I know this thread asked for comments on the changes to the messageboards, but I'll comment on all the changes made on 19 February.

1. How the changes were decided upon
In the “Controller’s monthly note - extra” of 15 February, Roger Wright writes:
“It's the first time in five years we have made significant changes to our programming. All radio stations change their programming from time to time, adapting to changing tastes and developing ideas… …We wanted to respond to specific listener comments in revising the schedule on this occasion.“
How did R3 management decide upon the changes, whether that be regarding programming, scheduling, or messageboards? What listener testing or surveys did they do? After all, you don’t make significant changes based on the comments of a few people.
At the moment it seems like R3’s management has made these changes from either a position of “Oh, we don’t need to listen to the listeners - we know what’s best!”, or one of “It’s our radio station, we’ll play with it how we like”. Neither is very good for a group of people spending public money.
Roger Wright needs to ‘show his workings’, as one message board poster has noted.

2. How the changes were communicated
Placing the changes just after a week of Tchaikovsky and Stravinsky meant there was little ‘On Air’ communication of the impending changes - everything was promoting the Tchaikovsky Experience. I’m not a fan of trailers, but for a wholesale change, there should have been more communication. At worst, this lack of communication could be R3 management being underhand, but I suspect it is merely bad planning. R3 managers need to remember that they should not only be transparent in their decision making, but should be public with it.
Notice of messageboard changes was given only a couple of weeks before the changes were due, and in a manner that implied a fait accompli with no online users input. Effectively, the timing killed off the old boards - who would start a new discussion on anything but the most mundane topics with limited time to get answers from fellow boarders? Consequently, as the change deadline approached, the messageboards became a bit useless - to the extent that even a non-BBC board was set up. Losing messageboard users is probably not one of Radio 3’s goals, but this is exactly what happened.
Better would have been to have a transition period - where old threads could still be added to, but new discussions would be on new boards Then after a period, close the old boards completely.
It does have to be said though, that many message board users left the BBC boards because the changes were awful (see below). Worrying about whether to phase in a bad system or introduce it in a clean cut is a bit like trying to decide how to polish a poo. The main focus for Roger Wright and his colleagues should have been to make sure the new board set-up was a good one - which they haven’t.

3. The Changes - Programmes
On the plus side, it seems like many of the new programmes will be good. It is a bit too early to tell in some cases, but I do like what Rob Cowan has done with ‘Breakfast’ - his choice of music is wide-ranging, he orders his chosen works in an interesting way, and he avoids poor performances/recordings. I’m not a fan of playing single movements, but I do like that he doesn’t play long works in their entirety - it’s not really suitable for that busy period of the day.
Many other new programmes look like they have potential. ‘Performing Britten’ and ‘Words and Music’ could develop into really good series. The programme of ‘recorded live’ events looks good, although I hate the term - what’s wrong with ‘recorded concerts’?
Artist Focus is a disappointment. It’s could have been a week of discovering what drives the performer, how they approach a piece, how they learn, perform and record - interlaced with actual music. Instead, we have a week of various recordings, only some of which are from the named artist in focus. What a missed opportunity.
And worrying is what is missing. There seems to have been a reduction in the amount of new music played. If the BBC is scared of programming new music because it is not popular, it should do something to help people appreciate it, not just bow to the whims of the many. I appreciate that on the whole R3 is under pressure to serve its audience, but Roger Wright should remember that he can influence his audience‘s desires. If he merely follows what the majority of people want, R3 will become Classic FM, with only one difference between the two - Classic FM having more funding. Roger Wright needs to know exactly how R3 will be different from CFM, and make that difference attractive. Learning about and appreciating new music could be one of those strands.
The reason it is worrying is because of the portent it has for the Proms. If the BBC reduces its commissions and new music ceases to be such a feature of this festival, it’s hard to see how classical music as a whole will benefit.
Radio 3 has a responsibility to develop its market, as well as to serve it. The lack of focus on performance practice and new compositions leaves R3 overweight in a focus on simply playing music, and verging closer to Classic FM.

4. The Changes - Schedules
Evening concerts starting at 7.00pm are ridiculous! Have you tried to get on a train from London to anywhere after work and get there for a decent interval before 7.00? I now miss many of the first works, and I can’t be alone in having difficulty getting home early enough to get a meal and settle down for the concert. And why was it moved? Presumably to enable “Composer of the Week” to be early. Whilst that needed to be earlier, did it have to be so early? Bringing forward something from midnight (when most people are in bed) to 8.45pm (when most people are watching telly), just seems like missing your audience in a different way.

5. The Changes - Messageboards
Oh dear.
Radio 3 is a classical arts channel. One of the things about the arts is that boundaries a blurred - discussion in one area will spark off discussion in another. The old boards were too rigid in the sense that if you posted on one board and had a thought about another you’d have to swap boards, but at least each board let you explore the full potential for each ‘topic’. The new boards being exclusively for comment about specific programmes are overly restrictive. Discussions that might in the past have led to an interesting point for Radio 3 might now be out-of-bounds of each of the new boards. Consequently, if you are playing by the rules of the new boards, the R3 boards are a very dull place to be.
Admittedly, there has been a lot of waffle on the old boards, and this may have caused system and resource problems. I understand that changes may have been needed, but the restrictiveness of the new environment has killed off something very special, very rare, and what could have been an asset to Radio 3. The freedoms that the old board allowed, meant interesting discussions and fostered what was a very creative community that loved Radio 3. The old threads included many ideas for the future of Radio 3, for new programmes, for message board improvements, for new themes and new styles to ‘experiences’. Whilst R3 might not act directly on these suggestions, they were at least a source of ideas R3 managers could have investigated, tested with a wider listener group, and developed into programmes. The board changes of 19th February have killed the board community and thus the source of these ideas.
Worse still is the appalling inflexibility of the hosts In helping users make the transition from a relatively free environment to a very restrictive one. With the exception of the Breakfast board, Monday 19th February saw hosts closing down threads left, right, and centre with standard paragraphs and no guidance for board members or answers to their questions. When making a change, any decent manager knows you have to help people through that change - whether they be managers, staff, listeners, or online users.
And the stresses led to some inexcusable actions. The admission that Chris, a host form Radio 2, used Sylvie’s user id and password at the behest of Southendian, just smacks of underhandedness, and a lack of security and good business practice.
I’m not a fan of the actions of some boarders in deliberately flouting the new board rules, but I can appreciate why they have felt driven to posting so many out-of-scope threads. The old message board community was a great thing, and people undoubtedly feel passionate about losing it, or having it bossed about. People fight when they are restricted after a time of freedom, so it’s not surprising there are so many off-topic threads. Sadly, the result is a set of boards where to find any interesting discussion just means filtering through a lot of complaints - and given the restrictive nature of the boards, it’s just not worth the bother.
Basically, on the message board side, R3 has demonstrated complete incompetence in design of the end solution and worse still in the management of the change to that design, and service for its customers.
I work in the private sector. If I failed my customers so badly, I would have been sacked ages ago. Something to think about……

6. Interactivity
One of the things the new R3 seems to advocate is interactivity. Unfortunately, much of that is aired, and presenters encourage people to post requests on the internet. This is verging dangerously close to Classic FM territory. I don’t want to waste time learning that so-and-so from Essex has asked for Massenet’s Thais - I just want to hear the work!
I agree that R3 should listen to its listeners, but there is another way. Interaction between listeners and the station does not have to be at the level of request for particular works. I trust Radio 3 presenters and programmers to programme interesting works, based on the general feedback of its listeners. I want the interaction in the background, or as on the message boards, in a way that you can ignore if you don’t want to read it.

7. Overall
Roger Wright and Radio 3 have not been open with how they arrived at the changes. They have not been clear as to why they believe these changes are an improvement. They did not communicate the changes well. The changes have some good aspects, but lead dangerously toward mimicking Classic FM, when taking on a commercial organisation is a suicidal approach for an organisation under pressure to reduce license fees . Schedule changes are questionable. Messageboard changes are a complete disaster - R3 has demonstrated complete incompetence in design of the end solution and worse still in the management of the change to that design, and service for its customers.
All in all, not very good. At least, an apology is called for, as well as a rectification of the way messageboards are handled. If it comes to light that these wholesale changes were made with inadequate audience testing, then I believe some of the Radio 3 management should go.

Tommo

Anna,

Am I really exchanging posts with the same lovely Anna who showed such creativity, good judgement and light heartedness before 19th February?

Tommo