One thing I wondered is how come when the RAJARs come out, a big deal is made nationally about the ratings of the London breakfast shows often overshadowing news about the national figures.
Surely people up North don't know or care about who is presenting on the radio in London. Isn't it a bit like publishing the circulation figures of the Evening Standard in the national press?
I understand where you are coming from with this, however as long as I've been taking an interest in the radio listening figures the press have always taken a Londoncentric skew on the figures, as simply because London is the biggest local radio survey area in the country. There isn't in the Rajar area in the land where there are over 8 million pairs of ears and more than 15 local stations fighting for their attention in one area.
It's also nicely self contained. Broadcasting to London is exactly that - city and suburbs. It's an equal footing for all the competing stations. In other areas of the country the lines are more blurred (like mine in Birmingham) where you have regional stations and localised stations mixed in, so you can't really compare the two.
(e.g In Birmingham you have the regional Kerrang 105.2 but its unfair to compare their figures against a station like 107.7 The Wolf because that only broadcasts to Wolverhampton)
London's importance to commercial radio is also a factor. During the biggest years of Chris Tarrant dominance on 95.8 Capital FM it was believed that his show alone brought Capital 15% of it's total yearly revenue. That much money being poured into one station on one show makes advertisers elsewhere in the country realise what an important outlet radio is.
Going back to a local level, I suppose you also have to ask yourself why someone in the newsroom at your local paper (which looking at you side profile is probably the Yorkshire Post?) does a bit of proper journalism and finds out the Yorkshire radio figures for themselves - which is freely available from the Rajar website, instead of a lazy rewrite of wire copy sent by the PA from London.
Rajar's also probably more meaningful in a large market like London. Considering the pitifully small sample sizes, many small local radio stations' figures are decided by not much more than 50 people. This ends up with ludicrous situations where, for example, Rajar diarist Janice goes out to get her bunions lanced one morning and as a result the figures show the station's lost a quarter of its audience for the daypart in question.
One thing I wondered is how come when the RAJARs come out, a big deal is made nationally about the ratings of the London breakfast shows often overshadowing news about the national figures. Surely people up North don't know or care about who is presenting on the radio in London. Isn't it a bit like publishing the circulation figures of the Evening Standard in the national press?
Simple answer, most national newspapers a based in London, therefore, London is the most important place on the planet. It is, however, not. I am sick of London this and London that. There is nothing special about London, why people think “ohhh London” I don’t know. It’s over priced, too much traffic and too much noise. It’s ugly too, oh yes people go on about St. Paul’s, etc, but come on, the Yorkshire Dales are far more beautiful and awe inspiring, plus there’s no congestion charge.
i think a good illustration of this is when media guardian atrribute the cumulative itv network ratings during a regional slot to a carlton/lwt regional programme such as "carlton country" or whatever.