....and now it has more listeners up North - it's the HIGHEST common denominator I'd say

Smooth has slightly increased listeners in the North since Global took over. As a professional statistician, I would have thought you would have checked this before commenting, or are you trying to 'manipulate' the figures again?

I think that description is a little OTT. It was part of my job to prefer statistics but I wouldn't class myself as a "professional statistician sorry.

I merely read that Smooths RAJAR in the North was better than in London. As I said above I don't care about the RAJAR its not my problem I don't work for Global I just want to enjoy what I listen to thats all.

Yet in Norwich 99.9's TSA, Heart has 2.5 times as many listening hours as them?

I understand the personal preference and even the subjective artistic judgment.. but business-wise, a tight playlist and less local is doing Heart no harm.

But, as you have Radio Norwich to listen to and enjoy, as well as possibly R2, why isn't it reasonable for a radio company like Global to target other kinds of listeners with the stations they own? After all, not every station must be programmed only for your liking, must it?

Especially as they were so unprofitable that they couldn't actually support themselves and, as far as I know, you weren't prepared to donate any of your own money each month to cover their costs, were you?

I fail to see why playing a few songs to death would have appeal to me ,it's just taking piss out of the listening public ,with yourselves having a good laugh at the listening public .

So why do you think stations with tight playlists are very successful? Use Magic 105.4 as your example.

Norwich 99.9 has a smaller TSA than Heart so you can't actually draw a direct comparison in RAJAR. Anglian Radio also operate The Beach & North Norfolk Radio in the area but if you added the TSA of those in it would cover a greater area than Heart so again a direct comparison isn't possible.

I am not saying that a tight playlist is doing Heart any harm I don't listen to Heart its not aimed at me so it dosn't bother me. My whole point of being interested in this thread is that pre-Global takeover I used to be a Smooth listener now due to the changes I no longer listen.

At the end of the day Global will do what they want with Smooth whether we like it or not.

I don't think they are successful , what I understand is playing songs to death on top 20 radio stations maybe fine for that generation , but not for an older generation who grew up listening to wider playlists and now no longer are experiencing wider playlist as Global are buying up radio stations and are not catering for those tastes , best Global can come up with is calling us anoraks along with playing the same songs to death .

The full RAJAR figures, available to those who work in the industry or who pay for it privately, shows the figures in each TSA, so you can see exactly how many Heart has in Norwich 99.9's own TSA. And Heart has more.

No one is laughing "at the listening public".

Global are actually playing songs that the vast majority of the listening public want to hear, which is why they have a portfolio of very successful stations.

The people who are "taking the piss" are those who genuinely believe that audiences need to be "educated".

Just because a presenter may think he/she has an encyclopaedic knowledge of "oldies" doesn't actually make their show an entertaining listen.

However, a mix of familiar songs without constant interruptions from DJs has proven to win big ratings in pretty much every market around the world.

It's nothing to do with cutting costs, it's more to do with giving the audience to music radio what they want. Music. And lots of it.

I do believe playing music without constant interruptions between every song is a good idea, along with music - but when you say lots of it - I think of a good variation of music ,not playing the same songs to death- what do you mean by lots of music ?

Essentially I mean only the songs that the target audience will love.

It's pointless playing less popular songs that they aren't truly passionate about.

From my perspective, people will usually only complain about songs they don't like but not the ones they love.

So a small yet focussed mix of music will, by and large, prove to be more popular with radio audiences who aren't listening as closely as perhaps all of us on here do.

Good evening.

The arrogance, such as above, is breathtaking regarding some of the people on here who assert their expertise on matters of the broadcast media.

I've been privy recently to many conversations with people and friends in the industry for a very long time, and some not such a long time, and I can confidently say that there are barely disguised and scathing criticisms for the values and attitudes being portrayed here by the likes of the contributor above.

I've been in the radio & television industry at the sharp end and public face of the medium for more than 40 years and have managed to run successful and less successful businesses in that time also, alongside the public face of the job. I've come across all kinds of individuals in my time who arrive with the arrogance and surefootedness to claim they know best. I've seen the ways that both radio and television audience share/figures are routinely manipulated in order to create the correct narrative for those who wish to take their ideas in a specific direction. Businesses do indeed routinely set out to ask loaded questions to try and engineer the precise answers they actually want to hear, thereby justifying whatever decisions they have already decided to make. It may seem illogical but is widespread across the board. I've actually been in a meeting once where a director said he had the answer he wanted and now needed to formulate the question in the correct manner to suit the answer, in the style of a referendum question by a government designed to get what the government wants. It is surprisingly easily done in many spheres.

I've been there and done it, whether it be in radio, television or business, often all at the same time. I've known now former presenters on Smooth, and I've known how they view things from that particular perspective. None of it flatters. Neither should it. One recently former presenter on Smooth who has been a long time acquaintance spelt out that he feels a lot of commercial radio, and Smooth in this instance, are simply taking on the kind of presentation teams that will be "easily utilised" were his words. I asked what he meant and he said it meant they only want people who will do as they are told, ask no questions and behave themselves. Well where would the great radio of the past have been with the likes of Kenny Everett under those values? How would people have been excited and encouraged to aspire to REAL presenting and love of music through their radio.

Yes, the landscape is vastly different now in all medias and business models have altered and continue to alter at ever greater speeds. I know so many people within the industry, with varying degrees of experience, from broadcasting on the national networks to millions of listeners each day for years, myself included, who look at all the missed opportunities not being taken, the risks not being allowed to be tried and tested, only for the apparent safety first option of radio like Smooth and others who have brought cynicism and business into the audio medium to a staggering degree which in the short term may indeed succeed but in the longer term is set on course to fail spectacularly.

Nobody ever again will be able to say they broadcast on radio to a listening audience of 10 million, or a TV audience of 20 million. It's great to be able to have that on the CV. Nowadays an ever increasingly crowded media market place is simply casting around trying to pick up the ever diminishing crumbs from a finite table.

Are the Scottish DJ staying?

I'm afraid that playing a small yet focussed mix of music ,eventually bores me and makes me dislike songs that I previously enjoyed ,because of constant repetition on the radio. I'm afraid that if listeners genuinely enjoy listening to repetitious songs, then
that to me is quite frightening that other listeners have robotic tastes.

But that must make Global's job a lot easier as all that got to be done is play a couple of compilation C.D'S all the time until the C.D'S wear out ,then another couple of compilation C.D's and play them to death and so on .

Tight playlists may be successful, but they are LAZY programming. Use Wave 105 as your example.

LAZY (and unsuccessful) is merely putting on air any old song without reference to your audience, and allowing dated 'Smashy' type presentation.

so, just saying "this is Smooth" 3 times an hour is quality output, and the way forward is it??

Dear, oh dear!

Interesting post, but I'm afraid none of that addresses the question of why the Smooth Network was making a loss of £2 million per year and not even featuring in the top 20 of London radio stations.

Why did Smooth attract fewer listeners than Radio 3 and an AM station (Gold) in the capital if it was full of personality DJs? What changes should they have made to turn it around? They are the relevant questions here.

Kenny Everett is regularly mentioned on these forums and he did work with Richard Park at Capital for several years. If he was alive today he could still have been working with Park at Global.

I hear what you're saying and, to a certain extent, I can understand your frustration.

I suppose what we have to remember is that the 'format' of tight playlists has proved itself to be a ratings winner in numerous markets around the world.

Ratings are the thing that allow stations to sell their commercial airtime to advertisers, and that's ultimately the life-blood of commercial radio.

Advertisers buy ratings, which in turn allows the station to continue to operate.

So while it may not be ideal to you (or some of the others on here) that commercial radio has to do what it does in order to make money, sadly without that kind of business focus, the stations simply wouldn't be viable and would close.

If you ran a radio station yourself, I'm sure you would want/need it to be mass-market and bring in as many listeners as possible so that you could continue to run it?

But they're not doing that wckartist and I'm sure, in all honesty, you know that.

Of course the presenters aren't speaking as much or as often as they did on the 'old' Smooth, but now when they do speak their content is more succinct.

The shift appears to be that the presenter now talks more about the music they are playing as well as giving mentions for the listeners, but it does also include a little sparkle of personality.

I listened all day for the first time in months today and have to say I was impressed. I may well get bored over time, but today the music selection was first rate and the links sharp and to the point.

I'm as guilty as many volunteer presenters at thinking my nuggets of wisdom about a track are interesting to the audience. I've learned that, for the most part they should be kept short and more great music played. The audience loves that and, ironically perhaps, the interaction and participation from the audience is far greater.

As for Kenny Everett, he may well have found a home on Absolute. Equally he may also have moved with the times and have been producing a funny and edgy podcast - without getting repeatedly fired.

deleted

I suspect it takes an awful lot of work to make tight playlists work.

And, while I think Wave 105 is a great station, and is successful at what it does, it's the only station I listen to that will occasionally throw on a really terrible track.

While Global's playlists may be tight, they are almost 100% spot on.