Royal baby brings BBC “biggest audience ever”

Newsrooms around the world grapple with this question every day: have we done this story to death? Is it still the lead? Do people really care?

So how can we accurately assess this?

In the radio industry our traditional metrics have made it difficult to gauge as we wait for the next survey and retrospectively guess how impactful a single day or event has been.

We rely on a mix of unreliable indicators, including the number of audience contacts that a story generates, to make decisions. Gut instinct is also required.

It isn’t always realistic to assume that a story is unpopular just because there are calls complaining about excessive coverage.

Disgruntled listeners are typically more motivated to pick up the phone, and they are not often representative of the entire audience’s point of view.

Coverage of the birth of the third heir to the British throne this week is a classic example.

It has created controversy in newsrooms and program meetings in this Commonwealth nation, with serious journalists arguing there is no news value in a married woman of childbearing age giving birth to a healthy baby boy.  

Every Australian radio station definitely thought it was worth a big splash on the day. The story received varying coverage and treatment on every radio station in every market.

The timing of the announcement helped, coming just after 5.30am in time for breakfast programs.

But ff you thought Australian coverage of the royal birth was excessive, spare a thought for British audiences. Those who weren’t interested in the baby’s arrival there were even more inundated with unwanted information.

And they complained to the public broadcaster there in droves.

The BBC says it has received a large number of complaints from audience members who say the coverage was too much, while other more important stories were being dropped and ignored..

Complainants also said the BBC coverage was biased towards the Royal Family.

The broadcasting company released a statement on their complaints website arguing that care had been taken to ensure other news items were covered alongside the royal baby, adding that the story had been “extremely popular” with audiences.

It says broadcasts, including the announcement of the birth and the appearance of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge with the new prince, “received complaints from some viewers who feel there has been too much coverage of the royal baby story and also from some who feel that the coverage has been biased in favour of the monarchy”.

They said their coverage provided balanced viewing for audiences as they featured opinions of those both pro and against the monarchy, as well as broadcasting other major news and sporting events.

Importantly, the BBC was now able to back their defence with metrics that are immediately available, with their statement saying:

Monday was the biggest global day and second biggest UK day ever for BBC News Online, with 19.4 million unique browsers globally and 10.8 million from the UK.

“We are satisfied that our audiences had both the best coverage of a major historical event – the birth of a new heir to the throne – as well as options to view other news across BBC output as a whole.

“We have also been careful to feature a range of contributors and opinions across our coverage, including those who do not support the monarchy or the attention this event has received. This included featuring the opinions of Republic, which campaigns for the abolition of the monarchy, and a number of other voices.”

19.4 million unique browsers – almost the number of people living in Australia – can’t be wrong. The numbers back the gut instinct – it may not have been hard news, but it was among the biggest stories of the year for Australia and one of the biggest ever for Britain.

If you ran it, you were on the right track.

 

Opinion piece by Lisa Sweeney, a journalist, former senior executive in ABC Radio and ABC News and Current Affairs and former Head of Radio at AFTRS