Breakfast? No (or very little) comment!

[antongould]

Is it the view of the Breakfast, and indeed the whole of R3, is going down the pan lobby that if the schedules of 2005 or whenever were restored and RC went back to CDM the audience would increase?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Is it the view of the Breakfast, and indeed the whole of R3, is going down the pan lobby that if the schedules of 2005 or whenever were restored and RC went back to CDM the audience would increase?

The listenership would certainly increase by one.

[Norfolk Born]

The listenership would certainly increase by one.

Make that two. I did listen to Martin Handley briefly this morning, but was dismayed at how CFM-like it sounded, with a high proportion of unchallenging populist works and (worse) bits of works.

[french frank]

Is it the view of the Breakfast, and indeed the whole of R3, is going down the pan lobby that if the schedules of 2005 or whenever were restored and RC went back to CDM the audience would increase?

Would it perhaps be a slightly different audience, rather than a bigger one? Radio 3 c 2000 might well have me back to being a regular daily listener.

[antongould]

Thank you for the swift, albeit not unexpected, responses. Whilst you have sensibly based your answers on the "population" you know best do you feel there would be an overall loss of audience? From my own point of view I listen to Breakfast either driving to work or when I am working and I find the format and content more or less ideal. If it was long, heavy works with minimal announcements and no opinions I could well leave. Am I a man alone? - I honestly have no idea!

[french frank]

Does that mean that the only Radio 3 programme you listen to is Breakfast? Obviously, if you listen to anything you go down in the statistics.

It's impossible to say whether Breakfast has attracted a lot of new listeners, but what we can say is that the listening figures, since 2007, are marginally down on the Morning on 3 figures of 2005-2006. So no way can it have attracted new listeners without having lost old ones. But, once lost, would they come back? Radio 3's listening figures are officially 'stable' (i.e. there has been no huge loss or significant gain overall). But that's only half the story: there have been some horrendously poor figures which could be down to the loss of Disgusteds of Tunbridge Wells. More sophisticated analysis in the hands of the BBC is confidential, and they're not letting on.

[kernelbogey]

.... From my own point of view I listen to Breakfast either driving to work or when I am working and I find the format and content more or less ideal. If it was long, heavy works with minimal announcements and no opinions I could well leave. Am I a man alone? - I honestly have no idea!

Anton, as I've said before, my ideal format for 'Breakfast' would be that of TTN - minimal, but well-informed, announcements and back announcements so that we get mostly music. I find it perfectly possible to tune in and out of longer works as well as shorter ones - just a question (for me) of the mindset accompanying my listening.

[antongould]

French Frank,
No Breakfast is not the only "show" I listen to - it was not my entry point to Radio 3 - Private Passions "brought me here"! It was however the first daily programme that I listened to and it has served, in my view, as an introduction to the wider delights I enjoy on a gradually increasing level. A very interesting statistic might be how many people listen to Breakfast on iplayer - I do but then I seem a complete weirdo!

[Word]

It's impossible to say whether Breakfast has attracted a lot of new listeners, but what we can say is that the listening figures, since 2007, are marginally down on the Morning on 3 figures of 2005-2006. So no way can it have attracted new listeners without having lost old ones.

It really depends on where those old listeners have gone :). If they have contributed to the 2,733,000 weekly reach figures for Classic FM quoted earlier, then the move from 'Morning on 3' to 'Breakfast' is hardly surprising (and possibly essential from a funding point of view).

But, once lost, would they come back? Radio 3's listening figures are officially 'stable' (i.e. there has been no huge loss or significant gain overall).

That might be a significant achievement in light of the growth in competition. (I must admit to being a little surprised at Classic FM's commercial success; on the few occasions that I hear it there don't appear to be that many adverts and those that there are don't sound as if they are of particularly high value).

[Suffolkcoastal]

Anton

I keep saying this over and over and over and over again, it is NOT, the fact that Breakfast plays short works or extracts that is upsetting its critics in so much its the same works and the same composers that form the basis of the programme, you know roughly the type of works you are going to hear in breakfast you know 3 or 4 composers who will be featured and they'll be half a dozen others from a select group and at least 2 or 3works from a group of around 40 that will feature every morning. Vary the repetoire/composers more widely and regularly, cut out the inane chatter, readings from papers, texting invites and regular trailers, then some former listeners like myself to the may just be tempted back!

[antongould]

Sorry to bring on the repitition, and to a point, I agree with you - I could hardly do any other in the face of your wonderful statistical analysis. I agree improvements are necessary and I am no greater lover of texts but the newspaper "cuttings" I don't mind - my main disagreement with some is at that time of day I have no problem with a little historical background to the pieces or to the presenter's view of the performance. The debate will as is often said rage forever - but if the audience of Radio 3 falls the chop will, in my opinion, come in some shape or form.

[Suffolkcoastal]

I'm not against a little background before a piece as long as it's relevant, it is more the Mrs so and so says her cat always purrs loudly at a certain point in this piece sort of chatter, that drives me mad and the attempts however tenuously to link a newspaper cutting to the next piece.

[Mr Pee]

then some former listeners like myself may just be tempted back!

Sorry, Suffolk, I'm confused.

If you are a

former listener

then how are you able to comment? I was under the impression that you actually listened to the programmes you're criticizing.

[Norfolk Born]

Sorry, Suffolk, I'm confused.

If you are a then how are you able to comment? I was under the impression that you actually listened to the programmes you're criticizing.

I know what Suffolk Coast means - but then, I also live in Suffolk. Is it our ideas that are confusing you, or the way we express them - or perhaps you think it's the accent?

[french frank]

If you are a [former listener] then how are you able to comment? I was under the impression that you actually listened to the programmes you're criticizing.

I'm in the same position. But I don't criticise the programmes. I read the comments and look at the playlist and that's enough to keep me away.