Commercial radio supports making BBC worse

It's perhaps no surprise that commercial radio has an opinion about the future of the BBC, and that its vision involves effectively getting rid of the bits that people like.

The Radio Centre - the trades group for ad-supported radio - even have ideas about 6Music, which it wants closed just for the hell of it. They don't even bother to put it in the press release, but it does turn up in the Guardian report:

Radio Centre supports the closure of 6 Music and generally welcomes the BBC's aim of refocusing its radio services, but said the station's distinctive "John Peel legacy" programmes should be broadcast on Radio 1 and Radio 2.

So, there's nothing wrong with the programme, it admits that it offers something distinctive, but thinks it should be closed anyway.

It's not clear why the Radio Centre thinks this would help commercial radio. Perhaps a few of the 6Music audience will drift off to NME Radio or XFM, but they're really unsatisfying alternatives - dodgems instead of a rollercoaster. Closing 6Music won't shift audiences back to radio with adverts; it'd be excellent news for Spotify and Last FM instead.

They do have a second plan:

Value Partners [who carried out a report of helpful ideas] suggests that, as an alternative, 6 Music could be privatised.

There's always a consultant lurking with rubbish ideas, isn't there? One of the reasons that the BBC is using to justify closing 6Music is that it's relatively expensive for a pop station. So how would that work in the commercial sector?

Another part of the network's proposition is the access to the BBC archive - if 6Music went private, it either wouldn't be able to pull that content in, or it would have to do it on an equal footing with other commercial organisations. That might be a good idea, but would cost 6 some of its USP at a time when it would badly need it.

Still, closing 6Music would be on the Radio Centre's wish list, with programming shunted to Radios 1 and 2. This must be at the heart of a thought-through series of suggestions, right?

[T]he Radio Centre, said Radio 1 should focus on teenagers and the under-25s, who are less desirable to advertisers, while Radio 2 should shift its lower age limit up from 40-plus to 45-plus over three years.

Bless their little hearts, the Radio Centre really believe that it's possible to make a couple of tweaks to a playlist here, a late-night line-up there, and you can make the average audience age shift by a year and eight months over the course of fifty-two weeks.

No wonder commercial radio is so dire in the UK if it believes that sort of thing is possible. It simply doesn't understand that people's musical tastes stopped having any direct correlation to the music they listen to sometime around the end of the 1980s. "Two extra Vampire Weekend tracks in drive time a week, and everybody over 60 will switch off."

Let's pretend you could be that precise about twiddling, though, and accept that Radio 1 has a younger audience than 6Music, which in turn has a younger audience than Radio 2.

The Radio Centre want to take out 6, and pass some of its programming to Radio 1 and some to Radio 2.

So Radio 1 will pick up programming currently being listened to by an audience a bit older than its current median, and Radio 2 will add programming that attracts a slightly younger crowd. And that will make the Radio Centre happy.

Except, of course, the Radio Centre want Radio 1's audience to get younger, and Radio 2's to get older. So it will also make the Radio Centre unhappy.

But, hey, the fact that the organisation is just farting out contradictory suggestions doesn't mean that none of its thinking has been worked through, right?

Radio Centre also said that the BBC, as the wealthiest partner, should shoulder all the costs of completing the building digital radio transmission network – the national DAB multiplex and local and regional DAB services – to bring coverage to 98% of the country. If agreed this could be completed by 2013, at a cost of around £100m-£150m, said Andrew Harrison, Radio Centre chief executive.

Now, you can see the attraction - BBC pumps more and more cash into the dying DAB format to ensure that by 2013 everyone can access six slightly-different variants of Heart FM no matter where they live, BBC has less to spend on making programmes.

It must sound great to the Radio Centre, who realised their orignal proposal, that the BBC just throw cash off the roof the Broadcasting House, might even look odd to people who don't pay much attention.

Let's believe this is genuine, though, and the Radio Centre really want a strong DAB network in the UK by 2013 (or six or seven years too late). Why? Commercial Radio has shown bugger-all interest in creating new services for DAB, pleading poverty.

And, at the same time, it's applauding the closure of 6Music, which is one of the few reasons anyone has right now for buying a DAB radio. If the Radio Centre really want music fans to shift to digital radio, can't it see there's a case for having a radio station you can't get on FM already up and broadcasting, to drive take-up while the commercial sector waits to come up with an idea for what it might do on DAB and how it might fund it?

If this was a GCSE project, the Radio Centre would be looking at retakes. If this sort of sloppy thinking is what goes on when they're deciding what to put on air, that - rather than the BBC's licence-funding - might explain why people choose not to listen.

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.

Transmission union threatens local radio

Our ears perked up when we heard that the Commercial Radio's Radio Centre body was warning of the dangers to local radio inherent in a proposed merger - could it be that, after all this time, the commercial radio industry has noticed that consolidation in the UK radio market has eroded the concept of local radio quite dangerously?

No, as it turns out - they're not bothered by the implications of members GCap and Global turning into a single entity, but the proposed union of the National Grid and Macquarie's transmission businesses. Apparently, while having a large, dominant broadcaster is good for listeners, having a dominant transmission company is bad:

Andrew Harrison, the chief executive of the Radio Centre, says that commercial radio will be financially "squeezed" by the £2.5bn acquisition of National Grid Wireless by Macquarie Bank, which owns rival operator Arqiva.

Harrison believes that the Competition Commission this week will clear Macquarie's £2.5bn acquisition of National Grid Wireless, even though no satisfactory agreement over reducing transmission fees has been reached.

And he added that failure to reach a deal on transmission fees could "make the difference" for a profitable commercial radio sector in its competition with the BBC.

Allowing a monopoly in transmission - or, at least, a profit-maximising monopoly - does seem to be slightly reckless on the part of the government. Of course, the Radio Centre might have a stronger case if it could point a large slew of distinctive, important local programming that could be lost if small stations had trouble paying the transmission company, but we suppose it would struggle a little to do so.

How much does it cost to adminster a podcast?

Now, we have no problems with people who make podcasts deciding they wish to be working on a commercial basis and charging a fee. What is a little odd, though, is the UK commercial radio's RadioCentre podcast pages, which offer a range of programmes charging what they call

a small administrative fee

That would be £12.75. Now, unless they're sending a bloke round your house to put the track onto your iPod for you, I'm at a bit of a loss to see how there could be £12.75 worth of administrative costs involved for every listener. If you're selling something, say so; don't pretend you're barely breaking even.

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?