Why the BBC must focus on quality content

It's not just about how much money goes into content; it's about what that money is spent on. It is only worth paying a compulsory tax if that money is spent on distinctive, valuable programming.



So why on earth is 6music - which costs only 9 million a year - being closed down when BBC3 - with its pointless makeover and celebrity-led tripe costing 115 million - being spared?



And why won't the BBC release all the information which justifies the closure of 6music? The Strategy Review said that 6music wasn't value for money but provides no evidence or justification for that view. And now the BBC is trying to block Freedom of Information requests which have asked for that evidence and justification.



The BBC pretends to be accountable, open and transparent to licence fee payers but when the latter make perfectly reasonable requests for information on how their money is being spent the overpaid BBC executives scuttle around and try to hide it. It is an utter disgrace.

Like the comments above, I want to ask about the closure of Radio 6. This is the section of the BBC that I value most, for its high quality of presenters and commitment to broadcasting both new music and maintaining the amazing archives held by the BBC. It is the primary reason why I pay my licence fee and have invested in digital commitment. If this radio station is removed, it will break my longstanding belief in the values and standards of the BBC and send me to my computer to use websites to find new music. I probably will no longer pay a licence fee as there is no radio station that can replace Radio 6 and I have stopped watching television - to make the most of Radio 6 - and find I am not missing it in the slightest. Perhaps if the BBC was to retain Radio 6 and actually put some good programmes on stations such as BB3, then I would change my mind.

Sorry, your actions in even proposing closing two hugely regarded niche radio stations to maintain ‘quality’ is absurd. Your words say one thing, your actions another. Proposing closing The Asian Network and 6Music, high quality output that simply cannot be replicated in the commercial arena or ‘massaged’ into other BBC radio schedules, indicates that the BBC is engaging on a policy of self harm that will have unfortunate consequences. Like it or not the audience for those stations consists of mature, erudite licence payers and flag wavers for the BBC model. If this crazy scheme goes through you will lose some of your staunchest defenders.

How on earth you can spout this nonsense, knowing full well you are depriving large segments of the listening public of any access to in-depth quality specialist music coverage merely to sustain essentially worthless TV output like ‘Hotter Than My Daughter’ on BBC3, beggars belief. Who do you think you are appeasing here? The commercial sector aren’t interested in producing output that matches the threatened stations, the sum saved is miniscule, and the arguments used by Thompson et al for closure are puerile in the extreme (the 4000 unchecked, unverified ‘unique’ listeners quote was the most hilarious by the way).

I can think of no better example of Orwellian doublespeak than producing a review entitled "Putting Quality First" which proposes the closure of the BBC's only high quality national contemporary music station. As Steve Orchard of Quidem has acknowledged, "commercial radio can never replicate 6 Music's cultural value". The commercial sector can and does provide the kind of mainstream programming found on Radio 1 and Radio 2 however. And if you want to take your axe to BBC3 I'm sure there's a commercial cable channel somewhere which would take over high quality programs such as "Snog Marry Avoid" and "Young Butcher Of The Year".

"Putting Quality First" sounds very noble, and it's hard to argue against that as an aim. But how can we trust decsion makers who deem that a quality and dinstinctive music station such as 6 Music to be inferior on this scale to the output of BBC3. I have no axe to grind against BBC3, but given it's huge budget in relation to 6 Music, it sticks out like a sore thumb.



I have yet to see any coherent argument from the BBC that has shown that 6 Music isn't delivering on the "Quality" scale. The fact that is has been nomimated for numerous Sony awards again today would be another positive example of this.



6 Music has an international reputation for quality. The music industry acknowledges this. Respected artists and musicians acknowledge this. People all over the world still look to the BBC and the UK for music quality – so please listen to them and save 6 Music!

"must focus on its mission to provide quality British programmes that inform, educate and entertain. And in delivering our mission, we not only serve the public and help maintain the standards which are an essential part of British broadcasting, we support the creative industry as a whole"



Completely agree so why oh why get rid of the most creative radio station you have? 6 music is unique and unlike R1 R2 does not compete with the commercial stations which would never replicate its formula. Get rid of R1 which is exactly the smae as the commercial stations or even more sensible 1 extra BUT KEEP 6 MUSIC AS IT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE BBC DOES BEST!!!



Tim Brooks [Personal details removed by Moderator]

As a licence payer for some 30 years I fail to understand how a commitment to Put Quality First squares with the decision to close BBC 6 Music.

It's vital that the BBC justifies its decisions to close 6music. The strategy review does not do that. Hence the only way to force them to release it will be to use the link below to ask the BBC to release under FOI all information and correspondence relating to the proposed decision to close 6music.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/requesting_information

Inspector Morse and Life on Earth? Both ancient and smusingly House of Lord's friendly examples of Quality. But really? Is that the best you can do?



90% of funding going on content has to be celebrated, but nobody has yet explained to me what 'putting quality first' actually means. Now. Today.



You're not building confidence by very publicly threatening to close two acclaimed (quality) niche radio stations while still committing to copying ITV2 on terrestrial TV.



I look forward to a clear vision, that is evident in the choices you make rather than the contradictory state of affairs we have at the moment.

Your stated aim of "putting quality first" is all very commendable. However, your proposed action of closing 6music would be doing the complete opposite.



I am astonished that senior executives at the BBC seem to fail to understand what makes 6music the high quality, distinctive and unique radio station that it is. There is no commercial competition.



The BBC is a wonderful organisation. Of course it has its faults but 6music certainly isn't one of them.



I have still not heard a coherent argument which explains the closure of 6music and how this ties in with the overall Strategy Review. It makes absolutely no sense.



Please do as you say Mr Tate and put quality first. Don't close 6music.

Less flashy building, more quality content. Yes I quite agree. Who could not agree with such statements.



The BBC licence fee is only welcomed because you do things that cant be done outside the BBC, and in particular for radio, without intrusive advertising.



Doing what you are good at, and only the BBC can do makes a lot of sense.



So...........how about actually applying all this great theory when closing down whole networks? Just a thought. Even the BBC Trust acknowledges the quality output of 6Music in their last review. Its a shame that senior BBC management cant distinguish between 6Music and a pop station.

Like motherhood and apple pie, you can't disagree with BBC putting quality first - I thought it always did. I seem to recall that an earlier Director General had aimed to make good programmes popular and popular programmes good - in other words, putting quality first.



It doesn't make sense however if it leads to the proposed closure of BBC Radio 6 Music - an excellent service that only deserves to be more popular. Indeed it's excellence is confirmed by the recent BBC Trust review and the number of nominations for Sony Radio Academy Awards.



As well as cutting waste and obtaining value for money, the BBC needs to look not at Radio but more closely at it's Television output, particularly in areas of low-ambition like BBC3, News 24 and day-time TV.

In almost every paragraph of your post you make solid reasons for the existence of 6music yet you move to shut it down.



When will we hear reasoning that makes a shred of sense to back up your decision to close 6music? Quit the management doublespeak and contradictory gibberish and admit that you got it wrong.



As many others have pointed out, what is the justification for pouring so much money into BBC3 when the output of that station is mainly repeats and lowest common denominator programming? And how is BBC3 NOT competing with the likes of Sky1/2/3, ITV2/3, Bravo and so on?



The BBC management have been shown up as overpaid and under-skilled muppets with their insane 'decision making' on the Strategy Review. I only hope that the BBC Trust finally stands up to the likes of you and says the same thing. he following want to save 6music; its listeners, presenters, the music industry, commercial radio operators, politicians, the press, BBC staff. The following want to shut 6music; BBC management. Does that tell you anything? Are you listening to the people that pay your wages?



A lot of those people may not be lining your pockets for very much longer if you continue this nonsensical line.

Quality like 6Music and Asian Network? Or quality like Snog, Marry, Avoid?



Completely agree with earlier comments about the real reasons. I've got a 5 page letter on the way to Mr Thompson and I'm not taking "Please refer this the the Trust" for an 'answer'.

Hello John Tate. How did you get on at the House of Lords today? Please share, we are all very interested and will look out for the transcript. I would also like to ask if the decision was taken to shut 6Music and replace it with the nebulous concept of Radio 2 Extra before you were instructed to write the strategy report to fit in with that decision. Because it certainly looks that way - precious little in the way of facts or figures in a document that apparently you had been writing since September. 0 out of 10 for content and logic please resubmit.

#SolarSister, BBC executives always blog and run - they only get paid hundreds of thousands a year so can't be expected to engage with people who pay their wages, let alone listen to their views.



You can see Tate's shabby performance at the House of Lords at the link below. But be warned it is fairly dull with the usual poor questioning from peers who are well above 37 and don't know what 6music is. But if you forward to an 1.25 hours in there's a good session with Miranda Sawyer and the guy who runs 38 degrees.



https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=6293

Why can't the BBC 'executives' not see the irony in stating their commitment to quality and then proposing to axe 6 Music – which is the epitome of quality?

Why are 6 Music listeners so perplexed?

Simply because you are losing something of quality yet maintaining other output which is blatantly sub-standard.

If you cannot understand this, are you sure you're in the right job?

Dear John



Wise words there. Forgive me if I extrapolate a little.



If the concern is to ensure more of the licence fee goes where its most valuable to fee payers, i.e the programming and output of the BBC, will we see much less of it going into massive building programmes? Especially when in a falling commercial property market, the BBC took the somewhat counter-intuitive move of spending nearly a third of its annual budget on a refurbishments programme, whilst at the same time agreeing a sale and lease back arrangement that will remove most of the value of that work from the BBC’s balance sheet.



Will you also be looking at your management pay structures with a view to bringing them more in line with their role in a publically funded organisation? I’m sure you’d agree for example that paying your CEO nearly a million pounds a year is pretty steep in today’s climate. I’m sure there’d be plenty of room for pruning in the strata below him as well. Its all public money after all! And while we’re on that subject, how about allowing the National Audit Office in to check the books?



I also love your comments about quality programming and how this is enhanced by the BBC unique funding. There’s no argument there from me. But that position is somewhat at odds with its current output isn’t it? As has already been pointed out BBC3 and BBC4 both transmit piecemeal and largely survive on repeats. BBC 3 in particular seems to be continually justified on the basis that it has produced one popular programme, Gavin and Stacy. So with a budget of £115M per annum, that’s nearly a billion pounds worth of investment in the licence fee over the life of the channel with only one show to recommend it.



You ask “Is it inevitable we will end up going down either the European or US route?”, I’d say if you carry on chasing the commercial sector at the expense of niche programming then yes it is. If I want to see ‘celebrity hot mums eating freaky on ice’ I can tune into one of hundreds of other channels that do the same thing. Why, when I’m buying into that content through my SKY subscription charge, should I also have to pay a more or less compulsory fee to the BBC to produce almost exactly the same thing?



If you want to justify the licence fee then you should be championing the minority and focusing on the eclectic. That’s the ONLY thing that give the BBC any validity in the new media economy. Yes of course you have to target the popular sectors as well, but if you’re going to throw out everything else that makes the BBC unique, such as 6Music and the Asian network, aren’t you really undermining the point of demanding money from your audience when they already pay large amounts elsewhere to receive almost identical content?



So yes, wise words. Just a shame that none of them seem to be supporting wise actions right at this moment.

With all the recent critism about how the BBC has wasted the license fee on construction (£576,000 - Vienna studio for football coverage, £2 billion on new headquarters) preceded by the proposed cuts (6 music) in the consultation I wonder why people keep using the phrase "Putting Quality First"?



Surely "Burning Down the Stable After The Horse Has Bolted" would be more appropriate?

Regardless of how 6Music gets saved, and it will be saved, the big issue here is just how unaccountable the top brass are at the BBC. In Mark Thompson's now infamous interview with Jeremy Paxman he started to say that one of the deciding factors in the decision to close 6Music was that he'd "listened to the opinions" of 6Music fans. Yet, whenever this 6Music listener tries to contact him, I get the brush off.



This matter has really widened the debate to whether those spending our licence fee billions are fit for purpose.

John



I’m watching the Communications Committee meeting as I write this and have to just ask – you say that ‘there are services that cater for similar tastes’ to 6Music. Care to list them for me and I’ll tell you where you’re dead wrong. Unless the benchmark you’re using is that Classic FM ‘caters for similar tastes’ to Radio 3. A niche station which of course costs far more to run per listener than 6Music does, probably has a similar low ‘unique’ figure (absurd though that notion is), essentially targets the same devoted audience in the classical arena.



You’ll have to try harder to convince anyone.

Further to LoudGeoff's comments about Radio 3. Would you care to offer a justification for its continued existence John? It has an audience almost as small as 6Music, it has nearly 5 times the budget and costs twice as much as 6Music per listener hour. Is that good value for the licence fee payer?



If your premise is that programming should be based on quality, what touchstone are you going to use to determine that rather subjective value? Or is it just a simple case of Radio 3 being listened to by "Arty Farty" people as The chairman of the PAC Edward Leigh put it recently? I understand Mark Thompson is also an avid Radio 3 fan, so is it just his opinion that is to be followed when that nebulous assessment of 'quality' is required.

Yes John, I too await a detailed list of similar services to 6Music.

Inspector Morse ? I don't see the connection - isn't that an ITV production ? Life On Earth was a seventies production. You ought to include "I, Claudius" , "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" and "James Burke's Connections" to your list.



I'm just going to add my name to the list of voices asking why, if you are so dedicated to putting quality first, are you seeking to shut 6Music? I've not heard a single coherent argument from any of the BBC management that explains why 6Music is facing the axe yet other services that cost far more are to stay.



I too look forward to a detailed list of similar services to 6Music.

Dear John,



I would just like to take this opportunity to add my voice to everyone else who has responded to your blog above and agree with them all regarding their comments on the proposed closure of 6Music. Putting Quality First is a commendable ambition (as you would expect a license payer to suggest) but how do you square this with closing down the high quality 6Music (which is the only BBC content left of any interest to me, a license payer, following the dash for audience share of the last 10 years). I sadly now appreciate that, irrespective of the results of the consultation, changes to 6Music will be made, otherwise the loss of face of you and your collegues in senior management will become unjustifiable to maintain your positions in the medium to long term.

Hi John



Have you been dial twiddling to find a station you can point us to that offers the same output? I plan to take my radio back and ask for a refund as in my house no alternative seems to exist to the quality that is R6



Tim

Quality content? Can John Tate tell us the licence paying public that the £6-9 million that the BBC intend to save from closing 6 Music will provided content that is of the high quality as 6 Music and creates as much passion amongst it audience as 6 Music does? Given the public response to 6 Music and outrage the closure has caused is it not obvious this is exactly the sought of content the BBC should be producing and represents excellent value for money!!

An organisation that trumpets quality but axes 6Music is clearly being seriously mis-managed.

Dear John,

I will agree with you for the first, and possibly the last, time- you are correct that the BBC MUST certainly focus on quality content.



Tell me then, pray, how closing down a radio staion which epitomises this ideal makes any sense?



Should this ludicrous decison not be overturned by the Strategic Review comittee could you give me some idea what will fill the vacuum?

Commercial radio? I think not.

A 'merger' of DJ's from 6 into other BBC networks? Unworkable and frankly patronising.



I urge you to reconsider. This is cultural rape.

Thank you,

Nick

John - I don't think anyone disagrees with your comments about putting quality first (it does beg the question: is the Beeb now acknowledging that it's been putting on rubbish for years?) but in light of the threatened closure of 6music the statement is nothing short of preposterous.



What concerns me is that the entire BBC Radio top brass seems utterly clueless. Thompson downwards. We've dismantled the Davie/Thomson/Parfitt arguments. And you have come out with this rubbish. It strikes me that none of you have even listened to 6music before writing the Strategic Review.



Radio One is painfully repetitive and mind-numbingly stupid. Does it represent quality? Really? Look at BBC3 and the dross you continue to serve up there. Again, is this quality? Not in my opinion, but this is subjective. Many, many people pay their licence-fee. I have no issue with you continuing to dull the minds of the nation in this way if there is demand for it, however, the BBC really needs to understand that we are not all eagerly awaiting the next Simon Cowell project. The BBC has an obligation to provide a CHOICE.



Now, just in case you still don't get it - 6music is a cultural asset. A jewel in the crown of the BBC. It's a distinctive service that cannot be offered by any commercial player. It plays an eclectic mix of leftfield contemporary music, archive tunes and lost classics. Crucially it exposes listeners to genres of music they might not be familiar with and never normally consider listening to (Spotify and Last FM don't have this facility). The presenters are knowledgeable in their fields, and don't let their egos over-ride the emphasis on music. It offers a crucial platform to emerging artists who wouldn't have the profile otherwise so 6music supports a thriving music-making landscape in this country.



We're all getting increasingly frustrated with the endemic incompetence and philistinism that pervades the top ranks at the BBC. It's apparent to all concerned that you've made a massive mistake here. Your illogical attempts at justification just don't make any sense. Retract your proposals quickly and that way you can save a little face.

I think the BBC Trust is in a difficult situation now, There has clearly been a masive response to the proposed closure to 6 Music and if the Trust ignores the public response and continues with the closure plans any credibility that the Trust and/or the BBC sees itself accountable to the public will have been destroyed. For the Trust I think this will increase the calls that it does bot serve to make the BBC accountable to the licence payer and would give the Political parties the ammunition it needs to abolish it. The Trust has no choice but to reverse the decision.

You are just another idiot totally "on message" with Thommo.



You are spouting utter nonsense and you know it.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.