BBC Trust Report

[Marmora Man]

According to the recent BBC Trust report Radios 4 & 3 should change their character and broaden their appeal so as to become more accessible to younger people, the "devolved nations", black and ethnic minorities.

Surely both stations are fully accessible to anyone with access to a radio? That a different % of different types of listeners choose to tune in is not the fault of the particular stations. I only hear Radio 1 when my teenage sons hijack the kitchen radio - so I'm an underrepresented listener of Radio 1. that doesn't mean Radio 1 should change to suit me - why should Radios 3 & 4 change?

Radio stations, like films, theatre, books, newspapers set out their stall, style and content. Consumers choose according to their tastes. I do not see any need for change?

[Brendan]

Me neither. I listen to radio 3 or 6 music depending on my mood. I don?t listen to radio 1 because they play crap. People would like to listen to this crap so it is good that radio 1 exists to keep it off the other stations.

[Pearson]

We start listening to Radio 1 when we are teenagers.

Radio 2 creeps on you by your late 20's.

Radio 3 your 30's.

Radio 4 is meant to last us until the end..

FACT ;]

[Alec John Moore]

I'm afraid I fast forwarded to R4 in my late 20s. Does that make me an archetypal R4 listener? I don't have time to look at the BBC Trust report but I would like to know on what they base their view. If by accessible they mean changes to programming that would appeal to those target audiences then there is possibly a limited case for that generally but it's not the only way to develop audiences for those stations. It could be a lose - lose situation if the programming is changed to appeal to a particular audience without retaining the programme making/commissioning and presentation that exists.

[steveo]

I've stopped listening to the Archers because there are too many young people in it and I can't tell the difference between them. Bring back Walter Gabriel

[Narnia]

Radio 4 Service Licence. Issued February 2011

Radio 4

Part l: Key characteristics of the service

1. Remit

The remit of Radio 4 is to be a mixed speech service, offering in-depth news and

current affairs and a wide range of other speech output including drama, readings,

comedy, factual and magazine programmes.

The service should appeal to listeners seeking intelligent programmes in many genres

which inform, educate and entertain.

If this is Radio 4's remit, I don't understand how it equates with what you have written MM. It doesn't make any sense.

[KidKruger]

Don't touch Radio4 leave it exactly as it is.

BUT get rid of the darned Archers.

[Marmora Man]

Narnia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Radio 4 Service Licence. Issued February 2011

> Radio 4

> Part l: Key characteristics of the service

> 1. Remit

> The remit of Radio 4 is to be a mixed speech

> service, offering in-depth news and

> current affairs and a wide range of other speech

> output including drama, readings,

> comedy, factual and magazine programmes.

> The service should appeal to listeners seeking

> intelligent programmes in many genres

> which inform, educate and entertain.

>

> If this is Radio 4's remit, I don't understand how

> it equates with what you have written MM. It

> doesn't make any sense.

That's my point - Radio 4 (and Radio 3) do what they do well. If some people choose not to listen to these stations, that's their choice. It's not as if their existence is a secret.

It is not for Radio 4 / Radio 3 to change to attract a wider audience by, for example, bringing in pop music, or inane DJs - if they did that they wouldn't be Radio 4 / Radio 3.

[Narnia]

But what I've quoted is from the Trust's Report. Where does the Report say the stations should change their character?

[Marmora Man]

Narnia - see Here

[Narnia]

Radio 4

Radio 4 is the most listened to UK wide radio station and is greatly valued by its sizeable audience. However, the Executive has some concerns about long term declines in listening amongst the 'replenisher' audience group ? this term refers to those who may have an interest in speech radio but tend to be slightly younger and lighter listeners than the Radio 4 core audience. The Trust endorses the Executive's strategy of appealing to this audience to help secure the station's strong reach and healthy listening in the future. There is also lower listening amongst certain audience groups ? such as those living further away from London, and those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. The BBC Executive has set out initiatives to broaden Radio 4's appeal amongst these groups. The Trust supports these initiatives, but asks the Executive to ensure that it does not alienate Radio 4's core listeners.

Ah right. I've copied part of the text that concerns R4. I don't see anything wrong with it given the last sentence. The fact is if they don't try to gather a new audience, eventually they will have none. That actually doesn't really matter unless you want your enjoyment of the station to be passed on to another generation. In which case you have to find a way to attract new listeners. Given the last sentence of the above text, that's probably going to be quite difficult.

[katie1997]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Don't touch Radio4 leave it exactly as it is.

> BUT get rid of the darned Archers.

Or at least get rid of annoying 'elen archer for a start.

Yeah, I like radio 4 as it is too and somehow started listening to it when I was in my late-twenties (I still listened to cr@p on other stations tho)

I think it was about the same time as I stopped reading the Guardian. Result.

[ianr]

Well, yes, there's lots of good intentions and wishes to extend their 'demographic', particularly in recruiting more of the regions, minorities and of the 'younger, lighter listeners [replenishers]' (35-54 year olds, honestly), to replace the current listenership as we fade into the ether. But if you look at it, there's not much more than approval of a few stated management initiatives that are more about trying to attract the people in than of anything very radical. For example, re ethnic minorities ('a challenge ... not specific to radio 4'), management propose (para.123), and Trust support and say they will monitor their attempts at:

? promoting the station among minority ethnic opinion formers through special content and marketing events;

? developing more diverse presenter talent for regular strands and major factual series;

? raising the number of minority ethnic drama writers and highlighting their contribution in our promotions and marketing;

? improving the promotion of productions and talent that diversify the sound of Radio 4;

? gathering more regular data on the response of minority ethnic audiences to the schedule (e.g. through improvements in the Pan BBC Tracking Survey).

Not much more than could routinely be expected from any wet Friday afternoon session putting Postit notes with suggestions on the wall, and nothing much, I suppose, to take exception to, so long as they don't spend huge amounts of money at it. The Radio 4 audience is quite bright enough to welcome new interesting stuff and fellow listeners. But I do doubt that anyone would be happy with any substantial changes to the character of Radio 4 that didn't 'work' for a large part of the audience and producers.

Anyway, in the longer run, it'll probably be ecological factors[*] that determine how things go. Where that lies, anywhere between an intellectual/cultural renaissance and a Dumbed Down Age, I'm not sure I want to think about.

[*] By which I think I mean the ecology of what is in people's heads, their available knowledge, ideas, abilities, habits, expectations and wishes.

[nashoi]

Unlike Radios 1 and 2, Radios 3 and 4 have limited or no competition so given how they are funded I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to try and appeal to as wide an audience as possible. This is particularly the case for Radio 4, whose total lack of commercial competition, I assume indicates that type of talk radio doesn't make for a viable business. I see no real reason why the BBC needs 1 or 2 at all.

[Marmora Man]

nashoi,

Trying to appeal to as wide an audience as possible must, inevitably, mean a dilution of the current offering. If Radios 3 & 4 are diluted they are no longer Radios 3 & 4 - but something else. So we lose a radio station that attracts over 10m listeners a week to listen to a service that provides mixed speech service, offering in-depth news and current affairs and a wide range of other speech output including drama, readings, comedy, factual and magazine programmes.

Radio 4 is providing, in accordance with its current remit, a service that appeals to listeners seeking intelligent programmes in many genres which inform, educate and entertain. Which bit of that service needs diluting?

[pk]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> nashoi,

>

> Trying to appeal to as wide an audience as

> possible must, inevitably, mean a dilution of the

> current offering. If Radios 3 & 4 are diluted they

> are no longer Radios 3 & 4 - but something else.

> So we lose a radio station that attracts over 10m

> listeners a week to listen to a service that

> provides mixed speech service, offering in-depth

> news and current affairs and a wide range of other

> speech output including drama, readings, comedy,

> factual and magazine programmes.

>

> Radio 4 is providing, in accordance with its

> current remit, a service that appeals to listeners

> seeking intelligent programmes in many genres

> which inform, educate and entertain. Which bit of

> that service needs diluting?

why would providing intelligent programmes which educate, inform and entertain with topics of more appeal/relevance to e.g. younger people or ethinic minorities be 'diluting'?

may be even the existing listeners would enjoy (and learn from) a broader range of programming too?

[PeckhamRose]

It is such a shame Radio 4 is being expected to change to try and appeal to different types of people.

They have plays about different cultures; are those plays to attract different cultures to Radio 4 or to teach those of who Radio 4 may assume is their core audience about those cultures? Or both, or just because they are good plays!?

Oh - from about 1.30 I listen to Planet Rock (unless the after-Archers play sounds like it may be interesting and not some boring play about rich white folk in Indiahhhh)! But (and this reads like a Radio Times letter - and I subscribe to the Radio Times) Ed Reardon is worth the price of the telly licence all on his own.