Analysis of the regulation of UK commercial radio formats, and the impact of an application to Ofcom by Coventry station 'KIX 96' to amend its format, written by Grant Goddard in April 2005 for The Radio Magazine.

1. KIX 96 COVENTRY TAKES THE
FORMAT CHALLENGE
by
GRANT GODDARD
www.grantgoddard.co.uk
April 2005

2. Formats are the “emperor’s new clothes” of radio regulation. Both sides of the
industry, the radio stations and the regulator, continue to pretend that Formats
have meaning and substance because life is made a lot easier that way. In
fact, many Formats are contradictory, imprecise, incomplete and often
unworkable prescriptions that many stations have to find a way to work around
in their day-to-day operational decisions.
Formats were introduced by Paul Brown at the IBA in the late 1980s as a
means to pacify objections from the commercial radio industry to the
introduction of a new tier of “incremental” stations. Each new station had to
promise that it would not compete directly with the heritage station in its
market, and so a “Promise of Performance” was agreed between each
incremental station and the IBA that set out what it would and would not be
allowed to do in its programming. The Radio Authority changed the name of
these Promises to “Format” but the description contained therein has
developed little in sixteen years.
Initially, heritage stations complained to the regulator on each individual
occasion they felt a new competitor had broken its Format. But, subsequently,
an unhealthy truce has broken out in most markets between most radio
groups. This works along the lines of – “I won’t complain to the regulator about
your station breaking its format, if you don’t complain about my station doing
the same.” Stations soon realised that the Radio Authority saw its duty under
the “light touch” regulatory protocol as only to react to complaints it received
about Formats. There was no active Format policing programme in place. Like
any savvy entrepreneur, stations adopted a policy of “if we can get away with
it, we will”.
In many cases, stations have successfully got away with murder with regard to
their Formats. Most Formats are so full of holes that any lawyer would laugh
long and loud at the regulator’s mistaken belief that these anachronistic
documents are executable. The regulator’s own insouciant attitude to policing
Formats has not helped. For example, when one local station applied for a
renewal of its licence, it was found by the regulator to have been in breach of
its Format in three major ways on a daily basis for several years. Despite these
failings, the licence was still re-awarded to the incumbent rather than to a
competing applicant. If the regulator itself demonstrates that it does not take
Formats seriously, can we be surprised that stations adopt a similar attitude?
Only the most obvious, blatant breaches of Formats that have already been
brought to the attention of the Press seem to be acted upon.
This background is pertinent because the Kix 96 application for a change of
format is an unusual case of a station willing to “come clean”. Since CN Radio
bought the station in 2000, it has had to operate Kix 96 with a wholly
unworkable Format it inherited from the station’s previous owner. For the last
five years, the station has not fulfilled its Format requirements because, in this
instance, the Format issued by the Radio Authority was unworkable. Kix 96
has had no choice but to break the Format. It is unlikely the regulator would
have been aware of this situation had not Mercia FM lodged a formal
complaint about Kix 96 in January 2004.
Kix 96 Coventry Takes The Format Challenge
©2005 Grant Goddard
page 2

3. If not for this complaint, Kix 96 could have continued to ignore the
contradictions inherent in its Format and chosen to determine its own
programming priorities, as it has done since 2000. In pointing out the
impossibility of implementing the existing Kix 96 Format, CN Radio is putting
the cat amongst the pigeons. It is boldly asking for a “wrong” to belatedly be
put right, one of many Format wrongs that have to date been conveniently
ignored by both the radio industry and the regulator. Until now, both parties
have found it easier to follow that particular path, leaving Formats in a half-light
of vaguery and woolly words.
The emperor’s new clothes have now been exposed for what they really are.
CN Radio has suddenly stood up and said: our station’s Format does not make
sense, is self-contradictory, and we have been unable to implement it for the
last five years. This is a shocking statement for both the radio industry and the
regulator, as both sides want to avoid a commotion over this issue. Both sides
know that many station Formats are just as unworkable as that of Kix 96, but it
is in neither side’s interest to shout about it publicly. At a stroke, CN Group has
moved this issue into the public domain. Up until now, everyone had seemed
perfectly happy with the cut of the emperor’s new clothes.
The regulator is put in an impossible position with regard to the Kix 96
application. CN Radio has pointed out truthfully that its present Format is
unworkable. If Ofcom acknowledges this fact, then the Format has to be
changed in some way. But Ofcom may not necessarily accede to the specific
changes that CN Radio desires. In the worst-case scenario, Kix 96 could end
up with a revised Format that is made “workable” but is not at all what it had
been lobbying for. While this outcome would be a regulatory improvement, it
may not be what CN Radio had hoped for by “going public.”
This is precisely why there has always been such stony silence from the radio
industry over the issue of Formats. It realises that, under the current ceasefire,
Formats may be imprecise, vague and often unworkable, but that if they were
improved and made more precise, they would actually give radio stations less
room for creative interpretation. Better the devil you know than the devil you
don’t. Which would you prefer: A set of vague, archaic rules that have little
relevance to modern day radio programming? Or a set of tightly defined
modern, analytical rules whose very precision gives you little room for
manoeuvre? At least, at present, radio stations can blame their inadequate
Format if questioned about their programming.
For Ofcom, there is also the problem of setting a precedent. If it is moved by
the CN Radio application to “fix” the Kix 96 Format to make it workable for the
first time, what does it do about similarly inconsistent Formats issued by its
predecessor, the Radio Authority? If Ofcom accedes to CN Radio’s demands
in the way it changes the Kix 96 Format, it could be flooded by applications
from other stations wanting to similarly re-word their Formats to make them
workable (or, more likely, to reflect what they are already doing on-air). If, on
the other hand, Ofcom does not accede to CN Radio’s requests in the way it
changes the Kix 96 Format, it is unlikely ever to receive similar applications
Kix 96 Coventry Takes The Format Challenge
©2005 Grant Goddard
page 3

4. from other stations, as they will not seek to rationalise their Formats if they
think they will end up with amendments they do not want.
Additionally, if Ofcom rationalises the Kix 96 Format, will it be driven to initiate
an active programme of rationalising other stations’ Formats to correct similar
anomalies inherited from the Radio Authority? And then, in order to make sure
changes such as these are implemented on-the-ground, will the regulator start
an active programme of policing Formats?
The Kix 96 application is far more important for the future of regulation than it
seems at first sight. By publicly raising the whole issue of unworkable, badly
written Formats, CN Radio has unwittingly struck at the heart of one of the
most significant and longstanding problems in UK radio regulation. For Ofcom,
CN Radio’s application has exposed another area of poor regulatory
management that it has inherited from the Radio Authority. The way Ofcom
deals with this particular station’s format change is critical in framing its policy
on how it intends to right similar historical “wrongs” in the years ahead.
[First published in 'The Radio Magazine', #681, 27 April 2005, pp.12-13]
Grant Goddard is a media analyst / radio specialist / radio consultant with thirty years of
experience in the broadcasting industry, having held senior management and consultancy
roles within the commercial media sector in the United Kingdom, Europe and Asia. Details at
http://www.grantgoddard.co.uk
Kix 96 Coventry Takes The Format Challenge
©2005 Grant Goddard
page 4