Advertisers will always use depressing numbers to make a few quid. They are generally quick to pay less and slow to pay more but it is the way in which we handle these numbers in PR terms that I find annoying. At one time it was just amusing. I think the time has come for action. We should all sign up to a code of practice. A simple template that displays the numbers year on year and in the same format, the same style. Either that, or we adapt www.rajarsmilies.com. A brilliantly simple way to cut through the crap. Just once I would love to read a station release that said "the numbers are bad, we deserved better and we can't comment as we are in the pub. When we sober up we will come back fighting'.
When the numbers are up, stations go wild with claims of brilliance. That promotion worked, the marketing campaign hit home, that new presenter delivered for us. When it goes down, they think we won't notice when they swiftly switch their retric from quarterly figures to year on year numbers but it's good to know Dopey dwarfs under 35 are now listening for longer these days. The world has moved on, we know the game now and even though everyone plays it, most end up just looking stupid. The client knows the score, the press certainly do. Those who work in radio are not idiots.
Anyone worth their salt will know that year on year is the only sensible measure worth forming a view on. This won't stop the John Plunkets of this world finding a snappy headline or two, but if we continue to mix and match at will, we simply devalue the currency. So you can look at what you like, panic if you want, celebrate if you must (and you should always find time to celebrate hard work) but audience figures generally have a slow build or a slow decline. For those programmers who have had a bad book this time around, just remember that talent is permanent, luck is not. I have rarely seen anything good come from a snap decision.
Of course none of the above will stop the PD's who care from having a crap night.
Spot on! Comparing year-on-year is always the more reliable option, which is why I've always warned about never taking a single Rajar book in isolation.
ReplyDeleteApart from ironing-out seasonal swings, it's also important to remember that the majority of stations have half-yearly or yearly survey periods. If your station made a major change at the start of this quarter - and you're a half-yearly station - the rolling nature of Rajar means you will need at least two successive quarters before a picture starts to emerge. If you're on a yearly survey period then you'll have to wait 12 months.
Look at trends not at quarterly ups-and-downs.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBang on John, don't get me started on RAJAR though (oh no, you have!)...
ReplyDeleteIt's sad to say this about what essentially is the currency of the radio industry; but I find it very hard to take RAJAR seriously as it desperately needs an overhaul, in fact it did a long time ago.
As someone who works in radio, but mainly TV, the BARB system makes RAJAR look stone-age.
Firstly its the frequency. Every day I get an email and I can see how many people watched that one off programme that went last night at 10pm: reach, share etc. That's at it's most basic form but is invaluable. Of course I could then get loads of other results, but one of my favourite things is - I can look at audience flow (when a programme ends, what channels do the audience go to). So think about this, if Radio 2 had a one off documentary,or even indeed a 6 part series; although the BBC may have its own in-house research, there's no industry standard figures on how well this programme did - and even if there was you'd have to wait 3/6 months to get the results
Secondly its the way they collect the data. Fair enough, all audience figures are a sample, but let's try and make it a fair representation. I met a girl once who said 'I had one of those RAJAR diaries - I forgot to do so before the bloke turned up I just ticked anything'. Not that I want to get into the watch v diaries debate, we need technology that can give more accurate data. BARB's technology they had even 20 years ago makes RAJAR look like the old granny who thinks the internet is scary. I understand the commercial industry are scared that if we have results that reflect listening more accurately we'd suffer (if you're listening to Dave Berry in the morning you tick 7-7.30am so that's half an hour, but in reality it could be only 17 minutes as you were in the shower for 13); however we all need to take the hit together as the benefits far out weigh them to give a better system like BARB. Maybe an industry agreement that for a year of a new system only market share is released?
Come on RAJAR, get with the programmes, it's 2012 - we've got phones you can walk around with that have no wires now and everything!