The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place

[french frank]

Anyone seen this Telegraph interview with La Burton-Hill? Look at the readers' comments afterwards..meow!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/1...-to-sleep.html

Given that this is the second major article (I haven't read it yet) in a 'quality' newspaper this week, I can well imagine that there might be 'meows' from a lot of other Radio 3 staff - especially those who knock spots off her (meow)!

She has an excellent press agent and I don't think you can believe half of what is written about her (not necessarily by her - meow modified).

As I wrote below the Independent article already noted elsewhere, the Breakfast figures leap around a lot. Since it's been on 6.30 - 9am, it has ranged from 723,000 pw (Q2 2012) to 533,000 pw (Q3 2013) under SMP. B-H's last effort (shared with Petroc Trelawny!) was 673,000. The previous quarter to the most recent one happened to be the second lowest - which has coincidentally been used to measure the number of 'new listeners'.

Battling PR machines, including the BBC's, is a thankless task.

[Bax-of-Delights]

FF:
Can anyone in their right mind imagine that x thousand "new" listeners joined R3's Breakfast just because CBH was presenting it rather than PT or CBH?

Would that Ivor Cutler was still with us. Now, he would have been worth tuning in for!

[french frank]

FF:
Can anyone in their right mind imagine that x thousand "new" listeners joined R3's Breakfast just because CBH was presenting it rather than PT or [SMP]?

This, of course was in the Independent article a couple of days ago. X = 130,000. And people who were not listening had 13 weeks to discover that the presenter had changed and the new presenter is none other than .... And since it would take a few weeks to build up, the number of 'new' listeners needed to make an average of 130,000 over the quarter must have been at least twice that number by the end of the quarter. Did they grit their teeth and listen during the weeks that Petroc was on? Or did they just listen to Clemency? - in which case my estimate is that she raised the audience by at least half a million to cope with the dead weight of Petroc's presentation: that is, near doubling the audience for the programme which already had one of the biggest audiences! :-/

Not?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

It reminds me of Tesco DVD charts, which are totally fabricated, and are decided upon before release. How do they claim to get their figures for Radio 3?

[Honoured Guest]

Market research and surveys have greater statistical significance than bitter blinkered speculation.

[James Wonnacott]

All comments have now, apparently, been erased. Someone a little touchy?

Still there, just looked.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Market research and surveys have greater statistical significance than bitter blinkered speculation.

That should be true but in my experience it often isn't. And it isn't necessarily the speculators who are blinkered when it comes to Radio 3.

[french frank]

It reminds me of Tesco DVD charts, which are totally fabricated, and are decided upon before release. How do they claim to get their figures for Radio 3?

I (like Honoured Guest? ) don't have any quarrel with the RAJAR figures, merely with the way they're manipulated by broadcasters to show their results in the best possible light. They are PR tools - especially for the commercials, naturally, because advertising levels will depend on how well they're performing - but increasingly for the BBC, and certainly Radio 3 which has something to prove, and struggles.

There are so many different aspects to consider and a broadcaster tosses out a press release which goes to a journalist who, nine time out of ten, simply follows/swallows the narrative presented. They aren't interested in the actual figures, just the 'story' they tell, the more striking the better.

RAJAR figures are 'accurate' in as far as they go, but quarter by quarter, they don't go very far. Would that be a fair summation, HG?

[doversoul1]

Market research and surveys have greater statistical significance than bitter blinkered speculation.

Market research and surveys are usually carried out for a specific purpose and analysed (and published) accordingly.

[Honoured Guest]

There are so many different aspects to consider and a broadcaster tosses out a press release which goes to a journalist who, nine time out of ten, simply follows/swallows the narrative presented. They aren't interested in the actual figures, just the 'story' they tell, the more striking the better.

I agree with that. And very often the journalists paraphrase press releases, or misunderstand the nuances, so that many press reports are distorted or wrong.

RAJAR figures are 'accurate' in as far as they go, but quarter by quarter, they don't go very far. Would that be a fair summation, HG?

I don't know much about RAJAR statistics, but I would have thought that it's useful to look at trends where data has been collected in the same way, but less useful where not. And speculation about underlying causes is a little foolish or mischievous, unless it's substantiated by specific survey or research data. I suppose one could draw up a list of a range of possible "explanations" and then assess their relative likelihoods, but that would still be speculastive and prone to the bias of the speculator. When the BBC spins a line, we don't know whether it's been specifically researched or whether it's supported by circumstantial evidence (like an increase in the volume of tweets?) or whether it's just wishfully "fabricated".

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

In market research, the results often reflect the manner of questioning. I am sometimes asked to complete customer satisfaction surveys, but find it a little frustrating when the questions are directed so that the results are what they want to hear, and not necessarily reflecting the way I feel. A reputable researcher is likely to be thorough and fair, but this is by no means universal.

Much worse is the way promoters will pick out only the good bits in their public analysis - something that has already been touched upon.

[french frank]

I would have thought that it's useful to look at trends where data has been collected in the same way, but less useful where not.

I would think that you had judged correctly - always the trend. People know this, but they emphasise anything that sounds like good news. Radio 3's listening figures went up by 100,000 'earlier this year' - somewhat mitigating the 168,000 which it lost earlier last year and which we forgot to mention ... :-) And so on.

[french frank]

Another intriguing point from the Indy piece:

"Figures released this week, showed that the breakfast show has added 130,000 new listeners since the arrival of Ms Burton-Hill." [NB I take this to be the journalist's addition]

The latest figures relate to the 13 weeks 30 December-30 March. As far as I can see, CBH only presented for four weeks out of those thirteen. Petroc did 8 weeks and Ian Skelly did one.

[Quite irrelevant, but I see she has written for the Indy a few times]

[Don Petter]

All comments have now, apparently, been erased. Someone a little touchy?

I don't know how many there were, but there are still twenty there, ending with James W's one, and including at least some quoted above.

They make interesting reading!

[Nick Armstrong]

They make interesting reading!

... and amusing too


" 'She has a Cambridge double-first in English.'
Her first reported comment is: “The programme is so unique" "


" "Clemency Burton-Hill is the very embodiment of a polymath, a renaissance woman who makes Leonardo da Vinci seem a bit of a slacker."
I nominate Julia Llewellyn Smith for Hyperbolic Statement of the Week."


"I love being told what to think by people with double-barreled names. It's good exercise for my forelock. - h. hart-breake"





NB: I haven't I confess been able to read the article in its entirety. It is emetically smug, and I have to keep stopping and leave the room...