While Strictly had a 35 minute lead XF had 4 weeks lead and had already built an audience with ratings up on previous.

The other basic point which people seem to discount is that XF has always been the higher rated show whichever way you look at it.

As for the 'filler' elements well both shows are guilty of this and particulary when they have seperate result shows. I would have thought that SCD in one episode is bound to have less filler than with a seperate results show and must therefore have less filler than XF.

I think Strictly's biggest issues are too many celebs (so many that some don't even dance until the 2nd week now)

the other big problem is too many BBC stars, almost everyone is either currently employed by the BBC or has been on one of their soaps/drama's. Its too much of a love-in.

the other big issue is the confusing voting system, which became apparent last year. I think a lot don't have faith that their vote counts for anything anymore.

The last time the clash occured, Strictly won.

It all seemed to go wrong from when CBS first moved it from Thursday at 10pm. The consistency was lost and even when it moved back (twice) and it didn't seem to return to the levels it used to get.

When it came down to WAT and Cold Case, I think the fact that WAT had The Mentalist for a lead-in worked against it. With US networks often going straight from one show into the next, audience retention is seen to be more important. Because WAT did actually edge Cold Case in adults 18-49. Although both were below average for CBS.

I was surprised that nobody picked it up. Maybe too expensive for cable.

ITV Studios Eleventh Hour also got cancelled most likely due to poor retention from CSI (and it did better than WAT and Cold Case and was probably a good bit cheaper being a first year show). CBS also dumped Worst Week which had followed Two and a Half Men for a while with middling ratings among 18-49's (TAAHM is #1 for CBS in the demo).


The issue of cost came into effect with the likes of The New Adventures of Old Christine and Gary Unmarried which performed worse than the procedurals.

For a better example, Medium was axed rather than Heroes because while it had a higher total audience, it was lower among 18-49's (of course CBS then picked it up because they produce it and want to get a few more episodes out for syndication deals).

But aren't ITV required, as part of their PSB status with Ofcom, to show a news bulletin in peaktime?

I don't think it was, as some here assume, sheer pigheadedness by ITV schedulers - they had to fit in a bulletin well before midnight, even though they probably did not wish to do any such thing.

This is yet another of what Michael Grade (and no doubt any possible successor too) regards as pesky PSB requirements which they are increasingly vocally complaining about and which they would junk if they bit the bullet and dropped their PSB status.

If ex-Sky man Tony Ball is, as is widely expected, the new boss of ITV he might just do it - especially if he decides to abandon FTA as the cornerstone of ITV's digital strategy and moves ITV2, 3 and 4 to subscription only status. Post digital switchover in 2012, they might then move ITV1 to a non-PSB entertainment only channel.

Maybe they should've either moved their schedule back slightly (they weren't exactly over run with hits before 6pm - just air a short film or drama repeat and Creature Comforts) in order to accomodate Casino Royle without a break. Something like:

5.30 Animals Do the Funniest Things
6.30 The Cube
7.30 The X Factor
8.45 Casino Royle
11.30 ITV News and Weather

Alternatively they could've risked the news at 9.15, then ran Casino Royle as one from 9.30-12.15.

I doubt that 11.30 would count as peaktime either, but your second option clearly would have done.

Eight pages people?!?!? What are you trying to do to me???

Good results for both channels last night. I would have preferred to see Merlin get 5.5m, as it could very easily slip under 5m with the figure it got last night. ITV definately wasted their Casino Royale premier and should have kept it for a later date when they could have scheduled it better.

Regarding Strictly Come Dancing, I think the format is really going to hurt the programme this year.

I've only watched the Friday night edition so far and I found it quite a slog with just the eight couples. Imagine when in a fortnight's time they're going to be showing 14 dances in one night! This is going to make the show far, far too long. Next year, they're going to have to bite the bullet and just split the main show and the results show (I'd move the results back to Sunday and just commission some extra lottery quizes - why they don't bring back Jet Set or Winning Lines is beyond me).

Also, as lovely as she is, I can see Alesha having a negative affect on the show. When I was watching, I was cringing when it came to her comments, as all she was saying was "Well done for coming out" and "You looking great". With Arlene - who I'm not the biggest fan of - you got a professional opinion about the quality of the dance. Also, with Len and Bruno being so lenient in their scoring (and Alesha following suit) you've got people getting scores in the low 30s in the first week, which is maddness!!!

I think on weekends it has to be shown by midnight, I don't know why I think that, but it's the impression I get. I may have read it on here...I could be completely wrong.

But yes, I think the film would've held up better in one sitting, so the early news followed by the film would've worked ok IMO.

That did seem weird scheduling from ISI. It may ahve done better with the news first so it could fit in one sitting, but that may have lost the benefit of the X Factor lead in. Trouble is the weekend is all it is suited to. It cannot go midweek because it is too violent to have much of it before 9pm. Maybe an X Factor weekend would've been better - could they have held it off until the Saturday before Christmas, then try and dent the Strictly final with it?


They've surrendered the Sunday night slot to X Factor as well, so they either have to air it early or clash the two shows again. Unless ITV decide to move X Factor back to Saturday nights next year, but can't see it somehow. I wonder if they could afford to have a live results show on a Sunday - I think that's the only way it's going to work. The spoiler element to the last couple of series spoiled (no pun intended) it slightly.


In fairness, week one scores have never been exceptionally low for the top dancers:

Series 1: Lesley and Anton 29, Claire and John/Natasha and Brendan/Verona and Paul 27

Series 2: Denise and Ian 31, Aled and Lilia 29, Sarah and Brendan 28 (winner Jill Halfpenny and Darren 27)

Series 3: Zoe and Ian 35, Colin and Erin 32, Bill and Karen 29 (winner Darren Gough and Lilia 19)

Series 4 (two opening weeks, combined scores): Emma and Darren 33, Louisa and Vincent 28, Mark and Karen/Ray and Camilla/Spoony and Ola 27

Series 5 (two opening weeks, combined scores): Kelly and Brendan/Penny and Ian 33, Alesha and Matthew 31

Series 6 (two opening weeks, combined scores): Cherie and James 33, Austin and Erin 32, Rachel and Vincent 31 (winner Tom Chambers and Camilla 28)

Series 7 (two dances, 1 week out of 2): Ali and Brian 30+30, Chris and Ola 26+30, Jade and Ian 25+27

So there hasn't been that much change in terms of scores between series.

Oh.

The numbers I quoted are from the Media Guardian website.

You're ratings are correct D.M.N, and I actually have different overnights to iandb for the missing two, as I have 5.3m and 8.3m, which look more accurate when compared to the officials.

I would have suggested that Broadcast's ratings maybe lower as they've removed adverts - but surely that'd make them higher?

Broadcast went through a phase in 2007 where they were completely useless at reporting the ratings, and often got them wrong because of sheer stupidity more than anything else. I'd suggest this may be down to that.

ITV are doing a remake of A Bouquet of Barbed Wire, to be aired next year. It will star Trevor Eve.

ITV do seem to be looking to do more big name quality productions, and I think their drama department is certainly starting to head in the right direction.

It's about time that ITV gets back to its old days of quality drama. It's really difficult to believe that Cracker once lived on the channel.

Prediction:
- X Factor: 9.8m
- Doc Martin: 8.1m

X-Factor was around the 10.9m mark (Sunday 20th Sept)

Wait - that's the average?

Very good rating if it is the average! Thanks dubsj.

Share was approximately 42%

Any news on Doc Martin 9-10 yet?

Your talking about a couple of clashes - Im talking about series averages/episode averages/final averages. Year on year XF has outrated SCD. Im quite prepared to be proved wrong and if someone wants to give us actual ratings then I would be interested to see them.

Official averages for each year:

2004 (autumn) - SCD: 8.6m, TXF: 7.4m
2005: SCD: 8.3m, TXF: 8.7m
2006: SCD: 8.6m, TXF: 8.3m
2007: SCD: 9.1m, TXF: 8.6m
2008: SCD: 9.6m, TXF: 10.5m

Strictly's won 3 of the 5 years.

Worth noting that the highest results show last year for Strictly in the same slot was 10.3m (39%).

Now that we've got all of the audition rating, the audition average was about 10.31m (46.4%), worth noting it is higher than last year's audition average, but lower than this year's BGT audition average.

Ratings are up.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/a1783...7-million.html

K