THE BIG REVIEW – Part 2 Greg Diamond I asked many ByrnesMedia clients and others from both the radio and music industries what they thought should be included in the review. The responses were, as expected, varied and quite interesting. Here then, in no particular order, is what some of you had to say.
These are all valid thoughts and objectives and a sincere thanks to everyone who responded.
In Part 1, Chris mentioned how most people in radio are viewing the upcoming review with a very cynical outlook. I suppose they can’t be blamed given the Commission’s track record in such undertakings. To be fair, the CRTC has answered the call from our industry over the years on such issues as FM “enrichment” (anyone remember the dreaded “Mosaic?”) and partial relaxation of ownership levels. To be equally fair, the first came into being at a time when the industry was in very poor financial straits, particularly at the medium and small market level. Broadcasters paid a price because the end to those regulations came with a Cancon increase to its present day 35%. Such “saw-offs” are normal practice given the Commission’s need to please numerous interested and often polarized parties.
That, in my mind, is the real concern – what are we really looking for right now as an industry and what will we be forced to accept in order to get it? This was the reasoning behind the CAB’s initial request to delay the process for a couple years. They wanted to gain a better understanding of the impact of satellite and Internet radio, a possible renewed interest in DAB, and the emerging multitude of other digital “gadgets” all professing to be the next “radio killer.” I felt then and still do, that this was the prudent approach, however, the CRTC, as we know, decided to forge ahead, thus impairing radio’s ability to seek assistance in areas where it may be needed instead of just wanted. By the way, my head still shakes over the CAB’s statement congratulating the Commission on its decision not to postpone things. Pardon my own cynicism… and digression.
As it stands, there are many worthwhile, but relatively smaller objectives that radio will bring before the Commission. It’s the lack of a truly meaningful issue coupled with the prospect that a really big problem may arise in a year or so that has me concerned. While this may sound somewhat alarmist, I suggest spending 5 minutes thumbing through a “geek” (I use that term with utmost respect) magazine and you will get a sense of just how fast and far ahead of most everyone’s “curve” technology advances. The following article is another, fairly typical example of what radio will be dealing with in the coming years. This, by the way, would be considered a BIG issue!
Anyone with even a passing knowledge of broadband, wireless technology will realize the author’s prediction is not far-fetched. However, it has always been my contention that radio can defend against this and most other potential threats by being more local. We must truly embrace this fundamental benefit of terrestrial radio. We will have to deal with many such technologies in the future so, if you aren’t speaking to your listener in a manner that has relevance in the here and now, call us and we’ll help.
My single request for this review would be to further streamline the Commission to better keep pace with the growing challenges to our industry. The people at the forefront of this “revolution” are forward-thinking and agile. If the CRTC is to remain relevant in this new “crazy world,” it will have to be the same… or just go away and let us deal with this stuff ourselves.
Oh wait, if that happens there’ll be no one to tell us we have to play 40% Cancon… oops, there’s that cynicism again. |