Latest RAJARs

[french frank]

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.

Which raises the question of what we mean when we speak of "CFM listeners" or "Rado 4 listeners". 45% of that 2 million who listen to Radio 3 per week listens to Classic FM; 70%+ of that 2 million listens to Radio 4. I would say - like you - that the key point is 'identification', broadly meaning - which station do they listen to more/most of the time. I have seen no figures on that (not even the BBC secret ones ).

But we do know that a "Radio 2 listener" and a "Radio 4 listener" tends to prefer CFM to Radio 3. It follows then that any attempt to appeal to such listeners, and to CFM listeners, is going to involve narrowing the gap between Radio 3 and the more popular/populist CFM. And maybe becoming more familiar in style for R2 listeners.

Alarmingly, the BBC Trust is on record as saying that Radio 3 listeners are 'a subset' of the Radio 4 listeners, on the grounds that the majority does listen to Radio 4 (whereas the reverse, of course, is not the case). Some listener, some subset! They would need to show that the 70%+ mentioned above is made up of predominantly Radio 4 listeners who do switch to Radio 3. But if they are predominantly Radio 3 listeners who listen - in varying amounts - to Radio 4 the description doesn't hold.

We also know that some 92% of Radio 3 listeners listen to classical music (not necessarily exclusively). That compares with single figure or low double percentages listening to the each of the other musical genres. This may well explain why CFM gained its highest figures (more than 1m more than now) in the early 2000s. This was when Radio 3 tripled its non classical output: one can surmise that many R3 listenrs switched to CFM when there was no classical music on R3. It would also explain the apparent drop in CFM's figures when the strategy was abruptly changed and the non classical output was reduced again.

In my view, that 92% figure - and the fact that R4 listeners prefer CFM, makes the R3 listener no subset of anything, but an audience sharing a variety of interests, but centring mainly on classical music.

On costs, what on earth is it they now do on R1 that makes it more expensive than R3?

In 2009 the National Audit Office produced a document called "The Efficiency of Radio Production" for the BBC Trust. It's online and worth consulting. As late as 2009 R3 was still marginally more expensiive than R1 (Table 4). But Table 7 shows Cost per hour of music output - median: R1 is £966, R3 is £650, partly because the Performing Rights are higher the larger the audience. But also presenters are presumably paid more. And if you look at the cost of breakfast shows (Table 16), this doesn't fully apply, since both 6Music and 1Xtra cost more than R3 - the cheapest in terms of music programmes. And look at Table 17 - R3 doesn't even show up, presumably because it's too cheap to show. But see where Chris Evans figured for R2. Popular music radio is simply a different animal.

[johnb]

I've updated the chart I did some time ago. Do let me know if something looks wrong.

[french frank]

Thanks, johnb. Doesn't looks as if the current strategy is achieving much, does it? I wopuld guess Goodall's new series would be more on the right lines.

[johnb]

Thanks, johnb. Doesn't looks as if the current strategy is achieving much, does it? I wopuld guess Goodall's new series would be more on the right lines.

Sept '10 to Jun '11 were good but, overall, Radio 3 reach has never fully recovered from the programme and policy changes that were introduced in 2007 - the demise of CD Masters, evening concerts being presented from the studio rather than live or 'as live' from the hall (now reversed), an ever increasing emphasis on easy listening, etc, etc.

[Lateralthinking1]

Thank you frenchfrank for your detailed explanation. I agree with you that R3 is unlikely to be a subset of R4 for the reasons I tentatively suggested and you describe. Two things. One, that the Trust should consider any national network station as a subset of anything strikes me as appalling. It indicates that it is a 'second class citizen'. Two, if the strategy for R3 is even partially based on that notion, it is bound to fail unless they really do have statistical information showing trends many of us wouldn't recognise.

Instinctively, I do see a more likely crossover to CFM from BBC stations rather than to R3. Stylistically and in terms of content it is pretty obvious in the case of R2 but I do think it is also true of R4. The mistake the BBC is making - and it is one that says a great deal - is to read R3 and R4 as being in the intelligence/higher than C1 category and hence the same. Calum's known opinion is not necessarily highly unusual in a R3 listener and I know people who never move from R4 to anywhere other than the television set.

While trends have changed and that will continue with wider services and new technology, I think radio station identification has always been far stronger and less fluid than television station identification. With television, there has perhaps been a greater identification with a service provider. Historically, it goes back to the time when you had to retune a radio but simply needed to push a button on the TV. And while DAB has presets, there is not a good level of user-friendliness. One of my DAB radios has only three presets, otherwise it is manual tuning which is worse than the old FM. Then the fact that FM continues at least for a while. That's another complication for some people. Plus issues about DAB reception may mean some stick with a known clear signal.

I note the point about Performers' Rights being higher the larger the audience. I hadn't known that before. It is to be hoped that the celebrity pay on R2 is not matched on R1. R2 presenters stretch the definition of celebrity and with one or two exceptions R1 presenters are just not celebrities in the way they once were. Given my tastes, I wouldn't comment on the drop in R3 audiences linked to music other than classical music if I were a BBC bigwig. As I am not, I will think about it more before commenting. One thing I think I detect from johnb's chart is that R3 "goes better with summer" or some such marketing-style phrase. Interesting!

[french frank]

I'm just bumping this really as I want to comment about Lat's tomorrow. i've been out to supper with friends and am unaccountably suffering from uncontrollable hiccoughs. So I'm going to bed early

[mangerton]

I'm just bumping this really as I want to comment about Lat's tomorrow. i've been out to supper with friends and am unaccountably suffering from uncontrollable hiccoughs. So I'm going to bed early

It might have been the Irish coffee. I hope you feel better soon, ff.

[Russ]

But we do know that a "Radio 2 listener" and a "Radio 4 listener" tends to prefer CFM to Radio 3.

What is the basis for this, ff?

Russ

[french frank]

What is the basis for this, ff?

Russ

I will check the exact ref., but it was in the charter renewal documentation, research carried out (I think) by the BBC for the DCMS.

[aeolium]

Which raises the question of what we mean when we speak of "CFM listeners" or "Rado 4 listeners". 45% of that 2 million who listen to Radio 3 per week listens to Classic FM; 70%+ of that 2 million listens to Radio 4. I would say - like you - that the key point is 'identification', broadly meaning - which station do they listen to more/most of the time. I have seen no figures on that (not even the BBC secret ones ).

And that raises the question of whether there is a distinction between a "Radio 4 listener" and "someone who sometimes listens to Radio 4". I certainly fall into the latter category, but I don't really recognise myself in the former (but perhaps I am). What about a "Radio 3 listener"? Can someone who now hardly listens to Radio 3 still be considered a "Radio 3 listener" (for instance someone who used to listen to R3 quite a lot but now does rarely because of policy changes at the station)?

[french frank]

I will check the exact ref., but it was in the charter renewal documentation, research carried out (I think) by the BBC for the DCMS.

Okay: a paper called:
Attitudes to BBC and Commercial Radio
September 2004
BBC commissioned independent research produced in consultation with the DCMS

P. 26 Radio 2 listeners named their favourite alternatives to Radio 2 as (I take it in order of popularity) if R2 closed down:

Most popular individual stations mentioned:-
• Radio 4 (24 mentions)
• Magic
• Saga
• Classic FM
• Heart FM
• Capital Gold
• Radio 1

So R3 doesn't get a mention.


Same for Radio 4 (p 38):

Most popular individual stations mentioned:-
• Five Live (33 mentions)
• Radio 2
• World Service
• Classic FM
• Radio 3
• BBC7
• Radio Scotland

At a pinch, you could say that CFM and R3 are neck-and-neck (though neither tends to be strongly favoured).

[Bax-of-Delights]

And that raises the question of whether there is a distinction between a "Radio 4 listener" and "someone who sometimes listens to Radio 4". I certainly fall into the latter category, but I don't really recognise myself in the former (but perhaps I am). What about a "Radio 3 listener"? Can someone who now hardly listens to Radio 3 still be considered a "Radio 3 listener" (for instance someone who used to listen to R3 quite a lot but now does rarely because of policy changes at the station)?

I find myself in the same position aeolium. Some years ago, if I was asked, I would definitely have placed myself in the R3 listener contingent with R4 tendenices (news, current affairs and "I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue").
Now, to be brutally honest, I rarely bother with either channels. The flim-flammery of the morning offerings on R3 means that I never turn on the radio until at least 12 noon and only then if I remember and am not listening on-line to something more interesting through Spotify, Youtube or my own collection. On the car radio, when travelling, I will listen to R4 in the mornings and R3 in the afternoon (unless you know who is officiating on Afternoon oon 3 ) or put in my own CDs.
For me, R3 has lost its integrity through the wilful scramble for "extra" audience which to judge by the figures seems to be a totally useless exercise. And those at the cutting edge - the presenters - do they never question the interminable repeat of the same old stuff and the drivel associated with tweeting, quizes and audience participation or are they happy to sit and watch a once unique channel plough itself into the ground?

And, for me, television has finally toppled over the edge of the "must have" requirement in a home. The endless stream of inconsequential and fatuous programmes offered across the whole range of stations makes me question why I need to give the damn thing house room. It's not as if I haven't got more than enough books to read...

[Russ]

Can someone who now hardly listens to Radio 3 still be considered a "Radio 3 listener" (for instance someone who used to listen to R3 quite a lot but now does rarely because of policy changes at the station)?

In the strict context of Rajar, yes. If you were a Rajar diarist, you would be expected to tick a (time) box on any listen lasting more than 5 minutes. This is perhaps the greatest danger of drawing too many conclusions from the overall station Rajar figures, or indeed of taking them too seriously. The serious Rajar stats are the per-programme figures, and we are not party to those. The BBC will have very accurate stats for online streams, and will also be able to tell if listeners listened to the whole of a programme (rather than trying it for 5 minutes, not liking it, and turning to something else). Again, we are not party to those live-streaming figures, although the BBC has published top-twenty lists for daily and weekly podcasts. (Podcasts should be considered to be within the 'time-shifted' category, though.)

Thanks, ff, for the listing of favourite alternatives to R2/4 if R2/4 were closed down: yes, I can see CFM would be preferred by R2 listeners (I suspect 6Music would be high on the list if the research was to be repeated nowadays), but R4 listeners would have speech stations immediately in mind on being asked that hypothetical question, so I can see why both R3 and CFM would be somewhat down their priorities. I don't feel we should draw any more inferences than that for R4 listeners. Like R3 listeners, R4 listeners constitute a very broad church.

Russ

[Lateralthinking1]

'Attitudes to BBC and Commercial Radio' supports my personal experience. There isn't a significant percentage of the R4 audience travelling towards R3 and there probably wouldn't ever be unless drama was moved to the R3 morning. Any attempt to encourage those who are fed up with Melvyn to find Rob is either misconceived or an excuse for appealing to those who are fed up with Ken Bruce. If 33 R4 types would go to 5 Live - actually they wouldn't, they would be storming the palace - how many would go to R3? 15? 10? 5? How many were sampled? 100? I can tell that the figures are very small because of the inclusion of the World Service and Radio Scotland. That is not to say that they don't represent the broader position but any strategy needs something more.

And the survey doesn't identify strong allegiance. I would be willing to bet that a higher percentage of R2 people than R4 people are channel hoppers. I recognise the R2 travelling patterns rather more than I recognise the R4 ones although the absence of BBC Local Radio is dubious and so too the absence of 5 Live given the historical connection between R2 and sport. Undoubtedly R2 people would go to BBC Local Radio and 5 Live in significant numbers. By contrast, R4 people want to think and laugh a bit and be the first to know if Dover has been invaded. Others can't be relied on for accuracy. War could start within seconds of retuning.

[french frank]

but R4 listeners would have speech stations immediately in mind on being asked that hypothetical question, so I can see why both R3 and CFM would be somewhat down their priorities. I don't feel we should draw any more inferences than that for R4 listeners. Like R3 listeners, R4 listeners constitute a very broad church.

Yes, I agree with that comment, though there appears to be an assumption that, certainly at times, R4 audiences will be seeking out some music - and one might have expected the supposed greater 'critical/information speech element' of R3 to appeal more to them. The Essential Classics Editorial Guide reads:

"This is a significant part of Radio 3’s weekday daytime schedule and should aim to hold on to as much of the breakfast audience as possible whilst drawing in new listeners from the post-Today Radio 4 switch over." (Clearly the reason why the morning timings were rejigged so that EC began at 9am, not 10am. They feared John Suchet would already have lured them away to the beginning of his (new) 9am programme.

I made the point, as regards the "subset of Radio 4" comment that 'a Radio 3 listener' - in almost any context (except RAJAR) - is a vague concept. What about someone who only listens to, say, Late Junction on the iPlayer? Not recorded as far as RAJAR is concerned, but for the BBC? And those listeners themselves?