Corrie BELOW 5M last night

2»

Comments

  • LHolmesLHolmes Posts: 13,887
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Oldnjaded wrote: »
    Hardly surprising when well over 9m watched Strictly. But Corrie viewers won't 'miss' anything because they will have recorded it, watched on catch up, +1 etc etc.

    No biggie.
    Its clashed with Strictly numerous times in the past and hasn't sunk as low as this.

    Last night's figure was a mixture of the clash and Corrie's poor quality. The latter meaning fewer chose it over Strictly and fewer chose to catch up as they would have done in previous years.
  • LHolmesLHolmes Posts: 13,887
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The episode was dreadful and pointless. The bloody sofa saga dragged on for what seemed like the 100th day, the pointless community centre family day and dopey Dave finally found out about Kylie - not a good episode, they probably didn't bother because it was on a Sunday against Strictly and they knew the audience wasn't there!
    That's just it they hit upon something funny and then milk it for all its worth.

    Condensed into 2 or 3 scenes and running against a more substantial storyline, the sofa scenes would have been fine. The first few were funny it was after that it became a joke on the viewer.

    The Nazirs are just dreadful.
  • LHolmesLHolmes Posts: 13,887
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Irma Bunt wrote: »
    It wasn't under 5 million. It averaged at 5.1 and peaked at 6.1. Not great, admittedly. But who knew it was even on? I didn't.
    4.9m excluding the repeat.

    If you're a regular Corrie viewer you would have known it was on as it was advertised at the end of Friday's episodes.
  • FM LoverFM Lover Posts: 50,839
    Forum Member
    dazza89 wrote: »
    I'm surprised the BBC havent moved it but then again the change of time slot may catch people out like it probably did with Corrie.

    Does the RVP pull in enough viewers to warrant rescheduling EE?
    I would have thought it would have the opposite effect and have viewers reaching out for alternative channels.
  • vkmaxvkmax Posts: 3,093
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    See when people talk about Hollyoaks ratings its gotten just shy or just over a million viewers near on consistently for fifteen years but the big three have dropped from the likes of once 30 million (yeeeeeeeeeeears ago) to around 12 million (about 10 years ago) and now its a big deal if they manage to drag 7 million.
  • SuperSoaperSuperSoaper Posts: 5,724
    Forum Member
    vkmax wrote: »
    See when people talk about Hollyoaks ratings its gotten just shy or just over a million viewers near on consistently for fifteen years but the big three have dropped from the likes of once 30 million (yeeeeeeeeeeears ago) to around 12 million (about 10 years ago) and now its a big deal if they manage to drag 7 million.

    Well, now we have so much more choice for entertainment: mulit-channel TV, internet, DVDS, etc. And working hours have changed as we've moved towards a 24-hour society.
  • Sorcha_27Sorcha_27 Posts: 138,850
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    While I'm not enjoying Corrie that much at the moment, I'll say what I said about Eastenders last year. All soaps go through bad patches and despite ratings being nothing to what they used to be, Eastenders, Corrie and Emmerdale are still perfectly healthy and in no danger of cancellation

    As long as someone personally enjoys something, the ratings matter not a jot unless they're sinking to lows where cancellation is a possibility

    Saying that Corrie is pretty poor at the moment (:() but I'm sure it will improve. I don't think Blackburn is the man for the job though
  • Lucy LouLucy Lou Posts: 8,574
    Forum Member
    Popsiemia wrote: »
    I think the main reason will be because a lot of people had forgotten it was on last night and not tonight due to the Royal Variety Performance being on tonight.
    Once again our Soaps are being messed around.

    BIB: yep I didn't realise it was on last night and have only just caught up.
  • lou_123lou_123 Posts: 12,706
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Their lowest ever figure!:o
  • dan2008dan2008 Posts: 37,281
    Forum Member
    Well, now we have so much more choice for entertainment: mulit-channel TV, internet, DVDS, etc. And working hours have changed as we've moved towards a 24-hour society.
    Exactly. You can't compare 2014 with 2004. EVERYONE has gone Digital in some sense of form so catching up is not only easier but there is more choice on TV. Soaps are not LIVE so unlike Strictly,Football Match,I'm a celeb ect it can be caught up at anyone's leisure.

    I rarely watch my soaps as they air these days. Just got them on Series Link on my Sky+ should I miss them.

    I Player/ITV Player All kinds of recording ect should all be taken into account.
  • H of De VilH of De Vil Posts: 26,539
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No less deserved. Its absolutely dire at the moment. It will undoubtedly be below 7m on Christmas Day. Stuart Blackburn should let go immediately, before he destroys it totally.

    All the new characters he's brought in should be axed in one foul swoop, along with some regular past their best characters.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,283
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Oldnjaded wrote: »
    Hardly surprising when well over 9m watched Strictly. But Corrie viewers won't 'miss' anything because they will have recorded it, watched on catch up, +1 etc etc.

    No biggie.

    or skip it totally and watch wednesday. as you say corrie viewers won't have missed anything. ;-)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 266
    Forum Member
    or skip it totally and watch wednesday. as you say corrie viewers won't have missed anything. ;-)

    So true.

    I was one of the ones who recorded it on Sunday and watched it on Monday night so my viewing wouldn't have been counted in the overnights. I am assuming that a lot of people must have done that.

    I'm also assuming that a lot of people must have wondered why they bothered. Fast-forwarding through the ad breaks meant that I watched the double-episode in about 40 minutes but afterwards I did think I may have enjoyed it more if I'd watched the Ads and fast-forwarded through the programme.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,446
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Good.

    Let's hope this gives ITV a massive kick up the arse. Get The Hat out. Now.
  • jsmith99jsmith99 Posts: 20,382
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Due to a problem with our recorder, the Friday episodes were shown as being 7pm - 8pm and 8:30 to 9pm.

    Returning from a few days away, we watched the hour long 7-8 episode, and then the 8:30 one. We were nearly at the end of it before we realised that the events in the 8:30 episode occurred before those in the 7-8 one. The Sunday episode was zero length.

    So somehow the recorder had overwritten Friday's episode of 7:30 to 8pm with Sunday's, left the day unaltered, bus adjusted the time display.

    Must say, it didn't affect the storylines at all, other than messing up the Sean/vicar timescale.
  • KaylaLKaylaL Posts: 1,627
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    dan2008 wrote: »
    EastEnders will dip tonight too with the Royal show at 7:30 on ITV. The BBC should have started head to head at 7:30. Text Santa is this Friday isn't it? So EastEnders will fall again. Could be a low rating week for the show

    I didn't watch the Royal Variety Show, I didn't like anyone who was performing except 1D:blush:
Sign In or Register to comment.