The place where everyone hangs out, chats, gossips, and argues
User avatar
By Travis Bickle
#496186
I have only glanced over this so I may be wrong, but the show lost listeners across the age groups, but mainly from the older listeners? Isnt that what Radio 1 were expecting and also hoping for? They expected a fall in listeners (probably not to this extent) but hoped that oldies would clear off.

That's exactly what they got.
By JayE
#496188
He's lost 1.3 million listeners? Blimey. I think it would be interesting to know how many young listeners he's lost as well as the old listeners.
User avatar
By Boboff
#496191
Topher wrote:Yep, like Holly Willoughby or however you spell it, but without the inexplicable career.



You Sir are a knob.

That lady is a princess, great sense of humour and not a girly girl, plus she is * HOT! 8)
User avatar
By Yudster
#496192
Travis Bickle wrote:I have only glanced over this so I may be wrong, but the show lost listeners across the age groups, but mainly from the older listeners? Isnt that what Radio 1 were expecting and also hoping for? They expected a fall in listeners (probably not to this extent) but hoped that oldies would clear off.

That's exactly what they got.


Somewhere further up this thread someone said that the figures indicated that the older group of listeners had increased, it was the supposed target audience that they've lost most of. I have no idea where any such statistics can be found, but like I said, someone was quoting them early on in this thread.
By JayE
#496193
I think I'd like Greg James on the breakfast show, I actually like listening to him and he's generally quite funny. I don't usually listen to the radio when I get in from School but whenever I do I usually put Radio 1 on.
User avatar
By chrysostom
#496194
I like that they've claimed Chris would have addressed losing 1m listeners by blaming Dave/Aled.

Looks like they didn't listen to anything involving them talking openly about their losses and trying to get their lost listeners back.
By wireman2004
#496196
JayE wrote:He's lost 1.3 million listeners? Blimey. I think it would be interesting to know how many young listeners he's lost as well as the old listeners.


about 250,000 is the answer year on year
User avatar
By Topher
#496204
Boboff wrote:
Topher wrote:Yep, like Holly Willoughby or however you spell it, but without the inexplicable career.



You Sir are a knob.

That lady is a princess, great sense of humour and not a girly girl, plus she is * HOT! 8)

Ha thanks Boboff. I stand by my opinion that she's a blonde clone and not very interesting.
By Hawkeye448
#496211
Speaking as one of the oldies that they ousted, i'm 42, the only way I feel ousted is that Grimshaw is a less capable DJ than Moyles. A less entertaining and confident DJ. That's not targeting a younger audience, that's just making radio sound duller regardless of the age of the listener. Nice fella im sure but...even so.

I remember listening to the trailers for Grimshaws previous show and it was painfully unfunny to listen to. Certainly not breakfast show material in a year or so's time.

Not sure what they hoped to achieve here. its certainly not going to add to Moyles ratings or even match it.
To a degree im surprised the loss is as little as it is. May well be going beyond Sara Cox's time but we have MP3s, podcasts and general gadgets on the train, bus, school bus now.

If Moyles had wanted to leave then so be it. No choice but to get someone else in, an apprentice if needs be. Everyones got to start somewhere but to do so to get the attention of a younger audience.... just don't get it.
User avatar
By The Deadly
#496245
This latest RAJAR figure is excellent, excellent news. If it goes down again a similar amount on the next one then Mr Grimshaw will be in serious trouble.
User avatar
By neilt0
#496248
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/media-b ... k-grimshaw

BBC Radio 1's Nick Grimshaw stumbles as it turns to age-old strategies
The station's bosses are focused on attracting a younger audience – but kids today have many more places to find music

"Radio 1's breakfast show is no longer the most listened-to programme on British radio. That distinction belongs to Chris Evans on Radio 2. Nevertheless it's the show whose performance matters most to BBC bosses. They charged incoming Radio 1 controller Ben Cooper with lowering the station's age profile. Nothing is more important to the BBC's future than keeping a line open to the teenagers they hope will become licence fee payers. That's one of the reasons why Cooper decided it was time for Chris Moyles, 38, to be replaced by Nick Grimshaw, 28.

Out went Moyles's lugubrious monologues. In came Grimshaw's brittle patter. Out went long stretches of chat. In came music from the toppermost of the poppermost. The latest Rajar figures suggest a million listeners have taken this as a cue to move on.

Some of this is the fallout following any change. Radio is more about habit than any other branch of the media. Once you interrupt the pattern some listeners take their custom somewhere else, possibly to Evans or Christian Connell on Absolute, both of whom showed some growth. Nevertheless, as radio consultant Matt Deegan points out, one of the things that make Radio 1's figure skew old is the number of over-55s that still listen to it.

Some of it may be the move to a more music-heavy output. Despite the protestations of a million corny lyrics, music tends to divide people, not bring them together. Chat is something they're more likely to tolerate, even when it's provided by someone as idiosyncratic as Moyles.

There's no task in media trickier than lowering the age profile of an audience. It doesn't necessarily go down with the age of the presenter. Nor do younger people obediently respond to the promise of "younger" music. They often draw no distinction between music made today and music made on the millions of days before that. Radio 1's motto, "in new music we trust", seems addressed to an internal audience interested in positioning rather than potential listeners. The magazine graveyard is littered with the bones of titles such as Smash Hits that tried to retrace their steps to what they perceived as their core, narrowcasting themselves into obsolescence in the process.

It's been noted that these are the most pronounced falls since Matthew Bannister took over at Radio 1 in 1993 and aimed to shake off its unfortunate image. The difference now is that the radio industry, like the rest of the media, is being pushed and pulled by tides too powerful for even the most securely funded public broadcaster to resist.

Adam Bowie of Absolute Radio wrote in his blog that over the past five years radio listening among 15- to 24-year-olds has fallen by 16.9%. It's difficult to imagine those people are coming back. Anyone who lives with a teenager knows that they no longer mark their territory by retuning every radio in the house to their favourite stations. The days when they reflexively employed the radio to keep the real world at bay have gone. They can easily access all the music they want. They are never bored. Instead they are constantly distracted. Radio is just one of those competing distractions. Nothing sounds more quaint today than Lou Reed's old advice that "you need two radios in case one is broken".

The BBC's entire strategy is based on the idea that you can reliably segment the young audience via music and create channel loyalty among people who have grown up roaming free without need of channels, who pull things towards them rather than wait for somebody to do the pushing. Troy Carter, Lady Gaga's manager, recently said the last place he wanted her fans to find out about her new record was the radio, a statement which should have sent a shiver down many broadcasting spines. As one former Radio 1 hand said this week, "kids nowadays are their own schedulers. They're not going to 'keep it here' any longer."
User avatar
By The Deadly
#496251
Me too. He is very much marmite in radio terms but even those who hate him should remember the good things he and the show did. Especially in terms of money raising.
User avatar
By Bas
#496252
I thought that article was pretty much on the money.
The dig was so subtle that i missed it the first time round & had to re-read it. And even then i didn't think it was that much of a dig.
Its a Guardian piece, they have to sneer at everything.
User avatar
By Nicola_Red
#496258
Are we talking about 'lugubrious', or 'idiosyncratic'? Or something else that I've missed?
User avatar
By Yudster
#496264
I was wondering the same thing. The writer certainly seemed to not be a fan, but I didn't see any digs - he acknowledged Moyles' appeal, skill and unquestionable success, whilst also indicating out that his show was not to everyone's taste. Which is wasn't!
User avatar
By Bas
#496299
Nicola_Red wrote:Are we talking about 'lugubrious', or 'idiosyncratic'? Or something else that I've missed?

'Lugubrious' isn't a word that's used much nowadays, not with any positive connotations & i'm not sure the writer knows what it means anyway. But that aside, it wasn't a bad article.

Sat and today are up

Changes at Radio One

Scott Mills is finally getting a Breakfast Show, a[…]