A shift is underway in the UK’s radio landscape. It’s not one characterised by headline drama or overt controversy, but by the steady march of consolidation, the expanding presence of corporate control, and a regulatory framework that appears either unwilling or unable to prioritise cultural diversity and democratic pluralism. At the heart of this shift are three dominant players: Global, Bauer, and the BBC. Between them, these organisations command the lion’s share of radio listening hours across the UK, delivering content increasingly shaped by brand identity, demographic segmentation, and strategic market capture.
According to Ofcom’s recently published consultation on the BBC’s proposals for new DAB+ services, Global and Bauer together account for 81% of all commercial radio listening, a concentration that has grown markedly through their ongoing deployment of digital spin-off stations designed to capture narrow genre, mood, or decade-specific audiences. From Heart 70s to Magic Classical, the approach is to colonise each listening niche with brand familiarity and economies of scale.
The BBC’s entry into this segmented landscape, through proposals to launch services like Radio 1 Dance, Radio 3 Unwind, and a Radio 2 spin-off, mirrors this logic. Despite its public service remit, the BBC’s reasoning rests more on internal convenience and branding strategy than on clearly articulated public demand. Ofcom’s analysis, while technically detailed, shows little appetite to challenge this approach. On the contrary, it accepts at face value the BBC’s case for increasing service provision in a market already heavily occupied, while sidelining the community and small-scale operators’ concerns that have repeatedly been raised.
One notable exception in this otherwise dispassionate process is the case of Boom Radio, which fought hard to have its concerns recognised. Boom raised specific objections to the BBC’s proposed Radio 2 Extension (R2E), demonstrating how the new service would directly overlap with its audience and programming focus. It is welcome that Ofcom has accepted the legitimacy of Boom’s concerns and has provisionally concluded that the BBC should not proceed with that service. This shows that regulation can work — but only when smaller providers are prepared to challenge, and when there is enough pressure to be taken seriously. It also shows how fragile the regulatory protections are, and how limited the system is in safeguarding diversity without sustained advocacy.
The broader picture remains troubling. There are no new protections proposed for other independent or community stations. Protections for plurality are not built into the system — they are reactive, not preventative. As the newly passed Media Act 2024 begins to take effect, it’s difficult to see these imbalances improving. On the contrary, the legislation reads less like a charter for media diversity and more like a protection racket for large-scale incumbents. Designed around streamlined regulation and market efficiency, it does little to address the structural disadvantages faced by smaller or place-based broadcasters. Without a shift in policy emphasis, the airwaves will become ever more difficult for new or independent voices to access.
Market Share Comparison
| Radio Group | Total Share of UK Listening Hours | Main Strategy |
| BBC | ~55% (all radio), declining | Expansion via DAB+ spin-offs, regionalisation of local radio |
| Global & Bauer | ~44% total; 81% of commercial radio | Brand extensions by decade/genre, national consolidation |
| Independents / Community | Marginal | Hyper-local, often on AM/FM or small-scale DAB |
This centralisation is not limited to platforms and format. Ofcom has failed to meaningfully challenge the BBC’s restructuring of its Local Radio services in England, which has seen locally distinctive content replaced by regionalised programming hubs. This reconfiguration has undermined the BBC’s own commitment to localism, and runs counter to the principle that public service broadcasting should be led by citizen need, not internal managerial logic. Yet Ofcom has remained passive, leaving communities to adjust to an offer they had no voice in shaping.
The BBC’s rationale for these changes often rests on the assumption that audiences are fragmenting, shifting to online and mobile listening, and that the Corporation must keep pace. But this techno-centric logic bypasses the cultural significance of radio in people’s lives. When the BBC previously proposed to close BBC Radio 6 Music, the public response was swift and sustained. The outcry was not just about a format; it was about identity, representation, and connection. That station was saved because listeners saw it as theirs, not just as another brand in a portfolio.
Today, no such public consultation has taken place to test whether there is popular consent for the BBC’s DAB+ expansion. There is no groundswell of citizen demand for a Radio 2 extension, or a rebranded “unwind” service. These proposals appear to emerge from the internal strategies of a broadcaster responding to its own anxieties, rather than the real and diverse listening needs of the public. Ofcom, meanwhile, has declined to take this cultural legitimacy seriously. Its assessments are grounded in impact modelling and economic competition metrics, not in democratic participation or social value.
As part of any fair and balanced development of digital radio, it is reasonable to expect that the BBC should begin to relinquish its FM spectrum, especially if it is permitted to expand via DAB+ and online services. The most appropriate starting point would be BBC Radio 3, which serves a niche but digitally literate audience that already engages with curated and on-demand listening. Reallocating this spectrum would enable small-scale local commercial and community stations to access valuable FM bandwidth, helping to rebalance media plurality and give space to diverse voices currently excluded from national coverage. Without such a gesture, the BBC risks reinforcing its already dominant position across both analogue and digital platforms, at the expense of grassroots innovation and community relevance.
Media as a Public Good
What’s missing, profoundly, is a vision of radio that sees it as a public commons, not just a market. The BBC has a constitutional obligation to serve all audiences and to foster creativity, diversity, and community representation. That obligation is not met by simply mimicking the segmentation strategies of commercial incumbents. Nor is it met by sidelining smaller operators and community voices, whose work is disproportionately impactful despite being under-resourced and structurally excluded.
If the airwaves are to remain a space for cultural plurality and democratic expression, then regulation must shift from a passive observer of market dynamics to an active steward of media diversity. Ofcom must demand more from the BBC — not less. And the BBC must begin again with a simple but often overlooked question: what do citizens want from their public broadcaster?
Until then, expansion without consent, and development without equity, will continue to shape a UK radio system that is louder, but not necessarily more representative.