[Swprograms] Re: Incredible Arrogance

[Richard Cuff <rdcuff@xxxxxxxxx>]

Warning, rambling analysis follows.

You mean why the BBCWS is scaling back shortwave?

Answers exist on multiple levels.

The Middle East looms large among the answers.  Both the BBC and the
US' IBB have been scrambling to find ways to help Western ideas and
ideals better resonate with the cultures of the Middle East.  Both
organizations believe that television is a necessary ingredient of
this process, and TV is expensive to produce vs. radio.  These are new
initiatives, both with high startup costs that these broadcasters
believe cannot be funded solely by new sources -- funding must also
come from existing budgets.

In the universe of programming delivery methods, as we've discussed
before, Shortwave is expensive.  The sender bears all the costs except
for the cost of a radio.  Couple that with the relative penetration
level of shortwave radios in North America / W. Europe / Australia vs.
Africa / Asia, in comparison with FM and satellite, and shortwave
becomes a ready target for saving money.

Much hay has been made regarding the fact that the BBCWS on FM is
relegated primarily to overnight fill-in services in North America. 
It was comical to hear the BBC executive cite that most Americans are
listening to the BBCWS overnight.  The BBCWS rep didn't state how or
when most relevant Americans *wanted* to hear the BBCWS.

Having said that, It's worth noting that the BBCWS has been making
gradual progress in having its programming picked up during the day by
public radio FM stations -- many now air Newshour at 8 or 9 AM local
time, and some are now airing World Briefing at approximately 1 PM
Eastern time.  A few stations are now picking up the afternoon
Newshour at 3 PM ET as well.  A few are also picking up The World
Today in the evenings once All Things Considered is over.  Meanwhile,
the documentary series are being repackaged as "A Changing World" by
PRI and are seeing pickup primarily on Saturdays and Sundays.

The BBCWS most assuredly will point to this improving daytime and
evening carriage as a success and also as a work in progress.

The potential audience for BBCWS programming via these local FM
services is far higher than shortwave, in North America, simply
because many more people listen to FM.  NPR itself is pointing to a
cumulative 50% increase in listenership since 1999.  That's pretty
impressive given the overall decline in radio listening in the USA,
and the BBCWS is attempting to ride NPR's coattails.  The BBCWS, it
appears, would rather be considered "second fiddle" in a medium
serving most of America's population than considered "first fiddle" on
shortwave.

The BBCWS has also made a conscious decision to be known primarily as
a source for news, versus being a source for music / culture / etc. 
To that end, they'd rather fight to get Newshour picked up than
"Science In Action".

The BBCWS is also figuring that we truly motivated listeners will be
willing to pay to hear the BBCWS, and to a point, they're right --
witness the amount of time we're discussing XM and Sirius satellite
radio.  It doesn't cost the BBCWS a dime to reach us Sirius and XM
listeners -- if anything, PRI pays the BBCWS to be able to offer it to
member stations, because stations pay PRI for the privilege.  Compare
that to the costs of shortwave.

None of us are privy to the details of the BBC's audience research,
nor are we privy to the processes used to establish budgets and assess
the willingness of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office to fund the WS. 
It does appear that the F&CO is unwilling to offer unlimited resources
to the BBCWS to fund all possible delivery methods to all regions,
while launching new expensive initiatives to serve the Arabic-speaking
world..

Most of us here find fault with the BBCWS in the latest brouhaha for
the following reasons:

1) The BBCWS came across as condescending and arrogantly self-serving
in explaining its rationale to the North American audience, instead of
'fessing up to the tradeoffs they face and the costs of these various
initiatives.

2) The BBCWS made no apparent attempt to reduce the count of
frequencies elsewhere but still provide availability via shortwave to
the Americas.

3) The BBCWS seems blatantly interested in "targeting" its services to
particular audience demographics.  Shortwave isn't tidy that way.

Those are my thoughts as to why this is happening, FWIW.

Do I agree with their rationale?  No, I don't.  They haven't shown me
they've done what they could to get more funding, nor have they proved
to me why they need to spend so much on TV.  Perhaps, as Kim Elliott
has said before, people are more willing to watch bad television than
listen to good radio.

What I wonder about is how people will "discover" international
broadcasters as shortwave declines in relative importance.  That is a
subject for another discussion.

Richard Cuff / Allentown, PA  USA

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 10:50:30 -0600, Scott Royall <royall@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Has anyone here asked themselves why this is happening?
>
_______________________________________________
Swprograms mailing list
Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms

To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to  swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL shown above.