I'll confess - I generally ignore and distrust "polls" of any sort - not cos of the numbers but cos they are basically bent because they are all about as reliable as a Lada Riva.
Simplest example - imagine a poll about benefits. Someone(s) stand in town centres every Monday for a year and stops a million people to ask if benefits should be cut. A million people sounds great - until you realise that the people stopped were all in town in the daytime - which means there's a very big likelihood that the poll massively under -represents "working people". Ask the same question in the same towns on a Thursday and you'll get a disproportionate number of pensioners responding cos it's "pension day" - and they'll demand National Service for everyone.
Most large polls use representative sampling and strict quotas (working/non-working, male/female, age ranges, social groups) which match the population. Both the BARB panel and the AI panel are sampled in this way.
1> People who don't LIKE a show simply won't be watching it - so almost by definition it's a poll of people who LIKE Doctor Who. It's not a measure of popularity (which is how some people here seem to be representing it) - it's "fans" saying if they liked this week's story/guest star/music etc. It's ridiculous to say that DW is "better liked" than Casualty (for example) based on AI - they are likely to have two completely different audiences. It's like asking Brits to AI World War 2 and Germans to AI World War 1 and then saying that it proves World War 2 is more "popular". With AI, you could "prove" that measles is "better than" ice-cream.
AI has never claimed to be anything other than the views of those who watched. To be honest, those who don't watch a programme can keep their uniformed views to themselves.
If falling AI figures tally with subsequent drops in viewing figures, then it may be possible to identify points at which a show went wrong.
2> It's entirely percentage based - taking no account of how many people were happy or unhappy. There's so little opera on TV that any broadcast of opera gets a high AI - from all 5 of its viewers. That's the biggest flaw - the system favours niche programming and one-off's over consistency. A big show like Doctor Who could make 5,000,000 happy and get rated lower than a show that was enjoyed by three jazz fans. The highest AI ratings in recent years have all been for the royal wedding and a couple of niche interest documentaries that appealed to a specific type of person (a hospital performing surgery on children with a very specific medical condition). Because of that, BBC4 is almost guaranteed to get the highest AI results every year despite having very few viewers (and the BBC are going to close BBC3 next year - and keep BBC4 - BBC4 is "appreciated")
Again, AI has never claimed to be anything other than the views of those who watched.
Doctor Who has maintained consistently high AI figures and high viewing figures over 9 years, so it's hardly a matter of the AI system favouring niche programming.
If what you say is true, then perhaps AI values get watered down as more casual viewers tune in - maybe enjoy it, but not as much as the hardcore fans.
"Casual" viewers will have some influence but be wary of ONLY allowing for "fans" and "casual viewers" - there's a huge swathe of people who like the show and tune in every week but who then walk away and have no other connection with the show - they're not "fans" and they aren't represented on forums like this but they form the majority of viewers.
AI is not a measure of quality - it's a measure of "instant appeal". Mostly though, it doesn't ask people why they DON'T watch the show.
AI for a show like this is like the weekly poll at the top of this forum - but without the people who only come here to vote "crap" every week cos they thinks they are being original and funny. As such, there will never be a genuinely low AI for Doctor Who no matter what.
There's a line in Red Dwarf (maybe only in one of the books?) were Rimmer compares his life to exams. As he describes it - some people's lives are like a maths exam, they start with zero and everything they get right adds to their score. His life is like a French oral exam - he started with 100% and points keep being deducted everytime he gets something wrong.
AI is the "French oral exam" - only a large portion of the people voting on a show of this type "see no wrong" so the show always gets high figures. The audience may be critical - but only up to a point. Worse than that, an otherwise dull or poor episode could get an AI of 90%+ simply cos it has a cameo from an ex-Doctor - like a sugar rush to the brain.
Mostly - AI on Doctor Who is totally pointless unless you also allow for the size and make-up of the audience.
Let's say that DW averages 80% AI one year and the next year that shoots up to 90%. Is that a sign of improvement - or could it be that the show just lost a lot of viewers and only those "hardcore" fans are left to vote? AI needs to be charted WITH viewing numbers or we risk missing the inevitable point where a show of this type moves away from mainstream appeal and towards "cult" appeal - cos that's when shows of this type really do get cancelled.
I think you're missing the point that AI uses a representative sample of the general public. It is not similar to self-sampled fan polls in any way.
Exactly.
Whilst not being perfect, AI is the best way we currently have of measuring the general audience's opinions of Who, and it is a fact that this season's AI figures are consistently 4-6 points lower than seen in recent years, which suggests to me that it is not being enjoyed as much as it used to be.
Michael Grade hated Doctor Who and starved it of money and then decided to kill it by showing it opposite Coronation St. Also the series was in decline by the time Colin Baker arrived, I've just been watching a laughably awful clip of Ingrid Pitt fighting a monster where you can see bits falling off.
Budgeting for the programme had no input or sway from the controller of BBC1 whatsoever, that was down to the BBC Drama Department, the head of which wasn't allowed to be swayed by the controller of the two BBC channels.
Also, Michael Grade had left the BBC for Channel 4 by the time the decision was taken for S24's scheduling.
And the budget didn't get any worse during JNT's time. You can always go back to Horror of Fang Rock in 1977 and be totally unconvinced by a glowing green jellyfish poorly (even at the time) blue screened onto a shot of a lighthouse stairwell. Then there is the "blue screen mania" story Terror of the Autons.
Or you could go back to the 60s and be totally unenthralled by the Cybermen that sometimes speak without moving their mouths or butterfly-like creatures crashing into cameras!
I know many of these are not down to the production team, they had to make the best of what they had to work with, but poor effects and costumes were not relegated to just the JNT era.
Sorry but you're wrong on the basic fact - it's a sample of VIEWERS - not "the general public".
The overwhelming majority of British citizens own and watch a television set.
As for the issue of non-viewers of specific programmes, how can people who didn't watch a programme give it a score? Most of the country doesn't watch Doctor Who. But the same can be said for every single programme except for coverage of events of national importance.
The overwhelming majority of British citizens own and watch a television set.
As for the issue of non-viewers of specific programmes, how can people who didn't watch a programme give it a score? Most of the country doesn't watch Doctor Who. But the same can be said for every single programme except for coverage of events of national importance.
No - it's actual VIEWERS - people who WATCHED THAT SHOW.
No-one is being asked if they LIKE Doctor Who - people who had ALREADY CHOSEN TO WATCH IT are being asked how much they enjoyed it.
No - it's actual VIEWERS - people who WATCHED THAT SHOW.
No-one is being asked if they LIKE Doctor Who - people who had ALREADY CHOSEN TO WATCH IT are being asked how much they enjoyed it.
NO NEED TO SHOUT! I have stated several times that AI has never claimed to be anything other than the views of those who watched.
The AI sample for any given programme therefore varies in size depending on how many panel members watched. However, it is still NOTHING WHATSOEVER LIKE THE SELF-SAMPLED POLLS ON FAN FORUMS!
In todays world with piracy, I-players and repeats on BBC 3 and the show being broadcast around the world, are the BBC all that caring on the viewership figures on a Saturday night?
In todays world with piracy, I-players and repeats on BBC 3 and the show being broadcast around the world, are the BBC all that caring on the viewership figures on a Saturday night?
Probably not in terms of total number of viewers of this show but yes in terms of deciding what to show in any given time slot.
Taken to extremes - imagine that DW still got ~10m views BUT 8m of those were on iplayer and only 2m hardcore "fans" watched it "live". In that case, the show doesn't benefit from the primetime slot and the primetime slot doesn't benefit from this show - so yu move DW to a slot that needs 2m viewers and put something at830pm on Saturday that either pulls live viewers or which needs a primetime slot to gain a bigger audience.
If what you say is true, then perhaps AI values get watered down as more casual viewers tune in - maybe enjoy it, but not as much as the hardcore fans.
Maybe not "watered-down" so much as made more "realistic" - or more consistent with the voting on shows that don't have the sort of "fan" that a show of this nature usually attracts.
I can't imagine ever rating DW at below maybe 75% - so in terms of this show, for me, I'd simply not be using a scale of 1-100. On the other hand, I can't imagine ever rating something like X-factor or Eastenders at anything higer than 10% - so there again, I'd not be using a scale of 1-100.
That's the flaw if the AI results are thrown around as comparisons - we're really not using a set scale and cos people who chose to watch a show of this type are not going to be the ones who would see it as a 1-10 scale.
(I'm not saynig that AI is "useless" - far from it. I'm just pointing out that some people are citing these figures and claiming that they prove that the show is losing/gaining viewers or becoming more/less popular and they are mistaken - I'm being polite.)
I do think the time of broadcast is very strange for the show this year
It is better to schedule the show after Strictly rather than before. As an entertainment show, Strictly gets you in the mood to be entertained, so a casual viewer may watch Doctor Who as well, not turning over because it's a 'night of entertainment'. If Doctor Who was on before, people would most likely still be doing chores and making tea in prep for sitting down to watch Strictly.
Strictly is a better warm-up for the show so in terms of casual viewers it will be beneficial. A later timeslot may also make the show seem more geared towards an older audience rather than a family show; the concept of which might put off teens and young adults, who are now the target audience from the looks of things. I suppose this makes sense as those who watched the reboot as kids would now be teens/young adults; in the way that Harry Potter 'grew up' with the young readers.
Dr Who at the moment, to me anyway, reminds me of 1985, and Colin Baker's first season. Back then we weren't long from an anniversary story either. Colin had become the Doctor, playing a 'darker 'doctor who didn't have the best of relationships with his assistant. And we had a season that wasn't regarded as one of the best.
I hope there isn't the similarity of a cancellation!
What truth? Is the show about to be cancelled? Does the director of BBC Television hate Doctor Who? Does it look cheap and garish? Is it badly written and badly acted?
I'm struggling to see many similarities with 1985.
So there isn't any truth in the rumour there won't be a series next year?
That has no connection to anything else. The rumoured reason for no season next year is Moffat doesn't want to do one, and if he did there would be one.
That has no connection to anything else. The rumoured reason for no season next year is Moffat doesn't want to do one, and if he did there would be one.
There's a difference between reminiscent and a carbon copy.
Similarities
1. Recent anniversary story
2. New Doctor
3. New Doctor not met with universal acclaim
4. Scripts don't seem as good as before
5. Possible hiatus, granted different reason but same result
There's a difference between reminiscent and a carbon copy.
Similarities
1. Recent anniversary story
2. New Doctor
3. New Doctor not met with universal acclaim
4. Scripts don't seem as good as before
5. Possible hiatus, granted different reason but same result
1. Irrelevant
2. Irreverent
3. Capaldi has for the most part recieved fantastic reviews and frequent acclaim for his performances
4. Your opinion
5. You've said it yourself. Completely different reason. So it's irrelevant.
See. Nothing like 1985. The only point that would have relevance would be number 5 but as its for entirely different reasons you've actually proved yourself that it's nothing like 1985. The difference between the rumour that the show runner wants or needs a break year/reduction in episodes despite the BBC wanting a full series is so fundamentally different to the BBC putting the show on hiatus it couldn't be much further apart.
Comments
AI has never claimed to be anything other than the views of those who watched. To be honest, those who don't watch a programme can keep their uniformed views to themselves.
If falling AI figures tally with subsequent drops in viewing figures, then it may be possible to identify points at which a show went wrong. Again, AI has never claimed to be anything other than the views of those who watched.
Doctor Who has maintained consistently high AI figures and high viewing figures over 9 years, so it's hardly a matter of the AI system favouring niche programming.
"Casual" viewers will have some influence but be wary of ONLY allowing for "fans" and "casual viewers" - there's a huge swathe of people who like the show and tune in every week but who then walk away and have no other connection with the show - they're not "fans" and they aren't represented on forums like this but they form the majority of viewers.
AI is not a measure of quality - it's a measure of "instant appeal". Mostly though, it doesn't ask people why they DON'T watch the show.
AI for a show like this is like the weekly poll at the top of this forum - but without the people who only come here to vote "crap" every week cos they thinks they are being original and funny. As such, there will never be a genuinely low AI for Doctor Who no matter what.
There's a line in Red Dwarf (maybe only in one of the books?) were Rimmer compares his life to exams. As he describes it - some people's lives are like a maths exam, they start with zero and everything they get right adds to their score. His life is like a French oral exam - he started with 100% and points keep being deducted everytime he gets something wrong.
AI is the "French oral exam" - only a large portion of the people voting on a show of this type "see no wrong" so the show always gets high figures. The audience may be critical - but only up to a point. Worse than that, an otherwise dull or poor episode could get an AI of 90%+ simply cos it has a cameo from an ex-Doctor - like a sugar rush to the brain.
Mostly - AI on Doctor Who is totally pointless unless you also allow for the size and make-up of the audience.
Let's say that DW averages 80% AI one year and the next year that shoots up to 90%. Is that a sign of improvement - or could it be that the show just lost a lot of viewers and only those "hardcore" fans are left to vote? AI needs to be charted WITH viewing numbers or we risk missing the inevitable point where a show of this type moves away from mainstream appeal and towards "cult" appeal - cos that's when shows of this type really do get cancelled.
Exactly.
Whilst not being perfect, AI is the best way we currently have of measuring the general audience's opinions of Who, and it is a fact that this season's AI figures are consistently 4-6 points lower than seen in recent years, which suggests to me that it is not being enjoyed as much as it used to be.
Budgeting for the programme had no input or sway from the controller of BBC1 whatsoever, that was down to the BBC Drama Department, the head of which wasn't allowed to be swayed by the controller of the two BBC channels.
Also, Michael Grade had left the BBC for Channel 4 by the time the decision was taken for S24's scheduling.
And the budget didn't get any worse during JNT's time. You can always go back to Horror of Fang Rock in 1977 and be totally unconvinced by a glowing green jellyfish poorly (even at the time) blue screened onto a shot of a lighthouse stairwell. Then there is the "blue screen mania" story Terror of the Autons.
Or you could go back to the 60s and be totally unenthralled by the Cybermen that sometimes speak without moving their mouths or butterfly-like creatures crashing into cameras!
I know many of these are not down to the production team, they had to make the best of what they had to work with, but poor effects and costumes were not relegated to just the JNT era.
Sorry but you're wrong on the basic fact - it's a sample of VIEWERS - not "the general public".
As for the issue of non-viewers of specific programmes, how can people who didn't watch a programme give it a score? Most of the country doesn't watch Doctor Who. But the same can be said for every single programme except for coverage of events of national importance.
No - it's actual VIEWERS - people who WATCHED THAT SHOW.
No-one is being asked if they LIKE Doctor Who - people who had ALREADY CHOSEN TO WATCH IT are being asked how much they enjoyed it.
The AI sample for any given programme therefore varies in size depending on how many panel members watched. However, it is still NOTHING WHATSOEVER LIKE THE SELF-SAMPLED POLLS ON FAN FORUMS!
And the average score of those people is down 4-6 points this season compared to others, which is the point that is being made.
By the way, is there any reason why you pepper your posts with words spelt using capital letters, genuine question?
Probably not in terms of total number of viewers of this show but yes in terms of deciding what to show in any given time slot.
Taken to extremes - imagine that DW still got ~10m views BUT 8m of those were on iplayer and only 2m hardcore "fans" watched it "live". In that case, the show doesn't benefit from the primetime slot and the primetime slot doesn't benefit from this show - so yu move DW to a slot that needs 2m viewers and put something at830pm on Saturday that either pulls live viewers or which needs a primetime slot to gain a bigger audience.
Maybe not "watered-down" so much as made more "realistic" - or more consistent with the voting on shows that don't have the sort of "fan" that a show of this nature usually attracts.
I can't imagine ever rating DW at below maybe 75% - so in terms of this show, for me, I'd simply not be using a scale of 1-100. On the other hand, I can't imagine ever rating something like X-factor or Eastenders at anything higer than 10% - so there again, I'd not be using a scale of 1-100.
That's the flaw if the AI results are thrown around as comparisons - we're really not using a set scale and cos people who chose to watch a show of this type are not going to be the ones who would see it as a 1-10 scale.
(I'm not saynig that AI is "useless" - far from it. I'm just pointing out that some people are citing these figures and claiming that they prove that the show is losing/gaining viewers or becoming more/less popular and they are mistaken - I'm being polite.)
It is better to schedule the show after Strictly rather than before. As an entertainment show, Strictly gets you in the mood to be entertained, so a casual viewer may watch Doctor Who as well, not turning over because it's a 'night of entertainment'. If Doctor Who was on before, people would most likely still be doing chores and making tea in prep for sitting down to watch Strictly.
Strictly is a better warm-up for the show so in terms of casual viewers it will be beneficial. A later timeslot may also make the show seem more geared towards an older audience rather than a family show; the concept of which might put off teens and young adults, who are now the target audience from the looks of things. I suppose this makes sense as those who watched the reboot as kids would now be teens/young adults; in the way that Harry Potter 'grew up' with the young readers.
I wasn't far from the truth!
What truth? Is the show about to be cancelled? Does the director of BBC Television hate Doctor Who? Does it look cheap and garish? Is it badly written and badly acted?
I'm struggling to see many similarities with 1985.
You werent anywhere near it either. It's nothing like 1985.
So there isn't any truth in the rumour there won't be a series next year?
Still doesn't make your original comparison correct. You might just have easily said 'Its like 2008'.
That has no connection to anything else. The rumoured reason for no season next year is Moffat doesn't want to do one, and if he did there would be one.
There's a difference between reminiscent and a carbon copy.
Similarities
1. Recent anniversary story
2. New Doctor
3. New Doctor not met with universal acclaim
4. Scripts don't seem as good as before
5. Possible hiatus, granted different reason but same result
1. Irrelevant
2. Irreverent
3. Capaldi has for the most part recieved fantastic reviews and frequent acclaim for his performances
4. Your opinion
5. You've said it yourself. Completely different reason. So it's irrelevant.
See. Nothing like 1985. The only point that would have relevance would be number 5 but as its for entirely different reasons you've actually proved yourself that it's nothing like 1985. The difference between the rumour that the show runner wants or needs a break year/reduction in episodes despite the BBC wanting a full series is so fundamentally different to the BBC putting the show on hiatus it couldn't be much further apart.