The Ratings Thread (Part 34)

1959698100101125

Comments

  • PizzatheactionPizzatheaction Posts: 20,157
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    D.M.N. wrote: »
    Can someone tell BBC that there are other dramas to repeat apart from New Tricks?
    It's always struck me as being perfect for Sunday nights, but I think only a couple of episodes have ever been repeated on Sundays.
  • BigOrangeBigOrange Posts: 59,653
    Forum Member
    It's always struck me as being perfect for Sunday nights, but I think only a couple of episodes have ever been repeated on Sundays.
    Repeats on Thursday, Sunday and then the following Thursday seems very excessive though. I assumed the Sunday one was a new episode.

    No worse than ITV1's obsession with Midsomer Murders, I suppose.
  • rztrzt Posts: 21,363
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    How did Vera rate last year? At first glance that figure and share don't look wonderful, but it's quite a bit better than ratings faders Silent Witness and Scott/Bailey.
    Vera's overnights:

    Series 1
    Episode 1: 5.26m (22.0%) , +1: 212k (0.9%)
    Episode 2: 5.33m (21.8%) , +1: 324k (1.5%)
    Episode 3: 5.46m (21.8%) , +1: 169k (0.7%)
    Episode 4: 5.40m (22.1%) , +1: 128k (0.6%)

    Average: 5.36m (21.9%) , +1: 208k (0.9%)

    Series 2
    Episode 1: 4.48m (17.2%) , +1: 345k (1.6%)
    Episode 2: 5.11m (20.0%) , +1: 261k (1.2%)
  • PizzatheactionPizzatheaction Posts: 20,157
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Dancc wrote: »
    Repeats on Thursday, Sunday and then the following Thursday seems very excessive though. I assumed the Sunday one was a new episode.

    No worse than ITV1's obsession with Midsomer Murders, I suppose.
    I assumed it was going to be a new series, too. :o
    rzt wrote: »
    Vera's overnights:

    Series 1
    Episode 1: 5.26m (22.0%) , +1: 212k (0.9%)
    Episode 2: 5.33m (21.8%) , +1: 324k (1.5%)
    Episode 3: 5.46m (21.8%) , +1: 169k (0.7%)
    Episode 4: 5.40m (22.1%) , +1: 128k (0.6%)

    Average: 5.36m (21.9%) , +1: 208k (0.9%)

    Series 2
    Episode 1: 4.48m (17.2%) , +1: 345k (1.6%)
    Episode 2: 5.11m (20.0%) , +1: 261k (1.2%)
    Thanks, rzt. :) Second episode is not much different to last year's figures, then. :) Not sure the week off will help it.
  • mikwmikw Posts: 48,715
    Forum Member
    5 a day wrote: »
    Any way of measuring pub viewers for football? I bet there was a very significant number last night, which shouldn't be ignored by viewer measurements.

    That's an interesting question.

    Trouble with pub measurements is where do you draw the line?

    The "Welcome Break" service station usually show the BBC news channel, so should we count everyone in them as watching that channel?

    Or the Pubs that have a TV and it's just on in the background, who is watching and who isn't?
  • BigOrangeBigOrange Posts: 59,653
    Forum Member
    mikw wrote: »
    That's an interesting question.

    Trouble with pub measurements is where do you draw the line?

    The "Welcome Break" service station usually show the BBC news channel, so should we count everyone in them as watching that channel?

    Or the Pubs that have a TV and it's just on in the background, who is watching and who isn't?
    I think the bottom line is it would be impossible to accurately measure TV audience in public places. Most of the time it literally is just for background purposes with a low engagement rate.
  • CentCent Posts: 26,301
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Dancc wrote: »
    I think the bottom line is it would be impossible to accurately measure TV audience in public places. Most of the time it literally is just for background purposes with a low engagement rate.
    It's not an important figure - they are not watching the adverts and the only important figure to Sky is the number of pubs who have bought a licence to show it.
  • F1KenF1Ken Posts: 4,229
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Cent wrote: »
    It's not an important figure - they are not watching the adverts and the only important figure to Sky is the number of pubs who have bought a licence to show it.

    My Pub was showing it in Greek!

    Ken
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 795
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Isn't The Voice Final on Sunday 3rd June - the same night as The Apprentice final?
  • ronantronant Posts: 4,785
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    dubsj wrote: »
    Isn't The Voice Final on Sunday 3rd June - the same night as The Apprentice final?

    That weekend, yeah. Same weekend as the Diamond Jubilee too. Weekends don't really get bigger than that for BBC One.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,171
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    dubsj wrote: »
    Isn't The Voice Final on Sunday 3rd June - the same night as The Apprentice final?

    Oh really! Wow. Now that'll be a good night!
    (well...I HOPE!)
  • CentCent Posts: 26,301
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Reports that Obama is giving a primetime address live from Afghanistan tonight at 7.30 ET. Was top secret until now for security reasons.

    Potential implications on schedule? Depends how long it lasts I suppose, these things can go over an hour.

    NBC has Biggest Loser then The Voice from 8PM, FOX has Glee, CBS NCIS.
  • CentCent Posts: 26,301
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    grimshaw wrote: »
    Oh really! Wow. Now that'll be a good night!
    (well...I HOPE!)
    I think they'll go for The Voice on the Saturday and The Apprentice on the Sunday. Hope they do advertise it as a big weekend - BBC have a tendency to just let things play out rather than big them up like a commercial network would.
  • iaindbiaindb Posts: 13,278
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    dubsj wrote: »
    Isn't The Voice Final on Sunday 3rd June - the same night as The Apprentice final?

    Isn't The Voice final on Saturday 2nd June?
  • grahamzxygrahamzxy Posts: 11,920
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Cent wrote: »
    Reports that Obama is giving a primetime address live from Afghanistan tonight at 7.30 ET. Was top secret until now for security reasons.

    Potential implications on schedule? Depends how long it lasts I suppose, these things can go over an hour.

    NBC has Biggest Loser then The Voice from 8PM, FOX has Glee, CBS NCIS.

    Can you imagine the fuss here if CS or EE were delayed to show Cameron in Afghanistan?? :D I think it would cost his a lot of lost votes this week. I say this as a fan of Obama, but interrupting primetime would be a risky move here.
  • iaindbiaindb Posts: 13,278
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    D.M.N. wrote: »
    Can someone tell BBC that there are other dramas to repeat apart from New Tricks?

    In a few years time we'll be saying that about Call The Midwife.
  • CharnhamCharnham Posts: 61,157
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    grahamzxy wrote: »
    Can you imagine the fuss here if CS or EE were delayed to show Cameron in Afghanistan?? :D I think it would cost his a lot of lost votes this week. I say this as a fan of Obama, but interrupting primetime would be a risky move here.
    I seem to recall David Cameron showing how out of touch he is with the nation by going to the Queen to make himself PM during an episode of The One Show, and EastEnders.

    It seems that kind of out of touch thinking was just the kind of thing we should have come to expect from him.
  • all_nightall_night Posts: 7,597
    Forum Member
    grahamzxy wrote: »
    Can you imagine the fuss here if CS or EE were delayed to show Cameron in Afghanistan?? :D I think it would cost his a lot of lost votes this week. I say this as a fan of Obama, but interrupting primetime would be a risky move here.

    I do find it strange that the networks seem to interrupt programming when a president is to make an address to the nation or usually any speech. I know he is the head of state for America but they have a lot of local news programmes they could feature the speech in after and also many news channels.

    It is almost like politics is forced upon then. I think the last time the Queen addressed the nation (out of Christmas) was Diana death, unless her mother tribute was also televised 'live'.
  • Steve WilliamsSteve Williams Posts: 11,816
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    grahamzxy wrote: »
    Can you imagine the fuss here if CS or EE were delayed to show Cameron in Afghanistan?? :D I think it would cost his a lot of lost votes this week. I say this as a fan of Obama, but interrupting primetime would be a risky move here.

    Well it is remarkable given how commercial American television is that they're prepared to show a deference to politicians that went out here with Harold Macmillan. People used to moan in the seventies when Party Politial Broadcasts were on every channel at once, and they were only ten minutes long.
  • HerefordgirlHerefordgirl Posts: 3,814
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    D.M.N. wrote: »
    http://www.englandhockey.co.uk/news.asp?itemid=16647&itemTitle=Want+to+win+%A3100%2C000+for+your+club%3F+Of+course+you+do%2E%2E&section=22 (you're probably thinking "what the hell does Hockey have to do with TV ratings?")



    According to someone in the know, a lot of effort is going into this on the back of the Olympic 'fever' in this country.

    Olympics :yawn: when I get a fever I just take some paracetamol, up my fluid intake and try and sleep til it breaks,
  • derek500derek500 Posts: 24,887
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Cent wrote: »
    It's not an important figure - they are not watching the adverts and the only important figure to Sky is the number of pubs who have bought a licence to show it.

    Sky reckon ad engagement in pubs is 75%, the same as in-home.

    http://www.skymedia.co.uk/Audience-Insight/dashboard.aspx
    Every day, Sky Sports channels are broadcast with a separate advertising feed into nearly 40,000 pubs and clubs across the UK. This means advertisers can specifically target viewers in the out of home environment.
    Sky Pub Sports provides advertisers the opportunity to reach a young male audience in a social group environment. On average, around 33% of Sky Sports viewing takes place out of home, reaching around 3 million adults a week, 67% of which don't have access to Sky Sports at home. With Pub Sports as part of your schedule, you are reaching sporting fans that would otherwise not be part of your audience.
    The Sky Pub Sports audience is a natural fit for advertisers of drinks, films and DVDs, mobile phones, computer games and sports/fashion wear. This relatively young audience (predominantly 18-34) are receptive to advertising messages and less likely to have made up their mind about brand choices. The flexibility and cost effective nature of the medium also makes it possible to run long form copy, cinematic ads or take over of an entire ad break.

    http://www.skymedia.co.uk/pub
  • ScoreScore Posts: 17,281
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Well it is remarkable given how commercial American television is that they're prepared to show a deference to politicians that went out here with Harold Macmillan. People used to moan in the seventies when Party Politial Broadcasts were on every channel at once, and they were only ten minutes long.

    I remember Obama seemed to do it loads during his first year or so and the networks were pretty pissed off in the end. FOX stopped showing them after a whole as nobody watched their coverage anyway and American Idol was getting shoved around. Them not showing it was quite a big deal though, and I remember they had to move one as NBC said they wouldn't air it as they refused to move America's Got Talent, so they ended up doing the address an hour earlier. The networks used to have a bit of goodwill with regards to these addresses but Obama kind of wore it away due to how often he did it (one of them was basically just an hour long televised press release marking 100 days in office).

    I'm surprised all the networks (or almost all if FOX still refuse) still air them - surely just one network airing them (with a rotation system in place) would make more sense?
  • GeorgeSGeorgeS Posts: 20,039
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Score wrote: »
    I'm surprised all the networks (or almost all if FOX still refuse) still air them - surely just one network airing them (with a rotation system in place) would make more sense?

    They are on all networks simultaneously to make them difficult to avoid. If people had alternatives they wouldnt watch. There used to be an unwritten rule that they didnt run them on Thursdays (the night US tv makes most of its money). Obama seems to be taking the pee though with the amount of broadcasts and the absence of content. I'd seriously expect them to go in the next few years for everything bar announcement of war or something really important as opposed to these "status updates"
  • mikwmikw Posts: 48,715
    Forum Member
    Dancc wrote: »
    I think the bottom line is it would be impossible to accurately measure TV audience in public places. Most of the time it literally is just for background purposes with a low engagement rate.

    For the most part, i agree!
  • SamuelWSamuelW Posts: 8,447
    Forum Member
    GeorgeS wrote: »
    They are on all networks simultaneously to make them difficult to avoid. If people had alternatives they wouldnt watch. There used to be an unwritten rule that they didnt run them on Thursdays (the night US tv makes most of its money). Obama seems to be taking the pee though with the amount of broadcasts and the absence of content. I'd seriously expect them to go in the next few years for everything bar announcement of war or something really important as opposed to these "status updates"
    Why does US tv make most money on Thursdays?
This discussion has been closed.