Might it not get the nostalgia vote, showing these eighties episodes of Neighbours, ex students and teenagers wanting to relive their past? Remember Neighbours was bigger than Coronation St in 1988.
I assume they've either done a deal with the BBC to show those two episodes, or the BBC has managed to pass the rights for 22/23 years' worth of episodes back to the production company.
I assume they've either done a deal with the BBC to show those two episodes, or the BBC has managed to pass the rights for 22/23 years' worth of episodes back to the production company.
Maybe the BBC were looking to make a bit of money then:) More likely the BBC will have handed the episodes back to Grundy as I doubt they'd have little desire to keep them.
Of course it would. The BBC threw EVERYTHING they had in to last week hence the decent (not phenomenal) ratings.
Clearly people weren't that interested otherwise they would have stuck.
This is a problem for the soap genre in general. Viewers do come back for the big storylines / events but they don't tend to stick around for very long. I can't remember the last time one had a lasting impact.
I just think they're increasingly too big a commitment for viewers. Up to 2.5 hours a week of repetitive dross when there's so much quality TV available at your fingertips nowadays is a huge ask of anyone.
Odd if they're bothering to show them on the main channel, they've been on youtube, dvd etc for years and I don't imagine they'd be much of a draw outside of the hardcore who are no doubt very familiar with them.
Well, ITV show the first episode of Coronation Street every ten years when all the hardcore fans will have seen that before and it's totally unlike modern day Coronation Street. You could say the same thing about repeats of Only Fools and Horses.
If they buy Talpa it may make more sense for them to keep The Voice on the BBC (and try to add some additional hours to the order). It would also mean that their complete January collapse against The Voice would make some kind of business sense in future years. Got to drive up that license fee.
Like when ITV bought other companies, the point of ITV buying them up is not to get loads of content for ITV itself but to expand their horizons to other genres and channels. There's no point ITV buying Talpa if no other broadcaster will then commission shows from Talpa because ITV will nick them all.
This is a problem for the soap genre in general. Viewers do come back for the big storylines / events but they don't tend to stick around for very long. I can't remember the last time one had a lasting impact.
I just think they're increasingly too big a commitment for viewers. Up to 2.5 hours a week of repetitive dross when there's so much quality TV available at your fingertips nowadays is a huge ask of anyone.
I completely agree. I know you get the argument on here where people will say, what else can get 6 or 7 million viewers in the soap slots, but that figure is declining every year as people tire of the repetitive plots, the miserable storylines and poor acting. In recent years shows like SCD and BGT have proved much more popular.
This is a problem for the soap genre in general. Viewers do come back for the big storylines / events but they don't tend to stick around for very long. I can't remember the last time one had a lasting impact.
I just think they're increasingly too big a commitment for viewers. Up to 2.5 hours a week of repetitive dross when there's so much quality TV available at your fingertips nowadays is a huge ask of anyone.
I think it would be interesting to know how many soaps viewers are consistent viewers. By this I mean how many of the say 7 million people who watch an average episode of EastEnders are the same every episode and every week? The basic assumption that we all seem to be working on is that is basically the same people watching each and every episode but I wonder if the fact they're still able to draw numbers for the big episodes is suggestive of there being a much higher level of audience churn from episode-to-episode and week-to-week then we perhaps factor in.
(To be clear I'm making this point for soaps across the board and not just EastEnders)
Neighbours 1st episode will just show up how rubbish the show is these days, As for Wolf Hall that is what the BBC are suppose to do. Not higher ratings rubbish all of the time.
I think the time will come when the main soaps are regularly ahead of the "big" talent shows in the ratings again. This will probably be mainly due to the talent shows' ratings collapsing. It's easier to breathe new life into a soap than it is to reinvigorate a talent show.
Improved BARB reporting of catch up TV will help too. It's one thing to watch half an hour of soap on a mobile or tablet, but a far harder ask to sit through two hours of singing or dancing on a tiny screen.
I think the time will come when the main soaps are regularly ahead of the "big" talent shows in the ratings again. This will probably be mainly due to the talent shows' ratings collapsing. It's easier to breathe new life into a soap than it is to reinvigorate a talent show.
Improved BARB reporting of catch up TV will help too. It's one thing to watch half an hour of soap on a mobile or tablet, but a far harder ask to sit through two hours of singing or dancing on a tiny screen.
More like a hour if you take out adverts and filler.
A good finish for Death in Paradise, even beating EastEnders which - along with Emmerdale and the news - was dented by ITV4. The Everton match was a slight disaster though the demos should be decent. But they'll be cursing the Europa League results. Channel 5 failed to hit 1m across the evening and Channel 4 didn't exactly pull up any trees. BBC Two had a good night with The Great British Sewing Bee becoming another success story for them. [highlight]A new week and three dramas appear on the schedules with Arthur & George, DCI Banks and Poldark gracing our screens - but how will they rate? How many with watch Crimewatch? Will Exposure get exposure in an earlier slot? Could Banished banish the viewers or draw them in for BBC Two and will Nelson: In His Own Words attract an audience? We could all end up barking up the wrong tree with this year's Crufts... or with The Nations Favourite 70s Number One.
Why not have a go at the DS Ratings Prediction Game? Just click [/highlight]HERE[highlight], hit 'Quote', delete the quote marks and get predicting!
I think Wolf Hall seems to have been one of the flops of the year as everyone I knew who started watching it never finished it.
You are aware of the recent timeshift to 4.29m - if all shows flopped to that BBC 2 would be ecstatic!!
Every show has had more than 4 million viewers - before you add iPayer or +14 +21 catchup data.......I doubt they imagined 3m plus for each episode or it would be 9pm on BBC One...
Neighbours 1st episode will just show up how rubbish the show is these days, As for Wolf Hall that is what the BBC are suppose to do. Not higher ratings rubbish all of the time.
I doubt the quality was any better then. Yet this cheap daytime filler started almost unnoticed in the autumn of 1986, developed a following, and demands to Points of View to give it a later slot as it was so popular in daytime. At times it was attracting 18 million, the Scott and Charlene wedding episode attracting 20 million, but the novelty started to wear off after 1991 and ratings fell continuously, below 10 million in 1995 and below 5 million by 2000. I've not heard Neighbours or Home and Away mentioned in conversation for years.
I doubt the quality was any better then. Yet this cheap daytime filler started almost unnoticed in the autumn of 1986, developed a following, and demands to Points of View to give it a later slot as it was so popular in daytime. At times it was attracting 18 million, the Scott and Charlene wedding episode attracting 20 million, but the novelty started to wear off after 1991 and ratings fell continuously, below 10 million in 1995 and below 5 million by 2000. I've not heard Neighbours or Home and Away mentioned in conversation for years.
Dancc Can you shed any light on if, C5 will be taking part in the CSI: Cyber global event?
Doesn't look like it.
7pm ET would be 12am UK time. A rerun of CSI NY is scheduled for that slot on 5USA, but nothing on the main channel. They could maybe swap out CSI NY for the episode of CSI in question nearer the time, as schedules for that week have already been confirmed.
As for Cyber, it won't be premiering in the UK on or before March 20.
I think the time will come when the main soaps are regularly ahead of the "big" talent shows in the ratings again. This will probably be mainly due to the talent shows' ratings collapsing. It's easier to breathe new life into a soap than it is to reinvigorate a talent show.
Improved BARB reporting of catch up TV will help too. It's one thing to watch half an hour of soap on a mobile or tablet, but a far harder ask to sit through two hours of singing or dancing on a tiny screen.
It's hard to tell. Obviously comparisons with the eighties are meaningless as there were only four channels and the soaps weren't on as much, but in the last ten years, when multichannel was found in the majority of homes and Channel 5 had become established, the big three have seen their audiences fall by over a third. In this time SCD, BGT, IAC, TXF and GBBO have all rated higher and occasionally a decent drama has overtaken them. I know shows like TXF will run their course and go, but it does seem entertainment is bigger than the soaps.
You are aware of the recent timeshift to 4.29m - if all shows flopped to that BBC 2 would be ecstatic!!
Every show has had more than 4 million viewers - before you add iPayer or +14 +21 catchup data.......I doubt they imagined 3m plus for each episode or it would be 9pm on BBC One...
Indeed. My friend was probably like those lost viewers. Tuned in - she said - expecting it to be The Tudors with lots of bedroom action and, as she put it, a good looking stud as Henry. But she could not take to this so never watched episode 2.
So, yes, it lost a few viewers - those who expected a series that it was never going to be and had already been done - but hung onto those who appreciated it for what it was.
I had enjoyed The Tudors but liked the slower look at the political machinations. This was in essence - The Thick of it - the prequel. And obviously not about the King (he was a pretty minor character in this series). It was Thomas Cromwell's show which added to the interest as it was a different angle.
I was pleased to see the BBC referring at the conclusion to it being Wolf Hall series 1 - implying there is going to be a series 2 - as the story clearly is not over yet.
BBC 2 should be about offering something that does not easily fit on BBC 1 and occasionally series where you need to think about them and not just watch in passing with everything spelled out for you.
The Daily Mail today has an article ridiculing the BBC boss for calling it a success given that - it claims - it lost so many viewers to the impenetrable plot, boring scenes and so dark lighting you could not see what was going on.
I found none of this true and I imagine had they lit the castles with sun lamps and turned it into a bedroom romp skimming over the politics then the Mail would have had an article ridiculing the inaccuracy and over sensationalism.
Wolf Hall would not be to everyone's taste but if you gave it your time and were willing to follow what was happening it was intriguing and that is pretty much a definition of why BBC 2 is there.
Do the Mail not want the licence fee to justify its existence by the BBC creating shows that would not be ratings hit or fit on BBC 1 and ITV schedules? Sure that was a gripe of theirs once or twice.
Odd if they're bothering to show them on the main channel, they've been on youtube, dvd etc for years and I don't imagine they'd be much of a draw outside of the hardcore who are no doubt very familiar with them.
Well, I'm a pretty big Neighbours fan (I wouldn't exactly say "hardcore", though) and I've never seen the first episode or the one where Scott and Charlene get married so I appreciate the chance to watch them
Indeed. My friend was probably like those lost viewers. Tuned in - she said - expecting it to be The Tudors with lots of bedroom action and, as she put it, a good looking stud as Henry. But she could not take to this so never watched episode 2.
So, yes, it lost a few viewers - those who expected a series that it was never going to be and had already been done - but hung onto those who appreciated it for what it was.
I had enjoyed The Tudors but liked the slower look at the political machinations. This was in essence - The Thick of it - the prequel. And obviously not about the King (he was a pretty minor character in this series). It was Thomas Cromwell's show which added to the interest as it was a different angle.
I was pleased to see the BBC referring at the conclusion to it being Wolf Hall series 1 - implying there is going to be a series 2 - as the story clearly is not over yet.
BBC 2 should be about offering something that does not easily fit on BBC 1 and occasionally series where you need to think about them and not just watch in passing with everything spelled out for you.
The Daily Mail today has an article ridiculing the BBC boss for calling it a success given that - it claims - it lost so many viewers to the impenetrable plot, boring scenes and so dark lighting you could not see what was going on.
I found none of this true and I imagine had they lit the castles with sun lamps and turned it into a bedroom romp skimming over the politics then the Mail would have had an article ridiculing the inaccuracy and over sensationalism.
Wolf Hall would not be to everyone's taste but if you gave it your time and were willing to follow what was happening it was intriguing and that is pretty much a definition of why BBC 2 is there.
Do the Mail not want the licence fee to justify its existence by the BBC creating shows that would not be ratings hit or fit on BBC 1 and ITV schedules? Sure that was a gripe of theirs once or twice.
Never try to make any logic about the Daily Mail, it has double standards and very bias it changes its mind like the change in wind direction. To call it a newspaper is an insult to other newspapers.
Indeed. My friend was probably like those lost viewers. Tuned in - she said - expecting it to be The Tudors with lots of bedroom action and, as she put it, a good looking stud as Henry. But she could not take to this so never watched episode 2.
So, yes, it lost a few viewers - those who expected a series that it was never going to be and had already been done - but hung onto those who appreciated it for what it was.
I had enjoyed The Tudors but liked the slower look at the political machinations. This was in essence - The Thick of it - the prequel. And obviously not about the King (he was a pretty minor character in this series). It was Thomas Cromwell's show which added to the interest as it was a different angle.
I was pleased to see the BBC referring at the conclusion to it being Wolf Hall series 1 - implying there is going to be a series 2 - as the story clearly is not over yet.
BBC 2 should be about offering something that does not easily fit on BBC 1 and occasionally series where you need to think about them and not just watch in passing with everything spelled out for you.
The Daily Mail today has an article ridiculing the BBC boss for calling it a success given that - it claims - it lost so many viewers to the impenetrable plot, boring scenes and so dark lighting you could not see what was going on.
I found none of this true and I imagine had they lit the castles with sun lamps and turned it into a bedroom romp skimming over the politics then the Mail would have had an article ridiculing the inaccuracy and over sensationalism.
Wolf Hall would not be to everyone's taste but if you gave it your time and were willing to follow what was happening it was intriguing and that is pretty much a definition of why BBC 2 is there.
Do the Mail not want the licence fee to justify its existence by the BBC creating shows that would not be ratings hit or fit on BBC 1 and ITV schedules? Sure that was a gripe of theirs once or twice.
The Daily Mail doesn't want the BBC to exist at all let alone the licence fee, they absolutely hate the BBC, no day goes by without at least 6 articles having the BBC in a negative light even stories that have nothing to do with the BBC at all they still manage to attack it.
The Daily Mail doesn't want the BBC to exist at all let alone the licence fee, they absolutely hate the BBC, no day goes by without at least 6 articles having the BBC in a negative light even stories that have nothing to do with the BBC at all they still manage to attack it.
Did the Daily Mail article mention its own financial interest in ITV ?
Channel 4 Sales @Channel4Sales 7m7 minutes ago
#Gogglebox pulled in over 3.7million viewers average last night, making it the most watched programme across all TV at 9pm #TVRatings
Channel 4 Sales @Channel4Sales 7m7 minutes ago
#Gogglebox pulled in over 3.7million viewers average last night, making it the most watched programme across all TV at 9pm #TVRatings
Comments
Of course it would. The BBC threw EVERYTHING they had in to last week hence the decent (not phenomenal) ratings.
Clearly people weren't that interested otherwise they would have stuck.
I just think they're increasingly too big a commitment for viewers. Up to 2.5 hours a week of repetitive dross when there's so much quality TV available at your fingertips nowadays is a huge ask of anyone.
Well, ITV show the first episode of Coronation Street every ten years when all the hardcore fans will have seen that before and it's totally unlike modern day Coronation Street. You could say the same thing about repeats of Only Fools and Horses.
Like when ITV bought other companies, the point of ITV buying them up is not to get loads of content for ITV itself but to expand their horizons to other genres and channels. There's no point ITV buying Talpa if no other broadcaster will then commission shows from Talpa because ITV will nick them all.
I completely agree. I know you get the argument on here where people will say, what else can get 6 or 7 million viewers in the soap slots, but that figure is declining every year as people tire of the repetitive plots, the miserable storylines and poor acting. In recent years shows like SCD and BGT have proved much more popular.
(To be clear I'm making this point for soaps across the board and not just EastEnders)
Improved BARB reporting of catch up TV will help too. It's one thing to watch half an hour of soap on a mobile or tablet, but a far harder ask to sit through two hours of singing or dancing on a tiny screen.
More like a hour if you take out adverts and filler.
[highlight]A new week and three dramas appear on the schedules with Arthur & George, DCI Banks and Poldark gracing our screens - but how will they rate? How many with watch Crimewatch? Will Exposure get exposure in an earlier slot? Could Banished banish the viewers or draw them in for BBC Two and will Nelson: In His Own Words attract an audience? We could all end up barking up the wrong tree with this year's Crufts... or with The Nations Favourite 70s Number One.
Why not have a go at the DS Ratings Prediction Game? Just click [/highlight]HERE[highlight], hit 'Quote', delete the quote marks and get predicting!
Thank you to everyone who takes part in advance.
You are aware of the recent timeshift to 4.29m - if all shows flopped to that BBC 2 would be ecstatic!!
Every show has had more than 4 million viewers - before you add iPayer or +14 +21 catchup data.......I doubt they imagined 3m plus for each episode or it would be 9pm on BBC One...
I doubt the quality was any better then. Yet this cheap daytime filler started almost unnoticed in the autumn of 1986, developed a following, and demands to Points of View to give it a later slot as it was so popular in daytime. At times it was attracting 18 million, the Scott and Charlene wedding episode attracting 20 million, but the novelty started to wear off after 1991 and ratings fell continuously, below 10 million in 1995 and below 5 million by 2000. I've not heard Neighbours or Home and Away mentioned in conversation for years.
Your obviously hanging out in the wrong crowds.
7pm ET would be 12am UK time. A rerun of CSI NY is scheduled for that slot on 5USA, but nothing on the main channel. They could maybe swap out CSI NY for the episode of CSI in question nearer the time, as schedules for that week have already been confirmed.
As for Cyber, it won't be premiering in the UK on or before March 20.
It's hard to tell. Obviously comparisons with the eighties are meaningless as there were only four channels and the soaps weren't on as much, but in the last ten years, when multichannel was found in the majority of homes and Channel 5 had become established, the big three have seen their audiences fall by over a third. In this time SCD, BGT, IAC, TXF and GBBO have all rated higher and occasionally a decent drama has overtaken them. I know shows like TXF will run their course and go, but it does seem entertainment is bigger than the soaps.
Indeed. My friend was probably like those lost viewers. Tuned in - she said - expecting it to be The Tudors with lots of bedroom action and, as she put it, a good looking stud as Henry. But she could not take to this so never watched episode 2.
So, yes, it lost a few viewers - those who expected a series that it was never going to be and had already been done - but hung onto those who appreciated it for what it was.
I had enjoyed The Tudors but liked the slower look at the political machinations. This was in essence - The Thick of it - the prequel. And obviously not about the King (he was a pretty minor character in this series). It was Thomas Cromwell's show which added to the interest as it was a different angle.
I was pleased to see the BBC referring at the conclusion to it being Wolf Hall series 1 - implying there is going to be a series 2 - as the story clearly is not over yet.
BBC 2 should be about offering something that does not easily fit on BBC 1 and occasionally series where you need to think about them and not just watch in passing with everything spelled out for you.
The Daily Mail today has an article ridiculing the BBC boss for calling it a success given that - it claims - it lost so many viewers to the impenetrable plot, boring scenes and so dark lighting you could not see what was going on.
I found none of this true and I imagine had they lit the castles with sun lamps and turned it into a bedroom romp skimming over the politics then the Mail would have had an article ridiculing the inaccuracy and over sensationalism.
Wolf Hall would not be to everyone's taste but if you gave it your time and were willing to follow what was happening it was intriguing and that is pretty much a definition of why BBC 2 is there.
Do the Mail not want the licence fee to justify its existence by the BBC creating shows that would not be ratings hit or fit on BBC 1 and ITV schedules? Sure that was a gripe of theirs once or twice.
Well, I'm a pretty big Neighbours fan (I wouldn't exactly say "hardcore", though) and I've never seen the first episode or the one where Scott and Charlene get married so I appreciate the chance to watch them
Never try to make any logic about the Daily Mail, it has double standards and very bias it changes its mind like the change in wind direction. To call it a newspaper is an insult to other newspapers.
The Daily Mail doesn't want the BBC to exist at all let alone the licence fee, they absolutely hate the BBC, no day goes by without at least 6 articles having the BBC in a negative light even stories that have nothing to do with the BBC at all they still manage to attack it.
Did the Daily Mail article mention its own financial interest in ITV ?
#Gogglebox pulled in over 3.7million viewers average last night, making it the most watched programme across all TV at 9pm #TVRatings
So, 3.3m for Musketeers? What do we reckon?