Should 2fm change name ?

Enda Murphy

The name is now toxic and its dead, 2fm need a total revamp and an new name imo.

Cill Dara Abu

What would you name it?

doomed

C.R.A.P. - does exactly what it says on the tin.

im invisible

'network 2' ?

Fuzzy Clam

Radio Dublin. Well we've Nova, Sunshine and Q102, so why not? It's not like it's relevant outside Dublin any more.

donegal11

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

Radio Dublin. Well we've Nova, Sunshine and Q102, so why not? It's not like it's relevant outside Dublin any more.

Would have thought the opposite.

telekon

God no, don't tempt them...they'll pay some consultancy over €100,000 who'll advise them to re-brand themselves 'RTE Radio 2' or such, the same way they threw money away at Network2 ->RTE2.

Money squandering vermin.:mad::mad:

Skid

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

Radio Dublin. Well we've Nova, Sunshine and Q102, so why not? It's not like it's relevant outside Dublin any more.

It's less relevant in Dublin than anywhere else.

The presenters and content are the problem, not the name.

donegal11

Problem with 2fm is that it's facing to much competition. In Dublin it's always played second fiddle to fm104 and 98fm and outside the pale it's being destroyed by the new regional youth stations such iradio. A name change will change nothing but the for worse if they keep their existing lineup, and lose their nostalgic name.

Yahew

It used to be network 2, but - listen to this - it wasn't really a network!


What larks!

Keith186

2FM is a grand name.

Fuzzy Clam

Yahew wrote: »

It used to be network 2, but - listen to this - it wasn't really a network!


What larks!

It was never "Network 2". Dat wuz a TV channel

What Larks:rolleyes:

paulmclaughlin

3FM

mikom

Relic fm.

Yahew

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

It was never "Network 2". Dat wuz a TV channel

oh yeah.

Slaps head.

Fuzzy Clam

Yahew wrote: »

oh yeah.

Slaps head.

You're forgiven:)

Plazaman

WTFIHOHATBFM *





* Why The Fúck Is Hector O Heochagain Allow To Broadcast - FM




.

GSF

Yesterday FM?

telecinesk

Dunno except for a few of them,.. its really BBCR1/2 West ? Fakey Accents are criminal lol

Caledonman

With Willie O'reilly going to RTE Radio from Today FM, I could see Ray Darcy, Ray Foley and Ian Dempsey all being tempted to 2FM, or 1 or them at least.... Tubridy to go back to RTE 1 or the BBC, Dempsey to take over from the dreadful Hector, and Darcy to come in for the morning slot, now that all the damage has been done there would be no pressure compared to coming in after Gerry R.... Far better pay in RTE, and they could virtually name their conditions at this stage.... all IMO.....

Caledonman

Plazaman wrote: »

WTFIHOHATBFM *





* Why The Fúck Is Hector O Heochagain Allow To Broadcast - FM




.

You could add in a few more into that.. including Tubridy..

miketv

I think the morning and afternoon slots (with maby the exception of the golden hour) really needs a clearout. After 7pm, 2fm is good, i don't have the perfect answer but compared to previous times it's in a bad place.

I remember as a kid enjoying 2fm all day. Ian Dempsey, Gerry Ryan, Larry Gogan, Gareth O'Callaghan,4-7 I forget?, TonyFenton "your the winner!" for a hour. Dave Fanning and Moloney after midnight. Okay I missed a few but great entertainment all day.
You could leave the radio on 2fm all day (I admit less choice then) , now its very stale and falling behind

kraggy

WOR is going to be "Group Commerical Director" of RTE. It's a new post.

Not sure if he'd be in a position to recruit presenters.

Lapin

"For Sale FM"

RTÉ should flog it off to the highest bidder ta fuk and make a few bob out of it.

Doctor Jimbob

I think they should call it Brian.

HugoBradyBrown

telekon wrote: »

God no, don't tempt them...they'll pay some consultancy over €100,000 who'll advise them to re-brand themselves 'RTE Radio 2' or such, the same way they threw money away at Network2 ->RTE2.

Money squandering vermin.:mad::mad:

The point about the development and propagation of the 'Network2' and then the 'RTE Network 2' station identity is well made, but it will have been as a result of a sincere error, though a gross one, by RTE management, and managerial careers will have been blighted by the mistake and by the consequent waste of funds. It arose, presumably, because the external marketing advisors who were retained (and such people are invariably dullards practicing a depraved trade that Adam Smith would have added to his list of 'prostitution trades' in the The Wealth, had it existed in his time) got the upper hand for a period of time. Their inane patter will have dazzled the more serious and insecure intellectuals running Teilifís. Happily they were seen off the premises and normal service was eventually restored, as sanity slowly crept back into the higher echelons in Donnybrook.

However, the statement 'Money squandering vermin' is clearly uncalled-for. The management at the time were in thrall to people in shiny suits who were incessantly spouting mindless jargon. It is a case of the honest man or woman falling among thieves, thieves at least of the station's self-respect, if not directly of its funds. One is reminded of the tale of the Emperor's New Clothes. The fact that nobody was watching 'Network 2' after the change was evidence that the plain people of Ireland are less easily taken in patter and spin; years at cattle marts give one some valuable experience, I suppose.


Hugo Brady Brown

telekon

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

However, the statement 'Money squandering vermin' is clearly uncalled-for....

RTE management expect losses of €25 million for 2011. Who picks up the tab? The taxpayer. Who is accountable? No-one.

Wertz

2FM or RTÉ 2FM or whatever you like to call it... the name is not the problem, re-branding with all the added costs will not fix the problem, because it isn't one...the station's problem is one of identity and listener appeal....it tries in some way to straddle the ground between BBC's R1 & R2 and fails to appeal because it's gamut is too wide.
Apart from Fanning this morning, I honestly can't recall the last time I listened to the station, and certainly not for it's music output...however I'd happily listen to either of those BBC stations for both the music and the chat type shows.

The "youth" station which decided it's market is now 18-25 & 25-39 or whatever, late last year, needs to focus more on who exactly they want to attract...in trying to appeal to a vast demographic they inevitably lose listeners from both.
They have quite a lot of competetion in the field of younger output...but they're trying to appeal to them with old guard DJs and dusty broadcasting ideas...
A huge shake up is needed in the line up, similar to R1's clearout in the mid 90's...new broom, new ideas...sure, change the name if you like but only alongside the structural changes that are at the core of the staion's perceived problems...

HugoBradyBrown

telekon wrote: »

RTE management expect losses of €25 million for 2011. Who picks up the tab? The taxpayer. Who is accountable? No-one.

The freeze on the TV tax is clearly the reason for this temporary deficit. As in the case of university funding, it is self-evidently essential that supply is voted by the Oireachtas from taxation to sustain and develop crucial social and public services, for the benefit of individual citizens and of society as a whole.

Given the high quality multi-channel and multi-platform service provided by RTE to the people, it is plain that it cannot be funded at the same cost to the citizen as one Sunday newspaper a week. We need to be prepared to pay at a hedonically-commensurate rate for what we enjoy and benefit from. The deficit should be taken onto the Exchequer account. There should then be an immediate initial rise in the TV tax to 200 Euro, with a clear path set out of modest cost increases over a number of years, probably converging on a figure of an even 250 Euro. This would give RTE that desirable sense of security to plan ahead, to engage the very best broadcasting practitioners, and to devote itself to in-house creativity. As it is, valuable managerial and creative energy is being sapped by financial uncertainty.


Hugo Brady Brown

Wertz

Raise the licence fee to pay for mediocre output and top heavy management/wages?
Unbelieveable to be frank. With an attitude like that you can only be old guard Montrose staffer. No offence but that's exactly how you come across.

How about the station works with what it has and reduces it's costs and it's rates for commerical advertising to bring in revenue... and gets rid of the high waged parts of it's "talent" and bring in some fresh faces?

HugoBradyBrown

Wertz wrote: »

Raise the licence fee to pay for mediocre output and top heavy management/wages?
Unbelieveable to be frank. With an attitude like that you can only be old guard Montrose staffer. No offence but that's exactly how you come across.

How about the station works with what it has and reduces it's costs and it's rates for commerical advertising to bring in revenue... and gets rid of the high waged parts of it's "talent" and bring in some fresh faces?

There are fixed administrative overheads, including off-air professional and managerial specialists, who command a market salary rate themselves.

The potential talent pool of new faces is, contrary to the conventional wisdom, rather a small one; many a person who can light up a corner of a public house with their wit or their singing will freeze or be unsympathetic on camera or before a microphone. And it is important that the medium should 'love' people.

Furthermore, every time we build someone up into a significant on-air or on-screen presence (or even as a mere writer or storyboarder behind the scenes), they start to cast longing eyes over the water (as any rationally self-interested, if unpatriotic, person would), so it's back to square one. It is, sadly, an imperative to be in a position to meet the financial demands of the market for talent from available resources. Nobody, I am sure, would wish for rank amateurism or for any further expansion of cheap and distinctly un-cheerful reality broadcasting. There are producers and senior producers who can scarcely sleep at night in shame at some of the output that has to go out in the 'reality broadcasting' strand.

We are, in any case, talking about an incremental cost to the individual patriotic taxpayer of scarcely more than that of a few glossy magazines a year. So I commend this simple solution to all readers.



Hugo Brady Brown

mikom

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

The freeze on the TV tax is clearly the reason for this temporary deficit. As in the case of university funding, it is self-evidently essential that supply is voted by the Oireachtas from taxation to sustain and develop crucial social and public services, for the benefit of individual citizens and of society as a whole.

Given the high quality multi-channel and multi-platform service provided by RTE to the people, it is plain that it cannot be funded at the same cost to the citizen as one Sunday newspaper a week. We need to be prepared to pay at a hedonically-commensurate rate for what we enjoy and benefit from. The deficit should be taken onto the Exchequer account. There should then be an immediate initial rise in the TV tax to 200 Euro, with a clear path set out of modest cost increases over a number of years, probably converging on a figure of an even 250 Euro. This would give RTE that desirable sense of security to plan ahead, to engage the very best broadcasting practitioners, and to devote itself to in-house creativity. As it is, valuable managerial and creative energy is being sapped by financial uncertainty.


Hugo Brady Brown

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

There are fixed administrative overheads, including off-air professional and managerial specialists, who command a market salary rate themselves.

The potential talent pool of new faces is, contrary to the conventional wisdom, rather a small one; many a person who can light up a corner of a public house with their wit or their singing will freeze or be unsympathetic on camera or before a microphone. And it is important that the medium should 'love' people.

Furthermore, every time we build someone up into a significant on-air or on-screen presence (or even as a mere writer or storyboarder behind the scenes), they being to cast longing eyes over the water (as any rationally self-interested, if unpatriotic, person would), so it's back to square one. It is, sadly, an imperative to be in a position to meet the financial demands of the market for talent from available resources. Nobody, I am sure, would wish for rank amateurism or for any further expansion of cheap and distinctly un-cheerful reality broadcasting. There are producers and senior producers who can scarcely sleep at night in shame at some of the output that has to go out in the 'reality broadcasting' strand.

We are, in any case, talking about an incremental cost to the individual patriotic taxpayer of scarcely more than that of a few glossy magazines a year. So I commend this simple solution to all readers.



Hugo Brady Brown

La-La land.
Especially when many people are clinging on by their fingernails as they try to provide for their families.

Reads like it was written from Montrose, and if not I fear you are drastically out of touch with the average Irishman or woman.

HugoBradyBrown

mikom wrote: »

La-La land.
Especially when many people are clinging on by their fingernails as they try to provide for their families.

Reads like it was written from Montrose, and if not I fear you are drastically out of touch with the average Irishman or woman.

Well then, I suggest, in next month's Budget the government should consider a hypothecated tuppence on the pint of plain and a shilling on the bottle of wine, to support one of the jewels of the international broadcasting world; such an indirect taxation measure would have no impact on those clinging on by their fingernails, while drawing some modest revenue from those still able to indulge themselves with luxury goods.


Hugo Brady Brown

Wertz

So in the face of rising costs across the nation to pay for bank bailouts, social welfare, health costs, fuel/food inflation, and all associated taxes, you would have the already hard pressed householder stump up yet more money, which you may or may not realise, does not grow on trees, apart from a certain genus of cherry tree found exclusively in Donnybrook, to pay for the failure that is 2FM and the associated costs of propping up the station in it's current guise?

Unbelievable. Typical public service attitude from you Mr Brown.

Speaking personally I'm already hard pressed to afford the current cost of a licence, and we've been told over the past few years that 2FM is in fact a net contributor to RTÉ's income...to claim that another couple of pence a week won't make a difference is downright insulting to me and probably many others, especially considering that I neither utilise a quarter of the services that the broadcaster seem to think we require as a listener/viewer, nor want them.

As for your comments on talent, tune in to any local broadcaster or one of the many national commerical stations to see the talent that is out there and the young talent that RTÉ continually ignore in favour of "big names" and their big wage.
It has nothing to do with pub corners or camera shyness, it's to do with fecking talent...something that is sorely lacking on both 2FM and the wider network despite the levels of pay.

Anyway bring on the cost increases...I can honestly say that if things continue in the same way next year for me as they did the past two years that I'll be heading for Mountjoy, because I certainly won't be handing over €200-250 as much on principle as on the fact that I'd be taking food from my own mouth.

HugoBradyBrown

Wertz wrote: »

So in the face of rising costs across the nation to pay for bank bailouts, social welfare, health costs, fuel/food inflation, and all associated taxes, you would have the already hard pressed householder stump up yet more money, which you may or may not realise, does not grow on trees, apart from a certain genus of cherry tree found exclusively in Donnybrook, to pay for the failure that is 2FM and the associated costs of propping up the station in it's current guise?

Unbelievable. Typical public service attitude from you Mr Brown.

Speaking personally I'm already hard pressed to afford the current cost of a licence, and we've been told over the past few years that 2FM is in fact a net contributor to RTÉ's income...to claim that another couple of pence a week won't make a difference is downright insulting to me and probably many others, especially considering that I neither utilise a quarter of the services that the broadcaster seem to think we require as a listener/viewer, nor want them.

As for your comments on talent, tune in to any local broadcaster or one of the many national commerical stations to see the talent that is out there and the young talent that RTÉ continually ignore in favour of "big names" and their big wage.
It has nothing to do with pub corners or camera shyness, it's to do with fecking talent...something that is sorely lacking on both 2FM and the wider network despite the levels of pay.

Anyway bring on the cost increases...I can honestly say that if things continue in the same way next year for me as they did the past two years that I'll be heading for Mountjoy, because I certainly won't be handing over €200-250 as much on principle as on the fact that I'd be taking food from my own mouth.

It's frankly hard to believe that the public would not be willing to pay a modest, almost imperceptible increase, in order to retain the quality output we have, and to relax into the promise of improvement.

As for broadcasters and ancillary staff from local or community radio, yes, the top of that pyramid forms part of the pool that RTE can draw on, but clearly in relation to the mass of their personnel, it is a case of "small beer in small bottles." All very well in their restricted domain with an audience prepared to acccept something with the whiff of honest amateurism, but in the main wholly unsuited to the professional demands of national radio. Not least, talent that is to be able to bloom on the national service needs the skin of a rhinoceros, to endure the slings and arrows hurled at them by an assortment of hurlers on the ditch, only some of whom are informed critics with any insider's knowledge of the station and its ethos.


Hugo Brady Brown

GSF

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

It's frankly hard to believe that the public would not be willing to pay a modest, almost imperceptible increase, in order to retain the quality output we have, and to relax into the promise of improvement.

Why dont you put your donation in an envelope and send it to them if you feel so strongly? Count me out though.

All these feeders off the public purse individually claim that you wont notice another 50 cent. But put a thousand leeches on your body and they will collectively suck your blood dry.

Caledonman

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

The freeze on the TV tax is clearly the reason for this temporary deficit. As in the case of university funding, it is self-evidently essential that supply is voted by the Oireachtas from taxation to sustain and develop crucial social and public services, for the benefit of individual citizens and of society as a whole.

Given the high quality multi-channel and multi-platform service provided by RTE to the people, it is plain that it cannot be funded at the same cost to the citizen as one Sunday newspaper a week. We need to be prepared to pay at a hedonically-commensurate rate for what we enjoy and benefit from. The deficit should be taken onto the Exchequer account. There should then be an immediate initial rise in the TV tax to 200 Euro, with a clear path set out of modest cost increases over a number of years, probably converging on a figure of an even 250 Euro. This would give RTE that desirable sense of security to plan ahead, to engage the very best broadcasting practitioners, and to devote itself to in-house creativity. As it is, valuable managerial and creative energy is being sapped by financial uncertainty.


Hugo Brady Brown

What an absolute load of crap. You obviously don't work in business. Its very simple, income vs expenditure. Income from TV Licence fees and advertising against their overheads. Any normal business cuts its cloth to suit its means.
There are far too many staff, too many that are overpaid also. Its typical civil service mentality. If RTE was in the private sector, there would be massive redundancies to bring the finances in line. Until they do an Aer Lingus, and bring in someone that will actually cut expenditure, it will never change. I know there are redundancies planned in there, and pay cuts too. Putting up licence fees is a stupid suggestion, and any increase should go to the private sector stations to help produce programmes!!

mikom

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

It's frankly hard to believe that the public would not be willing to pay a modest, almost imperceptible increase

Believe it...

QuadLeo

Caledonman wrote: »

If RTE was in the private sector, there would be massive redundancies to bring the finances in line...... I know there are redundancies planned in there, and pay cuts too. Putting up licence fees is a stupid suggestion, and any increase should go to the private sector stations to help produce programmes!!

I think the problem with RTE, and any broadcasting organisation for that matter, is that redundancies can't effect output and programmes. Which inevitably it would, if it isn’t done very carefully and in a structured way. Massive redundancies in RTE would have an immediate affect on output. So unless RTE start cutting services, ie. Rte guide, 2fm, lyric, or aertel or whatever, then it’s very difficult to absorb too many redundancies. Pay cuts are a different matter and it’s impossible for anyone to defend the wages some of the presenters earn, not to mention some management too.

HugoBradyBrown

QuadLeo wrote: »

I think the problem with RTE, and any broadcasting organisation for that matter, is that redundancies can't effect output and programmes. Which inevitably it would, if it isn’t done very carefully and in a structured way. Massive redundancies in RTE would have an immediate affect on output. So unless RTE start cutting services, ie. Rte guide, 2fm, lyric, or aertel or whatever, then it’s very difficult to absorb too many redundancies. Pay cuts are a different matter and it’s impossible for anyone to defend the wages some of the presenters earn, not to mention some management too.

Though it is not a working day, let me dispose of some issues that have arisen:

It's difficult to see how cutting the modest remuneration of the majority of the staff (as only the stars are paid at the headline levels frequently misquoted) could affect production for the better. Everything is pared to the bone, you can take it from me, and unless we are to start cutting into bone, people are looking for blood from a turnip. In the general public debate, I sometimes detect in some disgruntled quarters a sense of grievance that could have its roots in personal disappointment, such as from a failure to penetrate through a selection process.

As for the added-value services, clearly the Guide serves an essential purpose, bonding the audience to the station; it should not be overlooked that it is sold commercially, is not subsidised, is the biggest selling magazine of its kind in the market, is widely appreciated and even loved by its purchasers, and is entirely a volitional, not a compulsory, aspect of the public service 'offer' to the public. Aertel continues to serve slow adopters of technology, and is again clearly a crucial aspect of the effort to serve all the people equally. In addresses to Summer Schools and such debating forums, we also have an example of sterling public service.

People will not succeed in stripping the service to the old Athlone-type Raidió Éireann. And I, for one, will not tolerate pay cuts nor service cuts, since what has been built up is an edifice to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the very best on offer internationally. Indeed, countries like the Netherlands and Britain aside, it is hard to see where, for example, a service of the quality of RTE Lyric FM is on offer 24 hours a day, free of charge to all citizens, on platforms ranging from off-air listening to listen-back and podcasts.

Efforts to have our best babies thrown out with the bathwater will be resisted and will not succeed. In part this will be because of a veritable typhoon of public support when necessary - Talk to Joe! -, and because of the intellectual calibre of the staff and management, who can see off any irritating horsefly-style harrying of either radio or Teilifís.

Hugo Brady Brown

GSF

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

Though it is not a working day, let me dispose of some issues that have arisen:

It's difficult to see how cutting the modest remuneration of the majority of the staff (as only the stars are paid at the headline levels frequently misquoted) could affect production for the better. Everything is pared to the bone, you can take it from me, and unless we are to start cutting into bone, people are looking for blood from a turnip.

Ok please provide staffing ratios for 2FM shows versus Today FM equivalent programmes or for RTE Radio 1 programmes versus their NewsTalk equivalents? Otherwise I dont believe you as you just sould like a vested interest pleading for the gravy train to keep running to the current timetable.

Facts please Mr Brown!

HugoBradyBrown

GSF wrote: »

Ok please provide staffing ratios for 2FM shows versus Today FM equivalent programmes or for RTE Radio 1 programmes versus their NewsTalk equivalents? Otherwise I dont believe you as you just sould like a vested interest pleading for the gravy train to keep running to the current timetable.

Facts please Mr Brown!

"Their Newstalk equivalents"!!! Please!

I can be reasonably expected only to compare like with like, not apples with oranges (or turnips!).

Think only of the depth, range, texture and quality of RTE output versus that of the commercial and the pirate sectors.

Hugo Brady Brown

GSF

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

"Their Newstalk equivalents"!!! Please!

I can be reasonably expected only to compare like with like, not apples with oranges (or turnips!).

Think only of the depth, range, texture and quality of RTE output versus that of the commercial and the pirate sectors.

Hugo Brady Brown

I'm afraid I can't take you seriously. Your response is just waffle and obfuscation. No hard facts or numbers to support anything. Vested interests always seem to deride those who have to operate without subsidy and protection. But name calling is really beneath you.

QuadLeo

GSF wrote: »

Ok please provide staffing ratios for 2FM shows versus Today FM equivalent programmes or for RTE Radio 1 programmes versus their NewsTalk equivalents? Otherwise I dont believe you as you just sould like a vested interest pleading for the gravy train to keep running to the current timetable.

Facts please Mr Brown!

Well this is the problem. You can't really compare rte with newstalk or today fm when it comes to staff. From all accounts the treatment of staff in certain stations isn't too good. I've heard serious horror stories about miss-treatment of staff. It's easy to take advantage of people who really want to work in a given profession. Just because one station may have less staff and produce "similar" content doesn't mean it's the right approach. Producers paying for every daily newspaper out of their own pockets!!! Every day! Madness. Treating staff with contempt and using the lowest common denominator approach isn't right. Just because it’s one station’s approach doesn’t mean RTE should embrace it. People deserve to be treated fairly for the work they do. It’s a career, not an internship.

HugoBradyBrown

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

"Their Newstalk equivalents"!!! Please!

I can be reasonably expected only to compare like with like, not apples with oranges (or turnips!).

Think only of the depth, range, texture and quality of RTE output versus that of the commercial and the pirate sectors.

Hugo Brady Brown

GSF wrote: »

I'm afraid I can't take you seriously. Your response is just waffle and obfuscation. No hard facts or numbers to support anything. Vested interests always seem to deride those who have to operate without subsidy and protection. But name calling is really beneath you.

I cannot accept this accountants' worldview that everything that has to be judged has to be subject to quantification; in an area like this the prime determinant is qualitative.

I might observe, since a frankly ludicrous comparison was being invited, that RTE, at least, has never come under successful direct or indirect proprietor pressure or editorial interference. This is one of the great advantages of national radio not being capable of being in the pockets of any private individual, whether her or she be an Irish resident or, arguably even more unsettlingly, a resident of a distant country. Not just is the public service in principle immune to such potential abuses, but historically and today its journalists, editors, producers, senior producers, section directors, heads of service, controllers and directors-general have been and are made of such professional noble metal that such attempts at suborning the integrity of the station would fail at their first attempt. Having RTE in the media landscape provides a gold standard of integrity, of service and of quality of output that can be used by others to measure themselves against. In some cases the comparative quality failures have been egregious, unfortunately.

It is not subsidy to rely on public funds for the provision of public services; it is the carrying into effect of the decisions of the Oireachtas.

It is not name-calling to clarify that to compare National Radio with profit-driven Private Enterprise and personally-controlled radio is to attempt to compare apples and oranges. I trust this will have shed valuable light on a distinction that can get blurred in the welter of self-serving rhetoric that comes from far and near, sometimes coming by indirect routes from a fair distance away on the European continent.



Hugo Brady Brown

Wertz

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

It's frankly hard to believe that the public would not be willing to pay a modest, almost imperceptible increase, in order to retain the quality output we have, and to relax into the promise of improvement.

As for broadcasters and ancillary staff from local or community radio, yes, the top of that pyramid forms part of the pool that RTE can draw on, but clearly in relation to the mass of their personnel, it is a case of "small beer in small bottles." All very well in their restricted domain with an audience prepared to acccept something with the whiff of honest amateurism, but in the main wholly unsuited to the professional demands of national radio. Not least, talent that is to be able to bloom on the national service needs the skin of a rhinoceros, to endure the slings and arrows hurled at them by an assortment of hurlers on the ditch, only some of whom are informed critics with any insider's knowledge of the station and its ethos.

Hard to believe for some such as yourself perhaps... the general attitude judging by the posts on this and other forums and what I pick up in day to day conversations would differ somewhat though.

Your scarcely disguised, patronisingly derogatory comments on local or other commerical radio and the talent that resides there simply reinforce my opinion of you as nothing but a cheerleader for all things RTÉ...
To call such output amateur and say that the good wee listener is willing to put up with it because it's local is laughable; in many cases the listener seeks sanctuary from the bland and cloistered output of the national broadcaster or from their many personalities or woefully constructed playlists
When it comes to amateurishness one wouldn't even have to move the dial from any of the RTE stations (bar perhaps Lyric) to see it in all it's non-glory on a daily basis IMO.

Hurler on the ditch I may be, as many others are on here, but that does not mean that in the very simplest terms that we don't know "good radio".

"Good radio" doesn't have to cost astronomical amounts...there would be an underlying base cost of studios, equipment, support staff, royalties etc etc... but content and decent output, whether it be music or chat doesn't really cost anything....but when it's done well it's priceless and when it's done badly it's wasteful.
You don't need to be some industry insider to hold a valid opinion on what you deem to be enjoyable listening or to garner what the multitude may find enjoyable, and to deride anyone who isn't some sort of expert from having a view, or expressing it simply smacks of self righteousness.

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

Though it is not a working day, let me dispose of some issues that have arisen:

Not a working day Hugo? I sincerely hope RTÉ or the PR firm acting on their behalf don't pay you by the keystroke...although overtime would be forgivable, given that it's a weekend.

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

It's difficult to see how cutting the modest remuneration of the majority of the staff (as only the stars are paid at the headline levels frequently misquoted) could affect production for the better. Everything is pared to the bone, you can take it from me, and unless we are to start cutting into bone, people are looking for blood from a turnip. In the general public debate, I sometimes detect in some disgruntled quarters a sense of grievance that could have its roots in personal disappointment, such as from a failure to penetrate through a selection process.

You're right of course...you can't do it all by cutting pay, it's simplistic to claim otherwise...you need to cut staff that are not pulling their weight or who in leaner times are simply surplus...unions and employment contracts however probably restrict such moves and the only ones that get the heave ho are more recent recruits. RTÉ have that culture of too many chiefs and not enough Indians (and even fewer who can catch a buffalo or build a teepee)...

You may well detect some snubbed contenders for posts in RTÉ, it being a radio forum...but I've seen that attitude by many on here over the years; ie. that if you have only bad things to say about RTÉ radio that obviously you've not succeeded in an application o been wronged by them in some way, in terms of a career.
It's a lot like the way that when I see the blind faith of people, such as yourself, in the station, that I immeadiately think ex or current staffer or relation thereof, or a similar vested interest.
For what it's worth, I have not nor will I ever apply to that or any other broadcaster for such roles... I'm merely a passive listener who's hackles are regularly raised by a service that I'm legally obliged to hand over money for every year and that doesn't offer the value for money that it should (and I mean that in a sense of collective costs rather than the individual licence fee)

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

Efforts to have our best babies thrown out with the bathwater will be resisted and will not succeed. In part this will be because of a veritable typhoon of public support when necessary - Talk to Joe! -, and because of the intellectual calibre of the staff and management, who can see off any irritating horsefly-style harrying of either radio or Teilifís.

Hugo Brady Brown

Typhoon of public support eh? What, will Liveline researchers make a series of outgoing calls to the selected members of the radio listening public to seek such support? "Mary from Howth, you think it's a disgrace how staff are being ousted in RTÉ...g'wan...g'wan"

No-one wants to see true talent ousted...what we do want is true talent....not staff members that maintain their roles simply by virtue of the fact that they've always had those roles and risen through the ranks like damp in a tenement or know such and such in the HR office, which is how it appears to the people out here in listener land.

Your "let them eat cake" style of rebuttal is wearing a little thin Mr Brown... I would counter that in any coming revolution that you and yours might be the first against the wall, so to speak...

Caledonman

QuadLeo wrote: »

I think the problem with RTE, and any broadcasting organisation for that matter, is that redundancies can't effect output and programmes. Which inevitably it would, if it isn’t done very carefully and in a structured way. Massive redundancies in RTE would have an immediate affect on output. So unless RTE start cutting services, ie. Rte guide, 2fm, lyric, or aertel or whatever, then it’s very difficult to absorb too many redundancies. Pay cuts are a different matter and it’s impossible for anyone to defend the wages some of the presenters earn, not to mention some management too.

I take your point, but I know someone that moved from a private commercial station to RTE in news... some facts... massive pay increase, in their old station, they had a lot more responsibility for putting news together, and in their own words, no bureaucracy and bull****, everything has to be signed off by a number of other people in RTE, and what took and hour to get done in the commercial station they worked in, takes 4 in RTE.. I know the standards should be different, but their point was that they were creating work in RTE for to keep the existing staff busy. Why did they move to RTE?? MONEY!!!! Redundancies would have no effect on services, it would just mean existing staff would actually have to do a proper day's work. Just to add to that, I met a very senior person in 2fm, who said to me that 'she actually had to produce a programme earlier that day'. She was actually impressed with herself over that.. in my eyes, it was a welcome to the real world.. I'm sorry, but I can't accept that redundancies in RTE, pay cuts ect, would have any effect in RTE...

HugoBradyBrown

Caledonman wrote: »

I take your point, but I know someone that moved from a private commercial station to RTE in news... some facts... massive pay increase, in their old station, they had a lot more responsibility for putting news together, and in their own words, no bureaucracy and bull****, everything has to be signed off by a number of other people in RTE, and what took and hour to get done in the commercial station they worked in, takes 4 in RTE.. I know the standards should be different, but their point was that they were creating work in RTE for to keep the existing staff busy. Why did they move to RTE?? MONEY!!!!

Generally speaking if someone moves from private or pirate radio to the national service, it will be, in effect, a promotion. The fact that some or many private enterprise profit-driven proprietors choose to keep their lower-ranking staff on degrading pittances of itself means that people who come to RTE are bound to be treated more decently. The headline rates paid to the prima donnas of the profit-driven sector do not trickle down to the lower ranks; indeed, they mean that there is less money that the proprietor will make available for wages and salaries for those who keep the various little ships afloat.

The fact that most people of talent spend their lives trying to cross the bridge into RTE is surely an indication of the pull factor of, yes, conditions, but also professionalism, quality of output, preparedness to invest time & resources in good programming over a long period, excellent technical and administrative backup, a viable corps of colleagues to discuss and grow with, and, all in all, a benign, comfortable working environment where the dignity of each member of staff is the paramount concern.

The fact that there are checks and balances, for example, on the RTE News & Current Affairs side of the house, is not a sign of organisational sclerosis, but of the fact that here the standard demanded by public and politicians, in terms of accuracy, balance and comprehensiveness, is much more stringently enforced than it is in the profit-driven sector.


Hugo Brady Brown

Caledonman

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

Generally speaking if someone moves from private or pirate radio to the national service, it will be, in effect, a promotion. The fact that some or many private enterprise profit-driven proprietors choose to keep their lower-ranking staff on degrading pittances of itself means that people who come to RTE are bound to be treated more decently. The headline rates paid to the prima donnas of the profit-driven sector do not trickle down to the lower ranks; indeed, they mean that there is less money that the proprietor will make available for wages and salaries for those who keep the various little ships afloat.

The fact that most people of talent spend their lives trying to cross the bridge into RTE is surely an indication of the pull factor of, yes, conditions, but also professionalism, quality of output, preparedness to invest time & resources in good programming over a long period, excellent technical and administrative backup, a viable corps of colleagues to discuss and grow with, and, all in all, a benign, comfortable working environment where the dignity of each member of staff is the paramount concern.

The fact that there are checks and balances, for example, on the RTE News & Current Affairs side of the house, is not a sign of organisational sclerosis, but of the fact that here the standard demanded by public and politicians, in terms of accuracy, balance and comprehensiveness, is much more stringently enforced than it is in the profit-driven sector.


Hugo Brady Brown

Firstly, I will assume that either you, partner, relative or whatever works in RTE. The only reasons people want to work in RTE is for money, conditions, easy life compared to a commercial station where you actually have accountability. The difference between RTE and for example Newstalk, is that, not only are certain presenters overpaid, but the backroom staff are also over paid, and it comes back to civil service mentality. Incremental pay increases, year after year after year, where you end up with an administrator earning 3 times what the job should pay.. I was told by YJ in 2fm, that 'we are making cutting edge programmes in here'. Delusion was the only word that came to mind. RTE are afraid to make radical changes on structure, staff, salaries and so on. I think it is coming, but slowly. Yes RTE make fantastic news, and current affair programmes, but outside of this, little else. There is no value for money. Imagine what other stations could do with the licence fees that RTE are given? What gives them the right to get it all?

HugoBradyBrown

Caledonman wrote: »

Firstly, I will assume that either you, partner, relative or whatever works in RTE. The only reasons people want to work in RTE is for money, conditions, easy life compared to a commercial station where you actually have accountability. The difference between RTE and for example Newstalk, is that, not only are certain presenters overpaid, but the backroom staff are also over paid, and it comes back to civil service mentality. Incremental pay increases, year after year after year, where you end up with an administrator earning 3 times what the job should pay.. I was told by YJ in 2fm, that 'we are making cutting edge programmes in here'. Delusion was the only word that came to mind. RTE are afraid to make radical changes on structure, staff, salaries and so on. I think it is coming, but slowly. Yes RTE make fantastic news, and current affair programmes, but outside of this, little else. There is no value for money. Imagine what other stations could do with the licence fees that RTE are given? What gives them the right to get it all?

'Follow the Money' has some truth to it, even in this case.

I think the difference here is that RTE uses public money for public service purposes; profit-driven radio uses advertising revenue for the enrichment of the proprietors of the stations, on- and off-shore, as the case may be.

The difference in motivation is what explains the difference in quality. It also explains why public service broadcasting pays a fair rate to its staff, while profit-driven private radio squeezes the pay-rates of those misfortunate enough to have to serve their time there until they can rise to work in RTE. It is akin to Purgatory of old (1). We should not have pay rates in national radio determined or even influenced by the exactions of profiteers on their own staff. QED, I should have thought.


Hugo Brady Brown

(1) Once usefully defined in this context as "a condition or process of purification or temporary punishment where radio professionals are made ready for work in RTE."

Caledonman

I love reading your posts Hugo. Have you ever looked at the figures for Newstalk or 2fm?? Staff in there are poorly paid, I agree, but there is a fair price for a fair days work, and probable is half way between RTE salaries and for example Newstalk. RTE are so like where Aer Lingus were before Muller took control there. He cut, he cut, he stood up to unions, took no crap, and in my opinion, saved the airline by brining expenditure in line with income. That is what RTE have to do. It will happen eventually, they don't have the huge budgets they were blessed with over the years.