Latest RAJARs

[Quarky]

It's certainly the case that BBC managers have been striving to make Radio 3 less intimidating/daunting/stuffy and more accessible/welcoming for over 30 years. But you read any of the comments on online press articles about Radio 3 and you'll find all the Andrew Marr-type opinions - it seems to me, clearly, posted by people who don't listen to Radio 3 and probably aren't interested in what it broadcasts.

One would have thought by now it should be dawning that popularisation:

a) doesn't make the general public think any differently about Radio 3

b) doesn't increase listening figures significantly

All it does is turn an intelligent, potentially adventurous classical music and arts station into a slightly upmarket Classic FM. So if that doesn't work, where next?

Agreed 100% French Frank.

Substance of the music is the key to the matter. People that want to listen to intellectually exercising, aesthetically pleasing music will listen to Radio 3. In this day and age they are in a minority - perhaps they always were. Clearly it will take a huge shift in listening habits to get great increases in R3 figures.

But the real star of recent proceedings is Radio 6. This is the Channel Mark Thompson was going to axe, but its figures just go soaring up and up. This I would regard as intellectual pop, and may be a future source of listeners for R3.

[Serial_Apologist]

Isn't that the system Breakfast uses?

[Flay]

Today the Radio 3 website asked me to complete a questionnaire giving my opinions on it.

I said how fantastically impressed I was by its ease of use, how much I appreciated the large portraits of the celebrity presenters - it's so much better having these pictures than wasting space providing useful information.

I told them that I appreciated the finger exercise I gained from having to constantly click on "show more" icons to find anything about the actual programme contents.

I congratulated them on their success in alienating their core listeners.

[Paul Sherratt]

>>but prefers to listen to her music using a random shuffle system, claiming that it's more fun that way.


Crikey, that's just the way I'd like to hear Dianne Abbott ! ( current odds are around 1 airing in every 6276 )

[amateur51]

Today the Radio 3 website asked me to complete a questionnaire giving my opinions on it.

I said how fantastically impressed I was by its ease of use, how much I appreciated the large portraits of the celebrity presenters - it's so much better having these pictures than wasting space providing useful information.

I told them that I appreciated the finger exercise I gained from having to constantly click on "show more" icons to find anything about the actual programme contents.

I congratulated them on their success in alienating their core listeners.

SCAMP!

[Russ]

(I'm still trying to work out the year-on-year Breakfast figure because the changes in timing destroy any real comparability - where's Russ when you need him? ).

My Dad died a few days ago, so the arrival of the latest Rajar stats passed me by, and have been far from my mind. I'll get my head around the figures tomorrow, but from the gist of this thread, R3's latest figures look to be somewhat static overall. I'm a bit surprised Roger Wright hasn't been crowing about the figures on the R3 blog, but if he does, it will be interesting to see if he can conjure a new variation of the "audience reach figures are only one measure of our success" mantra.

I'll do a more nerdy figures-based post in the ongoing RAJAR thread later.

Russ

[french frank]

Very sorry to hear that news, Russ - condolences.

My assumption was that RW realises that I shall be leaping in with a response if he posts on the blog - and with a link to the forum which always gets us a few more visitors...

[Russ]

Radio 3 is probably one of those stations impervious to big sporting events, so I think we can view the R3 2012 Q3 figures without considering the effect of the Olympics, which seems to have dominated discussion of listening figures for other radio stations. Strangely enough, despite the Proms being R3's 'flagship', R3's Q3 figures are never its best, which is usually over the winter months, Q4 and Q1 (although 2012's Q1 represented a bad nosedive for R3). It's possible this year's proms was a relatively good one (can't comment on that, not being an avid prom listener), but R3's 2012 Q3 RAJAR figures look to be healthy, not so much for the small increase in reach over the last quarter, but in the extra hours, up 18.8% over the previous quarter, and up 13% over 2011 Q3. The 100k extra listeners is commendable considering that breakfast show listening has dropped 60k, from Q2's 723k to Q3's 665k. This seems to point to the 2012 Proms being a success not only in terms of reach but in hours as well. The average weekly hours per listener, at 6.3, is up on last quarter as well. However, R3's hours per listener tends not to fluctuate much, unlike say Test Match Special, where a good series will rocket R5liveExtra's figures, and it's impossible to distinguish between R3's core audience listening a lot (or more) and newcomers dipping their toe. As ff points out, this quarter's figures are very similar to 2010 Q3, so in that respect R3 is not gaining, but bear in mind radio listening overall (i.e. all stations) continues to decrease - total time spent listening is down 5% year-on-year and the total amount of people listening is down by 500k.

I can't report on the current trend of R3 time-shifted listening because the BBC site usage page hasn't been updated for 6 months.

Russ

[french frank]

[I've now merged the other thread on this quarter's figures with this one].

I agree - I thought a lot of the potential radio audience would probably be spending more time watching television, but I agree that, particularly with the Proms being on, Radio 3 would do better than most. The post-Proms press release didn't seem quite as upbeat as last year when records were broken, but the Olympics may well have kept some concert-goers away from London - and listening to their radios instead.

[Russ]

Steady as she goes I think is the overall message from R3's last quarter's results (2012 Q4). At 2061k, reach was slightly down on 2012 Q3's very healthy figure, but the hours listened to (13302k) is holding up well compared to most of the figures over the last 3 years. The average weekly hours per listener, at 6.4/6.5, is also slightly up again. The only obvious blackspot remains breakfast listening, with another significant slide down to 600k, which is probably getting on for a 20% drop over the last year. With an audience that low and a decline at that rate, it will soon dissolve into something not worth putting any resources into.

On the broader picture, the big winners this quarter were R2 and 6Music, the latter having notable rises in both reach and hours. Not bad for a station that was very nearly closed down. 6Music's hours are already in excess of R3's, and its reach will overtake that of R3 within the next 6 months. The cost of 6Music is about 22% of that of R3.

Russ

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

With an audience that low and a decline at that rate, it will soon dissolve into something not worth putting any resources into.

Some of us think it had already reached that stage a couple of years or more ago!

Thanks for the information, Russ.

[french frank]

As far as Breakfast is concerned there have been tweakings with times over recent years as well as well as changes in style, but as far as the highspot of listening goes, the performance is rather poor again this quarter. Considering that this programme has the aim of bringing in 'new listeners', we can't tell whether they have arrived or not. But if there has been any such attraction, we can say that others have left. Again, though, we don't know whether this is the aim... Classic FM's breakfast figures seem to be holding up reasonably well.

The overall reach is, though marginally below recent quarters, certainly not benefiting from changes in recent years. Again, is it no change or a quid pro quo of arrivals and departures.

The digital stations 6 Music and 4Extra are creeping up to towards the 2m mark - but this is understandable in that digital stations are a growth area. On relative cost, it should be noted that DJ sequence programmes, playing commercial CDs is probably the cheapest kind of programming - hence also R3's move in that direction (and its fall to being the cheapest BBC national network station). It does, however tend to make listeners stay tuned longer as there are no regular programme breaks and switches in style and content.

Overall, the message still seems (to me) to be that Radio 3 has to reassert its distinctiveness - genuinely - in doing those things very well that other stations can't do. At present its 'distinctivenss' seems to be defended by ignoring the swathes of airtime where it copies the easy listening style of R2 and the musical content of CFM. As far as the R4 target audience is concerned, no sign that it is preferring R3 to CFM.

[Lateralthinking1]

I have never met anyone who identifies predominantly as a R4 listener and tunes into R3, as claimed, at 9am or indeed at other times. I think many typical R3 listeners tune to R4 at times and some who identify predominantly as R3 listeners might end up listening rather more to R4 by default. On costs, what on earth is it they now do on R1 that makes it more expensive than R3?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i listen to r3 but never ever r4 ... it is for me a transformation with gist intact of the statement that the CofE is the Tory Party at Prayer ... it is the upper middle class at whatever .... the narcissism of the main presenters on r4 is only rivalled by that of the DJs on r1 who make more money because they are on celeb pay scales ...

[eighthobstruction]

i listen to r3 but never ever r4 ... it is for me a transformation with gist intact of the statement that the CofE is the Tory Party at Prayer ... it is the upper middle class at whatever .... the narcissism of the main presenters on r4 is only rivalled by that of the DJs on r1 who make more money because they are on celeb pay scales ...

I think you need a quick interview with John Waite or Humphreys....