But it doesn't counter any point as it's not comparing like with like.
Yes it does. You used Emmerdale - a top rating show, as an example of competition for EE. Yet Corrie has no competition on this scale come Thursday and it drops by nearly 3 million on average compared with Monday. Which was my counter argument against your claim.
My point is totally valid in the context of the point you raised.
Quality and popularity are different things. If ratings were the only indicator do you think BBC and ITV would spend so much on focus groups?
World in Action - in it's day a very heavy hitter.
Whether ITV has ever scheduled a heavy hitter against EE does not make your point. I don't see the connection. My point is that when there is that significant viewers are lost.
The point you seem to be missing is that EE/ED clashes have been going on for a few years and both soaps always lose (not loose) viewers.
You pretended that these clashes are some sort of shocking new development when they clearly are not.
Yes it does. You used Emmerdale - a top rating show, as an example of competition for EE. Yet Corrie has no competition on this scale come Thursday and it drops by nearly 3 million on average compared with Monday. Which was my counter argument against your claim.
My point is totally valid in the context of the point you raised.
No, it's not. You're point is not valid. For example if Corrie manages say to rate 15m next week and EE maintains 10m, will you say that Corrie is 1/3 more popular or better?
Comparing the fate of the Corrie thursday episode with EE in a regular timeslot is not comparing like with like becuase Corrie rates higher on it's traditional timeslots, so yes ITV has an issue there, but no it does not compare to EE in it's traditional slot.
No, it's not. You're point is not valid. For example if Corrie manages say to rate 15m next week and EE maintains 10m, will you say that Corrie is 1/3 more popular or better?
Comparing the fate of the Corrie thursday episode with EE in a regular timeslot is not comparing like with like becuase Corrie rates higher on it's traditional timeslots, so yes ITV has an issue there, but no it does not compare to EE in it's traditional slot.
What on earth are you talking about?
It's clear you don't really understand the ratings. I'm very sorry but this is not how it works.
It's clear you don't really understand the ratings. I'm very sorry but this is not how it works.
Im countering your point. I do understand how ratings work, and Im saying your counter argument regarding thursday episode of Corrie is not a good comparison as there are other factors that are not alike
Quality and popularity are different things. If ratings were the only indicator do you think BBC and ITV would spend so much on focus groups?
World in Action - in it's day a very heavy hitter.
Whether ITV has ever scheduled a heavy hitter against EE does not make your point. I don't see the connection. My point is that when there is that significant viewers are lost.
Len what proof do you have that the views of a couple of people on DS are widespread and the views of the majority of the 9/10m people who watch EastEnders? None. Ratings are the best indicator of whether things are going well for a soap or not because they do drop when things aren't. In July 2006 EE dipped to 3.9m against Emmerdale and the show's producer was replaced soon after. At the moment EE would never drop that low against ANY programme. Recently it's been up against I'm a celebrity get me out of here and has still had over 6m viewers. IAC is more popular than Emmerdale!
How can you apply a couple of negative views from here to a majority who watch the show. There's more positive comments on here and these come from a wide range of faces not the same few funnily enough like the negative comments seem to.
DS isn't a good indicator of public opinion but if you're going to suggest it is then you can't ignore the fact that more seem positive about the show than negative. Keep banging the drum hunni, it isn't going to make your opinion a widely held view.
Im countering your point. I do understand how ratings work, and Im saying your counter argument regarding thursday episode of Corrie is not a good comparison as there are other factors that are not alike
Actually I think you have forgot the point you tried to make.
EastEnders is up nearly 13% this year while every episode on BBC Three now rates over 1 million - which is now the top rated show across multi-channels for this time. It's always at the top of iplayer. I think the weekly reach is recorded as 17 million.
These are all indications the show is in a healthy state. To further back this up on Barb those with boxes have to give an index rating after each episode and EE is also up here as well.
Using Emmerdale clashes once a week as an example of dented EE figures compared to low ratings for Corrie when it doesn't clash isn't the way it works which is why I asked you to explain it but you couldn't.
The point you seem to be missing is that EE/ED clashes have been going on for a few years and both soaps always lose (not loose) viewers.
You pretended that these clashes are some sort of shocking new development when they clearly are not.
I don't think Len really does understand ratings. Hence his comment about ratings not being the only thing that matters. Public opinion does matter too I'm not saying it doesn't but only when it reaches a widespread level. There's nothing currently to suggest a good portion of the wider audience aren't liking BK's work.
What other barometer do television shows have as to whether things are going well or not? The majority of soap viewers don't come on forums like this one. And they can't send a weekly survey to every single viewer! It's impractical so a show's performance has to fall down to ratings. Atm EE is rating healthy and is the soap up the most year on year this year. Those are the facts. Everything else on here is just opinions. Seems Len wants to believe that the majority of EE fans must feel the same way he does but he has no way of proving that. If he thinks he can prove it then I'd like to see the proof.
I did not say that. Please ensure that when attributing anything to me you are accurate.
The point is that people argue that because EE is performing well in it's timeslot proves the show is in good mettle.
Im saying it's not that simple for reasons listed in previous posts.
Are the BBC pleased with this? Of course. Is it the sole barometer? No.
So, if you now acknowledge that EE has traditionally had clashes with ED, why bother raising the clashes at all in a discussion of the Kirkwood era? It proves nothing because both shows have always lost viewers.
How can you apply a couple of negative views from here to a majority who watch the show. There's more positive comments on here and these come from a wide range of faces not the same few funnily enough like the negative comments seem to.
And that's all it is. It's always the same four users who are dominate in these threads. They are the only four who seem to have major issues with the current state of play yet make out everyone else hates it too which isn't the case!!!
I got called a BBC mole last week by one of them!! It's madness.
Len what proof do you have that the views of a couple of people on DS are widespread and the views of the majority of the 9/10m people who watch EastEnders? None. Ratings are the best indicator of whether things are going well for a soap or not because they do drop when things aren't. In July 2006 EE dipped to 3.9m against Emmerdale and the show's producer was replaced soon after. At the moment EE would never drop that low against ANY programme. Recently it's been up against I'm a celebrity get me out of here and has still had over 6m viewers. IAC is more popular than Emmerdale!
How can you apply a couple of negative views from here to a majority who watch the show. There's more positive comments on here and these come from a wide range of faces not the same few funnily enough like the negative comments seem to.
DS isn't a good indicator of public opinion but if you're going to suggest it is then you can't ignore the fact that more seem positive about the show than negative. Keep banging the drum hunni, it isn't going to make your opinion a widely held view.
1. I never said that it reflected the views of anyone other than myself. Please don't attribute anything to inaccurately
2. Ratings give an indication of how many are watching. They do not indicate quality. Ratings slips on soaps have tended to be slow and happen quite a while after problems began. Think Corrie in 1996
3. I haven't applied anything. Please don't attribute things to me that I haven't said. I have offered my opinion which is just as valid as any other on here positive or negative. Numbers of comments positive or negative in themselves do not reveal anything.
4. I havent said any such thing. Im not banging a drum, Im involved in a discussion on a forum. I am entitled to my opinion and not have it diminished by you because you don't like it. That doesn't make it invalid!
Actually I think you have forgot the point you tried to make.
EastEnders is up nearly 13% this year while every episode on BBC Three now rates over 1 million - which is now the top rated show across multi-channels for this time. It's always at the top of iplayer. I think the weekly reach is recorded as 17 million.
These are all indications the show is in a healthy state. To further back this up on Barb those with boxes have to give an index rating after each episode and EE is also up here as well.
Using Emmerdale clashes once a week as an example of dented EE figures compared to low ratings for Corrie when it doesn't clash isn't the way it works which is why I asked you to explain it but you couldn't.
But I did. I countered your argument by saying you are not comparing like with like. You have ignored that and repeated what you previously said, but it's not like and like. You are making assumptions and ignoring facts just to justify something.
How else can a TV programme's health be judged? By a small number of prolific complainers on Digital Spy, perhaps?:rolleyes:
Please tell us some of the blockbuster programmes which ITV1 scheduled against EE in years gone by? With the exception of Emmerdale, I would say clashes with EE have always been avoided. Same goes for BBC1's weak competition in the Corrie timeslot.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think there is an agreement between the BBC and ITV not to screen Corrie and EastEnders at the same time. I don't think there is a similar agreement concerning Emmerdale and Eastenders.
In the interest of balance, I think the ratings for both Corrie and Eastenders are inflated because of the lack of credible competition.
And that's all it is. It's always the same four users who are dominate in these threads. They are the only four who seem to have major issues with the current state of play yet make out everyone else hates it too which isn't the case!!!
I got called a BBC mole last week by one of them!! It's madness.
Putting ratings aside...can you honestly say that the quality of EastEnders has been great / fantastic / outstanding?
I have not seen a decent episode since before the fire.
As others have said, the decline happens slowly. Mark my words...you will be hearing in a few months things like "crisis talks at EastEnders", "new producer drafted in to resuscitate Eastenders" or "Bryan Kirkwood steps down from EastEnders to spend more time with the family".
P.S. I speak as a genuine fan. I am not blinded by my liking of it. I am not the kind of person who will say things are great regardless...
Putting ratings aside...can you honestly say that the quality of EastEnders has been great / fantastic / outstanding?
I have not seen a decent episode since before the fire.
As others have said, the decline happens slowly. Mark my words...you will be hearing in a few months things like "crisis talks at EastEnders", "new producer drafted in to resuscitate Eastenders" or "Bryan Kirkwood steps down from EastEnders to spend more time with the family".
P.S. I speak as a genuine fan. I am not blinded by my liking of it. I am not the kind of person who will say things are great regardless...
BIB: That's subjective.
One person may think it's terrible, one person may think it's great. There is never a universally held view for this kind of thing. Oh, that's a shame, you don't like BK's work. Apparently lots of people do; they think it's great. Does this mean they're "wrong"?
As for ratings, they are, again, subjective. Lots of people are watching the show because they like it. I said this in an older topic: how I don't understand how people can "watch a show out of habit". Think about that, it sounds ridiculous. I doubt most of you have a strange need to watch EE even if you hate it because otherwise you'll, oh I don't know, explode or something. If there's nothing else on, they won't watch a show they dislike. That would be part of the "nothing else on" to them, surely?! So they would go and find something else to do...
Therefore, if the ratings are high, it means lots of people are enjoying it. To them, it's good. To you, it isn't; so while you may think the show isn't doing great, that doesn't mean everyone does, you can't make other people change their opinion to yours, and you can't treat yours like fact.
(Not directed at you only, of course, but to all the people saying EE is rubbish and treating it like universal truth.)
One person may think it's terrible, one person may think it's great. There is never a universally held view for this kind of thing. Oh, that's a shame, you don't like BK's work. Apparently lots of people do; they think it's great. Does this mean they're "wrong"?
As for ratings, they are, again, subjective. Lots of people are watching the show because they like it. I said this in an older topic: how I don't understand how people can "watch a show out of habit". Think about that, it sounds ridiculous. I doubt most of you have a strange need to watch EE even if you hate it because otherwise you'll, oh I don't know, explode or something. If there's nothing else on, they won't watch a show they dislike. That would be part of the "nothing else on" to them, surely?! So they would go and find something else to do...
Therefore, if the ratings are high, it means lots of people are enjoying it. To them, it's good. To you, it isn't; so while you may think the show isn't doing great, that doesn't mean everyone does, you can't make other people change their opinion to yours, and you can't treat yours like fact.
(Not directed at you only, of course, but to all the people saying EE is rubbish and treating it like universal truth.)
That's an assumption. It only means people are watching it, enjoyment cannot be gauged from ratings.
As for watching out of habit, all soaps rely on this and it's why a ratings slide starts some time after quality begins to slip - people wait to see if it improves or assume it will!
EE and Corrie have both experienced this to some extent in the past.
That's an assumption. It only means people are watching it, enjoyment cannot be gauged from ratings.
As for watching out of habit, all soaps rely on this and it's why a ratings slide starts some time after quality begins to slip - people wait to see if it improves or assume it will!
EE and Corrie have both experienced this to some extent in the past.
BIB 1: So then why would they KEEP watching? (Which leads us to...)
BIB 2: Uh. Right. Only if I'm not liking a show, I'm not going to keep watching it in the hopes it will get better. Programmes change over TIME, especially soaps. This isn't one of those "give BK time" things, because he's had long enough and if you don't think he's improved the show, then fair enough. I'm just saying, if you think it's bad you can't assume it'll be top notch in the immediate episode after. I'd stop watching and think "okay, if I tune in next month or by Christmas/Easter/July/whenever, it may be more enjoyable."
Of course, not everyone will do what I would. But why waste half an hour or more of your time to see if something is getting better if you're clearly not enjoying yourself?
BIB 1: So then why would they KEEP watching? (Which leads us to...)
BIB 2: Uh. Right. Only if I'm not liking a show, I'm not going to keep watching it in the hopes it will get better. Programmes change over TIME, especially soaps. This isn't one of those "give BK time" things, because he's had long enough and if you don't think he's improved the show, then fair enough. I'm just saying, if you think it's bad you can't assume it'll be top notch in the immediate episode after. I'd stop watching and think "okay, if I tune in next month or by Christmas/Easter/July/whenever, it may be more enjoyable."
Of course, not everyone will do what I would. But why waste half an hour or more of your time to see if something is getting better if you're clearly not enjoying yourself?
My point is that if the quality doesn't improve I don't think they'll maintain ratings. It takes time for slippage of a core audience of the big soaps. That has been the case in the past. Audiences dwindle over time, not immediately.
I don't watch EE as religiously as I watch Corrie, or as I did last year, but it's on in our livingroom most episodes. I don't always have remote control!!
I enjoy watching with a critical eye and will post how I find things. That I think the show is poor at the moment seems to offend a core set here, not because they counter argue, but because any criticism of EE is offensive to them.
The more I provide examples to explain my opinion the more dismissive and offended this core group gets. It's fine, I'll post as I see it.
I don't think Len really does understand ratings. Hence his comment about ratings not being the only thing that matters. Public opinion does matter too I'm not saying it doesn't but only when it reaches a widespread level. There's nothing currently to suggest a good portion of the wider audience aren't liking BK's work.
What other barometer do television shows have as to whether things are going well or not? The majority of soap viewers don't come on forums like this one. And they can't send a weekly survey to every single viewer! It's impractical so a show's performance has to fall down to ratings. Atm EE is rating healthy and is the soap up the most year on year this year. Those are the facts. Everything else on here is just opinions. Seems Len wants to believe that the majority of EE fans must feel the same way he does but he has no way of proving that. If he thinks he can prove it then I'd like to see the proof.
Lou, you are absolutely right there, but there is nothing to say the wider audience think the show is particularly good at the moment. Ratings tell how many are watching, they don't reflect sentiment. I don't think you understand it though...
Comments
Yes it does. You used Emmerdale - a top rating show, as an example of competition for EE. Yet Corrie has no competition on this scale come Thursday and it drops by nearly 3 million on average compared with Monday. Which was my counter argument against your claim.
My point is totally valid in the context of the point you raised.
You pretended that these clashes are some sort of shocking new development when they clearly are not.
No, it's not. You're point is not valid. For example if Corrie manages say to rate 15m next week and EE maintains 10m, will you say that Corrie is 1/3 more popular or better?
Comparing the fate of the Corrie thursday episode with EE in a regular timeslot is not comparing like with like becuase Corrie rates higher on it's traditional timeslots, so yes ITV has an issue there, but no it does not compare to EE in it's traditional slot.
What on earth are you talking about?
It's clear you don't really understand the ratings. I'm very sorry but this is not how it works.
I did not say that. Please ensure that when attributing anything to me you are accurate.
The point is that people argue that because EE is performing well in it's timeslot proves the show is in good mettle.
Im saying it's not that simple for reasons listed in previous posts.
Are the BBC pleased with this? Of course. Is it the sole barometer? No.
Im countering your point. I do understand how ratings work, and Im saying your counter argument regarding thursday episode of Corrie is not a good comparison as there are other factors that are not alike
How can you apply a couple of negative views from here to a majority who watch the show. There's more positive comments on here and these come from a wide range of faces not the same few funnily enough like the negative comments seem to.
DS isn't a good indicator of public opinion but if you're going to suggest it is then you can't ignore the fact that more seem positive about the show than negative. Keep banging the drum hunni, it isn't going to make your opinion a widely held view.
Actually I think you have forgot the point you tried to make.
EastEnders is up nearly 13% this year while every episode on BBC Three now rates over 1 million - which is now the top rated show across multi-channels for this time. It's always at the top of iplayer. I think the weekly reach is recorded as 17 million.
These are all indications the show is in a healthy state. To further back this up on Barb those with boxes have to give an index rating after each episode and EE is also up here as well.
Using Emmerdale clashes once a week as an example of dented EE figures compared to low ratings for Corrie when it doesn't clash isn't the way it works which is why I asked you to explain it but you couldn't.
What other barometer do television shows have as to whether things are going well or not? The majority of soap viewers don't come on forums like this one. And they can't send a weekly survey to every single viewer! It's impractical so a show's performance has to fall down to ratings. Atm EE is rating healthy and is the soap up the most year on year this year. Those are the facts. Everything else on here is just opinions. Seems Len wants to believe that the majority of EE fans must feel the same way he does but he has no way of proving that. If he thinks he can prove it then I'd like to see the proof.
And that's all it is. It's always the same four users who are dominate in these threads. They are the only four who seem to have major issues with the current state of play yet make out everyone else hates it too which isn't the case!!!
I got called a BBC mole last week by one of them!! It's madness.
1. I never said that it reflected the views of anyone other than myself. Please don't attribute anything to inaccurately
2. Ratings give an indication of how many are watching. They do not indicate quality. Ratings slips on soaps have tended to be slow and happen quite a while after problems began. Think Corrie in 1996
3. I haven't applied anything. Please don't attribute things to me that I haven't said. I have offered my opinion which is just as valid as any other on here positive or negative. Numbers of comments positive or negative in themselves do not reveal anything.
4. I havent said any such thing. Im not banging a drum, Im involved in a discussion on a forum. I am entitled to my opinion and not have it diminished by you because you don't like it. That doesn't make it invalid!
But I did. I countered your argument by saying you are not comparing like with like. You have ignored that and repeated what you previously said, but it's not like and like. You are making assumptions and ignoring facts just to justify something.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think there is an agreement between the BBC and ITV not to screen Corrie and EastEnders at the same time. I don't think there is a similar agreement concerning Emmerdale and Eastenders.
In the interest of balance, I think the ratings for both Corrie and Eastenders are inflated because of the lack of credible competition.
Putting ratings aside...can you honestly say that the quality of EastEnders has been great / fantastic / outstanding?
I have not seen a decent episode since before the fire.
As others have said, the decline happens slowly. Mark my words...you will be hearing in a few months things like "crisis talks at EastEnders", "new producer drafted in to resuscitate Eastenders" or "Bryan Kirkwood steps down from EastEnders to spend more time with the family".
P.S. I speak as a genuine fan. I am not blinded by my liking of it. I am not the kind of person who will say things are great regardless...
BIB: That's subjective.
One person may think it's terrible, one person may think it's great. There is never a universally held view for this kind of thing. Oh, that's a shame, you don't like BK's work. Apparently lots of people do; they think it's great. Does this mean they're "wrong"?
As for ratings, they are, again, subjective. Lots of people are watching the show because they like it. I said this in an older topic: how I don't understand how people can "watch a show out of habit". Think about that, it sounds ridiculous. I doubt most of you have a strange need to watch EE even if you hate it because otherwise you'll, oh I don't know, explode or something. If there's nothing else on, they won't watch a show they dislike. That would be part of the "nothing else on" to them, surely?! So they would go and find something else to do...
Therefore, if the ratings are high, it means lots of people are enjoying it. To them, it's good. To you, it isn't; so while you may think the show isn't doing great, that doesn't mean everyone does, you can't make other people change their opinion to yours, and you can't treat yours like fact.
(Not directed at you only, of course, but to all the people saying EE is rubbish and treating it like universal truth.)
That's an assumption. It only means people are watching it, enjoyment cannot be gauged from ratings.
As for watching out of habit, all soaps rely on this and it's why a ratings slide starts some time after quality begins to slip - people wait to see if it improves or assume it will!
EE and Corrie have both experienced this to some extent in the past.
BIB 1: So then why would they KEEP watching? (Which leads us to...)
BIB 2: Uh. Right. Only if I'm not liking a show, I'm not going to keep watching it in the hopes it will get better. Programmes change over TIME, especially soaps. This isn't one of those "give BK time" things, because he's had long enough and if you don't think he's improved the show, then fair enough. I'm just saying, if you think it's bad you can't assume it'll be top notch in the immediate episode after. I'd stop watching and think "okay, if I tune in next month or by Christmas/Easter/July/whenever, it may be more enjoyable."
Of course, not everyone will do what I would. But why waste half an hour or more of your time to see if something is getting better if you're clearly not enjoying yourself?
My point is that if the quality doesn't improve I don't think they'll maintain ratings. It takes time for slippage of a core audience of the big soaps. That has been the case in the past. Audiences dwindle over time, not immediately.
I don't watch EE as religiously as I watch Corrie, or as I did last year, but it's on in our livingroom most episodes. I don't always have remote control!!
I enjoy watching with a critical eye and will post how I find things. That I think the show is poor at the moment seems to offend a core set here, not because they counter argue, but because any criticism of EE is offensive to them.
The more I provide examples to explain my opinion the more dismissive and offended this core group gets. It's fine, I'll post as I see it.
Lou, you are absolutely right there, but there is nothing to say the wider audience think the show is particularly good at the moment. Ratings tell how many are watching, they don't reflect sentiment. I don't think you understand it though...
The only good stuff coming up to me is Lucas writing Denise a letter.
I totally missed EastEnders tonight...and...am I bothered? No! Had the BBC News channel on instead. More drama there to be fair.