Andrew Harrison is doing a jig

Andrew Harrison, over at the Radio Centre, is delighted that David Liddiment is leading the BBC Trust's poke about into Radio 2.

(Just by the by, should Liddiment even be on the BBC Trust? He's a director of mega-indie All3Media; it seems a little odd that an 'independent' guardian of the Corporation, supposedly there to represent the licence-payers, has rather a major interest in a large supplier - and a delicious 2% stake in that company as well. It is declared as an interest on the BBC site, but still seems fundamentally wrong.)

Anyway, something must be done - for some reason - about the age of Radio 2's audience. Harrison goes into his usual fundamental misunderstanding of music:

Radio 2 should be able to utilise the advantages its £40m programming budget and access to national airwaves to provide a service that sounds, during all listening hours (not just in the evenings) unlike anything that the commercial sector would ever be able to provide.

It does, Andrew. It puts out a sequence of decent sounding collection of programmes made by people who care about what they're doing and knows what they're talking about.

Seriously, though, Andrew: you think the BBC should only be allowed to do something that "the commercial sector would [n]ever be able to provide"? Isn't that a little absurd, given that the commercial sector could, feasibly, produce anything it chose. Absolute could choose to create a programme which consisted entirely of the sounds of schoolchildren being dunked in vats of ice water, by cross-subsidising it with profits from advertising on the breakfast show. Your model seems to be a pretty hefty bar to the BBC doing anything.

But that is not the Radio 2 of today. Almost 40% of its music comes from the past nine years, with a greater emphasis on new music than pre-1980 output and limited focus on its older listeners.

What's with the desire to force older listeners off to Radio 2? If commercial radio had any heart, social conscience or business savvy, shouldn't they be focusing on a growing demographic sector who value radio, have money to spend and are being actively targeted by advertisers?

There's something a little unpleasant about Harrison's approach - 'we're not interested in the oldies, let them go to Radio 2, but leave the bright young things for us', but even if we accept that he has his reasons, you have to wonder at his confused belief that being a bit older means you only want to hear music from before 1980.

Given that "music from the last nine years" can mean Susan Boyle, Kathryn Tickell, Harry Connick, and so on, suggesting that a station should drive its playlist by sell-by dates shows a lack of understanding about how people listen.

More to the point, I'm now comfortably into Radio 2's target audience, and I don't want to hear a station which plays nothing but The Eagles and Patti Boulaye. My record-buying pattern hasn't yet shifted to only getting compilations from Time-Life Records, and I feel a little offended that Harrison thinks that a music station courting me should be playing only ancient records. His attitudes and understanding of the radio audience are as outdated as the playlists he wants Radio 2 to adopt.

Commercial radio blames BBC for all its ills

The Radio Centre, the body which speaks up for independent radio in the UK, is moaning on about Radio 2 again. "It's popular, and that's soooooo unfair":

The Radio Centre, the industry trade body for commercial radio, said Radio 2 was "prioritising popularity not public purposes" by shunning older listeners and failing to provide sufficient news and current affairs coverage.

Being lectured on providing insufficient news coverage from the ILR stations should alarm Radio 2 - after all, if anybody knows about falling short on keeping an audience informed, it'd be British commercial radio.

The Radio Centre suggests Radio 2 is refusing to stick to its remit. Again, the commercial radio operators of the UK know what they're talking about when it comes to a radio station saying it'll do one thing, and then doing something else.

"Over the last decade, Radio 2 has shifted its programming policies – nobody has intervened and this has been disastrous for commercial radio's heartland audiences and for the plurality and diversity of the UK's fragile radio ecology," said the Radio Centre chief executive, Andrew Harrison.

Let's just take as read the implication here that a commercial radio station has a right to an audience, and that, somehow, by attracting a large number of licence fee payers to Radio 2, the BBC is not satisfying licence fee holders, and instead just look at Harrison.

Let's stare at him, as he stands in an sector of radio which has dropped numerous shows; thrown away decades-old, well-loved local brands in favour of one-size-doesn't-quite-fit-all central brands; persuaded the Radio Authority and then Ofcom to allow stations to dump the more onerous demands of their licences; pre-records chunks of programming and centralises others. Surrounded by this destruction, Harrison is blaming Radio 2 for ruining its audiences.

The Radio Centre made the comments in its submission to the BBC Trust in response to its ongoing review of Radio 2 and BBC 6Music.

Research had also found an emphasis on new music and new presenters on Radio 2 with a particular appeal to younger listeners, with programmes of appeal to older listeners "marginalised in the schedule", the commercial radio body said.

"Had this kind of format change occurred in the commercial sector, Ofcom would have taken action so it is welcome that the BBC Trust is reviewing the output of Radio 2," added Harrison.

Yes, Ofcom would have taken action. It would have tutted for a bit, and then probably varied the terms of the service's licence.

Given that Harrison is so convinced there's an older audience who are not being served by Radio 2, you might think the obvious thing would be for commercial radio to take care of this lucrative, growing gap in the market. Instead, from a quick listen to most of the 'how much spaghetti can you put down your trousers' output of the leading local stations, commercial radio is far more interested in going in the opposite direction.

The Radio Centre said Radio 2 was also failing to provide the news and current affairs programming required in its licence.

"Only if items such as newspaper reviews, a discussion about snoring, a Monopoly championship and discussions about teleshopping were categorised as 'news and current affairs' did the station achieve its 16-hour target," said Harrison.

Why wouldn't a review of the newspapers be current affairs programming? Does Harrison really think that the network should be dumping large chunks of the Today programme onto Radio 2? Does he struggle with the idea that, given lovers of hard news are catered for by 4, and softer news by Five Live, Radio 2 might have to find different approaches and subjects for its distinct audience? Does Harrison really think that sixty year olds are tuning in to Radio 2 looking for coverage of the German general election?

He's also eyeing up the budgets, too:

"There is no apparent reason why 6Music should cost almost five times more than Planet Rock to run, why Radio 2 should cost more than six times more than 6Music to run, or why the typical cost of a Radio 2 programme should be 54% higher than a similar show on Radio 1," said Harrison.

No reason why 6Music should cost five times more than Planet Rock, eh? Depsite, erm, Planet Rock basically putting on tapes overnight, and for a couple of hours during the day. And making their few presenters do longer shifts. Oh, and 6Music having a couple of live sessions every day, and Planet Rock's website having lower production values. And Planet Rock featuring no dedicated music news programming. Or actual news, come to that. I dare say 6Music could exist on the same budget as Planet Rock; it would probably sound as low-budget, then, too.

And if Harrison really doesn't see why Radio 2 costs a lot more than 6Music, you'd have to wonder if he's chosen the right business to be in. Seriously, Andrew, you don't see why a network that puts on Friday Night Is Music Night, commissions drama and current affairs (perhaps about Monopoly, but even so) and comedy, and has a slew of smaller, bespoke specialist programmes costs more to make? Do you go into restaurants and demand to know why the steak costs more than the soup?

He hasn't stopped yet, though:

"We think the BBC urgently needs to rebalance its portfolio of popular music radio. You've now got Radio 1 targeting 15- to 29-year-olds, 1Xtra targeting 15-to 24-year-olds, 6Music with more than 80% of its listening hours coming from 15-44s and Radio 2 becoming increasingly younger. That could be construed as an obsession with youth."

You do realise, Andrew, that 1Xtra and Radio 1 aren't chasing the same audience at all - perhaps you've just become blinkered by years in commercial radio as to seeing demographic age strata as the only way to differentiate an audience, you might have spotted the difference.

And is Radio 2 really so youth-obsessed? Sure, Jeremy Vine likes The Fall, but Mark E Smith is in his fifties; and do you really think that Ken Bruce and Sarah Kennedy are pitching their programmes at university students? Even the wail that Radio 2 plays a lot of "new" music is bemusing - what age, Andrew, do you stop wanting to hear something you've never heard before? I was going to suggest that would be a rhetorical question, but come to think of it, the median age of Magic listeners would probably give you an answer.

Chill words for the music industry

Commercial radio in the UK is looking to cut its costs - and is targeting transmission and copyright costs. Especially copyright costs, says Radio Centre chief executive Andrew Harrison:

"Copyright fees total around £60m for the sector. The current arrangements are up for renegotiation as from 2008.

"This will be a tough negotiation but, from drawing comparisons with how copyright fees are levied in other countries around the world, it may well be an area where we are able to find a more favourable balance."

In other words: they don't want to pay as much for music anymore.

Mind you, the record companies might feel they have a slightly stronger bargaining position on this one - Capital Radio can't suddenly swap to putting out more speech if they suddenly lose rights to music.

Harrison also hopes that the BBC licence fee settlement might work in their favour, too:

"The BBC now finds itself under considerable cost pressure. Their ability to buy the biggest and best in terms of talent is significantly reduced," he added.

"Most of the on-air BBC talent started in commercial radio before being lured over by big salaries. Our biggest competitor has been tamed - slightly."

"Most" of the on-air talent? Is that true? And of the names - like Moyles - who did leave the commercial networks to join the BBC, how many had a Jonathan Ross style package dangled in front of them compared with the numbers who just fancied working for a broadcaster who doesn't use such strictly formatted shows?