Radio News

[ms-bracken.livejournal.com]

XFM ditching all DJs between 10am and 4pm

Most of this post is from an email I sent to infov0re (who sent me the above link) yesterday, so for one person in this community this is a cross-post.

This looks a catastrophically bad idea; if their target demographic want to listen to the radio without DJs they have ample better options. Also, presumably they will still have adverts - so essentially that's all the downsides of Radio 1 (same songs over and over) without the upsides (no ads, chatter) and all the downsides of last.fm (bit cold and impersonal) without the upsides (no ads, ability to skip / love).

Presumably this is based on some kind of "but this is how the kids listen to music! On their iPod Shuffles! Get with the programme, grandad!" research, but it seems to be ignoring the fact that THE UNIQUE SELLING POINT OF RADIO IS MUSIC PLUS COMMENTARY and not music alone which is pretty much everywhere.

XFM does seem to be noticeably going down the pan, and I don't know if that's just the music taste of the current breakfast DJ or if it's policy - but the music, whilst already heavily playlisted, seems to have become a lot more homogenous in sound as well. I do remember this happening before, with Radio 1 - once Chris Evans left there was a big management shake-up which moved things in the opposite direction, towards (more) WOAH PERSONALITY DJs who, curiously, followed playlists more slavishly. This was, obviously, equally horrible as a look.

So, whatever you think of XFM as a station generally, what do you think about the idea of ditching DJs entirely during the day? Am I justified in the above horrified squealing, or is this the way, if anywhere, music radio is heading? Incidentally miggy mentioned The Nation's Favourite in a post a couple of weeks ago, and this has got me thinking that that would be a very interesting book to read given the changes in how music has been delivered and consumed since it was written.

Comments

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

I knew commercial radio was short of cash, but bloody Hell!

Also - how will the casual listener learn what any of the songs actually *are*? From that POV, it's not going to help make any hits. Except possibly via also making some cash for Shazam.

[bengraham.livejournal.com]

Xfm is an interesting case. When it started in 1997, it was really different to the existing radio output available in London. It didn't have big name DJs - Claire Sturgess was probably the most well-known having come from Radio 1, but alongside her were the relatively unknown Paul Anderson, Ian Camfield, John Kennedy and Ricky Gervais. They weren't helped by the death of Princess Di the day before launch, but they still managed to gain over 300,000 listeners by the following spring.

Early in 1998, Capital failed in a bid for Virgin and decided to purchase Xfm instead. The founders of the station mostly left, those that stayed were forced to play a stricter music policy of soft-rock (Alanis Morrissette was famously played on the first morning after the takeover), big name DJs were recruited (Bob Geldof, Zoe Ball), and the listener figures plummeted. Capital were trying to use the Xfm listener base to compete with Virgin, but since Virgin already existed, this tactic was doomed to fail.

In late 1999/early 2000, Capital changed its policy towards Xfm and reverted back to the previous format of a daytime schedule with a tight yet alternative playlist, and a specialist evening output. It worked better and some of the original Xfm policy makers were persuaded to return. And the current incarnation isn't all that different from the 2000 version. The big name breakfast show has managed to hold its position in the ratings, although it is still too early to see what the loss of Lauren Laverne will do the RAJARs... personally, I think Paul Tonkinson is terrible, although Alex Zane should do a good job. The evening schedule still revolves around Music Response and X-Posure, with specialist shows like The Rinse, The Remix and The Rock Show drawing decent audiences. But the daytime output has never been very successful, and the key ratings winner has always been the X-List (the lunchtime request show).

Personally, I can see where Xfm is coming from. You say that if their target demographic want to listen to the radio without DJs they have ample better options, but I think that the Xfm listener base will probably produce a relatively diverse sounding station, much more so than an individual's taste-driven radio on Last.fm or Pandora or their competitors. I disagree that you'll hear the same songs over and over... on the contrary, I expect you'll probably get a healthy mix of the latest alternative sounds alongside an enormous variety of golden oldies. If you listened to the X-List daily for a week, I doubt you'd hear the same song requested twice, so I see no danger of the output sounding same-y. Personally, I think this is a ensible move by Xfm. They don't get many daytime listeners anyway, so they've not got much to lose by trying it.

[lockedintheatti.livejournal.com]

XFM has seriously gone wrong of late. I'd been listening to it in the morning ever since Moyles finally drove me away from Radio 1, and enjoyed both the DJs (Christian O'Connell, and then the wonderful Lauren Laverne) and the music. Just recently the music seems to have really changed - away from playing newer indie stuff to keeping big hits on rotation for much longer and playing more old stuff, so it feels like it's turning into Virgin. It's a tragedy they lost Lauren too, it made a real change having a DJ who realises that there is no contardiction between being funny and being intelligent (and passionate about the music too).

One of the worst bits of ditching the DJs on top of what's been mentioned above is the fact that they are going to apparently let the listeners choose the songs. Which probably means Muse non-stop all day. And really smacks of them trying to get extra revenue rather than a strategic plan on how to run a station.

[byebyepride.livejournal.com]

Well I haven't ever listened to XFM.

I don't know much about the economics of running a radio station, but presumably this is one very targetted way of cutting costs. i.e. they must judge that their listener figures between 10am-4pm are low enough that they are in danger of losing ad revenue. (Target demographic mostly in school / college during the day?) They keep the peak breakfast and drive shows as they are, and save on the salary costs of 2 DJs across 3 stations, replacing it with a model which does seem to work for low cost TV (i.e. the Hits) but with added web elements. I assume that like most commercial radio there is no production team for these shows, but that the station already has computers that handle most of these sort of functions. So is this really daft? I think they're wrong if they're hoping that this will drive people back to the station or something, but it will get them press coverage.

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

I listened to XFM a lot in 2004 - I had just started in an office which played music and it took a month or two before I felt confident enough to say "NO WAYS" to XFM - and it seemed quite heavily playlisted then and very homogenous - not at all "cutting edge" but also very smug about its alternative-ness: I think it's the worst radio station I've listened to regularly. I sneakily persuaded the office to switch to 6Music and they all liked it a lot better.

After a few months my control over the office radio was greater and we would have it on stations like Smash Hits and The Hits!FM, neither of which had ANY DJs, afternoon or not (well, none that I can remember). They were very heavily playlisted, so you pretty much couldn't listen to them for more than 2-3 hours at a stretch: typically we'd have 3 or 4 stations on during a day, which meant a much better range of music, though obviously from a business POV isn't the way stations want their listeners to behave.

The lack of DJs wasn't really noticeable though - as blue_russian says, mostly afternoon listening is background listening. Sometimes we would have Radio 1 on and the afternoon DJs on that were insufferable tosspots, especially if you stayed late enough at work to encounter the arch-twat Scott Mills.

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

In order of preference, assuming we must have DJs

1. DJs who are into their music and also share my taste.
2. DJs who don't give a monkeys.
3. DJs who are into their music and don't share my taste.

XFM was packed with type 3.

[mippy.livejournal.com]

This is pretty common for network radio IIRC - the ILR networks up North have virtually no DJ input.

LOVELY LOVELY LAUREN

[carsmilesteve.livejournal.com]

so, what was the deal there? why did she get the sack/leave? also, has anyone else noticed that she's looking a bit, well, pregnant on transmission/culture show. i mean, i know smock dresses are "in" and all, but it's all she's wearing...

LOVELY LOVELY LAUREN

[carsmilesteve.livejournal.com]

so, what was the deal there? why did she get the sack/leave? also, has anyone else noticed that she's looking a bit, well, pregnant on transmission/culture show. i mean, i know smock dresses are "in" and all, but it's all she's wearing...

[chezghost.livejournal.com]

'if their target demographic want to listen to the radio without DJs they have ample better options.'

but are they really better options? people like radio because that is it's single purpose unlike using a computer to hear stuff. radio stations are also good automated filters whereas last.fm, p2p and whatnot requires more work on the listener's part to filter out the music they like.

but then i've not been interested/impressed by daytime DJ patter for some time now so i'm interested to see how the idea plays out.