The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place

[antongould]

Why do you put yourself through it, anton?

One can only imagine that Lady Gould elbows you out of the conjugal bower of bliss at 6.30 sharp and there's nothing better to do while you grind the beans and construct her ladyship's kedgeree

That of course but also as an unpaid if biased researcher for FOR3 .......

[french frank]

That of course but also as an unpaid if biased researcher for FOR3 .......

Who was credited individually with being one of two people who were favourable towards the programme (I had to add that from personal knowledge because you only gave the timings without comments. Most people gave the impression of having been forced to undergo torture).

[antongould]

Who was credited individually with being one of two people who were favourable towards the programme (I had to add that from personal knowledge because you only gave the timings without comments. Most people gave the impression of having been forced to undergo torture).

No torture hereabouts I find it a very pleasant way to start my morning.......

[french frank]

No torture hereabouts I find it a very pleasant way to start my morning.......

That might be a subtle difference between a 'Breakfast Show' and a 'morning music programme'. Breakfast Shows serve a function which is not connected with the music itself, because programmes as musically diverse as Nick Grimshaw's, Chris Evans' and Radio 3's are all categorised - now - as Breakfast Shows. That was the aim in restyling Radio 3's morning programme: to make its approach conform with the standard breakfast radio template.

If you find the casual comments about listeners' lives and preferences untroubling and the music adventurous enough, you may well find it 'pleasant'. If you find such interruptions simply distract you from the music (and here, whether the pieces are short or long is not the primary factor) and the musical choices becoming stale, the programme is spoilt.

This wasn't Radio 3 responding to what 'Radio 3 listeners want': it was deliberate engineering to get new people to listen. And damn the old ones.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

This wasn't Radio 3 responding to what 'Radio 3 listeners want': it was deliberate engineering to get new people to listen. And damn the old ones.

As a policy, it simply doesn't stack up. It they are competing with themselves in this way (i.e. with other radio stations, including BBC once it vastly reduces the element of choice. The "new people" will almost certainly be existing listeners that R3 is trying to steal from elsewhere, whereas if it looked after its core audience, it would probably do much better.

[french frank]

As a policy, it simply doesn't stack up. It they are competing with themselves in this way (i.e. with other radio stations, including BBC once it vastly reduces the element of choice. The "new people" will almost certainly be existing listeners that R3 is trying to steal from elsewhere, whereas if it looked after its core audience, it would probably do much better.

Yup. Given that a high proportion of radio listeners listen to breakfast shows - and nothing else on radio - it's unlikely that 'new listeners' weren't already listening to another station. Most likely, Radio 2 or Classic FM.

The rationale appears to be that if they take listeners from Radio 2, the increase in audience will make Radio 3 'better value for money'. Radio 2's 'value for money' can hardly be overestimated - something like (I invent because I can't remember) 0.2p per listener per week, while Radio 3's value leaps from 6.3p per listener per week to 6.3p per listener per week. But in increasing its value by 0.0p per week (because it hasn't gained more listeners) it has, of course, lost the distinctiveness which had been its attraction for its audience.

[Zucchini]

You must remember that on average, Breakfast listeners listen for 30 minutes or less on a given day. And because of other duties/distractions/mindset almost certainly pay less attention than they might at other times of day.

So the prgramme makers are very constrained - less than a fifth of the aggregate Breakfast audience will have heard Gerry and his Bridge the other day, any long piece will have its beginning or end chopped off for most people listening in that timeband - catastrophic in the long run.

I don't think R3 management is "targetting" younger listeners at the expense of old men and women with too much time on their hands. They're doing what they were asked to do - keep R3 accessible and pleasurable at this time of day. It won't suit everyone and I see no particular reason why (cantankerous) old people should have priority. There's no Machiavellian plot.

(In the last quarter, Rajar reported a year on year 20% increase in Breakfast weekly reach, and over 20% increase in total weekly hours of listening. Changes of this magnitude are definitely statistically significant and show recovvery from a temporarily poor situation. CFM was 5% down in both categories.)

[teamsaint]

the BBC created these arbitrary* age profiles, and they are ( a strict part of) the remit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/radio/articles/radio1

It wasn't the existing audience who asked for them.



*add as necessary
" unnecessary, arbitrary, demeaning, useless , divisive, self serving, etc etc"

[french frank]

(In the last quarter, Rajar reported a year on year 20% increase in Breakfast weekly reach, and over 20% increase in total weekly hours of listening. Changes of this magnitude are definitely statistically significant and show recovvery from a temporarily poor situation. CFM was 5% down in both categories.)[/I]

You mustn't take everything the BBC press releases say at face value: the year on year 'increase' of 19.582% merely reflected the fact that a year ago Breakfast had its worst quarter ever (comparing like with like). It tumbled to 526,000 listeners - possibly a sampling fluke. This quarter it recovered, though didn't quite reach last quarter's figure (644,000). It is, as you say 'stastically significant', but only in that it 'recovered' from its terrible figures over recent quarters. And 'recovery' would imply sustaining that figure, not managing it for a couple of quarters.

The new Breakfast has not increased its audience.

(Cantankerous) old people are licence fee payers. Do they not get priority anywhere on BBC radio? There are five other music stations and three speech stations provided on licence fee payers' money. Homely trivia remain homely trivia, even if people only listen to it for 30 minutes. No wonder people who want something better (regardless of age) become cantankerous. I doubt you listen to it.

[cloughie]

You must remember that on average, Breakfast listeners listen for 30 minutes or less on a given day. And because of other duties/distractions/mindset almost certainly pay less attention than they might at other times of day.

So the prgramme makers are very constrained - less than a fifth of the aggregate Breakfast audience will have heard Gerry and his Bridge the other day, any long piece will have its beginning or end chopped off for most people listening in that timeband - catastrophic in the long run.

I don't think R3 management is "targetting" younger listeners at the expense of old men and women with too much time on their hands. They're doing what they were asked to do - keep R3 accessible and pleasurable at this time of day. It won't suit everyone and I see no particular reason why (cantankerous) old people should have priority. There's no Machiavellian plot.

(In the last quarter, Rajar reported a year on year 20% increase in Breakfast weekly reach, and over 20% increase in total weekly hours of listening. Changes of this magnitude are definitely statistically significant and show recovvery from a temporarily poor situation. CFM was 5% down in both categories.)

I guess some listen for less than 30 mins because of the style of the programme. I would guess also that few of us older people have too much time on our hands - quite the opposite - we have a lot to get in whilst we are able. Gerry's Ferry is not a bridge. Having to prematurely leave a longer work is less frustrating than listening to a movement of a work and instead of hearing the next movement, hearing CB-H announce something else. You also make an assumption that majority of listeners want the current format of Breakfast - on what evidence?

[french frank]

The new Breakfast has not increased its audience

Yearly averages Breakfast, 6.30am-9am:

2012/13 - 675,000 (quarters were 723,00, 665,000, 606,000, 704,000)
2013/14 - 590,800
2014/15 - 572,800

[Richard Tarleton]

(Cantankerous) old people are licence fee payers. Do they not get priority anywhere on BBC radio? There are five other music stations and three speech stations provided on licence fee payers' money. Homely trivia remain homely trivia, even if people only listen to it for 30 minutes. No wonder people who want something better (regardless of age) become cantankerous. I doubt you listen to it.

Indeed. We've (I've) been round the audience segmentation track a few times already. You start by understanding your audience in all its complexity, which R3 doesn't, and hasn't. You don't then hack off and ditch a major segment of your actual audience in a doomed attempt to attract a hypothetical new one, and failing to do so.

Cantankerous, moi?

[french frank]

Indeed. We've (I've) been round the audience segmentation track a few times already. You start by understanding your audience in all its complexity, which R3 doesn't, and hasn't. You don't then hack off and ditch a major segment of your actual audience in a doomed attempt to attract a hypothetical new one, and failing to do so.

Cantankerous, moi?

And with an average age of 59(?), Radio 3 must have a tidy segment of (cantankerous) old people.

[Bax-of-Delights]

I don't think R3 management is "targetting" younger listeners at the expense of old men and women with too much time on their hands. They're doing what they were asked to do - keep R3 accessible and pleasurable at this time of day. It won't suit everyone and I see no particular reason why (cantankerous) old people should have priority.

Holy mackerel! I don't think I've come across such a snide and condescending post in a long time. What's with this "old" business? What's your definition?

[Sir Velo]

I don't think R3 management is "targetting" younger listeners at the expense of old men and women with too much time on their hands. They're doing what they were asked to do - keep R3 accessible and pleasurable at this time of day.

So you're the one who phones in asking for "Ferry Cross the Mersey" and boring everyone sh!tless with what their budgie likes to hear over their cornflakes!