Parliamentary Inquiry: CFM lets rip

[Flay]

Reading through CFM's submission just now, they say:

Given the amount of public money available to BBC Radio 3’s management, it is imperative that this funding is invested to augment and widen the artistic depth and breadth of classical music broadcasting in the UK, rather than in replicating the service already provided by Classic FM, the BBC’s only commercial competitor in this area.

Pages 3, 4 & 5 of this document make excellent reading.

[french frank]

Lunchtime O'Boulez appears to have spent a couple of happy hours browsing through it too, if the new Private Eye is anything to go by. He quotes the CMSSC Chairman as saying that Radio 3 should abandon attempts to occupy the same space as Classic FM in favour of "more challenging and difficult" programming.

I'm not sure where he gets the MP quotes from, another from (ex-deputy speaker?) Nigel Evans saying Radio 3 must "raise its game".

[doversoul1]

Maybe we should form Friends of CFM to back them (their argument) up.

[Zucchini]

I see that CFM incudes quotes from national newspapers from 2011-2013 and the homepage of the FoR3 website rotates newspaper quotes which are 7 to 10 years old. Since it seems possible that one or two interested parties might visit the site after reading submissions, I would bin and maybe replace those asap.

[doversoul1]

Reading through CFM's submission just now, they say:

Pages 3, 4 & 5 of this document make excellent reading.

and this (p11)
However, we would argue that BBC Radio 3’s management is plotting a
course firmly towards the increasing popularisation of the service and a
dilution of its core public service output. Crucially, these changes erode
the choice available to listeners. This view was echoed in submissions to
the BBC Trust’s Service Review consultation by the Friends of Radio 3,
by the Voice of the Listener and Viewer, and by the Incorporated Society
of Musicians.

...and this
Although, the BBC Trust then goes on to describe this as:
“Legitimate.”
[…]
It is clear from the responses to BBC Radio 3’s programming outlined
above (and there are many, many more similar – and some rather more
trenchant – views in chatrooms online) that the listening public, critics
and commentators have taken a very different view of these changes than
that put forward by the BBC Trust.
(my emphasis)

Just one more (p12)
Given Classic
FM’s success in building audiences for classical music radio, twenty
years later, the BBC now appears to have decided to ape its commercial
competitor, abandoning much of the distinctiveness in peak-time hours in
the process.

[ed] I have just reread the thread and realised that a lot (most) of what I have posted have been already posted. My apologies for the duplication. My excuse is, I could not read the original link posted by ff.

[french frank]

I see that CFM incudes quotes from national newspapers from 2011-2013 and the homepage of the FoR3 website rotates newspaper quotes which are 7 to 10 years old. Since it seems possible that one or two interested parties might visit the site after reading submissions, I would bin and maybe replace those asap.

They were chosen specially for what they say, and they all seem equally relevant now. I don't much care for the 'Listeners complain abou Radio 2.5/dumbing down' kind of stories. A lot of our quotes are from listeners too. I don't know why Robert Hanks' quote always turns up when you load the page ...

[mercia]

reading that CFM submission, it seems to suggest that the aping or imitation of one broadcaster by another is somehow new or unprecedented. Surely not. Isn't this imitation going on all the time ? Isn't that what the so-called "ratings war" is all about? Isn't that why the BBC came up with the idea of a primetime television soap-opera to rival ITV's ? Isn't that why the main evening television news bulletin goes out at the same time on the main channels and if one changes time the other follows ? Aren't they constantly watching eachother's output to see what is popular and can be imitated and rivalled ? If the BBC doesn't need to worry about ratings because of its guaranteed license-fee funding why doesn't it ditch all its trashy entertainment programmes and give us wall-to-wall Open University ? I don't want Strictly Come Baking, I want 18th Century French Philosophy with Professor XYZ and I want it on BBC1 at 7:30pm everyday, is that an unreasonable expectation ?

[Globaltruth]

I note that Private Eye has picked up on this - featured in current edition, including a couple of in passim refs to the Friends of R3.

In traditional Private Eye style the interpretation is very much their own....

[french frank]

reading that CFM submission, it seems to suggest that the aping or imitation of one broadcaster by another is somehow new or unprecedented. Surely not. Isn't this imitation going on all the time ? Isn't that what the so-called "ratings war" is all about? Isn't that why the BBC came up with the idea of a primetime television soap-opera to rival ITV's ? Isn't that why the main evening television news bulletin goes out at the same time on the main channels and if one changes time the other follows ? Aren't they constantly watching eachother's output to see what is popular and can be imitated and rivalled ? If the BBC doesn't need to worry about ratings because of its guaranteed license-fee funding why doesn't it ditch all its trashy entertainment programmes and give us wall-to-wall Open University ? I don't want Strictly Come Baking, I want 18th Century French Philosophy with Professor XYZ and I want it on BBC1 at 7:30pm everyday, is that an unreasonable expectation ?

There may be a difference for individual programmes and certain schedule arrangements; but that isn't the same as an entire service rivalling a commercial service, especially when the commercial service laid out its distinctive stall first and the BBC attempted to follow it. This is why we felt it was acceptable for Radio 2 to have some 'entry level' classical programmes, because the station as a whole would not be a rival service to Classic FM. The BBC is not allowed to use its public funding to push a commercial service out of the way. It's the public funding which leads to this prohibition.

Our argument, incidentally, would not be that Radio 3 is not, obviously, 'distinctive' but that Classic FM's remit was to bring classical music to a broad public, and it does that by going downmarket with its content. Radio 3's remit was not to bring anything to a 'broad public' but to serve an audience which had specific interests and high expectations, be it in classical music, jazz, world, drama. To adjust the remit so that it, too, is targeting a 'broad audience' means that two stations are after the same potential audience, and another audience is hardly being served at all. That is not satisfactory, and it means the BBC is falling down on its Agreement with the Secretary of State to provide specialised content at all levels.

[mercia]

The BBC is not allowed to use its public funding to push a commercial service out of the way. It's the public funding which leads to this prohibition.

if, by imitating certain aspects of a commercial service (as in the CFM submission) you are pushing it out of the way, I think I was trying to suggest in my ramble that BBC television has imitated (for example) ITV in the past and this has not led to the demise of ITV.

[Serial_Apologist]

if, by imitating certain aspects of a commercial service (as in the CFM submission) you are pushing it out of the way, I think I was trying to suggest in my ramble that BBC television has imitated (for example) ITV in the past and this has not led to the demise of ITV.

And I think french frank is trying to suggest that where the current situation differs is that this time it is an entire wavelength that is being imitated, not just one or two programmes in it.

[doversoul1]

I don’t know much about TV programmes but wasn’t ITV set up to rival the BBC in certain areas/programmes? CFM was set up specifically to cater for the audience that was not the target of Radio3. This was an option that was opened to a commercial station, and now that it has built up a commercially viable size (i.e. large) audience, Radio3 is after this audience. And if two stations offer same sort of programmes, it is very likely that listeners prefer listening to them without advertisements.

Mind you, the way Radio3 is going about ‘popularising’ itself, I don’t think CFM has anything to worry about. Aping, indeed. Well said CFM (although we've been saying it all along).

[Honoured Guest]

Our argument, incidentally, would not be that Radio 3 is not, obviously, 'distinctive' but that Classic FM's remit was to bring classical music to a broad public, and it does that by going downmarket with its content. Radio 3's remit was not to bring anything to a 'broad public' but to serve an audience which had specific interests and high expectations, be it in classical music, jazz, world, drama. To adjust the remit so that it, too, is targeting a 'broad audience' means that two stations are after the same potential audience, and another audience is hardly being served at all. That is not satisfactory, and it means the BBC is falling down on its Agreement with the Secretary of State to provide specialised content at all levels.

Your interpretation of the current objectives of Radio 3 sounds very similar to the one which the BBC Trust directly addressed in the Service Review in February 2011.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/regulatory_framework/service_licences/service_reviews/radio_347/radio_347_final.pdf

Did you simply reject the findings of the BBC Trust's Service Review? Or do you argue that Radio 3's objectives have subsequently changed?

[gurnemanz]

Our argument, incidentally, would not be that Radio 3 is not, obviously, 'distinctive' but that Classic FM's remit was to bring classical music to a broad public, and it does that by going downmarket with its content. Radio 3's remit was not to bring anything to a 'broad public' but to serve an audience which had specific interests and high expectations, be it in classical music, jazz, world, drama. To adjust the remit so that it, too, is targeting a 'broad audience' means that two stations are after the same potential audience, and another audience is hardly being served at all. That is not satisfactory, and it means the BBC is falling down on its Agreement with the Secretary of State to provide specialised content at all levels.

I cannot really subscribe to this sheep and goats argument. There are not two discrete audiences - on the one hand, the "broad public" , happy with downmarket commercial fodder and on the other, the enlightened ones with "high expectations". Some Radio 3 listeners I know like the stuff we hate. Do all CFM people have only low expectations? I would have thought that there is quite a substantial overlap range and that with its recent changes Radio 3 is not in fact "targeting a broad audience'" but fighting over these middle range floaters.

[Serial_Apologist]

I cannot really subscribe to this sheep and goats argument. There are not two discrete audiences - on the one hand, the "broad public" , happy with downmarket commercial fodder and on the other, the enlightened ones with "high expectations". Some Radio 3 listeners I know like the stuff we hate. Do all CFM people have only low expectations? I would have thought that there is quite a substantial overlap range and that with its recent changes Radio 3 is not in fact "targeting a broad audience'" but fighting over these middle range floaters.

Then why does it need to????