Repeats

[Zucchini]

...the people who make the decisions only look at the audience size to measure 'value'.

Have they actually said that or put it in writing or is it a loose impression? Because it isn't true. It really isn't.

[french frank]

Have they actually said that or put it in writing or is it a loose impression? Because it isn't true. It really isn't.

Not sure if you have inside information from the BBC? But they have said, in terms of 'public value' that in order to deliver their public purposes they have to reach the widest audience. What do 'broader audience' and 'wider audience' mean if not - at least incidentally - larger audiences?

What's the value of Radio 3 having a 'broader audience' which is the same size as its 'narrower' audience? How will they 'reach' that 'narrow' audience if they don't provide programming to suit that audience?

It was noticeable that the Trust said in the review - as you wil know - that Radio 3 was not expected to 'maximise' its audience - which doesn't mean it wasn't supposed to increase it by its strategy to be more accessible and reach out to people who were not the station's 'natural listeners'.

What other reason can there be for putting so little extra money in Radio 3, when Radio 1 and Radio 2 have had spadefuls? Radio 2 (the Nation's Favourite) got a £10.8m rise in its service budget in one single year. Radio 3 got £2.6m. Yet both stations have to provide 8760 hours of broadcasting per annum. Why do star presenters get paid so much? Because they attract big audiences. That's what makes them valuable.

[Dave2002]

Another point about whether repeats are worthwhile for people who had missed the broadcast first time round is that this value is reduced by the availability of programmes on the i-player, especially with plans to increase the 7-day availability to 30 days. So to have a repeat in linear broadcasting when the same programme is available on the i-player may be seen as unnecessary by some.

There are still people who don't have, or don't know how to use iPlayer, or VPRs etc., and it's probably reasonable to have some repeats to help those people out.

[Sir Velo]

Not sure if you have inside information from the BBC? But they have said, in terms of 'public value' that in order to deliver their public purposes they have to reach the widest audience. What do 'broader audience' and 'wider audience' mean if not - at least incidentally - larger audiences?

What's the value of Radio 3 having a 'broader audience' which is the same size as its 'narrower' audience? How will they 'reach' that 'narrow' audience if they don't provide programming to suit that audience?

Well, quite clearly the strategy is failing as large numbers of Radio 3's "traditional" audience are switching off in their droves. One only has to look at Facebook to see that there are some very unhappy campers out there. As usual,Roger Wright has his own gloss: the response to the Film season has been "overwhelmingly positive". Yeah, right. No doubt he includes all those who have written that they are "positively" disgusted by what he's doing to the station.

No matter how many times I am exhorted to tweet or text in nothing can reconcile me to this "accessibility". In fact, it's salutary to see how many Twitter followers some of the presenters have. For example, both Andrew McGregor and Rob Cowan have fewer than a thousand. Does it not then occur to them, that only a very small percentage of their listeners are actually on Twitter, FHS?

As to repeats: I have no problem with quality concerts and features being rebroadcast. The budget does not allow for 100% new programmes. If it did, we would have even more of the CD playing, text us and tweet us farrago, so that's worth bearing in mind. As to I-player, it has its advantages, but not everyone has either: gone digital; or has the equipment to listen to its offerings at the same level as the rest of their replay equipment. Fine for speech programmes, but less for orchestral, I would suggest.

[french frank]

Have they actually said that or put it in writing or is it a loose impression? Because it isn't true. It really isn't.

I also draw attention to the DG's (Mark Thompson's) Strategy Review of 2010, Trust intro (by Lord Patten), p 2:

"We also want to maintain investment in those parts of the BBC that bring the greatest value to the greatest number of people: distinctive and high quality programmes in the peak-time schedules of the flagship network television and radio services."

It has clearly meant not maintaining investment in those parts of the BBC that don't 'bring value to the greatest number of people'. What is on in Radio 3's 'peaktime' schedule (assuming it is counted as a 'flagship service')? One of the cheapest radio breakfast shows the BBC has (I'll dig out the comparable figures if you want them).