Latest RAJARs

[Ein Heldenleben]

What they actually say is: "Please note that all RAJAR listening figures from Q3 2021 have been calculated using a modified survey methodology and this should be considered when making comparisons against historical data." I can't see any information on how they did their calculation - what they based it on. Just fewer people, or what? If the share is 1.6% it could mean anything - that's very high for R3's share which is normally roughly 1.1%-1.3%. The breakfast figure is 708k which it pretty good. The problem is there's no knowing whether this is largely the result of a changed 'lockdown listening routine' (even if we haven't actually been in lockdown), a response to the new programming or a quite large over estimate.

Classic FM's reach is substantially down, and its listening hours down too. On the current basis, make what you will of all this.

Where did you find the breakfast figure ? It doesn’t appear in the tables . The Classic FM figure is very interesting- very much against the National trend which implies to me a lot of work from homers having the radio on all day as it’s less effort than fiddling with an annoying streaming service . In fact pretty much what I’ve been doing ..l

[Ein Heldenleben]

More information is given here, but it's a bit vague:



It seems that listening data is collected from smartphones or tablets, but it's not clear whether this just backs up the diaries or is a separate source. I'm having difficulty understanding the significance of 'alongside face-to-face recruited respondents'. The final quoted sentence doesn't seem to make sense either! (I think the first 'is' should be deleted. Even having done that, it's still all very vague.)

The problem with using app data is calculating how representative of the total radio audience the more teccy , younger skewed demographic of tablet and smartphone users actually is ?

[french frank]

(I think the first 'is' should be deleted. Even having done that, it's still all very vague.)

Ah, yes. There is a general confusion in the use of 'is' and 'are'. Is any comparison done before the integration and processing of the F2F data and the passive sources data, I wonder? Given that there is now no hindrance to face-to-face interviews, I assume they are taking advantage of the situation to gradually replace the old written diaries with computers/smartphones.

[Quarky]

, I assume they are taking advantage of the situation to gradually replace the old written diaries with computers/smartphones.

That's the way I read it; the recruited panellists or respondents are now using smartphones to communicate. There's not a large tranche of young people suddenly communicating via their phones; but then, what do I know?


Interesting to me is that figures for R3 and R6 have gone up, whereas R1 has gone down. That might indicate that youngsters are listening less? However Rajars has effectively reset matters, and as they state, comparisons can only be made with future quarterly results.

[Andrew Slater]

Where did you find the breakfast figure ? It doesn’t appear in the tables .

Breakfast figures are given in one of the pdfs under the 'Market Information' option (here) under the 'Listening Figures' tab on the main RAJAR page.

The problem with using app data is calculating how representative of the total radio audience the more teccy , younger skewed demographic of tablet and smartphone users actually is ?

Presumably this will be allowed for in the usual way that the population profile of the respondents is chosen

I assume they are taking advantage of the situation to gradually replace the old written diaries with computers/smartphones.

But what about the case where people have listened on both computer / smartphone and other platforms? They will also need to fill in a diary. I presume this will have been allowed for, but nothing in the statement confirms this. Or is the smartphone / computer data collection done in conjunction with face-to-face interviews?

[french frank]

However Rajars has effectively reset matters, and as they state, comparisons can only be made with future quarterly results.

That's how I would sum it up. The way they collect the data seems to make an enormous difference to the figures, which in any case are only calculations (so garbage in, garbage out). I find it hard to fathom why R3 should have a pretty good result, compared with past years, while CFM has seen a drop. Can't really believe that is a fair representation of what has happened. We may need to completely recalibrate our expectations of Radio 3, based on RAJAR's method of data collection, rather than on what is actually happening.

[Ein Heldenleben]

That's how I would sum it up. The way they collect the data seems to make an enormous difference to the figures, which in any case are only calculations (so garbage in, garbage out). I find it hard to fathom why R3 should have a pretty good result, compared with past years, while CFM has seen a drop. Can't really believe that is a fair representation of what has happened. We may need to completely recalibrate our expectations of Radio 3, based on RAJAR's method of data collection, rather than on what is actually happening.

I don’t have such a problem - R3 is better - greater range of music with better presenters and technically excellent . It is perfectly possible that overall R3 figures have gone up through work from home. That also explains why Breakfast figures have gone down . Only anecdotal - but one person I know used to get up at 7.30 to get the tube now gets up at 08.50 . I bet there are millions like that….

[Andrew Slater]

Or is the smartphone / computer data collection done in conjunction with face-to-face interviews?

Reading it again, it seems that the face-to-face recruitment is of diarists. The smartphone / computer app data is separate, but no information is given as to how the democratic is determined.

A statement elsewhere on the RAJAR website seems to be behind the times and implicitly criticises the methodology they've now added:

The RAJAR listening survey has the advantage of not being reliant on specific hardware, and as the methodology is based on an adult’s active recording of what goes into the ears, this approach has been impervious to the development of new listening devices and delivery platforms, continuing to measure listening without disruption.

As others have said, it's a fresh start and comparisons will be between future samples. But there needs to be some control over the app distribution and use for consistency quarter-to-quarter, and of course as I said before, if a person's smartphone / computer listening doesn't represent 100% of their listening, there's potential for inaccuracy and further inconsistency.

[antongould]

I don’t have such a problem - R3 is better - greater range of music with better presenters and technically excellent . It is perfectly possible that overall R3 figures have gone up through work from home. That also explains why Breakfast figures have gone down . Only anecdotal - but one person I know used to get up at 7.30 to get the tube now gets up at 08.50 . I bet there are millions like that….

Has a certain logic - to me at least …..

[french frank]

I don’t have such a problem

"I" have a problem with that in that it amounts to no more than the personal preference of one individual (or no doubt many individuals). It disregards the matter of generalities, principles, the question of what Radio 3 is 'supposed' to be, what sort of audience it's 'supposed' to cater for. 'A wider range of music' may be appreciated by some people, it may simply reduce the amount of music that other people appreciate. 'I don't have a problem' just says, "I like what they're now offering and subjectively I think it's better."

- R3 is better - greater range of music with better presenters and technically excellent.

Many of the presenters are (probably) excellent - but not on the whole the ones who present the classical music, which is a problem for a station which is the BBC's classical music service.

The reality is that all the individual listeners who feel the same way, may well (or do) outnumber those who want a station which is more erudite, serious, more intellectually stimulating. In which case the majority wins which is why if Radio 3 didn't exist there would be no rationale for inventing it now. I "don't have a problem" with that either. I just don't bother to listen now: I seek my intellectual nourishment elsewhere!

[jonfan]

CFM suffers from severe DRC which makes it unbearable to listen to, plus looking at Radio Times it lists presenters names who are ‘appearing’ at various times of the day rather than programme titles. No competition.
Seems odd FF, as an administrator of the Forum for Radio Three, that you admit to not listening to the station.

[Ein Heldenleben]

"I" have a problem with that in that it amounts to no more than the personal preference of one individual (or no doubt many individuals). It disregards the matter of generalities, principles, the question of what Radio 3 is 'supposed' to be, what sort of audience it's 'supposed' to cater for. 'A wider range of music' may be appreciated by some people, it may simply reduce the amount of music that other people appreciate. 'I don't have a problem' just says, "I like what they're now offering and subjectively I think it's better."



Many of the presenters are (probably) excellent - but not on the whole the ones who present the classical music, which is a problem for a station which is the BBC's classical music service.

The reality is that all the individual listeners who feel the same way, may well (or do) outnumber those who want a station which is more erudite, serious, more intellectually stimulating. In which case the majority wins which is why if Radio 3 didn't exist there would be no rationale for inventing it now. I "don't have a problem" with that either. I just don't bother to listen now: I seek my intellectual nourishment elsewhere!

I think the station is a lot more erudite , serious and stimulating than you give it credit for e.g the lunchtime and afternoon and evening concerts , the Sunday features and just this week a stunning relay of Jenufa complete with intelligent and incisive interval features .

[jonfan]

I think the station is a lot more erudite , serious and stimulating than you give it credit for e.g the lunchtime and afternoon and evening concerts , the Sunday features and just this week a stunning relay of Jenufa complete with intelligent and incisive interval features .

[AuntDaisy]

I think the station is a lot more erudite , serious and stimulating than you give it credit for e.g the lunchtime and afternoon and evening concerts , the Sunday features and just this week a stunning relay of Jenufa complete with intelligent and incisive interval features .

I agree about the exceptional Jenufa, but what's happened to the Thursday Opera Matinee? June's "La Traviata" was the last I can remember.
The Lunchtime concerts are usually excellent, but Afternoon Concert seems very fragmentary & a curate's egg these days.
Sunday Feature and Words & Music are rather like Longfellow's little girl with a curl.
For me, there's still a shortage of Early Music (which European radio seems to do better.)

[Ein Heldenleben]

I agree about the exceptional Jenufa, but what's happened to the Thursday Opera Matinee? June's "La Traviata" was the last I can remember.
The Lunchtime concerts are usually excellent, but Afternoon Concert seems very fragmentary & a curate's egg these days.
Sunday Feature and Words & Music are rather like Longfellow's little girl with a curl.
For me, there's still a shortage of Early Music (which European radio seems to do better.)

Idle speculation but I think both the Opera Matinée and the Afternoon concert have suffered from a lack of supply of free EBU concerts to fill the schedule with because of Covid. There’s been a similar problem with In Concert .
The Sunday feature is usually excellent but it has become very” haphazard “in subject selection want of a better word. To put it as tactfully as I can though I completely respect the honesty of the intention I sometimes wonder whether the subjects merit the time and money spent on them. But then that’s just my judgement.