"No presenter is bigger than the station"

It's an old saying in radio - suggesting talent should be team players and rely on the station's overall success for the platform they have.

While I will always agree with the former (an issue of morality), I would question to what extent the latter is still true given how much more radio and other media we now consume.

Ultimately, it depends how the presenter as a brand compares to the station as a brand.

If the presenter merely exists as a voice to link together the overall package and talk up the whole station, despite fulfilling a valuable role, they are obviously not bigger.

If they consistently factor in personalised content that listeners emotionally connect with in some way, perhaps prompting people to follow them on social media, that's when the tables can turn.

However, it takes a lot of work to get into that position if you're starting from nothing on the radio.

You may have heard a few community station egos who believe they are the big draw - often doing shows that seem to be all about them which, ironically, is the first barrier to winning an audience.

Anoraks like to criticise radio for hiring influencers or any celebrity who isn’t a jock, yet we’re enticed by TV shows hosted by the most famous faces.

For radio, as just one platform in a multi-media world, hiring the biggest and best talent has never been more important. The risk of them having a stronger personal brand is one the industry has to take.

Chris Evans was far bigger than Virgin Radio upon joining and went on to more than double its existing reach in his first quarter, adding almost a million listeners. He began to drive audience for the whole station with more people tuning in throughout the day.

If Evans left, would the overall churn be just as significant?

On the flipside, Radio 2 remained fairly static when Zoe Ball took over from him and, despite seeing declines by up to 2m since then, it is still the most listened-to.

No one presenter is bigger than Radio 2.

Eurus on Twitter shared their analogy:

That's like saying no train is bigger than the station. But, many come to the station to catch or watch trains, surely. Though there also are some, who are interested in certain stations as well.

I think this sums up today's radio landscape well.

Many railway enthusiasts enjoy everyday service trains, but a special loco with distinctive characteristics attracts specific attention and people go out of their way to catch a glimpse.

Why music quotas can be counterproductive

As an autistic person, diversity & inclusion and equal opportunities for disabled people is very important to me personally.

There is also still much work to be done in these areas for women, ethnic minorities, the LGBTQ+ community and those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

It is not my place to comment on anybody else's experience and those of us who are not affected by something owing to a certain privilege should listen and learn.

Radio 3 presenter Kate Molleson's has said that quotas should be imposed to broaden the range of classical music composers played in daytime programming.

It is not clear if Kate's suggestion was specific to the BBC or asking the same of commercial stations, but it's got me thinking, hypothetically, about what regulatory intervention in this way would mean.

Radio 3 vs Classic FM & Scala Radio

Let's take a look at its remit:

Radio 3 should aim to enrich the cultural life of the UK and reflect its musical and arts agenda.

The service should aim to educate audiences about music, broadcasting a wide range of programmes that expose listeners to new and sometimes challenging material they may not otherwise experience.

It should commission new work from composers, musicians and playwrights and draw on the best talent from across the world to create its output.

The service should produce regular special events on significant themes across a wide range of music and arts topics.

The great composers should regularly be represented on Radio 3, but there should also be a range of less familiar music in order to introduce listeners to new works.

Kate acknowledges a lack of diversity within the classical music industry. With an annual budget of £35m, and not having to play ads, the BBC is best placed to introduce lesser-known composers.

To those who are defiant against quotas: of course it has to be about quality and suitability, but there is so much great work from minority groups to be celebrated. Had the world never began to embrace diversity and inclusion, could you imagine how little progress would've been made?

Commercial radio is a more complex picture. If you made the same demands of Classic FM and Scala Radio, for example, they would come under enormous pressure.

The first step in building a sustainable music radio business is to play tracks that people know and like - and that applies to all formats.

In fact, removing music requirements from analogue local and regional licences was part of the commercial radio deregulation set out by DCMS in 2017 (yet to be legislated) to ensure the long-term viability of stations.

What makes the BBC unique is that it can afford to take risks.

Similarly, the Audio Content Fund brought diverse public service content to commercial radio and I'm disappointed that the government chose not to renew financial support for it.

Final whistle goes on 5 Live's classified results

And so, after 70 years on BBC radio (originally via the Light Programme), Sports Report will no longer include the classified football results - at least not in the traditional form.

The obvious point to make is that scores are available at the touch of a button today, in real time, but what about those who listen while driving?

I have it on good authority that a punchier round-up from across the leagues will be heard instead, as part of a shorter programme preceding commentary of the Premier League's late kick-off.

It may be part of the match day fabric for many in the way the racing results once were to others. Old habits die hard.

Genuine question: when did you last switch on specifically for the classifieds? (Not just general sport).

There's appointment listening, and then there's just routine listening where it happens to be on.

They think it's all over... it's not

Anyway, panic over, talkSPORT will be keeping the tradition alive every weekend.

I wonder how much of the uproar is from people who claim the BBC doesn't do anything different from the commercial sector?

On a related point, if Radio 4 axed the Shipping Forecast, would it get a similar outpouring of affection to this? Good luck trying to modernise that one…

Radio faces "longer term erosion" as a "platform used for news" - Ofcom report

Ofcom has published its News Consumption in the UK 2022 report and the main headline is TikTok being crowned the fastest growing news source (alarming on the face of it although "news" doesn't necessarily mean current affairs, particularly to the younger generation).

But let's focus on the medium we care about most...

Radio as a "platform used for news"

Younger age groups continue to be more likely to use the internet and social media for news, whereas their older counterparts favour print, radio and TV. 

There is some evidence of longer term erosion of radio reach (40% in 2022 down from 44% in 2018).

The question is: does this mean as a source, where decline to be expected given today's instant access to information online, or as somewhere to go for informed commentary and different angles on a particular story - one of radio's unique strengths?

• At a channel level, longer term, reach of Capital and Heart for news appears to be decreasing, as does (Local BBC Radio) in England. 

• BBC listeners generally rate BBC highly across attitudes particularly high quality (78%), trust (75%) and accuracy (74%).

While it's no surprise that fewer listeners are seeking out news from two music-intensive national brands, it's important to note that Local BBC Radio in England has also halved its usage for news in four years - yet the network's audience has increased since.

This is no reflection on the exemplary regional journalism - rather, it reaffirms there being other reasons to tune in. Past research has shown entertaining company for older listeners to be the main one.

That's not to say news doesn't matter - far from it.

Research published in June 2022 by the Charitable Journalism Project suggests social media is the default source of information in many towns, meaning there’s "demand for a trusted source of local news that’s both professional and authentically local".

While you could argue the BBC is more regional than hyperlocal (with projects such as Petersfield's Shine Radio and Alfred filling in gaps), it is well-resourced and can provide high quality, impartial, trusted coverage of significant stories as well as hold those in power to account.

Fundamentally, news is an important but small part of what Local BBC Radio means to its listeners and this report reinforces that.

No, the BBC does not have a monopoly on local radio

I often take issue with claims made by right wing shock jocks but, given I'm not a political commentator, they don't warrant a blogpost.

This does though:

Someone ought to tell the bloke who thought you could grow concrete that local commercial radio has existed, alongside the BBC, for 49 years. pic.twitter.com/01UD0F30RC

— Harrison RB 🇺🇦 (@HarrisonRBRadio) July 14, 2022

(The BBC) completely strangulates commercial radio in particular. (It) has got sixty four local radio stations. You cannot start a local radio station in any part of Britain because the BBC has got a monopoly and I think that's wrong.

While the BBC's large guaranteed content budgets, ability to cross-promote and not having ads is obviously a one up on commercial radio, its national footprint helped lay the foundations for today's industry - and if you think Radio 1 and Radio 2 are easily replicable in the private sector, you are misguided (just take a look at the strict conditions of their service licences: R1 / R2).

The idea that the free market is "strangulated" by the BBC - which has always existed alongside it (for 49 years) - is puzzling given there are now more commercial stations than ever before.

What held commercial radio back previously was regulation, largely around localness and public service commitments, that stemmed from its birth in the early 70s when each of the very few ILR stations faced little to no competition pre DAB and the internet.

Only a small number of local licences had been awarded before the three 90s INR (Independent National Radio) stations - Classic FM + Virgin 1215 and Talk Radio UK on medium wave.

It's the growth of new platforms - both online and DAB suddenly offering more choice for listeners - coupled with new digital media - providing immediate access to information and eating into the ad market - that has put pressure on local stations.

For many of these, consolidation was/is essential in order to properly compete for national revenues and secure their futures.

What doesn't stack up at all is the idea that the BBC has a monopoly on local radio when the total ILR (Independent Local Radio) reach has long been more than double that of Local BBC Radio - which, by the way, doesn't take advertising - so to suggest it’s the main barrier to entry is rather odd.

If you've ever listened to both, you'll know they're very different propositions from each other, with different audiences, and in many areas the BBC offering is more regional than its commercial counterpart.

Another observation is the growing number of community stations serving individual towns or smaller areas that listeners would actually call home.

While most are not-for-profit, some operate as charities and/or get access to funding that a private business wouldn't and some are of greater value than others, they are still local radio stations that co-exist with the BBC.

How's that monopoly going?

Good editing matters

Many important points in David Lloyd’s latest blogpost:

I hear audio being aired on huge radio stations which is begging to be edited. Clips in news, promo clips - and interviews which could have been 30” shorter - and better - with a bit of skilled adjustment. Don’t listeners deserve better?

Firstly, I don’t like "editor" as the job title because it devalues the role of a skilled content producer.

From radio programming to podcast editing, every aspect of great audio uses a combination of science and art.

As David observes, editing should improve, not ruin - bad edits and constant clicking is even more unlistenable than an unedited podcast!

The one-to-one connection vs feeling part of a club

Believe it or not, I actually spoke to someone relatively young yesterday (albeit still older than me!) They said they like listening to radio that makes them feel part of a club.

Many shows do it well, often when the presenter(s) is a "name" - Iain Lee & Katherine Boyle’s wonderful community springs to mind.

That said, not everyone can achieve this and I still believe passionately in the unparalleled power of talking to one friend who has chosen to be in your company.

While this is the default, there are exceptions. Both can work.