The Ratings Thread (Part 60)

1232233235237238351

Comments

  • KarlHydeKarlHyde Posts: 1,830
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jda135 wrote: »
    A whopping total of 80.03m watched Germany's demolition of Brazil in Europe's Top 6 Markets last night (a mix of programme and match averages).

    UK - 11.52m (51.0%)
    Germany - 32.57m (87.8%)
    France - 10.60m (50.7%)
    Spain - 8.87m (49.2%)
    Italy - 10.65m (45.4%)
    Holland - 5.82m (74.5%)
    Thanks for the international figures. :)

    Ratings from Austria:
    1st half: ORF 1.425m (50%) + ZDF 0.402m
    2nd half: ORF 1.240m (55%) + ZDF 0.394m
    As KarlHyde has said, the main news bulletin (heute journal) scored 31.79m (84.5%) at halftime. Even that beat the previous high ratings record in Germany which was the 2010 SF match vs Spain (31.10m). The big question is, will the final on Sunday beat it?
    I don't think so. Kick-off is one hour earlier and the weather seems to be getting better, so a lot of people will probably be watching at public venues.

    Anyway, it would be great if we could collect ratings figures from as many countries as possible for the final.
  • yorkie100yorkie100 Posts: 9,372
    Forum Member
    Whichever team goes through they might as well not turn up on Sunday.
  • PizzatheactionPizzatheaction Posts: 20,157
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    yorkie100 wrote: »
    How much will being on BBC2 during the Commonwealth Games depress the EE rating do we think?
    Quite a bit. The first Thursday episode is sandwiched between an RHS Flower Show and Natural World, and the next night's episode is sandwiched between Flower Show coverage and Gardeners' World. 4m these two nights?

    The following Tuesday will probably see Bergg scheduling another hour-long Emmerdale against it. Sub 3m for EastEnders if he does?
  • hyperstarspongehyperstarsponge Posts: 16,695
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Germany looks set to win the final.
  • Stefano92Stefano92 Posts: 66,393
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    In the first 90 mins, I expect an average of around 7m, extremely dull IMO. Penalties may increase to around 10m.
  • ChrisEChrisE Posts: 1,877
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Salv* wrote: »
    In the first 90 mins, I expect an average of around 7m, extremely dull IMO. Penalties may increase to around 10m.

    It won't be with me, I've given up.
  • RobbieSykes123RobbieSykes123 Posts: 14,022
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Salv* wrote: »
    In the first 90 mins, I expect an average of around 7m, extremely dull IMO. Penalties may increase to around 10m.

    If 11m sat down at 9 last night to watch two of the biggest teams in world football, then surely 11m are going to sit down tonight to watch two of the biggest teams in world football?
  • BelligerenceBelligerence Posts: 40,613
    Forum Member
    yorkie100 wrote: »
    Whichever team goes through they might as well not turn up on Sunday.
    Germany looks set to win the final.
    In a final anything goes.

    Learnt it the hard way with Chelsea two years ago...

    (But yes if Germany are in tune........they'll win)
  • Stefano92Stefano92 Posts: 66,393
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    If 11m sat down at 9 last night to watch two of the biggest teams in world football, then surely 11m are going to sit down tonight to watch two of the biggest teams in world football?

    I have a feeling that the ratings last night was due to a lot of people tuning in due to the early goals, also, even if 11m did start off at 9pm, I am sure by 10:30pm, it wouldn't have been 11m still. I know it doesn't mean much but a lot of people online switched off during the 2nd half before coming back for extra time (according to Twitter). I was sat on Twitter (as I was bored) and read hundreds of tweets saying they were switching over. It was extremely dull. Kudos to anyone that stuck around for the 2nd half.

    Maybe not as low as I said, but I'd be surprised if its over 9m average for the first 90 mins. 8.5m for that, 9m for extra time, 10.8m for penalties.

    Also it was ITV. Maybe around 1m down on what it would get on the BBC. Some really dislike ITV coverage.
  • jlp95bwfcjlp95bwfc Posts: 18,411
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Salv* wrote: »
    I have a feeling that the ratings last night was due to a lot of people tuning in due to the early goals, also, even if 11m did start off at 9pm, I am sure by 10:30pm, it wouldn't have been 11m still.

    11.2m were there at the start. The goals saw ratings increase to almost 14m. 13.9m were still watching at the end of the game.
  • Andy ParishAndy Parish Posts: 527
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Salv* wrote: »
    I have a feeling that the ratings last night was due to a lot of people tuning in due to the early goals
    Nope. 12m were watching before the goals.
    Salv* wrote: »
    also, even if 11m did start off at 9pm, I am sure by 10:30pm it wouldn't have been 11m still
    Nope, live sport tends to peak at the end and it was still 13m+ way after everyone knew Germany had won.
    Salv* wrote: »
    I know it doesn't mean much but a lot of people online switched off during the 2nd half before coming back for extra time (according to Twitter). I was sat on Twitter (as I was bored) and read hundreds of tweets saying they were switching over. It was extremely dull. Kudos to anyone that stuck around for the 2nd half.
    Like you said, it doesn't mean much. There will be no mass switch off.
    Salv* wrote: »
    Maybe not as low as I said, but I'd be surprised if its over 9m average for the first 90 mins. 8.5m for that, 9m for extra time, 10.8m for penalties.
    It will average over 9m easily. 11m peak.
  • rr22rr22 Posts: 7,623
    Forum Member
    Quite a bit. The first Thursday episode is sandwiched between an RHS Flower Show and Natural World, and the next night's episode is sandwiched between Flower Show coverage and Gardeners' World. 4m these two nights?

    The following Tuesday will probably see Bergg scheduling another hour-long Emmerdale against it. Sub 3m for EastEnders if he does?

    They would have been better pulling it completely.
  • Steve WilliamsSteve Williams Posts: 11,881
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    cylon6 wrote: »
    But those viewers tend to disappear as they are no longer stuck indoors when the weather improves.
    ftv wrote: »
    But all the evidence shows that when there's a big news story overnight viewers turn to the BBC because they know (or believe) the coverage will be better.The ratings are there to prove it.

    But this is why it has to be a certain type of news story, I don't mean by-elections or politics or anything like that, I mean a big human interest story. Something like Michael Jackson dying. A story that appeals to the type of viewer that doesn't generally watch the news day in day out, and who thinks BBC News is boring.

    Yes, the BBC gets the lion's share of the audience, and not everyone will then stay tuned, but when we've had heavy snow the ITV audience has gone up too, and some people do watch it for the first time. Good Morning Britain isn't about taking viewers from the Beeb, it's about getting people who don't watch regularly to tune in.
  • yorkie100yorkie100 Posts: 9,372
    Forum Member
    johnnymc wrote: »
    They would have been better pulling it completely.

    No reason why it could not have been on BBC1 even with the Games coverage. Its going to be interesting to see exactly what events get shown in EE slot and I bet a lot of it is minor sports.
  • rr22rr22 Posts: 7,623
    Forum Member
    But this is why it has to be a certain type of news story, I don't mean by-elections or politics or anything like that, I mean a big human interest story. Something like Michael Jackson dying. A story that appeals to the type of viewer that doesn't generally watch the news day in day out, and who thinks BBC News is boring.

    Yes, the BBC gets the lion's share of the audience, and not everyone will then stay tuned, but when we've had heavy snow the ITV audience has gone up too, and some people do watch it for the first time. Good Morning Britain isn't about taking viewers from the Beeb, it's about getting people who don't watch regularly to tune in.

    It'll take more than a big story to turn the show around now. I think they should start again and bring in populist young presenters like Mark Wright as suggested and maybe Caroline Flack. Push it much more towards a Channel 4 Sunday Brunch flavour with some news ccontent. I think they would get a totally different audience from Breakfast if the presenters were young and vibrant. They should get rid of the idea of suits. I'm sure some one like Caroline Flack or even Holly Willowby would have viewers tuning in revealing summer outfits.
  • kwynne42kwynne42 Posts: 75,337
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    yorkie100 wrote: »
    No reason why it could not have been on BBC1 even with the Games coverage. Its going to be interesting to see exactly what events get shown in EE slot and I bet a lot of it is minor sports.

    Surely It would be live Swimming or Athletics in the early evening the big sports that people watch during championships and take absolutely no notice of the rest of the time.
  • rr22rr22 Posts: 7,623
    Forum Member
    yorkie100 wrote: »
    No reason why it could not have been on BBC1 even with the Games coverage. Its going to be interesting to see exactly what events get shown in EE slot and I bet a lot of it is minor sports.

    They've treated one of their most popular programmes really badly of late. They poured loads of money into advertising it but no one knows where it is and then they pitch it against fierce ITV competition. Its hardly going to grow legs when it gets mauled by its own channel. Its another show that needs a headline grabbing moment. I think they should plot a major explosion. Have new viewers in the edge of their seat for a week.
  • lewiep93lewiep93 Posts: 5,880
    Forum Member
    UK TV Ratings ‏@TVRatingsUK 15s
    Coverage of the second World Cup semi-final, #NED vs #ARG, averaged 9.77m/50.4% from 8.30pm to 12.15am last night.

    Very good rating, the World Cup has done wonders for both BBC and ITV.
  • cylon6cylon6 Posts: 25,486
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    lewiep93 wrote: »
    UK TV Ratings ‏@TVRatingsUK 15s
    Coverage of the second World Cup semi-final, #NED vs #ARG, averaged 9.77m/50.4% from 8.30pm to 12.15am last night.

    I'd say that was a good rating.
  • xeoxeo Posts: 6,429
    Forum Member
    lewiep93 wrote: »
    UK TV Ratings ‏@TVRatingsUK 15s
    Coverage of the second World Cup semi-final, #NED vs #ARG, averaged 9.77m/50.4% from 8.30pm to 12.15am last night.

    Fantastic rating.
  • D.M.N.D.M.N. Posts: 34,172
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    lewiep93 wrote: »
    UK TV Ratings ‏@TVRatingsUK 15s
    Coverage of the second World Cup semi-final, #NED vs #ARG, averaged 9.77m/50.4% from 8.30pm to 12.15am last night.

    Fantastic number considering how long it went on for! Peak number and share will be fascinating... potential for 70%+ share at penalties?
  • lewiep93lewiep93 Posts: 5,880
    Forum Member
    UK TV Ratings ‏@TVRatingsUK 10s
    Against the football the #BBCNews at 10 was most watched with 2.55m/11.3%. At 9pm a #DeathInParadise rpt drew 2.21m/9.3%, #OneBornEveryMinute 1.57m/6.6%.
  • cylon6cylon6 Posts: 25,486
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    lewiep93 wrote: »
    UK TV Ratings ‏@TVRatingsUK 10s
    Against the football the #BBCNews at 10 was most watched with 2.55m/11.3%. At 9pm a #DeathInParadise rpt drew 2.21m/9.3%, #OneBornEveryMinute 1.57m/6.6%.


    Death In Paradise could turn into New Tricks at this rate for BBC1. Rate well, repeat well.
  • yorkie100yorkie100 Posts: 9,372
    Forum Member
    Very good rating although why that many people watched the whole thing when it was pretty boring I dont know. Both ITV/BBC will get a boost for their shares for June and it will be very welcome for ITV especially.
  • D.M.N.D.M.N. Posts: 34,172
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Peak was 12.7m (52.3%), considering the quality of the game, one could argue that the ITV number is better than the BBC one....
This discussion has been closed.