From RBR.com

Apple is now barring all single-station radio applications from the iPhone and iPad, saying that single station apps are the same as a “fart” (yes, the sound) app and represent spam in the iTunes store. So says Jim Barcus, the president of DJB Radio Apps, which helps build iPhone, Android and Blackberry apps and other mobile apps for radio stations across the country.

In September, Apple published new App Store review guidelines and farts were one of the things disallowed. As part of those guidelines, it looks like Apple began rejecting single-station radio apps on 11/10, declaring that it “will no longer approve any more radio station apps unless there are hundreds of stations on the same app.” If Barcus is right (and there is some dispute on this), it would be great news for iHeartRadio, RadioTime and the like, but not so much if your stream isn’t bundled with a large aggregator.

Says Barcus on his website:

“In a nutshell, Apple really does not want any more single station iPhone apps in the app store.

Since April we have been creating iPhone apps for radio stations with great success. The stations that have ordered them from us love them and it is one more way for the stations to get and keep their listeners. Not only can the listener rely on the app for entertainment, but they get the local news, sports and weather for the local station that they like to listen to.

Nov. 10 represents the date that Apple started rejecting apps. We have talked to many Apple reps about this, but they appear to have a script that they all read from saying that a single-station app is not an enriching end-user experience. We disagree, since our single-station apps have had more than 44,000 downloads in the past month.

Apple implemented a new rule that says “developers ‘spamming’ the App Store with many versions of similar apps will be removed from the iOS Developer Program.” Furthermore in the same document, they compare these apps that spam the App Store to Fart apps.

Apple is basically forcing all radio stations onto one app regardless of genre, age limitations, etc. I have argued that radio stations do not want to be on the same app with all the rest of the stations in the same town; and Apple’s answer was “too bad.” Apple even has a Rule 3.1 in the App review rules that states, “Apps with metadata that mentions the name of any other mobile platform will be rejected.” If this rule is good enough for Apple, why do radio stations have to be forced to have its competitors on the same app?

Furthermore, Apple does none or very little advertising on the radio. They never needed to because of all of those radio stations that have an app for their listeners give out hundreds of free mentions of the iTunes App Store every day to download their app and the hundreds if not thousands of page hits per day of listeners that click on the “Available in the iTunes Store” logo directing them to get their apps.”

Barcus also wrote an e-mail to Steve Jobs, Apple CEO, and his response was “Sorry, we’ve made our decision.”

“I really don’t think he cares about radio stations at all. Everybody at Apple has the same stance. No more radio station apps, though every pizza joint can have its own app,” said Barcus. “There are more than 900 Flashlight apps. More than 3,000 apps that do maps. But radio stations cannot have their own. Android Market and Blackberry World both like radio station apps for their platforms; but iTunes for some reason will not budge on what it calls spam applications.”

He’s also recommending that if stations want their own radio station app they should call call Apple HQ at (408) 996-1010 and lodge a complaint or send an e-mail to Steve Jobs at sjobs@apple.com.

Claiming that Barcus is wrong, Paul Jacobs, VP/GM Jacobs Media/jacAPPS, tells RBR-TVBR that he’s been able to build radio station apps since Nov. 10: “Since that date, we have had apps for radio stations accepted as new as well as upgrades.  And we are not alone.  I invite you to go to the iTunes App Store and go into the “free” apps portion of the Music section.  There you will see examples of dozens of radio stations – domestic, international, and Internet -  that have been accepted and/or upgraded since November 10.”

As we reported earlier this month, your Association joined with other State Broadcasters Associations, the NAB and various broadcast, cable and satellite associations in urging the FCC to extend the current March 29, 2011 deadline for broadcasters and others to comply with the CAP reception requirement.  I am pleased to report that we have been successful.  Today the full Commission released an Order extending the CAP-compliance deadline to September 30, 2011.  Furthermore, the Commission signaled an intent to be flexible, expressly reserving the right to grant a further extension of the new September 30, 2011 deadline depending upon the outcome of its upcoming notice of proposed rulemaking which will undertake a comprehensive review of the impact of CAP on its Part 11 rule, including the CAP reception rule and the issue of FCC certification of CAP compliant equipment.

Stay tuned to www.nhab.org and facebook.com/nhbroadcasters for more information!

Download the :30 and :60 NHAB Career Expo and Job Fair PSA’s here:

http://www.nhab.org/spots/nhab-job-fair30.mp3

and

http://www.nhab.org/spots/nhab-job-fair60.mp3

Don’t forget to sign your cluster/station up for the 2010 NHAB Career Expo and Job Fair – December 3rd from 10AM-1PM at Hesser College in Manchester!

For more information or to receive a copy of the job fair sign up sheet, email N HAB Executive Director Jordan Walton at jordan@nhab.org

From Politico.com

Business deals are successfully negotiated every day throughout America. The common thread is a mutual desire to reach an accord. And the media business is no different.

For nearly two decades, local television broadcasters and pay-television operators have taken part in this marketplace, negotiating the carriage rights for the high-value entertainment and local news programming supplied by local TV stations and their broadcast network partners. This negotiation process, known as retransmission consent, boasts a staggering success rate. More than 99 percent of the negotiations have been resolved amicably — and without disruption of TV service.

The system works so well because both parties — broadcast TV stations and pay-TV operators — have enormous and equal incentive to reach a fair agreement.

History shows that pay-TV subscribers flee in droves to alternative providers when there is even a rare service disruption — demonstrating a quantifiable value for “must-have” broadcast programming. Cable and satellite operators, meanwhile, deliver additional viewers to the broadcast TV station. If no deal is reached, there is equal risk for all. Pay TV loses subscribers; the broadcast TV station loses ad revenue.
This mutual incentive is jeopardized only when one of the negotiating parties has the expectation that it might receive government assistance should talks break down. Recognizing the overwhelming historical success of retransmission consent, some pay-TV operators have undertaken a cynical campaign to manufacture market failure in the hope that Congress will rewrite established law — and tip the scales in pay TV’s favor. The government must resist this course of action.

Beyond the undisputed free-market nature of retransmission consent are the many social benefits enjoyed — if not taken for granted — by all Americans. Indeed, TV broadcasters reinvest the revenue from these agreements in robust local and national news operations, marquee sporting events like the Super Bowl and popular programs like “30 Rock,” “Glee,” “CSI” and “Modern Family.”

Without this essential revenue, broadcast viewers would face a diminished local news product, fewer public affairs programs and a further migration of sports and entertainment programming to pay TV.

Most important is that this retransmission revenue supports a local news and entertainment platform for the more than 30 million Americans who are unable, or unwilling, to pay for cable or satellite TV.

If policymakers are serious about avoiding a society of TV “haves and have-nots,” they should refrain from policies that favor pay-TV operators over the providers of our nation’s only free and local communications system: over-the-air broadcasting.

As a former legislator, I understand the good intentions of some of my former congressional colleagues, who have proposed government intervention into private negotiations. Tempting as they may be, such proposals serve only as a disincentive to pay-TV operators, which may already be reluctant to negotiate in good faith.

Pay-TV companies that built their businesses on the backs of local and network broadcast signals should pay a fair price for access to that high-value programming. Legislators and policymakers should reject pay TV’s call for government intervention and reinforce the power of market-based negotiations.

This move would signal to current and future retransmission-consent participants that the ultimate success of their business lies solely in their own ability to negotiate fairly.

From RBR.com

Lamar Smith (R-TX)

During a March 2009 hearing on the Performance Rights Act, House Judiciary Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-TX) urged further study on the matter during his opening remarks, and when push came to shove at a mark-up over a year later, was one of nine votes against the measure, which nevertheless passed easily with 21 yea votes.

The Republican Party regularly shuffles the deck when it comes to committee leadership positions, so there is no guarantee that the Republican ascension to House majority status will leave Smith in the Judiciary chair.

However, as current Ranking Member Smith would appear to have the inside track, and is almost certain to be a senior member of the committee whether or not he’s in the top slot.

Smith is not one of the Republicans who are co-sponsors of the bill, nor is he one of the 260 or so who signed the Local Radio Freedom Act opposing it.

In remarks at a 6/4/09 hearing, Smith said that the two industries need each other, and opined that “…they are likely to need each other for some time to come.” He suggested a third party study before taking any action. A subsequent study from the GAO yielded inconclusive results.

Smith joined seven other Republicans in voting against the bill in markup 6/23/10. The only Democrat to join them was Maxine Waters (D-CA). 21 committee members supported the bill.

Here are Smith’s opening remarks delivered at the 3/10/09 hearing:

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The purpose of copyright law is to promote the public interest by encouraging the creation of new works of authorship. To accomplish this, the law seeks to balance the interest of creators in receiving compensation for their work with a public benefit that is derived from encouraging greater access to such works.

The fundamental question presented by H.R. 848, the Performance Rights Act, is to what extent the copyright law should give rise to a royalty payment each time a sound recording is performed publicly. Requiring a full statutory performance right for sound recordings is a change that has been sought by performing artists in the record industry for years.

H.R. 848 amends Section 106 and 114 of the copyright act to eliminate the exemption that AM and FM radio stations have enjoyed since the development of broadcast radio. The exemption permits these stations to broadcast sound recordings to the public without having to compensate performing artists. Proponents of current law assert that performing artists, particularly those with an active recording contract, benefit financially from having their songs performed extensively over free radio. They have asked why, if radio does not promote music sales, do artists and record labels send free CDs to radio stations and encourage programming managers to have their tracks spun as often as possible.

On the other hand, copyright owners note they should be entitled to exercise their rights to license the use and distribution of their works. They assert that when the law restricts them from doing so, they should at the very least be compensated for the commercial use of such works.

The economic downturn has resulted in a double hit for radio stations. It affects the ability of radio stations to generate revenue through advertising sales, which have decreased over 20 percent in the last 2 years. It also affects their ability to raise capital and secure financing to continue operations.

While the economic future of radio stations, recording artists and record labels is uncertain, my own view is that they are likely to need each other for some time to come. The sooner the parties recognize and accept this fact, the better for all concerned. Frankly, though, negotiation on the subject of performance rates is unlikely in the near future. So in the short term, what I propose is that the parties agree to have a third party entity conduct an objective study of the economic impact of royalty payments on performing artists and radio stations.

Stakeholders would offer issues to be evaluated, and at least there will be some quantitative analysis to help mold legislation.

Such a study would need to be conducted by a party that is clearly not aligned with either side of the debate. This entity would evaluate the likely impact of a range of royalty rates in a variety of economic circumstances.
During my time for questions, I will ask our witnesses if they will agree to this proposal. Before Congress chooses to act or withhold action on any matter, we have an obligation to ensure all legitimate concerns are fairly reviewed and addressed.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this hearing today. And I’ll yield back the balance of my time.

RBR-TVBR observation: This is one of the many broadcast issues for which Congressional party lines are blurred – but not all that blurred. Five Republicans supported PRA during the June vote, while eight were against. Only one Democrat voted against. And for sure, the loudest voice supporting PRA, outgoing Chair John Conyers (D-MI) will be muted going forward.

Two Strategies, One Future

A lot has been said and written in recent days concerning the NAB Radio Board’s vote supporting a multi-tiered proposal that could ultimately result in stations paying a limited performance fee for playing music. Ridiculous conspiracy theories have been proffered. Apocalyptic analogies have been suggested. The motives of NAB and its leadership have been questioned.

It’s time to set the record straight.

No doubt, smart and well-intentioned radio veterans can find themselves on opposite sides of this debate. But what everyone must recognize are the consequences we will face if we are perceived — rightly or wrongly — as obstructionists by Congressional leaders who have demonstratively shown sympathy for the record label position.

And those consequences are potentially very grave.

There is no doubt that free airplay on local radio is an unparalleled promotional tool enjoyed by artists and record labels alike. With that undisputed fact in our arsenal, radio has for decades rightly and successfully opposed any attempt to impose a performance right, royalty, fee, or tax on local stations for the mere privilege of promoting an artist’s music and making that artist rich and famous.

Moreover, the NAB has proven exceedingly effective in its advocacy efforts during the current session of Congress. More than 260 House members and 27 U.S. Senators stand firmly against a performance fee, even though legislation has proceeded further in this Congress than ever before. Both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have given the recording industry a thumbs-up.

The Performance Rights Act, still vigorously opposed by NAB, awaits only a floor vote in each Congressional chamber — action that could come as part of larger, unaffiliated legislation passed after this week’s midterm elections by a ‘lame duck; Congress. That legislation, as Marci Ryvicker, a well-known and reputable financial analyst from Wachovia-Wells Fargo, has estimated, could cost radio between $2 billion-$7 billion annually.

We are fortunate to have the leadership of Gordon Smith, a former two-term U.S. Senator who is respected by both Democrats and Republicans. It’s true that Senator Smith is not a radio broadcaster like Eddie Fritts once was. He is, nonetheless, a true gentleman and sincerely committed to the issues of radio and has proven exceedingly skillful in dealing with difficult terrain that we are facing inside the Beltway. His hiring gave NAB renewed credibility and instant clout last year. And, to put it bluntly, his hiring may be the only reason the Performance Rights Act has not become law in the current session of Congress. But beyond the specific issue of a performance fee, NAB and radio at large finds itself navigating a political minefield in Washington, where “just say no” is not a strategy for long-term success.

Indeed, as long as we appear unwilling to rationally discuss an issue of importance to key members of Congress, radio’s Washington ‘wish list’ remains dead on arrival. Any attempt to pass future legislation that would benefit radio will be immediately greeted with a performance fee amendment.

Checkmate?

Of greater concern, however, is the likelihood for amplified collateral damage — in the form of legislative attempts to saddle radio with onerous regulatory hurdles, spectrum taxes, localism mandates, or diminished interference protections.

And so we find ourselves at a crossroads.

Option A is one of familiarity. We continue to say not only “No,” but “Hell, no” to a performance “tax.” It’s worked before, and it might work again — perhaps long enough to get many of us to retirement. But make no mistake: Option A has an expiration date. Maybe not this Congress or the next — but at some point in the not-so-distant future, legislation will likely be passed, and the future of radio may include a performance fee set by a three-judge panel of bureaucrats known as the Copyright Royalty Board.

Option B is new and less familiar. We leverage our position of strength — the decades of legislative success demonstrated by NAB, the nearly 300 lawmakers who stand opposed to the Performance Rights Act, and a future Congress that will likely be less regulatory than the current — and we craft a deal on our terms and in the best long-term interest of radio. That is precisely what the NAB Radio Board has voted overwhelmingly to do.

No broadcaster wants to pay a performance fee; that’s a given. But consider what we might get in return:

– a strengthened foothold in mobile phone devices, putting us in a position to effectively compete on a device carried in nearly every American’s pocket;

– decreased streaming rates and the ability to simulcast our signal — commercials and all — on our respective websites, increasing radio’s ability to grow our online revenue;

– removal of the Copyright Royalty Board from rate setting of over-the-air and online rates, forever;

– and recognition from both Congress and the music industry — written into statute — that the promotional value of radio is unparalleled in comparison to any other audio platform in existence. Those words, signed by the President and written into law, will be what radio points to should the music industry ever have the audacity to ask for more.

In exchange, radio would agree to pay a limited performance fee that amounts to less than one percent of net revenues. The initial fee could be even less — as low as 0.25%, if the recording industry chooses not to support a legislative mandate for radio-enabled mobile devices.

Option B is not without its risks. But if successful, radio wins hands down.

Representing the diverse nature of radio, our stations span from the largest markets to the smallest towns, from major station groups to small regional clusters — publicly held companies, privately held stations. And yet despite these differences we share a mutual commonality: a truly sincere commitment to securing a vibrant future for radio.

We ask that everyone in radio study carefully the Term Sheet adopted by the NAB Board last week, and we ask for your support.

Members of the NAB Radio Board Executive Committee

NAB Radio Board Chair
Caroline Beasley
Executive Vice President and CFO
Beasley Broadcast Group
Naples, Fla.

Lew Dickey
Chairman, CEO and President
Cumulus Media
Atlanta, Ga.

Rick Cummings
President — Programming
Emmis Communications
Burbank, Cal.

Randy Gravley
President and CEO
Tri State Communications
Jasper, Ga.