What are the meanings andpleasures taken by BBC Radio WM

audiences, whilst listening to BBCIntroducing?

By Jonathan Woodall

BA (Hons) in Media and Communications(Radio)

Year of submission: 2015

What are the meanings andpleasures taken by BBC Radio WMaudiences, whilst listening to

BBC Introducing?

By Jonathan Woodall (S12779823)

A Dissertation Submitted in partial fulfillment of the

degree:

BA (Hons) in Media and Communications(Radio)

At:

Birmingham City University School of Media

iii

Year of submission: 2015

Word count: 11’007

AbstractThis dissertation involves investigating the audience

responses to popular music programming at BBC Radio WM,

through the BBC Introducing show. The chief aim of this

study is to learn the ways in which BBC Radio WM, a

public service local radio entity, serves it’s audience

through a range of different programming. To achieve

this aim I have performed separate listening and focus

group sessions with members of the BBC Radio WM target

demographic and a younger audience sample more commonly

served through popular music programming. By analysing

the responses of my focus groups, utilising historical

and contemporary theories around public service

broadcasting, radio programming and radio audiences, the

results showed an issue around the programming practices

in use, as well as some possible reasoning behind young

iv

audiences neglect of local radio. The research also

indicated a theme of amateurism vs. professionalism in

respect of younger and older audience interpretation on

radio programming.

This study is dedicated to my wonderful partner Lynette,

for her unwavering support through the last 5 years of my

return to education, and to all my fellow scholars at

Birmingham City University School of Media and the class

of 2015. We did it!

v

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank a number of people that made this

dissertation possible. Firstly, thank you Siobhan

Stevenson, for your advice and support throughout my time

vi

at the School of Media and this study, it’s been a

sincere pleasure learning from you. Secondly, I would

like to thank Neil Hollins, for your keen insight into

programming techniques that have impacted much of my

final year work, and for giving me the ideas that have

made the completion of this work possible. Finally, I

would like to thank all the respondents from my focus

groups, for your time and insight that has enabled me to

gain a better understanding of the impact of radio on

it’s most important asset, the audience. So thank you,

Sam Cowen, Greg Edwards, Diana Gangan, Sean Heeley,

Charlotte Hooper, Sally and Sean McFall, Huma Mian,

Geraldine Peacock, Colette and Dave Spilsbury, Angela

Szuts, Poli Vodenicharova and Ross Watson.

vii

Contents

Introduction

1

Chapter 1: Review of Impacting Studies

Part 1: Public Service Broadcasting

The History of Public Service Broadcasting in the UK

4

Public Service Broadcasting’s value in the modern

mediascape 5

The future of Public Service Broadcasting

7

Part 2: Radio Programming and Formats

The development of programming

9

Criticism and programming philosophies

10

viii

Popular music programming

11

Part 3: Radio Audiences

The radio-audience relationship

14

Audience as commodity and the importance of research

15

Technology and the modern-day abundance of research data

16

Chapter 2: The Right Tool for the Job

The focus group methodology 18

Organisation of method

19

Justification of Methodology

20

Chapter 3: Research Findings and Analysis

Young audience’s perceptions of public service local

radio programming 22

What BBC Introducing means to BBC Radio WM’s target audience

24

ix

Providing local artist exposure as a public service

25

Popular music for speech radio audiences.

27

Delivering public service radio online

28

The primary code: Music Vs. Speech

29

BBC Radio WM: Engendering future habitual listening

through youth programming?

31

Structured programming – advantages and disadvantages

32

Freeform on public service radio

34

The presenter: Role and listener relations

36

The presenter: An older viewpoint

39

x

BBC Introducing…does it represent young audiences?

40

BBC Radio WM – Programming away their target audience?

41

Conclusion 42

Bibliography

45

Appendices:

Appendix 1: Focus Group #1 Summary

53

Appendix 2: Focus Group #2 Summary

62

xi

Introduction

This study came about from my passion for both public

service radio, in its BBC and community radio forms, and

through my love of the Birmingham music scene and it’s

heritage. As a community radio volunteer, I take a lot

of pointers on my own radio show from BBC Introducing,

through dedicating a segment of the show to local and

unsigned artists. My efforts have even impacted on the

station’s wider music policy through this; with 107.5

Switch Radio currently working on an updated music policy

to include a wider array of locally produced music

content. The purpose of this project then, is to gain an

understanding of how the audiences of BBC Radio WM feel

about this style of popular music programming, bearing in

mind the remit of BBC’s local radio stations to provide

“a primarily speech-based service” to “listeners aged 50 and over” (BBC,

2015). As a contemporary study, this research is part of

what Echchaibi has termed “a timid renewed interest in radio studies”

(2011:12), or, at least, my contribution to what he

argues is warranted “from any student of radio” (ibid.) to kick

1

start such a revival in interest and to challenge the

perpetuated myth of radio being a secondary medium.

Further justification of the relevance of this research

can also be seen in the absence of BBC local radio within

contemporary radio studies, along with the BBC’s

importance as a British broadcasting institution, backed

up by Shingler and Wieringa’s summary of Public Service

Broadcasting (from here on, PSB), as:

“…the single most important, social, cultural and journalistic institution of the twentieth century”. (1998:3)

To complete this research I utilised the focus group

methodology to gain research data from BBC Radio WM

audience members off different ages, both from inside and

outside of the previously referenced target demographic.

This method has been utilised to good effect by previous

researchers in the field of radio and popular music, such

as Albarran et al’s audience study: “What Happened to our

Audience?” Radio and New Technology Uses and Gratifications Among

Young Adult Users (2007), as discussed in chapter 2. The

first chapter is based on the study of the ideas of key

theorists in the fields of PSB, radio programming and

2

radio audiences, using these works as a means to

interpret my own research data. I read into the history

of the institution of PSB in the UK and it’s development

from the “vision” (Shingler and Wieringa, 1998:13) of early

radio pioneers like Marconi and Sarnoff to what we know

today. I also looked at Michael Tracey’s work on the

modern day value of PSB in a world much changed from the

times of moral puritan John Reith, the first BBC

Director-General. I also looked at the future of the

institution and the impact of the technological age on

the medium. I also read a range of studies on the

development of radio programming and formats,

specifically the birth of the popular music format

pioneered by Todd Storz (McCourt and Rothenbuhler,

2004:3), as well as Ahlkvist’s (2001:345) theories around

programming philosophies and their characteristics and

application to the contemporary radio industry. Finally

I looked at key theories and research into radio audience

studies, most notably the radio and audience relationship

(Lewis and Booth, 1989 and Fleming, 2009), theories of

audience as commodity and the relevance of this to the

3

BBC, despite being a public service body not carrying

advertising, and the impact again of the technological

age on audience research data collection. Finally, I

utilise the previous work in the final chapter to

interpret my research data to find out what meanings and

pleasures are derived from BBC Introducing’s audience. Both

from the BBC Radio WM target demographic, and the younger

audience sample surveyed, before my concluding remarks

and ideas on future further research.

4

Chapter 1: Review of Impacting Studies

Part 1: Public Service Broadcasting

The History of Public Service Broadcasting in the UK.

The first theoretical framework I will be looking into

relating to my dissertation study is that of Public

Service Broadcasting (PSB), and in particular the origins

of the UK service, namely the BBC. Michael Tracey

described the original innovation of PSB as:

“…the single most important, social, cultural and journalistic institution of the twentieth century”. (1998:3)

5

In Shingler and Wieringa’s Radio time-line: history at a glance

the authors discuss the development of PSB, namely the

BBC, as a combination of factors. These factors; vision,

ethics, democracy, competition, dissidence and

politicking, combined to form the blueprint for PSB that

is used today by the BBC, although evolved (1998:13-14).

The authors discuss the important vision as the

development of the radio broadcast medium from point-to-

point to mass communication. Regarding the ethics that

influenced the conception of PSB in the UK, Shingler and

Wieringa argue that this resulted from the personal

influence of the first Director-General, John Reith.

Reith, they argue, “…drew heavily upon the Victorian ideal of service.”

(1998:17) And used this ideal to develop his eight key

principles of PSB, these being geographical universality,

the universality of the license fee, competition (in

programming), widespread appeal, provision for

minorities, National identity and community, autonomy and

editorial freedom. In opposition to this, Scannell

discusses the delegation of public service broadcasting

by the government, and argues the fact of its original

6

conception as “…the outcome of wavelength scarcity and problems of

financing.” (1990:11). This point is also echoed by David

Elstein more recently (2005:69). Scannell and Cardiff

also weigh in on the Reithian influence, posing that

Reith’s manifesto’s focus was the upholding of high

quality, with “unified control” (1991) over policy and

programme making. Chignell has described the BBC, after

the Reithian era as “for some a golden age, but for others a time of

moral disintegration” (2011:80), and cited the importance of

the development of factual radio programming, in

particular Woman’s Hour and The World at One, as pivotal in

the “major reorganisation” (ibid.) at the BBC that placed the

“progressives and the reactionaries” (ibid.), those who saw the

future of the medium and those merely reacting to the

changing times, at odds.

Public Service Broadcasting’s value in the modern mediascape

The modern-day value of PSB is also a well-debated topic

in recent years, a period that has seen the massive

overhauling of the radio industry with the move into

digital broadcast technologies. Tracey questions whether

Reith’s PSB model is “…viable or relevant in the modern world”

7

(1998:260) and places importance on account of this on

the impact of globalisation and of ever decreasing

ethical and theological systems. Succinctly it can be

said the author expresses doubt in the modern service’s

future, due the radical shift from local to global

politics and the morality of the modern world as opposed

to that of the world Reith developed his concepts of PSB

within. Other theorists discussing this decline consider

other factors, such as the impact of commercial interests

in the broadcasting arena (Garnham, 1983:7), taking the

view that commodity exchange is now the primary factor in

broadcasting policy. Furthermore, Tom O’Malley

attributes the decline in the quality of PSB to the “…

removal of the idea that public service is what broadcasting is all about.”

(O’Malley, 2001:28), teamed with Garnham’s theory of

commerciality, and the “narrower” (ibid.) outlook on

politically and culturally significant events of

commercial broadcasting companies, for example their

favour towards popular programming as opposed to those

pertaining to the arts. Carole Tongue, however, in her

own report on the future of the institution, argues that

8

PSB still has a “crucial function” to play in the broadcasting

industry (1996:69). The author goes on to argue PSB’s

freedom from commercial broadcaster’s practical

constraints, i.e.: their obligations to shareholders and

advertisers, also allows them a creative freedom in

producing quality output that doesn’t pander to the

common denominator of popularity. This, in turn, can

result in PSB’s being able to “…provide budgets for programmes

which extend the range of viewing choice.” (ibid., 1996:69), taking

creative risks to provide output away from the norm.

Independent audience research paper, entitled Public Service

Broadcasting Now and in the Future - Audience Attitudes,

commissioned by the BBC and undertaken by Human Capital

in conjunction with Ipsos MORI (2009), presented findings

in respect of PSB’s ongoing value to the audience and

found “continuing strong support for the aims and characteristics…”

(Human Capital, 2009:67) of PSB and that its needed “…as

much as ever.” (ibid.) However, the paper also found that

audience considered all the terrestrial broadcasters as

PSB, but that:

“…the BBC is recognised as the main deliverer of the public service aims, with ITV1 and Channel 4 in

9

a second group and Five further behind.” (ibid.)

These findings further strengthen the case for Tongue’s

assertions previously stated regarding the distinction

between the publicly funded and commercial broadcasters.

The future of Public Service Broadcasting

Finally, I will be looking into research on the future

of, and alternative models for, PSB both in the UK and

abroad. Following on from this discourse of a rise and

fall in PSB, the future of PSB is also a very much-

debated issue, since the Thatcher-era Peacock Committee’s

report in 1986. The Institute for Economic Affairs’

(IEA) Public Service Broadcasting in the Digital Age states that

“Financially, technologically and conceptually…” (Elstein, 2005:68)

the current model for PSB in the UK, and its ongoing

viability, comes under scrutiny. Elstein argues that the

supposed valid contesting of PSB funding in the UK, from

non-BBC broadcasters, and the “conditional access” (2013:87)

nature of this funding back up this assertion. The

author also cites that the plurality of PSB supply, the

public service nature of the commercial, terrestrial

10

broadcasters, reinforces the questioning of the current

model (Elstein, 2013:88). In this we can understand the

author’s idea, in context of the UK market, of a future

for PSB that involves a cancellation of the BBC’s

monopoly on PSB in the UK, and the separation of the

regulator, the BBC Trust, from the Corporation, fully.

This then lies in favour of the original Peacock report

outcome. A more recent investigation into the future of

PSB, Public service broadcasting: short-term crisis, long-term future?

(Select Committee on Communications, 2009), found there

to be a “…continuing need for public broadcast alternatives to the BBC.”

(2009:10) amid doubts in the current structuring of PSB

in the UK, the BBC monopolisation of PSB, and the

relevance of a Royal Charter in “…a period of profound change.”

(2009:19). The report also undermines the future

viability of the license fee as the main financial

provision of PSB, and suggests a number of other sources

of income, as well as uses of PSB income, rather than

funding the BBC exclusively (2009:20). Human Capital’s

audience research (2008) considers alternative financing

models for PSB, with the findings concurring largely with

11

the current model, despite a total of seven proposed

alternatives. These alternatives are: PSB funding from

the tax pool, Lottery funding, a higher BBC license fee

(with unaffected BBC funding), the same BBC license fee

(with some BBC funding going to ITV1 Channel 4 and Five),

a general tax for commercial broadcasters, other

financial incentives to commercial PSB’s (such as a

discount on spectrum charges) and finally allowing

commercial PSB’s (ITV1, Channel 4 and Five) to show more

advertising. The research found that there was a

preference to the models that left the license-payer

unaffected (i.e.; no increased license fee) (2008:58),

such as:

“…the National Lottery, giving other benefits to ITV1, Channel 4 or Five, a tax on commercial broadcasters andmore advertising minutage” (2008:67)

But the research also indicated that “minimal to minority” of

those included in the research backed any reallocation of

the BBC’s funding (Human Capital, 2008:67).

12

Part 2: Radio Programming and Formats

The development of programming

The rise of the TV medium created the circumstances that

would go on to change the radio history profoundly and

have a lasting effect, "In 1949 network radio's revenues declined for

the first time ever" (Greenfield, 1989:5), this, worrying radio

networks and producers, made it necessary for radio to

play to it’s strengths to ensure it’s survival. The

development of radio programming formats, specific

programming bundles designed to maximise and retain

audiences, Starkey argues that two events led to the

“more systematic” (2004:89) approach to radio programming we

see today, the first of these being the birth of home

computing, that he attributes to more effective audience

targeting and formulation of a station sound. The second

important factor, he argues, was the removal of the full

service commitment from Ofcom regulations, which allowed

stations to serve audiences more freely through a less-

detailed policy statement, which replaced it (2004).

13

Hausman et al define programming as “the selection and

arrangement” (2000:4) of music and speech content, with a

view to “attract and hold the audience segment a station is seeking”

(ibid.), and define format as the arrangement of this

programming to achieve the same purpose (ibid.). These

authors also theorised that while public service

broadcasters were exempt from commercial interests, they

must utilise the same programming techniques as their

commercially driven counterparts in creating content to

attract audiences. Shingler and Wieringa suggest that

“speech may be the primary code” (1998:51) of radio programming,

utilising the work of McWhinnie, who put forward the

theory that “to achieve purpose” (1959:80) sounds and music

must be accompanied by words, as a rhetorical device to

guide the listener towards the station’s favoured

interpretation-the station sound (ibid., 1959:81).

However, the formerly mentioned pair proposed music to be

a key factor in achieving the station sound through its

inclusion in programming by “distinguishing themselves from

competition.” (Shingler and Wieringa,1998:22).

Criticism and programming philosophies

14

In the so-called golden age of radio, advertisers

controlled all of the programming except for news, which

included a range of radio programme formats such as “…

dramas, comedies, children’s progammes and soap operas”, as well as

music. At this time, the idea of formatting and

programming radio was still under development across

America, at the same time as the technologies that

enabled syndication and networking of broadcasts. This

progression could be seen as a driving force behind the

American radio industry’s commercial model, due the value

of reaching long-spanning, nationwide audiences

(Perebinossoff et al., 2005:5). Theodore Adorno

criticised radio programming as a “retrogression” (2004:210)

of music spectatorship, and accounted this to the well

meaning but ultimately economy-driven research practices

in place in radio production at that time. Ahlkvist

builds on Adorno’s theory by developing four opposing

“programming philosophies” (2001:345) for music radio, through

which programming is conducted with a view to the

audience whilst considering other factors. These

philosophies are Aesthetics and Research and Audience and

15

Industry. The author goes on to term the aesthetics to be

the “musicologist programming philosophy” (2001:346) and

research the “programming professional philosophy” (2001:348), so

the aesthetic programmer would judge by the music as a

cultural text, while the research programmer would simply

look at the music as a data object within its research

field, while both roles use their musical/researched

knowledge to serve their valued audience. Ahlkvist’s

audience philosophy, putting the programmer in the role

of “surrogate consumer” (2001:347) places the programmer in

the viewpoint of the audience, drawing on Hirsch’s work

describing media producers as “Mass media gatekeepers”

(1990:136). Finally Ahlkvist describes the industry

philosophy of programming as “reliant” (2001:350) on the

music businesses valuation of their product, placing

emphasis on songs labels believe will be hits. Starkey

puts forward that a more varied programming format, such

as those posited in Ahlkvist’s philosophies, and aided by

the lesser constraints than those of the full service

commitment, could lead to attracting varying audiences

for different day parts (2004:92). For instance, a

16

person could tune in to the station for the Breakfast

show for their drive to work, for the uplifting music and

presentational style, but would feel less served by a

lunchtime programming schedule that was more music-based.

Popular music programming

On the subject of popular music programming, Barnard

argues music’s use in radio programming is for the sole

purpose of “framing” (Barnard, 2000:156) speech content,

attracting listeners through its aesthetic appeal and

“matching the pace of everyday life and the working day itself” (ibid.).

The same author also argues that, when the use of

programming is properly considered, it can be used to not

just covertly target particular audiences, but also to

exclude others. And also as a tool to help form the

station sound through use of “tone, image and personality”

(ibid.). Perebinossoff et al (2005:6) also saw Todd Storz’

pioneering of the modern commercial hits radio format,

then called the Top 40 format, as an attempt to minimise

the threat of television, and as leading to “counter

programming” as a tool for attracting a younger audience

demographic “more willing to turn the dial” (ibid.). The authors

17

of Radio station operations: Management and employee perspectives

also cited the financial aspects behind making youth-

oriented programming, stating:

“The prosperity of the 1950s allowed teenagers more disposable income than ever … Rock and Roll was the perfect expression of the culture that sought and quickly found such a salient identity.”(O'Donnell, Hausman, & Benoit, 1989:39)

As well as this the previously cited authors describe

radio after the impact and popularisation of TV as having

“a local flavour” (Perebinossoff et al, 2005:6) that TV did not,

through its mix of music, news and speech programming.

Barnard echoes this sentiment, albeit specifically in the

case of speech-based programming (2000:156). Also on the

subject of music, Toynbee and Vis looked at radio

programming of music from the perspective of public

service broadcasters, the BBC, finding “contradictory

tendencies” (2010:547) at work in their programming at BBC

World Service. This can be seen to be relevant in the

wider context of my own research of a BBC speech-based

station, and indicative of the applicability of my study.

Following this theme, Scannell and Cardiff argue the

18

contradictory nature of BBC radio station’s music

policies in particular, through the discursive practice

of educating a mass audience on music as a cultural

object for all, not just the upper classes, as was then

seen (1991). They go on to find that the BBC failed in

this aim, instead creating, and catering for, a defined

target audience rather than the masses. Starkey writes

that programming, when considering music content, is left

largely in the hands of the producer or presenter-guided

by the stations wider music policy. He also goes on to

theorise that programming is at its most effective when

put under the control of a sole entity, the Head of Music

role, guided by the same “common principles” (2004: 90) of

the stations programme policy, which is designed

specifically to appeal to their preferred target

audience.

19

Part 3: Radio Audiences

The radio-audience relationship

Radio audiences, particularly of public service radio,

will form an integral part of my research. Lewis and

Booth say of the relationship between radio and their

audiences:

“The broadcasting relationship with the audience must also be seen as part of the process of privatisation…which turned mass consumption into a private and family experience” (1989:65).

20

Carole Fleming states that audiences are “at he heart of

everything radio does” (2009:19) and that the medium’s

survival lies in audience’s retention over the ever-

growing mediums of TV and online content, and also

comments on the presenter’s role in this within speech

radio as being able to:

“…create a bond with the listener that will keep them tuning in to the station” (ibid., 2009, 64)

This position was previously discussed by Wilby and

Conroy, stating:

“…it constitutes the key to the radio experience. Records and jingles contribute…but the voice actually says something that listeners should latch onto, remember and talk about” (1994, 128)

Fleming’s research also identifies a need to create an

autonomous audience response to radio listening, making

it a habitual activity, or “the medium they turn to automatically”

(2009:19). Dubber (2013:53) and Garner (1990:195) take a

similar view, citing the particular instance of radio

breakfast shows, where the act of listening becomes tied

with the daily habits of the user like getting up,

21

driving to work, etc. The importance of these breakfast

slots in attracting audiences is discussed by Llewellyn

and Walker (2003:99), where the authors assert that the

high profile presenter’s, high production values and

investment in breakfast radio occur, as a good breakfast

show will aid the “constant battle to gain or retain these key listeners.”

which is indicative of the importance of knowing the

audience through audience research. Fleming also

highlights the importance of audience research to both

commercial and public service model stations. Where

commercial stations sell their audiences to advertisers

as “commodity”, public service stations, run by the BBC in

the UK, are equally dependent of accurate audience

research figures as a way to justify the license fee by

showing the popularity of their stations (2009:19).

Audience as commodity and the importance of research

Berland (1990:183) argues that audience is the main

commodity of radio, over music, which he suggests is the

stations’ means of producing this commodity through

attracting listenership. Radio programmers use of

audience studies enables them to “continually refine” their

22

approach to programming decisions in attracting a

specific target demographic (Llewellyn and Walker,

2003:101). Fleming cites that youth audiences, in

particular, are of paramount importance by coming back on

to the topic of habitual listening (2009:20), arguing

that if a listening habit is not acquired early on in

life, then they are less likely to become radio users

when older. Llewellyn and Walker, arguing that their

optimal financial situation in relation to advertisers,

having a high disposable income and the prospect of

forming “lifetime buying habits”, provide another viewpoint on

the importance of the youth audience (2003:100). This,

the authors deem, attributes to the high level of

research and discussion on this particular demographic.

This is backed up by the Radio Advertising Bureau’s own

report on youth audiences, Radio and the Digital Native (2007)

which reports that 88 percent of 15-24 year-olds tune

into some form of radio every week, with 72 percent

claiming radio listening to be a part of their daily

routine. However, Ofcom also reports that this group has

the largest decline in tuning in, with slightly more than

23

a 10 percent drop in listenership in the 4-24 year-old

demographic, between 2002 and 2007 (2008:289). There are

also, however, criticisms of audience research for radio,

the most prevalent of which concerns the selection of

samples used by the UK’s radio audience research body

RAJAR. The method used by the body in collecting

research relies on listening diaries filled out by a

segment of listeners (RAJAR, 2014). These samples are

deemed “limited and exclusionary” by Michael C. Keith

(2004:204).

Technology and the modern-day abundance of research data

In the context of the BBC, audiences are served via a

wide range of services, which is termed as “Complimentarity”

by Stephen Barnard (2000:32). Meaning that through this

wide range of radio services, the network can serve the

entirety of the wider BBC audience with tailor-made

stations, effectively keeping a splintered audience all

within the “BBC family” (Fleming, 2009:11). The BBC also

has a selection of digital-only stations, a technology,

amongst others, which has led to an “explosive growth” in the

radio industry (Keith, 2004:200). This growth, and the

24

subsequent rise in competition, has seen a change in

audience research trend from quantitative research to a

mixed research method utilising quantitative data also,

due to demand for more quality and accurate data

regarding audiences. This higher quality data allows

programmers to devise radio-programming strategies based

on demographic’s “lifestyle, values and behaviour” (Keith,

2004:201). Dubber asserts that his technology-driven

boom in the radio market has not impacted audience

listening figures “significantly (2013:54), only the

context of the listening, due to the wide array of

providers, i.e.; DAB radio, satellite TV, radio

smartphone apps and podcasting. Fredrick Stiernstedt

(2008) provides another viewpoint, on the effect of

technology on the industry, concerning the quality of

research data and audience. Stiernstedt argues that

producers and programmers, who previously courted

listening through the use of formats and schedules, now

enjoy less control over radio listening in space and

time, due to the popularity of out-of-time listening

through “listen again” features and podcasting (2008:117).

25

However, he also highlights an advantage to these new

listening practices, through the wealth of accurate

audience monitoring data (2008:117).

Chapter 2: The Right Tool for the Job

The focus group methodology

I have decided on a focus group methodology as a means of

gaining primary research material to advise my research

into the meanings and pleasures taken from BBC Radio WM’s

audiences through their show BBC introducing. Focus groups

are again a commonly utilised method for this type of

study in contemporary audience research, after a decline

in their use (Lunt and Livingstone, 1996:79). The focus

26

group method has been utilised to good effect in

investigating “participants meanings and ways of understanding”

(ibid, 1996:79) which will be key to my own study. It is

also documented that, while there are disadvantageous

aspects involved in the focus group methodology, the

positive aspects “more than offset” the negative in seeking a

multitude of diverse responses to a text (Merton, Fiske

and Kendall, 2008:135).

Merton and Kendall describe the “chief functions” of the focus

group methodology to be; finding the instances within a

text where responses occur within the audience,

documenting any variation in the foreseen and substantial

responses, documenting the responses of “deviant subgroups”

(although, for my study this criteria may be discounted)

and investigating the procedures involved in affecting

responses (1946:541). While this study isn’t a

contemporary text, Gollin (In Merton, Fiske and Kendall,

2008:ix) notes it’s “…historical value and contemporary utility” in

it’s field and also suggests it holds the key to

anticipating and avoiding feedback that is “more stereotyped

and further removed from natural modes of discourse”(ibid.,

27

2008:xii), in other words, of attaining a natural

response as opposed to a conventionally anticipated one.

However, this is countered directly by Ruddock, who

highlights the “chief weakness” of the focus group

methodology as being their tendency to furnish results

that may not necessarily be reached in a more natural

environment (2001:137).

Organisation of method

In terms of the organisation of focus groups, it is noted

that a solid structure is required across the range of

focus interviews held, as “slight variations will significantly affect

the patterns of social interaction.” (Merton, Fiske and Kendall,

2008:136), so with this in mind I have developed a range

of open-ended questions with which to query my

respondents, as well as “Using Probes and Asking Clarifying

Questions” (OMNI, 2015) to guide the discussion and gain

more detailed feedback where required. I will also

utilise Morgan’s definition of the focus group

methodology, in his chapter discussion:

“First, it clearly states that focus groups are a research method devoted to data collection.

28

Second, it locates the interaction in a group discussion at the source of the data. Third, it acknowledges the researcher’s active role in creating the group discussion for data collection purposes” (1996:130)

This then, can be applied to my own study can be seen as

my use of the methodology to collect audience responses

from BBC Introducing audiences, my adoption of a common

discussion thread along both groups, pertaining to the

program’s aesthetics and listener response to these, and

finally my use of prompts and further questioning to

investigate detailed responses. With regards to the

actual group selection process, Graham Mytton, referring

to focus groups as the “group discussion” (1992:46), describes

the need to group together respondents of a similar level

of knowledge on the subject matter, so as not to achieve

the result of the lesser knowledgeable to be “swamped out”

by the more knowledgeable of the group (ibid.). In the

context of my study, the level of knowledge of the radio

industry is roughly the same throughout the group, all

being media scholars in the case of the younger group.

Of the older audience sample none of the group members

had previously had any formal or informal training in

29

radio or audience studies, making their knowledge of the

subject roughly similar too. Although Mytton also

emphasises the unusual natural of mixed-gender grouping

(ibid.), I have discounted this in my study due to the

research’s aims not being concerned with gendered

perceptions of the content.

Justification of Methodology

The focus group methodology has been put to good use

within previous radio research, such as Albarran et al’s

2007 study into young peoples radio listening practices.

The research suggests that “younger audiences are leaving

terrestrial radio for new technologies” (Albarran et al, 2007:2) which

is a theme that is also indicated within my study, with

all of the respondents listening primarily through

smartphones whilst on the move (the two that drove also

used their car radios), and through the internet and

satellite TV at home. Albarran et al’s study used open-

ended questions to gain research material through

discussion of the most common listening practices (ibid.,

2007:6), and kept a solid structure to the groups that

was also reflected in my own through participant

30

selection, time and subject knowledge (ibid., 2007:5).

The authors of this paper justify their use of the method

and how this directed their further study:

“Focus groups were used to gather qualitative data on uses and possible gratifications among new listening technologies. The information derived from the focus groups was used to prepare a questionnaire for a larger study involving a wider sample base.” (ibid.)

This use also gives insight into the application of the

method in conjunction with the quantitative method of

surveying audience members, and is something that could

be utilised if I decide to widen the study (see:

Conclusion). Further justification for the use of the

focus group can be seen from Liamputtong’s description of

it as the “ideal (2011:11) medium to gain perspective on

audience’s opinions and how they interact with the source

material, in this case my listening segment of BBC

Introducing. Conradson discussed the method as having the

ability, when properly conducted, to enable researchers

to understand the different reactions and interactions

that occur, dependent on gender, age, socio-economic

status, etc. (2005:131). This is particularly relevant

31

of my own study in the case of age, where I seek to

elicit responses and analyses the difference between my

two sample groups, as well as having the quality “to look at

why such views are held” (ibid.).

Chapter 3: Research Findings and Analysis

Young audience’s perceptions of public service local

radio programming

My focus groups were designed to discover the meanings

and pleasures taken from radio audiences of different

ages and demographics whilst listening to the BBC

Introducing show, with a view to possibly identifying ways

in which BBC Radio WM are serving their target audience

and how the audience interpret this. My first focus

group consisted of a younger, mixed-gender audience, and

identified a number of consistent points amongst the

group. The first point made clear by the younger audience

32

is the fact that the show was produced with public

service in mind, with all of the respondents agreeing

that providing a platform for up and coming local artists

on local radio should be a part of the BBC’s remit. In

particular, one respondent pointed out the remit of the

Royal Charter’s “mission” (BBC, 2014), the document that

outlines the BBC’s responsibilities as the national

public broadcaster, and its significance to the study:

“The remit of the BBC, and BBC Local Radio, is to inform, educate and entertain…I feel that the content within BBC Introducing informs and educates on local music culture through both the music and spoken content, while the music entertains the audience.” (Mian, 2015. Appendix 1:59)

This point in particular is consistent with Shingler and

Wieringa’s research into the history and development of

the BBC, as outlined in part 1 of the previous research

chapter, where the authors discuss Reith’s eight key

principles of PSB (1998). The BBC Introducing program

can fall under the principles of widespread appeal,

through the practice of playing popular music styles and

provision for minorities, through it’s support of up and

33

coming acts from a variety of backgrounds and music

styles; and community, in that it seeks to provide a

platform for local artists to showcase their talents.

Another respondent felt that the service provided to the

public via the local music programming is an important

one and suitable, considering the source of the BBC’s

funding, and also discusses the perceived localness of

the programming, and through this, it’s value to the

local community:

“The presenters regularly speak about the area and the audience. They said things like ‘you’ll lovethis band’ and things like that. And the station ads say ‘radio for Birmingham and the Black Country’ and ‘the voice of Birmingham’ which shows their obligations to the audience. I think it’s important for big companies like the BBC to support smaller singers as well as the big ones, because they’re funded by the public.” (Vodenicharova, 2015. Appendix 1:57)

An intriguing aspect of this for my research study, and

myself as a radio practitioner, is the fact that the

audience member is consciously viewing the station ID’s

as adverts, considering the BBC’s no advertising policy

as a PSB, and is consistent with Ford-Hutchinson and

Rothwell’s summary of advertising as “anything that has a name

34

on it” (2002:10). The authors also discuss the positive

reflection of the audience regarding advertising:

“The phrases used in advertising are adopted into the local peer group currency. Particularly for the young (18-25) not knowing the phrase can be as out of touch as not knowing the latest music, club or fashion label” (ibid., 2002:14)

This could point to the reasoning behind the BBC’s

perceived advertising via station promos, in that they are

particularly effective with younger audience, as my

research shows of BBC Introducing, and the perceived value

among peers that the supposed advert creates.

What BBC Introducing means to Radio WM’s target

audience

The older audience sample largely agreed that BBC

Introducing did serve as part of the BBC’s public service

remit, while also agreeing that it was poorly placed at

BBC Radio WM due to it’s stark contrast to the rest of

the station’s output and its audience’s variation on the

target audience sought by WM, this paired with the

listening practices are reminiscent of Jim Beaman’s

example, on the difference between his immediate family’s

radio listening compared with that of his grandparents:

35

“Once it had been switched on and given time to warm up it was permanently tuned to the portentous voices on the Home Service from the BBC. The output of the networks we chose seemed to be reflected in our choice of receiving equipment.” (Beaman, 2006:1)

While I realise this is more of a memory than an

academic theory, it does have some relevance to the

subject matter here. With this group of adult

listeners, playing the part of their grandparents,

listening exclusively via FM and DAB (with the exception

of a single occasional satellite listener) and

preferring the formality and professional production

normally associated with WM. Then we have the younger

audience members, the immediate family, who listen in a

range of modern methods, most prolifically through

mobile devices and online, and display an oppositional

stance to formality and embrace the “free form” (Hooper,

2015. Appendix 1:60) nature of WM’s programming in the

case of BBC Introducing. Beaman goes on to state:

“Stations that include music therefore need to make sure they are playing tracks that will appealto that target audience” (2006:2)

36

While Hendy (2000a:115) states that radio practitioners

must produce content with the intended audience in mind

and in doing so be influenced in what they make and

broadcast. My research indicates that WM are not

fulfilling this aspect in the case of BBC introducing, the

fact that the older focus group members continued

discussion during the listening section, predominantly

throughout the music content, shows that this aspect of

WM’s “radio code” (Chignell, 2009:72) is lost on it’s target

audience. Chignell discusses this code and how this

code’s meaning is dependent on the listener as an

individual (ibid.). If we contextualise this in the

case of the older audience members, it is clear that the

audience sample used for the purpose of this research

are negatively connoting Chignell’s supposed code, by

not interpreting the programming as for them as audience

members.

Providing local artist exposure as a public service

Poli’s statement speaks to the audience’s perceived value

of public service radio and popular music (or, at least,

popular music styles) programming within it. This was a

37

generally agreed upon viewpoint among the group, with a

consensus being reached that it was the BBC’s duty to

provide airtime to local artists, and that this was a

direct result of it’s status as the national public

service broadcaster. However, one participant questioned

the value of the show and its premise to the audience,

stating that it was “of more value to the artists, really...” (Cowen,

2015. Appendix 1:55) Before stating:

“People who want to hear local and unsigned artists generally go out and participate in the scenes they are interested in, or they go online.” (ibid., Appendix 1:57)

This is a trend picked up on by Walsh et al, who studied

audience practices surrounding online music sourcing

(2003:305-317). The study shows that roughly 67 per cent

of the sample area, aged 19 to 29 year olds (of which all

of my younger audience participants fall), source their

music online. While comparatively, only 2.87 per cent of

the 50+-aged audience sample did the same (Walsh, et al,

2003:310). This is partially reflected in my older

sample, with only one respondent sourcing music in this

way from those involved. The older audience sample did

38

reflect that the providing of a platform for local

artists was tied in with the BBC’s remit, but questioned

it’s placing at WM, with one group member stating:

“I can see why it’s important for the BBC, but John Peel used to do this on Radio 1 for a long time…sothey should put this on Radio 1, where the kids will listen and be interested“ (Spilsbury, 2015: Appendix 2:68)

This theme is touched upon by Tambini, who argues that

popular music programming is not the “obvious target”

(2004:42) of a public service broadcaster, however, as

our audience, of all ages, all agree that the service BBC

Introducing supplies does in fact fulfill the BBC’s PSB

remit. The previous author also touches upon this

aspect, stating:

“In music terms…Because the BBC plays the most popular tracks fewer times per week than commercial stations, there is more time for exposure to new music and more opportunities to introduce new bands…there is an emphasis on regionalisation” (ibid.)

This aspect of BBC Introducing’s programming was immediately

picked up upon discussion of the program and it’s premise

and the content provided.

39

Popular music for speech radio audiences.

The discussion among the older focus group sample about

the music yielded one main theme, that the style of music

played in no way was of interest, or representative of,

these respondents, as BBC Radio WM’s target demographic.

This opposes Wilby and Conroy’s position in stating that

the more mature listener has the tendency of being more

receptive to programming that is not specifically

tailored to them (1994:49). In fact, if we consider the

younger element of the research sample, it can be said in

this case to be opposite to what they surmise when

stating:

“…young listeners seem to be more demanding of material that reflects their specific interests” (ibid.)

With the younger sample generally being more receptive to

the sustained speech elements of the show, and to speech

radio in general, with most listening to speech-based

radio, mostly supplied by BBC Radio WM, at least weekly.

If we consult the BBC’s review document on BBC local

radio services, we see that the corporation’s own

40

audience research finds that BBC local radio listeners

consider the music output to reflect “all tastes, ages and

communities” (BBC, 2015), which is certainly represented by

my research findings, with the older sample suggesting

the music to be representative of their children and what

they would listen to (Appendix 2:64-65).

Delivering public service radio online

Another discussion point among the group that touches on

the audiences valuing of public service broadcasting and

it’s future, and resulted from the point regarding online

music sourcing, was the BBC’s reputation for quality.

One respondent voiced the opinion that, despite the

growing popularity of online music sourcing, BBC Introducing

would:

“Probably go on regardless…beyond the bands, their friends and a handful of die-hard fans of theshow, the show probably has a really small listenership” (Cowen, 2015. Appendix 1:58)

This statement was widely rejected among the group, with

the general consensus being upheld that the reputation of

the BBC “pretty much guaranteed” (Gangan, 2015. Appendix

41

1:58) the station and show a dedicated audience. Another

respondent argued that while there was some truth to the

statement, in that the broadcast time (on a Saturday

evening) would clash with the busiest period where live

music events would take place, possibly making BBC

Introducing inaccessible in it’s live capacity, the BBC iPlayer is

widely accessible online and on mobile devices, which

would be most younger audiences “preferred listening method

anyway” (Szuts, 2015. Appendix 1:58), and that this

service was indeed an integral part of the BBC’s

widespread appeal to young audiences. This validates in

my sample the results of the Human Capital/IpsosMORI

joint study into public service broadcasting, which found

that, while audiences recognised all the terrestrial TV

stations as PSBs, the BBC is:

“…recognised as the main deliverer of the public service aims, with ITV1 and Channel 4 in a second group and Five further behind.” (Human Capital, 2009:67).

Further to this, the preferred listening methods of the

younger audience sample, and that of the older too, in

fact, are evident of Cordeiro’s theory of the emergence

42

of “r@dio” (2012:492) and the convergence of the current

medium. The author states that the future of the radio

industry in general in dependent on the:

“…conversation that today, interactive tools and social networks allow to arise between radio listeners and radio stations.” (ibid.,2012:504)

Cordeiro’s point then, may explain the comments of the

group that indicated that they may not listen to the show

as a live radio entity, due to the fact of it being

broadcast on a Saturday night and clashes with social

gatherings, but through the listen again and podcasting

platforms that are available. In this way the younger

audience may listen and interact with BBC Introducing in

their own time.

The primary code: Music Vs. Speech

During the focus group the discussions considered the

role of music and speech as both primary and secondary

amongst the different sample areas. One respondent of

the younger sample range added that a show like BBC

Introducing was indicative of a format consisting of music

43

as it’s primary code, the speech segments being

secondary:

“unimportant…except for providing information on the acts” (Hooper, 2015. Appendix 1:58)

The respondent also likened the show to BBC Radio 1’s

previous program The John Peel Show. However, this was not a

shared opinion among many of the respondents, as a result

of the style and length of the speech segments within the

broadcast sample, “chit-chatty” (Gangan, 2015:Appendix 1:55),

“really odd” (Cowen, 2015. Appendix 1:56) and “really bad small

talk” (ibid.) being some of the comments, many suggested

that the show was not of the quality and music-centric

tradition of the late John Peel’s own. However the

discussion, and one participant’s likening of BBC

Introducing to The John Peel Show does touch on the conflicting

studies of Shingler and Wieringa (1998), building on

McWhinnie (1959), and of Paul Long (2006), as referenced

in the programming section of chapter 1. These authors

each point to different ideas, while McWhinnie and later

Shingler and Wieringa theorise that music must be

accompanied by words for the listener to achieve the

44

preferred response in deciphering the station sound at

work. The latter pointed out Peel’s own “foregrounding

of music as the primary text of music radio” (Long,

2006:25), with the speech content led by the music

played. Long also cited unpublished work by Tim Wall on

the subject, which analyses the way speech content is

“shaped and conditioned” (Long, 2006:29) by the music

content. This lead on to the discussion amongst the

older audience group on the subject, where one of the

respondents identified the BBC Introducing presentation as

“obviously…amateurs” (McFall, 2015. Appendix 2:65) and

highlighting the format of the show as something “John Peel

used to do…on Radio 1” (Spilsbury, 2015. Appendix 2:68) and

agreeing on his status as authentic in his field. This

too tallies with Long’s argument of Peel’s contribution

to discourses of amateurism and authenticity (2006), and

in some way, by extension, the same can be said of BBC

Introducing.

BBC Radio WM: Engendering future habitual listening

through youth programming?

45

The focus group discussion also touched on radio

listening practices in general, and within the group, I

had only one respondent who catergorised themselves as a

habitual listener of BBC Radio WM (For the sake of this

research I deemed habitual listening to mean tuning in

for an hour or more, three or more times a week.) Five

of the nine participants in the younger audience study,

however, commented that the station was their go-to

medium for local sports news and coverage. This natural

listening practice is significant in relation to

Fleming’s theory of radio audience retention, in an ever-

growing, competitive mediascape spanning radio, TV and

online outlets. Fleming states a need for radio

providers to create an autonomous audience, making radio

“the medium they turn to automatically” (Fleming, 2009:19), this

is clearly the case for my sample range in respect of

sports. This is indicative of the BBC’s courting of the

younger demographic, that are especially important in

this consideration, due to their potential to form a

long-term listening habit (2009:20). This also in part

touches on Llewellyn and Walker’s theory on the

46

importance of younger audience demographics, where the

authors cite the high disposable income and prospect to

form “lifetime buying habits” (2003:100). While this research

considers the audience in the context of commercial

radio, it is useful in its relation to Fleming’s notion

of gaining and keeping audiences from an early age.

This, in the context of BBC Introducing and the two audience

samples surveyed, was indicative of the BBC’s use of

popular music programming in an effort to obtain an

increased audience in youth areas, as the programming was

met with predominantly positive responses among this

sample. However, this was also shown to be to the

detriment to the station’s intended audience, with all

participants in agreement that the show did not represent

them, or their interests.

Structured programming – advantages and

disadvantages

There was much discussion among the participants

regarding the shows structure, with a widely mixed

assessment of the way in which the show was structured.

The sample broadcast the group listened to was structured

47

in this way; Intro ID, link, song, link, song, link,

song, station ID, link, interview, song, station ID,

link. A number of the group members pointed out both

pleasing and displeasing characteristics with this

structure. For instance, one respondent pointed out that

while the “link, song, link, song.” (Heeley, 2015. Appendix 1:59)

structure was repetitive, unnecessary and sounded

“amateurish” (ibid.). These comments were agreed upon

(although without the respondents knowledge) among the

older audience sample, but these views were challenged by

a number of the younger group, with each echoing the

statement that, due to the unsigned status of the artists

being played, a link between each song was helpful in

signposting the audience to specific acts. One member

suggested that an improvement could be made, in light of

both previous suggestions, by playing established

artists, of similar styles to those that are unknown, in

tandem. This was likened to the practice used by online

music providers Spotify and Deezer, dubbed by the

participant “if you like these, then try these” (Cowen, 2015.

Appendix 1:59). This, he suggested, would take away the

48

“formulaic” (ibid.) song and link alternating approach, as

well as enabling audiences to associate the unknown

artists more easily through comparison to established

ones, adding:

“Also, the links don’t always need to explain the music, if the audience like the song they’ll like the song whether they know the artist or not, and thismay increase audiences getting involved.” (ibid.)

The same participant also recognised an organisational

structure to the music selection based on genre, noting

that similar styles were played in proximity to provide a

more aesthetically pleasing transition, employing the

example of playing a punk rock song followed by a pop or

RnB song and noting “…it just wouldn’t sound right because they’re too

different.” (ibid.). Wilby and Conroy made a similar

suggestion with regards to station output and structure,

stating:

“…music is an integral part of the station's output.A production team is responsible for presenting its programme as part of the station's overall flowof output and to ensure that the music is blended in to prevent an undue impression of the programme lurching from one item to the next.” (1994:50)

49

This leads on to Lister, Mitchell and O’Shea’s point

about distinctions in programme structure. The authors

suggest that there are:

“…two kinds of music radio programme: those where the individual tracks of music are secondary to the speech content…and those where the selection of each piece of music is central to the purpose of the show” (2010:161)

As can be seen in our audience responses, there is

clearly a merit to both of these methods, with some

preferring the informative speech content (as long as

it’s about the music) and some preferring a more musical

schedule. If we take these theories into consideration

in the context of BBC Radio WM, it’s intended audience

and BBC Introducing, we see a trend among the older audience

sample that concedes that the music is in fact integral,

in that it serves the PSB purpose of the BBC. But while

these older respondents concur that the service is needed

and contextual to the BBC’s wider purpose, they also agree

that it does not fit in with WM’s specific purpose and so

has the effect of forming an oppositional audience

response among these audience members.

50

Freeform on public service radio

Whilst discussing the structural features of the show and

their virtues and shortcomings, one member of the group

made a statement comparing the structure (or lack

thereof) of the show to a freeform programming format

popular in late-60’s USA, pointing out that the

conversational nature and freedom of length of links

hinted at such a format, stating:

“It seems quite freeform, really… It seemed like they had a lot of freedom in making and presenting the show.” (Hooper, 2015. Appendix 1:60)

This statement, and it’s reasoning, reflects the summary

of the role of the presenter, or DJ, provided by Mullin,

who states:

“…when disk jockeys…were given some leeway in selecting music and much more time for stream of consciousness on the microphone.”(1996:62)

Another member agreed with this but suggested that the

hosts weren’t of the calibre and musically knowledgeable

enough to “pull off” this style of presenting, referring back

51

to the point made about John Peel’s show, stating that

the format was similar but lacked:

“…either someone with charisma, and well prepared; or a John Peel…who just knew and loved everything about the music he played.” (Cowen, 2015. Appendix 1:60)

This point corresponds with Tim Wall’s study of freeform

US college radio station WZBC. In the article, Wall

states that presenters of shows on the station were

systematically selected for their musical knowledge

(Wall, 2007:44). The author also states that, over the

course of the investigation, the station continually

employed a freeform format that had:

“…no centralised music programming. However…by articulating itself as a ‘freeform’ station, it was working to a format” (ibid.).

The group’s discussion around the similarities of the

format employed by producers of BBC Introducing and freeform

formats furnished me with some ideas as to the value of

this format to young audiences in the UK, where the

format has never been prolific. It also gives food for

thought regarding an investigation of the role of the

52

presenter and their relationship with the listener. This

is a view that is partly echoed among most of the older

sample group, in that they felt that the show’s

presenters lacked: “…the experience of a Chris Evans or someone like

that” (McFall, 2015. Appendix 2:68), were “dispassionate”

(Spilsbury, D., 2015. Appendix 2:65) and “uncharismatic”

(Spilsbury, C., 2015. Appendix 2:65) and that this led to

their perceived failings of the show to interest them as

audience members. However, in contrast to seeing the

program as “quite freeform” (Hooper, 2015. Appendix 1:60) as

one member from the young listener group stated, the

older sample found that the show seemed “scripted”

(Spilsbury, C., 2015. Appendix 2:65) and “predictable”

(ibid. Appendix 2:65), and just plain “boring” (McFall,

2015. Appendix 2:66) as a result. In fact, the older

audience sample also shared the opinion of the younger in

that music should have been more abundant in the show,

with less speech, going against the work of McWhinnie

(1959) and later Shingler and Wieringa (1998), asserting

speech to be the primary code in radio and a necessary

53

rhetorical device “to achieve purpose”, or to gain and

keep the sought listenership.

The presenter: Role and listener relations

There was a lot of discussion, and mixed opinion, among

the group regarding the role of the presenters on BBC

Introducing and how the younger audience members in my

sample perceived them. The wide majority found the

presenting duo to be a negative aspect of the show, with

disparaging comments ranging from their ill-prepared,

“waffley” (Cowen, 2015. Appendix 1:56) link content and the

“forced” (Gangan, 2015. Appendix 1:55) nature of the

discussion between the presenters and guests, to being

“really odd” (Cowen, 2015. Appendix 1:56) “really bad small

talk” (ibid. Appendix 1:56) and “very typical of local radio”

(ibid. Appendix 1:57). This final point, which was

agreed among the majority of the focus group, shows a

general discourse among younger audiences surrounding

local radio and it’s perceived amateurish qualities, but

also goes against the dominant culture prevailing in many

forms of radio in the UK, where daytime radio consisted

of presenters, with little musical knowledge required,

54

while evening schedules are generally more populated by a

more music-savvy DJ, with freedom over track selection

and a dedicated minority audience. As stated by Hendy:

“Specialist musics, representing a series of minority tastes…equated with evening broadcasting, while more familiar and less demanding musics were served before the larger-and therefore more diverse-daytime audiences” (2000:746)

So from this we can see a conflict between what is the

perceived industry culture and what our audience assesses

in their listening. However, there was disagreement

among the group on this point, with a minority under the

impression from the sample that the presenters were, in

fact, clearly knowledgeable about the artists and their

music. One, coming to the defence of the presenters,

cited their ability to bring up information from previous

live gigs, the fact that the band had recorded their

latest LP at a live gig and spoke about personal things

such as the groups living arrangements and relationships

as proof positive of both being well-prepared and

followers of the local music scenes they cover. One

thing that was agreed upon by the entire group was the

55

fact that the presenters spoke to the audience in the

right way. As one member of the group put it:

“They don’t talk like newsreaders, like most of the presenters on a speech station would. It’s informal and laid-back, and they don’t overdo the slang in a way that seems try-hard. For instance, saying gig, most of the Radio WM listeners, I don’tthink, would refer to a concert as a gig, they’d justsay concert. But they don’t go over-the-top by calling the tracks sick, or whatever young people say” (Cowen, 2015. Appendix 1:61)

Carole Fleming highlights that the speech content can be

just as important to the listener as the music (2009:98),

adding:

“It’s about facilitating a dialogue between the audience and the talent at the station and if it’s done properly the whole thing becomes a seamless conversation.” (2009:98)

What I find interesting is that, while the sample group

in general recognise that the presenters are talking the

right way, in terms of speech style, “Informal” (Cowen, 2015.

Appendix 1:61) and “conversational” (Edwards, 2015. Appendix

1:61), many are still displaying negative responses

through the actual link content and perceived lack of

either musical knowledge or preparation. This final

56

point both follows and goes against Ahlkvist’s theories

on programming philosophies. Ahlkvist termed the

aesthetic programming philosophy to be the tool of the

music-centric programmer, the John Peels and Zane Lowes

of this world. And while this audience agree that the

show is aesthetically pleasing, enjoying the music

content and recognising the relevance of the speech-

content to them, they also fail to recognise the

presenters as knowledgeable enough on their content to

fall under the philosophy that Ahlkvist terms for “the

musicologist” (2001:346).

The presenter: An older viewpoint

The older audience samples take on this relationship

contrasts to that of the younger listeners. Where the

latter took away some positives in the delivery and

interaction, the older audience felt disconnected, with

one member stating, “…they’re amateurs, young kids probably just

starting out in their careers” (McFall, 2015. Appendix 2:66) while

57

extolling the virtues of seasoned practitioners like

Dermot O’Leary on Radio 2 and the late John Peel on his

Radio 1 show. This suggests to me a divide between

national and local radio similar to that referenced by

Perebinossoff et al (2005) regarding the early development

of the Top 40 format as a way to reduce the impact of

television on radio listenership. The authors cite the

younger audiences nature as being “more willing to turn the dial”

(2005:6) and so open to the programming and scheduling

strategy of “counterprogramming” (2005:6). So, looking at

BBC Introducing, it is clear to see through both sets of

focus group discussions that the audience members see the

show as counter to the intended audience for the station,

and so this program format in use by a 50+ targeting

station, can be seen to be an attempt to cajole young

listeners in the WM region away from the national music

stations like Radio 1 and the commercial networks like

Capital and Kiss. While the programming itself is

soundly accomplished, as seen through the views of the

younger audience towards the content, the scheduling

suggests that this instance of “Counter-programming” (Hendy,

58

2000a:108) fails due to it’s clashing with popular

Saturday night shows helmed by the likes of Mistajam

(Radio 1/1Xtra), Marvin Humes (Capital) and Steve Smart

(Kiss). Another viewpoint on this is presented on

studying the BBC’s Local Radio in England Policy (BBC, 2015),

which states that BBC local radio, and by extension WM,

should have “a strong emphasis on interactivity and audience

involvement” (ibid.), the previously cited work of Fleming

(2009) and Wilby and Conroy (1994), see chapter 1, part

3, argue the role of the presenter to be pivotal to the

audience experience. In the case of BBC Introducing and the

responses from my research concerning the speech content,

it can be said that the show is lost on the BBC Radio WM

target audience.

BBC Introducing…does it represent young audiences?

The final topic of discussion within my younger audience

focus group focused on how the audience members felt they

were represented by the broadcast sample used, as

representative of BBC Introducing. The BBC’s own

conclusions on how they serve their younger audiences

deem that the corporation “serves young people well overall” (BBC

59

Trust, 2009:3). This is reflected within the group, in

the context of the BBC Introducing program, with the

majority of the group agreeing that he tone and content

of the show represents them and their interests and

values. This is something which the BBC have

specifically worked on to customise it’s content for

younger audiences, whilst upholding the wider editorial

standards set out for the entirety of the corporation’s

content, stating:

“…where the BBC aims to serve young people on services specifically targeted at them, while it mayoften be appropriate to tailor the presentation, tone and subject nature to meet their specific tastes and expectations, all content must conformto the BBC's editorial standards.” (ibid.)

This is a point that is obviously picked up on by the

focus group participants, as shown in the previous

sections quote from the same source, one member

recognised that:

“They don’t talk like newsreaders, like most of the presenters on a speech station would. It’s informal and laid-back, and they don’t overdo the slang in a way that seems try hard. For instance, saying gig, most of the Radio WM listeners, I don’tthink, would refer to a concert as a gig, they’d justsay concert. But they don’t go over-the-top by

60

calling the tracks sick, or whatever young people say” (Cowen, 2015. Appendix 1:61)

However, the BBC Trust report cited gives it’s attention

solely to the BBC brands BBC Three, Radio 1 and 1Xtra,

and should have some provision for the ways in which the

non-youth oriented brands, like BBC Radio WM, seemingly

broadcast content for younger audiences.

BBC WM - Programming away their target audience?

As a final note, the research results of the older

audience sample, made up of members of BBC Radio WM’s

target demographic, show some merit to the premise upon

which I’ve based this study. As, in Hausman et al’s terms,

as previously discussed in chapter 1, programming is the

selection of content designed to “attract and hold the audience

segment a station is seeking” (2000:4), while Crisell (2006:49)

argues that public service radio “have better direct

communication” with their audience, this is clearly not so

in the case of BBC Introducing and the Radio WM target

audience. All of my older sample group were in agreement

that the show did not represent them or their interests,

61

while pointing out that the show would be of interest to

their children.

Conclusion

The aim of this study was to discover what the meanings

and pleasures are of audiences of BBC Radio WM, while

listening to the popular music program, BBC Introducing.

Through the analysis of my research I have found distinct

differences between my two focus group samples, the

older, target demographic of BBC Radio WM, and the

younger sample more commonly targeted with popular music

programming. Of the meanings deciphered by the two

groups, the subject of the BBC’s providing a platform for

local artist’s was not contested by either group, with

both feeling that this was in fact a public service and

in line with the remit of the corporation as set out in

the Royal Charter. However, while the younger audience

sample found the content to be relevant and well placed

at BBC Radio WM, the older sample found it to be

irrelevant to themselves and their interests, and better-

placed elsewhere, such as BBC Radio 1, as pointed out by

62

one focus group participant. Further to this, there were

differences in the perceived localness of the programme

between the different sample groups. The majority of the

young audience felt that the station ID’s, the music and

the presenters were representative of local radio and

distinctly of the West Midlands. More so, the presenters

themselves were labeled “very typical of local radio” (Cowen, 2015.

Appendix 1:56) and of youth-oriented programming,

referencing the speech style and amateurish nature of the

spoken content. Within the older group, the same

connotations of amateurism were picked up on, however,

this group displayed a negative reaction to the speech

content, citing feeling of disconnection from the

programming where they felt they should feel included.

Discussion around the music content also polarised

opinion among the groups, with the younger audience

sample taking pleasure from the music content, and the

knowledge of it being made locally gave an added

appreciation of the content and added an authentic value

to the show as a whole, as well as representing

themselves and their interests in music. The older

63

sample felt the opposite of this applied, they took

little or no pleasure from the music programming and some

made comments to the effect that it was music that their

adolescent and young adult children would be interested

in and listen to. So, to summarise, the meanings and

pleasure taken from BBC WM Programming, in the context of

BBC Introducing differ with young audiences in comparison

with the station’s target audience. While the target

demographic express distaste for the show, speech and

music content combined, they do see the show as

fulfilling of a public service. Where younger audiences

feel positively about the music, and understood how the

speech content was relevant to them and it’s suitability

to the show. The main theme I’ve found under-running

this research seems to be along the lines of the older

audiences preference of formality in speech programming,

and their connecting of BBC Radio WM with this style of

broadcast, while the younger sample gave positive

feedback to the less formal approach to the speech and

pleasure at the music content. In this way it can be

said there is some element of truth to the proposition of

64

a theory of youth and amateurism vs. maturity (for want

of better wording) and formality and professionalism, and

this can be seen as a possible reasoning behind the lack

of youth engagement in local radio. I would, however,

like to expand the reach of this research to cover a

wider sample across all BBC local radio territories

carrying the BBC Introducing program, with a view to

discovering whether this theory can be applied

nationwide, especially in more musically associated

cities like Manchester and Bristol.

65

Bibliography

Adorno, T. (2004). A Social Critique of Music Radio. In:

Peters, J.D. and Simonson P. Mass communication and American

social thought: Key texts, 1919–1968. 2nd ed. Lanham: Rowman and

Littefield.

Ahlkvist J (2001) Programming philosophies and the

rationalization of music radio. Media, Culture & Society

23(3).

66

Albarran, A., Anderson, T., Bejar, L., Bussart, A.,

Daggett, E., Gibson, S., Gorman, M., Greer, D., Guo, M.,

Horst, J., Khalaf, T., Lay, J., McCracken, M., Mott, B.

and Way, H. (2007). “What Happened to our Audience?”

Radio and New Technology Uses and Gratifications Among

Young Adult Users. Journal of Radio Studies, 14(2).

Barnard, S. (2000). Studying radio. London: Arnold.

BBC, (2015). BBC Local Radio in England Policy 2010/2011 - Inside the

BBC. [online] Available at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/howwework/a

ccountability/statements2010/nationsandregions/

eng_regions.html [Last Accessed 11th April 2015].

BBC. (2012). Service Review BBC Local Radio. Available:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_

work/local_radio/local_radio.pdf. [Last Accessed 20th

April 2015].

BBC Trust, (2009). Service Review - Younger audiences: BBC Three,

Radio 1 and 1Xtra. [online] London: BBC Trust. Available at:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/regu

67

latory_framework/service_licences/service_reviews/yar/

yar_review.pdf [Last Accessed 1st April 2015].

Beaman, J. (2006). Programme Making for Radio. London:

Routledge.

Berland, J. (1990). Radio Space And Industrial Time:

Music Formats, Local Narratives And Technological

Mediation. Popular Music. 9 (2).

Chignell, H. (2009). Key Concepts in Radio Studies. London: SAGE

Publications.

Chignell, H. (2011). Public Issue Radio : Talks, News and Current

Affairs in the Twentieth Century. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Conradson, D. (2005). Focus groups. In: R. Flowerdew and

D. Martin, ed., Methods in human geography: A guide for students

doing a research project, 1st ed. Harlow: Pearson Prentice

Hall.

Cordeiro, P. (2012). Radio becoming r@dio: Convergence,

interactivity and broadcasting trends in

perspective. Participations Journal of Audience and Reception Studies.

9 (2).

68

Crisell, A. (2006). Understanding Radio. 2nd ed. London:

Routledge.

Department for Culture, Media and Sport, (2006). A public

service for all: the BBC in the digital age. [online] London:

Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/atta

chment_data/file/272256/6763.pdf [Last Accessed 18th

April 2015].

Dubber, A. (2013). Radio in the Digital Age. Cambridge: Polity

Press.

Echchaibi, N. (2011). Voicing Diasporas: Ethnic Radio in Paris and

Berlin Between Cultural Renewal and Retention. Plymouth: Lexington

Books. 

Elstein, D. (2013). How to Fund Public Service Content

in the Digital Age. In: T. Gardam and D. Levy, ed., The

Price of Plurality Choice, Diversity and Broadcasting Institutions in the Digital

Age. [online] Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of

Journalism. Available at:

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/broadcast/revie

69

ws-investigations/psb-review/psbplurality.pdf [Last

Accessed 8th April 2015].

Elstein, D. (2005). Public Service Broadcasting in the

Digital Age. Economic Affairs. 25 (4).

Fleming, C. (2009). The Radio Handbook. 3rd ed. London:

Routledge.

Ford-Hutchinson, S. and Rothwell, A. (2002). The public’s

perception of advertising in today’s society. [online] London: The

Advertising Standards Authority. Available at:

http://www.asa.org.uk/~/media/Files/ASA/Reports/ASA_Publi

c_Perception_of_Advertising_Feb_2002.ashx [Last Accessed

11th April 2015].

Garner, K. (1990). New gold dawn: the traditional English

breakfast show in 1989. Popular Music. 9 (2).

Garnham, N. (1983). Public Service Versus the Market. Screen. 24

(1).

Greenfield, T. A. (1989). Radio: A reference guide. New York:

Greenwood Press.

70

Hausman, C., Benoit, P. and O'Donnell, L. (2000). Modern

radio production. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Hendy, D (2000a). Radio in the Global Age. Cambridge: Polity

Press.

Hendy, D. (2000b). Pop music radio in the public service:

BBC Radio 1 and new music in the 1990s. Media, Culture &

Society. 22 (6).

Hirsch, P.M.. (1990). Processing Fads and Fashions: An

Organisation-Set Analysis of Cultural Industry Systems.

In: Frith, S. and Goodwin, A. On Record: Rock, pop, the written

word. New York: Pantheon Books.

Human Capital, (2008). Public Service Broadcasting Now and in the

Future - Audience Attitudes. [online] London: Human Capital.

Available at:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/howwe

work/reports/pdf/now_future.pdf [Last Accessed 24th March

2015].

Keith, M.C. (2004). The Radio Station. 6th ed. Massachusetts:

Focal Press.

71

Krueger, R. A. 1988. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied

research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Lewis, P.M. and Booth, J. (1989). The Invisible Medium: Public,

Commercial and Community Radio. Basingstoke: Macmillan

Education.

Liamputtong, P. (2011). Focus group methodology. London:

SAGE.

Llewellyn, S. and Walker, S. (2003). A career handbook for TV,

radio, film, video & interactive media. London: A & C Black.

Long, P. (2006). The primary code: The meanings of John

Peel, radio and popular music. The Radio Journal – International

Studies in Broadcast and Audio Media. 4 (1, 2 and 3).

Lunt, P. and Livingstone, S. (1996).  Rethinking the

focus group in media and communications research.  Journal

of Communication, 46(2).

McCourt, T. and Rothenbuhler, E. (2004). Burnishing the

brand: Todd Storz and the total station sound. Radio

Journal: International Studies in Broadcast and Audio Media, 2(1).

72

McWhinnie, D. (1959). The art of radio. London: Faber and

Faber.

Merton, R.K. and Kendall, P.L.. (1946). The Focused

Interview. The American Journal of Sociology. 51 (6).

Merton, R.K., Fiske, M. and Kendall, P.L. (2008). The

Focused Interview. London: Simon and Schuster.

Mullin, R. (1996). Free-Form In The Mainstream. The Journal

of Business Strategy. 17 (4).

Mytton, G. (1992). Handbook on Radio And Television Audience

Research. [online] London: BBC World Service. Available

at:

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001242/124231Eo.pdf

[Last Accessed 15 April 2015].

O'Donnell, L. M., Hausman, C., Benoit, P. (1989) Radio

station operations: Management and employee perspectives. Belmont:

Wadsworth.

Ofcom. (2004). The iPod Generation: Devices and Desires of the Next

Generation of Radio Listeners. Available:

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/radio-

research/ipod.pdf. [Last Accessed 13th Feb 2015].

73

Ofcom. (2008). The Communications Market 2008. Available:

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cm

r08_2.pdf. [Last Accessed 13th Feb 2015].

O'Malley, T. (2001). The decline of public service

broadcasting in the UK 1979-2000. In: Bromley, M. and

Stephenson, H. No News is Bad News: Radio, Television and the Public:

Television, Radio and the Public. London: Routledge.

OMNI, (2015). Toolkit for Conducting Focus Groups. [online]

Available at: http://Toolkit for Conducting Focus Groups

[Last Accessed 23 Apr. 2015].

Perebinossoff, P., Gross, B., Gross, L. and Vane, E.

(2005). Programming for TV, radio, and the Internet.

Amsterdam: Focal Press. pp 6-8.

Radio Advertising Bureau. (2007). Radio and the Digital

Native.Available:

http://alpha.buynowmedia.com/research/DigitalNativePDF.pd

f. [Last Accessed 13th Feb 2015].

RAJAR. (2015). Sampling and fieldwork. Available:

http://www.rajar.co.uk/content.php?

74

page=about_process_sampling. [Last Accessed 13th Feb

2015].

Ruddock, A. (2001). Understanding audiences. London: SAGE.

Scannell, P. and Cardiff, D. (1991). A Social History of British

Broadcasting: 1922-39 - Serving the Nation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley

& Sons.

Scannell, P. (1990). Public service broadcasting: the

history of a concept. In: Goodwin, A. and Whannel, G.

Understanding Television. London: Routledge.

Select Committee on Communications, (2009). Public service

broadcasting: short-term crisis, long-term future?. [online] London:

House of Lords, p.20. Available at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselec

t/ldcomuni/61/61.pdf [Last Accessed 7th April 2015].

Shingler, M and Wieringa, C, (1998). Radio time-line:

history at a glance. In: Shingler, M and Wieringa, C. On-

Air: Methods and Meanings of Radio. London: Arnold.

Starkey, G (2004). Radio In Context. London: Palgrave

Macmillan. pp 89-92.

75

Stiernstedt, F. (2008). Maximizing the power of

entertainment: The audience commodity in contemporary

radio. Radio Journal: International Studies in Broadcast

and Audio Media. 6 (2-3).

Tambini, D. (2004). The passing of paternalism: public

service television and increasing channel choice. In: D.

Tambini and J. Cowling. From Public Service Broadcasting to Public

Service Communications, 1st ed. London: Institute for Public

Policy Research.

Tongue, C. (2003). The future of public service

television in a multi-channel digital age, Committee on

Culture, Youth, Education and the Media . In: Price, M.E.

and Raboy, M Public Sertvice Broadcasting in Transition: A Documentary

Reader. Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.

Toynbee, J. and Vis, F. (2010). World music at the BBC

World Service, 1942-2008: public diplomacy,

cosmopolitanism, contradiction. Media, Culture and

Society. 32 (4).

Tracey, M. (1998). Decline and Fall of Public Service Broadcasting.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

76

Walsh, G., Mitchell, V., Frenzel, T. and Wiedmann, K.

(2003). Internet‐induced changes in consumer music

procurement behavior: a German perspective. Marketing

Intelligence & Planning, 21(5).

Wilby, P. Conroy, A. (1994) The Radio Handbook. London:

Routledge.

77

Appendix 1:

Focus Group #1 Summary

Respondents:

Sam Cowen

Gregory Edwards

Diana Gangan

Sean Heeley

Charlotte Hooper

Huma Mian

Angela Szuts

Poli Vodenicharova

Ross Watson

Summary:

Initially there is a marked divide in the listening

group, with the female respondents physically distancing

themselves from the males, sitting on opposite sides of

the room. While the male contingent asked questions

about the focus groups aims and what to expect, the

females were very quiet and only spoke amongst

themselves.

78

The first part of the focus group session involved

listening to a snapshot of the programme BBC Introducing

during this listening section of the focus group, there

was another marked gender difference, the males were

discussing the music and presenters whilst the female

respondents listened intently and hardly spoke throughout

the recording.

The group showed mainly a music-based listenership

amongst younger audiences, with the male respondents

having a speech-based listening culture mainly

surrounding sports programming. Two of the male

respondents, Sam and Gregory, also noted that they listen

to a lot of speech-based podcasts.

Two of the female respondents, Huma and Charlotte, agreed

that listening to music radio in the car took away the

need for them to think about what to listen to. They

also discussed that playing the radio took away the risk

of being judged by the music they listen to by those they

are travelling with, agreeing that the radio would be

more likely to please all. Charlotte disclosed that she

is even judged by friends and others by her choice of

79

radio station (BBC Radio 6music). Both generally listen

to Radio 1 as a “please-all” medium.

This led to a discussion on listening practices, with all

of the participants listening via smartphones or car

radios while commuting as their predominant listening

practice. Some members of the group listened to the

radio at home, with DAB, however through digital TV or

the internet was the dominant provider for at-home

listening. Two members also discussed radio listening as

a family, commenting specifically about local sports

coverage, and admitted that the family would talk

throughout the listening and discuss various things both

involved with and not involved with what they were

listening to. The same participant also added that the

radio would “always be on” in the mornings at the family

home as various members of the family drive and it

provided regular traffic and travel updates that advised

them. Literally none of the group regularly consumed

radio through an FM receiver.

All but one of the respondents admitted that they did not

listen to BBC Radio WM habitually (where I classified

80

habitual listening as for one or more hours, up to three

times a week), with Huma mentioning that the only time

she listened to the station was when her Father had it on

“listening to sports”. Sam and Ross agreed with this,

mentioning they only ever listened to sports coverage on

the station. Sam went on to state that he was going to

listen to the programme in future as he enjoyed the

segment played for the purposes of the focus group and

had heard music he was interested in hearing more of.

Ross, Charlotte, Huma and Sean agreed with this.

All of the respondents agreed that they enjoyed the music

content, with Charlotte noting an added pleasure came

from knowing that the acts were “from just down the road”, and

also highlighted a marked “local sound” to the acts. Huma

added to this that yet more pleasure was taken from being

the first in a group of friends to hear this acts and to

subsequently introduce friends to them, but disagreed

that the acts sounded local, stating that if she heard

this music on a national station, she would not question

it’s position and simply identify it as “a good band I’m yet to

have heard.” As do Sam and Ross, both finding the music of a

81

good quality. Feeling that all the acts were good enough

for a national audience. Charlotte adds that the

majority of acts would fit “perfectly” into the 6music

schedule.

There was a mixed response to the speech content among

the group, Huma felt that the local interest of the show

was apparent and pleasing, the presenters were always

steering conversation back to the music. Charlotte liked

the fact that when the presenters did speak, it was “all

about the music” and felt the presenters fulfilled their

role here. Diana disagreed with this point, noting that

the conversation was forced and “chit-chatty”, not enough

about the music and the artists as you would expect from

a program showcasing up and coming talent, she also added

that the conversation focused too much on trivial matters

that the audience would not likely be interested in as

the artists were unknown, whereas with established

artists people would be more invested into the “celebrity

culture” around that artist. Felt a more keen focus on the

artists and music was required. The male respondents

generally agreed upon this view, while Sam and Poli noted

82

that the speech content seemed tailored to a younger

audience through the style and language used. Ross made

the point that the presenters sounded young, and felt

this was strange for a station that was seeking an older

target audience, adding that you can “judge a station’s target

audience by the presenters, usually”. Sam adds that the speech

content was “really odd” and consisting of “really bad small talk”,

surmising that this style of speech was “very typical of local

radio.” Sean comments that the speech seemed ill prepared,

and overly enthusiastic to the point that it sounded

fake, which Greg agreed with, adding that it felt “forced”.

Poli felt strongly about the speech content, taking the

view that the overly laid-back and offhand style was

treating the artists with disrespect by not taking them

seriously. While Angela agreed, especially on the part

of the male presenter, finding the female presenter to be

under utilised and highlighted that she may have been

taking on a speaking producer role due her taking a back

seat within the links. All agreed that the show would

work better if the presenters swapped roles, with the

female leading and the male taking a lessened role.

83

However, Sam highlighted that the female presenter may be

“just as waffley”, and that the role reversal may not improve

the spoken parts.

Poli felt that the presenters did not make a strong

connection with the audience, highlighting that the music

“made the connection to the audience, as it was what they wanted to hear.”

and the group generally agreed with this but felt that

the use of social media was well appointed within spoken

segments. Angela highlighted that this, again, was an

indicator of a younger audience. Huma felt the show had

a “good balance” of social media interaction, not “plugging the

avenues too much”. Charlotte questioned the need for

audience interaction and highlighted that the niche

audience for the show would be interested without

constant interaction with the show and presenters.

Charlotte adds that on a breakfast show the music would

be “skimmed over” and secondary to the presenter, and found

this shows approach refreshing, Huma agreed with this and

that social media interaction “didn’t really fit the show”. All

the respondents agreed that the music should be the main

focal point of the show and audience interaction. Sam

84

also felt that more could have been done to aid audience

interaction with the artists themselves, through pointing

the audience to online music sites like Soundcloud and

social media pages for the artists, enabling the audience

to “follow up on their interests”.

Sam and Poli bring up a strong emphasis on location and

public service within the program, with Sam noting that

the presenters sounded local but “not too local”, meaning

that he accents weren’t that strong while noticeable.

Poli also mentioned that through the link content and

station branding, the public service ethos was apparent,

stating that:

“The presenters regularly speak about the area and the audience. They said things like ‘you’ll love this band’ and things like that. And the station ads say ‘radio for Birmingham and the Black Country’ and ‘the voice of Birmingham’ which shows their obligations to the audience. I think it’s important for big companies like the BBC to support smaller singers as well as the big ones, because they’re funded by the public.”

Huma agreed with this, but highlighted that if the

sweepers were taken out it would be harder to pinpoint as

local to Birmingham. Sam doubted the value of the format

to audiences with a vested interest in local scenes,

stating:

85

“The shows of more value to the artists, really, to give them airtime…people who want to hear local and unsigned artists generally go out and participate in the scenes they are interested in, or they go online. And as gigsgenerally occur on weekends, when the show airs, it’s a bit poorly planned really.”

This point was met with widespread approval among

the group, with everyone agreeing that they found out

about new artists through online sites, rather than from

the radio. I then guided the group towards a discussion

of the future of BBC Introducing and any shows similar,

bearing in mind that so much is available online. Sam

pointed out that the show would “probably go on regardless” as

it fulfills the BBC’s aims of public service in the local

community, but also said:

“beyond the bands, their friends and a handful of die-hard fans of the show, the show probably has a really small listenership like most local and community radio, apart from the networks like Free and Heart”.

Some members of the group, voicing that because the show

was produced by the BBC, and on a BBC station, it

inherently held an association of quality programming,

rejected this idea. One respondent stated that the BBC’s

reputation across the world for quality programming:

“Pretty much guaranteed audiences tuning in, even the recent news stories surrounding Jimmy Saville (and others) has not really made a dent in their reputation or stopped people watching or listening. And if people are

86

out on the day of the show they can use the iPlayer online or their phones-that would be most younger peoples preferred listening method anyway.”

Charlotte felt that location was irrelevant and that the

music itself was the important factor, stating: “the speech

is unimportant really, except for providing information on the acts” but

that the sound of the show was indicative of a local

radio format. Charlotte also compared the premise of the

program to that of late BBC Radio 1 DJ John Peel’s own

show, which showcased new artists, intermingled with

recognised acts. This point was generally agreed upon,

with everyone expressing the unimportance of location

over the music itself. On being told that the program

format was rolled out across the BBC local radio network,

all of the students expressed interest in looking into

the non midlands-based versions of the show, with

Charlotte dubbing the practice “musical tourism”.

Sam commented that the show was well structured and it

was noticeable that he music was arranged with genre in

mind, with similar genres used in close proximity to give

a more aesthetically pleasing transition, stating:

87

“I’m not sure the audience want to hear a punk song followed by some Britney Spears inspired pop or RnB, it just wouldn’t sound right because they’re too different.”

Sam also felt that the show could introduce established

bands, similar to the local artists being played like a

“if you like these, then try these” fashion, much like online music

subscription services Spotify and Deezer. This would act

as a remedy to needing a link in between every song to

explain who the artists were, due to them being widely

unknown. Sean said that there was a noticeable “link, song,

link, song” pattern that could be improved upon, and sounded

“amateurish”. Sam added that even without utilising

established acts that more songs were needed in between

links, stating that:

“Also, the links don’t always need to explain the music, if the audience like the song they’ll like the song whether they know the artist or not, and thismay increase audiences getting involved.”

Charlotte, however, had this opinion of the show’s

format:

“It seems quite freeform, really. The links don’t seem in any waytimed or uniform, and the nature of the conversation is erratic at times, discussing the music one minute and the bands living arrangements the next,in the interview. It seemed like they had a lot of freedom in making and presenting the show.”

88

Huma agreed with this, but highlighted that her knowledge

of the radio industry meant she knew that there would be

an underlying structure to the show, saying:

“I think it was uniform in the way that all radio has to be uniform, as a time-sensitive medium, but I think it’s the presenters that allow it to be a bit more free.”

Sam also agreed with Charlotte’s suggestion comparing the

format to a freeform one, but returning back to

discussing the hosts, felt that they let down the format

and, consequently, the show, adding:

“It needs either someone with charisma, and well prepared; or a John Peel, like Charlotte said, who just knew and loved everything about the music he played.”

A number of the group agreed with Sam’s point regarding

the presenters, particularly the male one, who performed

most of the spoken links throughout the segment.

Huma recognised that he show represented her as an

audience member well, through their selection of music

and the spoken content, but added that her Father (who

she would normally listen to Radio WM with) would not

listen to this show. Sam and Ross also both commented

that while they usually listen to WM for the sport, they

would not identify this show as of the same schedule,

89

thinking it “doesn’t suit” the station’s regular programming.

With this in mind they identify themselves as represented

as audience members by this programming and through the

sports-based programming, in the case of BBC Introducing,

particularly through the links, as they could recognise

the presenters as “roughly our age”, with Sam adding:

“They don’t talk like newsreaders, like most of the presenters on a speech station would. It’s informal and laid-back, and they don’t overdo the slang in a way that seems try hard. For instance, saying gig, most of the Radio WM listeners, I don’t think, would refer to a concert as a gig, they’d just say concert. But they don’t go over-the-top by calling the tracks sick, or whatever young people say”

The whole of the group agreed that the spoken content

was appropriate to a younger audience, with various

members citing the “informal” (Diana), “conversational”

(Gregory) and “laid-back” (Ross). Huma points out that this

show is especially well-placed at WM due to its “community

benefitting” properties being in line with the public

service remit of the BBC, stating:

“The remit of the BBC, and BBC Local Radio, is to inform, educate and entertain…I feel that the content within BBC Introducing informs and educates on local music culture through both the music and spoken content, while the music entertains the audience.”

Charlotte, Angela and Poli agreed with this

statement. Gregory said he felt the show partly

90

represented him as an audience member, but felt a need

for more niche music genres rather than just local bands

playing “the same music styles that are played by the big bands and

artists.”

Appendix 2

Focus Group #2 Summary

Respondents:

Sally McFall

Sean McFall

Geraldine Peacock

Colette Spilsbury

Dave Spilsbury

Summary:

There was no marked gender divide as with the younger

respondents in focus group #1. The group was also

chatting amongst themselves about radio and what they

listen to, why, and comparing notes on certain

91

shows/presenters. Radio 2 seemed to be the popular

choice of station amongst he group, but I also heard

mention of many other stations including WM, community

radio and a number of commercial stations.

Throughout the listening session the group remained

focused but chatted amongst themselves about what they

were listening to, primarily through the music content.

When asked about their radio consumption practices, the

group was gender divided. The males both agreed that

they primarily listened to speech-based radio, but did

listen to music radio while driving, Dave stated:

“I listen to music radio in the car as I normally have the wife with me or the kids or a work mate, or whatever. I can’t really listen properly,so I just put Radio 2 on. If I’m alone in the car I’ll listen to WM or 5Live. But at home, its always WM or 5Live, sometimes Radio 4, but always speech.”

Sean, who stated that the same was true of him while

driving, agreed this. The ladies were in agreement that

they mostly listened to Heart or Radio 2, usually

dependent on the programme at the time as they felt the

presenters were the main reason for their listening.

When pressed about this Colette stated that:

92

“I’ll listen to Chris Evans on breakfast, but I don’t like Ken Bruce or Jeremy Vines shows.”

And based this on the style of the presenters and some of

the features and guests that appeared. Of the female

sample, only one member listened to Radio WM habitually

(where I classified habitual listening as for one or more

hours, up to three times a week), but all said that they

tuned in at least once a week. None of the group, male

or female, had ever listened to or heard of the BBC

Introducing show. Sean stated that his reasons for

listening to speech radio was that he found it more

interesting, and he liked to hear regular news updates,

especially sports related news. This was agreed by Dave,

and then Geraldine stated that she too liked to hear

regular news bulletins, stating:

“I like to be kept up to date with news, especially traffic and travel because I can plan my routes better on the way home.”

To which all but one of the group, Sally, a non-driver,

agreed that this was another important factor in their

listening practice. None of the group had ever listening

to podcasts or used on-demand listening services. The

group all listened to radio through FM or DAB receivers,

93

exclusively, with one additionally listening through

their TV satellite service, and none of the group members

had radio apps on their smartphones or other devices.

This discussion about how the respondents listened to

radio led on to my asking the circumstances under which

they listen. Of the group, only the males, whilst

listening to sports programming, described themselves as

intently listening to what was being broadcast, instead

going about their daily chores or work whilst listening,

as Dave puts it:

“I’m only really listening when the cricket or thefootball’s on, sometimes not even then if I’m cooking or cleaning up or at work. The rest of the time it’s just on in the background. I might catch something here and there, and listen to that, like a certain news story or song, but mostof the time its just background noise, especiallyin the office.”

All of the respondents agreed with Dave’s suggestion of

tuning in and out, meaning actively and passively

listening, when items of interest caught their ear.

There was a mixed response among the group regarding the

music content, but the entire group agreed that it did

feel tailored to a younger audience. The discussion

94

about the music content centered mainly on the rockier

elements, which all but one member, Colette, enjoyed.

Colette stated that:

“All the music was ok, but I think it was obviousthat they were local and unsigned bands, except for the jazzy ones, they were good.”

To which Dave disagreed, instead feeling that the music

was poor, but not obviously unsigned, stating:

“It just sounds like the racket kids listen to thesedays, to be honest, it all sounds the same to me.”

The discussion then moved to the local localness of the

artists, to which all but one of the group agreed with

Dave’s point. The group in general did not feel that the

music was obviously by unsigned artists, and there was

little mention of it in the links. Another talking point

came about after Sean observed that:

“The bands weren’t obviously local either, if I didn’t know from being told I don’t think I’d have noticed.”

And the group agreed with this point mostly. All agreed

that they would not regularly listen to this show now

that hey knew about it, or the music played within it.

95

When discussion came around to the speech content, the

presenters and their connection to the audience, Dave

stated that he link content was “banal, a bit up itself” and that

the presenters “took themselves a bit too seriously” which I found

surprising after hearing the younger groups views. Dave

also aired the view that he presenters, especially the

male one, were “dispassionate” about the content,

“uncharismatic and scripted” was Colette’s point on the matter,

and this seemed to be the dominant opinion. However,

Geraldine stated that the presenters:

“...clearly showed interest by knowing that members of the group lived together, but the interview especially seemed awkward.”

This turned the discussion to the interview, and

specifically the style and structure through which it was

conducted, with Colette adding that:

“The questions were a bit predictable, they should do something different to make it more interesting and fun. You can tell that it’s scripted I think. But it was good for the show, they asked about the band and the usual stuff how they formed and it’s just obvious. But the question about the living arrangements was quite good because you could tell the band didn’t see it coming”

96

Sean agreed with this, saying “it could be better done, more

improvised” to which Dave and Geraldine agreed with. When

asked outright all of the respondents answered yes when

questioned if the show sounded scripted for the most

part.

Another member of the group, Sally, also felt that a lack

of professional charisma was apparent, but that this was

in keeping with a local radio show, especially one with

the format of “BBC Introducing…” stating:

“I think you can tell this is a show helmed by young people, made entirely by them and for a young audience, so no, I don’t feel any connection to it at all at my age. Dermot O’Leary would be good on this sort of show as he likes his music, from listening to his Saturday show, but these presenters are just boring, its obvious they’re amateurs, young kids probably just starting out in their careers. It takes a long time to master any trade so I’m sure they’ll improve, especially in a BBC environment”

To which the group agreed that they too did not feel any

connection to the show or that their interests were

represented. Colette and Dave stated together that their

son would “really like this show”, as he attended a lot of gigs

and music nights and liked local bands, even having

97

friends in some. To this the entire group agreed that

their sons and daughters would “most likely” (as

Geraldine stated) listen to this sort of show. Dave

added that he “switched off” during the sustained periods of

link material, including the interview, as it sounded “not

at all interesting”.

Next I questioned the group about their feelings on the

localness of the show, and how it sounded to them in this

context. Dave started the discussion off by stating that

the show was “not obviously a local one, if you take away the WM adverts”

(meaning sweepers and idents). Everyone agreed with

this, and felt that the accents didn’t obviously sound

like Midlander’s. Sean stated:

“That’s the way with the BBC though isn’t it? They always get a neutral sounding voice; you’dnever hear a proper Brummie on Midlands Today would you? And I think it’s the same across the whole BBC, I don’t think the London version of WM would be all cockney’s”

Colette agreed with this, saying that she likes listening

to community radio, as that is “obviously local” and the

content is also. However she also felt that he music was

quite local sounding:

98

“Not by the accents, it just sounds like a local pub band or someone you’d see at the social club on the weekend. Good music but not going to top the charts really is it?”

After this I questioned the group about the structure of

the show. The group was generally in agreement that the

show was structured through scripting, but Dave noted

that the show was:

”Probably scripted all the way through, or the presenters were just bad at their job”

When I pressed the issue by highlighting the structure as

the way the spoken and music elements were combined

Colette felt that there was too much speech involved, but

recognised the need for it with the format of the show:

“It’s quite annoying, because the show is very stop-start, it doesn’t go like a normal radio show would. There should be less speech and more music, but the presenters need to discuss the bands and so on so it’s needed isn’t it”

The rest of the respondents tended to agree with this

statement, while Geraldine stated that “they ramble on too

much, they should just get to the point.” to which the group agreed.

At this point I asked the group to discuss their

previously agreed statement that he show sounded scripted

and the conflicting assertion that the presenters “ramble

99

on too much”, if they are following a script, then how is

this possible? Dave answered that the script was

probably followed with some “artistic license, not word for word” to

which Sean added “but the presenters don’t have the experience of a

Chris Evans or someone like that”. The entire group, when asked,

felt that the show did not represent them or their values

in any way, Dave added:

“I can see why it’s important for the BBC, but John Peel used to do this on Radio 1 for a long time, and he had a cult following, he could have played on any station because he was that knowledgeable about his music. Kids don’tlisten to WM and clearly nobody here is interested. So you say it’s for a over 50’s audience, WM, so they should put this on Radio1, where the kids will listen and be interested. But, saying that, I think it’s probably a good place for young people to start their career, at WM, so the BBC is helping people like that. Theonly problem is that probably hardly anyone’s listening!”

When pressed by myself as to whether he felt that John

Peel was authentic in his quality as a radio and music

practitioner he replied:

“Yes. Definitely. The epitome of. Infinitely more so than the ‘Smashy and Niceys’ that wereon Radio 1 at the time”

These statements led to a discussion among the group

about the benefit of the show to the public, which was

100

unanimously agreed upon as positive in light of the fact

of BBC’s funding coming from the license fee. However,

all agreed that it’s broadcasting on WM was not well

placed and agreed with Dave’s statement regarding Radio

1’s history of delivering popular new music.

101