Thanks for a really insightful post, and I’d echo what others have said that it’s this level of debate that needs to be occurring.

I’m ex-*BBC*, so I probably broadly fall into their camp; but equally I’m *ex*-BBC (a decision I made, I up’d sticks and left) because I didn’t like what I saw happening.

I’d make the following points:

The commercial sector needs to justify why it should be allowed to exist. Would we have any time for the private school sector if they ran to government complaining because state schools were too good and putting them out of business? If, as recent research suggests, a majority of the population are generally happy with paying their licence fee in return for the output the BBC provides, is it right that it should be ‘damaged’ because it is hurting a competing service?

Within that, I think there needs to be clarity about what commercial vs the BBC actually means. BBC output is made by a range of commercial organisations, who compete to produce that content. There’s an argument that says that should be increased, but the notion that commercial organisations do not prosper under the BBC is a misnomer.

But, let’s take competing radio stations…

For this argument to be fair, there needs to be justification that the spot-ads/sponsorship approach to making commercial radio successful will actually work. If Rupert Murdoch is pulling back from freely-distributed media, albeit different ‘platforms’ and ITV and Channel 4 are both struggling (and not just because of the recession) then I’d say there has to be concern about whether the structure is viable. Damaging the BBC just to maintain an outdated model of commercial operation isn’t fair either.

And, I’d argue, you can’t simply say this is an argument of BBC vs commercial radio. You need to include the new music services like Last.FM and Spotify; music stations on TV; not to mention hardware such as the iPod/mp3 player and even listening to music stored on a computer. Because, personally speaking, they are my go-to destinations if I want music to distract me throughout the day. A job that radio used to do.

It’s not just music either. How long are traffic bulletins really going to continue to get broadcast on the radio, when SatNav’s with live-traffic information become universal? Etc, etc…

My point being that commercial radio’s loss of audience isn’t wholly to do with the BBC. It’s unfair that the BBC should have to take the blame in the way the RadioCentre have presented it.

From a personal point of view, I’ve tried listening to commercial radio station. I really have. But, aside from a few exceptions, I really struggle to listen for long because of the adverts. They are shouty and endlessly repetitive. Maybe years ago we weren’t so annoyed by them, but now (with preset buttons and a control panel on my steering column) I’ll flick between stations and CDs when the adverts get too much. So, other than Jonathan Ross and the Mark Radcliffe/Stuart Maconie shows that I opt to listen to, most of my Radio 2 listening is because I end up there having got annoyed by the competition. Even Spotify is annoying me and I’ve gone back to Last.Fm because it is advert free.

So my question is, do you think a reduction in BBC listening would equal a like-for-like increase in commercial radio listening? I certainly think it would rise, but I struggle to believe that if Radios 1 & 2 were shut down everyone who listened to them would start listening to commercial radio.

And, if that is the case, I’m not sure who that benefits.

Olly

I guess the only way to cope with that situation is a combination of concentrating on core editorial as well as doing some innovative stuff.

Commercial radio has an advantage over the Beeb in this area in that it *can* move a lot faster to do new things.

Enjoyed reading this post, but think you might have Campbell wrong on one point, which changes the context of his argument. Did he not mean the RadioCentre should stop bleating, rather than everyone in commercial radio should stop bleating?

The RadioCentre is certainly bleating at the moment, and if Nicky didn’t mean them, then I’d be hard pressed to work out who else in commercial radio he could be talking about. Maybe Richard Park, as he’s been the most vocal recently about the BBC.

The thing is, you are certainly not, and that’s why if someone like you were a spokesman for commercial radio, it would have a lot more credibility. Not wanting to sound like a brown nose, you have an obvious enthusiasm, drive and positivity – qualities that the current leaders of the commercial radio sector do not have. They lack inspiration.

And because of that, that’s why I think both Nicky AND yourself are right.

The RadioCentre *do* need to change the record, because whether they are right or wrong, their current position is clearly having NO effect on matters. And where I think you’re wrong is that the argument about local stations knowing what they’re getting into from the start does stand up. They are a business, and they know there will be bad times and good. If local stations couldn’t see that they could be affected by the BBC changing the formats of their stations 10 years ago, then how did they not see what had happened to Radio 1 and the old Radio 5 at the start of the 90s?

And while the BBC has an income, it doesn’t stop the cost of the paper for the photocopier, the utility bills and other overheads increasing – so unless there’s a rise in the licence fee, the programming spend could be hit too, just like the commercials (though I don’t know the intricate details of how the BBC’s accounting works, so this is just an expectation).

Alan Carr and Emma Forbes isn’t a Reithian programme by any yardstick (or even a good programme, going by my first experience of the programme last weekend, but that’s just my opinion), but the BBC has a duty to entertain as well as educate and inform. As long as the schedule has a mix of programmes with those Reithian values in it, then I think that is a fair balance. Commercial radio HAD Emma Forbes on their books and let her go. Can anyone see Alan Carr signing up for commercial radio in Plymouth, Wales or Kettering? ‘Stars’ of that nature are realistically only going to sign for London stations or national stations – and not necessarily for salary reasons – profile and location are more often than not equally, if not more important factors. Is that the BBC’s fault too?

And the point about commercials having 10 minutes less an hour to connect with a listener, resulting in more music – I can see the thinking in this argument, but that is where the problem lies.

All the talk at radio conferences is ‘We have to take more risks’. Well, here’s your opportunity. Either claim back some of that 10 minutes an hour for interesting content, OR leave that 10 minutes as it is, and try things in the other 50 minutes in the hour. Yes, it will either cost some money or listeners. But it doesn’t have to be forever, and it is a RISK that radio leaders always say they should be taking.

But that doesn’t happen, and a great place to experiment – overnights and early breakfasts – often have no advertising, but they become mainly networked and automated wastelands. But if it’s so hard to experiment in other areas of the schedule, why not here?

I don’t know the size of Radio 1’s online team is. But even if it is bigger than XFM and Capital’s team: 1. Why have Global decided to expect good radio programmes without producers? 2. Someone (the BBC? the Trust? the Government?) have decided that one of the BBC’s priorities should be to help develop a digital Britain. They have also correctly identified what they need to do prepare for the future in creating an online presence which is why there is money invested in that area, and that includes Radio 1.

I think what I am saying here, is that I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but disagree with what you see as the causal factors. The best thing, and where I really have to congratulate you is that you are doing exactly what the rest of the commercial industry should be doing – not bleating, doing something interesting, different, doing it cleverly and being individual – and being better than the BBC on limited resources. Honestly, you do kids radio better than they do, and Nights on Fun Kids is great as well. I think it would be unfair if Nicky Campbell was including you in the bleaters, but I really think the point he was making was at the RadioCentre, and the industry leaders in commercial radio, but even if he wasn’t, those criticisms could hardly be leveled at you, as I think you are doing exactly what he would suggest.

Sorry, it’s late and got a bit carried away…

Even as a commercial radio fanboy (because I think that’s what I am) I have ‘tweated’ many times along the same lines as Nicky Campbell this week (and the clock’s only just moved to Wednesday). But my reason to get the ‘bleaters’ to shut up is that the commercial radio industry is coming across so poorly it would be better saying nothing. Seriously, tell your colleagues to shut up.

It’s a shame I’m saying that because this much radio chatter hasn’t been in the news for years. But Commercial Radio is a commercial business and it’s killing itself every time it’s quoted somewhere. It doesn’t need the BBC, Wogan, Moyles or Evans to do it; it’s doing it to itself.

The week started with Richard Park effectively suggesting that he’d love to take Jamie & Harriet national at breakfast but can’t and that blasted BBC etc. etc. If you’re a listener to Heart in, say, Norwich, what did that suggest to you that the boss of your local radio station thinks about the shows he’s putting on for you? If you’re a local advertiser in Norwich what impression does it give of the radio station you’re thinking about spending some of your limited marketing budget on? If you’re an agency-type in London you now think you should stick your cash on Heart London and forget the network (because it’s not as good as the London programme, is it?). And if you’re The City aren’t you glad Global Radio isn’t traded because your investment might have just tanked.

Then we have the Moyles longest-innings, Wogan going, they-won’t-like Evans stories. Commercial Radio continues to complain about BBC salaries, changing targets of Radios 1 & 2 and how Moyles v Evans is bad for ‘the listener’. Nick Farrari sat on Newsnight last night moaning about the BBC; going as far as to suggest the BBC would show a promo for one of their stations after the programme which wasn’t very fair, competition wise. If I was any of those listeners, advertisers or agency people I would have come away thinking commercial radio can’t be very good can it? Ferrari’s a talk radio broadcaster used to twisting the point to say what he has to say and he had a prime(ish)-time national slot. He should have been championing the fantastic programming on commercial radio and how it was brilliant that all this great programming cost the listener nothing.

Now you may argue that this is really a lobbying exercise. Listeners & advertisers won’t take these words to heart (excuse the pun) but the government may hear. But Commercial Radio is leaving the impression (intended or otherwise) to 5 million Evans listeners and 7 million Moyles listeners that they shouldn’t have those shows. That could be 12 million people who don’t listen to Commercial Radio hearing somebody suggesting the programmes they love shouldn’t be there. Commercial Radio won’t be helped by alienating 12 million people, many of whom may come out saying to their MP – possibly in an election year – that Radios 1 & 2 should be kept as they are.

By its very nature Commercial Radio is a business and no business has a right to exist. It has to prove itself worthy of its customers. It has to show it provides something somebody wants. And, moreover, Commercial Radio is a media business. Any forward-thinking business, when faced with a glut of news about its industry would be spinning the positives; proving why we should be sampling their product and selling themselves. But, as Nicky Campbell said, Commercial Radio is bleating about how unfair the world is.

Lobby in private. In public shout about great Commercial Radio is.

Gloria Hunniford expresses shock about Chris Evans being too young for R2 breakfast. He’s 43. She was 41 when she started on R2 (and Wogan was an oft-quoted 34 when he started). R2 is still doing radio by and for 40-somethings.. it’s just that they’ve changed (hugely) in the past quarter century.

In short.. I don’t think Radio 2’s changed any more than the middle-aged (and increasingly the elderly) population as a whole. It’s the one which is sticking to its turf. Commercial radio had a hell of a job attracting 40+ before the Gold splits of the late 80s. It now has a market position among them and maybe there’s an argument for saying R2 should just wither and die with its current audience: deal with the market failure and abandon populism.

But I reckon it’s disingenuous to claim it’s making huge strides ever younger.