XFM: Sacrificing quality for … what, exactly?

I don’t really talk about marketing and PR much here, unless it has something to do with blogs or social media, but I’m going to make an exception for UK-based radio station Xfm. They are committing an act of such gross stupidity that I just can’t let it pass.

A little background: I have been a long-term fan of Xfm. Their playlist was probably the most closely aligned to my own tastes of any radio station I’ve every listened to, playing the best new indie, indie-pop, rock and indie-dance you could find, presented by the best DJs. For nearly ten years, they’ve ruled the radio roost, creating a real sense of belonging amongst those of us who listened and loved what we heard.

A couple of months ago, they shed some of their best daytime DJs in a move that I found mystifying and disappointing. Their playlist, too, has deteriorated over the last several months. Like a frog being slowly brought to the boil, I hadn’t really realised just how narrow their playlist had become until someone pointed it out to me. I’ve blogged about all this over on Chocolate and Vodka – if you want to get a feel for just how passionate I am about Xfm, just read the post.

But last week, I discovered that axing their best DJs was only their first move. Their coup de grâce is axing all DJs from 10am until 4pm each weekday, effective from Tuesday 29 May.

RadioNews.co.uk said:

Xfm listeners will be asked to compile their own playlists via SMS, phone and online and vote for the artists and songs they want to hear. The studio production team will then be on hand to send them straight to air.

Listeners will be able to build playlists and vote for their favourite songs, take part in discussions, and record messages for Xu which may well end up on air. All SMS’s will also be displayed instantly.

This is radio for the cable TV generation – in a VH1- or MTV-style move, the most popular songs of the day will be put on heavy rotation whilst the station rakes in the cash from all the SMS messages that they receive. I’m sure they’ll be putting together a nice premium rate phone line too, so that listeners can be fleeced whilst they leave messages that will never make it to air.

As the Guardian’s Organ Grinder says, Xfm are calling this “Radio to the power of U” – a hint that perhaps someone at GCap Media, Xfm’s owners, thinks that this is the radio equivalent of user generated content.

And MediaGuardian (subscription required), said:

A GCap spokeswoman said the changes were not a cost-cutting exercise, and said none of the presenters or production team would lose their jobs. The DJs affected will be moved to other slots, although the total number of hours they are on air will inevitably be reduced.

I am sure that GCap see this not as a cost-cutting exercise, but more as a revenue raising move – if you have six hours of air-time to fill with listener requests, that’s going to require a lot of texts and phone calls.

But surely, I hear you say (even if it is your evil alter-ego saying it), surely this is a good thing? UGC is the way forward! Giving listeners control is the logical thing to do in this age of consumer choice! Xfm’s Managing Director, Nick Davidson thinks so:

Xfm has always been an innovative radio station and we really felt that we were ready to push the boundaries again. We are all excited about handing over the airwaves of Xfm to our listeners – it’s a new era and we can’t wait to see what kind of playlists and discussions they come up with. Our listeners are used to being able to control what they watch or listen to as these days people are inundated with choice. Allowing them to shape their own content seems the next logical step.

Sounds nice, but it’s wrong, terribly wrong.

Think of the power law – the most popular minority gets all the love and kisses, the less popular long tail remains largely ignored. Perhaps the narrowing down of Xfm’s playlist was a preparatory move, getting us used to hearing the same songs over and over again, because that’s what’s going to happen when the Xfm make this move. The majority of people will vote for the minority of songs that they are familiar with. New songs, unfamiliar songs – the ones in the long tail of popularity – will have a very hard time breaking into the hallowed ground of the power curve’s spike, meaning they won’t make it onto the air.

Result: Xfm will become tedious and boring.

The loss of real human DJs – people who care, people who are passionate, funny, interesting, exciting, cute, intelligent, informed, connected – will diminish listeners’ feelings of loyalty to the station. People react most favourably to other people. We like it when a human answers the phone instead of a machine. We prefer to be treated as individuals, not en masse. We want to have conversations with people we like and care about, people that we feel some sort of fellowship with. We don’t connect with people who pop up with an intrusive message for their own little social circle, we simply aren’t wired to care all that much about strangers.

Result: Xfm’s existing listeners will disengage and stop caring about the station.

I’m not the only one to think this is a bit mad. Nik Goodman says:

This move is a negative, defensive step and my predication is that it won’t have any significant positive impact on the audience. If anything, the loyal Xfm fan who tuned in to hear a knowledgable DJ get excited by music, will re-tune to find a station that has one.

Sorry Xfm. Bad move.

And ex-Xfm DJ Iain Baker says:

Oh dear, what a foolish thing to do. And the idea that the listener will suddenly be able to access a huge range of music is just absurd. They’ll get access to the daytime playlist. The end result will be exactly the same songs you hear now, just in a different order.

*sighs*

I was listening to Xfm whilst I was in the bath this morning, it just made me very sad to think how far it’s fallen. It was such a big part of my life and i’ll always have an affection for it, but it really does feel as though they are trying to squeeze the life out of the station…..

It has been suggested (in these comments) that GCap are attempting to strengthen Xfm’s brand, but if that’s the case, then they’ve taken possibly the stupidest step they could have. Xfm already had a strong brand which sprang from hiring really good DJs and playing a varied and interesting selection of the best new and old indie music. If they wanted to strengthen their brand, there are plenty of things that they could do around real co-created content, around social networking, blogging, podcasts, wikis and the like that would take Xfm into truly interesting and innovative territory.

But in this post from On An Overgrown Path, the author implies that Xfm’s move is actually a ratings chaser, following the lead of Classic FM who pioneered the computerised playlist in the UK:

Classic FM’s use of the computerised playlist has been devastatingly successful in the ratings war. In the first three months of 2007 Classic FM reached an audience of 6.03m listeners, up from 5.71m the previous year, while during the same period BBC Radio 3’s audience dropped below the important 2.0 million threshold, declining from 2.1m to 1.9m.

If Xfm are after ratings, then pandering to the popular via listen-led playlisting might not be the stupid move it feels like to those of us who actually care about music. Sure, Xfm might alienate all its existing listeners, but maybe it’ll get new ones. Lots and lots of new ones, people brought up on an MTV diet who don’t want to be surprised or introduced to new music, but who just want to hear what’s familiar, over and over again. In that case, tedious and boring won’t be a problem. Nor will a lack of talented DJs.

The thought that that might be true makes me incredibly sad. One of the jewels in the UK radio crown turns out to be made of paste.

But all might not be lost. Way back when, after the original Xfm was taken over by the Capital Group, the station went through a major reformatting, becoming much more mainstream. Listeners revolted, and Xfm was forced to its senses. From the looks of the discussion on the Xfm listener forums, people aren’t happy with what’s going on now either:

Sounds rubbish to me. XFM daytime will become as soulless as an automated digital station or crappy local radio in the middle of the night.

One of the reasons for listening to radio is for company while you work / lounge around. Not anymore. Bad move.

I’m sure discussion there will hot up when the change comes into effect. Maybe then, when people realise what this new format means, we can organise another revolt.

links for 2007-05-22

XTech roundup, fostering discussion and Ian Forrester’s thoughts

On Thursday at XTech, I took matters into my own hands. Suw and I always travel with an Airport Express so that we can share hotel broadband. In this instance, we used her Airport Express to share the hotel’s broadband with our fellow conference participants. I posted on the Guardian Technology blog about several of the talks.

The full roundup:

That’s all of the posting that I managed. Much, much more, well all of it is here at PlantXTech. I really wanted to blog the session about Quakr, ” a project to build a 3-dimensional world from user contributed photos”.

One thing that I really enjoyed was talking in between sessions about how the web really can be used to foster a rich, nuanced discussion about pressing issues. There is a lot of work to do with identity, community building and context. Rob McKinnon‘s talk about fostering democratic participation was really thought provoking. I also really enjoyed chatting with AOLs Edwin Aoki about fostering discussions, especially Trans-Atlantic discussion.

I have to admit to a little frustration with media in the US (mostly Fox) and in UK for amplifying the ill will between Americans and Brits. Is there any way to get past this surface noise and get people to talk to each other? How do you structure the online discussion and online spaces to make this happen? More on that later. Lots of thoughts forming along those lines. And I’ll have to post some thoughts from my talk about a real revolution in news and community created content (full paper).

I had planned on doing some video blogging, but instead I stuck to a few text posts. Besides, most of the speakers and conference goers were a little camera shy. But I did manage to catch Ian Forrester with BBC Backstage for a quick question on what got him most excited at the conference:

technorati tags:, , , ,

More XTech blogging over at the Guardian

Like everyone at XTech 2007, I’m struggling with the lack of internet access. I’ve posted some more XTech write ups over at the one of the day job blogs, the Guardian’s Technology blog. In the post, we hear from the Violet, the makers of the world’s first WiFi enabled rabbit, and Ian Forrester as he talks about the app he really wants to build: Flow. In the meantime, enjoy some video not of kittens but of a WiFi enabled bunny: Nabaztag/tag.

Technorati Tags: , ,

XTech 2007: The Ubiquitous Web

Welcome to XTech in Paris, a conference that looks just over the horizon into the near future or, in many cases, the advanced present of the internet. This is not your parents’ internet. It is an internet freed from the not only the desktop, but the computer entirely.

The schedule for the conference is here. If there is anything you’d like to know or anyone you’d like to put a question to, leave a comment, and I’ll do my best to get you some answers. WiFi is a little scarce here, oddly, so I’ll be online as much as possible but not as much as I’d like. Everywhere internet, design, location-based services, web app development is just a taster of the topics covered.

Software becomes ‘Everyware’

Adam Greenfield kicked off the second day with a keynote that looked at the broader implications of the increasing reach of networked technology in our lives. (I missed the first day, but you can find a lot of posts by searching XTech in Technorati.) He said that he comes from the confrontation of human beings with technology. He looks at how people use technology, and he says that he feels their pain.

What is ubiquitous or pervasive computing? He said that very little of what he was going to talk about will deal with the web. He wanted to talk about what he calls Everyware (Get it? Software goes everywhere.) Back in 1990, Mark Weiser thought about embedded, wireless computing that went far beyond the desktop computer, beyond a GUI. It automates and digitises all kinds of ‘unheroic tasks of everyday life’.

He gave examples such as a digital doorlock that is part of everyday life in Korea. You can use bluetooth, a biometric scanner or even a plain old key to open your door. Technology is ‘going to the body’, and he gave the example of the Nike+ iPod, where not only would it gather your exercise information but allow you to share that with others. The world becomes your exercise partner.

There is an emergent ‘internet of things’. All of these services communicate not just with human beings but also with each other.

A class of systems tends to colonise everyday life. We’re in France, so Adam gave a reference to Michel Foucault’s idea of the Panopticon. The prisoners never knew whether they were being surveilled so they had to assume that they were always being surveilled.

How does this impact us now? He gave the example of the Kinko, a networked toilet. It would analyse your bodily wastes and transmit information to your doctor. Surveillance becomes not just the watchful gaze but a product of the technological systems deployed in everyday life that gather a lot of data.

Is this all science fiction? No, he believes that this is a present, real-world concern. Most of the time he has had to illustrate his talk with prototypes, but the systems are now becoming real-world, commercially available products.

For example, he says that the new internet protocol, the 128-bit address space IPv6, provides some 6.5 to 10 to 23 power addresses for every square meter of the earth. You can give an internet address to almost every object in the world. Seem ludicrous? He gave the example of proliphix.com, a service for networked thermostats.

He’s worried that most people see ubiquitous computing as unproblematic. What do you have to consider? Inadvertency. They didn’t mean to engage this system. Now, what happens when people don’t know about the system or are unwilling to engage with that system? And with all of these interlocking systems, there may be a lot of unintended consequences. One system triggers another and causes a cascade of unintended and unwanted results in systems around it.

It’s time to take everyware seriously, he says. He laid down a few principles that he believes need to be considered as these systems are developed (someone in the audience echoed what I thought that his principles mirrored Asmimov’s laws of robotics).

Principle 1: Default to harmlessness. Ensure users’ physical, psychic and financial safety, but realise that means different things to different cultures.

Principle 2: Be self-disclosing. Seamlessness must be optional, and it has to be clear who owns them, what they use and what they do.

Principle 3: Be conservative of face. They must not embarrass, humiliate or shame their users. We have to build systems that operate a high degree of precision but then ‘fog’ those results in imprecision.

Principle 4: Be conservative of time. Don’t make life more complicated than it already is.

Principle 5: Be deniable. People have to be able to say ‘no’.

Open API to counter climate change

Gavin Starks with d:gen networks spoke about climate change and quoted a statistic from World Changing. We ship 2.4 trillion kg of cargo from port to port per year. It’s like shipping every human being six times. “Isn’t that insane?”, he asks.

Temperatures are expected to rise between 1.8 to 4 degrees Celsius, according to the Climate Group. The last time this happened 125,000 years ago, the sea was 4 to 6 metres higher. We are looking at hundreds of millions of people under threat. The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change said that greenhouse gas emissions need to be 75% lower by 2050.

He argued that 75% of that reduction could come from current technologies. We could get a quarter of the way through conservation and increased efficiency. Wouldn’t it be great if we could shut down some power stations? Two years ago, he was asked: “How would you get a billion people to reduce their carbon emissions by one tonne per year?”

I can’t just click somewhere to absolve my life if I want to reduce my energy consumption by 85%. We need more than a campaign. We need a movement. We are missing a development framework. What would we build? What should we do?

There needs to be trust in the information. To scale, we need to share tools. We need to give away the tools and share things. We don’t need to re-invent the wheel, build another carbon calculator. We need an available engine, that we can trust and share and remembers what I’ve done. It needs to be extensible and open.

In December of last year, he got a call from the UK government and got all the data and calculations from the government. They have their own scientists who add data, and they source every single item of data. They have created a ‘profiling engine’. Anyone can run a campaign and use anonymous keys to share stats. They are giving it away for free via GPL.

He sees toolkits for schools, builders. Use RFID versions to ‘track the trackers’. He sees league tables for the good and the bad. Data sets over districts, regions and campaigns to create competitions to cut carbon emissions. He wants to integrate it with Pledgebank. How do you integrate this with Google, Flickr, Dopplr, Twitter, Make or NagMe?

They have a generic engine with generic anonymous keys that allow the sharing of data.

Let us be very clear that it’s not the planet we’re saving, but its species and most notably our own.

It is launching today. The site it launching today. Go to http://www.dgen.net/amee

AMEE=Avoiding Mass Extinction Engine

There are database issues and database rights issues. We have some potentially big privacy issues. We have done our best to keep it anonymous, but there is still a need to protect this information.

Ian Forrester, with BBC Backstage, asked what public broadcasters like the BBC can do, and Gavin said, “You already are.” He would not go into details.

Matt Biddulph is building Dopplr, a traveller site that allows people to show where they are travelling. It helps people let their friends know if they will be in the same city at the same time.

“It is not a competition,” Matt said. He wants to know how the site might work with this service. The site is in a private beta at the moment. (I use it, but I think I’ve given away all of my invitations.) Dopplr users have booked 9 million miles of air travel, Matt added.

Jabber: Social Software for Robots

Blaine Cook, Obvious Corp

Kellan Elliot-McCrea, Flickr/Yahoo!

Flickr and Twitter. We say we put the point in Web 2.0, they say.

Social software is people asking computers to talk to people. Your actions are aggregated in one place.

It took me a while to get my head around what they were talking about, mostly because I use web services. I can’t code. After a while, I figured it out. They were talking about using messaging protocols, in this case the Jabber messaging service, for computers to talk to each other rather than people chatting online. It gets around some of the problems of pushing around real-time information between computers without the computers idling and waiting for information. The ‘Are we there yet?’ problem.

There are big clouds of data floating around, and the current models are breaking down. “It makes computers cry”, Kellan said, adding, “We say at Flickr that we make computers cry everyday.”

Let’s consider a new model for web services. Message passing through asynchronous communications. The computer asks: Let me know when we’re there. When it is, the server says, “We’re there”. Social software for robots is message passing.

Where it works? It’s not actually useful for everything, but it’s good for real time and wire level data with no database interaction. It doesn’t work so much with historical and static content or interactive searches.

What we’re thinking about is a real-time Craig’s List. In San Francisco, it’s really important if you want to rent an apartment. If you could see that listing when you’re out on the street, you can get the apartment. But if you poll the IP every three seconds, then you’ll be blocked under current models.

What happens when you’re fishing for information? Tell a little bot that you want to know when a new apartment is listed on Craig’s List. You put a net out, and you’ll get notified when you catch something. It’s important when you’re waiting for something to happen as opposed to looking for historical information.

How do you build it? Jabber. It’s usually considered a messaging protocol, but it’s a standard. You can do internet scale message passing. It’s just XML. You can do this securely and verify the identity of the sender. No spoofing!

This brings up a whole new set of services. Private, secure services.

“It’s hard to talk about how cool this?” We can have the server asking the client what’s new.

If a server is processing a 100MB wav file, the client gets in the way of the processing by asking “Are we there yet?” Is the processing done? Instead, they can use Jabber to pass the message of when the task is completed instead the client pestering the server needlessly.

Jabber is asynchronous, real-time, extensible, secure, delegated. It has callbacks. It’s standardised. It has presence. It is decentralised but not P2P. (Sorry, I’m going to leave that one hanging there for the code-literate amongst you.)

The http protocol, one of the most common protocols on the web, just doesn’t work for everything. With real-time information, the number of data calls quickly becomes problematic. This is a novel way to push information around which

Jaiku: Rich Presence.

Ralph Meijer: Jaiku

We used to use mobile phones just to call people. Later on, you had contact lists to make it faster to call them. But how do you know if they are there? If they are available? Maybe the person you’re trying to call is in the theatre, busy or driving.

But now you can have pervasive net connectivity. You can find out where a person is. You can have many-to-many communications. They have written Jaiku for S60 phones, the OS for many Nokia phones. You can see your contacts and what the person was doing recently. Your contacts can know what you are doing and if you are busy.

They use cell tower information and bluetooth neighbourhood information to give a sense of presence, some location information. They have worked to integrate calendar data. On some of the newer mobile phones, you can show your friends your photos to allow them to see what you are seeing. They are working to balance battery use and the need for frequent if not persistent connection to the mobile data network.

Jaiku also is on the web. You can send messages. You can also pull in web feeds from your blog, Flickr, last.fm or Twitter. People selectively subscribe to your feeds to keep a balance between knowing what their friends are doing and being overwhelmed with information. You can add comments to other people’s blog posts or Flickr pictures.

Jaiku pulls together a lot of the social applications through RSS and aggregates this information in one place as well as making this ‘lifestream’ mobile. They also are working on an SMS service. They have created ‘channels’ or groups. They recently did this for the Eurovision song contest.

They use most modern web technologies like JSON, RSS and Atom, different ways to distribute all kinds of data and information such as blog posts, a listing of your latest Flickr photos or your podcasts.

He is asked about something between location and presence so letting someone know you are home without specifying where home is. Ralph says that the XMPP protocol, which is used quite a bit in Jaiku, allows you to specify how much information that you’d like to publish. You don’t have to publish exact GPS coordinates. You can be as precise or fuzzy as you’d like.

On Jaiku, you can also set your messages to be public or private to determine how widely the information is available, to everyone or just your contacts.

Why did they include RSS? We think your personal feeds are part of the complete picture of what you are up to.

What about the data prices? Some of these services can cost a lot of money with all of the data being passed.

We are talking with various telco providers to arrange something in that area. SMS aren’t very expensive. In the Netherlands and Finland, you see smaller providers providing flat fee data plans. We are counting on always-on data plans.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

links for 2007-05-15

links for 2007-05-11

The changing role of journalists in a world where everyone can publish

Ok, so possibly not the snappiest title I’ve ever written, but it does rather sum up the contents of the white paper that I wrote for the Freedom of Expression Project and which is now online on their site. Here’s the intro:

Citizen journalism – when the general public investigate, fact-check and publish news stories – is changing the face of news. The historic role of gatekeeper, played until now by professional journalists, is obsolete. But new technology and increased civic participation are creating new opportunities for the mainstream media, and three key roles are emerging:

1. Investigation – traditional in-depth investigative journalism made more transparent by publishing research and references.
2. Curation – collecting trustworthy links and synthesising an informed and succinct overview of a story.
3. Facilitation – working with the community to help people publish stories important to them.

I was invited to speak about citizen journalism and blogging at a conference that the project’s organisers held in Manchester a few months ago, mainly to journalists and human rights activists from countries such as Croatia, Bosnia, Nigeria and Lebanon. It was a fascinating experience, one which I meant to blog but never found the time to.

The upshot was that Global Partners, who are running the project on behalf of the Ford Foundation, asked me to write this paper in order to elaborate on the ideas I discussed back in November 06 about the need for online curators.

Unlike some, I don’t think that citizen journalism is going to replace traditional journalism, but rather that journalists are going to have to adapt to take into account the needs of not just their readers, but also their community and the citizen journalists alongside whom they work. Things are changing, for sure, the interesting question is how!

Technorati Tags: