Millions of People Tune in to CBC Radio
CBC Radio 2 reaches 2.1 million people a week, while Radio One reaches 4.3 million listeners each week
This according to the July audience numbers under the new audience measurement system.
Numbers like these contradict claims that are sometimes made on this blog, which is usually along the lines of ‘no-one watches the CBC anymore.’
These most recent numbers repudiate that claim.
Other highlights from the new book:
- the morning shows in Toronto and Calgary are still the most popular on the dial;
- the morning show in Vancouver is the second most popular;
- Edmonton captured it’s highest afternoon share all year in July;
- Calgary’s noon and afternoon audience continued to grow.
Note Nielsen’s definition of reach is: “The cumulative percentage or total of a population that has been counted as viewers at least once during a specified interval.”
|
Email This Post |
| CBC Radio 1, CBC Radio 2, Changes to CBC Radio Two |
And Radio 2 is now a wasteland of mediocrity and banality, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing, It’s hard to believe that anyone actually listens to it any more other than by accident – and it’s more than passing strange that the tried and proven BBM measurements methods have suddenly been replaced by the utterly unconvincing “Portable People Meter (PPM)”.
How do we compare apples to apples?
Hubert – now’s your chance!
4.3 million listeners a week, out of a population of over 34 million. Hmmm.
Are you adding each day’s count to come up with the weekly figure? If so, that’s only 18% of the population per day, on average.
I think one can also assume the weekly figure includes many die-hards, who listen to it several days a week, if not daily. Does the gismo sort out how many of the 4.3 million weekly listeners are there every day, because it if doesn’t that number will give an inflated picture of how many unique sets of ears are listening.
And besides, the claim ‘no-one watches the CBC anymore.’ is no doubt correct when applied to radio, wouldn’t it be? Although the image of some lonely soul in his mother’s basement watching his radio as it speaks to him is rather poignant in a sad sort of way. Yah, I’m bad, I know.
I could go on, but having found there is indeed a faint pulse in The Corpse, I’ll let you revel a bit.
…and the demographic is…?
Hey Louise, it’s unique people. They aren’t double dipped, that’s a no-no in the industry; and the salsa bowl.
nice imagery.
reveling, paul.
Can you post a link to the source for these stats?
I saw the data on to the internal CBC site, but the numbers come from
Nielsen, ugh, BBM, so it should be there.this is also a good blog for this stuff: http://cbcradiotwoandme.blogspot.com/2010/08/cbc-radio-two-market-share-spring-2010.html
thanks for posting that paul.
did you see the analysis of the numbers though?
“I find the results for the latest survey absolutely astounding. Consider this: while the total listening audience in the major markets surveyed by the BBM has fallen 8.6% compared with S2 2007, the last quarter during which CBC Radio 2 featured the “old” classical format, CBC Radio 2’s audience has fallen a remarkable 40.2%, from a total of 710,800 listeners to 425,400 listeners. Consider the Vancouver audience: the number listening to CBC Radio 2 has fallen by 62.3%. 62.3%! Isn’t that just a stunning reversal of fortune for CBC Radio 2 in the Vancouver market?”
thanks for the numbers, Paul.
they show a more than 40 percent decline in audience for Radio 2 since it was reborn and became New.
more than 60 percent in Vancouver.
good work.
anony, anonymous. yes the drop is radio 2′s audience since the old format has been large and worrisome.
the point I was making is that CBC serves an audience of millions of people. I wasn’t commenting on the format change at R2.
That significant drop in Radio 2′s audience really should be acknowledged by CBC brass now that Stursberg is gone. At the time of the format changes two years ago there were thousands of emails in protest, yet Stursberg dismissed all of the outcry some time later as “Pathetic”. Many of we former loyal listeners, myself included, have migrated to other classical and jazz stations and not returned to the fold. Fact is, I’d be overjoyed to return to CBC if I’m made to feel welcome again.
I wish CBC would dump Rich Terfry and his tedious “Drive” program (or “Drivel”, as I call it), and instead hire back Jurgen Gothe if he’s interested in returning, or al least somebody else with a similarly sophisticated wit and taste. Clearly “The New 2″ is an experiment that has failed. Up until those disastrous changes, CBC had an excellent program schedule that was loved by so many of us. But Stursberg insisted on forsaking that loyal audience in favour of chasing the same youthful listeners that are already well served by the pop-dominated private radio stations. It’s time to acknowledge mistakes and make amends. Are you listening, Kirstine and Hubert?
Oops! I should have done some research before I posted that. Stursberg actually called the critics of the changes to CBC Newsworld “Pathetic”. However, I do recall that he was equally as dismissive of the Radio 2 protesters at the time of those changes too. I apologize for the mistake.
Yes Paul, but that argument didn’t have any traction so they moved on. See that’s what you do when you’re making wild claims and cherrypicking number measurement systems you don’t really understand.
Huh?
Paul, are you taking crazy pills or something?
You’re definitely a “glass is half full” kind of guy, eh?
Garth, it was related to a previous discussion on this blog (which oddly is being taken over by people with the surname Mcgrath.)
and otherwise, it’s not really a half-empty situation. yes R2 has had a drop in audience share. it’s true. it’s regrettable. I’m sure they want that audience back.
but look at the larger picture. it reveals that CBC Radio’s overall audience is at the highest levels in history.
Paul Mcgrath says: “Hey Louise, it’s unique people.”
—————————-
You should get Thomas Sowell to do the analysis for you.
And can we get a vid of the revelry at CBC? I’d like to see if you’d be a worthy candidate for a stubble jumping contest.
Oh, and I think my math was screwy. 4.3/34 = 12%
Maybe it should be households, not eyeballs/2.
Paul Mcgrath says: “it reveals that CBC Radio’s overall audience is at the highest levels in history.”
—————————
And when did “history” of audience tracking begin at the CBC?
Lets have a stat about the number of kids plunked down in front of the Tube in lieu of a babysitter, while mom goes about doing the housework. And one about the number of folks who have the Tube on all day but aren’t really watching it. How ’bout some webcam Big Brother thingy embed actually mapping iris patterns to see if all those eyeballs really are unique?
Thomas Sowell, we need your analysis here.
Paul Mcgrath says: “I saw the data on to the internal CBC site…”
No sign of it at Neilsen, unless the letters “CBC” aren’t in it. And how is it a publicly funded institution gets to hide its “internal” reports from its shareholders? Where is the accountability?
I do admire your upbeat attitude in the face of all evidence to the contrary, though. You’re one loyal, tough spirited guy. I wouldn’t want to be working for an institution when the writing on the wall is sooo huge and getting bigger by the day. Must be tough to keep all those negative messages from getting you down.
But then again, I’m just one of those barbarians at the gate, trying to storm the Bastille.
It looks like CBC Radio One’s audience share of the Toronto market is down quite a bit from last year. I’m no expert, but isn’t that a bad thing? :
PPM TOP-LINE RADIO STATISTICS – TORONTO CTRL
Survey period: Radio Meter 2009 – August 31, 2009 – November 29, 2009
CBLAFM Share % 9.4
Survey period: Radio Meter 2009/10 – April 26, 2010 – July 25, 2010
CBLAFM Share % 7.8
Sources :
http://bbm.ca/_documents/radio_market_ratings/december_10_2009/top_line_radio_reports_-_toronto_12-10-2009.pdf
http://bbm.ca/_documents/radio_market_ratings/august_5_2010/top_line_radio_reports_-_toronto_08-05-2010.pdf
I wonder where those 62% of Vancouver R2 listeners went, and how an enlightened broadcaster might get them back.
And Radio 1 in Vancouver has lost, in general, half of their listeners, from 9 percent to 5 and getting down to Radio 2 listeners with the new BBM survey.
Time to have someone examine Margaret Lyons’ legacy and start the Radio Revolution II of the 1960s
Paul, read before you post. These are BBM data. Nielsen has never measured radio in Canada and no longer measures tv.
yes, my mistake. it’s BBM data. Not Nielsen.
see here for more: http://bbm.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=88&Itemid=71
One of the major flaws in Paul’s fuzzy math is the misleading cumulative daily listeners x whatever period of time – a week, a month, etc.
When Paul says that CBC Radio 2 reaches 2.1 million listeners and CBC Radio One reaches 4.3 million listeners each week, in truth what he’s really saying is that combined – they reach 6.4 million listeners out of Canada’s imaginary weekly population of 238 million people (34 million x 7 : the number of days in a week).
2 cross country radio networks listened to by less than 3 percent of the country’s population is not something to boast about.
Neil McNielsen says.: “2 cross country radio networks listened to by less than 3 percent of the country’s population is not something to boast about.”
—————–
It’s certainly not something the over 97% of the rest of us need to be paying for.
You conservative CBC bashers just love to dwell on the numbers and spin them to your own benefit, don’t you? CBC Radio 1 seems to be doing fairly well and holding its own. It’s true that Radio 2 is in decline, but we CBC loyalists did our utmost to warn them back when they made the major format changes two years ago. I hope that CBC management acknowledges their mistake and try to make amends in the months ahead. What we listeners always appreciated were the many fine hosts of the various programs who provided informed and interesting commentary and context. Bring that back and CBC 2 will likely see their numbers rise once more.
Dear Neil, Louise, speaking of fuzzy logic, I need to clarify a couple things.
Again. It’s. not. cumulative.
People don’t get counted twice. So there is no imaginary 238 million people. The stat is simple: how many people listen to radio 1 or radio 2 in one week? Additionally you can’t add them together, because they could be the same people listening to both stations at some different point during the week.
Therefore the the percentage is actually not 3 per cent, it’s 12.9 per cent, and that’s only for radio one.
Okay. I’m trying to sort this out. 6.1 million unique listeners a week averages out to 0.87 million (better expressed as 870,000) unique listeners per day. That means on any given day, CBC radio has slightly more than 2.5% of Canadians listening to it. It sounds a lot better if it’s expressed as a weekly count, doesn’t it.
I wonder what a monthly ratio would look like? I believe that would be 24.4 million unique listeners. That’s pretty close to the total adult population, but we know already know that only about 10% – 20% of Canadians listen to CBC radio.
The 2.5% works out to 17.5% unique Canadian individuals per week which is close to what the 6.1 million viewers would be, if expressed as a percentage of the population (actual figure is 17.9%), so I expect the “weekly” count is the best spin possible. My hunch is that anything beyond a week would yield precipitously diminishing results.
It would be nice to know how long each of those unique Canadians actually stayed on the same spot on the dial, so to speak. In other words, what is the average amount of time these unique Canadians spend each day or week actually listening to CBC. Will the taxpayers ever get to see these sorts of details, or for that matter, get to see the raw data so we can assure ourselves this isn’t another Mann hockey stick graph?
Paul Mcgrath says: “Dear Neil, Louise, speaking of fuzzy logic, I need to clarify a couple things. Again. It’s. not. cumulative.”
—————————
I understand that, Paul. That’s why I asked that question way back up the thread (appears right after the very first comment), to which you kindly answered. Although I understand Neil was simply multiplying Canada’s population by 7, I didn’t understand the logic of doing that either. (Sorry, Neil.)
—————————–
Paul Mcgrath says: “Additionally you can’t add them together, because they could be the same people listening to both stations at some different point during the week.
Therefore the the percentage is actually not 3 per cent, it’s 12.9 per cent, and that’s only for radio one.”
So, if I understand you correctly, some of the 2.1 million people who listen to Radio 2 are also Radio 1 listeners and should not be counted in the total (in order to avoid the double dipping)? If so, what is the “allowable” total Radio 2 audience and why was the number 2.1 million published here?
I have asked a number of other questions up-thread which I was hoping you would/could answer, or direct me to where I can get the answer. Perhaps you still will. They are:
When did “history” of audience tracking begin at the CBC?
Does the data collected yield this kind of information, namely how long each of those unique Canadians actually stayed on the same spot on the dial, so to speak. In other words, what is the average amount of time these unique Canadians spend each day or week actually listening to CBC. I presume the double dipping there might be okay, since your focus in on the audience member and what he or she is doing, rather than total unique bodies and no more.
And, lastly, will the taxpayers ever get to see these sorts of details, or for that matter, get to see the raw data so we can assure ourselves this isn’t another Mann hockey stick graph?
——————
Marita Hollo says:
…and the demographic is…?
————–
We need that answered, too. We need to know a lot more about who is CBC’s audience. Age profiles, geographic ratios, even political sentiments, because my hunch, from reading comments on CBC’s web pages, the political leanings seem to be very skewed to the left, which suggests there is a large segment of the population that has tuned out and, if the Corporation is to remain tax funded, that has to be addressed. In fact, it seems some of the left are not happy either.
I know for my part, I don’t think CBC will ever get me back, except maybe for some productions which deal with Canadian history, which I like. But they have to be realistic and factual and delivered over the web. I have a very strong hunch that most of the potential audience is not interested because the world has moved on and new media offers much, much more and from all over the world, at that. Pixels on computer screens delivered via an English language newspaper in India are just as accessible to me as anything put up on CBC’s news website and YouTube like utilities are killing traditional television, too.
Oops. Some repetition there.
Hi Louise, I don’t mean to be disrespectful,but I can’t handle all of these questions. It’s just that there are lots of questions (some of which like Neil’s above are easy) but others like yours, and a bunch of others from other posts, are more difficult. In short I have to send it back to you. I just can’t handle all of it. Sorry but it’s just one of me.
Hopefully I can help point you in the right direction.
The Radio One, Radio 2 question. This isn’t my world, but I don’t think it works that way. I mean to say I don’t think there’s any allowance for overlap listeners between one station and another. They both count because the question is does Radio One reach you in a given week. Same thing for Radio 2.
The history question. Check previous CBC press releases related to the seasonal books that BBM releases. You’ll see the stats in there and from there have a look at the BBM numbers. They’re all on the BBM site. You’ll have to do some work to add them together. I hope this will evidence your history question. If not let me know.
Reach is defined by wikipedia as 1 minute or more on the dial. However the PPM is able to record the actual amount of time the average listener stayed on the dial. I don’t have those numbers right now but I remember looking at them this week and thinking ‘wow. that’s a long time.’ Essentially we’re talking hours.
taxpayers see the details: the numbers are public on the BBM site. the CBC adds them together into a consumer format so that they’re more understandable as a service to public. but the raw data is there. it’s not a Mann graph.
demographics: the problem with hunches is that they are just that. hunches. Would it help if I conducted a real analysis over several months, pieced apart hundreds if not thousands of news stories, compared them to the CTV and Global and then backed that all up with some rigorous professional integrity and legitimacy in doing that sort of analysis?
Because that’s what a third-party-not-affiliated-with-the-cbc-it’s-their-professional-reputation-on-the-line-company did. and they found, um, not much. I’m not saying there finding were not important, it’s just that this whole left-leaning thing is easy to say but hard to prove. and the people that make it their business to prove it, didn’t find it. maybe you should check out their report and their rather incensed blog postings defending their professional reputation.
re: web. see http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/ otherwise, yes, you’re right, we’d like to preserve and contribute to a Canadian perspective on the web.
I’m not going to get into a reply on this beyond saying: the. numbers. aren’t. cummulative.
that means you can’t add them together. and you can’t divide them up into one day or another.
someone, please, please, please get a wiki link that clearly and simply explains what reach means.
“the. numbers. aren’t. cummulative.”
Paul, what do you think “Daily Cume” and “Cume” on a BBM PPM radio data report stands for?
I think I have what it takes to be a writer on this blog. Check it out :
80 billion people watch the CBC every week. I saw the data on the internal CBC site. Go find the numbers yourself on Nielsen…..or BBM…..or on the bathroom wall of a bar somewhere….it should be there.
The more CBC chases ratings and tries to be commercial, the less it needs its subsidy.
One suspects that Radio 1 is simply cannibalizing the disgruntled and departed audience from Radio 2.
And prime time TV ratings are nothing to brag about – especially re The National. We need not speak of the American game shows, which are a disgraceful stain on the CBC’s heritage.
Will someone there please read the Broadcasting Act? It talks about “public interest”. It doesn’t talk about ratings. It says right up near that top in Section 3 that:
Section 3:
(l) the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains;
(m) the programming provided by the Corporation should
(i) be predominantly and distinctively Canadian,
(ii) reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions,
(iii) actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression,
(iv) be in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities,
(v) strive to be of equivalent quality in English and in French,
(vi) contribute to shared national consciousness and identity,
(vii) be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose, and
(viii) reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada;
(n) where any conflict arises between the objectives of the Corporation set out in paragraphs (l) and (m) and the interests of any other broadcasting undertaking of the Canadian broadcasting system, it shall be resolved in the public interest, and where the public interest would be equally served by resolving the conflict in favour of either, it shall be resolved in favour of the objectives set out in paragraphs (l) and (m)
Paul, I know you are not being disrespectful. You’ve got a crummy job dealing with all of this and I understand how it must feel to be under attack, but….what you have told me here means that “CBC radio has slightly more than 2.5% of Canadians listening to it for at least “1 minute”“. Come on!
I think the question for most of us is whether or not, in this brave new world of media deluge, our monies are well spent, and that’s a question for those of us who supply the money to answer through our elected representatives in the House of Commons. Since CBC employees and Board members are the recipients of this money, they risk putting themselves in a conflict of interest position when they attempt to justify our expenditures. We are the shareholders. You are accountable to us and whether the money spent on CBC is worth what we are getting when there are so many other issues that need to be funded is our decision.
And thanks for the links. Much appreciated. I will read them.
not sure where the 2.5% number comes from. as I said before you can’t add together reach or divide it.
Okay. I just opened up your “not much” link and it appears I have already read that and found it wanting. It addresses the accusation of bias with respect to Canada’s political parties following the Frank Graves kerfuffle, which is very limited in scope when it comes to bias. I think it’s safe to say, most of us who perceive bias at the CBC notice said bias in far more than just reportage about the goings on in Parliament or alleged preferential treatment of one Party over another. The report, which focuses only on that issue, completely misses the mark.
in actual fact the study was commissioned well before the Graves issue, and covers a much longer time period, and a much wider scope of coverage, than you imply. It may be your opinion that the report misses the mark, but the fact is that the report involves objective analysis of hundreds of stories, rather than a single opinion. as I’ve said before it’s easy to cry wolf, it’s much harder to prove it.
Can you please explain this to me? Check the BBM links: CBC usually gets an 8% market share. (Sometimes 5%.. sometimes as high as 12%) CBC2 usually gets around 2%.. but sometimes as much as 4-5%.
My question is: if CBC radio stations usually have a collective 10% market share among radio listeners, how is it possible for this blog to claim that 18% of ALL Canadians tune in weekly? How did the author above arrive at his conclusions?
Paul, my apologies. I was referring to the report issued by the Office of the Ombudsman regarding complaints made about Frank Graves. I see we’re talking about two different reports.
Truth, even if it is 18%, that’s still pretty low, IMHO, when you have to make a judgment about dollars spent versus value received. Sure, it may have inestimable value for that handful of Canucks who are daily consumers, but it looks as though there are 82% that aren’t putting their eyeballs where their money is going.
But Louise: it’s impossible. There’s no way that almost 1 out of 5 Canadians tune into CBC once a week. CBC radio 1+2 attract a 10% market share among *radio listeners*. How many Canadians actually listen to the radio? Some people listen on their way to work, I s’pose. CBC is outperformed by other radio stations in EVERY Canadian city. Calgary? CBC is in 3rd/4th. Even their country station attracts more listeners. Toronto? Same story. My point is; there’s no way that CBC attracts 6.4 million listeners nation-wide, since the #1 stations in every major city collectively probably don’t attract that much! Do you think ALL of Vancouver listens to their #1 radio station? Of course not!
In another not so humble opinion of mine, the crux of the issue is that a publicly funded institution which is mandated to appeal to all its funders (taxpayers/citizens) is trapped by a structural contradiction (pardon the commie speak).
Either you offer something throughout the day/week/year that will appeal to each and every demographic of every political persuasion, and in doing so only capture a small segment of the taxpaying citizenship at any hour/day of the week – or you pander to a selected portion of the demography. Either way, you lose the support a significant portion of the population.
I think CBC has chosen the later – consciously or otherwise – perhaps through a steady but imperceptible drift to the left courtesy of Liberal Party appointees to the Board – with the occasional bone thrown at the rest of us.
The problem is magnified in this day and age by the exponential growth of alternatives now delivered globally across the Internet. It’s debatable whether CBC, as it’s presently structured and oriented, can survive much longer living on the public teat. This is not 1936, the year CBC first went live on air. It’s not even 1996 anymore.
A technological revolution has occurred in the past fifteen years akin to the revolutionary impact of Gutenberg’s printing press. Such revolutions have far reaching, often unexpected consequences. In Europe, the invention of the printing press led to the Reformation and ultimately to the Enlightenment. In today’s world the consequences of such revolutionary technologies unfold very, very quickly. That’s why we are witnessing a government in Washington trying to regulate and control the Internet. They don’t like bloggers who criticize them or discover another Dan Rathergate.
Whatever CBC’s weekly “reach” is, the question of its value and viability in today’s world is something we need to have a healthy debate about. CBC’s Board and staff should be available to answer questions raised during such a debate, but it would be a clear violation of ethics and a conflict of interest it they were to attempt, openly or surreptitiously, to sway the debate.
And as far as contracting with a third party to examine the issue, only if that third party consults widely and openly with the Canadian public will it’s conclusions be considered valid.
Oh, and about this:
“but the raw data is there. it’s not a Mann graph.”
…may I remind you, Mann used raw data to produce the hockey stick graph. The problem was not so much in the data, but in the statistical computer program used to produce the graph. As Steve McIntyre proved, one can feed any old random bunch of numbers into the program and it comes up with a hockey stick. Consequently, Mann’s interpretation of the meaning of the graph was erroneous, although it took several years for the IPCC to quietly dispose of it to the back pages in their annual reports and eventually drop it altogether.
So, Paul, in answer to your question:
” Would it help if I conducted a real analysis over several months, pieced apart hundreds if not thousands of news stories, compared them to the CTV and Global and then backed that all up with some rigorous professional integrity and legitimacy in doing that sort of analysis?”
…and without meaning to be personally disrespectful in any way to you, the answer is a loud unqualified NO! And as I’ve already said on one of these threads, it’s not just CBC’s news function that is biased.
Any by the way, did any of your science guys report on the fallacy perpetrated by Mann’s hockey stick graph?
The entire radio ratings system is very suspect and the PPMs were supposed to alter the BBM rankings. It’s kinda like changing the census…
There is a popular rock radio station in Southern Ontairo, with one of the biggest broadcast ranges in the province, owned by a big name media company with many stations all over the country.
In the BBM days of ranking, this station would basiclaly hire people to fill out of the voluntary questionaire with glowingly favourable terms. The station then went back and used this extremely positive demographic information – the radio industry funded BBM – to sell ad space to advertisers.
So the PPMs are supposed to be more real than the old system which was really a fairly legal way to leverage ad dollars.
Private radio works on ad revenue. It’s essentially taking something that is potentially free, broadcasting a signal, using the gov\CRTC regs to create a market, using BBM to sell ads, while keeping the public interest (we the people own the airwaves; the companies involved then reject the idea that they need to invest in, say, news programming, as part of their manddate; usually with the explanation that news costs money, takes away from playing Stairway to Heaven for the billionth time).
Whoops.
“… while keeping the public interest (…) at bay.
Yes, but…how many people listened to CBC Radio 2 BEFORE the big format change?
CBC 1 does not attract 4.3 million listeners each week, and CBC 2 does not attract 2.1 million listeners. I’d like to see the ‘insidethecbc’ blog attempt to explain their methodology in calculating these numbers.
What’s even more ridiculous is Paul’s claim that the numbers aren’t cumulative and that they are all unique listeners and no one is counted twice. We’re supposed to believe that 1 in 5 Canadians listen to either CBC Radio 1 or 2 every week!
Angus, I’ve said it many times before: the numbers aren’t cumulative. You may choose to not believe that, but I’ve confirmed it. A cumulative reach number is something that wouldn’t be of much use, other than to provide a marketing figure to trumpet how many people a given show reaches in a whole season.
I still don’t understand why it’s not possible to divide the 4.3 million/week unique listeners by seven to get a snap shot of how many unique listeners, on average, are tuning in for at least one minute each day. 4.3 million Canucks per week divided by 34 million Canucks amounts to 12.6% of the population listening each week. If divided by the number of days in the week, that should amount to 1.8% of the population each day being unique listeners. Tell me where my math is wrong. Why is it per week and not per day? There’s something fishy about the way this is being presented. Do I detect some spin?
“If we don’t discredit him now, the truth will be believed.”
Actually, Paul’s claim is closer to 1 in 4 because you’d have to subtract the percentage of the population serviced by Première Chaîne, Espace musique and CBC North.
One only needs to look at the largest market in Canada to get an idea of the true numbers. In Toronto, a market with almost 6 million listeners, less than 1 in 10 people (9.5 %) listen to CBC Radio 1 (7.8 %) and 2 (1.7 %) combined.
I’m not the least bit surprised that Paul is unable to provide a single shred of proof to back up his dubious claims.
Louise, you can’t divide the numbers because they aren’t cumulative. What that means is that they aren’t added together day by day to get a weekly total. I’ll give you an example: if you both you and I are listen to radio station X on Monday, then on Monday radio X has a reach of 2. If we both listen to radio station X again on Tuesday and every other day for the rest of the week, the WEEKLY reach of radio station X is STILL 2. Because the same 2 people tuned in more than once, radio station X HAS NOT REACHED more people. By the same logic you also can’t divide 2 by 7 to get a daily reach, the daily reach is still 2. Does that make sense?
If you want numbers for how many people tune in on a daily basis, you’re talking daily reach. If you want numbers for how many people are listening on at a given time you want to look at AMA (Average Minute Audience). But unlike reach, AMA is a snapshot of the listeners on a given minute.
Parlez-vous Français, actually it would likely be higher than that if you subtract French and other language groups that an English language radio network doesn’t serve.
As far as proof goes, I’ve already provided the links to the source data, feel free to crunch the numbers and post the link to back up your numbers, as I have done.
Your story keeps changing, Paul. Now you’re claiming that you crunched the BBM numbers when originally you claimed that they were from “Nielsen” and that you saw them on “the internal CBC site” :
“Paul Mcgrath says:
I saw the data on to the internal CBC site, but the numbers come from Nielsen , ugh, BBM, so it should be there.”
Uri, you’re torquing things.
Paul, I said “unique” listeners. Your example doesn’t apply.
Louise, it does apply, for reasons I explain in the example.
Paul, I’ve used the word “unique” in this thread more than once, including the two previous to this one, one of which you are responding to and one about half way up the thread. In your example you use the same two people each day of the week. Other than on the first day, that’s not “unique” listeners and that is what I’m talking about – unique listeners.
If you and I listen on Monday, but not on any other day that week and on Tuesday, two other people listen, and on the third day, another completely different set of two people listen, and on the fourth day yet another unique set of two people listen, and so on, by the end of the week there will be 14 unique listeners. 14 divided by 7 is an average of 2 per day.
It’s elementary math. It doesn’t matter whether it’s two the first day and nobody for the next five days, and twelve on the seventh day, the total is 14, and provided they are all unique, the average is 2 per day. Even if Sunday is the only day anyone is listening, if there are 14 people tuned in on Sunday, and nobody for the rest of the week, the average for the week that started on that Sunday is still 2.
14+0+0+0+0+0+0 =14 listeners divided by 7 = 2
To sum it up (and I think this is where things got off the rail) this is purely an intellectual exercise. If Radio 1 reaches 4.3 million listeners each week, there seems to be no reason why you can’t divide that number by 7 to find out the average number of unique listeners you have per day. Thus, 4.3 divided by 7 yields a hypothetical average of 0.61million unique listeners per day, or 610,000 separate and individual people each day of the week. Of course, there are many more than that who actually listen more than one day each week, but we’re not talking about any of those people, right?
So, although you didn’t use the word “unique” in the very first sentence of this blog entry (after all, how could you know this torturous exchange would ensue?), I presume the phrase “Radio One reaches 4.3 million listeners each week” implies 4.3 million “unique” listeners (4,270,000 in actual numbers).
If so, then by God, she’s got it! Whew! But it still doesn’t tell how many in toto are actually listening each week, but it would have to be considerably more than 12.6% of the population.
If your head’s hurting, I commiserate. If I still don’t get it, please let me wallow in my own misery. I graduated from high school in 1967 and haven’t used too much math along the way.
Louise, the reason you can’t divide the number by 7, is that there is no way to tell how many of the unique weekly reach listeners also tuned in daily. Therefore when you have a weekly reach of 4.3 million, if most of these people tune in every day as well, your daily reach would be around 4 million as well, not 4.3 million divided by 7. If you want to know how many unique daily listeners tune in you have to use daily reach.
Wow, this discussion really got heated.
As for the gang saying that CBC R2′s share has dropped so much because of the format change – that’s not entirely the case. BBM using PPM’s is much more “accurate” but the sample is also very stable (assuming BBM is behaving anything like Arbitron’s sample in the ‘States). Because talk and classical users were the kind of people to mark in a diary that they listened to an entire program (ie. I listened to “disc drive with Jurgen Gothe” from 3 pm to 7 pm) when in reality it was only from 3:15-3:45 (run into the grocery store), 4:18-4:23 (stop into the bank), 5:08-5:45 (stuck in traffic going home)… you get the idea. The old diary data cannot be compared with the new BBM PPM data – the audience rotated under the diary system, was larger (I assume in Canada too) and was dependent on memory.
The new system is all based on true listening as long as the meter can detect the tone and the panelist has worn his/her meter the proper number of hours for a day.
So, overall listening to the medium has increased, but the reality is also that listener habits are more fractured than they ‘recalled’ under the diary. So someone used to listen to 2-3 stations now reports that they hear 4-6 stations. Share is reduced and needs to be at more frequent intervals to increase ratings.
All things considered, CBC is coming out of this a lot better than non-commercial broadcasters in the top 50 markets in the U.S.A.