BIGGEST BROADCASTING CON? * The Ed’s View…

It could be the globe’s latest and greatest rock ‘n’ roll swindle! I’m starting to have doubts over the authenticity/validity of the cost-cutting measures announced by the BBC. The interviews given by Thompson and the Chairman of the BBC trust sound as though they are making up things as they go along, and are almost inviting people to stop the closure of the two digital stations. I also wondered why these two digital channels are earmarked for closure when one of them (6 Music) represents a drop in the ocean in cost terms, and the other (The Asian Network) is so politically and socially sensitive.

Together they add up to a bag of beans relative to the huge costs of running other BBC terrestrial radio stations like Radio 1 and 2, and the substantial target annual saving of £600 million. In addition, combining online and DAB traffic, 6 Music is currently one of the largest digital stations. With the BBC and Digital lobby pushing to complete radio switchover by 2014, why on earth would the BBC want to close two relatively successful digital stations? I have begun to listen to 6 Music for the first time and while its presenters seem pretty competent, playlists are generally very poor. But this is a problem which can easily and cheaply be fixed, while overall costs could be decreased substantially. It just doesn’t add up.

BUT, WHAT IF…

The real intention is not to close either, but through the massive nationwide publicity generated to actually at least double listener figures in very quick time. The powers-that-be have to go through a three-month consultative period which takes the final decision past the General Election period, by which time the last thing on politicians’ minds will be BBC budgets. During this three-month period a substantial public groundswell of opposition (which has already started in earnest) to the closures is inevitable, and as stated by the Trust Chairman, if this happens Mr Thompson will have to “go back to the drawing board.” This could be Thompson’s desired and preferred outcome, in addition to getting control of the station’s playlist.

And while all this is going on, the big spending BBC stations will slip into the dark shade of political, media and public awareness. I counted six people working on the Chris Moyles show this morning, which must mean a total annual wage bill alone for this show alone amounting to well over £1 million - many times more than the most popular commercial programming costs. As the listening traffic inevitably builds, more DAB radios will be sold, and the prospect of total digital switchover looks inevitable, and could even be brought forward. This would bring into close proximity to the next round of Licence Fee negotiations when the BBC could put forward a digital argument for increasing its cost to the public.

The claimed £600 million savings had not been publicly detailed, and could also be fiction. The proposed closure of 25% of online presence could also indicate a higher level of presence for future online broadcast services, and enhanced accommodation for the increased listener traffic generated.

BBC Radio 1 - Investigation Needed

For several years we have criticised BBC Radio 1 for its negative influence on the British music scene and unjust, biased favouritism of a few acts. We’ve also criticised the salaries paid to presenters and the secrecy that lies behind Radio 1 expenditure and income. I also believe that operational costs are under-reported by many millions. I have requested answers from the BBC but have met with “For information of that scope, you would need to put in a Freedom of Information request.” The questions I asked were as follows:

The total cost of The Big Weekend 2011, including separately total payments to participating artists?
The annual total wage bill for Radio 1 split by technical, production and presenting?
The annual total fees paid by Radio 1 to record companies, artists, publishers for airplay (for example,  PRS)?
The ethical/legal guidelines for Radio 1 in promoting (for example, via extensive/continuous airplay) and favouring musical acts?
What income is received by Radio 1 from any source including record companies and premium lines?

While more and more great music gets ignored by Radio 1 certain acts get played to death continuously for many months resulting in substantial sales for the well-funded few and (if they’re lucky) crumbs for the majority. Something is wrong here… While the country and its people have to tighten belts Radio 1 spends as if there is no tomorrow. Its expenditure in the period 2009-2010 was declared at £48.8 million and I suspect figures for 2010-2011 are even higher. In 2012 with the Olympic music ‘big weekend’ it looks like the budget will go through the roof. The real problem here is that nobody in authority seems to care and the BBC will not release detailed expenditure breakdowns. For a publicaly funded service this is absolutely wrong.

BBC Introducing I suspect is an invention to deflect criticism of its playlist policy that favours major artists and others which Radio 1 want to heavily promote and claim ‘we made them…’ You know who they are… But back to expenditure: I’ve worked out that playing fees to artists, labels and writers is at least £13 million per annum and could easily be double that figure. Chris Moyles Breakfast show must be costing around £1 million is wages alone (probably the cost of running some some radio stations in total) and it’s known that several presenters earn in excess of £300,000 per annum (in addition to moonlighting jobs which for one dj amounts to £10,000 for a single Saturday night gig, while others can earn up to £5,000 for a single night’s dj-ing, and of course there’s the advertising and TV appearance income…).

So, Radio 1 spends enormous amounts of money (far in excess of commercial stations who struggle to sell advertising in this bleak economic climate), fails to play so much great music from home and abroad, favours a limited range of artists playing very similar music, and won’t be open (and in my view honest) about its expenditure to the UK public who have legally to fund its excesses. Something is very wrong here and it needs to be investigated. I also suspect that if the detailed truth were known it would shock. But more importantly, BBC Radio 1 is now a dangerously dominating force in the music industry which does make and break artists. Something really has to be done to curtail such power and influence (just watch the level of airplay Leona Lewis - headliner for the R1 Olympic gig - gets for her new album). The recent revelation that BBC TV is paying Tim Henman £14,000 per day, totalling £200,000 for two weeks work, is just another example that the BBC is way out of control.

It’s time for change, a heavy dose of reality, and fair play for those acts that have the talent and songs but can’t get arrested on Radio 1. Finally, consider this: In ITV’s last financial year it’s advertising income was £1.5 billion, the income which funds all ITV’s programming and Internet activity. In the BBC’s last reported financial year (2009-2010) its income excluding the Licence Fee (£3.5 billion) was £1.63 billion (Total Income £4.8 billion) - and it’s supposed to be a PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTER. It is because of this that the BBC has become so dominant and influential, and it’s why its wings should be seriously clipped starting with a dramatic reduction in the Licence Fee. Maybe Chris Moyles stayed with the BBC because he realised that he would earn much less than half of what the BBC was paying him from any other broadcaster in the UK and USA… And is it any wonder that presenters tend to stay so long with Auntie BBC who is so generous with the public’s money?

The Headlines

“A Quiet Revolution. Folk music, long derided for its beards-and-sandals image, has become the coolest sound in town, thanks to artists such as Laura Marling and Mumford & Sons. Neil McCormick talks to the troubadours.”

The above appeared in the Daily Telegraph Review Section and is plainly nonsense. Such pieces appear periodically for headline’s sake failing to recognise that the success of albums like these is due to good songs, good performers and heaped radio airplay. To think that people are flocking to folk is a dumb notion especially when all they doing is buying good music - which could be rock, pop, dance, jazz, blues, R&B, soul - by artists who know what they are doing. So those looking for a ‘quiet folk revolution’ forget it, it ain’t going to happen.

This appeared in the same publication a few weeks later:

“Lady GaGa: Icon Or Just Eye-Candy? Her outlandish fashion sense has helped make Lady GaGa the pop phenomenon of the digital age - but does the 25-year-old New Yorker have the musical talent to lift her to the ranks of all-time greatness? Neil McCormick listens to her new album and assessesher chances.”

The writer ultimately fails to reach a conclusion to an absurd question. She has already reached a kind of iconic status for reasons of a name, mega-millions spent on her videos, fashions, recordings plus thousands of hours of airplay, hype and worldwide sales (in a very short time). The real question is whether she will be regarded as a great musician, and the answer to that is a firm NO. Yes, she has a good voice and can play the piano but her songs are heavily manufactured pop/dance songs and little, if any, intrinsic artistic value. She’s no Donna Summer, Streisand, DiFranco and many more I could mention and all because she is unable to be herself in a mass market that seems to demand controversy, sex, headlines couched in radio melody and parody. The problem for Lady GaGa is that she’s allowed herself to be manipulated to manufacture loads of money and fame, and there’s no way back. Fame Monster indeed…