Originally posted by Caliban
View Post
The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by antongould View PostThat of course but also as an unpaid if biased researcher for FOR3 .......It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View PostWho 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).
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by antongould View PostNo torture hereabouts I find it a very pleasant way to start my morning.......
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.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View Post
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.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Eine Alpensinfonie View PostAs 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.
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.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
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.)
Comment
-
-
the BBC created these arbitrary* age profiles, and they are ( a strict part of) the remit.
The best of the BBC, with the latest news and sport headlines, weather, TV & radio highlights and much more from across the whole of BBC Online
It wasn't the existing audience who asked for them.
*add as necessary
" unnecessary, arbitrary, demeaning, useless , divisive, self serving, etc etc"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
I am not a number, I am a free man.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Zucchini View Post(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]
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.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Zucchini View PostYou 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.)
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View PostThe new Breakfast has not increased its audience
2012/13 - 675,000 (quarters were 723,00, 665,000, 606,000, 704,000)
2013/14 - 590,800
2014/15 - 572,800It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Richard Tarleton
Originally posted by french frank View Post(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.
Cantankerous, moi?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Richard Tarleton View PostIndeed. 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?It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Zucchini View Post
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.O Wort, du Wort, das mir Fehlt!
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Zucchini View Post
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.
Comment
-
Comment