The New Logic

[Guest]

I fail to follow RW's argument in today's Radio Times (Feedback response) that because of the 'large volume of responses to our invitations to interact' and the fact that 'listeners are happy to take the opportunity' the R3 phone-ins are justified. Why does that mean that other people want to hear them?

Many people are happy to take the opportunity to scratch their bums, but that doesn't mean we want to watch them.

The good news, if taken at face value, is his statement that such invitations are not 'endless'. So they will cease, he just won't say when, but I'm not sure he really meant that, either.

[mercia]

I guess it's his duty to provide what the majority want

[Anna]

But what is his definition of 'a large volume' He dismissed the 139 submissions about Breakfast as paltry and not worth bothering about so does it therefore follow that more than that number, on a daily/weekly basis, are trying to get on-air for Your Call? Perhaps some of our members might like to try, at least it may result in more interesting, articulate, stories?

[french frank]

I guess it's his duty to provide what the majority want

What majority? The majority doesn't want Radio 3 at all.

It's common sense that whatever he does to Radio 3, some people will love it: that can never be a reason for doing it.

[RT is printed about two weeks in advance - RW nothing if not influential]

[mercia]

It's common sense that whatever he does to Radio 3, some people will not love it: that can never be a reason for not doing it.

He said that the feedback he'd had on the new schedule was overwhelmingly positive.

[french frank]

He said that the feedback he'd had on the new schedule was overwhelmingly positive.

He actually said that? This is part of a discarded cartoon sequence I was making, dated 19 July 2003:

[mercia]

He actually said that?

words to that effect
great cartoon - keep it up!

[John Skelton]

He said that the feedback he'd had on the new schedule was overwhelmingly positive.

But they always say that. Occasionally I watch this this http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ifs/...00/3701840.stm. Routinely BBC producers, programme chiefs, etc. respond to criticism / complaints by saying 'however, feedback has been overwhelmingly positive.' On the odd occasion when people have contacted them non-positively in sufficient numbers for it to be difficult to accompany the positive line with a straight face, the default response is to start talking, hostilely, about "campaigns." An orchestrated Facebook campaign etc. etc. The only "feedback" they acknowledge as "feedback" is positive, or feedback which can be recuperated as a momentary lapse from positivity.

[french frank]

The only "feedback" they acknowledge as "feedback" is positive, or feedback which can be recuperated as a momentary lapse from positivity.

He got short shrift on Feedback when he started to suggest that the aim of the programme was to exaggerate the few negative comments received ...

[John Skelton]

That's good.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

... offering criticism, however positively and politely, or however caustically and confronting is pointless i conclude .... the AUNT EXEC SUITE is a self sealing organism ... the dreadful changes the current management have made and will make to R3 are unstoppable .... they must go before the station can be saved ... or turned into a proper subscription channel since we seem incapable of preventing the management careerists capturing the organisation ... and this is true for the whole BBC ... it can no longer be trusted with stewardship of our culture, nor relied upon to inform educate and entertain us with genuine independence and creativity ... they have to go ....

[Ferretfancy]

There used to be a system called the appreciation index which sampled the quality of listener's response, rather than the quantity. This was considered at the same time as the listening figure. A producer of variety shows told me that he had a playlist of artists who always got a high appreciation index, and if he took the trouble to always use these performers from week to week, he could guarantee success. To his credit, he did not do this.
That's the potential bad side. The good side was that something like an Ibsen play might have a very small audience, but a high index, and back in those happy days that satisfied the suits upstairs.
The system relied on sampling, not the number of complaints, but of course it was abandoned. Daytime listening has now become a miserable experience.

[french frank]

There used to be a system called the appreciation index

It is still extensively used by the Beeb/Trust as a measurement of 'quality'. Scores high on the appreciation index - that's high quality.

I'm not keen on it in all circumstances (possibly not any), partly because people who don't watch/listen because they think it's awful will probably be excluded: AI measures the appreciation level of those who watch/listen. Also because often the accompanying questions focus attention on the positives in such a way that people tend to agree, and the bulk of those responding will give 7-8 out of 10.

[Anna]

Looking at the copy of the RT that Don refers to, there is a letter from a listener which says he is not mourning the demise of Melodies for You on R2 because the same light classical can be heard on CFM and, to a certain extent, on R3. He then says he particularly enjoys the new R3 Saturday Classics, which plays a lot of short pieces. So there's one happy. appreciative, customer. However, would they have printed a letter which was hostile to Saturday Classics?

[french frank]

He then says he particularly enjoys the new R3 Saturday Classics, which plays a lot of short pieces.

He may be disappointed, then, with Alison Balsom's choices on Saturday where there are some really hefty pieces.

Oh, wait a mo': only 7 minutes allowed for the Symphonie fantastique? Eight minutes for Messiah? Four minutes for Mahler's Symphony No 3? Eight minutes for the Turangalîla-symphonie? Hmmm ... I wonder if the playlist is subject to change during transmission?