What do radio listeners want?

[french frank]

but i think that BBC Radio criminally under serves the intellect in all branches of knowledge and culture ... where is the beacon of difficulty, difference and discrimination that can set aflame the teenage mind? ... very necessary is it not if we reflect back to our own adolescences ... it actively bothered my 16 year old head that i could not understand what was being said, even though i loved what was being discussed .... so one explores and learns ....

Fatuously, the BBC Trust reports that their research showed [I quote] that 'some audiences perceive Radio 3 to be a little inaccessible and daunting at times'.

Where on earth does the Trust go to recruit its members - King Street Juniors?

[teamsaint]

i would like radio to do what it did, lead me on to what i did not know i wanted .... only Jon3 is really doing this [and yes i am among its fiercest critics in the past] ... Cow CD Review somewhat, and TEMS especially in terms of music

but i think that BBC Radio criminally under serves the intellect in all branches of knowledge and culture ... where is the beacon of difficulty, difference and discrimination that can set aflame the teenage mind? ... very necessary is it not if we reflect back to our own adolescences ... it actively bothered my 16 year old head that i could not understand what was being said, even though i loved what was being discussed .... so one explores and learns ....

i do not want the slurps that commercial media ensnare passive audiences with to ram the ads across; i do not want the slippers tea and Anglicanism of the disappeared English ... [oh how boring England was]

if i want the comfort of familiar things i can play iTunes or cds or dvds ... if media is to be sponsored by license paying or other taxation, it must be both innovative and it must sustain the canons of knowledge and practise that commercial media will ignore in their marketing hysteric amnesia, spooning passivity and pulp to the lazy audience...

I have to use the knowledge of the people on this board , and my own research skills (?!) to further my musical education.

At least I can, I suppose.

I really don't think there is a desire at the top (of wherever) to have the people educated and questioning.

[Sir Velo]

Fatuously, the BBC Trust reports that their research showed [I quote] that 'some audiences perceive Radio 3 to be a little inaccessible and daunting at times'.

Are these so-called audiences actually pre-existing Radio 3 listeners, or just any old Tom, Dick or Sally, that have been ambushed by the Beeb's researchers? Do we know whether any of these poor, daunted souls actually listen to the "new" Radio 3, or have they drifted back into the comfort of Radio 2 and Local Radio pipe and slippers territory?

It seems unlikely to me that many of these respondents actually ever were Radio 3 regulars. Having said that, any decent research would have followed up to see whether the implemented changes have resulted in the audience now finding the programmes less "daunting" and "inaccessible".

[french frank]

Are these so-called audiences actually pre-existing Radio 3 listeners, or just any old Tom, Dick or Sally, that have been ambushed by the Beeb's researchers?

The Trust knows exactly what we think of their 'audience research', biased as it was in their review towards people who either didn't listen at all, didn't much care for classical music, didn't know much about classical music, were unrepresentative demographically and geographically of the majority of R3 listeners.

We focused especially on the Audience Council reports, which described their methodology as asking their members (?) to listen to selected programmes and say what they thought of them. They actually said that some listeners had never listened to Radio 3 before.

We tried to discover what percentage of those questioned were Radio 3 listeners. What programmes were people asked to listen to. Were they just the Audience Council members (i.e. 'representative of their communities' - in which case something like 4% would be anything like regular listeners). They simply didn't give us the answers.
. They said they had replied - which they had, in that they wrote a return letter and stuck it in an addressed envelope. But they still didn't give us the answers after about five attempts.

They carried out 'qualitative' focus group research, in which the majority were below the average age of Radio 3 listeners and were from areas with the lowest R3 listenership - the 'devolved nations' and the north. The largest number of quotes were from the 25-34 age group - least likely to be listeners to classical music.

We concluded that the research was designed to find out who wasn't listening and how they could be persuaded to listen. Not what the regular audience thought of the output.

From the Trust on this point - total silence.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

silence from the trust is an improvement eh?

i want a subscription radio service ... i wonder what £2 a week would buy us?

say 1m listeners pay, that is £104m ... how does that compare to budgets? [think £2 might be a touch low!]

[Sir Velo]

They actually said that some listeners had never listened to Radio 3 before.

So presumably they do the same for Radio 1; find out who doesn't listen and ask them why not? No? Thought not. It's as relevant as asking a load of traditional R3 listeners what they think of R1's output and what changes should be made to get them to listen to the station. "Er, well, less of that pop rubbish and more Barrett and Andriessen ; with Strindberg and Beckett on Sunday nights". Yeah, right.

They carried out 'qualitative' focus group research, in which the majority were below the average age of Radio 3 listeners and were from areas with the lowest R3 listenership - the 'devolved nations' and the north. The largest number of quotes were from the 25-34 age group - least likely to be listeners to classical music.

We concluded that the research was designed to find out who wasn't listening and how they could be persuaded to listen. Not what the regular audience thought of the output.

As relevant as asking a vegan what recipes would make them eat more beef.

[Zucchini]

For clarity & to avoid muddles & misunderstandings on this subject, this is a key extract from the BBC Trust's Review of Radio 3, 4 & 7. The Report is available on the BBC website, so is the research report prepared & conducted by Optimisa - & so is french frank's submission for FoR3 (though in the true spirit of cosa nostra, not from the FoR3 website)

>
"Our research shows that some listeners can find the tone of Radio 3 inaccessible at times
21 While Radio 3’s intellectual and exploratory nature is a strength for much of its audience, our research shows that some listeners feel that Radio 3 can sound slightly heavy and inaccessible at times. This is particularly evident amongst lighter listeners, who see the station as being aimed more exclusively at music connoisseurs. Submissions from our Audience Councils also suggested that while Radio 3’s challenging and distinctive nature was a clear asset, there were times when the station could sound elitist…

23 Given these factors, we believe that Radio 3 does have some potential to continue to increase its appeal by becoming more welcoming and accessible – particularly in key entry points such as breakfast and drive time.

We believe that Radio 3 should continue to look for ways to be more accessible and welcoming
24 …We believe there is some potential to extend the core audience to those who might appreciate the station’s distinctive and challenging offer but who are discouraged from listening by their perception that it can at times be inaccessible and daunting. Developing a welcoming tone, particularly in the breakfast and drive-time slots, will encourage these potential listeners to sample the high-quality programming on offer which will in turn increase Radio 3’s delivery of the public purposes.

25 While we support this approach, however, we do not regard the maximisation of reach as a primary goal for the station. We recognise that the nature of Radio 3’s output – so long as it remains true to its core values – means that there is a natural limit to its overall audience size. The station’s distinctiveness and exploration of a wide range of challenging music, which we applaud, inevitably means there will be a limit to its overall appeal. Radio 3’s key measures of success remain how well it delivers high-quality music and arts, as well as protecting the important cultural role it plays in the UK arts environment. "
<

The objectives are more akin to refreshing the attributes of Marks & Spencer without losing existing customers, than launching a strawberry Mars bar. It can take years & changes may be insignificant in the short term. Apologies that this is so long - I blame the Trust.

[french frank]

Ta, Zucchers. There are two bits that claim attention:

"We believe there is some potential to extend the core audience to those who might appreciate the station’s distinctive and challenging offer but who are discouraged from listening by their perception that it can at times be inaccessible and daunting."

IOW, they'd appreciate the challenge if it was all made a bit less challenging.

"will encourage these potential listeners to sample the high-quality programming on offer which will in turn increase Radio 3’s delivery of the public purposes."

This effectively means that because we have these 'public purposes' we have to try and maximise all our audiences so that we reach the largest number of people." IOW, we have to chase ratings like mad ... everywhere we can ... The more listeners we have, the better we can deliver our public purposes.

So are the Trust members fools or knaves? I think that as it's a part-time job, they don't have enough time to do it properly. The Trust Unit is full-time but it has no more clue than the average member of the public.

Have you studied the Optimisa research (focus groups), the Audience Councils reports, the 'audience research' = the report of the online listeners' survey? Plus the submissions from the Voice of the Listener and Viewer and from RadioCentre? If you're interested, I'll send you our criticisms of the entire review, sent to the Trust.

[MarkG]

The recent thread about the possible axing of Sky at Night did remind me that there used to be regular science programme on R3 several years ago. Can't remember the name. It went into a bit more depth that R4's science programmes and did presuppose some prior knowledge in the listener. Can't imagine it being broadcast now. There seems to be a general move against programmes where the intended audience already has some knowledge of the subject.

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?9415-BBC-may-axe-Sky-at-Night

[french frank]

There seems to be a general move against programmes where the intended audience already has some knowledge of the subject.

Some people will say that makes it 'inaccessible'; and it seems to be aimed at people who already have some knowledge

[Frances_iom]

...There seems to be a general move against programmes where the intended audience already has some knowledge of the subject.

I like the quote on slashdot re the proposed ending of sky at night as due to "The fragile self esteem of network executives intimidated by science."
the same comment applies to many of the changes we have seen to R3 where science is replaced by any topic for which , as Gauss said - there is no royal road to Mathematics" ie some topics are inaccessible to those who have not done some preparatory work

[Zucchini]

Ta, Zucchers. There are two bits that claim attention:.

The extracts were really intended to offer a firm base for others ff. Anyway, I also think the following from para 25 are extremely important:

...we do not regard the maximisation of reach as a primary goal for the station. We recognise that the nature of Radio 3’s output – so long as it remains true to its core values – means that there is a natural limit to its overall audience size.

...Radio 3’s key measures of success remain how well it delivers high-quality music and arts, as well as protecting the important cultural role it plays in the UK arts environment.

There are two separate and important questions which can be summarised as:

1) Are the Trust Review paras I've quoted a satisfactory statement of R3s obligations and objectives?

2) Is R3's Management following a business plan which without significant deviation can achieve these objectives?

[Yes, I read the Optimisa research a long time ago and know where to find it. I'm familiar with the other "research sources" but haven't seen them. And yes, I read the submissions from the Voice of the Listener and Viewer, from RadioCentre and others. And yes, I would be very interested and grateful to read yourr criticisms of the entire review as sent to the Trust]

[Quarky]

The extracts were really intended to offer a firm base for others ff. Anyway, I also think the following from para 25 are extremely important:
There are two separate and important questions which can be summarised as:

1) Are the Trust Review paras I've quoted a satisfactory statement of R3s obligations and objectives?

2) Is R3's Management following a business plan which without significant deviation can achieve these objectives?

[Yes, I read the Optimisa research a long time ago and know where to find it. I'm familiar with the other "research sources" but haven't seen them. And yes, I read the submissions from the Voice of the Listener and Viewer, from RadioCentre and others. And yes, I would be very interested and grateful to read yourr criticisms of the entire review as sent to the Trust]

The Trust's views seem self-contradictory - welcoming lighter listeners, but maintaining core values.

We can't put the clock back, society and culture has moved on from the days of the Third programme. There is a lot that could be done to put Radio 3 more in sync with present day cultural attitudes, while maintaining standards. Personally feel that the new weekend schedule is a step in the right direction - subject to the proviso that we haven't heard it yet!

[Russ]

1) Are the Trust Review paras I've quoted a satisfactory statement of R3s obligations and objectives?

To an extent, yes, but whether they are 'satisfactory' is another matter, because the Trust always wants to eat and keep its cake, as Oddball notes. Strategic questions aside, what tends to be pertinent in terms of actual programming are the framework conditions of the Service Licence, which currently (May 2013) are:

- Ensure that at least 40% of the station's music output will consist of live or specially recorded music each year
- Broadcast at least 400 live or specially recorded performances each year
- Commission at least 20 new musical works each year
- Broadcast at least 25 new drama productions each year
- Broadcast at least 30 new documentaries on arts and cultural topics each year

Russ

[french frank]

To an extent, yes, but whether they are 'satisfactory' is another matter, because the Trust always wants to eat and keep its cake, as Oddball notes. Strategic questions aside, what tends to be pertinent in terms of actual programming are the framework conditions of the Service Licence, which currently (May 2013) are:

- Ensure that at least 40% of the station's music output will consist of live or specially recorded music each year
- Broadcast at least 400 live or specially recorded performances each year
- Commission at least 20 new musical works each year
- Broadcast at least 25 new drama productions each year
- Broadcast at least 30 new documentaries on arts and cultural topics each year

Russ

FoR3 also sent in a 19-page response to the review of service licences (public consultation). You can see how slippery the whole thing is. Cf Russ's figures from the latest SL (Table from our submission, p 5):



The figures Russ quoted are on the right, the others show how the 'conditions' have been lowered. All part of the business plan, one presumes. As the achieved level is so far above the condition, I assume the new lower levels will be reached - and still be higher than the condition (the figure for documentaries is the same - 30). Result: all targets satisfactorily achieved.

The Trust review itself, quoted by Zucchini, is equally slippery. It mouths good intentions, says all the right things, but doesn't bother to see that management fulfils them. And they're not interested when it's shown that they don't.