Global Radio

I've been looking at the forums for a couple of weeks now and I still can't get my head around the level of 'Global bashing' on here.

I have no affiliation with Global but it has to be one of the best radio groups worldwide, yes radio isn't how it used to be but neither is the world around us.

Just imagine you owned Global and you could save huge amounts on staffing costs….Why have 101 local jocks when you could have just 1 (who can dip in and provide local content to any station at any time)

Constant whining about 'non radio people' being c**p on air (comments most likely from bitter old men who always hoped to be a cheesy 80's radio deejay but were never much cop) the likes of Mark Wright, Myleene Klass, Marvin and Emma Bunton are well known personalities/household names and this is much more attractive to advertisers, thus bringing in more money!!!

As for 10 second links/robotic presenters/repetitive music playlists it is obviously working for Global, proof being the combined 20 million strong audience its stations attract (RAJAR)

Your thoughts?????
«134

Comments

  • MSBMSB Posts: 1,408
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    They "killed" local radio, don't you know?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4
    Forum Member
    Local radio like 'make sure you go and check out the village bake sale this weekend' leave that to the local tinpot stations….Commercial radio is there to make money and is very much a business, as I said before Global are able to send split links to any station on their networks should the need arise
  • BorsantBorsant Posts: 1,148
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It was dying of it's own accord, otherwise it would never have sold out to 'evil' Global
  • 80sfan80sfan Posts: 18,522
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Music_711 wrote: »
    I've been looking at the forums for a couple of weeks now and I still can't get my head around the level of 'Global bashing' on here.

    I have no affiliation with Global but it has to be one of the best radio groups worldwide, yes radio isn't how it used to be but neither is the world around us.

    Just imagine you owned Global and you could save huge amounts on staffing costs….Why have 101 local jocks when you could have just 1 (who can dip in and provide local content to any station at any time)

    Constant whining about 'non radio people' being c**p on air (comments most likely from bitter old men who always hoped to be a cheesy 80's radio deejay but were never much cop) the likes of Mark Wright, Myleene Klass, Marvin and Emma Bunton are well known personalities/household names and this is much more attractive to advertisers, thus bringing in more money!!!

    As for 10 second links/robotic presenters/repetitive music playlists it is obviously working for Global, proof being the combined 20 million strong audience its stations attract (RAJAR)

    Your thoughts?????

    Welcome to Digital Spy, Mr Tabor :)
  • RadiogramRadiogram Posts: 3,515
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Music_711 wrote: »

    I have no affiliation with Global


    Yeah right!
  • 80sfan80sfan Posts: 18,522
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Borsant wrote: »
    It was dying of it's own accord, otherwise it would never have sold out to 'evil' Global

    True. Global (and Bauer to some extent) have just given it an extra shove.
  • 80sfan80sfan Posts: 18,522
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Radiogram wrote: »
    Yeah right!

    New member.

    Two pro-Global posts.

    Use of the word 'tinpot'.

    Mmm. I completely agree!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4
    Forum Member
    Radiogram wrote: »
    Yeah right!

    Think what you like but I've told you I have nothing to do with the company
  • Station IDStation ID Posts: 7,401
    Forum Member
    Radiogram wrote: »
    Yeah right!

    Why is the assumption on here that only Global employees like the company. There are plenty of people who have nothing to do with the company but they like what they do.
  • Peter the GreatPeter the Great Posts: 14,225
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Station ID wrote: »
    Why is the assumption on here that only Global employees like the company. There are plenty of people who have nothing to do with the company but they like what they do.
    Just like the assumption that you must be an anorak if you don't look like the crap that Global churn out.
  • ohglobbitsohglobbits Posts: 4,479
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Music_711 wrote: »
    Just imagine you owned Global and you could save huge amounts on staffing costs….Why have 101 local jocks when you could have just 1 (who can dip in and provide local content to any station at any time)
    Or be totally voice tracked like Jack FMk, probably their eventual goal. Nowadays most commercial companies in broadcasting will go for cost over content every time. Which makes non commercial organisations like the BBC ever more important.
  • Les WiresLes Wires Posts: 6,610
    Forum Member
    MSB wrote: »
    They "killed" local radio, don't you know?
    No they didn't.
    If national commercial radio stations had been advertised at the time ILRs were advertised then local stations would have continued in all probability.

    The fact that it happened through the back door is a complaint you should aim at the government of the day.

    Just like offshore radio started because commercial land based stations were not allowed.
  • SmartProgrammerSmartProgrammer Posts: 1,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MSB wrote: »
    They "killed" local radio, don't you know?

    I think the word you are looking for is 'saved'.
  • 80sfan80sfan Posts: 18,522
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I think the word you are looking for is 'saved'.

    In your humble opinion, of course.
  • LaurelandHardyLaurelandHardy Posts: 3,806
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I can see positives and negatives regarding Global, though I must say that we are going over ground that has already been covered many times and I don't want to keep repeating myself.
    In short, I can see why Global have done what they have done, I don't like it, but I appreciate that others do.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 303
    Forum Member
    Music_711 wrote: »
    I've been looking at the forums for a couple of weeks now and I still can't get my head around the level of 'Global bashing' on here.

    I have no affiliation with Global but it has to be one of the best radio groups worldwide, yes radio isn't how it used to be but neither is the world around us.

    Just imagine you owned Global and you could save huge amounts on staffing costs….Why have 101 local jocks when you could have just 1 (who can dip in and provide local content to any station at any time)

    Constant whining about 'non radio people' being c**p on air (comments most likely from bitter old men who always hoped to be a cheesy 80's radio deejay but were never much cop) the likes of Mark Wright, Myleene Klass, Marvin and Emma Bunton are well known personalities/household names and this is much more attractive to advertisers, thus bringing in more money!!!

    As for 10 second links/robotic presenters/repetitive music playlists it is obviously working for Global, proof being the combined 20 million strong audience its stations attract (RAJAR)

    Your thoughts?????

    Welcome! Here's how it works around here when discussing Global...

    1. Anorak starts a thread called something like "Global is crap".

    The reasons for this are generally given to be that their stations are "boring", they only employ TV presenters not "real" DJs, they've "destroyed" local radio, they make use of networking, they don't play enough songs or any combination of the above. Sometimes no reason is given.

    2. Fellow anoraks rush to agree with the original poster usually making cheap jibes about how many CDs the station owns, the perceived lack of expertise/experience of its staff or waxing lyrical about how things were much better in the old days.

    3. Industry insider or someone who understands commercial radio refutes the original poster's claims often by referring to Rajar figures, industry or demographic analysis and empirical evidence.

    4. Industry insider is then accused by anoraks of being an "apologist", Ashley Tabor or Richard Park in disguise or someone who works for Global who therefore must be "brainwashed". Anoraks also object to the term "anorak" or accuse the industry insider of being patronising.

    5. Industry insider again states the case for why commercial radio operates in the way that it does and why the old model is no longer sustainable.

    6. Anoraks can't think of an answer to this so the thread sinks down the page before disappearing.

    7. Whole process starts again.
  • BorsantBorsant Posts: 1,148
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tee hee well put Cut. It's kinda fun though 😀
  • RadiogramRadiogram Posts: 3,515
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Cut6 wrote: »
    Welcome! Here's how it works around here when discussing Global...

    1. Anorak starts a thread called something like "Global is crap".

    The reasons for this are generally given to be that their stations are "boring", they only employ TV presenters not "real" DJs, they've "destroyed" local radio, they make use of networking, they don't play enough songs or any combination of the above. Sometimes no reason is given.

    2. Fellow anoraks rush to agree with the original poster usually making cheap jibes about how many CDs the station owns, the perceived lack of expertise/experience of its staff or waxing lyrical about how things were much better in the old days.

    3. Industry insider or someone who understands commercial radio refutes the original poster's claims often by referring to Rajar figures, industry or demographic analysis and empirical evidence.

    4. Industry insider is then accused by anoraks of being an "apologist", Ashley Tabor or Richard Park in disguise or someone who works for Global who therefore must be "brainwashed". Anoraks also object to the term "anorak" or accuse the industry insider of being patronising.

    5. Industry insider again states the case for why commercial radio operates in the way that it does and why the old model is no longer sustainable.

    6. Anoraks can't think of an answer to this so the thread sinks down the page before disappearing.

    7. Whole process starts again.

    8. Cut6 and Smart Programmer call fellow posters anoraks and dismiss perfectly reasonable views.:D
  • CeeOCeeO Posts: 860
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Cut6 wrote: »
    Welcome! Here's how it works around here when discussing Global...

    The reasons for this are generally given to be that their stations are "boring", they only employ TV presenters not "real" DJs, they've "destroyed" local radio, they make use of networking, they don't play enough songs or any combination of the above. Sometimes no reason is given.

    how many CDs the station owns, the perceived lack of expertise/experience of its staff or waxing lyrical about how things were much better in the old days.

    Anoraks also object to the term "anorak" or accuse the industry insider of being patronising.

    All perfectly reasonable points in the opinion of most radio/music lovers.
  • Station IDStation ID Posts: 7,401
    Forum Member
    Radiogram wrote: »
    8. Cut6 and Smart Programmer call fellow posters anoraks and dismiss perfectly reasonable views.:D

    9. A lot of fellow posters seem to have a different dictionary to the rest of the world. They have the one that says "opinion", "views" and "fact" all mean the same.

    Most things written as if they are facts on here are usually just opinions. Posters like Smart Programmer generally back up posts with proper facts and they can't be argued with. However much some may not like these facts, they are still facts.
  • bringbackGalaxybringbackGalaxy Posts: 1,363
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ohglobbits wrote: »
    Or be totally voice tracked like Jack FMk, probably their eventual goal. Nowadays most commercial companies in broadcasting will go for cost over content every time. Which makes non commercial organisations like the BBC ever more important.

    Jack FM has a live local breakfast and a live centralised drive. Jack FM has 4 hours a day MORE live programming than Gold
  • SmartProgrammerSmartProgrammer Posts: 1,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Radiogram wrote: »
    8. Cut6 and Smart Programmer call fellow posters anoraks and dismiss perfectly reasonable views.:D
    Generally I don't dismiss views. Instead I try to understand where the poster is coming from and do my best to explain why things are done a certain way or (as Station ID said) provide facts to back up my side of a discussion.
  • RadiogramRadiogram Posts: 3,515
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Generally I don't dismiss views. Instead I try to understand where the poster is coming from and do my best to explain why things are done a certain way or (as Station ID said) provide facts to back up my side of a discussion.

    I had hoped the smiley at the end of the post would tell you I was joking!

    I generally agree with most of what you post.
  • AmaraAmara Posts: 5,369
    Forum Member
    I think the word you are looking for is 'saved'.

    Typical comment from a Global employee.
    This area used to have a very successful local commercial station Radio Broadland. Thanks to Global well GWR to be precise it was ripped apart. Now of course its part of the Heart empire
  • MSBMSB Posts: 1,408
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Amara wrote: »
    Typical comment from a Global employee.
    This area used to have a very successful local commercial station Radio Broadland. Thanks to Global well GWR to be precise it was ripped apart. Now of course its part of the Heart empire

    Please refer to rule 4:
    4. Industry insider is then accused by anoraks of being an "apologist", Ashley Tabor or Richard Park in disguise or someone who works for Global who therefore must be "brainwashed". Anoraks also object to the term "anorak" or accuse the industry insider of being patronising.
Sign In or Register to comment.