The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Nicholas Kenyon used to make the "boast" frequently that ever since he took over R3, the presenters write their own scripts. I presume, having never heard that this policy had been rescinded, that it still holds, and thnat they only have themselves to blame.

As for KD's work elsewhere - she did present a rather pleasing documentary on Synchronized Swimming on R4 three or four years ago, which wasn't nearly as tooth-enamally endangering as her R3 persona; nor did her Newsreading/Film Reviewing work create the reactions that her R3 work has on the Forum. I doubt that she will fall over - her (considerable) experience as a synchronized swimmer (I kid thee not!) suggests that she may well be one of the better contestants on SCD.

We might be straying close to the "don't mention individuals" semi-rule, but whilst I actively seek to avoid her R3-related work, I would not wish to curse her career elsewhere (and "elsewith").

[Stanfordian]

Not necessarily - part of the "fluff" surrounding Strictly involves following the contestants around telling viewers how all their many hours of practice is done in addition to their "normal" day jobs. Soap actors don't reduce their appearances in their "continuing dramas", sportstypes carry on training, newsreaders continue to give as many news readings as ever - so we shouldn't build up our hopes that those over-emphasized non-English words, the irritating chuckle in the delivery and the naff scripts will be reduced in the short term. (We may even be treated to an item being introduced by Zoë Ball.)

What may happen, is that following her increased profile, KD might be offered opportunities elsewhere in the media that make it impossible for her to meet her obligations to R3.



(Has she ever presented R3's Breakfast?)

Hiya ferney, I was writing rather tongue in cheek, rather in hope. I do realise that it could be increased exposure for Ms Derham. Perhaps she could persuade Sir Mark Elder to join her as a another celebrity partner or also maybe his good friend the Doncaster Diva.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Hiya ferney, I was writing rather tongue in cheek, rather in hope.

- so have I been. Mostly

the Doncaster Diva.

She has already "been there, done that, bought the overpriced Tee shirt"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-8H3dQrduc

[ahinton]

Nicholas Kenyon used to make the "boast" frequently that ever since he took over R3, the presenters write their own scripts. I presume, having never heard that this policy had been rescinded, that it still holds, and thnat they only have themselves to blame.

Who can say? What makes me somewhat suspicious is the sheer variety of presentation "styles" on R3 that appears to deny the possibility that the worst of it's down to any kind of general dumbing-down personality-led policy, otherwise they'd surely all do it!

As for KD's work elsewhere - she did present a rather pleasing documentary on Synchronized Swimming on R4 three or four years ago

OK, I confess to scant knowledge of swimming, synchonised or asynchronised, but swimming on radio? Sounds something of a non-starter to me!

which wasn't nearly as tooth-enamally endangering as her R3 persona; nor did her Newsreading/Film Reviewing work create the reactions that her R3 work has on the Forum.

...which surely begs the question why she reservers this kind of thing for R3; does she have something against it?

I doubt that she will fall over - her (considerable) experience as a synchronized swimmer (I kid thee not!) suggests that she may well be one of the better contestants on SCD.

Be that as it may (and I never watch SCD anyway - it would bore me to tears and beyond if the tiny but that I did once see's anything by which to go), I'd sooner that she concentrated her "talents" on such things on TV than step into the waters of unfamiliarity (if you'll pardon the two analogies) and make a mockery of herself on R3.

We might be straying close to the "don't mention individuals" semi-rule, but whilst I actively seek to avoid her R3-related work, I would not wish to curse her career elsewhere (and "elsewith").

Nor would I (although, as I wrote, I know very little of it, not having encountered it); as to her presence of R3, I would seek only to counsel her to remember at all times the motto "make it heard" (meaning the music, not her own witterings), said motto being an anagram of herself...

[ahinton]

Doncaster Diva.

"Don' cast 'er at all", say I! She has more than enough rôles already, methinks!

[Stanfordian]

- so have I been. Mostly


She has already "been there, done that, bought the overpriced Tee shirt"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-8H3dQrduc

Hiya ferney, Now why does the Doncaster Diva having been a celeb on Strictly Come Dancing not surprise me!

[ahinton]

Hiya ferney, Now why does the Doncaster Diva having been a celeb on Strictly Come Dancing not surprise me!

No reason at all, of course - but, more to the point, who cares?

[Anastasius]

No reason at all, of course - but, more to the point, who cares?

Perhaps Ms Derham who, according to this article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...ALLY-name.html, has been promoted (demoted?) to Proms Presenter.

[Zucchini]

It has to be remembered, however, that the number of Radio 3 listeners found in the Rajar sample is quite small, so the number of Breakfast listeners is even smaller (usually only about 30 people)

They are too insignificant to be reliable on a quarter-on-quarter basis. But 30 a quarter (Breakfast only) is 120 a year and 600 over five years 1,200 over 10 years

You're wrong by a factor of ten - 300 or so respondents are Breakfast listeners

300 per week? The figures are published quarterly, but they report average weekly listening, and according to our calculations that means on average each week the sample turns up 30 or fewer Breakfast listeners. Cumulatively a weekly sample of 25 over 12 weeks would total 300, but the published figures are taking the 12 or 13 week total and averaging them to find the weekly figures. Is that not correct?.

No, you're not understanding it at all: The above is a terrible muddle, so let's start at the beginning:

1) The quarterly Rajar data is collected continuously from (keeping figures simple and approx for Quarter 2 this year) 26,000 people - so at a rate of 2,000 each week.

2) Each respondent fills in a 7 day diary of what they listened to and when.

3) At the end of the survey period Radio 3 appeared (say) on 918 one week diaries.

4) Simple arithmetic says that if a 26,000 sample is drawn from a 15+ population of 53.6 million, then Radio 3's 918 represents 1.9 million people per week during that quarter.

5) In the same way, at the end of the survey period Radio 3's Breakfast programme appeared (say) on 305 one week diaries and this represents 629 thousand people per week during that quarter.

Hopefully you (and the "We" at FoR3 you refer to) can understand that the content of the diaries contains the one week listening data for aggregation and analysis - it's daft to think that the fact that about 30 diaries mentioning Radio 3's Breakfast are collected each week should touch on the research results in any way. The quarter's sample size in this example is 305. Finito

As indications of the accuracy of the published figures!

Radio 3's weekly reach has a 90% likelihood of falling between + or - 9.3% of the published 1894 thou figure.

The Breakfast weekly reach has a 90% likelihood of falling between + or - 16.2% of the published 629 thou figure.

The calculations incorporate MORI's survey design factor. Note that a square root in the formula means that 4 quarters' data only halves the 'error' range and it would need 16 quarters' data to halve it again. Increased survey accuracy comes at a terrible price!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Increased survey accuracy comes at a terrible price!

I didn't think we were discussing Chris Evans' salary.

[french frank]

No, you're not understanding it at all

Yes, I understand that. I said: 'Cumulatively a weekly sample of 25 over 12 weeks would total 300', but as each week the sample is a different set of people, I meant by 'a Rajar sample' the recipients of diaries in any one week. That was what you took issue with, so I apologise for not being clearer. Your figure was, as you said for 'the end of the survey period', mine was for the weekly figure.

What you haven't commented on was my view that an increase year-on-year of 20% is not significant, other than indicating what goes down very low one quarter is likely to make a 'significant' recovery the following year, though in this case is wasn't as high as it has been in the past. Therefore you need to explain what the statistical 'significance' means.

[french frank]

it's daft to think that the fact that about 30 diaries mentioning Radio 3's Breakfast are collected each week should touch on the research results in any way.

I didn't actually say that the figure of 30pw influenced the results. But even with quarterly aggregated figures, the sample for individual programmes are still comparatively small - and are likely to fluctuate.

[antongould]

I'm probably wrong mercs but I seem to sense an increase recently in the pleading for and receiving/playing of requests. Perhaps the post Proms survey will reveal all - unless, of course, I am the only one who can bear the "torture" ...........

"It's your programme as well as ours, let's make it together ...." Treelawn this morning ......

[antongould]

....you're choosing the whole playlist Stan - impressive .......

[BBMmk2]

Absolutely concur, AG! :)