Latest RAJARs

[Lat-Literal]

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.

Congratulations to those in charge of Radio 3.

In these times I seek figures that support my instinct and my prejudices. The first is that people don't want to be bombarded by news in the way that broadcasters insist. The success of BBC R4 and especially "Today" doesn't on the surface provide that support and nor does an improving BBC 5 Live and LBC. Each of these has a peg - BBC R4 : Broad speech content to counterbalance news and a news service that is trusted in the era of fake news; BBC 5 Live : Sport to counterbalance news; and LBC : Phone-ins on subjects that are discussed over and over and over again with increasingly controversial "shock jock" presenters. That is to counterbalance news as it was once known across the board.

While Nick Ferrari's programme has a good audience in London, I am not sure that the overall figures suggest that the station is a a huge success. Some improvements may be overstated since it went semi-national. And Talk Radio's figures are plummeting. Also, it isn't especially clear how off-putting or not constant news on most non-news channels tends to be - BBC R1, BBC R2, BBC R3, BBC 6 Music, BBC local radio and commercial music radio. What I haven't seen is any figure for BBC 4 Extra which wonderfully is news free.

The second is that people of all ages and not just young people are turning away from mainstream music radio because commercial music is an industry run by people who chuck out records that are not interesting or in anyone's sane judgement very good. That has been going on for years and almost decades. BBC R1 is feeling the full force of it but BBC R2 is not doing well principally because it contains a significant element of this product so that it supposedly appeals to family audiences. That product is increasing there over time.

Elsewhere, the figures for commercial music radio are mainly abysmal and falling. The stations in the music group that are performing reasonably well also have a peg - or a tag line - as a counterbalance - BBC 6 Music : Students and older music enthusiasts; BBC Asian Network : Asian community role and Kiss : Community role for young black people. On R1, a key point in this NME article is that social media interaction and its parallel usurping of radio can be based on the fact that what is found there is often considered, quote, "funny". That isn't really an invitation to BBC R1 and R2 to fill the air with pranks but rather symbolic of the way in which mainstream music has less appeal than it has ever had.

http://www.nme.com/blogs/nme-blogs/mythbusting-radio-1-losing-500000-listeners-half-story-1971412

[Zucchini]

Rather gruesome figures for quarter to 31/3/17.

Weekly audience down to 1,884 thou (down 11% on a year ago; total hours listened down 15%; Breakfast segment down 18%)

Compared with 31/12/16 figures weekly audience down 11% on a year ago; total hours listened down 20%; Breakfast segment down 12%

Presumably ff will be able to explain that this is excellent news ... !

e&oe

[antongould]

Rather gruesome figures for quarter to 31/3/17.

Weekly audience down to 1,884 thou (down 11% on a year ago; total hours listened down 15%; Breakfast segment down 18%)

Compared with 31/12/16 figures weekly audience down 11% on a year ago; total hours listened down 20%; Breakfast segment down 12%

Presumably ff will be able to explain that this is excellent news ... !

e&oe

Oh dear .... explains why we need the 08:03 request slot on Breakfast ........

[french frank]

Presumably ff will be able to explain that this is excellent news ... !

No,it's very disappointing (I have written a piece for the website but it doesn't seem to have appeared yet )

The only points I could rescue from the wreck are that

a) Quarter 1 has, since 1999, been very volatile and has had both the highest ever quarter (2.290m) and the second lowest ever (number is on my desktop computer and I can't remember it - but slightly lower than this one. Lowest was 1.795m)

b) The complete year, 2016/17, has been steady - just above 2m - thanks to two very good quarters.

The Breakfast figure, yoy, dropped about 120,000, I think, and that's bound to affect the overall figure. Hours are down because reach is down.

Was it the Breaking Free programming on the 2nd Viennese School? A mere week wouldn't usually affect an entire quarter. What we've said consistently is that the most important thing is that R3 sticks to its standards and ambition.

[Lat-Literal]

No,it's very disappointing (I have written a piece for the website but it doesn't seem to have appeared yet )

The only points I could rescue from the wreck are that

a) Quarter 1 has, since 1999, been very volatile and has had both the highest ever quarter (2.290m) and the second lowest ever (number is on my desktop computer and I can't remember it - but slightly lower than this one. Lowest was 1.795m)

b) The complete year, 2016/17, has been steady - just above 2m - thanks to two very good quarters.

The Breakfast figure, yoy, dropped about 120,000, I think, and that's bound to affect the overall figure. Hours are down because reach is down.

Was it the Breaking Free programming on the 2nd Viennese School? A mere week wouldn't usually affect an entire quarter. What we've said consistently is that the most important thing is that R3 sticks to its standards and ambition.

Notwithstanding the limitations of one quarter of data, it seems that some of my comments in February weren't wholly spot on.The figures are bad news for BBC Radio 3, BBC radio and radio in the round and fairly good news for Ashley Tabor. I fear that the 18-44s are becoming attuned to an overtly commercial style in which repetition, hysteria and turning charity into the UK's major industry are now largely normalised. Principally, I think, through blast and bludgeoning. It's less considered preference and more beaten into submission.

[Lat-Literal]

Deleted - duplicate post - see above.

[french frank]

March 1999)

The figures are bad news for BBC Radio 3, BBC radio and radio in the round but fairly good news, sadly, for the likes of Ashley Tabor.

It's more complicated than that. Tracing Classic FM's reach ever since figures have been comparable with today's:

6.038m (March 1999), 5.981m (June 1999), 5.621m (Sept 1999), 6.004m (Dec 1999), 6.259m (March 2000), 6.203m (June 2000), 6.053m (Sept 2000), 6.041m (Dec 2000), 6.055m (March 2001), 6.326m (June 2001), 6.437m (Sept 2001), 6.698m (Dec 2001), 6.838m (March 2002), 6.683m (June 2002) 6.679m (Sept 2002), 6.657m (Dec 2002), 6.872m (March 2003), 6.568m (June 2003), 6.463m (Sept 2003), 6.210m (Dec 2003), 6.544m (March 2004), 6.487m (June 2004), 6.145m (Sept 2004), 6.204m (Dec 2004).

So between 1999 and 2004, CFM had pretty stable figures at well over 6m. Nowadays it's steady at around 5.3m. Radio 3's, on the other hand, have wavered somewhere between 1.783m and 2.290m, some quarters good, some bad. I could give some other interesting facts about these years

BBC Radio overall has done very well against the commercial opposition, doing rather better now in its share of listening than back in 1999.

[Lat-Literal]

March 1999)

It's more complicated than that. Tracing Classic FM's reach ever since figures have been comparable with today's:

6.038m (March 1999), 5.981m (June 1999), 5.621m (Sept 1999), 6.004m (Dec 1999), 6.259m (March 2000), 6.203m (June 2000), 6.053m (Sept 2000), 6.041m (Dec 2000), 6.055m (March 2001), 6.326m (June 2001), 6.437m (Sept 2001), 6.698m (Dec 2001), 6.838m (March 2002), 6.683m (June 2002) 6.679m (Sept 2002), 6.657m (Dec 2002), 6.872m (March 2003), 6.568m (June 2003), 6.463m (Sept 2003), 6.210m (Dec 2003), 6.544m (March 2004), 6.487m (June 2004), 6.145m (Sept 2004), 6.204m (Dec 2004).

So between 1999 and 2004, CFM had pretty stable figures at well over 6m. Nowadays it's steady at around 5.3m. Radio 3's, on the other hand, have wavered somewhere between 1.783m and 2.290m, some quarters good, some bad. I could give some other interesting facts about these years

BBC Radio overall has done very well against the commercial opposition, doing rather better now in its share of listening than back in 1999.

Thank you.

It is true that I was focussing on short term trends rather than the longer term picture. For example, this is the second quarter since the start of last year in which commercial radio has been ahead of BBC radio and the figures for radio as a whole appear to have dropped since last quarter although the Global Media brand is more popular. That is set to continue but not because of music radio. Rather LBC will pick up even further with the GE, that's if it can fit in content around the commercials, albeit Joe Bloggs of Elmers End.

I would welcome further facts of your choosing.

[Quarky]

Was it the Breaking Free programming on the 2nd Viennese School? A mere week wouldn't usually affect an entire quarter. What we've said consistently is that the most important thing is that R3 sticks to its standards and ambition.

Assuming I am a typical R3 listener, I am accustomed to week-long immersion events, and, if I don't like the subject, there is plenty on iPlayer from previous weeks to keep me going. I seem to recall Roger Wright was always having immersion events- weekends, and all week. But it didn't seem to make much difference.

However a constant unrelieved diet of Schoenberg would I think force closure of R3. There is a limit on how much listeners' ears can be educated, and moved away from existing predilections.

[french frank]

It is true that I was focussing on short term trends rather than the longer term picture. For example, this is the second quarter since the start of last year in which commercial radio has been ahead of BBC radio and the figures for radio as a whole appear to have dropped since last quarter although the Global Media brand is more popular. That is set to continue but not because of music radio. Rather LBC will pick up even further with the GE, that's if it can fit in content around the commercials, albeit Joe Bloggs of Elmers End.

I would welcome further facts of your choosing.

Reach may have been recorded as marginally greater for all commercial compared with the BBC (but don't forget - these are just calculations based on samples, not actual measurements, so very slight variations can be down to changes in the weekly samples which can't be 100% representative and comparable - I think a while back commercial had an even bigger lead on reach). But, certainly for the commercial stations, the more important figure is the share of listening - total time a listener spends with the station (not much use to advertisers if listener only tune in for a short time and therefore don't hear the adverts!). More listeners should mean more listening hours but the opposite appears to be the case on the two occasions you mention: reach was higher, share was lower.

I'm afraid I've lost track of Capital/Global Radio and which other broadcasters have been swallowed up or merged with …

What does appear to be a trend is that there has been some fall-off in traditional radio listening as other sources of - music in particular - become available. RAJAR has now started recording radio listening for the 15-44 and 45+ age groups, presumably to study the changing listening habits of younger listeners.

[french frank]

However a constant unrelieved diet of Schoenberg would I think force closure of R3. There is a limit on how much listeners' ears can be educated, and moved away from existing predilections.

The key question then being - does that mean Radio 3 shouldn't continue to do it (leaving aside the 'constant unrelieved diet' as possibly varying in understanding from listener to listener)?

To which the answer might be 'Only if they want to ensure higher listening figures'

It's the controller's job to convince his fellow BBC managers/the Executive that such broadcasting would still be worthwhile even if only 1m people listened. Just as it's worth doing what it does when 'only' 2m want to listen, compared with Radio 2's 15m.

[Pulcinella]

The key question then being - does that mean Radio 3 shouldn't continue to do it (leaving aside the 'constant unrelieved diet' as possibly varying in understanding from listener to listener)?

To which the answer might be 'Only if they want to ensure higher listening figures'

It's the controller's job to convince his fellow BBC managers/the Executive that such broadcasting would still be worthwhile even if only 1m people listened. Just as it's worth doing what it does when 'only' 2m want to listen, compared with Radio 2's 15m.

How many of Radio 2’s 15 million listeners are trapped in doctors' waiting rooms and the like, I wonder?
Or does one 'outlet' only count as one listener?

[french frank]

How many of Radio 2’s 15 million listeners are trapped in doctors' waiting rooms and the like, I wonder?
Or does one 'outlet' only count as one listener?

They probably won't be the patients but just might be the receptionists - or whoever is 'hearing' it. It just needs to be someone on the week's panel.

The change in data collection since 1999 means that each household chosen as 'representative' has ONE member as the recording listener. That person should note down ALL 'live' radio listening (but not On Demand), for every 15 minute period throughout the day (a minimum would be for at least 5 minutes during one 15 minute period).

People on the week's panel who work in shops are a) likely to listen to Radio 2 if any radio is being played as it seems to be the MOR default, and b) likely to be listening for quite a few hours during the day/week. People at home who have it on constantly are likely to record this as listening - but some people 'consume' Radio 3 like this too!

[Lat-Literal]

Reach may have been recorded as marginally greater for all commercial compared with the BBC (but don't forget - these are just calculations based on samples, not actual measurements, so very slight variations can be down to changes in the weekly samples which can't be 100% representative and comparable - I think a while back commercial had an even bigger lead on reach). But, certainly for the commercial stations, the more important figure is the share of listening - total time a listener spends with the station (not much use to advertisers if listener only tune in for a short time and therefore don't hear the adverts!). More listeners should mean more listening hours but the opposite appears to be the case on the two occasions you mention: reach was higher, share was lower.

I'm afraid I've lost track of Capital/Global Radio and which other broadcasters have been swallowed up or merged with …

What does appear to be a trend is that there has been some fall-off in traditional radio listening as other sources of - music in particular - become available. RAJAR has now started recording radio listening for the 15-44 and 45+ age groups, presumably to study the changing listening habits of younger listeners.

Interesting.

My own acute bias against modern advertising tempts me to say that it is the commercials which adversely impact on the reach of commercial radio. Specifically, I refer to the repetitive nature of them which can be akin to torture for anyone who listens rather than requiring background noise. However, there is also something cyclical about any point relating to that process. Advertisers are likely to pay for greater numbers of their adverts if they hope to reach as high a number of people as possible who tune in for no more than 15 or 30 minutes. The commercial station I know best is LBC. The content is similarly repetitive. Give them a contentious immigration story in the news and they will not simply cover it in their news every half hour but there will be at least an hour of public phone-in on the matter every three hours for a period of at least 24 or even 48 hours.

Curiosity earlier this month took me to breakfast on Capital for two hours. I wanted to see what was similar or different in a music station designed for young people. It may well be true to say that I haven't listened to that station consciously since the 1980s when it was such a different organisation it was something else. They were promoting a forthcoming music event which if it still goes ahead will involve many pop artists, most of whom were unknown to me. The presentation was so repetitive that the same words were used over and over again for the duration interspersed with a few records and repetitive commercials and news. Honestly, "strong and stable" as a mantra is lightweight in comparison.

Arguably, such observations merely indicate my age. But has the criticism of that latter statement and other parties' equivalents been mainly from the old? I don't think that is the case because I have heard many young adults in the media criticizing such things. But young teenagers who are being weaned on the design of it all may often know and expect little else, seeing it as yet another Twitter like thing to switch on and then shortly afterwards switch off. Radio will only thrive by challenging the new authorised version imposed.

The BBC has more of a concept of variety. But it slots in the new architecture of broadcasting where one could predict it - in the loops of its 24 hour news coverage; in television lifestyle programmes which fill in space and enable cookery and house renovation to be inflated way above the merely functional; and - am I the only one to have ever noticed this? - the maddening scripts in weather forecasts. There, the main weather trend of the day, be it sun or snow or showers, is not only deliberately and incessantly repeated in one word to convey the key message to butterfly minds. It is also - and I am sure the style is taught to the forecasters - presented with an emphatic and almost novel intonation to suggest that the word hasn't been used in the broadcast previously at all. As soon as one recognises it, one sees that there is an almost political brainwashing approach even there.

In this light, how do we view total immersion days or weeks? They are both in line with these trends and completely in contradiction with them. The focus on one subject over a considerable period of time is very similar to the developments I have mentioned. If the BBC says "Schoenberg" often enough, more people will be aware of Schoenberg in a trivial way. Repeat a contextual phrase throughout his total immersion day and there will be greater reach in terms of an understanding of Schoenberg's basic context. But the switching on and the switching off will be different. A radio station which has an audience that listens and for longer periods may well choose to be immersed more fully if an interest in the content becomes apparent. And those who are loyal to a station but not at all keen with its in-depth focus at a specific time will very likely switch off the station for as long as that is its focus but my instinct tells me that as soon as the focus is over their loyalty will be such that most will mainly switch it back on again. Where this leaves us, I don't know.

[french frank]

A radio station which has an audience that listens and for longer periods may well choose to be immersed more fully if an interest in the content becomes apparent.

The interesting point about the Radio 3 audience is that people don't listen for longer. The average last quarter was 6 hours per listener per week. But the average will be made up of people who (allegedly) listen to Breakfast for about 20 minutes per day + anything else; those who just listen to Late Junction ('the only good programme on Radio 3'), or Jazz Record Requests, or the play, or the concert, or they have it on all day while they do other things. In other words, many will listen in a very focused way for relatively short times, and they select their programmes. That was what the Third Programme audience was 'supposed' to do. The era of non-stop half-listening hadn't yet dawned.

But as for ads putting off audiences (BBC trails, anyone?), this was the evidence we presented that Radio 3 was angling for the Classic FM audience:

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/radio_addicts/2019507-Classic-FM-Ads-are-too-depressing

So, Essential Classics, anyone?