RAJAR Q1 2016 - 3-year high for Radio 3

[Nick Armstrong]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36320673

[P. G. Tipps]

The change seems pretty minor and marginal really considering the way these figures are gleaned.

"I'm really proud of our constantly evolving offer which is unique and lovingly curated." ... Alan Davey.

[antongould]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36320673

Ah the Skellers effect .... was to be expected ......

[Nick Armstrong]

"...evolving offer which is unique and lovingly curated..."

[french frank]

The change seems pretty minor and marginal really considering the way these figures are gleaned.

I can't agree. Considering the way the figures are 'gleaned' it is a significant rise.

[french frank]

And having quickly looked at the Breakfast figure, it has probably significantly accounted for the rise.

It's rather unfair that the BBC news story features pictures of Petroc and CBH when they both represent long term 'No change'. But changes such as the removal of the dratted phone-in, declared reduction in tweets (I haven't checked on this recently) and the more regular appearance of a new presenter who is establishing a firm place and high approval among listners seem on the face of it more likely to have effected the increase.

But as usual - Cave! - flukes do occur but overall trends soon identify them.

The message seems to be (?) that good will can be reestablished by the sort of changes we've been seeing.

Also, the figures are improved across the board: people were listening for significantly longer and Radio 3's share was significantly higher (any increase higher than the average compared with all other stations).

[aeolium]

I think Alan Davey has started well in his year and a half of R3 stewardship. There have been some very good series, such as Magnetic North last autumn - a series that did not just focus on the music output of Nordic countries but tied this in with programmes on their culture as well as drama. The drama output has perceptibly improved; the two new Shakespeare productions for the 400 celebration were both very good, I thought. Small changes such as those mentioned by ff in the Breakfast programme (I still don't listen to it, disliking that format, but at least it's better for those who do) and a steady attention to things R3 does well, and has long done well, I think suggests a gradual improvement which it's good to see reflected in better listening figures. Now, if only he could address the issue of those mix-and-match lunchtime concerts....

Here is an interview with Davey from last year, about 7 months after he became controller. He uses the dreaded term "self-curation" but otherwise seems to come across well:

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jul/21/were-too-darned-modest-about-we-do-radio-3-boss-alan-daveys-typical-day

[Quarky]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36320673

Considering that the major BBC radio channels experienced a drop in listeners. this has to be significant.

"Helen Boaden added that BBC Radio 3 was in "rude health"" - I'm not sure to whom she might be referring?

Rude: Middle English (in sense 5, also 'uncultured'): from Old French, from Latin rudis 'unwrought' (referring to handicraft), figuratively 'uncultivated'; related to rudus 'broken stone'.

[P. G. Tipps]

Unless I'm having some sort of morning arithmetical blockage, I calculate the percentage audience increase for R3 to be 0.34%. Though I'm not a medical man, I know from personal experience that in certain blood tests that figure would be classed as 'virtually undetectable'! Then, of course, there has to be a 'margin of error' in any sample survey however professional and efficient.

All depends on what each individual regards as being 'significant', I suppose?

However, I have absolutely no intention of spoiling others' celebratory mood here ...

[P. G. Tipps]

Unless I'm having some sort of morning arithmetical blockage, I calculate the percentage audience increase for R3 to be 0.34%. Though I'm not a medical man, I know from personal experience that in certain blood tests that figure would be classed as 'virtually undetectable'! Then, of course, there has to be a 'margin of error' in any sample survey however professional and efficient.

All depends on what each individual regards as being 'significant', I suppose?

However, I have absolutely no intention of spoiling others' celebratory mood here ...

PS ... I humbly apologise ... a mental blockage indeed ... it is 3.4% and not not 0.034% ... so I'll now try and creep away unnoticed ... carry on!

[antongould]

PS ... I humbly apologise ... a mental blockage indeed ... it is 3.4% and not not 0.034% ... so I'll now try and creep away unnoticed ... carry on!

Scotty would never have made a mistake like that ....

[Barbirollians]

No surprise to see the significant drop in the audience for Today on Radio 4 - its presenters with the exceptions of Mishal Hussein and Justin Webb ( who always come across as completely impartial and treat all interviewees and topics fairly ) are so right wing it has almost become a Tory propaganda show .

Glad to see R3 audience improving from reversing some of the dumbing down . Now just think what might happen if they did something to improve Essential Classics .

[Sir Velo]

A three year high? If memory serves, the listening figures in 2013 were lamentable and represented a downward trend from the early 2000s so we're merely comparing a very bad set of numbers with another poor set of numbers!

Does anyone know what the numbers were like back in the Drummond days, for example? That would give a better indication of where R3 really stands.

[aeolium]

Does anyone know what the numbers were like back in the Drummond days, for example? That would give a better indication of where R3 really stands.

That's hardly comparing like with like, is it? What were the alternatives to R3 in Drummond's time, the 1980s? There was no internet, no plethora of digital radio stations available from across the world, no Spotify, no digital downloads, classical music was far more expensive with far less variety than there is now. And also there was a higher proportion of speech to music under Drummond than there is now - probably something that most people here would not welcome.
You can only fairly look at the figures in the media environment we have now - not then.

[french frank]

Does anyone know what the numbers were like back in the Drummond days, for example? That would give a better indication of where R3 really stands.

No, because data was collected in a different way so figures aren't comparable. Back in the days when Test Match Special was on R3, and other 'non-R3' things, the reach was 3 million. for example.

To compare with all the comparable Quarter 1 figures (18 years from Q1 1999)) this quarter was 2.2% above the average and 1.2% above the median.

If memory serves, the listening figures in 2013 were lamentable and represented a downward trend from the early 2000s so we're merely comparing a very bad set of numbers with another poor set of numbers!

Memory does not serve in this case. Q1 in 2013 was very good (2.163m). Otherwise (see my figures above) this quarter's figures would have looked better (best for 5 years rather than 3).

This is not a dramatic improvement, but it still looks a significant achievement.

As ever, E&OE as I'm doing the calculations on the hoof