Lunchtime Live with Ciara Kelly [Mod warning post #1]

ButtersSuki

Tell me how wrote: »

If there's an overwhelming response one way or another, they always state that with phrases like;
"I'll read one of the texts which agree with you but the majority think differently"
"Some agree with you but the vast majority of texts here are of a different opinion"
"The screen is lighting up and nearly all of them say you are right"

If they don't say something like that, I think the implications is that views are fairly equally split.

How do you know any of the above? There could be 5 texts to the show for all we know, 3 of them could be in favour and 2 against whatever topic is being discussed and they could still say "60% of the texts we received are in favour of x" - and that's assuming they'd even be honest about what the %'s are.

You're assuming an awful lot.

Tell me how

For Forks Sake wrote: »

"where we're talking about what you're talking about"

There couldn't be a statement with any less truth in it than that

You didn't hear the show today did you?

meeeeh

Tell me how wrote: »

The 52 year old thinking bog trying to get pregnant could be viewed as a crank caller, although she does sound genuine.

I'm surprised to hear that a number of women have done so.

Yeah that one was after I wrote the post.

Edit: I might not be an Einstein but they went from doing unscripted Fridays every so often to doing them every week. Something tells me they got enough positive response to the format to do it every week.

ButtersSuki

meeeeh wrote: »

Yeah that one was after I wrote the post.

Edit: I might not be an Einstein but they went from doing unscripted Fridays every so often to doing them every week. Something tells me they got enough positive response to the format to do it every week[/B].

Is there any evidence for this or is it just an opinion formed by assumptions?

Do you know if any market research amongst listeners was conducted for example?

It could just as easily have been a production/editorial team decision to continue with this format based on no tangible evidence of any public like or dislike for the format and how it is being received (or otherwise).

meeeeh

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Is there any evidence for this or is it just an opinion formed by assumptions?

Do you know if any market research amongst listeners was conducted for example?

It could just as easily have been a production/editorial team decision to continue with this format based on no tangible evidence of any public like or dislike for the format and how it is being received (or otherwise).

Yeah they had a production meeting to continue with the format nobody likes and force people to listen until they all love it. It's to offer advertisers different options - advertising during slots with good listenership and advertising when nobody listens.

ButtersSuki

meeeeh wrote: »

Yeah they had a production meeting to continue with the format nobody likes and force people to listen until they all love it. It's to offer advertisers different options - advertising during slots with good listenership and advertising when nobody listens.

So that would be a “no” then. Ok, thanks for confirming.

ButtersSuki

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Do you know if any market research amongst listeners was conducted for example?

Yes, there is and it is continuously being done. The Joint National Listenership Research.

ButtersSuki

Ahwell wrote: »

Yes, there is and it is continuously being done. The Joint National Listenership Research.

The JNLR is a measure of audience reach, nothing to do with content or a change to the running order of the show. The JNLR is also not show specific, nor is it conducted by Newstalk/Communicorp - as was obvious from the type of research I suggested (assuming of course one has a basic understanding of same).

You may not like me, but that does not invalidate the legitimacy of any of the questions I asked re. the show today; questions I asked only to check on what basis you were collectively making so many assumptions on the change in format.

Sleeper12

meeeeh wrote:

Yeah they had a production meeting to continue with the format nobody likes and force people to listen until they all love it. It's to offer advertisers different options - advertising during slots with good listenership and advertising when nobody listens.

Personally I don't find it any better or worse than the regular show. It all boils down to the content on the day for me

ButtersSuki

ButtersSuki wrote: »

The JNLR is a measure of audience reach, nothing to do with content or a change to the running order of the show. The JNLR is also not show specific, nor is it conducted by Newstalk/Communicorp - as was obvious from the type of research I suggested (assuming of course one has a basic understanding of same).

The JNLR's are primarily to do with advertising, but it does have a secondary purpose. Provide radio audience estimates to facilitate programming analysis/planning. It does give reach figures for each individual programme. It also gives a measure of the number of people who tuned into a station for each individual quarter hour. So you could determine whether a particular shows audience figures on Fridays goes up or down over a period of time. With that kind of data at your disposal why would you need the type of research that you are suggesting.

ButtersSuki

Ahwell wrote: »

The JNLR's are primarily to do with advertising, but it does have a secondary purpose. Provide radio audience estimates to facilitate programming analysis/planning. It does give reach figures for each individual programme. It also gives a measure of the number of people who tuned into a station for each individual quarter hour. So you could determine whether a particular shows audience figures on Fridays goes up or down over a period of time. With that kind of data at your disposal why would you need the type of research that you are suggesting.

Ok, I see my error. I assumed people would at least a better understanding of what (market) research is, the different types of same (Qualitative v. Quantitative), what each is used for and why, before commenting on it.

The JNLR is Quant., the type of resereach I was suggesting is Qual. You can’t measure Qual. using Quant. Research Methodologies, therefore you can’t get the answer to the question I asked that way, therefore that’s why you would do it.

The JNLR is not primarily to do with advertsising btw.

Faugheen

ButtersSuki wrote: »

It’s riveting radio alright. Listening to Mairéad/Miss Ireland tell us about her 15 states in 5 days US group holiday which she joined because her parents told her she would be raped, murdered and found dead beside a highway if she travelled alone was inspirational. Then we had top tips like “take out a pen and paper when eating alone in a restaurant to trick the staff into thinking you’re a food critic”, and the revelation that over-50s holidays are really for over-75s.....in Ciara’s opinion.

Aside from those fascinating callers, what evidence do you have that there is as you say “a lot of interest in it”? If 10-15 people call over 2 hours does that mean there’s lots of interest in it? Define “lots” in quantitative terms? Or is this just your opinion? Genuine question.

You really don’t like this show, do you?

Yet you’re always commenting on its content.

You can ask for all the evidence you want, I don’t have it to hand.

However, they’re clearly seeing something with the unscripted shows that they’ve made it into a weekly thing. I really don’t understand why you’re trying to cause an argument over that point.

Have you any evidence that there isn’t any interest in it?

ButtersSuki

ButtersSuki wrote: »

The JNLR is not primarily to do with advertsising btw.

Ah...yes it is. From their own website..

JNLR Survey Objective

The objective of the JNLR survey is to provide reliable estimates of
audiences to National, Regional and Local Radio, as a basis for the
planning of advertising schedules.

To go back to your original question

Do you know if any market research amongst listeners was conducted for example?

It could just as easily have been a production/editorial team decision to continue with this format based on no tangible evidence of any public like or dislike for the format and how it is being received (or otherwise).

As I've said, the JNLR's would show whether the audience for the Friday show goes up or down over a period of time, i.e., "tangible evidence of any public like or dislike for the format and how it is being received (or otherwise)".

ButtersSuki

Faugheen wrote: »

You really don’t like this show, do you?

Yet you’re always commenting on its content.

You can ask for all the evidence you want, I don’t have it to hand.

However, they’re clearly seeing something with the unscripted shows that they’ve made it into a weekly thing. I really don’t understand why you’re trying to cause an argument over that point.

Have you any evidence that there isn’t any interest in it?

By line:

I don't have to like the show to comment on its content.

Thank you for admitting there is no evidence to the speculation and assumptions posted. I have been chastised by some of the very same posters for doing so in the past, a point I suspect escapes them when they do so themselves.

Not trying to cause an argument at all - I merely asked a question.

I don't have any evidence to the contrary; however, I'm not the one making any assertions based purely on assumption and speculation. Had I made an assertion I would however attempt to back that up.

ButtersSuki

Ahwell wrote: »

Ah...yes it is. From their own website..



To go back to your original question



As I've said, the JNLR's would show whether the audience for the Friday show goes up or down over a period of time, i.e., "tangible evidence of any public like or dislike for the format and how it is being received (or otherwise)".

It's primary objective is to measure audience figures, any advertising add-on is secondary. And what I said was the it was not "primarily to do with advertising".

Just ignore the Qual. v Quant. research I was referring to then, ok......

Any peak or decrease in audience figures does not at topline level equate to the quality or likeability of any show or timeslot within that show. It is a mere macro measurement of the audience figure. You're once again making an assumption between quality and audience figures. A deeper micro level qualitative study would examine the likeability and quality (separately and crucially for this type of question, subjectively) of any such time slot or segment.

Liveline is the most listened to Radio Show on RTÉ. The quality however is absolutely, to put it mildly - "shoyte". Morning Ireland, which would trounce all over Liveline from quality and standards perspectives, yet has lower figures. On a macro level you could argue that Liveline is therefore a better show than Morning Ireland.

ButtersSuki

ButtersSuki wrote: »

It's primary objective is to measure audience figures, any advertising add-on is secondary. And what I said was the it was not "primarily to do with advertising".

Again

The primary objective of the JNLR survey is to provide reliable estimates of audiences to National, Regional and Local Radio, as a basis for the planning of advertising schedules. http://info.ipsosmrbi.com/jnlr

ButtersSuki

Again:

ButtersSuki wrote: »

It's primary objective is to measure audience figures, any advertising add-on is secondary. And what I said was the it was not "primarily to do with advertising".

Just ignore the Qual. v Quant. research I was referring to then, ok......

Any peak or decrease in audience figures does not at topline level equate to the quality or likeability of any show or timeslot within that show. It is a mere macro measurement of the audience figure. You're once again making an assumption between quality and audience figures. A deeper micro level qualitative study would examine the likeability and quality (separately and crucially for this type of question, subjectively) of any such time slot or segment.

Liveline is the most listened to Radio Show on RTÉ. The quality however is absolutely, to put it mildly - "shoyte". Morning Ireland, which would trounce all over Liveline from quality and standards perspectives, yet has lower figures. On a macro level you could argue that Liveline is therefore a better show than Morning Ireland.

Faugheen

ButtersSuki wrote: »

By line:

I don't have to like the show to comment on its content.

Thank you for admitting there is no evidence to the speculation and assumptions posted. I have been chastised by some of the very same posters for doing so in the past, a point I suspect escapes them when they do so themselves.

Not trying to cause an argument at all - I merely asked a question.

I don't have any evidence to the contrary; however, I'm not the one making any assertions based purely on assumption and speculation. Had I made an assertion I would however attempt to back that up.

You’re asking people for evidence when they’re just making an observation.

Why would they make an occasional feature a weekly one? People are only guessing that it’s because it appears to be popular. It’s not a life vs death debate.

You’re arguing with posters for making an observation and demanding qualitatative evidence for something so mundane, so yes I would say you are just looking for an argument because it’s what you do in here.

Your last sentence, if you’re not saying the feature isn’t popular or engaging with listeners, then why on Earth have you filled the last two pages demanding evidence from those who are simply discussing and guessing when you don’t agree nor disagree with them?

What on Earth was the point of the last couple of pages? You saying you want evidence because others have said it to you in the past? Grow up.

ButtersSuki

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Again:

No, the reason the JNLR surveys are carried is out is to determine how much a radio station can charge for an advertising spot on a given time slot. That is it's purpose.

ButtersSuki

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Just ignore the Qual. v Quant. research I was referring to then, ok......

Any peak or decrease in audience figures does not at topline level equate to the quality or likeability of any show or timeslot within that show. It is a mere macro measurement of the audience figure. You're once again making an assumption between quality and audience figures. A deeper micro level qualitative study would examine the likeability and quality (separately and crucially for this type of question, subjectively) of any such time slot or segment.

Liveline is the most listened to Radio Show on RTÉ. The quality however is absolutely, to put it mildly - "shoyte". Morning Ireland, which would trounce all over Liveline from quality and standards perspectives, yet has lower figures. On a macro level you could argue that Liveline is therefore a better show than Morning Ireland.

A radio station is primarily interested in "the Quant.", because "the Quant." determines how much money they can make from advertising.

jeremyj1968

"I......I...... I......I......I...... I...... I......I...... I...... I......I...... I...... ".

I can decide whether she's a narcissist or she has a speech impediment.

jeremyj1968

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

"I......I...... I......I......I...... I...... I......I...... I...... I......I...... I...... ".

I can decide whether she's a narcissist or she has a speech impediment.

the first

southstar

ButtersSuki wrote: »

It's primary objective is to measure audience figures, any advertising add-on is secondary. And what I said was the it was not "primarily to do with advertising".

Just ignore the Qual. v Quant. research I was referring to then, ok......

Any peak or decrease in audience figures does not at topline level equate to the quality or likeability of any show or timeslot within that show. It is a mere macro measurement of the audience figure. You're once again making an assumption between quality and audience figures. A deeper micro level qualitative study would examine the likeability and quality (separately and crucially for this type of question, subjectively) of any such time slot or segment.

Liveline is the most listened to Radio Show on RTÉ. The quality however is absolutely, to put it mildly - "shoyte". Morning Ireland, which would trounce all over Liveline from quality and standards perspectives, yet has lower figures. On a macro level you could argue that Liveline is therefore a better show than Morning Ireland.

They are two entirely different types of show.. this quality comparison is completely fatuous
Liveline has a consistently huge audience because I suggest it' delivers an excellent version of the format... and Duffy is both competent and popular at this style.. despite the serial naysayers on Boards

ButtersSuki

Ahwell wrote: »

A radio station is primarily interested in "the Quant.", because "the Quant." determines how much money they can make from advertising.

Primarily is not exclusively. They do both.

ButtersSuki

southstar wrote: »

They are two entirely different types of show.. this quality comparison is completely fatuous
Liveline has a consistently huge audience because I suggest it' delivers an excellent version of the format... and Duffy is both competent and popular at this style.. despite the serial naysayers on Boards

I never said they were the same type of show.

Competent?
https://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/08/25/enhanced-interrogation/

Have a read of the transcript from that show. You have a radio host suggesting the Police Commissioner should turn his gun on journalists legally gathered to cover a "perp walk" (also legal and pretty standard in high profile cases in that country btw) - do you consider that competent? That's one example. I could give you dozens. The man is rude, arrogant, clumsy, awkward, has a fetish for death & misery, promotes his own side projects and wares constantly through the state broadcaster, constantly pushes his own editorial agenda, gives air time to his friends, political chums, neighbours etc., barely listens to callers, frequently forgets callers' names, yawns on air, loads debates to suit his narrative, has to regularly apologise to avoid court cases (Michael O'Leary for example)....I could go on and on. Competent? He's a disgrace.

Popularity doesn't equal quality.

ButtersSuki

Faugheen wrote: »

You’re asking people for evidence when they’re just making an observation.

No, it was more than an observation to be fair. It was an assertion, which is far more definitive.

Faugheen wrote: »

Y
Why would they make an occasional feature a weekly one? People are only guessing that it’s because it appears to be popular. It’s not a life vs death debate.

I'm not saying it is a life or death debate. Am I only allowed to comment on life or death debates?

Faugheen wrote: »

You’re arguing with posters for making an observation and demanding qualitatative evidence for something so mundane, so yes I would say you are just looking for an argument because it’s what you do in here.

I'm not arguing with anyone, I asked a series of questions, that's all. Or am I not allowed to ask a question based on an assertion because that disagrees with the views of some?

Faugheen wrote: »

Your last sentence, if you’re not saying the feature isn’t popular or engaging with listeners, then why on Earth have you filled the last two pages demanding evidence from those who are simply discussing and guessing when you don’t agree nor disagree with them?

I'm not demanding anything. I simply asked a number of questions, which last time I checked I am allowed to do. Would you prefer that everyone has the same opinions on here?

Faugheen wrote: »

What on Earth was the point of the last couple of pages? You saying you want evidence because others have said it to you in the past? Grow up.

Not the most mature debating style that is it, resorting to insults?

I asked for evidence based on an assertion made. The very same request was made to me and I supplied same. It's somewhat hypocritical to ask for that from one poster and not uphold the same stands in one's own postings. I was merely pointing that out.

ButtersSuki

Ahwell wrote: »

No, the reason the JNLR surveys are carried is out is to determine how much a radio station can charge for an advertising spot on a given time slot. That is it's purpose.

It's an audience numbers gauge, and is further broken down by socio-economic demographic. I won't bore you with the minutiae.

Re. advertising rates, no-one pays the advertised rates. I've bought advertising for 20+ years, never once have I referred to the JNLR for anything other than audience figures. Media planners don't use it for what Radio Station X can sell their ad space at, they use it solely for audience numbers.

Have you ever seen a JNLR book? There isn't one monetary figure re. advertising rates by station mentioned in it. I get them multiple times a year, and have done for 20+ years.

From the BAI website:
https://www.bai.ie/en/category/listenership-figures/

https://www.bai.ie/en/category/listenership-figures/
25 Oct 2018
Latest JNLR Figures Released
The latest JNLR/Ipsos MRBI report into radio listening is published today (25.10.18).

The abbreviated and full reports are available as downloads. You can look for yourself, there's no monetary figures re. advertising costs or spend mentioned re. advertising rates.

Uncharted

southstar wrote: »

... and Duffy is both competent and popular at this style..

:pac: :pac:
BAAHHHHHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA !!!!!

southstar

ButtersSuki wrote: »

I never said they were the same type of show.

Competent?
https://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/08/25/enhanced-interrogation/

Have a read of the transcript from that show. You have a radio host suggesting the Police Commissioner should turn his gun on journalists legally gathered to cover a "perp walk" (also legal and pretty standard in high profile cases in that country btw) - do you consider that competent? That's one example. I could give you dozens. The man is rude, arrogant, clumsy, awkward, has a fetish for death & misery, promotes his own side projects and wares constantly through the state broadcaster, constantly pushes his own editorial agenda, gives air time to his friends, political chums, neighbours etc., barely listens to callers, frequently forgets callers' names, yawns on air, loads debates to suit his narrative, has to regularly apologise to avoid court cases (Michael O'Leary for example)....I could go on and on. Competent? He's a disgrace.

Popularity doesn't equal quality.

The irony here is that you gleefully participate in a daily auto da fe which routinely is petty, personalised and repetitive bordering on obsessional.. I found your recent revelations hard to take in the light of this...almost suggested you call Ciara Kelly. Liveline is not rocket science but considerably more measured than similar offerings on commercial radio.

ButtersSuki

ButtersSuki wrote: »

It's an audience numbers gauge, and is further broken down by socio-economic demographic. I won't bore you with the minutiae.

Re. advertising rates, no-one pays the advertised rates. I've bought advertising for 20+ years, never once have I referred to the JNLR for anything other than audience figures. Media planners don't use it for what Radio Station X can sell their ad space at, they use it solely for audience numbers.

Have you ever seen a JNLR book? There isn't one monetary figure re. advertising rates by station mentioned in it. I get them multiple times a year, and have done for 20+ years.

From the BAI website:
https://www.bai.ie/en/category/listenership-figures/

https://www.bai.ie/en/category/listenership-figures/
25 Oct 2018
Latest JNLR Figures Released
The latest JNLR/Ipsos MRBI report into radio listening is published today (25.10.18).

The abbreviated and full reports are available as downloads. You can look for yourself, there's no monetary figures re. advertising costs or spend mentioned re. advertising rates.

I have highlighted the relevant part this time.

The primary objective of the JNLR survey is to provide reliable estimates of audiences to National, Regional and Local Radio, as a basis for the planning of advertising schedules.