The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place

[Frances_iom]

... This is really the end! They certainly cannot possibly make it any worse

- just wait until they bring the expensive afternoon talent to bear - R3 isn't designed for you - it's for those who need aural wallpaper which will not under any circumstances tax any mental facilities.

[antongould]

What with the Olympic Torch suggestions, tweets from people who could recite their 12 times table, news headlines, weather, what the papers say, Your Call, interventions from Suzy Klein and Rob Cowan and a trail for Radio 4, 30+ minutes of this two and a half hour programme is now chatter.

Chat is probably the only thing that is cheaper than playing CDs, at least on Radio 3 where the talent isn't paid as much as on Radio 1 or Radio 2.

This gives the impression that the torch stuff is incremental tweeting/texting/mailing when from what I've heard it isn't it is instead of and the mix of words and music remains the same.

I have found the torch music interaction interesting and there is no doubt that it has served to increase, temporarily, the proportion of UK and 20th century items.

But then I am an aural wallpaper merchant.............

[Black Swan]

I'm not sold on the idea that the presenters deserve being called talent.

John

[french frank]

But then I am an aural wallpaper merchant.............

You know that you're not (I think - indeed, I think that you know a lot more about classical music than I do ). It's de gustibus and all one can say is that you're lucky that your tastes are being catered for.

I've looked at this mornings playlist (and I shall listen to the programme) and for me it's The Playlist From Hell. Last time I listened it was 22 items, today it was 25 items. In a programme that's half an hour shorter than before the last changes, when 23-25 was about the norm. More pieces, more breaks between the music, more presenter input, more listener input, more tweets and texts, more headlines and what the papers say.

And the music: I, personally (and, of course, it's only me personally, not the entire universe) can't stand this crashing from Offenbach's Can-Can to Dyson's Magnificat, or Shephard's Jesus dulcis memoria into Barwick Green (not, I assume, the Olympic Torch choice unless someone's radar went seriously wrong).

What can one say other than, if that's the kind of programme you want - you've got it?

[antongould]

It's been a while........it is not exactly the programme I would design for myself BUT I can understand why it is the way it is and in my view it will/does attract new listeners for R3.

[Frances_iom]

I'm not sold on the idea that the presenters deserve being called talent.

John

I understand it comes from the amount of money given to some (as per biblical use)

[french frank]

and in my view it will/does attract new listeners for R3.

'Will' we must wait to see, but 'does'?

Last quarter's Breakfast listening figures were down 18 %, year on year, which, as increases go, leaves something to be desired.

But, up or down, it still leaves an Unanswered Question: Is it desirable to attract new listeners if the methods used drive existing listeners away? Leave the cheap stuff to Classic FM: the BBC can afford better than we're getting at present but its financial priorities are for the high audience services which can kill the commercial opposition.

[cloughie]

It's been a while........it is not exactly the programme I would design for myself BUT I can understand why it is the way it is and in my view t will/does attract new listeners for R3.

But are the powers that be happy that they are turning so many old listeners away - face it Breakfast is rubbish, you know it, I know it so why can't Roger 'the wrecker' Wright and his Pepsi friend see it? Enough is enough!

[old khayyam]

Chat is probably the only thing that is cheaper than playing CDs, at least on Radio 3 where the talent isn't paid as much as on Radio 1 or Radio 2.

i think i mentioned once before that if they keep going this way, they will end up with wossies and wogans demanding millions to prevent their defection. Less chat and more music must be cheaper (PRS notwithstanding).

it's for those who need aural wallpaper

I've no problem with aural wallpaper. Its just that R3 used to provide the best quality wallpaper imaginable. I used to swim in oceans of unheard (by me) music and knowledge, which would seep into my mind without having to listen too hard. To switch analogy, if knowledge were food, this is pot noodle.

[french frank]

Less chat and more music must be cheaper (PRS notwithstanding).

That would only be true if they increased the presenters' salary to recognise the fact that they were spending 20% of the programme chatting and tweeting instead of 10% on introductions: the presenter is there for the 150 minutes anyway. But fewer CDs means less in rights payments.

In hard times (so I'm told) the BBC tends to ask employees to do more for the same pay, rather than take a pay cut.

As for the playlists, I can only give my own reaction: if they published them in advance it would just give me another reason for not listening.

[antongould]

'Will' we must wait to see, but 'does'?

Last quarter's Breakfast listening figures were down 18 %, year on year, which, as increases go, leaves something to be desired.......

Fair point well made - my view hardly seems to be supported by the figures!!

[Resurrection Man]

But are the powers that be happy that they are turning so many old listeners away - face it Breakfast is rubbish, you know it, I know it so why can't Roger 'the wrecker' Wright and his Pepsi friend see it? Enough is enough!

Of course they are happy. Would you expect them to admit to anything else?

I can see it now. Roger Wright comes up with this 'wizzy' new idea to dumb down R3 and get more 'new' listeners. The number of 'new' listeners gained becomes part of his personal remuneration package. QED.

[Panjandrum]

Of course they are happy. Would you expect them to admit to anything else?

I can see it now. Roger Wright comes up with this 'wizzy' new idea to dumb down R3 and get more 'new' listeners. The number of 'new' listeners gained becomes part of his personal remuneration package. QED.

Good point Ressie.

My observation would be how to prove the "new" listeners figure.Remuneration packages, even for an organisation as secretive as the BBC, have to be subect to audit and the figures used therein capable of substantiation. If I were auditing the Wrecker's bonus I would be demanding concrete evidence that these new listeners existed and were not just extrapolated from a quick telephone survey of the BBC supporters' club.

[french frank]

My observation would be how to prove the "new" listeners figure.Remuneration packages, even for an organisation as secretive as the BBC, have to be subect to audit and the figures used therein capable of substantiation. If I were auditing the Wrecker's bonus I would be demanding concrete evidence that these new listeners existed and were not just extrapolated from a quick telephone survey of the BBC supporters' club.

Well, I doubt very much whether there would be anything as specific as a 'bonus' for bringing in new listeners. In any case, many bonuses for senior management have been suspended in the past few years.

But, theoretically, a 'robust' audit system would have to calculate the number of listeners who had deserted too, who, being absent, would be harder to identify.

Reach last quarter was significantly (100,000) under the 2 million regarded as the norm for the past decade.

[Panjandrum]

Well, I doubt very much whether there would be anything as specific as a 'bonus' for bringing in new listeners.

Is this your own view, or do you have "knowledge"? Most TV execs would build ratings into their contract, so I would be surprised if this weren't the case.

But, theoretically, a 'robust' audit system would have to calculate the number of listeners who had deserted too, who, being absent, would be harder to identify.

A robust audit would only assess the data used to form the basis of any bonus. It would not assess the number of ex-listeners, unless this was also a specified part of the method for arriving at total remuneration. Recommendations may be made to the Audit Committee where best practice was not being followed but it could not overrule a bonus, unless it were incorrectly calculated under the terms of the contract.