For some radio broadcasting companies, it is the lair of the engineer, and a responsibility administered on delegated authority from the executive suite. That may work for some licensees of AM and FM stations, but for others could set the stage for bewilderment, discord and financially fueled feuds between the CEO and CFO and the person responsible for keeping the transmitter humming.
The life of a transmitter is a critical conversation topic one in the C-Suite must have working knowledge of. Nautel Chief Executive Officer Kevin Rodgers is just the person to explain why.
COMPREHENSION AND ATTENTION
For those who sign off on a purchase order, stomaching the investment in a new transmitter may trigger testy conversations, delicate dialogue and stormy situations largely tied to a lack of knowledge or a failure to get around the “tech speak” tied to purchasing a new transmitter.
That said, tying such an investment into topics such as ROI, lifetime efficiencies and cost savings can make the conversation that much easier when it comes to putting dollars into broadcast technology advancements.
Are there tell-tale signs that the C-Suite can easily take note of when it comes to the impending failure of an aged transmitter? First, Rodgers says that there are visual and audio clues that are easily detectable — the audio doesn’t sound as good or as crisp or as clear as it once did, for instance.
“The big one is reliability,” Rodgers says from Nautel’s global headquarters in rural Nova Scotia, due west of Halifax. “Popping off the air either for a short period of time or for a longer period of time because something is failing is a concern. If the station is at reduced power because something has failed is also a concern. In this day in age, because of priorities, it’s pretty easy to leave the transmitter at reduced power because there’s a bigger fire someplace else in the operation. So you go by a day, or a week, and you’ve lost half of your audience yet no one in the building is really noticing that.”
How often do those things happen? “It really comes down to thinking about the transmitter as part of the infrastructure of the radio station,” Rodgers comments.
If that’s the case, is the transmitter then one of the most valuable assets a C-Suite executive should list on a CapEx sheet? And, if so, what’s the remedy to the “we can fix it” mentality — and seemingly lower dollar allocations to the expense line — and investing in a long-term solution?
“Today, there needs to be a broader business decision around the total cost of ownership,” Rodgers says. “It’s not just about justifying the cost of replacing the transmitter. It is the cost of having the engineer not available because he’s repairing the transmitter. He’s not thinking about how to innovate in another area. What’s the cost of that? It is not just the capital cost of the transmitter — it is the lost revenue because a scheduled ad cannot air.”
For a broadcaster running a transmitter that has been in continuous operation since before 9/11, Rodgers has a warning: you’re asking for trouble. “Anybody that is running a transmitter that is at least 25 years old is going to get caught at the most inappropriate time with a failure,” he says. “It’s just a numbers game. The older the transmitter, the more likely something is going to fail.”
Age isn’t just a reason for replacement. Easier maintenance and better telemetry will allow an engineer to gauge performance in ways only a newer internet-linked transmitter can provide.
BALANCING DOLLARS AND SENSE
In both Canada and the U.S., radio broadcaster budgets have been frail for a good part of the decade. How can one property line-item the new transmitter cost without falling into the lowest-bidder approach when comparing opportunities from multiple vendors?
“You should never look at the one-time purchase costs,” Rodgers says. “You really need to look at the total cost of ownership. That includes how long the transmitter will be supported and what the cost of maintaining it is. Are spare parts available in the event of a failure? All of those things need to be considered.”
Jerry-rigging the transmitter or making a part is still seen by some radio stations’ engineers. The result?
RBR+TVBR recently traveled to a town where a Class C3 FM’s signal started to weaken just 18 miles from its broadcast tower, in relatively flat terrain. The facility had recently been sold by a longtime owner. Given the audible hiccups, a different audio choice was made.
That’s the exact message Rodgers sends to all operators: Loss of signal is a loss of revenue.
When the decision is made to purchase a new transmitter, what’s the typical longevity expectation? It remains 20 to 25 years, Rodgers says. The biggest change, he explains, is the computer technology embedded in the transmitter.
Meanwhile, Rodgers points to engineering needs such as properly maintaining a transmitter site, including lighting protection. Those tasks could get sidetracked if the basic issue of reaching radio audiences is paramount.
A reduced electricity bill is another thing the C-Suite should note when it comes to the capital investment in a new transmitter, Rodgers says.
There’s another reason a C-Suite should take into account when debating whether or not to purchase a new transmitter: a change in staff. Why? “If you have an engineer that’s been there for 40 years and is retiring, he knows how to keep that old transmitter on the air,” Rodgers says. “The new person coming in the door doesn’t know all those secrets and is never going to learn them. That’s a turning point for a broadcaster.”
Lastly, Rodgers notes that the most successful broadcasters are the ones that make decisions proactively, rather than reactively. With an increased focus on maintaining or gaining “share of the dashboard,” a new transmitter can bring HD Radio, DTS AutoStage capabilities, built-in RDS and visuals from tech firms such as QUU. “It is a source of revenue that just isn’t available with an older transmitter,” Rodgers says.
