I don't think 10pm in summer is a good slot for Utopia. If there's nothing that takes your fancy throughout all the preceding hours of primetime, why would you switch on at 10? Personally, I'd just give the TV a miss that night and do something else that evening. I would have put Utopia on earlier but perhaps its content wouldn't allow for that to happen.
Its still under 1m though so not very good really.
Only just. The difference between 997,500 and 1m is so negligible that you're really splitting hairs. Either way, if you were to include 4oD viewing on the C4 website, I'm sure it did get over 1m
Not really. The overnights are important and Utopia is more than 50% down on the slot average, meaning C4 was overtaken at 10PM by a tiny channel like MTV.
The overnights are important, yes, but they don't tell the whole story, especially when the time-shift is so big proportional to said overnight. Utopia isn't a mainstream drama, anyway, so any expectations of it bettering the slot average were misguided and naive, if you ask me. And thanks to shows like Geordie Shore and the Valleys, MTV isn't that tiny a channel anymore. Although I must say it is a damning indictment of the tastes of the British viewing public, that more of them would rather watch rubbish like Geordie Shore over quality drama like Utopia
I wouldn't worry if you're a fan of the show, I suspect C4 will renew it anyway. They are going through a phase of ignoring the data.
I wouldn't say C4 are ignoring the data, as you have been suggesting over the past week. It's more a case of them recognising that, as a public service broadcaster, the data is not the be-all-and-end-all of assessing the value of commissioning future series of programmes. Especially when you consider the awards Utopia were nominated for, including at the BAFTAs. You seem to suggest that it is a bad thing that C4 "ignore" the data by renewing programmes with low ratings, but I wouldn't agree with such an assessment. One of the things I do appreciate about C4 is that, in spite of all the shite they pump out (most of their schedule, to be honest), they do treat quality programmes well and do renew them even when they attain less than desirable ratings
Have you not seen my posts about the dire straits Corrie is in under SB. Perhaps you missed them. Should I mention it more often. some on here are fed up with my moaning about Corrie dire ratings under SB.
The fact is Corrie poor yet it still manages to beat a supposedly strengthened EE. All the EE fans were stating once DTC is in full swing it would overtake Corrie and become top soap. Well so far that hasn't happened. If EE was strong enough the clashes with Emmerdale would damage Emmerdale as well.
You seem to be forgetting that a few weeks ago there was an hour-long Eastenders on Thursday at 7.30pm and it beat the 8pm Emmerdale. We all know the rule: the soap with the head-start wins and it has nothing to do with quality and everything to do with the soaps having a large audience overlap and most soap viewers not wanting to switch off an episode half-way through.
There's a sizable body of opinion that EE is better under DTC but, at the end of the day, all the soaps are conveyor-belt television that most of the time are just going through the motions. They all do better in their slots that anything else that would fill their places if they were axed but, outside of big episodes, they won't be must-see TV especially not in this weather.
That's very easy to say but a lot harder to do, pushing EastEnders back would force a lot more issues elsewhere in the schedule. If they just push EE back then they lose the 9pm slot, unless they move Holby City to another night which just provides problems for that night's schedule as well. Then there's the fact these hour long Emmerdales will be going on for awhile, what's to stop itv seeing BBC give up the slot and making them a permanent thing, meaning EE has lost a slot its had for most of its run.
When they can move it they have done, like when the World Cup was starting at 8.30pm anyway so the 8pm slot was available, and next week on BBC Two when there was no set schedule in place.
Maybe BBC1 should tell Holby City producers to produce episodes that can be edited into 2 x 30-minute episodes, then when ITV show an hour-long Emmerdale on Tuesday at 7pm, BBC1 can go....
7.00 The One Show
7.30 Holby City
8.00 Eastenders
8.30 Holby City
9.00 ...whatever
That has to be a mistake. Or a deliberate piece of misinformation. The spin-off programme will go out on BBC2 immediately after the main programme on a Wednesday night.
Look at this from the BBC media centre. They give two different slots for the one programme Scrappers. The media centre is always making mistakes.
The Apprentice still rates well and much better than Who Do You Think You Are which is around the same age. When it's scheduled well it can pull in a decent number. I think Apprentice and Bake Off would be perfect scheduling.
I would put the Apprentice on Sundays at 9pm this Autumn. It's an established show and would hold its own against Grantchester and Downton Abbey. Plus it's a strong alternative to the dramas. It's becoming an old format, it still rates well but I would give new/younger shows the easier competition in the week and the good lead in from Bake Off.
That was a huge episode of Emmerdale in July 2006 - the house collapse.
Pointless comparison really after last nights shambles of an episode.
Is it really that bad now? I know it was meant to be another big episode with a wedding last night, but the gap isn't much bigger than it was for the previous clash where it was just a bog standard episode.
Not sure if I have the final schedules, but the ones I have show Scrappers on Thu and Fri at 8.30pm. Bake Off on Wed at 8pm, and its spin-off on BBC Two at 9pm on Friday.
And an extra quiz on ITV on Saturday night, pushing Star Wars later.
Is it really that bad now? I know it was meant to be another big episode with a wedding last night, but the gap isn't much bigger than it was for the previous clash where it was just a bog standard episode.
Its not great at the moment and the twist last night was ridiculous and unnecessary. Dan and Kerry aren't big enough characters to pull in larger numbers for a wedding episode.
Utopia isn't a mainstream drama, anyway, so any expectations of it bettering the slot average were misguided and naive, if you ask me.
Well, obviously. I don't think in this on demand era we're in where you can catch up on the first series of shows before the second one starts (something C4 push a lot on air, and did so with Utopia) it was much to ask for the overnights to at least be roughly on a par with last year. But the numbers have been cut in half. The idea that that's not something worth being concerned about is misguided and naive IMO.
And thanks to shows like Geordie Shore and the Valleys, MTV isn't that tiny a channel anymore.
The channel has a 0.2% share of the audience. Clearly Geordie Shore is an incredible hit for a network of that size and a bit of a freak rater, but that doesn't make it any less of an embarrassment that C4 has been left behind by such a small channel, particularly when running first run original content.
I wouldn't say C4 are ignoring the data, as you have been suggesting over the past week. It's more a case of them recognising that, as a public service broadcaster, the data is not the be-all-and-end-all of assessing the value of commissioning future series of programmes.
I think most broadcasters recognise this already and take that into account up to a point. But viewing figures should always be the primary consideration, and there should be a cutoff whereby if shows drop below a certain level they don't come back regardless of acclaim and so on, especially if you're coming under increasing pressure ratings wise as is the case with C4. It's not like it's just one or two shows we're talking about here either, it's a whole raft of them that are getting recommissions that arguably they don't deserve on what they've achieved.
You seem to suggest that it is a bad thing that C4 "ignore" the data by renewing programmes with low ratings, but I wouldn't agree with such an assessment. One of the things I do appreciate about C4 is that, in spite of all the shite they pump out (most of their schedule, to be honest), they do treat quality programmes well and do renew them even when they attain less than desirable ratings
Fair enough to appreciate that as a viewer and a fan of some of these low rated shows. But is it any way to run a TV network largely reliant on advertising ?
I think the crisis talk is being aimed in the wrong direction. ;-)
The Eastenders in Crisis headline in 2006, actually I think Emmerdale seems to be in more of a crisis now and several times has fallen short of 5 millon this summer. EE on its own is capable of 7 million, not as good as it should be, but at least DTC has injected some life into a show that was ailing last autumn.
Star Wars was clearly even lower than ITV were hoping as from a week on Saturday they've parachuted All Star Family Fortunes in at 8.30pm with Star Wars pushed back an hour to 9.30pm and wrapped around the news.
Star Wars was clearly even lower than ITV were hoping as from a week on Saturday they've parachuted All Star Family Fortunes in at 8.30pm with Star Wars pushed back an hour to 9.30pm and wrapped around the news.
Comments
I'm not sure we can Sack Jay Hunt, unless this thread has some powers I'm not aware of.
Can I sack Simon Cowell first:)
Dont start that game because my list would be enormous !!!
What's enormous ?
oh
your list
Heatwave soap clash, July 2006:
Emmerdale 6.6 million (41%)
EastEnders 3.9 million (23.1%)
http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/bbc1s-eastenders-slumps-to-39m/164940.article
I think the crisis talk is being aimed in the wrong direction. ;-)
Only just. The difference between 997,500 and 1m is so negligible that you're really splitting hairs. Either way, if you were to include 4oD viewing on the C4 website, I'm sure it did get over 1m
The overnights are important, yes, but they don't tell the whole story, especially when the time-shift is so big proportional to said overnight. Utopia isn't a mainstream drama, anyway, so any expectations of it bettering the slot average were misguided and naive, if you ask me. And thanks to shows like Geordie Shore and the Valleys, MTV isn't that tiny a channel anymore. Although I must say it is a damning indictment of the tastes of the British viewing public, that more of them would rather watch rubbish like Geordie Shore over quality drama like Utopia
I wouldn't say C4 are ignoring the data, as you have been suggesting over the past week. It's more a case of them recognising that, as a public service broadcaster, the data is not the be-all-and-end-all of assessing the value of commissioning future series of programmes. Especially when you consider the awards Utopia were nominated for, including at the BAFTAs. You seem to suggest that it is a bad thing that C4 "ignore" the data by renewing programmes with low ratings, but I wouldn't agree with such an assessment. One of the things I do appreciate about C4 is that, in spite of all the shite they pump out (most of their schedule, to be honest), they do treat quality programmes well and do renew them even when they attain less than desirable ratings
You'll be surprised...
14/07 - 678k (10.8%)
15/07 - 661k (11.6%)
Compared with Jo Frost's first two shows last month...
28/04 - 760k (11.8%)
29/04 - 507k (8.9%)
And Peter Andre's 60 Minute Makeover...
16/06 - 557k (9.6%)
17/06 - 505k (9.5%)
Not bad by ITV's recent standards.
Maybe a documentary about polar bears.
A film, 'Ice Cold in Alex' (probably inappropriate really)
A game show where the prize is a trip to the North Pole or Air Conditioning.
A comedy about a heat wave, 'The Heat Wave' (it almost writes itself)
You seem to be forgetting that a few weeks ago there was an hour-long Eastenders on Thursday at 7.30pm and it beat the 8pm Emmerdale. We all know the rule: the soap with the head-start wins and it has nothing to do with quality and everything to do with the soaps having a large audience overlap and most soap viewers not wanting to switch off an episode half-way through.
There's a sizable body of opinion that EE is better under DTC but, at the end of the day, all the soaps are conveyor-belt television that most of the time are just going through the motions. They all do better in their slots that anything else that would fill their places if they were axed but, outside of big episodes, they won't be must-see TV especially not in this weather.
Maybe BBC1 should tell Holby City producers to produce episodes that can be edited into 2 x 30-minute episodes, then when ITV show an hour-long Emmerdale on Tuesday at 7pm, BBC1 can go....
7.00 The One Show
7.30 Holby City
8.00 Eastenders
8.30 Holby City
9.00 ...whatever
That was a huge episode of Emmerdale in July 2006 - the house collapse.
Pointless comparison really after last nights shambles of an episode.
That has to be a mistake. Or a deliberate piece of misinformation. The spin-off programme will go out on BBC2 immediately after the main programme on a Wednesday night.
Look at this from the BBC media centre. They give two different slots for the one programme Scrappers. The media centre is always making mistakes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/proginfo/search?medium=tv&channel=BBC_ONE&yearweek=201431&day=6
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0829726/
Max needs to build bridges with his family. Let's hope that character learns from his mistakes...
I would put the Apprentice on Sundays at 9pm this Autumn. It's an established show and would hold its own against Grantchester and Downton Abbey. Plus it's a strong alternative to the dramas. It's becoming an old format, it still rates well but I would give new/younger shows the easier competition in the week and the good lead in from Bake Off.
Monday 14th - 1.91m (10.1%)
Getting worse, though.
Yesterday's edition of The Speakmans was down to 440,000 / 8.5%.
And an extra quiz on ITV on Saturday night, pushing Star Wars later.
Its not great at the moment and the twist last night was ridiculous and unnecessary. Dan and Kerry aren't big enough characters to pull in larger numbers for a wedding episode.
Well, obviously. I don't think in this on demand era we're in where you can catch up on the first series of shows before the second one starts (something C4 push a lot on air, and did so with Utopia) it was much to ask for the overnights to at least be roughly on a par with last year. But the numbers have been cut in half. The idea that that's not something worth being concerned about is misguided and naive IMO.
The channel has a 0.2% share of the audience. Clearly Geordie Shore is an incredible hit for a network of that size and a bit of a freak rater, but that doesn't make it any less of an embarrassment that C4 has been left behind by such a small channel, particularly when running first run original content.
I think most broadcasters recognise this already and take that into account up to a point. But viewing figures should always be the primary consideration, and there should be a cutoff whereby if shows drop below a certain level they don't come back regardless of acclaim and so on, especially if you're coming under increasing pressure ratings wise as is the case with C4. It's not like it's just one or two shows we're talking about here either, it's a whole raft of them that are getting recommissions that arguably they don't deserve on what they've achieved.
Pity it didn't have any remotely positive impact on the show's fortunes as I'm sure C4 were hoping.
Fair enough to appreciate that as a viewer and a fan of some of these low rated shows. But is it any way to run a TV network largely reliant on advertising ?
The Eastenders in Crisis headline in 2006, actually I think Emmerdale seems to be in more of a crisis now and several times has fallen short of 5 millon this summer. EE on its own is capable of 7 million, not as good as it should be, but at least DTC has injected some life into a show that was ailing last autumn.
9am - 1pm
1.45pm - 6pm
7pm - 10pm
I honestly cant see the averages being that great. Could be larger in the morning and afternoon than normal but the evening cant see them being great.