Agree, especially with the last bit. Doesn't bode well with the rest of the year if its typically highest-rated month barely creeps into the 8s. They usually get a boost in January as well.
Soap ratings have gone way down compared to a couple of years ago, regularly (not just for a big ep) hitting 9/10m per episode.
Yeah, even a year or two ago Corrie was capable of hitting 12 million for the exit of a comparatively short-stint character, and EE managed plenty of 9s.
EE ratings are all over the place last week over 8 Million now down again to just over 7 Million. 2013 really damagee the shows ratings and its going to take longer than i thought for it to get consistant high figures.
EE ratings are all over the place last week over 8 Million now down again to just over 7 Million. 2013 really damagee the shows ratings and its going to take longer than i thought for it to get consistant high figures.
It will eventually - around Xmas it only started to pick up remember, just over a month it's not magically just going to get high again. It will gradually soon I would hope. Corrie is dire atm, but that show can show literally anything and get high ratings smh, older generation eh! lol (joke )
The thing with EE is that it's great at the moment, so well-written and consistent and a pleasure to watch, but there's nothing particularly 'explosive' happening, is there? I think figures might rise for Stacey's return, but long-term they're going to need a couple of really dramatic stories to hook people back in. A new ad campaign wouldn't hurt, either. Regular viewers know how good it is recently but it needs to attract people back, and it needs to pull something brilliant out of the bag to do that.
It will eventually - around Xmas it only started to pick up remember, just over a month it's not magically just going to get high again. It will gradually soon I would hope. Corrie is dire atm, but that show can show literally anything and get high ratings smh, older generation eh! lol (joke )
EastEnders took a while to begin to get low ratings. In 2011 it was poor ans yet it still was getting ratings over 9million in December. If Corrie is poor for ages (with Struart Blackburn in chyarge that is lekely) then ratings will drop. Infact they have already started. Last year it was getting over 9million, now its below 9million.
The thing with EE is that it's great at the moment, so well-written and consistent and a pleasure to watch, but there's nothing particularly 'explosive' happening, is there? I think figures might rise for Stacey's return, but long-term they're going to need a couple of really dramatic stories to hook people back in. A new ad campaign wouldn't hurt, either. Regular viewers know how good it is recently but it needs to attract people back, and it needs to pull something brilliant out of the bag to do that.
By 'explosive' stuff are u meaning fires/deaths, because no, they can leave that too HO. It hasn't got dramatic gripping must watch story ones lines atm, but then neither has the other two really... unless u include Tina/peter & Sophie/Maddie? It's the same as EE. Okay stories but not dramatic and gripping but it still gets high ratings.
By 'explosive' stuff are u meaning fires/deaths, because no, they can leave that too HO. It hasn't got dramatic gripping must watch story ones lines atm, but then neither has the other two really... unless u include Tina/peter & Sophie/Maddie? It's the same as EE. Okay stories but not dramatic and gripping but it still gets high ratings.
No, I don't mean stunts - I agree that that can be left to HO (IMO, there's nothing wrong with a well-done stunt but it needs to be meaningful, character-led and not just done for the sake of it.) By explosive I mean the sort of highly dramatic storylines which get everyone talking. Some examples from when I used to watch EE years ago would be Kat's revelation about being Zoe's mum, Trevor's domestic abuse of Little Mo, the Steve Owen and Matthew Rose murder storyline and Joe Wicks's schizophrenia. I would say all of those were extremely compelling at the time and are still remembered as being great storylines years later.
By 'explosive' stuff are u meaning fires/deaths, because no, they can leave that too HO. It hasn't got dramatic gripping must watch story ones lines atm, but then neither has the other two really... unless u include Tina/peter & Sophie/Maddie? It's the same as EE. Okay stories but not dramatic and gripping but it still gets high ratings.
I think she more meant emotionally explosive. Something as big as Kat/Zoe episodes for example. Something rememberable.
The thing with EE is that it's great at the moment, so well-written and consistent and a pleasure to watch, but there's nothing particularly 'explosive' happening, is there? I think figures might rise for Stacey's return, but long-term they're going to need a couple of really dramatic stories to hook people back in. A new ad campaign wouldn't hurt, either. Regular viewers know how good it is recently but it needs to attract people back, and it needs to pull something brilliant out of the bag to do that.
Is it though?? It's better written yes, but clearly the characters currently at the forefront of the show are not as popular as some thought.
How long did EE take to increase ratings after the dips in 2004 and 2006?
It never did. 2004 averaged well over 11 million for overnights alone and even 2006 rated rather well, bar all those Emmerdale clashes. The ratings have been dwindling ever since.
That is wrong. By 2010 EE had closed the gap between itself and Corrie to a few hundred thousand an episode. It actually looked like EE was about to edge above Corrie for the first time ever.
Then Bryan Kirkwood came in and ruined everything.
EE ratings are find for were its now at. Its been at this level since July. Its only slightly lower than normal last night because it started and ended early. Once the time shifts and consolidated ratings come in it will be above 8 million.
That is wrong. By 2010 EE had closed the gap between itself and Corrie to a few hundred thousand an episode. It actually looked like EE was about to edge above Corrie for the first time ever.
Then Bryan Kirkwood came in and ruined everything.
EE ratings are find for were its now at. Its been at this level since July. Its only slightly lower than normal last night because it started and ended early. Once the time shifts and consolidated ratings come in it will be above 8 million.
No, it's not wrong at all.
Whatever about personal opinions but many fans alike believed Coronation Street (and Enmerdale, while we're at it) to be in relatively poor shape during the late noughties, inevitably resulting in a significant drop in viewership. 2010 had the 'live' factor, so I accept that the ratings increased quite substantially for a while, before declining again in late 2011/early 2012. Certainly between 2007 and 9 all the soaps were shedding numbers, in which case it was more Corrie sinking to their amount rather than EE increasing.
But my other post had absolutely nothing to do with how EastEnders performed in comparison to the other, but rather they didn't gain any viewers on 2004 and 2006. Say what you like about the quality but their figures and shares in comparison to the last 6/7 years are exceptionally high.
So I wouldn't be so certain about DTC increasing ratings as even Santer couldn't manage that, though media myths would suggest otherwise.
Whatever about personal opinions but many fans alike believed Coronation Street (and Enmerdale, while we're at it) to be in relatively poor shape during the late noughties, inevitably resulting in a significant drop in viewership. 2010 had the 'live' factor, so I accept that the ratings increased quite substantially for a while, before declining again in late 2011/early 2012. Certainly between 2007 and 9 all the soaps were shedding numbers, in which case it was more Corrie sinking to their amount rather than EE increasing.
But my other post had absolutely nothing to do with how EastEnders performed in comparison to the other, but rather they didn't gain any viewers on 2004 and 2006. Say what you like about the quality but their figures and shares in comparison to the last 6/7 years are exceptionally high.
So I wouldn't be so certain about DTC increasing ratings as even Santer couldn't manage that, though media myths would suggest otherwise.
If you factor out the fixed weekly Emmerdale clashes, which some weeks were happening twice, The EastEnders average for most of 2008 - 2010 was on par with Corrie and that user above is right. For the first six months of 2010 EastEnders was a stone throw away from overtaking Corrie. It genuinely looked as though it was going to happen. That believe it or not gave EastEnders its first increase in average for 2011. The summer of 2011 was EEs best performing summer since...... wait for it...... 2004. These are facts.
Whether this is down to Corrie decreasing or EE increasing is open for debate but one thing is clear. The gap had closed between the two to a level it hadn't ever been at before.
It was only in 2012 when the ratings for EastEnders started to collapse. Some of the averages for Nov 2012 to Feb 2013 were shocking.
EastEnders for roughly six months now has been consistant. It hasn't lost viewers since the summer. Its levelled out at a stable pace. The reason its average for Jan 2014 is down on its average for Jan 2013 is because the show was slightly higher then. The past few weeks EE has been unfortunate in the sense that its had Emmerdale and football clashes to deal with. EastEnders can lose anything from half a million to a whole three million during its Emmerdale head to heads. Depending on the content of the Emmerdale episode.
It just makes me chuckle how people are so quick to bring up the mid-noughties period to somehow justify the current low figures an interpret Corrie's dramatic loss as EastEnders significantly gaining. 12.8 million and a 51% share doesn't exactly scream crisis and certainly no way in hell has any 'normal' episode since late 2005 or so averaged such a high figure.
If you factor out the fixed weekly Emmerdale clashes, which some weeks were happening twice, The EastEnders average for most of 2008 - 2010 was on par with Corrie and that user above is right. For the first six months of 2010 EastEnders was a stone throw away from overtaking Corrie. It genuinely looked as though it was going to happen. That believe it or not gave EastEnders its first increase in average for 2011. The summer of 2011 was EEs best performing summer since...... wait for it...... 2004. These are facts.
Whether this is down to Corrie decreasing or EE increasing is open for debate but one thing is clear. The gap had closed between the two to a level it hadn't ever been at before.
It was only in 2012 when the ratings for EastEnders started to collapse. Some of the averages for Nov 2012 to Feb 2013 were shocking.
EastEnders for roughly six months now has been consistant. It hasn't lost viewers since the summer. Its levelled out at a stable pace. The reason its average for Jan 2014 is down on its average for Jan 2013 is because the show was slightly higher then. The past few weeks EE has been unfortunate in the sense that its hard Emmerdale and football clashes to deal with. EastEnders can lose anything from half a million to a whole three million during its Emmerdale head to heads. Depending on the content of the Emmerdale episode.
EastEnders had overtaken Corrie for a while prior to 2010, though, even in some of the supposed 'dark years'.
EastEnders had overtaken Corrie for a while prior to 2010, though, even in some of the supposed 'dark years'.
EastEnders has never overtaken Corrie. Not for anything other than big episodes and special weeks. Corrie month in month out for 4 decades has always been the number 1 soap. At no point has this ever been different. Anything said other wise is just a myth.
Eastenders has always beeny favourite out of the two soaps as it us edgier. I agree that 2013 on the whole was a very weak year for the show but this year is shaping up to,be the best since 2009 and 2010.
Corrie is very weak atm and its going downhill fast. Ratings are still good but quality is terrible.
Eastenders has always beeny favourite out of the two soaps as it us edgier. I agree that 2013 on the whole was a very weak year for the show but this year is shaping up to,be the best since 2009 and 2010.
Corrie is very weak atm and its going downhill fast. Ratings are still good but quality is terrible.
All the EE ratings need to do now is stay where they are. If they decrease further then who knows what will happen but the officials show that its very consistant at the moment despite what the overnights would suggest.
I feel they will increase again but it will take time. Just like it took time for the audience to disappear. All of this is the BBCs own fault as they didn't act fast enough. The bulk of the ratings issues began with the outrage to the baby swap. (imo that's when Kirkwood should have been given the boot) That's the moment you can trace it back to. At least with Charlotte Moore, Kate Harwood and Dominic Treadwell Collins the show is in very safe hands.
EastEnders has never overtaken Corrie. Not for anything other than big episodes and special weeks. Corrie month in month out for 4 decades has always been the number 1 soap. At no point has this ever been different. Anything said other wise is just a myth.
To be fair, the first period of 2006 did see EastEnders slightly top Corrie's overnights (11.269m versus 11.208m), but again my initial post had absolutely nothing to do with competition between the two soaps but only that it's clearly wrong to use those years as evidence of a ratings slump from which they've recovered, as they were still losing viewers. Do you really think that 2010 would've been any different had they not the Archie whodunit and live episode?
Certainly 2010 overall was still way down on what they were getting in 2004, which is what I was addressing. They may have done well by late 2000s standards, but not in comparison to anything before 2007/8.
Comments
Monday 20th Jan:
Emmerdale - 7.94m [+480k] / 8.11m
Coronation Street (19:30) - 10.17m [+570k] / 10.39m
EastEnders - 8.61m [+950k]
Coronation Street (20:30) - 10.65m [+930k] / 11.03m
Tuesday 21st Jan:
EastEnders - 8.36m [+620k]
Emmerdale - 7.73m [+730k] / 7.94m
Wednesday 22nd Jan:
Coronation Street: 8.79m [+720k] / 9.41m
Thursday 23rd Jan
EastEnders - 8.18m [+740k]
Emmerdale 8pm - 7.79m [+650k] / 8.01m
Emmerdale 7pm - 7.7m [+640k] / 7.84m
Friday 24th Jan
Coronation Street (19:30) - 9.35m [+1.06m] / 9.54m
Coronation Street (20:30) - 8.68m [+1.17m} / 8.92m
EastEnders - 7.64m [+660k]
Emmerdale - 7.53m [+640k] / 7.71m
Avg. for the week:
Coronation Street: 9.53m / 9.86m
EastEnders: 8.2m
Emmerdale: 7.74m / 7.92m
Corrie up 300k week-on-week. EE & ED remain stable.
BIB It's just timeshifting less on a Friday. (used to be 900k +) It was the most timeshifted soap Monday 20th despite Corrie airing Hayley's death.
I'd argue that the ratings are still poor despite no snow. January is usually their best month of the year.
Yeah, even a year or two ago Corrie was capable of hitting 12 million for the exit of a comparatively short-stint character, and EE managed plenty of 9s.
It will eventually - around Xmas it only started to pick up remember, just over a month it's not magically just going to get high again. It will gradually soon I would hope. Corrie is dire atm, but that show can show literally anything and get high ratings smh, older generation eh!
EastEnders took a while to begin to get low ratings. In 2011 it was poor ans yet it still was getting ratings over 9million in December. If Corrie is poor for ages (with Struart Blackburn in chyarge that is lekely) then ratings will drop. Infact they have already started. Last year it was getting over 9million, now its below 9million.
By 'explosive' stuff are u meaning fires/deaths, because no, they can leave that too HO. It hasn't got dramatic gripping must watch story ones lines atm, but then neither has the other two really... unless u include Tina/peter & Sophie/Maddie? It's the same as EE. Okay stories but not dramatic and gripping but it still gets high ratings.
No, I don't mean stunts - I agree that that can be left to HO (IMO, there's nothing wrong with a well-done stunt but it needs to be meaningful, character-led and not just done for the sake of it.) By explosive I mean the sort of highly dramatic storylines which get everyone talking. Some examples from when I used to watch EE years ago would be Kat's revelation about being Zoe's mum, Trevor's domestic abuse of Little Mo, the Steve Owen and Matthew Rose murder storyline and Joe Wicks's schizophrenia. I would say all of those were extremely compelling at the time and are still remembered as being great storylines years later.
I think she more meant emotionally explosive. Something as big as Kat/Zoe episodes for example. Something rememberable.
Is it though?? It's better written yes, but clearly the characters currently at the forefront of the show are not as popular as some thought.
It never did. 2004 averaged well over 11 million for overnights alone and even 2006 rated rather well, bar all those Emmerdale clashes. The ratings have been dwindling ever since.
http://m.digitalspy.co.uk/media/news/a33375/soccer-aid-runs-close-race-with-big-brother.html
http://m.digitalspy.co.uk/media/news/a31742/new-tricks-back-with-7-million.html
http://m.digitalspy.co.uk/media/news/a31866/vital-signs-shaky-as-street-tops-thursday.html
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/news/a13783/corrie-sets-monday-ratings-alight.html
As you can see, far from disastrous.
Then Bryan Kirkwood came in and ruined everything.
EE ratings are find for were its now at. Its been at this level since July. Its only slightly lower than normal last night because it started and ended early. Once the time shifts and consolidated ratings come in it will be above 8 million.
No, it's not wrong at all.
Whatever about personal opinions but many fans alike believed Coronation Street (and Enmerdale, while we're at it) to be in relatively poor shape during the late noughties, inevitably resulting in a significant drop in viewership. 2010 had the 'live' factor, so I accept that the ratings increased quite substantially for a while, before declining again in late 2011/early 2012. Certainly between 2007 and 9 all the soaps were shedding numbers, in which case it was more Corrie sinking to their amount rather than EE increasing.
But my other post had absolutely nothing to do with how EastEnders performed in comparison to the other, but rather they didn't gain any viewers on 2004 and 2006. Say what you like about the quality but their figures and shares in comparison to the last 6/7 years are exceptionally high.
So I wouldn't be so certain about DTC increasing ratings as even Santer couldn't manage that, though media myths would suggest otherwise.
Spot on post.
Whether this is down to Corrie decreasing or EE increasing is open for debate but one thing is clear. The gap had closed between the two to a level it hadn't ever been at before.
It was only in 2012 when the ratings for EastEnders started to collapse. Some of the averages for Nov 2012 to Feb 2013 were shocking.
EastEnders for roughly six months now has been consistant. It hasn't lost viewers since the summer. Its levelled out at a stable pace. The reason its average for Jan 2014 is down on its average for Jan 2013 is because the show was slightly higher then. The past few weeks EE has been unfortunate in the sense that its had Emmerdale and football clashes to deal with. EastEnders can lose anything from half a million to a whole three million during its Emmerdale head to heads. Depending on the content of the Emmerdale episode.
It just makes me chuckle how people are so quick to bring up the mid-noughties period to somehow justify the current low figures an interpret Corrie's dramatic loss as EastEnders significantly gaining. 12.8 million and a 51% share doesn't exactly scream crisis and certainly no way in hell has any 'normal' episode since late 2005 or so averaged such a high figure.
EastEnders had overtaken Corrie for a while prior to 2010, though, even in some of the supposed 'dark years'.
EastEnders has never overtaken Corrie. Not for anything other than big episodes and special weeks. Corrie month in month out for 4 decades has always been the number 1 soap. At no point has this ever been different. Anything said other wise is just a myth.
Corrie is very weak atm and its going downhill fast. Ratings are still good but quality is terrible.
All the EE ratings need to do now is stay where they are. If they decrease further then who knows what will happen but the officials show that its very consistant at the moment despite what the overnights would suggest.
I feel they will increase again but it will take time. Just like it took time for the audience to disappear. All of this is the BBCs own fault as they didn't act fast enough. The bulk of the ratings issues began with the outrage to the baby swap. (imo that's when Kirkwood should have been given the boot) That's the moment you can trace it back to. At least with Charlotte Moore, Kate Harwood and Dominic Treadwell Collins the show is in very safe hands.
To be fair, the first period of 2006 did see EastEnders slightly top Corrie's overnights (11.269m versus 11.208m), but again my initial post had absolutely nothing to do with competition between the two soaps but only that it's clearly wrong to use those years as evidence of a ratings slump from which they've recovered, as they were still losing viewers. Do you really think that 2010 would've been any different had they not the Archie whodunit and live episode?
Certainly 2010 overall was still way down on what they were getting in 2004, which is what I was addressing. They may have done well by late 2000s standards, but not in comparison to anything before 2007/8.