Dumbing Down

[Paul Sherratt]

>>>Over the past 10 years, BBC Radio has gradually poured more money into competing for commercial radio's heartland audience of 25- to 44-year-olds (the listeners most important to our advertisers), and it's hard to avoid the conclusion that this deliberate strategy has meant growth in BBC audience at the expense of the commercial sector.


Well Andrew Harrison you know what YOU can do. Persuade your fantastic broadcasters go in a different direction Heartland my art.

[french frank]

Well Andrew Harrison you know what YOU can do. Persuade your fantastic broadcasters go in a different direction Heartland my art.

RadioCentre did come up in my recent chat with the Boss. He said - and I agree - that RadioCentre has an interest in questioning/complaining about anything the BBC does on principle. Consequently the BBC tends to take very little notice of their comments (that's my personal view!).

On the other hand, commercial radio exists and survives only if it can attract (in the context of the area it serves) big audiences. If that means serving up populist pap, that's what they do because, at base, they are just advertising platforms for commercial interests. And, of course, many, almost certainly a majority, of the population wants populist pap. That's what 'populist' implies.

The BBC exists (and possibly survives) because it is a publicly funded organisation which can outspend possible rivals many times over. That's why there is a regulatory system which should prevent it impinging unnecessarily on the commercial interests of commercial radio. And why they've cooked up their idea of 'quality' and 'distinctiveness' to show that they are providing a genuine choice for audiences. High quality and distinctive, though, means we're pouring millions of public money into doing things bigger and better than the commercials, competing for the same audiences and so often serving up similar programming.

The BBC will talk about the high quality and provide examples of differences between, for example, CFM and Radio 3. When you point out the increasing similarities (which RadioCentre duly did in the recent R3 review), they brush them aside.

(Have not read A Harrison's piece yet, but my analysis of the latest RAJAR figures concludes that there are points to be watched very carefully. That said, the BBC has access to huge quantities of listening data: we don't.)

[Paul Sherratt]

>>commercial radio exists and survives only if it can attract (in the context of the area it serves) big audiences

So is their gruesome existence necessary at all, I wonder ?


( Il presente messaggio (che include gli allegati) e' inviato ad uso esclusivo della parte cui e' indirizzato e puo' contenere informazioni riservate, coperte da segreto professionale o comunque non divulgabili. Qualora Lei non sia il corretto destinatario del messaggio, le e' fatto divieto di qualsiasi uso, divulgazione, copia o riproduzione del medesimo. Se ha ricevuto questo messaggio per errore, la preghiamo di comunicare al mittente l'accaduto e di cancellare dal suo sistema il presente messaggio e gli allegati immediatamente. Grazie )

[french frank]

>>commercial radio exists and survives only if it can attract (in the context of the area it serves) big audiences

So is their gruesome existence necessary at all, I wonder ?

Not to the listeners, but it is to the advertisers

PS I recognise the message as being what the BBC always includes at the bottom of its emails. Goodness knows what it means

[Lateralthinking1]

If commercial radio's heartland audience is 25- to 44-year-olds, I must have imagined the masses of identical Gold and easy listening stations across the land churning out the Tremeloes and Luther Vandross. Maybe its listeners are so bright they were enjoying those artists in their prams or a decade ahead of their own conception.

I don't agree that the BBC exists (and possibly survives) because it is a publicly funded organisation which can outspend possible rivals many times over. Bauer and the like are giant media machines with probably more money than small countries.

It depends on how much such organisations want to commit funds to the Tractor and Tenting Television Channel or Trout Fishing Monthly Magazine and how much to radio. They appear to lack full commitment to the latter.

If commercial radio wants the market to be bucked through regulation that enables the BBC only to broadcast to 93 year olds every other July it should get out of the market. What we see here from Radio Centre is that those over the age of 40 are not hoodwinked by adverts so basically there is a design flaw in its business model which cannot be overcome.

I would agree with them that Radio 1 should not be catering to the 30-somethings but that is purely a matter for the BBC. Anyhow, there is only so much that can be done to prevent large numbers of 35 years olds today behaving like they are 15.
That is the truth of what is happening rather than Radio 1 turning back into a station designed partially for the thirty pluses.

[french frank]

...and it also gives a pointer as to why the BBC is trying to lower its target age for Radio 2 and 3. Where does it want Radio 1 listeners to go at 29+. A contributary factor to the disenfranchising of 55+, Radio 2 plays less anad less music from before 1980, and R3 apes CFM! Now where were those CDs?

How very puzzling (or is it?). When Andy Parfitt was Controller of Radio 1 he changed the station strategy to target the 15-24 year-olds, where previously the target audience had been 15-29. There was a clear-out of older presenters and in came the 20-something DJs. Listening figures slumped, seriously. After a few years tha strategy was dropped and the target audience was again raised to 15-29. In came Chris Moyles, the self-proclaimed 'saviour of Radio 1'. Up went the listening figures again and at present they're pretty much as high as they've ever been. So ... now they're going to target the younger audience again? I'm sure Andrew Harrison is hoping that history will repeat itself.

Reversing strategies? Now there's something for R3 to hope for too

[Lateralthinking1]

After a few years tha strategy was dropped and the target audience was again raised to 15-29.

But I would issue a caution about equating the age of target audience with presentation style and content. To compare and contrast approaches to Radio 1 and Radio 3 is fraught with danger. The former can't turn back in the sense that many listeners might hope Radio 3 would do. What appears to be a turning back is just another bit of dubious sales pitch. Here to my mind are the relevant points that all sides are choosing to pretend away for their own use. First, the key question. In the late 1960s, how was Radio 1 youthfully different? The presenters were in their twenties. They had a mildly irreverent style. Call it knowingly trivial and lightweight. However, a large number were educated at private schools and almost all, however inane, had a conventional broadcaster's voice. The latter points distinguished them sharply from their audience. They were heard as light entertainers. By the 1980s they were ripe for being seen as rather ludicrous uncles, many with venom and a select few with affection.

So short steps to Radio 2, albeit with a need to kick Pete Murray and Bing Crosby into Portland Place. As for that initial style at Radio 1, it is a total dinosaur, with only appeal to the nostalgic. It is never to return. Figures would plummet. When ultimately there were changes at Radio 1 in personnel, the presenters were again in their twenties. The trivia was retained and the irreverence was boosted. These were now people who were all about being your best mates. Sod it. Radio is boring. We're having a party here. Let's all go down the pub and then hit a club. Have you got a hangover? So have I. Loads of name calling. That was the gist of it. This has continued on for years. Moyles is the exception because he plays the embarrassing uncle who goes clubbing and gets out of his head. And while many of them are much older now, how younger in style could anyone be? The fact is that in presentation style and content, Radio 1 can do nothing else to bring the cohort down to 15-24 unless it enters the kindergarten.

Ironically - and this is what frighteningly makes the argument about it aging almost believable - its communication style is the style of our age. The one between mates on forums, between the public and celebrities on Twitter, between people of a certain intelligence, even the avowedly highbrow, certainly among those in business and often among those in politics. It is the way to be and get on. Daft t**t etc etc. This is now all you can expect of people until the bath chair. It also means that all Radio 1 can possibly do is bring in new younger clone presenters to perpetuate the twittery - and this it will do - and change the musical content which it probably won't. No, make that can't. Radio 1 reflects in music the popular genres of the current time and the past 10-15 years. When it did that in 1982, it sounded musically entirely different from 1977. In 1989, it sounded entirely different from 1984. In 1994, it sounded entirely different from 1989. Even in 1999 it sounded different from 1994. Then it all stopped moving.

For this has changed. The reason is straightforward. From 1955, there was year after year of new music with technological advancement and the scope and will for experimentation. And while there was a concept that the music should be melodic, a fact that led to evidence-based accusations that the selection was unnecessarily conservative, it was still quite diverse. It is now hamstrung by a youth music market that is as stuck in its ways as Coca Cola. Decades of same taste with different packaging. Occasionally a brand of the same name to run alongside it. It is also hamstrung by the club concept. Everything has to be bish-bash-bosh unless of course it is the X-Factor which always was old hat. None of this will alter and there isn't any read across. Not when classical music spans hundreds of years, purports to have a natural appeal to all ages and talks of established formalities.

[teamsaint]

the way in which radio 1 reflects, and helps to promote quality in pop and rock is both important, and relevant to discussion on R3. LT1 mentions a time before 1999, and this really coincides with the internet age.

People in their teens and 20's have grown up in a world where music to one's own current taste is easily and cheaply(or freely) available at the click of a mouse.You can happily never leave your comfort genre.
People older than this relied pretty much on national stations to hear the music they wanted, and this required both a reasonable amount of effort and stamina, as well as requiring the listener to be exposed to variety of music other than the genres that they might have wanted to hear.People eulogise the great John Peel, and rightly,because he did what the radio station is supposed to do.Whats more, there was a tangible "trickle down " effect into the rest of R1.

I suspect that currently R1, whose commitment to music quality has rarely been more than luke warm, reflects this current situation. The music really can't matter, because the listeners get that through the web/itunes/free downloads. The radio station is little more than an accompaniment to the lifestyle. Of course, it has always been this, (though what sort of lifestyle accompanied the Hairy Cornflake is anybody's guess !!) So the music matters less than ever.

R3 clearly has issues of a similar nature, but in fact it is still a place to go to actually hear and share music,not least because some of what it plays, or might play, is not easily available elsewhere. TTN is clearly a good example of this. My point really, is that if R3 just relies on demographics for its decision making , it is missing a trick, because it can build audiences (and even its brand) by doing exactly what R1 at its(infrequent) best used to do.......be the place to go for the music.
Sorry if that is all stating the obvious.

[Lateralthinking1]

I think it is stating what often needs to be stated. There isn't much in what you say teamsaint with which I disagree. Let's put this into television style representation, without the music. Once Radio 1 was a forerunner of what? It's a Knockout? Noel's House Party? Now it is Big Brother. Once Radio 3 was Kenneth Clark's Civilisation. Now it is The Culture Show?

There is to my mind such a huge gap between the daft naivety of It's a Knockout and the hard as nails cynicism of Big Brother that there is no chance of a return to the former. Times have changed. The gap is surely big too between The Culture Show and Civilisation but this I think is changeable if it is wanted badly enough. It is about differences in broadcasting mores rather than society's deep composition. So the irony is that change is easier in theory for Radio 3 because it requires tackling less depth.

I note your point about the Internet. A very good one. Herein lies the struggle and also potentially a few answers. Interactivity across media has some way to go - it is a bit of mystery tour - and higher quality could still be one of its destinations. Worth keeping all eyes on the ball. As for John Peel, he was 30 in 1969 and died at the age of 65 as the popular standard bearer. Once again, the proof that most arguments about age are based on myths and nothing substantial.

[teamsaint]

your point about Peel's age is very telling.

Going back to R3 programming, a successful, quality formula for a programme like "breakfast " shouldn't be beyond the wit of people in post in some of the country's most sought after jobs.
Sensitive knowledgeable presenters, interesting, varied music thoughtfully chosen with regard (in part) to the time of day.
A news bulletin perhaps.A weather forcast also.
And the latest news from St Mary's Stadium.
Easy.

[Lateralthinking1]

I always preferred Dingly Dell. You can't beat nine sided rectangles.

[John Wright]

If commercial radio's heartland audience is 25- to 44-year-olds, I must have imagined the masses of identical Gold and easy listening stations across the land churning out the Tremeloes and Luther Vandross.

I too have difficulty understanding the suggestion that commercial radio's focus is on the under 40s.

Radio 1 and Radio 2 (IN THE DAY TIME) seem to play mainly current chart and 1980s-2000s chart hits, for under 40s.

Yet it seems to me that many under 40s with ipods or iphones are NOT listening to radio, they are listening to downloaded music. That ties in with R2's audience data : average age about 50 ???

Some commercial stations DO aim for the young set, like Capital (now a national newtork) but many others clearly aim at 40+ age group as Lateralthinking notes in some playlists. And who has disposable income to spend buying ALBUMS of music? The over 40s I expect?

[teamsaint]

LT1, The Dell was really great.......except it was small and had lousy views in the terrace days. was great when we were beating united or Liverpool though !!

nine sided rectangle ?

[Lateralthinking1]

JW - Thank you for your comments.

ts - I recall four stands in several sections and other bits and pieces to fill in the gaps. Not exactly neat. It wasn't a criticism. I preferred the old stadiums.

[Wallace]

I was reading a quote from Coleridge at the age of 58 (in 1830)
"I do not know whether I deceive myself, but it seems to me that the young men, who were my contemporaries, fixed certain principles in their minds, and followed them out to their legitimate consequences, in a way which I rarely witness now. No one seems to have any distinct convictions, right or wrong; the mind is completely at sea, rolling and pitching on the waves of facts and personal experiences."

Another old man complaining about the modern world.