An email from RW to DS and LP:

"We at Radio 3 are extremely flattered by your continuing attentions, and we take it as a positive sign of how much you value the network and care about its future development. We have spent a great deal of time — face–to–face and emailing — in the last weeks to discuss all this. I fear there are some points upon which we can probably never agree. By this point we all know each others' arguments and counterarguments!

I could reply to your reply point by point, but I genuinely do not have the time.

We have spent much time discussing this and hopefully this assures you that we see ourselves as accountable to all our listeners. We are keen to take the opinions of listeners such as yourselves into account. We will obviously continue to do this, and I read the message board regularly myself – as you know! It is absolutely right that the debate continues, as I am sure it will. There are of course thousands of other listeners who would similarly expect detailed dialogue with me and it would be unfair on them if I were to devote my time in responding to enquiries merely to your own views. It would also mean that there was no time left for me to run the network!

You were kind enough to suggest that I had a genuine love and knowledge of classical music: this is completely true. This is why I shall continue to be a strong advocate for our orchestras, our commissioning policy, our profiles of contemporary composers, representing excellence wherever it is to be found. Across the musical world, and not only in Radio 3, the categories and boundaries are not what they were 10 years ago or when the Third Programme was established. We also need to reflect this.

I know that we shall all remain in contact, and thank you once again for your passionate interest in what we seek to achieve."

Back to timeline …

RW appeared on R4's Feedback:

"Q: How does Roger Wright justify alienating his mainly classical listeners by having no classical music programmes in the evening after 9.30pm? With the increasing number of digital stations available, why has the BBC seen fit to dump all sorts of other genres on R3 in the evenings? There's nothing wrong with these types of music in themselves, but why put them on R3 when it's the only place on the dial where in the past you could count on hearing intelligent, serious music?

RW: I'm sorry, obviously, if we've alienated one particular listener. I don't think there's any evidence that we've alienated the bulk of our listeners.

(This was just three weeks after DS and LP had met with him to discuss the concerns of Classical Forum boardposters and, as it now appears, the very day after he had emailed us to say he hadn't got time to answer CF's detailed questions (including those he had promised to give us) because he was too busy.)

Presenter: You're not driving them off to Classic FM?

RW: No, I mean, what we're doing in the evenings, I mean, maybe it's very easy to forget actually, what the schedule was like in the evening a few years ago and what we've actually tried to do in the evening. I mean, in the evening for us we have that unusual thing of the switch-on point at 7.30, it does buck the trend of other radio stations, for our live concert. After that, in the schedule that I've inherited, there was a wonderful sort of mix of things, mainly driven by speech and a programme called 'Jazz Notes' which I think people have probably forgotten about, rather marooned at 11:30 at night, and 'Night Waves' was just before that. There was a Postscript speech programme immediately after the concert and people were finding it very hard to find their way around.

7:30, 9:30 and 10:15 are now our three switch-on points. And the material that is included in that, the concert, as before, the most popular part of the evening schedule, availability to listen and very mainstream classical music; 'Night Waves' brought out of the nocturnal pottering hours of later in the schedule, 9:30-10:15, followed by 'Late Junction'. 'Late Junction' is probably our single most popular new programme in the schedule and it includes a range of musics. It includes a range of musics because actually that's now where an awful lot of the audience wants to go in terms of discovering new things."

Back to timeline …

LP replied to RW, expressing disappointment at his non-response

"I was dismayed to receive your response to our submission, saying in effect that you were too busy to answer our points.

You say, "I fear there are some points upon which we can probably never agree". It was not a question of agreeing or disagreeing with us. We told you our views and sought a response, and asked questions to which we requested answers. We did not ask you to agree.

You said: "By this point we all know each others' arguments and counterarguments! " Untrue: you know our arguments, but when we asked for your counterarguments, you said you were now too busy to reply.

You said: "We see ourselves as accountable to all our listeners." Perhaps you have a different understanding of the word "accountable", which involves, not just listening, but talking. May I quote from Paul Donovan's Sunday Times column of yesterday, regarding your changes in the Radio 3 schedules. "It is also true that, to avoid charges of arrogance, caprice and irrationality, programme bosses should explain their reasoning."

And I am near incandescent that you should say, "There are of course thousands of other listeners who would similarly expect detailed dialogue with me and it would be unfair on them if I were to devote my time in responding to enquiries merely to your own views," as if David and I (who incidentally had only met for the first time the week before we met you) had put in so much of our own valuable time to come to London to express "our own views". You know that we represent the views of the Classical Forum message boarders who have been complaining loudly and bitterly for more than a year.

I have also now heard a recording of the 'Feedback' programme. It appears to me, at least, that it was evasive and factually inaccurate".

"… Yes, I think you could call that a response. It's called a raspberry."

Back to timeline …

RW replied to LP, sending a copy of the schedule:

Thanks for yours. There is, of course nothing personal from my side either. Unfortunately, the only personal matter here is my concern that maintaining our dialogue at the level of intensity that we have done over the past months means that I would neglect many other obligations to communicate which arrive in my office. When I saw the seven-page document that you presented to me, I despaired of being able to discuss it point by point in the detail you clearly expected. It contained few surprises: we have already exchanged our ideas and I simply cannot justify sustaining this level of dialogue with one single constituency.

I am not as convinced as you that the message boarders represent a single monolithic view of Radio 3 (when we met you two admitted that you did not see eye to eye about everything – the inclusion of jazz and news being but two examples) – indeed it is clear from all our message boards that there is not one view that could possibly represent.

(DS and LP did not disagree on the inclusion of jazz: DS listens to it, LP does not; they are both happy with its continuing inclusion on R3. DS and LP were in complete agreement that the morning news bulletins were too frequent.)

I have wanted to be really open in our dialogue together. But it does not really help to use words like 'incandescent' when I mention that there are other listeners who deserve a serious reply to issues which they raise. Radio 3 has a reach of over well over 2 million listeners, and the network needs to be accountable to all of them, as well as to the music and arts institutions across the UK. All of these have an equally valid call on my time. Of course being accountable does mean listening, but it does not mean acting on every issue raised. (I have given you far more time than any other listener and have listened to all your concerns). We will simply have to agree to disagree about the some aspects of the network you do not appreciate. Late Junction, for example, has again been nominated for a Sony Award, as have two of our Jazz Programmes. We have also had a far larger and more positive response to our English folk evening than any other special evening.

(As may be seen by reading the previous text, LP was not "incandescent" about RW mentioning "that there are other listeners who deserve a serious reply to issues" but at his suggestion that DS and LP were simply two individuals, in other words not representatives of a wider body of classical music listeners.)

By being frank with you about my time, I don't mean that we shouldn't communicate from time to time. However, I cannot justify dealing with any document that you produce in such detail that I neglect others in the process. Clearly, we should be accountable to all license-fee payers, and I need to juggle my time to achieve this as effectively as possible.

Sorry that you were angry. The debate will continue, and it is right that it should, although we will have to accept that we will never be able to please all our listeners all the time. However we now have the good fortune to be able to offer through the radio player online the chance for our listeners to select the type of music they want from our programmes when they want it.

Best wishes

Roger

P.S. I am attaching the schedule which I remembered in good faith while answering on 'Feedback'.

Back to timeline …

A group of 35 members of Classical Forum sent:

"You will appreciate that we have framed our concerns in the form of questions, not as a protest. We consider that an explanation of policy is fundamental to the BBC's duty of accountability to listeners.

a) What is the policy behind Radio 3's regular programming of Broadway, film music, cabaret and light music, popular music aimed at a young audience, World music and favourably scheduled jazz coverage? Is it station diversity? If so, why is there no serious coverage of classical music on Radio 1, 1Xtra, Radio 2 or 6Music?

b) How much further is it planned to cut back on classical music on Radio 3 in order to make way for other types of music? What is the time scale for this cutback? In what way will the reduction be measurable? 'Late Junction' and 'Andy Kershaw' represent 5% of total output. Why should they represent almost 50% of prime weekday musical output?

c) How can Radio 3 be considered the flagship of the BBC's arts broadcasting when it promotes various forms of popular music in the evenings, at weekends and holiday times, with classical music programmes being largely confined to the daytime and the middle of the night when people at work are unable to listen?

d) If the RAJAR figures eventually show that Radio 3's audience has returned to the listening level of March 1999, will this be proclaimed a "success" for the new policy — even if new listeners have been gained for non-classical programming at the expense of losing a substantial number of dedicated classical listeners?

e) Why is BBC Radio increasing its efforts to target a younger audience when the nation's population is ageing and there are already two stations (Radio 1 and 1Xtra) principally directed at the young? Why is Radio 1 encouraged to target such a narrow age range? Why is such a large portion of Radio 1, 1Xtra, Radio 2 and 6Music aimed at promoting the commercial popular/pop market? Is Radio 3 also targeting a younger audience? If so, how and why? Why has Radio 3 dropped from its remit a commitment to develop a culturally diverse audience for classical music in spite of the BBC's stated commitment to cultural diversity?

f) Will the Controller, Radio 3, acknowledge that classical music listeners have, for over two years, been voicing deep discontent over the quantity of non classical music in prime listening time (i.e. evenings, 7:30 – midnight, and at weekends)?"

Back to timeline …

A lengthy reply from Roger Wright

"BBC Radio 3 has always been an extremely diverse network, built around a strong core of classical music. We are responsible for five BBC orchestras and the BBC Singers; have major commitments to many other performing groups across the country; commission more contemporary music than any other organisation in the world; and are engaged with all the leading Festivals, including our own internationally-recognised Proms.

Around this core, other activity has always existed, so that Radio 3 is not the place for 'off-loading' homeless programme types, but a carefully considered schedule encouraging all of us to expand our horizons in the classical field and occasionally beyond. (I remind you that Mixing It is now 13 years old, jazz is 40 years old on the network and world music has been featured for a similar length of time. The fact that these musics – together with contemporary classical music – have developed, blended, influenced each other and become much harder to define but found new audiences is not Radio 3's doing but it is right that we follow this agenda as well as mould other agendas.) In a musical world which is becoming less conscious of categories, this is entirely appropriate and reflects the reality of music life in the UK and the broad tastes of many of our listeners. However, the commitment to classical music at the heart of the schedule is absolute and even to imply that we planning to cut back is simply scaremongering.

Of course I accept that some listeners have expressed concern about the lack of core classical music between 9:30 and midnight. I hope you also accept that there are many listeners who wish that we would broadcast more jazz, world music, musical theatre and film music as well as more (and less) speech output and drama. My role is to try and strike a balance between all these views and provide a schedule which builds on the great traditions of the network whilst recognising that it has never stood still and has to respond changing tastes. Noting our lengthy exchanges I sense that we will simply have to disagree. However providing answers with which some listeners disagree is not the same as being unaccountable, merely, (and I make no apologies for repeating this) a recognition that no Controller can ever please his or her audience all the time. What I find particularly exciting however is to hear from listeners who sampled Radio 3 in order to hear, for example, Andy Kershaw's programme and tell me that they are now listening to 'Composer of the Week' or those who now regularly tune in for the jazz on Saturday afternoon having sampled it by chance before the opera slot.

Any survey of how people live their lives, such as the recent BBC Lifestyle survey, shows an extraordinary multiplicity of patterns. People are not all working nine to five; people listen in their workplace, and while engaged in other activities. Under these circumstances to talk about the evening as primetime is a misconception. This is a television concept which has never been applied to radio, and any examination of RAJAR will show that for most radio channels 'primetime' (if there is such a thing) is the morning.

We are not targeting a younger audience; indeed, research shows thatnon-classical audiences, for example jazz and musicals, are remarkably middle-aged. Qualitative research we have undertaken shows that many people are very open-minded to discovering new areas. Public radio since its earliest days has been based on the idea of expanding the horizons of the listeners. We are proud that this is still central to our role. However, we should all be delighted when younger listeners join the audience. I would be concerned if Radio 3 were like some similar channels across Europe with an average listener age of over 60."

Back to timeline …

A reply from Jenny Abramsky, Director of Radio and Music:

"Thank you for the email from yourself and the other members of the Classical Forum Group. I apologise for the delay in replying to your email, but I too have been away. I know you have received a full reply from Roger, which summarises excellently the rationale for Radio 3's music policy, so I will try to offer a similar response for the other music networks.

As a public service broadcaster, the BBC has a duty and a commitment to offer services to every licence fee payer. In BBC Radio, we do this by providing a portfolio of radio services, each with a distinctive and complementary offering. In the case of the music networks, they all offer a mix of musical genres and speech. Radio 1, targeted at a young audience, offers a wide range of youth music – dance, house, hiphop, produced both in this country and abroad, alongside news, features and social action campaigns relevant to that young audience; Radio 2 caters mainly for an older audience, and offers the widest range of musical genres of any radio station in the country – country, reggae, blues, gospel, soul, brass bands, traditional jazz, organ music and light classical – in addition to features, readings, comedy, religion, and social action campaigns. Radio 3, as the nation's leading cultural network, offers classical music, world music and contemporary jazz as well as arts, debates and drama. All these remits are agreed with the Board of Governors, the BBC's regulatory body, and are set out fully in the BBC's annual Statements of Programme Policy.

Both Radios 1 and 2 have devoted listeners well outside the expected age range. Radio 1's main target audience may be 15-24, but there is a sizable audience considerably older than that, and of course, many listeners are actually younger than the target range. Radio 2's audience increase over the past years means that its audience is of all ages, but what they have in common is a liking for the music played and the presenters who combine warmth, personality and authority. BBC Radio is not increasing its efforts to target a young audience, as you suggest. We are increasing our efforts to offer services to appeal to as wide a range of listeners as possible.

When we decided to launch the digital networks, we were restricted by the size of the multiplex as to the number of new stations we could launch. We wanted the five analogue networks to go on it, and we were also committed to offering the World Service and the Asian Network on DAB. As that left only four possible slots, we carried out intensive research to help us identify those groups who felt the BBC was not providing services for them; these turned out to be fans of black urban music, then only provided by pirate radio stations; young women, who wanted a greater proportion of chart music than Radio 1 was providing, and fans of the music of the 70s, 80s and 90s, who felt they were too old for Radio 1and were not well served by Radio 2. As it was clear that Commercial Radio stations were providing adequately for the young women, we felt there was less of a public service requirement for us to offer something for them. We therefore proposed 1Xtra for the first group, and 6 Music for the last. If we had unlimited resources, we could have offered any number of other, more niche channels – offering only jazz,or opera, or world music. The one thing I can be sure of is that, whatever we offered, fans of that genre would be happy while others would be sure we had made the wrong choice.

Our proposals for new services had to go to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport for approval, and the Department set certain conditions which each service had to meet. We cannot change the remits or the music policy of 1Xtra or 6 Music as these are agreed with the DCMS.

As Roger says, no Controller can ever please all the audience all the time. We have endeavoured to make listening easier by offering the Radio Player, which allows listeners to catch up with favourite programmes at any time, for seven days after transmission. With changing life-style patterns, this means that some people listen to late-night programmes the following day at their work computers; others catch up in their lunch-hours, or at home in the evening. The concept of primetime being in the evening is a television phenomenon which never held true for radio. It is even less relevant now.

I do hope that our responses have gone some way to setting your fears at rest."

Back to timeline …

FoR3 replied to Abramsky and Wright:

We reject out of hand any suggestion that R3 should adapt its output to the findings of lifestyle surveys and fluctuating public tastes: these are only relevant to popular broadcasting. R3 should define itself by putting content before audience.

Schedules and the working day:

To assume that all, or even most, people who work normal hours are able to listen to R3 while they are actually at work is absurd; if they do have access to a radio or computer in their lunchtimes, they are likely to find it difficult to listen to a complete programme. The programmes available on demand are predominantly those which are broadcast in the evenings and at weekends anyway, and are therefore already accessible to those who go to work. And the audio quality is not good enough for listening to classical music.

Prime listening time:

a) You both misunderstand. By this term we mean "quality listening time", time when people are not working or "engaged in other activities", and when they can give their full attention to listening to music. This is still, for a large number of people, whether in daily employment or not, the evening. You underestimate how important this time is; many classical listeners have said they used to wind down at the end of the day with the late evening music: this no longer available on any night of the week.

b) You both claim that "evening primetime" (your meaning) is a TV concept, never applicable to radio. Yet Roger said in his R4 Feedback programme in March that R3 "bucked the trend of other radio stations" in having three evening "switch-on points" (7.30, 9.30 and 10.15). Unfortunately the two later switch-on points don't offer any classical music.

Content:

Even if "many people" now have wider or more eclectic tastes, this does not mean these tastes must be catered for on R3, especially with new digital stations providing more airspace. In any case, this argument is scarcely honest if used as a justification for widening R3's music output to include programmes like Late Junction ("smoky, laid-back, mind-enhancing"), Andy Kershaw and the expanded jazz programmes: these are for predominantly different audiences, as a cursory look at the respective messageboards will reveal (and the admission, for example, that 10.15 pm is a switch-on point). If some widening of the output is thought desirable, that certainly doesn't justify the hijacking of the late evening, weekend and holiday schedules by non-classical music.

Listener reaction:

There has always been a studious avoidance by management of the matter of listening figures. Even accepting the BBC claim of "stability", it is still a statistical certainty that for every new listener brought to R3 by the broader output, rather more than one listener has departed. To put it another way, however successful you have been in attracting a new audience, you have been more unsuccessful in retaining the old one. And this coincides with a long period of extreme listener dissatisfaction and anger, with many loyal listeners saying they are now listening less. Are you saying there is no correlation between these two factors: the long-standing protests of classical listeners (which began under the last controller) and the fall in the classical audience?

Not all dissatisfied listeners complain: they just switch off.

The Arts:

In addition, FoR3 is now taking on board the matter of arts/speech broadcasting, both the quantity and quality of which are considered below what R3 should be producing if it is to have any credibility at all as a serious arts broadcaster.

We are preparing a fuller report for you on this.


We are asking you to cut out the triviality of presentation and content, and recognise that R3 should, as ever, a) focus on the intellectual and provide stimulating and challenging programming of past, contemporary and cutting-edge works for a minority, demanding, arts-oriented audience and b) do its best to expand the audience for this kind of programming.

R3's emphasis should at all times be on stimulating intellectual curiosity, on the informative and the thought-provoking; it should be ready to take risks with the startling, the imaginative, the funny, the esoteric, the total non-starter … R3 should not be cool.

We are looking for something more than the bland unconcern which has so far been shown to our profound dissatisfaction with recent policy.

Back to timeline …

FoR3 to Jenny Abramsky

Thank you for taking the time to answer FoR3 at such length. The policy and content of the other music stations are, of course, of interest to us merely insofar as we see them affecting Radio 3's output. We were given the impression by John Evans back in December 2002 that the reorganisation of R1 and R2 accounted in some measure for the broader programming policy adopted by R3. That is the only reason for responding here to your comments on the other stations. We aren't presuming to offer advice on the entire network!

JA: As a public service broadcaster, the BBC has a duty and a commitment to offer services to every licence fee payer. In BBC Radio, we do this by providing a portfolio of radio services, each with a distinctive and complementary offering. In the case of the music networks, they all offer a mix of musical genres and speech. Radio 1, targeted at a young audience, offers a wide range of youth music – dance, house, hiphop, produced both in this country and abroad, alongside news, features and social action campaigns relevant to that young audience;

R1 is targeted at a very narrow age range. Overall it does not offer, generically, a "wide range" of music. It devotes a large proportion of the airtime to a narrow range of contemporary popular/dance musics for young people in their teens and early twenties. It has narrow playlists with a heavy reliance on American charts material. In association with R1, 1Xtra is an entire digital station predominantly given over to similar music with an even narrower musical remit.

True, there are also some programmes at the older "John Peel" end of the market. This is very similar to the Andy Kershaw end of the market, and any close examination of the Late Junction messageboard will show that many boardposters here are uninterested in classical music: they like Steve Lamacq, Mark Lamarr, Gilles Peterson and John Peel (plus Charlie Gillett and Captain America). We are complaining because Andy Kershaw and Late Junction take up roughly 50% of the weekday evening airtime devoted to music (100% of the later evening) on R3, when R1 and R2 are already catering substantially for the same type of audience. This is indefensible.

JA: Radio 2 caters mainly for an older audience, and offers the widest range of musical genres of any radio station in the country – country, reggae, blues, gospel, soul, brass bands, traditional jazz, organ music and light classical – in addition to features, readings, comedy, religion, and social action campaigns.

It is centre of the mass, the musically middle-of-the-road audience (most of what you mention could be classed as modern popular/folk from Western traditions), and not merely older listeners but a wider age range. No wonder it's so big. Why is it so wide and R1 so narrow? It means R2 material spills over into R3.

JA: Radio 3, as the nation's leading cultural network, offers classical music, world music and contemporary jazz as well as arts, debates and drama.

(It also has light music, film music, experimental pop, Broadway, cabaret and Club Classical – most is intermittently included in "classical music" programmes.)

According to last year's Annual Report, R3 broadcast a total of 310 hours of "Arts" (sic) and Drama during the year. That averages out at a paltry 51 minutes per day, including drama/arts/culture/ideas/debates. In comparison, in a typical week, we get an average of 60 minutes daily of 'smoky, laid-back, mind-enhancing' Late Junction alone, a proportion of which is popular music of one sort or another. And you say this is 'the nation's leading cultural network'.

It is noticeable that Radio 3 has had a net loss of 13.5% of its audience since 1999, in spite of attracting new listeners. What's the point of having a "wider" audience if it's not as big as the "narrow" one?

JA: All these remits are agreed with the Board of Governors, the BBC's regulatory body, and are set out fully in the BBC's annual Statements of Programme Policy.

We read these as and when they are updated. But:

1) Who decides on the station remit?
2) Why is it changed?
3) What account is taken of listener preferences when changes are introduced?
4) Who is the remit for – management or listeners?
5) On what grounds would the Governors not agree to a proposed R3 remit?

It appears that management decide what they want to do, a new remit is drafted, it goes before the Governors, who rubberstamp it. If this is not the case, what difficulties have R3 management had with Governors in getting this "massive revolution" accepted? If none, why not?

JA: Both Radios 1 and 2 have devoted listeners well outside the expected age range. Radio 1's main target audience may be 15-24, but there is a sizable audience considerably older than that, and of course, many listeners are actually younger than the target range.

The older listeners, as mentioned above, include the "Kershaw-type" audience. They already have a good share of R1's evening schedules. Why should they have R3's too? (By the way, just out of curiosity, what exactly are the rising fives listening to on R1? Is it suitable material for them?)

JA: Radio 2's audience increase over the past years means that its audience is of all ages, but what they have in common is a liking for the music played and the presenters who combine warmth, personality and authority.

This is indeed R2's style. Why must we also have it on R3 now? Like a double dose weekly of Brian Kay, with light music, "the obvious" and "the well-trodden paths" of classical music? This is Friday Night is Music Night material and presentation. We're well trained not to use the term 'dumbing down' but this doesn't alter perceptions. Yet again, R2 material on R3, but not vice versa. (One notes also R1's audience decrease over the past years.)

There is strong evidence that R3 listeners do not want 'personality' from their presenters. They want focused expertise and articulacy. However, there is also strong evidence that 'personality' is what they're going to get, whether they like it or not. Three new programmes this autumn are "Charles Hazlewood Discovering Music" (instead of Discovering Music), "3 for All with Brian Kay" (instead of Listeners' Choice) and "The Cowan Collection" (instead of Sunday Live). It's patronising in the extreme to think we can't take this in without a cosy, familiar presenter. When shall we now hear the lower profile presenters like Humphrey Burton, Stephen Johnson, Chris de Souza and Gerard McBurney?

JA: BBC Radio is not increasing its efforts to target a young audience, as you suggest.

This was the impression gained from the Annual Report 2002/2003, p 10, "Objective 3: Bring younger audiences to BBC services by developing bold and innovative programmes and content…", the digital radio station 1Xtra being particularly singled out in this context. Also Andy Parfitt's policy of focusing R1 on the 15-24s was targeting a young audience.

As far as R3 specifically is concerned, Kershaw, Late Junction and Mixing It are seemingly appreciated, particularly if not exclusively, by younger people e.g. students, who don't like classical music. And again, why so much of the evening schedules?

JA: We are increasing our efforts to offer services to appeal to as wide a range of listeners as possible.

You widen the appeal to, for example, young and ethnic minority audiences, by giving them separate stations, while R3 must be made more "diverse", i.e. diluted. Is this a loss of faith by the BBC in quality arts and intellect broadcasting? If R3 doesn't take a decided step back on this, it will be hard to see how the BBC defends its right to taxpayers' money other than by being big, powerful and arrogant.

And how do you respond when the effect of this policy is to decrease the existing audience? And, as asked in the original set of questions, why was the commitment to develop a more culturally diverse audience for classical music dropped this year from R3's remit? And why is so much effort going into widening the audience by introducing non-classical programmes rather than, as was previously the continuously stated aim of R3, widening the audience for classical music?

JA: When we decided to launch the digital networks, we were restricted by the size of the multiplex as to the number of new stations we could launch. We wanted the five analogue networks to go on it, and we were also committed to offering the World Service and the Asian Network on DAB. As that left only four possible slots, we carried out intensive research to help us identify those groups who felt the BBC was not providing services for them; these turned out to be fans of black urban music, then only provided by pirate radio stations; young women, who wanted a greater proportion of chart music than Radio 1 was providing, and fans of the music of the 70s, 80s and 90s, who felt they were too old for Radio 1and were not well served by Radio 2. As it was clear that Commercial Radio stations were providing adequately for the young women, we felt there was less of a public service requirement for us to offer something for them. We therefore proposed 1Xtra for the first group, and 6 Music for the last. If we had unlimited resources, we could have offered any number of other, more niche channels – offering only jazz, or opera, or world music. The one thing I can be sure of is that, whatever we offered, fans of that genre would be happy while others would be sure we had made the wrong choice.

This is not an issue because there appears to be no great call by R3 listeners at present for a purely digital station devoted to classical music, as long as R3 isn't diluted with quantities of non-classical music in the evening and weekend schedules. Please note, again, this is primarily a question of the quantity and placing of non-classical material.

JA: Our proposals for new services had to go to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport for approval, and the Department set certain conditions which each service had to meet. We cannot change the remits or the music policy of 1Xtra or 6 Music as these are agreed with the DCMS.

We don't regard this as an issue that effects us since we are not seriously asking for classical music to be included in the remits of 1Xtra or 6 Music.We are merely asking why 1Xtra (urban World) material and 6 Music material (Reckless Eric, Radiohead) is played on R3. Though where there's a will there's a way. If you want to change the remits you could always try asking the DCMS what they felt about it. They might agree.

JA: As Roger says, no Controller can ever please all the audience all the time.

No. It's a question of which listeners he chooses to please. In this case it seems clearly to be those unidentified listeners whose views already coincide with what management has every intention of doing. How else can one explain the fact that while a handful of Kershaw fans were asking to have the Kershaw programme extended to the length that it had on R1 and a large number of the core audience were complaining about Kershaw being on R3 at all, the Controller chose to extend the programme by 30 minutes? This is the kind of decision which provokes extreme scepticism that there is any concept of accountability to listeners among BBC managers. Frankly, the word 'contempt' seems to spring more readily to mind.

You yourself have admitted that James Boyle's unpopular changes to R4 lost the station many listeners and were a mistake. We dare say a lot of people in the BBC thought that at the time, but did anyone back the listeners? R3's drop over the last five years of 13.5% in both reach and listening hours is surely something which has to be explained. People don't just decide one day that they don't like classical music any more. "Stability" seems to be achieved by welcoming one lot of listeners in through the front door and pushing a rather larger number out through the back.

JA: We have endeavoured to make listening easier by offering the Radio Player, which allows listeners to catch up with favourite programmes at any time, for seven days after transmission.

An immediate response from one of our supporters:

"Why do they assume everyone listening to R3 has a computer ie the ability to receive Radio Player? And have they ever actually listened to classical music online… tinny would be one description."

JA: With changing life-style patterns, this means that some people listen to late-night programmes the following day at their work computers; others catch up in their lunch-hours, or at home in the evening.

What late-night programmes? Hear and Now is the only late-night "classical" programme available on Radio Player, and that's cutting-edge music. So the "some people" whom you mention are presumably listening to Late Junction, Andy Kershaw, Mixing It, and Jazz on 3. Isn't this rather missing the point as far as classical music listeners are concerned?

Also, the majority of classical music lovers wouldn't dream of serious listening through a computer; the noise levels of most of them automatically preclude such activity. The BBC Lifestyle survey suggests that 20% of people listen to the radio while at work. Is there any indication of what percentage are listening to R3 this way?

JA: The concept of primetime being in the evening is a television phenomenon which never held true for radio. It is even less relevant now.

There are two points:

a) by 'prime listening time' or 'quality listening time' we mean the period in the evening when people can listen without distraction. It is NOT when they are at work, nor when they are engaged in other activities.

b) If by 'primetime' you mean a time when a significant number of people choose to sit down to watch/listen, may we quote a remark which Roger made on the Feedback programme in March?

"I mean, in the evening for us we have that unusual thing of the switch-on point at 7.30, and it does buck the trend of other radio stations, for our live concert… 7:30, 9:30 and 10:15 are now our three switch-on points".

JA: I do hope that our responses have gone some way to setting your fears at rest.

Sadly, not in any way. We have, in growing numbers, been making these points for two years. We have had no reassurance that anyone cares about what we think, since all specific points made are just passed over without comment, or we get an answer which is either vague, unsupported or factually incorrect. This seems to be a typical BBC management response to any listener criticism.

When can we have proper talks?

Back to timeline …

FoR3 to Roger Wright

This addresses the points which you made. Please note that the mention of specific programmes does not imply that we are asking for them to be removed from the schedules. Our complaint is principally about the amount and scheduling of non-classical music.

RW: BBC Radio 3 has always been an extremely diverse network, built around a strong core of classical music.

It what way extremely diverse? The music output has not always been extremely diverse. The original Third Programme featured music, drama and speech, of which one third was music (almost exclusively classical). In 1970 Radio 3 became predominantly music-based (i.e. much less diverse), and that music, apart from a small amount of jazz, contained no regular non-classical music programmes at all.

This was still the case in 1986 (under McIntyre): in a sample week there were just three jazz programmes. Total non-classical. 2 hours and 10 mins per week.

A sample week in 1990 (under Drummond) shows two regular jazz programmes, totalling 1 hour 15 mins, and three special feature programmes of traditional world music from Argentina, Slovakia and Zanzibar, totalling 1 hour 50 mins. Drummond also introduced Mixing It, which was then only 45 mins long. Total non-classical: 3 hours 50 mins per week (not all regular).

A sample week in 1998, just before you took over from Kenyon, shows a sharp increase in jazz to 5 hours 25 mins in nine slots (mainly late night but not all regular). There is 30 mins of traditional world music, plus a Gershwin Songbook (30 mins). Total non-classical: 6 hours 25 mins (not all regular).

Your programming has increased almost threefold the regular coverage of non-classical music since your immediate predecessor's time, with no fewer than three programmes regularly featuring non-traditional "global pop" music and catering for audiences who have little interest in the main Radio 3 output.

Total non-classical: 17 hours 40 mins (all regular), plus one-off programmes and regular non-classical intrusions into classical slots and programmes. Calculated in all as averaging over 21 hours per week last year. We put this to you back in March in a document in which you said you found "few surprises". Does this mean you accept this figure or do you have an alternative one?

RW: We are responsible for five BBC orchestras and the BBC Singers; have major commitments to many other performing groups across the country; commission more contemporary music than any other organisation in the world; and are engaged with all the leading Festivals, including our own internationally-recognised Proms.

We support wholeheartedly this aspect of Radio 3's remit, and would mention with particular approval the New Generation Artists scheme which you introduced, the commissioning and broadcasting of new contemporary works and the broadcasting of live music (which has always been a strong feature of Radio 3's output).

RW: Around this core, other activity has always existed, so that Radio 3 is not the place for 'off-loading' homeless programme types

John Evans gave the impression that the reorganisation of R1 and R2 resulted in changes to R3's output. And it certainly seemed that way when you adopted Radio 1's Kershaw show. In fact, the whole "World music industry" geared as it now is to include a significant amount of commercially successful pop music from self-proclaimed best-selling artists, pop idols, rock legends etc would be entirely suited to a more "diverse" Radio 1, but – being homeless – came to R3. The audience for this music, judging from the messageboards, expresses more interest in John Peel, Mark Lamarr, Steve Lamacq, Gilles Peterson (and Captain America). Brian Kay's programmes are always shamelessly promoted to appeal to his R2 fans. What "other activity" has always existed?

RW: but a carefully considered schedule encouraging all of us to expand our horizons in the classical field and occasionally beyond.

We welcome the chance to expand our horizons, though not indiscriminately. Your "occasionally" is in fact consistently, six nights a week (the seventh is 'cutting edge classical') in slots which for many people have been particularly precious listening times at the end of the day. "Beyond" seems to open the gates to anything: if we want pop or light music we can find it on other stations. Furthermore, we are not so much encouraged as continually force-fed, with the only option – more and more often – to turn off if we don't like it.

RW: (I remind you that Mixing It is now 13 years old,)

It was then 45 minutes long and now seems to have moved more firmly into the pop field than was originally envisaged. You are extending it, for a second time, so that from the autumn it will be 75 minutes long. We are questioning quantity and scheduling. We have not requested that Mixing It be dropped.

RW: jazz is 40 years old on the network

But there is now about five times what there used to be. In 1970, for instance, Jazz Record Requests was a mere 30 minutes long. We are questioning quantity and scheduling. We have not requested that all jazz be dropped.

RW: and world music has been featured for a similar length of time.

'Featured' seems to be a gross overstatement, to put it extremely politely. It was only a very small quantity, never in regular slots and exclusively devoted to traditional forms. It is now distributed in up to 7 – 9 hours some weeks (depending on World Routes, Kershaw's and Late Junction's varying coverage), in "quality listening time". Of this over 2 hours (World Routes and Kershaw) is often pop music from best-selling rock legends, fabulous rap artists and incredible hip-hoppers. Mainly a question of quantity and scheduling. We have not requested that all world music be dropped.

RW: The fact that these musics – together with contemporary classical music – have developed, blended, influenced each other and become much harder to define but found new audiences is not Radio 3's doing but it is right that we follow this agenda as well as mould other agendas.) In a musical world which is becoming less conscious of categories, this is entirely appropriate

B*ll**** ! Mainstream classical music is no harder to define than it ever was. You still promote "jazz", "world music", "Broadway and film music", "light music" without any difficulty in defining them. Following/moulding agendas? In this case it suggests you are 'following' an agenda which is 'moulded' by commercial interests and casual light/popular tastes. Don't you have any original ideas? R3's agenda should be its own – a critical and selective one.

RW: and reflects the reality of music life in the UK and the broad tastes

What do you mean by "music life"? As dominated by people with influence in the musical world? The media? Or people with vested/commercial interests? Opera stars make money out of recording Broadway show tunes. World music has developed in the way it has because people see there's a way to make money out of it.

RW: of many of our listeners.

How many? What are you basing your evidence on when you say that? You always say "some listeners" when speaking of those who question your policy, but "many of our listeners" of those who agree with you. The evidence points to the fact that most of Radio 3's core audience wants the station's music output to remain predominantly (i.e. with some latitude towards other genres) "classical" and "new classical", and if they do have broad tastes they are happy to satisfy them elsewhere.

RW: However, the commitment to classical music at the heart of the schedule is absolute and even to imply that we planning to cut back is simply scaremongering.

How have you managed to introduce into the schedules 110 minutes of Late Junction, four nights a week (total 440 minutes), 75 minutes of Kershaw, 60 minutes of World Routes, 60 minutes of Stage and Screen, 60 minutes of Brian Kay's Light Programme (to say nothing of retaining Kenyon's expanded jazz programming) without cutting back? Drummond: 3 hours 50 mins, not all regular; Wright: 17 hours 40 mins, all regular, plus substantial intrusions into classical programmes (over 21 hours in all). How has this been done without cutting back on classical music? (Or is the classical music between midnight and 6 am supposed to compensate for losing 'prime listening time'?)

Your autumn plans include extending Kershaw by 30 minutes, Mixing It by 10 minutes and there will be 12 one-hour Kit and the Widow shows. We repeat the question, how much more do you plan to cut back?

RW: Of course I accept that some listeners have expressed concern about the lack of core classical music between 9.30 and midnight.

That is certainly progress. At least you're not now implying it was never there, as you did on the Feedback programme.

RW: I hope you also accept that there are many listeners who wish that we would broadcast more jazz, world music, musical theatre and film music as well as more (and less) speech output and drama.

"Some listeners", "many listeners"… again. In any case, you are confusing two discrete issues: the matter of returning core classical music to the later evening schedules is a separate matter from the quantity of jazz, world music, musical theatre and film music on R3.

RW: My role is to try and strike a balance between all these views

What criteria do you use for deciding where to "strike this balance" regarding late evening schedules during the week? That there are two views, some want classical, some want non-classical, ergo 100% non-classical Late Junction and Kershaw?

The Andy Kershaw show is straight out of Radio 1 and contains predominantly popular musics. When your core audience was saying it was unsuitable for R3, and the Kershaw fans were asking for more, you "struck the balance" by extending it by 30 minutes. What part did audience preference play in that?

In any case, who is this we ("wish that we would broadcast")? We is the whole of BBC Radio. The non-classical audience only comes to R3 because you supplied what they wanted. You supply, they consume. They weren't clamouring for it to be on R3. If you (ie BBC Radio) were to put most of it on R1 (again) or R2, they would be just as happy to find it there and they would find their musical tastes more likely to be addressed by the rest of R1/R2's output.

RW: and provide a schedule which builds on the great traditions of the network whilst recognising that it has never stood still and has to respond changing tastes.

Classical music does not stand still. You do reflect that. When you say R3 must respond to changing tastes, what tastes, whose tastes? The BBC's policy tastes? The tastes of people who don't listen to R3 at all, or of the minority who have broad tastes, including classical, and want it all on a single station? Or do you respond to the tastes of your core audience?

RW: Noting our lengthy exchanges I sense that we will simply have to disagree.

What of the above do you, factually, disagree with?

RW: However providing answers with which some listeners disagree

"Some listeners": you have provided no evidence whatsoever that, on any point we care to mention, our views are minority views.

RW: is not the same as being unaccountable, merely, (and I make no apologies for repeating this) a recognition that no Controller can ever please his or her audience all the time.

We will agree that you have attempted to explain the grounds for some of your decisions i.e. to be accountable. We have shown you that they are substantially unsound, and in some cases founded on what might be termed misconceptions on your part as to what Radio 3 has traditionally been (a not unprecedented situation). It may be true that you can't please your audience all the time. But you could try not to upset most of your audience so often by giving excessive promotion to the "alternative musics", and to please them by giving them a proportionate share of this late evening listening time, instead of none at all.

RW: What I find particularly exciting however is to hear from listeners who sampled Radio 3 in order to hear, for example, Andy Kershaw's programme and tell me that they are now listening to "Composer of the Week" or those who now regularly tune in for the jazz on Saturday afternoon having sampled it by chance before the opera slot.

You mentioned, last March, the person who sampled Radio 3 in order to hear Andy Kershaw's programme and who now listens to Composer of the Week. That's one person. How many others are there?

RW: Any survey of how people live their lives, such as the recent BBC Lifestyle survey, shows an extraordinary multiplicity of patterns.

People? How many are R3 listeners? What questions were asked about how people prefer to listen to classical music?

RW: People are not all working nine to five; people listen in their workplace, and while engaged in other activities.

It is quite incomprehensible that you should have so radically changed the evening and weekend schedules on the assumption that classical music listeners can usually listen to R3 in their workplaces and therefore will not need to listen in the late evening. R3 is almost certainly the least likely station to be on in the workplace, and the workplace is not an ideal environment to be listening to classical music with the undivided attention it requires. Nor is listening while engaged in other activities with the music as aural wallpaper. This is R1/R2 speak.

RW: Under these circumstances to talk about the evening as primetime is a misconception. This is a television concept which has never been applied to radio,

The misconception here is yours. By "prime listening time" we mean a time when people can sit quietly and give their full attention to listening, just as they would if they were at a concert. That is why the evening airtime is particularly valued by classical music listeners, because it provides what classical music demands.

RW: and any examination of RAJAR will show that for most radio channels 'primetime' (if there is such a thing) is the morning.

For most radio channels? You said yourself on Feedback: "I mean, in the evening for us we have that unusual thing of the switch-on point at 7.30, it does buck the trend of other radio stations, for our live concert… 7.30, 9.30 and 10.15 are now our three switch-on points…"

RW: We are not targeting a younger audience; indeed, research shows that non-classical audiences, for example jazz and musicals, are remarkably middle-aged.

We are not suggesting that that you are using jazz or musicals to target a younger audience. We are talking about pop/alternative (pop) music/Andy Kershaw/Late Junction. May we quote from an article from a student journalist whose views mirror many expressed on the Late Junction messageboard.

(Of R3's "traditional" output): 'wilfully obscure', 'fantastically dull', 'the station's output and target audience… seemingly a mystery', 'the smokescreen of the high-brow pretension and the entirely unlistenable'

(whereas the evening programmes are described as): 'presented with a passion by normal people', 'the Andy Kershaw world music programme, which is not dissimilar to his old Radio 1 slot', 'With Mixing It already installed as a mainstay for new music and Andy Kershaw arriving, Wright was assembling a roster which could compete with the likes of John Peel and Mary-Anne Hobbs' Breezeblock show for listeners.'

Note the word 'compete'.That's why we suggest that you are targeting a younger audience. We can also supply pages of similar quotes taken off the Late Junction messageboard, if you wish further supporting evidence.

RW: Qualitative research we have undertaken shows that many people are very open-minded

"Many people" again – how many of these people, exactly, are Radio 3 listeners?

RW: to discovering new areas. Public radio since its earliest days has been based on the idea of expanding the horizons of the listeners. We are proud that this is still central to our role. However, we should all be delighted when younger listeners join the audience.

New areas? How do familiar Broadway tunes and music from the latest blockbuster films expand horizons? How does the common currency of light orchestral music which has been the nation's favourite for over half a century expand horizons? Broadcasting more jazz than ever at weekends doesn't expand horizons. Most people would feel that no sort of pop music expands their horizons, since it is hard to avoid it everywhere one goes, from bookshops to doctors' waiting-rooms. There are plenty of horizons to expand: more contemporary classical music, more traditional music from Japan, from China, from Thailand, from India &c &c Let's have it.

RW: I would be concerned if Radio 3 were like some similar channels across Europe with an average listener age of over 60.

Why? The average listener age should not be a consideration if you have a clear target audience based on the type of output.

RW: I know that Jenny Abramsky will be replying separately as you have requested a response from her.

:-/

You didn't answer the question about listening figures. The BBC view is that they have remained "stable", though they are 13.5% lower than in 1999. Can you say whether:

a) the audience for Kershaw, Late Junction, World Routes, Stage and Screen, Brian Kay's Light Programme and the reported increased audience for jazz is made up entirely of long-standing Radio 3 listeners or, if not

b) have you made any attempt to discover why existing listeners departed, which they must have done if new listeners haven't raised the overall listening figures?

Back to timeline …

A further email was sent to RW by FoR3:

On 7 September we sent our response to your email of 30 July. We would be grateful if we could have confirmation that this was received and that the contents will, in due time and at your convenience, be responded to.

In the meantime, other points have come to our notice:

May we first quote from the Values of the BBC: "Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest."

It now appears to us that a policy decision was taken to "rebrand" (or relaunch) Radio 3, based on the view that the original underlying assumptions and the core values no longer served. There appears to have been no general consultation about this, nor was any public announcement made to the effect that this was either being considered or had been decided. Could you provide evidence of the thoroughness and intellectual rigour of the internal discussions about this policy change?

The policy has been implemented, bit by bit, over four years, in spite oflistener complaints. Far from announcing that this was the new policy, certain aspects have been at various times both admitted and denied.

Could you please clarify the following words (from Public service in an online world): "helping to rejuvenate… Radio 3 by creating a permanent presence for the network's jazz and world music to balance its traditional classical music programming", in particular:

a) what intention lies behind the word "rejuvenate" if not to give the station a younger feel and therefore, presumably, attract younger people (an aim which you have denied)? Surely, if the average age of the R3 listener is 53, this suggests a large majority falls within the 30 – 76 age range. Was this group dissatisfied with the style and output of the station?

b) what exactly does the word "balance" mean here? Why should any attempt be made to "balance" R3's classical music programming, either online or anywhere, with jazz and world music? Do you not accept that such phrases as "The network offers more than traditional classical music, including world music and jazz ", and "BBC Radio 3 (90-93 FM) – broadcaster and champion of classical, jazz and world music…" have the effect of upgrading the jazz and world music output at the expense of classical music?

Could you therefore explain why, when you were specifically asked, in March 2003, why Radio 3 was promoting non classical music so heavily, you blamed this on the media who were (much to your disappointment) picking up excessively on the jazz and world music programming?

Could you explain why, if this promotion of world music and jazz was entirely the work of the media, R3 uses in its own publicity such press quotes as: "Radio 3… has now become the height of cool", "smoky, laid-back, mind-enhancing", if this is not the image it wishes to promote? Would you not accept that this and other such publicity is designed, ultimately, to attract a discrete, younger audience – an aim which you have denied?

Could you explain why, in July 2000, you said in a press release: "This year we took some bold decisions to change our evening and weekend schedules" (referring to the introduction of Late Junction in the evenings and extra jazz at the weekends); yet in March 2003, on Radio 4's Feedback programme, in answer to a listener who was complaining about these changes (which resulted in the removal of classical music from the middle to later part of the evening schedules), you gave the impression that listeners had forgotten the old schedules, and that there had been speech and jazz in the middle to later part of the evening? The schedule which you sent in support of your claim showed clearly that, to the contrary, the evenings had been predominantly classical music.

Could you explain why you suggested on Feedback that the schedule changes had alienated "one particular listener" and that there was no evidence that the bulk of listeners felt alienated, when only two weeks earlier representatives from a Classical Forum users' group had come to you with complaints of which this one was top of the list? And had submitted a follow-up document to you which also put the schedules at the top of the list?

Could you explain why you decided to make changes to the evening and weekend schedules, increasing massively the amount of non classical music in high profile, "accessible" slots, if it was not to promote non classical music? Could you explain why you described talk of cutting back on classical music as "scaremongering" when you had virtually tripled the amount of non classical music?

We are unsure whether the above points accord fully with the declaration: "Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest". We would welcome some clarification as to which of the apparently contradictory statements were the correct ones and in what way we have misunderstood the apparently incorrect ones.

There is always a deathly silence when we mention listening figures. In spite of all the new programming and new audiences, reach and listening hours are down. Will you please tell us whether you are unperturbed about losing a number of classical music listeners in return for gaining a rather smaller number of, probably younger, non classical listeners? If not, why not? If yes, do you have any plans for adjusting the situation?

We have other areas of dissatisfaction where we feel we have not been given proper answers to our questions but will await your response, at your convenience. "

Back to timeline …

A reply was received from the Editorial and Investigation Team, BBC Information:

"As I am sure you will appreciate, the Director-General receives more correspondence than he can deal with personally, so once letters have been read they are forwarded by his office to BBC Information. This department has a wealth of knowledge about BBC programmes and policies and is experienced in the workings of the Corporation. The Director-General has therefore authorised us to reply on his behalf.

I understand you have received a number of responses from both Roger Wright and Jenny Abramsky.

I am afraid that there is little more I can add to the comments you have already received regarding the BBC's standpoint on the matter.

The BBC must provide something for every licence payer through its radio, television and online services. We achieve this through providing a broad range of programmes and services. Radio 3 being one distinctive platform. We are sorry that everything is not to your liking on Radio 3, however in providing something for the range of tastes that exist in society today it is impossible to please all of the audience all of the time.

The BBC appreciates the comments you have made about Radio 3 and I will make sure they are passed on to the relevant departments of the Corporation and to BBC Management. However, may I say that whilst this department does its best to answer enquiries and comments regarding specific items in our programmes, we must always be mindful of the limitations of time and resources if we are to apportion an equal measure of service to the whole of our audience. In brief, we are not always able to respond to lengthy critiques on the same subject arriving regularly from one source.

I am sure you will understand the expenditure to do this can only come from the licence fee, and the result is that resources are then diverted from the core function of the BBC which is to provide programmes.

We will continue to register any further comments you may make, but because of the demands on our time and limited resources, we may not in future be able to acknowledge receipt. I would, however, like to take this opportunity to thank you once again for your continued interest."

Back to timeline …

FoR3 to RW: In the New Year on-air trailing was increased:

As you will be well aware, there has recently been considerable comment on the extension of Radio 3's on-air trailing policy, in particular the inclusion of prerecorded 'built' trails interrupting the CD Masters programme.

At one point all three classical music messageboards (Classical Music on Radio 3, CD Masters and A Bach Christmas) had separate discussions criticising the new policy. This was not an orchestrated campaign but a spontaneous reaction, and hardly unpredictable considering the very long-standing general complaint about the amount of on-air trailing, of which you are also well aware.

You asked Graham Dixon to reply to emailers who complained and he assured them that: "Research shows that many audience members welcome the inclusion of trails with information about forthcoming programmes", and he regretted that objectors found them intrusive.

This explanation appears to fly in the face of the findings of the DCMS which invited the opinions of BBC viewers and listeners and found such a significant number irritated by programme trails that the fact was recorded in the recent Green Paper. How do you explain that your research, apparently, found the exact opposite?

Reading Mr Dixon's reply, one sees that it is not clear whether Radio 3 listeners, specifically, were surveyed, nor whether the 'many audience members' represented any sort of majority, nor indeed if it was clear to those surveyed whether it was the repetitive and intrusive built trails which were in question or merely the helpful programme information (to which few, if any, listeners appear to object).

In our response to the Governors' recent public consultation on Service Licences and the Public Value Test, Friends of Radio 3 said that we consider that, wherever the BBC uses 'audience research' to justify policies, the details of that research should be published and available to public scrutiny.

Could I now request that you give Friends of Radio 3 the full details of the research quoted in Mr Dixon's answer, please?

Back to timeline …

The Controller replied confirming there had been an increase:

Thank you for your letter. It is good to hear from you and, as ever, to have your feedback and involvement in Radio 3 issues. You ask about the research referred to by Graham Dixon. Here it is, together with information about trails, which I hope you find helpful in understanding more about this issue. The notes below refer specifically to Radio 3 and its listeners.

In recent months trails have increased by around two per day, meaning Radio 3 broadcasts about 1.5 minutes more trails per day than generally in 2005. The total quantity amounts to 0.6% of the total airtime.

The increase in trailing which you are referring to represents less than 0.1% of the total airtime – not a substantial reallocation of network output

Given the average length of listening to Radio 3, as reported through RAJAR, the average listener will hear at most one or perhaps two trails in the course of a day's listening.

Only one in seven Radio 3 listeners buy the Radio Times, and therefore the trails clearly fulfil a valuable purpose of information. This is recognised by about three-quarters of Radio 3 listeners, who regard trails as 'a useful way of finding out about programmes'; over two-thirds report that they tuned in to a specific programme following a trail. If we want to encourage listening to Radio 3 – something I am sure you also support – this would seem to be a positive outcome.

Trails within programmes have long been standard within extended built Radio 3 programmes, for instance Morning on 3 and In Tune.

We recently held research group sessions with listeners various locations in the UK; the subject of trails was not mentioned once by participants.

Apart from the recent small number of communications about our trailing policy, this issue is rarely raised compared to other questions in which our audience is interested.

Incidentally, I have noticed the following on the Friends of Radio 3 site:

'Listeners do not like 'amusing' silly voices, they do not like the persuasive commercial ad-style, selling the programmes with hype rather than giving the facts; they do not like the inclusion of musical snippets with voice-overs; they do not like the constant repetition of trails; and they certainly do not like all this being force-fed to them between pieces of music.'

In the interests of our understanding the situation better, it would be also be good to know the sources and statistical basis for your research and the statements made.

Back to timeline …

For3 replied, pointing out that the recent increase in trails:

Many thanks, as ever, for your detailed and prompt response. As our main purpose is to engage in dialogue with the BBC, may I offer the following comments? Although trails, as such, are not a major issue with us, they do form part of presentation – which is an issue, and which, in turn, seems to embody Radio 3's priorities.

1. It is interesting to have your confirmation that on-air trails have been increased. From what we hear, this is not your policy but a BBC one. In the light of the Green Paper's report, which I mentioned in my last letter, that listeners and viewers already query the amount of on-air trailing of programmes (and the government's accompanying comment that the BBC needed 'to change to meet the public's concerns'), it is more than disappointing to see the BBC further extending this policy now that the main issues of Charter renewal have been all but settled. It seems like bad faith.

2. You say the total amount of time devoted to trails is 0.6% of total airtime. This is, of course, an average of 60 minutes per week (80 trails?), mainly between 7am and 9.30pm. The increase itself may represent 'less than 0.1% of the total airtime', but isn't that a 20% rise on last year (60 minutes instead of 50)? How soon would you feel justified in increasing it by a further 20% (or 0.1% of total airtime)? In any case, it is not merely the amount of time the trails take which has lately caused complaints, but the disruption to the programme within which they are placed, and the determination that listeners should not be given the option of avoiding them.

3. You say that, based on the RAJAR average length of listening (now approximately 6 hours per week), 'the average listener will hear at most one or perhaps two trails per day'. But, in this context, where the range of listening is so great, it is misleading to think in terms of an 'average listener' (the average age of the population is 38, but it is meaningless to say that the 'average UK citizen' is 38 years old). Some listen for less than fifteen minutes per week, others for perhaps thirty or forty hours, or more. Those who listen least are less likely to be troubled by repetitious trailing; whereas the most regular listeners will be more likely to hear repeats of the same trail. They are therefore the ones you are annoying most. Are you saying that because they are fewer, let us say a notional 5%, those listeners matter less, in fact, not at all?

4. On the one point that touches Graham Dixon's reply, which was the single matter I raised with you: yes, of course fewer people buy the Radio Times now, though one in seven amounts to 285,000 listeners (plus there are listings in the press which people use, as well as the Radio 3 website's schedule). You say that about three-quarters of Radio 3 listeners regard trails as 'a useful way of finding out about programmes'. No one denies, as I said previously, the fact that the information is useful, but built trails are not the only way to provide that information on air; they are merely the most frequently employed method, and it is the style, placing and repetitiveness, not the information, which are the problem. If you took any 'representative' group, it is a statistical certainty that a majority would be people who listened for the average or less than the average number of hours, and therefore unlikely to be the ones most irritated by trails. Twenty-five percent, according to your figures, do not for some reason welcome the trails, presumably because they do not need the information or they dislike the trails. It would be more inclusive to find an accommodation between both groups, rather than favouring the majority against the minority.

Catching the floating listener and encouraging him or her to listen to new programmes is a lovely idea, but the on-air trails approach has, as you know (or at least I do), resulted in already unhappy listeners switching off Radio 3 for good. It seems to me that there must be more effective ways of trailing which could serve the needs of all constituencies within the Radio 3 audience, and alienate none. The aim would be to achieve exactly what you aim to achieve: more listening.

5. You say that trails within programmes 'have long been standard', mentioning Morning on 3 and In Tune. I do not know what you mean by 'long', but, in my memory, up to two and a half years ago, built trails (two) on Morning on 3 invariably preceded the main news bulletin, when there was a break anyway. Is that incorrect? Before the half-hour news programmes, which themselves, as you know, attracted complaints when they were introduced, there would have been almost a full hour of music before the break; the extra news bulletins cut that down to less than 30 minutes; and now inter-news trails cut it again, often into 10 to 20-minute segments, each with constant repetitions of station/programme/presenter idents.

I speak only for myself in saying that that is no context for me to listento serious music. I am not sure that I bothered to complain about the trails you mention, but I certainly gave up listening to the programme a couple of years ago.

6. The research group sessions sound potentially one of the most useful methods, but, as I have said, such groups, unless selected to include, predominantly, 'heavy' listeners, would not be likely to focus strongly on what bothers listeners who listen for many hours a day, and who are, by definition, unrepresentative. They are Radio 3's most loyal listeners, and, potentially, the most appreciative; nevertheless, you cannot expect them to remain loyal if they feel that Radio 3 is now principally concerned with other constituencies than themselves, and by no means all of them are mollified by periodic total immersion (or 'binge') events to compensate; quite the reverse.

7. I accept entirely your assurance that you have very little evidence of listener antipathy for trails. But I repeat that this flies in the face of evidence elsewhere: in the DCMS's Have Your Say consultation; in the various messageboard complaints (the Radio 3 one regularly has threads about particular trails and similar irritations of presentation); in the Radio 4 recent listener protests, and a Feedback programme a year or so back (nice to see that the New Statesman has Radio 3 fans down as no less passionate than Radio 4 listeners, but 'less bonkers'); and in the press.

8. Some people, perhaps a majority, are immune and feel no irritation, just as they are not concerned about repetitious musical anecdotes (as long as they have not heard them before), botched foreign pronunciations (as long as they are not familiar with the correct pronunciation), inaccurate information (as long as they do not know it is wrong), indifferent interviewing (as long as they were not listening carefully anyway). But a section of your audience cares, not merely that Radio 3 should do these things right in the ears of the world, but because, if it does not, it makes the station less a pleasure to listen to than a constant irritation. To tell those listeners that they are 'unrepresentative', and give the impression that Radio 3 is now targeting a quite different audience, will be to lose them. It is sometimes easy to feel that that is the intention…

9. I suspect I would agree with you on a number of points about what Radio 3/the BBC should ideally be aiming for: younger listeners (but it appears that Radio 3 has recently lost listeners in the middle of the age spectrum) and new listeners (but without losing existing listeners – which it clearly has been doing). The message I would have got from that is that the methods used have been counterproductive. It is accepted that Radio 3 is, in key areas, unique (size of audience and relative cost, for example); it should be accepted too that Radio 3 has unique challenges which need unique solutions.

The major problem here is much broader than trails: it is about what sort of listener Radio 3 is now most concerned to cultivate, and the perceptions of those who feel they are now progressively being excluded. Quoting at them the percentage of classical music broadcast is missing the point.

Quote on the FoR3 website, about which you asked: a certain amount of this comes from unsolicited comment received via the FoR3 website itself; it is also taken from Radio 3 messageboards. It has no statistical basis and there is no reference to numbers, neither 'most', 'many' nor 'some'. Each of the individual points mentioned has been brought up by listeners, including the following points not already mentioned above: 'silly voices': the Lenny Henry 'Listen Up' campaign, for instance, was a no-no, especially as it lasted, if I remember, six weeks; many people found it childish rather than fun; both with trails and announcements, listeners have said they prefer announcers/presenters to tell them what they are going to hear without lavish praise and to comment on a critical rather than a personal basis afterwards: presenters' enthusiasm is not always infectious, particularly if it seems misplaced. Listeners see through the technique of programmes being treated like a 'product' that they are being 'sold', always the good news, never the bad.

The messageboard has regularly had comments about the general use of snippets of music being included with voice-overs

Back to timeline …

The Controller's reply picked up on two points:

Thank you for your response dated 11th March – as ever it is much appreciated. I simply want to pick up on a couple of points:

1. You mention the DCMS consultation in your letter. In fact, the White Paper last week has an interesting paragraph on the subject of on-air promotion, presenting both BBC and Ofcom findings:

"The Government believes that it is important that the BBC should continue to promote its services on-air so that licence fee payers are aware of specific programmes and the breadth of the BBC's overall offering. BBC promotion has also played an important role in driving the take up of digital TV and radio. Research by BBC and Ofcom suggests that the BBC's on-air promotion is not excessive in comparison with other broadcasters, and that viewers and listeners generally find on-air promotion helpful, though there is a small number who are annoyed by it. The Trust will be responsible for ensuring that the nature and extent of on-air promotion remains appropriate."

So I can only reiterate that trailing is not a major issue of concern to most Radio 3 listeners. However, of course I will continue to monitor the response to this and all other issues. It will be interesting to see if at any point the trailing policy has any effect on our listening figures.

2. You comment about our research group sessions. I can confirm to you that the participants were deliberately selected to include both heavy and occasional listeners to gain a broad set of responses. Even among the heavy listeners (some listened all day to Radio 3) trails were never mentioned. Just for the sake of good order (and I probably don't need to remind you!), it is normal BBC practice to offer you the possibility of having any complaints looked at independently by the Editorial Complaints Unit. So if you consider this to be a complaint, the ECU can be contacted by writing to Editorial Complaints Unit, BBC Media Centre, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane. London W127TQ.

Back to timeline …

FoR3 responded to the the two points:

Thank you for your response of 24 March – also, as ever, much appreciated.

The couple of points you raised:

1. The paragraph on cross promotion in the White Paper: yes, I had already seen that, and as a result, went back to the DCMS consultation summary (A summary report – an analysis of responses to DCMS Green Paper consultation) to read what the public responses to the Green Paper's comments had been. As in the Green Paper, there was a special paragraph on Trailers and Fillers (page 17). It seemed to me that the feelings against the BBC's programme trailing policy were even more clearly expressed there than in the Green Paper. It is therefore very perplexing that the government changed its viewpoint in the White Paper, supporting the BBC line rather than the licence fee payers. We shall comment on this in our response to the White Paper.

I cannot agree that you have enough evidence to speak of the views of 'most Radio 3 listeners' and even if 'most' of them weren't bothered by trails, that wouldn't be a reason for continuing to inflict them on a minority who are currently finding them extremely annoying in their style, frequency and placing. However, the BBC seems to be wedded to its hard-sell policy regardless of public opinion and, sadly, Radio 3 is toeing the same line. Is this to show that it isn't elitist and can consume cultural Big Macs like the rest of the world? Your own figures which reveal that trails on Radio 3 have been increased by 20% since the beginning of the year are alarming, as is the spread of the practice of trailing in the middle of programmes. It is a great pity that persistent complaints in the past never seem to have reached your ears, as we may suppose this might have deterred you from intensifying the trailing policy so recently. I see the protests on the Radio 3 messageboard are still appearing regularly.

2. You say your research group sessions include 'heavy'listeners as well as occasional ones and that the matter of trails is never mentioned. I suppose it depends on how the sessions are structured and whether, for example, listeners have ever been asked if they like to have the trails in the middle of the programmes between pieces of music, or whether they would prefer short factual announcements made by presenters or continuity announcers, rather than the 'built trails' which are the root of the problem for many people .

Back to timeline …

The Controller reminded FoR3:

Thank you for your letter of 18 April.

I know that in the past you have not accepted my offer of agreeing to disagree, but clearly trails is a subject on which I can only repeat my offer!

You mention our focus groups again. Indeed we actually played trails to the heavy listeners who expressed no concern about their placing or regular appearance in our schedules.

Back to timeline …

FoR3 made a final attempt to get responses from the Controller:

Thank you for your response of 28 April.

You say that in the past we have not accepted your offer of 'agreeing to disagree', and you repeat the offer on this occasion. I'm not certain that this is an 'offer' in the usual sense of the word, but if so, might I suggest that this is the only thing you have offered us in three years, in spite of the range of issues we have raised with you?

We recognise that 'agreeing to disagree' is a common euphemism for saying one does not wish to continue with the present dialogue, but we repeat that it is not a matter of agreement or disagreement. We have been at pains to present the issues in a factual way: a section of the Radio 3 audience is saying that, since your makeover of the station, you are now barely catering for their requirements, either because you broadcast the programmes they would like to listen to during the daytime (when they are at work) or throughout the night (when they are asleep), while reserving large stretches of the evening listening for what has been officially described by the BBC as 'music not traditionally associated with Radio 3'; or because the new presenter-led style, drawing as it does on the techniques (and in some cases the material) of popular radio, distracts them from serious listening because they find it irritating. These points are at the heart of what we complain of and are not something you can disagree with: you can merely dismiss them.

On calculating the listening figures for the year ended March 2006, we note that Radio 3's average weekly reach was the second lowest recorded under RAJAR's current system (and indeed since you took over as Controller), the lowest since 2000-2001; and the indicator which the Governors quote in the Annual Report, namely the percentage of the 15+ population listening to Radio 3, was at its lowest ever, fractionally below that for 2000-2001. There has been a decline in reach over the past two years, roughly corresponding with the introduction of your new autumn schedules in September 2003.

We ask you again how you explain the fact that, although you say your new diversified programming has brought 'many new listeners' to Radio 3, the weekly reach has not gone up. It being unlikely that all your new listeners have gone again, the only explanation is that long-standing listeners have given up listening altogether. To reply to these listeners that 'you can't please all the people all the time' when self-evidently you are not pleasing them at all is tantamount to telling them that you are aiming for a different audience now so it is of no concern to you if they do switch off and go away.

As a group, we have different musical and cultural tastes, but we have come together in a spirit of compromise which is not fundamentally at odds with what you are trying to do. We agree that jazz should have its traditional place in the schedules; we agree that the music of other cultures is valuable and appropriate for Radio 3 coverage; we support Radio 3's patronage of new music; we believe that there are important areas of the spoken arts and other speech forms which are only appropriate for broadcast to a minority audience. Not everyone in our group will want to listen to all of them, some will not want to listen to any of them, but they have all agreed that there is a place for such programmes on Radio 3, alongside the classical music output. To brush aside the objections of these listeners by saying 'you can't please all the people all the time' when self evidently they are not expecting to be pleased all the time is a little insulting to them. It also means you do not have to consider any reasonable compromises. Is there a particular percentage of the existing audience which you are prepared to lose in order to provide new listeners with entertainment of a more popular kind?

You will forgive us, I hope, if we repeat some of the specific points which we have made before and which we believe are unanswered. Could you please comment

1. on the fact that last year's average weekly reach was (to preempt any objection on detail) 'stable', albeit at a five-year low, even though you say 'many new listeners' have been attracted to Radio 3

2. on our concern that the changes to Radio 3 will continue in the same direection and gradually turn away more and more of the existing listeners who feel their requirements are no longer being catered for, and with an indifferent majority given a higher status than a discerning minority

3. Trails (the initial subject of the current discussion): we have made suggestions for alternative ways of giving on-air programme information (continuity announcements between programmes and short, regularly scheduled slots devoted to forthcoming programmes), replacing the advertising-style trails now being used, increasingly, in the middle of programmes. Could you say why these would not fulfil the BBC's desire to tell people about what is on offer?

Back to timeline …

The Controller replied avoiding all the essential points:

Thank you for your letter. You note that your current letter arises from our exchanges about trails which we had earlier this year. Leaving aside any debate about the precise meaning of 'agreeing to disagree', we can agree that the Radio 3 audience has been broadly stable during the past years. Naturally, we hope the trails will have a positive effect in the longer term, although as you may perhaps also agree, Radio 3's success cannot be judged solely by its audience figures.

As for your concerns about the future direction of Radio 3, you probably know that each BBC channel is in the process of agreeing a service licence with the Board of Governors – soon to be the BBC Trust. Once the text of that is available, you will be able to see the framework which will determine our course for the coming years.

Back to timeline …

FoR3 pointed out to the Controller that he had not yet supplied answers to the questions:

On this occasion we have no option but to 'agree to disagree' (in your phrase) and close the correspondence here, even though, as usual, we are left wondering, after an exchange of eight letters, what precisely you disagree with and what the answers are to our questions.

We would simply remind you that in our letter of 2 June we asked you to comment on three short points: 1) the listening figures which indicate that as many people are deserting Radio 3 as are being attracted to it by your new, non-classical, programming; 2) the planned future direction of Radio 3; and 3) our suggestions for alternatives to the disruptive on-air trailing which, according to your figures, has increased by 20% since the beginning of the year, and which has become more intrusive than ever with more mid-programme interruptions.

You evaded each one of the points (for the umpteenth time in the case of the listening figures). We assume, therefore, that these matters relate to secret strategy which we are not allowed to know. It reeks rather of 'Never apologise, never explain' which fits poorly with the BBC's duty to be accountable and transparent.

Since this correspondence began with a complaint about your aggressive trailing policy, we would also mention that it has been noticed that for days now Radio 3 has been transmitting on DAB at its minimum 160kbps instead of the usual 192kbps. This provides unacceptable audio quality for classical music and appears to be because, for most of the time, Radio Five Live Sports Extra is using up 32kbps for broadcasting nothing but a looped station trail.

It was understood that Radio 3 would lose bitrate when Five Live SX was broadcasting sporting events, but it now appears that Radio 3 is to be transmitted semi-permanently (or perhaps permanently?) at 160kbps, even when Five Live SX is only broadcasting a running trail ('justified', of course, because the BBC has to advertise the forthcoming programmes which it has on offer).

Contrary to what the BBC appears to think, 160kbps does NOT provide satisfactory audio quality for classical music; 192kbps, while adequate, was NOT by any means impressive; the reconfiguration does NOT compensate for the drop in bitrate or produce sound quality which is officially 'almost indistinguishable' from 192kbps; and, while we are on the subject, Listen Again also does NOT offer good enough quality to meet many people's requirements (they do better listening to the far superior audio quality of the internet streams of some of the international stations). I am sure you recognise this (just as you recognise that Classic FM's compressed audio would not be good enough for Radio 3).

People have been encouraged to buy DAB tuners in the expectation of improved quality, instead of which the quality is currently, at best, only comparable with that of FM and is now getting worse.

All this is additionally disappointing when one takes into account that the sub-standard audio quality is due to the BBC cramming so many new digital stations on their multiplex. And in spite of the hours of additional broadcasting time this offers, Radio 3 has to take on board programmes which hitherto would have been considered Radio 1 or Radio 2 material. Does the BBC, and do you at Radio 3 in particular, ever consider what, in the BBC's eternal quest for youth (in a demographically ageing population), the older end of the listeners think and feel?

There is no compelling need for you to respond to this letter (unless you wish to) since, at your suggestion, we are now ending this particular correspondence. But we consider the BBC is failing in its duty to be accountable and transparent (not, one suspects, out of any need for confidentiality but because if the aims were spelled out people would be appalled); have let down those who, under false claims from the BBC, have invested in DAB equipment; and are neglecting a section of their older listenership who have remained in full possession of their mental faculties and do not require Radio 3 to be reduced to easy listening. In return for delivering all this, senior executives (and management?) get large salaries and bonuses on the sole grounds that other people are getting similar payouts. This is all very shabby and not what the public has traditionally expected of the BBC.

Back to timeline …

The Controller replied drawing attention to the public consultation:

Thank you for your letter. I note your suggestion to bring this set of correspondence to a close. Just to clarify one point from our last exchange, you might like to note that the individual Service Licences will not simply be announced by the BBC, but will be put out to public consultation in due course. We trust that you will take part in this consultation process.

You have raised the issue of the digital R3 bit rate. I am not in a position to reply directly, since this is not my responsibility. The policy regarding bit rates within BBC Radio is determined by assessing the needs of the different services offered on DAB within the available spectrum. I am therefore passing your letter to colleagues within our interactive area, who will be able to explain the reasoning behind the allocation of spectrum.

Back to timeline …

Jenny Abramsky, Director of Radio and Music, replied to FoR3's request:

I apologise for the delay in replying to your letter of 5 September but I wanted to wait until I had personally been able to carry out some listening tests before replying. I know you received a response earlier this summer from Amanda Ashton, our Divisional Manager, and I would have had nothing specific to add to that.

As Amanda explained, we have recently installed new encoding equipment in the broadcast transmission chain for all our radio stations on DAB. Prior to the installation, the coders were tested at various bit rates – 192, 160, 112 and 64 (the latter two not being considered for Radio 3) – and it was concluded that, with the new encoders, the quality was almost indistinguishable from 192 with the old equipment. As a consequence, the bit rate for Radio 3 was reduced, as has happened before to permit Five Live Sports Extra to broadcast, to 160kbps. The difference, as you will understand, was that we did not restore Radio 3 when Sports Extra was not on air but, in response to requests from Sports Extra listeners who could not find the station except during actual transmission times, broadcast a continuous loop as a placeholder on the multiplex.

However, as we received some complaints about the quality of Radio 3 at 160 kbps, we have conducted a series of exhaustive tests of the equipment throughout the extremely complex broadcast chain. Some technical problems were found to be affecting the quality of Radio 3 broadcasts, which were rectified as soon as they were identified. However, following further tests on the new encoding equipment, we have decided to return to the previous arrangements which were in place for nearly four years.

This means Radio 3 will broadcast at 192kbps apart from when Sports Extra is on air when it will be reduced to 160kbits and the bit rate of Radio 4 will also be reduced. These arrangements will be introduced on Friday 22nd September.

We will continue to work with the manufacturers of our broadcasting equipment to offer our listeners the best possible sound quality. I can only offer my apologies to you and any other Friends of Radio 3 whose enjoyment of Radio 3 broadcasts has been affected over the summer.

Back to timeline …

For3 replied to Jenny Abramsky, thanking her:

Thank you very much for your very welcome letter of 20 September re DAB.

The rate at which the responses are coming in indicates that there is a great deal of relief at the news. With Radio 3 listeners whose ears could detect the differences between vinyl, CD and MP3 recordings when broadcast on Radio 4 recently, it was always going to be a challenge to reduce Radio 3's bit rate without them noticing the degraded audio quality.

BBC Radio has, we assume, always recognised that classical music has particular features which need to be captured faithfully – hence the higher bit rate allocated to Radio 3 – and that classical music listeners are extremely critical of audio standards, whether radio, CDs at home or even at live performances.

We do understand the difficulties involved in balancing the needs of different audiences as well as the current pressures to make DAB provision attractive enough for people to begin to switch away from FM. However, we hope that the BBC will always appreciate absolute standards of excellence, even when they are not demanded by the vast majority of the viewers and listeners, and that they will maintain those standards where needed for the benefit of those minorities for whom they are of enormous importance, even the difference between listening and switching off.

Once again, many thanks for making what, for us, has been the right decision

Back to timeline …