So what does the producer actually do?
First and foremost he or she is essentially creative – has ideas – ideas for programmes, or items, people to interview, pieces of music or subjects for discussion – new ways of treating old ideas, or creating a fresh approach to the use of radio. New ideas are not simply for the sake of being different, they stimulate interest and fresh thought, so long as they are relevant. But ideas are not the product of routine, they need fresh inputs to the mind. The producer therefore must not stay simply within the confines of the world of broadcasting, but must get involved physically and mentally in the community being served. It is all too easy for media people to stay in their ivory towers and to form an elite, not quite in touch with the world of the listener. Such an attitude is one of a broadcasting service in decline. Ideas for programmes must be rooted firmly in the needs and language of the audience they serve; the producer’s job is to assess, reflect and anticipate those needs through a close contact with his potential listeners. If the audience is geographically far away, then it’s important to read their newspapers, magazines, emails, tweets and posts – to talk to the returning traveller, carefully study the incoming mail, and visit their country as and when possible. The producer will carry a small notebook to jot down the fleeting thought or snatch of conversation overheard. And if it is difficult to think of genuinely new ideas, then act as a catalyst for others, stimulating and being receptive to their thoughts, and at least recognise an idea when one arises. Only then may the experiential producer retreat to the quiet of an office to think – to shape and develop ideas into draft outlines.
There is, however, a great deal of difference between a new idea and a good idea and any programme suggestion has to be thought through on a number of criteria. An idea needs distilling in order to arrive at a workable form. It has to have a clarity of aim so that all those involved know what they are trying to achieve. It has to be seen as relevant to its target audience, and it must be practicable in terms of resources. Is there the talent available to support the idea? Is it going to be too expensive in people’s time? Does it need additional equipment? What will it cost? Is there sufficient time to plan it properly? Any new programme idea has to be thought through in relation to the four basic resources – people and their skills, money, technical equipment and time. It might be depressing to have to modify a really good idea in order to make it work with the resources available, but here’s another of the producer’s most important tasks – to reconcile the desirable with the possible.
Given the initial programme idea in a practical format, the producer might have to persuade the head of department, programme controller or schedule ‘gatekeeper’ – the boss – that the proposal is the best thing that could happen to the broadcast output. Further, not only will the programme not fail, but it will enhance the manager’s reputation, as well as provide a memorable programme. While the producer will see a project as intrinsically worthwhile or personally creative, the manager of the service might be much more concerned with competitive ratings. His or her first question is likely to be: ‘What will it do for the audience?’ There are two possible answers: ‘satisfy it’ or ‘increase it’. A good programme may do both. In allocating a transmission slot, the time of day selected and the material preceding it can be crucial to the success of the programme. It is no good putting out a programme for children at a time when children are not available, nor is it helpful to broadcast an in-depth programme at a time when the home environment is busy and the necessary level of concentration is unlikely to be sustained. This is where a knowledge of the target audience is essential. Farmers, industrial workers, housewives, teenagers, doctors will all have preferred listening times which will vary according to local circumstances.
The fairly superficial news/information and ‘current affairs plus music’ type of continuous output, where all the items are kept short, may be suitable for the general audience at times when other things are happening – such as meal times or at work. But the timing of the more demanding documentary, drama or discussion programme can be critical and will depend on individual circumstances. Factors to be considered when assessing audience availability may include weekday/weekend work and leisure patterns, the potential car listenership which can represent a significant ‘captive’ audience, television viewing habits, digital/FM/MW usage, and so on. The producer has to be involved in marketing the product and normal consumer principles apply whether or not the radio service is commercially financed. We look at this further in the next chapter.
Having agreed on a time slot for the broadcast, the producer must ensure there is reasonable time available for its preparation. Is it to be next week or in six months’ time? No producer will say that there is sufficient time for production work but there is much to commend working within definite deadlines, for such pressure can lend creative impetus to the work.
The programme idea is now accepted and the transmission date and time allocated. At this stage the producer draws up a detailed budget and obtains authorisation for any additional resources needed – money for research effort, scriptwriting, contributors or a music group. Fees may have to be negotiated. Now check the availability of appropriate studio facilities and make arrangements for any necessary engineering or other staff support. Obtain the clearance of any copyright work to be used. Conditions for the broadcasting of material in which usage rights are owned by someone outside the broadcasting service vary widely. In the case of literary copyright, books, poems, articles, etc., the publisher will normally be the point of reference, but if the work is not published, the original author (or if dead, his or her estate) should be consulted. Under British copyright law such rights of ownership exist for a period of 70 years from the date of publication or from the death of the author, whichever is the later. The rules vary according to the law of the country in which the broadcast is to be made and in cases of doubt it is well worth taking specialist legal advice – discussing copyright fees after the broadcast is, to say the least, a weak negotiating position.
One other set of rules that has to be considered is the risk assessment referred to on p. 249. Is there any kind of hazard attached to the programme? As the person in charge of the project, safety is the producer’s responsibility.
Programme requirements may be very simple and the producer able to fulfil them without any help – interview material, music selected from the library, and some crisply written and well-presented links might be all that is required. Good ideas are often simple in their translation into radio and can be easily ruined by ‘over-production’. On the other hand, it might be necessary to involve a lot more people, such as a writer, ‘voices’, actors, musicians, specialist interviewer or commentator. The interpretation of the original idea might call for specially written music or the compilation of sound effects, electronic or actuality. Again, it is easy to get carried away by an enthusiasm for technique, which is why the original brief is such an important part of the process. It should serve as a reference point throughout the production stages.
After selecting the contributors, agreeing fees and persuading them to share the programme’s objectives, the producer’s task is basically to stay in close touch with them. Remember also that the producer must always be on the look-out for new voices and fresh talent. The next task is to revise the draft scripts and clarify individual aims and concepts so that when everybody comes together in the studio they all know what they are doing and can work together to a common goal. What is needed here is a great sense of timing so that everything integrates at the same moment – the broadcast or recording. Above all the producer gives encouragement. The making of programmes has to be both creative and businesslike. There is a product to be made, restrictions on resources and constraints of time to be observed. But it also calls on people to behave uniquely, to write something they have never written before, to give a new public performance, to play music in a personal way. The producer is asking them to give something of themselves. Contributors, artists and performers of all kinds generally give their best in an atmosphere of encouragement, not uncritical, not complacent, but with a recognition that they are involved in the process of creative giving. To an extent it is self-revealing, and this leaves the artist with a feeling of vulnerability that needs to be reassured by a sense of succeeding in this attempted communication. The producer’s role is to provide feedback in whatever form it is required. Therefore, be watchful, perceptive and supportive of contributors, whether they are professional or amateur.
During this time while material is being gathered and ordered there may be a number of permissions to seek. Broadcasters have no rights over and above those of any other citizen, and to interview someone or to make recordings in a home, hospital, school, factory or other non-public place requires the approval of appropriate individuals. In the great majority of cases it is not withheld, and indeed it is most often only an informal verbal clearance that is required. It does not do, however, to record on-site without the knowledge or consent of the legitimate owner or custodian of the property. But neither is it acceptable to be given permission subject to certain conditions, for example to undertake to play back the material recorded and not to broadcast any of it without the further permission of the person concerned. In response to a request to record, the producer must accept only a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ and not be tempted to accept conditional answers. The listening public has the right to believe that the programme they hear is what the producer whose name attaches to it wants them to hear, and is not the result of some secret deal imposed by an outside party. Accountability for the programme rests with the producer: it can seldom be shifted elsewhere.
So the programme takes shape – promising ideas are developed, poor material discarded, items and thoughts explained, put into the listener’s context, juxtaposed to give variety, impact, chronology or other meaningful structure. In its design the producer must remember to engage the listener’s attention at the start of the programme and continue to do so throughout. Now comes the time for it to be broadcast or recorded.
Consider the pre-recording of a special speech/music programme. Here again the producer must combine a talent for shrewd business with a yearning for artistic creativity. There are limited resources, particularly of time, and yet people want to give of their best. Some might be in unfamiliar surroundings and are possibly tense, almost certainly nervous. So, arriving in good time, the first task is to set them at their ease and create the appropriate atmosphere. There is no single ‘right’ way of doing this since people and programmes are all different – the atmosphere in a news studio needs to be different from that of a drama production. A music recording session will be different again from a talk or group discussion. It might be a case of providing coffee all round or even a small quantity of something stronger. Any lavish hospitality of this kind is generally much better left until after the programme. But there are two points that a producer must observe. First, make any necessary introductions so that people know who everyone else is and what they are doing, including any technical staff. Second, run over the proposed sequence of events so that individual contributors know their own place in the timescale. These two practices help to reassure and provide some security for the anxious. There is nothing worse for a contributor than standing around wondering what is going on or even whether he or she has come to the right place.
The producer has brought everything needed for the programme: pre-recorded inserts correctly labelled and timed with optional out cues; music inserts timed; plenty of copies of the script; coloured pens for making changes; stopwatch; and so on. Everyone in the studio should have a script or running order, and know what is required of them. They should know of any breaks in the session and be sufficiently acquainted with the building as to be able to find their own way to the source of coffee or to the lavatory. There should be enough chairs. Rehearsal, recording or transmission can begin.
Whatever the attitude and approach of the producer, it will find its way into the end product. To get the job done, there has to be a certain studio discipline. ‘That’s not quite right yet, let’s take it again from the beginning’ – this is the signal for a new and better concerted effort. ‘Everyone check the running order’ – means everyone. ‘Let’s start again in 20 minutes’, cannot mean people wandering back in half an hour. The producer needs to control, to drive the process forward, to maintain the highest possible quality with the time and talent available. It is generally a compromise. Too strict a control can be stifling to individual creativity, anxiety increases, the studio atmosphere becomes formal and inflexible. On the other hand, lack of control can mean a drifting timescale, an uncertainty as to what is going on and a lowering of morale. The appropriate balance is developed with experience, but the following points apply generally when managing a studio full of people:
1 Use general talkback for announcements to studio participants sparingly. Such use should be brief and should be overall praise or straightforward administration. Never use talkback from the control cubicle into the studio for individual feedback, let alone criticism.
2 Listen to suggestions from contributors for alterations but be positive in making up your mind as to what will be done.
3 In the studio provide plenty of individual feedback to contributors.
4 Keep in mind the needs of the technical, operational or other broadcasting staff – they also want to feel that they are contributing their skills to the programme.
5 Watch the clock, plan ahead for breaks, recording or transmission deadlines. Avoid a last-minute rush.
6 Mark the script as a recording proceeds for any retakes needed or editing required.
7 If rehearsing for a live programme, work out and write down any critical timings for particular items. The ‘must be finished by’ times are most critical.
8 If the programme is live and is under-running or over-running – and you can do little about it, for example a concert – tell other people who need to know as far in advance as possible and agree what is to happen.
9 Be encouraging. Be communicative. Keep calm. Keep control.
When rehearsing a straight talk, it might be necessary for the producer to sit in the studio opposite the speaker in order to persuade him or her that they are actually talking to someone. The effect of knowing that there is an intent listener is likely to make the vocal delivery much more natural. Moreover, any verbal pedantry or obscure construction in the script is the signal for the producer to ask for clarification. Since it is given in conversational form, this can then become the basis of the suggested rewrite. Almost always, constructive suggestions for simplification, professionally given, are gratefully accepted, often with relief. Producers should remember, however, that their role is not to create in their contributors imitations of themselves. In making suggestions for script changes, or how an actor might tackle a certain line, the producer must be visualising not how they themselves would do it but how that particular performer can be most effective.
In the presence of a live mic, or through a glass window, the producer’s non-verbal language is characterised by the following most universal hand signals:
1 the cue for someone to start. The hand is brought from the raised position to point directly at the person to speak. This is also used for handovers from one broadcaster to another;
2 to keep an item going, e.g. to lengthen an interview. The hands are slowly moved apart as if stretching something between them;
3 to start winding up. The index finger describes slow vertical circles in the air, getting faster as the need to stop becomes more urgent;
4 to come to an immediate end, to cut. The hand is passed swiftly across the throat – often with an anguished facial expression.
So much for the producer’s responsibility to the other people involved in making the programme, but of course his prime responsibility is towards the listener. Is the programme providing a clear picture of what it is intending to portray? Are the facts correct and in the right order? Is it legally all right? Is it of good technical quality? Is it interesting? Most of these questions are self-evident and so long as they are borne in mind will answer themselves as the programme proceeds. Some questions, however, may require a good deal of searching – for example, is it in good taste?
Taste: The ability to discern what is of good quality or of high aesthetic standard. Conformity to a specified degree with generally held views on what is appropriate or offensive.
(Concise Oxford Dictionary)
Quality and standards are discussed elsewhere, but what about ‘generally held views’? How can we proceed when there is such a huge range of what is acceptable? Nevertheless, it is crucial to know the generally accepted social tenor of the time and the cultural flavour of the place in order to succeed with the general audience and avoid giving unwitting offence. It’s possible to decide that a particular programme is only directed to the bawdy revellers in the marketplace with little thought for those who would be shocked at such goings on. Or one could design a programme simply for a cultural or intellectual elite whose acceptable standards are ‘more advanced’ than those of ‘ordinary’ folk. So be it, but either way the radio casting of such programmes is, by definition, broad rather than narrow; others will hear and their reaction too must be calculated as part of the overall response. This is especially true when the station content is streamed on the Internet and consequently heard by people with very different cultural backgrounds and values. How then do you interpret ‘good taste’? It is virtually impossible, but nevertheless should be borne in mind. On questions of content, material will be designed for a specific target audience but the matter of acceptable taste is a much broader issue that the radio producer must try to sense accurately. In stepping outside it, there is a considerable social risk. In deciding on a style of language, or the inclusion of a particular joke which raises the question of good or bad taste, there is one simple rule: ‘would I say this to someone I did not know very well in a face-to-face situation?’ If so, it is fine for broadcasting. If not, the producer must ask whether the microphone is being used as a mask to hide behind. Simply because the studio appears to be isolated from contact with the audience it is sometimes tempting to be daring in one’s assumed relationship with the individual listener. The seeming separation is not a cause for bravado but a reason for sensitivity. The matter of taste in broadcasting so often resolves itself in a recognition of the true nature of the medium.
If in real doubt over a knife-edge decision, it is wise to talk to a senior, more experienced colleague. For this reason the matter of taste is discussed further in Chapter 24.
After a recording and while the contributors are still present, it is often possible to put together some additional material for on-air trailing and promotional use. A specially constructed 30-second piece will later pay dividends in the attention which it can attract.
The producer has a responsibility to professional colleagues who use the same technical facilities. This finds expression in a number of ways:
1 Studio cleanliness: the smaller the radio station, the more it operates on a ‘leave the place as you would wish to find it’ basis. You are probably not required to do the clearing up in detail but it should be left in its ‘technically normal’ and usable state.
2 Fault reporting system: every studio user must contribute to the engineering maintenance by reporting any equipment faults that occur. It is extremely annoying for a producer to be seriously hampered by a studio ‘bug’ only to find that someone else had the same trouble a few days previously but did nothing about it.
3 Return of borrowed equipment: a radio centre is a communal activity; its facilities are shared. An additional microphone, or even a chair, taken from one place to another for a specific programme should be returned afterwards. It might not be the producer who actually does this but it is the responsibility of the borrower to ensure that some other user is not inconvenienced.
If the programme was ‘live’, the contributors have been thanked and the occasion suitably rounded off. This might mean the dispensing of some ‘hospitality’ or simply a discussion of ‘how it went’. It is generally unhelpful to be too analytical at this stage: most people know anyway whether as a programme it was any good.
If the programme was recorded, the producer might have to do some editing. At this stage the running order or script should be marked in detail with the necessary edits, and also with any additional cuts to be made in the light of the overall timing. At a final editing session all the material is heard and a final judgement made on what is to be included. There might still be time here for second thoughts. Should the music tracks be re-mixed? Are the speech/music levels or the stereo balance correct? Does the sound need to be enhanced in any way – by adding echo or special effects treatment? This is probably the last opportunity to hear the programme in its final form to check that what the listener hears is what the producer intends.
The finished programme, together with the necessary paperwork, is then deposited within ‘the approved system’ so that it finds its way satisfactorily on-air. Often, a producer, while excellent as a creative impresario, artistic director or catalyst in the community, can have a total blind-spot when it comes to simple programme administration. One may be fortunate enough to have an assistant to look after much of this; nevertheless, it is a production responsibility to see that such things are done. The following is a summary of the likely tasks:
1 the completion of a recording or editing report and other details such as library numbers which will enable the programme to get on the air in accordance with the system laid down;
2 the writing of introductory on-air announcements, cues and other presentation material detailing the transmission context of the programme;
3 the initiation of payment to contributors, or at least thanks, giving the transmission details if these were not known at the time of the recording;
4 the supply of programme details covering the use of music or other copyright material. Depending on local circumstances these items will need to be reported to the various copyright societies so that the original performers and copyright holders can receive their proper payment;
5 the issue of a publicity handout, press release or programme billing, for use by newspapers, or programme journal published by the broadcasting organisation. The placing of on-air trails or promos drawing attention to the programme;
6 the reply to any form of feedback generated by the broadcast. While not necessarily representative of listener reaction as a whole, an understanding response forms an important part of a producer’s public accountability. Apart from the PR value to the particular radio service, such enquiries and expressions of praise or criticism constitute a consumer view which should not be treated lightly.
Technician, editor, administrator, and manager
It will be obvious that a producer has to be a wizard of multitasking. In summary, the job is in four parts: the technical and operational, the editorial, the administrative and the managerial. The technical part is to do with the proper operational use of the tools of the trade, knowing when and how to use programme-making equipment. The editorial function is about ideas and decisions. It is to do with making judgements about what is and is not appropriate and legal for a particular programme. It is about backing hunches and taking risks, about choosing and commissioning material. The administrative part is procedural – following agreed systems of paperwork to do with contracts, running orders and scripts, expenses and payments, overtime, leave applications, studio bookings, copyright returns, logging transmissions, verifying traffic, reporting faults, requisitioning music and Fx, replying to letters, texts and emails, etc. But the producer is also a manager, managing projects called programmes. This means setting objectives for other people, monitoring their progress, controlling, organising and motivating them in their work. This will be the person who disciplines the habitual latecomer, who resolves conflict between contributors, and encourages the new and uncertain.
The journalist and the DJ, the presenter and the performer, frequently regard themselves as the pre-eminent component in a mixed sequence. The producer as manager must create the team where each is sufficiently confident to support the other. As manager, the producer recognises the financial responsibility of the job – agreeing the budget, monitoring expenditure and taking action to remain within the allocation. On occasion, it might be necessary to argue the case for more, but the editorial and managerial aspects cannot be separated. Editorial decisions are resource decisions. Like any other manager, he or she is primarily in charge of the quality of what happens; the bottom line is the standard of the programme – this is the person who ultimately says what is good enough and what isn’t. At the end of the day the producer decides and communicates what is to be done, to what standard, by when, by whom, at what cost. That’s editorial management.
Having completed the programme, the producer is already working on the next. For some it is a constant daily round to report new facts and discover fresh interests. For others it might be a painstaking progress from one epic to another. Unlike the purely creative artist, the producer cannot remain isolated, generating material simply from within. The role is that of the communicator, the interpreter who attempts to bring about a form of contact that explains the world a little more. For the most part it is an ephemeral contact leaving an unsubstantial trace. Radio works very much in the present tense; reputations are difficult to build and even harder to sustain. The producer is rarely regarded as any better than his or her last programme.