This article appeared in the July 29th edition of the Globe and Mail. The decline in market share for CBC Radio 2 is mentioned, almost as an aside. Clearly, radio is not that important!
Will Kirstine Stewart save the CBC?
Michael Posner
Globe and Mail Update (with correction)
Published Friday, Jul. 29, 2011 7:08PM EDT
Some years ago, a young Canadian television sales executive found herself at a trade market in Hong Kong. At an industry party, she and a colleague decided to visit a fortune teller.
The colleague, Isme Bennie, was told that she would soon confront several major transitions in her life, including moving house. The predictions all proved accurate.
And the young exec? Kirstine Layfield (now known by her maiden name Stewart) was told that she would one day become prime minister of Canada. That, needless to say, hasn't happened – yet.
What Ms. Stewart has become is executive vice-president of the CBC's English services. Arguably the most powerful job in Canadian broadcasting, it has never before been held by a woman. Not only is it the most powerful, it is, without doubt, the most daunting job. As the CBC prepares to celebrate its 75th anniversary this fall, it may be approaching a historic crossroads.
“The best she can do is keep the CBC in the game,” one CBC insider says.
Ms. Stewart remains optimistic. “Everyone is engaged by the same questions,” she allows in a recent interview. “It's a big brain challenge. But there's real opportunity here, to remake the modern public broadcaster and keep it relevant.”
The eldest daughter of British immigrants to Canada, Ms. Stewart, just 42, has a degree in English literature from the University of Toronto. With her former husband, teacher Ken Layfield, she has two daughters, Brigitte and AnnaLise. After each birth, she returned to work within six weeks, while her husband took paternity leave. “I wouldn't necessarily recommend it,” she once explained, “but it was what I needed to do to keep doing what I was doing.”
The marriage effectively ended several years ago. Earlier this year, she became engaged to Zaib Shaikh, star of Little Mosque on the Prairie. She says a wedding date has not been announced – a polite way of saying she does not want to discuss her private life.
Since winning the job last year, her first order of work seems to have been housecleaning. In the past year, the heads of CBC drama (Sally Catto), sports (Scott Moore), digital (Steve Billinger) and radio (Denise Donlon) have all departed.
“What we've done is take out a layer of management,” Ms. Stewart explains. “There were multiple levels reporting to me and we wanted to flatten that out.”
Ms. Stewart's conversation tends to sound like that. Outwardly cool, if not icy, she has clearly mastered the vocabulary of modern corporatese, all those “bottom lines” that, “at the end of the day,” will allow us to “move the yardsticks.”
But Isme Bennie, who hired her as a receptionist in 1988 at Paragon Entertainment, straight out of university, cautions against any impulse to underestimate Ms. Stewart. “Kirstine started by answering our phones and left as president of distribution,” she says. “She is smart and resourceful. She takes initiative.”
At the CBC, Ms. Stewart succeeded Richard Stursberg, a brilliant Machiavellian who had been, in roughly equal measure, feared, respected and loathed.
Mr. Stursberg departed suddenly last August, after CBC president Hubert Lacroix, the public broadcaster's government-appointed and largely invisible power behind the throne, grew weary of his gamesmanship. Mr. Lacroix nurses an ambitious agenda, which is to reshape the corporation for the 21st century. Rightly or wrongly, he decided Mr. Stursberg was not the person to realize that agenda.
Enter Ms. Stewart, then head of network programming. Before joining the CBC in 2006, she had earned her spurs as a VP at Alliance Atlantis (overseeing eight channels), Hallmark Entertainment (managing a budget of $300-million (U.S.) and a staff of 750), and Trio, a now-defunct U.S. channel.
Under Mr. Stursberg, she scored largely with reality shows, although one gamble – a simulcast with ABC's The One: Making a Music Star, hosted by Mr. Stroumboulopoulos – backfired. The show was cancelled after two weeks.
Critics, among them Ian Morrison, spokesman for Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, also complain that the CBC's ratings gain has been built on the back of cheap, lowbrow American imports, such as Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy.
Yet the ad revenue generated by these game shows, Ms. Stewart argues, helped the CBC underwrite five other shows that yielded million-plus audiences – Battle of the Blades, Dragons' Den, Rick Mercer Report, Republic of Doyle and Heartland. As part of its effort to Canadianize its prime-time schedule, Ms. Stewart has promised to cancel the game shows next year.
As things stand, the CBC's numbers are doing well – BBM Canada surveys indicate it has vaulted past Global in prime time. “The jump in ratings was all Kirstine's doing,” a former CBC senior executive says. “She's a very smart programmer. Richard … listened to her.”
Those who monitor the CBC's often Byzantine politics think that Mr. Lacroix has followed a time-honoured tradition in cultural institutions – choosing a leader distinctly different than the one being succeeded. “Hubert did not want another Richard,” says an industry executive close to the corporation. “Kirstine is a safer pair of hands, and will dutifully and efficiently carry out the mandate.”
Howard Bernstein, a former TV producer who has worked for the CBC and other broadcasters, is highly critical of the corporation's leadership. In a recent post on his media criticism blog, he wrote, “Today, in the post-Stursberg CBC the Stursberg philosophy lives on: go light, get numbers, avoid depth and at all costs don't allow serious culture anywhere near the lineup. …”
He also writes, “Kirstine Stewart, once Stursberg's leading yes woman, is surprise, surprise carrying on as if Stursberg were still telling her what is what.”
Any suggestion that she might be “Sturs lite” makes Ms. Stewart bristle. “I'm surprised by that association,” she says. “Richard had a huge beneficial effect on the CBC, in terms of processes. But people are looking for programming leadership. That's where I come from. The future is about content.”
And in a follow-up e-mail, she adds, “The label ‘lite' is one I've seen levied too often at female execs to now let pass by without comment. … It's an awfully convenient way to put someone, in this case me … in a box. It trivializes and makes diminutive the goals I have for the CBC and for this role … I won't be a copy of anyone, lite or otherwise.”
The challenges Ms. Stewart faces are also far from trivial. In a world run amok with television choice, she must simultaneously maintain the CBC's thin market share, stay competitive in the increasingly vital digital sphere, strengthen ties to the regions, reflect the fast-changing Canadian demographic while fulfilling its triple-barrelled legislated mandate – “to inform, enlighten and entertain.”
And that's just the big picture.
Critics, such as The Globe and Mail's own John Doyle, have noted that while prime-time TV ratings have soared, the once-thriving oasis of serious arts and culture programming has become a wasteland; audiences have evaporated. In news and current affairs, which has borne a disproportionate burden of budget cuts, morale is moribund. And Radio 2's ratings have collapsed, since abandoning its largely classical music format in 2007.
Then there is Hockey Night in Canada – the CBC's most popular show (accounting for 30 per cent of its audience) and its single most powerful engine of advertising revenue. The broadcaster's contract to cover the National Hockey League expires in June, 2014. A bidding war for rights is inevitable, one the cash-strapped corporation will be hard-pressed to win, without allies.
Looming over it all is Stephen Harper's Damoclean sword. The Conservative government may act on its ideologically driven impulse to destroy public broadcasting by slashing the CBC's annual $1.1-billion appropriation. (It earns an additional $700-million from advertising and other revenue.)
Meanwhile, the corporation's fundamental dilemma remains: To the extent that the CBC must justify its federal subsidies and attract advertisers, it must be populist. But to the extent that it is populist, it risks becoming a clone of commercial broadcasters, and forfeits its signature identity as Canada's cultural lodestone.
Until she seeks political office, as her fortune teller predicted, it will be Kirstine Stewart's burden to find a balance for an organization whose own future prospects appear less auspicious.
Michael Posner is a Globe and Mail feature writer.
Editor's Note: Kirstine Stewart, executive vice-president of the CBC’s English services, has not dated George Stroumboulopoulos. The original newspaper version and an earlier online version of this article have been corrected.
Showing posts with label Richard Stursberg. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard Stursberg. Show all posts
Friday, August 5, 2011
Monday, August 9, 2010
Globe and Mail readers react to the departure of Mr. Stursberg
From the August 9 edition of the Globe and Mail:
For devotees of CBC Radio 2’s intelligent, mature presentation of serious classical music programming on offer before his arrival and subsequent reckless drive for popularization, Richard Stursberg’s departure is unimaginably sweet music to our ears (Top CBC Executive Leaves Broadcaster – Aug. 7).
Clifford Garrard, Ottawa
As a former dedicated CBC Radio 2 listener, the sudden departure of the head of English-language services is good news indeed. Perhaps now there will be a slow and imperceptible move (to preserve reputations) back to quality programs, replacing so many recent mindless ones, and making that nauseating promo spot every half-hour unnecessary.
Malcolm Niblett, Kingston
The importance of the departure of Richard Stursberg as head of CBC’s English-language services and the manifestation of his enduring legacy I can now state in one sentence: “Peter Mansbridge, you may now sit down.”
Bill Casselman, Dunnville, Ont.
For devotees of CBC Radio 2’s intelligent, mature presentation of serious classical music programming on offer before his arrival and subsequent reckless drive for popularization, Richard Stursberg’s departure is unimaginably sweet music to our ears (Top CBC Executive Leaves Broadcaster – Aug. 7).
Clifford Garrard, Ottawa
As a former dedicated CBC Radio 2 listener, the sudden departure of the head of English-language services is good news indeed. Perhaps now there will be a slow and imperceptible move (to preserve reputations) back to quality programs, replacing so many recent mindless ones, and making that nauseating promo spot every half-hour unnecessary.
Malcolm Niblett, Kingston
The importance of the departure of Richard Stursberg as head of CBC’s English-language services and the manifestation of his enduring legacy I can now state in one sentence: “Peter Mansbridge, you may now sit down.”
Bill Casselman, Dunnville, Ont.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
The Bushification of CBC Radio Two
I recently decided that the English language needs a word that succinctly describes the case when a corporate manager, leader of a country, religious leader or other zealot assumes control of an organization, country or religious group, makes significant changes to said organization or country and then rides off into the sunset, leaving the organization, country or religious group in significantly worse condition than before.
Since Sarah Palin is busy ‘refudiating’ the policies of those Godless Communists, the Obama administration, I thought I would step in here and offer a term. In honour of George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United Sates, I offer the term ‘Bushify’.
I thought I was being original. Of course, the term has long since been coined. I see it has already been defined as “To get something very wrong, in any area of life” (unwords.com) and “the act of taking a word that wouldn't normally have "ificate" or "ify" at the end and adding one or both said suffix's’ (urbandictionary.com). However, I think my definition is broader in scope, and certainly more useful.
Consider the origins of the term ‘Bushification’ or “to Bushify’. When George W. Bush assumed office, the U.S. was running a budget surplus, unemployment was at record lows, the U.S. was at peace with the rest of the world and the future seemed bright for the U.S. Of course, we all know what happened. Tax cuts for the wealthy, budget deficits, two wars in the Middle East, a housing bust, a financial system meltdown and record unemployment. Don’t you think that the U.S. was really, truly Bushified during the Bush administration?
On Friday, August 6 2010, the CBC announced that Richard Stursberg, executive vice-president for English language services, was leaving the CBC, effecitve immediately. The announcement included this statement:
“When Richard was appointed executive vice-president of CBC Television six years ago,” said Mr. Lacroix, “he brought with him a revolution that shook the foundation of the organization and eventually of the whole of our English services. He challenged every premise, attacked conventional wisdom, and uprooted whole parts of the internal culture.”
Wouldn’t if have been more succinct to have simply said “Mr. Stursberg thorougly Bushified the CBC during his tenure.”? I find the term “Bushify” to be much more evocotive, and concise, than Mr. Lacroix’s more long-winded statement. (In fairness to Mr. Lacroix, I should also note that he is also quoted as having said “Six years later, the institution is better off than it was. I want to acknowledge his success in turning CBC Television around and thank him for his contribution.” But I think we can all read between the lines of his statement and see the thinly veiled reference to the Bushification of the CBC.)
What other applications can we think of for this term? Stephen Harper’s Conservative minority government has thorougly Bushified Parliament? Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are attempting to Bushify Statistics Canada? The possibilities are endless.
So remember: Bushification, the act of Bushifying an organization or country. You heard it here first.
Since Sarah Palin is busy ‘refudiating’ the policies of those Godless Communists, the Obama administration, I thought I would step in here and offer a term. In honour of George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United Sates, I offer the term ‘Bushify’.
I thought I was being original. Of course, the term has long since been coined. I see it has already been defined as “To get something very wrong, in any area of life” (unwords.com) and “the act of taking a word that wouldn't normally have "ificate" or "ify" at the end and adding one or both said suffix's’ (urbandictionary.com). However, I think my definition is broader in scope, and certainly more useful.
Consider the origins of the term ‘Bushification’ or “to Bushify’. When George W. Bush assumed office, the U.S. was running a budget surplus, unemployment was at record lows, the U.S. was at peace with the rest of the world and the future seemed bright for the U.S. Of course, we all know what happened. Tax cuts for the wealthy, budget deficits, two wars in the Middle East, a housing bust, a financial system meltdown and record unemployment. Don’t you think that the U.S. was really, truly Bushified during the Bush administration?
On Friday, August 6 2010, the CBC announced that Richard Stursberg, executive vice-president for English language services, was leaving the CBC, effecitve immediately. The announcement included this statement:
“When Richard was appointed executive vice-president of CBC Television six years ago,” said Mr. Lacroix, “he brought with him a revolution that shook the foundation of the organization and eventually of the whole of our English services. He challenged every premise, attacked conventional wisdom, and uprooted whole parts of the internal culture.”
Wouldn’t if have been more succinct to have simply said “Mr. Stursberg thorougly Bushified the CBC during his tenure.”? I find the term “Bushify” to be much more evocotive, and concise, than Mr. Lacroix’s more long-winded statement. (In fairness to Mr. Lacroix, I should also note that he is also quoted as having said “Six years later, the institution is better off than it was. I want to acknowledge his success in turning CBC Television around and thank him for his contribution.” But I think we can all read between the lines of his statement and see the thinly veiled reference to the Bushification of the CBC.)
What other applications can we think of for this term? Stephen Harper’s Conservative minority government has thorougly Bushified Parliament? Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are attempting to Bushify Statistics Canada? The possibilities are endless.
So remember: Bushification, the act of Bushifying an organization or country. You heard it here first.
CBC Radio Two market share - the "Spring 2010" results
After I completed my last entry on this blog analyzing CBC Radio 2’s market share, I tried once again to access the Top Line Radio data on the BBM web site and, lo and behold, I was able to access the site. The “Spring 2010” radio diary data is now available on the BBM site, as well as new PPM survey data for Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton. The “Spring 2010” survey (former the “S2” survey using the BBM’s terminology) covers the period March 1 – April 25. PPM data is available for the periods January 25 – April 25 and for March 1 – May 30 for those cities surveyed using the PPM. (Note: I wrote this blog entry at then end of June, then neglected to post it. The BBM now has data for March 29 - June 27 and for April 26 - July 25 for those markets surveyed by the PPM on their web site. I'll analyze these results in a subsequent blog entry. Sorry about that.)
As I mentioned in my last blog entry, the BBM previously released four surveys per year to the general public, terming these surveys S1, S2, S3 and S4. The surveys relied on listener diary data.
The introduction of the PPM, first in the Montreal market, then in the Vancouver, Toronto, Calgary and Edmonton markets, meant that the survey data no longer aligns precisely with the S1, S2, S3 and S4 periods previously used. To date, there are surveys based on PPM data covering the periods Nov. 28 2009 – Feb. 28 , Dec. 28 2009 – March 28 2010, January 25 – April 25 and for March 1 – May 30. There is a single survey based on diary data. I term the surveys based on PPM data “S1 2010”, “S2 2010”, “S3 2010” and “S4 2010” for consistency with past analyses. It should be noted that the BBM does not use these terms. I am aligning the “Spring 2010” survey with the “S4 2010” survey, for the purposes of comparison with past years. Once again, this is not the BBM’s terminology, but mine.
As you may recall from past blog entries (S2 2010, S4 2009, S3 2009, S1 2009, S3 2008), we are comparing CBC Radio 2’s market share, as measured by the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement in their latest survey, with CBC Radio 2’s market share before the first phase of the program restructuring was implemented in March, 2007. The last BBM survey to measure the CBC Radio 2 audience listening to the “old” programming (i.e. the programming before Phase I of CBC Radio 2’s restructuring was introduced) was, using the BBM’s old terminology, the S2 2007 survey. The latest survey data is taken from the BBM’s web site, at http://www.bbm.ca/, for the major radio markets surveyed by the BBM for S4 2010.
As I mentioned in my last blog entry, the stations included in the BBM surveys have varied from survey to survey. Please see this entry for a discussion of how I have compared the total listening audience for stations surveyed by the BBM between survey periods.
Now, onto the results.
As I mentioned in my last blog entry, the BBM previously released four surveys per year to the general public, terming these surveys S1, S2, S3 and S4. The surveys relied on listener diary data.
The introduction of the PPM, first in the Montreal market, then in the Vancouver, Toronto, Calgary and Edmonton markets, meant that the survey data no longer aligns precisely with the S1, S2, S3 and S4 periods previously used. To date, there are surveys based on PPM data covering the periods Nov. 28 2009 – Feb. 28 , Dec. 28 2009 – March 28 2010, January 25 – April 25 and for March 1 – May 30. There is a single survey based on diary data. I term the surveys based on PPM data “S1 2010”, “S2 2010”, “S3 2010” and “S4 2010” for consistency with past analyses. It should be noted that the BBM does not use these terms. I am aligning the “Spring 2010” survey with the “S4 2010” survey, for the purposes of comparison with past years. Once again, this is not the BBM’s terminology, but mine.
As you may recall from past blog entries (S2 2010, S4 2009, S3 2009, S1 2009, S3 2008), we are comparing CBC Radio 2’s market share, as measured by the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement in their latest survey, with CBC Radio 2’s market share before the first phase of the program restructuring was implemented in March, 2007. The last BBM survey to measure the CBC Radio 2 audience listening to the “old” programming (i.e. the programming before Phase I of CBC Radio 2’s restructuring was introduced) was, using the BBM’s old terminology, the S2 2007 survey. The latest survey data is taken from the BBM’s web site, at http://www.bbm.ca/, for the major radio markets surveyed by the BBM for S4 2010.
As I mentioned in my last blog entry, the stations included in the BBM surveys have varied from survey to survey. Please see this entry for a discussion of how I have compared the total listening audience for stations surveyed by the BBM between survey periods.
Now, onto the results.
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?
While the change to the use of the PPM has been identified by some media commentators as one cause for the change in listener totals, one has to assume that this is only part of the cause. Another reason? I suspect that the radio listening audience is simply abandoning CBC Radio 2, finding the programming too similar, and not as enjoyable, as commercial radio stations.
Given that the CBC management implemented this programming restructuring to broaden the appeal of CBC Radio 2, can we not therefore conclude that this experiment has been a big, fat, resounding failure?
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Are the CBC Radio Two programming changes successful?
So, you may be wondering, have the programming changes that the CBC implemented on Sept. 2, 2008 been successful? What is their definition of success, anyway?
Well, in numerous statements to the press and to concerned citizens, CBC management has stated that the programming changes introduced on March 19, 2007 (the cancellation of 'Music for a while', 'In Performance', the 'Arts Report' and the 'World at Six' news broadcast on CBC Radio Two) and on Sept. 2 2008 (too numerous to list here) were intended to make CBC Radio Two more relevant to Canadians and to attract a wider, 'more sustainable' audience. CBC have thus defined one of the criteria upon which they are to be judged: number of listeners. Ergo, an increased number of listeners means success, a decreased number of listeners means failure. Dismal, abject failure. Has the CBC been successful, according to this criteria?
For an outsider, it's hard to tell. One source of data is the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement, which makes 'Top Line Radio Statistics' available on their web site. What are 'Top Line Radio Statistics', you ask?
The BBM 'Top Line Radio Statistics' is a list of the radio stations in a given market (called the 'Central Market Area' by the BBM) and the number of listeners who have tuned into that radio station 'for at least one quarter hour during the week'. The time period that the BBM releases to the public is Monday - Sunday, 5:00 AM to 1:00 AM. So, if you tuned into a given radio station sometime during the day, on any day of the week, you could be counted by the BBM as having listened to the station.
I realize this data is not sufficiently detailed enough to draw many conclusions, but it's all we poor plebes have. Has Tom Allen's new show, from 6:00 AM to 10:00 AM, drawn more listeners, for example? Is Rich Terfry's new show, 'Drive', a roaring success? We listeners don't know. We have to rely on the CBC to tell us.
But we can start to draw some conclusions, even with the limited data that we have. Did CBC increase their audience after the March 19, 2007 programming changes? The BBM stats can give us some indication. The BBM Top Line data is now available for the third survey period in 2008, which includes July 7-20 and August 4-31. The second set of CBC programming changes, of course, took place on Sept. 2 2008, so are not covered by this survey. It will be interesting to take a look at the S4 2008 data once it's available.
Let's take a look at each major CBC market, starting with Ottawa, which I have a particular fondness for. The BBM Top Line data is available here, but I have put this data into the form of a graph to make it easier to digest. What are the results? Well, as it turns out, CBC Radio Two has lost 13,300 listeners in the Ottawa market, comparing pre-change listenership (before March 19, 2007, using S1 2007 as the last data point) to post-change listenership (using S3 2008 as the final data point), or approximately 20.8%. Not surprising, given the crap that is being played on CBC Radio Two these days.
"But", you may be saying to yourself, "if the total number of radio listeners in the Ottawa market is down, then it would make sense that CBC Radio Two listenership is down, wouldn't it?".
Yes, that is very true. However, as no doubt your investment advisor is telling you right now, if your mutual fund's value has declined, but less than the overall market, then that's a Good Thing. If your mutual fund's value has declined more that the overall market, then that's a Bad Thing. And what happened to the radio market in Ottawa during this period? It declined 4.5%, making the 20.8% decline in listenership for the CBC Radio 2 station in Ottawa a Very Bad Thing indeed.
How about Toronto:
Montreal? Listenership is down 16,400, or 32.6%. The total market is down 9.7%. Bad Thing for CBC Radio Two.
Winnipeg? Listenership is up 3,100, or 8.3%. The total market is also up 4.8%. Good Thing for CBC Radio Two. (What's going on in Winnipeg, you might wonder? A bad mosquito season kept everyone indoors this summer, listening to the radio?)
Well, in numerous statements to the press and to concerned citizens, CBC management has stated that the programming changes introduced on March 19, 2007 (the cancellation of 'Music for a while', 'In Performance', the 'Arts Report' and the 'World at Six' news broadcast on CBC Radio Two) and on Sept. 2 2008 (too numerous to list here) were intended to make CBC Radio Two more relevant to Canadians and to attract a wider, 'more sustainable' audience. CBC have thus defined one of the criteria upon which they are to be judged: number of listeners. Ergo, an increased number of listeners means success, a decreased number of listeners means failure. Dismal, abject failure. Has the CBC been successful, according to this criteria?
For an outsider, it's hard to tell. One source of data is the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement, which makes 'Top Line Radio Statistics' available on their web site. What are 'Top Line Radio Statistics', you ask?
The BBM 'Top Line Radio Statistics' is a list of the radio stations in a given market (called the 'Central Market Area' by the BBM) and the number of listeners who have tuned into that radio station 'for at least one quarter hour during the week'. The time period that the BBM releases to the public is Monday - Sunday, 5:00 AM to 1:00 AM. So, if you tuned into a given radio station sometime during the day, on any day of the week, you could be counted by the BBM as having listened to the station.
I realize this data is not sufficiently detailed enough to draw many conclusions, but it's all we poor plebes have. Has Tom Allen's new show, from 6:00 AM to 10:00 AM, drawn more listeners, for example? Is Rich Terfry's new show, 'Drive', a roaring success? We listeners don't know. We have to rely on the CBC to tell us.
But we can start to draw some conclusions, even with the limited data that we have. Did CBC increase their audience after the March 19, 2007 programming changes? The BBM stats can give us some indication. The BBM Top Line data is now available for the third survey period in 2008, which includes July 7-20 and August 4-31. The second set of CBC programming changes, of course, took place on Sept. 2 2008, so are not covered by this survey. It will be interesting to take a look at the S4 2008 data once it's available.
Let's take a look at each major CBC market, starting with Ottawa, which I have a particular fondness for. The BBM Top Line data is available here, but I have put this data into the form of a graph to make it easier to digest. What are the results? Well, as it turns out, CBC Radio Two has lost 13,300 listeners in the Ottawa market, comparing pre-change listenership (before March 19, 2007, using S1 2007 as the last data point) to post-change listenership (using S3 2008 as the final data point), or approximately 20.8%. Not surprising, given the crap that is being played on CBC Radio Two these days.
"But", you may be saying to yourself, "if the total number of radio listeners in the Ottawa market is down, then it would make sense that CBC Radio Two listenership is down, wouldn't it?".Yes, that is very true. However, as no doubt your investment advisor is telling you right now, if your mutual fund's value has declined, but less than the overall market, then that's a Good Thing. If your mutual fund's value has declined more that the overall market, then that's a Bad Thing. And what happened to the radio market in Ottawa during this period? It declined 4.5%, making the 20.8% decline in listenership for the CBC Radio 2 station in Ottawa a Very Bad Thing indeed.
How about Toronto:
Listenership for CBC Radio Two in Toronto decreased 29,100, or 14.0%. The total market in Toronto is down 2.6%. Bad Thing for CBC Radio Two.
Vancouver? Listenership decreased 49,100, or 21.4%. (Vancouver is a noted hotbed for CBC Radio Two listnership. It must be the Jurgen Goethe connection.) The total market was down 1.6%. Bad Thing for CBC Radio Two.
Montreal? Listenership is down 16,400, or 32.6%. The total market is down 9.7%. Bad Thing for CBC Radio Two.
Winnipeg? Listenership is up 3,100, or 8.3%. The total market is also up 4.8%. Good Thing for CBC Radio Two. (What's going on in Winnipeg, you might wonder? A bad mosquito season kept everyone indoors this summer, listening to the radio?)
Calgary? Listenership for CBC Radio Two is down 9,100, or 13.9%. The total market is down 5.5%. Bad Thing for CBC Radio Two.
Edmonton? Listenership for CBC Radio Two is down 19,200, or 34.2%. The total market is down 1.3%. Very Bad Thing for CBC Radio Two.
So, success, or dismal, abject failure? If you are from Winnipeg, as Mr. Chris Boyce is, you might call this a success. However, if you live in any of the other urban centres surveyed by the BBM, you might consider the CBC programming changes a dismal, abject failure.
As I mention above, the stats are available on the BBM web site. You don't have to take my word for it - look at the data yourself. As Mr. John Gordon used to say, "let the numbers speak".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)