It's not about whether I think one individual rating is good or bad. This thread would get repetitive very quickly if that was the case. It's about whether or not the show is moving in the right direction.
But the thread is very repetitive, just as it has been in other years.
And one of the repetitive things is people finding small upward fluctuations in the viewing figures and talking about them as if they were a the beginning of a trend.
It's only very steady progress at the moment and 1.13m is perilously close to the million mark, you're right - but it's not too dissimilar to the 1.19m that the equivalent episode got last year. That was my point. And if that continues and becomes a trend, or the show can find some improvement from somewhere, there's still hope it could come close to matching last year's numbers.
What is the "steady progress"?
As the show was renewed following last year's series, it is fair to say that they can afford to make the show on the numbers it was getting last year. Therefore, if it can successfully close the gap in the coming days and weeks or at least come close to doing so, that would be significant, whether it is still failing to meet the expectations of certain posters on here or not.
Sure, IF it closes the gap in the future, that would be significant. But the key words there are "if" and "future".
That said, I do accept there's a general feeling that the civilian version has never really achieved its full potential on C5, with the possible exception of Secrets and Lies. And I would concur with that. But that's a separate question to the more fundamental one of: can they afford to keep making it at its current level? So what concerns me most about the ratings at the moment is how it's doing year-on-year, and any shift on this measure in the coming days could tell us a lot more about how this series is going to go.
But if Secrets and Lies reached the full potential, then we should expect most other years to have fewer viewers.
But the thread is very repetitive, just as it has been in other years.
And one of the repetitive things is people finding small upward fluctuations in the viewing figures and talking about them as if they were a the beginning of a trend.
I'd rather we looked for trends and try to analyse in a constructive way rather than fill the thread with a series of doom filled posts laiden with as many negative adjectives as one can find. But maybe that's just me.
The average for the first 7 days is 1.22m unofficially, down 13% (-0.19m) on the first week last year.
After the first couple of days it looked as though we could be looking at a much bigger YoY decline than that. It's not an insurmountable gap and it is closing as more data comes in, albeit gradually, so let's see what the next few days bring.
Ch5 9pm bb highlights
5* 10pm live feed
Ch5 11pm bbbots part 2 (30 mins)
5* 11.30 live feed
when channel 5 decided not to have 24/7 streaming there was plenty of speculation as to the reason why
i think it was because they thought they could manage without it ,maybe the extra cost was a factor too
maybe they are managing without it ,maybe the numbers still add up for them
making great tv is not on their list of priorities
i think it was an opportunity lost although we'll never know for sure
rather than being an average 'run of the mill' show for channel 5 ,i feel big brother could have been a strong performer today given the right care and attention
when channel 5 decided not to have 24/7 streaming there was plenty of speculation as to the reason why
i think it was because they thought they could manage without it ,maybe the extra cost was a factor too
maybe they are managing without it ,maybe the numbers still add up for them
making great tv is not on their list of priorities
i think it was an opportunity lost although we'll never know for sure
rather than being an average 'run of the mill' show for channel 5 ,i feel big brother could have been a strong performer today given the right care and attention
But just showing a stream for a few hours a day on ch5 or 5* isn't 24/7 via red button like on ch4 and I don't see what the extra expense would be as the cameras are running 24/7 anyway surely it would be a minimal cost ?
But just showing a stream for a few hours a day on ch5 or 5* isn't 24/7 via red button like on ch4 and I don't see what the extra expense would be as the cameras are running 24/7 anyway surely it would be a minimal cost ?
But just showing a stream for a few hours a day on ch5 or 5* isn't 24/7 via red button like on ch4 and I don't see what the extra expense would be as the cameras are running 24/7 anyway surely it would be a minimal cost ?
you'll probably right but channel 5 just don't think the same way
they don't see the bigger picture ,they've never understood the show ,that much is very clear
Glad someone here has brought this up. Channel 5 have said before that the reason for no live feed anymore is nothing to do with the cost. They can put it online or tv relatively cheaply. The issue is most likely how difficult it is to monitor. The reason for this being that in this day and age you can be sued for absolutely anything. The mentioning of brand names and slagging off family members or naming footballers housemates have slept with are just the obvious things that Channel 5 would be liable for. There's a hell of a lot more than that though. They'd literally have to have people there monitoring every single word that comes out of the housemates mouths. Then there'd be certain things which housemates would say and Channel 5 would be unsure if they would be liable, so would bleep it out anyway (the tweeting birds). Cost isn't an issue, it's just it's unbelievably difficult to monitor and the slightest slip up could make Channel 5 liable.
Glad someone here has brought this up. Channel 5 have said before that the reason for no live feed anymore is nothing to do with the cost. They can put it online or tv relatively cheaply. The issue is most likely how difficult it is to monitor. The reason for this being that in this day and age you can be sued for absolutely anything. The mentioning of brand names and slagging off family members or naming footballers housemates have slept with are just the obvious things that Channel 5 would be liable for. There's a hell of a lot more than that though. They'd literally have to have people there monitoring every single word that comes out of the housemates mouths. Then there'd be certain things which housemates would say and Channel 5 would be unsure if they would be liable, so would bleep it out anyway (the tweeting birds). Cost isn't an issue, it's just it's unbelievably difficult to monitor and the slightest slip up could make Channel 5 liable.
But what's the difference now to a few years ago we have lived in that type of culture of suing anybody for anything for a long time.
The live feed was always on a delay so something there unsure about they would just bleep out anyway. I don't the difference now to the channel4 days ?
But what's the difference now to a few years ago we have lived in that type of culture of suing anybody for anything for a long time.
The live feed was always on a delay so something there unsure about they would just bleep out anyway. I don't the difference now to the channel4 days ?
Because it's extremely difficult to monitor due to the possible legal complications. It's not just extremely difficult now...it was the same back in the Channel 4 era, which I suspect is part of the reason why they eventually got rid of it. Yes Channel 4 had it, but it doesn't mean it wasn't a difficult thing to monitor. Ratings for the highlight shows on Channel 4 were going down way before the axe of the live feed. Something had to give and Channel 4 were hardly going to continue devoting so much time and effort monitoring a live feed when the highlight show ratings were slowly going down. They reduced the live feed before completely axing it. It's no different with Channel 5...they're hardly going to devote time to monitoring the live feed when highlight shows only get say 1.5 million viewers. Also, a lot of people seem to live in a dream world and think that Channel 5's only programme is Big Brother. The channel is a business and they have to take into account other shows as well. This whole notion that people seem to have of the return of the live feed being the solution to the ratings/problems is just ridiculous. Also, Channel 5 have shows that rate better than live feed and it's been proven...rubbish shows yes, but they still rate better.
The post I was answering said "The ratings even dipped when Perez went because that rivalry was no longer there."
Where's the evidence that it was specifically the Perez/Hopkins conflict that "kept the viewing figures high" or that the figures fell once Perez was evicted? Perez was evicted on Wendesday, and the number watching on Thursday was higher, not lower. On Friday, the number was slightly down compared to Wednesday, but only slightly. There's no sign of a significant fall when Perez went.
Most of the publicity and press were focusing on the perez/hopkins conflict, most episodes during the run with the Perez/Hopkins conflict and then with the arrival of Price rated higher than the episodes after Perez was evicted, including the final.
The thing destroying civilian BB is that all the housemates are samey and in there because they are in modeling or porn, have been involved in scandals, dated somebody famous, or tried to become famous beffore. It's basically a celeb version for people who aren't quite celebs yet.
I'd rather we looked for trends and try to analyse in a constructive way rather than fill the thread with a series of doom filled posts laiden with as many negative adjectives as one can find. But maybe that's just me.
The average for the first 7 days is 1.22m unofficially, down 13% (-0.19m) on the first week last year.
After the first couple of days it looked as though we could be looking at a much bigger YoY decline than that. It's not an insurmountable gap and it is closing as more data comes in, albeit gradually, so let's see what the next few days bring.
Ch5 deserves the low ratings after the Helen win last year, I said last year that if Helen won I would no longer watch the civilian version and I haven't and looks like many others have done the same. The only bits I've seen were shown on Paul O'Grady when Emma Willis was on. I would love for the ratings to go low they have to cancel it mid-run ha.
Glad someone here has brought this up. Channel 5 have said before that the reason for no live feed anymore is nothing to do with the cost. They can put it online or tv relatively cheaply. The issue is most likely how difficult it is to monitor. The reason for this being that in this day and age you can be sued for absolutely anything. The mentioning of brand names and slagging off family members or naming footballers housemates have slept with are just the obvious things that Channel 5 would be liable for. There's a hell of a lot more than that though. They'd literally have to have people there monitoring every single word that comes out of the housemates mouths. Then there'd be certain things which housemates would say and Channel 5 would be unsure if they would be liable, so would bleep it out anyway (the tweeting birds). Cost isn't an issue, it's just it's unbelievably difficult to monitor and the slightest slip up could make Channel 5 liable.
I would assume that most countries which broadcast BB have similar laws with regard to what can and cannot be heard through a live feed and yet every other country (except Australia) manages to monitor and produce a 24/7 live feed.
Putting a feed online also has far less restrictions than broadcasting on a television channel.
I still think to this day that C5 didn't want live feed because they wanted complete control of what was shown, what they failed to realise was live feed viewers did promo for the show, I would go to work and say you need to watch BB tonight this happened on the feed last.
What can C5 do to rescue the show, nothing it's in terminal decline and should be put out of its misery.
What can C5 do to rescue the show, nothing it's in terminal decline and should be put out of its misery.
Hard to disagree, I had nothing else to do tonight, it was either BB or Benefits Street so I gave it a go.
The episode was dreadful, SO poor.
Unengaging, stupid housemates being asked who the PM was and having to get the answer mouthed.
A cringeworthy task with the producers coming up with public votes on who is the most selfish, stupid, ya de ya in a desperate attempt to rouse some drama.
Nothing of note happening at all. Can anyone give me a narrative, a story line? A couple of eggs being hidden just does not do it, it was pathetic.
The show was dull dull dull. Television for people with a mental age of 12...
All packaged in the moronic C5 format with endless hype at every break about nothing, sub title names, the stupid little cutaway shots
to try and establish characters.
This show deserves to die. It is a pale shadow of its former self.
The show was dull dull dull. Television for people with a mental age of 12...
I've only watched 3 episodes this series but you are right, tonight was dull and I agree that it's made for 12 year olds, BB also appears to be made by 12 year olds.
I've only watched 3 episodes this series but you are right, tonight was dull and I agree that it's made for 12 year olds, BB also appears to be made by 12 year olds.
The production did nothing wrong tonight. Most if the ep focused on social interaction which is what BB1 was about.
The ratings are absolutely fine, they're so similar to last year and C5 STILL renewed the show after last year's ratings meaning these ratings are still satisfying for the channel and it's still obviously making the channel money.
It's on the air for 3 more years at least either way.
The ratings are absolutely fine, they're so similar to last year and C5 STILL renewed the show after last year's ratings meaning these ratings are still satisfying for the channel and it's still obviously making the channel money.
It's on the air for 3 more years at least either way.
CBB will be fine no doubt,
Desmond always went for performance clause its the reason he fell out so badly with Elizabeth Murdoch. Wouldn't be a bit surprised a clause like that remains.
what happens if it drops sub 1 million? Frow made it clear in week 4 last year he wasn't happy to Flipside.
Far from Celebrating so depressing they cant see the format they want to air just isn't working, I don't see why they don't revert the entire thing to more original format have whatever HM's they want but stop with meddling the non stop outside information.
Drop the name tags and cheesy music. Get some more live coverage and get a spin off show that actually people want.
All the money at the moment seems to be spent on all the wrong things.
This Jeff ford Vision of Big brother should have ended when he left, GS was trending
as was Jools Holland no sign of Big brother. They told so many to move on you cant make statements like that and expect everything to remain the same. Yep things might improve but if we head into a situation of sub 1 million nightly no way will that continue.
people keep saying overnights don't matter, Well they mattered enough to get the live feed scrapped on 5* and Bosses from both C5 and endemol to comment on them.
Rubbish rating again last night...1.01 million excluding +1 . Looks like this is the daily level it is capable of achieving. There is no sign of an improvement at all. Channel 5 needs to introduce hew housemates and have some sort of limited feed.
Why can they never do anything properly from day one? They always have to react to a ratings crisis. We are only a week into this series - it's shocking!!
It's too late for gains in the series. If people didn't watch the first week, they won't watch the rest of the run, whether they bring the feed back or not. It is not budging from the 1.1m incl +1 mark. It's too late to "save" this series.
I don't think it's specifically the HMs fault, and the task which is going on now is fantastic, they ruined it initially with the bad promotion.
I guess this was to be expected after such a successful CBB run in January.
Most of the publicity and press were focusing on the perez/hopkins conflict, most episodes during the run with the Perez/Hopkins conflict and then with the arrival of Price rated higher than the episodes after Perez was evicted, including the final.
As I've already explained, Perez's eviction didn't cause the ratings to fall (because they didn't fall) -- and that was what I was addressing: whether the ratings "dipped when Perez went". Indeed, the lowest ratings in the final week were while Perez was still there.
Publicity and press has very little ability to bring in BB viewers these days. There was similar press and publicity re the conflict with Gary Busy in the summer series, and it had the lowest ratings of any CBB on C4.
The production did nothing wrong tonight. Most if the ep focused on social interaction which is what BB1 was about.
The production used a task that brought in outside knowledge and caused "drama" that would not otherwise have occurred. How has that become "nothing wrong"? What's happened to all the people who wanted BB to let things develop naturally?
Comments
But the thread is very repetitive, just as it has been in other years.
And one of the repetitive things is people finding small upward fluctuations in the viewing figures and talking about them as if they were a the beginning of a trend.
What is the "steady progress"?
Sure, IF it closes the gap in the future, that would be significant. But the key words there are "if" and "future".
But if Secrets and Lies reached the full potential, then we should expect most other years to have fewer viewers.
5* 12 midday bbbots repeat
Ch5 1pm bb highlights repeat
5* 2pm live feed (2hrs)
Ch5 6pm bbbots part 1
5* 6.30 live feed (1hr)
Ch5 9pm bb highlights
5* 10pm live feed
Ch5 11pm bbbots part 2 (30 mins)
5* 11.30 live feed
The average for the first 7 days is 1.22m unofficially, down 13% (-0.19m) on the first week last year.
After the first couple of days it looked as though we could be looking at a much bigger YoY decline than that. It's not an insurmountable gap and it is closing as more data comes in, albeit gradually, so let's see what the next few days bring.
when channel 5 decided not to have 24/7 streaming there was plenty of speculation as to the reason why
i think it was because they thought they could manage without it ,maybe the extra cost was a factor too
maybe they are managing without it ,maybe the numbers still add up for them
making great tv is not on their list of priorities
i think it was an opportunity lost although we'll never know for sure
rather than being an average 'run of the mill' show for channel 5 ,i feel big brother could have been a strong performer today given the right care and attention
But just showing a stream for a few hours a day on ch5 or 5* isn't 24/7 via red button like on ch4 and I don't see what the extra expense would be as the cameras are running 24/7 anyway surely it would be a minimal cost ?
The legal costs in monitoring the live feed
you'll probably right but channel 5 just don't think the same way
they don't see the bigger picture ,they've never understood the show ,that much is very clear
Glad someone here has brought this up. Channel 5 have said before that the reason for no live feed anymore is nothing to do with the cost. They can put it online or tv relatively cheaply. The issue is most likely how difficult it is to monitor. The reason for this being that in this day and age you can be sued for absolutely anything. The mentioning of brand names and slagging off family members or naming footballers housemates have slept with are just the obvious things that Channel 5 would be liable for. There's a hell of a lot more than that though. They'd literally have to have people there monitoring every single word that comes out of the housemates mouths. Then there'd be certain things which housemates would say and Channel 5 would be unsure if they would be liable, so would bleep it out anyway (the tweeting birds). Cost isn't an issue, it's just it's unbelievably difficult to monitor and the slightest slip up could make Channel 5 liable.
But what's the difference now to a few years ago we have lived in that type of culture of suing anybody for anything for a long time.
The live feed was always on a delay so something there unsure about they would just bleep out anyway. I don't the difference now to the channel4 days ?
Because it's extremely difficult to monitor due to the possible legal complications. It's not just extremely difficult now...it was the same back in the Channel 4 era, which I suspect is part of the reason why they eventually got rid of it. Yes Channel 4 had it, but it doesn't mean it wasn't a difficult thing to monitor. Ratings for the highlight shows on Channel 4 were going down way before the axe of the live feed. Something had to give and Channel 4 were hardly going to continue devoting so much time and effort monitoring a live feed when the highlight show ratings were slowly going down. They reduced the live feed before completely axing it. It's no different with Channel 5...they're hardly going to devote time to monitoring the live feed when highlight shows only get say 1.5 million viewers. Also, a lot of people seem to live in a dream world and think that Channel 5's only programme is Big Brother. The channel is a business and they have to take into account other shows as well. This whole notion that people seem to have of the return of the live feed being the solution to the ratings/problems is just ridiculous. Also, Channel 5 have shows that rate better than live feed and it's been proven...rubbish shows yes, but they still rate better.
Most of the publicity and press were focusing on the perez/hopkins conflict, most episodes during the run with the Perez/Hopkins conflict and then with the arrival of Price rated higher than the episodes after Perez was evicted, including the final.
12am to 3am on Spike would work better
The average for the first week unoffically last year was. 1.29m (7.06%) according to BBSpy
http://www.bbspy.co.uk/bb15/ratings/overnight
I would assume that most countries which broadcast BB have similar laws with regard to what can and cannot be heard through a live feed and yet every other country (except Australia) manages to monitor and produce a 24/7 live feed.
Putting a feed online also has far less restrictions than broadcasting on a television channel.
I still think to this day that C5 didn't want live feed because they wanted complete control of what was shown, what they failed to realise was live feed viewers did promo for the show, I would go to work and say you need to watch BB tonight this happened on the feed last.
What can C5 do to rescue the show, nothing it's in terminal decline and should be put out of its misery.
Hard to disagree, I had nothing else to do tonight, it was either BB or Benefits Street so I gave it a go.
The episode was dreadful, SO poor.
Unengaging, stupid housemates being asked who the PM was and having to get the answer mouthed.
A cringeworthy task with the producers coming up with public votes on who is the most selfish, stupid, ya de ya in a desperate attempt to rouse some drama.
Nothing of note happening at all. Can anyone give me a narrative, a story line? A couple of eggs being hidden just does not do it, it was pathetic.
The show was dull dull dull. Television for people with a mental age of 12...
All packaged in the moronic C5 format with endless hype at every break about nothing, sub title names, the stupid little cutaway shots
to try and establish characters.
This show deserves to die. It is a pale shadow of its former self.
I've only watched 3 episodes this series but you are right, tonight was dull and I agree that it's made for 12 year olds, BB also appears to be made by 12 year olds.
The production did nothing wrong tonight. Most if the ep focused on social interaction which is what BB1 was about.
The ratings are absolutely fine, they're so similar to last year and C5 STILL renewed the show after last year's ratings meaning these ratings are still satisfying for the channel and it's still obviously making the channel money.
It's on the air for 3 more years at least either way.
CBB will be fine no doubt,
Desmond always went for performance clause its the reason he fell out so badly with Elizabeth Murdoch. Wouldn't be a bit surprised a clause like that remains.
what happens if it drops sub 1 million? Frow made it clear in week 4 last year he wasn't happy to Flipside.
Far from Celebrating so depressing they cant see the format they want to air just isn't working, I don't see why they don't revert the entire thing to more original format have whatever HM's they want but stop with meddling the non stop outside information.
Drop the name tags and cheesy music. Get some more live coverage and get a spin off show that actually people want.
All the money at the moment seems to be spent on all the wrong things.
This Jeff ford Vision of Big brother should have ended when he left, GS was trending
as was Jools Holland no sign of Big brother. They told so many to move on you cant make statements like that and expect everything to remain the same. Yep things might improve but if we head into a situation of sub 1 million nightly no way will that continue.
people keep saying overnights don't matter, Well they mattered enough to get the live feed scrapped on 5* and Bosses from both C5 and endemol to comment on them.
Why can they never do anything properly from day one? They always have to react to a ratings crisis. We are only a week into this series - it's shocking!!
I don't think it's specifically the HMs fault, and the task which is going on now is fantastic, they ruined it initially with the bad promotion.
I guess this was to be expected after such a successful CBB run in January.
As I've already explained, Perez's eviction didn't cause the ratings to fall (because they didn't fall) -- and that was what I was addressing: whether the ratings "dipped when Perez went". Indeed, the lowest ratings in the final week were while Perez was still there.
Publicity and press has very little ability to bring in BB viewers these days. There was similar press and publicity re the conflict with Gary Busy in the summer series, and it had the lowest ratings of any CBB on C4.
The production used a task that brought in outside knowledge and caused "drama" that would not otherwise have occurred. How has that become "nothing wrong"? What's happened to all the people who wanted BB to let things develop naturally?