Latest RAJARs

[Andrew Slater]

Andrew has probably kept up with this.

Not really

The main purpose of the RAJAR research is to advise broadcasters of their 'reach' over a given period, based on information provided by a sample of listeners. Any figures for 'on demand' listening will already be known exactly by the broadcasters for each programme via their own data-gathering systems, and will therefore be more reliable than anything that RAJAR could provide. Therefore I can't imagine that RAJAR would be asked to provide such data. But perhaps the BBC should publish such data itself? Perhaps it does, and I need to find it ......

[french frank]

But perhaps the BBC should publish such data itself? Perhaps it does, and I need to find it ......

They used to when it was "Listen Again". I had the link but I don't think they publish them now. There used to be a Media Pack which gave the number of requests for the various Radio 3 programmes. I don't think they've published that, perhaps since Sounds replaced the radio iPlayer.

[Andrew Slater]

I've just found this for Q3/2022, but it's not detailed, mainly lists of the 'top 10 ...', so no R3 programmes feature. The quarter almost, but not quite, matches the RAJAR quarter.

[french frank]

I've just found this for Q3/2022, but it's not detailed, mainly lists of the 'top 10 ...', so no R3 programmes feature. The quarter almost, but not quite, matches the RAJAR quarter.

Good find, but if I remember it used to have the top 10 for each station (Late Junction and Andy Kershaw featured well in those days). I think it gave the number of requests too. I wonder if R3's "Mixtapes" are included in the "Music Mixes". Not in the top 10 anyway - and to be fair one wouldn't expect them to be. R1 and R4 dominate. No R2? Sounds of the 90s, maybe.

[french frank]

I don't have the share link for the D. Telegraph this time, but I could read this article by ignoring the 'register free' pop-up. The BBC's not doing well all round this quarter. Just one reference to R3: "Almost all of the BBC’s national stations lost listeners over the past year, with Radio 3 registering the biggest fall of 6.3 per cent."

That's the biggest fall year-on-year: at 1.867m it's up somewhat on last quarter's disaster, but the station no longer reliably hits the 2m mark, and no longer hits the unvarying 4% of the listening population. Breakfast is up very slightly on last quarter's poor result but down from 700k to 603k year-on-year.

My thought: too much non-classical aiming at bringing in the new listeners (win some, lose some in audience terms). Too much easy listening classical when such programming is increasingly easy to find elsewhere. Straight concerts, recitals and programmes with full length works are in competition with an increasing number of online sources. It may be like the climate crisis, 'classical arts' in the UK may have reached the tipping point, when hardly anyone (anyone at all?) in senior BBC positions listens to anything but popular music.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I don't have the share link for the D. Telegraph this time, but I could read this article by ignoring the 'register free' pop-up. The BBC's not doing well all round this quarter. Just one reference to R3: "Almost all of the BBC’s national stations lost listeners over the past year, with Radio 3 registering the biggest fall of 6.3 per cent."

That's the biggest fall year-on-year: at 1.867m it's up somewhat on last quarter's disaster, but the station no longer reliably hits the 2m mark, and no longer hits the unvarying 4% of the listening population. Breakfast is up very slightly on last quarter's poor result but down from 700k to 603k year-on-year.

My thought: too much non-classical aiming at bringing in the new listeners (win some, lose some in audience terms). Too much easy listening classical when such programming is increasingly easy to find elsewhere. Straight concerts, recitals and programmes with full length works are in competition with an increasing number of online sources. It may be like the climate crisis, 'classical arts' in the UK may have reached the tipping point, when hardly anyone (anyone at all?) in senior BBC positions listens to anything but popular music.

The Q4 figures for 2021 were arguably distorted by lockdown and higher WFH. When you compare Q4 22 with Q4 19 (the last pre covid figure) they are exactly in line with each other - a listening share of 1.4 % and both are up on Q4 2018 when the listening share was 1,2% .
The reason it no longer “reliably hits the 2m mark” is presumably because total radio listening is down (like total TV ) and that’s thanks to the streamers. It has very little to do with R3’s music policy in my opinion , It’s held its shares in a total Radio market that’s in slow decline. The decline in the (non stream ) TV market is much steeper and that’s paradoxically a problem for public service radio because the latter’s existence is pretty much predicated on the survival of BBC One and itsdigital offer.

[french frank]

The Q4 figures for 2021 were arguably distorted by lockdown and higher WFH. When you compare Q4 22 with Q4 19 (the last pre covid figure) they are exactly in line with each other - a listening share of 1.4 % and both are up on Q4 2018 when the listening share was 1,2% .
The reason it no longer “reliably hits the 2m mark” is presumably because total radio listening is down (like total TV ) and that’s thanks to the streamers. It has very little to do with R3’s music policy in my opinion , It’s held its shares in a total Radio market that’s in slow decline. The decline in the (non stream ) TV market is much steeper and that’s paradoxically a problem for public service radio because the latter’s existence is pretty much predicated on the survival of BBC One and itsdigital offer.

That wouldn't explain why Radio 3 had the biggest percentage fall in weekly reach two quarters in a row and the fall in population reach from 4% to 3% - which I suspect has been gradual since "4%" has frequently been "3.9%" or less for a while. Whether R3 has been affected disproportionately is something to be looked at. Radio overall still attracts 89% of the potential audience, with over 1bn listener hours weekly.

In 2019, reach was 87% and listening hours just below 1bn, so those are UP since then. Share being up simply means that those who do listen, listen for longer - which is the result of having unselective listening with the radio on for several hours at a time but not necessarily with the 'listener' in the same room all the time. It's more an indication of the kind of listening.

[Ein Heldenleben]

That wouldn't explain why Radio 3 had the biggest percentage fall in weekly reach two quarters in a row and the fall in population reach from 4% to 3% - which I suspect has been gradual since "4%" has frequently been "3.9%" or less for a while. Whether R3 has been affected disproportionately is something to be looked at. Radio overall still attracts 89% of the potential audience, with over 1bn listener hours weekly.

In 2019, reach was 87% and listening hours just below 1bn, so those are UP since then. Share being up simply means that those who do listen, listen for longer - which is the result of having unselective listening with the radio on for several hours at a time but not necessarily with the 'listener' in the same room all the time. It's more an indication of the kind of listening.

I think the loss of reach is very largely down to end of lockdown - partly because the phenomenon is observable across other BBC outlets .It’s extremely difficult to demonstrate cause and effect - trying to pin it on music policy is a bit of a leap too far . If that were the case I would expect share to fall as well. I don’t think movements in R3 ‘s audience figures mean much really - they are pretty much within the statistical noise of the Rajar system. I do think it’s fair to say that Local Radio in England has a problem though.

[french frank]

I think the loss of reach is very largely down to end of lockdown - partly because the phenomenon is observable across other BBC outlets .It’s extremely difficult to demonstrate cause and effect - trying to pin it on music policy is a bit of a leap too far . If that were the case I would expect share to fall as well. I don’t think movements in R3 ‘s audience figures mean much really - they are pretty much within the statistical noise of the Rajar system. I do think it’s fair to say that Local Radio in England has a problem though.

The bit I totally agree with is that "It’s extremely difficult to demonstrate cause and effect" on the basis of the kind of figures that are published. If you're a dissatisfied listener, you will look to the reasons for dissatisfaction as an 'explanation' for poor performance. But other listeners will have their own arguments for defending the service. But on the 'win some, lose some' argument, the share will hold up if overall you're losing more 'selective, attentive' listeners but gaining more 'background listening' listeners for the easy listening, presenter-led programmes. And Radio 3 has publicly declared in the not so distant past that their aim was to 'hold on to listeners', one of the methods being to extend the length of individual programmes (delaying possible switch-off), especially with presenter-led progs.

What is a fact is that the main use of the figures is for the stations to interpret them for marketing purposes. As yet, I see no BBC news item (usually under Entertainment & Arts), merely the brief figures (for R3) and some cherry-picking to find something upbeat to say coming from the Media Centre. CFM has an item on its public news section in which it (quite legitimately) claims to have "5m" listeners (precisely 4.970m). Rounding up is usual, and in this case is very useful. Without having calculated, I think the CFM breakfast figure is down, but not by such a large percentage as R3's: depressed but not notably so.

[Quarky]

A voice in the wilderness, perhaps, but matters aren't going to change unless and until Radio 3 is granted significant extra funding.

My preferred route would be to make Radio 3 an extensive digital platform (listen again / BBC Sounds is just a simplistic sop). Other European stations have listening figures increased five fold for "digital" listeners. I believe CFM does much better in the digital area.

[french frank]

A voice in the wilderness, perhaps, but matters aren't going to change unless and until Radio 3 is granted significant extra funding.

My preferred route would be to make Radio 3 an extensive digital platform (listen again / BBC Sounds is just a simplistic sop). Other European stations have listening figures increased five fold for "digital" listeners. I believe CFM does much better in the digital area.

A point I could have added: 6 Music has long ago passed R3's figures, and now 4 Extra has. So digital-only radio won't necessarily reduce the opportunities to listen. Even older listeners either have digital radios or can access the internet. But the BBC needs to do something far more 'revolutionary' (in their terms) to persuade people that the arts, as distinct from popular culture - and yes, distinctions are often blurred, are worth bothering with.

[DracoM]

<< But the BBC needs to do something far more 'revolutionary' (in their terms) to persuade people that the arts, as distinct from popular culture - and yes, distinctions are often blurred, are worth bothering with. >>

[a] YES!
[b] How do we persuade them?

[french frank]

<< But the BBC needs to do something far more 'revolutionary' (in their terms) to persuade people that the arts, as distinct from popular culture - and yes, distinctions are often blurred, are worth bothering with. >>

[a] YES!
[b] How do we persuade them?

If you mean how do we persuade the BBC? We tried for 20 years but they weren't interested in our solution. Generic broadcasting is in which means devoting some channels to mass entertainment/ popular music and don't risk introducing anything different for fear audiences will switch over to a rival's mass entertainment. I understand the argument, but the BBC is publicly funded and ought to employ people whose understanding is that public good/public service/public value is not the same as trying to please most of the people, most of the time.

The late BBC Trust produced a paper on 'public value' a while back and discovered that many people felt that content such as Radio 3 specialised in was a 'public good' which they were glad existed, even if they themselves weren't attracted. They even of conceived of their children perhaps being imterested. I'd put that as an understanding that there was cultural content which has an abiding value. It's still there on Radio 3, but growing less and less with each controller in the past 30 years.

[oddoneout]

A voice in the wilderness, perhaps, but matters aren't going to change unless and until Radio 3 is granted significant extra funding.

My preferred route would be to make Radio 3 an extensive digital platform (listen again / BBC Sounds is just a simplistic sop). Other European stations have listening figures increased five fold for "digital" listeners. I believe CFM does much better in the digital area.

I think a more immediate requirement would be application of informed intelligence.The erosion of TTN, fiddling about with EMS and BAL, and now the mess that AC is becoming are not as far as I can see the result of lack of funding.

[french frank]

I think a more immediate requirement would be application of informed intelligence.The erosion of TTN, fiddling about with EMS and BAL, and now the mess that AC is becoming are not as far as I can see the result of lack of funding.

I'm not bothering to post a recent article to which my attention was drawn, but in brief we are reactionary die-hards who can't abide change, and as far as Radio 3 is concerned we all have a different opinion of what Radio 3 should broadcast (probably just the things we like and not the things we don't like). And if ever there was a reactionary die-hard, ill-informed opinion that's probably it. It's been expressed for decades, though it's not clear what basis these assertions have in reality.

All your points well-made, odders, but R3 does need better funding because some things cost more than other things. A hard-back is more expensive than a paperback.