Local radio has long been a vital part of the UK’s cultural and community fabric. It connects audiences with local news, events, and voices that reflect their identity. However, Global’s recent decision to consolidate its radio output for Heart, Smooth, and Capital in England signals a dramatic shift away from localised broadcasting. This blog explores the motivations behind this move, the legislative changes that enabled it, and its implications for the future of local radio in the UK.
What Is Happening?
Global’s Nations Strategy represents a significant reorganisation of how radio programming is produced and delivered across England. Under this plan, all English programming for Heart, Smooth, and Capital will be centralised in London, marking the end of locally produced breakfast and drive-time shows. Previously, each of these brands operated regional studios that tailored content to reflect the unique character, culture, and concerns of their respective audiences. Now, this decentralised model is being replaced with a single national schedule.
For example, Heart, which once featured 22 regional breakfast shows designed to engage listeners with local news, events, and voices, will now offer one centralised programme broadcast from London. Similarly, regional drive-time shows for Capital and Smooth are being eliminated in favour of unified national programming. This shift means that listeners who were accustomed to hearing familiar presenters and locally relevant content will now receive a more standardised offering, potentially alienating audiences who value the connection to their communities.
The closure of regional studios is another major consequence of this strategy. These studios were not only production hubs but also centres for nurturing local talent and creating content that resonated deeply with regional audiences. With their closure, opportunities for emerging broadcasters and media professionals outside London are drastically reduced, further centralising media influence and talent development in the capital. Regional offices in areas such as the North East, Midlands, and South West, which have long relied on local radio as a cultural and economic touchstone, are among those affected.
While Scotland and Wales will retain some national programming tailored to their audiences, these regions will also see smaller regional shows merged into singular broadcasts. This approach, though less drastic than in England, still diminishes the scope of truly localised content.
The impact on the provision of regional and local programmes in the UK is profound. Local radio has traditionally served as a platform for regional stories, voices, and music, fostering a sense of identity and belonging. By consolidating operations, Global risks disconnecting from the diverse communities its stations once served. Smaller towns and rural areas, where local radio often represents the primary source of community-focused media, are likely to feel this loss most keenly. The replacement of local programming with national content raises important questions about the future role of radio in preserving cultural and regional diversity.
Why Is This Happening?
Global’s decision to adopt a centralised model is driven by several interconnected factors. Chief among these is the pursuit of economic efficiency. By consolidating operations in a single location, Global can significantly reduce overhead costs associated with maintaining regional studios, including property expenses, staffing, and technical infrastructure. This streamlined approach allows the organisation to allocate resources more effectively, focusing on high-quality production and audience engagement at a national level.
Another critical motivation is the need to expand audience reach. Centralised programming creates the opportunity to develop unified, high-profile national shows that can attract larger audiences compared to fragmented regional broadcasts. These broader audiences, in turn, draw higher-profile advertisers seeking to maximise their reach through national campaigns. This model is particularly appealing in a media landscape increasingly dominated by competition from digital platforms, where scale and consistency are key to retaining market share.
The consolidation also aligns with Global’s strategy to enhance brand consistency. A single national identity for Heart, Smooth, and Capital ensures that listeners across the UK experience a cohesive product. This uniformity simplifies marketing efforts and reinforces the perception of these brands as premium, nationwide networks capable of competing with digital streaming services and other large-scale broadcasters.
From a management perspective, centralisation offers greater control and efficiency in decision-making and production processes. With operations concentrated in London, Global can streamline its workflows, standardise its programming schedules, and implement technological innovations more rapidly. This model reduces duplication of effort across regions and ensures that all output meets consistent quality standards.
However, these benefits come with significant trade-offs. The cost savings and efficiencies achieved by centralisation contribute to the erosion of local content, which has traditionally been a cornerstone of regional radio. Critics argue that this focus on efficiency undermines the cultural and community value of local broadcasting, leaving audiences disconnected from the content that once reflected their identities and interests.
The Role of the Media Act 2024
The Media Act 2024 was instrumental in enabling Global’s consolidation strategy, but its passage through Parliament was far from straightforward. Rushed through during the legislative “wash-up” period before a General Election, the Act received limited debate, leaving many key concerns unaddressed. Critics have argued that this expedited process bypassed essential scrutiny of the Act’s implications for local media, the consolidation of services, and the reduction of diverse broadcasting formats.
One of the most contentious outcomes of the Media Act is its near-complete deregulation of the commercial radio sector. By removing the requirement for broadcasters to provide locally produced content, the Act prioritised free-market principles, effectively creating an environment where profitability takes precedence over public service obligations. Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator, now holds minimal power to hold broadcasters accountable for the services they provide, further weakening oversight of the sector.
This deregulation has been likened by some industry observers to a “state-backed protection racket,” in which commercial broadcasters are shielded from competition while local and community media outlets struggle to survive. The removal of local content requirements has allowed major corporations like Global to centralise their operations without fear of regulatory consequences, eroding the diversity and accessibility of radio programming across the UK.
The Media Act’s emphasis on profitability and efficiency has created a broadcasting landscape that heavily favours large-scale commercial operators. While this approach may yield short-term economic benefits for broadcasters, it risks long-term damage to the cultural and social fabric of local communities. Without a robust framework to support local and independent media, the voices and stories that define these communities are at risk of being silenced.
Implications for Local Radio
The implications of this shift extend beyond programming to the very foundations of social and cultural democracy. By concentrating media production and distribution in a few centralised locations, the industry limits the plurality of voices and perspectives that define a healthy democracy. Local radio has traditionally been a cornerstone of this plurality, offering platforms for diverse communities to share their stories, experiences, and concerns. The centralisation of media undermines this role, reducing opportunities for civic engagement and cultural representation.
Both the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and Ofcom have shown little concern for these negative effects. Producer-focused lobbying appears to have prevailed, side-lining the interests of citizens in favour of commercial profitability. This lack of oversight is incongruent with the Labour Government’s Devolution agenda, which emphasises empowering local communities and fostering regional identities. A true test of healthy, thriving communities should include the presence of locally originated media content and production, yet this metric seems increasingly overlooked.
Moreover, the growing reliance on media conglomerates and international social media platforms introduces significant risks. Decisions about content and distribution are often made by unaccountable proprietors who control the algorithms that shape what audiences see and hear. These algorithms are designed to maximise engagement and profitability, not to serve the public interest or reflect the needs of UK citizens. This shift towards centralised, algorithm-driven media further alienates local communities, leaving them disconnected from the platforms that once provided a voice.
In focusing so heavily on economic efficiency and market dominance, the media industry risks sacrificing the cultural and social benefits of local radio. A vibrant, democratic media landscape requires more than profitability—it demands diversity, accessibility, and accountability. Without these elements, the fabric of local communities and the democratic values they uphold will continue to erode.
What’s Next?
The next steps require urgent intervention and a shift in focus towards creating a more inclusive and pluralistic media landscape. The Secretary of State for DCMS, Lisa Nandy, and the Minister for Media, Stephanie Peacock, should halt the ongoing Ofcom review of Local Media. Instead, they should open the discussion to include civil society groups, local government bodies, public services, and other community organisations. This approach would ensure that the development of a new policy framework genuinely serves the needs of citizens in a pluralistic media economy, rather than protecting the interests of dominant players in the industry.
The current trend of centralisation and consolidation of broadcast radio services is widely viewed as a protection racket. To counteract this, the market must be opened up to new players and providers. This means encouraging diversification, innovation, and growth within the broadcast radio sector, and creating an environment where smaller, independent broadcasters can thrive. Abandoning the proposed Digital Switch Off for analogue radio in the UK is a necessary first step. Simulcasting between DAB and FM/AM should be ended, and spectrum management regulations must be revised to enable more services to operate on FM and AM frequencies. This would allow for greater competition and localised service provision, supporting both commercial and community-focused broadcasters.
Furthermore, Ofcom should introduce an on-demand licensing system designed to encourage new entrants into the market. Such a system would foster innovation by reducing barriers to entry and enabling more diverse voices to be heard. By shifting the focus away from media conglomerates and unaccountable international social media platforms, this approach would place decision-making power back into the hands of communities and independent organisations. It would also mitigate the risks posed by algorithms controlled by private proprietors, which often prioritise engagement and profitability over public interest.
A reimagined media landscape that prioritises diversity and local representation would align more closely with the Labour Government’s Devolution agenda, strengthening regional identities and empowering communities. Such a vision would redefine the metrics for assessing the health of local communities, placing locally originated media content and production at the heart of the evaluation.
Global’s Nations Strategy reflects broader challenges in the media industry, balancing operational efficiency with cultural representation. While these changes present significant challenges, they also create opportunities for those who are willing to take action. People who care about the future of the media, and its role in society, must roll up their sleeves and get involved. Supporting local community media groups, joining campaigning organisations like Better Media, and advocating for policy changes are practical steps that individuals can take to make a difference.
Fatalism is not the answer. Instead, we need to embrace socially responsible ways to respond to the challenges posed by the concentration of media provision. By working together, communities can develop sustainable and innovative approaches that prioritise plurality and diversity in the media landscape. This is not just a call for reform—it is a call for collective action to ensure that the media serves the needs of citizens and strengthens the democratic fabric of society.
Join the conversation on the future of local radio. Share your thoughts on how we can support community media and ensure local voices continue to be heard. Let us work together to shape a more inclusive media landscape.
Support Decentered Media by signing-up to our Patreon.