Evolving the station with a blog
Hi all. I’m Pete Ashton. On Thursday I put forward an idea for using the website to get from where we are now to a fully-functioning radio station in a few months time while keeping that process open and transparent so the community can be involved from day one.
I should make clear than I’m not offering to build all of this but I’m happy to be involved in a consulting role. Hopefully the theory should be roughly applicable to whatever system is adopted by the web team (of which I’m a part, so I am involved already!)
The problem
Currently we have a big but vague idea and a relatively small team of people willing to implement it. We don’t currently have the resources (time, people, skills) to produce enough radio content to launch a full service. We are due to launch something in two weeks time.
We also need to know what Rhubarb Radio is so we can figure out the target audience and promote it effectively.
I’d also add that the concept of “community” is very broad so involving as wide a range of people in the preliminary stages, while keeping that manageable, would be great.
The solution
1) We get people to produce radio shows in manageable chunks (say, no longer than 1hr). These are uploaded to a blog-style site which doubles as a podcast feed. (This blog, for example, can easily be adapted to produce a podcast feed).
2) These shows are categorised according to the author and subject matter and in time create distinct strands of content. As more content is created we can start to see what sort of radio people are creating and plan accordingly.
3) Each show has it’s own page on the blog which people can leave comments on. This offers a number of opportunities.
i) Feedback for those developing their skills. Tips on improving their work.
ii) An opportunity for people who are working in similar areas (live music, speech, etc) to connect and communicate.
iii) An in for those currently outside the team to join in the process, whether with the intention of getting involved further or just giving a few minutes of their time.
iv) More stuff we can’t conceive of yet.
Benefits of this
When we come to decide how the station is branded and who the target audience is we have much better idea of what we’re offering. These important decisions are not made in a vacuum.
It’s 100% about community involvement. While shows can be produced in the Rhubarb studio we can also accept audio files from people who have created them on their own. (I know I’ll be producing my stuff on my laptop, for example.) To get involved all they need is a login and somewhere to upload their audio.
Using a simple blog program running on WordPress or similar we can have this up and running very quickly, potentially in hours.
Long term
While we’ll have to see how it pans out I’d like to see this system, or a variation of it, become part of the Rhubarb Radio offering.
Think of it as a two-tier system. At the back is a randomly evolving podcast-style environment where anyone (within reason) can upload their work. You can subscribe to the whole thing or just to specific categories (“strands”). People can also embed this audio on other places on the web, putting on their own sites or whatever. This part really uses the power of the social internet to create, collaborate and engage with people and allows much more freedom and autonomy than a “normal” radio station.
On the front is Rhubarb Radio proper, a curated program of radio shows streaming live over the internet. Part of this (along with live shows and outside broadcasts) will be taken from the podcast pool but not everything from the pool will make it to the front. This is the public face of the station for the casual listener and is the source of the Rhubarb brand for promotional purposes.
Slot in some specific program pages (ala BBC radio’s website) and other features and I think you’re covering a number of bases.
Potential problems
Licensing for music in podcasts. PRS have a new podcasting license which works out at 15p per song.
Content moderation. If we’re opening up the floodgates moderating content could be problematic. I’d suggest strict guidelines and a retro-moderation system where we remove content after complaints rather than have a backlog of hours and hours of audio to screen. Reacting to complains retroactively is actually a safer solution legally as the company is not liable for the content until notified and then has a “reasonable time” to remove it, usually 2 weeks. (I am not a lawyer, etc).
Questions?
Thanks Pete,
as ever, you seem to be spot on. I’m going to leave this really open for discussion, but I’d like to just set one thing out with reference to the PRS-MCPS licence, so nobody gets confused. My suggestion is to purchase a blanket LOEL licence (http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/playingbroadcastingonline/online/MusicServices/LOEL/Pages/LOEL.aspx) which will only increase if we see the amount of listeners (45,000 p/a) or times per podcast (68,000)download go through the roof. That way, we can run with a fixed cost for licensing (+PPL dubbing licence of course) & keep the finances in check.
If (when) we get to the stage where we have to increase the licence fee because of increased downloads or listeners accessing the live streams, you can bet that we’ll have set up deals to pay for that from externally generated sources of income.
For now, I think that £120 or £240 each year (depending on the outcome of the discussion started by Pete) is a pretty reasonable charge to incur to kick things off with.
Anybody else, please pitch in…..
Can I presume that RR would not be precluded from broadcasting (over any medium) audio that is distributed outside the traditional PRS route? I’m thinking, for example, of music that has been released (or demoed) on short-run CDR (subject to permission to broadcast), or indeed made available on the internet under a Creative Commons licence *[1]
I ask because I think a community station should have a mutually productive relationship with local music makers, the vast majority of whom will be below the conventional radar. And because it would allow flexibility beyond the blanket agreements, unless I am unaware of obstacles, which I may be.
One or two people at the last meeting mentioned John Peel and his heritage. He managed to air plenty of demos on the BBC of all places, so I take it that this need not be a can of worms, but something Rhubarb can do?
Thanks in advance for cluing me in on this…
*[1] See for example the Internet Archive: http://www.archive.org/about/faqs.php#263
(Would broadcast by R.R. be considered “non-commercial”? It’s a stipulation under some of the licences).
Caveats regarding my knowledge as ever but I suspect the PRS license would cover those artists whoa re registered with them. Non-PRS artists would be covered by basis copyright laws which can be negotiated as and when or supplemented by creative commons.
I’d see music as coming under at least two umbrellas. There’s the shows that promote local music in a John Peel style and shows where the music is, if you like, a means to an end. An example of the latter might be a Desert Island Discs type show where a local musician plays music that inspires them. For this we’d probably need a license.
(Actually, an example of the latter is Martin Mullaney’s venture into community radio at http://www.communitypodcastradio.co.uk/martin/martin.html though I don’t think he’s got a license for that.)
In other words there’s music by and from the community and music the community wants to play.
As soon as we are ready to start broadcasting & hosting podcasts, we’ll get the licences. In the meantime, I’ll take guidance from PRS-MCPS about the actual reporting procedures so we get it right from the start. There’s no point in buying them (annually) before that- it would just be money spent for no reason- it only takes a day to do, via fax. Then we’ll be able to legitimately use the PRS-MCPS & PPL logos on the site & blog, and this will allow presenters to play whatever music they choose to be appropriate. In my opinion, decisions about what music to play should be left to the artistic merits and choice of the presenters- your particular audience will soon show you if you are playing material they like (or not). Personally, in the past I walked from a job that insisted I used the station’s approved playlist (the station changed it’s remit), and pampered to the wishes of the shareholders ……. perish the thought that we ever get to that way of thinking, and already I’ve had conversations with people here that feel the same way.
There are 2 exceptions to that rule however, and it applies to musical lyrics/rap and also spoken word. We should not ever consider playing any pre-recorded material that:
a) Contains language or displays literature or images that incite any forms of violence
b) Contains any form of material that could land us in court (slander for the vocal, liable on the forum/blog etc). This should also include graphic images, ie CD sleeves, posters, flyers etc
My suggestion is a general rule of thumb approach- “If in doubt, leave it out”- all served with a healthy side portion of common sense.
For more in depth information about what is generally considered good practice, here’s the BBC Editorial Guidelines (big read): http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/
The other thing to consider is the ultimate control that the presenter or anchor person must have when running live broadcasts or live discussions (both in the studio or via telephone). To avoid either of the 2 above points becoming dangerous practice, ultimate fader control must be his/hers at all times for all live signals, and again, a large serving of common sense should be applied.
Hi
I am a bit puzzled between the differences of a Commentator and a Author
Barnard