BROADCASTING

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 134, 10 June 1927, Page 8

BROADCASTING

ANSWER [TO CRITICS

INTERESTING FIGURES

REVENUE AND COSTS

(Contributed.)

, The reiterated.demand for financial particulars' o£ the operation of the Wireless Broadcasting Company strikes the man in the street as peculiar. Listeners-in pay a fee for the privilege of hearing broadcasted items, but that fact hardly suggests that they have the rights of shareholders. If one visits a show at the Opera House, a preliminary to enjoyment is a fee at the box office; but at the termination of the performance one is not expected to demand a view of the balance-sheet of the company responsible for the entertainment.. If. one is dissatisfied with the investment, the remedy is simple. So with the listener-in to broadcasting. > While it may be said that the Broadcasting Company has virtually a monopoly on broadcasting in New Zealand, it must be remembered that it has also a monopoly on the! risk of heavy loss. People who criticise results but refrain from financial risks are. common, and nowhere is this more evident than in broadcasting matters:- and this applies not only. to New Zealand.. ■- t

: Criticism recently published has led the writer to look a little more closely into the position,.and below Tie sums the matter' up from such information as is available. Of course, the figures given are not substantiated except by figures already published, which indicate the probable total revenue received.by the company. It has often been said that last year listeners-in reached the total of 19,000, but a careful review of earlier "reports indicates that the fees paid by the great majority of these would be small. It has been stated that when IYA opened in August last the numbers o£ listeners-in in New : Zealand totalled 4800; so, taking a rough estimate of later totals published, the re-1 venue to the Broadcasting Company last financial year could hardly exceed £12,000. This looks a lot, .but let us go further: This year the figures published indicate approximately 19,000 Jisteners-in, which means a revenue to tho company of approximately £23,000—a much better position. These figures'bring up naturally the question of probable expenditure, and to pursue, the statement the following is set down:— • Capital Account. Cart of IYA »MMi i Co* of STA 2'gXS I Cost of 4YA ' 1 2000 I c«t ot 2ya :;;; 2 |;ggg j .'■".. V £45,000 ,„ i Working Account. Depreciation at 10 per cent, (very 'ow) •• 4,500 S&Urlei— : . Auckland ..,„ fiiwo Duncdtn 1 fmn WellingtoD ri-Si H<*'i ©me. ::;; \:iii Talent- • ■, 6 'ooo Auckland ..'. i .- nn Ohristchurch .;■•' ,2 Uunedin J'JJo Bates, taxel, power ... V'nS!! copyright :.: j-?"' OBce expenses (4 offices)'";;:;;:: 1,000 ■ ™ , £21,425 *?inS> We i c ? n, ,exP en<litui-e o£ over ~il,WO, and a probable income of £'3 000 ' f n aY«B very little for expansion. It is understood the original capital was set lo7mo M £20,000. gA PP aTe Pntfy quite a ;„,» T l' ?a5 re«ulred, and the interest retonfingl^' 011 aCC°Unts have risen «»> «,»™?* pVe figures eive. one an idea of thf n £ °n ' and mUBt silence those unte.PMiWhll have rashly assumed that tne company waß either buildin* Profitr-* 8 °Ut °£ ?eVenue orm«k«« largf,

iwSu £? look, hopefully to the future. ;~jL™re caP.'ta? expenditure will be necessary; and it is reasonable to assume Id U'f t2?fyHa7»H increase. The ineiW Provide T,Pft BUrely enable the company to aonelr if cr fiPr °grammes ' a" "would Much has been said about the waveWhs used m New Zealand. Only those refchM 6 <%«}«« of reallocation leanse that there is little improvement possible .owing to the use by AustrSian sttaions.of a ftirly wide rangef It's W Un Th iaVly dely known, that the'Wl engthsnow in use will be altered when te^n^t^ei^iS Auatrahan stations already P O n 'the air thn m pjn Whl uh re^>res some study if the. maximum benefit is to be received idW^^r^^^l .ST'fflar 1 to none inthe tt