BBC Trust Review of Service Licences

[Guest]

This BBC Trust review is about reviewing the method and content of all BBC Service Reviews. (So is not specific to Radio 3.)

Start here: the Review pdf is referenced towards the bottom of the page.

The review runs from 19 June to 14 September, with the Trust publishing the results in the autumn.

I'm off to have a read, but I expect the substance of my comment will be based on a previous comment I made on an 'About the BBC' blog.

Russ

[french frank]

Thanks for that, Russ. I'd missed the fact that this was even forthcoming (battle fatigue, obviously!).

We made the point when R3's first draft SL was published that we didn't think it defined the role of Radio 3 clearly enough. Our suggested amendments, though no doubt much appreciated by the Trust, didn't find their way into the first version.

Is there a dichotomy between station specific criteria and objective metrics which can be applied to all stations?

Your point about 'Who controls the content of the SLs' is well made. In the great scheme of things, the axeing of the Radio 3 MBs doesn't stand high; but it remains that many of us wrote in to complain that messageboards were part of Radio 3's SL commitments (I think the only radio station where this was the case). The Trust just said the equivalent of, 'Yes, it doesn't make sense to write messageboards in the service licence if Radio 3 doesn't have messageboards. So we'll delete that bit from the service licence.' [As Facebook was supposed to be a substitute it's all the stranger that, as from today, I don't seem able to view R3's Facebook page at all without registering with Facebook.]

I'll be interested to hear your conclusions about the proposals (are they the Trust's proposals or the Executive's, I wonder?]

[Russ]

BBC Trust has now issued its conclusions. (The FoR3 input to the review is referenced there.)

Service licences have been updated accordingly - here is R3's (pdf).

Although the review did not address specific objectives and quotas for each station, the new R3 licence confirms the drastic cuts in live/specially recorded music, new music commissions and new drama. These cuts are detailed in the FoR3 input.

Russ

[Lateralthinking1]

Russ - Thanks. I am not entirely sure where you are R3-wise. The following comments aren't made personally of you.

Genuinely.

Apart from all the highly significant cuts, it looks good, sort of!

I don't expect for one moment that it will be reflected in the delivery. Just enough will be done to argue for the benefit of the unquestioning that it was delivered. Where serious questions are asked, they will be ignored. That "well, there is nothing you can do about it" favoured by every big organisation. Morality and Logic 0 Smirking Rovers 1.

If I were to offer one small tip to FoR3 it is that they should get a few detailed schedules together of ideal programmes and playlists. My impression is that this has only be done in the past with reference to actual schedules from earlier eras.

I have just looked at several charts showing CFM's listening figures since 1999. As Eric Robson never has to say on GQT, "backwards and downwards". I think it was Marguerita Whatsername, who I have never listened to in my life, who claimed that her audience comprises "students revising". If Calum's post on another thread is to be believed, that is entirely unbelievable.

[french frank]

I see RadioCentre repeated its common complaint:

"The Radio 3 service licence states that it ‘should build appreciation of music and culture by offering accessible information, including material helpful to people with little knowledge of classical music.’ This is linked with the BBC’s role in educating the public. Station management has instead interpreted this instruction to introduce a ‘lighter’ repertoire – including increased airplay for film soundtracks – combined with a reduction in specialist daytime programmes exploring particular areas and genres of music, which was previously core content for the station. The content change has been acknowledged by listeners, with many turning away from the station as a result."

The only bit of that I'd query (apart from their repetition about 'film soundtracks - there are some, yes, but surely not that many?) is that I don't believe there was any Trust 'instruction' which R3 management 'interpreted'. R3 management initiated the ideas, submitted them to the Trust and the Trust said they agreed with them.

I was obviously in a very savage mood when I wrote the FoR3 consultation response . As usual, no notice was taken, but then the Trust doesn't appear to take much notice of anything from anyone that isn't what they want to hear.

They proposed certain tweaks to licences and then they carried out those tweaks.

[french frank]

If I were to offer one small tip to FoR3 it is that they should get a few detailed schedules together of ideal programmes and playlists. My impression is that this has only be done in the past with reference to actual schedules from earlier eras.

Mmmmm. There's no reason not to do that, but I don't see that as something that can be submitted to anyone (who?).

The FoR3 argument is about ideas and principles, not the details about content.

[Lateralthinking1]

As usual, no notice was taken

If it is any consolation, I have just (today) had my latest 20 page submission to the Local Government Ombudsman (estimated working time 60 hours during 15-29 October in addition to the 200 hours spent during the year) rejected exactly as follows:

"We do not intend to investigate further".

So the houses will in time slip down the hill because of administrative error and all round big authority dodginess. Oh well!

Of course, it proved to me absolutely that I had got them with the right arguments (and that they had still won.)

At the same time, I heard from a part of my previous employer that its database of our details was stolen early in 2010. We didn't need to be told earlier apparently because it wasn't clear then that all of it had been stolen and it wasn't with the fraud squad.

Great day!

You know, when it comes to that fateful moment when I am interviewed about my future with consequences, I am going to have to make sure that a natural sense of moral obligation doesn't come into it. With the bigwigs as they are, I'm not lifting a finger. There is no point whatsoever in earning if others chuck the money away and are able somehow to justify their immoral position.

(On the ideal schedules, I just wondered if some had sufficient imagination to comprehend the ideas without examples)

[Russ]

Russ - Thanks. I am not entirely sure where you are R3-wise.

Lat - I think everyone knows the content of R3's Service Licence doesn't address the quality of what is being broadcast, and that the licence game referee will always engineer a win for Smirking Rovers, but at least this round of the game ensured the numerical targets for each station were retained in the licences, which was my single objective in this particular review. (The R3 targets were in fact reduced as part of the 2011 DQF round, and were reflected in the May 2012 licence, but it was great to see ff did not lose an opportunity to bang the drum in the FoR3 submission.)

If there is a single simple identifiable factor that we all want, it's an increase in R3's budget.

Russ

[Lateralthinking1]

Lat - I think everyone knows the content of R3's Service Licence doesn't address the quality of what is being broadcast, and that the licence game referee will always engineer a win for Smirking Rovers, but at least this round of the game ensured the numerical targets for each station were retained in the licences, which was my single objective in this particular review. (The R3 targets were in fact reduced as part of the 2011 DQF round, and were reflected in the May 2012 licence, but it was great to see ff did not lose an opportunity to bang the drum in the FoR3 submission.)

If there is a single simple identifiable factor that we all want, it's an increase in R3's budget.

Russ

Thank you Russ. My terminology was carried across from thoughts about other developments during the day. It didn't specifically, or mainly, apply to the BBC but is now a major concern about all large organisations based on personal experience.

I think you have done well, agree with you about budgets and do appreciate your comments.

[french frank]

If there is a single simple identifiable factor that we all want, it's an increase in R3's budget

This where the Trust seems so dozy.

When SLs first came into force (1/1/07), R1 had a guideline content spend of £30.4m; R3 had £35.9m. Five years later, for 2012/13 R1 has £37.7m (up £7.3m), while R3's has risen to £38.7m (up £2.8m).

So far, so not very good: but then bear in mind also that this is a guideline figure only (nominally set by the Trust, but almost certainly a rubber-stamping of what the BBC Executive proposes): actual expenditure may vary up or down by 10%.

According to its Workplan for 2012/13, the BBC Executive has actually budgeted to spend £41m on R1, exceeding the guideline by ... 8.75%. R3 is budgeted to spend £40m, exceeding the guideline by only 3.6%. So R1 has now established a lead over R3 (and actually spent more last year too).

Now look at the 'Numeric Conditions' for R3 (the table below is from FoR3's submission), contained in the most recent SL issues:



As I understand the BBC's strategy, funds are being transferred to services with larger audiences (conceived as 'better value for money'), which means in effect protecting them from the worst of the cuts and letting those cuts hit elsewhere. This was again a strategy we objected to, saying that the services which already had the biggest budgets (e.g. BBC One) would be able to contribute potentially the biggest savings.


Add: the comparisons are with R1 because that was the network station which previously had the lowest content spend. It now has the second lowest, with R3's the lowest.

[agingjb]

Yes, a quick check through the budgets gives: R1 37.7, R2 47.7, R3 38.7, R4 92.8, R5 58.1.

Dare we hope that, in time, technology will enable us to have adequate subscription channels online that fulfil the needs of the various, rather prickly, minorities that make up the R3 audience?

[french frank]

Yes, a quick check through the budgets gives: R1 37.7, R2 47.7, R3 38.7, R4 92.8, R5 58.1.

Dare we hope that, in time, technology will enable us to have adequate subscription channels online that fulfil the needs of the various, rather prickly, minorities that make up the R3 audience?

We also have the BBC Executive's projected content spend for 2016/17 (the end of the Charter period).

R1's increase over the period 2006/07 - 2016/17 (SL content budget to projected spend) will be 38.5%
R2's increase will be 31.6%.
R3's increase will be 13.4% (that would roughly have been in line with inflation up to 2011 but it has to last out until 2016/17.