Great ratings for EastEnders and Emmerdale.

Coronation Street's episodes are not real as DS have factored out the first five minutes of the first episode and the last five minutes of the 2nd. I think Coronation Street will be on par with EastEnders or even below.

9.7m for EastEnders on a Friday is fantastic. This year is really showing who in boss in the land of soap.

Good ratings for Eastenders last night.
Interesting to note that if it could manage a 50% share next Friday for the live episode and the same number of people are watching TV as last night, then overall that would be the equivalent ratings of 12.4m. A 46% share (which is what it had on Christmas day) would give it 11.4m.

Numbers looks almost certain to be axed. It's not just the ratings that are suggesting that. CBS cut its season order and one of the stars has been cast in a new FOX pilot.

The most that Heroes can hope for is a reduced run to try and give it a real ending.


Apparently $250m now!

And even more if events are cancelled, but sadly deaths could raise ratings.

I think Heroes will get a full final season, as NBC Universal will probably give them a discount to get the show to the 100 episodes required for syndication.

The cast have been saying similar things recently, that it will be wrapped up after 100 episodes.

Have to feel sorry for people in Seattle, across the water from Vancouver (kind of), who could see the fireworks from the Winter Olympics Opening Ceremony out their window, but had to wait 3 hours to watch it on NBC, while the rest of the World watched live!

They are 'real', they show the number of people who watched Coronation Street last night as opposed to Coronation Street + 7 minutes of ads. The problem comes when they're compared to other soaps who havent had such ammenments but thats not to say that somehow they're not 'real' as much as you'd love to believe Corrie doesent get that amount of viewers, it does and its factually true to say that, that many people watched CS yesterday and if 7.9M & 9.6M are 'great' for EM & EE, then I dont see why 10m isnt great for Corrie too but thats selective eyesight for you.

Even when Corrie's 7.30 figures are published for the entire slot, it will most probably still be clear of 'Enders.

But, what is worth "more"? 28mins of 9.7m or 24mins of 10m?

K

9.7 is the correct rating. If DS were to factor out the minutes eastenders and emmerdale were not on air in the slot then i'm sure their figures will be higher.

Do DS count Emmerdale's ratings in the same way as Corrie's?

This all opens up a big can of worms when comparing commercial TV to the BBC.

Say 10m watched a half hour programme (24 mins) on ITV but only 5m watched the adverts, that'd work out to a rating of 9m for the full slot

Say 9.5m watched a half hour programme (28 mins) on BBC1 but only 5m watched the trailers, that'd work out to a rating of 9.2m for the full slot.

Therefore BBC1 gets a higher rating for a lower number of viewers watching the autual programme in this case

Well if it had already averaged 10m for 24 minutes theres no saying that it would not have managed that figure for a remaining 4 minutes had it actually been on for that amount of extra time but in principle I can see your point. Essentially the point being made was that they are not plucked from thin air just calculted in a different manner that is still a 'real' and accurate figure of the number of people who watched Corrie.

The ratings should be for when the show is on and not the whole slot. Commercial channels have to make money so will make their best shows shorter to fit more adverts in. Its very unfair to judge Corrie on full slot averages when ITV could just schedule the show until 7:55 and the next 5 minutes are scheduled as adverts. BARB only rates when the show was on and factors out the adverts so why is it different for overnights?

For commercial TV, the ads matter more than the program.

I am aware of that. But its only the advertisers that need to know how many people are watching the adverts. Most people on this thread are purely interested in ratings for the programme.

But with Corrie/EE, we're not buying ad space. We're comparing to BBC shows which don't have adverts.

BARB will sort it all out eventually anyway.

Well, most people I think would prefer the whole program from start titles to end credits (including ad breaks) to be rated and then averaged out, or for the soaps to be averaged for 30 minutes to make it easier to compare the soaps.

There's really nothing in it whichever figures you use, plus EE always rates healthily at 10pm which can be ignored depending on the agenda, but I don't think it really matters when there's usually only a couple of hundred thousand in it whichever figures you look at.

What might be worrying for Corrie is that it has lost the most viewers recently compared to both EM and EE. I mean time was Corrie was a full million + ahead of EE so we didn't even get these debates about which figures to look at because EE seemed to have no hope of getting anywhere near it even if you factored in the 10pm showing. The fact those days are long gone may be of concern to ITV, I don't know. I'm sure rzt will correct me if I'm wrong though as he always knows the full soap averages.

There is no doubt Eastenders is ahead. The fairest way is to compare the officials which have Corrie marginally ahead. However when you add in the Eastenders repeat, which is now consistently getting 1 million, then it is clear Eastenders has pulled ahead.

Yeah clearly with repeats taken into account, EE pulls ahead. Although the opposition to that often argues that viewers watch repeats a second time. I'd say that might be true in cases where it was a big episode but generally I don't think it's the norm. I mean have people got nothing better to do than to watch the same programme twice in one night hours apart? And I'm sure someone mentioned BARB did research on this and that most viewers of rpt airings of recently broadcast shows are first look ones.

Corrie was up on average 0.8m per ep in the January officials. Granted it was the lowest increase of all the soaps but EE & EM benefited because in Jan '09 they clashed on Tuesday meaning Corrie had far and away the higher figure to beat in the first place.

Yeah, the gap has steadily closed from 1.2m in 2007 to 0.8m last year, and now to just 0.15m in the first month of 2010. In addition to this, the gap between EE's higher repeat ratings and Corrie's have widened.


EE still would have benefitted the most regardless of the Tuesday clashes. Removing the Tuesday clashes, 'Enders averaged 9.5m in the first 4 weeks last year (it was 9.0m including the clashes). This year, it averaged 11.1m in the first 4 weeks - a rise of 1.6m irrespective of the clashes. The Monday, Thursday and Friday episodes have rated significantly higher than this time last year.

Corrie had a low 2009 figure to build on anyway as it did relatively poorly in the first 4 weeks last year, averaging 10.2m which might sound good but it was 1.2m down from the same period in 2008. But really, all three primetime soaps have been doing well this year. It's Hollyoaks which is in big trouble!

Well I'm talking full year averages not just one month so 2008 to 2009. All of the soaps are doing well if you're just taking into account Jan 2010 compared to Jan 2009 though so it's good news all round. Fans of soap should stop tearing lumps out of eachother for five minutes and be happy at the fact they're bucking the trend atm and the ratings have increased which has become a rare thing for soaps.

Why do we still argue about this, seriously?

It's overnights, they're not official ratings