Right - back on topic and to the Facebook issue. Johnny suggested that the use of Facebook as a driver for interaction (or lack of it) was a "disgrace". The fact is, there is no corporate BBC rule that any station, presenter or show must have a Facebook page. It's very much down to the indivduals concerned.
Anyone who's ever set up a "fan group" Facebook page will kinow that it's incredibly easy to establish, but not so easy to update and maintain every hour of the day. What's more, every BBC Local station has its own fully fledged website, linked with the wider BBC News site.
Additionally, the number of people working just on their local websites has reduced in recent years; and the sites themselves have been remodelled to focus on core areas of news, weather travel and sport - the kind pf PSB everone loves the BBC for.
So I guess what I'm saying is : stations simply don't have the resources to police and maintain multiple web, Facebook and Twitter accounts as much as they could. That's not a "failing" in my opinion. I'm sure every member of staff would love the pages to be better. But it's not something that has a budget. It's an add on - hence the varying quality of content.
Oh hang about MR, what about the LR 'Brand' that the playlist is such an important part of? There may not be time and budget for these things, then why choose to plug the Facebook sites on air? It seems there's time for an awful lot of BBC staff to go on the pages and 'like' things?
All I'm saying is, it's a bit of a mess. There may be no corporate rule but it's obvious there has been an attempt to standardise some of the pages, or perhaps you would say, brand the pages. It would make sense.
No, I think you're confusing Facebook with Twitter, Johnny.
Or are you switching back to your Tiger name now?
Come on Tini, you lot are doing what you always mistakenly accuse Tiger of doing. Answer the questions.
Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us all with you knowledge of the BBC Local Radio departments audience research as you seem to know all about it?
Whilst you're at it perhaps you'd also like to explain what you mean by 'obviously biased'?
Why would they want 'added value, great listener interaction and brilliant content' from their Facebook pages though? Your previous posts seem to infer that you can't trust random people on Facebook.
A lot of time and effort has been put into this survey. You have questioned the sample base and you have said that the questions are "hugely leading"
We are more than entitled to defend the survey, no tactics are being employed.
I have looked at page 47 and some posters have expressed opinions, including myself.No one has explained why the sample group is not valid. there is an even gender mix, there is a good geographical spread, and the age groups are spot on for BBC LR.
The questions are not misleading in any way..no one on page 47 has come up with any reason that suggests that they are.
I recently visited a sociology department at a 6th form college looked at the survey work that the students were involved with.
And I also studied sociology at advanced level and I can say , without doubt that the survey is robust in terms of its sample and its questions.
Thanks for that Tiger X robust is a fine word. I'm off to find my sunglasses, I suggest you find yours, I'm sure sooner or later one of his lot will be bringing some dazzling enlightenment to the table.
The facebook branding was pushed as an interaction point with the listener on BBC LR and there seems to be no management grasp of that at senior levels..the sites having invited listeners in are very poorly maintained in a lot of cases. The idea is a good one but there is no direction there. ?
A point of clarifiaction is needed here. Not all pages on Facebook linked to local radio stations were put there by the radio station. The clue is the import of info on the station from Wikipedia. You can see an example here : Radio Norfolk . So although 273 people "like it" it's not an official web presence. And you can't grab ownership of those pages for a period of time either.
Facebook does have its uses ... but just look at your own list of friends to see how "active" people really are at the times of day the radio station is asking for reaction.
Facebook is huge in some peoples lives .. but so was Friends Reunited and Bebo. We just need to use the right resource at the right t ime ... and for some this is Facebook although we still have to look at how beneficial it is for our audience interaction. As a point of interest Texts etc still play a huge part as does email ... I dont think we get more thana handful of "letters" a month.
As for presence on the web BBC locals also make use of the programme information pages on their county based websites / iPlayer. Several stations also have presenter "blogs" on the main BBC Blog platform.
There could be a whole new thread on "Listener interaction .. do we want to hear it"???" I know many listeners who really dont want to know what Fred from Maidstone has to say .... My bugbear is Five Live giving me Fred's reaction to the story on Breakfast before they've told ME what the story is.
On the matter of the survey all information is interesting ... but dont be tempted to state your survey as fact. Its an indicator of what a certain group of listeners think ... rather than a much wider sample like Rajar.
No one in radio can take the high ground ... after all over 5% of people claim never to listen to radio at all .... and most radio stations who go "Woo hoo 35% weekly reach" also realise that 65% never tune in for even 5 mins a week. So why that is always fascinates me ... even from a small self selecting sample
No. I'm expressing an opinion that happens to differ from yours and johnny's. That's not being unfair. That's disagreeing.
I am more than entitled to question the survey and its motives.
You are entitled to question it.
What you are not entitled to do is dismiss it on the grounds that you chose, and make a comment such as this..
"Statistically, his sample is by no means a perfect mix - as other have already explained.
The questions are clearly loaded. this has also been explained previously.
Please don't drift back to your old tactic of continually repeating questions that have already been answered. And before you ask me where - it's all there - page 47."
If you are unable to justify your critisms then you should say so.
Johnny chose to start up his forum, and run a survey. I happen to think it's flawed. The questions are designed to prompt answers that prove his point about the playlist, rather than being objective or neutral.
As for not being "entitled to dismiss it on the grounds that you chose", that's exactly what you've been doing throughout this thread, and others.
I'm no longer going to respond to any of your repetitive, goading points again.
Hi Johnny, whilst I am thinking about it.one of tests of a strong survey is to test its strength by putting it in front of a critical audience and debate its merits. You and your survey are looking very robust.
And lets just look at one of your questions.
"Do you find the music on BBC LR too repetitive"
This is not a leading question for the following reasons.
1. It is a fact that the playlist is repetitive(no one has ever disputed that)
2. There are potential positives and negatives for a repetitive playlist.
3.If you had phrased your question " Do you agree that the music on local radio is dull and lazy and certain songs are played to the point of burn out"..that would have been a leading question.
4. So far as I am aware you have never in your questions expressed your personal opinion. And that also applies to your invitation to potential respondants to the survey.
Oh Johnny, I would also add that the work that you did a few weeks ago ..when you took the trouble to record every song that was played on a BBC LR station..over a given period..(well done you!..I tried and it is a soul destroying task!)..proved that the playlist is repetitive..Bill did the same thing it is a given that the playlist is repetitive it is not an opinion.
Oh Johnny, I would also add that the work that you did a few weeks ago ..when you took the trouble to record every song that was played on a BBC LR station..over a given period..(well done you!..I tried and it is a soul destroying task!)..proved that the playlist is repetitive..Bill did the same thing it is a given that the playlist is repetitive it is not an opinion.
Again, it depends what your definition of repeitive is. Therefore it's an opinion.
And it's all relative. Compare with Heart and you'd get quite a different result than if you compared with Radio 2.
It doesn't matter how many times you say it. It's an opinion.
When certain songs are played more than once in a week and even in a day and those same songs have been played for the last few years in that way. The definition of that is repetitive. That is a fact.
When certain songs are played more than once in a week and even in a day and those same songs have been played for the last few years in that way. The definition of that is repetitive. That is a fact.
Almost every radio station will play some songs more than once a week. Radio 2 included.
Please provide evidence of where the same songs are routinely being played twice in the same day. Same artists, maybe - and yes, the occasional duplicate slips in (perhaps when there's a networked early show and then local breakfast) - but it's by no means a regular or deliberate occurance.
The evidence is there, if you doubt that go to the work that Johnny and Bill did..if you do not want to do that listen yourself to a local BBC station. for the period that Johnny did and record the songs played.I hope that you are a fan of Phil Collins, Tina Turner , Michael Jackson, Robbie et al BTW because that will help.
The evidence is there, if you doubt that go to the work that Johnny and Bill did..if you do not want to do that listen yourself to a local BBC station. for the period that Johnny did and record the songs played.I hope that you are a fan of Phil Collins, Tina Turner , Michael Jackson, Robbie et al BTW because that will help.
Same songs twice in a day? Routinely? No evidence.
Yes, perhaps more than one song by the same artists. Which I have already accepted and never challenged,
Same songs twice in a day? Routinely? No evidence.
Yes, perhaps more than one song by the same artists. Which I have already accepted and never challenged,
You really do make some ridiculous claims.
I did not say routinely in one day..but OMG it feels like that!
I have to say that I heard the new song by Buble on the morning show and on the afternoon show ..in one day..ok ..Oh the playlist is appauling..I am not going to apologise for that because it is my opinion.!!
I did not say routinely in one day..but OMG it feels like that!
But that's why your arguments constantly fall down. You used the same song being played more than once in one day as a deifinition of repetition.
If that were the case, you would be right. But it's not.
It's a matter of perception and opinion. But not fact. Which you also said it was.
So back on topic : why is this relevant? Well, if you ask a question about playlisting and include the phrase "do you think it's repetitive" that would automatically plant the idea of repetition in the respondant's mind. Therefore it's loaded. You're not using neutral language.
And even so, the fact that 73% did not think it was repetitive surely discounts your claim of "fact" some more?
I did not say routinely in one day..but OMG it feels like that!
I have to say that I heard the new song by Buble on the morning show and on the afternoon show ..in one day..ok ..Oh the playlist is appauling..I am not going to apologise for that because it is my opinion.!!
Nothing wrong with playing a new song twice in a day - if it was an 'oldie' you may have more of a point, but playing current tracks on higher rotation is standard practice on just about every music station I can think of - including Radio 2.
Many listeners who heard it during the morning would not have heard it during the afternoon and vice versa - don't think you can really categorise that as 'lazy' or 'sloppy' programming - 'sensible' would be an apt word, after all 73% don't find the music too repetitive (sorry Johnny, been on the Smarties again!),
What a ridiculous statement. It is an opinion, not a fact, and it has been disputed almost since post number one.
The question could have been phrased "What do you think about the music on BBC LR, and how often it is played?"
I'm sorry MR but you are talking out the back of your pants.
It is not an opinion, it is a fact that the playlist is repetitive. Have you learnt nothing from this thread? Those two blokes sat in a bar in America noticing how people fed money into a jukebox and were picking the same few songs over and over that led to the birth of this tight play list thing. It's in the design and in it's reason, it is supposed to be that way.
I'll come back to the phrase of your question later.
You wont get a core track played more than once a day ... unless there is a cock up in the move from local to network.
You might well get a playlisted (new) track played twice in a day. On a rare occasion you might get it three times - once at 0505, once say at 1210 and again at 1855. Mostly though you might it get twice - once in peak music .. and again in off peak.
As stated in a reply above that's par for the course with a new release / current chart hit.
I recall the Radio Luxembourg "Power Play" off the back of each and every news bulletin - which clearly took things to extremes although as a teenager it didn't bother me.
Mr Buble is widely appeciated i understand .. even if he isnt by some contributors to this thread.
A point of clarifiaction is needed here. Not all pages on Facebook linked to local radio stations were put there by the radio station. The clue is the import of info on the station from Wikipedia. You can see an example here : Radio Norfolk . So although 273 people "like it" it's not an official web presence. And you can't grab ownership of those pages for a period of time either.
Facebook does have its uses ... but just look at your own list of friends to see how "active" people really are at the times of day the radio station is asking for reaction.
Facebook is huge in some peoples lives .. but so was Friends Reunited and Bebo. We just need to use the right resource at the right t ime ... and for some this is Facebook although we still have to look at how beneficial it is for our audience interaction. As a point of interest Texts etc still play a huge part as does email ... I dont think we get more thana handful of "letters" a month.
As for presence on the web BBC locals also make use of the programme information pages on their county based websites / iPlayer. Several stations also have presenter "blogs" on the main BBC Blog platform.
There could be a whole new thread on "Listener interaction .. do we want to hear it"???" I know many listeners who really dont want to know what Fred from Maidstone has to say .... My bugbear is Five Live giving me Fred's reaction to the story on Breakfast before they've told ME what the story is.
You are quite correct about those 'wiki' pages, they are quite irritating, although BBC Radio Norfolk does have an official page, I tried to stick with those.
On the matter of the survey all information is interesting ... but dont be tempted to state your survey as fact. Its an indicator of what a certain group of listeners think ... rather than a much wider sample like Rajar.
No one in radio can take the high ground ... after all over 5% of people claim never to listen to radio at all .... and most radio stations who go "Woo hoo 35% weekly reach" also realise that 65% never tune in for even 5 mins a week. So why that is always fascinates me ... even from a small self selecting sample
All Information is interesting, this is possibly the most open minded and sensible thing a BBC employee has said on this thread (although I am still waiting for your answers to my questions a few pages back). I am open minded enough to hope those in management to whom I've sent the survey have the same opinion.
My survey is about what a certain group of listeners think. Rajar is not about what people think.
You might well get a playlisted (new) track played twice in a day. On a rare occasion you might get it three times - once at 0505, once say at 1210 and again at 1855. Mostly though you might it get twice - once in peak music .. and again in off peak.
Exactly right. This is standard practice at radio stations all over the world, Johnny and Tiger 8.
Comments
Oh hang about MR, what about the LR 'Brand' that the playlist is such an important part of? There may not be time and budget for these things, then why choose to plug the Facebook sites on air? It seems there's time for an awful lot of BBC staff to go on the pages and 'like' things?
All I'm saying is, it's a bit of a mess. There may be no corporate rule but it's obvious there has been an attempt to standardise some of the pages, or perhaps you would say, brand the pages. It would make sense.
Come on Tini, you lot are doing what you always mistakenly accuse Tiger of doing. Answer the questions.
Thanks for that Tiger X robust is a fine word. I'm off to find my sunglasses, I suggest you find yours, I'm sure sooner or later one of his lot will be bringing some dazzling enlightenment to the table.
A point of clarifiaction is needed here. Not all pages on Facebook linked to local radio stations were put there by the radio station. The clue is the import of info on the station from Wikipedia. You can see an example here : Radio Norfolk . So although 273 people "like it" it's not an official web presence. And you can't grab ownership of those pages for a period of time either.
Facebook does have its uses ... but just look at your own list of friends to see how "active" people really are at the times of day the radio station is asking for reaction.
Facebook is huge in some peoples lives .. but so was Friends Reunited and Bebo. We just need to use the right resource at the right t ime ... and for some this is Facebook although we still have to look at how beneficial it is for our audience interaction. As a point of interest Texts etc still play a huge part as does email ... I dont think we get more thana handful of "letters" a month.
As for presence on the web BBC locals also make use of the programme information pages on their county based websites / iPlayer. Several stations also have presenter "blogs" on the main BBC Blog platform.
There could be a whole new thread on "Listener interaction .. do we want to hear it"???" I know many listeners who really dont want to know what Fred from Maidstone has to say .... My bugbear is Five Live giving me Fred's reaction to the story on Breakfast before they've told ME what the story is.
On the matter of the survey all information is interesting ... but dont be tempted to state your survey as fact. Its an indicator of what a certain group of listeners think ... rather than a much wider sample like Rajar.
No one in radio can take the high ground ... after all over 5% of people claim never to listen to radio at all .... and most radio stations who go "Woo hoo 35% weekly reach" also realise that 65% never tune in for even 5 mins a week. So why that is always fascinates me ... even from a small self selecting sample
No. I'm expressing an opinion that happens to differ from yours and johnny's. That's not being unfair. That's disagreeing.
I am more than entitled to question the survey and its motives.
You are entitled to question it.
What you are not entitled to do is dismiss it on the grounds that you chose, and make a comment such as this..
"Statistically, his sample is by no means a perfect mix - as other have already explained.
The questions are clearly loaded. this has also been explained previously.
Please don't drift back to your old tactic of continually repeating questions that have already been answered. And before you ask me where - it's all there - page 47."
If you are unable to justify your critisms then you should say so.
Johnny chose to start up his forum, and run a survey. I happen to think it's flawed. The questions are designed to prompt answers that prove his point about the playlist, rather than being objective or neutral.
As for not being "entitled to dismiss it on the grounds that you chose", that's exactly what you've been doing throughout this thread, and others.
I'm no longer going to respond to any of your repetitive, goading points again.
The sample is a good one..tell us why you think it is not.
The questions are not leading..tell us why you think they are ?
That is all. Johnny has explained and so have I.
And lets just look at one of your questions.
"Do you find the music on BBC LR too repetitive"
This is not a leading question for the following reasons.
1. It is a fact that the playlist is repetitive(no one has ever disputed that)
2. There are potential positives and negatives for a repetitive playlist.
3.If you had phrased your question " Do you agree that the music on local radio is dull and lazy and certain songs are played to the point of burn out"..that would have been a leading question.
4. So far as I am aware you have never in your questions expressed your personal opinion. And that also applies to your invitation to potential respondants to the survey.
Did you also do sociology A level!
You deserve respect for the survey.
Tiger X
What a ridiculous statement. It is an opinion, not a fact, and it has been disputed almost since post number one.
The question could have been phrased "What do you think about the music on BBC LR, and how often it is played?"
Again, it depends what your definition of repeitive is. Therefore it's an opinion.
And it's all relative. Compare with Heart and you'd get quite a different result than if you compared with Radio 2.
It doesn't matter how many times you say it. It's an opinion.
Almost every radio station will play some songs more than once a week. Radio 2 included.
Please provide evidence of where the same songs are routinely being played twice in the same day. Same artists, maybe - and yes, the occasional duplicate slips in (perhaps when there's a networked early show and then local breakfast) - but it's by no means a regular or deliberate occurance.
Same songs twice in a day? Routinely? No evidence.
Yes, perhaps more than one song by the same artists. Which I have already accepted and never challenged,
You really do make some ridiculous claims.
I did not say routinely in one day..but OMG it feels like that!
I have to say that I heard the new song by Buble on the morning show and on the afternoon show ..in one day..ok ..Oh the playlist is appauling..I am not going to apologise for that because it is my opinion.!!
But that's why your arguments constantly fall down. You used the same song being played more than once in one day as a deifinition of repetition.
If that were the case, you would be right. But it's not.
It's a matter of perception and opinion. But not fact. Which you also said it was.
So back on topic : why is this relevant? Well, if you ask a question about playlisting and include the phrase "do you think it's repetitive" that would automatically plant the idea of repetition in the respondant's mind. Therefore it's loaded. You're not using neutral language.
And even so, the fact that 73% did not think it was repetitive surely discounts your claim of "fact" some more?
Nothing wrong with playing a new song twice in a day - if it was an 'oldie' you may have more of a point, but playing current tracks on higher rotation is standard practice on just about every music station I can think of - including Radio 2.
Many listeners who heard it during the morning would not have heard it during the afternoon and vice versa - don't think you can really categorise that as 'lazy' or 'sloppy' programming - 'sensible' would be an apt word, after all 73% don't find the music too repetitive (sorry Johnny, been on the Smarties again!),
I'm sorry MR but you are talking out the back of your pants.
It is not an opinion, it is a fact that the playlist is repetitive. Have you learnt nothing from this thread? Those two blokes sat in a bar in America noticing how people fed money into a jukebox and were picking the same few songs over and over that led to the birth of this tight play list thing. It's in the design and in it's reason, it is supposed to be that way.
I'll come back to the phrase of your question later.
TOO repetitive MR. Get your facts correct.
That's ok Jon, at least you quote it correctly. There are other figures in there too you know...
You might well get a playlisted (new) track played twice in a day. On a rare occasion you might get it three times - once at 0505, once say at 1210 and again at 1855. Mostly though you might it get twice - once in peak music .. and again in off peak.
As stated in a reply above that's par for the course with a new release / current chart hit.
I recall the Radio Luxembourg "Power Play" off the back of each and every news bulletin - which clearly took things to extremes although as a teenager it didn't bother me.
Mr Buble is widely appeciated i understand .. even if he isnt by some contributors to this thread.
You are quite correct about those 'wiki' pages, they are quite irritating, although BBC Radio Norfolk does have an official page, I tried to stick with those.
All Information is interesting, this is possibly the most open minded and sensible thing a BBC employee has said on this thread (although I am still waiting for your answers to my questions a few pages back). I am open minded enough to hope those in management to whom I've sent the survey have the same opinion.
My survey is about what a certain group of listeners think. Rajar is not about what people think.
Exactly right. This is standard practice at radio stations all over the world, Johnny and Tiger 8.
Why? Because it works.