Campaign Update
News of current developments in the FoR3 campaign:
May 24th: Excuses, excuses
One of the advantages of being Controller of Radio 3 and Director of the Proms is that the media are always willing to listen to you. An appearance on Radio 4's Feedback, an interview with one of the broadsheets: this is good publicity for you, you can say what you like and no one is in a position to challenge you.
The RAJAR disaster rumbles on. The Controller appeared on Feedback on 16 May and, believe it or not, there was barely a mention of the schedule changes. Asked whether the schedule changes had failed, the Controller replied, 'Not entirely' and moved on.
On 23 May The Times published an interview with Richard Morrison covering the same topic and eliciting more or less the same comments. No reference at all to the schedule changes here.
In both interviews Wright said, Of course, we know exactly how to raise our audience figures. And both interviewers fell into the trap by asking what. Why, he told Roger Bolton on Feedback, drama figures registered their lowest ever in recent years. If we dropped drama and replaced it with music we could treble the audience. But, our public service remit dictates that we keep drama.
Some solution! Of course, it would depend what music you replaced the drama with, but if it was classical music it would hardly bring any new listeners to Radio 3 since classical music lovers already tune in. You would just lose those drama listeners who aren't keen on classical music. In any case, with station figures at rock bottom, what other programmes were at a lowest ever? The butchered evening concert, for example?
He told Richard Morrison: "We could operate a computer playlist. We could play CDs instead of broadcasting major events such as The Minotaur at Covent Garden. We could ensure we played nothing people didn't like." The Classic FM route, then, which we wouldn't do: "That's against the whole ethos of public service broadcasting."
Surprising, then, how many people in our recent listener survey mentioned that Radio 3 was getting more and more like Classic FM. It surely would not be unreasonable to point out that for the past nine years Wright has been steadily 'popularising' the station, reaching out to 'a wider audience', becoming accessible and inclusive, casting off that old elitist image while alienating his listeners in the process. That is why they switch off, that is why the listening figures are down.
Then comes the dismissal of the RAJAR figures: 'They're only 5% down.' So, 5% down on what? Well, actually, 5.6% down on what had formerly been the second lowest quarterly figure ever (from 1.902 m to 1.795 m). Overall, the year 2007/08 had the lowest audience ever.
Then there was the 'excuse' on Feedback that Radio 2 and Radio 4 had had particularly strong performances and had possibly taken some of Radio 3's daytime listeners. But as any listener could tell him, in any given week it's perfectly possible to listen to Radio 2, Radio 3 and Radio 4. You may listen to Radio 3 less, but unless you stop listening completely you're still counted in Radio 3's audience. However, this point about the other stations does bring us to the matter of the listening hours, and here the fall was even more disastrous than the audience figures: year on year, the drop was not 5% but 18.7% (from 12,014 million hours to 9,764 million). Again, our listener survey backed that up: listeners said they were listening less over the past year. Only the Proms quarter recorded a just about reasonable level of listening.
So to sum up, here is the Controller's view:
Very impressive. And where do we go from here?
The RAJAR disaster rumbles on. The Controller appeared on Feedback on 16 May and, believe it or not, there was barely a mention of the schedule changes. Asked whether the schedule changes had failed, the Controller replied, 'Not entirely' and moved on.
On 23 May The Times published an interview with Richard Morrison covering the same topic and eliciting more or less the same comments. No reference at all to the schedule changes here.
In both interviews Wright said, Of course, we know exactly how to raise our audience figures. And both interviewers fell into the trap by asking what. Why, he told Roger Bolton on Feedback, drama figures registered their lowest ever in recent years. If we dropped drama and replaced it with music we could treble the audience. But, our public service remit dictates that we keep drama.
Some solution! Of course, it would depend what music you replaced the drama with, but if it was classical music it would hardly bring any new listeners to Radio 3 since classical music lovers already tune in. You would just lose those drama listeners who aren't keen on classical music. In any case, with station figures at rock bottom, what other programmes were at a lowest ever? The butchered evening concert, for example?
He told Richard Morrison: "We could operate a computer playlist. We could play CDs instead of broadcasting major events such as The Minotaur at Covent Garden. We could ensure we played nothing people didn't like." The Classic FM route, then, which we wouldn't do: "That's against the whole ethos of public service broadcasting."
Surprising, then, how many people in our recent listener survey mentioned that Radio 3 was getting more and more like Classic FM. It surely would not be unreasonable to point out that for the past nine years Wright has been steadily 'popularising' the station, reaching out to 'a wider audience', becoming accessible and inclusive, casting off that old elitist image while alienating his listeners in the process. That is why they switch off, that is why the listening figures are down.
Then comes the dismissal of the RAJAR figures: 'They're only 5% down.' So, 5% down on what? Well, actually, 5.6% down on what had formerly been the second lowest quarterly figure ever (from 1.902 m to 1.795 m). Overall, the year 2007/08 had the lowest audience ever.
Then there was the 'excuse' on Feedback that Radio 2 and Radio 4 had had particularly strong performances and had possibly taken some of Radio 3's daytime listeners. But as any listener could tell him, in any given week it's perfectly possible to listen to Radio 2, Radio 3 and Radio 4. You may listen to Radio 3 less, but unless you stop listening completely you're still counted in Radio 3's audience. However, this point about the other stations does bring us to the matter of the listening hours, and here the fall was even more disastrous than the audience figures: year on year, the drop was not 5% but 18.7% (from 12,014 million hours to 9,764 million). Again, our listener survey backed that up: listeners said they were listening less over the past year. Only the Proms quarter recorded a just about reasonable level of listening.
So to sum up, here is the Controller's view:
- We could popularise to gain more listeners, but we wouldn't dream of doing that, indeed our remit wouldn't permit it.
- In any case, the figures have only dipped slightly.
- And anyway Classic FM's figures are down so perhaps it's because people are going off classical music.
- And all listener criticisms can be disregarded because they all say different things and dislike each other's tastes.
Very impressive. And where do we go from here?
May 1st: RAJAR tolls for R3
The quarterly audience listening figures published by RAJAR today are certainly the most momentous for over a decade, possibly for a lot longer. It will depend on repercussions.
Reach was a tweak above the lowest ever (the lowest was earlier this year); the great God 'share' below 1% for the first time ever; and the listening hours in danger of going through the floor.
What do they mean? They mean that listeners are continuing to drift away from Radio 3 and those who remain are listening less than they used to, ready to become the next generation of defectors.
Why? FoR3 supporters will know that we carried out a survey at the beginning of April. Nothing contentious, just what did you think of the various changes introduced last year, the most extensive shake-up in the schedule ever? The answers couldn't have been clearer: listeners did not like them:
But the message of RAJAR is clear: there needs to be a new strategy for Radio 3, preferably a new service licence and certainly, before too long, a new Controller. The BBC Trust said in last year's Annual Report that they would be looking to see what impact the schedule changes would have on Radio 3's performance. Now they know. We shall be sending them the results of our survey which flesh out the grim message of the figures.
Reach was a tweak above the lowest ever (the lowest was earlier this year); the great God 'share' below 1% for the first time ever; and the listening hours in danger of going through the floor.
What do they mean? They mean that listeners are continuing to drift away from Radio 3 and those who remain are listening less than they used to, ready to become the next generation of defectors.
Why? FoR3 supporters will know that we carried out a survey at the beginning of April. Nothing contentious, just what did you think of the various changes introduced last year, the most extensive shake-up in the schedule ever? The answers couldn't have been clearer: listeners did not like them:
- 63% were listening less than the previous year – hence the reduction in RAJAR's listening hours
- 81% didn't like the changes to the evening concert, and were listening less
- the weekday Breakfast, the 'flagship' programme, was worse than Morning on 3 and frequently described as 'annoying' and 'irritating'
- few of the newer programmes (such as Classical Collection, Iain Burnside, Radio 3 Requests, The Choir) found much favour - too lightweight and Classic FM-ish
- programme trailing policy and 'interactivity' both had an overwhelming thumbs-down.
But the message of RAJAR is clear: there needs to be a new strategy for Radio 3, preferably a new service licence and certainly, before too long, a new Controller. The BBC Trust said in last year's Annual Report that they would be looking to see what impact the schedule changes would have on Radio 3's performance. Now they know. We shall be sending them the results of our survey which flesh out the grim message of the figures.
April 23rd: Live news
The brochure [PDF] has been published for the BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra's winter season – and, here's a surprise: the Russian Winter series will be carried live on Radio 3. That's 'live' as in 'live transmission'. True, with a proper sense of priorities, the time has been brought forward to 7pm to fit in with Radio 3's iron schedule; but that's the advantage of a BBC orchestra – the BBC can lay down the law about such things.
The Glasgow Herald carries a story today which states that, in 'a dramatic reversal of policy' all BBC orchestras concerts will be broadcast live on Radio 3. That may be for some time further in the future – the BBC SSO's other concerts are timed to begin at 7.30pm and there's no mention of live transmissions for them. But this is a start.
And let this not distract attention from the BBC SSO's newly announced season, Ilan Volkov's final one as Chief Conductor: they say it's a good one and that's how it looks.
The Glasgow Herald carries a story today which states that, in 'a dramatic reversal of policy' all BBC orchestras concerts will be broadcast live on Radio 3. That may be for some time further in the future – the BBC SSO's other concerts are timed to begin at 7.30pm and there's no mention of live transmissions for them. But this is a start.
And let this not distract attention from the BBC SSO's newly announced season, Ilan Volkov's final one as Chief Conductor: they say it's a good one and that's how it looks.
April 19th: More sauce for the gander?
James Corden, writer and star of comedy TV hit Gavin and Stacey, on digital television channel BBC 3, hit back at radio veteran John Humphrys for saying that BBC3 should be abolished:
"This is not a channel for him, it is not a channel that he should even ever watch. In fact, if he doesn't watch it, and he doesn't like it, it is doing everything it should."
An interesting sentiment. If Radio 3 listeners were to suggest that anyone 'shouldn't even ever listen' to Radio 3, that it was not for them and that if people didn't like it, then it was doing everything it should, they would be branded elitists (pejorative sense) and snobs, selfishly wanting to keep the station for themselves.
Similar arguments are now going on over the pop and rock station BBC 6 Music, its morning programmes now hosted by new, less knowledgeable presenters who 'talk too much'. The partial defence from the BBC is that one, at least, of the programmes is now an 'entertainment-based music show' – rather than a music-based music show, presumably. Are listeners who protest that they want expert presenters who get on and play the music also elitists and snobs?
Why is is that people who want to defend the serious standards of a classical music and arts station are the only ones to be called elitists, snobs, whinging old guard, old fuddy-duddies wanting to keep out those who don't share their tastes?
Nicholas Hytner, director of the National Theatre, has just been voted the most powerful person in British culture.
Hytner on the 'scandal' of 'the damage which has been done by decades of neglect in schools':
"A generation has been deprived of the tools it should have been given to open a door that can otherwise seem daunting. The problem we now face – those of us who run theatres, galleries, dance companies and orchestras – is that we want to make that door open as quickly as possible. But it gets to a point where you have to draw the line and say we can't go any further.
"Are we going to make-over Mozart by making it sound as if it has a dance music beat? No, we are not! Are we going to translate Shakespeare more than we do already? No, we are not! We have to insist that for the arts to be as revelatory and transformative as they can be they often have to be quite demanding."
The arts as 'revelatory and transformative'? And the BBC offers that deprived generation BBC 3, while Radio 3 is given the stealthy 'make-over' to give it wider appeal to the metaphorical John Humphryses who – to quote – 'shouldn't even ever be listening' because 'it's not a station for them'. The BBC can understand and cater for the different requirements of a whole – younger – generation but not, apparently, the different requirements of an intellect which spans the generations, including that same youthful generation.
"This is not a channel for him, it is not a channel that he should even ever watch. In fact, if he doesn't watch it, and he doesn't like it, it is doing everything it should."
An interesting sentiment. If Radio 3 listeners were to suggest that anyone 'shouldn't even ever listen' to Radio 3, that it was not for them and that if people didn't like it, then it was doing everything it should, they would be branded elitists (pejorative sense) and snobs, selfishly wanting to keep the station for themselves.
Similar arguments are now going on over the pop and rock station BBC 6 Music, its morning programmes now hosted by new, less knowledgeable presenters who 'talk too much'. The partial defence from the BBC is that one, at least, of the programmes is now an 'entertainment-based music show' – rather than a music-based music show, presumably. Are listeners who protest that they want expert presenters who get on and play the music also elitists and snobs?
Why is is that people who want to defend the serious standards of a classical music and arts station are the only ones to be called elitists, snobs, whinging old guard, old fuddy-duddies wanting to keep out those who don't share their tastes?
Nicholas Hytner, director of the National Theatre, has just been voted the most powerful person in British culture.
Hytner on the 'scandal' of 'the damage which has been done by decades of neglect in schools':
"A generation has been deprived of the tools it should have been given to open a door that can otherwise seem daunting. The problem we now face – those of us who run theatres, galleries, dance companies and orchestras – is that we want to make that door open as quickly as possible. But it gets to a point where you have to draw the line and say we can't go any further.
"Are we going to make-over Mozart by making it sound as if it has a dance music beat? No, we are not! Are we going to translate Shakespeare more than we do already? No, we are not! We have to insist that for the arts to be as revelatory and transformative as they can be they often have to be quite demanding."
The arts as 'revelatory and transformative'? And the BBC offers that deprived generation BBC 3, while Radio 3 is given the stealthy 'make-over' to give it wider appeal to the metaphorical John Humphryses who – to quote – 'shouldn't even ever be listening' because 'it's not a station for them'. The BBC can understand and cater for the different requirements of a whole – younger – generation but not, apparently, the different requirements of an intellect which spans the generations, including that same youthful generation.
April 5th: Sauce for the gander?
Hearty congratulations to the BBC which after a protracted battle has succeeded in winning its Freedom of Information case against Parliament. The government has now been forced to disclose details of MPs' expenses.
"Commons speaker Michael Martin has released details of top MPs' expenses – including John Prescott's £4,000 food bill and a TV licence for Tony Blair. The details follow a three-year Freedom of Information (FOI) battle by the BBC, which covers the expenses of six MPs." BBC News website, Friday, 4 April, 2008.
And so it should be: those who are paid by the public should be accountable to the public. Which brings us to the matter of the FoR3 battle to get the BBC to disclose information of public interest under the Freedom of Information Act. We asked for details of Radio 3 listening figures so that we could compare the evening audience for the old 'live' concert programmes with the current, less popular studio-presented recordings. We received two unofficial reasons from the BBC as to why they couldn't or weren't obliged to reveal the information, followed by a third, under the Freedom of Information Act, with a different reason altogether. The matter has now been referred to the Information Commissioner, though our battle has lasted a mere four months.
What is clear is that while the BBC battles to get other organisations to disclose information in the public interest, it fights tooth and nail to avoid revealing how it runs its own business.
"A BBC Trust spokesman said: "In its first year, the BBC Trust has implemented many changes to improve transparency and accountability at the BBC, including service licences, full explanations for decisions relating to new services and periods of public consultation. "We note the committee's report about some specific issues and will consider its recommendations when preparing this year's annual report."
If the Trust begins to dismantle the BBC's culture of secrecy, they will have done well.
"Commons speaker Michael Martin has released details of top MPs' expenses – including John Prescott's £4,000 food bill and a TV licence for Tony Blair. The details follow a three-year Freedom of Information (FOI) battle by the BBC, which covers the expenses of six MPs." BBC News website, Friday, 4 April, 2008.
And so it should be: those who are paid by the public should be accountable to the public. Which brings us to the matter of the FoR3 battle to get the BBC to disclose information of public interest under the Freedom of Information Act. We asked for details of Radio 3 listening figures so that we could compare the evening audience for the old 'live' concert programmes with the current, less popular studio-presented recordings. We received two unofficial reasons from the BBC as to why they couldn't or weren't obliged to reveal the information, followed by a third, under the Freedom of Information Act, with a different reason altogether. The matter has now been referred to the Information Commissioner, though our battle has lasted a mere four months.
What is clear is that while the BBC battles to get other organisations to disclose information in the public interest, it fights tooth and nail to avoid revealing how it runs its own business.
"A BBC Trust spokesman said: "In its first year, the BBC Trust has implemented many changes to improve transparency and accountability at the BBC, including service licences, full explanations for decisions relating to new services and periods of public consultation. "We note the committee's report about some specific issues and will consider its recommendations when preparing this year's annual report."
If the Trust begins to dismantle the BBC's culture of secrecy, they will have done well.
March 24th: Service interrupted
One of the main complaints about BBC programme trails on Radio 3 is that they can be so insensitively placed (and they can also be crass, too frequent and have irritating musical snippets). But so far the relentless attempt to get people to listen more, and so increase BBC Radio's 'share' of listening, hasn't quite hit the depths of Radio 2 last Friday. Good Friday, actually.
To mark the season there was a recorded broadcast of a service of music, readings and prayers held in St Paul's Cathedral. As well as hymns, there were performances by the choir of Allegri's Miserere and Fauré's Requiem. In all, the programme lasted for one hour and forty-five minutes. Oh, dear, rather a long time for radio listeners to concentrate without a break, even if it was to mark the most solemn moments in the Christian calendar. Well, how about a programme trail to brighten things up? They wouldn't, would they? Well, yes, they would. The movements of the Requiem were separated by readings, so…
No sooner had the notes faded from the Pie Jesu, the plea for eternal rest for the dead, than there was a whining pop song ('You've got that looook again…'), a plug for the next day's Radio 2 Music Club, more pop songs, a clip of a presenter and guest, loud laughter from the audience, another plug for the programme and Radio 2 ('online, on digital and on 88-91FM'), loud audience cheers, fading straight into the reading from St Matthew's gospel: 'Now Jesus stood…'). They wouldn't have inflicted that on the congregation in St Paul's Cathedral, why inflict it on the listeners at home?
If you want to hear the clip, it's here. It exerts a certain horrible fascination. So horrible, it's funny, in a sort of Monty Python way.
Is the BBC really so desperate to thrash the commercial competition that it's lost all sense of propriety, dignity and proportion? It seems that way, so Radio 3 – look out. If the ridiculous Controller of Radio 2 Lesley Douglas (she of the 'women don't like intellectual discussions' persuasion) has her way, she'll be getting her pop trails into Composer of the Week, Choral Evensong, Live from the Met and three times on Through the Night. The BBC has truly sold its soul to the marketing department.
To mark the season there was a recorded broadcast of a service of music, readings and prayers held in St Paul's Cathedral. As well as hymns, there were performances by the choir of Allegri's Miserere and Fauré's Requiem. In all, the programme lasted for one hour and forty-five minutes. Oh, dear, rather a long time for radio listeners to concentrate without a break, even if it was to mark the most solemn moments in the Christian calendar. Well, how about a programme trail to brighten things up? They wouldn't, would they? Well, yes, they would. The movements of the Requiem were separated by readings, so…
No sooner had the notes faded from the Pie Jesu, the plea for eternal rest for the dead, than there was a whining pop song ('You've got that looook again…'), a plug for the next day's Radio 2 Music Club, more pop songs, a clip of a presenter and guest, loud laughter from the audience, another plug for the programme and Radio 2 ('online, on digital and on 88-91FM'), loud audience cheers, fading straight into the reading from St Matthew's gospel: 'Now Jesus stood…'). They wouldn't have inflicted that on the congregation in St Paul's Cathedral, why inflict it on the listeners at home?
If you want to hear the clip, it's here. It exerts a certain horrible fascination. So horrible, it's funny, in a sort of Monty Python way.
Is the BBC really so desperate to thrash the commercial competition that it's lost all sense of propriety, dignity and proportion? It seems that way, so Radio 3 – look out. If the ridiculous Controller of Radio 2 Lesley Douglas (she of the 'women don't like intellectual discussions' persuasion) has her way, she'll be getting her pop trails into Composer of the Week, Choral Evensong, Live from the Met and three times on Through the Night. The BBC has truly sold its soul to the marketing department.
March 5th 2008: Radio and 'the creeping cult of ego'
The BBC has come in for a bit of stick this week with Paul Donovan's article knocking the practice of raising radio presenters above their station; to say nothing of the continuing furore among 6 Music listeners over Radio 2 Controller Lesley Douglas's choice of a new morning presenter, George Lamb.
Complaints about the heightened profile given to presenters have been rumbling on for several years among Radio 3 listeners. Whereas the BBC apparently believes that the presenters will attract more listeners, listeners complain of the irritation caused by the inappropriate change of style. Several years back the Controller was tackled about this: the awful 'I'm So-and-So, join me' cliché, 'Glad you could join me', 'Later on I'll be playing for you', 'On my show tomorrow', and so on. The Controller replied that it was good for the presenters to feel that it was 'their' programme. That seems to have been the beginning of this 'creeping cult of ego' on Radio 3, the desire (or perhaps instruction from above) to put a personal stamp on the programme, to chat, to divulge their own feelings and opinions, to make programmes more 'fun' and breakfast shows more 'breakfasty'.
It began with Brian Kay who couldn't have a programme which didn't include his name in the title; then Andy Kershaw brought his own name to his own show. The revamped Discovering Music became (briefly) Charles Hazlewood Discovering Music.
Last year, when the new schedules were announced, the press release revealed that the new breakfast 'show' would be called, 'eponymously', Rob Cowan. The objections began at once and there was an apparent change of mind: the programme was to be called 'Breakfast' to reflect the fact that there would be different presenters. Yet, bit by bit, the names of the presenters have crept back, at least in the pages of Radio Times. And Radio 3's online schedule maintains the title 'Breakfast', but the presenter's name is more prominent.
Does it matter whether a Radio 3 programme is named after a presenter? Does it matter that the early morning programme is referred to as 'the Breakfast Show'? No. These could only possibly be matters of minor irritation. What really matters is the change of style that comes with the change of name; what matters is how it affects what the listener hears over the air waves: self indulgent chatter, idiosyncratic mannerisms, redundant personal opinions (especially effusive eulogies), catchphrases, 'fun' items. Far from attracting listeners in droves, these are a positive – literal – turn-off. How good it would be if Radio 3 took a stand and reverted to the practice of having announcers ('serving the content', as the late Cormac Rigby described it), speaking clearly, adding a few facts for context and putting the music – or spoken subject matter – at the centre of the programme.
Looking back at the Radio Times of years ago, we see that the name of the orchestra leader was always published, the name of the presenter never appeared. For a music station that would seem to be a custom worth reviving.
Meanwhile, the creeping cult of ego has justified the replacement of a musically knowledgeable presenter on 6 Music with this. What's wrong here is that a style of broadcasting is imposed on an audience that wants something different. Only arrogance and hidden agendas keep the BBC from providing listeners with what they want.
Complaints about the heightened profile given to presenters have been rumbling on for several years among Radio 3 listeners. Whereas the BBC apparently believes that the presenters will attract more listeners, listeners complain of the irritation caused by the inappropriate change of style. Several years back the Controller was tackled about this: the awful 'I'm So-and-So, join me' cliché, 'Glad you could join me', 'Later on I'll be playing for you', 'On my show tomorrow', and so on. The Controller replied that it was good for the presenters to feel that it was 'their' programme. That seems to have been the beginning of this 'creeping cult of ego' on Radio 3, the desire (or perhaps instruction from above) to put a personal stamp on the programme, to chat, to divulge their own feelings and opinions, to make programmes more 'fun' and breakfast shows more 'breakfasty'.
It began with Brian Kay who couldn't have a programme which didn't include his name in the title; then Andy Kershaw brought his own name to his own show. The revamped Discovering Music became (briefly) Charles Hazlewood Discovering Music.
Last year, when the new schedules were announced, the press release revealed that the new breakfast 'show' would be called, 'eponymously', Rob Cowan. The objections began at once and there was an apparent change of mind: the programme was to be called 'Breakfast' to reflect the fact that there would be different presenters. Yet, bit by bit, the names of the presenters have crept back, at least in the pages of Radio Times. And Radio 3's online schedule maintains the title 'Breakfast', but the presenter's name is more prominent.
Does it matter whether a Radio 3 programme is named after a presenter? Does it matter that the early morning programme is referred to as 'the Breakfast Show'? No. These could only possibly be matters of minor irritation. What really matters is the change of style that comes with the change of name; what matters is how it affects what the listener hears over the air waves: self indulgent chatter, idiosyncratic mannerisms, redundant personal opinions (especially effusive eulogies), catchphrases, 'fun' items. Far from attracting listeners in droves, these are a positive – literal – turn-off. How good it would be if Radio 3 took a stand and reverted to the practice of having announcers ('serving the content', as the late Cormac Rigby described it), speaking clearly, adding a few facts for context and putting the music – or spoken subject matter – at the centre of the programme.
Looking back at the Radio Times of years ago, we see that the name of the orchestra leader was always published, the name of the presenter never appeared. For a music station that would seem to be a custom worth reviving.
Meanwhile, the creeping cult of ego has justified the replacement of a musically knowledgeable presenter on 6 Music with this. What's wrong here is that a style of broadcasting is imposed on an audience that wants something different. Only arrogance and hidden agendas keep the BBC from providing listeners with what they want.
March 4th: Radio Times a-changing
After what must have been a deluge of complaint, the radio editor of Radio Times made an appearance on the Radio Times forum with an announcement that the listings for Radio 3's Through the Night programme would be reinstated, as from the issue for 15-21 March. This goes to show that complaints can be effective. One thing is certain: if there are no complaints, nothing will be changed.
February 29th: The female of the species
BBC 6 Music is not a subject that normally gets discussed here, though a recent furore among its listeners caught our ear. The presenter of a new programme had provoked an irate reaction: 'offensive, repetitive, dull and inarticulate ', 'inane banter', 'meaningless drivel and street-talk', 'a pain to listen to'. In the wake of the torrent of invective, the Controller of Radio 2 and 6 Music appeared on the Feedback programme to justify the appointment.
It turns out that Lesley Douglas had been addressing the fact that 6 Music had more male listeners than female. And male listeners wanted intellectual discussion of music whereas women wanted a hunky young chap with dollops of misplaced self-confidence who intersperses his incoherent mumbling with saucy comments. "If you've heard George recently talking about Rave and Dance", said Ms Douglas, "there's a passion and it's less intellectual in approach to music but it is still about passion and love of music absolutely at its heart." What's more, Ms Douglas reveals "It's what the whole station is trying to do."
The problem is for those listeners, male and female, who absolutely do not want this type programme and coverage which 'the whole station' is now trying to do. And the question to ask is, what is 6 Music for? Should it consolidate its reputation as a distinctive station for serious music fans or should it market itself vigorously to attract more women listeners?
Which brings us, of course, to Radio 3. We begin to distinguish a BBC doctrine here: Radio 3 also has more male listeners than female. Oh, dear. Something must be done. So it's in with the chatty, welcoming presenters who emote effusively about the music (it is indeed officially described as 'sharing their passion') and who don't put off potential women listeners by being too intellectual. And again, 'It's what the whole station is trying to do.' And again, the complaints have rolled in.
Ms Douglas had the grace to be slightly apologetic, as well she might, about stereotyping men and women in this way, but it didn't stop her doing it, and basing the policy for an entire station on it in a way that is both insulting and patronising. And Radio 3, it seems, has the same idea.
Now, let us suppose that an unquantified proportion of women (and men too) respond positively to light-hearted, inconsequential chat and are put off by an intellectual approach. So what? Can't the BBC provide at least one station which prides itself on its intelligent, expert coverage, eschews the personalisation of presentation and isn't afraid to present its listeners with intellectual challenges?
Britain has historically never valued the intellectual life very highly, though surely a public service broadcaster like the BBC should be in the forefront of promoting it? But our present society of mass entertainment and celebrity culture now derides anything intellectual and dismisses it as 'elitist' – and the BBC hasn't had the wit, confidence or determination to challenge that view. Shame on them.
It turns out that Lesley Douglas had been addressing the fact that 6 Music had more male listeners than female. And male listeners wanted intellectual discussion of music whereas women wanted a hunky young chap with dollops of misplaced self-confidence who intersperses his incoherent mumbling with saucy comments. "If you've heard George recently talking about Rave and Dance", said Ms Douglas, "there's a passion and it's less intellectual in approach to music but it is still about passion and love of music absolutely at its heart." What's more, Ms Douglas reveals "It's what the whole station is trying to do."
The problem is for those listeners, male and female, who absolutely do not want this type programme and coverage which 'the whole station' is now trying to do. And the question to ask is, what is 6 Music for? Should it consolidate its reputation as a distinctive station for serious music fans or should it market itself vigorously to attract more women listeners?
Which brings us, of course, to Radio 3. We begin to distinguish a BBC doctrine here: Radio 3 also has more male listeners than female. Oh, dear. Something must be done. So it's in with the chatty, welcoming presenters who emote effusively about the music (it is indeed officially described as 'sharing their passion') and who don't put off potential women listeners by being too intellectual. And again, 'It's what the whole station is trying to do.' And again, the complaints have rolled in.
Ms Douglas had the grace to be slightly apologetic, as well she might, about stereotyping men and women in this way, but it didn't stop her doing it, and basing the policy for an entire station on it in a way that is both insulting and patronising. And Radio 3, it seems, has the same idea.
Now, let us suppose that an unquantified proportion of women (and men too) respond positively to light-hearted, inconsequential chat and are put off by an intellectual approach. So what? Can't the BBC provide at least one station which prides itself on its intelligent, expert coverage, eschews the personalisation of presentation and isn't afraid to present its listeners with intellectual challenges?
Britain has historically never valued the intellectual life very highly, though surely a public service broadcaster like the BBC should be in the forefront of promoting it? But our present society of mass entertainment and celebrity culture now derides anything intellectual and dismisses it as 'elitist' – and the BBC hasn't had the wit, confidence or determination to challenge that view. Shame on them.
February 28th: Radio times and titles
It was noted a few weeks back that the space for Radio 3 listings in Radio Times had been reduced, by 20%. The victim was that worst-kept secret, Through the Night, which instead of having the full listings for the six-hour programme was cut back to no more than half a dozen titles. Browsing through these lists had become a favourite pastime for fans of the programme, noting and finding out in advance about little-known composers and works. It was educational.
But when the digital station theJazz appeared, resulting in the rearrangement of the radio page, Radio 3's space was slashed to make room for it and the majority of Through the Night's listings were lost.
Letters and emails were sent to Radio Times to complain, and after a couple of weeks, by coincidence, it was announced that theJazz was closing down. Radio Times responded to those who had complained, saying that they would probably be redesigning the page as a result of the closure of theJazz. So has Radio 3 got its space back? No. BBC 6 Music has taken the vacant slot, Radio 2 gets a 45% increase (with details padded out to fill the space) and Through the Night still gets cursory coverage.
Does it matter that much? Well, it does because it represents yet another lurch towards a reduction in programme detail which the Radio 3 website itself has also been introducing gradually. There are complaints that, regularly, only bare details of the Breakfast programme appear in advance (to be updated after the programme), and now the same is happening to Afternoon on 3: you can check the main works but you don't know what time they will be on.
Radio 3 was always aimed at 'selective' listeners – people who studied the programme content in advance and decided whether or not to listen. But that isn't the new way: the BBC encourages radio as 'background listening', never mind what the music is, just.keep listening. Some people do, apparently, prefer to know nothing in advance and be surprised; if so, they don't have to look at the listings. But those who do want to know are being deprived, being forced to be non-selective, to take pot luck. If you have the name of the presenter and the time the programme starts, that's all you need, just like with the pop stations. Switch on anyway, there's sure to be something you like, sooner or later.
We can assure both Radio 3 and Radio Times that there are still plenty of listeners who take an intelligent, thoughtful interest in the programmes and want to be told in advance what they're getting. In a world of zombie, unheeded wallpaper muzak, this may, perhaps, be a dwindling band but that's no reason for the BBC to attempt compulsory brainectomies on them. Please give us the information needed to select critically and to research before the programmes are aired.
But when the digital station theJazz appeared, resulting in the rearrangement of the radio page, Radio 3's space was slashed to make room for it and the majority of Through the Night's listings were lost.
Letters and emails were sent to Radio Times to complain, and after a couple of weeks, by coincidence, it was announced that theJazz was closing down. Radio Times responded to those who had complained, saying that they would probably be redesigning the page as a result of the closure of theJazz. So has Radio 3 got its space back? No. BBC 6 Music has taken the vacant slot, Radio 2 gets a 45% increase (with details padded out to fill the space) and Through the Night still gets cursory coverage.
Does it matter that much? Well, it does because it represents yet another lurch towards a reduction in programme detail which the Radio 3 website itself has also been introducing gradually. There are complaints that, regularly, only bare details of the Breakfast programme appear in advance (to be updated after the programme), and now the same is happening to Afternoon on 3: you can check the main works but you don't know what time they will be on.
Radio 3 was always aimed at 'selective' listeners – people who studied the programme content in advance and decided whether or not to listen. But that isn't the new way: the BBC encourages radio as 'background listening', never mind what the music is, just.keep listening. Some people do, apparently, prefer to know nothing in advance and be surprised; if so, they don't have to look at the listings. But those who do want to know are being deprived, being forced to be non-selective, to take pot luck. If you have the name of the presenter and the time the programme starts, that's all you need, just like with the pop stations. Switch on anyway, there's sure to be something you like, sooner or later.
We can assure both Radio 3 and Radio Times that there are still plenty of listeners who take an intelligent, thoughtful interest in the programmes and want to be told in advance what they're getting. In a world of zombie, unheeded wallpaper muzak, this may, perhaps, be a dwindling band but that's no reason for the BBC to attempt compulsory brainectomies on them. Please give us the information needed to select critically and to research before the programmes are aired.
January 23rd: Midweek return for Choral Evensong
A press release today has revealed that Choral Evensong which was shifted from Wednesday afternoons to Sundays in last year's programme shake-up is to return to live transmission on Wednesdays. A repeat will be broadcast in the Sunday slot.
As a group we felt this was not a matter of principle on which we should take a position but it was obvious that a lot of people felt very unhappy about the change. Enquiries confirmed that this was not confined to listeners but also affected participants.
It appeared to us that rescheduling priorities were the chief reason for the change, though the BBC claimed that a Sunday transmission would reach a bigger audience. We were unconvinced of this, and when we asked for the comparative listening figures as evidence the BBC refused to disclose them.
As it is, the repeat raises the profile of Choral Evensong, as did the launch last June of a dedicated messageboard. There were fears that the live transmission might be dropped but that possibility too seems now to have become more remote. We feel that, on the whole, more people will be pleased than otherwise and messageboard comments so far seem to support this.
So now, what about a return to the 7.30pm concert, live or 'as live', rather than the dry studio presentation and earlier start that was introduced last year? Since we know that many people find the new format very unappealing we asked the BBC whether the audience for this had dropped compared with the old concert format, but again the BBC refused to say. They cited 'commercial prejudice' which seems to be a current all-purpose excuse for not revealing anything that might be inconvenient.
As a group we felt this was not a matter of principle on which we should take a position but it was obvious that a lot of people felt very unhappy about the change. Enquiries confirmed that this was not confined to listeners but also affected participants.
It appeared to us that rescheduling priorities were the chief reason for the change, though the BBC claimed that a Sunday transmission would reach a bigger audience. We were unconvinced of this, and when we asked for the comparative listening figures as evidence the BBC refused to disclose them.
As it is, the repeat raises the profile of Choral Evensong, as did the launch last June of a dedicated messageboard. There were fears that the live transmission might be dropped but that possibility too seems now to have become more remote. We feel that, on the whole, more people will be pleased than otherwise and messageboard comments so far seem to support this.
So now, what about a return to the 7.30pm concert, live or 'as live', rather than the dry studio presentation and earlier start that was introduced last year? Since we know that many people find the new format very unappealing we asked the BBC whether the audience for this had dropped compared with the old concert format, but again the BBC refused to say. They cited 'commercial prejudice' which seems to be a current all-purpose excuse for not revealing anything that might be inconvenient.
November 25th 2007: From Wednesday to Sunday
Complaints rumble on over the removal of Choral Evensong from Wednesdays at 4pm to Sundays at 4pm. The most obvious reason for the change was to accommodate an extended Afternoon Performance each weekday, lasting from 1pm until 5pm; hence all five of the 4pm weekday programmes had to go. Two predated the current regime, three were recent innovations: the Controller giveth…
With the dropping of the afternoon children's programme Making Tracks, five regular afternoon presenters were axed and five programme production teams were redundant, so the underlying reason was presumably budget cuts. Not that this is a reason that can be stated openly.
Choral Evensong ended up as a live transmission on Sunday afternoons where, according to the BBC publicity, it was being moved to a 'prime slot':
"Coming live from cathedrals, abbeys and college chapels throughout the country, this popular programme can be enjoyed by an even wider audience on Sundays."
The technical arrangements for a live outside broadcast and the extra rehearsals on the busiest day of the week presented difficulties. Now, however, there is further word from the BBC. Writing in the November issue of Cathedral Music, the programme's producer, Stephen Shipley, says: "Readers may be assured that Radio 3 is taking note of the reaction of listeners to the move of the programme to Sunday afternoon and monitoring the numbers: the change of transmission day is being kept under review."
Monitoring the numbers? Meaning that the prime slot is not delivering a much larger audience? Well, the evidence three years ago was that Sunday afternoons didn't get as many listeners as weekdays, but the publicity blurb appeared to have no doubts. Indeed, Mr Shipley wrote a year ago that it was 'a prime weekend slot and there will be a much bigger audience'.
Well, it certainly sounds as if the BBC is listening to the complaints and may be prepared to rethink. No doubt the great added expense of employing technical and production staff on a Sunday might also encourage them to return to the status quo ante.
However, it seems that most of all foundations and listeners appreciate the 'liveness'. It's a religious service and the audience at home, and the participants, appreciate sharing an act of worship together. Recording on a Wednesday and transmitting on a Sunday would be a huge betrayal. The choral foundations naturally are eager to participate and are grateful to be invited. They can't complain too loudly. But the BBC shouldn't use its power of patronage to dictate to them.
Choral Evensong is the BBC's longest-running live outside broadcast programme, celebrating its 80th anniversary last year. So, Keep Choral Evensong Live. And, yes, move it back to Wednesday afternoons if that's what the cathedrals and listeners want.
With the dropping of the afternoon children's programme Making Tracks, five regular afternoon presenters were axed and five programme production teams were redundant, so the underlying reason was presumably budget cuts. Not that this is a reason that can be stated openly.
Choral Evensong ended up as a live transmission on Sunday afternoons where, according to the BBC publicity, it was being moved to a 'prime slot':
"Coming live from cathedrals, abbeys and college chapels throughout the country, this popular programme can be enjoyed by an even wider audience on Sundays."
The technical arrangements for a live outside broadcast and the extra rehearsals on the busiest day of the week presented difficulties. Now, however, there is further word from the BBC. Writing in the November issue of Cathedral Music, the programme's producer, Stephen Shipley, says: "Readers may be assured that Radio 3 is taking note of the reaction of listeners to the move of the programme to Sunday afternoon and monitoring the numbers: the change of transmission day is being kept under review."
Monitoring the numbers? Meaning that the prime slot is not delivering a much larger audience? Well, the evidence three years ago was that Sunday afternoons didn't get as many listeners as weekdays, but the publicity blurb appeared to have no doubts. Indeed, Mr Shipley wrote a year ago that it was 'a prime weekend slot and there will be a much bigger audience'.
Well, it certainly sounds as if the BBC is listening to the complaints and may be prepared to rethink. No doubt the great added expense of employing technical and production staff on a Sunday might also encourage them to return to the status quo ante.
However, it seems that most of all foundations and listeners appreciate the 'liveness'. It's a religious service and the audience at home, and the participants, appreciate sharing an act of worship together. Recording on a Wednesday and transmitting on a Sunday would be a huge betrayal. The choral foundations naturally are eager to participate and are grateful to be invited. They can't complain too loudly. But the BBC shouldn't use its power of patronage to dictate to them.
Choral Evensong is the BBC's longest-running live outside broadcast programme, celebrating its 80th anniversary last year. So, Keep Choral Evensong Live. And, yes, move it back to Wednesday afternoons if that's what the cathedrals and listeners want.
November 24th 2007: Mix 'n' Mis-match
The often raised topic about mixing non-classical and classical music has recently been joined by objections to the inclusion of 'light jazz' in Radio 3's breakfast programme. What is welcomed as a refreshing change by some is an instant switch-off – literally – for others. The debate usually goes something like this:
"I like a bit of jazz, but, please, not first thing in the morning, and certainly not between Handel and Boccherini."
"What? One five-minute piece out of a three-hour programme? Can't you just block it out, or switch off if you don't like it."
As they say, you can't please all the people. So, is there a point worth making or not? Is it worth protesting if you don't like it? It's probably the case that when Radio 3 is getting things right for its audience it can get away with anything. The reaction will be an impatient clucking, or eyes raised to the ceiling, then it's all over and we're back to normal. It's when it's yet another irritation to add to the collection that it's more difficult to 'block it out'; and when the odd irritation turns into a regular routine.
The new, chattier, breakfast programme which began in February was clearly designed to attract a more casual audience with brighter, lighter listening. But even the attempts at 'interactivity' – games and questions to elicit answers from the listeners – seem to be attracting opposition: the suggestions on the messageboard 'describing Radio 3 in five words' were for the most part unbroadcastable.
And the listening figures? Well, the last three quarters, coinciding with the new programme, have all been down on the previous year's:
Jan-March: 765,000 (down from 839,000)
April-June: 727,000 (down from 752,000)
July-September: 713,000 (down from 768,000)
If we had to make some suggestions, this is probably what they'd be:
"I like a bit of jazz, but, please, not first thing in the morning, and certainly not between Handel and Boccherini."
"What? One five-minute piece out of a three-hour programme? Can't you just block it out, or switch off if you don't like it."
As they say, you can't please all the people. So, is there a point worth making or not? Is it worth protesting if you don't like it? It's probably the case that when Radio 3 is getting things right for its audience it can get away with anything. The reaction will be an impatient clucking, or eyes raised to the ceiling, then it's all over and we're back to normal. It's when it's yet another irritation to add to the collection that it's more difficult to 'block it out'; and when the odd irritation turns into a regular routine.
The new, chattier, breakfast programme which began in February was clearly designed to attract a more casual audience with brighter, lighter listening. But even the attempts at 'interactivity' – games and questions to elicit answers from the listeners – seem to be attracting opposition: the suggestions on the messageboard 'describing Radio 3 in five words' were for the most part unbroadcastable.
And the listening figures? Well, the last three quarters, coinciding with the new programme, have all been down on the previous year's:
Jan-March: 765,000 (down from 839,000)
April-June: 727,000 (down from 752,000)
July-September: 713,000 (down from 768,000)
If we had to make some suggestions, this is probably what they'd be:
- Stick to classical music (oh, all right, an occasional piece of jazz but be prepared for complaints)
- Longer pieces
- Cut out the interactivity
- Drop the mid-programme trails (put them before the news, as before, and try not to make them so irritating)
- No chat, no gimmicks (segues and innocent ears &c)
- Add a minute to the on-the hour news headlines and drop the two shorter ones
- Announce on air that you're going to make these changes
October 25th 2007: RAJAR – go figure
The listening figures for the July-September quarter – Proms quarter for Radio 3 – were published this morning. As one has come to expect, there was little to celebrate for Radio 3.
It should first be explained that the four quarters of the year show slight seasonal variations: Quarter 2 (April-June) has in recent years often been the lowest of the year; Quarter 3 (July-September) has been the highest or second highest, reflecting the interest in the live Proms concerts.
True to form, as already reported, Quarter 2 this year was very low, in fact, the lowest ever. In the light of the recent downward trend, we were expecting Proms quarter to be struggling to break 2 million. The figure published today was 1.938 million, up on last quarter's lowest ever, but very weak for the Proms and continuing the downward trend. If this figure turns out to be the highest or second highest of 2007/08, then Radio 3 is heading, yet again, for a new lowest ever yearly average.
The listening hours were up on last quarter, again reflecting the Proms coverage, but at just over 12 million hours per week they were not impressive. When reach was higher, listening hours would often exceed 13 million.
So, Proms listening was depressed; what other clues to performance do we have?
Since the beginning of 2006 the listening figures for the breakfast programmes have also been published. These are particularly important to the commercial stations because breakfast time is peak listening time for radio, and that means for most radio stations, including Radio 3. The February schedule changes included a significant presenter change, with Rob Cowan being moved to breakfast time at the expense of the axed CD Masters. This was clearly an attempt to boost Radio 3's flagging figures. Well, it worked with Radio 1 and Chris Moyles, so these figures are also a clue to how the audience is reacting.
Because the change was introduced in mid-February, half of Quarter 1 (January-March) covered the new programme. This was not an encouraging start, with the quarter showing a drop on the previous year from 839,000 to 765,000. Quarter 2 showed a similar drop, from 752,000 to 727,000. The latest quarter again shows a drop: from 768,000 to 713,000.
These figures reflect the negative feedback on the messageboards and from FoR3 supporters. We can't quantify any of this, but we can say that a frequently expressed opinion is that all the same 'breakfast programme' irritations continue as before, and Rob Cowan is wasted here.
The February schedule changes were brought in to improve listening figures; there is no sign that they are succeeding, in fact, the reverse. The cracks in BBC Radio strategy for Radio 3 are showing even more clearly. 'Go figure' seems to be the advice to management.
It should first be explained that the four quarters of the year show slight seasonal variations: Quarter 2 (April-June) has in recent years often been the lowest of the year; Quarter 3 (July-September) has been the highest or second highest, reflecting the interest in the live Proms concerts.
True to form, as already reported, Quarter 2 this year was very low, in fact, the lowest ever. In the light of the recent downward trend, we were expecting Proms quarter to be struggling to break 2 million. The figure published today was 1.938 million, up on last quarter's lowest ever, but very weak for the Proms and continuing the downward trend. If this figure turns out to be the highest or second highest of 2007/08, then Radio 3 is heading, yet again, for a new lowest ever yearly average.
The listening hours were up on last quarter, again reflecting the Proms coverage, but at just over 12 million hours per week they were not impressive. When reach was higher, listening hours would often exceed 13 million.
So, Proms listening was depressed; what other clues to performance do we have?
Since the beginning of 2006 the listening figures for the breakfast programmes have also been published. These are particularly important to the commercial stations because breakfast time is peak listening time for radio, and that means for most radio stations, including Radio 3. The February schedule changes included a significant presenter change, with Rob Cowan being moved to breakfast time at the expense of the axed CD Masters. This was clearly an attempt to boost Radio 3's flagging figures. Well, it worked with Radio 1 and Chris Moyles, so these figures are also a clue to how the audience is reacting.
Because the change was introduced in mid-February, half of Quarter 1 (January-March) covered the new programme. This was not an encouraging start, with the quarter showing a drop on the previous year from 839,000 to 765,000. Quarter 2 showed a similar drop, from 752,000 to 727,000. The latest quarter again shows a drop: from 768,000 to 713,000.
These figures reflect the negative feedback on the messageboards and from FoR3 supporters. We can't quantify any of this, but we can say that a frequently expressed opinion is that all the same 'breakfast programme' irritations continue as before, and Rob Cowan is wasted here.
The February schedule changes were brought in to improve listening figures; there is no sign that they are succeeding, in fact, the reverse. The cracks in BBC Radio strategy for Radio 3 are showing even more clearly. 'Go figure' seems to be the advice to management.
October 22nd 2007: Special cuts
News of the BBC cuts in expenditure and jobs have been gradually emerging over recent days. The first specific reference to Radio 3 came in the Feedback programme on Radio 4 yesterday when the item on how the cuts would affect radio included the words: 'Radio 3 will cut back its special season programming…'
Radio 3's service licence specifically states: 'The service should produce regular special events on significant themes across a wide range of music and arts topics.' Yet the Statement for Programme Policy for 2007/08 contains no details of any single major special event. A Bach Christmas was in December 2005, almost two years ago; The Beethoven Experience was in the previous June. This year's 'Abolition Season', running throughout the year, has been mainly made up of the normal programmes (Drama on 3, with a repeat six months later, Words and Music, Sunday Features, World Routes) given a common focus.
If the special season programming is to be 'cut back', how much of it will be left?
Radio 3's service licence specifically states: 'The service should produce regular special events on significant themes across a wide range of music and arts topics.' Yet the Statement for Programme Policy for 2007/08 contains no details of any single major special event. A Bach Christmas was in December 2005, almost two years ago; The Beethoven Experience was in the previous June. This year's 'Abolition Season', running throughout the year, has been mainly made up of the normal programmes (Drama on 3, with a repeat six months later, Words and Music, Sunday Features, World Routes) given a common focus.
If the special season programming is to be 'cut back', how much of it will be left?
October 13th 2007: Budgets can go down as well as up
Service licences are the new tools which the BBC Trust uses to assess performance (the main services being the television channels and radio stations). Each service has its own licence which lays down what it is expected to do. One item that we welcomed was the proposed inclusion in the licence of the amount of the budget that each service was allowed.
When the BBC Trust published Radio 3's service licence earlier in the year, we were interested to see that for the year 2006/07 Radio 3's budget was £35.9m. Now, as expenditure for 2005/06 was £31.1m that looked like a hefty rise. Which we didn't believe in. So, we wrote to the Trust to ask whether there had been a change in accounting policy and, if there had, was the £35.9m more or less than the £31.1m that Radio 3 had received the previous year. They wrote back to say, yes, indeed, there had been a change in accounting policy: costs for newsgathering, collecting societies and other items had now been allocated to individual services which they hadn't the previous year. They were unable to say whether there had been an increase or decrease on the previous year but this would be revealed when the Annual Report was published.
So, we waited for the Annual Report 2006/07. To our surprise we found that Radio 3's expenditure was not £35.9m as stated in the service licence; it was only £33.9m. And the restated figure for 2005/06 (now including newsgathering, collecting societies &c) had been £35.9m. All in all, it appeared that Radio 3 had had a real cut of £2m (5.6%). Looking at the nine other BBC national radio stations (Radio 1, 1 Xtra, Radio 2, 6 Music, Radio 4, BBC7, Radio 5 Live, 5 Live Sports Extra and the Asian Network), apart from Radio 1 (same as last year) and Radio 5 Live (a decrease) they'd all had nice increases, totalling £9.1m. And local radio has had a very big rise too.
On what grounds, then, had Radio 3's expenditure been cut? Not, one would hope, because of the decline in listening figures since, as far as we were concerned, this was the result of misbegotten policies which were thoroughly cheesing off the listeners. Even if the Controller's salary had been cut as a penalty, that wouldn't amount to £2m.
We wrote to the BBC and asked under of the Freedom of Information Act, why Radio 3 had spent £2m less than its service licence allowed, particularly given that most stations had had increases. The reply from BBC Audio and Music, Business and Finance, was that the amount quoted in the service licence was a guideline only and could be increased or decreased by up to 10%. The decrease in Radio 3's expenditure related 'primarily to the impact of the implementation of the BBC's new value for money programme'.
Yes, that was what they said: the decrease related primarily to the impact of the implementation of the BBC's new value for money programme. So, does that mean that the Director of Audio and Music, Jenny Abramsky, decided that at £35.9m Radio 3 wasn't value for money? That still doesn't make it clear on what basis it is thought not to be value for money. Will Ms Abramsky reduce the expenditure again this year? Has she been reducing it in previous years? We have written to ask her.
When the BBC Trust published Radio 3's service licence earlier in the year, we were interested to see that for the year 2006/07 Radio 3's budget was £35.9m. Now, as expenditure for 2005/06 was £31.1m that looked like a hefty rise. Which we didn't believe in. So, we wrote to the Trust to ask whether there had been a change in accounting policy and, if there had, was the £35.9m more or less than the £31.1m that Radio 3 had received the previous year. They wrote back to say, yes, indeed, there had been a change in accounting policy: costs for newsgathering, collecting societies and other items had now been allocated to individual services which they hadn't the previous year. They were unable to say whether there had been an increase or decrease on the previous year but this would be revealed when the Annual Report was published.
So, we waited for the Annual Report 2006/07. To our surprise we found that Radio 3's expenditure was not £35.9m as stated in the service licence; it was only £33.9m. And the restated figure for 2005/06 (now including newsgathering, collecting societies &c) had been £35.9m. All in all, it appeared that Radio 3 had had a real cut of £2m (5.6%). Looking at the nine other BBC national radio stations (Radio 1, 1 Xtra, Radio 2, 6 Music, Radio 4, BBC7, Radio 5 Live, 5 Live Sports Extra and the Asian Network), apart from Radio 1 (same as last year) and Radio 5 Live (a decrease) they'd all had nice increases, totalling £9.1m. And local radio has had a very big rise too.
On what grounds, then, had Radio 3's expenditure been cut? Not, one would hope, because of the decline in listening figures since, as far as we were concerned, this was the result of misbegotten policies which were thoroughly cheesing off the listeners. Even if the Controller's salary had been cut as a penalty, that wouldn't amount to £2m.
We wrote to the BBC and asked under of the Freedom of Information Act, why Radio 3 had spent £2m less than its service licence allowed, particularly given that most stations had had increases. The reply from BBC Audio and Music, Business and Finance, was that the amount quoted in the service licence was a guideline only and could be increased or decreased by up to 10%. The decrease in Radio 3's expenditure related 'primarily to the impact of the implementation of the BBC's new value for money programme'.
Yes, that was what they said: the decrease related primarily to the impact of the implementation of the BBC's new value for money programme. So, does that mean that the Director of Audio and Music, Jenny Abramsky, decided that at £35.9m Radio 3 wasn't value for money? That still doesn't make it clear on what basis it is thought not to be value for money. Will Ms Abramsky reduce the expenditure again this year? Has she been reducing it in previous years? We have written to ask her.
August 16th 2007: Roger's RAJAR nightmare
Back in May we drew the BBC Trust's attention to the fact that Radio 3's audience figures were on the slide, and we told them why we thought that was. Did they listen? Well, in the Annual Report they said: "Radio 3 has seen a decline in reach over the last few years […] In early 2007 a number of schedule changes were made and we await with interest the impact of these on the network's overall performance."
The new RAJAR listening figures, published today, gave the first indication: and they're truly horrendous.
The April-June quarter is often low, but this one beat all records: lowest ever average weekly reach, lowest ever percentage of the population listening in, lowest ever share of total radio listening. Half a million listeners lost in just over three years – that's 22% of the audience.
Let's be fair: it can take up to 18 months for the effects of schedule changes to show up in the figures: it takes new listeners a while to discover a programme they like and start listening. On the other hand, people make up their minds that they don't like programmes almost at once. So on the face of it, this seems like the first salvo from unhappy listeners.
And the new schedule? Well, the morning changes were driven by the decision to move Rob Cowan (axing CD Masters in the process) to the early morning programme to boost the breakfast ratings. Result? Complaints about the loss of CD Masters, complaints about its replacement programme, and the breakfast audience slumps.
The afternoons, cleared of all weekly programmes, is now a 4-hour stretch of featureless desert. The evening changes were supposedly designed to add some extra classical music and make the Composer of the Week repeat more accessible. Result? Complaints that the 'concert' now starts too early and, being now made up of extracted recordings, has lost its special appeal; that Composer of the Week takes up a prime evening slot even though it's only a repeat of the morning's programme, and the 30-minute Artist Focus is just a fancy name for yet another CD sequence.
So, every weekday, at 7am, Presenter A sits at a CD player introducing CDs until 10 am, hands over to Presenter B who sits at a CD player introducing CDs; at midday – a focused programme, Composer of the Week; 1pm, Presenter C sits at a tape machine introducing concert extracts; 5pm Presenter D introduces drivetime with a miscellany of chat and music of all kinds; 7pm, Presenter E sits at a tape machine introducing concert extracts; 8.45pm – another focused programme, albeit a repeat of the midday programme; 9.45pm an arts programme; then Presenter F (or possibly E again) sits at a CD player and introduces CDs; an arts programme; 11.15pm Presenter G sits at a CD player and introduces CDs; 1am Presenter H, recorded, introduces recordings until 7am when Presenter A…
On Radio 4's Feedback the Controller was asked about R3's innovation of calling programmes by the name of the presenter. Mr Wright replied that it was not unusual for radio stations to call programmes by the name of the presenter. Which radio stations would those be, then? Classic FM? Radio 1? Radio 2?
Radio 3 used to do things differently, with more imagination, more variety – more live concerts. It had more listeners then, too.
The new RAJAR listening figures, published today, gave the first indication: and they're truly horrendous.
The April-June quarter is often low, but this one beat all records: lowest ever average weekly reach, lowest ever percentage of the population listening in, lowest ever share of total radio listening. Half a million listeners lost in just over three years – that's 22% of the audience.
Let's be fair: it can take up to 18 months for the effects of schedule changes to show up in the figures: it takes new listeners a while to discover a programme they like and start listening. On the other hand, people make up their minds that they don't like programmes almost at once. So on the face of it, this seems like the first salvo from unhappy listeners.
And the new schedule? Well, the morning changes were driven by the decision to move Rob Cowan (axing CD Masters in the process) to the early morning programme to boost the breakfast ratings. Result? Complaints about the loss of CD Masters, complaints about its replacement programme, and the breakfast audience slumps.
The afternoons, cleared of all weekly programmes, is now a 4-hour stretch of featureless desert. The evening changes were supposedly designed to add some extra classical music and make the Composer of the Week repeat more accessible. Result? Complaints that the 'concert' now starts too early and, being now made up of extracted recordings, has lost its special appeal; that Composer of the Week takes up a prime evening slot even though it's only a repeat of the morning's programme, and the 30-minute Artist Focus is just a fancy name for yet another CD sequence.
So, every weekday, at 7am, Presenter A sits at a CD player introducing CDs until 10 am, hands over to Presenter B who sits at a CD player introducing CDs; at midday – a focused programme, Composer of the Week; 1pm, Presenter C sits at a tape machine introducing concert extracts; 5pm Presenter D introduces drivetime with a miscellany of chat and music of all kinds; 7pm, Presenter E sits at a tape machine introducing concert extracts; 8.45pm – another focused programme, albeit a repeat of the midday programme; 9.45pm an arts programme; then Presenter F (or possibly E again) sits at a CD player and introduces CDs; an arts programme; 11.15pm Presenter G sits at a CD player and introduces CDs; 1am Presenter H, recorded, introduces recordings until 7am when Presenter A…
On Radio 4's Feedback the Controller was asked about R3's innovation of calling programmes by the name of the presenter. Mr Wright replied that it was not unusual for radio stations to call programmes by the name of the presenter. Which radio stations would those be, then? Classic FM? Radio 1? Radio 2?
Radio 3 used to do things differently, with more imagination, more variety – more live concerts. It had more listeners then, too.
July 4th 2007: Did they listen?
Friends of Radio 3 sent in an annual report on Radio 3 (you can read it here) to the BBC Trust, and copies to management, in the hope that some of our comments might influence the BBC's own annual report. We suppose that it's unprecedented for a listeners' report to be submitted in this way and fully understand that the annual rituals they go through when drawing up their own document don't include setting up special little committees to weigh up contributions from the customers.
Nevertheless, it seemed an exercise worth doing and intriguing to see whether there would be any sign that our views had penetrated. At first sight the answer seems to be, yes, probably. A bit.
The first part of the report has been drawn up by the Trust itself and contains only short remarks on each service. This is what they had to say about Radio 3:
"Radio 3 has seen a decline in reach over the last few years although share remains stable. In contrast, on-demand listening to its output has grown, although we decided not to approve the download of free classical music as we believed that the public value gained could be outweighed by the loss to consumers in the commercial market. In early 2007 a number of schedule changes were made and we await with interest the impact of these on the network's overall performance." (BBC Annual Report 2006-2007, Part One, page 20).
Two points: First, Radio 3's reach has been declining over several years but this has never been acknowledged by the BBC before. We made a strong point of this (well, we quoted the figures): although there have been some dramatically bad individual quarters, the annual averages have been descending in a stately manner in spite of the fact that the wider range of programming and the 'accessibility efforts' should logically have attracted more listeners. We just need to persuade management that there is a connection between the falling audience and complaints about the service.
The second point: we decided some months ago to send in our report, but the scale of the unexpected schedule changes earlier in the year entailed a lot of rewriting. We included several of the complaints about the changes but it does seem necessary to wait and see what the longer term will bring in terms of listener reaction and possible modifications. Time, RAJAR and listeners will tell.
Part Two, the Executive's review and assessment is more detailed. The Director of Audio and Music and the Controller, Radio 3, were both sent copies of our report but since we have no idea whether their own reports had already been written we can't – and don't – claim any influence. But…
…here is what Roger Wright's report says:
"We continued our substantial support for musical performance, presenting events from across the UK and around the world. Radio 3 has maintained its position as the world's most significant commissioner of new music. We introduced a new schedule in early 2007, some aspects of which proved controversial. The changes were made to create more space for musical performance, particularly in the afternoons. Some listeners were concerned about the move of Choral Evensong to Sunday afternoon, although we believe this will make it available to a wider audience. The introduction of an evening repeat for Composer of the Week responded to requests to hear this popular programme at a more convenient time.
Some special initiatives during the year have been well received and attracted critical acclaim. We continued the idea of presenting complete works, following the model of The Beethoven Experience. This year's highlights were an English Music Day on St George's Day; the complete works of Tchaikovsky and Stravinsky over a week; Wilfred Owen's complete war poems in November; and Wagner's Ring Cycle broadcast in its entirety over 18 hours, with simultaneous translation on digital platforms. In each case complete performances were interspersed with interpretation from a wide range of commentators.
Our month-long Listen Up festival celebrated the vitality of the British orchestral scene: in a new initiative, we invited amateur orchestras to submit their recordings for broadcast and many were transmitted during the period. We also reflected amateur music-making in our weekly choral programme The Choir, and in our support of the BBC Radio 3 Choir of the Year award.
As usual, the BBC Proms held an important place in our schedules, and every concert programme was broadcast live on the station. Unfortunately, the trial of a new DAB coding standard impaired digital sound quality during the season and the trial was withdrawn.
Radio 3 remains committed to the challenging and experimental.The BBC Symphony Orchestra weekend devoted to the Russian composer Sofia Gubaidulina was a unique opportunity for the audience to immerse itself in her music. Likewise, the cast in our production of Harold Pinter's modern classic The Homecoming was led by Pinter himself. We extensively celebrated the centenary of Samuel Beckett's birth, including broadcasting a new production of Krapp's Last Tape starring Corin Redgrave. In November, we launched a new festival of ideas, Free Thinking, in Liverpool where experts and the public were able to join in discussions about issues facing society.
In the coming year, there will be a major collaboration between Radio 3 and Radio 4, a 60-part history of Western classical music. We also intend to strengthen Radio 3's role as a provider of recommendations regarding listening and musical performance.
Radio 3 had an average 15-minute weekly reach to adults aged 15+ of 3.8% or 1.9 million people. This is slightly down on 2005/2006 figures (4.1% or 2 million people)." (BBC Annual Report, Part Two, p 40)
Our comments:
1. We note that there is no mention at all of the ending of live concerts and the new format for the evening concert. This has been very strongly criticised and we shall check whether the change has had any effect on listening figures. We pointed out that several years back the Annual Report particularly mentioned live events as being an essential part of Radio 3's output. This issue has been swept under the carpet. However, the attempt to avoid overruns seems to have been a failure so even that justification appears to be valueless. The phrase 'musical performance' appears to have replaced 'live music'.
2. We dispute whether the Sunday Choral Evensong will attract a larger audience than on a Wednesday and will check this over the coming months. In any case, we said that a survey should also be carried out to learn what best suits the choral foundations.
3. The timing of the repeat of Composer of the Week continues to be a matter of some concern. The current time is too 'convenient' in many people's opinion: a prime evening slot for a repeat of the morning's programme is not ideal.
3. We mentioned most of the highlights with approval in our report, though we did have some specific suggestions regarding the Tchaikovsky Experience and, especially, the Listen Up! presentation.
4. The mistake over the DAB trials which spoiled the Proms broadcasts for some people is mentioned here. It would probably be churlish to suggest that the regret could have been a bit more strongly expressed, given that the complaints were arriving as soon as the change took place and the trial was withdrawn too late for Proms listeners.
5. The comment at the end about reach underplays the fall in listening. A drop of 3% in the reach and 4% in the percentage of population is more than 'slight' when part of a continuing trend. The Trust has shared our view in considering it significant. Although we agree that ratings are of lesser importance where Radio 3 is concerned, that doesn't mean that driving listeners away is acceptable.
The other main point of concern is the section on finance. In Radio 3's new Service Licence the budget for 2006-2007 was given as £35.9 million, but according to the accounts only £33.9 million was spent, a reduction of 5.5% on last year. Radios 1, 2 and 4 have spent more than their budget, in Radio 4's case, a lot more.
If this figure is correct, the actual reduction in Radio 3's expenditure since 2001-2002 appears to be about 10.5%, whereas Radio 1's has increased by about 6%, Radio 2's by 17.5% and Radio 4's by 6.7% . Some confusion is caused by the fact that there have been several changes in the calculating system during this period. We shall seek to confirm these figures.
On output the only remarkable figure is a further decrease in the drama, down to 84 hours last year from 89 hours in 2005-2006, and a significant decrease on 2000-2001 when there were 112 hours. We shall seek to discover if this policy is to be continued.
Nevertheless, it seemed an exercise worth doing and intriguing to see whether there would be any sign that our views had penetrated. At first sight the answer seems to be, yes, probably. A bit.
The first part of the report has been drawn up by the Trust itself and contains only short remarks on each service. This is what they had to say about Radio 3:
"Radio 3 has seen a decline in reach over the last few years although share remains stable. In contrast, on-demand listening to its output has grown, although we decided not to approve the download of free classical music as we believed that the public value gained could be outweighed by the loss to consumers in the commercial market. In early 2007 a number of schedule changes were made and we await with interest the impact of these on the network's overall performance." (BBC Annual Report 2006-2007, Part One, page 20).
Two points: First, Radio 3's reach has been declining over several years but this has never been acknowledged by the BBC before. We made a strong point of this (well, we quoted the figures): although there have been some dramatically bad individual quarters, the annual averages have been descending in a stately manner in spite of the fact that the wider range of programming and the 'accessibility efforts' should logically have attracted more listeners. We just need to persuade management that there is a connection between the falling audience and complaints about the service.
The second point: we decided some months ago to send in our report, but the scale of the unexpected schedule changes earlier in the year entailed a lot of rewriting. We included several of the complaints about the changes but it does seem necessary to wait and see what the longer term will bring in terms of listener reaction and possible modifications. Time, RAJAR and listeners will tell.
Part Two, the Executive's review and assessment is more detailed. The Director of Audio and Music and the Controller, Radio 3, were both sent copies of our report but since we have no idea whether their own reports had already been written we can't – and don't – claim any influence. But…
…here is what Roger Wright's report says:
"We continued our substantial support for musical performance, presenting events from across the UK and around the world. Radio 3 has maintained its position as the world's most significant commissioner of new music. We introduced a new schedule in early 2007, some aspects of which proved controversial. The changes were made to create more space for musical performance, particularly in the afternoons. Some listeners were concerned about the move of Choral Evensong to Sunday afternoon, although we believe this will make it available to a wider audience. The introduction of an evening repeat for Composer of the Week responded to requests to hear this popular programme at a more convenient time.
Some special initiatives during the year have been well received and attracted critical acclaim. We continued the idea of presenting complete works, following the model of The Beethoven Experience. This year's highlights were an English Music Day on St George's Day; the complete works of Tchaikovsky and Stravinsky over a week; Wilfred Owen's complete war poems in November; and Wagner's Ring Cycle broadcast in its entirety over 18 hours, with simultaneous translation on digital platforms. In each case complete performances were interspersed with interpretation from a wide range of commentators.
Our month-long Listen Up festival celebrated the vitality of the British orchestral scene: in a new initiative, we invited amateur orchestras to submit their recordings for broadcast and many were transmitted during the period. We also reflected amateur music-making in our weekly choral programme The Choir, and in our support of the BBC Radio 3 Choir of the Year award.
As usual, the BBC Proms held an important place in our schedules, and every concert programme was broadcast live on the station. Unfortunately, the trial of a new DAB coding standard impaired digital sound quality during the season and the trial was withdrawn.
Radio 3 remains committed to the challenging and experimental.The BBC Symphony Orchestra weekend devoted to the Russian composer Sofia Gubaidulina was a unique opportunity for the audience to immerse itself in her music. Likewise, the cast in our production of Harold Pinter's modern classic The Homecoming was led by Pinter himself. We extensively celebrated the centenary of Samuel Beckett's birth, including broadcasting a new production of Krapp's Last Tape starring Corin Redgrave. In November, we launched a new festival of ideas, Free Thinking, in Liverpool where experts and the public were able to join in discussions about issues facing society.
In the coming year, there will be a major collaboration between Radio 3 and Radio 4, a 60-part history of Western classical music. We also intend to strengthen Radio 3's role as a provider of recommendations regarding listening and musical performance.
Radio 3 had an average 15-minute weekly reach to adults aged 15+ of 3.8% or 1.9 million people. This is slightly down on 2005/2006 figures (4.1% or 2 million people)." (BBC Annual Report, Part Two, p 40)
Our comments:
1. We note that there is no mention at all of the ending of live concerts and the new format for the evening concert. This has been very strongly criticised and we shall check whether the change has had any effect on listening figures. We pointed out that several years back the Annual Report particularly mentioned live events as being an essential part of Radio 3's output. This issue has been swept under the carpet. However, the attempt to avoid overruns seems to have been a failure so even that justification appears to be valueless. The phrase 'musical performance' appears to have replaced 'live music'.
2. We dispute whether the Sunday Choral Evensong will attract a larger audience than on a Wednesday and will check this over the coming months. In any case, we said that a survey should also be carried out to learn what best suits the choral foundations.
3. The timing of the repeat of Composer of the Week continues to be a matter of some concern. The current time is too 'convenient' in many people's opinion: a prime evening slot for a repeat of the morning's programme is not ideal.
3. We mentioned most of the highlights with approval in our report, though we did have some specific suggestions regarding the Tchaikovsky Experience and, especially, the Listen Up! presentation.
4. The mistake over the DAB trials which spoiled the Proms broadcasts for some people is mentioned here. It would probably be churlish to suggest that the regret could have been a bit more strongly expressed, given that the complaints were arriving as soon as the change took place and the trial was withdrawn too late for Proms listeners.
5. The comment at the end about reach underplays the fall in listening. A drop of 3% in the reach and 4% in the percentage of population is more than 'slight' when part of a continuing trend. The Trust has shared our view in considering it significant. Although we agree that ratings are of lesser importance where Radio 3 is concerned, that doesn't mean that driving listeners away is acceptable.
The other main point of concern is the section on finance. In Radio 3's new Service Licence the budget for 2006-2007 was given as £35.9 million, but according to the accounts only £33.9 million was spent, a reduction of 5.5% on last year. Radios 1, 2 and 4 have spent more than their budget, in Radio 4's case, a lot more.
If this figure is correct, the actual reduction in Radio 3's expenditure since 2001-2002 appears to be about 10.5%, whereas Radio 1's has increased by about 6%, Radio 2's by 17.5% and Radio 4's by 6.7% . Some confusion is caused by the fact that there have been several changes in the calculating system during this period. We shall seek to confirm these figures.
On output the only remarkable figure is a further decrease in the drama, down to 84 hours last year from 89 hours in 2005-2006, and a significant decrease on 2000-2001 when there were 112 hours. We shall seek to discover if this policy is to be continued.
May 16th 2007: Message for the Engineers' Department
When the RAJAR listening figures come out each quarter they create a flurry of publicity in the press for a few days and then they fall out of the headlines. The station press releases fly out to try to get the right stories covered. Some stations win, some lose.
The BBC usually wins because, somewhere in their radio portfolio, there's a great story or two: usually the latest triumph of Chris Moyles on Radio 1 or BBC Radio outdoing its commercial rivals by increasing its 'share' of listening.
The bad news may get buried or forgotten, but the losers, surely, will suffer the fall-out long after the press have moved on.
The listening figures have been getting worse for Radio 3 for three years. This year, a dreadful result in the spring – 4% lower than the previous year's 'lowest ever' – set off the alarms. When listeners have been complaining for several years over the station's policies, it wouldn't seem fair if Radio 3 was going to have another budget cut, or its quality reduced, just because management had got it wrong. The last set of listening figures for this year were … better, but not much: they were the second worst ever and the weekly average over the whole year was – the worst ever. The percentage of the population listening to Radio 3 dropped below 4% for the first time.
Friends of Radio 3 decided earlier in the year to draw up an 'Annual Report' to send to the BBC Trust in time to be considered for the BBC's own Annual Report, published each July. We waited for the final quarter's listening figures and have now submitted our comments, based on a wide range of views and evidence from various sources. Some people will find our comments too mild (some people always do!); others will disagree on particular points. But, overall, we're confident that the points we make do have support among listeners. We will post the report on this website in a week or two.
John Tusa was talking about arts adminstration a few days ago, focusing on management, fundraising, and so on – a businesslike approach, if you like. But he expressed his conviction that success for any arts institution isn't achieved by having a good business plan. It stems from having a clear vision and believing in what you're doing. Too much of the recent strategy for Radio 3 has been based on non-artistic considerations: how to widen the audience base, how to make listeners stay tuned for longer, how to make Radio 3 'sound' more like the UK as a whole, how to increase the percentage of women listeners, how to appeal to younger (or younger than average) listeners, how to project a modern media-attractive image, how to be inclusive and accessible, none of which, perish the thought!, is the same as chasing ratings.
Figures released by the BBC for the December quarter 2006 showed a bigger gap between men and women compared with the year 2003-04: men up from 54.7% to 57.5%, average age up from 57 to 60, average listening still between 6 and 6.5 hours per week, share the same. As for social grades: an increase in the ABs at the expense of the C1s, C2s about the same and a decrease in the DEs. So with all these bits of social and listening engineering, we're older, posher, more male and, of course, fewer. And grumpier.
For art's sake: ditch… these… policies!
Further comment on the listening figures here.
The BBC usually wins because, somewhere in their radio portfolio, there's a great story or two: usually the latest triumph of Chris Moyles on Radio 1 or BBC Radio outdoing its commercial rivals by increasing its 'share' of listening.
The bad news may get buried or forgotten, but the losers, surely, will suffer the fall-out long after the press have moved on.
The listening figures have been getting worse for Radio 3 for three years. This year, a dreadful result in the spring – 4% lower than the previous year's 'lowest ever' – set off the alarms. When listeners have been complaining for several years over the station's policies, it wouldn't seem fair if Radio 3 was going to have another budget cut, or its quality reduced, just because management had got it wrong. The last set of listening figures for this year were … better, but not much: they were the second worst ever and the weekly average over the whole year was – the worst ever. The percentage of the population listening to Radio 3 dropped below 4% for the first time.
Friends of Radio 3 decided earlier in the year to draw up an 'Annual Report' to send to the BBC Trust in time to be considered for the BBC's own Annual Report, published each July. We waited for the final quarter's listening figures and have now submitted our comments, based on a wide range of views and evidence from various sources. Some people will find our comments too mild (some people always do!); others will disagree on particular points. But, overall, we're confident that the points we make do have support among listeners. We will post the report on this website in a week or two.
John Tusa was talking about arts adminstration a few days ago, focusing on management, fundraising, and so on – a businesslike approach, if you like. But he expressed his conviction that success for any arts institution isn't achieved by having a good business plan. It stems from having a clear vision and believing in what you're doing. Too much of the recent strategy for Radio 3 has been based on non-artistic considerations: how to widen the audience base, how to make listeners stay tuned for longer, how to make Radio 3 'sound' more like the UK as a whole, how to increase the percentage of women listeners, how to appeal to younger (or younger than average) listeners, how to project a modern media-attractive image, how to be inclusive and accessible, none of which, perish the thought!, is the same as chasing ratings.
Figures released by the BBC for the December quarter 2006 showed a bigger gap between men and women compared with the year 2003-04: men up from 54.7% to 57.5%, average age up from 57 to 60, average listening still between 6 and 6.5 hours per week, share the same. As for social grades: an increase in the ABs at the expense of the C1s, C2s about the same and a decrease in the DEs. So with all these bits of social and listening engineering, we're older, posher, more male and, of course, fewer. And grumpier.
For art's sake: ditch… these… policies!
Further comment on the listening figures here.
April 20th 2007: Going… going… but not yet
The announcement that Roger Wright will take over the running of the Proms from Nicholas Kenyon was not much of a surprise. Kenyon took over the Proms from John Drummond in 1995, after serving three years as Controller of Radio 3, and he continued as controller for a further three years.
But Wright is already one of the longest-serving controllers in the station's history. It is surely time for him to go.
Why, after serving nine years of his 'five-year contract', is he to take on both jobs? Is it that he doesn't want to go, and the BBC is playing ball? Is it a cost-cutting measure (he surely won't be paid both salaries)? Is it that the BBC don't think they'll find anyone to take on the less attractive job of running Radio 3? Perhaps that was the deal: he could have the Proms if he stayed on at Radio 3 for the present.
The Proms have grown, by between five and ten per cent each year according to Kenyon, and so has the job: Kenyon's current title is 'Controller, BBC Proms, live events and television classical music'. Wright will do all that, plus coordinate classical music across 'all BBC platforms' (that is, television, radio and any other BBC promoted events). And he remains Controller of Radio 3. This is an empire, with a huge amount of power and patronage. That may be administratively efficient for the BBC but it's unhealthy for the musical world to have so much largesse scattered by one individual.
The Director of Audio and Music, Jenny Abramsky, who would in a large measure have been responsible for the appointment, says: "Roger is a brilliant Controller of Radio 3. I am delighted that he will bring his creativity to the BBC Proms."
Well, she could hardly have said 'he's made such a duff job of running Radio 3 we thought we'd let him ruin the Proms too'. But the betting is they'll be looking for someone else to take on Radio 3 before too long. In fact, they must: it downgrades both Radio 3 and the Proms to have them being run by a part-timer.
Controller of Radio 3 should be a job many imaginative music managers would relish doing. In fact, it appears there's not much interest from suitable candidates. Why? Surely not because the schedules have been put in a creative straitjacket, the live music reduced to a minimum, the packaging is all hype and the core listeners are drifting away? Apart from that, it's still a pretty good job.
But Wright is already one of the longest-serving controllers in the station's history. It is surely time for him to go.
Why, after serving nine years of his 'five-year contract', is he to take on both jobs? Is it that he doesn't want to go, and the BBC is playing ball? Is it a cost-cutting measure (he surely won't be paid both salaries)? Is it that the BBC don't think they'll find anyone to take on the less attractive job of running Radio 3? Perhaps that was the deal: he could have the Proms if he stayed on at Radio 3 for the present.
The Proms have grown, by between five and ten per cent each year according to Kenyon, and so has the job: Kenyon's current title is 'Controller, BBC Proms, live events and television classical music'. Wright will do all that, plus coordinate classical music across 'all BBC platforms' (that is, television, radio and any other BBC promoted events). And he remains Controller of Radio 3. This is an empire, with a huge amount of power and patronage. That may be administratively efficient for the BBC but it's unhealthy for the musical world to have so much largesse scattered by one individual.
The Director of Audio and Music, Jenny Abramsky, who would in a large measure have been responsible for the appointment, says: "Roger is a brilliant Controller of Radio 3. I am delighted that he will bring his creativity to the BBC Proms."
Well, she could hardly have said 'he's made such a duff job of running Radio 3 we thought we'd let him ruin the Proms too'. But the betting is they'll be looking for someone else to take on Radio 3 before too long. In fact, they must: it downgrades both Radio 3 and the Proms to have them being run by a part-timer.
Controller of Radio 3 should be a job many imaginative music managers would relish doing. In fact, it appears there's not much interest from suitable candidates. Why? Surely not because the schedules have been put in a creative straitjacket, the live music reduced to a minimum, the packaging is all hype and the core listeners are drifting away? Apart from that, it's still a pretty good job.