Essential Classics??

[Osborn]

Okay. For anyone else interested, he's xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

His Inbox should be rather more full tomorrow morning than is usual.

FF I don't think it's a good idea at all to publish Chris Patten's personal email address without express permission, let alone suggest that people clog up his Inbox. It's easy to identify FoR3 as the culprit isn't it. Still, someone might email him about cheap moat insurance or lots of money waiting for him in Nigeria.

It's a breach of business protocol really & will not help FoR3 at all. IMO it would have been wiser to keep Roger Wright in the loop by copying emails to him or writing to him & copying Chris Patten to try & force Roger's hand.

[Whether we like it or not, this forum is understandably percieved as FoR3's (URL: www dot for3 dot org dot org slash forums). 3 beebies & Radio 2.5 were amusing soundbites when journalists were interested but I think rather childish name-calling directed over & over again towards Breakfast, then to Essential Classics, then the whole of R3s output & above all Roger Wright massively reduces the credibility of FoR3's arguments. By all means criticise but do it with dignity. It's absolutely obvious that the people you wish to influence must be treated with courtesy - otherwise noone will listen to you.]

[french frank]

Well, I've removed it. But I assure you - I only guessed at it and had no idea whether it would work or not: it's the normal BBC formula. If they didn't want it used they could have adjusted it to something else.

The only point is to get them to take notice because if one person writes they get a brush-off. No explanations, justifications or reasoned arguments, just insulting apparatchik letters telling you what you already know. After eight years I'm fed up with that.

The idea being peddled that Radio 3 is being flooded with emails from delighted new listeners while there are hardly any from complainers just may be (literally) correct. But it's obviously not a true picture of what's going on. The rest of the media demonstrates that.

If this is no more than a pure irritation, they deserve it for all the irritation they cause.

[french frank]

It's absolutely obvious that the people you wish to influence must be treated with courtesy - otherwise noone will listen to you.]

I think have personally done that. It's taken weeks and months - years - of my life painstakingly putting together evidence and arguments, hoping for reasonable responses and discussion. Not the BBC way, apparently.

[mangerton]

Well, I've removed it. But I assure you - I only guessed at it and had no idea whether it would work or not: it's the normal BBC formula. If they didn't want it used they could have adjusted it to something else.

Exactly.

The only point is to get them to take notice because if one person writes they get a brush-off. No explanations, justifications or reasoned arguments, just insulting apparatchik letters telling you what you already know. After eight years I'm fed up with that.

Only eight? I've been phoning, writing, and more recently emailing, for about thirty-eight on a variety of topics, almost all unrelated to radio 3. The responses are exactly as you describe, and, interestingly, are identical from year to year.

[johnb]

Well, I've removed it. But I assure you - I only guessed at it and had no idea whether it would work or not: it's the normal BBC formula. If they didn't want it used they could have adjusted it to something else.

In my (limited) experience it is the most common corporate e-mail 'formula' and, as such, isn't exactly confidential.

[french frank]

Only eight? I've been phoning, writing, and more recently emailing, for about thirty-eight on a variety of topics, almost all unrelated to radio 3. The responses are exactly as you describe, and, interestingly, are identical from year to year.

Yes, I never bothered before

The standard BBC letter simply starts by saying that they have 'noted' your comments; or they are sorry to hear you don't like [...] but many people do. Then, as that's a bit bald, they launch into some irrelevant puffery to fill up the page.

They may then thank you for your interest in the BBC and hope you will find much to enjoy.

[Osborn]

Re #168 FF If you thought I was referring to you, I'm sorry. I should perhaps have said in poshtalk: "It's absolutely obvious that the people one wishes to influence must be treated with courtesy - otherwise noone will listen to one".

To the best of my knowledge your own posts are faultless in avoiding invective, others think derogatory labelling (e.g. RW as 'wrecker' & 'squealer') is apt & helpful. I don't.

[french frank]

Re #168 FF If you thought I was referring to you, I'm sorry.

No, I assumed you were generalising . I just meant that even when one is polite and serious it doesn't get one far. As in, nowhere

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

others think derogatory labelling (e.g. RW as 'wrecker' & 'squealer') is apt & helpful. I don't.

i do

there is no way for persuasion to work any more, he is the wrong person for the job and so are his bosses ... the misapplication of marketing led managerialism to public service broadcasting and the sheer idiocy of succumbing to a competitive stance to BSkyB and the Rotherermere interest [big in radio] has led to a general decline across the BBC and much heavy and justified criticism .... the BBC is a public service broadcaster, funded for now by licence fee, this does not entail that it has to be the biggest player in the mass entertainment market .... it might entail that is the best at innovatiive and authoritative programme making across the spectrum of the Reithian mantra ... so why have R1 is problematic, but R6 is obvious .... there has to be a transformation at the BBC not self improvement .... the BBC is sponsored by the Licence fee not transacting a purchase ... it is currently bewitched by the mechanisms and manipulations of consumerist exchange ...