[exlordlucan]

Originally Posted by Straker

And yet Thompson accompanied that comment by saying he thought it “was an excellent piece of broadcasting”. Typical BBC - Even when conceding blame they manage to contradict themselves rendering everything meaningless.

Who cares what Mark “One Foot Out the Door” Thompson thinks anyway?

No he didn't so stop making things up:

However, he added that he thought it was "a really good piece of broadcasting" on the whole.

No word of excellence there and note it follows with 'on the whole' which is something I agree with.


'Typical BBC' you say? ... more like typical DS twisting.

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by Tassium

Reading the article it's a peculiar headline for sure.

Because Mark Thompson is basically saying the BBC coverage was good under the circumstances. To go with one throw away line "So I would say, as with any programme, I'm sure the team can go away and learn some of the lessons."

...when the thrust of his comments was BBC = OK, seems rather untruthful.

Surely something can said to be OK without it being 100%/excellent/brilliant/peerless? Very few things in the creative arts arena can be said to be so good that improvements could not be made, or changes countenanced.

[cnbcwatcher]

Originally Posted by Gordie10

Having hundreds of channels available now doesn't help. Anyone remotely bored by a programme on one of the "big 5" channels can just zoom off somewhere else now, whereas going back a couple of decades, people wouldn't have had much choice if they wanted to watch SOMETHING on TV, so they might have had more patience with a programme they weren't sure about, keeping ratings up.

Don't a lot of people record TV shows on Sky+ or the Freeview/Freesat/VM equivalents and watch them later these days as well? I do it sometimes so I can skip adverts and watch the show(s) in my own time. And then of course you have the on-demand and catch up services. So the decrease in ratings is probably more likely a result of more on-demand/recording.

[technologist]

Originally Posted by cnbcwatcher

So the decrease in ratings is probably more likely a result of more on-demand/recording.

Hence the "plus 7 figures " AKA Consolidated
from BARB website

What is the difference between live and consolidated BARB data?
‘Live’ data reports viewing that takes place at the time of the original broadcast.

'Consolidated’ data incorporates playback of time-shifted content within 7 days of the original broadcast. This timeshift viewing is added to the live data to produce consolidated viewing data made available 8 days after the original transmission date. Consolidated data is the 'BARB Gold Standard' used by the industry to report and trade on.

hence four seven!

[ftv]

Originally Posted by cnbcwatcher

Don't a lot of people record TV shows on Sky+ or the Freeview/Freesat/VM equivalents and watch them later these days as well? I do it sometimes so I can skip adverts and watch the show(s) in my own time. And then of course you have the on-demand and catch up services. So the decrease in ratings is probably more likely a result of more on-demand/recording.

BARB caters for those viewers which is what the officials are all about which usually come out every Monday.BARB does not cater for people watching in pubs and other public places so it would be reasonable to assume the actual total audience would be higher than the ''peak'',as would the average. Interestingly, back in the 60s audience research was done by stopping people in the street and asking what they had viewed the previous night, so it did include pubs etc.

[Straker]

Originally Posted by exlordlucan

No he didn't so stop making things up:

However, he added that he thought it was "a really good piece of broadcasting" on the whole.

No word of excellence there and note it follows with 'on the whole' which is something I agree with.

Semantics. I was paraphrasing from memory. You couldn’t really get a cigarette paper between “really good” and “excellent anyway.

The BBC have to be dragged kicking and screaming before they admit fault on anything and even on this occasion where it’s blatantly obvious they screwed up they still won’t give an unqualified admission of fault. It’s pathetic.

[cnbcwatcher]

Originally Posted by ftv

BARB caters for those viewers which is what the officials are all about which usually come out every Monday.BARB does not cater for people watching in pubs and other public places so it would be reasonable to assume the actual total audience would be higher than the ''peak'',as would the average. Interestingly, back in the 60s audience research was done by stopping people in the street and asking what they had viewed the previous night, so it did include pubs etc.

I always thought BARB only catered for those watching the shows live. There'd be a lot of people watching football and stuff in pubs so the amount of people watching would be more than the ratings suggest. Mum was telling me that in the late 80s/early 90s they had a little book where they wrote down every show they watched and what time they started and stopped watching it. I don't know what they did with the book though after filling it in. I presume it was sent to BARB.

[exlordlucan]

Originally Posted by Straker

Semantics. I was paraphrasing from memory. You couldn’t really get a cigarette paper between “really good” and “excellent anyway.

Well if you're using quotation marks then quote correctly.

Originally Posted by Straker

The BBC have to be dragged kicking and screaming before they admit fault on anything and even on this occasion where it’s blatantly obvious they screwed up they still won’t give an unqualified admission of fault. It’s pathetic.

They have admitted fault where fault was due and those who watched it gave an appreciation Index of 82 out of 100.

Him saying 'on the whole' ties up with that and so was correct IMO.

None of the contradiction you claimed either.

[Tassium]

Eastenders typically gets a high AI. Most programmes do nowadays.

If some people watching Eastenders say it's badly written/acted/directed, the producers pointing out the AI is eighty-something is being rather dismissive.

The corporate equivalent is when the customer service line rep states "... well no one else has complained sir"
-------
I have to say that Mark Thompson really annoys me with his carefully worded blandisms of nothingness, I'll be glad to see him go.

[Straker]

Originally Posted by exlordlucan

They have admitted fault where fault was due and those who watched it gave an appreciation Index of 82 out of 100.

Yes, that’s the figure to quote rather than the 4500 complaints they had and the shitstorm in the press and on the telly (was a topic of discussion just today on The Wright Stuff). Pro-rated up (each complaint accounting for many more) those 4500 registered complaints account for many thousands more due to the way the BBC and other broadcasters consider them.

Originally Posted by exlordlucan

Him saying 'on the whole' ties up with that and so was correct IMO.

You buy into Thompson’s weasel-words I do not. More fool you.

Originally Posted by exlordlucan

None of the contradiction you claimed either.

He’s a two-faced bastard who’s so tied up in knots with his meeja-doublespeak that he imagines he can appear to concede some minor blame whilst at the same time praising the widely lambasted broadcast. Good riddance to him.

[spiney2]

thomson has been bad news for the beeb. i agree with modernisation and possibly the tc sale but he should never have agreed to fund international broadcasting from uk license fee. if gov uk does not want an international radio service - like every other country has - fine lets close it down.

obviously the intention was to provide a more populist perspective than the usual dimblebyesque hushed reverent tones. but they dun it wrong.

too much obsession with management - john brirts legacy - and not enough production skills.

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by spiney2

thomson has been bad news for the beeb. i agree with modernisation and possibly the tc sale but he should never have agreed to fund international broadcasting from uk license fee. if gov uk does not want an international radio service - like every other country has - fine lets close it down.

Except that they were being given a choice of that or maybe having to fund the TV Licence for the over-75s (thus, a Government social policy and an open-ended commitment which, with the ageing population and with people living longer, would have only increased with time to become a bigger and bigger burden).

So the lesser of two evils, forced upon it by this Coalition Government

[technologist]

and what a good idea all Publicly funded PSB from one revenue source ..
What is more insidious is the top slicing for Broadband roll-out - so the BBC only sees 90% of the LF.
as far as taking on the Over 75s - that is government social policy to "reward the elderly" ... not something BBC should have ever been asked to do.

remember the bBC had two days in which to sort it out -- and I hope the person behind their ability to do so get the DG job.
and that the fuss over the pageant dies down -

[exlordlucan]

Originally Posted by Straker

Yes, that’s the figure to quote rather than the 4500 complaints they had and the shitstorm in the press and on the telly (was a topic of discussion just today on The Wright Stuff). Pro-rated up (each complaint accounting for many more) those 4500 registered complaints account for many thousands more due to the way the BBC and other broadcasters consider them.

Yah I bet the majority of them were bandwagon jumpers who didn't even watch but thought they'd join in.

Originally Posted by Straker

You buy into Thompson’s weasel-words I do not. More fool you.

No it was based on coverage of the Jubilee and on the whole it was good, there's no denying it.

Originally Posted by Straker

He’s a two-faced bastard who’s so tied up in knots with his meeja-doublespeak that he imagines he can appear to concede some minor blame whilst at the same time praising the widely lambasted broadcast. Good riddance to him.

Ah, that explains it and no matter how much (and whatever) is said you'll dismiss it.

I'll stop wasting my time with you.

[theonlyweeman]

If the commercial sector screwed up no one would care. Give the BBC a break, it was one event, not the end of the world, and you will probably never watch it again so can everybody please stop acting like the world has ended?

[Gordie10]

Originally Posted by cnbcwatcher

Don't a lot of people record TV shows on Sky+ or the Freeview/Freesat/VM equivalents and watch them later these days as well? I do it sometimes so I can skip adverts and watch the show(s) in my own time. And then of course you have the on-demand and catch up services. So the decrease in ratings is probably more likely a result of more on-demand/recording.

That would apply to all programmes though, not just those that might be described as "intelligent" (for want of a better word). The point is it's these programmes that pull in lower ratings than other types, even with PVRs, and on-demand and catch-up services.

Originally Posted by Tassium

Eastenders typically gets a high AI. Most programmes do nowadays.

EastEnders is bound to get a high AI. It's a soap. People will watch one or two episodes and if they don't like it, they'll stop watching it. Only those who like it will continue to watch it, ergo they'll be happy with it and will rate it highly. The AI for something like the Jubilee events is bound to be lower, as it's a one-off broadcast, and people will have no idea what the coverage will be like.

That's why I always get annoyed when the media portrays a high-rating first episode of a new show as a massive success. People don't know if it's gonna be any good or not before they've watched the first episode. Even people who hated it will still have watched it. It's only ratings for subsequent episodes that matter.

[BomoLad]

Just because the commercial sector wouldn't cover it, doesn't excuse the BBC for poor coverage.

[mikw]

Originally Posted by BomoLad

Just because the commercial sector wouldn't cover it, doesn't excuse the BBC for poor coverage.

The Beeb provided "bare bones" coverage (a bit like Sky's) on the Red Button, and the mass-market coverage on BBC1.

If only they'd done it the other way round....

[theonlyweeman]

Originally Posted by BomoLad

Just because the commercial sector wouldn't cover it, doesn't excuse the BBC for poor coverage.

If that was aimed at me, that wasn't what I meant. If ITV or Sky screwed coverage of the Jubilee no one would care, so we is everyone still complaining about the Beeb;s, yes they screwed up no need to keep reminding them. If you screwed up and some one kept reminding you, you'd probably get a bit upset/pissed off.

[Straker]

Originally Posted by exlordlucan

Yah I bet the majority of them were bandwagon jumpers who didn't even watch but thought they'd join in.

With that kind of baseless assumption and dismissive attitude you should apply for the job of DG at the BBC!

Originally Posted by exlordlucan

Ah, that explains it and no matter how much (and whatever) is said you'll dismiss it.

What a shame for the licence payer that we’ll no longer be reimbursing Mark Thompson’s 75p car parking costs submitted as part of his vast expenses claims. Now, if only we could get rid of Yentob as well. Thompsson has presided over the weakening and craven dissolution of the BBC cowering in fear of Tory cuts to the point where he gutted the BBC for them leaving the BBC a shadow of it’s former self providing sub-standard broadcasting across all it’s channels.

[redvers36]

Originally Posted by hendero

Agree 100%. I'm a little concerned that the BBC seem to feel like they're at risk of losing touch with the masses, and are trying to fix it in some instances by going down the "celeb" route. A few recent examples:

the flotilla coverage - we've beaten this death on these forums, suffice it to say the likes of Fearne Cotton, Tess Daly and Anneka Rice did not come off well that day. I actually feel a bit bad for them, they were thrown rather under the bus.

Euro 2012 - why, during the entire England-Sweden match, was there a graphic in the corner of the screen advising us that the "Moyles commentary" was available on the red button? Fair enough to have it pop up at the start of each half or whatever, but during the entire match? Were they that concerned that the regular commentators were so dire?

Masters golf - I know Chris Evans is a golf fan, but having him host the radio coverage just makes it seem like the Beeb are treating the event like a joke, instead of arguably the most important event on the golf calendar.

The BBC should be confident in its position. It enjoys a very good reputation with its audience. It's fine to have a bit of fun now and then, but if it's an event that a lot of people treat seriously, I'd prefer they give it they type of coverage it deserves.

Yes and I would add to that Robbie "I'm only famous for crapping in the refereees loo after a curry" Savage who now is a football analyst at the BBC..

[jenzie]

were the BBC running the pagent?

[AidanLunn]

Originally Posted by Straker

The BBC have to be dragged kicking and screaming before they admit fault on anything and even on this occasion where it’s blatantly obvious they screwed up they still won’t give an unqualified admission of fault. It’s pathetic.

Because 82% of viewers don't agree that there was any fault with the river pageant?

[Straker]

Originally Posted by AidanLunn

Because 82% of viewers don't agree that there was any fault with the river pageant?

Oh, they surveyed the whole 10 million did they or are you quoting the useless AI figures?

I was going to say it’ll be a while before we see a more inept piece of broadcasting from the Beeb but I’m sure they’ll manage to bollox-up Wimbledon and the Olympics in some manner or other.

[mikw]

Originally Posted by Straker

Oh, they surveyed the whole 10 million did they or are you quoting the useless AI figures?

I was going to say it’ll be a while before we see a more inept piece of broadcasting from the Beeb but I’m sure they’ll manage to bollox-up Wimbledon and the Olympics in some manner or other.

To be honest the Beeb are actually a victim of listening to people.

ITV were commended for their Royal Wedding coverage and many thought the Beeb's was "stuffy".

So they tried something different, and still showed "bare bones" coverage on the red button.

It's backfired somewhat, and the lesson here is do not listen to whingers too much and just do what you do.