadcasting services in the manner that they consider is best calculated to secure: (a) that programmes consisting of or including local material are included in such services but, in the case of each service, only if and to the extent (if any) that OFCOM consider appropriate in that case; and (b) that, where such programmes are included in such a service, what appears to OFCOM to be a suitable proportion of them consists of locally-made programmes.”

Furthermore, the Act states that “OFCOM must: (a) draw up guidance….” and “OFCOM may revise the guidance from time to time”, but it “must consult” licence holders and stakeholders beforehand. The legislation is crystal clear as to where the responsibility resides. What we are seeing in the government announcement is an intervention at a higher level as a result of perceived dissatisfaction with the way that Ofcom has implemented its responsibilities on this “particularly contentious” issue, as Ed Richards described it

Ofcom’s 2007 consultation on ‘localness’ in radio had elicited 43 responses and the regulator “noted the calls from the commercial radio industry for a reduction of locally-made programming….” Ofcom stated determinedly: “We believe that our proposed guidelines already represent a substantial deregulation of locally-made programming in many cases”. However, it looks as if further lobbying has undermined the Ofcom position, and the regulator is now being sidelined by direct government action on this issue, which could lead to new legislation or to new implementation of existing legislation.

So what precisely does the commercial radio industry want changed by Lord Carter in Ofcom’s localness requirements?

  • local commercial stations required to broadcast no more than 4 hours a day of locally made programming
  • regional commercial stations not required to broadcast locally made programming
  • local news broadcasts on local stations can be produced in centralised newsrooms
  • stations serving populations of less than 750,000 (i.e.: two thirds of the UK’s stations) permitted to locate their studios outside the area they serve
  • the 4 hours a day of ‘local’ programming can be simulcast across co-located stations and still count as locally made programming.

And what concessions would the commercial radio industry offer Lord Carter in return for its newly, co-located, networked content, ‘local’ stations?

  • news bulletins (not all local) 13 hours a day on local stations
  • news bulletins 24 hours a day (not all regional) on regional stations (13 hours a day on specialist music stations)
  • extended news bulletins (of unspecified length)
  • a commitment to safeguarding stations’ remaining local content (weather, traffic, what’s on, charity appeals, community information)

However, these demands and concessions position the ‘localness’ issue strictly in the context of content regulation. In fact, there is a much bigger game being played out, which concerns the further investment required in the DAB platform to try and make it a success with consumers. Essentially, the commercial radio industry is trying to put a gun to Lord Carter’s head and is demanding: ‘we won’t invest any more money in DAB to make it work, unless you stop Ofcom making us do local things we don’t want to do’.

The initial response to the commercial radio lobby was likely to be: ‘you acquired all these local radio stations, knowing that they had localness obligations. If you wanted a national radio station, why didn’t you buy one of those instead?’ It does seem a bit like Stagecoach begging the government to transform its local bus routes into a national coach service. However, Lord Carter is trying to grapple with the issues and forge a compromise whilst still insisting that “government can not, nor should it, be the main driving force for digital radio”.

The biggest danger here is that the ‘localness’ issue becomes a mere sideshow to the much more politically and commercially significant decision over the future of the DAB platform. As such, ‘localness’ risks becoming a mere pawn in a complex set of negotiations that are essentially designed to maintain the balance sheet valuations of the largest radio groups which have already made significant investments over a decade in costly DAB infrastructure.

Sadly, this is not the first time that the ‘localness’ issue has been invoked merely as a quid pro quo within a much bigger game. In the original Bill that became the Communications Act 2003, there was no ‘localness’ clause for local radio, just as there never had been in previous broadcast legislation. It was inserted at the last minute as what the then Minister for Broadcasting, Dr. Kim Howells MP, admitted was “the quid pro quo for greater liberalisation in the radio market”, allowing more concentrated ownership of local radio than the Bill had originally proposed. In the ensuing House of Commons debate, Michael Fabricant MP successfully stoked the flames of fear:

What if Clear Channel – a United States organisation for which I have a considerable respect, but which the [UK commercial radio] industry is rather concerned about – were to acquire a number of radio stations and found that it could pull in large audiences, based in the US, and not be all that local? Its presenters could be based in New York, for example, and it could put in pre-recorded local identifications. Everything could be done on a PC-based system. The stations would sound like local radio, even though they were not; and, because they had a good playlist, they might pull in a big audience. Would we not want back-stop powers in such a case?”

Six years later, neither Clear Channel nor its competitors have bothered to enter the UK radio market. Instead of the then touted prospect of US-financed global radio, we now have Irish-financed Global Radio wanting to run as much of its UK local radio empire as possible from Leicester Square. At the end of the day, for the listener, does the distinction matter whether a local radio station’s studio is in New York or New Bond Street? If I were a listener in NorthEast England, when I choose to listen to local radio, rather than national radio, if it does not fulfil my desire for ‘local’, then it offers me zero utility. If I am digging my car out of a three-foot snowdrift and the jolly ‘local’ radio presenter does not mention the inclement weather from her faraway studio, it simply isn’t local radio.

Surely, a ‘localness’ policy for radio should put the citizen/consumer/listener at the heart of its doctrine, something which Ofcom policies to date have failed to do. But neither does the commercial radio industry come out of this smelling of roses. I have yet to see one UK case study backed with evidential data which demonstrates that a decrease in local content on a local radio station has resulted in audience growth. Reduced costs? Yes. Improved profit margins? Yes. But local commercial radio stations have always been gifted scarce analogue radio spectrum for free, in return for their public service content commitments. A local radio station that is not trying to maximise its audience but, instead, aims to maximise profits by reducing costs, cutting local content and knowing full well that its audience will inevitably decline, would seem to be misusing valuable spectrum.

It remains to be seen whether this latest initiative to review radio’s localness requirements will result in new regulation that finally puts the listener at the centre of its policies, rather than simply responding to the needs of either the box-ticking regulator or the de-localising, large radio groups.

On a personal note, over several years I researched the issue of ‘localness’ and ‘localism’ in local radio, and I wrote an unpublished paper a year ago that examined the issues and suggested a way forward that would reinstate the local radio listener at the heart of localness regulatory policy. If the laws or regulatory regime do have to be changed, my only hope is that they are changed for the better, and not for the worse.

Heart disease – turning 'big fish/small pond' into 'big pond/small fish'?

Today has seen Global Radio extend its Heart FM brand to more local markets in England, replacing heritage names such as Chiltern, Hereward and Broadland that seem to have existed for decades. There seem to be at least three different issues involved in these changes:

1. The loss of ‘heritage’ station names. One of radio’s biggest long-term challenges has always been the difficulty users have had finding stations on their analogue radio and identifying them properly. The more crowded the AM/FM wavebands become, the more imperative this ‘finding’ and ‘identifying’ becomes. In the early days of UK commercial radio, most station names did not include their frequencies simply because there was so little choice on the dial. Although the switch to Heart FM does not involve frequency changes, it is bound to cause confusion amongst some listeners that their radio might have tuned to something other than their favourite station. If they then switch the dial, there is the potential to lose their listening to a competitor. Anything that encourages dial twiddling can only be a bad thing.

2. Brand duplication. In markets such as Bedfordshire, Heart FM was already heard across parts of the area from the Londonwide station of the same name. In Dunstable/Luton, Heart FM London attracted a 3.1% share, compared to local station Chiltern FM’s 8.6%. From now on, two Heart FM’s can be heard on different frequencies. How exactly will RAJAR determine if a respondent in Bedfordshire was listening to Heart FM Dunstable or to Heart FM London, particularly at times when they carry the same programmes? For the consumer, is this not reducing the content choice in the market? For Ofcom, is this not wasteful duplication of frequencies, something for which the commercial sector has always been quick to point an accusing finger at the BBC?

3. Networked programming. Heart FM stations will retain local programming on weekdays 0600 to 1000 and 1300 to 1900. The PR script from Global HQ to be used as quotes in the local press runs:
“We have increasingly found our listeners have more than just a local outlook. They read national magazines like Hello and Heat, they watch national TV shows and they surf the net, too. As well as local news and information, listeners are telling us they want more showbiz gossip, more celebrity interviews and a bigger professional sound from their local station. Currently, they have to switch to national stations like Radio 1 and 2 to get this.”
The networked shows on Heart FM are presented by Toby Anstis (1000 to 1300), Matt Wilkinson (1900 to 2200), Simon Beale (2200 to 0100) and Gareth John (0100 to 0600). I am sorry but, when you compare this talent to the name presenters and significant editorial content on Radios One and Two, it pales by comparison.

The problem? Global Radio, just like GCap Media before it, and GWR Group before that, bought a bunch of local commercial radio stations and wanted to turn them into something they are patently not – an almost, kind of, quasi-national station. In the UK, we have local commercial radio stations licensed to serve local populations, and separately we have national commercial radio stations licensed to serve national audiences. They are different. If I were to buy a grocery store in Dunstable, and then I buy a similar store in Luton, and suddenly hang an identical sign on the front of both of them that says “Global Supermarket”, it does not automatically put me in the same league as Tesco, Asda or Sainsbury. Surely, the way a local shop can thrive commercially is by striving to perfectly complement the offerings of the big supermarkets, not by trying to emulate them. As a consumer, if I want Asda, I will go to Asda. If I want Radio Two, I will go to Radio Two, not jumped-up, local-ish, quasi-national Heart FM.

Global Radio’s aspirations ‘to make a station what it is not’ are no different than many previous radio station owners. When Jazz FM won the first specialist music licence in London, its owners tried their hardest to make it anything other than a jazz music station. When EMAP bought KISS FM in London, it wanted it to compete head-on as a pop music station with Capital FM. When EMAP bought Melody Radio in London, it wanted it to be anything other than an easy listening station. A succession of owners of Virgin Radio tried to make it anything other than a straight ahead rock music station. Now that Global Radio has bought Choice FM, it seems to want it to be another KISS FM, rather than a station for black Londoners. I could go on and on…. The wheel is being constantly reinvented day in, day out. Many times, in radio, it turns out square.

Forgive me a short anecdote. Soon after it had opened, I visited the new local commercial radio station for Reading called Radio 210 for a guided tour. I lived only 14 miles away, but I could not pick up the station’s signal because its transmitter covered only the city of Reading. In 1979, the station had a weekly reach of 41% adults and cumed 2.4m hours/week [JICRAR]. Between then and now, the station’s owners lobbied the regulator successively (and successfully) to allow them to extend the station’s area by adding relay transmitters and increasing power outputs. Today, that same station covers most of Berkshire, North Hampshire and as far west as Andover, which is almost 50 miles from Reading (does anyone in Andover feel a connection to faraway Reading?). Today, Radio 210’s weekly reach is 28% and it cumes 1.3m hours/week, even in its much expanded coverage area [RAJAR].

The conclusion. You can become a big fish in a small pond, with a lot of hard work and effort. You can deliberately move to a bigger pond. But you must accept that you will now be a smaller fish….. and the massive risk is that you might never be a big fish ever again….. anywhere, any when.

For the US experience, “Why Local Radio Is No Longer Local” is a very worthwhile (lengthy) read [thanks to Mark Ramsey for the tip].

Touch FM to be sold or closed

CN Group has announced that its Touch FM stations in Coventry and Banbury will close in five weeks’ time if a buyer is not found. Managing director Julie Fair said that the two stations do not fit in with the long-term strategy of the company. Small-scale, local commercial radio stations in the UK are under immense financial strain, and some owners have exacerbated the situation by extracting the very ‘localness’ from their stations that should have made them unique. Tindle Radio has been up for sale for more than a year; Laser Broadcasting has been put into administration; The Local Radio Company is selling some stations; UTV has put several stations up for sale; Sunrise is selling two London stations; and KM Radio is closing local studios. Earlier this year, I predicted that between 50 and 100 small local commercial stations would go out of business. It gives me no joy to make such a prediction, but the harsh economics of the radio industry are unavoidable. There will be small local stations that can survive and even thrive – they will be owned by people who understand that being different is an asset, being ‘local’ almost to the point of parochialism is a plus, and that ‘local radio’ is more about offering a community service than about being a budding media baron. In other words, owning a small local radio station has more in common with running a local corner shop than with owning a national newspaper. Yes, it is a tragedy that the UK economy cannot support a local commercial FM radio station in every town. Yes, it would be easy to allocate the blame for this sad situation to all and sundry. But we are where we are now. More closures are as inevitable in local commercial radio as they are in local newspapers. In the future, we will look back and wonder how anyone could have conceived that more than 300 local commercial radio stations could ever hope to achieve profitability in our little land. The truth is that one great little radio station is much more valued by its audience and advertisers than 100 mediocre ones. Will Touch FM be fondly remembered a decade hence? Therein lies the serious challenge facing local stations. It is not enough simply to exist – you have to struggle to be loved by your audience. Or you face the prospect that your station could end up in a pauper’s grave, unmarked, overgrown and forgotten. If you own a radio station and are not fighting every hour to make a big difference in your area, exactly what are you in business for?