Dengl 10 A Day With the Voice of the Listener & Viewer

I went to the Annual Conference (2007) which was very informative.
I'm sure everyone else there has enough in their heads and needs not have any more from me - but I have put down a few reflections - largely so I do not forget the session myself .... and maybe someone will find something intriguing if you stumble across these remarks here ….
(I tried to put these thoughts into questions, but was unable to catch the right eyes, to b e called upon to do so).

Sir Michael Lyons Chairman of the BBC Trust
I thought he came over very well - working his way admirably into his role;
however
- Despite much talk about quality and about value - for money, or as Prof
Sylvia Harvey put it so well* - value for the audience - there was no sign
of a set of measures which might help describe let alone define quality.
- He said the Trust will answer anyone who approaches it - and has done
so to a personal letter I sent him before he entered his job; fine. But
a package of research materials on attempts to ‘quantify quality’, that I also delivered for the Trust's research staff has not been acknowledged to me, let alone any comment offered which might indicate that such materials are of any value or not ...
* http://www.lincoln.ac.uk/media/staff/1357.asp

The research that they do that is NOT SYSTEMATICALLY REPRESENTATIVE may be useful, but unless it is reflected quite closely in systematically representative studies, can be quite misleading;
the research that they do that IS systematically representative may also be misleading - if it takes the form of asking people what they would like to see or not see ... (I take an elitist view – people do not fully ‘know our own minds’)
The Trust should be more open with the public and drive for a discourse based on what people think of programmes and services (publishing the BBC's measurements of Appreciation), rather than on one of supposed measurement of (viewing) behaviour, which animates the commercial discourse.

- I disagreed with his analysis that the Trust is not a regulator - as he sets out its goals, it very much resembles the IBA of old; if the Trust is not a regulator (and the board of management is not that either - that leaves Ofcom as a (potential) regulator - and that has been notoriously negligent of such a role - and erratic in applying its punishment(s);
- I doubt very much if the public realise or would agree that Ofcom is the regulator for the BBC; if it is, someone had better start telling the public sooner rather than later - and maybe also be telling Ofcom ....
- The Trust should acknowledge that it is the regulator, that its Chairman is the Chairman of the Trust and not of the BBC (which doesn’t need a Chairman - it has enough internal executive top-weight - and one might dowell to read the remarks of Professor Roy Greenslade in the Standard the day before this session: *
- The Trust should sooner rather than later (as Ofcom did when it wanted a structural amendment to its Act) ask for the Charter to be amended so that the Trust is financed from a first slice off the licence revenue and not from any procedure which lets it be paid for via or by the BBC. This will enhance the Trust's line of direct accountability to the licence payers.
*http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23423465-details/So+what+is+the+point+of+these+five+non-execs+sitting+on+BBC+board/article.do

Nathalie Schwarz (C4 Radio project)
She spoke enthusiastically about all the projects she wants to lead into a brave new future. I would have liked to have asked her if C4 has any Revenue Targets, and Revenue Forecasts for these new enterprises. There will no doubt be some good things which emerge - but whether it will be worth the effort of over-stocking the (radio) shelves already loaded with unheard wares, with a destabilising effect on existing services, remains to be seen.

The Digital Future - the Option Out
Good luck to Whitehaven - it is not necessarily a pointer to what may happen in different localities. A few people, he said, "did not convert" (yet?) - but another view (their view?) may be that they DID convert - to Life Without Television. I suspect that slightly more than handfuls will be joining LWT, elsewhere. I may indeed be one of them. I will then do without paying the licence fee - and the government may then want to retrieve the title of the Broadcasting Licence (or re-deploy a subsidiary Radio licence) as I will most likely want to be listening to "radio" direct, or via the computer.
The technical people in the audience did much to undermine the speakers - implying that it is by no means to be taken as read that DAB radio, or television will guarantee better technical quality everywhere - rather the opposite; it may be more expensive to make television for digital transmission - which cost will detract from money to spend on better efforts (Michael Darlow).

Quality in the Middle Ground
Michael Goldfarb* from America made a very interesting point - that it would be
good to have the quality of the mainstream centre conserved (or enhanced); his remark implied that there are rarer excellent materials (and who knows how much dross) neither of which should mainly pre-occupy policy wonks and structural designers.
* http://www.vet.co.uk/en/beyond/more_case_studies/michael_goldfarb