Should Listeners' Money Pay For Relays?

Radio Record, Volume I, Issue 32, 24 February 1928, Page 3

Should Listeners' Money Pay For Relays?

AN IMPORTANT REVIEW OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED

HE statement published by us last week from. the General Manager of the Radio Broadcasting Company in cortnection with the refusal by the authorities of the Band Contest being held in Christchurch this month to permit broadcasting will have been read with a great deal of interest by listeners and readers. The statement was important because Mr, Harris wisely took the opportunity of .briefly dilating upon the reason given by the Band Contest authorities for their refusal. This reason was apparently that the Band Authorities refused to permit broadcasting of their concert because it objected to giving the Busoadcasting Company "something for nothing.’’ On this point Mr. Harris rather neatly turned the tables by pointing out that,. contrary to the conception apparently held, it was not the Broadcasting Company which was getting "something for nothing," but the attraction that was broadcast on relay. It costs the Broadcasting Company, he explained, considerable money to maintain broadcasting, whereas the persons whose performances may be broadcast are involved in no additional expenditure. Neither has the broadcast of popular performances any adverse effect on the attendance. As a maiter of fact, it has been -proved, here and elsewhere, that considerable benefit accrues to the attraction broadcast on account of the publicity thereby given. yrRom this point Mr. Harris went ou to make an important explanation concerning the attiude adopted by the Comany te clubs and organisations whose meetings or perorniances are suitable subjects for broadcast on relay This statement is sufficiently important to be reproduced here in its entirety, "The Radio -Broadcasting Company's position is not that of a private company formed to exploit the public, but that of a public company formed under Government regulation to administer a public utility in the interest of the community. , "The company appreciates that it costs racing and trotiing clubs, band associations, musicai societies, and such fike public institutions a considerable amount of money to provide their form of entertainment, and it is their business to decide whether they shall or shail not permit broadcasting. The company also appreciates that these institutions. are giving, in their own way, and at considerable personal effort and expense, service of the greatest public interest. However, as-the Broadcasting Company’s service is also given in the public interest, it cannot for this reason make direct payment fer relays, although it is prepared to co-operate with such institutions to the extent of providing the broadcasting service without any cost to them." ‘PHAT statement puts the position very fairly, aud shows that the Broadcasting Company is in no way concerned

to make atl complaint when its applications for permission ~ to broadcast are met with refusal. But several recent occurrences combine to indicate that an effort is being made to spread the idea abroad that the Broadcasting Company is a very wealthy body, and that it is being guilty of something approaching meanness or lack of consideration for its listeners in refusing to pay for the privilige of broadcasting race meetings, niusical fetes, sporting contests, etc. This is a position which, in the interests of listeners, needs to be examined, in order that a correct appreciation of the facts may be secured. ¢ ‘ey the first place, it is to be noted that the Radic Broadcasting Company is a public company, working closely under Government regulation in the administration of a public utility in the imterests of the community. It is not a private company engaged in mouey making by the exploitation of the public. In effect, the Broadcasting Coinpany is a trustee for the wise and efficient administration of the funds made available to it from listeners’ licenses. Its own earning capacity, as such administrative trustee, is limited by its Government contract. It is therefore very much to the interest of listeners that the Company shall expend the sums entrasted to it judiciously in maintaining its service and affording suitable entertainment and news services to listeners. Only by the strictest of economy and the most capable of management will the company be able to give the quality of service desired, and continue the policy of expansion laid down. OW far would the company’s funds go if the demands for relay charges were acceded to? A moment's thought shows that no fund, however extensive, would meet _ the obligation, for payment to one would involve payment to all; and the company, in reaching the determination to reserve listeners’ funds for the operating expenses of the stations, and the employment of professional artists, is following the only possible conrse. Be the question may well be asked: Why should the question of payment by tHe Broadcasting Company for relays of public interest ever be raised? This is notthe practice in any other country in the world where broadcasting has reached a very much higher standard of development than is the case here, Publicity over the air in the United States is very highly valued, and theatres, motor-car manufacturers, and other large organisations pay large sums to broadcasting stations for the privilege of being put "fon the air’ even indirectly. A prominent motor-car manufacturer in the United States recently paid as much as £13,060 for one hour’s broadcast of a programmie arranged under its auspices, and in addition paid for the talent employed, ‘That manufacturer did not ask the Broadcasting Company to pay him; he paid it that money for the privilege of ‘‘going on the air,’ and he did it because" hhe reckoned the publicity thus secured was worth it. Similarly, theatrical companies frequently pay for part of

their performances to be broadcast merely as an advertises ment, and so great is the appreciation of the advertising value of performances put over the air that one broadcasting company alone received an income of nearly a quarter of & million pounds annually for the sale of time and service — in this direction. It will be seen, therefore, that thé: suggestion that the Broadcasting Company should pay for relay performances strikes a note out of harmony witit’ modern broadcast developments. Commercial concerng gladly pay for publicity when it is available, and those: behind public meetings and events of interest wisely wel-! come ali the publicity they can get and freely afford all! opportunities for it. a j WE haye dealt with this subject so comparatively fully} because we regard it as important that listeners, whose, money it is that is at stake, should nnderstand and ape preciate the issue involved. 7 That issue is that it is not fair or right for listeners’ : money to be devoted to payments for relaying public -! performances when no extra cost whatsoever is ime -* voived to the organisers of such functions, "tt Listeners’ funds are fully required for the provision of, ptogrammes involving individual artistic talent and time, and the maintenance of the station and staff’s services,, The company is quite satisfied to provide programmes by; its own enterprise, but it is also ready when functions of; a general character are available, in which listeners would be interested, to give freely of its services and facilities for broadcasting them; but obviously it is not right om, possible that payments for such occasions should be made, As the General Manager righly said: It is not the Broadcasting Company which is receive ing, ou such occasions, "something for nothing," but, in reality, the performance that is being broad« cast ia receiving publicity at the expense of the ’ broadcasting service, ’ On this point it is to be noted that it has been customary}: for the fullest possible facilities to be given by practically, all organisations for the record of their doings by the public’ Press. This has grown up because the value of sucis publicity as been recognised and the right of the public to news appreciated. it is true that there is a distinction between news and entertainment, but the principle of the value of publicity remains, and the greatest beneficiary itt all broadcasts is undoubtedly the entertainment which, under eur conditions, receives publicity for nothing. Perhaps. if the Broadcasting Company were to consider the questiomt. of itself imposing a fee for such broadcasts, it would prove, the best corrective of the misconception which has beets the subject of the General Manager’s explanation. We do not suggest there is any intention of doing so-in fact, we haye the General Manager’s assurance to the contrary in his statement, but on the merits of the case there would, be more justification for that course than payment for the privilege of relaying. '