[cma-l] Community Radio Order

Thu Jan 22 11:19:12 GMT 2015

I agree that ideally we need to get a good sample of stations across the
sector to get a sector number.

I have said we ideally need to develop a methodology that can be trusted
that stations can then commission volunteers (local college / uni maybe) to
do the survey.

I also agree with Nick, that Community Radio is more than just listenership
/ reach its also what I would call impact on the social gain.

Amount of volunteers involved and gaining skills, amount of people trained,
courses run, events run etc..

Martin

On 22 January 2015 at 10:57, Alan Coote <alan.coote at 5digital.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi James,
>
>
>
> You may well be right about the 10 million, but it was published by Ofcom.
>
>
>
> I pointed out the problems of using RAJAR’s ‘Other’ category to determine
> an un-surveyed audience, be they community radio or small commercial. It
> doesn’t make any sense.
>
> Possibly the only solution would be to take a panel of independently
> surveyed community stations and use that across the total community radio
> universe to arrive at a reach.  This figure couldn’t be used of course by
> individual stations, but may be an indicator of the sector as a whole.
>
>
>
> To answer my own question about the confidence level of RAJAR they
> helpfully have this on their website.
>
>
>
> http://www.rajar.co.uk/content.php?page=about_process_using#1.3
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> *From:* cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk [mailto:
> cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk] *On Behalf Of *James Cridland
> *Sent:* 22 January 2015 10:02
>
> *To:* The Community Media Association Discussion List
> *Subject:* Re: [cma-l] Community Radio Order
>
>
>
> Alan,
>
> RAJAR does have its flaws, but you are not saying it's entirely useless, I
> assume, and therefore it also has some credibility.
>
>
>
> I'd be more keen to not slag off RAJAR, and instead, make statements about
> community radio's audience that are rooted in some kind of fact. The 10m
> figure is entirely false.
>
>
>
> j
>
>
>
> On Thu Jan 22 2015 at 9:43:31 AM Richard Berry <
> richard.berry at sunderland.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> I **think** I know what you’re getting at Nick, and I agree with you.
> Audience size is just one measure of success for our sector. We could also
> talk about the number of people trained, diversity of content, or the
> voices that would have otherwise been excluded. If we are to use RAJAR
> terminology, the ‘reach’ is important to some of us. A community station
> aimed at the whole community should aim to reach everyone at some point in
> the year, or at least the 5 year licence. To an extent we are like the
> local library, not everyone comes, but they know where it is and that
> somewhere buried in the shelves there will be something for them there. But
> better than that, if there isn’t they can put it there with our support.
> When it comes to clients I think there is a different conversation to be
> had. For example, is there benefit in being associated with a community
> station? And does that station reach people who are not being reached by
> other local media? In most cases the answers and ‘yes’ and ‘yes’. Which
> brings us back to Pippa’s point. I think there are multiple types of
> community stations, and multiple approaches to running them. Some of us
> come from radio backgrounds, some places like community arts and
> volunteering, and others directly into community radio as helpers and
> presenters. Some stations want to sound like good local radio stations (the
> way they used to be), for some it’s a place of training, and others run
> diverse services where pop music is all but banned. That is our core
> strength, we are different, we’ll all probably not agree on what’s right,
> but we should support each other and build one sector.
>
>
>
> Whatever today’s order says there’s bound to be disappointment, but then
> what one station dislikes about it, another may well celebrate as being the
> one thing they were hoping for. As I say, we’re all different….
>
>
>
> And with that, back to work
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Richard BerrySenior Lecturer in Radio / Spark FM Station ManagerRoom
> 101B, David Puttnam Media Centre,University of Sunderland, SR6 0DD(+44)
> 0191 515 2239 <%28%2B44%29%200191%20515%202239>*
>
>
>
> [image: cid:image001.png at 01CF83D7.DCFA9250]
> <https://www.facebook.com/sunderlanduniversityFADM>    [image:
> cid:image002.png at 01CF83D7.DCFA9250]
> <http://www.twitter.com/richardberryuk>     [image:
> cid:image003.jpg at 01CF83D7.DCFA9250]
> <http://www.sunderland.ac.uk/faculties/adm/>    [image:
> spark_logo_masterbrand] <http://www.sparksunderland.com/>
>
>
>
> *From:* cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk [mailto:
> cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk] *On Behalf Of *Canalside's The
> Thread
> *Sent:* 21 January 2015 19:36
>
>
> *To:* 'The Community Media Association Discussion List'
> *Subject:* Re: [cma-l] Community Radio Order
>
>
>
> You see guys, sorry to appear to be looking for an argument, but all of
> this ought to be irrelevant under the original launch of Community Radio.
> It is the fact that we have less or more listeners or the same that causes
> the problems. If we are going around saying we have more listeners than
> whoever ?   then the restrictions kinda come into play. I know they
> shouldn’t and I know that if we have more listeners (or don’t) it shouldn’t
> matter. It ought to have no bearing on it. Sadly it has had a bearing and
> my point weeks ago, was that the message being sent out there now is all
> gobbledy gook.
>
>
>
> Are we competing, are we not competing, if we are not ought we be, if we
> are should we not be  ??   it’s a shambles .I believe Community Radio
> should be simplistic, it should be Que sera sera and restrictions should be
> no where in sight. Whatever will be will be and we all deal with it.
>
>
>
> I don’t care if we have more or less listeners than Silk ..why ?  because
> if Community Radio was running how it is meant to be, we would have enough
> funding from the Community Fund Pot, to pay for the essentials and core
> costs. In otherwords, if we were 100% voluntary, with folk wandering in
> willy nilly, we could still function in some way shape or form. This is
> with or without a Station manager and/or someone on sales
> etc                 I think this is how many saw Community Radio. Right or
> wrong, poor image or good image, it shouldn’t matter as we ought to be able
> to function even if we are rag tag and bobtail.
>
>
>
> Does everyone know where I am coming from here or am I waffling again ?
> I feel that we have lost our way, but it isn’t exactly our fault. What the
> restrictions have done, along with the lack of financial support in the Pot
> has distorted the whole Venture, hence why I was saying there is confusion.
> It isn’t confusion in the true sense of the word but I think a few shots in
> own feet have taken place.
>
>
>
> Keep it simple has been my message. I don’t expect everyone to agree …..
> but ???                  Rajar shouldn’t even be on the Radar, if that
> makes sense. The moment we start asking to be placed on Rajar, I think we
> are going away from our values. We’re not here to compete, even though in a
> roundabout way we are. We have to compete because the financial support has
> been woeful ….. so is it a wonder why I reach for the defensive stick ??
>
>
>
> If I’m wrong here, please say so, that’s fine by me    no probs.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk [
> mailto:cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk
> <cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk>] *On Behalf Of *Two Lochs Radio
> *Sent:* 21 January 2015 18:39
> *To:* The Community Media Association Discussion List
> *Subject:* Re: [cma-l] Community Radio Order
>
>
>
> Well done Paul!
>
>
>
> From RAJAR's latest available quarter that reach would put your listener
> numbers ahead of at least 20 of the commercial stations that *are* RAJAR
> subscribers, including Smooth Radio Essex, and ahead of many more that
> don't pay RAJAR!
>
>
>
> Alex
>
>
>
>
>
> *RAJAR quarter ending Sep 2014*
>
> *Station*
>
> *Reach*
>
> Eagle Extra
>
> 3,000
>
> Fire Radio South Coast
>
> 4,000
>
> Connect DAB
>
> 7,000
>
> Radio Ceredigion
>
> 16,000
>
> 107.8 Arrow FM for Hastings
>
> 17,000
>
> 107 JACK fm (Reading 107FM)
>
> 18,000
>
> The Breeze (Cheltenham)
>
> 18,000
>
> 107.6 Banbury Sound
>
> 18,000
>
> Free Radio 80s (Shropshire)
>
> 19,000
>
> Rugby FM
>
> 20,000
>
> Lakeland Radio
>
> 20,000
>
> 107.5 Sovereign Radio
>
> 21,000
>
> 96.2 Touch FM - Coventry
>
> 22,000
>
> Time FM 106.6
>
> 23,000
>
> North Norfolk Radio
>
> 23,000
>
> Radio Exe
>
> 24,000
>
> Pulse 2
>
> 26,000
>
> 3FM
>
> 26,000
>
> Smooth Radio Essex
>
> 28,000
>
> Oak FM
>
> 28,000
>
> Smooth Radio Devon
>
> 29,000
>
> Cheshire's Silk 106.9
>
> 29,000
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Paul Golder <paul at pvg.co.uk>
>
> *To:* The Community Media Association Discussion List
> <cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk>
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 21, 2015 6:01 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [cma-l] Community Radio Order
>
>
>
> I've contracted with a private market research firm a few times since we
> took to the airwaves full time in 2007.
>
>
>
> We're currently getting a 20% weekly reach which implies about 30,000
> listeners a week.  Our website visitor figures (over 200,000 per month,
> with 12,000 a month viewing the schedule and local events pages) seem to
> make sense in this context.
>
>
>
> I wasn't aware that RAJAR was skewed towards its members' areas, which
> would make any extrapolation of the "other radio listening" figure quite
> meaningless.
>
>
>
> It's natural for CR to be defensive with the suggestion that CR has half a
> million listeners - but I'm just not buying it.  That's only an average of
> 2,000 per station - I could probably NAME at least 3,000 people who engage
> with us regularly!
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul
>
> Phoenix FM
>
> www.phoenixfm.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> <http://www.avast.com/>
>
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
> <http://www.avast.com/> protection is active.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Reply - cma-l at commedia.org.uk
>
> The cma-l mailing list is a members' service provided by the Community
> Media Association - http://www.commedia.org.uk
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/community_media
> http://www.facebook.com/CommunityMediaAssociation
> Canstream Internet Radio & Video: http://www.canstream.co.uk/
> _______________________________________________
>
> Mailing list guidelines:
> http://www.commedia.org.uk/about/cma-email-lists/email-list-guidelines/
> _______________________________________________
>
> To unsubscribe or manage your CMA-L mailing list subscription please visit:
> http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cma-l
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Reply - cma-l at commedia.org.uk
>
> The cma-l mailing list is a members' service provided by the Community
> Media Association - http://www.commedia.org.uk
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/community_media
> http://www.facebook.com/CommunityMediaAssociation
> Canstream Internet Radio & Video: http://www.canstream.co.uk/
> _______________________________________________
>
> Mailing list guidelines:
> http://www.commedia.org.uk/about/cma-email-lists/email-list-guidelines/
> _______________________________________________
>
> To unsubscribe or manage your CMA-L mailing list subscription please visit:
> http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cma-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20150122/33bbaa73/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2685 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20150122/33bbaa73/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1622 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20150122/33bbaa73/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4877 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20150122/33bbaa73/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5125 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20150122/33bbaa73/attachment-0001.png>