|
|
 |
|
|
|
Radio Must "Reframe and Rebrand"
Delivering his State of the Industry speech Monday morning at the NAB2007 conference in Las Vegas, NAB President & CEO David Rehr said that the importance of using the correct words to define media are vitally important in today's media landscape, and said the NAB is making a commitment to develop the right words to, "define us and take us into the future."
"Words have consequences," Rehr said. "Terminology like 'free-over-the-air broadcasting' has become a bit clunky and perhaps outdated. Terms like 'terrestrial radio' are meaningless at best. I was up on Capitol Hill recently and one of the hearing witnesses used that very term. A congressman said, 'Terrestrial radio? As opposed to extraterrestrial?' Terrestrial radio sounds like it either involves aliens or is something from a bygone time - which we are not."
"Internet radio sounds like the future. Wireless sounds like the future. High def sounds like the future. YouTube, Google, iBiquity sound like the future. What does 'free over-the-air broadcasting' sound like? I think you know."
Rehr noted, however, that radio laid the groundwork for today's explosive landscape. "We were wireless before it was hot, but we are captives of the language of decades gone by," he said. "The language of our past is confusing and perhaps obsolete. We need to update and clarify. We need to reframe and rebrand."
Driving home the point of using the right words, Rehr turned to HD Radio.
"When iBiquity used the term IBOC-In-Band On-Channel Radio-no one, well, perhaps a few of us, had a clue what it meant," he said. "Then iBiquity did something very smart. They changed IBOC to HD Radio. And suddenly a light bulb went on. People got it. Because they already knew what HDTV meant. That changed vocabulary is one reason, I believe, HD Radio is taking off. iBiquity's change in terminology is an example of how we should all be thinking differently."
Rehr also took on the hot button topic performance rights fees.
"Radio has long played the record companies' music at no charge to them, the artist, or the listener... and in return the record labels and the artists have received free promotion of their products. Free music for free promotion. This arrangement has been mutually beneficial to radio, the record labels and the artists. Radio airplay continues to be the driving force behind music sales in this country. But now... the record labels want the government to impose a tax on radio stations for playing their artists' music."
"Imagine the brazen greed it takes for the record companies to expect us to pay them for the honor of marketing and promoting their artists' music. It would make much more sense for us to charge them for our promotional efforts. We will advocate that Congress oppose this levy on the market. If successful, it would be a government imposed performance tax. And we will fight it with everything we have."
Of course, Rehr also spent some time on NAB's unyielding opposition to the proposed XM-Sirius merger, playing a lighthearted video that poked fun at Sirius CEO Mel Karmazin's recent Congressional testimony where he repeatedly used the word, "merger." NAB's stance is that the proposed deal would lead to a monopoly.
Rehr said, "He is attempting to define moving from two companies to one company as a merger, not the duopoly to monopoly that it is. No matter how much Mr. Karmazin and everyone else at Sirius and XM use the word, it is not a merger they seek. It is a monopoly. It is a government sanctioned monopoly. In 1997, when the FCC authorized two nationwide satellite radio operators, it specifically prohibited them from merging. The bad business decisions of XM and Sirius -- should not be rewarded with a government bailout in the form of a monopoly. This certainly would not be in the consumer's benefit. It will be a huge consumer headache because the companies use two different technologies which are not compatible with each other. Like beta and VHS. No, this is not about the consumer. It is not about advancing technology. It is about lining the pockets of financiers and corporate executives."
Rehr added, "A monopoly is a monopoly is a monopoly, and we at NAB will continue to adamantly oppose it."
Rehr concluded, "Here's the big picture: we need to reframe and rebrand not only those issues but perceptions about the broadcasting business itself."
Comment on this story
E-mail this story to a friend
Sign up for Radio Headlines
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the Publisher
|
|
|
