Comments on: XFM Issues

By: iain

iain — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:12:26 +0000

Well, as far as the “costcutting” issue goes, I know different. Let’s just say that XU was never introduced for the reasons stated at the time, and that process was mirrored when the whole sorry experiment came to a close.

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:08:24 +0000

My understanding was that the budgetary differences weren’t much of a change from before to after.

The reason they rolled it out everywhere was that tehy genuinely believed that it was the right thing to do and something that the XFM audience would respond well to.

Manchester’s XU apparently does quite well, but I think judgements so early in its life are quite hard to measure.

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 15:56:50 +0000

I absolutely agree (which won’t come as a shock) that the execution of Xu was a terrible, cluttered, badly executed mess.

What I don’t understand is if this was *nothing* to do with cost-cutting, why was the format rolled out across all four stations?

The marketplaces in Scotland, Manchester and Wales are completely different to that of London. I’ll accept that Xu could have provided XFM London with a USP, but what about the others?

Why did Scotland require “uncluttered” daytime output in a marketplace which isn’t cluttered and where the format itself is clearly a point of difference? Why win Manchester and South Wales on the basis that an alternative rock format will find an audience, and then change to a format that wasn’t researched in those marketplaces?

As for cost-cutting, two or three producers surely cost a whole lot less then two daytime presenters.

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:53:12 +0000

One bit of evidence - when i’ve looked at any market mapping research when you see available audience for a specific type of music, an indie-rock station always looks like it should be stronger. Indeed Kerrang does 10% reach, admittedly with less competition than London which seems a bit more respectable.
Audience data from other world markets show that it should be stronger too.

By: Michael Cook

Michael Cook — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:48:39 +0000

1) This might sound stupid (never stopped me before) but how do we know XFM is doing less well than a male-focussed indie rock station should be? How well should a male-focussed indie rock station be doing? There’s only Kerrang! to compare it with, which is doing a bit better in Brum than Xfm is Manchester, but with a few years head start. Xfm London seems stuck around 5% reach, but Virgin obviously is more competitive there. Is there really this big “timid indie” market out there looking for an Xfm with a softer name that isn’t catered for by CHr stations or Radio 1 (or even radio 2)

2) I agree that Xu wasn’t as bad an idea in principle as it was in the execution. far too cluttered, and the UGC was an example where the audience have nothingn to add - “I wanna hear The Killers cos it’s great”. More banal than some two-bit provincial deejay.