Hats off to the redoubtable Mr Lloyd for sticking his head above the parapet on such a contentious subject!
The arguments that David lists as examples of what other, successful UK radio stations might put forward on music policy are perhaps sound, but certainly not watertight, and probably not very future-proof either.
The jukebox one topples over pretty easily, just by pointing out that a jukebox is a jukebox in a pub, not a radio. They serve completely different purposes. Adam posted some stats in ‘The Golden Goose’ thread, saying that 76% of all listeners discover new music through AM/FM radio. People expect a jukebox to play jukebox hits. New, unfamiliar music is something they like and expect from their radio. (That’s not to say a jukebox format isn’t viable, many radio stations make a great success of it.
The iPod argument is similarly flimsy. If someone has 375 tracks on their iPod, then they’ve probably hand-picked 375 tracks that they really like. If you are programming a radio station’s core music policy, you’re filling it with tracks that come up most positively and frequently in research across a broad sample.
If you gave someone a straight choice between 375 tracks they know that they love, and 375 tracks, some of which they love, some of which they like, some they’re indifferent to, and some of which they hate, nobody is going to pick the latter. Fortunately, it’s not a straight, like-for-like choice between a radio and an iPod. Yet…
It’s possible that people only have an average of 375 songs in their iPod because it’s still a relatively new thing, and their interaction with this technology is still in its infancy, compared with radio. I’d guess that if you were to look at what this figure were just in a younger demographic, it’d be a lot higher than 375 songs. Young people are owning (although not necessarily paying for) a lot more music – something which was again touched on in the comments to Clive’s ‘Golden Goose’ post. Who cares about young people, though? They’re not in our target demographic. But they will be, one day, and technology first adopted by teenagers has a habit of quickly spreading across generations. We ignore da kidz at our peril.
Radio-rivalling emerging technologies are sometimes dismissed by the establishment as niche or the preserve of the youth. Services such as last.fm or Pandora are seen as the clever and complicated playthings of geeks, far removed from the mainstream. They’ll never catch on. Or will they? Media seems to be heading the way of the bespoke. Sky+ lets us watch only the TV we want, the BBC homepage or iGoogle feed us the news, weather, alerts of our choosing, Facebook organises and connects our social lives. There’s a massive shift in the direction of personalised information and entertainment. Is it not folly for us to look the other way and console ourselves with smug statistics about people only filling their iPods with 375 songs?
The line about people not getting tired of hearing their favourite song is a nonsense. Mental unwellness notwithstanding, there are only a finite amount of times someone wants to hear anything. Every time I hear George Harrison’s beautiful, bright guitar burst in after the first verse of ‘Nowhere Man’, my spirit soars and I feel all the optimism of a sun drenched morning. That said, if you were to chop that guitar solo out, make it into a loop and lock me in room with it going round and round and round, I’m pretty sure I would stab through my own eardrums before sundown. The reason no one complains about hearing their favourite song too often is that if they hear it too often, it stops being their favourite song. (Which is OK – we’ve all had heady, but short-lived love affairs with great pop songs. )
Distorted perceptions of repetition? Probably some truth in that one, but it also smacks of radio programmers hearing feedback they don’t like and patronisingly writing off as “Tsk! Those simple, ordinary people listening, with their easily confused brains!”, rather than trying to address it.
Similarly, I’m sure there are listeners who recall songs less well than we do (again a condescending view of “them” and “us”, though) and I’m sure anyone who’s ever answered a studio switchboard can tell an hilarious tale of punters-say-the-dumbest-things like the ‘Hey Jude’ one, but it’s completely unfair to assume that they represent the majority.
There’s a horrible piece of received wisdom along the lines of ‘nobody ever went bust underestimating the general public’. I’ve heard this and variations on it dozens of times throughout my career. Shame on anyone who claims to have any pride in their work and then trots out this nasty idiom. Where is your integrity if you are treating your consumers with such disdain? Sure, a lot of people have made a lot of money doing exactly that, but isn’t it far, far better to throw all your talent and energy into doing exactly the opposite: Giving people something that exceeds their expectations? Striving to make something truly great rather than something bland enough for people to swallow down without really noticing? Wouldn’t you rather be Radiohead than Westlife, or ‘The Simpsons’ rather than ‘2 Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps’?
Moving on through the list: For just about every positive comment on ‘loving the music variety’, stations get someone bemoaning the relentless repetition. And finally, we can all point at once successful, tightly-formatted radio stations which follow the high-rotation, research driven formula whose figures are now in decline.
It’s interesting that the quote David opens with is from an American radio boss. I’ve never really understood the UK commercial radio industry’s fascination with trying to ape the U.S., or for that matter, Australia. Both have undoubtedly, produced many, many excellent examples of radio broadcasting. However, in the UK the public’s relationship with, and expectations of radio are completely different because of the omnipresence and heritage of a quality, listener focused, well resourced state broadcaster.
The benchmark for radio in this country has always been set by the fact that listeners are used to programmes being produced for them; with their enjoyment in mind, by the BBC. In a less-regulated, free market commercial radio environment, listeners are there to be mined for, collected and offered up to advertisers.
Let’s not kid ourselves, that’s what we’re doing in UK commercial radio, too, but whereas in, say, the States it’s all about investing as little as possible into programming for the maximum possible return (ie. you just need to be one notch less rubbish than your closest competitor), the high quality and production values of the BBC’s radio services have raised the game.
Which brings us on to the Radio Two view, which I’d love to get my teeth into, but I’ve ranted on for far too long, and it’s about time somebody else had a go.
I think it’s absolutely brilliant that David’s thrown this one out to us wolves, and look forward to being part of the conversation as it unfolds. It’s a sad but common state of affairs in commercial radio when it’s actually a handicap for a DJ to be passionate about music. Is there a future in a music policy where this passion can be harnessed instead of frowned upon and robotically dismissed with reams of “computer says no” research?
Geoff
