I hate to see any specialist radio service go down. I feel for the fine people who work there. The possible loss of 6 Music is bad news. But I also have to ask – didn’t they see this coming? Why didn’t the BBC do more to make the station untouchable?.
James Cridland puts the station costs at a staggering £6 million a year before transmission charges. The Guardian said £7 million. That works out at around £10 per listener, which is jaw-dropping. I’m still struggling to get my head around that figure. Now, I know that if you want an ad-free personal Spotify service, you pay that sum each month, but we’re talking about radio here, traditionally a damn cheap medium, measured in terms of costs per listener.
Given those figures, it’s not surprising the station got fingered. So how could they have defended themselves?
There’s a fascinating document on the House of Commons Parliament UK site, which lays it all out in agonising detail. The programme costs per hour, for any of the terrestrial services, far outstrip those of 6 Music's, but these stations also pull in much greater listener numbers. So costs per listener - for example for Radio 2 - are minute. It's the relationship between cost of ooutput and cost per lisener that is critical. Even with Radio 3, there is some sort of relationship between production costs and cost per listener. But at 6, there's a yawning gulf.
So let’s look at costs and reach. Had 6 Music managed to get their costs even lower – not as simple as you might think when you factor in music royalties – but, critically, managed to increase their reach, costs per listener would have dropped dramatically.
Look at that graph again. 6 Music is actually very efficient at producing programmes. So I’m not entirely sure that slashing a few more back office jobs and trimming presenter fees would make that much difference. But I’m pretty sure that cost savings could have been rolled out by sharing a central music production database across all BBC popular music services – Ireland and Sweden have made praiseworthy steps in this area, and there is a very impressive initiative being developed right now in Europe, about which I am forbidden to say more.
So let’s look at increasing audiences instead. Straightaway, we’re into the thorny area of strategic network programming versus creative freedom for producer/presenter. This gets very emotive. I am personally absolutely convinced that 6 Music could have programmed more aggressively and competitively, and still built in all the cred and freedom the presenters could have asked for. I’ve seen this done elsewhere.
But there’s more to it than costs and editorial approach. The bald fact is that 6 Music is living in a competitive world. It happens – unfortunately for 6 Music – to be a digital world, which fatally limits their chances to build those fat audience figures. This, too, is a world where the listener gets exactly what he or she wants from Ipods, mates, and Spotify/Pandora/Last-FM. So do you need 21st century music gurus to tell you what to like any more? Well, you tell me. Me. I’m fine with the idea, but I am an old hippie, so it goes with my territory.
John Peel’s name has come up quite a lot in press articles – people are saying that the station encapsulates his spirit. Maybe it does; it’s a lovely thought. But it’s worth remembering that there was a time, not too far back, when Radio 1 was doing everything in its power to reduce his power and influence. They only changed their minds again, much later, when they decided he fitted their strategic brief.
Bottom line: The Government wants to attract listeners to digital. They have charged the BBC with enticing listeners across, and so far, it hasn’t really worked. I believe in experimentation and adventurous programming. But I find it tricky when that same programming is punished for failing to deliver on a listener-unfriendly medium. Strategic rethink, please.
James Cridland puts the station costs at a staggering £6 million a year before transmission charges. The Guardian said £7 million. That works out at around £10 per listener, which is jaw-dropping. I’m still struggling to get my head around that figure. Now, I know that if you want an ad-free personal Spotify service, you pay that sum each month, but we’re talking about radio here, traditionally a damn cheap medium, measured in terms of costs per listener.
Given those figures, it’s not surprising the station got fingered. So how could they have defended themselves?
There’s a fascinating document on the House of Commons Parliament UK site, which lays it all out in agonising detail. The programme costs per hour, for any of the terrestrial services, far outstrip those of 6 Music's, but these stations also pull in much greater listener numbers. So costs per listener - for example for Radio 2 - are minute. It's the relationship between cost of ooutput and cost per lisener that is critical. Even with Radio 3, there is some sort of relationship between production costs and cost per listener. But at 6, there's a yawning gulf.
So let’s look at costs and reach. Had 6 Music managed to get their costs even lower – not as simple as you might think when you factor in music royalties – but, critically, managed to increase their reach, costs per listener would have dropped dramatically.
Look at that graph again. 6 Music is actually very efficient at producing programmes. So I’m not entirely sure that slashing a few more back office jobs and trimming presenter fees would make that much difference. But I’m pretty sure that cost savings could have been rolled out by sharing a central music production database across all BBC popular music services – Ireland and Sweden have made praiseworthy steps in this area, and there is a very impressive initiative being developed right now in Europe, about which I am forbidden to say more.
So let’s look at increasing audiences instead. Straightaway, we’re into the thorny area of strategic network programming versus creative freedom for producer/presenter. This gets very emotive. I am personally absolutely convinced that 6 Music could have programmed more aggressively and competitively, and still built in all the cred and freedom the presenters could have asked for. I’ve seen this done elsewhere.
But there’s more to it than costs and editorial approach. The bald fact is that 6 Music is living in a competitive world. It happens – unfortunately for 6 Music – to be a digital world, which fatally limits their chances to build those fat audience figures. This, too, is a world where the listener gets exactly what he or she wants from Ipods, mates, and Spotify/Pandora/Last-FM. So do you need 21st century music gurus to tell you what to like any more? Well, you tell me. Me. I’m fine with the idea, but I am an old hippie, so it goes with my territory.
John Peel’s name has come up quite a lot in press articles – people are saying that the station encapsulates his spirit. Maybe it does; it’s a lovely thought. But it’s worth remembering that there was a time, not too far back, when Radio 1 was doing everything in its power to reduce his power and influence. They only changed their minds again, much later, when they decided he fitted their strategic brief.
Bottom line: The Government wants to attract listeners to digital. They have charged the BBC with enticing listeners across, and so far, it hasn’t really worked. I believe in experimentation and adventurous programming. But I find it tricky when that same programming is punished for failing to deliver on a listener-unfriendly medium. Strategic rethink, please.
2 comments:
Perceptive as ever, Robin and thanks for the link. The mystery is why the BBC did not promote this station more agressively - especially on Radio 2 and especially when the two networks have the same Controller! That only 20% of the public even knew there was a '6 Music' is bizarre. I note that the 'Guardian' columnist called the station costs a pittance - only someone wedded to te public service would ever think £6-7 million a year for running a music station was small beer.
Well, of course, if you work in the commercial sector, these sums do look staggeringly high, Richard. But the commercial sector does not programme this kind of material. Possibly Absolute are an exception, and deserve praise and recognition for their approach. In fairness, I think the Guardian columnist was talking about costs per hour of output, which, again in BBC network terms, are really low.
Post a Comment