RAJAR - Radio 3 in Decline?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

For one brief moment, I thought you were talking about The Cabinet:

both BBC and Govt would qualify .... you really do need PPE and MBA degrees to be as dumb as such people ...

[Angle]

So, FF, it is the Peter Principle at work on a grand, grand scale:

Dr. Laurence J. Peter is a former professor who published a satirical book based around his theory
that "In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence," and that "In time,
every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties."
Or, basically: We do a job well, we're promoted. We do that job well, we're promoted again.
This happens in succession until we eventually rise to a position that we can no longer do well -
or our level of incompetence. There, we either stagnate, revert back to a lower position, or are fired.

The trouble is that at the BBC few are fired.

It is time for a clean sweep.

[french frank]

It is time for a clean sweep.

Well, we have a new Director-General, and the positions of BBC Chairman and Controller, Radio 3, are currently vacant ...

Meanwhile, since I feel that R3 doesn't have enough money to do a decent job, or should do its job differently, given the money it has, I rather liked the House Mag Ariel's Freudian slip (a sackable offence?): the BBC Annual Report stated: 'We have saved £374million p.a. so far through our Delivering Quality First programme." Ariel reported this as '£374m of Delivering Quality Cuts had been made ...'

Even the BBC's cuts are high quality and distinctive!

[french frank]

When you start peering into places 'they' don't expect you to, you discover snippets of information which, if you asked for it, they would decline your request on the grounds of the BBC exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act.

So, the most recent Rajar report also gave the average age of the Radio 3 audience (not published). In spite of all its efforts to attract the younger listener with buzzy music and luscious young presenters, the average age last quarter was 59. This compares with the figure 10 years ago (Charter review) when it was 57.

1. Either Radio 3 is not attracting younger listeners and 'we' are just getting older; or

2. It could be attracting, say, under 35s but losing a chunk of, say 45-54s.

My guess would be 2. because even 10 years ago, the report said: "Among the 45-54 age group there is a gradual downward trend."

I'm going to further suggest that older listeners are more tolerant of/resigned to childish ploys to get younger listeners and it's the middle-aged listeners who lose patience and move off to - somewhere else (internet stations, digital concert halls, expanding their CD collections). Whatever the actual reason, the 'strategy' to reduce the average age seems to have backfired.

[amateur51]

Well, we have a new Director-General, and the positions of BBC Chairman and Controller, Radio 3, are currently vacant ...

Meanwhile, since I feel that R3 doesn't have enough money to do a decent job, or should do its job differently, given the money it has, I rather liked the House Mag Ariel's Freudian slip (a sackable offence?): the BBC Annual Report stated: 'We have saved £374million p.a. so far through our Delivering Quality First programme." Ariel reported this as '£374m of Delivering Quality Cuts had been made ...'

Even the BBC's cuts are high quality and distinctive!

Miss Marple appreciates highly this fine piece of detective work, french frank

[Russ]

So, the most recent Rajar report also gave the average age of the Radio 3 audience (not published).

I'm confused but intrigued!

Btw, Alex Bowie's figures from ten years ago drew a distinction between reach and hours ("The mean age of Radio 3 listeners is 57 in terms of reach, whilst it’s 61 in terms of hours. What that means is that older listeners tend to listen longer.")

Russ

[french frank]

Adam Bowie? Yes, I take the average as quoted to be reach, though where 'mean' is intended rather than 'average' , I'm not sure. The BBC usually quote it as being 'average'.

[Radio 1 still seems 'too old', at 34, though it reduces to 32 if the 10-14 age group is included, which suggests that there are quite a few under 15s; and 6 Music seems to have risen to 40 (was 36 in 2010); Radio 4 wasn't much younger than Radio 3, at 56. However, these latest figures were only for the most recent quarter rather than over a spread of years.]

I'm confused but intrigued!

Btw, Alex Bowie's figures from ten years ago drew a distinction between reach and hours ("The mean age of Radio 3 listeners is 57 in terms of reach, whilst it’s 61 in terms of hours. What that means is that older listeners tend to listen longer.")

Russ

[VodkaDilc]

Each week there is a different panel of, I think, about 2,500 people (a total sample this last quarter of 26,023 - much bigger than the average opinion poll sample), and the quarter (12-13 weeks) averages out the figures collected each week. So it's unlikely that they're going to find, every week, 2,500 people who only listen to radio for 5 minutes.
.

I have just completed a week of filling in a log of my radio listening. I was approached by a man from Ipsos Mori going from door to door, apparently at random. I happened to be in and admitted being a radio listener - he revealed that many of my neighbours claim not to listen to the radio. I was shown the booklet to fill in and given instructions. He asked for the names of the stations I listen to and fixed stickers on the appropriate columns; for some reason he "had to" add stickers for two additional stations, though I never listen to them - Radio 4 Extra and Radio 5 Sport Extra (or some such name). Interesting! - but I mustn't be a conspiracy theorist.

I dutifully filled in my listening, adding a general comment about my R3 listening being much less than it was a few years ago, with the usual reasons. The completed booklet was picked up today.

I had never realised how these figures were reached. How can the "panel" be representative? I just happened to be in, so does this give undue weight to the retired and unemployed?

How many others have been part of these surveys?

(Interestingly, the man from Ipsos Mori, when told that I was a R3 listener, observed that I probably find that very much changed these days - the message is spreading.)

[french frank]

I had never realised how these figures were reached. How can the "panel" be representative? I just happened to be in, so does this give undue weight to the retired and unemployed?

That's pretty much what I understood happened - except having to add extra stations to your listening diary.

It will finish up broadly representative probably because, having had other pollsters knocking on the door, I have been told that they have 'quotas' for the various demographics which they have to meet. He probably still had a space for a 'You-type'listener. They have to have people who don't listen at all - otherwise their sample would show that 100% of the population listened to the radio that week, whereas it's normally about 91-92%. But that can't be done on a quota ...

[teamsaint]

That's pretty much what I understood happened - except having to add extra stations to your listening diary.

It will finish up broadly representative probably because, having had other pollsters knocking on the door, I have been told that they have 'quotas' for the various demographics which they have to meet. He probably still had a space for a 'You-type'listener. They have to have people who don't listen at all - otherwise their sample would show that 100% of the population listened to the radio that week, whereas it's normally about 91-92%. But that can't be done on a quota ...

Ah, so they decide what proportion of the population is listening at all, then what proportion of those are, say, aged 20/30, and then they find that proportion of people, ( to fit in with the quotas), add some stations that people listen to, ( but might in fact not), and then almost certainly adjust the findings in some way that fits in with how they think the sampling ought to have happened, but didn't.

have I got that right?

Makes politics look thoroughly honest !!

[french frank]

have I got that right?

No :-)

[Zucchini]

Very lucid introductions to the development and present state of radio research are:

Two short articles from COMMUNITYY RADIO TOOLKIT
Intro to Radio Research

http://www.communityradiotoolkit.net/the-feature/prove-it/an-introduction-to-radio-research/

All about Rajar

http://www.communityradiotoolkit.net/the-feature/prove-it/all-about-rajar/

and RAJAR:
Key Facts http://www.rajar.co.uk/content.php?page=about_key_facts

Poor Vodkadilc missed out on a fiver (equivalent to 5 packs of Waitrose boil in the bag kippers) by not returning data online!

[VodkaDilc]

Very lucid introductions to the development and present state of radio research are:

Poor Vodkadilc missed out on a fiver (equivalent to 5 packs of Waitrose boil in the bag kippers) by not returning data online!

I wan't given that option.

I'm still puzzled about why two unrequested stations were added to my diary - R4Extra and R5 Sport Extra. Was someone trying to influence me?

[french frank]

I wan't given that option.

I'm still puzzled about why two unrequested stations were added to my diary - R4Extra and R5 Sport Extra. Was someone trying to influence me?

Did they make it quite clear to you that your listening during the week should not be affected by the fact that you had a diary to complete? To listen neither to more, nor to less, but just according your usual routine (though accepting that one week was not necessarily identical to another).

What I understood they were to ask was whether there were any stations that you didn't normally listen to, but at a pinch it was conceivable that you might - therefore you would need the relevant sticker in your diary in case, say, on Radio 4 you heard of a programme on 4 Extra that you decided to listen to.

[VodkaDilc]

Did they make it quite clear to you that your listening during the week should not be affected by the fact that you had a diary to complete? To listen neither to more, nor to less, but just according your usual routine (though accepting that one week was not necessarily identical to another).

What I understood they were to ask was whether there were any stations that you didn't normally listen to, but at a pinch it was conceivable that you might - therefore you would need the relevant sticker in your diary in case, say, on Radio 4 you heard of a programme on 4 Extra that you decided to listen to.

He showed me some cards with station names on. I told him which I listened to and he produced a card with sticky labels for each station. He peeled off the names of those I mentioned - R3, R4, R5 and Classic FM - and said that he had to add the other two. I have the card here, with about 40 stations avaiable in this area, including many I have never heard of, such as Planet Gold and XFM. I told him I never listened to the two extra stations.

Yes, he did stress that it should be a week's listening unaffected by the diary. In fact it was not a typical week, since I was away from home for two days and travelled by train, so had no chance to listen. I was surprised to see that I should have included, if necessary, any radio broadcasts overheard in friends' houses.