The regional BBC Introducing shows have often been set up by producers who were already at the BBC (And of course worked hard to get their regional show commissioned.) This is great on their part – BBC WM’s Brett and Louise do a great job. In an another region however, not mentioning the station or the DJ, they would play the same bands each week (sometimes different songs, sometimes not) claiming that ‘their audiences need to get used to them. This limited other acts from their ‘moment.’ If an audience likes an act they can check their myspace or site, they don’t need to hear them weekly to ‘get used to them.’

I have worked for the BBC (when I witnessed the above,) Channel4 (including 4music.com) and run a student radio station. I’m also a 20 year old musician working harder on my back up career than playing the music that drives me.

So introducing I think is a good thing, it just needs some kind of ‘mission statement’ that explains how it promotes unsigned artists as well as the lucky ones already with a deal.

The regional BBC Introducing shows have often been set up by producers who were already at the BBC (And of course worked hard to get their regional show commissioned.) This is great on their part – BBC WM’s Brett and Louise do a great job. In an another region however, not mentioning the station or the DJ, they would play the same bands each week (sometimes different songs, sometimes not) claiming that ‘their audiences need to get used to them. This limited other acts from their ‘moment.’ If an audience likes an act they can check their myspace or site, they don’t need to hear them weekly to ‘get used to them.’

I have worked for the BBC (when I witnessed the above,) Channel4 (including 4music.com) and run a student radio station. I’m also a 20 year old musician working harder on my back up career than playing the music that drives me.

So introducing I think is a good thing, it just needs some kind of ‘mission statement’ that explains how it promotes unsigned artists as well as the lucky ones already with a deal.

Please note these are my personal opinions, though clearly they have been shaped by my employment history.

My employment history gives me a unique perspective. I’ve worked for the BBC off and on since 1992. I’ve also worked for Paul Campbell from 2000 until 2001.

Now, as Executive Producer for Syndication, I’m the person responsible for forming editorial partnerships between BBC Audio and Music Interactive and external companies, this includes BBC Introducing, and could even include Amazing Radio.

Now I have to say I disagree quite strongly with both the overall thrust of Paul’s remarks above, and the facts he’s drawn on to form his opinions.

Paul is right to say that Amazing Tunes was launched before BBC Introducing, but he misunderstands how BBC Introducing formalised activity that had been going on for a very long time – much more than cassettes or singles sent to John Peel.

He’s wrong when he says BBC Introducing “lacks the ultimate destination; it leads to airtime – and nothing else” ask the Ting Tings or Florence and the Machine who credit BBC Introducing with helping their rise to prominence (and an audience, a deal, sales of physical product and downloads).

I also think that Paul’s claim to know the BBC needs rethinking – I understand that Paul left the BBC in the late 80s or early 90s. The BBC has changed quite a bit since then, and Paul’s analysis of our motives is incorrect. He’s simply wrong when he says “They never consider the impact on anyone else” … One thing I know from my time working in the BBC, especially in my most recent role, is that the BBC spends *a lot* of time thinking about the effect its activities have on everyone else. It’s why I spend so much time on the phone to Fair Trading. It’s written in very big letters on every project approval form I have to fill out. Lot’s of things get stopped because they’ll have an effect on the public sector …

I don’t know who the exec Paul spoke to at Radio at the Edge was, but somewhere down the line someone’s got their facts wrong. There’s nothing at all wrong with the BBC working with external companies, we do it all the time, it’s what my job is. Mark Thompson has spoken at length about how the BBC should put partnerships at the top of the agenda. We can’t favour one individual company, but we can work with a range of partners across an industry or market sector.

There’s also no reason why a band shouldn’t upload their tracks to both Amazing Tunes and BBC Introducing and MySpace and Google Music and Bebo and anybody else they choose to. If I was in a band (I’m not but plenty of my friends are, I’ve been a music journalist and I’ve also sung in a choir so I’ve got a pretty good knowledge of the music biz too) I’d be uploading my tracks pretty much everywhere. The idea that BBC Introducing undermines Amazing’s USP is simply nonsense, if anything it’s giving services like Amazing a massive shot in the arm. By raising the profile of unsigned music we’re bringing it to a mass audience who can then go away and discover specialist services like Amazing. I strongly suspect that were BBC Introducing to be shut down then Amazing would wither on the vine within weeks.

Paul also misrepresents the BBC’s legal duty to serve the entire population, because we’re funded by the licence fee we have to develop services that appeal to everyone so that everyone gets value for that licence fee. Trying to walk the tightrope between developing services that are popular across the board, and not crushing small businesses like Amazing Radio is pretty tricky – but it’s one thing the BBC thinks long and hard about.

What irritates me (and I speak personally) is when people like Paul use phrases like “BBC Self-aggrandising” and then goes and makes a complaint to the Trust before actually speaking to us. I don’t understand from Paul’s blog post whether he thinks we actually want to crush him, or that we’re ignorant and don’t care … or even worse, well-meaning and don’t care …

I don’t know whether you’ve spoken to Justin Carter, the head of BBC Introducing, already, but if you haven’t why not give him a call? If that doesn’t work call and discuss how BBC Introducing and Amazing Radio might work together. Perhaps it’s best to talk first and complain later – or does that generate fewer headlines?

Richard Leeming

Hi Richard, Many thanks for the comments – it’s good to hear from you again. I’ve published your blog as is, and am not going to respond to your points here right now, as I think that would mean I dominate the debate too much, which would be unfair – although I do have some thoughts on them! It would be better to let others have a say first. (If others respond who are BBC staff, please say so – there are 26,000 of you after all!) Thanks in any event for taking so much time to respond so thoughtfully, I appreciate it. ATB, PC

Please note these are my personal opinions, though clearly they have been shaped by my employment history.

My employment history gives me a unique perspective. I’ve worked for the BBC off and on since 1992. I’ve also worked for Paul Campbell from 2000 until 2001.

Now, as Executive Producer for Syndication, I’m the person responsible for forming editorial partnerships between BBC Audio and Music Interactive and external companies, this includes BBC Introducing, and could even include Amazing Radio.

Now I have to say I disagree quite strongly with both the overall thrust of Paul’s remarks above, and the facts he’s drawn on to form his opinions.

Paul is right to say that Amazing Tunes was launched before BBC Introducing, but he misunderstands how BBC Introducing formalised activity that had been going on for a very long time – much more than cassettes or singles sent to John Peel.

He’s wrong when he says BBC Introducing “lacks the ultimate destination; it leads to airtime – and nothing else” ask the Ting Tings or Florence and the Machine who credit BBC Introducing with helping their rise to prominence (and an audience, a deal, sales of physical product and downloads).

I also think that Paul’s claim to know the BBC needs rethinking – I understand that Paul left the BBC in the late 80s or early 90s. The BBC has changed quite a bit since then, and Paul’s analysis of our motives is incorrect. He’s simply wrong when he says “They never consider the impact on anyone else” … One thing I know from my time working in the BBC, especially in my most recent role, is that the BBC spends *a lot* of time thinking about the effect its activities have on everyone else. It’s why I spend so much time on the phone to Fair Trading. It’s written in very big letters on every project approval form I have to fill out. Lot’s of things get stopped because they’ll have an effect on the public sector …

I don’t know who the exec Paul spoke to at Radio at the Edge was, but somewhere down the line someone’s got their facts wrong. There’s nothing at all wrong with the BBC working with external companies, we do it all the time, it’s what my job is. Mark Thompson has spoken at length about how the BBC should put partnerships at the top of the agenda. We can’t favour one individual company, but we can work with a range of partners across an industry or market sector.

There’s also no reason why a band shouldn’t upload their tracks to both Amazing Tunes and BBC Introducing and MySpace and Google Music and Bebo and anybody else they choose to. If I was in a band (I’m not but plenty of my friends are, I’ve been a music journalist and I’ve also sung in a choir so I’ve got a pretty good knowledge of the music biz too) I’d be uploading my tracks pretty much everywhere. The idea that BBC Introducing undermines Amazing’s USP is simply nonsense, if anything it’s giving services like Amazing a massive shot in the arm. By raising the profile of unsigned music we’re bringing it to a mass audience who can then go away and discover specialist services like Amazing. I strongly suspect that were BBC Introducing to be shut down then Amazing would wither on the vine within weeks.

Paul also misrepresents the BBC’s legal duty to serve the entire population, because we’re funded by the licence fee we have to develop services that appeal to everyone so that everyone gets value for that licence fee. Trying to walk the tightrope between developing services that are popular across the board, and not crushing small businesses like Amazing Radio is pretty tricky – but it’s one thing the BBC thinks long and hard about.

What irritates me (and I speak personally) is when people like Paul use phrases like “BBC Self-aggrandising” and then goes and makes a complaint to the Trust before actually speaking to us. I don’t understand from Paul’s blog post whether he thinks we actually want to crush him, or that we’re ignorant and don’t care … or even worse, well-meaning and don’t care …

I don’t know whether you’ve spoken to Justin Carter, the head of BBC Introducing, already, but if you haven’t why not give him a call? If that doesn’t work call and discuss how BBC Introducing and Amazing Radio might work together. Perhaps it’s best to talk first and complain later – or does that generate fewer headlines?

Richard Leeming

Hi Richard, Many thanks for the comments – it’s good to hear from you again. I’ve published your blog as is, and am not going to respond to your points here right now, as I think that would mean I dominate the debate too much, which would be unfair – although I do have some thoughts on them! It would be better to let others have a say first. (If others respond who are BBC staff, please say so – there are 26,000 of you after all!) Thanks in any event for taking so much time to respond so thoughtfully, I appreciate it. ATB, PC

Thanks Jay – we will!

Thanks Jay – we will!

Thanks, I really appreciate the comment. Let’s hope they listen, and maybe even think … for a change. PC

Thanks, I really appreciate the comment. Let’s hope they listen, and maybe even think … for a change. PC