Broadcast report the Viacom takeover of Channel 5 should be complete by September 20th, the delay has been regarding their commitment to 600 hours of annual original children's programming.
Content sharing talks have opened, particularly on comedy but some MTV content will not be available due to exclusivity agreements with Sky.
5 and Comedy Central co producing shows would be a good start. I'm hoping that Viva and 5* merge to create a new single channel aimed at 16-34s and the remaining slot is used for a 5Movies channel. I won't be surprised Paramount films make their terrestrial debuts on 5
5 and Comedy Central co producing shows would be a good start. I'm hoping that Viva and 5* merge to create a new single channel aimed at 16-34s and the remaining slot is used for a 5Movies channel. I won't be surprised Paramount films make their terrestrial debuts on 5
They'd be foolish to even mess around with the Milkshake brand. Five is probably the best commercial broadcaster in the UK for children's Tv.
I am sorry but I would just reiterate what controvesy? Its in the minds of the twitter generation who like to have something to tweet about and have about 3 brain cells between them.
One man got slightly annoyed and binned his ice cream because it would not set and was rightly voted off - talk about storm in a teacup.
It's also in the minds of many people working in the media who have covered it today, including several the BBC.
Not that I think it will do any harm. People said the "scandals" would kill Big Brother and X Factor for years without it ever happening. Then when the shows inevitably began to decline those people just claimed they'd been right all along! Much like a stopped clock claiming it was right twice yesterday.
It'll probably boost Bake Off significantly next week.
Source . Is Phillip Schofefirld really that important at ITV . It's more likely Fern has said no and I wouldn't blame her it's gone so tacky.
Front page headline on this week's Bella.
(I know, before you say it, tabloid mag twaddle - etc etc - though I have written stuff for this magazine myself and at least some of that was true!)
Cover reads: Did Phil Stop Fern's Big TV comeback?
Inside it claims: 'Bella understands that bosses spoke about bringing (Fern) back to the show this September....according to an insider, Fern's name came up....before they settled on Amanda Holden..'
The source is quoted as saying: 'Fern was an obvious choice...It would have been an amazing comeback - viewers would have loved it! And with her husband Phil Vickery on the show too, it would have been great....(but) everyone knows (Phil) and Fern fell out...There's just no way he would give them the all clear to bring her back now.'
The source also claim that Amanda Holden's appointment had not even been announced to some of the show's team when it was in the papers so they had to release the decision.
The source even claims Holly might not return, quoted as saying....'She's definitely taking a full year off, maybe more. Who knows if she'll come back at all? Like everyone on maternity leave it's not a definite.....Nobody would be surprised if she didn't come back.'
So - who knows if this is all tosh, speculative mischief making or what - but if it is someone un-named on the show giving interviews that ITV might not be happy about a possible reason follows:
The same source (presumably) reports the new set and new style to combat falling ratings. A new editor has brought new ideas 'so the show's getting a relaunch'.
The source claimed the plan to go more newsy and even possibly axe the hub was not going down that well with some staff on the show who think it might be a risk and alienate the core audience...adding 'if the show becomes too serious, we could be in trouble.'
Not a clue if it has any substance or is reading between the lines on speculation from their 'source' but they make a big deal of it with a two page article.
It's strange that comedy and entertainment format move to One but never drama. I imagine The Fall is likely too dark for BBC One and ratings while good, probably aren't high enough to justify it.
It was an import and this was ages ago, but I think The X Files moved from BBC Two to BBC One.
The phrase ''according to an insider'' immediately means to me the quotes have been made up. But I have no axe to grind about this magazine as I've never read it (or even heard of it).With maternity leave you have to notify your employer when you intend to return, you can't just go on leave indefinitely.If you do the employer is entitled to replace you.
The phrase ''according to an insider'' immediately means to me the quotes have been made up. But I have no axe to grind about this magazine as I've never read it (or even heard of it).With maternity leave you have to notify your employer when you intend to return, you can't just go on leave indefinitely.If you do the employer is entitled to replace you.
Not wishing to turn this into the Maternity Leave Thread, but the woman can let the employer know if she is returning or not very shortly before the year of leave is up.
DIY SOS is a bit stale now, like Millionaire on ITV only with bigger ratings.
Paul O' Grady Dogs should have no problem with the competition. Its a bit like Bake-Off, comfort viewing.
DIY SOS is hit and miss. I enjoyed tonights because the couple with the baby with spina bifada (apologies if that wasn't spelt right) were absolutely lovely. Gratitude and relief oozing from their hearts. Sometimes I wont watch it, depends if I like the people in the beginning.
Paul O'Grady's Dogs is OK. It isn't the same as GBBO though as "dogs" has been done lots of times before. It will do well though because it's popular and more crucially, it follows Emmerdale.
DIY SOS is hit and miss. I enjoyed tonights because the couple with the baby with spina bifada (apologies if that wasn't spelt right) were absolutely lovely. Gratitude and relief oozing from their hearts. Sometimes I wont watch it, depends if I like the people in the beginning.
You rebel you
Paul O'Grady's Dogs is OK. It isn't the same as GBBO though as "dogs" has been done lots of times before. It will do well though because it's popular and more crucially, it follows Emmerdale.
Yeah like Harbour Lives tonight, pulling in 2.2m. I think the popularity is more to with its ratings. That 8:30pm slot has been a nightmare for ITV - even Corrie was struggling in that slot a couple of years ago.
You won't be surprised to know I've been pondering this for the last 24 hours. I think the answer is... New Street Law in 2007! OK, that was series two but it was on Wednesdays at nine. That was the legal drama with John Hannah which had done tolerably well in the cushy Thursday 8pm slot in its first series so it got recommissioned but somewhere along the line they totally lost confidence in it and it bounced around the schedules, Car Share-style, for several months. Someone I know works on listings mags and I remember him saying it would forever turn up in the provisional schedules and disappear again, I think it was originally scheduled for September 2006 but then moved to October, then November, then January, then early February, then finally late February and after after four episodes it was flopping so badly it was demoted to 10.35.
Before that it probably would have been Family Business, a crap drama they were trying to burn off. I remember Rockface, the rockclimbing drama, was on Wednesdays as well. As we mentioned the other week, Wednesdays were extremely poor for BBC1 in those days and they used it to burn off a lot of crap dramas. And Jack of Hearts, the Keith Allen drama, got BBC1's lowest ever drama rating on Black Wednesday in 1999 (at the time, I think Robin Hood has overtaken it since).
Different now, of course, because ITV aren't as strong on Wednesdays and, at the moment, BBC1 are very strong.
I agree with all this. For many years BBC1 and ITV would happily show similar programmes opposite each other, especially on Saturday nights. Both would show quizzes and shiny floor variety, you had House Party vs Blind Date every week. There were plenty of other times they'd be showing drama at the same time as well. And as we all know, between 2004 and 2007, Strictly and X Factor were always shown at the same time and nobody batted an eyelid. It only became an issue when ITV pretended they hadn't in 2009 and started whining.
The first priority of BBC1 is to do what's best for BBC1 and the BBC1 audience and the many millions who watch Strictly but don't watch The X Factor. Why should Strictly (or Who) have to be shunted to an unattractive timeslot because ITV want to put something on later? It's entirely their business. And as you say, what are they supposed to show opposite The X Factor? It's eight o'clock on Sunday, a key slot for a channel when there are millions of viewers about, a lot they're well within their rights to put a major programme at.
I liked the ITV comment that "Strictly has never launched on a Sunday before". Well, so what? Strictly is a show that's on Saturdays and Sundays, has been for years, so they have just as much right to put it on Sunday if they want to. Corrie isn't usually on Sundays so they can hardly take the moral high ground, And television would be very, very boring if everything had to go in a prescribed slot and never move in any circumstances. If that was the case you wouldn't need to buy the Radio Times every week, it would just be the same. It's a creative decision to put it on Sunday.
I don't even think the programmes are that similar.
I find this a bit hard to believe. When Fame Academy was on opposite Pop idol in 2003, a far more aggressive and cynical act by the BBC as they followed it around the schedules so it always started at the same time, Pop Idol won every week, and won by miles. I don't recall ITV even complaining, they didn't even see it as any kind of battle because they were so dominant. It made the Beeb look stupid.
Same as when Millionaire was in its pomp, ITV would aggressively schedule this in any available slot and they particularly used it to dent new series on the BBC, there was a period where whenever BBC1 had a high profile new series starting ITV would stick Millionaire against it as a spoiler. The Beeb just had to deal with it, and would almost always lose out.
I find complaints by ITV about aggressive scheduling so laughable when a decade ago ITV used to do it all the time. And there was no problem, really, because ITV was a brash, populist channel with the aim of aggressively pursuing audiences and they had a swagger about them which meant they could get away with it. I find it amazing that ITV now complain the BBC don't roll over to give them a chance.
I don't agree with much of this, I have never seen a programme change beyond recognition when it's moved to BBC1. Bake Off hasn't, HIGNFY hasn't. People say QI did but I disagree, it was just an increase in informality you get on any show that's been running for several years, and the first "dumbed down" BBC1 series was made for BBC2 anyway. What can you do on BBC2 you can't on BBC1? If you've got Graham Norton, HIGNFY and Ripper Street on BBC1, how restrictive is it? Top Gear is on before the watershed anyway so it's not like they're constantly pushing the envelope, they can't swear for a start. It's got an enormous child audience already.
How was Euro 2012 a disaster for England? They lost in the quarter finals on penalties! They were the fifth best team in it. And last year they qualified for the World Cup by winning their group. Yes, they didn't do very well at the World Cup but it's not like they stunk the place out and lost every game 4-0.
Anyway, I dount in any other major European footballing power they'd be laughing at them only selling 17,000 tickets for a friendly against Norway. The other year Italy played a friendly against Northern Ireland in a 15,000 capacity stadium, when they were world champions. I don't even think they filled that. Only in England are they expected to fill, or even half fill, 90,000-seater stadia for friendlies against Norway. This is a side-effect of every England game having to be played at Wembley, if they were still taking them round them the country like they did a decade ago they'd play it at Norwich or Leicester or somewhere and sell out.
Well, yes, it you take out their shows that are rating well, they aren't rating well. You may as well say BBC1 would have flopped last night if they weren't showing Bake Off. But they were showing Bake Off, so the point is moot.
I don't see anything wrong with a 9pm programme being displaced, it's a weekend and you don't need to set your watch by it. Programmes last as long as they need to last. In the past programmes at the weekend would start whenever they needed to. There was a period when Casualty used to finish at 8.55 so ITV would schedule their shows to start at 8.55, and all the other channels would follow suit to hit the junction, so everything started at 8.55. It looked odd but viewers could cope.
Again, I would hate it to end up like American telly when the new season appears at the beginning of September and is not deviated from until May. Programmes last as long as they need to and are shown whenever people to show them and I think that's extremely good for British TV.
I was going to say that. Abbey Clancy, of going out with a footballer and ITV2 fame.
A good analysis in this post with many fair minded points.
Ok, she's maybe not Z list, but she is a lower list than you'd expect for Strictly. The sort of presenter that are ten a penny on all the second tier reality shows.
Was Caroline Flack chosen as a bit of eye candy though. This years cast has a bit of a youthful glow to them. I think they are trying to get everyone watching. Once some of these contestants get tight fitting costumes on it could make tabloid headlines.
Ola Jordan heading for "Celebrity Big Brother" in 2015 by the sounds of her comments. Her days are numbered.
Completely wrong reporting by the Sun there on "The Great British Bake Off"...well done to it by the way on becoming so massive.
Compared with the Xfactor last year on Sat 14th Dec ex +1 thanks to rzt:
GBBO (8.1m) v XF (8.17m)
4-15 0.576m v 1.055m
16-34 1.812m v 1.747m
35-44 1.19m v 1.344m
45-54 1.48m v 1.609m
55-64 1.26m v 1.149m
65+ 1.77m v 1.266m
Female 61.9% v 62%
Male 38.1% v 38%
ABC1 5.23m v 3.26m
Really interesting, pretty much even with 18-49 (XF maybe just a nose infront) but GBBO does worse with kids and better with 65+. Female to male skew the same but GBBO skews a lot more upmarket as you would probably expect. Obviously this is just a comparison to one Saturday night ep but still interesting nonetheless.
Thanks for that. So more 16-34s watched GBBO last night than last year's X Factor final!
That's pretty amazing... and still six more episodes to go!
Last year's X Factor Final aired on the Sunday though and got (I think) 2.2m 16-34s, so not quite there yet.
Hugely impressive for Bake Off though, no taking away from it. I can't believe it skews so young, I suspect ITV are a lot more jealous of Bake Off than they are of Strictly!
Comments
5 and Comedy Central co producing shows would be a good start. I'm hoping that Viva and 5* merge to create a new single channel aimed at 16-34s and the remaining slot is used for a 5Movies channel. I won't be surprised Paramount films make their terrestrial debuts on 5
Ah that makes all the difference - obviously a racial aspect - I stand corrected.
They'd be foolish to even mess around with the Milkshake brand. Five is probably the best commercial broadcaster in the UK for children's Tv.
It's also in the minds of many people working in the media who have covered it today, including several the BBC.
Not that I think it will do any harm. People said the "scandals" would kill Big Brother and X Factor for years without it ever happening. Then when the shows inevitably began to decline those people just claimed they'd been right all along! Much like a stopped clock claiming it was right twice yesterday.
It'll probably boost Bake Off significantly next week.
Front page headline on this week's Bella.
(I know, before you say it, tabloid mag twaddle - etc etc - though I have written stuff for this magazine myself and at least some of that was true!)
Cover reads: Did Phil Stop Fern's Big TV comeback?
Inside it claims: 'Bella understands that bosses spoke about bringing (Fern) back to the show this September....according to an insider, Fern's name came up....before they settled on Amanda Holden..'
The source is quoted as saying: 'Fern was an obvious choice...It would have been an amazing comeback - viewers would have loved it! And with her husband Phil Vickery on the show too, it would have been great....(but) everyone knows (Phil) and Fern fell out...There's just no way he would give them the all clear to bring her back now.'
The source also claim that Amanda Holden's appointment had not even been announced to some of the show's team when it was in the papers so they had to release the decision.
The source even claims Holly might not return, quoted as saying....'She's definitely taking a full year off, maybe more. Who knows if she'll come back at all? Like everyone on maternity leave it's not a definite.....Nobody would be surprised if she didn't come back.'
So - who knows if this is all tosh, speculative mischief making or what - but if it is someone un-named on the show giving interviews that ITV might not be happy about a possible reason follows:
The same source (presumably) reports the new set and new style to combat falling ratings. A new editor has brought new ideas 'so the show's getting a relaunch'.
The source claimed the plan to go more newsy and even possibly axe the hub was not going down that well with some staff on the show who think it might be a risk and alienate the core audience...adding 'if the show becomes too serious, we could be in trouble.'
Not a clue if it has any substance or is reading between the lines on speculation from their 'source' but they make a big deal of it with a two page article.
It was an import and this was ages ago, but I think The X Files moved from BBC Two to BBC One.
It did. The X-Files even got promoted to Saturday nights on BBC1 but I don't think it did particularly well there.
Not wishing to turn this into the Maternity Leave Thread, but the woman can let the employer know if she is returning or not very shortly before the year of leave is up.
Paul O' Grady Dogs should have no problem with the competition. Its a bit like Bake-Off, comfort viewing.
DIY SOS is hit and miss. I enjoyed tonights because the couple with the baby with spina bifada (apologies if that wasn't spelt right) were absolutely lovely. Gratitude and relief oozing from their hearts. Sometimes I wont watch it, depends if I like the people in the beginning.
Paul O'Grady's Dogs is OK. It isn't the same as GBBO though as "dogs" has been done lots of times before. It will do well though because it's popular and more crucially, it follows Emmerdale.
Yeah like Harbour Lives tonight, pulling in 2.2m. I think the popularity is more to with its ratings. That 8:30pm slot has been a nightmare for ITV - even Corrie was struggling in that slot a couple of years ago.
Hasn't cooking been done lots of times?
A good analysis in this post with many fair minded points.
Was Caroline Flack chosen as a bit of eye candy though. This years cast has a bit of a youthful glow to them. I think they are trying to get everyone watching. Once some of these contestants get tight fitting costumes on it could make tabloid headlines.
Ola Jordan heading for "Celebrity Big Brother" in 2015 by the sounds of her comments. Her days are numbered.
Completely wrong reporting by the Sun there on "The Great British Bake Off"...well done to it by the way on becoming so massive.
BIB: As an ITV fan, you don't have many other options these days.:D
(I'm sorry, I couldn't resist it.)
AGE
4-15: 576k/33.6% (6.6% of all 4-15 yo's)
16-24: 642k/41.2% (9.6%)
25-34: 1.17m/44.0% (14.1%)
35-44: 1.19m/40.3% (14.7%)
45-54: 1.48m/39.1% (16.7%)
55-64: 1.26m/35.3% (17.6%)
65+: 1.77m/27.3% (16.6%)
GENDER SPLIT
Males - 38.1%
Females - 61.9%
SOCIO ECONOMIC
AB: 2.87m/51.3% (18.2%)
C1: 2.36m/39.6% (14.9%)
C2: 1.50m/30.0% (11.8%)
DE: 1.37m/22.1% (9.7%)
1.8m 16-to-34 year olds, matching the number of over 65s. About 22% of last night's audience.
It's an advertisers dream - young and affluent. If it was an ITV programme ad slots would be going for big bucks.
ITV would never have made it in its first year, "The Great British Bake Off" struggled to be commissioned ironically.
Can't believe the contestants made Newsnight! The show is so popular now!
Compared with the Xfactor last year on Sat 14th Dec ex +1 thanks to rzt:
GBBO (8.1m) v XF (8.17m)
4-15 0.576m v 1.055m
16-34 1.812m v 1.747m
35-44 1.19m v 1.344m
45-54 1.48m v 1.609m
55-64 1.26m v 1.149m
65+ 1.77m v 1.266m
Female 61.9% v 62%
Male 38.1% v 38%
ABC1 5.23m v 3.26m
Really interesting, pretty much even with 18-49 (XF maybe just a nose infront) but GBBO does worse with kids and better with 65+. Female to male skew the same but GBBO skews a lot more upmarket as you would probably expect. Obviously this is just a comparison to one Saturday night ep but still interesting nonetheless.
Thanks for that. So more 16-34s watched GBBO last night than last year's X Factor final!
That's pretty amazing... and still six more episodes to go!
Last year's X Factor Final aired on the Sunday though and got (I think) 2.2m 16-34s, so not quite there yet.
Hugely impressive for Bake Off though, no taking away from it. I can't believe it skews so young, I suspect ITV are a lot more jealous of Bake Off than they are of Strictly!