Latest RAJARs

[Gordon]

As an adjunct to the RAJAR figures boarders may be interested in OfCom's annual communications report for 2016 published today. It covers all aspects of communications including internet penetration and usage etc. Interesting that one highlight is that people are deliberately choosing to spend time OFF the internet!! Look at Fig 1.29 on page 51, especially the profile of the over 65s!!.

Insofar that it covers Radio - see pages from 109 in this:

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/market-data/communications-market-reports/cmr16/downloads/

[Old Grumpy]

Spot something strange about these BBC headlines (large and small)? What goes up tends to go down and vice versa:

The second headline in the photo had me worried there for a minute FF!

Luckily all is clarified here. Phew!!

OG

[french frank]

Down from 6.9 in the corresponding quarter last year and down from 6.4 in the first quarter of this year.

The reason why it was down from the corresponding quarter is - probably - because there's a tendency for listening per head to rise as the reach goes down (I suppose because the fewer the listeners, the more likely they are to be the 'hard core'), and reach was very low indeed a year ago: it's shot up from 1.894m to 2.2m which would normally mean listening per head goes down.

Last quarter was much better for Radio 3, but this quarter is up on that, albeit by only about 1%. The other point is that compared with last quarter overall radio listening is up 4% on last quarter which may well mean that Radio 4 has benefited from Radio 3 listeners listening to it for longer than usual (and less to Radio 3). But this is all theorising.

[Lat-Literal]

A reasonable quarter for Radio 3.

[Lat-Literal]

I lose track on the extent to which the sustainability of BBC radio stations is measured by governments on the basis of their competitiveness with commercial radio stations. However, their viability seems to be often perceived at least in part in light of listening figures. Those may be considered individually or against commercial competitors. The funding elements are complex what with distinctions between BBC television and BBC radio vis a vis the licence and a wide range of BBC commercial ventures. One often repeated point is that commercial radio can be at a disadvantage having to be solely funded by private advertising. In the past two years I have begun to question that particular point.

What I have noticed is the massive growth in public service commercials in the commercial radio sector. This, it seems to me, could and perhaps should now be regarded as back door state subsidy to commercial radio. The sheer number of such commercials has become mind boggling. They have covered new levels of income for low earners, the need to register for the EU referendum, action to prevent house fires. caring for elderly neighbours in the winter, vaccination initiatives, the workplace pension and very much more.

A conservative estimate of the number of such commercials on each of a selection of commercial radio stations is four per hour. That is getting on for one hundred per day on each station and 36,500 per year. Multiplying that sum by two to cover the two year period and then by, say, fifteen stations if this is a pattern across the commercial radio network - and I think it is - takes the number of taxpayer funded commercials of this kind to well over one million. Some might feel that it is excessive and that while some public service information is useful there may be a parallel policy agenda in play. If BBC Radio 3 and other BBC stations are to be judged partly on what they deliver with ongoing support by governments for the BBC's methods of revenue raising, not only should all the BBC figures be transparent but also the amount of money we are pouring in to commercial services.

I raised a Freedom of Information enquiry about this matter, asking for the amounts of money paid by governments for these commercials in the past two years. As the COI was absorbed into the Cabinet Office, I went to HMT and after a few weeks received a one sentence reply indicating that the Treasury does not hold the information requested. In view of the fact that there was no wish on its part to provide details of which Department or Departments might hold this information, I sensed a wish for a cover up. Consequently I have now had a ten minute discussion with one of the major tabloids - not the one that has close links with commercial radio - and it is currently considering whether to pursue it.

The tabloid team accepted that the reply had not been helpful and possibly because I had hit a raw nerve. It also asked me what I would say if it was argued that information of this kind is essential to which I replied I am not against those commercials in principle but there is when talking about competitiveness and audience delivery a need for honesty in all respects plus in terms of numbers there is surely a sensible limit. If I don't get any joy, I will take the matter up with Radio 4's PM programme as I think they will run with it.

[french frank]

Interesting ideas, Lat. I'll only comment that the FOIA has two basic 'catch-all' excuses for not providing information.

1. If it's the BBC, it's their 'derogation' which allows them to refuse information on 'journalism, art or literature' which they consider includes anything they do that they don't wish to disclose.

2. For other public bodies it's that they 'do not hold the information' which in reality means they haven't got exactly what you want ready to despatch to you off the shelf, though they probably could provide it from what they do hold with a bit of extra work. The Act doesn't oblige them to 'generate the information' with extra work. (The BBC can use that too, plus commercial sensitivity).

On your point about competition: the BBC, as a publicly-funded body, must, by statute, avoid direct competition with a commercial service. But what exactly defines 'competition' here is a slightly grey area. But your point about the use of public funds is a bit to one side and can be justified on other grounds.

[Lat-Literal]

Interesting ideas, Lat. I'll only comment that the FOIA has two basic 'catch-all' excuses for not providing information.

1. If it's the BBC, it's their 'derogation' which allows them to refuse information on 'journalism, art or literature' which they consider includes anything they do that they don't wish to disclose.

2. For other public bodies it's that they 'do not hold the information' which in reality means they haven't got exactly what you want ready to despatch to you off the shelf, though they probably could provide it from what they do hold with a bit of extra work. The Act doesn't oblige them to 'generate the information' with extra work. (The BBC can use that too, plus commercial sensitivity).

On your point about competition: the BBC, as a publicly-funded body, must, by statute, avoid direct competition with a commercial service. But what exactly defines 'competition' here is a slightly grey area. But your point about the use of public funds is a bit to one side and can be justified on other grounds.

Thank you for your good comments and points of clarification, french frank.

They help to explain my strategy of calling in journalists to do the heavy work.

21st Century organisations only seem to believe in one-way communication as far as the general public is concerned.

[french frank]

Well, they that stand high …

After a (spectacularly) good quarter announced in August, this quarter has slipped back into the doldrums, with an overall reach of 1.977m. Psychologically, a Proms quarter below 2m can be seen as disappointing, though hovering around the 2m mark is about average, with the median of those 18 quarters since 1999 being 2.060m (av. 2.053m). The very good Breakfast figure last quarter seems to have collapsed back to a more average figure.

Lot on my mind atm and have been taken by surprise by today's published figures so these are immediate thoughts. More later if anything seems relevant.

[antongould]

"BBC Radio 3’s audience was 2.12 million in this quarter, which covered the 70th anniversary of the station. This was from 1.98m last quarter and 2.05m last year and Radio 3’s share was 1.4 per cent (1.2 per cent last quarter and 1.2 per cent last year)."

Anyone aware of anything more than this from the Media Centre ... ????

[DracoM]

Merest footnote: http://yle.fi/radio/yleklassinen/suora/ - NO trails / commercials.

[french frank]

Anyone aware of anything more than this from the Media Centre ... ????

Overall the BBC coverage seemed rather slight. If I remember, the main headline was that young people (in general) are listening to radio less now. [And R4's Today had its highest ever figures]

R3 figures this month are encouraging, and the listening hours (and share) higher than for years. RAJARS are strange: one can never be sure if it's a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc since numbers can fluctuate for no obvious reason. One thing: one can't say that any of the current regime's 'adjustments' are aimed at boosting ratings.

Breakfast was a 'very good average'. Solid, but not near a record.

[Andrew Slater]

I'm supposed to be doing some stats on these latest figures .... if this cold will allow me

[french frank]

I'm supposed to be doing some stats on these latest figures .... if this cold will allow me

Are you speaking about the weather or your health, Andrew?

[Andrew Slater]

Both

I've just updated the spreadsheet.

The main item of note is that the share, at 1.37% is just short of the highest recorded since Q1, 1999 (which is the first year for which we have records), which was 1.38% in Q3, 2009. The last time it was 1.37% was in Q1, 1999, coincidentally,

Also the total hours, at 14381, seem to be the highest since Q1, 1999.

I'll distribute the spreadsheet tomorrow, when I'll see if I can extract anything else

[french frank]

The main item of note is that the share, at 1.37% is just short of the highest recorded since Q1, 1999 (which is the first year for which we have records), which was 1.38% in Q3, 2009. The last time it was 1.37% was in Q1, 1999, coincidentally,

Also the total hours, at 14381, seem to be the highest since Q1, 1999.

Get well soon, then!

Interesting - far too early to talk about a 'trend', though. Last quarter was disappointing after the very good performance the previous quarter. What I think one can say is that none of the changes that have taken place since AD took over have been calculated to increase reach (but it looks as if it might <caution!> nevertheless be nudging up). Au contraire, just about everything that RW did was aimed at getting new listeners, broadening the audience, breaking down the 'old elitism' of R3 - and they met with record low reach figures (below 1.8m) and record low listening hours/share (below 10m per week, and under 1.0% share - normally a figure very difficult to shift.

Sir William Haley freely admitted when he launched his ambitious Third Programme that it might well be a hostage to fortune, but he did it anyway