The Ratings Thread (Part 46)

11516182021165

Comments

  • SamuelWSamuelW Posts: 8,447
    Forum Member
    Could Waterloo road be cancelled after the current episodes being filmed? The last two weeks it hasnt been up against Emmerdale, continues to have an Eastenders lead in and up against football competition getting less than 5million, and it's still failed to average over 4million. The show is ridiculed for its poor quality [even more than it used to be], it isnt guilty pleasure viewing anymore, it is no longer winning viewer voted awards and the poor ratings for it mean it is offering a bad lead in for the 9oclock show. Cheap factual shows have been rating better in that slot like Watchdog so is it time to call it a day on the show?
  • Chris1964Chris1964 Posts: 19,725
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Piers Morgan‏ @piersmorgan
    BOOM! Terrific ratings for Esther Rantzen #LifeStories - 3.6m avg, 3.8m peak. No1 in timeslot, & up 100k on last series launch show. @ITV

    Mmm its a srange tv world when 3.8 million can be described as terrific. Waterloo Road is getting that and people are calling for it to be axed.
    Iv always had alot of time for Esther though. Thats Life on Sundays was always a highlight and meant that I only became depressed about school when it was over which was about 10.15.
    Also Childline has been an enduring success as far as I know.
  • Chris1964Chris1964 Posts: 19,725
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    SamuelW wrote: »
    Could Waterloo road be cancelled after the current episodes being filmed? The last two weeks it hasnt been up against Emmerdale, continues to have an Eastenders lead in and up against football competition getting less than 5million, and it's still failed to average over 4million. The show is ridiculed for its poor quality [even more than it used to be], it isnt guilty pleasure viewing anymore, it is no longer winning viewer voted awards and the poor ratings for it mean it is offering a bad lead in for the 9oclock show. Cheap factual shows have been rating better in that slot like Watchdog so is it time to call it a day on the show?

    Waterloo Road has jumped the shark about 1000 times now. I have stopped watching but I gather the latest story was a teacher getting a girl pupil to dress as a boy to be able to play football?
    Really if its reached that stage its got to go.
  • jake lylejake lyle Posts: 6,146
    Forum Member
    mlt11 wrote: »
    I would broadly agree with your post.

    But all I would say is that everything has a price. ITV is apparently paying approx £6m per year for an entire season of EL 1st and 2nd picks.

    Compare that, for example, to Sky paying £12m to get the first 2 rounds of the US Masters exclusively live - just 2 nights of golf. Or BT paying over £40m per year for club rugby union.

    Or to put into context Sky is spending £1,300m and BT £300m per year on sports rights.

    So the EL at £6m would be 0.5% of Sky's budget and 2% of BT's budget. For quite a lot of pretty decent content.

    I think your post explains why ITV got it so cheaply last time. But the point is next time may be different. Suppose, hypothetically BT outbid Sky for all its CL rights. In that situation I can't imagine Sky letting ITV continue to keep the EL for peanuts.

    Or alternatively if BT doesn't want to spend a huge amount challenging Sky for the CL, the EL is there as a good second prize for incredibly good value.

    So in conclusion I think BT's arrival changes the dynamics - it is an extra big player wanting a piece of the action and it may well make a difference
    .

    So true BT has serious ambitions and the resources to back it up. The next few football contracts will be very interesting to watch as both will battle for as much football as they can. Which is why I think people who believe the BBC will get/ afford some FA Cup rights are dreaming.
  • AlbacomAlbacom Posts: 34,578
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    johnnymc wrote: »
    I think you have misunderstood my comments on broadchurch. I mean that no matter where david tennant is he adds viewers. Im thinking even on bbc four. He is an asset to any television play. Im sure he adds millions to any production regardless of its quality. I am a huge who fan and like many others am attracted to dramas where the ex doctors appear and I think tennant developed a cult following. Whether itv or bbc one has him on their channel he is going to attract more viewers. I think the bbc is about to use him soon too and again he will add to the ratings on that channel too just as john thaw did or david jason he is a popular television face I would say. I've not attacked itv broadchurch how can I when I've not seen any of it so couldn't say if its any good or not. Itv produce
    equally good drama to the bbc. Ie mrs biggs downton lewis so its unfair to say im critical of their production and I have never said as such. Its just a tv channel not a personal attack after all.

    The drama he was in with Suranne Jones about a grieving father didn't do too well though.

    However, Tennant is a very versatile actor. He will shine in Broadchurch. Olivia Coleman is fab though. I loved her in Beautiful People and she is warm and likeable in Rev. I think Broadchurch will be the hit ITV need. I think it will have the edge over Mayday. Do people like to commit to a drama every single day? If they do then will Mayday win the overnights with Broadchurch having a huge timeshift figure.

    Good dramas in Britain are like buses. You wait ages for one then three come along at once!
  • Chris1964Chris1964 Posts: 19,725
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    James J wrote: »
    No....

    There's much more to it than the Tennant effect. Read up on it, rather than writing off the drama and saying it'll only do well because "he's in it".

    The pathetic depths that posters sink to in their efforts to dismiss ITV's successes (in this case, before they're even successes) are becoming laughable.

    If ITV does something good, certain people rationalise it as a fluke, a clone, etc... Why are people so hard on this damn network? :confused: Why can't people be impartial?

    Nothing ITV ever does is good enough, there is always an excuse for their success, there are always more digs that can be made, it is never given credit for its efforts.

    For what it's worth, I hope Broadchurch is as good as it looks, and if it is I hope it gets huge ratings because I don't care about anyone else - I support the underdog, and ITV comes in for so much slack because of outdated perceptions and frankly the network has changed a heck of a lot from the days when such criticisms and perceptions were justified.

    Improvements and gains with things like the strong rebrand, improved drama slate (Biggs, Selfridge etc), progress pre-watershed (Cornwall, Dogs), Daytime gains (Chase, Tipping Point etc), massive improvements to News (Etchingham, no standing up, more serious) and new factual commissions (Aylesbury, Death Row etc) are consistently ignored and overlooked.

    Why are so many people so hateful towards this commercial network? I really genuinely want to know now why members of this thread cannot just stand back and view TV as a WHOLE.

    ITV is trying to be a good network. It's trying very hard to balance the wishes of viewers and its business obligations in a tough market and frankly I think the team in place is doing a sterling job.



    Apologies to all for the rant but I'm so fed up of people kicking ITV in the balls all the time, like it's still under the reign of Charles Allen and has nothing going for it.

    Its worth remembering that BBC1 only pushed ahead of ITV at the turn of the century and for large chunks of the previous decades ITV gave the BBC a real battering.
    Personally I think there are too many channels eating up the commercial pie , but I also think ITV dropped the baton somewhere along the line. Hugely popular, trusted, and even loved by many millions for decades, it hasnt retained a default percentage and has to work for every viewer. For me people dont view it with any kind of the affection it used to have in spades.
  • Chris1964Chris1964 Posts: 19,725
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jake lyle wrote: »
    So true BT has serious ambitions and the resources to back it up. The next few football contracts will be very interesting to watch as both battle for as much football as they can. Which is why I think people who believe the BBC will get/ afford some FA Cup rights back are dreaming.

    Didnt the BBC team up with SKY to share the rights? Isnt that possible again?
    The BBC do need some live football imo.
  • iaindbiaindb Posts: 13,278
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Chris1964 wrote: »
    Waterloo Road has jumped the shark about 1000 times now. I have stopped watching but I gather the latest story was a teacher getting a girl pupil to dress as a boy to be able to play football?
    Really if its reached that stage its got to go.

    I'm no fan of Wateroo Road but I have to defend this storyline which I know about because my mum watches the programme.

    The girl is from a troublesome family but being the star player in the WR football team gives her a sense of worth. However, football rules say that girls and boys can't play in the same team or league once they turn 14, so the head ordered that the girl be dropped from the team just before an important gae. The teacher was worried that this disappointmentwould have an adverse effect on the girl so allowed her to play in the team pretending to be a boy.

    The girl looks like a boy anyway, because she is a transexual which is the main storyline here.
  • jake lylejake lyle Posts: 6,146
    Forum Member
    Chris1964 wrote: »
    Didnt the BBC team up with SKY to share the rights? Isnt that possible again?

    Those were very different days.........:eek: Very different and the BBC lost the 'MOTD' rights when it happened. Later on they held both but that was when the BBC was enjoying one of the biggest licence fee increases in their history and had no F1!
    BT is a game changer and I suspect the bidding will be well out of the BBC's league.
  • AlbacomAlbacom Posts: 34,578
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    D.M.N. wrote: »
    Maybe I've missed something, but is there a particular reason why Benidorm is not back on now?

    Due to cast commitments (Sheila Reid was busy filming Call The Midwife for instance), the show is being filmed in March this year with an expected Autumn broadcast.
  • Chris1964Chris1964 Posts: 19,725
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jake lyle wrote: »
    Those were very different days.........:eek: Very different and the BBC lost the 'MOTD' rights when it happened. Later on they held both but that was after the BBC had one of their biggest licence fee increases in their history!
    BT is a game changer and I suspect the bidding will be well out of the BBC's league.

    iirc it was considered a shock when the FA went with ITV/Setanta over SKY/BBC a few years back when Michael Grade had that lock in?

    Im just throwing in a vague possibility as I have no way of knowing how the BBC are fixed financially when the next rights come around. But didnt someone say the BBC bid for one of the PL contracts or was that just me or someone else dreaming?
  • mlt11mlt11 Posts: 21,065
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Chris1964 wrote: »
    Didnt the BBC team up with SKY to share the rights? Isnt that possible again?
    The BBC do need some live football imo.
    jake lyle wrote: »
    Those were very different days.........:eek: Very different and the BBC lost the 'MOTD' rights when it happened. Later on they held both but that was when the BBC was enjoying one of the biggest licence fee increases in their history and had no F1!
    BT is a game changer and I suspect the bidding will be well out of the BBC's league.

    The other thing is that there is now "stability" in tbe BBC's sports budget.

    1) They've done the DQF review
    2) They've said they will cut sport by 15%
    3) They've achieved that 15% cut by cutting F1, Football League + a few other bits and pieces
    4) They've renewed all their other rights contracts for at least next 3-4 years

    So they know where they are and the budget is accounted for - there is nothing else significant they could now drop as all other major contracts are now signed.

    So it's physically impossible to buy anything significant new now unless they reopen DQF. Can't imagine they would do that as it would obviously then mean compensating extra cuts elsewhere.

    And that's before you then also consider likely substantial cost inflation due to BT bidding.
  • Chris1964Chris1964 Posts: 19,725
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    iaindb wrote: »
    I'm no fan of Wateroo Road but I have to defend this storyline which I know about because my mum watches the programme.

    The girl is from a troublesome family but being the star player in the WR football team gives her a sense of worth. However, football rules say that girls and boys can't play in the same team or league once they turn 14, so the head ordered that the girl be dropped from the team just before an important gae. The teacher was worried that this disappointmentwould have an adverse effect on the girl so allowed her to play in the team pretending to be a boy.

    The girl looks like a boy anyway, because she is a transexual which is the main storyline here.

    Thanks for filling in the gaps.

    I do wonder though how many "issues" there are left for WR to pursue.
  • kwynne42kwynne42 Posts: 75,337
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ftv wrote: »
    Rantzen has been interviewed about Savile umpteen times on virtually every channel, there's nothing new - she said she had no knowledge of his activities.

    Its not like she was an active presenter of a leading current affairs show that investigated shady doings of many nasty things and could have investigated Saville herself now is it.

    Oh wait..
  • jake lylejake lyle Posts: 6,146
    Forum Member
    Chris1964 wrote: »
    iirc it was considered a shock when the FA went with ITV/ESPN over SKY/BBC a few years back when Michael Grade had that lock in?
    .

    Yes I think the shock was related to how much ITV/Setanta bid. IIRC it was £80m more than the SKY/BBC bid.
    It was a ridiculous price tbh and Grade also tried to poach the 6 Nations at around the same time.
    Of course we all know what happened a year later, Michael Grade went to BBC/SKY and offered to sell them on at a heavily discounted price.
    Anyway the BBC had already spent their money on F1.
    Chris1964 wrote: »
    Im just throwing in a vague possibility as I have no way of knowing how the BBC are fixed financially when the next rights come around.

    After DQF I think we have a pretty clear idea how the BBC are fixed.The money is tied up in long term contracts. (MOTD, 6 Nations etc).
    Chris1964 wrote: »
    But didnt someone say the BBC bid for one of the PL contracts or was that just me or someone else dreaming?
    I think that was major dreaming:D
  • iaindbiaindb Posts: 13,278
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm not sure it's a good idea for ITV to run Broadchurch and Lightfields at the same time. Even though one's a crime thriler and one's a ghost story, I'm getting them mixed up in my head. Are they both the follow-up to Marchlands?:D Both broody and moody.

    Broadchurch is 8 parts. Is it the one story throughout? If so, that's a big commission for British TV which would't usually go beyond 6 episodes for a serial of that nature. Maybe this is ITV's attempt to create their equivalent of the acclaimed Scandanavian dramas. What we need now is for ITV to have the courage to commission a twelve part serial.

    I was going to suggest that Ben Stephenson should show similar bravery at the BBC but I think BBC1's forthcoming 10 parter The White Queen probably covers that.

    What with the three mentioned above and Mayday, it feels like it could be a good spring for British drama.
  • Hassaan13Hassaan13 Posts: 41,962
    Forum Member
    How did The Dumping Ground and 4 O'Clock Club do on CBBC yesterday?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 518
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    SamuelW wrote: »
    Could Waterloo road be cancelled after the current episodes being filmed? The last two weeks it hasnt been up against Emmerdale, continues to have an Eastenders lead in and up against football competition getting less than 5million, and it's still failed to average over 4million. The show is ridiculed for its poor quality [even more than it used to be], it isnt guilty pleasure viewing anymore, it is no longer winning viewer voted awards and the poor ratings for it mean it is offering a bad lead in for the 9oclock show. Cheap factual shows have been rating better in that slot like Watchdog so is it time to call it a day on the show?

    I hope not. Watching it from the first season I feel it's quality hasn't changed. Yes, once the move to Scotland was made some viewers turned off because of the respective changes but given time to get used to the new format of the show (from end of season 7) the show is still really good.

    The reason its pulling under 4 million for season 8 is because of the fact it isn't in its traditional Wednesday night 8pm slot. Have no idea why the BBC decided to move it. This must effect the ratings somehow. Remember, (season 6 and 7) pulled in close to 5.2 million. Popularity for the show is still widespread I feel and the drama is still worthy of praise. Therefore, It should not be cancelled. I don't think it will be either.
  • Glenn AGlenn A Posts: 23,794
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Chris1964 wrote: »
    Its worth remembering that BBC1 only pushed ahead of ITV at the turn of the century and for large chunks of the previous decades ITV gave the BBC a real battering.
    Personally I think there are too many channels eating up the commercial pie , but I also think ITV dropped the baton somewhere along the line. Hugely popular, trusted, and even loved by many millions for decades, it hasnt retained a default percentage and has to work for every viewer. For me people dont view it with any kind of the affection it used to have in spades.

    Actually under Michael Grade, BBC1 overtook ITV for a few years in the eighties. Ironically he was ex ITV and used ITV type shows like soaps to do it.
  • NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 8,635
    Forum Member
    dan2008 wrote: »
    Is there a 5min breakdown for both Emmerdale and EastEnders? I Assume EastEnders would climb from 7:45

    Thursday 21st February 2013
    Soap clash

    Time	BBC1    (BBC1)  ITV     (ITV)
    [I]Emmerdale starts at 18:44 	[/I]		
    18:45	5,809	(26.4%)	4,523	(20.6%)
    18:50	5,922	(26.8%)	4,791	(21.7%)
    18:55	5,304	(24.9%)	4,844	(22.8%)
    19:00	4,278	(19.4%)	6,738	(30.5%)
    19:05	4,208	(19.0%)	6,714	(30.3%)
    19:10	4,127	(18.7%)	6,513	(29.5%)
    19:15	4,135	(18.2%)	7,057	(31.0%)
    19:20	4,232	(18.6%)	6,789	(29.8%)
    19:25	4,538	(19.9%)	6,145	(27.0%)
    [I]EastEnders starts at 19:29 	[/I]		
    19:30	4,885	(20.4%)	6,623	(27.7%)
    19:35	5,163	(21.2%)	6,540	(26.9%)
    [I]Emmerdale ends at 19:41 	[/I]		
    19:40	6,398	(27.2%)	3,740	(15.9%)
    19:45	7,159	(30.7%)	2,255	(9.7%)
    19:50	7,185	(30.5%)	2,063	(8.8%)
    [I]EastEnders ends at 19:57[/I] 			
    19:55	5,456	(24.2%)	3,146	(14.0%)
    
    Emmerdale started very slowly and lost to the BBC One regional news, but by getting the jump on EastEnders it pushed the London soap below 5m during the clash. Look at how Emmerdale's audience soars by almost 2m at 19:00, and EastEnders recovers above 7m soon after Emmerdale is finished. Notice also the very poor audience for the football build-up (the kick-off was at 20:05).
  • Glenn AGlenn A Posts: 23,794
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    NeilVW wrote: »
    Thursday 21st February 2013
    Soap clash

    Time	BBC1    (BBC1)  ITV     (ITV)
    [I]Emmerdale starts at 18:44 	[/I]		
    18:45	5,809	(26.4%)	4,523	(20.6%)
    18:50	5,922	(26.8%)	4,791	(21.7%)
    18:55	5,304	(24.9%)	4,844	(22.8%)
    19:00	4,278	(19.4%)	6,738	(30.5%)
    19:05	4,208	(19.0%)	6,714	(30.3%)
    19:10	4,127	(18.7%)	6,513	(29.5%)
    19:15	4,135	(18.2%)	7,057	(31.0%)
    19:20	4,232	(18.6%)	6,789	(29.8%)
    19:25	4,538	(19.9%)	6,145	(27.0%)
    [I]EastEnders starts at 19:29 	[/I]		
    19:30	4,885	(20.4%)	6,623	(27.7%)
    19:35	5,163	(21.2%)	6,540	(26.9%)
    [I]Emmerdale ends at 19:41 	[/I]		
    19:40	6,398	(27.2%)	3,740	(15.9%)
    19:45	7,159	(30.7%)	2,255	(9.7%)
    19:50	7,185	(30.5%)	2,063	(8.8%)
    [I]EastEnders ends at 19:57[/I] 			
    19:55	5,456	(24.2%)	3,146	(14.0%)
    
    Emmerdale started very slowly and lost to the BBC One regional news, but by getting the jump on EastEnders it pushed the London soap below 5m during the clash. Look at how Emmerdale's audience soars by almost 2m at 19:00, and EastEnders recovers above 7m soon after Emmerdale is finished. Notice also the very poor audience for the football build-up (the kick-off was at 20:05).

    Neil, quite a jump for Emmerdale, as it was around 4 million early on and then goes up to its more customary figure. Not surprised about the fitba build up as it's usually full of adverts.
  • NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 8,635
    Forum Member
    Hassaan13 wrote: »
    Interested to see how CBBC did from 4:30pm onwards as Friday is usually their best day.

    Friday 22nd February 2013
    CBBC
    16:30 - Deadly Mission Madagascar: 193k (1.5%)
    17:00 - The Dumping Ground: 423k (2.9%)
    * series low
    17:30 - 4 o'Clock Club: 285k (1.7%)
    18:00-19:00 - Sam & Mark's Big Friday Wind Up: 193k (1.0%)
  • AnthonyCAnthonyC Posts: 2,228
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Glenn A wrote: »
    Actually under Michael Grade, BBC1 overtook ITV for a few years in the eighties. Ironically he was ex ITV and used ITV type shows like soaps to do it.

    Glenn - I think you might be mistaken. Although the gap narrowed under Grade BBC 1 didnt overtake. Check out this interesting graph showing shares from 1986-2001. Taken from Fun Factory c. 2003

    http://oi45.tinypic.com/2cymbdj.jpg
  • Glenn AGlenn A Posts: 23,794
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    AnthonyC wrote: »
    Glenn - I think you might be mistaken. Although the gap narrowed under Grade BBC 1 didnt overtake. Check out this interesting graph showing shares from 1986-2001. Taken from Fun Factory c. 2003

    http://oi45.tinypic.com/2cymbdj.jpg

    I'm sure for a time in 1987 BBC One overtook ITV, but I'll check your stats. I know under Grade and Cotton the BBC took over 50 pc of the aufience in 1986 and 87.
  • Andy23Andy23 Posts: 15,921
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ouch for Piers. Against a repeat.

    Assuming NT beat him, did Arabia too???

    Note that it wasn't even 3.6m as George has sneakily lumped together both showings!

    Wrong and wrong again, ITV won the slot.

    This was an important measure a few weeks ago, therefore I presume it's all that matters now as well.
This discussion has been closed.