I accept that. But, its another example of ITV putting short-term gain before long-term success. Sure ITV will make more money than usual during Corrie's anniversary week but its shutting the door on non-Corrie fans and possibly risks losing some viewers in the long-term by overexposing a hit show again.
It also makes a mockery of Adam Crozier's statment about trying to change " a remarkable lack of diversity" in the schedules. It sure is a diverse selection of programming that week. :rolleyes:
That's a very good point - at the moment ITV's approach seems to be live for today rather than thinking about tomorrow.
BBC1/ITV1 between 7 and 9pm is 99% rubbish if you're not a soap fan. It's not like it's displacing anything of note. I'm not really sure how it's "shutting the door on non-Corrie fans".
In terms of overexposure - the show is 50 years old, I think they're entitled to make a big deal of it. I also doubt anyone who has watched for years is suddenly going to be pushed over the edge by this particular week. It's not like football fans stop watching because of the overexposure of the World Cup for a few weeks every four years.
ITV1 is mostly rubbish (tempted to just top here ) if your not a soap fan especially with several nights having 90 mins of soap between 7-9pm. BBC1 not so much, the most you get is 90 mins on a Tuesday, the rest of the week its 30 mins max.
I agree, they're entitled to make a big deal of it but sticking it all in the one week seems far too much to me. I would have spread it out over a couple of weeks, showing the 9pm specials the week before and moving the 4 hours of actual Corrie episodes around a bit. But, they cant do that as the previous week is crammed full of Im A Celeb every night, another blockade and lack of diverse scheduling.
The World Cup is one month in every 4 years. Before you get a month's rest from the end of the normal season and after it you get a 6 week break before the new season. There wont be a month's break until more Corrie, it will be another 5 episodes the next week.
That's a very good point - at the moment ITV's approach seems to be live for today rather than thinking about tomorrow.
They are likely to get away with it though. If it appears Cowell, Corrie and Im a Celeb aren't enough to keep ITV going the government will either help ITV by removing ad restrictions, PSB quotas etc or try to hinder the BBC instead.
ITV1 is mostly rubbish (tempted to just top here ) if your not a soap fan especially with several nights having 90 mins of soap between 7-9pm. BBC1 not so much, the most you get is 90 mins on a Tuesday, the rest of the week its 30 mins max.
Isn't Casualty 50 minutes? And us lucky Scottish folk are treated to an hour of River City as well.
The problem isn't just the soaps themselves. It's also that when one channel has a soap on, the other shows something lazy 9 times out of 10. You've got PSB requirements buried against Eastenders and Corrie respectively and The One Show for 3 hours a week.
There's very little ambition before 9pm on either channel. Unless there's football on ITV1, it's rare that I'll even glance at the "big 2" schedules for that period.
I agree, they're entitled to make a big deal of it but sticking it all in the one week seems far too much to me. I would have spread it out over a couple of weeks, showing the 9pm specials the week before and moving the 4 hours of actual Corrie episodes around a bit. But, they cant do that as the previous week is crammed full of Im A Celeb every night, another blockade and lack of diverse scheduling.
I don't think he necessarily means that every week should be diverse! I doubt he'll be axing the idea of stripped drama like Collision or else Britain's Got Talent finals week.
The World Cup is one month in every 4 years. Before you get a month's rest from the end of the normal season and after it you get a 6 week break before the new season. There wont be a month's break until more Corrie, it will be another 5 episodes the next week.
I wasn't applying it that strictly!
The point was really just that a relatively minor surge of programming for one (huge) week isn't going to make much difference in the long run (whereas adding a new episode would). I still don't know how the soaps manage such an audience 4 nights a week, 52 weeks a year!
The point was really just that a relatively minor surge of programming for one (huge) week isn't going to make much difference in the long run (whereas adding a new episode would). I still don't know how the soaps manage such an audience 4 nights a week, 52 weeks a year!
They've got to try not to keep doing it IMO though. remember, this'll be the second time this year that Coronation Street will be given extra episodes and plugged for all it's worth - if siege week had played out as scheduled ITV wouldn't have aired anything but Emmerdale, Coronation Street and Britain's Got Talent that time; not exactly diverse.
Isn't Casualty 50 minutes? And us lucky Scottish folk are treated to an hour of River City as well.
The problem isn't just the soaps themselves. It's also that when one channel has a soap on, the other shows something lazy 9 times out of 10. You've got PSB requirements buried against Eastenders and Corrie respectively and The One Show for 3 hours a week.
There's very little ambition before 9pm on either channel. Unless there's football on ITV1, it's rare that I'll even glance at the "big 2" schedules for that period.
Fair enough, I agree with most of that. I forgot about Casualty (as most people do nowadays ) and dont have the fortune of lving in the right country to sample River City.
I don't think he necessarily means that every week should be diverse! I doubt he'll be axing the idea of stripped drama like Collision or else Britain's Got Talent finals week.
I know he didnt mean every week but in my eyes its poor planning to have Im A Celeb on air just two days before Corrie's anniversary week. The previous week or two could have started special programmes, counntdowns of favourite moments/episodes/characters etc to start the celebrations. Yet everything feels so crowded in just the one week.
I wasn't applying it that strictly!
The point was really just that a relatively minor surge of programming for one (huge) week isn't going to make much difference in the long run (whereas adding a new episode would). I still don't know how the soaps manage such an audience 4 nights a week, 52 weeks a year!
Of course one week isn't going to cause anthing big but it just seems like another example in an ongoign trend of overexposure, especialy in the case of Corrie. As another episode per week has been added, ratings have fallen and now they are behind Eastenders (quite a long way on overall reach) when a few years ago they were far ahead.
to be fair I think his plans for a diverse ITV scheulde, is slightly more long term, possibly not until autumn 2011
To be completely honest, I don't think we'll be seeing notably more diversity on primetime ITV at all. That statement was a clever bit of politics.
We might get more (very welcome) niche offerings out of primetime to satisfy regulators, but so long as their popularity sustains, I'd be shocked to see them cutting the number of soap episodes a week. It's never happened before and it'd be throwing revenue down a drain.
I think the wedding will surprise many with how well it will do, but those odds still seem astonishing.
I can't see any reason, for instance, why this wedding should rate any higher than the 28 million of Charles & Diana - given that in this day and age there are more alternative viewing options available and the monarchy doesn't quite have the hold it did even 30 years ago.
In any case, it'll be an interesting day on the ratings thread. Hyped one-off events are the most unpredictable. See also the Olympics in 2012. I honestly think we'll be seeing 10-15m (depending on medal prospects) all night, every night. And that one is channel exclusive. ITV might as well shut up shop for a fortnight!
I think the wedding will surprise many with how well it will do, but those odds still seem astonishing.
I can't see any reason, for instance, why this wedding should rate any higher than the 28 million of Charles & Diana - given that in this day and age there are more alternative viewing options available and the monarchy doesn't quite have the hold it did even 30 years ago.
If you want better odds you can get 3-1 against the audience being below 27.6m.
Re the comparison with Charles & Diana I would just note that the total population of the UK will now be a certain amount higher (maybe 10% to 15%?)
So 28m then = approx 31m to 32m today?
Also whilst I agree about the monarchy in general, the degree to which the media hypes up events is now massively greater than it was 30 years ago.
Fair enough, I agree with most of that. I forgot about Casualty (as most people do nowadays ) and dont have the fortune of lving in the right country to sample River City.
I know he didnt mean every week but in my eyes its poor planning to have Im A Celeb on air just two days before Corrie's anniversary week. The previous week or two could have started special programmes, counntdowns of favourite moments/episodes/characters etc to start the celebrations. Yet everything feels so crowded in just the one week.
Of course one week isn't going to cause anthing big but it just seems like another example in an ongoign trend of overexposure, especialy in the case of Corrie. As another episode per week has been added, ratings have fallen and now they are behind Eastenders (quite a long way on overall reach) when a few years ago they were far ahead.
itvpresscentre
Great news: @MrPeterAndre signs new multi-year deal with @ITV. Peter will continue The Next Chapter & front a new show #itvpresscentre
2 minutes ago
itvpresscentre
Great news: @MrPeterAndre signs new multi-year deal with @ITV. Peter will continue The Next Chapter & front a new show #itvpresscentre
2 minutes ago
I assume there will be a News Special on ITV1 at 7 pm, Tom Bradby interviews Peter Andre and looks at Peter's ring:D. Rejoice !
The One Show simulcast the interview with ITV1. So over 12 million were watching it either on BBC1 or ITV1. It was also on the news channels and Living.
The One Show simulcast the interview with ITV1. So over 12 million were watching it either on BBC1 or ITV1. It was also on the news channels and Living.
5.7m thought the new family on Emmerdale seemed a bit posh
Thank you, Mike. Looks to me like ITV1's 7pm hour rated worse than it normally would. Excellent rating for The One Show.
I thought ITV1's 7pm hour rated better than usual. They averaged about 5.9m (inc. HD) between 7-8pm. Usually they average about 5.2m (inc. HD) due to Emmerdale getting ~7.5m at 7pm and the 7.30pm filler getting ~3m or even worse sometimes.
BBC1 across the hour rated about the same as usual, I'd say. 6.7m between 7-8pm last night, usually they'd have just under 5m for TOS and 9m for 'Enders so about the same overall. [Great rating for The One Show yesterday by the way]
So overall, despite losing both the 7pm and 7.30pm slots to BBC1 it was definitely a schedule change worth doing for ITV. Firstly it would've been a bit ridiculous anyway not showing the interview at 7pm as the embargo expired then and afterall it was their own presenter, but also their 7-8pm average was boosted and there was a significant boost for The Zoo too - 4m in that slot is practically unheard of for normal programming.
Holby City continued excellently as per usual and Turn Back Time held up well considering IAC's big rating which is up on last year's equivalent figure. Poor start for The Family and CSI: Miami was dented too - is that its lowest ever audience?
Very good rating for The One Show, although EastEnders dented. Turn Back Time performed solidly, it has to be said.
I think ITV will be pleased myself. If you include HD, I imagine Will and Kate would be bang on 6m, Emmerdale probably about 5.8m, and The Zoo would have broken 4m - I think they'd be happy because for once a Tuesday wasn't a flopzone and the 8pm hour performed solidly. OK, Emmerdale was dented, but it had a positive side effect in that the 7pm weighted average was probably higher than usual, and the 8pm hour did better. Last Tuesday over the 7pm hour, excluding HD, ITV averaged 5.1m, while last night they averaged 5.7m, so in that respect, they'll be pleased.
I'm a Celebrity on the same Tuesday last year had 8.5m, including HD you're probably looking at it being very slightly down. Up on the 2008 figure of 7.9m though. Saying that, the lead-in this year was higher (4.0m probably vs 3.2m) so one could argue it should have been up on the same figure last year. EDIT: Actually had 8.71m (34.1%) including HD according to Broadcast, so its up on last year.
Poor for The Family on C4.
(OK, rzt's basically said the same as me about ITV above but in fewer words )
Also, William and Kate: The Royal Engagement had 5.91m (26.3%) including HD.
The standout figure there has to be the hour long News at Ten for me. I'm guessing it dropped viewers throughout, but 2.8m for ITV1 over the 10pm hour is pretty unheard of most of the time.
I thought ITV1's 7pm hour rated better than usual. They averaged about 5.9m (inc. HD) between 7-8pm. Usually they average about 5.2m (inc. HD) due to Emmerdale getting ~7.5m at 7pm and the 7.30pm filler getting ~3m or even worse sometimes.
BBC1 across the hour rated about the same as usual, I'd say. 6.7m between 7-8pm last night, usually they'd have just under 5m for TOS and 9m for 'Enders so about the same overall. [Great rating for The One Show yesterday by the way]
So overall, despite losing both the 7pm and 7.30pm slots to BBC1 it was definitely a schedule change worth doing for ITV. Firstly it would've been a bit ridiculous anyway not showing the interview at 7pm as the embargo expired then but also their 7-8pm average was boosted and there was a significant boost for The Zoo too - 4m in that slot is practically unheard of.
Ah OK, on first glance it appeared to be slightly down (hence "looks like", never claimed it to be fact), but on closer inspection it was actually slightly up so that's good at least for ITV. I still think The One Show did well to beat the ITV1 special by the amount that it did.
I also completely agree that ITV1 were right to show it at 7pm and have never said otherwise. Not sure they should have aired Emmerdale at 7:30pm though, but as they are already running an hour-long on Thursday and had football tonight I suppose their options were limited.
The Zoo did well in fairness. I won't go OTT, its rating still isn't brilliant, but it's a lot more respectable than ITV's usual performance in that slot.
Holby City continued excellently as per usual and Turn Back Time held up well considering IAC's big rating which is up on last year's equivalent figure. Poor start for The Family and CSI: Miami was dented too - is that its lowest ever audience?
Whilst I can't address your question with any certainty, I seem to remember it logging 1.7 in the overnights on occasions before where it has clashed with football of some kind.
The Family seems far more likely to have logged an all-time series low, but we won't point that out, eh?
Comments
That's a very good point - at the moment ITV's approach seems to be live for today rather than thinking about tomorrow.
I agree - confirmed by DS tv ratings roundup, Neighbours actually got 1.7 million! :eek:
I agree, they're entitled to make a big deal of it but sticking it all in the one week seems far too much to me. I would have spread it out over a couple of weeks, showing the 9pm specials the week before and moving the 4 hours of actual Corrie episodes around a bit. But, they cant do that as the previous week is crammed full of Im A Celeb every night, another blockade and lack of diverse scheduling.
The World Cup is one month in every 4 years. Before you get a month's rest from the end of the normal season and after it you get a 6 week break before the new season. There wont be a month's break until more Corrie, it will be another 5 episodes the next week.
They are likely to get away with it though. If it appears Cowell, Corrie and Im a Celeb aren't enough to keep ITV going the government will either help ITV by removing ad restrictions, PSB quotas etc or try to hinder the BBC instead.
Isn't Casualty 50 minutes? And us lucky Scottish folk are treated to an hour of River City as well.
The problem isn't just the soaps themselves. It's also that when one channel has a soap on, the other shows something lazy 9 times out of 10. You've got PSB requirements buried against Eastenders and Corrie respectively and The One Show for 3 hours a week.
There's very little ambition before 9pm on either channel. Unless there's football on ITV1, it's rare that I'll even glance at the "big 2" schedules for that period.
I don't think he necessarily means that every week should be diverse! I doubt he'll be axing the idea of stripped drama like Collision or else Britain's Got Talent finals week.
I wasn't applying it that strictly!
The point was really just that a relatively minor surge of programming for one (huge) week isn't going to make much difference in the long run (whereas adding a new episode would). I still don't know how the soaps manage such an audience 4 nights a week, 52 weeks a year!
They've got to try not to keep doing it IMO though. remember, this'll be the second time this year that Coronation Street will be given extra episodes and plugged for all it's worth - if siege week had played out as scheduled ITV wouldn't have aired anything but Emmerdale, Coronation Street and Britain's Got Talent that time; not exactly diverse.
So for anyone certain of a low audience it's a no brainer - any audience under 30 million and you win.
Even money bet.
http://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/Specials-c210000126
I know he didnt mean every week but in my eyes its poor planning to have Im A Celeb on air just two days before Corrie's anniversary week. The previous week or two could have started special programmes, counntdowns of favourite moments/episodes/characters etc to start the celebrations. Yet everything feels so crowded in just the one week.
Of course one week isn't going to cause anthing big but it just seems like another example in an ongoign trend of overexposure, especialy in the case of Corrie. As another episode per week has been added, ratings have fallen and now they are behind Eastenders (quite a long way on overall reach) when a few years ago they were far ahead.
To be completely honest, I don't think we'll be seeing notably more diversity on primetime ITV at all. That statement was a clever bit of politics.
We might get more (very welcome) niche offerings out of primetime to satisfy regulators, but so long as their popularity sustains, I'd be shocked to see them cutting the number of soap episodes a week. It's never happened before and it'd be throwing revenue down a drain.
I think the wedding will surprise many with how well it will do, but those odds still seem astonishing.
I can't see any reason, for instance, why this wedding should rate any higher than the 28 million of Charles & Diana - given that in this day and age there are more alternative viewing options available and the monarchy doesn't quite have the hold it did even 30 years ago.
In any case, it'll be an interesting day on the ratings thread. Hyped one-off events are the most unpredictable. See also the Olympics in 2012. I honestly think we'll be seeing 10-15m (depending on medal prospects) all night, every night. And that one is channel exclusive. ITV might as well shut up shop for a fortnight!
If you want better odds you can get 3-1 against the audience being below 27.6m.
Re the comparison with Charles & Diana I would just note that the total population of the UK will now be a certain amount higher (maybe 10% to 15%?)
So 28m then = approx 31m to 32m today?
Also whilst I agree about the monarchy in general, the degree to which the media hypes up events is now massively greater than it was 30 years ago.
Casualty is 50 minutes, Holby is 60 minutes
Great news: @MrPeterAndre signs new multi-year deal with @ITV. Peter will continue The Next Chapter & front a new show #itvpresscentre
2 minutes ago
I assume there will be a News Special on ITV1 at 7 pm, Tom Bradby interviews Peter Andre and looks at Peter's ring:D. Rejoice !
anyway....
BBC1
TOS - 6.35m (people didn't care for Wills & Kate?)
EE - 7.1m
HC - 5.86m
TBT - 4.62m
ITV1
Will & Kate - 5.79m (having said the above, not a bad rating)
Emmer - 5.56m
TZ - 3.97m
IAC - 8.1m
BBC2
Wills & Kate - 2.57m
Titch - 1.76m
Horizon - 1.19m
Later - 721k
C4
HO - 1.25m
The Family - 1.05m
JC:TJ - 1.01m
Five
Neighbours - 1.42m
HAA - 896k
CSI: Miami - 1.74m
The Family tanked- I seem to remember the first 2 series launched with over 2 million viewers?
5.7m thought the new family on Emmerdale seemed a bit posh
well the figure I've got it 1.051m
so I should used basic maths and round up to 1.1m
my maths teacher will be so disappointed in me
BBC1 across the hour rated about the same as usual, I'd say. 6.7m between 7-8pm last night, usually they'd have just under 5m for TOS and 9m for 'Enders so about the same overall. [Great rating for The One Show yesterday by the way]
So overall, despite losing both the 7pm and 7.30pm slots to BBC1 it was definitely a schedule change worth doing for ITV. Firstly it would've been a bit ridiculous anyway not showing the interview at 7pm as the embargo expired then and afterall it was their own presenter, but also their 7-8pm average was boosted and there was a significant boost for The Zoo too - 4m in that slot is practically unheard of for normal programming.
Holby City continued excellently as per usual and Turn Back Time held up well considering IAC's big rating which is up on last year's equivalent figure. Poor start for The Family and CSI: Miami was dented too - is that its lowest ever audience?
Very good rating for The One Show, although EastEnders dented. Turn Back Time performed solidly, it has to be said.
I think ITV will be pleased myself. If you include HD, I imagine Will and Kate would be bang on 6m, Emmerdale probably about 5.8m, and The Zoo would have broken 4m - I think they'd be happy because for once a Tuesday wasn't a flopzone and the 8pm hour performed solidly. OK, Emmerdale was dented, but it had a positive side effect in that the 7pm weighted average was probably higher than usual, and the 8pm hour did better. Last Tuesday over the 7pm hour, excluding HD, ITV averaged 5.1m, while last night they averaged 5.7m, so in that respect, they'll be pleased.
I'm a Celebrity on the same Tuesday last year had 8.5m, including HD you're probably looking at it being very slightly down. Up on the 2008 figure of 7.9m though. Saying that, the lead-in this year was higher (4.0m probably vs 3.2m) so one could argue it should have been up on the same figure last year. EDIT: Actually had 8.71m (34.1%) including HD according to Broadcast, so its up on last year.
Poor for The Family on C4.
(OK, rzt's basically said the same as me about ITV above but in fewer words
BBC News Bulletins
11:45 - 1.22m (23.7%)
13:00 - 2.54m (35.4%)
18:00 - 5.11m (25.3%)
22:00 - 4.72m (22.8%)
ITV News Bulletins
13:30 - 1.06m (14.6%)
18:30 - 3.60m (16.8%)
22:00 - 2.80m (15.0%) - 1 hour long
Also, William and Kate: The Royal Engagement had 5.91m (26.3%) including HD.
Anyone have the ratings for Home And Away first-look over on Channel Fiver and Neighbours at 7pm?
I also completely agree that ITV1 were right to show it at 7pm and have never said otherwise. Not sure they should have aired Emmerdale at 7:30pm though, but as they are already running an hour-long on Thursday and had football tonight I suppose their options were limited.
The Zoo did well in fairness. I won't go OTT, its rating still isn't brilliant, but it's a lot more respectable than ITV's usual performance in that slot.
Whilst I can't address your question with any certainty, I seem to remember it logging 1.7 in the overnights on occasions before where it has clashed with football of some kind.
The Family seems far more likely to have logged an all-time series low, but we won't point that out, eh?