Incumbent broadcasters will have to adapt to the fragmentation of audiences, platforms, services and revenues in order to survive in the new media world, the BroadcastAsia conference in Singapore was told this week. In an opening address to the annual conference, the Secretary-General of the Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union (ABU), David Astley, described the fragmentation of revenues as a “depressing phrase for commercial broadcasters”.
“As traditional advertising revenues decline and as ARPUs decline, monetising the distribution of content over multiple platforms - which itself invariably involves higher overall costs - is probably the single biggest challenge facing broadcasters today,” he said.
Mr Astley said that whilst audience numbers for traditional broadcasting were declining, the future for those broadcasters was “not so gloomy as may first appear”, provided they saw the challenges they face as opportunities. “To compensate for the audience losses they will experience, broadcasters will have to become part of the new media world and compete alongside new players with fresh ideas and innovative ways of doing business,” he explained.
“In addition, digital technology is reducing the barriers to entry which is resulting in increasing competition for audiences, not just from telcos and other new players in the industry, but from consumer-generated content as well.”
(Source: Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union)
Andy Sennitt comments: Public broadcasters, including RNW, also have to adapt to survive. This is what we are doing, with new forms of content creation and programme delivery. Unfortunately, budget constraints mean that we also have to discontinue services that have served us well over the years but have passed their “sell by” date. That includes shortwave broadcasts to some regions.
There are some shortwave listeners who refuse point blank to listen to international broadcasts on anything other than shortwave, and who get angry and sometimes quite aggressive when services are eliminated. What they don’t seem to understand is that, as Mr Astley says, audiences are fragmenting, and that if we continued to broadcast at the same level on shortwave, we would be unable to afford to develop new services. Ultimately, RNW would become an irrelevant dinosaur and the Dutch government would, quite rightly, refuse further funding. We make no apology for not choosing that option.
on Jun 19th, 2009 at 12:47
I think to reduce or even stop shortwave transmissions is to give up the reason to exsist for de Wereldomroep. It is wrong to focus on new technologies like Internet for 2 reasons. If I have access to internet I would listen to my regular home stations to get news or entertainment. Second point is that in countries where news is regulated, the internet is also regulated.
In my view the Wereldomroep has a added value where there is no internet or where media is regulated.
on Jun 19th, 2009 at 13:29
When I was a ten-year-old student, my father bought me a used Hallicrafters receiver. After it warmed up, I clearly recall listening many a night to distant radio signals drifting in and out from faraway antennas. Today I still listen to those same faraway signals, but Wifi and the Internet make them so much clearer.
Wifi and the Internet are much more efficient, but the Hallicrafters was a lot more fun. Slowly twisting the dial meant more to me back then, than clicking a mouse does now.
Andy’s right: stations must adapt to survive.
Benny
on Jun 19th, 2009 at 13:54
Internet only broadcasting is fine but by the same token neither does it get a massive market share of the audience and neither does it bring in large advertising revenues either;for broadcasters to stay heard by large numbers on easily available broadcast platforms, OK drop the poor quality platforms like SW/MW/LW and/or reduce provision/commitment on those outmoded transmission outlets or discontinue them altogether as many broadcasters have done, adopt satellite/cable/digital terrestrial television distribution and if desired local FM/AM relays by partner stations in other countries at selected hours or full 24:7 operation like WRN have and look at the possibilities of Digital Audio Broadcasting Plus (DAB+) and/or DRM transmission via the existing AM bands and possibly DRM+ transmissions on the FM 87-108Mhz waveband if it\’s a likely applicable means of carriage to you that could bring in dividends for your station/listeners and audience.
on Jun 19th, 2009 at 14:45
I’m not sure why you’re all referring to Internet broadcasting as if it were the only option we’re looking at. We are already working hard to get our content onto partner stations in many countries, and developing services for other platforms such as the handheld devices which are a mass-market commodity in countries like Nigeria. Part of my job is to identify emerging trends in our key target countries, and help to assemble detailed reports on how consumers will be receiving information five years and more down the line.
What really gets on my nerves is comments from people who bought a shortwave radio 40 years ago and insist it’s still the only act in town. As Benny said, it was fun and it’s still fun, but we’re running a business here (albeit one funded by the Dutch taxpayer) and we can’t afford to have a “timewarp” mentality. Some countries have simply given up on international broadcasting altogether. At RNW we believe there’s still a role for us, but not necessarily by bouncing hundreds of kiloWatts of RF off the ionosphere.
on Jun 20th, 2009 at 12:19
Slightly OT, but, Andy, since you were mentioning strategies, key target countries, trends, cooperations, roles etc. of your station, does RNW publish any reports on these topics?
on Jun 20th, 2009 at 12:29
No, these are internal documents only. It would hardly make sense to spend a lot of time and effort on market research and then make it available to all our competitors
We also commission reports from other organisations from time to time. Which is why I am so amused by these people who only ever listen to shortwave and claim they know more about our audience than we do 
on Jun 20th, 2009 at 13:03
Using multiple paltforms would be a good option.
SW is considered an obsolute medium, but can still do some fine service.
SW is also considered very expensive, but not necessararely.
In the not even so long ago past the SW bands were overcrowded, and to make your signal accessible you needed many ver high powered SW transmitters.
I used to work for RNW as a presenter, and I rememeber 1 daily transmission that was on so many frequencies you hardly had time to mention them all in the 2 minutes time slot.
In the 70’s there was this pop pirate RNI, the unique feature of this sttaion was that it was not only on MW (and even FM) but also on SW. In their early years they were on 2 channels (6205 and 9940) giving excellent reception in Europe even on cheap SW receivers.
Yes we enjoyed the pop-music while sun bathing at a swimimg pool in Bavaria.
The music even attracted the locals, who could not believe that this came all the way from a ship in the Northsea off Holland.
The transmiters were only 10 kW each.
Compare this with the 100 -500 kW rigs of todays international broadcasters.
What I am trying to say that with limited budgets you can stil be on SW and with limited powers and limited channels and provide a lot of audience with a decent signal. Dont try to reach the in-home receiver some-where in the western world, they have Internet, another platform you are on.
on Jun 20th, 2009 at 14:51
When I was a teenager in the shortwave was considered hi-tec and gave me access to different cultures, languages and points of view. Back then nations invested in shortwave programming to increase their influence, trade and global exposure. Leaders, academics and professionals used shortwave to extended their sources of information. The world has moved on and so have most with inquiring minds. I find it hard to understand the argument some English speakers in first world countries use to justify their desire for shortwave broadcasting to North America to either continue or be expanded.
Never before has so much quality radio programming been available by digital delivery methods that offer total reliability 24×7. What a shame that some won’t adopt the new technologies and even consider it to be “shortwave or nothing”. Perhaps these old men are really more interested in collecting their cardboard postcards than the programming. Of course that’s OK, DXing is a fine old hobby and I guess DXers will most likely be served by religious broadcasters for another decade or so.
I can understand the need for shortwave to reach those with limited communication options, but come on if you live in the developed world and still consider shortwave to be one of your primary sources of news and information you are just kidding yourself.
on Jun 20th, 2009 at 16:21
Well said, Mark. It’s good to know that not all those who have been SWL’s and DXers have such narrow vision as the people I was referring to. Actually I think there’s a simple explanation for it - many of them simply don’t want to spend the money on new technology. When I worked on the WRTH, we used to get a lot of complaints - mostly from the wealthy, developed countries - that the book was too expensive. I pointed out that at $25 a year it was less than 50 US cents a week, which doesn’t seem an awful lot to spend on a hobby if you live in North America or Europe.
But you’re right, many of those who complain the loudest are indeed more interested in shortwave technology than listening to the programmes. I am often amazed that people who have been listening on shortwave for decades can’t even tell the difference between, say, Spanish and Portuguese, or Arabic and Persian. And you’d be amazed how many letters we got when the Media Network radio show ended, saying that they would no longer listen to Radio Netherlands, because Media Network was the only reason they tuned in. And there were quite a few from people claiming to be regular listeners months after it ended.
I sometimes wonder what may attitude would have been if I had not been working in the international broadcasting business. Would I be one of those advocating the continuation of shortwave to a dwindling, ageing audience? I like to think not, but I’m glad it’s not something I shall ever have to find out
on Jun 20th, 2009 at 18:41
Today you can buy an AM/FM/SW reciever to the price of € 10-15 € and listen on the beach, in the wildernes, in deserts on the sea, up on the mountains, while camping.
Let us use all spectrum in the broadcasting bands and all kind of moulations like AM/FM/DAB+/DRM/DRM+ to the freedom of broadcasting.I bougth a Denver World reciever € 5 € in the shop and did listen to Radio sweden SW, 31-m at an island in Greece.Due to fire in the woods, no power to local radio on FM/AM, no mobile service either, but on shortwave ;-)) from Sweden. Where ever you are have a world reciever in your pocket. Rigth???
on Jun 20th, 2009 at 20:14
That’s true, Roy, but how many days in the year are you on a Greek island without mains power? There are indeed occasions when shortwave can be useful, but we cannot afford to broadcast 365 days a year just to serve people who may only be listening occasionally. You say that we could save money by using much lower power on shortwave. That’s true, but we still have to get the audio to the transmitters. That means using satellites, and they’re expensive. When the need arises to put on special shortwave transmissions, such as last winter’s severe weather in Europe, we can arrange that within 24 hours thanks to good cooperation with other broadcasters and transmission providers. But we have to be able to justify the cost in terms of need. None of the examples you mention (on the beach, in the wildernes, in deserts, on the sea, up on the mountains, while camping) fulfil our basic criteria.
on Jun 21st, 2009 at 00:52
Concerning “And you’d be amazed how many letters we got when the Media Network radio show ended, saying that they would no longer listen to Radio Netherlands, because Media Network was the only reason they tuned in”:
You can add me to this list, except for the detail that I did not send in a letter. And what’s wrong with a listener who is interested in a particular programme but not in others? Is it an expectation that listeners should be grateful for somebody offering program content at all? This may be appropriate in the shortwave world, but outside of it?
Second, the satellite argument does not appear to be valid to me. RNW English is still on the SatMex 6 bird, together with the Dutch and Spanish feeds. Probably this satellite feed is still needed for possible partner stations, unless no live relays are planned and just individual programmes have to be transferred via http://FTP. Anyway Bonaire has still the audio at no extra cost as long as this SatMex 6 signal exists.
But first of all I’m surprised about the whole debate here. What’s the point? Probably you are tired of discussions in a certain mailing list, but if so, then why not just ignoring the postings in question?
And may I also point out what triggered these discussions: It was the limited revival of the Montsinéry (the TDF transmitters in French Guyana) relay of RNW Spanish, beaming southwards. To me it is no surprise at all that this led to similar requests from the USA and Canada. I would even go so far to say that it was perhaps a mistake to give in the requests from South America, since this is the result.
on Jun 21st, 2009 at 11:28
Andy, in most countries you don\\\’t have any langauges that you will understand on your pocket radio on FM. By a world radio reciever in the pocket, you can get som MW or SW stations in the understandeble languages.
It nor so expensive to run a 50 kw DRM on shortwave like RTL and with coverage of Germany and neigthbor contries.
on Jun 21st, 2009 at 12:05
Having been a SW listener since the early \’70s, I think the advent of the internet means one is not obliged to resort to radio for news from afar. I mean, during the Yom Kippur war news from Israel were available only from Kol Israel, now you can have from execellent newspapers\’s sites. That\’s just an example. On the other end I wonder how many people use \
on Jun 21st, 2009 at 12:27
Kai,
I’m not criticising people like you, who have never been in our target audience. Media Network had a large audience in Germany. We did not expect those listeners to continue listening to RNW after it ended. I was referrering to the substantial number of people in North America and Europe who had no interest in the Netherlands, but were simply tuning in to listen to items about other broadcasters. Roughly half of the mail that came in after the programme ended was from people in this category. The percentage was much higher than we had expected.
This debate was NOT triggered by discussions about RNW Spanish. It was triggered by the comments of David Astley in the item above. If I went slightly off topic, I apologise. My original comments (under the item) were intended to be more general. Of course it wasn’t a “a mistake to give in the requests from South America.” That’s what we try to do - respond to listener demand. Unfortunately, when the listener demand is insufficient, we have to make choices. That’s what happened in the case of our North American shortwave service in English.
on Jun 21st, 2009 at 13:07
Dear Roy,
A 50 kW TX from Luxy, simple in analogue AM, can do the trick, as they did in the past.
No need to buy a new receiver, who cares for audio quality when on holiday.
This audio quality always surprises me, nobody have a problem with the audio quality of a telephone, which is even worse and many people listen to for more hours then to radio!!
Digital and better sound quality is only for freaks and for radio-stations with poor formats that try to collect higher ratings.
During the 60 and 70 -ies we already had FM in this country. FM sounds much better then AM.
But for more then a decade most people listened to AM.
Why, because AM gave them better programming, like Radio Veronica and RNI.
Even when they had a receiver with FM, they still used the AM option.
I keep on repeating myself, it is all about content, not technics.
on Jun 21st, 2009 at 13:52
Andy, I see why you would not want to publish the results of your research. But when it comes to strategies, roles, key target countries etc., other broadcasters are not exactly secretive about it. See Deutsche Welle for example: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3839659,00.html and at the bottom of that web page, a link to a 28 pages document on their plans for the next four years http://www.dw-world.de/popups/popup_pdf/0,,3454124,00.pdf
on Jun 21st, 2009 at 15:17
That is what I told you all, a world radio reciver is enough, but don\’t denye any broadcasters to turn to digital in AM/FM. Digital and analouge can live toghether in the same band.
on Jun 21st, 2009 at 15:18
Mark, our annual report (in Dutch and English versions) has been published online for the last few years. I assumed you knew that already, and were asking about additional information. I guess the 2008 report will be published shortly, but it may be later than usual due to the switchover to the new website. As soon as it’s available I will publish a link in the Weblog.
on Jun 21st, 2009 at 15:53
Thank you, Andy. I’ve been clicking around for some minutes on the new website, but could not find much. To be fair, the above mentioned Deutsche Welle four year plan seems to be available in German only.
on Jun 21st, 2009 at 17:18
No Roy,
DRM and analogue CANNOT go together in one (AM) band.
The DRM noise causes a lot of interference to analogue transmissions, as one of my own stations now is suffering from.
I am very much opposed to multiple modulation systems in one band.
DRM in HF/MF/LF bands should only be in new or extended bands.
on Jun 21st, 2009 at 19:51
Ruud, wich station is suffering???
We can split it up, drm to longwave and 500-1000kHz in DRM, 1000-1700khz in am-mode. Special segment on shortwave with 10 khz spacing. 11-m band in drm, audio 2×20 khz..
on Jun 22nd, 2009 at 12:15
Radio Paradijs on 1584 has a problem with DRM on 1593 Langenberg Germany.
This one also interferes with Waddenzee on 1602.
1584 and 1602 are LPC’s, Low Power Channels and it is outragious that the Germans are using the in between channel 1593 for DRM.
Lets start and limit DRM to an extended band of 1611 - 1700,
on Jun 22nd, 2009 at 14:33
Radio Luxembourg\’s English Service and RTL\’s German Service was originally available worldwide on a 50kW SW outlet on the original frequency of 49.26m(6090kHz) and it didn\’t just cover Germany because it had an omnidirectional antenna putting out a 360degree beam which went international around the world on one frequency-a sort of all world strategy, while the RTL French Service(and at certain times the English Service)used 15350kHz SW at 10kW on a highly directional beam targeting Canada where the French speakers and target audience are. But as each language department at RTL had it\’s own budget, neither the French nor German service felt they needed SW anymore to target listeners in those areas, so closed down those frequencies. BCE adapted the German Service Shortwave mast of 6090kHz 50kW to a highly directional V beam antenna serving Germany and overspilling to neighbouring countries transmitting Digital Radio Mondiale parametric stereo transmissions which have been reduced to just a few hours a day with the RTL Religeous Programme and KBS World Radio filling the gaps between the German Service and BCE also set up a second 50kW 360degree omnidirectional DRM mast on 5990kHz SW for the RTL France service (which closed down last year due to the lack of DRM radios in the French market). The original 19m 15350kHz SW mast at 10kW on the Junglinster MW/LW/DRM transmitter site just stands there like a silent museum putting out nothing in terms of programming. That mast could easily be re-engineered to 120kW,refitted with a new omnidirectional antennae and put back into service to provide DRM or analogue AM SW transmissions to European/international broadcasters with the airtime hired out by WRN Transmission to make money providing European service to broadcasters. At least with a dual transmission system of AM and DRM in place on that tx/frequency the broadcasters hiring airtime on that facility have the choice of a digital transmission or analogue transmission medium. Don\’t deny broadcasters that choice if they want it!
on Jun 22nd, 2009 at 15:13
The story with RTL’s shortwave transmissions was a bit different in as far as 6090 kHz carried no longer German but French as of 1992 before it had been closed down at yearend 1994.
@Mark: Even more detailled is the paper of Deutsche Welle for the federal parliament, from where in the end they get their money allocated:
http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/16/118/1611836.pdf
Of course it is in German only. A quick and dirty summary of some points I found interesting, with my comments in brackets, can be found under “Germany” at
http://www.w4uvh.net/dxld9022.txt
@Andy: It is just the circumstance that I meanwhile start to roll my eyes about the ever-repeating topic of shortwave in North America. When never anybody explains that shortwave is the most convenient, probably even the only convenient reception method for him/her (I would have thought that this could well be the case in rural areas, or do also remote towns in the USA and Canada have broadband connections now?), when it is only the “magic of shortwave” DX stuff, over and over again, then why still bother at all?
on Jun 22nd, 2009 at 16:07
Kai, I agree 100%. There are some powerful and persuasive arguments in favour of shortwave, which my good friend Kim Andrew Elliott often uses in his blog (which is linked from this one). But these are rarely used by the people who write to RNW, some of whom prefer the aggressive approach of telling us that we’re idiots and they will never listen to RNW on the Internet. That’s fine, because that’s not the kind of person we want to reach.
It’s very hard to have a a calm, civil debate in many online forums because the debate always seems to be hijacked by people who have made up their minds that they are right and anybody with a different opinion is wrong. Fortunately my audience for this blog consists for the most part of broadcast professionals and people with a serious interest in the media.
As a former DXer myself, I am sad at the way the hobby has deteriorated over the past decade, and now seems to be dominated by increasingly grumpy old men, who constantly criticise any new initiatives that they regard as a threat to their hobby. I’m almost 60, but I am excited at the new ways of communicating. Look at what’s happening in Iran. How many times can you say you learned something first on shortwave? It’s Twitter that’s getting all the headlines now. Yes, shortwave still has a role, but not to the exclusion of everything else.