Trust review published

[french frank]

The BBC Trust has just published its review report on Radio 3 and the other music radio stations. We'll be studying it carefully, and the Trust has volunteered (!) that they are ready to hear any further views that FoR3 might wish to discuss.

At first sight this is certainly better than the 2011 report - if rather more complimentary of the service than we would like . But, some signs of optimism.

[french frank]

"Action 9: Radio 3 should maximise its distinctiveness

While individual programme and scheduling decisions are for BBC Radio, not the Trust, we think that the priority for Radio 3 should be to increase choice for radio listeners by maximising its distinctiveness and minimising similarities with other stations.

Timing: We will take an update in 12 months."

Onwards and upwards?

[MrGongGong]

maximising its distinctiveness and minimising similarities with other stations.

[Honoured Guest]

Here's the BBC Trust's link to their service review of BBC music radio: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/p...15/music_radio

[Honoured Guest]

Drama returns to just 40 weeks a year (i.e. only outside the Proms season, as in 2013), with a savings-cut reduced minimum of 20 new programmes per year (down from 25 p.a. post-2012 and 35 p.a. pre-2012) plus 20 rebroadcasts per year. The Trust approves the repeat policy as an efficient use of resources given the high cost of drama production. The Trust sees 20 new editions per year as the minimum viable level.

[french frank]

Drama returns to just 40 weeks a year (i.e. only outside the Proms season, as in 2013), with a savings-cut reduced minimum of 20 new programmes per year (down from 25 p.a. post-2012 and 35 p.a. pre-2012) plus 20 rebroadcasts per year. The Trust approves the repeat policy as an efficient use of resources given the high cost of drama production. The Trust sees 20 new editions per year as the minimum viable level.

Yes, the cut is a bit disappointing after the previous huge cut and the dropping of The Wire - but they did mention the point about the late broadcast hour. That seems to have resulted in something like a 25% drop in audience - it used to be 90-100,000.

I wonder if a season of archive productions would be possible.

[aeolium]

I thought this was a pretty uncritical effort from the Trust, though only to be expected from what we have seen before. They don't seem to see a problem in what has been an effective drop in reach from the start of 2004 to 2014, particularly taking into account the increase in the UK population by several million over that period. Also they've agreed to another reduction in new drama to 20 productions, even though the quota in 2012 was 35 - yet another increase in repeats.

In my view the Trust is entirely the wrong organization to conduct this kind of review, which should be done by a completely independent body. But given the criticism levelled at the Trust by the Culture select committee, and the fatally compromised position of the Trust chairwoman, perhaps the next review will be by a properly independent body.

[french frank]

It is the "wrong" body in that it has no real jurisdiction over what the BBC does editorially - they have acknowledged that. I read it as a diplomatic piece of work which creates space to manoeuvre for the one person who is in charge of editorial strategy - the controller. Compare it with the previous report which effectively said, "You're doing jolly well. Carry on with it."

This report mentions many more of the critical comments that have been given - and the guidance is clear. The more obvious points that Classic FM made about similarity have been made much more clearly this time. If R3 has to 'increase choice for radio listeners by maximising its distinctiveness and minimising similarities with other stations' the most obvious way would be to drop all the trivial rubbish.

What, again, we don't know (and there's no hint at all, as there was last time) is of a crucial submission by BBC management, indicating the direction they want to take. Did Roger write anything before he went? Did the Executive board/BBC Radio write anything? They surely must have done. Did the Trust have any discussion with Alan Davey? Who knows.

One thing we have to face is that we are an audience 'segment' and there are other parts of the audience (seemingly) which think R3 is pretty good as it is. I doubt very much whether changing the service to what we would like would reward the controller with increases in the audience. Possibly the opposite

[teamsaint]

One thing we have to face is that we are an audience 'segment' and there are other parts of the audience (seemingly) which think R3 is pretty good as it is. I doubt very much whether changing the service to what we would like would reward the controller with increases in the audience. Possibly the opposite

I'm not sure I would agree with that conclusion.
THe R3 demographic group is growing, and the population is growing. perhaps the audience should be. I think that an assumption that what is seen as accessibility, through things like "safe" Morning programming is actually borne of a fear based approach to audience reach and numbers. It puts me in mind of concert programming, where promoters and managements often seem happy with a " safe" 60% capacity, ( Dvorak/Brahms RFH a couple of weeks ago) rather than a take a bit of a risk on a better result. ( Dublin Jimbo reporting capacity attendances at a two(?) day contemporary music festival recently.)

I'm sure that the artistic side of even BBC R3 managers would accept that risk is part of what makes music and art tick. There is a place for safe, conservative programming, of course. And programming well and creatively in a content soaked world is , like so many activities, easy from the touchline, but not so easy perhaps from the manager's seat. But that said, I would suspect even that the non -critical/ non-vociferous core of R3 listeners might still wish it different, better, even if they aren't turning their (our) FM sets off.

actually, there is probably a good discussion to be had about why 6 Music and R2 have big and increasing figures, when their content is, like R3, in the main, easily available elsewhere, whilst R3 numbers seem static.

[french frank]

actually, there is probably a good discussion to be had about why 6 Music and R2 have big and increasing figures, when their content is, like R3, easily available elsewhere, whilst R3 numbers seem static.

Too many good points to answer all together -

6 Music started out with a relatively low audience because digital audiences were only beginning to build up. When the BBC proposed to close it, awareness of its existence was 20%. That changed overnight and from then on it has had good press coverage and all digital stations have been growing. And it isn't minority listening in the way that R3 is.

There is so much content about now that people spend roughly an entire day listening to the radio and another entire day watching television. Are they going to make more time available to listen to radio?

As far as Breakfast is concerned, more people are already listening to the radio at this time than at any other time of day. What would make a significant number decide they don't want to listen to Today or Chris Evans, and to switch to Radio 3 instead?

[Honoured Guest]

Also they've agreed to another reduction in new drama to 20 productions, even though the quota in 2012 was 35 - yet another increase in repeats.

Not quite right, I think. As I read it, the Trust has approved two cost-saving cuts in Drama on 3:

1) From almost every week to 40 weeks a year (outside the Proms season, only), and

2) From a minimum of 25 new productions in a year to a minimum of 20.

So, in fact, the number of repeats will reduce slightly from a maximum of 25 a year to a maximum of 20.

The service review explicitly states that the alternative would have been to make cuts in live and specially recorded music concerts on Radio 3.

This live and specially recorded music is is one of the ways in which Radio 3 is most distinctive, whereas there is a Drama overlap with Radio 4, particularly with some of their 90-minute Saturday Dramas and some of their Sunday afternoon Drama (repeated on Saturday evenings).

[french frank]

Not quite right, I think. As I read it, the Trust has approved two cost-saving cuts in Drama on 3:

1) From almost every week to 40 weeks a year (outside the Proms season, only), and

2) From a minimum of 25 new productions in a year to a minimum of 20. So, in fact, the number of repeats will reduce slightly from a maximum of 25 a year to a maximum of 20.

But this was, as aeolium says, 'another reduction': it was 'at least 35 new drama productions each year' in 2011/12 (excluding repeats).

The service review explicitly states that the alternative would have been to make cuts in live and specially recorded music concerts on Radio 3.

Though the recent increase in live concerts (from none at all when they were dropped in 2007 to every night of the week in 2011 was arguably an overreaction. Radio 3 has always been a 'cultural network' not a 'classical music station'.

This live and specially recorded music is is one of the ways in which Radio 3 is most distinctive, whereas there is a Drama overlap with Radio 4, particularly with some of their 90-minute Saturday Dramas and some of their Sunday afternoon Drama (repeated on Saturday evenings).

If you were to read my FoSPAL talk you'd see how a Radio 4 drama listener viewed Radio 3's drama (the overlap is more apparent than real):

'One Radio 4 drama listener wrote to us in 2004: “I’m no friend of Radio 3. The drama is pretty dreadful, all very left-wing and socially self-conscious (and self righteous). X [a radio producer] wouldn’t recognise an entertaining play ... if it got up and hit her in the face.” And there was more, along these lines which I didn't quote. It's not just a question of length.

'In fact, that particular letter came during what, for me, was one of the strongest Radio 3 drama seasons that I remember, with productions of Ibsen, Tennessee Williams, Bertolt Brecht, Marguerite Duras, Calderón, Nabokov, Edward Albee, Chekhov, Zoltán Egressy (a new play). Mention of the Calderón (which had been a National Theatre production) came with the criticism from our letter-writer that there was very little from ‘British’ writers like (he named two writers). In fact, there had been three new Shakespeare productions, a Ben Jonson, a brand new radio play by John Arden, new radio productions of Howard Barker and David Hare ...'

[Richard Tarleton]

This section...

By age, Radio 3’s reach has fallen among listeners aged 35-54, who have been seen by the station as ‘replenishers’ to its existing audience. In 2013 - 14 reach among this age group was down to 2.7%, from 2.9% in 2009-10 and from 3.9% in 2003-04. However, this decline has not affected the station’s overall reach. The disparities among other demographic groups have remained fairly stable over the last five years.

...ought to be the cause of major concern, and further analysis, instead of which it is airily dismissed. Why is this so? If they are not reaching this demographic it does not bode well for retaining the 55-100 one in the future. Instead of looking into the problem, there seems to be a view that one audience (the Breakfast/Clemmy one) is as good as another. It betrays a worrying indifference on the part of the BBC to its audience, the science of audience analyisis/segmentation does not seem to have made any headway.....

[french frank]

RT - I've just written a response to NLebrecht about this point. I think the Trust steps warily; they don't (as NL claimed) 'order' or issue 'edicts' to management on editorial matters. They 'think' and comment. And they ask managers to report back to them.

If I remember correctly, the same drop in that age group was reported last time (my view is they're probably less tolerant of Breakfast nonsense than older listeners who still seem to listen, albeit with gritted teeth).

But look at how 6 Music has far more listening hours than Radio 3, even with the same size audience. And look at the amount of posting on this forum on the 'What Rock/Pop/Jazz-rock/Fusion ...' thread there have been (though I'd guess that only a small number of posters post there).

Yes, it's a problem that RW tried in his own way to address. It didn't work, as the figures show, which is why there's a good chance his way will be dropped. But there needs to be another way.

[Richard Tarleton]

Spot on!