Essential Classics - The Continuing Debate

[french frank]

should R3 change because of some 'pressure' from people who want change ? - implied answer presumably - NO, they should (continue to) do what they consider to be the right strategy/'thing-to-do'

sorry, missed your post

So again. I've put the essential bit of your quote in bold. That is the point I'm making. The BBC Trust 'thinks' that Radio 3 should 'increase its distinctiveness' having carried out its own research, only partially based on what 'listeners say'. In other words, they have been convinced that Radio 3 is beginning to become similar to Classic FM. The BBC's Royal Charter stipulates that BBC services should not 'unfairly compete' with commercial services - which is what Radio 3 appears to have been doing - almost since the appearance of CFM in 1992.

That is what I'm saying - they listened to arguments from all sides.

[Honoured Guest]

According to the Trust review, there has been a steady decline in the 34-54 age group since he took over. Which, at the very least, means his strategy to attract a new, younger audience hasn't worked.

Where does this claim that R3 has a "strategy to attract a new, younger audience" come from? The BBC and Radio 3 repeatedly explicitly deny it, most recently in the Service Review just last week. They do identify "entry level" listeners as one of three audiences for Radio 3 but they repeatedly restate that this has nothing to do with age. Radio 1 does have a target youth audience and Radio 2 is required to appeal predominantly to the over-35s and not to lose the over-60s, but Radio 3 repeatedly states that it does not have any target age range of audience and that it does not target any of its output on any particular age range of audience. I am genuinely interested to know where this false claim originates because it seems fruitless of critics to repeatedly complain about something which doesn't exist. Why not comment on something true? There would be more chance of your comments being listened to.

[french frank]

1. The Trust says this is a group: 'who have been seen by the station as ‘replenishers’ to its existing audience.

The use of social media is designed to attract that audience (in our survey, the vast majority simply replied 'No' when asked if they used them)

The fact that the station as a whole does not have a target age range is NOT the same as saying they don't want to strengthen the station by attracting more of the 'replenisher' audience.

[I have been summoned to lunch - more later ]

[french frank]

Where does this claim that R3 has a "strategy to attract a new, younger audience" come from? The BBC and Radio 3 repeatedly explicitly deny it, most recently in the Service Review just last week.

I don't think so. They 'deny' that Radio 3 itself is targeted on a special age group, not that the controller's strategy didn't target that age group.

Radio 3 repeatedly states that it does not [ ... ] target any of its output on any particular age range of audience. I am genuinely interested to know where this false claim originates because it seems fruitless of critics to repeatedly complain about something which doesn't exist. Why not comment on something true? There would be more chance of your comments being listened to.

I'm not sure where Radio 3 states this, repeatedly or otherwise, but do you genuinely think the use of social media is not targeted on a younger audience (i.e. below the station's average age of 59*), energetically shoving out more tweets, following more tweeters, than any other network station? That frequently introducing Radio 6 Music presenters - Stuart Maconie, Mary Anne Hobbs, Cerys Matthews - is not targeting a younger audience (6 Music has an average age of 40 - the replenisher audience)? That even with a programme like Late Junction, it may well be claimed that it is not targeted on a younger audience: in which case managers are no doubt much surprised that its audience is younger than the station average. Intentional? Ooh, noo, noo, noo, noo, noo. Or perhaps, yes.

Bringing in some of the station's 'younger' [sic] presenters for peak time programmes? E.g. SMP; and then PT, CBH, and SK (remember we're not talking about 'young audiences' but 'younger audiences') ... What about high profile charity videos with Justin Bieber material and One Direction. All targeted on the over 59s?

Don't look at what they say (if indeed they do say it): look at what they do.

*last quarter where we have info

[Nick Armstrong]

I didn't like the interjection of North by North West in the middle of the Breakfast

Nor I the injection of the ersatz confections of Howard Shore and his "Lord of the Rings" soundtrack into .... Essential Classics...

[Nick Armstrong]

Essential Classics = Howard Shore's 'Lord of the Rings' soundtrack this morning, apparently...

[french frank]

Nor I the injection of the ersatz confections of Howard Shore and his "Lord of the Rings" soundtrack into .... Essential Classics... sadface:

I suspect Essential Classics will be the hard nut to crack because it was intended to knock the newly announced John Suchet programme on Classic FM (hence stopping Breakfast at 9am instead of 10am) and it appears to have done so. We have forwarded to the BBC the conversations we found where Classic FM listeners were recommending Essential Classics as 'not highbrow'.

So that's Essential Classics or John Suchet for lighter listeners and no choice at all for people who take their music more seriously than 'wallpaper'. It's not a lot of consolation to be told that Essential Classics is 'distinctive' and not at all the same as John Suchet's programme: they target the same audience, which is why the Trust review carefully specified: "we think that the priority for Radio 3 should be to increase choice for radio listeners ."

[doversoul1]

Nor I the injection of the ersatz confections of Howard Shore and his "Lord of the Rings" soundtrack into .... Essential Classics...

But isn't Lord of the Rings (thought be) a classic, and therefore an essential?

[french frank]

Can't have two discussion threads on EC, so I've moved the last few over ... :-)

[Nick Armstrong]

Can't have two discussion threads on EC, so I've moved the last few over ... :-)

[teamsaint]

Caliban's " second Half" theory proved good again today,an enjoyable and interesting hour or so of radio,with the presenter doing what he does well, not what some suit thinks some other people might like.

I'm sure Sarah Walker could also produce superb radio, left to do her own thing.

[doversoul1]

I'm sure Sarah Walker could also produce superb radio, left to do her own thing.

Yes, her Erik Satie programme was excellent. She is not the producer but I assume the actual contents was mostly her input.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00wlg7h

[Nick Armstrong]

Caliban's " second Half" theory proved good again today,an enjoyable and interesting hour or so of radio,with the presenter doing what he does well, not what some suit thinks some other people might like.

Same again today.

Was able to catch the La Salle sounding great in LvB op 131 and then an exhilarating first movement of the Haydn Symphony 104 from the LPO under Jochum (I then had to stop listening ). Was terrific pedalling along an empty (!?) Strand in the sunshine, with a following wind and old Joe's "London" Symphony in the brain!

[Victor Meldrew II]

Just when I thought we were in for a Rob Cowan free week, poor Sarah Walker falls ill and there he is again. Surely there are other presenters who can take over the morning slot?
He is definitely omnipresent and must have made a deal with the devil! Sorry to say this but I can't stand the man anymore. He makes me change stations as soon as he goes off on
one of his recommendations.

[James Wonnacott]

He makes me change stations as soon as he goes off on one of his recommendations.

+1