Radio 1 to be sold off under Conservatives?

scorza

scorza

scorza

Caporegime
Joined
22 Jun 2004
Posts
26,684
Location
Deep England
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article6736143.ece

THE Tory shadow broadcasting minister has proposed that the BBC should be forced to sell Radio 1 and has threatened to freeze the licence fee.

...

Vaizey, the party’s spokesman on media and arts, said he wanted to see Radio 1’s licence put up for auction.
Related Links

He said the corporation was even more dominant than its commercial rivals in radio compared with television, pointing to the fact that it held four out of five national FM licences. The only exception is Classic FM.

“There is an unfair disparity,” said Vaizey in an interview with The Sunday Times. The sale of Radio 1 would help to alleviate the imbalance. Industry experts believe the station’s frequency could be worth at least £100m.

Vaizey also believes the station is failing to reach young listeners. “Radio 1 is not fulfilling its obligation to its audience,” he said. “Its median age is those in their thirties when it should aim much more at teenagers and [those in] their twenties. There is then a good argument for the BBC to be rid of Radio 1 and give the commercial sector a chance to use the frequency.”
Click to expand...

Doesn't bother me, as I ceased being a Radio 1 listener a long time ago. Those that do listen, how will this affect your listening habits? With the ad breaks and presumably they'll lose their highly paid "stars" like Chris Moyles.
 
I only listen to Radio 1 as it plays music I generally like and that doesn't have adverts.

I think he's missing the point, young people today are more likely to use the internet/iPods for music listening, so forcing Radio 1 to target these people will achieve nothing other than alienating its existing listener base.
 
What they should actually do is cut the salaries of top stars and top management and then plunge the money into making a majority of decent programmes, unlike the rare few it does currently.
 
Jokester said:
I only listen to Radio 1 as it plays music I generally like and that doesn't have adverts.

I think he's missing the point, young people today are more likely to use the internet/iPods for music listening, so forcing Radio 1 to target these people will achieve nothing other than alienating its existing listener base.
Click to expand...

Same here. I listen BBC Newcastle, but thats only decent then Paddy McDee is on. Local radio is carp. Metro FM? Full of adverts and repeats the same 'hits' over and over. Century (Sorry, REAL!) appeals to the older generation and plays the same songs. Same goes for most local radio.
 
oldbag said:
What they should actually do is cut the salaries of top stars and top management and then plunge the money into making a majority of decent programmes, unlike the rare few it does currently.
Click to expand...

And how do you do that when you've just got rid of the people capble of doing that? People dont work for free. I can't stand Radio 1, but it works for millions of other people so it's doing something right.
 
I didn't say they should work for free, however in the current climate I can't help but think that the current pay is excessive.
 
oldbag said:
I didn't say they should work for free, however in the current climate I can't help but think that the current pay is excessive.
Click to expand...

That's just how life works - people are good at something so company's pay you money so you work for them instead of going elsewhere, however much that is depends on the market rate, you may see this as rather excessive but as we don't live in a socialist state your views have no impact.
 
Is this the same Tory shadow minister who decided that the BBC should stick to purely PSB/educational stuff to keep the licence fee down, then realised that
A: It would only save about £6 a year
B: Would mean losing such things as Doctor Who, TopGear etc that are hugely popular? (and actually tend to help pay for the pure PSB content with overseas sales etc).


It's another one of the Torries poorly thought out schemes intended to get them some newspaper headlines without them actually having to do anything (maybe not so poorly thought out....).
Radio 1 currently caters to a generally younger audience who still listen to the radio, and actually like a little more variety than the top 20, or hits from the 80's played constantly, and some actual real, DJ's and music related (IE guests) rather than what appears to be an Ipod playing the same tracks over, and over and over again, with the occassional "DJ" whose primary job is to say "you're listning to XYZ the hot FM" every few minutes.

I don't listen to much music radio, but even I get sick of the commercial stations round here, which always seem to have the same tracks playing all the time (yes Radio 1 can be pretty bad for samey music, but at least it does vary more than once a year:p).
 
The saviour of radio one...moyles, he would be lost without his crew in the studio with him, the only good thing about him is he is a mighty Leeds supporter. I listen to heart fm in the car but gave up on radio one a long time ago.
 
Muffin` said:
That's just how life works - people are good at something so company's pay you money so you work for them instead of going elsewhere, however much that is depends on the market rate, you may see this as rather excessive but as we don't live in a socialist state your views have no impact.
Click to expand...

Not really, otherwise no one would ever change jobs would they?

You don't consider that Ross and Moyles are overpaid then?

As far as my views are concerned I don't consider them as having no impact or that they are mine alone.
 
My problem with Radio 1.

Chris moyles.

It was 25 minutes or so on friday before there was a tune on his show, and for that 25 minutes it was the same jokes and mikey taking out of the campmeister John Barrowman and his songs that they have been doing for the past 2 weeks.

If selling off radio one meant the end of this grotesque waste of oxygen, I'd be more than happy.
 
Last edited:
oldbag said:
Not really, otherwise no one would ever change jobs would they?

You don't consider that Ross and Moyles are overpaid then?

As far as my views are concerned I don't consider them as having no impact or that they are mine alone.
Click to expand...

Two little things to remember when people talk about how much they are paid

1: IIRC the BBC doesn't publish the actual pay figures for most of it's "stars" (for commercial and confidentiality reasons) - so it's usually guess work.

2: At least in the case of Ross, the figure paid to him is actually paid to his production company for all the work they do for the BBC, and it's his production company who pay him out of that money - so the common media quoted figures of 6 million a year would in reality be for dozens of hours of TV, and potentially hundreds of hours of Radio content his company has produced for the BBC* (so the BBC are paying for the content, his company has to pay not just his wages but all the costs associated with providing the content, including paying the BBC for use of studios/equipment etc ;) ).

2A: The media sometimes (i'm not saying they do this deliberately) include additional fees that the "star" might be legally entitled to for producing things like jingles (where unless the BBC pays a lot of additional money upfront, the people involved will get additional payments under musical rights agreements as they'll retain the rights to the jingles etc).



*which works out quite cheap really, given that about the cheapest TV content is 50k+ an hour from what i've read.
 
Werewolf said:
Two little things to remember when people talk about how much they are paid

1: IIRC the BBC doesn't publish the actual pay figures for most of it's "stars" (for commercial and confidentiality reasons) - so it's usually guess work.

2: At least in the case of Ross, the figure paid to him is actually paid to his production company for all the work they do for the BBC, and it's his production company who pay him out of that money - so the common media quoted figures of 6 million a year would in reality be for dozens of hours of TV, and potentially hundreds of hours of Radio content his company has produced for the BBC* (so the BBC are paying for the content, his company has to pay not just his wages but all the costs associated with providing the content, including paying the BBC for use of studios/equipment etc ;) ).

2A: The media sometimes (i'm not saying they do this deliberately) include additional fees that the "star" might be legally entitled to for producing things like jingles (where unless the BBC pays a lot of additional money upfront, the people involved will get additional payments under musical rights agreements as they'll retain the rights to the jingles etc).



*which works out quite cheap really, given that about the cheapest TV content is 50k+ an hour from what i've read.
Click to expand...

Cheers for the info. :) Must resist reading the mail when someone leaves it in the canteen. :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom