Latest RAJARs

[french frank]

According to the news just now Radio 3 has, according to the latest RAJAR, added another 100,000 listeners.

This doesn't, of course, mean that Radio 3 has gained 100,000 new listeners - merely that as the quarters fluctuate, this is a rather better one - 2.15m.

It is the highest quarter since June 2011, but any permanent 'gain' in listeners is mythical when you compare with June 2011 - 2.174m; or March 2011 - 2.258m. If you have first to 'lose' the listeners in order to post your 'gains' later, that isn't quite so impressive ...

Add: In fact, just checking back, these latest figures are almost identical with September 2010.

[gingerjon]

This doesn't, of course, mean that Radio 3 has gained 100,000 new listeners - merely that as the quarters fluctuate, this is a rather better one - 2.15m.

It is the highest quarter since June 2011, but any permanent 'gain' in listeners is mythical when you compare with June 2011 - 2.174m; or March 2011 - 2.258m. If you have first to 'lose' the listeners in order to post your 'gains' later, that isn't quite so impressive ...

Add: In fact, just checking back, these latest figures are almost identical with September 2010.

Are you implying that the Radio 3 news on Radio 3 breakfast when discussing the Radio 3 listener figures might put a bit of Radio 3 gloss on the story?

[french frank]

Are you implying that the Radio 3 news on Radio 3 breakfast when discussing the Radio 3 listener figures might put a bit of Radio 3 gloss on the story?

Just the facts [, Ma'am,].

Actually, if they said R3 had 'added' 100,000 listeners, that is strictly true quarter-on-quarter and year-on-year, but most people would hear that as meaning that there had been a solid increase in the size of Radio 3's audience.

Changes e.g. the new Breakfast show, have often resulted in a drop in audience. This gradually builds up again, speculatively through a combination of people gradually slinking back again plus new listeners being attracted because the new style is more to their taste.

[DracoM]

Erm..............Proms?

[amateur51]

I'm assuming that the quarter in question includes the Proms period - if so is there any way of telling from the data how the Proms' listenership 'did' compared to last year, say?

Thanks in anticipation of any data crunching required

[amateur51]

Erm..............Proms?

Snap,or cross-post, DracoM!

[french frank]

I'm assuming that the quarter in question includes the Proms period - if so is there any way of telling from the data how the Proms' listenership 'did' compared to last year, say?

Thanks in anticipation of any data crunching required

Well, the year-on-year figure is up - and that is comparing the two Proms quarters - from 2.052m to 2.150m, which is presumably the '100,000' (or 98,000) which has been 'added'. But, as I said, go back to the 2010 Proms quarter and the figure was 2.145m (which in a sample is well within the margin of error, so I would call the figures 'exactly' the same). The 2009 Proms were 2.192m, whereas 2008 was a rather poor 1.947m.

As with any sampling system these figures aren't exact and you can't properly conclude anything from one quarter - merely from a trend. This is the first quarter which has shown an increase after four somewhat lower quarters - and that doesn't yet constitute an upward trend.

I'm assuming that the quarter in question includes the Proms period - if so is there any way of telling from the data how the Proms' listenership 'did' compared to last year, say?

Not unless the BBC deigns to tell us, but it spent a reported £70,000 of licence fee payers' money going to the High Court to get a decision of the Information Commissioner overturned so that they could release any RAJAR figures they wished to release but keep figures they did not wish to release secret. Most programme figures are secret (except the Breakfast ones which are published by RAJAR, not the BBC).

[DracoM]

This year, the Proms went even further out of its way to court every conceivable aspect of musical taste, and thus it was almost inevitable that it would and did pull in the R2 audience / musical theatre audience / songs from the shows audience.

They might ask themselves why their take was ONLY 100k up given how wide they cast the net?

[french frank]

This year, the Proms went even further out of its way to court every conceivable aspect of musical taste, and thus it was almost inevitable that it would and did pull in the R2 audience / musical theatre audience / songs from the shows audience.

They might ask themselves why their take was ONLY 100k up given how wide they cast the net?

Well, my own view on that would be that the programme would pull in a new audience to the live Proms but not necessarily to the Radio 3 broadcasts. One of the reasons why, in spite of all the efforts to popularise, Radio 3 doesn't increase its reach significantly is that people have the idea in their heads that Radio 3 'isn't their kind of station' and they don't bother to try it - particularly if they're happy with Radio 2 or Classic FM: there's only a limited amount of time that anyone can spend listening to the radio.

Not having heard the news bulletin this morning, I don't know exactly what they said but, for example, the Breakfast Show reach was down 58,000 on last quarter, so whatever it was that drew in the station's quarter-on-quarter increase of 112,000, it wasn't the Breakfast Show. (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? ).

[amateur51]

Well, the year-on-year figure is up - and that is comparing the two Proms quarters - from 2.052m to 2.150m, which is presumably the '100,000' (or 98,000) which has been 'added'. But, as I said, go back to the 2010 Proms quarter and the figure was 2.145m (which in a sample is well within the margin of error, so I would call the figures 'exactly' the same). The 2009 Proms were 2.192m, whereas 2008 was a rather poor 1.947m.

As with any sampling system these figures aren't exact and you can't properly conclude anything from one quarter - merely from a trend. This is the first quarter which has shown an increase after four somewhat lower quarters - and that doesn't yet constitute an upward trend.

Not unless the BBC deigns to tell us, but it spent a reported £70,000 of licence fee payers' money going to the High Court to get a decision of the Information Commissioner overturned so that they could release any RAJAR figures they wished to release but keep figures they did not wish to release secret. Most programme figures are secret (except the Breakfast ones which are published by RAJAR, not the BBC).

Many thanks for all this french frank

I'm pleased to see that the Proms is stll doing well and I really don't mind the broadening of the musical output. i think I enjoyed more concerts this year than in several years past. It is rather depressing (although sort of understandable) that they should spend so much money to keep figures 'hidden' - the times in which we live, I guess

[french frank]

One of the reasons why, in spite of all the efforts to popularise, Radio 3 doesn't increase its reach significantly is that people have the idea in their heads that Radio 3 'isn't their kind of station' and they don't bother to try it

Remember the exchange between Andrew Marr and Julian Anderson which you drew attention to, Draco:

Andrew Marr: Radio 3 keeps getting it in the neck for not being easier, uh ...

Julian Anderson: It’s pretty easy these days, I would say.


Marr was obviously still getting the 'Radio 3 difficult' message in spite of all the efforts to be 'accessible and welcoming'.

[mercia]

Marr was obviously still getting the 'Radio 3 difficult' message in spite of all the efforts to be 'accessible and welcoming'.

so a green light for them to make it even easier, even more accessible, even more welcoming

[french frank]

so a green light for them to make it even easier, even more accessible, even more welcoming

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?

[Ferretfancy]

On this morning's Essential Classics, in which Diane Abbott was interviewed by Rob Cowan, she cheerfully admitted that she never listens to Radio 3, but prefers to listen to her music using a random shuffle system, claiming that it's more fun that way.

Rob was very polite about it, but I would have liked to have seen his face.

To be fair, some of Rob's guests are musically perceptive, but who vets the choices ? I despair.

[aeolium]

On this morning's Essential Classics, in which Diane Abbott was interviewed by Rob Cowan, she cheerfully admitted that she never listens to Radio 3, but prefers to listen to her music using a random shuffle system, claiming that it's more fun that way.

Isn't that the system Breakfast uses?