Concert Intervals on R3

[Pulcinella]

I'm not sure that it is the whole point.
Is is not that listeners would prefer a relevant interval feature, even a shortened Discovering Music, to inane chat or, as in the Etudes recital, more of the same?

[french frank]

The Essay is not an "addition" to Radio 3: it's the current place in the schedule for most talks.

I said it was a good 'addition to the schedule', meaning that it hasn't always been there, but when it was introduced, it was a good 'addition to the schedule'. It replaced the concert interval Twenty Minutes. From Robert Hanks's The Week in Radio in The Independent, March 7 2007, commenting on the changes to Radio 3's schedules (including also the launch of Breakfast) that February:

"The other strand I'm ambivalent about is The Essay, a nightly 15-minute talk slot that is far from stupid, but which has shown a certain timidity about subject and tone. The Twenty Minutes slot it replaces was more varied. "

These were the changes which ended the live evening concerts, which were reintroduced, as Charlotte Higgins reported in The Guardian, in 2011.

Both Twenty Minutes and The Essay were part of the arts/speech output.

[Honoured Guest]

Okay, I understand. I always read "addition" to mean adding something, rather than rescheduling it, so I misunderstood you earlier.

Robert Hanks's point about being varied is simply a factual observation that each week The Essay slot schedules a series of five programmes.

[french frank]

Robert Hanks's point about being varied is simply a factual observation that each week The Essay slot schedules a series of five programmes.

Also that he was 'ambivalent' about it and that it showed a certain timidity about subject and tone. Not important: I quoted it to clarify the fact that The Essay, at the fixed time later in the evening, was a 'replacement' for Twenty Minutes, the concert interval feature.

Given that The Essay has established itself in its regular slot in the schedule, let it stay: but live concerts still have intervals, no matter what time they broadcast The Essay. The thread is dealing with the content of the concert interval, with which you are apparently still interested, even though you now listen at the more conveniently regular time of The Essay.

[Honoured Guest]

Actually, I'm interested in conversation about music, so if Radio Times lists an interval feature which sounds promising I sometimes tune in towards the end of the first half of the concert and then listen through until I lose interest in the music in the second half (usually after a very few minutes, but at least I've given it a chance!)

The scope of The Essay has broadened a little since the early days.

[Sir Velo]

I don't think several points are quite right. 'Big name' presenters (I can only think of Aled Jones and Katie Derham) tend(ed) to work across several BBC services, radio and television, so their salaries would not have fallen entirely on Radio 3 but on the BBC. 'Celebs' are very unlikely to get huge fees for appearing on Radio 3 - especially if they're delighted to plug something they're selling. Non-celebs' fees would be nugatory.

I'm not sure what's "not quite right" about what I said!

Actually, what I did say was that they would save a few thousands (sic) by cutting salaries of the higher paid.

Moreover, I said nothing about celebs getting huge fees - I just said they would save on expenses by getting rid of them.

Nonetheless, the point I was making was that, emphatically, there is money in the budget for interval talks. It's just a case of management's sense of priority. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this!

[french frank]

I'm not sure what's "not quite right" about what I said!

Actually, what I did say was that they would save a few thousands (sic) by cutting salaries of the higher paid.

Moreover, I said nothing about celebs getting huge fees - I just said they would save on expenses by getting rid of them.

Straw man arguments I'm afraid.

I think it slightly overstates the case to call them 'straw man' arguments as I only suggested that several points weren't quite right. For example, I mentioned the Parliamentary report which suggested Radio 3 was efficient, whereas you assumed that there was 'wastage'. You mentioned 'big names' not 'the higher paid', so I limited my points to two 'big names'. And your use of 'slush fund' while I agree it did not refer to fees, suggests some overpayment and assumes that celebrities do indeed get them.

However, having a controller who has been the longest serving controller of any service in the history of the BBC may very well be a luxury that Radio 3 has found it hard to afford; and perhaps with the new appointment your few thousands will be found.

I think, though, that people would be surprised to learn how much more expensive, per broadcast hour, speech programmes are compared with CD-based music programmes. A 14-minute edition of The Essay last year had the guide price of 'up to £2000', while a 3-hour edition of Essential Classic, excluding presenters but using the BBC's studios was £1,400. So a 'few thousands' would probably get you two or three concert interval talks.

[Honoured Guest]

French Frank, how do fees for scripted and unscripted speech programmes compare in cost?

[johnn10]

There was that odd incident of a concert from Berlin a few days ago when they played so much music in the interval that they managed to miss the beginning of the second half in the German capital. One thing which I would find interesting now and again would be a few excerpts from historical recordings of one the works on the programme . Otherwise a talk is better and, dare I say it, more educative.

[Honoured Guest]

Deleted (wrong thread).

[french frank]

French Frank, how do fees for scripted and unscripted speech programmes compare in cost?

Quick answer - I don't know. Slightly more detailed answer: the figures quoted in my previous post are of course the prices paid to the production companies, so the fees paid to any contributors would be separate. I take it 'unscripted' programmes, those like Night Waves/Free Thinking, The Verb? Those, I suppose would be in-house and I guess the fees for appearing on a discussion programme and talking off-the-cuff would be more modest on radio. Scripted programmes like The Essay, even if the contributors are experts, would need a degree of research of some sort, as well as the actual writing. There, fees would be more in line with fees in journalism. But what they are I haven't a notion.

Found this for 2013.

[Sir Velo]

I think it slightly overstates the case to call them 'straw man' arguments as I only suggested that several points weren't quite right. For example, I mentioned the Parliamentary report which suggested Radio 3 was efficient, whereas you assumed that there was 'wastage'. You mentioned 'big names' not 'the higher paid', so I limited my points to two 'big names'. And your use of 'slush fund' while I agree it did not refer to fees, suggests some overpayment and assumes that celebrities do indeed get them.

However, having a controller who has been the longest serving controller of any service in the history of the BBC may very well be a luxury that Radio 3 has found it hard to afford; and perhaps with the new appointment your few thousands will be found.

I think, though, that people would be surprised to learn how much more expensive, per broadcast hour, speech programmes are compared with CD-based music programmes. A 14-minute edition of The Essay last year had the guide price of 'up to £2000', while a 3-hour edition of Essential Classic, excluding presenters but using the BBC's studios was £1,400. So a 'few thousands' would probably get you two or three concert interval talks.

"Big names"; "Higher paid". I think that's a quibble! The essential point was that I said that a "few thousands" would be saved and, however you dress it up, that would be true. It would only need a couple of "big name" (if you prefer) presenters to be axed, or given a paycut, for a few thousands to be saved. I think you'll have to give me that one,

As for "slush fund" being a synonym for fees. My dictionary defines it as "slush fund is used in accounting to describe a general ledger account in which all manner of transactions can be posted to commingled funds and "loose" monies." In fact, I explicitly stated expenses, which I think can easily be encompassed by the term "slush fund".

Moreover, whether or not the Parliamentary committee found no evidence of wastage is hardly overwhelming evidence that there is none, and I'm surprised to find you swallowing it so easily. What were their terms of reference, for starters? If they really felt, inter alia that spending the budget on generalist "personalities" as presenters was not wastage, then I doubt whether their review is really worth a candle.

[Opsimath]

As with most discussions of this sort there is probably some truth on both sides. Reducing interval talks has almost certainly contributed a saving and I wouldn't be surprised if "personalities" haven't had their remuneration cut or at least pegged. The effect of Delivering Quality First (a misnomer if ever there was one) has affected every corner of the BBC but there is always likely to be disagreement over where the axe should have been swung with more or less vigour.

[french frank]

"Big names"; "Higher paid".

Then I misunderstood: I thought by 'big names' you meant presenters whose names were well-known, and I pointed out that Radio 3 shared the costs with other services, including television which pays much more than radio. But I'll return to your point about 'a few thousands' in a minute.

As for "slush fund" being a synonym for fees.

But I did say: "And your use of 'slush fund' while I agree it did not refer to fees..." . I think that exonerates me from claiming them to be 'synonyms'.

Moreover, whether or not the Parliamentary committee found no evidence of wastage is hardly overwhelming evidence that there is none, and I'm surprised to find you swallowing it so easily. What were their terms of reference, for starters? If they really felt, inter alia that spending the budget on generalist "personalities" as presenters was not wastage, then I doubt whether there review is really worth a candle.

Shurely shome mishtake? The Public Accounts Committee is charged with scrutinising the BBC's accounts and holding the BBC to account (as we have recently seen under the chairmanship of Margaret Hodge). The review considered the various costs incurred by BBC radio stations compared with their similar commercial counterparts. They were indeed critical of expenditure at the BBC, but Radio 3 compared favourably in similar kinds of payment compared with other BBC stations and with (unnamed) commercial stations. Indeed, the PAC made the point (for which I'm grateful to them in strengthening the arguments that I have recently put to the the BBC), that the BBC's favoured metric of 'cost per listener (hour)' was a convenient way by which they could pay huge sums to 'star' presenters which were concealed by the fact that the audience size was so high - running into millions per programme - that the presenter costs were engulfed and the cplh was still minuscule. That doesn't apply to Radio 3 because audience size doesn't run into multi-millions (2m compared with R2's 13m-15m, R3's Breakfast 600,000 compared with Radio 2's 8 million).

The following graph might be of interest: it shows relative all-in staff costs of various breakfast shows (2008-09, so Morning on 3 for Radio 3). You can see that the costs are lower even than the digital stations 1Xtra and 6 Music:



The point I made was far more telling. When the BBC's most senior service controller leaves this summer, far more will be saved by appointing a new post-holder, especially with the recent constraints on senior management's pay. I estimate it will save Radio 3 at least £60,000 (compared with your 'few thousands' gained by trimming presenters' pay, details of which we do not know because they are confidential between the BBC and the presenter).

In any case, Radio 3's heaviest costs come not from staff pay but by broadcasting live concerts, footing the bill for the Proms and expensive genres like drama.

[Honoured Guest]

As with most discussions of this sort there is probably some truth on both sides. Reducing interval talks has almost certainly contributed a saving ...

That's false memory, as French Frank explained yesterday. Firstly, Talks were rescheduled away from concert intervals to a new, guaranteed timeslot (titled The Essay) later in the evening, so there was no significant reduction in talks and hence no saving was contributed. As part of this scheduling change, most evening concerts were recorded live for later broadcast, usually as continuous music programmes (from 19:00 to 20:45) with no interval break. A few years later, Radio 3 returned to Live in Concerts in the evening, which gave them the problem of having a live interval to fill every night. This nightly interval was a genuine "addition" to the schedule and has been generally plugged with either recorded music or with music context: conversation, interview, chat or feature. Obviously, there must be a cost constraint on this because I assume that any type of context costs more than just bunging on a c d.