The Ratings Thread (Part 45)

19091939596145

Comments

  • jonnyblackjonnyblack Posts: 897
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    NeilVW wrote: »
    I have access to the ratings computer again, however fleetingly.

    Hollyoaks (C4): 1.05m (5.1%) inc +1
    Hollyoaks (E4): 747k (3.5%) inc +1

    Thanks for those! Still doing good numbers but perhaps a bit on the low side. I haven't really been tracking weekly trends but I imagine Friday would be lower rated than other days (if one day had to go lower than the rest).
  • AlexiRAlexiR Posts: 22,403
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    iaindb wrote: »
    M*A*S*H used canned laughter.:mad: No wonder Robert Altman (the director of the film) hated the TV series (as I understand it). Well done to the BBC for showing the series without the laughter-track. Pity Comedy Central can't do the same.
    I think the first season of the much underrated Sports Night used a laugh track as well. It was particularly odd there because Sorkin's writing really isn't suited to that kind of style. There's a handful of examples out there.
    I always thought single-camera comedies were cheaper than multi-camera, hence the reason that there's been an increase in them in recent years. I though the admin costs of organising a studio audience (who don't pay for their tickets) would make it more expensive.
    I suspect there's some exceptions to the rule but by and large multi-camera comedies are cheaper to produce than single camera. Mainly its just because you can shoot an episode of a multi-cam in a couple hours whereas single cameras can be 5+ days of shooting per episode. There's more post-production for single camera as well because there's more footage to sift through and edit. The explosion of single camera is primarily down to the audience they attract. I know that in the US for example despite the fact that their total audience is tiny the various demographics that tune into the NBC Thursday comedies is impressive. Young high income viewers are what kept NBC plugging away with a group of shows that nobody has been watching.

    There's also the image issue. Multi-camera comedies got absolutely savaged by critics and audiences a few years ago mainly because of shows like The Office which made them look very dated and ham fisted. Single cameras were 'cooler' so broadcasters ran with them.
  • XIVXIV Posts: 21,495
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    AlexiR wrote: »
    I would agree on both counts.

    Its not clear how well multi-camera and single camera comedies match-up on a schedule together (most of the evidence suggests not well) but for the most part I can't see any reason why the two styles can't co-exist. Although as has been mentioned there's been something of a negative outlook aimed at the multi-camera genre in recent years although I think the rise of Big Bang in the US and the success of Miranda and Mrs Brown in the UK dispels a lot of that..

    I think that there is snobbery especially from critics and some comedians who think the multicamera sitcom is old hat, they rave about shows like 30 Rock, The Office but turn their nose at something like Mrs Browns Boys. The single camera comedies does work very well for shows like The Thick of It, The Royle Family etc and as been mentioned, as long as its funny, the way it looks or it is shot shouldn't matter.
    iaindb wrote: »
    M*A*S*H used canned laughter.:mad: No wonder Robert Altman (the director of the film) hated the TV series (as I understand it). Well done to the BBC for showing the series without the laughter-track. Pity Comedy Central can't do the same.


    I always thought single-camera comedies were cheaper than multi-camera, hence the reason that there's been an increase in them in recent years. I though the admin costs of organising a studio audience (who don't pay for their tickets) would make it more expensive.

    MASH is one of those shows where the subject matter means laughter is out of place but it did come from a era where sitcoms even if they filmed without a audience had to have a laughter track. Even cartoons like The Flintstones and Scooby Doo had them,

    I think Single camera comedies can be cheaper if there shot in one or two locations but if its shot more like a drama with location shooting, it probably is a tad more expensive than shooting a multicamera sitcom.

    It's funny that people are bothered by laughter in sitcoms but have no qualms about it in panel shows or chatshows.
  • XIVXIV Posts: 21,495
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    AlexiR wrote: »
    I think the first season of the much underrated Sports Night used a laugh track as well. It was particularly odd there because Sorkin's writing really isn't suited to that kind of style. There's a handful of examples out

    League of Gentlemen had a laughter track before dropping in series 3, I remember watching Sports Night and thinking it was out of place. Red Dwarf: Back to Earth lacked laughter and oddly it seemed weird without it but thankfully the audience was brought back for series X
  • NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 8,635
    Forum Member
    jonnyblack wrote: »
    Thanks for those! Still doing good numbers but perhaps a bit on the low side. I haven't really been tracking weekly trends but I imagine Friday would be lower rated than other days (if one day had to go lower than the rest).

    Yes, Friday tends to be the weakest night for Hollyoaks on Channel 4. These are the averages for 2013 to date (including +1):

    Mon - 1.29m (5.85%)
    Tue - 1.20m (5.55%)
    Wed - 1.24m (5.8%)
    Thu - 1.18m (5.55%)
    Fri - 1.10m (5.1%)
    All days - 1.20m (5.55%)

    The soap is doing better than it has in the previous 12 months, even on Fridays. The 12-month average on Fridays is 910k (4.8%); for all days it's 1.01m (5.2%).
  • GrecomaniaGrecomania Posts: 19,580
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    iaindb wrote: »
    M*A*S*H used canned laughter.:mad: No wonder Robert Altman (the director of the film) hated the TV series (as I understand it). Well done to the BBC for showing the series without the laughter-track. Pity Comedy Central can't do the same.


    Yeah an interesting point about M*A*S*H, I watched the TV series at the time, and it was brilliant, I still think better than Altman's film, which our too cynically dull IMHO. Alda played one of the great performances in TV.

    So I was all excited to watch it again on Comedy Central, but it's awful, because of the laughtrack. Those things aren't necessarily bad, but before about 1985 it was ridiculously loud and out of place, many jokes from this show was casual wry asides, yet we get the screeching laughter after each one. So the Comedy Central version is unwatchable.


    Apparently they gave the BBC a laughter-free print, but it was so poor it's worn out now. So it may not be CCs fault.

    Even by the time of Cheers these things had been toned down.
  • BrekkieBrekkie Posts: 23,987
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    NeilVW wrote: »
    Yes, Friday tends to be the weakest night for Hollyoaks on Channel 4. These are the averages for 2013 to date (including +1):

    Mon - 1.29m (5.85%)
    Tue - 1.20m (5.55%)
    Wed - 1.24m (5.8%)
    Thu - 1.18m (5.55%)
    Fri - 1.10m (5.1%)
    All days - 1.20m (5.55%)

    The soap is doing better than it has in the previous 12 months, even on Fridays. The 12-month average on Fridays is 910k (4.8%); for all days it's 1.01m (5.2%).
    I suspect the bosses at Hollyoaks are the only people happy C4 is in such a state at the moment because the last thing they need is to have the task of replacing it.

    It's good that it's up and with a couple of big exits in forthcoming weeks the ratings should hold for the next few weeks - but it's keeping them around after then that is key, though I do think the injection of some new blood will probably do the show more good than harm at the moment. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets a bit of a new look and marketing campaign later in the year too now Bryan Kirkwood has pretty much bought the stories he inherited to a close.

    It could still do with getting closer to 1.5m regularly on C4 (I doubt it'll ever hit 2m again), but on E4 at least it's ratings seem relatively healthy and compare favourably with how the show rated a few years back when the C4 figure was much greater.
  • SamuelWSamuelW Posts: 8,447
    Forum Member
    Dancing on Ice faces the AXE: http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/dancing-on-ice-faces-the-axe-1647596
    Dancing on Ice is on the skids after being trumped last week… by Countryfile.

    Insiders say ITV bosses are considering dropping the flagship show because the latest series has had some of the poorest viewing figures since it began in 2006.
  • BrekkieBrekkie Posts: 23,987
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The Mirror probably a year late with that story. The question is what else could get anywhere near close to 6m viewers on a Sunday unless they move the soaps back (which might be the best thing for ITV right now). A return to Saturday would probably help DoI itself, but not ITV.

    The trouble ITV have now (and it's not just an ITV problem) is when their big hitters begin to flounder there is nothing waiting in the wings fighting for it's slot in the schedule.
  • GrecomaniaGrecomania Posts: 19,580
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Brekkie wrote: »
    The Mirror probably a year late with that story. The question is what else could get anywhere near close to 6m viewers on a Sunday unless they move the soaps back (which might be the best thing for ITV right now). A return to Saturday would probably help DoI itself, but not ITV.

    The trouble ITV have now (and it's not just an ITV problem) is when their big hitters begin to flounder there is nothing waiting in the wings fighting for it's slot in the schedule.

    Hard to know what ITV can do to replace it, amusing DOI is a flop, but Splash with similar figures is a hit.
  • AlexiRAlexiR Posts: 22,403
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Brekkie wrote: »
    The Mirror probably a year late with that story. The question is what else could get anywhere near close to 6m viewers on a Sunday unless they move the soaps back (which might be the best thing for ITV right now). A return to Saturday would probably help DoI itself, but not ITV.

    The trouble ITV have now (and it's not just an ITV problem) is when their big hitters begin to flounder there is nothing waiting in the wings fighting for it's slot in the schedule.
    Two nights of Splash...?

    The problem with the 'what else could get 6m' argument is that how much longer is Dancing on Ice going to be getting that? Looking at the year-on-year drops it seems unlikely that ITV will be able to bank on it hitting that kind of level next year. In truth there's no shortage of potential formats and ideas out there that ITV could try Q1 next year if they wanted to. Whether any of them would be a success is another issue entirely but at this point I'm not sure ITV have a whole lot to lose by trying.

    I suppose they could always try and give Andrew Lloyd Webber another shot. Superstar didn't do very well but it was buried in the middle of a very crowded summer and the stripped format was just odd. Maybe a weekly show in Q1 would have a little more success. Or I suppose they could spend a bit of money and try a UK version of The Amazing Race.
  • NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 8,635
    Forum Member
    All-day shares (06:00-26:00)
    BBC One - 22.6%
    BBC Two - 5.2% (BBC HD: 0.2%)
    ITV - 18.4% (inc + 1: 19.2%)
    Channel 4 - 4.5% (inc +1: 5.2%)
    Channel 5 - 4.0% (inc +1: 4.3%)
    Others: 45.3% (exc +1s for ITV/C4/C5: 43.5%)

    Primetime shares (19:00-23:00)
    BBC One - 21.3%
    BBC Two - 7.3% (BBC HD: 0.4%)
    ITV - 21.5% (inc +1: 22.1%)
    Channel 4 - 4.05% (inc +1: 4.5%)
    Channel 5 - 3.8% (inc +1: 4.3%)
    Others: 42.05% (exc +1s for ITV/C4/C5: 40.5%)
  • CentCent Posts: 26,301
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    amusing DOI is a flop, but Splash with similar figures is a hit.
    One is getting old and has lost half its audience, the other is new and just starting.

    Also I'd guess Splash does better with younger viewers.
  • GrecomaniaGrecomania Posts: 19,580
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Cent wrote: »
    One is getting old and has lost half its audience, the other is new and just starting.

    Also I'd guess Splash does better with younger viewers.

    Yeah, but surely Splash is riding an Olympic High, and really not any good.

    I don't watch either, but it would seem silly for ITV to cancel a show with a proven format for one that really did ok because of circumstances, daley, being a star, and bbc not giving much opposition.
  • GrecomaniaGrecomania Posts: 19,580
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    AlexiR wrote: »
    Two nights of Splash...?

    The problem with the 'what else could get 6m' argument is that how much longer is Dancing on Ice going to be getting that? Looking at the year-on-year drops it seems unlikely that ITV will be able to bank on it hitting that kind of level next year. In truth there's no shortage of potential formats and ideas out there that ITV could try Q1 next year if they wanted to. Whether any of them would be a success is another issue entirely but at this point I'm not sure ITV have a whole lot to lose by trying.

    I suppose they could always try and give Andrew Lloyd Webber another shot. Superstar didn't do very well but it was buried in the middle of a very crowded summer and the stripped format was just odd. Maybe a weekly show in Q1 would have a little more success. Or I suppose they could spend a bit of money and try a UK version of The Amazing Race.


    Aren't they just running out of musicals though?
  • AlexiRAlexiR Posts: 22,403
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Aren't they just running out of musicals though?
    Unfortunately not.
  • GrecomaniaGrecomania Posts: 19,580
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    AlexiR wrote: »
    Unfortunately not.

    well, there aren't many more a-l-w are involved in though, are there. TBH my knowledge of musicals could be written on the back of a stamp.
  • NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 8,635
    Forum Member
    Comparing the first two episodes of series two of Dallas on Channel 5 with the final two of the first series, overall there has been a -27% fall in viewers. Analysing the demos, women (-29%) have turned off more than men (-24%). In terms of age, the most significant fall has been among the 35-54s (-38%). The last two instalments of series 1 had a TVR of 2.8 and a share of 6.5% in this demo, much better than in other age groups (it did particularly well in the 35-44s); this has now fallen to a 1.8 and 4%. This is still the best share among the demos, but the show now has its highest TVR in the 55-64s (2.1).

    It should be said that Dallas timeshifted very well last season: an overnight average of 1.6m (7%) consolidated to 2.1m (8%) across the ten episodes.

    All figures inc +1.
    Fudd wrote: »
    The Chase is really starting to struggle, relatively speaking, opposite Pointless now. Has Pointless' lead in improved or something?

    I can now answer this question: yes, Antiques Road Trip is up from less than 2m and a 15% share one month ago, to about 2.3m and 17-18% share this week, so that could be helping Pointless a bit.
  • tamibecketttamibeckett Posts: 5,261
    Forum Member
    AlexiR wrote: »
    The better question is if a show can barely break a 1 on broadcast (or in fact doesn't) then how much lower would it go on cable? The general assumption seems to be that because they're getting that number on broadcast they'd be able to do it on a cable network as well but there's very little to indicate that's the case. Whilst their numbers might be at historic lows the broadcast networks still have a much larger inbuilt audience than any of the cable nets.

    On the other hand, if these shows are barely getting 1's in the demo, wouldn't it be better for them to be on cable? More patience given, more leeway in material and storylines, etc

    In a way it's like CBS giving away some of their pilots to CW, not a cable network but no need to get 1's in the demo nevermind that their shows can barely approach the number!
  • C14EC14E Posts: 32,165
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    DOI still does fine - we're used to seeing a far worse collapse from ITV when a BBC line-up is as strong as it is on Sunday nights. I just don't see an alternative at the moment.
  • AlexiRAlexiR Posts: 22,403
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    well, there aren't many more a-l-w are involved in though, are there. TBH my knowledge of musicals could be written on the back of a stamp.
    From memory I think I'm right in saying that of the casting shows they've done only two have been shows written by Lloyd Webber. The others have been him casting for a revival or new production of someone else's work that he's producing. There's any number of shows they can do that with. That doors even wider if they go with casting a national tour rather than a West End run.
    On the other hand, if these shows are barely getting 1's in the demo, wouldn't it be better for them to be on cable? More patience given, more leeway in material and storylines, etc
    But my point is that there's absolutely nothing to suggest that these shows would be replicating that kind of ratings performance on cable. Yes if something like Lone Star or Awake (ironically two shows created by the same person) were able to take the numbers they were doing at Fox and NBC respectively to cable then they'd be in with a chance of getting renewed. The problem is there's little to suggest that would be the case. Southland is one of the very few dramas in the history of television to transfer from broadcast to cable. Its last episode on NBC (the season 1 finale) did a 2.0 in the demo and its first episode on TNT (season 2 opener) did a 1.0 in the demo. I don't know why people assume that the audience that watch these shows on broadcast would follow them or more aptly find them if they were to launch on a cable network.

    I'd also point out that this whole argument requires a certain degree of hindsight and just perpetuates the idea that only a certain kind of show can succeed on broadcast. There's no reason why these shows can't find decent audiences on broadcast television. I'm a big believer in the if you build it they will come philosophy. The problem is that the broadcast networks stopped building it.
    In a way it's like CBS giving away some of their pilots to CW, not a cable network but no need to get 1's in the demo nevermind that their shows can barely approach the number!
    This gets into a whole other realm of the economics behind The CW that I don't really want to get into but I will say that CBS don't give their pilots to The CW. Off hand I can only remember Ringer transferring from CBS' slate to The CW's and that was primarily manoeuvrings done by production companies and execs at The CW rather than anyone at CBS.
  • AlexiRAlexiR Posts: 22,403
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    C14E wrote: »
    DOI still does fine - we're used to seeing a far worse collapse from ITV when a BBC line-up is as strong as it is on Sunday nights. I just don't see an alternative at the moment.
    But is that a healthy philosophy for ITV to have? Should they really be continuing to play Dancing on Ice to ever diminishing returns rather than trying to strike out with something new? Its not like they couldn't revive Dancing on Ice a year or two down the line if things go horribly wrong. If they just run it into the ground now that won't be an option.

    They can't allow themselves to get into a situation (or get any deeper into a situation) where they have to keep plugging away with Dancing on Ice, The X Factor, Britain's Got Talent and I'm A Celebrity... almost regardless of how low they might get or unhealthy they might look. I think there's probably a strong argument to be made that Q1 is probably where they should be looking to find and groom eventual replacements for the likes of The X Factor.
  • FuddFudd Posts: 166,868
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    AlexiR wrote: »
    But is that a healthy philosophy for ITV to have? Should they really be continuing to play Dancing on Ice to ever diminishing returns rather than trying to strike out with something new? Its not like they couldn't revive Dancing on Ice a year or two down the line if things go horribly wrong. If they just run it into the ground now that won't be an option.

    They can't allow themselves to get into a situation (or get any deeper into a situation) where they have to keep plugging away with Dancing on Ice, The X Factor, Britain's Got Talent and I'm A Celebrity... almost regardless of how low they might get or unhealthy they might look. I think there's probably a strong argument to be made that Q1 is probably where they should be looking to find and groom eventual replacements for the likes of The X Factor.

    But Saturday night in Quarter One makes more sense for that kind of thing as BBC One's line up is so weak. If they try and pitch anything new on Sunday night's the biggest likelihood is it'll be strangled by BBC One. Imagine how Splash! would have performed in Dancing On Ice's slot.

    Yes, Call the Midwife did well against ITV's (what was a) strong line up but it wasn't a one off. BBC One had already proven with Lark Rise to Candleford and Cranford that historical dramas would work there.

    I do agree with you that ITV need to be searching for new formats but I don't think Quarter One Sunday's is where they should be trying them out. So if they axe Dancing on Ice...what would they replace it with? Or would they surrender the night like they have Tuesday's?
  • ftvftv Posts: 31,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Animal Antics returns to BBC1 next Saturday but Richard Hammond does not (thankfully)
  • Andy23Andy23 Posts: 15,921
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    ftv wrote: »
    Animal Antics returns to BBC1 next Saturday but Richard Hammond does not (thankfully)

    Is there an obvious slot where it would have gone, or is there still basically no room for it.
This discussion has been closed.