The FoR3 Blog
Do ‘up’ and ‘down’ matter?
The quarterly RAJAR listening figures are always good for plenty of press coverage. We are not immune and tend to attempt a regular analysis of the tiny amount of data that is published.
The Controller of Radio 3 posed a good question: does it matter whether the listening figures are up or down? To which the answer might be, Yes, no, perhaps.
It would depend why they were up or down. For example, if Radio 3′s reach shot up substantially as a result of vigorous ‘marketing’ at classical concerts, in music colleges, in schools; or concerts and recitals became once more a regular part of mainstream television, with information and tie-ins to programming on Radio 3, that would be ‘good’, wouldn’t it?
But if Radio 3 had been targeting a ‘broader public’, researched what they didn’t like about current programmes, and what kind of programmes they would like, modelled its programmes on popular radio, dropped the challenge and breadth of repertoire, introduced ‘easy listening’, that would be ‘bad’ wouldn’t it?
A fall in listenership is probably never welcome; except that if Radio 3 alienated its core audience by trivialisation, by tiresome chat, by repetitious repertoire, and many listeners switched off as a result, it might be ‘good’ in saying to management ‘not this way’.
But does management ever know exactly why new listeners start tuning in and existing listeners switch off?
Let’s hope so, as how can you have any sort of strategy at all if you have no way of comprehensively assessing the results, beyond ‘up’ good, ‘down’ bad?
We shall do our best, Eusebius, as ever. Join us!
Thank you, kleines c. In some small measure you contribute to my education. (Did you like that quotation from Lord Patten – that his daughters said a celebrity was someone he hadn’t heard of?)
This blog is only a little less busy than Radio 3′s own; but in their case they no longer have a forum and the Radio 3 Forum trounces their blog, Facebook and Twitter pages in terms of the volume of ‘interactivity’.
I hope that some day perhaps we might indeed welcome you to our forum, but of course that is up to you.
Do “Up” and “Down” matter?
Well, this week we shall be asking the question again, shan’t we? Or perhaps ‘What do “Up and “Down” mean?’ Or “Up”‘. Or “Down”. Whichever it is.
I’m afraid I don’t know the answer. But I may well express an opinion …
With all good wishes
E
Greetings, once again, from kleines c. May I take this opportunity to thank you, Eusebius, for hosting such an interesting blog and website, including the associated forum. You are probably one of the few posters who do appreciate the reasons why I do not contribute to ‘The Radio 3 Forum’, Eusebius, although, I should confess, I am an avid follower of some of the discussions.
Returning to this question, do ‘up’ and ‘down’ matter? I can report that I have been discussing it all summer, and have finally reached a conclusion.
Yes, Eusebius,‘up’ and ‘down’ do matter. I would go further. For the BBC, ‘up’ and ‘down’ are existential questions. If ratings rise, the BBC may survive; if ratings fall, the BBC will eventually cease to be. So ratings do matter to broadcasters across all platforms and media, the producers. As for consumers, we consume, by definition, but our choice obviously depends upon what can be produced, particularly as media become increasingly interactive at the beginning of the twenty-first century. So ‘up’ and ‘down’ do matter to all of us!
http://www.r3ok.com/index.php/topic,3741.msg129885.html#msg129885
I’ve just been looking at the Wikipedia entry for R3, having just written to the BBC to complain about the “chintzy, chintzy cheeriness” of the station in the mornings. I didn’t realise how long this argument had been going on; apparently Disraeli used to complain about The Third Programme….
I am coming to the opinion that all we can do is vote with our ears. I am listening to my cd collection (many bought after coming across them on ‘CD Review’) rather than the output on Radio 3 before lunch. They do some stuff better than anybody else in the world, then try to produce shoddy copies of shoddy, commercial channels. Words haven’t persuaded them in the past (apparently, not even Lord Olivier’s), but listening figures have.
I guess the BBC must be trying to copy a commercial enterprise, but the bottom line is listener figures rather than cash. It’s something that can be measured. Something about price and value comes to mind, or losing one’s soul.
Radio 6 doesn’t patronise its audience, and look what happened when its closure was mooted. Might be a lesson there.
I have just discovered this site, so I thought I’d put my two pennorth in. I have been listening to 3 for about seven years. It started with the proms and has grown. Now my daily hour or two is a greatly looked-forward-to pleasure. Here is my point: they play plenty of music I don’t particularly like *but I don’t mind* because that is how it must be if the channel is to operate properly. What I do object to is dumbing down. I don’t mind a less formal presenting approach, but i hope they won’t make the fatal BBC error of pointlessly trying to do something that commercial broadcasters already do. Well done for this website.
What is needed is a questionnaire requesting contributors’ tastes, listening habits and satisfaction levels in the field of music. It should be relatively easy to sort out the R3, R2, and/or CFM preferers and how satisfied they are with each. You should finish up with the percentage that listen to R3 and are satisfied (what really?) or not, and those that listen to the other two and are not satisfied. These are the groups that should be targetted with efforts to satisfy them more.
Quite so, Eusebius.
http://www.r3ok.com/index.php/topic,3741.0.html
Well, yes, kleines c, the blog isn’t greatly frequented (even less than the Radio 3 blog). Nobody finds much time to post these days
The blog was supposed to replace the old FoR3 forum when we closed that, but with the new, shiny communistic Radio 3 Forum the blog is itself redundant.
So, what are you saying?
1. Do ‘up’ and ‘down’ matter?
“Yes. If no one listens to a sound, whether on the radio or elsewhere, does it really exist?”
I think what the Controller meant is that the quarterly frenzy in the media when the new figures are released is a bit silly because in certain circumstances ‘down’ may be good and ‘up’ bad. Or it may be the other way round. Taken on their own, one set of figures could mean anything.
“For listeners like kleines c, it might make rather less of a difference. If I were to discover, for example, that everyone else was listening to BBC Radio 3, I would be suspicious. If I were to discover, for example, that no one else was listening to Radio 3, I would be concerned that broadcasting might cease.”
And therein lies the enigma of the RAJAR listening figures!
PS By the way, Eusebius, may I take this opportunity to congratulate you, quantitatively, and more importantly, qualitatively, on the success of ‘The Radio 3 Forum’ since the official ‘Radio 3 messageboards’ closed on Tuesday 30th November 2010.
I note that I am the only poster who regularly comments on your blog, and you would undoubtedly get more interactive feedback if you posted the contents of your blog on the forum.
As for BBC Radio 3, at least it is still broadcasting?
Greetings from kleines c. If I may address your questions directly, Eusebius:
1. Do ‘up’ and ‘down’ matter?
Yes. If no one listens to a sound, whether on the radio or elsewhere, does it really exist?
2. The Controller of Radio 3 posed a good question: does it matter whether the listening figures are up or down?
Yes. According to Wikipedia, in the current climate of intense competition in the radio industry, the RAJAR listening figures are scrutinised every quarter by both broadcasters and the press.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Radio_3#The_Radio_3_controversy
For listeners like kleines c, it might make rather less of a difference. If I were to discover, for example, that everyone else was listening to BBC Radio 3, I would be suspicious. If I were to discover, for example, that no one else was listening to Radio 3, I would be concerned that broadcasting might cease.
3. For example, if Radio 3′s reach shot up substantially as a result of vigorous ‘marketing’ at classical concerts, in music colleges, in schools; or concerts and recitals became once more a regular part of mainstream television, with information and tie-ins to programming on Radio 3, that would be ‘good’, wouldn’t it?
It would probably be good for those who enjoy such things, although you can never be sure.
4. But if Radio 3 had been targeting a ‘broader public’, researched what they didn’t like about current programmes, and what kind of programmes they would like, modelled its programmes on popular radio, dropped the challenge and breadth of repertoire, introduced ‘easy listening’, that would be ‘bad’ wouldn’t it?
It would probably be bad for those who do not enjoy such things, although you can never be sure.
5. But does management ever know exactly why new listeners start tuning in and existing listeners switch off?
Anecdotally, they may be told by individual listeners, although seldom does complete truth belong to any human disclosure, Eusebius.
6. Let’s hope so, as how can you have any sort of strategy at all if you have no way of comprehensively assessing the results, beyond ‘up’ good, ‘down’ bad?
I suppose that you can make an educated (or uneducated) guess.