UK Commercial Radio Deregulation: The Good, and the Very, Very Bad.

I imagine there's a somewhat polarized response that is developing to the news that commercial radio formats are to go in terms of regulation from OFCOM.

Those who are closest to the front line on this will be mostly celebrating the deregulation. Those who are most passionate about radio will probably be bemoaning the loss of the localness requirement.

None the less, what we have here truly is a mixed bag of deregulation. There are some bits that are very good, and there are some others that are truly very, very bad.

So lets start with the best change of the lot. The removal of requirements to play a perticular genre of music. In practice, these were pretty much nonsense anyway, as the format could be written in such a loose way that you could often play almost anything popular and not contravene your format requirements.

Community radio stations have also over the past 10 years highlighted the problem with music formats. Because community radio didn't have this requirement to play a certain music format, it can and very often does, play almost anything and almost everything, within acceptable standards, such as definitely not having songs with losts of swear words in it during times when children would be listening.

Stations like Source FM actually make a point of playing local music from local musicians, music that, until now, gets zero airplay on commercial radio, despite the fact that many songs are indistinguishable in quality terms, from the material submitted by the big music companies. The only actual difference in the sound of the music will sometimes be the instruments used.

If anything, the elimination of music formats as a regulatory requirement, might actually free up commercial stations to take more risks at least musically. If you value localness in anyway, consider scheduling a locally originated track in one music slot per hour during your locally originated programming.

Or, how about an hour long weekly programme, where you only play locally originated music. BBC has already done something similar with their "BBC Introducing..." shows that air for one or two hours per week on the BBC Local Radio stations.

With Ofcom no longer required to approve music format changes, it should allow stations to be more free to add different genres music to their mix as needed. I'd argue that having classical music on a Sunday morning would be more popular than having the same normal music mix.

I'm also reassured by the assurances that there will be strong requirements to provide national and local news, weather and travel.

Local information is one of the key reasons that people tune into local radio as whole, be it BBC, commercial radio or community radio. It is especially important during times of severe weather, when information about school closures, power interruptions, disruption to public transport and many other things, goes from being merely a nicety, to being absolutely essential.

Local television and local radio in other countries understand that providing much more specific and localised information in times where it is required, is much more beneficial to the station, as well as being beneficial to the listeners.

The biggest problem with the deregulation is the removal of localness requirments. Now, stations will be able to share programming 24/7/365, rather than having to provide breakfast and drivetime programming on weekdays, and honestly, that is a big mistake.

I just said that during times of severe weather, local information is more important, and just because the technology is available to enable centralised hubbing of multiple stations with the ability to provide local links on those different stations, doesn't mean that localness should not be a requirement.

How do you build rapport with an audience in a local area, if your presenters and station staff aren't out and about in that area? It's difficult. The Breeze right now has network programming based in Bristol & Southampton. It's difficult for those presenters to build good rapport with audiences in Torbay, which is the most south westerly version of The Breeze.

Heart's Network programming is produced in London. Now how are they meant to be a presence from Scotland to Cornwall, when they're in London?

Local stations that have local presenters going out and about meeting local audiences at local events build much better rapport and have a much stronger connection with the audience, than a network presenter who might occasionally appear at an event in your local area, but mostly is never seen.

Yes, social media helps that process, but nowhere near as much as people think. Being out and about, representing the stations at local events, is at least 10 times more effective than anything social media can achieve.

So, overall, this has the potential to be far more positive for commercial radio, but radio needs to be careful not to do things that alienate the audience, because despite what commercial radio seems to think, the advertisers will not stay if the audiences decide to leave the station.

You can't make a station appealing to advertisers, you have to make it appeal to listeners, and then, the advertisers will come aboard, because you have the listeners. Reducing locally originated programme below the current minimum level, is likely to alienate the audience.

2Day FM - Challenging the regulator never works.

2Day FM have been very foolish.

Recently, the Australian media regulator, the ACMA, announced that it was going to conduct a formal investigation into the prank phone call to a London hospital that ended up causing a nurse at that hospital to commit suicide.

Upon the release of preliminary fiundings, 2Day FM filed suit with Australia's Federal Court system to block any further progress in the investigation, and to prevent the ACMA finding them guilty of breaching their licence.

Basically, this is a clear admission of guilt. 

2Day FM have basically admitted that they are guilty of the offences that the ACMA is investigating them for.  And they know, full well, that they could lose their licence.  So, they have decided to take on the regulator.  Huge mistake.

In all the years I've followed the media and covered it, every media company that has taken on the regulator, in any country, has lost.  Courts have never overturned a regulator's decision, nor have they basically prevented a regulator from doing it's job.  Trying to accuse the regulator of overstepping boundaries, is ridiculous.  Trying to say that the regulator does not have the power to say that it breached the terms of it's licence, is incredibly ridiculous.

These are the death throes of a station that did not respect the rules, had no sense of where boundaries were, in fact, a station that had no sense at all.

Once the Australain Federal Court does the right thing and throws this ludicrously silly challenge out of court, then 2Day FM might as well take themselves off the air, because it will be a case of licence revoked, pretty soon.

Goodbye 2Day FM.  Your shameful behaviour in this whole sorry saga, will mean that you will not be missed.

TruthSeeker: Ten Myths About DAB

It seems the anti-DAB crowd are being just as vocal as they ever were.  But are they making any points?  Is there any truth to what they say or is there more spin and propoganda than actual facts?

To find out, I've been reading the site Ten Myths of DAB, which claims to "...explain why the Government is intent on steamrollering this through and the secrets they are keeping from us."

The site actually manages to get off to a good start...

"The more one looks into the whole question of the proposal to switch off the FM transmission network for national stations, such as Radio's 3 and 4, the more one realises there is no compelling reason or mandate to do so as far as the consumer is concerned."

Perfectly correct, actually.  There is no compelling mandate as far as the consumer was concerned.  In the same way, there was no compelling mandate for the consumer to switch from Sky analogue to Sky Digital, until Sky decided they were going discontinue analogue transmissions in 2001, 11 years before the analogue terrestrial network was switched off.  Sky created the mandate, just like the Government did with the analogue terrestrial television network, and they want to do with analogue radio. 

But after that good start, the site goes downhill very quickly...

"The more I researched into this, the more apparent it became that because of this lack of mandate, with the exception of one report, every single document from the Government or Ofcom regarding the FM switch off is redolent of hype, marketing spin and smacks of desperation.  As an ex-Marketing Director, I can smell it a mile off.

Yet the Government remains firmly committed to doing this.  So why the steamroller?

The answer is simple.  The commercial radio guys want to make more money.

At your expense."

Hmm.  Are you so sure about that?  If that were the case, the commercial radio powerhouses would be far more committed to DAB than they really are.  Their support is lukewarm at best, and in fact, at worst, they are downright hostile to DAB.  And they have been ever since 2008, and a report from Grant Goddard of Enders Analytics, a report incidentally I wrote about at the time.  It was a hit job worthy of Fox News on a Democratic candidate, not an analysis at all.

So, if this was about the commercial radio companies, they would not be as opposed to it as they are.  That is one big mark against the site.

So let's examine each of these 10 myths that the site talks about.

"Myth 1 - DAB is being consumer led."

Now, this is actually kinda interesting.  This is the first myth, yet nowhere in the piece do they talk about consumers actions.  They don't mention that in the past 3 years, DAB reciever sales have been consistent at 1.9 million units per year.  Nor do they mention that DAB accounts for over 20% of all radio listening in this country, 4 times as much as Digital TV or the Internet, although internet listening is growing at a much faster rate, partially because of the availablity of good, solid, internet radio apps, such as TuneIn, UK RadioPlayer. BBC iPlayer Radio, and RTE Radio Player.

What they do mention is the change in emphasis in the Government's 50% target, from 50% of all listening on DAB, to 50% of all listening on Digital.  That change in emphasis had not gone unnoticed by many, even within the industry. 

The other thing they mention is transmission costs for the radio stations, and how they've gone up.  Well of course they've gone up.  Think about it, if you were transmitting on FM only, and now you're transmitting an FM signal, a DAB signal and two online streams, one for home use and one for mobile use, then transmission costs are bound to have gone up.  They even quote from a 2010 House of Lords Communications Committee report that quotes figures from the RadioCentre.  RadioCentre is the UK's commercial radio industry trade body., and this is the quoted piece.

"...RadioCentre told us that total transmission costs have risen from £50m a year, five years ago to £70m, of which £40m is for analogue transmission (FM and AM), £20m for DAB transmission and £10m for other forms of transmission, such as DTT and satellite..."

So, naturally they extrapolate from those figures that analogue transmission is more expensive, and that the commercial radio industry wants to shut down analogue. 

Wrong.

That £40million is spread between far more analogue transmitters than DAB's £20million is.  More than double the amount of transmitters.  Think about this.  From the Redruth transmitter, the following signals are transmitted on FM...

BBC Radio 2 on 89.7 FM
BBC Radio 3 on 91.9 FM
BBC Radio 4 on 94.1 FM
BBC Radio 1 on 99.3 FM
Classic FM on 101.5 FM
Pirate FM on 102.8 FM
BBC Radio Cornwall on 103.9 FM
Heart South West on 107.0 FM

...and the following singals are transmitted on AM...

BBC Radio Cornwall on 630 AM
BBC Radio 4 on 756 AM
BBC Radio 5 Live on 909 AM
TalkSport on 1089 AM
Absolute Radio on 1215 AM

...and each one of those signals is transmitted by a separate transmitter, on the Redruth mast.  13 stations, 13 transmitters.

In constrast, on that same Redruth mast, there are just 3 digital transmitters...

South West Digital Radio on 218.64 MHz, aka block 11B.  That block transmits 7 stations.
Digital One on 222.06 MHz, aka block 11D.  That block transmits 14 stations.
BBC National DAB on 225.64 MHz, aka block 12B.  That block transmits 12 stations.

3 transmitters, 33 stations.  Surely less transmitters to transmit more stations makes it cheaper?  No, it doesn't.  DAB transmission is much more expensive than FM or AM transmission, and not every AM and FM station currently broadcasts on DAB.  In fact, stations like The Breeze have stopped transmitting on DAB, simply because they are not making enough money to justify transmitting on DAB.

So much for that argument.

Overall, the 'myth' that DAB is consumer led is in fact, only Half True.  Consumer demand can be described as steady, both for the equipment, and the services.  And in a time of recession, where spending on discretionary items such as consumer electronics has gone down significantly and led to the collapse of Comet, DAB's steady performance is more encouraging than discouraging.

Myth 2 does not have a title, but is all to do with the sound quality.  Certainly this topic has sparked many a debate between audiophiles, who want the quality of signal maintained, and others, who prefer more choice, without necessarily maintaining the quality.  Unless enough frequencies are released to ensure every digital transmission has a minimum of 128 kbps, and that looks unlikely, you are never going to satisfy the audiophile.  I have to rate this myth as Mostly True.

"Myth 3 - DAB sales are growing year on year."

Having read this through, I have to rate this as "Pants On Fire".  Here's why.

They reference the DWRG Interim Report, but notice they don't say when that report was.  This is what they quote from that report...

"The take-up of DAB digital radio over the last few years has been impressive.  By the end of May this year sales of DAB sets exceeded 7 million, with this figure predicted to rise to 9 million by the end of the year."

Those are not yearly sales figures, by the way, but cumulative.  Then, they manage to make the dumbest of statements.

"These figures are irrelevant unless one asks the questions "Are those digital radios in daily use?" and "Are those digital radios using FM or DAB?".  If a local straw poll I carried out locally is anything to go by then the answers would be "No" to the first one and "FM" to the second."

Would a local straw poll be carried anywhere else other than locally???  That's pretty dumb in itself.  Then to ask if that straw poll would be anything to go by... oh dear.  No, a straw poll has little value other than being very circumstancial and very flimsy.  Remember, DAB represents over 20% of all radio listening in this country.  1 hour in every 5 hours is heard through DAB.  Those DAB radios are definitely tuned in DAB for a not insignificant amount of time, that much is obvious from the evidence.  Does it matter whether those radios are in daily use or not?  Not really, that's perhaps the silliest question of the two. 

Whilst it would be accurate to say that DAB have not grown in the past 3 years, and are in fact slightly down on 2008, the lack of economic context to the whole question, ie that we are and have been in a recessionary period since 2008, and sales of discretionary items like consumer electronics have plummeted to the point that one major retailer of consumer electronics collapsed under a mountain of debt, so fundamentally undermines the whole point, as to render the whole 'myth' as totally irrelevant.  It's totally busted.

"Myth 4 - Radio listeners want more choice."

This is another one, where there is evidence both ways.  Ask most people upfront if they want more choice, and most will generally say no.  However, the evidence also says that when they have more choice, they tend to use it.  This myth is rated as "Half True."

"Myth 5 - There is a robust Cost Benefit Analysis in favour of the FM switch off."

This one is more difficult, because there is a lack of evidence either way.  An Ofcom commissioned report from PriceWaterhouseCoopers in 2009 was only released after being heavily redacted.  Now you can go with the "no smoke without fire" principle if you like.  I will point out that tyres can spin and produce smoke, but will never catch fire, rendering the whole principle useless.  You have to look at this from the same kind of perspective as you would in Court.  And what's more, you have to apply the same principle of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" to both the pro and con arguments.  And if you do that, neither argument satisfies Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.  This is a classic "Not Proven", a verdict that is only rendered in Scottish courts.  So, due to the lack of conclusive evidence either way, the only way I can call this is "Plausible but Not Proven."

"Myth 6 - DAB has no interference"

This is another myth, that I have to rate as "Pants On Fire", because although it looks more sensible, again the evidence paints a totally different picture.

Unless you are practically right next door to an FM transmitter, nobody hears an FM signal without some background interference.  No AM signal is interference free either.  A decent DAB radio, placed in a good reception area, gives a signal that is free of background interference. 

Now granted not everywhere has decent DAB reception.  The same applies for FM.  Just spend some time listening to FM on the train.  Reception comes and goes like crazy, and white noise can drown out signals.  DAB suffers in the same way, but instead of white noise, you get this burbling sound that is actually worse than white noise, and just as frustrating.  But that is the physics of radio transmission, not a problem with DAB as a platform. 

So, on the basis that the basis for the myth, is totally undermined by simple science, this is rated "Pants On Fire."  It's totally busted.

"Myth 7 - The analogue infrastructrure needs £200million of capital expenditure."

This is another myth, that actually has very little evidence at all.  The figure does seem to have been plucked out of thin air.  £200million over the next 20 years, to maintain the FM network?  That figure could be an overstatement, or it could be an understatement.  Transmitter parts do need replacing from time to time, and transmitters do need regular maintenance, so that figure actually could be a gross understatement.  But without more evidence, it's impossible to answer conclusively either way.  This one too is "Plausible but Not Proven."

"Myth 8 - The Government are doing this to sell off the FM spectrum."

This is one of the easiest myths to bust.  This is all they write on the page for that myth.

"If they are then it's wishful thinking because no-one (including PwC) have identified any commercial purpose, other than audio, for the FM spectrum were it to be freed up."

I may suggest that whoever wrote this hasn't been paying attention.  Mobile phone networks are always looking for more frequencies to expand their calls and data services and increase capacity.  Those companies that produce hand held walkie talkies have been lobbying for the frequencies to be used for local communication networks.  Even computer network manufacturers are looking for frequencies for Wi-Fi and other wireless network technologies.  To say nobody has identified any commercial purpose other than audio, is totally wrong.  This one is busted and gets the "False" rating.

"Myth 9 - Digital radio listening is really taking off."

Apparently, the writer of the website, does not understand mathematics.  He tries to claim that an increase from 13% to 26% is an increase of 13%.  In fact, it's an increase of 100%, as the figure has doubled.  Similarly, he claims that going from 19% to 21% is an increase of 2%.  In fact, it's more like 10%.  And with DAB listening going up by around 10% in 2012, well, it's not exactly taking off, but it is growth.

On that very simple basis, he so totally undermines his whole argument on that myth, as to render other points he makes on that page as moot and irrelevant.  This is another "Pants On Fire".  It is totally busted.

"Myth 10 - No such thing as a digital radio switchover.  No such thing as a DAB switchover.  It is an FM Switch Off."

Okay so if that is the myth, why do you then contradict yourself by then writing...

"The DCMS and Ofcom have been very clever here and a masterclass in subterfuge.  Rather than talk about the Great FM Switch Off, for that is what it is, they started talking about the DAB Switchover."

You just busted your own myth, with your own words.  And by the way, factually, AM still hasn't been switched off yet, and there are still a number of stations across the country broadcasting AM signals.  So it wouldn't be just an FM switch off, but an analogue switch off, but it would only be a switch off, if there were nothing to replace it.  But there is Digital Radio, so it is a switchover.  "Pants On Fire" rating again, and this one is double busted!

Overall, this is just another example of spin and propoganda against the DAB platform, based upon half truths, and unprovables.  Not one of the ten myths stood up to scrutiny and came away unscathed.  The closest was myth 2, but with the demand from various companies for frequencies, the likelyhood of broadcasters being allowed to expand the number of frequencies that they have available, is so small as to be virtually impossible, which took the edge of something that was otherwise pretty accurate.  Unfortunately for the anti DAB community, this site is so full of misinformation as to be useless.  As a site, it gets a "Mostly False" rating.  What truth there is here, is often so far out of context and over extrapolated as to make what is written very very shaky.

Nominated for a Golden Headphone

Hello, Ian Beaumont here.  I've been nominated for a new category at this year's Sony Radio Academy Awards, and am one of a number of presenters up for The Golden Headphones Award, which will be presented to the presenter who has the most votes in this public vote.

You can vote for me by going to http://www.sonygoldenheadphones.com/vote/ and entering my name in the search box.

You could win one of 20 pairs of Sony MDR-1R Headphones just for voting.

Ian Beaumont Live & Direct on The Source FM 96.1

It's been a while since I wrote regularly here on Viewpoint.  That's mostly because my attention is focused currently on a new project.  I'm hosting a new show on The Source FM in Falmouth, called Ian Beaumont Live & Direct.

The show airs live on Tuesdays from 11am to 1pm and is broadcast on 96.1 FM in Falmouth, Penryn and surrounding areas, incluidng St Mawes, Flushing, Carnon Downs, Mabe and Devoran.  It's a music based show, and I play a number of very familiar tracks, and some less well known ones including tracks by local artists and brand new music.

Even when I'm not on the air, you can keep up with the programme in various ways.  I have a programme page at The Source FM website at http://www.thesourcefm.co.uk/programmes/ian-beaumont-live-and-direct where you can leave me messages for inclusion on the show.

You can also like the show's Facebook page, and interact with me there at http://www.facebook.com/IanBeaumontLiveAndDirect.  You can leave comments, requests and suggestions there too, I do love reading your comments.

The show also has a twitter feed at https://twitter.com/IBLiveAndDirect and you tweet me at any time, just start your tweet with @IBLiveAndDirect and it'll wend its way to me.

Or if you're on Google Plus, you can add the show to your circles to keep updated with the show.  You'll find my page at https://plus.google.com/102337430810815788919.  Again, your comments are most welcome.

So, if you are in Falmouth, Penryn or the surrounding parishes, and can hear us clearly on 96.1 FM, or if you're outside that area, and near a computer where you can point your browser to http://www.thesourcefm.co.uk/listen, please join me, every Tuesday at 11am UK time, for 2 hours of great music and good company.  It wouldn't be the same without you.

Busting Media Myths #1: 'How real people consume media'.

One thing that really makes me feel disappointed about the state of radio and broadcasting in general.  The attitude that was summed up in an article in March 2012 on the Radio Today website written by Stuart Clarkson.

"Stop and think for a second about your own radio listening habits. And then think about how a friend or family member who doesn’t work in radio (or have an unhealthy interest in the medium) consumes it."

There is so much wrong with that statement, that I couldn't deal in detail with all the various problems with it in my rebuttal to him.  But in this article, I can deal with all those problems and show why stations should not fall into the trap of believing that "real people consume media differently" from anybody else.

The first problem with that is the idea that there is a distinction between 'real people' and 'people who have an unhealthy interest'.  This idea that there is a distinction between these two groups and that the more knowledgeable group should be negatively regarded is exclusive to the media.  It does not exist in any other industry.

Imagine if I was a shop worker, and another shop worker from a different store came into my store with a complaint about a product I sold.  Which would be the correct response?

A)  "I'm sorry, but you have an unhealthy interest in retail.  I will do nothing about your complaint."

B)  "I do apologise.   Would you like a replacement or refund?"

Generally, the correct answer would be B.  If I had ever come out with anything remotely like A, I would have expected the shop manager to have hauled me over the coals in his office, and rightfully so.

So why do broadcasters regard complaints from some viewers and listeners in the same way by claiming the person has an 'unhealthy interest' in the medium?  It's not good customer service, and it leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the viewer or listener.

There's another problem with this distinction.  It shows up an attitude problem within the broadcaster.  It says that the broadcaster looks at viewers or listeners, and does not consider them to be the most important people for the station.  Probably they think their advertisers are more important than their listeners or viewers.  But this shows they have forgotten or not understood one key fact.

Advertisers follow where the viewers or listeners go, rather than the other way round.

We have seen repeated examples of stations losing lots of listeners for one reason or another, and the advertisers desert the station.  Plymouth Sound saw that in 1999 when their AM service was replaced by Classic Gold and the station lost 2/3rds of their listeners.  Advertisers started to go to Pirate FM in order to get the reach they used to get with Plymouth Sound AM.

Without listeners or viewers, advertisers do not have anybody to advertise to.

It's a simple as that.  Anytime you prioritise advertisers over viewers or listeners, you are putting the cart before the horse.  The most important people to the success of any station is your viewers or listeners.

Now after all that, let's talk about 'consuming media'.

The first question there really is do we consume media?  Well in a sense, we do, because the media is mostly a consumer product.  We buy newspapers, magazines, radios, televisions, computers, games consoles, computer and console games, DVD's and Blu-Ray's, so in a sense, media is a consumer product.  However, the idea that we really consume media implies that we do not make a conscious choice about which media we consume. 

Far too often when we go shopping for food, we aren't really making conscious choices.  We are merely picking up the same things we have always picked up, because we have got used to their texture and taste.  In that situation, exercising real choice would be to decide to buy a different product, or to decide to not buy any other product, or after thinking about it, deciding to buy it anyway. 

However, with most media, it is a conscious choice.  It is a choice whether we go to the cinema or stay at home.  It is a choice whether or not we switch on the radio or the television.  It is a conscious choice when we decide which channel we are going to watch, or which radio station we are going to listen to.  It is a conscious choice which game we play, or which movie we watch on DVD or Blu-Ray.  So I would not call it consuming media.  We interact with it, consciously making choices.  Those who refer to it as consuming media are again basically forgetting that the viewer or listener is the most important person to that station.  Without them, the station cannot survive.

If your radio station needs more audience to attract more advertisers and make more money, then does it make sense to keep doing the same thing you've always done?  No, you have to make changes.  By hiring me as a consultant, I can guide you how to improve your product, and maximise your reach by precise use of new and old media techniques.  Email me to find out more.

Breaking News: Rush Limbaugh apologises.

Rush Limbaugh has released a statement on RushLimbaugh.com

"For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."

This is a rare moment, and I applaud Rush for actually realising he went too far.

But, in my honest opinion, Rush Limbaugh should be removed from the airwaves by his syndicators, and he should never be allowed anywhere near a radio studio ever again.

There's an old saying. "With great power, comes great responsibility". As welcome as the apology is, he has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he is not a responsible broadcaster.

Links for Viewpoint: Weekly Edition - Epsidoe 3

CHBN Radio, Truro, Cornwall, UK

Ambitious About Autism

UEFA Champions League coverage update

Well, this UEFA Champions League matchday is better for coverage than many others previously. Radio 5 Live is covering Rangers match, whilst TalkSport is covering the Manchester United game.

Much better. This is exactly what we as listeners want from our radio. Real choice.

Ratings Review: JNLR year ending Jun 07

The Joint National Listenership Research (JNLR) figures for Jun 06-Jun 07 have been released by Ireland's media regulator, the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland (BCI). These are the figures for radio stations in Ireland.

Of interest to me is the fact that little has changed in the past 6 months. RTE Radio 1 still holds a 23% national reach with RTE 2FM just behind on 18%. RTE Lyric FM also holds a consistent 3% reach.

Commercial music station Today FM is only just behind 2FM with 16% reach, whilst commercial talk station NewsTalk 106-108 struggles with just 5%.

It is very interesting to note that the local stations in Ireland tend to have much larger reach than the national stations. Highland Radio has a 64% reach in their listneing area. By contrast, the two local Dublin stations 98FM and FM104, both score 12.7% in their area, which is lower than RTE Radio 1's equivalent number in Dublin (31%).

It will be interesting to look at the next set of numbers, when they next come out.