Radio 3 Programming - Problems & Solutions

[Guest]

It is hard to escape the criticism on this forum aimed at the progressive changes which have been made to various R3 programmes in the last year or two. Of course, there is nothing wrong with objecting to changes that you don't agree with. However, I don't see too many suggestions relating to what R3 programming should actually be in 2019 and going forward.

I can imagine that, given the high cost of R3 per listener and the relatively high average listener age (60+?), there must be immense pressure on the R3 management to try and increase listener numbers and bring in a broader, in terms of age, audience. In the context of this forum most, or perhaps all, changes aimed in this direction have largely been met with derision.

For myself, I think it is a minor miracle that R3 has maintained so much of its programming integrity given the commercial pressure it is under. With R3 as it stands there is little that I seriously object to. There are a few things I think could be improved, and some presenters who are not to my taste, but overall I believe that the integrity of the station is being maintained to an acceptable level.

I would be interested to know what specific changes to current R3 programming forum members would introduce to make R3 conform to their idea of what it should be. Any (realistic)
offers ?

[teamsaint]

Commercial pressure ?

Anyway, there is loads they could do. The musical world is full of talented people requiring a platform, and prepared to appear for very modest fees, whether they are performers, composers, critics, academics, whatever.
Sharing creative programming with other outlets ( Late Junction with 6 Music would be a suggestion,) but there are endless alternatives), etc etc.

What is required is energetic creative thought. But as ever there are issues around those ( understandably) worried about their jobs, which result in “safety first” approaches.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I don’t think anyone here wants to deride Radio 3. It’s the unimaginative trend towards catering for people with the concentration span of a goldfish that’s brought this about. The BBC has an arrogance that makes Sir Lancelot appear as the most humble man on earth, for the corporation is never wrong.

The more R3 tries to emulate Classic FM, the more dispensable it becomes.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Less chatter from presenters.
No gushing from presenters.
No "chumminess" in the presentation.
No interruptions of programmes for Trailers for other programmes.
No reading out of messages from listeners.
Complete works.
Greater range of Music.
Focus on the Music, not the biographical background of the performers.

I don't know how anyone who has followed this Forum can legitimately claim that they haven't seen these many suggestions frequently expressed.

[french frank]

I would be interested to know what specific changes to current R3 programming forum members would introduce to make R3 conform to their idea of what it should be. Any (realistic)
offers ?

Given your initial premise ('the high cost of R3 per listener and the relatively high average listener age (60+?), there must be immense pressure on the R3 management to try and increase listener numbers and bring in a broader, in terms of age, audience.') it is hard to suggest what could be done differently.

The reason that there is derision for successive changes is that the definition (Fowler 4th ed, 2015) of 'dumbing down' is 'to make simpler or less intellectully demanding, especially in order to appeal to a broader audience'. That is what most of Radio 3's changes have been designed to do (i.e. get new, younger listeners in the 35-54 age group) and it is perceived by those who have been listening to Radio3 for decades as 'dumbing down'. Because that is exactly what it is according the current definition of the term.

What the BBC needs to do is define, as fully as possible, what it wishes Radio 3 to be/do in terms of its content, not in terms of who is listening to it. That would be a start.

[teamsaint]

And BBC Radio, and even Radio 3 isnt expensive.
It has 1% of BBC. Budget at about £38m, and weekly reach of 1.8 m listeners.
So it costs about £20 per actual listener per year, very roughly.

( not sure if overseas sales of Proms content can be knocked off this).

[french frank]

And BBC Radio, and even Radio 3 isnt expensive.
It has 1% of BBC. Budget at about £38m, and weekly reach of 1.8 m listeners.
So it costs about £20 per actual listener per year, very roughly.

( not sure if overseas sales of Proms content can be knocked off this).

I think it costs, in all with infrastructure and distribution costs, rather more than that, but it's as nothing compared to the cost of Radio nan Gàidheal and Radio Cymru, if they want to judge by cost per listener per year (Radio nan Gàidheal costs about £6m for 40,000 listeners - is that £150 pa?).

If they want to judge by actual number of listeners, likewise it has more than Radio nan Gàidheal, Radio Cymru, the Asian Network, Radio 1xtra and others.

If they want to go by actual cost in pounds, Radio 4 costs a lot more, Radio 2 costs more, Radio 5 Live costs more.

As for age, Radio 4's mean is 56, median 59 and mode 70. So not dramatically different from Radio 3's.

[teamsaint]

I think it costs, in all with infrastructure and distribution costs, rather more than that, but it's as nothing compared to the cost of Radio nan Gàidheal and Radio Cymru, if they want to judge by cost per listener per year (Radio nan Gàidheal costs about £6m for 40,000 listeners - is that £150 pa?).

If they want to judge by actual number of listeners, likewise it has more than Radio nan Gàidheal, Radio Cymru, the Asian Network, Radio 1xtra and others.

If they want to go by actual cost in pounds, Radio 4 costs a lot more, Radio 2 costs more, Radio 5 Live costs more.

As for age, Radio 4's mean is 56, median 59 and mode 70. So not dramatically different from Radio 3's.

2 years out of date, but this says the budget 2016/17 was £ 38.3 m

[sgjames]

Commercial pressure ?

Anyway, there is loads they could do. The musical world is full of talented people requiring a platform, and prepared to appear for very modest fees, whether they are performers, composers, critics, academics, whatever.
Sharing creative programming with other outlets ( Late Junction with 6 Music would be a suggestion,) but there are endless alternatives), etc etc.

What is required is energetic creative thought. But as ever there are issues around those ( understandably) worried about their jobs, which result in “safety first” approaches.

1) Commercial pressure - I simply meant that the R3 management have to run the station to achieve their objectives (including increase/maintain listener numbers, widen audience age range) using a relatively large amount of public money (in Radio terms). I think I would feel the pressure associated with this responsibility.
2) Re your main suggestion, maybe something like this will happen following the regrettable shunting of Late Junction to a single time slot. The 11pm time slot would, I think, be the one to try such things out.
3) I'm not sure that it is a case of 'worrying about jobs' and safety first. If that was the case I think that programmes such as Late Junction & Hear and Now may well have gone some time ago. I suspect that while R3 management feel that changes need to be made (listener numbers etc), they are concious that such changes should be gradual.

[sidneyfox]

Less chatter from presenters.
No gushing from presenters.
No "chumminess" in the presentation.
No interruptions of programmes for Trailers for other programmes.
No reading out of messages from listeners.
Complete works.
Greater range of Music.
Focus on the Music, not the biographical background of the performers.

I don't know how anyone who has followed this Forum can legitimately claim that they haven't seen these many suggestions frequently expressed.

We want to go back in time?

[Richard Barrett]

We want to go back in time?

I think the point should be to go forward in time. There were many things wrong with the "old" Radio 3 as well; but having a generally restrained style of presentation, presenting complete works and seeking to expand listeners' musical horizons rather than reinforcing what the commercial market has already made familiar to them were not among these.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I think the point should be to go forward in time. There were many things wrong with the "old" Radio 3 as well; but having a generally restrained style of presentation, presenting complete works and seeking to expand listeners' musical horizons rather than reinforcing what the commercial market has already made familiar to them were not among these.

[sidneyfox]

I think the point should be to go forward in time. There were many things wrong with the "old" Radio 3 as well; but having a generally restrained style of presentation, presenting complete works and seeking to expand listeners' musical horizons rather than reinforcing what the commercial market has already made familiar to them were not among these.

I agree, but the list of the many frequently expressed suggestions that the forum has made (post no.4) does not address that. It seems to be a list that harks back to the old days when things were better.

[sidneyfox]

There should be more variety. More jazz for starters. I would listen to R3 more if there was more variety - it's all a bit same, week in week out. I listen to European stations more.

[sgjames]

Given your initial premise ('the high cost of R3 per listener and the relatively high average listener age (60+?), there must be immense pressure on the R3 management to try and increase listener numbers and bring in a broader, in terms of age, audience.') it is hard to suggest what could be done differently.

The reason that there is derision for successive changes is that the definition (Fowler 4th ed, 2015) of 'dumbing down' is 'to make simpler or less intellectully demanding, especially in order to appeal to a broader audience'. That is what most of Radio 3's changes have been designed to do (i.e. get new, younger listeners in the 35-54 age group) and it is perceived by those who have been listening to Radio3 for decades as 'dumbing down'. Because that is exactly what it is according the current definition of the term.

What the BBC needs to do is define, as fully as possible, what it wishes Radio 3 to be/do in terms of its content, not in terms of who is listening to it. That would be a start.

Do you think my initial premise is simplistic/incorrect ?
Re your final sentence, has the BBC ever produced such a definition for R3 ? I suspect that any R3 mission statement which came forth would be just a collection of well meaning platitudes.