Originally posted by french frank
View Post
Latest RAJARs
Collapse
X
-
-
-
Originally posted by Andrew Slater View PostMore information is given here, but it's a bit vague:
It seems that listening data is collected from smartphones or tablets, but it's not clear whether this just backs up the diaries or is a separate source. I'm having difficulty understanding the significance of 'alongside face-to-face recruited respondents'. The final quoted sentence doesn't seem to make sense either! (I think the first 'is' should be deleted. Even having done that, it's still all very vague.)
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Andrew Slater View Post(I think the first 'is' should be deleted. Even having done that, it's still all very vague.)It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View Post, I assume they are taking advantage of the situation to gradually replace the old written diaries with computers/smartphones.
Interesting to me is that figures for R3 and R6 have gone up, whereas R1 has gone down. That might indicate that youngsters are listening less? However Rajars has effectively reset matters, and as they state, comparisons can only be made with future quarterly results.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Ein Heldenleben View PostWhere did you find the breakfast figure ? It doesn’t appear in the tables .
Originally posted by Ein Heldenleben View PostThe problem with using app data is calculating how representative of the total radio audience the more teccy , younger skewed demographic of tablet and smartphone users actually is ?
Originally posted by french frank View PostI assume they are taking advantage of the situation to gradually replace the old written diaries with computers/smartphones.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Quarky View PostHowever Rajars has effectively reset matters, and as they state, comparisons can only be made with future quarterly results.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View PostThat's how I would sum it up. The way they collect the data seems to make an enormous difference to the figures, which in any case are only calculations (so garbage in, garbage out). I find it hard to fathom why R3 should have a pretty good result, compared with past years, while CFM has seen a drop. Can't really believe that is a fair representation of what has happened. We may need to completely recalibrate our expectations of Radio 3, based on RAJAR's method of data collection, rather than on what is actually happening.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Andrew Slater View PostOr is the smartphone / computer data collection done in conjunction with face-to-face interviews?
A statement elsewhere on the RAJAR website seems to be behind the times and implicitly criticises the methodology they've now added:
The RAJAR listening survey has the advantage of not being reliant on specific hardware, and as the methodology is based on an adult’s active recording of what goes into the ears, this approach has been impervious to the development of new listening devices and delivery platforms, continuing to measure listening without disruption.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Ein Heldenleben View PostI don’t have such a problem - R3 is better - greater range of music with better presenters and technically excellent . It is perfectly possible that overall R3 figures have gone up through work from home. That also explains why Breakfast figures have gone down . Only anecdotal - but one person I know used to get up at 7.30 to get the tube now gets up at 08.50 . I bet there are millions like that….
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Ein Heldenleben View PostI don’t have such a problem
Originally posted by Ein Heldenleben View Post- R3 is better - greater range of music with better presenters and technically excellent.
The reality is that all the individual listeners who feel the same way, may well (or do) outnumber those who want a station which is more erudite, serious, more intellectually stimulating. In which case the majority wins which is why if Radio 3 didn't exist there would be no rationale for inventing it now. I "don't have a problem" with that either. I just don't bother to listen now: I seek my intellectual nourishment elsewhere!It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
CFM suffers from severe DRC which makes it unbearable to listen to, plus looking at Radio Times it lists presenters names who are ‘appearing’ at various times of the day rather than programme titles. No competition.
Seems odd FF, as an administrator of the Forum for Radio Three, that you admit to not listening to the station.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View Post"I" have a problem with that in that it amounts to no more than the personal preference of one individual (or no doubt many individuals). It disregards the matter of generalities, principles, the question of what Radio 3 is 'supposed' to be, what sort of audience it's 'supposed' to cater for. 'A wider range of music' may be appreciated by some people, it may simply reduce the amount of music that other people appreciate. 'I don't have a problem' just says, "I like what they're now offering and subjectively I think it's better."
Many of the presenters are (probably) excellent - but not on the whole the ones who present the classical music, which is a problem for a station which is the BBC's classical music service.
The reality is that all the individual listeners who feel the same way, may well (or do) outnumber those who want a station which is more erudite, serious, more intellectually stimulating. In which case the majority wins which is why if Radio 3 didn't exist there would be no rationale for inventing it now. I "don't have a problem" with that either. I just don't bother to listen now: I seek my intellectual nourishment elsewhere!
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Ein Heldenleben View PostI think the station is a lot more erudite , serious and stimulating than you give it credit for e.g the lunchtime and afternoon and evening concerts , the Sunday features and just this week a stunning relay of Jenufa complete with intelligent and incisive interval features .
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Ein Heldenleben View PostI think the station is a lot more erudite , serious and stimulating than you give it credit for e.g the lunchtime and afternoon and evening concerts , the Sunday features and just this week a stunning relay of Jenufa complete with intelligent and incisive interval features .
The Lunchtime concerts are usually excellent, but Afternoon Concert seems very fragmentary & a curate's egg these days.
Sunday Feature and Words & Music are rather like Longfellow's little girl with a curl.
For me, there's still a shortage of Early Music (which European radio seems to do better.)
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by AuntDaisy View PostI agree about the exceptional Jenufa, but what's happened to the Thursday Opera Matinee? June's "La Traviata" was the last I can remember.
The Lunchtime concerts are usually excellent, but Afternoon Concert seems very fragmentary & a curate's egg these days.
Sunday Feature and Words & Music are rather like Longfellow's little girl with a curl.
For me, there's still a shortage of Early Music (which European radio seems to do better.)
The Sunday feature is usually excellent but it has become very” haphazard “in subject selection want of a better word. To put it as tactfully as I can though I completely respect the honesty of the intention I sometimes wonder whether the subjects merit the time and money spent on them. But then that’s just my judgement.
Comment
-
Comment