Standing on the Shoulders of Giants

Uniquely-gifted voice artist Peter Dickson and I ended up chatting about changing vocal styles when we met to record his edition of the Conversations series. 

As soon as he mentioned BBC Home Service stentorian newsreaders like Brian Perkins or Peter Donaldson, I could hear those influences in his own voice work. There is little doubt in my mind that their DNA exists in his own vocal range, and as he gets psyched up to assume the character of the X Factor voice, it does appear to me to be reminiscent of how Peter Donaldson might have sounded when shouting on the touchlines .

As we went on to agree, there is something of our radio heroes in all of us. Like a mongrel dog, we merrily assume all manner of genetic make-up from the voices which inspired us. We naturally season it with something of ourselves and create the person we are on-air. And, as those genes are passed down again, so the style of on-air presentation across the country evolves.

In this country, we did not really experience too much of the ‘bossjock’ radio sound of 1950s/60s US radio, with its booming, slick voices – a presentation style which is almost more about the sound and energy than it is about the words.  But many early music radio presenters liked that sound from what they’d heard on recordings, or indeed on Radio Luxembourg from the likes of Bob Stewart (often cited as an influence in my Conversations). Maybe this is why early music radio disc jockeys were often accused of faking mid-Atlantic accents.

In the 60s, Tony Blackburn arrived with an interesting style, influenced, he says, by the likes of Pete Murray, but a touch of US influence in there too, perhaps owing in part to his love for American music. But this was still, overall, a very English sound, characterised by the smile in the voice. It wasn’t 'received pronunciation', but you knew he’d been to a decent school. 

Was it his real voice? It certainly is now. Like many of us of that generation, as time marches on, the real voice and the on-air voice fuse.

Then - in the 80s - demo tapes all started to sound like Steve Wright.

The United Biscuits network was an early berth for manypresenters who were to turn up in the first wave of UK commercial radio. The UBN sound manifested itself in the slickness of the approach and also the residual ‘sssshhhh’ at the end of words by the likes of Graham Dene and Roger Scott - and the many, in time, influenced by them.

The BBC Reithian sound remained for years, and news and programmes right up until the '70s often bear that hallmark. One by one, those presenters have been replaced by those who still have the Radio 4 air of authority, but sound very less plummy.  Sarah Montague on the Today programme these days is different from Margaret Howard or Sue MacGregor.  Side by side on Woman’s Hour, Jenni Murray is certainly a tad more 'proper' than the truly brilliant, heir to the throne, Jane Garvey.  

One thing’s  for sure, never again will our news delivery sound like the fascinating speedy, high pitched and clipped delivery of the Pathe newsreels.

Even where the individuals remain, their delivery changes during their career, as has society around them. Just as the Queen's cut-glass voice has changed hugely from her first radio appearances to the more conversational speeches these days, John Humphrys careful early efforts at a very proper BBC sound has evolved into a much more authentic listen. 'Received Pronunciation' speakers now are said to account for less than 2% of English speakers, and that's become the case on British radio.

Authenticity is now key in radio. Energetic music radio now does not boast the deep ‘radio voices’ of yesteryear - and the US influence has waned. Delivery now is more real, albeit often shouting at the level they would in a busy club.  Regional accents have now been rehabilitated, and class impacts less.  Away from fast music radio, neither Jonathan Ross or Chris Evans could be said to have the 'classic radio voice'.

Radio now hears ‘real’ voices - and that's probably a good thing for such a personal medium. The natural changes in delivery which are evident in British society generally are aired too: the 'uptalk' at the end of sentences; 'vocal fry'; and, notably, CapiTULL now has the ‘T’ it never had for its first thirty years.

Grab one of my books:

Radiomoments: 50 years of radio - life on the inside

How to Make Great Radio - Tips and techniques for today's presenters and producers

An Old-fashioned Plea

My old man is 94. He loves his mobile phone and his iPad;  and merrily plays Olly Murs loudly from YouTube. He banks online.  He's not old-fashioned. And he says he doesn't feel old.

Whilst he likes Olly and Leona Lewis; he also enjoys Doris Day and the harmonies of the Beach Boys.  Whilst he talks readily about iTunes passwords, he also remembers the reg numbers of his old Ford Capri.  He likes Sam & Amy on Gem 106; and talks about Radio Luxembourg. Before his sight caught up with him, he relished this week's adulterous Coronation Street as much as old sepia episodes of Upstairs Downstairs.

BBC Local Radio rightly does not not want to sound 'old-fashioned'.  It is crucial, however, that it fully acknowledges the tastes and interests of an older audience. Those two objectives are mutually compatible. At a time when the BBC calmly considers how to revive the BBC Local audience, I do hope it does not mistake relating to an older audience for being old-fashioned. Playing more current songs and introducing more contemporary talk topics is not the way to a happier Rajar day.

BBC local listeners do not want a stuffy, dated, dull service; yet they do want content which relates to people like them.  In the outside world, fifty-somethings will find the greatest pleasure knocking about with friends their own age. Their life span and cultural references will co-incide; and they will share the same language, the same memories, the same smiles. They share the same country.

They certainly will not feel old; they may have ambitions and things they still wish to achieve - and a healthy interest in the here and now.  But they will also have the benefit of boasting a lifetime of memories and experiences from which to draw. They will likely have settled in a place they call home and started to take an interest in how it has changed around them.  They will care about things which a twenty-something would not; and they won't be too concerned about the youthful twaddle causing grief for that twenty-something.

Given BBC Local Radio provides the first step for many broadcasters, one can look around many stations and see rather more fresh, young faces on the coal-face than seasoned presenters and producers. Some of them likely know the area less well and won't hang around too long before they are whisked off on some exciting attachment. I do not recall the DG standing up in BH and announcing targets to encourage a workforce which reflects the demographics of BBC Local Radio's audience. Yet is not a daytime line-up of twenty-somethings as perverse as a Radio 1 line up of sixty-somethings? Radio hosted by someone over 50 can still excite. 

This must pose a challenge for BBC Local Radio. It is often through these young faces that the content funnel operates on a daily basis.  These promising, intelligent young staffers are charged with ascertaining whether or not the death of a celebrity unknown to their generation is news or not - and pronouncing their name properly. They are charged with answering the phones to people often thirty or forty years older than them and trying to establish the worth of that caller's topic.  And, on-air, those young broadcasters face the challenge of bantering with someone old enough to be their mother or grandmother, likely missing the nuances and opportunities for interest and entertainment.

An old person can remember what youth is like, a young person may never know how maturity feels. 

As a fledgling broadcaster, I recall trying not to give away my age to the listeners. They were generally about 30, I was 19. Painfully aware of the gap, I did my best  to focus the content appropriately; and was pleasantly delighted when listeners looked shocked at my acne when they met me. I'm not sure I could have managed to bridge any greater a gap.  If you can; you're very good. Grown-ups don't want to be spoken to like kids.

I worry about the focus of some BBC locals. Love songs and romantic messages really don't work as they do on younger formats. Topics of 'who did you have on you bedroom wall' are best not kicked off by a presenter monologue about their New Kids on the Block poster.

50+ listeners are not as obsessed with Twitter as twenty-somethings: only 6% of 55+ are 'hooked on social media'. 90% of 55+ do not regard  the smartphone as the most important way of using the internet; but they will smile when you mention the days of having to rely on just just a single phone hard-wired into their cold hallway. Well over half of 50+ do not bother with a social media profile of any sort: they know what they are, they're just not as obsessed*. They will likely love the satellite TV choice now available, but it won't seem two minutes since it was a choice of watching BBC1 or 'the other side'.

50+ listeners do not share the presenter's enthusiastic schoolday memories when they hear a song from the 1990s.  They feel that the 1980s seems actually quite recent.  The most recently a 50+ slipped their 'first record' delicately out of its sleeve was likely 1978. For the majority of the audience, it was much, much longer ago.

Great radio is relatable - and relatability is about identifying and sharing common ground.

And, notwithstanding the BBC's laudable intentions with the excellent Make It Digital Traineeship, I'm not altogether sure why their local stations are being asked to carry trails aimed specifically at 16-24s.

Whilst news bulletins on these local services will rightly be a little broader in their appeal, does the newsroom really attach due importance to the likely audience as it determines the news agenda for bulletins and the speech-heavy shows?  Does it pause to review material in the context of someone born in the 1960s and before? I can hear the local filter on-air with enviable excellence; I am sometimes unsure if I can hear the demographic one. Listeners are unlikely to be taking GCSEs or even still to have young children themselves. They are hugely more likely to own their own homes rather than rent; and the vast majority will have paid off their mortgages. They may well be pleased when house prices and interest rates rise.

It's just a matter of about thinking about life from the perspective of a fifty and sixty-something. That does not make it old-fashioned - it just makes it right. 

BBC Local Radio is quietly huge, with an audience in England of just under 7m mega-loyal listeners, almost the same reach as the mighty Capital network.  It's rarely top of mind, however, not least because, for a variety of reasons, its profile is low in the cities where decision-makers live: London, Birmingham & Manchester. It deserves the bit of love it is now being afforded. 

50+ is sadly unlikely to be a sustainable place for much commercial radio, so we must rely on the BBC to put its arm around the 19m people in the UK aged over 55, with the energy and focus with which the impressive Ben Cooper is attacking the 15-29s on Radio 1.

If the BBC hired sufficient gifted communicators of the right vintage, and a few folk who've 'lived' to handle the incoming calls - these stations will generate the 'warmth, personality and interaction' which David Holdsworth wisely seeks.

My book 'How To Make Great Radio' is out now from Biteback. 

Proceeds to the Radio Academy.

* Ofcom Communications report 2015

A blog about a book: 'How to Make Great Radio'

Over dinner in my favourite Indian restaurant in Nottingham recently, I was rambling intolerably about 'my book' to one of my cynical but lovely radio friends.  I told him I'd learned loads whilst writing it. '"What like?", he asked, as he stuffed a naan bread in his face.

So, when the Jiffy bag finally arrived from the publishers last week, bearing ten lovely-smelling first copies of my humble publication, I thumbed gingerly through the pages, to remind myself what I hadn't known when I started to write it.

Every day in radio is a school day, not least when you're trying madly to justify, or disprove, those 'radio assumptions'.

I thought I was the only competition cynic until I stumbled across the words of legendary American programmer, Bill Drake: "We did a lot of on-air promotions at KHJ, and we did almost none at KFRC in San Francisco. Both stations were successful". In his opinion, "most contests are garbage".  He's surely right; far too many offer little in the way of witness value. They are either too demanding, too dull or too exclusive; with prizes seen as unattainable and mechanics focused on the minority taking part, not the majority listening.  Gone are the days when the radio station was the only place you could win a decent prize.  BBC Local Radio, which suspended contesting in the days when it was discredited, would likely concede that their stations are better without  many of them.  Cheers, Bill. Nice to stumble across substantiation for my prejudice.

Isn't it annoying when 'major names' pop up on radio who fail to grasp the 'one listener' thing.  That 'You' thing.  They drone on about "anyone out there'" and getting my 'thinking caps' on.  For goodness sake, anyone who knows anything about our great medium knows that the most important word is 'you'.  If it's good enough for Ken Bruce: 'People respond to one person – talking to them as one person’; and Wogan: ‘Radio engages because you talk to an individual’, it should be good enough for the rest of us. I also cite some early crackly recordings from the 'first' disc jockey, Christopher Stone, from 1927 who said in his show: 'I know you'd like to hear some more of that, and so would I".  Almost a century ago, and at the very beginnings of our medium, he'd nailed it.

Few candidates in the last General Election stood up to make a speech without offering an anecdote about the chap they'd 'bumped into' the night before.  We know that story-telling works.  The greatest presenters master the art on radio.  The greatest ads call upon it.  Vocabulary, pace and detail create colourful pictures.  In researching the book too, I was drawn too to the words of John Cleese, who spoke of the mental 'skip' the listener makes from the start of a tale to the punchline.  In that skip lies the pleasure and amusement. Too large, it fails, Too small it offers no satisfaction.  One word can make a difference.  Even if just a  swear-word: ‘You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!’

Why do some newsreaders whine every sentence and inexplicably draw out the last word, regardless of its significance?  Accomplished voice coach, Kate Lee, suggests that great reading is often about ‘sounding even more yourself ’. She observes how some readers appear almost intimidated by the importance of the material. Once they say to themselves ‘this is news’, she believes their brain then promptly ignores all all the natural nuances of conversation. Contemporary, conversational news delivery is a real art.

Fascinated by the way the 'mood' in a studio can change what comes out the speakers the other end, it was great to hear the anecdote about a leading performer who used to play the Cagney & Lacey theme tune before starting his show.  Off on that tangent, I then stumbled across how both David Cameron, and indeed Enoch Powell in his time, observed that a full bladder kept their mind alert and their speeches powerful.  Maybe not one to try.

I stumbled across some fascinating material about the voice and how it engages so well on radio.  Including the theory that the 'disembodied voice' on the radio connects with the listener as does a mother's voice to a child in the womb.

And who would not want to know the story of the birth of tight, Top 40 format radio in a bar in Omaha, Nebraska.  Next time one of your listeners complains about hearing the same song over and over again, you'll want to know that tale too. 

And so the list goes on.  I learned a little more about mic technique; commentary; interviewing; the psychological response to words; and getting callers on-air.  I mused about dealing with over-enthusiastic listeners; spoke to some great producers; and delved into the use of social media.  I stumbled across some brilliant old research about the relative merits of male and female voices; and I counted the words per minute which Wogan deployed as he said his last breakfast farewell. 

I was persuaded to add a chapter about how to get into our medium; and I volunteered another about how to keep your job.  And some necessary caution on risk-taking, 'stunting', research, law and compliance.

Given that text books are boring and the chances of any publisher agreeing to my autobiography are slim, I've littered the book with anecdotes from my lucky time in the business.  Lest I forget the two occasions when the police have called into reception; Dale Winton's interview techniques; or the words of advice Mrs. Thatcher's daughter proffered on programme preparation.

And there's the chapter about teasing.

As every 'author' will understand, the awful thing about writing a book is that the second your work is despatched to the publisher, you think of something you should have included. Plus, last Autumn, no-one new what Perisope was. Things now change by the day in our great radio world.

Many thanks to the likes of Matthew Bannister, Christian O'Connell, John Myers, Ben Cooper and Nick Ferrari for offering generous early reviews.  What's useful is that they suggest it's by no means just a book for beginners. 

Radio is rarely a matter and wrong. Some of the greats break the rules brilliantly.  And those who disagree with my mad assertions or theories will hopefully concede that the debate itself is likely helpful. Or they can write their own book.

If it helps, please grab a copy at £14.99 (£10.99 e-book) from my friends at Biteback Publishing.  Proceeds to the Radio Academy. 

National Digital Radio - The Future

I calculate I have nineteen DAB radios.  It’s a little over the top I know.  Hats off to Hertfordshire’s Pure for doing some great early running on the sets; and to Yorkshire’s Roberts for their sturdy classics.  And to Psion for coming up with their spiky PC peripheral Wavefinder; and to Wayne Hemingway for designing ‘the Bug’, which is still my favourite aesthetically.

It’s all a far cry from 1993 when I sat in the offices of the then regulator, the Radio Authority,  at Holbrook House to be trusted with what would have been one of the first DAB sets.  With components and transformers nailed to a huge plywood board, it hummed nicely and smelt of Scalextrix.

Life’s moved on since then, and after a slower start than most had hoped, DAB is now attracting a quarter of all radio listening across the UK (RAJAR W3 2014, Ipsos-Mori, UK TSA).  With the recent brand extensions being spawned on the first national multiplex, Digital One, which is now populated like a student house, one feels, at last, that the time of DAB has come. 

Now, the second national multiplex is imminent; and, at last, this country is poised to enjoy the sort of   broadcast listening choice which has been denied to us for years.  Given the small geographic size of our populous country, we have not been able to re-use FM frequencies to the extent they have in other countries.

Clearly, with my day job being at Orion Media, I’m hugely excited about our own ‘Listen2Digital’ bid to operate that multiplex, which was duly dropped off yesterday at Riverside House.  The USB stick in a sturdy manila envelope does not physically seem to do justice to the sweat and toil which went into assembling the pages of the formal application document over many, many, months.  If you’ve ever assembled a licence application, you know it feels like the A Level exam from hell.

We evidently think it’s a compelling case, and across the piste it offers a fresh new approach for national DAB radio, both in terms of the players involved and the services.  We think the public proposals are exciting; and we hope Ofcom also nods vigorously at some of the format details we have submitted in confidence which, frustratingly yet thoroughly understandably, we cannot yet speak publicly about at this stage.  I should say a big well done too to the other parties involved in the consortium: the mighty Babcock, who’ll be assembling the transmission infrastructure, and our good friends at Folder Media and Sabras.

The other great news is that Gem, currently our East Midlands FM AC service, would go

national, as one of our 18 proposed services.  There is no AC brand on national commercial DAB at present, with Heart operating only on local DAB, so its service is not taken into account as the applications are judged by the regulator.  AC is, therefore, a gaping hole in national provision and we reckon we’ve got the very best answer to it.  The AC audience also sits in the female 25-44 commercial hot-spot, helping to ensure the success of our business, and contribute to much-needed growth and stability for DAB.

Adult Contemporary proved of huge appeal in our extensive national research.  It is a hugely popular format across the World; and it’s strange to believe that it did not really arrive in the UK until our Chairman, Phil Riley, launched the Heart brand in the West Midlands in 1994.  He had hair back then, as he started his 13 year tenure running the format, so it’s no surprise he knows what he’s doing in arguing the AC case with our investors.  Maybe we should have roadsigns at the edge of all our cities, East and West, suggesting that the Midlands is the birthplace of the AC format in the UK.  I’ll get my paintbrush out.   

I’m personally hugely proud, not least because I’m a Nottingham lad.  In three years, Gem has achieved huge East Midlands success, becoming market leader by hours in several audience sweeps, and beating all audience levels for any station ever on that 106 FM frequency.  Let’s remember that 106 was a love-child in so many acquisitions, and being batted from owner to owner, it has operated variously as Radio 106, Century and Heart.  We have done well, despite good old Heart remaining on DAB in the patch and no TV platform for Gem.

It’s won because it’s a great product, and Mike Newman and the team there, including Naomi Robson and Andy Price heading the marketing efforts deserve plaudits.  They’ve built an AC format with real spirit, and one commanding real engagement, judging by all the qualitative research and feedback we garner.  It already has the polish of a national brand.

Sam & Amy have played a great part too, aided by Dangerous Dave and produced by Paul Iliffe.  That show has turned into a national treasure, carrying off Radio Academy awards in categories populated otherwise by indignant London and national names. The real crown just has to be that ‘Personality of the Year’ award last year.  The programme is British breakfast radio at its best; and we look forward to twisting a version of that product round for the national service.

May we plead that Ofcom put all else to one side and make this licence award as quickly as possible. We’re anxious to get on with the job.

The Psychology of Radio - 1935 style

“It has already grown from the insignificance of an embryonic idea in the minds of technicians to the stature of a Goliath in industry and public affairs. Vigorously endowed and shrewdly directed, it has developed sturdily, and with lightning speed has fashioned for itself a place in our national life” 

So says a 1935 book called ‘The Psychology of Radio’. 

The book was written in America, back in the days when radio was but a small child, and self-appointed experts were penning articles and posturing about it.  Just as they do about this digital thing nearly eighty years later.

It’s a fascinating read.  It makes mention of an impressive early experiment, conducted when there was an appetite to understand better this new fangled thing.  An evangelist gathered an audience and preached in a hall.  His sermon was relayed by sound only, as if a radio broadcast, to a neighbouring hall.  As the call came for the congregation to step forward and participate, the genuine assembly started to take action.  Members of the radio audience in the second hall were not motivated in the same way.  They stood there like lemons.

The author explained he felt this was not through some flaw in this otherwise miraculous medium, but simply because the vocal delivery on radio needed to be different.  In structure, it was said that a live speaker works for “immediate rather than long-run results, for emotional fervour rather than for future action”.  

He concluded:

“A radio spellbinder would have spoken quite differently. He would have used less bombast and more artistry, less brute force and more cunning. He would have directed his attention to the invisible audience and would have made each listener feel welcome as a member of the circle. He would have aroused the listeners' sense of participation in the occasion. "Friends, this is Huey P. Long speaking.."

All those years ago, the authors (Hadley Cantril  & Gordon Allport) had already recognised that radio was a one-to-one thing; and you had to address a single listener as you spoke if you really wanted to motivate.

The chapter observed that the voice on radio is different from a person addressing in real life in that:

• “In the minds of the listeners (radio) places music in the preferred position among radio program(me)s.
• It frees the listener from the necessity of conventional politeness toward public performers.
• It interposes a serious psychological barrier between the broadcaster and his audience through the destruction of the normal circular relationship.
• It virtually eliminates social facilitation among the auditors with the result that they are less crowdish, more critical and individualistic”.

Witness the medium’s educational prowess too. The publication suggests that radio improves the capacity of the average man to listen. And even “probably increases the vocabulary of the average listener”.

“It was discovered that the college student, with his long training in listening to lectures, is far better able than the untrained listener to understand and to recall what he hears. His advantage, furthermore,is discovered to be greater for auditory than for visual material. It appears, therefore, that intelligent listening is par excellence the mark of the educated man.”

“Although there is a prevailing tendency to use the radio as a background for other tasks, when the dial is turned to a specific program and when attention is directed fully to its message, an auditory training is provided for millions of people and its long-range effects may be exceedingly important. For increasing the world's population of "good listeners" radio deserves an extra star in its crown”.

So, if the boss ever tells you to stop streaming Gem 106 at your desk, just smile patiently and assure him that it’s training you to listen better to his wisdom.

Even back then there was a worry that radio might put people off their work

“Take, first, the case of the housewife or the student who is completely preoccupied with work. The loud-speaker emits its stream of sound, but it falls on deaf ears. The distraction is completely inhibited. As long as attention does not shift, the radio's effect, if it has any at all, is entirely subliminal. In such a case the effort required (and unconsciously exerted) to overcome the distraction may actually enhance concentration on the task in hand.... The stronger the potential distraction the greater is the compensatory attention”.

Attention, RAB! The article goes on to provide early thoughts on the topic addressed in more recent years by Saatchi & Saatchi's 1981/1995 'Ironing Board Study' and Classic FM’s/Bournemouth University's 1995 'Jigsaw study'. The theory that listeners zone in and out depending on what interests them:

“However, attention is at best a restless thing, always waxing and waning, and shifting from one focus to another. The sounds of the radio are seldom inhibited for more than a few minutes at a time.  The mind wanders from the task in hand to the distracting sound”.

Some things have come to pass:

“In certain ways radio is a dangerous competitor of the newspaper.”

And some prophetic observations on the delinquent use of radio’s immense power:

“The Nazi propagandist minister, Goebbels, uses it ubiquitously to spread the doctrines of Hitler and says that ''Some day the radio will be the spiritual daily bread of the whole German nation."

What about children though?

“About one-third of the children say that they lie awake in bed thinking of things they have heard over the radio. The same number report that they frequently dream of radio plots : three- fourths of these dreams are nightmares”.

Given American radio was, by then, already into commercial radio full throttle, the book also alludes to what later became ‘pester power’ in terms to children hearing advertisements and then lobbying poor Mama for said goodies:

“ The advertising appeal is ingenious and effective. It is directed toward the child's desire for physical superiority (victory at games and ''pep"). It comes just before the supper hour when hunger facilitates mental associations pertaining to food. It arouses the powerful motive of sympathy and compassion by asking the child to tell his mother about the product... Through repetition, tedious to the adult but interesting to the child, the association between the fantasy of the story and the product in question is indelibly established”.

Ah. Repetition builds reputation.

What of station formats?

• “a slight majority of this station's hours are devoted to network”
• “far more network programs are broadcast on Sundays than on weekdays;
• “the early morning hours (6-8) contain entirely local programs”
• “three-fourths of the programs broadcast during the best evening hours (7-10) are network relays;
• “the days when listening habits are least dependable (over the week-end) are filled with sustaining network broadcasts to keep the station on the air most economically..”

So, the truth is out.  In implementing 'The Future of Radio' in 2007, OFCOM just copied and pasted from this 1935 book for its Localness Guidelines.

By the way, according to the 1930 US census (which likely enjoyed jolly COI-type ads saying “fill in the form y’all”), there were suggestions that 70 per cent of homes were, were “supplied with radios”.  

If the behavioural assertions above are to be believed, the rest of the homes contained thick Americans with fairly chilled kids.

This is amazing. Average listening time was 19.6 hours a week. In 2014, it is 21.5.  The sample size was 507, by the way if Ipsos/Mori are reading this.  

Popular programme elements included ‘Dance Orchestras’ at Number 1 in the chart, followed by football and symphonies. Wow.  It’s commercial national radio. Absolute, Talksport and Classic.  Sports and old songs are in there too, in the next two positions, so thank goodness we have Smooth.  Least popular thing? “Advertising messages”.

How many stations in the listening repertoire back in the 1930s?

 “The average listener is not accustomed to tune in to all available stations. His habits at the dial are likely to be rutted: 5.6 per cent listen regularly to only one station while 76.6% per cent never listen to more than three stations”.

All these years later, the ‘habits at the dial’ of the average punter are much the same.

There’s some handy listener research, suggesting that 84% preferred music programming, with the remainder opting for speech. It also suggests that speech is used as foreground listening and music as background.

Forgive me for just lapping up the experiments on presenter voices, conducted by WEEI in Boston involving the tones of  twenty-four male (but of course) speakers and over six hundred judges. They sought to establish whether people could judge appearance by a voice.  We must try that trial again. A great contest for your breakfast show, maybe.

They  found that it was challenging to establish height from a voice, although some favourable results were uncovered owing “primarily to the case of a short fat man whose voice was thick, mellow, and "chuckling." . Give that guy a job on Radio 2.

Voices were matched to  handwriting “about one and a half times as frequently as would be expected by chance.”

Photos and voices were matched with some success as was political preference.  Close your eyes. Listen to Nick Ferrari and try to establish which way he votes.

I shall leave you with a brief glimpse into Chapter 7.

“Most people would rather hear a man than a woman speak over the radio. Yet few listeners are able to explain this preference: they can tell neither how the sexes differ in their vocal appeal nor why. Even the supervisor of broadcasting at the studio can seldom give reasons why his announcing staff is entirely male.”

I bet he can’t.

They resorted to another fab experiment with men and women reading articles into a microphone and  respondents were asked to score on various factors. 

"Women were found to be rated higher in some qualities and men in others. In general men are judged to be more natural and more persuasive. Except in poetry and abstract passages, the listeners felt that men took more of an interest in the material they were broadcasting. In four out of seven experiments, women's voices were judged as more attractive".

Before the analysis, 95 per cent of the listeners had already stated that men's voices were more attractive.  The conclusion states:

“This result shows a noteworthy difference between stereotyped and analytic judgments. It indicates that the preliminary judgment was based to a considerable degree upon mere prejudice”

How far have we really come in 80 years?

Grab my book 'How to Make Great Radio'. Published by Biteback. https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/how-to-make-great-radio

I would of liked to write about grammer, spelling and pronounceiation

I almost choked writing that headline.  All over social media and online, a generation seems unable to write 'would have', and prefers the nonsensical 'would of'.

In years gone by, those on many radio stations rarely needed to write much down, apart from scribbling some hasty notes on their music log: 'Edna from Norwich - wheelie bins'.  Now, life is different.  On-line and social media writing is part of our lives; and part of our jobs.  It's as important to craft the written word off-air as carefully as we select the spoken word on-air.  Few in radio now do not write consumer-facing material, whether producers, journalists, presenters or those in the commercial arena.  Much of such material is conversational in tone, but even writing that is an art. There's a difference too between conversational or necessarily truncated - and wrong.

What surprises me is how intelligent people can leave their school and university gates without a grasp of the basics.  I stare in  amazement at some frighteningly bright young things with whom I've worked over recent years when I glance down at a piece of their written work which befits a 12 year old. Is our education and parenting so bad, we are incapable of teaching our own language?  Those coming here from other countries appear to have a better grasp of the basics of our language than we do.  The time we should be spending polishing writing tone and style to complement our media brands beautifully, we are simply using to make basic corrections in red ink.

Is spelling 'definitely' correctly too much to ask? Or not baring all in 'I can't bear to see'?

The ability to use English to a decent standard is now crucial in our industry.  In the commercial arena too, things have changed.  Where once a suitcase full of dog-eared contracts and half-empty cigarette packets sufficed, sales execs now need to assemble great presentations.  How often are they spoiled by a glaring error in font 48, Comic-Sans?  At a time when we are writing more and more, the emphasis on that very topic is being diminished in the educational system.  Am I wrong to expect a graduate, in whatever subject, to have a decent grasp?  Said David, sans degree and with chip on shoulder.  Broken Britain. Harrumph.

As for the apostrophe, I'll concede that predictive text's dogged insistence on maliciously deploying the wrong usage is unhelpful, but one hopes that a grasp of the basic rules would mean most errors are corrected, certainly by the time content graduates to website or external email. It's fairly simple when you look at its place. Mind you, I'm almost giving up insisting on the correct apostrophe absence in 60s, 70s and CDs, such is the tide of examples where folk think that to use one is correct.   Thank goodness Absolute Radio gets it right, otherwise we'd really be in a pickle.  The bloke selling pea's from a van just outside M & S in Nottingham may just need a quick reminder, though.

A grasp of the meaning of words is also useful to those who work with them every day.  As we do. A senior BBC editor has just related the tale to me of how the Telegraph reported last week that "people were evacuated". And there the sentence ended.  As he points out, that would likely have created rather an unsavoury mess.  Where is the line between conversational and misuse?

Pronunciation also appears a challenge. Or 'pron-ounce-e-ation', some insist on saying. I guess we can blame the influence of American media for giving us 'loo-tenants' rather than 'leff-tenants'.  The Americans also gave us 'skedule'  (schedule) rather than 'shedule', although most in radio now use the latter off-air so frequently each day, I suspect I'm fighting a losing battle there. Mind you, we really should stop Sellotaping the sound of a gratuitous 'k' at the end of 'something' and 'nothing'. And I'm rather averse to hearing 'adverse', when they really do mean, well, 'averse'. 

Grammar on air can induce shock too.  Since first drafting this blog, one fellow Tweeter mentioned he'd heard: "Wasn't you going to ask me for a song" and the impressive: "what I done earlier".

It would likely render the topic too broad were I to to mention the way some media recruits

appear not to display the degree of 'general knowledge' one would expect of curious individuals. And a general shrugging of shoulders when that becomes evident, rather than an embarrassed sucking in of breath through teeth, and conceding 'I should probably have known that'.  Did I really hear 'Corps' pronounced as corpse?  I fear I did. Particularly unfortunate given the nature and context of that report.

Does it matter? Well, getting it wrong clearly annoys some people, and why would you want to do that?  It also sends off a 'we don't really care that much about getting it right' message, which is likely unhelpful.  And, yes, the wrong spelling or pronunciation can impact on comprehension. And, bigger yes, the best words and style really enhance meaning.  Language does indeed mature and evolve, but this is not about evolution, it's revolution. And its rong.

People frequently ask: "What should I study if I want a career in media?".  After some painful decades in management, I might smile and suggest wryly: 'psychology and social work'. But, thinking about it, 'English' is a another good response.

Words - The Most Powerful Drug used by Mankind

When the redoubtable Julia approaches your table with a welcoming smile, she has but a twenty word opportunity to influence how you feel about your time in her lovely bijou Birmingham restaurant; and whether you plump for a bargain single course, or treat yourself to a tasty a la carte selection.

The way she'll smile and talk to you about the lovely lean cut of beef, the delicious chilled French wine, or the mussels being fresh in that morning.  Not just pepper, but "a splash of pepper".  It all matters.  

Yes, corporate copywriters in some restaurants have maybe over-drizzled the menus, but this is important stuff.  It's her restaurant. She cares about it. Julia wants you to enjoy your time there, spend a decent amount - and pledge to return. Yes, the food is crucial, and so are the words. 

Just as TV now does food porn, words can do it too.  When I write the words 'sizzling fillet steak', just try to stop your mind dwelling on that bloody cut of beef, smeared with English mustard. 

There. You can't.  It is the brain which causes salivation, and yours just has.  In radio, just as in the kitchen, words matter.

You can always hear when a presenter is holding a newspaper cutting when they tell a story. The sentences are wrong, the words are wrong.  The grammar is wrong.  Hear them relate that same story, from memory, to a friend, 35, over a glass of Pinot later that night, and they'll choose the perfect words.  Presenters gripping a cutting will try to put the item in their own language, but as long as the printed words are in front of them, you'll find the tabloid language seeping on-air like the disease it is.

Travel news is classic.  If I hear again about my journey home being delayed by 'an earlier

accident', I'll scream.  What the hell is one of those? As opposed to what?  A lorry about to keel over?  As a motorist, I do not care whether my delay is caused by the lorry still being there, or whether they are just now sweeping up the glass.  I am simply delayed because there was an accident.  If I were to ring a friend and tell them of my delay, I doubt whether I'd use the phrase 'earlier accident'.  All accidents were earlier.

Whilst we're on travel news: "drivers are asked to take the A5 instead' is not quite how you'd share that info by text with a friend.  You'd more likely choose active language: "you need to get off the M1 at junction 2".  On BBC national TV news tonight, a reporter whined that 'the public are being warned tonight'. Does that include me or not?  Sounds as if they are talking to someone else.

Unless, of course, you are rehearsing to be a police press officer in which case you must indeed master the art of plodding passive material like 'members of the general public are asked to...'. 

When I hear a news story refer in the third person to 'people in (area)', it sounds to me as if they are presuming they are not broadcasting to people.  Maybe to dogs and cats, I presume. And 'electricity users are being faced with price hikes...'. must come as reassuring news to the many folk listening who rely on candles and gas mantles. On conversational news bulletins on contemporary radio stations, the word 'you' is fine. 

Having said that, there is a danger of taking this inclusiveness too far.  There was a classic genuine example when one journalist delivered the line  'this weekend the police have staged a knife amnesty, so take your knives and guns down to'...

"Call me with your stories", invites the presenter. It's certainly better language than was employed a generation ago. 'Me' is good, 'story' is excellent. But why the plural? As a presenter you have likely set a topic and you want your listener simply to get in touch with their one great story. 

Why make things conditional? 'If you want to win/take  part/got a story', gives the casual listener an easy option to shake their head and say 'no, I don't'. Presume every listener has a story or a desire and wants to take part. After all, aren't those listeners the very people you are really addressing at that precise moment.

Off-air too, words make the difference as to whether your BA persuades the great caller to go on-air or not.  At the outset, the nervous contributor might be more agreeable to "having a word with Sue" than the frightening prospect of being '"put through to the studio'/'going live on-air".

Isn't it great to hear someone say 'first time I've got in touch'.  Makes you feel warm inside.  Something you said made them call in that day. And,  given that most topics come round again and again, it was probably the way you expressed it that day which prompted them, at last, to want to speak to you. On every previous occasion, you had failed to motivate them.

The enduring radio puzzle is why some subjects floated for listener involvement work, and why others don't.  The sure-fire topic may often sink; whilst the obtuse accidental topic flies.  Similarly, the stunt you spent years planning is forgotten within days whilst that surprise aside is recalled a year later in a focus group.  Maybe it's because the language in the latter was wholly natural - and the pacing of discovery for you and the listener were utterly aligned.  That's not to say preparation is futile.  When you know what you want to talk about,  it takes real skill to finesse the proposition to generate the optimum response.

And those lovely cliches: 'with you through until 10'.  Someone once felt it was appropriate to trumpet the end of the show. What exactly is significant about the end?  I fear you'd never hear about Coronation Street being 'right the way through 'til eight'.  And 'one lucky winner'.  As opposed to an unlucky one?

As a broadcaster, all you have is the words and the way you say them.  To fail to consider vocabulary is a sin.  Peel back the layers to enrich your story, and change that picture from black and white to colour.

Comedians do it all the time - vocabulary and delivery.  When I interviewed the gifted Jon Holmes recently, at a jolly Radio Today away day at Alton Towers, we touched on how specificity works.  In an anecdote, a Tesco carrier bag is funnier than a carrier bag; and 'a Jack Russell' lends more humour than 'a dog' . And there's that good old rule of three, where lists of three are inherently funnier and more satisfying. 

Many broadcasters have wisely studied comedy rules, and some of the greats have soaked them up inadvertently and employed them in their story-telling. The heightened impact of the funny word being deployed the end of the gag - and the fact that some words simply sound funnier than others.  

An anecdote with 'Greggs' in is funnier than one with 'O'Briens' in.  Words matter.  

Lest you wondered, by the way, the quote at the head of this blog is from Rudyard Kipling; and Julia's canalside Birmingham restaurant, JuJus, is genuinely well worth a visit. 

Grab a copy of my book 'How to Make Great Radio', published by Biteback