The Ratings Thread (Part 65)

1264265267269270425

Comments

  • FuddFudd Posts: 166,970
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    A.D.P wrote: »
    It can be done.
    Monday's and Tuesday's at 9 pm proves it.

    Monday
    Doc Martin Vs documentary.
    Tuesday
    New Tricks Vs documentary

    It'll be interesting to see what happens in a couple of weeks though, with Lewis on Tuesday nights. The first show (to fit in all the episodes before I'm A Celebrity) is opposite the final New Tricks. I presume BBC One will follow it up with another drama on Tuesday's? It tends to be their drama night... away from Sunday's and some Wednesday's.
  • D.M.N.D.M.N. Posts: 34,171
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    A.D.P wrote: »
    1. X Factor is a light entertainment show, it's pedigree is in recent years it performed at 14-19 million viewers, Simon Cowell had shown off all his changes would be the saviour of XF. If SCD has Peter Andre his money is on XF.

    Two shows peaked at 19 million. Two. The 2009 final and the 2010 final.

    The series averages for those two series from memory were 13.0m and 14.2m.
  • JetsonJetson Posts: 13,318
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    D.M.N. wrote: »
    Two shows peaked at 19 million. Two. The 2009 final and the 2010 final.

    The series averages for those two series from memory were 13.0m and 14.2m.
    Don't let something as trivial as a fact get in the way of a distorted, impassioned, sustained and agenda-laden onslaught. :)
  • Roscoe BarnesRoscoe Barnes Posts: 6,360
    Forum Member
    D.M.N. wrote: »
    Two shows peaked at 19 million. Two. The 2009 final and the 2010 final.

    The series averages for those two series from memory were 13.0m and 14.2m.

    Almost correct. 13.00m for the 2009 series and 14.13m for the 2010 series.
  • ryan_burnryan_burn Posts: 254
    Forum Member
    any all day shares for yesterday?
  • Cestrian18Cestrian18 Posts: 6,857
    Forum Member
    A.D.P wrote: »
    Oh that old chestnut, DW has never been a children's show, never on a CBBC budget,

    It's a " family" show.
    It's a family show around the world.
    It's repeated on Watch and Horror channels.

    It does tend to be skewed towards kids though, no it doesn't have a children's budget, but it's on the main BBC channel so has a budget to match (although some of the episodes can look pretty terrible) All the merchandising and figures etc... are primarily aimed at kids- Hence why it's often seen as kids shoe that adults can enjoy *with the exception of whovians obviously*
  • sn_22sn_22 Posts: 6,472
    Forum Member
    yorkie100 wrote: »
    Complimentary scheduling sounds like a good idea but how could it practically work? I just cant see it.

    This is what concerns me. I'm all for sensible scheduling, where channels avoid similar genres because it's in their own best interests to do so. But the minute you agree anything formally, I think you start to get into dodgy territory.

    You'd have a state owned outfit actively colluding with the country's biggest commercial channel in order to help it build ratings, share and (ultimately) profit. If I ran Channel 5, or any other commercial channel, I think I'd have every right to find that prospect profoundly unfair. Why should a company generating hundreds of millions in profit every year be placed in such a priveledged position? We spend a lot of time worrying about the BBC's impact on ITV - but what about ITV's impact on the rest of the market? I want to encourage investment in commercial competition, and that's not going to happen if you allow it to form a cartel with the BBC.

    And that's the other thing - competition. We bemoan the contest between Strictly and X Factor like its held them back. Rubbish! The ratings routinely show that they actually benefit from one another, and over the last 10 years they've been going nip and tuck, forcing each other to keep evolving and massively driving up production standards. The competition has helped to spawn two global juggernaut brands, sold around the globe and creating hundreds of millions for the UK TV industry. The competition has worked, big time - why do we want to stifle it?
  • Glenn AGlenn A Posts: 23,877
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    cylon6 wrote: »
    But we don't know that people want to watch that programme on ITV. ITV putting all of their eggs into a handful of shows rather than having several successful shows across the week is their problem. The same thing happened with Channel 4 and Big Brother.
    Too right, ITV have a handful of dated shows they rely on too much and now these are starting to fail. Channel 4 cut themselves free of the BB morass they ended up with by the late nineties as it was really making them look trashy and recovered from it. I doubt anyone who works for Channel 4 now would say they'd been better off keeping BB, or some of their other reality dreck like Shipwrecked, as they were becoming costly piles of junk that people were losing interest in.
    ITV OTOH would milk profit to the last cent out of rubbish, old hat formats. This explains why YBF, usually with the prefix New( it was new in 1991), are brought back constantly even though ratings are well into flop territory. I don't know anyone who has laughed at this show since the last century, or found revivals of Celebrity Squares worth watching.
  • pjh8pjh8 Posts: 4,175
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Is ADP Samuel?
  • NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 8,635
    Forum Member
    * pedant alert *

    complimentary chocolates
    complementary scheduling

    :-)
  • ServalanServalan Posts: 10,167
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    A.D.P wrote: »
    It can be done.
    Monday's and Tuesday's at 9 pm proves it.

    Monday
    Doc Martin Vs documentary.
    Tuesday
    New Tricks Vs documentary

    But unfortunately ITV's onslaught on EastEnders with unnecessary extended Emmerdales proves they can't stop themselves.

    There are plenty of things wrong with the BBC, but they are not the aggressor when it comes to scheduling - that's Fincham and ITV. Just a shame they consistently botch up pretty much every attempt and miss opportunities that are staring them in the face … there are weak spots in the BBC One schedule - so why attack EE and GBBO? Fincham really is clueless …
  • jewelleryqjewelleryq Posts: 222
    Forum Member
    northlad wrote: »
    That certainly doesnt apply around Newcastle,it was absolutely mad yesterday with thousands out in the city centre watching the big screens.

    The fanzone in BIrmingham was great, both games at VIlla Park were near sell outs and the ratings were pretty good.
  • yorkie100yorkie100 Posts: 9,372
    Forum Member
    NeilVW wrote: »
    * pedant alert *

    complimentary chocolates
    complementary scheduling

    :-)

    Thats just what I want when I come on here - a spelling lesson !! :D
  • sheepiefarmsheepiefarm Posts: 27,558
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Well, there's some good news for ITV - it's looking like 3 of the 4 Home nations have a chance of going through to the next round of the rugby :D
  • yorkie100yorkie100 Posts: 9,372
    Forum Member
    Well, there's some good news for ITV - it's looking like 3 of the 4 Home nations have a chance of going through to the next round of the rugby :D

    England will win next Saturday I am sure - because god loves ITV !! :D
  • FuddFudd Posts: 166,970
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    NeilVW wrote: »
    * pedant alert *

    complimentary chocolates
    complementary scheduling

    :-)


    Oh... fiddlesticks. :blush::D
    Servalan wrote: »
    But unfortunately ITV's onslaught on EastEnders with unnecessary extended Emmerdales proves they can't stop themselves.

    There are plenty of things wrong with the BBC, but they are not the aggressor when it comes to scheduling - that's Fincham and ITV. Just a shame they consistently botch up pretty much every attempt and miss opportunities that are staring them in the face … there are weak spots in the BBC One schedule - so why attack EE and GBBO? Fincham really is clueless …

    Both are aggressors. ITV may do it slightly more but cause less damage in the process as overnights are not as important for them as for ITV.
  • ServalanServalan Posts: 10,167
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Fudd wrote: »
    Both are aggressors. ITV may do it slightly more but cause less damage in the process as overnights are not as important for them as for ITV.

    Overnights a weak argument …*especially as ITV does a great job of damaging its own prospects by bad scheduling and over-reliance on a handful of titles. If it wants better ratings, it needs to generate better product. Then more people will watch. At the end of the day, it's really as simple as that.
  • A.D.PA.D.P Posts: 10,373
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Cestrian18 wrote: »
    It does tend to be skewed towards kids though, no it doesn't have a children's budget, but it's on the main BBC channel so has a budget to match (although some of the episodes can look pretty terrible) All the merchandising and figures etc... are primarily aimed at kids- Hence why it's often seen as kids shoe that adults can enjoy *with the exception of whovians obviously*

    DW has always been a show that all the family enjoy, never on a children's budget, and on its scheduled time is now deep into peak time, not daytime where most children's shows are scheduled.
  • A.D.PA.D.P Posts: 10,373
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Servalan wrote: »
    But unfortunately ITV's onslaught on EastEnders with unnecessary extended Emmerdales proves they can't stop themselves.

    There are plenty of things wrong with the BBC, but they are not the aggressor when it comes to scheduling - that's Fincham and ITV. Just a shame they consistently botch up pretty much every attempt and miss opportunities that are staring them in the face … there are weak spots in the BBC One schedule - so why attack EE and GBBO? Fincham really is clueless …

    Agree Fincham is a hypocrite and could work with the BBC more than childish tricks that damage both.
  • A.D.PA.D.P Posts: 10,373
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    pjh8 wrote: »
    Is ADP Samuel?

    Could we have a constructive and sensible discussion on ratings.
  • A.D.PA.D.P Posts: 10,373
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    D.M.N. wrote: »
    Two shows peaked at 19 million. Two. The 2009 final and the 2010 final.

    The series averages for those two series from memory were 13.0m and 14.2m.

    Agree, shows that over 50% of XF viewers have left it.
  • D.M.N.D.M.N. Posts: 34,171
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    A.D.P wrote: »
    Agree, shows that over 50% of XF viewers have left it.

    But it doesn't, because this series average will still be circa 8.5m.
  • cylon6cylon6 Posts: 25,486
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Robin Parker ‏@robinparker55 27m27 minutes ago
    Doctor Who ep1 consolidates to 6.5m viewers - still less than overnights for Capaldi's debut last year (iPlayer figures remain undisclosed)
  • H of De VilH of De Vil Posts: 26,539
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    cylon6 wrote: »
    Robin Parker ‏@robinparker55 27m27 minutes ago
    Doctor Who ep1 consolidates to 6.5m viewers - still less than overnights for Capaldi's debut last year (iPlayer figures remain undisclosed)

    So a timeshift of 1.9m. Does that seem a little on the low side for a timeshift figure? Usually DW is well over 2m.
  • lewiep93lewiep93 Posts: 5,880
    Forum Member
    F1 Broadcasting ‏@f1broadcasting 5m5 minutes ago
    UK Ratings: A combined peak audience of only 3.63m watched the #JapaneseGP across BBC and Sky yesterday (including BBC repeat) @overnightstv
This discussion has been closed.