BBC Licence Payers Association anyone?

[french frank]

Reverting to the thread's premise, I think that governance could be vastly improved by creating a statutory body of licence payers/viewers and listeners.

I can see that it might not be any worse than what we have now. But as far as Radio 3 is concerned, it would be no improvement. I imagine such a body would be much like the BBC's own Audience Councils which, if representative of the general public, would be 96% unaware of Radio 3's existence. And if someone told them about it, they would wonder what point there was to it.

The BBC has inherited at least the tradition of lip-service to public service cultural broadcasting, and we owe what we have to that. Hand over to the general public and I think Radio 3 could be the first to be sacrificed on the altar of light entertainment. Probably on the grounds that Classic FM caters adequately for classical music listeners!

Far better is just to keep plugging away at the Trust to try and persuade them to think about the contradictions implicit in management's strategies.

[kernelbogey]

[...] the BBC's own Audience Councils which, if representative of the general public, would be 96% unaware of Radio 3's existence. [...]

Over 25 years ago my Dad was, for many years, on a listeners' panel. Each week he would receive a wodge of green forms, each representing a programme, and be asked to say whether he's listened, add comments if he wished,and post them to John Snagge .

I wonder when this was abandoned. It would be much easier and cheaper to organise electronically today.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

which leaves us with the option of subscription based fundiing ... even if augmented by grant and donations .... imagine Boots sponsoring Dvorak or Barclays Bank sponsoring Haydn Trios ....

[kernelbogey]

[...] the BBC's own Audience Councils[...]

BTW, do you mean these exist, ff? How are the members appointed?

[french frank]

Over 25 years ago my Dad was, for many years, on a listeners' panel. Each week he would receive a wodge of green forms, each representing a programme, and be asked to say whether he's listened, add comments if he wished,and post them to John Snagge .

I wonder when this was abandoned. It would be much easier and cheaper to organise electronically today.

The RAJAR system isn't that different except that they no longer have panels. Each week listening diaries are distributed (according to post codes) to a different set of people. I'm not sure whether they have introduced online recording of listening, or whether they intend to. But that's a detail. If they distribute 2,500 diaries each week, that means that 30,000+ people are canvassed each quarter, better than a panel of 2,500 people who may or may not be representative.

They have been experimenting with electronic metering but as yet aren't satisfied with the results.

The Audience Councils are made up of small groups from the regions and nations who are consulted for 'qualitative' research. I'm trying to find out how they were used for the Radio 3 review research for the Trust. As far as I can see, about 170 people from the English regions were invited to listen to selected R3 programmes and then asked specific questions to gauge their opinions. On the basis that R3 has a reach of just over 4% of the population, 170 might yield 7 or 8 R3 listeners. Listeners were asked whether the programmes seemed 'high quality' and 'distinctive'; whether the presenters were knowledgeable; and (it appears) they had the opportunity to say whether they found the programmes engaging, interesting, intimidating &c. It was stated that many of the interviewees were not regular R3 listeners and did not find classical music appealing. Either they interviewed a very small group or the R3 listeners were considerably outnumbered. The general views expressed were that R3 was high quality and distinctive, the presenters very knowledgeable but the station needed to try harder to be more accessible to people with little knowledge of classical music. QED as far as BBC management was concerned - and hence the new morning programming, based on the general public's preferences?

In fine, the general public's'/icence fee payers' view of what R3 should be is very different from what the station's devotees might want.


kb: How are they appointed? I haven't the faintest idea!

[kernelbogey]

FF - many thanks. It would be good if it were possible for some of the devotees to get onto these councils..... (Round up the usual suspects.)

[french frank]

More on Audience Councils here.

"Audience Council members are recruited to ensure they reflect the diversity of the UK, have connections with communities and are able to take a view on how the BBC's Public Purposes should be promoted."

FF - many thanks. It would be good if it were possible for some of the devotees to get onto these councils..... (Round up the usual suspects.)

Yes, I imagine a sort of 'Twelve Angry Men' scenario where one R3 listener swings the entire Council round to an appreciation of Radio 3

[Osborn]

Far better is just to keep plugging away at the Trust to try and persuade them to think about the contradictions implicit in management's strategies.

This year's R3 Review document said:
Action 2 –
BBC management should consider how the BBC can best deliver classical, jazz and world music to all licence fee payers

They should set out how Radio 3 can best work alongside other BBC services and events to deliver this overall responsibility. In particular, BBC management should consider how the BBC can effectively make this content available and appealing to those audiences which Radio 3 struggles to reach.

We have asked BBC management to report back on this by summer 2011.

That's clear as mud to me, but it's end of summer now - are they likely to publish their agreements & strategies, FF?

[french frank]

This year's R3 Review document said:
Action 2 –
BBC management should consider how the BBC can best deliver classical, jazz and world music to all licence fee payers

They should set out how Radio 3 can best work alongside other BBC services and events to deliver this overall responsibility. In particular, BBC management should consider how the BBC can effectively make this content available and appealing to those audiences which Radio 3 struggles to reach.

We have asked BBC management to report back on this by summer 2011.

That's clear as mud to me, but it's end of summer now - are they likely to publish their agreements & strategies, FF?

Ossie, management strategies are not published. We have asked that they should be so that we can see how the Trust arrived at its conclusions to back those strategies. The reply was: No. We don't have to and we're not going to.

Nice quote you have there in which there is yet another contradiction: 'how the BBC can best deliver ... jazz ... to all licence fee payers ...'
Answer: cut the amount of jazz programming (new and existing) on R3 and move more up to the graveyard slot.

Also, we suggested that other services, particularly BBC Two, should be involved in introducing people 'with little knowledge of classical music' to classical music. DQF proposes big cuts to BBC Two's budget rather than BBC One's.

But the blindness of the Trust is revealed in their basic outlook, as revealed in the phrase 'audiences which Radio 3 struggles to reach'. Why should Radio 3 even attempt to reach audiences other than those who have a particular interest in its core content? Which audiences does Radio 1 'struggle to reach' - and should they do anything about it?

My view: they should forget about audiences and clarify what, in terms of content, they should focus on. Then provide it.