More than decent final considering how poor the semis were.
Amazing how the winners always end performing right near the end and the fodder at the start. No manipulation there at all ;-)
[highlight]OFFICIAL BREAKING NEWS[/highlight]: The 2014 BGT Final is the programme's worst rating Saturday night final ever
The 2014 #BritainsGotTalent final averaged 10.81m/51.3%, peaking with 12.67m/55.3%.
[The above includes +1]
What happened to that sub 10m rating you promised us Samuel? I thought BGT was in some kind of crisis, now I'm seeing figures which show it is down just 2.8%. ;-)
I think you've managed to hype up a fake crisis so much that you got yourself believing your own bull*hit hype.
What happened to that sub 10m rating you promised us Samuel? I thought BGT was in some kind of crisis, now I'm seeing figures which show it is down just 2.8%. ;-)
The whole series was down 6pct year on year. I like to look at the overall trend. 6pct is not ideal considering it has fallen 5 years in a row now, and they may have been hoping prior to the series for it to stabilise, especially following the record launch. Once again, can I just reiterate, nowhere have I said it was a bad rating for BGT yesterday - I just mentioned the statistical fact that it was the show's worst rating Saturday finale ever. And well done Roscoe, it rated higher than 10million, you might catchup with me on the RPG .
The thing is, The Voice was hailed as a success by some with it's much lower viewers and share.
The Voice was a success. If you compare it like for like based on the ratings of previous years (isn't that what we're meant to be doing?) and not comparing it to a different style of programme that is an already established monster of a hit. Not getting at you Hollie because you are rightly bringing us to the OTT gushing by some posters when The Voice had bigger ratings than Splash!
Considering the pages of posts reading BGT it's last rites after that low rating semi final results last week, it's only right a big rating, still number one, is pointed out in the same detail.
But my point was based upon the spinning of the phrase "Number one talent show of the year". There has only been ONE talent show, the other was a singing contest and is incomparable. I'm not defending Samuel because his post this morning was, although factual, totally ridiculous, but when people slate him for spinning things to BBC1's advantage, it's only right that others who do similar things towards an ITV show are singled out too.
In reality, BGT did very well indeed. ITV have had a decent few Saturday nights. There'll be no tears at ITV towers this morning, but I suspect if they've read DS this morning and seen samuels post, they've printed it off and framed it and are having a damn good laugh at his expense. It'll cheer them up when they really do have cause for concern over a show's rating!
The whole series was down 6pct year on year. I like to look at the overall trend. 6pct is not ideal considering it has fallen 5 years in a row now, and they may have been hoping prior to the series for it to stabilise, especially following the record launch. Once again, can I just reiterate, nowhere have I said it was a bad rating for BGT yesterday - I just mentioned the statistical fact that it was the show's worst rating Saturday finale ever.
How can it be a bad rating when it's down just 0.3m y-o-y and it's over a million higher than you predicted on the RPG?!
Oh my goodness me, I havent said it's a bad rating. Read what I said.
Samuel, your antagonistic post this morning, complete with Bold Red Headline seemed to suggest you were relishing in negativity for the ratings, you insinuated that the ratings were so bad that ITV should be concerned. You may not have said it, but that was the implication of your post. Here's what you should have said:
"BGT peaked with a respectable 13m last night, averaging 10.81m overall. Despite being only slightly down (0.3%) on last year, ITV will be very pleased with the result, in an evening that viewers decided to largely remain with the channel throughout."
See what I did? I stated the facts but didn't antagonise.
The whole series was down 6pct year on year. I like to look at the overall trend. 6pct is not ideal considering it has fallen 5 years in a row now, and they may have been hoping prior to the series for it to stabilise, especially following the record launch. Once again, can I just reiterate, nowhere have I said it was a bad rating for BGT yesterday - I just mentioned the statistical fact that it was the show's worst rating Saturday finale ever. And well done Roscoe, it rated higher than 10million, you might catchup with me on the RPG .
It's slightly more than has been the case in the past few years when the declines have been particularly small, but still not a big fall. The soaps regularly drop that or more year on year and we expect them to last forever.
The decline also owes much to the semi final week again. The auditions and final ratings were strong. But this is often the case with BGT. If itv wanted the average to go up then they could do that through scheduling alone. But they're fighting other battles (like trying to find a hit for ITV Studios, boosting Corrie and selling ad time) so seemingly are happy to continue with the current arrangement.
The whole series was down 6pct year on year. I like to look at the overall trend. 6pct is not ideal considering it has fallen 5 years in a row now, and they may have been hoping prior to the series for it to stabilise, especially following the record launch. Once again, can I just reiterate, nowhere have I said it was a bad rating for BGT yesterday - I just mentioned the statistical fact that it was the show's worst rating Saturday finale ever. And well done Roscoe, it rated higher than 10million, you might catchup with me on the RPG .
Stating the facts! Only when it suits your agenda.
I remember one of your posts begging others not to report the actual rating for a bbc programme but to report the unchecked rating so it would be inflated. Now youve said BGT got lucky due to England inflating the figures. Pathetic!
There is no way ANY programme that gets half of the viewing public watching should ever have a negative headline regardless of the channel it is on.
Not posted here for some time, but your bias, anti-ITV posts continue to go on and on and on. It's so tedious.
Largely because it's incredibly boring once the auditions are over. I stop watching.
The Voice isnt boring. This latest series was up year on year and retention post-auditions was better than ever before. Shame that Kylie is leaving but towards the end of the series, she wasnt quite as good as the edited auditions stage. So I think as long as they find a reliable replacement, they'll be fine. What some people cant grasp is that every show has different expectations, we cant nowadays compare the Voice to BGT. The Voice has found its level and when looking at its ratings, we compare to its own standards rather than BGT's standards.
The Voice isnt boring. This latest series was up year on year and retention post-auditions was better than ever before. Shame that Kylie is leaving but towards the end of the series, she wasnt quite as good as the edited auditions stage. So I think as long as they find a reliable replacement, they'll be fine. What some people cant grasp is that every show has different expectations, we cant nowadays compare the Voice to BGT. The Voice has found its level and when looking at its ratings, we compare to its own standards rather than BGT's standards. BGT is the McDonald's of the tv world, popular with people and has bite sized audition clips which are easy to digest. The Voice is a different kind of show.
Based on what? How much BGT have you watched to garner that opinion? One thing ITV does well is large shiny floor entertainment shows. The high quality production values are undeniable.
EDIT: I see my reply no longer reflects your post as you have changed it due to the fact that even you read it back and realised comparing BGT to a fast food chain and the voice to a high quality restaurant is frankly ridiculous.
The Voice isnt boring. This latest series was up year on year and retention post-auditions was better than ever before. Shame that Kylie is leaving but towards the end of the series, she wasnt quite as good as the edited auditions stage. So I think as long as they find a reliable replacement, they'll be fine. What some people cant grasp is that every show has different expectations, we cant nowadays compare the Voice to BGT. The Voice has found its level and when looking at its ratings, we compare to its own standards rather than BGT's standards. BGT is the McDonald's of the tv world, popular with people and has bite sized audition clips which are easy to digest. The Voice is a different kind of show.
I think you'll find I'm ahead of you in this! I've already stated upthread that The Voice is a success because if you compare it like for like against its own figures, it's doing well. But if The Voice had done better than BGT there is no doubt at all than some posters, including yourself, would be comparing it to BGT and saying how superior it was. Incidentally, I do find The Voice after the auditions. As do many viewers because around 3 million stop watching at that point and do not return to it thereafter.
Based on what? How much BGT have you watched to garner that opinion?
Ive watched enough of BGT to know how it works. It does what it does very well and yes the production value of BGT is high. In every auditions episode, they have about 4 main auditions over a 60-75min episode. The rest of the time is filled by filler and montages. The 4 auditions are done in-depth. The Voice works differently, it has about 10-15 in-depth auditions per 60-75min episode. Thats why I would say BGT has 'bite sized' auditions. As for the live shows, it's extremely predictable. In the show's history, over 80% of the time the last act to perform in the semi final has gone through to the final. Whoever is put towards the end of the running order has a huge chance of winning the show, and this is heavily influenced by the producers. Im not saying this is illegal or immoral, Im just saying this is the reality of the situation. The live shows can be very predictable and thats part of the reason I think BGT's live audience viewership has continued to decline, while the auditions have held up better.
Ive watched enough of BGT to know how it works. It does what it does very well and yes the production value of BGT is high. In every auditions episode, they have about 4 main auditions over a 60-75min episode. The rest of the time is filled by filler and montages. The 4 auditions are done in-depth. The Voice works differently, it has about 10-15 in-depth auditions per 60-75min episode. Thats why I would say BGT has 'bite sized' auditions. As for the live shows, it's extremely predictable. In the show's history, over 80% of the time the last act to perform in the semi final has gone through to the final. Whoever is put towards the end of the running order has a huge chance of winning the show, and this is heavily influenced by the producers. Im not saying this is illegal or immoral, Im just saying this is the reality of the situation. The live shows can be very predictable and thats part of the reason I think BGT's live audience viewership has continued to decline, while the auditions have held up better.
Thats pretty bad. Did last years BB fall that low on any Saturday night? That is almost 30pct down year on year.
Pretty sure BB14 never went sub 1m on a Saturday. BB12-BB13 did though.
Britain's Got Talent earned more than 10 million viewers for this year's grand finale on ITV last night (June 7), according to overnight figures.
The last in the current series, which saw Collabro crowned winners, grabbed 10.32m (49%) to top primetime, with 482k (2.2%) tuning in on +1.
England's World Cup friendly against Honduras, interrupted midway through the first half by an electrical storm, averaged 5.18m (35.6%) afterwards.
The latest Casualty treated 3.55m (16.4%) from 9.20pm on BBC One. Earlier in the evening, Pointless Celebrities and The National Lottery: In It to Win It entertained 2.74m (13.1%) and 2.69m (12.1%) respectively.
Elsewhere, BBC Two aired repeats of Yes, Prime Minister (740k/3.5%), I Love 1980 (1.08m/4.9%), French and Saunders (1.01m/5%) and Victoria Wood as Seen on TV (921k/5.3%).
On Channel 4, Restoration Man was watched by 464k (2.4%) from 7pm. It was followed by Grand Designs (464k/2.1%) and the 2009 film My Sister's Keeper (595k/2.9%) starring Cameron Diaz and Abigail Breslin.
Channel 5's two NCIS episodes earned 469k (2.2%) and 607k (2.7%).
Afterwards, Big Brother earned 845k (4.1%) between 9.30pm and 10.30pm (+1: 107k/0.7%). Bit on the Side appealed to 392k (2.5%) from 10.30pm.
On the multichannels, an episode of Wallander was seen by 725k (3.4%) on BBC Four from 9pm. ITV2's Britain's Got More Talent took 523k (2.5%) from 9.30pm.
Ive watched enough of BGT to know how it works. It does what it does very well and yes the production value of BGT is high. In every auditions episode, they have about 4 main auditions over a 60-75min episode. The rest of the time is filled by filler and montages. The 4 auditions are done in-depth. The Voice works differently, it has about 10-15 in-depth auditions per 60-75min episode. Thats why I would say BGT has 'bite sized' auditions. As for the live shows, it's extremely predictable. In the show's history, over 80% of the time the last act to perform in the semi final has gone through to the final. Whoever is put towards the end of the running order has a huge chance of winning the show, and this is heavily influenced by the producers. Im not saying this is illegal or immoral, Im just saying this is the reality of the situation. The live shows can be very predictable and thats part of the reason I think BGT's live audience viewership has continued to decline, while the auditions have held up better.
The Voice was exactly the same though this year. When it came to Will.i.am's final choice they had 2 singers left, carefully selected by producers. It was obvious the penultimate singer was not going to go through because otherwise what would be the point of the last one performing? Producers are making entertainment programmes. Morality doesn't come into it. They are responsible for entertaining the masses so they have to get it right. It's all theatrical, staged nonsense at the end of the day, a bit like a magician. The public don't know how things work behind the scenes so therefore, as long as something is produced that people enjoy, does it really matter?
Comments
Amazing how the winners always end performing right near the end and the fodder at the start. No manipulation there at all ;-)
What happened to that sub 10m rating you promised us Samuel? I thought BGT was in some kind of crisis, now I'm seeing figures which show it is down just 2.8%. ;-)
I think you've managed to hype up a fake crisis so much that you got yourself believing your own bull*hit hype.
10.32m (49.0%) + 0.48m (2.2%)
8799 + 239 = 9.0m
9413 + 347 = 9.8m
10013+ 427 = 10.4m
10450 + 509 = 11.0m
10804 + 560 = 11.4m
10863 + 541 = 11.4m
11227 + 582 = 11.8m
10754 + 540 = 11.3m
10239 + 531 = 10.8m
9915 + 501 = 10.4m
Thanks for this.
And there we have it. It's over 10m just as I expected it to be and sorry Samuel, no 0.8m watching on +1.
The Voice was a success. If you compare it like for like based on the ratings of previous years (isn't that what we're meant to be doing?) and not comparing it to a different style of programme that is an already established monster of a hit. Not getting at you Hollie because you are rightly bringing us to the OTT gushing by some posters when The Voice had bigger ratings than Splash!
But my point was based upon the spinning of the phrase "Number one talent show of the year". There has only been ONE talent show, the other was a singing contest and is incomparable. I'm not defending Samuel because his post this morning was, although factual, totally ridiculous, but when people slate him for spinning things to BBC1's advantage, it's only right that others who do similar things towards an ITV show are singled out too.
In reality, BGT did very well indeed. ITV have had a decent few Saturday nights. There'll be no tears at ITV towers this morning, but I suspect if they've read DS this morning and seen samuels post, they've printed it off and framed it and are having a damn good laugh at his expense. It'll cheer them up when they really do have cause for concern over a show's rating!
How can it be a bad rating when it's down just 0.3m y-o-y and it's over a million higher than you predicted on the RPG?!
Samuel, your antagonistic post this morning, complete with Bold Red Headline seemed to suggest you were relishing in negativity for the ratings, you insinuated that the ratings were so bad that ITV should be concerned. You may not have said it, but that was the implication of your post. Here's what you should have said:
"BGT peaked with a respectable 13m last night, averaging 10.81m overall. Despite being only slightly down (0.3%) on last year, ITV will be very pleased with the result, in an evening that viewers decided to largely remain with the channel throughout."
See what I did? I stated the facts but didn't antagonise.
The Voice hasn't been a blockbuster since 4 weeks in series 1.
Largely because it's incredibly boring once the auditions are over. I stop watching.
It's slightly more than has been the case in the past few years when the declines have been particularly small, but still not a big fall. The soaps regularly drop that or more year on year and we expect them to last forever.
The decline also owes much to the semi final week again. The auditions and final ratings were strong. But this is often the case with BGT. If itv wanted the average to go up then they could do that through scheduling alone. But they're fighting other battles (like trying to find a hit for ITV Studios, boosting Corrie and selling ad time) so seemingly are happy to continue with the current arrangement.
Stating the facts! Only when it suits your agenda.
I remember one of your posts begging others not to report the actual rating for a bbc programme but to report the unchecked rating so it would be inflated. Now youve said BGT got lucky due to England inflating the figures. Pathetic!
There is no way ANY programme that gets half of the viewing public watching should ever have a negative headline regardless of the channel it is on.
Not posted here for some time, but your bias, anti-ITV posts continue to go on and on and on. It's so tedious.
Do you talk to your friends and family about your hatred of ITV regularly?
You need to get out more mate.
Based on what? How much BGT have you watched to garner that opinion? One thing ITV does well is large shiny floor entertainment shows. The high quality production values are undeniable.
EDIT: I see my reply no longer reflects your post as you have changed it due to the fact that even you read it back and realised comparing BGT to a fast food chain and the voice to a high quality restaurant is frankly ridiculous.
I think you'll find I'm ahead of you in this! I've already stated upthread that The Voice is a success because if you compare it like for like against its own figures, it's doing well. But if The Voice had done better than BGT there is no doubt at all than some posters, including yourself, would be comparing it to BGT and saying how superior it was. Incidentally, I do find The Voice after the auditions. As do many viewers because around 3 million stop watching at that point and do not return to it thereafter.
Afterwards, Big Brother earned 845k (4.1%) between 9.30pm and 10.30pm (+1: 107k/0.7%). Bit on the Side appealed to 392k (2.5%) from 10.30pm.
Damn.
These are BB12 Saturday numbers.
5.9
6.9
5.7
5.3
5.4
5.8
7.2
5.1
5.6
5.4
5.3
3.5
1.8
1.2
NEWS: 866,000 (20.1%)
Which gave Jackpot Joy a boost – 430,000 (13.5%) for the first hour!
Still had 317,000 at 1.45am.
(But how many had fallen asleep watching the football?!)
Thats pretty bad. Did last years BB fall that low on any Saturday night? That is almost 30pct down year on year.
Pretty sure BB14 never went sub 1m on a Saturday. BB12-BB13 did though.
The last in the current series, which saw Collabro crowned winners, grabbed 10.32m (49%) to top primetime, with 482k (2.2%) tuning in on +1.
England's World Cup friendly against Honduras, interrupted midway through the first half by an electrical storm, averaged 5.18m (35.6%) afterwards.
The latest Casualty treated 3.55m (16.4%) from 9.20pm on BBC One. Earlier in the evening, Pointless Celebrities and The National Lottery: In It to Win It entertained 2.74m (13.1%) and 2.69m (12.1%) respectively.
Elsewhere, BBC Two aired repeats of Yes, Prime Minister (740k/3.5%), I Love 1980 (1.08m/4.9%), French and Saunders (1.01m/5%) and Victoria Wood as Seen on TV (921k/5.3%).
On Channel 4, Restoration Man was watched by 464k (2.4%) from 7pm. It was followed by Grand Designs (464k/2.1%) and the 2009 film My Sister's Keeper (595k/2.9%) starring Cameron Diaz and Abigail Breslin.
Channel 5's two NCIS episodes earned 469k (2.2%) and 607k (2.7%).
Afterwards, Big Brother earned 845k (4.1%) between 9.30pm and 10.30pm (+1: 107k/0.7%). Bit on the Side appealed to 392k (2.5%) from 10.30pm.
On the multichannels, an episode of Wallander was seen by 725k (3.4%) on BBC Four from 9pm. ITV2's Britain's Got More Talent took 523k (2.5%) from 9.30pm.
Maybe I was wrong about BGT helping with the football rating so strongly. We'll find out more tonight.
The Voice was exactly the same though this year. When it came to Will.i.am's final choice they had 2 singers left, carefully selected by producers. It was obvious the penultimate singer was not going to go through because otherwise what would be the point of the last one performing? Producers are making entertainment programmes. Morality doesn't come into it. They are responsible for entertaining the masses so they have to get it right. It's all theatrical, staged nonsense at the end of the day, a bit like a magician. The public don't know how things work behind the scenes so therefore, as long as something is produced that people enjoy, does it really matter?