The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place

[kernelbogey]

Or broke as an american relative has it.

Or B'Rock!

[kernelbogey]

This was a so-called ‘Written Trail’ when we build script round a musical or verbal clip. The music duration was probably something like 50” - as it would be in a ‘built’ trail where the whole package is prerecorded. So the clip of Bruckner 9 was no different to the musical background in any ‘built’ trail. It’s not a ‘new’ low however you view it. To me it seems a bit extreme to change channels because of a brief trail. If that trail gets anyone to listen to the concert who wouldn’t otherwise have done so, and then maybe introduces them to Bruckner, then surely it will have done the job it’s meant to do…

Thank you - and welcome.

[oddoneout]

This was a so-called ‘Written Trail’ when we build script round a musical or verbal clip. The music duration was probably something like 50” - as it would be in a ‘built’ trail where the whole package is prerecorded. So the clip of Bruckner 9 was no different to the musical background in any ‘built’ trail. It’s not a ‘new’ low however you view it. To me it seems a bit extreme to change channels because of a brief trail. If that trail gets anyone to listen to the concert who wouldn’t otherwise have done so, and then maybe introduces them to Bruckner, then surely it will have done the job it’s meant to do…

The adverts are a source of considerable irritation and dislike among those who post on here, and also among the wider R3 audience judging from comments I've read and heard at various times, so turning off/over isn't that extreme; I mute if I can. The R3 audience is, in the scheme of things, not only small but also fairly specialised and I don't see that applying the same kind of thinking to that audience as to say a BBC1 audience is a particularly useful exercise. The chances of a Damascene moment or alerting to a happening not previously noticed are very very small I would suggest, and I for one don't appreciate the bludgeoning that happens throughout the day in the attempt to find that one in a million - if that's really the justification then put them on the other stations and TV.
The Proms campaign is a prime example as far as I'm concerned. How many of the R3 audience really don't know about the Proms especially after the weeks of ads we've already had? Of those how many would be inspired to look them up as a result of the campaign?

But the BBC has said before now that if people are annoyed by programme trails it means they have noticed them and therefore the trail 'will have done the job it’s meant to do… '

If "the job" is seen as irritating the target audience then I despair.
Meanwhile there's another 2 months of Proms adverts, on top of the base load of the ongoing interruptions, all too frequently crass in their placement and tone in terms of the juxtaposition to the music, now that they have spread into the likes of Afternoon Concert.

[cloughie]

From yesterday, I was picking throught the playlist (usual mix of Nielsen, Juliette Greco, Fauré, Jacques Brel &c) and thought I'd check on the music of Carmel Smickersgill - a name not familiar to me. I was intrigued to find her piece Leaving on YouTube, and even more intrigued to find her record company describing her as an "Emerging modern classical/outsider pop artist". I wonder what the word "classical" is supposed to mean? No longer is all music just "music" but anything can be described as "classical". In other words, the word means nothing at all. Is that a good thing?

I guess she’s one of Lizzy’s Unclassical performers! If that was the piece I heard it would be marginal even to call it music!

Make your own mind up!

https://youtu.be/Xqn-ZaZtOGM

[Ein Heldenleben]

This was a so-called ‘Written Trail’ when we build script round a musical or verbal clip. The music duration was probably something like 50” - as it would be in a ‘built’ trail where the whole package is prerecorded. So the clip of Bruckner 9 was no different to the musical background in any ‘built’ trail. It’s not a ‘new’ low however you view it. To me it seems a bit extreme to change channels because of a brief trail. If that trail gets anyone to listen to the concert who wouldn’t otherwise have done so, and then maybe introduces them to Bruckner, then surely it will have done the job it’s meant to do…

Absolutely right. The prejudice against trails - a perfectly respectable , if occasionally irritating , broadcast technique is becoming absurd. Trails have been around for a long time and they have been proved to be effective in securing an audience. You can bet that the musicians performing the piece will be keen on it being advertised.

[french frank]

Didn't Wolfgang redo K550 in a drum 'n' bass version...?

I think that arrangement was by Anne Dudley

Coming back to odders comments about trails in general: we tried to persuade Radio 3 that there were alternative ways of giving out programme information than the advertising style of 'built trails' which send the message that, like the commercials, Radio 3 is just trying to sell product. On the Bruckner, why not at least play the whole movement and then announce that more can be heard whenever that concert is being broadcast? Or can the presenter not read out a short announcement (say before the news) giving details of notable programmes? It sinks to an abysmal level if Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik can't be mentioned without playing a 10-second burst in the background.

Wrote this before I saw Heldenleben's reply with which I disagree. That's a broadcaster's point of view. I once described this to a friend who worked for the BBC, saying it was a technique much disliked. His reply was: "No, that's good broadcasting." And Roger Wright once told me trails didn't attract more listeners (they might attract some and turn off others. Zero gain).

[oddoneout]

Absolutely right. The prejudice against trails - a perfectly respectable , if occasionally irritating , broadcast technique is becoming absurd. Trails have been around for a long time and they have been proved to be effective in securing an audience. You can bet that the musicians performing the piece will be keen on it being advertised.

On R3? Can I have a link to the evidence please.
As someone who listens to many hours of R3 I disagree with your dismissal of trails as occasionally irritating. Hearing the same sharp prod several times over the course of a day, every day, goes way beyond that. They don't necessarily stop once the event has been and gone either as they get recycled into an plug for Sounds or whatever. Unlike TV ads it's just about impossible to avoid them and go and do something else as they don't come at scheduled times in blocks of known duration. The only option is to mute and then guess when to turn the sound back on - or too many times in my case - get distracted in the interim and forget, thus missing chunks of the programme.
I look up the day's available listening and decide from that what I will hear in addition to the items I listen to every day; all the adverts do is tell me about things I already know of - ad nauseam - or things in which I have no interest. Are there really so very many R3 listeners who don't plan (however casually) their listening that aural harassment of the whole audience is deemed necessary to ensure they don't miss something.

[hmvman]

Ein Heldenleben and Hanners, does R3/BBC have a method of measuring the effectiveness of specific trails in terms of audiences gained?

[kernelbogey]

Hearing the same sharp prod several times over the course of a day, every day, goes way beyond that. They don't necessarily stop once the event has been and gone either as they get recycled into an plug for Sounds or whatever. Unlike TV ads it's just about impossible to avoid them and go and do something else as they don't come at scheduled times in blocks of known duration.

So the gain from new listeners may be counterbalanced by those who want to listen all day, but are dissuaded by the trails.

And Roger Wright once told me trails didn't attract more listeners (they might attract some and turn off others. Zero gain).

QED

What I found shocking about the Bruckner this morning is that i didn't hear Martin's words that it was about an upcoming concert - so I thought we were going to hear the whole movement. Prepackaged trails are, at least, self evidently ads.

[hmvman]

What I found shocking about the Bruckner this morning is that i didn't hear Martin's words that it was about an upcoming concert - so I thought we were going to hear the whole movement. Prepackaged trails are, at least, self evidently ads.

Bit like 'advertorial' in magazines...

[Ein Heldenleben]

On R3? Can I have a link to the evidence please.
As someone who listens to many hours of R3 I disagree with your dismissal of trails as occasionally irritating. Hearing the same sharp prod several times over the course of a day, every day, goes way beyond that. They don't necessarily stop once the event has been and gone either as they get recycled into an plug for Sounds or whatever. Unlike TV ads it's just about impossible to avoid them and go and do something else as they don't come at scheduled times in blocks of known duration. The only option is to mute and then guess when to turn the sound back on - or too many times in my case - get distracted in the interim and forget, thus missing chunks of the programme.
I look up the day's available listening and decide from that what I will hear in addition to the items I listen to every day; all the adverts do is tell me about things I already know of - ad nauseam - or things in which I have no interest. Are there really so very many R3 listeners who don't plan (however casually) their listening that aural harassment of the whole audience is deemed necessary to ensure they don't miss something.

Sadly no I can’t offer a link to the effectiveness of trails on Radio 3 . But I would put money on there being a great deal of general research into the effectiveness of Radio trials . All I can say is that having spent 40 plus years working in a medium not wholly unrelated to radio and having had a brief spell in the 80’s in that glorious medium properly produced and properly scheduled trails work. Ive seen the impact reports - it works believe me. What is difficult to assess is exactly how much it works .One key point you have to hit a lot of slots to get an impact and as the audience for each slot diminishes you have to hit more slots to have the same impact. People who are heavy watchers then get irritated because they see/ hear the trails a lot.
Trails also generate an audience increase for more outré fare that might not get Newspaper coverage . You would not believe the amount of effort and money spent on them (in TV / Film maybe not Radio ) and on making sure they hit the targeted number of eyeballs. You would also not credit the reaction of some (including - yes - I own up me as well ) when a trail for their precious programme is “dropped” because the live Prog is over running . An act of near incendiary provocation.
To all those who dropped my trails I apologise. Ditto to those whose trails I dropped (very rarely )

One day I will write a thesis on the art and craft of trail scheduling and production but that’s a retirement project .
Final thought the global spend on advertising is $645 billion dollars - would all that money be spent if it was a total waste of time? .
Mind you maybe half of that IS wasted.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Ein Heldenleben and Hanners, does R3/BBC have a method of measuring the effectiveness of specific trails in terms of audiences gained?

I can tell you that advertisers put a lot of market research into assessing the impact of campaigns. There’s a whole math based quant system which looks at things like scheduling and it’s impact . The balance between outdoor spend , tv, net etc. Not just advertisers - have you ever wondered about those endless questionairres you get from orchestras asking how you heard about the concert ?- that’s just a part of it. All broadcasters will be doing the same thing but that information is usually kept fairly close t9 the chest because at a granular level (apologies) it’s useful to competitors. I would be surprised though if such work was done for an individual radio programme or series because the cost of doing so might well be on par with actually making it.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I think that arrangement was by Anne Dudley

Coming back to odders comments about trails in general: we tried to persuade Radio 3 that there were alternative ways of giving out programme information than the advertising style of 'built trails' which send the message that, like the commercials, Radio 3 is just trying to sell product. On the Bruckner, why not at least play the whole movement and then announce that more can be heard whenever that concert is being broadcast? Or can the presenter not read out a short announcement (say before the news) giving details of notable programmes? It sinks to an abysmal level if Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik can't be mentioned without playing a 10-second burst in the background.

Wrote this before I saw Heldenleben's reply with which I disagree. That's a broadcaster's point of view. I once described this to a friend who worked for the BBC, saying it was a technique much disliked. His reply was: "No, that's good broadcasting." And Roger Wright once told me trails didn't attract more listeners (they might attract some and turn off others. Zero gain).

I’d love to see Roger’s evidence for that. Might be true for the intellectuals on R3 but not evidenced in the visual media.
Producers of live programmes LOVE trails because if they are exactly 30 secs long you can slot one in and make up an under run or drop a scheduled one (dangerous - may mean hiding in the pub afterwards ) and save 30 secs. Why thirty secs ? Because that makes the maths easy . Then it turns out the trail was 23 secs and it’s counting on fingers time. I guess computers do all this now…

[french frank]

I’d love to see Roger’s evidence for that. Might be true for the intellectuals on R3 but not evidenced in the visual media.

Could be asking focus groups. Could be the fact that audience sizes don't change regardless of whether programmes have been strongly trailed or not.

Producers of live programmes LOVE trails because if they are exactly 30 secs long you can slot one in and make up an under run or drop a scheduled one (dangerous - may mean hiding in the pub afterwards ) and save 30 secs. Why thirty secs ? Because that makes the maths easy . Then it turns out the trail was 23 secs and it’s counting on fingers time. I guess computers do all this now…

I had an idea they were more popular with broadcasters than listeners! Logically, if trails (advance information) increase listeners, Radio 3 would announce in advance what music it intended to include in programmes.

I found this in Barwise and Ehrenberg's Television and its Audience (about television and commercial advertising rather than radio and programme trails): "We regard advertising as a weak influence on people's attitudes and behavior..." (p 173)

[oddoneout]

Sadly no I can’t offer a link to the effectiveness of trails on Radio 3 . But I would put money on there being a great deal of general research into the effectiveness of Radio trials . All I can say is that having spent 40 plus years working in a medium not wholly unrelated to radio and having had a brief spell in the 80’s in that glorious medium properly produced and properly scheduled trails work. Ive seen the impact reports - it works believe me. What is difficult to assess is exactly how much it works .One key point you have to hit a lot of slots to get an impact and as the audience for each slot diminishes you have to hit more slots to have the same impact. People who are heavy watchers then get irritated because they see/ hear the trails a lot.
Trails also generate an audience increase for more outré fare that might not get Newspaper coverage . You would not believe the amount of effort and money spent on them (in TV / Film maybe not Radio ) and on making sure they hit the targeted number of eyeballs. You would also not credit the reaction of some (including - yes - I own up me as well ) when a trail for their precious programme is “dropped” because the live Prog is over running . An act of near incendiary provocation.
To all those who dropped my trails I apologise. Ditto to those whose trails I dropped (very rarely )

One day I will write a thesis on the art and craft of trail scheduling and production but that’s a retirement project .
Final thought the global spend on advertising is $645 billion dollars - would all that money be spent if it was a total waste of time? .
Mind you maybe half of that IS wasted.

Perhaps I need to clarify. I am not saying that trails are ineffective full stop, I am however questioning their effectiveness/relevance on R3. I don't think that what works for visual media is directly applicable or comparable to audio in terms of results and I also think that the way people listen to R3 , the type of programme,(for the most part!) and the content is too different from say R1 and R2 for extrapolation there either.
The R3 presenters flag up concerts, programmes and performers linked to items broadcast in their various programmes which in my view is far more likely to have the result claimed for trails, not least for being immediate - hear the piece/performer then the details then information as to further listening etc. I don't see how blanket repetition of something with no connection to what has been heard is considered preferable to that in terms of results (whether that is listeners, ticket buyers or someone having a Damascene classical moment) - not least as I am not convinced those results exist for R3 specifically.