The recently published BBC Strategy Review is an important document. It doesn’t matter – much – to us who leaked the details, or what pressures the BBC was under to produce it. It matters what the review is saying, or appears to be saying. It matters what they see as being the BBC’s role in the life of the nation, and Radio 3’s role in the cultural life.

We urge people to take the opportunity to participate in the current consultation, either by filling in the online survey or by posting or emailing an independent response, as Friends of Radio 3 will be doing. The closing date is 25 May 2010.

The BBC promises … what? It is promising to return BBC TWO to something more serious, closer to what it was originally, as a channel distinguished from the light entertainment remit of BBC ONE. If there are not more Proms concerts on TWO, perhaps at least they will be presented by someone with genuine musical credentials, rather than a TV celebrity. Perhaps The Culture Show will change its name and become less entertainment and more culture. More money, we know, is being pledged for drama: it is not clear whether long-form classic drama is still to be excluded from television. The commitment seems to be for contemporary ‘relevant’ drama, which in BBC-speak may well apply to Casualty and EastEnders. Why not treat viewers to at least one play by Shakespeare every year? And Chekhov? Plus European and American classics? The only place where you will have a fairly regular opportunity to hear these on BBC is on Radio 3’s Drama on 3, which only a small minority of people discover.

The proposed changes to BBC TWO will, it is envisaged, have an impact on BBC FOUR, which is described as ‘reaffirming its original commitment to support the arts, music, culture and knowledge’ (p 54).

And what plans for Radio 3? The proposed closure of the digital stations 6 Music and the Asian Network might result in an increase in the bit rate of the remaining stations offered on DAB, perhaps improving Radio 3’s audio quality and making it comparable to the best that European stations offer. The review is silent on this.

There is, however, a hint, just a hint, that the closure of 6 Music might result in a change in Radio 3’s coverage. The proposal seems to be that any programmes being retained will switch to Radio 1 or Radio 2, as the main sources of popular music, though the Director of Audio and Music, Tim Davie, said in a blog:

“…we will consider how the range of music played on Radio 1, Radio 2 and Radio 3 should adjust to ensure we continue to offer a diverse spectrum of new and UK music as part of our stronger focus on originality and distinctiveness.”

The position of Friends of Radio 3 has been that we regard Radio 2 as the most appropriate home for the various kinds of ‘popular music’ – which includes not only much contemporary ‘world music’ but also the less specialised programming of jazz. In the case of jazz we feel this most strongly because its presence on Radio 3 reduces the amount of airtime available for more specialised jazz coverage.

However, as long as Radio 2 was pursuing a younger ‘pop’ audience and a determination to keep its ratings above 13 million, we felt it unfair to press strongly for the removal of musics which would as a result find no other place on BBC radio.

With a rethinking of Radio 2’s coverage and the BBC’s stated willingness to see its average listener age rise, we hope this might be an opportunity to see Radio 3 able to expand its horizons in the direction of its own brand of musical distinctiveness, with less well-known and experimental works and a wider range of global ‘classical’ music rather than ‘music which isn’t being aired anywhere else’.

As for 6 Music, given the choice between keeping it or BBC THREE (that’s the television channel, by the way) we’d support the music station, several times over.

The publication of the quarterly radio listening figures always provides plenty of copy and excitement for the media - especially the BBC which can be relied on to find a big success story somewhere ('Sir Terry Wogan leaves Radio 2 breakfast on a high' or 'Record figures for Radio 4' or 'Radio 3 adds audiences to accolades'). The print media may delve a little deeper than the BBC press releases and focus on inconvenient truths but these will usually be forgotten inside a week, if they are noticed at all. In any case, the press, like the public, only has access to headline figures since the BBC guards the interesting information very jealously; secretively, in fact, self importantly calling it 'commercially sensitive' or 'confidential', without a hint of shame.

Since the RAJARs have lately come to interest even the general public for various reasons, two points are worth noting:

1. the RAJAR figures are neither as accurate nor as inaccurate as people think, and
2. a set of quarterly figures is, in isolation, of limited significance. What does matter is the trend over at least one or two years, and the reasons - insofar as they can be guessed - why sometimes that trend is up and sometimes down.

The latest figures, published yesterday, were for Quarter 4 of 2009. For Radio 3 they were poor, especially following Quarter 3 - Proms quarter - which was spectacularly good (we dare say that even the BBC was surprised at how good they were!). The result crowned a gradually rising trend discernible over six quarters in a row, though starting from a very low level. The actual 'reach' in September was 2.192 million, only the second time since 2006 that it had exceeded the benchmark 2 million. Not only was it over 2 million, it was well over and among some of the best figures recorded in eleven years, up over the previous quarter by 166,000 and up over the two-year low by over 400,000.

Between 2006 and 2008, Radio 3 had hit some dangerously low figures, twice going under 1.8 million and once under 1.9 million.

We are always in the middle of a trend, which can go up or down. And in the December quarter it was down, with a bump. As ever, we wait to see what next quarter's figures will be before feeling able to pronounce. But we can ask questions:

Why did the very weak figures manage to peak at over 2 million over the summer? We would suggest that going back to last spring, BBC television started running the sound spot 'Step into our World' trails (how many times did newcomers to the Radio 3 messageboards come asking the name of the pieces of music being played?), featuring the four Composers of the Year. Then Radio 3 received a lot of publicity by winning the Sony UK Station of the Year award. Come Proms season the online Guardian, for one, carried a banner advert for the Proms, and the Proms themselves had enough stories (Goldie, the Darwin children's Prom, an evening of MGM film musicals) which pleased the press. Every Proms programme invited people to join Radio 3 for Breakfast, 7am-10am. And indeed in Proms quarter Breakfast had its highest reach - 816,000.

The December quarter saw a tumble to 1.874 million. Will Radio 3's reach settle back into a very modest 1.9 million now? Certainly the triumph of Breakfast was shortlived, dropping from 816,000 to 728,000, from highest to one of the lowest.

What axes are to be ground here? Certainly, those listeners who appreciate the new style Breakfast and the accessible Radio 3 will feel their own tastes are vindicated when the figures go up. Those who have deserted Radio 3 for its 'populist' programming will feel that poor listening figures are a sign that Radio 3 has abandoned its core audience and failed to find a new one. We don't have enough data to say how much truth there is in either claim.

But a rule of thumb might be: RAJAR figures going significantly down - bad news; RAJAR figures going significantly up - also bad news. Remember the axiom of Michael Grade that 'if Radio 3's ratings suddenly shot up then something would clearly very seriously have gone wrong'. Out in the wide world there are millions of potential Radio 3 listeners to be won over; but you can't please a wide range of them and focus on the programming that makes Radio 3 distinctive. If depth and seriousness aren't for them, then leave them to all the vast range of light entertainment which the BBC and the commercials already offer.

Are the erstwhile friends of world music deserting it, or are they just becoming more critical?

Several years ago the jazz and world music critic, Clive Davis, predicted the demise of the more fashionable element of world music (the headline is a mistake: the regular radio critic Paul Donovan was away). 'I am sure' wrote Davis in 2004, 'that [Roger] Wright's pursuit of the trendies who turn out to munch canapés at the Radio 3 Awards for World Music is doomed.'

The Radio 3 Awards for World Music are certainly more than doomed, axed a couple of years ago.

Another world music specialist, Michael Church, criticised both Womad and Radio 3's world output in 2005: 'With very few exceptions, the groups favoured by Radio 3 offer street-smart fusions - local styles with an internationalised electronic top-dressing, reflecting a universal aspiration to make it big in the West. We're talking, by and large, about global pop.' Church's own field recordings of the music of Georgia (Songs of Survival) and Chechnya (Songs of Defiance) have, on the other hand, been covered by World Routes. In fact, World Routes has made numerous notable programmes and short series on traditional global musics, as well as contemporary world music performers and releases.

Now, is another leading figure in the world music industry becoming disenchanted? Ian Anderson, editor of fRoots magazine, has ruffled some world music enthusiasts with his December editorial. Anderson writes: '[…] the World Music area of fRoots' musical enthusiasms seems, sadly, to be in a trough: [World Music] has been trying too hard to ape the mainstream music business.'

Anderson is more specific on what is right about the current folk/roots scene than what is wrong on the world stage. His fire is turned generally on the industry and its sell-out to the commercial model. But wasn't this always what world music was, necessarily if not intentionally, about: creating a high profile genre which would have its own corner of the record store shelves? It was a 'marketing concept', 'all geared to record shops, that was the only thing we were thinking about' as Charlie Gillett put it So, wouldn't the record industry, certainly the big labels, not want its products to be in the mainstream, musically, where the money is?

This won't – we hope – herald 'world's end' on Radio 3. It has become an integral part of 'what Radio 3 does'. But the station has a potentially substantial audience for world music – beyond those single interest world enthusiasts who seldom listen to Radio 3's wider programming. For that larger audience, who may know little about the global traditions, classical, folk or popular, there needs to be a balanced output. We have argued for more systematic coverage, more specialism, more criticism, and a limit on the 'street-smart fusions'.

Back in August 2007, Radio 3’s RAJAR ratings for the previous quarter were the lowest they’d ever been (1.783m). We asked the BBC for listening figures for certain programmes which had been affected by what we knew were unpopular changes. Performance on 3 had seen the live concert broadcasts axed, the start time brought forward to 7pm and the presentation changed from concert hall introductions to studio presentation of recorded sections, with applause faded in and out, changes which had not found favour with audiences. The live broadcast of Choral Evensong was moved from Wednesday afternoons to Sunday afternoons. We wanted to know whether listening figures had fallen as a result of the changes.

We were told that ‘the BBC does have a working practice of disclosing current audience figures … when it is considered appropriate’ but in this case it was not considered appropriate; and here our two-and-a-half year effort to persuade them to change their minds began. It culminated with a letter from the Information Commissioner’s office in August telling us that the BBC had agreed to supply the figures ‘in the coming weeks’, informally and outside the Freedom of Information Act.

Except that the figures never arrived. On further enquiry it appeared that the BBC had written to the ICO to say they had ‘changed their view’. In the intervening weeks the High Court judgement had ruled that information relating to programmes was exempt and the BBC was not obliged to disclose it. Not obliged to, and therefore won't.

We can now count five different reasons given by the BBC to justify not revealing what they said they had a ‘working practice’ of disclosing:
• the BBC’s contract with RAJAR limits what can be disclosed (RAJAR says there is no such contract and the BBC can do what it likes with its figures)
• the information is ‘commercially sensitive’ (we would dispute this since the information is ‘commonly known’ among broadcasters who also subscribe to RAJAR)
• it would be commercially prejudicial to RAJAR as there would be little interest in it continuing to collect the data if the BBC was giving it away freely, and indeed RAJAR’s very existence would be threatened (shameful that such an answer should be given in response to a FOIA request: the reason RAJAR exists is to collect the data for its broadcaster subscribers, all of whom, including the BBC, would continue to subscribe in order to obtain their own listening figures)
• under the BBC’s derogation on ‘journalism, art and literature’ it is not obliged to disclose information used to ‘inform programme-making activities’. Here the High Court ruling supports them, though what listening figures have to do with journalism, art or literature is obscure; however, a blanket of concealment lies over the type of information, regardless of whether the specific information requested relates to any of the exempt categories
• after agreeing, before the High Court ruling, to supply the information ‘informally and outside the Freedom of Information Act’ the BBC suddenly discovered that there were ‘editorial concerns’

So, they win. Or do they? We long ago lost interest in the listening figures which were out of date, superseded by two years’ figures and of little value; and Choral Evensong had been moved back to Wednesdays over a year ago.

The main purpose of continuing was to test the BBC’s real commitment to transparency and accountability, much vaunted by the BBC Trust. Result: they have produced a succession of excuses for maintaining secrecy and they have succeeded in getting the backing of the law to prevent the public challenging their decisions. There probably isn’t anything much to uncover in this case: one presumes the BBC just wants to be sure that when there is, they don’t have to own up. But it’s not much of a victory for an organisation that prides itself on being honest and trustworthy.

'Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest.'

One thing about engaging with the BBC and pointing to things in need of improvement is that you never know whether any subsequent improvements are because of, in spite of or totally unconnected with your representations. A new example has just emerged.

For several years we attempted to point out that Radio 3's budget was, judging by the Annual Reports, being steadily chipped away each year, and that inflation over the period amounted to at least 10%. Together these would have been expected to adversely affect the station's ability to provide a reasonable service.

To no avail: we were sent a specially produced graph (people were taken from their regular duties to prepare it, we were told) to show that the budget had been stable. Close inspection revealed that the amounts used in the graph were not comparable with each other; and that for one year there were two, alternative, amounts, both of which were included in the graph, the higher of the two apparently indicating a budget increase. No, no, no, Radio 3's budget had not been cut.

Had it or hadn't it? Regular changes in the reporting practice made it hard to work out what was happening from year to year, but each annual report for seven years running showed that expenditure for the year just ended was lower than it had been for the previous year. And Radio 2 eventually overtook Radio 3 to become the third most expensive of the radio networks. Failing any convincing evidence to the contrary we have continued to insist that Radio 3's budget was being cut back. And if the report doesn't mean that it doesn't mean anything.

Perhaps they hadn't noticed what they were doing and it came as a surprise to them to be told? At any rate, even with another change in the reporting practice to cope with it seemed as if last year's annual accounts (2007/08) were indeed reporting a slight increase. This year's accounts, published today show what looks like a quite large increase on the Radio 3 content spend. Some of this seems to have been found not by new money but, in common with BBC radio in general, by shaving a significant amount off the distribution and infrastructure/support costs, with what wider impact we cannot guess.

Without presuming to take any credit, we are pleased to report that a situation which we have raised with the BBC has been improved.

The Orchestras and Performing Groups have also had a big increase, total expenditure up from £19.3 million last year to £25.1 million. Apparently.

The Annual Report is, on the whole, notable these days for getting both glossier and less informative, but this is what the BBC Trust had to say about Radio 3:

"BBC Radio 3: ended the year with its highest audience figures since the end of 2006, at just below two million adults. Listeners are highly appreciative of the quality of the station's programming."

To put the listening figures in perspective, the last three years have seen the three lowest figures ever, but last year's was the highest of the three. Over the ten years for which comparable figures are available, the first five years showed a weekly average reach of 2.062 million; the second five had a weekly average reach of 1.966 million. Last year's average was 1.958 million, just below the average of an already low period. The phrase 'ended the year' means just that: that the third and fourth quarters were almost respectable, but the first two were still pretty low.

The audience appreciation figures are, we believe, achieved by asking listeners (who?) to rate stations and programmes on something like a 1 to 10 scale. Anything that scores something like 75% would be considered very satisfactory. Such a system can quantify but not qualify so will not reveal whether certain areas of dissatisfaction are common to a wide range of listeners. Radio 3 scores very highly on the appreciation index and it is certainly true that its best is still very good. On the other hand, it is asking people about the programmes they have chosen to listen to which goes some way to explain why the figures always tend to be quite high.

There has been good news for Radio 3 over the past month which for 'technical' reasons (that is to say, holidays) have not been promptly mentioned here. Most important, Radio 3 has been named Sony UK Radio Station of the Year for its overall performance in 2008. The Sony Radio Academy Awards have seemed in the past very remote from a station like Radio 3. The two major achievements which appear to bring success in the Sonys have been healthy ratings and regular publicity in the tabloids, neither of which are fundamental to Radio 3's real success or its remit.

For only the second time in the history of the awards Radio 3 was nominated for the Station of the Year Award, and for the first time it won the Gold. In the words of the judges. "Radio 3 has sustained a particularly strong schedule of appealing breadth, with a subtle combination of challenging and accessible material that is presented in a thoroughly entertaining manner."

This result is a turnaround from last year when it was indecently pointed out in the press that Radio 3 'went home completely empty-handed'. This was not in fact accurate, since the station won a silver and four bronzes, but in the media there's no praise for coming second or third.

Does this present success matter? Not in any fundamental sense since Radio 3 can go about its business quietly and creatively without winning awards, and in that respect this year has been very little different from any other in recent years. But for the Controller and all the R3 staff it's a public pat on the back which they deserve just as much as anyone else in radio broadcasting. However, public perceptions matter and the journalists' angle has been that Radio 3 is not merely deserving of the award but, more importantly, that its programming matters.

The result has been been well received in the press, with Paul Donovan in the Sunday Times predicting, on the eve of the announcement (and only four weeks after our own published prediction, below), that Radio 3 would win. Donovan also hinted, as we had done earlier, that one reason why it was important for Radio 3 to win was that focusing on higher things would polish the Beeb's image, tarnished by recent sleaze and deceit. Dan Sabbagh said much the same thing in The Times, declaring that Controller Roger Wright 'could be considered the public service conscience of the BBC'.

This then could be a time for self-congratulation, for sitting back on the laurels. But no one really believes this is what the awards are about. They are about publicity. With the press making the right noises about Radio 3 – praising it for its core content rather than for the novelties – this could be the time to affirm even more strongly that Radio 3, in Sabbagh's words 'the ultimate justification for the licence fee', is culturally and intellectually ambitious. The Sony seal of approval means that Radio 3 can be ambitious. It can be quirky. It can take risks. It can be confident in its own direction. What we ask is that it should focus on its content rather than on who it's trying to satisfy.

Above all, it should be intelligent.

Full details of Gold Award programmes:

Words and Music

Commissioning Editor: Abigail Appleton
Editors: Matthew Dodd & Tony Cheevers
Senior Producers: Fiona McLean & Jessica Isaacs
Producers and BAs: Radio Arts and Radio 3 production teams

'A joy to listen to, a radio programme playing to the essential strengths of the medium, giving the listener the means to embark on a magical journey. Unique, stimulating and very special.' BBC Radio Arts and Radio 3 for BBC Radio 3.

Vaughan Williams: Valiant for Truth

Producer: Jeremy Evans
Presenter: Stephen Johnson
Researcher: Georgia Mann
Studio Manager: Chris Muir
Editor: Tony Cheevers

'This was a beautifully crafted and profound programme, which the judges felt engaged the listener through the presenters personal journey and discovery of the man, Vaughan Williams. A good cast, with an overarching sensitivity throughout.' BBC Radio 3

Between The Ears: Staring At The Wall

Presenter: Alan Dein
Producer: Sara Jane Hall
Executive Producer: Simon Elmes
Editor: Rob Ketteridge

'Described by one of the judges as a perfect feature. An original idea a radio meditation about both sides of the wall at Pentonville Prison, London beautifully constructed and seamlessly told, so that speech became music and music speech. You were there! said another judge.' BBC Radio Documentaries for BBC Radio 3

When was the last time that Radio 3 was nominated for the award of Sony Station of the Year? Radio 1, Radio 2, Radio 4 and Classic FM have been regular winners, but Radio 3 has not even been nominated. But in 2009 that has changed. It will be a contest between Radio 1, Radio 3 and Classic FM, and this year could just be Radio 3's year. The results will be announced on May 11th.

Last year one of the main sub-stories in the press was that, 'in spite of all the money it costs and its small audience', Radio 3 was notable in not having won a single Sony Gold Award. The fact that Radio 3 seldom wins any gold awards was not allowed to spoil the story. In recent years most, if not all, of Radio 3's small bag (mainly silvers and bronzes) has been for its specialist jazz, world and features output, or for drama. Most of the high-profile Sony categories are based on the idea that success = high ratings, the be-all and end-all for the commercial stations. Radio 3 isn't in that game. Meanwhile, in a category which might be thought to be a level playing field – drama – Radio 4 has four nominations this year while Radio 3 has none, in spite of such high class productions as Annie Caulfield's Your Only Man, based on the writings and life of Flann O'Brien, Racine's Bajazet and Milton's Samson Agonistes.

So what does this year's nomination mean? How do the judges decide between Radio 1 and Radio 3? Or between Radio 3 and Classic FM? What does it mean to win the top award?

Some years ago Michael Grade expressed the view that if Radio 3 started increasing its ratings significantly, it would show that it had got something wrong. The same might be said about winning Sonys. It isn't clear to us exactly how the nominations and judging work, but it seems that the BBC puts forward its nominees. Assuming they didn't nominate every station for the Station of the Year, they chose Radio 3. Or does some other body choose the final nominees? If so, why Radio 3? What has been notable this year?

Well, sometimes when a station has had a poor year with its ratings, a recovery the following year merits a nomination. Radio 3 hit disaster in 2007/08 and has recovered somewhat in 2008/09. No need to point out how awful the ratings were the previous year and how easy it was to improve on them, Radio 3 is 'on the up'. That could be one reason.

High profile projects may count and last year there was the Chopin Experience (which has a nomination) and the Vaughan Williams 'Valiant for Truth' feature (also nominated).

Then there is the series of BBC 'scandals' – the phone-in deceptions, the Blue Peter cat, Ross and Brand. Perhaps this is the BBC trying to recover some vestige of its lost dignity and prestige, pushing Radio 3 as its serious side, quality, excellence? Isn't that what the current 'Handel on 3' TV trails are for? And there is a series of four trails. This is professional advertising stuff, and it costs.

Look carefully at those trails because they have been created by Red Bee Media, 'the global leader in transforming media brands'. So what is the brand that the ads are portraying? They are aimed at 'people aged 35+ who enjoy culture and the arts [but] haven't explored classical music in the same way as other arts such as films, books and art galleries – the campaign aims to encourage more people to do this'. Well, that sounds all right. As long as they accept that people who go to art galleries, read books, go to the theatre and cinema could be intelligent human beings, curious to discover more about a wide range of arts, typical Radio 3 listeners, in fact. They don't need to be treated like 12-year-olds just because they don't as yet know a lot about classical music.

As for the Sonys, well, it just might be Buggins' turn this year. If Radio 3 wins – and we think it might – the BBC will be delighted. But the whole thing is part of the commercial media hype. If it means nothing when Radio 3 fails to win anything, it means nothing if it does win. If it does win, how will the BBC Press Office play it? Recognition of the BBC's unique contribution to culture? Or the success of Radio 3's policy to encourage a cultural '3 for All'? We shall see.

Radio 3 Sony nominations:

The Music Programme Award:
Words and Music – BBC Radio Arts and Radio 3 for Radio 3

The Music Special Award:
Vaughan Williams: Valiant for Truth – BBC Radio 3

The Feature Award:
Between The Ears: Staring At The Wall – BBC Radio Documentaries for Radio 3

The Themed Programming Award:
The Chopin Experience – BBC Radio 3

UK Station of the Year, from:
BBC Radio 1
BBC Radio 3
Classic FM