John Lund Gets A Government Gig

9-25-2012

Congrats to John Lund. His company, Lund Media Research, has been contracted by American Forces Radio and Television Service, a division of the Department of Defense, to provide a worldwide audience survey of the broadcast media needs of U.S. service men and women stationed outside the United States.

Lund stated, ?We are honored and proud to again be chosen for this research and media analysis contract to help AFRTS provide the radio, TV, and online media most desired by our troops and families stationed overseas.?

In addition, members of the Lund research team will conduct focus groups at U.S. military bases in Europe and the Pacific. This survey will examine current television services and channels including prime, news, sports, and the Pentagon Channel; radio services including seven 24/7 music channels, one news/talk channel, two sports-talk services, NPR, and a political-talk channel, in addition to local and regional networks; and the use of digital and online media by the military in the Air Force, Army, Navy, and the Marines. The Lund companies provided AFRTS with a previous worldwide audience survey of media needs of our military in 2006.

Reach out to John here: John@lundradio.com.

Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

50K "Donation" to Government Settles KUSF Issue

A consent decree is agreed to be the University of San Francisco and the Classical Public Radio Network for several violations. Both parties agree they violated rules such as USF accepting fees from the PSOA for seven months in 2011 and submitting unintentional false certifications that certain FCC rules were being followed. With the donation, the commission ends its investigation. You can read the entire FCC document HERE

View the original article here

Dashboard Danger. Government to The Rescue?

6-7-2012

The Government may be coming along just in time to save AM/FM radio from becoming extinct from the automobile dashboard. During a panel at Convergence, moderated by Greater Media's Buzz Knight, several automakers emphasized how important the safety issue was. They appeared concerned that the government might step in if it appeared the dashboard was becoming more of distraction. Well, on Thursday, Transportation Secratary Ray LaHood (pictured) held a press conference and hinted regulators may draft specific guidelines regarding an automobile's infotainment system. He called texting and cellphone use "a national epidemic."

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration reported that 3,092 people were killed in crashes related to driver distraction in 2010. Lahood said, ?Americans have gotten into very dangerous behavior with their cell phones and their texting devices to think they can use them behind the wheel of a car. People continue to be killed and injured despite the fact these deaths are 100 percent preventable. I?ve met with every car executive and talked with them about what they can do to help us with technology they?re putting in cars that may become a distraction to drivers. We hope to examine voice commands for hands-free functions too.?

Consumer demand is forcing automakers to develop dashboard systems that are an extension o their smartphones. In the current issue of Radio Ink magazine, Vice President of Advanced Technology at Toyota Jon Bucci said Toyota puts a lot of stock in what customers tell them.

"Toyota's view is that the voice of the consumer is critical. Basically, what we are getting is, 'Give us choice, let us make the decision. Don't stand in the way.' We are taking it a step further, to try to curate the environment so whatever we're pulling from the customers phone can be displayed in a manner fitting for a moving vehicle."

LaHood says, ?We want to make sure they understand that the ability to download Facebook, the ability to access information while you?re driving the car is not exactly a safe way to drive. There have to be ways for car companies to address these issues. I?ve met with every car executive and talked with them about what they can do to help us with technology they?re putting in cars that may become a distraction to drivers.?

Earlier this year, the Transportation Department issued voluntary guidelines, recommending that no task for drivers take longer than two seconds, and that cars be stopped and in park before drivers can enter navigation commands or use social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. The chance anyone even knew about those voluntary guidelines is slim to none. Just take a look at passing cars every day on the streets of America. Not to mention, it's virtually impossible to even scan for your favorite radio station in two seconds or less. LaHood is also calling on the 11 states that have not banned texting and driving to do so.

Send feedback on this article directly to Ed Ryan or leave your comments below.

Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

Government Says EAS Test Worked As Planned

The feds were quick to release information about the EAS test Wednesday, wanting to get in front of any possible criticsm if there were areas where the test did not go well. A joint statement was released by the FCC and FEMA. ?The Nationwide EAS Test served the purpose for which it was intended ? to identify gaps and generate a comprehensive set of data to help strengthen our ability to communicate during real emergencies. Based on preliminary data, media outlets in large portions of the country successfully received the test message, but wasn?t received by some viewers or listeners.  We are currently in the process of collecting and analyzing data, and will reach a conclusion when that process is complete.?

FEMA's Damon Penn and Jamie Barnett with the FCC also put out the following:
- First, as we have explained throughout this process, the value of the test is in its assessment function. We were able to accomplish that  today?in a comprehensive way.
- The goal of this test has always been to do exactly what happened ? to test this decades-old system to see what works well, and what  upgrades or changes are needed as we further work to modernize our nation?s public alert and warning system.
- This test was the first time we have been able to identify where the system works, where it doesn?t, and what additional improvements need  to be made as we move forward. It?s only through comprehensively testing, analyzing, and improving these technologies that we can ensure  the most effective and reliable emergency alert and warning systems available at a moment?s notice in a time of real national emergency.
- Second, it will take some time to assess the full results of today?s test. The FCC and FEMA are currently collecting preliminary data about the results, and under the FCC?s rules, participants in today?s test have 45 days to report back the full results of their test experience. - Over 30,000 communications service providers participated in the test, including broadcast stations, cable system operators, satellite radio and television and wireline video service providers. 
- Over the next several weeks, these service providers will be providing test result data to the FCC and we will  continue working closely with our many other stakeholders to get their feedback on how the test was received. It?s important that both the news media, all our stakeholders, and the public understand that it will take some time to fully analyze the effectiveness of the test and what improvements are needed.

(11/10/2011 6:03:01 AM)
This was a very good idea...to quantify they situation that many of us in the studios already knew...in the case of a severe emergency, some stations are gonna fall through the cracks. When you add the fact that MANY radio stations are working with minimal or no crews sometimes, this is a recipe for disaster. You know there is a limited number of radio stations...if a company cannot field a full staff and serve their community properly, then a test like this should serve as a springboard to put in some new rules, and possibly force the divestiture or these stations that are just not important enough to their owners to run properly.

Add a Comment | View All Comments Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

Public Broadcasting Without Government Funding

by Gordon Hastings

Anticipating the reduction or removal of government funding and the immediate need to find sources of replacement revenue, NPR and public broadcasting stations must petition the Federal Communications Commission to remove its current restrictions on underwriting and sponsorship announcements for public stations.
The FCC rules regarding non-commercial and educational stations state,
?Noncommercial and educational stations may acknowledge contributions over the air, but they may not broadcast commercials or otherwise promote the goods and services of for-profit donors or underwriters.? The elimination of this regulation will give public broadcasters greater latitude with which to replace the lost government income.
National and local public radio management can enhance income streams independent of government funding by maximizing the value of their audiences through increased unrestricted sponsorships.  Because programming content is so compelling, audiences will continue to demand its availability and accept a transition to a greater presence of on-air sponsors if creatively presented in moderation and good taste. A strong argument can be made that sponsorships would be a better alternative for the audience than increasing listener on air fund raising campaigns.
Commercial radio broadcasters have created a large programming void that is being satisfied by public stations. As an example, according to the latest State of the Media report NPR weekly audience has grown more than 58% since 2000.
Consolidation during the past decade has changed the business model for commercial broadcasters. Many stations are no longer programmed locally and have reduced or eliminated their local news operations. In many cities and towns, local public stations now have larger staff commitments to local news reporting and feature programming than commercial stations.
Public radio broadcasting at both the national and local level has reacted to market changes with a wellspring of programming creativity, which is being embraced by listeners in growing numbers. Arbitron, the national research company that quantifies radio listening, reports that weekly listening to NPR programming exceeds 28 million individuals. This number does not include listeners to local public stations. Commercial radio, which built its success upon localism, is clearly being challenged in information and non-music entertainment programming.
Stations will continue to gain in audience primarily because there is substantially less news and long form programming competition from music dominated commercial radio. While there is abundant talk programming in the commercial sector, most successful national programs including Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck are ideology driven. Ironically, ?ideology? has been a criticism of NPR in the debate over public funding.
Public broadcastings stations should be forewarned however, that commercial radio broadcasters are very nimble. If commercial radio stations witness a substantial continued migration of their music listeners to new electronic devices, those stations would view the success of the news, information and long form programming on public stations as an opportunity for themselves and make frequency space available as direct competitors.
Currently, NPR programs including Morning Edition, All Things Considered, Fresh Air and local public radio programs like The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC in New York City or the Faith Middleton Show on Connecticut Public Broadcasting are unique to their respective markets. NPR and local public radio stations can monetize these valuable audiences individually and as an ad-hoc network of stations by creating a national marketing organization.   According to the January 2011 Arbitron, WNYC AM-FM in New York City alone reaches 1,027,000 individuals weekly.
Today, the public radio-programming environment offers exclusive program branding opportunities for sponsors. Public radio is already allowing more enhanced underwriting sponsorships and a transition to greater commercial support is inevitable. Good management policy can prevent over commercialization and any encroachment upon good taste and editorial independence.
Technological advancements for public radio content including podcasts, websites and programming for mobile devices (Apps) can provide public broadcasting stations additional sponsor revenue potential without impacting on-air programming.
The future bodes well for NPR and local public radio operating under an independent, sustainable and predictable business model that supports and encourages monetizing the value of its audience. There is a strong marketing opportunity to communicate with national, regional and local businesses seeking brand association with excellent content. NPR and local stations need to place greater resources behind this effort. With good management, it can be accomplished in harmony with the mission of NPR, public stations and their audiences. 
In the final analysis, public broadcasters may find sponsors easier and more reliable to work with than the government. 
Gordon Hastings is President of  ghhManagement and can be reached via e-mail HERE

Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

The Silliness of Government Censorship

Can you imagine if our government operated like the Canadian government when it came to music regulation? Our elected officials have a hard time agreeing on what day it is, it would be pure insanity if they had to debate each other over one word in one song. It was just announced that Canadian radio stations can resume playing Dire Straits' Money For Nothing after a ban on the song was lifted.

The 1985 hit single was taken off the airwaves in January after a listener in Newfoundland complained about Mark Knopfler's use of the word "faggot". The song lyrics were determined to be in a breach of a human rights clause in Canada's broadcasting code. The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council now says the word was used satirically and have overturned the ruling. "The composer's language appears not to have had an iota of malevolent or insulting intention."

The organization took into account the origin of the lyrics, which Knopfler wrote after observing a shop worker complaining about the differences between his lifestyle and that of musicians he watched on MTV. The council ruled that "the story told in this song, developed at some length over more than eight minutes, provides sufficient plot development, story line and context to justify" the lyrics. Eight minutes! Americans fall asleep if they have to listen to songs longer than three minutes any more.

The Council upheld the section of the previous ruling stating the offensive word was inappropriate for broadcast under normal circumstances. It added that "alternative versions of the song (without the challenged word) by Dire Straits exist and have existed since 1985, the year in which the song was first released". Canadian radio stations now have the option to play the original version or any of the alternative versions.

(9/1/2011 5:54:14 PM)
Whilst taking the view that censorship is undesirable, I have to correct you headline in that the case here is not one of government censorship -- those who care to read the decision will note that the Codes concerned are industry ones (Those of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters) not government ones.
The decision - at http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions/2011/110831.php - is finely nuanced, perhaps something Canadians are more intellectually used to taking in than those North of the border where shades of grey seem less common.
As to censorship does not the US government via the FCC (administering FCC regulations subject to congressional approval and sometimes changed with an intent to impose retroactive penalties after mass e-mail hissy fits over indecency) actually censor formally? Maybe when the US has scrapped the current system and allowed the market to decide there is a point here but until then this headline is more like talk-radio comment than a fair assessment.
Perhaps you should launch a follow-up discussion of whether the FCC should scrap its obscenity and indecency rules?

Add a Comment | View All Comments Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here