Latest RAJARs

[LMcD]

Forget percentages: the raw quarterly figures published for 2019 were: Q1 689k Q2 743k Q3 599k Q4 689k (612k in Dec 2108). So it's only a 'regain' from the figures lost last quarter. It's a misconception at best, misleading at worst to claim that these are all 'new listeners'.

Similarly, the D Telegraph's 16.4% rise in overall reach is based an abnormally appalling 1.826m reach in December 2018.

(Note to self: DO try not to welcome good news! )
I hope you've also advised Petroc and Ian of the inappropriateness of their on-air reactions this morning.

[Bella Kemp]

This can only be good news. I don't altogether care for the latest changes to Radio 3 but am happy to adapt if younger people now find access to something other than ephemeral pop and its variants. Many of my students (12 -18 year olds) now tell me that they do listen to Radio 3 from time to time. This would have been unthinkable only ten years ago.

[LMcD]

Forget percentages: the raw quarterly figures published for 2019 were: Q1 689k Q2 743k Q3 599k Q4 689k (612k in Dec 2108). So it's only a 'regain' from the figures lost last quarter. It's a misconception at best, misleading at worst to claim that these are all 'new listeners'.

Similarly, the D Telegraph's 16.4% rise in overall reach is based an abnormally appalling 1.826m reach in December 2018.

I'm impressed that you have access to the raw quarterly figure for Q 4 2108, which admittedly doesn't bode too well for R3's future. If, on the other hand, you meant to write '612K in Dec 2018', the Q4 2019 figure is surely to be welcomed. Given the increasingly pronounced fragmentation of audiences and the well-documented 'flight from radio', I would have thought that any station that has the same number of listeners in Q1 and Q4 of the same year and quite a few more than a year previously is entitled to at least a smidgeon of self-satisfaction. Assuming that some of those listening in Q1 2019 have sadly passed on, there MUST have been SOME new listeners for the Q4 2019 figure to be the same?
LMcD aka Resident Cock-Eyed Optimist.
(Don't worry, I'm sure the Q1 2020 figures will be absolutely AWFUL )

[greenilex]

It could be useful to research births, marriages and deaths among listeners - but I guess that might invade privacy...do you think some of the fabled younger listeners only listen under duress?

[teamsaint]

This can only be good news. I don't altogether care for the latest changes to Radio 3 but am happy to adapt if younger people now find access to something other than ephemeral pop and its variants. Many of my students (12 -18 year olds) now tell me that they do listen to Radio 3 from time to time. This would have been unthinkable only ten years ago.

Actually what I think is important is that people are not put off by labels, such as classical, pop, or whatever.

And its great to see Alan Davey extolling the "soothing " virtues of R3, because there really isn't anywhere else providing that.

Incidentally, I'm not sure that judging what is ephemeral is a particularly easy, or indeed worthwhile activity.

[LMcD]

It could be useful to research births, marriages and deaths among listeners - but I guess that might invade privacy...do you think some of the fabled younger listeners only listen under duress?

More likely under the duvet in case their parents discover their shameful secret. 'Why don't you come downstairs and enjoy "Mrs Brown's Boys" with your Mum and Dad?'

[french frank]

I'm impressed that you have access to the raw quarterly figure for Q 4 2108

:-P :-)

the Q4 2019 figure is surely to be welcomed. Given the increasingly pronounced fragmentation of audiences and the well-documented 'flight from radio', I would have thought that any station that has the same number of listeners in Q1 and Q4 of the same year and quite a few more than a year previously is entitled to at least a smidgeon of self-satisfaction.

My argument is always that the figures look at a wavy line and take a snapshot of a 'frozen moment'. It's not accurate to talk about 'gaining listeners' as if some permanent change has happened: the figures published are already out of date. Sometimes the snapshot catches the top of a wave, sometimes it catches the trough.

Assuming that some of those listening in Q1 2019 have sadly passed on, there MUST have been SOME new listeners for the Q4 2019 figure to be the same?

That isn't contested. But it isn't the same as putting the gross increase in one quarter down to 'new listeners' - which is reportedly what was done. And is done by all broadcasters because publishing the figures (as distinct from analysing them privately) is done for marketing purposes. Which is why they trumpet the successes, as in the headline given by the Telegraph. That was clearly the spin the BBC press office gave it, since the D. Telegraph would not be a subscriber to the full RAJAR figures and have analysed them in order to produce this story. R3 says: 'We've been targeting younger audiences, listeners have been flooding in, ergo younger listeners have been flooding in'. Given that the figures are only relatively good (relative to the immediate past), no one has been 'flooding in'.

Doing better than you have been doing when you've been doing very badly is, I completely agree, a cause for, well, possibly relief rather than triumphalism. What we know in advance of the March figures :-) is that the average figure for 2019/20 only needs to be a nugatory (worst ever) figure of about 1.630m to be better than 2018/19 - which was the second worst yearly average on record. On the other hand, it only needs 2.022m to reach the median yearly average for the past 20 years, which is very likely. And, again, would be a cause for some celebration.

If younger listeners have been 'flooding in' (according to the normal definition of the term), one would expect the average age of the audience to have gone down very slightly. But this, alas, is something the BBC doesn't willingly let the public know. It's only unwittingly that they let slip this figure to eager seekers after knowledge.

Completely unknowable is to what extent the type of programming aimed at 'new listeners' is genuinely building up an audience for classical music - one that will go to classical concerts and recitals, buy classical recordings, join music societies, support and enjoy the music of living composers - or merely increasing the listening figures for Radio 3's Breakfast and Essential Classics, with their mix of 'easier listening' (short pieces, presenter chat etc). And that, to me is the much more fundamental point than Radio 3's RAJAR performance.

All this just my opinion and E&OE, especially quick mathematical calculations.

[antongould]

Dare I suggest this thread be combined under Latest RAJARs ..... ?????

[antongould]

Dare I suggest this thread be combined under Latest RAJARs ..... ?????

Thank you very much ..... excellent service .....

[Ein Heldenleben]

:-P :-)



My argument is always that the figures look at a wavy line and take a snapshot of a 'frozen moment'. It's not accurate to talk about 'gaining listeners' as if some permanent change has happened: the figures published are already out of date. Sometimes the snapshot catches the top of a wave, sometimes it catches the trough.

That isn't contested. But it isn't the same as putting the gross increase in one quarter down to 'new listeners' - which is reportedly what was done. And is done by all broadcasters because publishing the figures (as distinct from analysing them privately) is done for marketing purposes. Which is why they trumpet the successes, as in the headline given by the Telegraph. That was clearly the spin the BBC press office gave it, since the D. Telegraph would not be a subscriber to the full RAJAR figures and have analysed them in order to produce this story. R3 says: 'We've been targeting younger audiences, listeners have been flooding in, ergo younger listeners have been flooding in'. Given that the figures are only relatively good (relative to the immediate past), no one has been 'flooding in'.

Doing better than you have been doing when you've been doing very badly is, I completely agree, a cause for, well, possibly relief rather than triumphalism. What we know in advance of the March figures :-) is that the average figure for 2019/20 only needs to be a nugatory (worst ever) figure of about 1.630m to be better than 2018/19 - which was the second worst yearly average on record. On the other hand, it only needs 2.022m to reach the median yearly average for the past 20 years, which is very likely. And, again, would be a cause for some celebration.

If younger listeners have been 'flooding in' (according to the normal definition of the term), one would expect the average age of the audience to have gone down very slightly. But this, alas, is something the BBC doesn't willingly let the public know. It's only unwittingly that they let slip this figure to eager seekers after knowledge.

Completely unknowable is to what extent the type of programming aimed at 'new listeners' is genuinely building up an audience for classical music - one that will go to classical concerts and recitals, buy classical recordings, join music societies, support and enjoy the music of living composers - or merely increasing the listening figures for Radio 3's Breakfast and Essential Classics, with their mix of 'easier listening' (short pieces, presenter chat etc). And that, to me is the much more fundamental point than Radio 3's RAJAR performance.

All this just my opinion and E&OE, especially quick mathematical calculations.

FF - thanks for an excellent analysis . Can I ask what published evidence there is (or evidence to which you might have access ) that Radio 3 is attracting either Q on Q or year on year a younger audience? Or is it simply a line in a press release. The RAJAR site has nothing I can find on q demo changes ..,,

[french frank]

FF - thanks for an excellent analysis . Can I ask what published evidence there is (or evidence to which you might have access ) that Radio 3 is attracting either Q on Q or year on year a younger audience? Or is it simply a line in a press release. The RAJAR site has nothing I can find on q demo changes ..,,

The evidence is in the files produced for the broadcasters who subscribe (£££k per annum) to RAJAR. There is a vast quantity of information which (I understand) would need special software to extract the miniscule proportion referring specifically to Radio 3. This is classed by the BBC as 'commercially sensitive, ignoring the fact the competitors will already have the information as subscribers (R3 knows CFM's figures and vice versa). I have found sources in the past in both 'camps' who have been willing to provide limited information when asked - and Classic FM has been much more forthcoming about its own figures (which they have paid RAJAR for) than the BBC - whose subscription fee is paid by licence fee payers. The information, says the BBC, is exempt under their FoI derogation. But I won't bother you with my two-year campaign with a sympathetic Information Commissioner, eventually thwarted by the BBC :-)

Post scriptum: Looking at the Breakfast figures by quarter, this latest figure is very good for the December quarter, since Breakfast became 6.30-9.00. Did someone say that the weekend Breakfast figures where very good 'for Elizabeth Alker'. Digesting that fact (assuming it to be correct), I wonder whether new listeners who have come to Radio 3 for Elizabeth Alker will become the much desired new concertgoers, record buyers &c which will see music making and creation thrive, rather than just new Radio 3 listeners. I suspect the BBC/R3 will be satisfied with the new radio listeners.

[Old Grumpy]

The evidence is in the files produced for the broadcasters who subscribe (£££k per annum) to RAJAR. There is a vast quantity of information which (I understand) would need special software to extract the miniscule proportion referring specifically to Radio 3. This is classed by the BBC as 'commercially sensitive, ignoring the fact the competitors will already have the information as subscribers (R3 knows CFM's figures and vice versa). I have found sources in the past in both 'camps' who have been willing to provide limited information when asked - and Classic FM has been much more forthcoming about its own figures (which they have paid RAJAR for) than the BBC - whose subscription fee is paid by licence fee payers. The information, says the BBC, is exempt under their FoI derogation. But I won't bother you with my two-year campaign with a sympathetic Information Commissioner, eventually thwarted by the BBC :-)

Post scriptum: Looking at the Breakfast figures by quarter, this latest figure is very good for the December quarter, since Breakfast became 6.30-9.00. Did someone say that the weekend Breakfast figures where very good 'for Elizabeth Alker'. Digesting that fact (assuming it to be correct), I wonder whether new listeners who have come to Radio 3 for Elizabeth Alker will become the much desired new concertgoers, record buyers &c which will see music making and creation thrive, rather than just new Radio 3 listeners. I suspect the BBC/R3 will be satisfied with the new radio listeners.

Re:. EA - interesting question!

Do young people buy records any more?


OG

[Ein Heldenleben]

The evidence is in the files produced for the broadcasters who subscribe (£££k per annum) to RAJAR. There is a vast quantity of information which (I understand) would need special software to extract the miniscule proportion referring specifically to Radio 3. This is classed by the BBC as 'commercially sensitive, ignoring the fact the competitors will already have the information as subscribers (R3 knows CFM's figures and vice versa). I have found sources in the past in both 'camps' who have been willing to provide limited information when asked - and Classic FM has been much more forthcoming about its own figures (which they have paid RAJAR for) than the BBC - whose subscription fee is paid by licence fee payers. The information, says the BBC, is exempt under their FoI derogation. But I won't bother you with my two-year campaign with a sympathetic Information Commissioner, eventually thwarted by the BBC :-)

Post scriptum: Looking at the Breakfast figures by quarter, this latest figure is very good for the December quarter, since Breakfast became 6.30-9.00. Did someone say that the weekend Breakfast figures where very good 'for Elizabeth Alker'. Digesting that fact (assuming it to be correct), I wonder whether new listeners who have come to Radio 3 for Elizabeth Alker will become the much desired new concertgoers, record buyers &c which will see music making and creation thrive, rather than just new Radio 3 listeners. I suspect the BBC/R3 will be satisfied with the new radio listeners.

Interesting postscript . The problem is that classical music marketing is so leaden - footed and concerts terribly old fashioned . They ( the record companjes and orchs) should be offering free downloads with massively discounted tickets to the under 25’s - doing tie ins with streaming companies. They should also use a contemporary dance as a route into music. I went to a Ballet Rambert performance where the music was entirely Lutoslawski in a cut down reorchestrated version . The average audience age was under thirty and largely female...

[Stanfordian]

Re:. EA - interesting question!

Do young people buy records any more?


OG

Virtually never!

[teamsaint]

Virtually never!

They are a very significant part of the vinyl market.