Indeed. Family Guy has quietly become a bit of a powerhouse for BBC Three. Much like Friends and The Simpsons have been in the past, it seems to be one of those shows that can just exist on an endless loop forever and ever.

[quote=Desert Rat;41369217]I count myself as a true fan but I think this series has hit the depths of BB4. Even the so called 'entertaining' ones would be classed as radar dodgers in any other series and this year has been so tedious, I just physically couldn't keep watching it last night.

I want it to do well but realistically its only going to do well if the series is half decent, and this year it just isn't taking off. Some of the core fans might love it, but that doesn't always translate to the public.

Last night wasn't good weather allover the country, where I live we had torrential rain from 7pm onwards (until about 3 this morning) and thunder & lightening.[/QUOTE]Did you go all over the country then?
Here we had a few drops of rain about 5oclockish that was all and even today it's still hot and sunny with no rain or Thunder.
I know a few places did but no where near the whole country

I can't see why BARB have split up the BBC ratings into 3 parts when it was all one programme.

OK, report the match only seperately, but you can't really have one programme having 3 entries in a Top 30 list.

They don't even do this for Wimbledon and their programmes can last 8 hours!

Would people agree if Strictly started taking 3 ratings?

Strictly: Performances
Strictly: Interval
Strictly: Results

I think not.

It's common practice in other countries to break sporting events up like this. They do it in Australia as well.

Wimbledon is different as most of the programme is actual tennis.

Exactly. Information such as match averages of course should be made available in the usual ways, but for the official chart itself it should be the programme as billed which counts.


Though they do spend the first half hour most days just talking and previewing, even though outdoor action gets underway the second the show starts.

I'm sure it could be argued that a Murray match could be reported seperately rather than being a part of an 8 hour show, if BARB wanted to go down this route.

Any list in this thread usually remove BARB's errors and dodgy decisions. I would hope this would continue with this one.

Family Guy does fantastically well for BBC Three... it deserves all its success especially since its been on since 1999 (even though they have taken 2 breaks lasting years)

It's not BARB that choose to do the splitting. BBC chose to do it on their timesheets, ITV chose not to. ITV could have had the official BARB ratings split into 3 if they wanted to do so.

I don't know about Wimbledon, possibly the BBC could choose to split that up if they wanted to, but then it is slightly different as they tend to dip in an out of matches and switch channels all the time so it would be impractical. Also there are the potential rain delays. You'd end up having officials for only the matches that were played out in their entirety in one go.

Sorry to repeat myself. But this would be impossible as BBC switch between BBC1 and BBC2 so you could not create an official match average.

It has been the norm for many years to report the 3 different figures for World Cup matches, I dont know why this started, probably so each channel could quote the match figure only when boasting about their ratings, but it happens.

As Dave01 has said, it was ITV's decision not to split their timesheets this time round and BARB simply reported the average for the split times they were given.

It's like when ITV decided to put a News bulletin in the last Touch of Frost, so BARB published Frost before the buletin, the 1 minute bulletin, then Frost after the bulletin to its conclusion as 3 seperate ratings.

I think it's blatantly obvious that the programme average should be reported for both BBC1 and ITV1. There is a way to find an end time for the post-match analysis as the Attentional programme search function has the running times of the programmes listed so a weighted average can be calculated. As for the HD debate, the percentage increase from overnight to official for the actual match, or for the whole programme if the match doesn't make the top ten can be used to provide a strong estimate for the overall HD rating, which would be fairly accurate.

It was actually an even bigger cock up than that as the Attentional programme search shows that the news bulletin ran for nearly an hour, so the news bulletin is actually a rating for nearly half the programme, as there is no rating for the bit after the bulletin.

It isn't a Barb error or a dodgy decision, it was done by both broadcasters in 2006 and accepted. This time ITV didn't bother to split it up.

Exactly. I wonder what odds Ian Wright and Chris Kamara are offering on this story being true, 500 to 1?

People always believe the tabloids when they want to, which is why the continue to do it.

Why would you golden handcuff James Cordon? Sign him up for another show if you want, but presenting some rubbish on Sky and a comedy or two on BBC1 is hardly an issue. Of course that wouldn't be a story and there would be no sensationalised massive salary.

Have you noticed all the tabloid stories about presenters always include massive X millions salaries, none of which are likely to be true.

Slightly O/T, but will probably interest some. Roger Mosey suggests here that in 2012, BBC will not be having an Olympic highlights programme. He says:

Disappointing rating for the Brazil match yesterday, when you consider the night before BBC1's coverage rated better and that was 30 minutes longer. Was expecting 6m+ as Brazil matches nearly always do that well, if not better than 7m.

Good rating for Rev - I thought it would rate at 1m! It benefitted from the strong lead-in, and I guess now it's a case of how many viewers it can hang on to for the rest of its run. BBC2 could be onto another sitcom hit here.

Unfortunately, BARB doesn't state the end times of programmes. But Attentional does state the exact running times on its website, so a weighted average could be done.

At the end of the day, if you prefer the BARB method, then you can always look on their website for the Top 10s. They'll have England vs. Germany top even though it wasn't the most watched programme of the year by peak or match average or even coverage average - none of the three! I'll post my list (which would be a weighted overall average) and others can post their lists. It's up to you what you count as the Top 10!

Very true. The ratings for the MOTD2 programme have been pretty low and it seems they have stopped bothering. There is so many clips, highlights and extra content on the BBC Sport website the traditional highlights show are fast becoming redundant.

The Hollyoaks first look episodes are doing pretty well, even if the Channel 4 show is performing badly at the moment. At least that's a positive for the show...

Big Brother is reaching 'very poor' territory now. It was doing OK before.

Some unusual scheduling by BBC2

Mock The Week: episode 3
Showing: Thursday 24th June 10pm
Repeated: Saturday 26th June 10pm
Repeated: Wednesday 30th June 10pm


Rev: episode 2
Showing: Monday 5th July 10pm
Repeated: Wednesday 7th July 10pm

Bit like when ITV wheel out Harry Potter opposite new series of Doctor Who.


Yes, and it wouldn't be the first time there'd be four hours of Midsomer Murders, as there's also two episodes on tomorrow. At least it's not Taggart again, although that does remind me of when they used to re-edit three-part stories of Taggart into one show and bill them as Taggart The Movie.

My favourite demented alternative schedule was in Euro 2000 when on Sunday night BBC1 were down to show A Tribute to the Two Ronnies, which would have run 7.30-10pm, and would have included all of Two Ronnies Night again, as well as another clip show which Ronnie C had presented a few months later. Two and a half hours!

Didn't show it, though, and eventually they repeated most of Two Ronnies Night - albeit cut down to ninety minutes - at half ten one night. Then they got Mark and Lard to do some new links and repeated it again as I Love The Two Ronnies on Saturday night BBC2. They got their money's worth out of that show.

You always used to get Backdraft and the Jolly Boys' Outing episode of Only Fools and Horses in alternative schedules on BBC1, they always used to show up.


I've said this before, I think, but Sky showed the 1999 Ryder Cup on Sky Sports News and free on Sky Box Office... as they were on the only Sky Sports channels you couldn't get on ONDigital.

I'm not sure what is going on with Emmerdale.

There was an episode scheduled for last night with a synopsis but this wasn't shown.

But tonight's hour long episode felt like an hour long episode with no obvious change at half past, so it looks like they may be various edits made and it won't be a case of episodes just stacking up and the descriptions in TV mags getting further and further ahead of themselves.

US cable network Oxygen has paid "mid six figures per episode" for syndication rights to Glee. Their deal also includes 2 specials, one of which is a talent show that would air next summer to find a new cast member.

USA cable network has acquired syndication rights to Modern Family at a cost rumoured to be around $1.5m an episode, a similar number to the record breaking recent deal for The Big Bang Theory. This is USA's first sitcom. The #1 cable channel currently produces half a dozen original drama series and is home to WWE Raw plus House and NCIS repeats which perform very strongly for it.

Both USA and Oxygen are owned by NBC Universal which struck the deal with 20th Century FOX, which produces both shows (although Modern Family airs on ABC). It's a very early deal because both shows only have 22 episodes and won't actually air until September 2013.

http://www.deadline.com/2010/06/big-...modern-family/

On sitcoms, the big syndication deals provoke cast members to negotiate their salaries. On The Big Bang Theory, the 3 leads (Johnny Galecki, Kaley Cuoco and Jim Parsons) are all currently earning $60,000 an episode (around $1.3m per season). It recently struck a deal that will bring in $2m an episode in syndication rights.

Deadline reports that Jim Parsons (Sheldon Cooper) plans to negotiate separately from his co-stars. But that will ultimately be pointless because WB, anxious to avoid upsetting other cast members, will ensure parity among the 3 leads. Possibly in the region of $250,000 an episode ($5.5m-$6m per season).

Some other trivia - the leading ladies of Desperate Housewives are paid $250,000 an episode. Again, this is despite the fact that none of them actually negotiate together.

http://www.deadline.com/2010/06/comi...enegotiations/

How many viewers do those sorts of show repeats get for the US cable channels? $1.5m per episode seems a lot - more than what BBC1/ITV1 pay for new drama over here! I'm assuming the rights are for unlimited airings of each episode?

Also, I thought I read somewhere that syndication rights could only happen once a show got over 100 episodes? They were saying something like that when discussing Heroes' future .

I'm assuming it's not just my TV but about 10 minutes ago BBC1 lost the football for a minute or so to show us Sky News.

Now, ITV mistakenly playing out an ad I can understand - the BBC playing out a completely different channel - now that should never happen. Lucky for the BBC though they didn't miss a goal.

No such problem here. Nothing mentioned on the Broadcasting forum either (it'd be all over there if it happened).

Maybe you accidentally pressed the remote and switched the channel ?