Why Do People Listen to the Radio? (Part 3)

How much time do we spend listening to music on the radio compared to news, weather, information, sports or commercials?  Music has been a staple of the radio industry since the late 1950's, when TV assumed the primary role of entertaining the family with drama and comedy programs that had once been on radio.  Many analysts believe that radio is nothing more than a juke box and that other programming content is of secondary importance.  But CMRI's surveys reveal that music is but one element of a complex medium for most listeners. People are using radio not just to listen to music but to understand the world around them, their community and basic things that affect their lives.

In an earlier post on why people listen to radio it was hypothesized that: "The human voice is the primary feature of the radio that attracts listeners.  Male voices, female voices, local and foreign accents; old and young, intelligent, witty, knowledgeable, worldly, dignified...inquisitive, opinionated, mocking, gossipy, condescending voices, the human voice is the essential feature of the radio listening experience. The voice, expressing facts, ideas, meaning and emotions, is compelling and it draws us to the radio."

CMRI's Media Trends Survey has tracked usage and attitudes toward Canadian media, TV, radio and the internet, for the past ten years.  Since 2007 we have examined radio listening habits in depth to better understand why people listen to the radio.  We keep it simple for survey respondents. We ask them a series of questions about their primary reasons for using radio. We also ask them how much time in a typical week they spend listening to radio and what percentage goes to music, news, sports, etc. 

The chart below shows that all radio listeners, as well as CBC Radio 1 and 2 listeners, consistently say that music is a primary reason for tuning into the radio.  Only local news (not shown) is comparable as a primary reason to listen.

The Media Trends Survey shows that in winter 2011-12 the average person listened to radio for some 11 hours per week.  This includes people who report not listening to radio at all, which brings the average down slightly. Music comprises exactly half (5.5 hours) of the 11.0 weekly hours Canadians spend listening to the radio.  News, weather, information, sports, commercials, etc. also account for 5.5 hours per week.

Radio listening is dramatically affected by age.  Younger people aged 18-34 listen to radio for only about one-third as much as persons aged 55-plus. Teens and kids listen to so little radio they are usually not even measured in surveys. Male and female listeners are very similar, listening for about the same total hours per week, with roughly equal proportions of music versus information.  With the exception of younger listeners, who spend a greater proportion of their radio listening with music, virtually all population groups spend equally large proportions of their listening hours with both music and information.

Not unexpectedly, CBC Radio 1 and Radio 2 listeners are much heavier consumers of radio, at 14-15 hours per week, well above the average of the population.  Note that the data reflect all their radio listening, not just hours spent with CBC radio.  Both Radio 1 and Radio 2 listeners spend a considerable number of weekly hours with music but in both cases the majority of their listening goes to information content of one type or another.   

People who own iPads, use Facebook, own an iPod or a smartphone are just below average when it comes to total weekly hours listening to radio, demonstrating once again that new media do not necessarily replace older media. The exceptions to the rule are people who download video/music to their smartphone, however, this group makes up only about 1 in 20 people.  And, another group who listens to the radio less is those who tweet, who must be too consumed with swimming in the tweet stream to turn on the radio.

Finally, those who vote for the three main political parties are pretty much alike in terms of their radio listening.  Supporters of all three parties spend roughly the same amount of time listening to music on the radio.  Conservative supporters are slightly heavier radio users and they spend more of that extra listening time with information rather than music. 

The 2011 survey results are from CMRI's Media Trends Survey conducted November-December 2011 among a representative national sample of approximately 900 Anglophone respondents aged 18-plus.  Margin of error +/-3.3%.  The Media Trends Survey has been conducted for ten consecutive years and has surveyed over 15,000 Canadians in total in this period. It is the only survey to have measured media use and attitudes continuously over this decade. The Media Trends Survey is not sponsored by any one industry or affiliated with a media company.  Therefore, the surveys are scrupulously designed not to bias respondents into favouring one medium or media outlet over another. 

Do Canadians Still Think U.S. TV is Better?

When I was growing up in the 1950’s and ‘60’s we could all tell a Canadian TV show from an American.  There were telling features, even to us kids; slower pace, grainy picture (which I later learned was a function of the cheaper film used), fewer scenes, over acting, under acting, less violence, fewer action scenes, small crowd scenes, buildings never burnt down or cars crashed, same actors in every series and a general feeling that a show was Canadian, even if there were no references to Canada. Regardless of what Canadian producers and broadcasters did or how much promotion Canadian shows received, they had an image problem and often found it hard to attract an audience, at least among cool kids in our neighourhood.  That has all changed, or has it?



There were some good Canadian drama and comedy in the early days of Canadian television, 1960-1990.  Wojeck, King of Kensington, The Beachcombers, Night Heat, Adderley, Sidestreet, Chautauqua Girl, Programme X, Anne of Greene Gables, Seeing Things, Quentin Durgens M.P., Empire Inc., Last Call, You’ve Come a Long Way Katie, the first Degrassi series are just a few titles that come to mind.  Some of these attracted large audiences.  Anne broke viewing records which still stand today and even shows like The Beachcombers had as many as two million viewers some nights, although the ratings were only collected a few weeks per year, not every day of the year, a practice which only started in the mid-80’s. 

Part of the problem may have been that for every quality Canadian series, there were 3 or 4 not so stellar productions that existed only to satisfy Cancon requirements.

Today’s Canadian drama and comedy appear to be just as glitzy and fast-paced as anything on American TV.  The Border, Bomb Girls, Flashpoint, Republic of Doyle are all seemingly “as good” as anything on the U.S. networks, some are being bought in New York for summer runs.  The quality is there, if not the quantity.

CMRI's Media Trends Survey has tracked usage and attitudes toward Canadian media, TV, radio and the internet, for the past ten years.  We have tried to determine whether attitudes toward Canadian TV drama and comedy changed have with the times.

For the last decade opinions about Canadian programs have been consistent.  For example, an overwhelming majority of Canadians have agreed/strongly agreed that it is important to have Canadian TV news programs.  If anything, the percentage who strongly agree has grown over the past ten years.  Only a tiny percentage of people have disagreed that Canadian TV news is important. 
 

However, a much larger percentage of respondents every year disagree/strongly disagree that it is important to have Canadian TV drama programs. 3 in 10 have consistently had some level of disagreement about whether Canadian TV drama is important to them. On the flip side, the percentage who strongly agree about the importance of indigenous drama is higher today than it was a decade ago.

The real test, however, is to ask people whether U.S. stations have better drama and comedy. 4 in 5 have year after year favoured U.S. stations/programs in our surveys.  Results have not changed in this entire period. So Canadian programs would appear to have an image problem, even after all these years.

And the demographics are not very encouraging.  While there is little difference between male and female attitudes toward Canadian programs, there is a difference among age groups.  Older people are more inclined to disagree that U.S. programs are better but the younger one gets, the less favourable attitudes are toward Canadian drama and comedy.

So what do we do about this situation, which seems to act as a headwind for Canadian programs?  We could shut down the CBC as Ezra Levant and Andrew Cohen seem to want, since it is the major contributor to Canadian drama and comedy and after 60 years of trying hasn’t been able to improve the image problem.  Maybe the CBC is part of the problem, without knowing it and it's time to do another study. Probable result: ban U.S. programs on CBC.  Levant and Cohen could co-chair the Royal Commission on the CBC.  Or, we could bolster the promotion budgets of Canadian programs on CBC and private broadcasters, using a fund that James Moore could create, the Moore Fund.  We might start asking Canadians to pay more for their much beloved U.S. programs and use those funds to support Canadian programs. This would allow us to produce more of our high quality Canadian drama and comedy because this may be more of a quantity rather than quality issue.

Research provides a map but can’t really tell you where the gold mine is.  So, after identifying the problem, I am turning it over to the persons I think can offer the most sage advice, TV writers and creators, who hang out here.

The 2011 survey results are from CMRI's Media Trends Survey conducted November-December 2011 among a representative national sample of approximately 900 Anglophone respondents aged 18-plus.  Margin of error +/-3.3%.  The Media Trends Survey has been conducted for ten consecutive years and has surveyed over 15,000 Canadians in total in this period. It is the only survey to have measured media use and attitudes continuously over this decade. The Media Trends Survey is not sponsored by any one industry or affiliated with a media company.  Therefore, the surveys are scrupulously designed not to bias respondents into favouring one medium or media outlet over another. 

Why Does CBC Get 'Hundreds' of Access to Information Requests?



The CBC has faced criticism from not only its most perfidious enemies but also its most devoted friends for the way it has responded to requests for information about its financial affairs and staff.  The CBC became subject to the Access to Information (ATI) act in 2007, meaning it has had to deal with a new, unfamiliar level of accountability.

Until recently CBC has waged a pitched battle to keep secret even the most mundane information about its finances and activities.  This was revealed in some detail at a Parliamentary Committee last fall.  Sun Media, who have made "hundreds" of ATI requests since CBC fell under the Act, explained how intransigent the CBC had been up until that point. CBC didn’t want to reveal how many vehicles it owned or leased, for example, and only reluctantly did so after a long delay.

Six vehicles parked for the better part of a week at a neighbour's, Col. Williams

CBC went so far as to not only refuse information to those requesting it, usually citing section 68.1 of the Act which allows the CBC to withhold any information related to journalistic, creative or programming activities, but when decisions were appealed, it would not provide the requested information to the Information Commissioner, an independent officer responsible for ATI.  It went further and would not even search for documents that it felt would be subject to 68.1. 

The Information Commissioner, Suzanne Legault, took the CBC to court and won a court decision in 2010 that would force the CBC to provide her all documents unredacted.  The CBC appealed that decision, lost the appeal in 2011 and afterwards, wisely, said it would start to provide documents to the Commissioner, unless they involved journalistic sources and such.  During this period the CBC president was asked to appear before a Parliamentary Committee to explain himself, which is often the only way to get the Corporation to change its position, as detailed in an earlier post.

To test the system I made an official request for information in 2008; very simply, I requested CBC correspondence or documents referring to me or CMRI during 2007 and 2008.  After a year’s wait I received dozens of pages of information, the great majority of which was redacted, i.e., excluded under section 68.1, although my request had nothing to do with journalism or creative matters.  The response I received from CBC was signed by a mid-level manager but I understand that in the first year or so, all responses were personally reviewed and signed by Robert Rabinovitch, then president of CBC.

The ATI Act states that a requestor must pay a $5 application fee upon making a request.  The CBC has the right to charge search fees if a request is deemed to take more than a prescribed amount of time.  I was told initially that the search fees would be over $700, unless I could narrow the terms of the search to take no more than 5 hours search and 125 pages of documents. This is the limit stated in the Act before additional fees apply. CBC estimated that it would take over 70 hours of searching to fulfill my request. Originally I had requested documents from 2001 to 2008, so I narrowed the search to 2007-08 and paid a fee of $355.  Just recently I learned that one can avoid search fees by making numerous smaller requests that fall within the 5 hour/125 page limit.  One only pays $5 each and this is why Sun Media has made “hundreds” of small requests, that is, to avoid paying search fees.

For the past decade CMRI's Media Trends Survey, the only survey in Canada that has tracked attitudes towards and usage of TV, radio and the internet in this period, has asked Canadians their opinions about various issues. This year I thought it appropriate to ask Canadians whether they thought CBC “should provide the public detailed information about its finances.” 

The great majority of Canadians agrees or strongly agrees that CBC should be open about its finances. Only 1.2% of respondents fell into the strongly disagree category, which is rare in opinion research. Young, old, male, female, there is widespread agreement demographically that the CBC be an open and transparent organization.  CBC has been been making an effort in this regard.  For example, it now publishes a quarterly performance report, which contains targets and measures of success.  A future post will explore these targets and measures and explain why some are contradictory and often conceal as much as they reveal. 

People who voted for all the main political parties also agree that CBC should be open about its finances but, interestingly, it is the NDP and Conservative supporters who feel most strongly about an open CBC.  Of course, the NDP are the most supportive of CBC TV and radio, while the Conservatives are the least supportive, but both want an open and transparent CBC.  Some 8 out of 10 Conservative and NDP supporters feel this way but only about 6 in 10 Liberal supporters agree that the CBC should be open  regarding its finances. 

 

The 2011 survey results are from CMRI's Media Trends Survey conducted November-December 2011 among a representative national sample of approximately 900 Anglophone respondents aged 18-plus.  Margin of error +/-3.3%.  The Media Trends Survey has been conducted for ten consecutive years and has surveyed over 15,000 Canadians in total in this period. It is the only survey to have measured media use and attitudes continuously over this decade. The Media Trends Survey is not sponsored by any one industry or affiliated with a media company.  Therefore, the surveys are scrupulously designed not to bias respondents into favouring one medium or media outlet over another. 

Why Do People Use the Internet?

Most broadcasters have spent a great deal of time trying to develop an internet strategy.  The CBC in particular seems determined to adopt the internet as its primary distribution mechanisim.  Here we re-visit some data trends and examine some new ones to better gauge the impact of the internet. 

Even when the internet was "dialed up" through the phone and incoming calls were cut off there were pundits claiming that the internet would result in the demise of TV, not to mention killing radio, newspapers, bricks and mortar stores, banks, the post office and pretty much every other human activity, except eating and sex.  The decline of newspapers and a reduction in snail mail are real and undoubtedly caused by the internet.  The internet has affected almost everything that deals with the printed word.  But, is the internet really taking time away from TV or radio?

Our ten-year study of media use shows that the internet is not nearly as pervasive as traditional radio and TV.  99% of people use TV and radio at least once per month but not everyone uses the internet. The chart below shows the trend in the percentage of Canadians using the internet and downloading/streaming of music (and video) on the net at least once a month.

Even by the mid-2000's the internet had a very substantial monthly 'reach', the proportion who used the internet for an hour at least once per month. Two-thirds of Canadians were using the internet at least once a month in 2004 and it grew to about 4 in 5 by 2009. However, internet use on a monthly basis seems to have stabilized at about 80% and has not grown in the past two years.  There may always be a group of people of a certain age and/or income group who will not use the net. 

A similar pattern is seen in downloading/streaming audio and video from the net which was practiced by about 1 in 5 people in 2004.  It grew to about 40% by 2009 but it too has stabilized in the past two years.  Barring some unforeseen new technology (and a reduction in data costs), it would seem that downloading/streaming may peak at levels well below overall internet use.  If devices that made downloading simpler and more intuitive, such as Apple TV and Google TV, become more pervasive, then internet listening/viewing may become more common.

In the chart below we track the weekly hours spent using the internet (at home, work or elsewhere). The surveys reveal that internet use basically doubled from 2004 to 2009, from just less than 6 hours per week to about 11 hours per week. But in the past 3 years internet use has stabilized at 10-11 hours per week. It may not grow much from this point on, although video streaming to the TV set has the potential to increase but is this internet use or TV viewing? 

TV use has been measured by the Media Trends Survey for ten consecutive years and it has been unaffected by the internet, remaining at about 19 hours per week through the decade, a decade when not only the internet but also many other media choices were introduced.  19 hours per week is less than ‘Nielsen’ ratings say but it is probably a more realistic estimate of the television audience.  Statistics Canada’s 2011 General Social Survey, conducted every 5 years or so and designed to measure how Canadians spend their time, mirrors the results of the Media Trends Survey.  Comscore data on total internet use has shown a very similar pattern to the results of our surveys. All the data point to one conclusion:  TV is not affected by the internet and continues to play a more important role in the lives of Canadians than the internet.

Since 2006 we have tracked cell phone/smartphone usage and the results are very telling.  Yes, roughly 3 in 4 Canadians now have a cell phone or smartphone and more and more people use it to text and send photos but less than 1 in 10 download music or video with their mobile device and there is scant evidence that downloading music/video to your phone is considered important or likely to become mainstream any time soon.

What about other new media?  In our 2011-12 survey we began tracking use of Facebook, Twitter, Apple TV, Netflix, etc.  Apple TV use barely measured in the survey while Netflix had a substantial penetration of about 1 in 12 people, about the same as Twitter.  A surprising 13% of people indicated they owned a tablet computer but the much more established iPod technology is still only owned by about 1 in 3 Canadians.  Only Facebook, which is used by about 1 in 2 people, comes close to being used by a majority of Canadians. 

What about CBC radio and TV?  Our surveys show that CBC Radio 2, even in its reduced state, is used for at least an hour per month by more people (9.0%) than Twitter (7.3%) or Netflix (7.6%).  (That’s pretty cool but generally ignored by the media.)  CBC Radio 1 (31.4%) and CBC News Network (33.0%) have monthly usage levels equal to that of the iPod.  (Maybe an IPO is in the works?)  CBC TV is a monster, used by over 70% of Canadians on a monthly basis. (Somebody call the Competition Bureau.) 

The Media Trends Survey has been conducted for ten consecutive years and has surveyed over 15,000 Canadians in total in this period. It is the only survey to have measured media use and attitudes continuously over this decade. The Media Trends Survey is not sponsored by any one industry or affiliated with a media company.  Therefore, the surveys are scrupulously designed not to bias respondents into favouring one medium or media outlet over another.  Barry Kiefl’s blog can be found here.

Local TV News re-Emerging?

For decades it has been believed that local TV news anchors a station in a community and plays a major role in building audiences for other programs in the schedule.  In an earlier post we saw that CBC TV local news in the winter of 2011-12 seemed to have turned a corner of sorts.  CBC TV local news scored its best results in a decade, with about 1 in 5 Canadians saying it has the best local news.  Support had shrunk to less than 1 in 10 under the guidance of the last management team.  Still well back of CTV but the gap between the two has shrunk considerably.


In 2011 CTV was the clear leader in local news, chosen by some 35% as having the best local news programming (see chart). CBC was second with 21%, as mentioned its best year in the last decade, while Global had 18% support.  CITY TV, which is not available to the entire country like CBC or CTV, had only 6% support, as did CTV Two.  Whether it is a combination of broadcasters like CTV reducing its local news or CBC improving its local coverage, the result is a positive one for CBC TV.


One important factor is that CBC has had access to the CRTC LPIF fund the past two years.  LPIF accounted for some $40 million in funding for CBC in 2011 and Mother Corp seems to be using it with good effect.  The chart below shows that CBC's local news actually lead CTV in 2011 in several important population groups.  CBC TV was a big winner in homes that depend on over-the-air TV reception with more than 50% choosing CBC as having the best local news, crushing CTV and Global in this group.  CBC local news also leads CTV among CBC radio listeners, cbc.ca users and Netflix subscribers.  CBC, tellingly, does better among males than females.  Facebook and Twitter users are average in their support for CBC.  Twitter users, perhaps because the sample is quite small and so results should be taken with a grain of salt, have an unusual affinity for CITY TV local news.

The Media Trends Survey has been conducted for ten consecutive years and has surveyed over 15,000 Canadians in total in this period. It is the only survey to have measured media use and attitudes continuously over this decade. The Media Trends Survey is not sponsored by any one industry or affiliated with a media company.  Therefore, the surveys are scrupulously designed not to bias respondents into favouring one medium or media outlet over another.

An Open Letter to BBM (Bureau of Broadcast Measurement)

March 26, 2012
Elmer Hildebrand,
Chair, BBM,
1500 Don Mills Rd.,
Toronto, Ontario
M38 3L7

Dear Elmer:
As a current member of BBM, and past member of BBM’s Board, I wish to formally complain about certain business practices of BBM and would like to suggest changes in BBM’s constitution as well as the make up of its Board of Directors.

A client of CMRI’s, XXXX, was a BBM TV member 3-4 years ago and received analyses of BBM data from CMRI. At some point XXXX’s need for BBM data ceased. In error they neglected to inform BBM that they would not be renewing their BBM membership by the required July 1^st date, sixty days before the start of the next broadcast year. BBM assumed they were renewing and sent an invoice for the next year of membership. I understand that subsequently several exchanges of correspondence took place between XXXX and BBM with the former explaining each time that they had not signed a membership agreement for the year in question, nor received any BBM data and that unfortunately the 60-day notice requirement had gone unnoticed by their administration officers.

This year XXXX had a requirement for BBM data. When they approached BBM to renew their membership, XXXX was told by a BBM representative that unless they paid the fees for both the current year and the year that they did not receive BBM data, they would not be permitted to join BBM. Denying access by refusing 2012 membership seems an ill-advised business practice, since XXXX will not join BBM at all under these circumstances. Many members of BBM would presumably ask why BBM would turn away additional revenue.

I am aware of a substantial number of other TV producers who have had similar or related problems gaining access to BBM data. When this particular case arose I came to the realization that BBM’s constitution and Board is not representative of the TV industry in 2012. In my view the current tri-partite make-up of BBM representing broadcasters, advertisers and agencies, all of whom have voting rights and Board membership, does not reflect the basic components of the TV business today.

When BBM came into existence broadcasters were responsible for the great majority of the content on their stations. Today, independent TV producers account for a large proportion of the content on all private and public TV broadcasters. Yet, BBM’s outmoded constitution relegates producers to associate membership and they are denied voting rights and Board membership. Given the central role they now occupy in the broadcasting business, it only seems fair and equitable that producers be allowed full voting membership and a voice in the policy and future direction of BBM.

Broadcasters pay the majority of BBM survey costs and they pay to measure the audience to all programs in their schedules, including those of independents, yet the independent producer cannot readily access BBM data. Many independent producers are being denied access to BBM data due to BBM policies such as the ‘negative option’ issue experienced by XXXX and especially the relatively high fees for membership. Advertising agencies and advertisers pay relatively very little, basically token fees in the case of advertisers, to access BBM data and in my view independent producers should pay less, or a nominal fee given that broadcasters have already paid to measure the audience to their programs. Most broadcasters will not share audience data with independent producers. Some share limited data reluctantly. There are several reasons for this, including the fact that broadcasters negotiate licence fees with the producers who might benefit from knowledge about the audience performance of their shows. The licence fee paid by broadcasters is usually only a fraction of the actual cost of programs.

The current situation finds the great majority of Canada’s TV producers unable to properly study and understand the public’s response to their programs (which are usually funded by tax dollars either from tax credits, the Canadian Media Fund or publicly-funded broadcasters). In my view this is a major public policy issue that has been hidden from view due to the decentralized nature of the independent production industry. I would like to put to the Board a proposal that would amend the constitution and offer full BBM membership to independent TV producers and at least three of the eighteen positions on the Board. (Broadcasters currently have 12 of the 18 board seats and are therefore in a position to control BBM policy and fees.) I believe this would go a long way to ensuring that producers’ interests and those of the public they serve are in future reflected by BBM.

Thank you and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Barry Kiefl,
CMRI

Note to readers: BBM responded on April 4th, saying that the proposal for Board representation "is not an option under our current by-laws. We are going to review this process in the near future and will present your request to the appropriate Committee at that time."

Why Do People Listen to the Radio? (Part 2)

Who can forget when they first became aware of radio? My first exposure as a boy was a riveting play about giant ants which consumed everything in their path, including people. The horror was as real to me as to those who listened to the original War of the Worlds' broadcast. Our first radio experience is usually associated with the spoken word.  The human voice is the primary feature of the radio that attracts listeners.

Male voices, female voices, local and foreign accents; old and young, intelligent, witty, knowledgeable, worldly, dignified, average working people's voices, considerate, tolerant, angry, bellicose, excited, sarcastic, remorseful, soothing, funny, sad, sexy, authoritative, energetic, inquisitive, opinionated, mocking, gossipy, condescending voices, the human voice is the essential feature of the radio listening experience. The voice, expressing facts, ideas, meaning and emotions, is compelling and it draws us to the radio.

Voices on radio tend to be more natural and intimate than on TV. Radio is conversational, often filled with interruptions, short pauses and other features of a normal conversation, whereas TV hosting and interviews are more scripted and formulaic. Michael Enright often says to his guests, nice to meet you on the radio, something he wouldn't do on TV. In TV the players are more conscious of the camera, which represents the audience, and people tend to perform for the audience. The radio audience is in the background, unobtrusive.  

The spontaneity of radio is another critical feature that draws the radio listener. Music, uninterrupted by a host and other spontaneous elements, is not an appealing alternative. On the radio the very fact that the listener doesn't quite know what's coming next is a major attraction. Radio, more than other electronic media, attempts to break with tradition and cross boundaries: pop music when it was sinful, outrageous hosts, sex talk, call-in shows were all invented for radio.  My favourite radio host here in Ottawa was until recently CFRA's Michael Harris, a journalistic encyclopedia, always able to surprise you with his insights. Radio is here-and-now, telling the listener the time of day, the weather throughout the day, when community events are to take place and continually makes other chronological references. There are references to music or interviews "in the next half hour" or "after the news at the top of the hour."  Radio listening is a live, current experience, placing the listener in time and space.

There are some in the radio business, most recently the CBC, who seem to think that internet streaming of music can compete with radio. An interesting experiment and worth doing, yes, but not even close to radio. In the first part of this post we looked at data provided by thousands of Canadians from a national representative sample to show that internet downloading/streaming of music had seemingly peaked and was unlikely to reach the universality of radio any time soon. But there are some sub-groups in the population more likely to download/stream.

For the past decade CMRI's Media Trends Survey, the only survey in Canada that has tracked attitudes and usage of TV, radio and the internet continuously in this period, has asked Canadians to report how they use the electronic media.  99% of people use TV and radio at least once per month but not everyone uses the internet or streams music. The chart below shows the trend in the percentage of Canadians downloading/streaming of music (and video) on the internet for an hour at least once a month among different population groups in 2011-12.

Interestingly, there is no significant difference between men and women when it comes to downloading/streaming. However, as expected, there is a substantial difference between younger and older Canadians.  Persons aged 18-34, who account for 29.7% of the population, are far more likely to stream; 65.3% of them do so.  Older people, aged 55-plus, who account for roughly the same percentage of the population are far less likely to stream, only 17.8% do.

There are other groups in the population more likely to stream internet content, as shown in the chart below.

Twitter users, iPod and iPad owners and tech-savvy people who own smartphones are more likely to download/stream music and other content.  Note that only 7.3% of everyday people actually use Twitter.  CBC Radio 1 listeners, who make up 31.4% of the population are not heavy streamers in relative terms; 40.4% download or stream, about the average.  CBC Radio 2 listeners, who represent about 9% of the population, are also much less likely to download/stream from the internet than techies; less than half do so.  Thus, a CBC music streaming service, as was recently launched, is not a viable replacement for CBC Radio 1-2 listeners.  It may be an interesting niche service to attract a small number of new listeners but it is not an alternative to CBC Radio.

A week after launch the CBC music streaming service reported that about 60,000 people had downloaded the free app, about the number of people who live in Fort McMurray, Alberta, and this was after being heavily promoted on iTunes, CBC Radio and TV and many print outlets that week.  How many apps do you have on your iPhone or iPad that go unused?  The numbers are an early indicator that this is a limited market.

By the way, CBC listeners here are defined as persons who tune to Radio 1 or Radio 2 for at least an hour per month; so the monthly audience 'reach' of Radio 1 at over 30%, or some 6 million Anglophone Canadians, and Radio 2 at just under 10%, or roughly 2 million Canadians, is substantial.  Audience reach, using a minimum time period such as one-hour, cuts through the dazzling (and sometimes misleading) statistics that techies use to tout web services such as page views, hits and unique visitors (sometimes based on as little as a few seconds of use in a month).  Reach based on an hour of use is a much more telling metric for rating the impact of a service.

CBC programmers must be cognizant of their audience and not risk alienating the large CBC radio following that has been cultivated over many decades.  CBC radio listeners, who are attracted to the essential features of radio, including CBC's program hosts that speak to and for them, on the easily accessed, anywhere medium of radio are a treasure that CBC should value.  The only thing that really matters in radio is your audience.

The 2011 results are from CMRI's Media Trends Survey conducted November-December 2011 among a representative national sample of approximately 900 Anglophone respondents aged 18-plus.  Margin of error +/-3.3%.  The Media Trends Survey has been conducted for ten consecutive years and has surveyed over 15,000 Canadians in total in this period.