The Ratings Thread (Part 51)

17071737576203

Comments

  • serafimoserafimo Posts: 1,306
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    wizzywick wrote: »
    It suggests to me that the BBC don't have much confidence in the BBC3 comedies! "Let's stick 'em on iPlayer! If they get good responses we'll put it on TV. If they don't we'll quietly let it die in iPlayer wilderness!"

    Or perhaps just recognising that BBC3's target audience are much more likely to consume media on their own schedule using internet streaming than tune in when the channel schedules its shows.
  • SamuelWSamuelW Posts: 8,447
    Forum Member
    Hassaan13 wrote: »
    Indeed - lead-in's mean nothing if people aren't going to watch the programme that follows it!
    Lead ins still help though. Vicious was a flop and lost viewers every week because people disliked it. But if it didn't have that Coro St. lead in and had a normal 3-4million lead-in instead, it would've rated even lower than it actually did. Theres a reason why Itv nearly always tries to put important big shows for them on Mondays, they know it provides the best chance for these shows to rate well due to the lead in.
  • derek500derek500 Posts: 24,887
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ronant wrote: »
    Well this is pretty big news: BBC Three will premiere ALL scripted comedy on BBC iPlayer seven days before the broadcast date. This isn't part of the already announced trial.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2013/bbcthreeiplayerpremieres.html

    It'll make ratings discussion about these programmes pretty much null and void until BARB get their act together.

    Question.

    With the launch of Fox on Sky's Catch Up service yesterday, all our pay TV viewing except sport and news is on demand.

    I was under the impression that BARB was mainly for the benefit of advertisers, but all the content on Sky's Catch Up is ad free and doesn't even have the sponsorship that is on the linear channels.

    Are these On Demand viewings included in the official figures? Do the people who pay for the BARB service get a breakdown of On Demand as they do with live, viewed as live and spinning through the breaks etc.

    e.g. The Cafe on Sky One is sponsored by Coca-Cola but there is no mention of the brand on Catch Up viewing, so it's worthless to those viewers.

    Of course, If I Sky+ the linear channel (like I did before Catch Up), although spinning through the breaks, I would still catch the sponsorship bumper.

    Just wondered.
  • Hassaan13Hassaan13 Posts: 41,962
    Forum Member
    SamuelW wrote: »
    Lead ins still help though. Vicious was a flop and lost viewers every week because people disliked it. But if it didn't have that Coro St. lead in and had a normal 3-4million lead-in instead, it would've rated even lower than it actually did. Theres a reason why Itv nearly always tries to put important big shows for them on Mondays, they know it provides the best chance for these shows to rate well due to the lead in.

    Lead-in's still help?

    Is that the reason why the BGT live results, while getting a lead in of over 9 million from Corrie, couldn't even get over 8 million?

    The Americans got a lead-in of 10m, scraped 2 million. Why? People aren't interested.

    The size of the lead-in means nothing.

    Did you not even read what I said? Lead-ins mean nothing if they aren't going to boost the following programme.
  • hyperstarspongehyperstarsponge Posts: 16,562
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Times are changing and the barb box method is becoming old with super fast internet :)
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,804
    Forum Member
    Dancc wrote: »
    Enjoy your lunch: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5253/5498624247_ebe4c57fd1_b.jpg

    Last night's episode was up over half a million and 5 share points on the equivalent episode last year (first half of which clashed with EastEnders):

    http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/a394921/absolutely-fabulous-olympics-special-grabs-56-million.html

    Or...about the same as 2011 without +1 and a share of 9.1%.
  • ronantronant Posts: 4,785
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Hassaan13 wrote: »
    Lead-in's still help?

    Is that the reason why the BGT live results, while getting a lead in of over 9 million from Corrie, couldn't even get over 8 million?

    The Americans got a lead-in of 10m, scraped 2 million. Why? People aren't interested.

    The size of the lead-in means nothing.

    Did you not even read what I said? Lead-ins mean nothing if they aren't going to boost the following programme.
    With respect, you're talking a whole load of crap, and you've made yourself look a bit stupid. You really don't think a programme has an advantage if it has a strong lead in? Why do you think Tuesday nights on ITV are so weak? Why do you think broadcasters often put big, important programmes following on from guaranteed ratings bankers? Why do you think Badults had better figures for its Sunday night repeat than the Tuesday first showing?

    Lead ins certainly don't have as big an impact as they once did, but to say they don't have any impact is absolute nonsense.
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,804
    Forum Member
    Times are changing and the barb box method is becoming old with super fast internet :)

    Twitter is the way forward, what's trending on Twitter has been proven to be a far more accurate measurement of ratings. :D
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Lead-ins help if the follow-on programme has a similar demographic.

    But I think placing wildly dissimilar programmes back-to-back actually harms the follow-on.

    "The Americans" for example, that would be better placed anywhere but after some light entertainment fluff (All Star Family Fortunes!!!)


    What has happened to TV scheduling in the UK? It's like they have no feel for it anymore.
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,804
    Forum Member
    GoshBagosh wrote: »
    Hardly any worse then any of the other shit that is being shown on other channels nowadays... Have you seen The Valleys?

    Particularly where the highlight for the viewers of one unnamed programme is a cucumber fight and man crapping in the kitchen freezer.
  • Stefano92Stefano92 Posts: 66,363
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    i4u wrote: »
    Particularly where the highlight for the viewers of one unnamed programme is a cucumber fight and man crapping in the kitchen freezer.

    I love how annoyed you get, it brightens my day.
  • cylon6cylon6 Posts: 25,483
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Hassaan13 wrote: »
    Lead-in's still help?

    Is that the reason why the BGT live results, while getting a lead in of over 9 million from Corrie, couldn't even get over 8 million?

    The Americans got a lead-in of 10m, scraped 2 million. Why? People aren't interested.

    The size of the lead-in means nothing.

    Did you not even read what I said? Lead-ins mean nothing if they aren't going to boost the following programme.

    Lead-ins do help when the right programmes are put together.

    House became a hit on Fox when it followed American Idol. They tried several shows after Idol and House had the best retention of the lot.

    Not All shows match or increase when they follow a popular show. They do tend to retain a large chunk of the inherited audience. Downton Abbey became a hit in series 1 by following a very popular X Factor results show.
  • emmetmclemmetmcl Posts: 2,577
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    derek500 wrote: »
    Question.

    With the launch of Fox on Sky's Catch Up service yesterday, all our pay TV viewing except sport and news is on demand.

    I was under the impression that BARB was mainly for the benefit of advertisers, but all the content on Sky's Catch Up is ad free and doesn't even have the sponsorship that is on the linear channels.

    Are these On Demand viewings included in the official figures? Do the people who pay for the BARB service get a breakdown of On Demand as they do with live, viewed as live and spinning through the breaks etc.

    e.g. The Cafe on Sky One is sponsored by Coca-Cola but there is no mention of the brand on Catch Up viewing, so it's worthless to those viewers.

    Of course, If I Sky+ the linear channel (like I did before Catch Up), although spinning through the breaks, I would still catch the sponsorship bumper.

    Just wondered.

    I watched this yesterday on Catch Up, and though it was only on the Anytime/On Demand version(ie. not over the internet) there were ads for Coke before it
  • derek500derek500 Posts: 24,887
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    emmetmcl wrote: »
    I watched this yesterday on Catch Up, and though it was only on the Anytime/On Demand version(ie. not over the internet) there were ads for Coke before it

    Yes, they do on the pushed content, but not on the pulled. And 'Anytime' content was always counted by BARB and added to the most recent linear showing.

    Also, what happens with content that is shown before the linear broadcast?
  • marxavlenmarxavlen Posts: 851
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    More trash TV from Channel 4:

    C4 orders nightclub toilet doc

    Channel 4 is to open the door to the toilets of a Crawley nightclub for a one-off fixed-rig documentary.

    The broadcaster has commissioned Big Fat Gypsy Weddings producer Firecracker Films to make the 60-minute special, which will be filmed over four nights from 30 July.

    Fixed-rig cameras will be placed in the men’s and women’s toilets of JJ Whispers in Crawley to capture the conversations and grooming habits of partygoers.

    The one-off which will probably become a full series. Like the fixed-rig in a Chicken Shop.
    Dancc wrote: »
    Oh, that's disappointing. I thought they were looking to get back on track. This sounds grubby and not what they should be doing at all.

    It comes just a few days after the makers of their Kavos documentary series were found to be guilty of some very dubious practices:

    http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/a501744/channel-4s-what-happens-in-kavos-filming-halted.html

    That's exactly what I thought. At the moment, Channel 4 takes one step forwards, then three steps back. Basically, going no where fast. As for the Kavos doc, it saddens me that what I read was not in the least bit surprising.
    GoshBagosh wrote: »
    Hardly any worse then any of the other shit that is being shown on other channels nowadays... Have you seen The Valleys?

    The nightclub-toilet doc is definitely a new low for Channel 4, a channel which has recently scraped the bottom of the barrel for a scrap of dignity. Why they have undone all their good work with a stupid commission like this fails me. Again, do you work for Channel 4 GoshBagosh?

    ronant, do you know how Deal or No Deal has been doing in the last couple of weeks? I only ask as this gives a usual indication of where Channel 4's weekly share is going to be. Many thanks.
  • newkid30newkid30 Posts: 7,797
    Forum Member
    All this indignation about a reality show where they will focus on the antics of people on a night out in the toilets.
    Clearly it must be by males, because seriously female toilets on a Saturday night are HILARIOUS. All the chatting, grooming, bitching etc, it's priceless.

    How is this a new low??? It is no different to BB, Towie or any of those other RTV shows, :confused:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,501
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    newkid30 wrote: »
    All this indignation about a reality show where they will focus on the antics of people on a night out in the toilets.
    Clearly it must be by males, because seriously female toilets on a Saturday night are HILARIOUS. All the chatting, grooming, bitching etc, it's priceless.

    How is this a new low??? It is no different to BB, Towie or any of those other RTV shows, :confused:
    Exactly what I was thinking.....I doubt I will watch it but I can see it being a very funny hour of television
  • rztrzt Posts: 21,363
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Demographic Information for BBC1 and ITV for Monday 22nd to Sunday 28th July: http://postimg.org/image/hexbwen93/

    Top programmes for the week among 18-49 year olds from that list (excludes soaps, news and repeats) were:

    1. Luther: 6.7
    2. ITV News Special (Tue 19.00): 6.6
    3. Indiana Jones & The Temple of Doom: 5.3
    4. Crimewatch: 4.9
    5. All Star Family Fortunes: 4.7
    6. Your Money, Their Tricks: 4.6
    7. Your Face Sounds Familiar: 4.4
    8. The London Anniversary Games: 4.4
    9. F1 Grand Prix Highlights: 4.3
    10. Tipping Point: Lucky Stars: 4.1

    Note: Each number indicates the % of the UK 18-49 population. For e.g. 6.7% of 18-49 year olds living in the UK watched Luther
  • BigOrangeBigOrange Posts: 59,653
    Forum Member
    newkid30 wrote: »
    All this indignation about a reality show where they will focus on the antics of people on a night out in the toilets.
    Clearly it must be by males, because seriously female toilets on a Saturday night are HILARIOUS. All the chatting, grooming, bitching etc, it's priceless.

    How is this a new low??? It is no different to BB, Towie or any of those other RTV shows, :confused:
    And the Kavos doc, how would you defend that? Claims being made that not only was a "special prize" offered to members of the crew that found girls who were having unprotected sex on their holidays, but also people were paid to urinate in the street in order to secure footage for the show. Is that really what entertainment on 4 has come to ? :confused:
  • D.M.N.D.M.N. Posts: 34,167
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    rzt wrote: »
    Demographic Information for BBC1 and ITV for Monday 22nd to Sunday 28th July: http://postimg.org/image/hexbwen93/

    Top programmes for the week among 18-49 year olds from that list (excludes soaps, news and repeats) were:

    1. Luther: 6.7
    2. ITV News Special (Tue 19.00): 6.6
    3. Indiana Jones & The Temple of Doom: 5.3
    4. Crimewatch: 4.9
    5. All Star Family Fortunes: 4.7
    6. Your Money, Their Tricks: 4.6
    7. Your Face Sounds Familiar: 4.4
    8. The London Anniversary Games: 4.4
    9. F1 Grand Prix Highlights: 4.3
    10. Tipping Point: Lucky Stars: 4.1

    Note: Each number indicates the % of the UK 18-49 population. For e.g. 6.7% of 18-49 year olds living in the UK watched Luther

    rzt, do you have a demographic comparison for the soaps out of interest?

    Probably best to do 22nd July 2013 vs 23rd July 2012 so just before the Olympics. Thanks. :)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,501
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Dancc wrote: »
    And the Kavos doc, how would you defend that? Claims being made that not only was a "special prize" offered to members of the crew that found girls who were having unprotected sex on their holidays, but also people were paid to urinate in the street in order to secure footage for the show. Is that really what entertainment on 4 has come to ? :confused:
    As far as what I know from articles... that was all down to the production company was it not?


    So whats it got to do with Channel 4 ordering a 1 hour RTV show?
  • Ice dragon1Ice dragon1 Posts: 19,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    D.M.N. wrote: »
    rzt, do you have a demographic comparison for the soaps out of interest?

    Probably best to do 22nd July 2013 vs 23rd July 2012 so just before the Olympics. Thanks. :)

    D M N you seem to be just as obsessed about the soaps as I am :D
  • marxavlenmarxavlen Posts: 851
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    GoshBagosh wrote: »
    As far as what I know from articles... that was all down to the production company was it not?


    So whats it got to do with Channel 4 ordering a 1 hour RTV show?

    Channel 4 has a responsibility to protect people who are in its programmes and to provide an honest and fair portrayal of them.

    The best example would be the Celebrity Big Brother race row. Channel 4 had just as much responsibility as Endemol, and had to shoulder quite a bit of the blame. Channel 4 doesn't have to commission everything that comes through its front door, and when it chooses to work with someone, it demands full respect (despite sometimes C4 not giving full respect to production companies).

    That's why C4 has to take the blame along with the production company.
  • D.M.N.D.M.N. Posts: 34,167
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    D M N you seem to be just as obsessed about the soaps as I am :D

    It was a genuine question. :sleep:
  • Ice dragon1Ice dragon1 Posts: 19,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    D.M.N. wrote: »
    It was a genuine question. :sleep:

    I no it was I was just joking :(
This discussion has been closed.