James Cridland's blog

A radio futurologist writing about what happens when radio and new platforms collide

« | Blog index | »

The fast/slow growth of digital radio

Posted on Thursday, February 2nd, 2012 at 12:02 am. #

Dick Smith selling DAB+ radios

The new RAJAR radio research figures are out – and you’ll read two sets of stories today regarding digital radio.

1. “Digital radio listening is up, and how! Over the last quarter, the total amount of people who use digital radio (DTV, DAB, Internet) each week is now almost half of the entire population – 49.4% – up from 43.9% just a quarter ago.”

2. “Digital radio listening is up: but painfully slowly. Over the last quarter, total radio listening on digital (DTV, DAB, Internet) has increased less than a percentage point – up from 28.2% to 29.1% – a less-than one percentage point increase.”

If the above looks a little confusing to you, welcome to the difference between reach and share. There’s no doubt that digital radio continues to increase its reach – the amount of people who tune in for at least five minutes in a week – but it’s not massively increasing its share of listening – the length of time people tune into radio on a digital platform in comparison to all radio. So why is this?

Around 20% of all radio listening is done in the car: and, chances are you can’t listen to digital there. Radio via DTV in a car is clearly a fanciful notion; radio over 3G is a costly and unpleasantly inconsistent experience; and most cars bought in the UK still don’t have DAB as standard. (It’s becoming more common for new cars – 17% had it in 2011 versus 4% in 2010 according to some unsourced stats I have; but most cars bought in the UK aren’t new). Until we have in-car DAB sets as standard in used cars as well as new cars, there’s no way to get that 20% as digital listening.

The average home, too, has – depending which research you read – around 6 radio sets. The majority of radio listening actually occurs on less: probably 2 – but it’s probably not the case that all have been switched to digital. I might have bought a new DAB set for the kitchen, but if my bedside radio remains analogue, then much of my radio listening is still analogue.

Looking closer at the different digital platforms is instructive. Listening via the internet a comparatively disappointing 10% year-on-year, and still remains the least popular way of listening to radio on new platforms. Listening via DTV – in a year where many people have been forced off analogue television to digital networks that all include radio – has only increased 5%; yet radio over the telly continues to be much more popular than internet radio.

But the interesting part is that listening via DAB has increased by 21% year-on-year. It remains the major contributor to the growth of digital radio. It’s also different from the rest, in that it requires people to go out and buy new equipment, rather than “get radio free” in a new laptop or telly. At a time of recession, monetary crisis in Europe and doom-mongering from economists, it’s surprising and heartening that DAB’s listening has increased in the way that it has: and, once more, outstripped the other new platforms.

And the best bit? These are Q4 2011 figures: they don’t go past Christmas; so don’t include the full effect of the advertising campaigns for digital radio on commercial radio and the BBC; don’t include the rejuvenated Digital Radio brand identity; and don’t include the knock-on increases in digital radio listening from digital radio sets given as Christmas presents.

So, even pre-Christmas, the amount of people listening to digital radio is dramatically up: by 10% year-on-year. And in spite of a recession and a consumer electronics downturn, people are buying DAB Digital Radio sets, and using them to listen to radio longer.

If that’s not a good news story for digital radio, what is?

A version of this article appears in MediaTel’s Newsline – now open to all users.
Disclaimer: Relevant clients last quarter included RAJAR, the UK Radioplayer, the BBC, WorldDMB and RadioCentre.

19 comments

Roy Sandgren
commenting at February 2nd, 2012 at 8:40 am

Non digital broadcasting can replace the audio quality of analouge broadcasting. Analouge transmitters, recievers is cheaper. Coverage is better in analouge. AM in a bandwitdth of 12 – 15 khz sounds as FM do.

Mike Terry
commenting at February 2nd, 2012 at 9:49 am

Agreed it’s not a good news story for digital radio, what is? . This morning my DAB radio is warbling/dropping out, switched to my internet radio which is reliable and better quality audio. DAB is a disaster, I give it an other five years(max).

James Cridland
commenting at February 2nd, 2012 at 10:32 am

Roy – free beer, delivered every day to my desk, tastes lovely. However, that doesn’t happen anywhere in Europe; and nor does “AM in bandwidth of 12-15kHz” – indeed, frequency allocation rules mean that doesn’t happen anywhere in the world. The fervour of anti-digital campaigners is often accompanied by total lack of real-world market knowledge, as you amply demonstrate. The future of radio is in the content, not in the platform, in any case.

Roy Sandgren
commenting at February 2nd, 2012 at 11:09 am

It’s the same words from DAB lobbyists, thoose supporters of analouge radio don’t understand a skit of radio, especially digital radio. In facto, we can broadcast in 12-15 khz audio on MW with local powers up to 1 kW, at least daytime.

James Cridland
commenting at February 2nd, 2012 at 1:46 pm

Go on, then Roy, I’ll continue playing. Give us an example of a broadcaster doing this full-time, and an AM radio receiver that actually receives 12-15kHz audio.

I’m a radio lobbyist, by the way. Nothing wrong with FM radio, if you have a licence.

Roy Sandgren
commenting at February 2nd, 2012 at 2:29 pm

James, continue with your bubbling dab. In facto am can be legal in +9 kHz and up, if non interfearence against adjacent stations. A module is aviable to massproduction of car radios and can handle 15 kHz, same as FM. A tuner aviable to to your hi-fi stereo reciever.
Internet radio is a 2 way communication and too much down loading couse buffering and drop-outs.Operators want to have some more money, it costs to much kbits.

James Cridland
commenting at February 2nd, 2012 at 2:42 pm

OK. So, in terms of your response, what you mean to say is “No, James, there’s no actual example of a broadcaster doing this full-time, and there are no available in-car receivers”. Good, glad we’ve cleared that up.

Roy Sandgren
commenting at February 2nd, 2012 at 6:02 pm

But it can be done, am in 9 -15 khz without problems and massproduction of car radios.better overage than dab+, better dynamic, everything better…

James Cridland
commenting at February 2nd, 2012 at 6:25 pm

So, let’s get this straight.

There are no broadcasters doing this, so in order to get your system off the ground you’d expect broadcasters to change their transmissions and you’d expect the frequencies to be completely replanned, worldwide, to enable 15kHz bandwidth on AM. (By contrast, there are thousands of broadcasters on DAB across the world).

Analogue AM simply doesn’t work alongside mobile phone circuitry, and there isn’t a single mobile phone currently available that has AM radio in it. (By contrast, there are many different mobile phones available, mostly in South Korea, with DAB/DAB+/DMB inside).

AM has no associated data, which is required for a decent radio user experience: forcing people to tune in based on frequency, not name. (By contrast, DAB includes proper station names, associated pictures and other data, and other codes that make hybrid radio a reality).

AM is incredibly expensive to broadcast: it’s one of the most costly methods of broadcasting there is. A huge percentage of AM broadcast costs are the electricity bills. (By contrast, DAB is significantly lower power than even FM).

There is limited spectrum on the AM band. 15kHz signals significantly reduce the spectrum available. Its performance significantly degrades after dark, making AM almost unlistenable in some territories or terrains. (By contrast, FM or DAB has no such degradation, and DAB+ offers considerably more channels in its frequency block).

There are no radio sets available to get this super-duper fanciful AM signal, and no plans to ever make any. (By contrast, DAB has hundreds of sets available).

AM transmitters are mostly end-of-life, will be very costly to replace, and have been decommissioned in many countries. (By contrast, FM and DAB transmitters are cheaper, smaller and easier to install).

Once more – the fervour of anti-digital campaigners is matched by an almost wilful ignorance of the wider real-world market knowledge, and of pragmatic solutions that help listeners, receiver manufacturers and broadcasters alike. While people like you huddle in bedrooms listening to the warm sound of vinyl and enjoying the last remaining analogue television transmissions, I’ll be in the real world, looking forward.

Thanks for your comments.

dan
commenting at February 2nd, 2012 at 6:32 pm

dont bring vinyl into this! plenty of vinyl lovers are looking forward to DAB switchover..

Roy Sandgren
commenting at February 3rd, 2012 at 6:36 am

Analouge audio is more natural than digital. A vinyl LP or singel is the natural audio.Your voice is analouge, your ears are analouge.We will play natural vinyl in our tests.
Today on the market is a laser vinyl player all components analouge. The laser beam analouge.

Roy Sandgren
commenting at February 3rd, 2012 at 6:44 am

James, the costs of a lowpower am is not so big upp to 500watts and the antenna is very simple to this powers below 500watts.
DAB sounds bad in my car, prefer RTL on 1440kHz, better audio, no metallic/plastic sound.

J Peter Wilson
commenting at February 3rd, 2012 at 9:54 am

The reason I bought DAB radios for home and the car was for THE CONTENT. I could not listen to gospel, jazz or contemporary Christian music stations without a DAB radio. There are 29 national & quasi-national stations on DAB, including two Christian stations, but there are only 8 national stations on AM/FM and none of those are jazz or gospel stations. Some of us were involved in the lobbying of parliament that allowed faith-based stations to be legally allowed broadcast on DAB after the Communications Act 2003 passed into law. See some of the back ground in a presentation given to the Christian Broadcasting Council Conference last year at: http://www.cbc.org.uk/1kit/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=DrXFnC7Jnkg%3d&tabid=2909&mid=16968

Roy Sandgren
commenting at February 3rd, 2012 at 11:16 am

The number of stations in dab+ are limited, but not AM/FM stations.Many low power am/fm got no place on dab+. The totaly numbers of stations are much more than on dab+ only.
If the big broadcasters that move to dab+ and leave the AM/FM there will be plenty of new stations on AM/FM.Try to squeeze in a 1 watt into dab+?? It’s possible on am/fm, even with a little more power 20 watt, 15 kHz am-stereo.

J Peter Wilson
commenting at February 3rd, 2012 at 12:14 pm

Dear Roy, I suggest that you look at the CBC presentation that I gave the link to in my previous post. You will notice that with 5 national FM networks removed there is much more room for local and community broadcasters plus there could also be a revised power upgrade for some of the smaller FM stations.

Roy Sandgren
commenting at February 3rd, 2012 at 12:37 pm

Thank you Peter, i do understand, but dab lobbyists want to switch off the freedom in the air by switching off AM/FM.
I got better dynamic on my FM radio than dab wich is still on tests since 1995, even AM sounds better than dab.

pedro
commenting at February 10th, 2012 at 8:45 pm

DAB is pretty dire to be honest.. I have been on a vinyl binge and turned on my DAB just to get some respite from getting up to change the playing sides and records when they are finished…. The DAB sounds so muffled in comparison and it is a high end performer. It sounds like my ears need syringed and the higher end percussion doesn’t come through properly.. FM is much better but I can’t get those stations on FM.. Why don’t they just throw the towel in with DAB and admit it is the audio equivalent to a gas guzzler in power usage terms and utilise FM and internet radio.

Roy Sandgren
commenting at February 13th, 2012 at 9:05 am

As is today AM is more liberal in laws and restrictions. You can in facto broadcast in 15kHz stereo if you dont, interfear into an adjacent station, especially daytime.
The coverage is better on 500watts than 500watts FM/DAB.

J Peter Wilson
commenting at February 13th, 2012 at 11:42 am

The problem with only using FM is that station choice is limited because the UK FM band uses over half its 20 MHz to broadcasting just 5 national stations leaving very little space for other stations. Non free-to-air radio platforms including radio via satellite TV, the Internet and mobile phone apps cost the listener to listen through TV subscription/licence tax or an internet/mobile phone bundle. Radio needs to be free-to-air and to offer a wide choice of stations by using a combination of DAB for national and regional stations together with FM for local and community stations. Other methods of transmitting radio are in addition to free-to-air radio not replacing it.
As a final point DAB id not a ‘gas guzzler’. All our home DAB/FM radios are certified by the Energy Saving Trust and our car DAB/FM/LW/MW radio uses the same power as our old AM/FM car radio.

Leave a comment

Here's my commenting policy