Latest RAJARs

[Zucchini]

#148 french frank
That's right of course. And it's why you should be tracking MATs & not comparing adjacent quarters or year on year quarters. That quadruples the sample, reduces anomalies and more or eliminates seasonal factors. Moving annual totals are the minimum Rajar recommends for general use and are standard practice amongst media specialists, advertising agencies and radio station research analysts whenever small stations or sub-groups are studied.

Somewhere below you complain that that the BBC will not give you more Rajar data that that which is freely available (and that they cite "marketing reasons"?) If they did, they would be in breach of the Rajar license agreement and with Tim Davie a director, they are hardly likely to do that! Subscribers may use and share Rajar data in business to business relationships - i.e. selling airtime, agreeing sponsorship deals etc. I think bona fide academic requests addresssed directly to Rajar would be treated sympathetically but FoR3 would not qualify!

[french frank]

Zucchers

We contacted RAJAR a few years back when the BBC cited the 'contract' with RAJAR which 'limited' what they were permitted to tell us. I spoke on the phone with RAJAR and they confirmed, categorically, that there was no such contract, that the BBC 'owned' their own figures, held the copyright and were free to do what they wanted with them. The (incredulous) response was: "Why should RAJAR care what they do with their own figures?"

Further, a very cooperative member of the BBC staff involved with Audiences, RAJAR &c (now, alas, in another post) told us that the BBC recognised the public's interest and had a 'working practice' of disclosing data as long as it was 'off the shelf' (didn't require research work to generate). In fact, while she was in post, she followed that practice and gave us programme figures. Her replacement confirmed the working practice to supply data 'where appropriate'. Unfortunately, in our case it was 'not appropriate' (no explanation given).

The BBC always points out that you can appeal to the Information Commissioner under the Freedom of Information Act and they supply the details (as required). However, they add that should the commissioner decide in our favour they will seek other grounds for withholding the information.

On the one occasion when we did appeal to the ICO we were told after 2 years waiting that the BBC had agreed to give us the information 'on an informal basis' (which meant they weren't conceding that we had a right to know, but they would give us the information anyway). After several months waiting it didn't arrive. We referred back to the ICO. They rang the BBC who told them they'd 'changed their minds'. So as they had not conceded the case there would have been nothing to do but start the process again from the beginning.

The good news is that the BBC aims to be the most open and transparent organisation in the UK

[french frank]

Reply to AndyJW

Can someone please tell me how RAJAR know how many people are listening and when they are listening? Does it include i-player etc.
I apologise if this has been asked before.
And Puffin' Billy, well, I think I'd rather has Ed Stewpot than some of the present presenters!!!

Each week they distribute about 2,000 'listening diaries' to households where one person in the household has to enter into the various 15 min time slots what they were listening to (if anything!). They do this for a week and the next week there's a new 'panel' filling in diaries. Then, over the 12/13 weeks of the quarter, they average these out to get the number/average listening in any one week - the 'reach', which is published. So they can also calculate the average number of hours they listen each week. They have figures for individual programmes which are NOT published, unless the BBC (or other broadcaster) chooses to publish them because it's 'good news'. They would be a bit dodgy in R3's case anyway because the numbers would be so small and there could be grotesque distortions from week to week e.g. if no one in the samples had listened to Breakfast the reach that week would have been 0 listeners (to exaggerate).

The RAJAR figures themselves are for 'live' listening via all platforms, but not Listen Again/On Demand.

[teamsaint]

The BBC's attitude over RAJARs seems to be remarkably similar to its attitude with regard to DRM.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/nov/14/bbc-hd-drm

I've always loved this line..

"So, this is weird. Fundamentally, the BBC and Ofcom were claiming that it was in the public's interest to deny the public's wishes, but it wasn't in the public interest to know why this was so"

Sorry if this is Off Topic.....

[Zucchini]

Zucchers

We contacted RAJAR a few years back when the BBC cited the 'contract' with RAJAR which 'limited' what they were permitted to tell us. I spoke on the phone with RAJAR and they confirmed, categorically, that there was no such contract, that the BBC 'owned' their own figures, held the copyright and were free to do what they wanted with them. The (incredulous) response was: "Why should RAJAR care what they do with their own figures?"

Further, a very cooperative member of the BBC staff involved with Audiences, RAJAR &c (now, alas, in another post) told us that the BBC recognised the public's interest and had a 'working practice' of disclosing data as long as it was 'off the shelf' (didn't require research work to generate). In fact, while she was in post, she followed that practice and gave us programme figures. Her replacement confirmed the working practice to supply data 'where appropriate'. Unfortunately, in our case it was 'not appropriate' (no explanation given).

I think these people were just plain wrong (except the 2nd BBC one). The RAJAR General Terms & Conditions are linked below and are fairly onerous but similar to other media research bodies. Section 5 "Use of RAJAR Data" paras 1 -5 define how subscribers may use data and define unauthorised disclosures. Basically the data may be used for a station's internal use and business to business purposes - and that's about it.

http://www.rajar.co.uk/docs/how_to_subscribe/RAJAR_General_Terms_and_Conditions.pdf

(Note the "Rule of 4%" - if the BBC wished, they could ask for R3 to be reported on a 6 month basis. It's a sort of warning that 3 month reporting gets pretty dodgy if you have a low coverage station and want to look at sub-groups such as programming or demographics or want to compare periods.)

[DracoM]

Your last para might indicate that ANY conclusion ANYONE [including the trumpeting BBC] might draw from the R3 alone figures would be subject to the notion of too small a sample / demography to make any figures reliable in three months, or maybe even further. So, how the heck does the BBC KNOW that what it supplies as the R3 diet is the one that is seducing or expelling punters?

Is that what the para means?

[french frank]

The situation is not as clear as that, or was not (and those T&Cs have certainly been published since our dealings with the BBC); the understanding was that the stations were not allowed to disclose data about other stations (since the data tables released to the stations include all: thus the BBC knows CFM's figures and vice versa), but, as the BBC people have three times implicitly admitted, they could release their own ( i) in saying they recognised the public's interest in performance and had a 'working practice' of disclosing ii) in saying they were happy to do so, and doing so in the past iii) in agreeing with the ICO to supply us with the figures we had asked for). The ICO would otherwise have ruled that the BBC could not disclose them to us, whereas we supplied evidence that they did which they apparently accepted.

There is, on another point, a separate pdf, the Publication Code dated 'effective from January 2013, the content of which was some years ago published directly on the RAJAR website (not in pdf format).

This prohibits the disclosure of shorter periods (i.e. a week or month) than the minimum survey period, quarterly in R3's case. And smaller geographical areas than the Total Survey Area (i.e. nationally). So yes, there are 'limits' to what the BBC may disclose, but they relate to MSP and TSA.

What the code does have is a section on General misuse and misrepresentation, including the points above on survey area and shorter times; but also:

"A difference in two periods is interpreted as a real change in listening behaviour without checking for statistical significance."

I'd say the '14%' increase claimed by the BBC for Radio 3 was pretty close to that. The statistical significance was not estimated, and the impression given, in a general news story, was that R3 was now getting more listeners. Many people seem to have got the vague impression that 'R3 is doing much better now', whereas latest RAJAR figures showed the reach as smaller than two years ago.

[DracoM]

Many thanks for that clarification. FWIW, that last para of FF's posting tends to reveal a good deal more than the BBC did.

Presumably the R3 Management ALSO know that the bald '14% increase' PR figure is misleading? Love to know what conclusions they draw from it.

What would they do without the Proms............?

[french frank]

Your last para might indicate that ANY conclusion ANYONE [including the trumpeting BBC] might draw from the R3 alone figures would be subject to the notion of too small a sample / demography to make any figures reliable in three months, or maybe even further.

In any case, Radio 3 is very far from having the lowest reach of all the BBC stations reported on quarterly.

And here is an exemplary (truly!) case of a RAJAR result being explained (with BBC help!) . Notice the difference? It's explaining why a staggeringly 'poor' result wasn't really poor at all, not why a good result wasn't really so very good. As the standfirst to the article says:

"The numbers do not lie, but they also do not show the whole truth or the bigger picture."

[clive heath]

"..in comes Grimmy, playing lots more music" and down go the listening figures. There's a moral there.

[french frank]

Today's BBC press release, incudes:

"Radio 3’s reach was 1.99 million, a fall of 2.1 per cent from 2.04 million a year ago and down 7.8 per cent from 2.16 million last quarter. Its share was 1.2 per cent, compared to 1.1 per cent a year ago and 1.3 per cent last quarter.

Radio 3 Breakfast had a weekly reach of 615,000 listeners, a year-on-year fall from 723,000 and quarter on quarter from 704,000."

Nothing to say except that this is usually a lower quarter. Year on year figures are given.

[Sir Velo]

Nothing to say except that this is usually a lower quarter. Year on year figures are given.

Except that it represents a fall on the equivalent period a year ago, so they cannot use the tired old "seasonal variation" canard. Off the top of my head, this represents something like a 15% fall on 2012, which is a significant drop by anyone's standards. However you try and spin it this is bad news for Wright and co.

[Russ]

Q2 slumps are not news for R3, but this quarter's figures are bad by any yardstick. At 1995k, reach is down 8.5% on last quarter, and 7.7% down on 2012 Q2. Hours listened to, at 11911k, are 16.5% down over the last quarter (Q1's hours being rather healthly for R3 though), and 13.5% down on 2012 Q2. Average weekly hours per listener slumped to 6.0. Breakfast listening has dropped down to 615k. R3 will need a very healthy Proms and Autumn season if it is to bounce back in Q3.

R4 and R2 had good Q2 quarters in some respects, although R4's hours per listener continues on a downward trend.

Russ

[french frank]

Thanks, Russ. It looks as if I forgot to post my reply to SV wondering what you thought.

One thing that I see as quite a key question is the effect of the Proms on this quarter's figures. Look at the pattern of Radio 3's Facebook 'Likes':



The spike is over the Doctor Who Prom period. How many will have come to Radio 3 at some point? Will they stay now the Prom is over? And if they do, what kind of music programmes will they be wanting?

(The other point I thought I made was that CFM doesn't seem to be suffering unduly. Which would prompt the question: who is Radio 3's new style programming appealing to?)

[johnb]

Undated chart:

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/1128/f6zr.jpg

The peaks in March 2011 and March 2013 are curious - perhaps people were listening more in the cold winter months, but then March 2012 contradicts that. Individual quarters are probably very influenced by statistical variations - I think one has to look at the broader pattern