Review of Radio 3

[Russ]

Probably, though I intend to criticise the secrecy over the previous review submission.

Good to hear that (via what avenue, btw?), but surely the emphasis should be on attacking the probable secrecy on the current review?

Russ

[french frank]

Good to hear that (via what avenue, btw?), but surely the emphasis should be on attacking the probable secrecy on the current review?

Russ

In the FoR3 (stakeholder organisation!) submission. I think both points go together. We've already made the first one, several years ago. I hope saying that we hope there will be no repetition of this secrecy will ...

[Hitch]

Where I would argue with your point is in dividing the audience into two distinct groups (discerning and 'those with little knowledge'). The Trust tended to see anyone who disliked the populist approach as being an 'expert', the 'musical elite', the 'specialist'. Whereas I suspect the majority of the R3 audience forms a mass that isn't either 'expert' or 'knowing next to nothing'.

If there are two distinct groups it's those who don't know much about classical music and who just want a somewhat less repetitious Classic FM playlist as vague background music and those who, regardless of their knowledge base, take the music more seriously. Rather than being treated as at some sort of extreme, they surely should be treated as the R3 MOR?

Could you explain to those in power that "classical" music spans nearly a millennium and that therefore any listener, no matter how broad, narrow, shallow or deep their musical knowledge, will require education, information and entertainment in equal measure to help them understand, appreciate and enjoy it?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Could you explain to those in power that "classical" music spans nearly a millennium and that therefore any listener, no matter how broad, narrow, shallow or deep their musical knowledge, will require education, information and entertainment in equal measure to help them understand, appreciate and enjoy it?

Very well put, Hitch.

[johnb]

So, it sounds as if it would be quite worthwhile to argue the case for some specialist classical music programmes targeted specifically at the discerning knowledgeable audience, and some might argue that CD Review and some editions of Live in Concert, for example, already serve these discerning knowledgeable audiences.

The idea that "CD Review and some editions of Live in Concert" can be considered as catering for "discerning knowledgeable audiences" seems utterly preposterous to me. Going down this track people will soon be considering the broadcast of any complete string quartet or symphony as catering only for the discerning and knowledgeable, not to mention the broadcast of any music written after the mid twentieth century or before Bach.

Roll on 24 hour Breakfast/Essential Classics.

[Richard Tarleton]

Where I would argue with your point is in dividing the audience into two distinct groups (discerning and 'those with little knowledge'). The Trust tended to see anyone who disliked the populist approach as being an 'expert', the 'musical elite', the 'specialist'. Whereas I suspect the majority of the R3 audience forms a mass that isn't either 'expert' or 'knowing next to nothing'.

Exactly! I have difficulty addressing this on a public forum without being too specific, but it is quite close to areas I was involved with in my professional life until I retired. The organisation I worked for (for 33 years) faced precisely the same challenge of attracting new audiences without alienating existing ones, and rose to the challenge with great success, in particular by means of a highly sophisticated approach (the envy of some partner organisations) to audience segmentation - understanding the needs of the various sections of its existing and potential audiences and making sure that all were catered for without, as far as possible, alienating existing ones. Result - a greatly expanded audience (membership), with minimum casualties and widespread customer satisfaction - the opposite of Radio 3 - and clearly measurable.

Radio 3, on the other hand, has displayed a very poor understanding of audience segmentation, amounting to a binary approach, as ff describes. It has displayed open contempt for those who have criticised it. I have expanded on this in my response to the online survey. I did, in fact, do so in a letter to Tony Hall some time ago, but was not favoured with so much as an acknowledgement.

[french frank]

'People' (meaning the vast majority who have taken no interest in classical music, still don't and have no interest in doing so) have constructed a paradigm of the classical music world as being a fortress which excludes most people. All those inside are the privileged 'musical elite' whose main concern is to keep everyone else out.

RT - you make some very good points about the organisation that you were involved with (is there any literature about the 'audience segmentation' work?). As we said in the final paragraph of our recent 'Performance Review' of Radio 3 (submitted, unasked for, to the Trust):

Promoting Radio 3 and attracting new listeners are necessary BBC aims, but the insensitive way this has been done has damaged the very qualities which attracted listeners in the first place. It drives away an informed audience but does not create another to replace it.

Of course people don't want to 'keep other people out'. But neither do we want to be pushed out ourselves. I'm sure there are those who look at a Breakfast playlist, totally baffled, and think it all looks like 'classical music' to them. Radio 3 will quote statistics like '85% of the total output is classical music.' Implication: they should be satisfied with that ... they were perfectly clear what we were saying and what we weren't, but if they could give a distorted impression they would.

[johnb]

I am dubious about R3's current approach of providing short easy listening pieces or movements as a way of encouraging non-classical listeners (or CFM listeners) to tune into R3 more. Instead of sparking the interest of people I suspect it just provides innocuous background listening - full stop.

Perhaps it is a generational thing but I can't help believing that providing more meaty fair is much more likely to grab people's attention and lead them to explore further - after all that is how the past R3 audiences developed. Sadly, programmes like Discovering Music (which helped inform people about music), etc have been scrapped - probably because some stupid b*gger thought they didn't provide an opportunity for texting/tweeting and were too "elitist".

[Richard Tarleton]

RT - you make some very good points about the organisation that you were involved with (is there any literature about the 'audience segmentation' work?).

Yes, but I no longer have access to it and there are commercial sensitivities....

[french frank]

Yes, but I no longer have access to it and there are commercial sensitivities....

Might you be able to write a paragraph about it - from a general standpoint that might 'help them to understand'? The BBC has very little idea of research other than 'market research' - which they hand over to the professionals.

[Richard Tarleton]

I'll do my best - I'll have to sleep on it.

[french frank]

I'll do my best - I'll have to sleep on it.

Thank you

[Richard Tarleton]

Might you be able to write a paragraph about it - from a general standpoint that might 'help them to understand'? The BBC has very little idea of research other than 'market research' - which they hand over to the professionals.

Well here goes - it's been a year or two, some of it might seem like the bleedin' obvious, and apologies to BBC and R3 if all this has been done, but it doesn't seem as if it has. What I'm referring to was indeed based partly on professional market research, but I think it depends on which models you use, how you go about gathering data, and what you do with it. Don't knock market research per se, it's how good it is and what you do with it that counts....

I was involved, along with a great many others, in the use and application of the results in the organisation (one dependent on membership subscriptions), not in the market research itself which was bought in. This was as I understand based in large part on extensive interviews, research and focus groups across the "audience". When enough data had been amassed, it was then possible to identify groups or segments within that audience and build up a picture of the demographics, age profile, gender, preferences, likes, dislikes etc. of each segment. The latter was expressed at one end in pages of analysis, and at the other in simple "word clouds" of the things that came up most often in discussion.

There comes a realisation that audience segments are not rigid, people behave differently in different circumstances (e.g. who they are with), may (will) belong to different segments (e.g., in R3's case, at different times of day or year, stages of their lives, etc.), and be able to quantify them with some confidence.

Then comes an honest understanding of your "offer". There is a realisation that your existing customers are probably the most important and are to be cherished (the opposite to what R3 appear to have concluded). You analyse what parts of your offer will appeal to which segments. In targeting new audiences you are careful not to lose or alienate sections of your existing audience. In particular you understand what your existing audience value about you, and respect what they know and appreciate about you. You are then in a position to refine your offer to them and to new audiences accordingly.

I've been a member of several different audience segments across my time as an R3 listener, including "beginner with thirst for knowledge", through "general listener", "regular concert goer", "practising amateur musician". I began as musical blotting paper, have become increasingly selective and refined in my choices as I have got older.

This seems to me to highlight the lack of understanding on the part of R3 of the dynamic nature of its audience - I don't think it understands this. It seems pretty clear that the reforms to R3 have not been based on a sophisticated understanding of the audience, rather on the top-down ideas of people who think they know what is best. They have also thrown a large part of their offer at chasing new audience segments (e.g. between 0700 and 1200, and in their presentational style) ones which are already catered for elsewhere and which have more and more demands on their attention. In the process they have lost much (not all) that is distinctive about their offer. Not only have they lost or alienated segments of their existing audience, they have lumped them together (e.g. regarding this Forum as a single voice) without recognising the great diversity they represent, and expressed contempt for them. You don't ignore significant sections of your existing audience, decide you can afford to lose them and insult them in the bargain.

Apologies if this seems disappointingly obvious - it is! But it works if done properly.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Sane, analytical and constructive. Quite magnificent, RT; many thanks.

[Honoured Guest]

So, I think I now understand about analysing audience segmentation and then designing your service so as to appeal to as many of those segments at once as possible.

But Radio 3 is one of six BBC music radio networks, and not an organisation like the one described, which stands alone and exists with the support of a membership body.

The BBC Trust has stated (on Feedback) that the BBC should offer some music to appeal to everyone across the programming on its portfolio of six national music networks.

So, it's fine if people say they used to listen to Radio 3 much more but now only listen to CD Review and some selected Live Concerts, because they are receiving some music appropriate to them.

Other Radio 3 programmes should appeal more to other people, so that the whole population can be served across all programming on the six music networks.

If Breakfast, Morning on 3, etc. aren't succeeding in reaching other listeners, then they should be tweaked and marketed until they do better achieve that aim.

There is no equitable reason why they should revert to serving the same limited audience as CD Review and Live in Concert in an environment of just six BBC music networks to serve the entire UK population.

This post presents my genuine view and is not intended to be provocative for the purpose of mere annoyance.