Like his previous review of BBC Radios 1, 2, 1Xtra and 6 Music, John Myers' recent comments about BBC Local Radio appears to have ruffled a few feathers as well as raised some eyebrows. That's probably no bad thing as I suspect “There are two ways of doing things - the BBC way or the wrong way" still seems to be a common mantra among some Corporation staff; especially those who have spent their entire career within the Beeb.
Myers' brief was to examine the working practices of the local radio network, to investigate areas of possible savings without impacting the on-air performance and review the current levels of management and back office staff. It follows the Delivering Quality First proposals which seek to make deep cuts in BBC Local Radio to the tune of £15million.
Having read the report (admittedly as an outsider, but with a number of friends who work within BBC LR), John Myers appears to have echoed many of my own thoughts; in particular the way some under-performing staff have been able to continue to enjoy a comfortable existence for many years:
I came across a number of instances where the difficulty of removing underperforming staff was raised. Managers complained that it was slow and in the end, some of them just gave up trying or hoped to move on the under-performing staff member via an attachment. Nothing disappointed me more than this comment. A good manager must invest this time for the benefit of all those who perform brilliantly. It gives an impression that poor performance is tolerated rather than dealt with and a time-consuming system is never an excuse to avoid responsibilities.
I was also genuinely surprised to learn that some long-serving LR presenters are on staff, not contract.
Similarly, presenters who are staff and not under contract offer some support of my point although they are a slightly different case. Some stations have talent on the air that managers believe are no longer the right person for the role yet as they sit under the staff line, they feel unable to tackle this problem without a great deal of hassle. As one staff presenter told me: “I am staff, they cannot sack me and if anyone is going, it will have to be someone under contract or a freelance”. One even believed his staff status meant he was "Teflon‟ and no redundancy notice could be stuck on him. While this is incorrect, his belief is part of the problem and the perceived lack of action to date underlines this.
John Myers' full report can be read here but these are his key recommendations:
- Protect the diversity of the output, reduce the risk of further audience decline and continue to invest in local programming in peak hours and weekends. Improve productivity by reviewing organorgrams, introducing sharper working practices and reducing general staff budgets at each of the 35 full service stations by £150,000 (£50,000 from the five smaller stations) saving c£5.5m (rounded figures).
- This delivers savings of £11.0m if Managing Editors are shared or £9.0m if not with the proposed 'Radio England' investment support.
- Regionalise the role of trails and station production.
- Introduce a “contract only‟ system for all on-air talent within two years.
- Review how Sports rights are negotiated and use the collective power of the BBC to negotiate a better deal with the Premier League and the FA either by adding this to their current radio rights discussions or employing a skilled negotiator to deal with football rights for all their local services. The BBC must avoid over paying both for content and against the market demand in local communities.
- Invest in a distinctive evening programme directly relatable to the networks core audience. Provide sufficient budget to ensure the talent and ideas are supported to add value to the overall proposition. Increased spend potential £0.3m.
- Introduce a simplified management structure within each station and give them the discretion and power to manage effectively. Introduce relevant management training below Managing Editor level and have a goal of a maximum of only 3 people with managerial responsibility at each site.
- Deliver a considered list of services that could be better delivered under local budgets and provide appropriate support for placing under local control. Retain the benefits of centralisation where there is merit.
- Maintain specialist programming and continue to regionalize this where appropriate.
- Evaluate the current HR systems and work smarter to remove non-performing staff more quickly.
- Investigate how staff salary levels can be reduced within the current agreements. Deliver a plan to pay staff according to skill, talent and local market conditions.
- Re-evaluate the role of attachments within local radio and introduce a maximum three-month duration per person.
- Ensure no specialist programme goes to air without the station delivering compelling audio trails that invite lighter listeners to sample the station at other times.
One area the Myers Review doesn’t cover to any great extent is the actual programme content itself. This is perhaps one area worthy of a separate review.
“Amateurish”, “patronising” and old-fashioned” are just three terms I’ve heard used to describe BBC Local Radio. That’s possibly a bit unfair as there are some very good presenters around the BBC’s various local stations, but, it has to be said, there are some bad ones as well; I suspect many of those may be among the previously-mentioned long-serving staff presenters who can’t easily be replaced, or are still there because of poor management decisions; made by managers who are stuck in the past.
As John points out:
There are good programmers in BBC Local Radio, significant research tools are used and the network has some great presenters, yet the audience figures for BBC local radio have been in decline for some time. It points to the need to revisit the core vision and content strategy if this is to be halted. Listeners must be served a range of distinctive programmes on local radio that offer choice and companionship and it must be delivered brilliantly and in a style that is all of its own.
The fastest growing demographic is the over 50-age group, yet they now appear less well served than ever before so it is confusing why the network is not moving more quickly to fill this gap.
I agree with John’s comments about targeting an audience which is not really served well by commercial radio.
The problem for the over-50s, though, is that there are those (some of whom should know better) who think that as soon as you hit middle age your musical tastes undergo a radical transformation. I know I’ve pointed this out before but it’s worth repeating that someone who will turn 50 this year would have been born in 1962, and would have been in their mid-teens during the rise of Punk and the 70s Disco Boom. Meanwhile the ‘Baby Boomers’ are now in their 60s; some pushing 70.
So it baffles me why some radio programmers still seriously believe that the over-50s, who grew up with pop and rock, will happily accept hearing Doris Day, Mantovani and the same few hundred highly-predictable and over-researched songs over and over again; often accompanied by a patronising style of presentation.
Older listeners have been exposed to a great deal more music than a younger-targeted CHR station’s target audience, and there is, therefore. a much larger ‘catalogue’ of songs that are bound to have important, often sentimental, connections with a listener’s life. So why not play more of them?
By all means use research to identify the 500 or so ‘best-testing’ favourite songs, but surely they should provide your ‘core’ playlist, not all of it.
The comments about intransigent management reminded me of when I was being ‘boarded’ (as the BBC like to call job interviews) for a senior programming position at a local radio station several years ago.
About a week before the interview I had been set some ‘homework’, which consisted of hourly audience figures for the station in question as well as their commercial rivals and BBC Radio 4. My brief was to study the figures and come up with some observations and suggestions based on them.
The station’s figures showed a fairly healthy breakfast and daytime audience with one exception; at lunchtime the audience all but collapsed, while that of R4’s ‘The World At One’ increased almost by the same amount. There was also a smaller increase in numbers for one of the local commercial stations which had an ‘extended’ bulletin at 1.00pm. The station’s audience returned to its previous levels at 2,00pm.
The lunchtime programme was, I thought, very ‘Alan Partridge’ and “light and fluffy” at a time when the mass exodus towards news-based programmes elsewhere would seem to suggest that the station’s audience wanted something more news-based; it. I therefore proposed introducing a news-led lunchtime programme.
“It can’t be done”, said the station’s Managing Editor. “We have one team in the newsroom for mornings and another for the afternoon. There’s nobody available to produce your suggested lunchtime programme.”
“Surely it could be done with some re-organisation”, I replied. “Some other stations seem to manage it.”
“No it can't! By the way, did you notice this ‘character’ (referring to the lunchtime presenter) appearing anywhere else on the schedule?”
“Yes I did. He also does a show on Sunday mornings which is extremely popular – and gets very good audience figures. He’s obviously perfect for that slot but right now he’s driving away your listeners during the week!”
The look on the ME’s face suggested I had just dug my own grave. Needless to say I didn’t get the job and later discovered that the presenter concerned was his ‘partner’; which is obviously why the lunchtime show was considered sacrosanct.
Finally, John Myers has come up with this great comment about the topic of research:
Radio is an art form and the best practitioners have a knack of understanding their remit on pure emotion and gut feel. Research can help but the best in the world only use this as a guide, it is never their slave.
That's very true! It's also something I shall be pointing out in a session on research I'll be presenting in a few weeks' time at a conference for a number of volunteer broadcasters.
