Soap ratings for 11/01/2012 -
Emmerdale - 7.62m
Emmerdale - 7.62m
Soap Ratings Thread (Part 5)
134 of 136
Originally Posted by dan2008:
“Its not just repeats though. People are recording Tv programes more and more these days and then of course theres ITVplayer/BBC I player aswell as on demand services from the likes of BT and Virgib Media.I dunno about other Omnibus but EastEnders usually adds 1.5-1.7m+ on top of its main figure and BBC3"@10 ALL of tv is down”
“Its not just repeats though. People are recording Tv programes more and more these days and then of course theres ITVplayer/BBC I player aswell as on demand services from the likes of BT and Virgib Media.I dunno about other Omnibus but EastEnders usually adds 1.5-1.7m+ on top of its main figure and BBC3"@10 ALL of tv is down”
Omnibuses and iPLAYER have always been there, though. Look, we've had this discussion before, Dan, and I think you know fully well why EE and Corrie aren't doing well. These ratings just aren't on. Below 9m in January is completely unacceptable. I don't mean to fall out again, but the soaps should be at at least 9.5m. Back in 2005 it was considered appalling to be below 45%. Even in 2006 - which is widely regarded as EastEnders worst ever year - the ratings wrre still vrry high, until a lot of people switched off, meaning an average episode rated between 8.1 and 10.1m - which is g. 2007 captured back a few viewers, pushing the average to between 8.7 and 10.7 million viewers, before they all got fed up, in 2008, and viewers switched off, meaning the latter half of 2008 was down a whooping 12.5% from the lattef half of 2007.
Losing that many viewers is only down to poor quality. Are there multichannels, etc? Yes, there are, but that growth should have stabilised by now, meaning at the very minimum the soaps should be on par with this time last year.
You go on as if these gadgets started just recently. Omnibuses have been there since the show's inception in 1985, Sky + has been here since September 2001, if I remember correctly, BBc iPLAYER has been here since at least April 2007, multichannels having been there since April 2003 (Mark Fowler's death episode).
Viewers would gave gotten used to that by now.
"For the first time ever, all houses (that, presumably, own a television) have at least five main channels." You've exactly proved my point. How would you explain that 2008 has EastEnsders' lowest yearly average ever? How would you explain the declining audiences all year, assuming it's been a very short while since every television has discovered at least five main channels?
Let's take, for example, the 9.9m (41%) who watched Tuesday's corresponsing episode, 2011. Come on, is it really acceptable for EastEnders to be down 1.2m year-on-year? No. I'm aware that the "baby swap" caused a lot of press hammering and complaints, but Pat's exit, the return of Derek, the funeral build-up, David's return, David/Carol, etc, should've made EastEnders rate higher.
Also, how come Emmerdale's doing very well in terms of viewong figures right now? Shouldn't that have been affected by these changes, too?
I'm not having a go, and I apologise if my tone's rather patromising, but there's absolutely no excuse for these lacklustre ratings. It isn't good enough. 40%+ should be EastEnders' aim, but it hasn't regularly done that since 2008, so I'll allow a bit of time for that.
I understand that you can catch up, etc, but these methods have been here for a very, very long time.
(One last thing on the "for the first time ever, all television viewers have at least five channels to choose from: that's what makes it all the worst. You shouldn't just assume that immediately 1m viewers have found something else to watch. In their inceptions, these figures are small, but they grow larger and larger and larger.)
EastEnders and Corontion Street have simply milked the cow and the quality will need to improve tremendously for these ratings to improve, which, amongst the latest technology (albeit), is still extremely possible.
Again, I'm not attacking you (and, as you know, I have absolutely nothing against you anymore!), but I completely disagree with the way in which you look at ratings, so I'm sorry about my tone, and if it offended you in any way, which was completely unintended.
Originally Posted by Doctor Bench:
“Also, how come Emmerdale's doing very well in terms of viewong figures right now? Shouldn't that have been affected by these changes, too?”
“Also, how come Emmerdale's doing very well in terms of viewong figures right now? Shouldn't that have been affected by these changes, too?”
I hate to burst your bubble - but Emmerdale's Tues overnight rating is the lowest January overnight it's had since 2009.
Originally Posted by sheepiefarm:
“I hate to burst your bubble - but Emmerdale's Tues overnight rating is the lowest January overnight it's had since 2009.”
“I hate to burst your bubble - but Emmerdale's Tues overnight rating is the lowest January overnight it's had since 2009.”
Up on 2008/2009, though? And at least that's not dropping by 1/2m.
Originally Posted by Doctor Bench:
“Up on 2008/2009, though? And at least that's not dropping by 1/2m.”
“Up on 2008/2009, though? And at least that's not dropping by 1/2m.”
Talking about total numbers is irrelevant when they don't have the same numbers to start with.
You'd need to look at it from a % of viewing audience - and I suspect ED is down by a similar % than the other two.
I'm not disagreeing that it is possibly due to poor storylines - but it's not as black & white as that.
ED got 7.62m on Wed - and that was the most watched programme of the day.
Viewing figures across ALL tv programmes are depressed at the moment - not just the soaps.
Originally Posted by Doctor Bench:
“Omnibuses and iPLAYER have always been there, though. Look, we've had this discussion before, Dan, and I think you know fully well why EE and Corrie aren't doing well. These ratings just aren't on. Below 9m in January is completely unacceptable. I don't mean to fall out again, but the soaps should be at at least 9.5m. Back in 2005 it was considered appalling to be below 45%. Even in 2006 - which is widely regarded as EastEnders worst ever year - the ratings wrre still vrry high, until a lot of people switched off, meaning an average episode rated between 8.1 and 10.1m - which is g. 2007 captured back a few viewers, pushing the average to between 8.7 and 10.7 million viewers, before they all got fed up, in 2008, and viewers switched off, meaning the latter half of 2008 was down a whooping 12.5% from the lattef half of 2007.
Losing that many viewers is only down to poor quality. Are there multichannels, etc? Yes, there are, but that growth should have stabilised by now, meaning at the very minimum the soaps should be on par with this time last year.
You go on as if these gadgets started just recently. Omnibuses have been there since the show's inception in 1985, Sky + has been here since September 2001, if I remember correctly, BBc iPLAYER has been here since at least April 2007, multichannels having been there since April 2003 (Mark Fowler's death episode).
Viewers would gave gotten used to that by now.
"For the first time ever, all houses (that, presumably, own a television) have at least five main channels." You've exactly proved my point. How would you explain that 2008 has EastEnsders' lowest yearly average ever? How would you explain the declining audiences all year, assuming it's been a very short while since every television has discovered at least five main channels?
Let's take, for example, the 9.9m (41%) who watched Tuesday's corresponsing episode, 2011. Come on, is it really acceptable for EastEnders to be down 1.2m year-on-year? No. I'm aware that the "baby swap" caused a lot of press hammering and complaints, but Pat's exit, the return of Derek, the funeral build-up, David's return, David/Carol, etc, should've made EastEnders rate higher.
Also, how come Emmerdale's doing very well in terms of viewong figures right now? Shouldn't that have been affected by these changes, too?
I'm not having a go, and I apologise if my tone's rather patromising, but there's absolutely no excuse for these lacklustre ratings. It isn't good enough. 40%+ should be EastEnders' aim, but it hasn't regularly done that since 2008, so I'll allow a bit of time for that.
I understand that you can catch up, etc, but these methods have been here for a very, very long time.
(One last thing on the "for the first time ever, all television viewers have at least five channels to choose from: that's what makes it all the worst. You shouldn't just assume that immediately 1m viewers have found something else to watch. In their inceptions, these figures are small, but they grow larger and larger and larger.)
EastEnders and Corontion Street have simply milked the cow and the quality will need to improve tremendously for these ratings to improve, which, amongst the latest technology (albeit), is still extremely possible.
Again, I'm not attacking you (and, as you know, I have absolutely nothing against you anymore!), but I completely disagree with the way in which you look at ratings, so I'm sorry about my tone, and if it offended you in any way, which was completely unintended.”
“Omnibuses and iPLAYER have always been there, though. Look, we've had this discussion before, Dan, and I think you know fully well why EE and Corrie aren't doing well. These ratings just aren't on. Below 9m in January is completely unacceptable. I don't mean to fall out again, but the soaps should be at at least 9.5m. Back in 2005 it was considered appalling to be below 45%. Even in 2006 - which is widely regarded as EastEnders worst ever year - the ratings wrre still vrry high, until a lot of people switched off, meaning an average episode rated between 8.1 and 10.1m - which is g. 2007 captured back a few viewers, pushing the average to between 8.7 and 10.7 million viewers, before they all got fed up, in 2008, and viewers switched off, meaning the latter half of 2008 was down a whooping 12.5% from the lattef half of 2007.
Losing that many viewers is only down to poor quality. Are there multichannels, etc? Yes, there are, but that growth should have stabilised by now, meaning at the very minimum the soaps should be on par with this time last year.
You go on as if these gadgets started just recently. Omnibuses have been there since the show's inception in 1985, Sky + has been here since September 2001, if I remember correctly, BBc iPLAYER has been here since at least April 2007, multichannels having been there since April 2003 (Mark Fowler's death episode).
Viewers would gave gotten used to that by now.
"For the first time ever, all houses (that, presumably, own a television) have at least five main channels." You've exactly proved my point. How would you explain that 2008 has EastEnsders' lowest yearly average ever? How would you explain the declining audiences all year, assuming it's been a very short while since every television has discovered at least five main channels?
Let's take, for example, the 9.9m (41%) who watched Tuesday's corresponsing episode, 2011. Come on, is it really acceptable for EastEnders to be down 1.2m year-on-year? No. I'm aware that the "baby swap" caused a lot of press hammering and complaints, but Pat's exit, the return of Derek, the funeral build-up, David's return, David/Carol, etc, should've made EastEnders rate higher.
Also, how come Emmerdale's doing very well in terms of viewong figures right now? Shouldn't that have been affected by these changes, too?
I'm not having a go, and I apologise if my tone's rather patromising, but there's absolutely no excuse for these lacklustre ratings. It isn't good enough. 40%+ should be EastEnders' aim, but it hasn't regularly done that since 2008, so I'll allow a bit of time for that.
I understand that you can catch up, etc, but these methods have been here for a very, very long time.
(One last thing on the "for the first time ever, all television viewers have at least five channels to choose from: that's what makes it all the worst. You shouldn't just assume that immediately 1m viewers have found something else to watch. In their inceptions, these figures are small, but they grow larger and larger and larger.)
EastEnders and Corontion Street have simply milked the cow and the quality will need to improve tremendously for these ratings to improve, which, amongst the latest technology (albeit), is still extremely possible.
Again, I'm not attacking you (and, as you know, I have absolutely nothing against you anymore!), but I completely disagree with the way in which you look at ratings, so I'm sorry about my tone, and if it offended you in any way, which was completely unintended.
”
You can't compare 2011/2012 with 2005/2006.
Times have changed/The world has changed.
More channels,The Internet you name it it's happened.
Back in 2005/2006 most people just had 5 TV channels and now adays you HAVE to have Digital,Sky,Freeview.
Nearly everyone is the UK has digital TV of some kind.
Look at it this way.
All of last week (apart from Wednesday) EastEnders was the most watched TV show of the day
This Monday Corrie was most watched show of the day
Tuesday EastEnders was the most watched TV show of the day.
ALL of TV is down and thats todo with more choice/more ways of catching up.In 2018 lets say we will look back on 2012 and say my god the soaps are much lower these days because things simply change.
Now 99.9% of the UK has digital TV and alot of that is through freeview but back in 2006/2007 less people had digital TV because they simply didn't need to (they had a choice) You can nolonger stick an Areial into the back of your TV and pick up 4/5 channels in nearly every part of the UK
Originally Posted by Doctor Bench:
“Omnibuses and iPLAYER have always been there, though. Look, we've had this discussion before, Dan, and I think you know fully well why EE and Corrie aren't doing well. These ratings just aren't on. Below 9m in January is completely unacceptable. I don't mean to fall out again, but the soaps should be at at least 9.5m. Back in 2005 it was considered appalling to be below 45%. Even in 2006 - which is widely regarded as EastEnders worst ever year - the ratings wrre still vrry high, until a lot of people switched off, meaning an average episode rated between 8.1 and 10.1m - which is g. 2007 captured back a few viewers, pushing the average to between 8.7 and 10.7 million viewers, before they all got fed up, in 2008, and viewers switched off, meaning the latter half of 2008 was down a whooping 12.5% from the lattef half of 2007.
Losing that many viewers is only down to poor quality. Are there multichannels, etc? Yes, there are, but that growth should have stabilised by now, meaning at the very minimum the soaps should be on par with this time last year.
You go on as if these gadgets started just recently. Omnibuses have been there since the show's inception in 1985, Sky + has been here since September 2001, if I remember correctly, BBc iPLAYER has been here since at least April 2007, multichannels having been there since April 2003 (Mark Fowler's death episode).
Viewers would gave gotten used to that by now.
"For the first time ever, all houses (that, presumably, own a television) have at least five main channels." You've exactly proved my point. How would you explain that 2008 has EastEnsders' lowest yearly average ever? How would you explain the declining audiences all year, assuming it's been a very short while since every television has discovered at least five main channels?Let's take, for example, the 9.9m (41%) who watched Tuesday's corresponsing episode, 2011. Come on, is it really acceptable for EastEnders to be down 1.2m year-on-year? No. I'm aware that the "baby swap" caused a lot of press hammering and complaints, but Pat's exit, the return of Derek, the funeral build-up, David's return, David/Carol, etc, should've made EastEnders rate higher.
Also, how come Emmerdale's doing very well in terms of viewong figures right now? Shouldn't that have been affected by these changes, too?
I'm not having a go, and I apologise if my tone's rather patromising, but there's absolutely no excuse for these lacklustre ratings. It isn't good enough. 40%+ should be EastEnders' aim, but it hasn't regularly done that since 2008, so I'll allow a bit of time for that.
I understand that you can catch up, etc, but these methods have been here for a very, very long time.
(One last thing on the "for the first time ever, all television viewers have at least five channels to choose from: that's what makes it all the worst. You shouldn't just assume that immediately 1m viewers have found something else to watch. In their inceptions, these figures are small, but they grow larger and larger and larger.)
EastEnders and Corontion Street have simply milked the cow and the quality will need to improve tremendously for these ratings to improve, which, amongst the latest technology (albeit), is still extremely possible.
Again, I'm not attacking you (and, as you know, I have absolutely nothing against you anymore!), but I completely disagree with the way in which you look at ratings, so I'm sorry about my tone, and if it offended you in any way, which was completely unintended.”
“Omnibuses and iPLAYER have always been there, though. Look, we've had this discussion before, Dan, and I think you know fully well why EE and Corrie aren't doing well. These ratings just aren't on. Below 9m in January is completely unacceptable. I don't mean to fall out again, but the soaps should be at at least 9.5m. Back in 2005 it was considered appalling to be below 45%. Even in 2006 - which is widely regarded as EastEnders worst ever year - the ratings wrre still vrry high, until a lot of people switched off, meaning an average episode rated between 8.1 and 10.1m - which is g. 2007 captured back a few viewers, pushing the average to between 8.7 and 10.7 million viewers, before they all got fed up, in 2008, and viewers switched off, meaning the latter half of 2008 was down a whooping 12.5% from the lattef half of 2007.
Losing that many viewers is only down to poor quality. Are there multichannels, etc? Yes, there are, but that growth should have stabilised by now, meaning at the very minimum the soaps should be on par with this time last year.
You go on as if these gadgets started just recently. Omnibuses have been there since the show's inception in 1985, Sky + has been here since September 2001, if I remember correctly, BBc iPLAYER has been here since at least April 2007, multichannels having been there since April 2003 (Mark Fowler's death episode).
Viewers would gave gotten used to that by now.
"For the first time ever, all houses (that, presumably, own a television) have at least five main channels." You've exactly proved my point. How would you explain that 2008 has EastEnsders' lowest yearly average ever? How would you explain the declining audiences all year, assuming it's been a very short while since every television has discovered at least five main channels?Let's take, for example, the 9.9m (41%) who watched Tuesday's corresponsing episode, 2011. Come on, is it really acceptable for EastEnders to be down 1.2m year-on-year? No. I'm aware that the "baby swap" caused a lot of press hammering and complaints, but Pat's exit, the return of Derek, the funeral build-up, David's return, David/Carol, etc, should've made EastEnders rate higher.
Also, how come Emmerdale's doing very well in terms of viewong figures right now? Shouldn't that have been affected by these changes, too?
I'm not having a go, and I apologise if my tone's rather patromising, but there's absolutely no excuse for these lacklustre ratings. It isn't good enough. 40%+ should be EastEnders' aim, but it hasn't regularly done that since 2008, so I'll allow a bit of time for that.
I understand that you can catch up, etc, but these methods have been here for a very, very long time.
(One last thing on the "for the first time ever, all television viewers have at least five channels to choose from: that's what makes it all the worst. You shouldn't just assume that immediately 1m viewers have found something else to watch. In their inceptions, these figures are small, but they grow larger and larger and larger.)
EastEnders and Corontion Street have simply milked the cow and the quality will need to improve tremendously for these ratings to improve, which, amongst the latest technology (albeit), is still extremely possible.
Again, I'm not attacking you (and, as you know, I have absolutely nothing against you anymore!), but I completely disagree with the way in which you look at ratings, so I'm sorry about my tone, and if it offended you in any way, which was completely unintended.
”
No for the first time ever most house holds now have more than 5 channels.
All of TV is down year or year and not the soaps. You do know that right?
You do understand the fact that Digital TV has taken over?
You do understand that EastEnders & Corrie are quite often the most watched TV shows of the day?
You can ask RZT or DMN or whoever but they will understand how Televison has changed and how you can't compare 2005 with 2011
Originally Posted by sheepiefarm:
“Talking about total numbers is irrelevant when they don't have the same numbers to start with.
You'd need to look at it from a % of viewing audience - and I suspect ED is down by a similar % than the other two.
I'm not disagreeing that it is possibly due to poor storylines - but it's not as black & white as that.
ED got 7.62m on Wed - and that was the most watched programme of the day.
Viewing figures across ALL tv programmes are depressed at the moment - not just the soaps.”
“Talking about total numbers is irrelevant when they don't have the same numbers to start with.
You'd need to look at it from a % of viewing audience - and I suspect ED is down by a similar % than the other two.
I'm not disagreeing that it is possibly due to poor storylines - but it's not as black & white as that.
ED got 7.62m on Wed - and that was the most watched programme of the day.
Viewing figures across ALL tv programmes are depressed at the moment - not just the soaps.”
Very true.When you see EastEnders,Corrie,Emmerdale taking the Number 1 & Number 2 (and quite often the number 3) spot of the most watched Programe on TV that day it's clear soaps are still most watched and only Event TV rates higher
Originally Posted by Doctor Bench:
“Omnibuses and iPLAYER have always been there, though. Look, we've had this discussion before, Dan, and I think you know fully well why EE and Corrie aren't doing well. These ratings just aren't on. Below 9m in January is completely unacceptable. I don't mean to fall out again, but the soaps should be at at least 9.5m. Back in 2005 it was considered appalling to be below 45%. Even in 2006 - which is widely regarded as EastEnders worst ever year - the ratings wrre still vrry high, until a lot of people switched off, meaning an average episode rated between 8.1 and 10.1m - which is g. 2007 captured back a few viewers, pushing the average to between 8.7 and 10.7 million viewers, before they all got fed up, in 2008, and viewers switched off, meaning the latter half of 2008 was down a whooping 12.5% from the lattef half of 2007.
Losing that many viewers is only down to poor quality. Are there multichannels, etc? Yes, there are, but that growth should have stabilised by now, meaning at the very minimum the soaps should be on par with this time last year.
You go on as if these gadgets started just recently. Omnibuses have been there since the show's inception in 1985, Sky + has been here since September 2001, if I remember correctly, BBc iPLAYER has been here since at least April 2007, multichannels having been there since April 2003 (Mark Fowler's death episode).
Viewers would gave gotten used to that by now.
"For the first time ever, all houses (that, presumably, own a television) have at least five main channels." You've exactly proved my point. How would you explain that 2008 has EastEnsders' lowest yearly average ever? How would you explain the declining audiences all year, assuming it's been a very short while since every television has discovered at least five main channels?
Let's take, for example, the 9.9m (41%) who watched Tuesday's corresponsing episode, 2011. Come on, is it really acceptable for EastEnders to be down 1.2m year-on-year? No. I'm aware that the "baby swap" caused a lot of press hammering and complaints, but Pat's exit, the return of Derek, the funeral build-up, David's return, David/Carol, etc, should've made EastEnders rate higher.
Also, how come Emmerdale's doing very well in terms of viewong figures right now? Shouldn't that have been affected by these changes, too?
I'm not having a go, and I apologise if my tone's rather patromising, but there's absolutely no excuse for these lacklustre ratings. It isn't good enough. 40%+ should be EastEnders' aim, but it hasn't regularly done that since 2008, so I'll allow a bit of time for that.
I understand that you can catch up, etc, but these methods have been here for a very, very long time.
(One last thing on the "for the first time ever, all television viewers have at least five channels to choose from: that's what makes it all the worst. You shouldn't just assume that immediately 1m viewers have found something else to watch. In their inceptions, these figures are small, but they grow larger and larger and larger.)
EastEnders and Corontion Street have simply milked the cow and the quality will need to improve tremendously for these ratings to improve, which, amongst the latest technology (albeit), is still extremely possible.
Again, I'm not attacking you (and, as you know, I have absolutely nothing against you anymore!), but I completely disagree with the way in which you look at ratings, so I'm sorry about my tone, and if it offended you in any way, which was completely unintended.”
“Omnibuses and iPLAYER have always been there, though. Look, we've had this discussion before, Dan, and I think you know fully well why EE and Corrie aren't doing well. These ratings just aren't on. Below 9m in January is completely unacceptable. I don't mean to fall out again, but the soaps should be at at least 9.5m. Back in 2005 it was considered appalling to be below 45%. Even in 2006 - which is widely regarded as EastEnders worst ever year - the ratings wrre still vrry high, until a lot of people switched off, meaning an average episode rated between 8.1 and 10.1m - which is g. 2007 captured back a few viewers, pushing the average to between 8.7 and 10.7 million viewers, before they all got fed up, in 2008, and viewers switched off, meaning the latter half of 2008 was down a whooping 12.5% from the lattef half of 2007.
Losing that many viewers is only down to poor quality. Are there multichannels, etc? Yes, there are, but that growth should have stabilised by now, meaning at the very minimum the soaps should be on par with this time last year.
You go on as if these gadgets started just recently. Omnibuses have been there since the show's inception in 1985, Sky + has been here since September 2001, if I remember correctly, BBc iPLAYER has been here since at least April 2007, multichannels having been there since April 2003 (Mark Fowler's death episode).
Viewers would gave gotten used to that by now.
"For the first time ever, all houses (that, presumably, own a television) have at least five main channels." You've exactly proved my point. How would you explain that 2008 has EastEnsders' lowest yearly average ever? How would you explain the declining audiences all year, assuming it's been a very short while since every television has discovered at least five main channels?
Let's take, for example, the 9.9m (41%) who watched Tuesday's corresponsing episode, 2011. Come on, is it really acceptable for EastEnders to be down 1.2m year-on-year? No. I'm aware that the "baby swap" caused a lot of press hammering and complaints, but Pat's exit, the return of Derek, the funeral build-up, David's return, David/Carol, etc, should've made EastEnders rate higher.
Also, how come Emmerdale's doing very well in terms of viewong figures right now? Shouldn't that have been affected by these changes, too?
I'm not having a go, and I apologise if my tone's rather patromising, but there's absolutely no excuse for these lacklustre ratings. It isn't good enough. 40%+ should be EastEnders' aim, but it hasn't regularly done that since 2008, so I'll allow a bit of time for that.
I understand that you can catch up, etc, but these methods have been here for a very, very long time.
(One last thing on the "for the first time ever, all television viewers have at least five channels to choose from: that's what makes it all the worst. You shouldn't just assume that immediately 1m viewers have found something else to watch. In their inceptions, these figures are small, but they grow larger and larger and larger.)
EastEnders and Corontion Street have simply milked the cow and the quality will need to improve tremendously for these ratings to improve, which, amongst the latest technology (albeit), is still extremely possible.
Again, I'm not attacking you (and, as you know, I have absolutely nothing against you anymore!), but I completely disagree with the way in which you look at ratings, so I'm sorry about my tone, and if it offended you in any way, which was completely unintended.
”
41% of people at 7:30Pm on that Tuesday were watching EastEnders
That figure is now 11.28 in the officials (which of course is only recordings and doesn't take repeats into account)
Im sorry if my posts came across as rude but they were not that way i intended them to be.
Hopefully RZT/DMN (or one of the other 'Experts') will shine some light on things and put this to bed once and for all
Thursday 12 January 2012 - Soap Ratings
BBC One
13:45 - Doctors - 1.63m (23.8%)
19:30 - EastEnders - 9.29m (39.9%)
ITV1
19:00 - Emerdale - 7.64m (34.4%)
20:00 - Emerdale - 7.64m (31.1%)
20:30 - Coronation Street - 8.15m (31.9%)
Channel 4
18:30 - Hollyoaks - 1.09m (5.2%)
E4
19:00 - Hollyoaks - 687k (3.1%)
BBC3
22:00 - EastEnders - 848k (4.4%)
BBC One
13:45 - Doctors - 1.63m (23.8%)
19:30 - EastEnders - 9.29m (39.9%)
ITV1
19:00 - Emerdale - 7.64m (34.4%)
20:00 - Emerdale - 7.64m (31.1%)
20:30 - Coronation Street - 8.15m (31.9%)
Channel 4
18:30 - Hollyoaks - 1.09m (5.2%)
E4
19:00 - Hollyoaks - 687k (3.1%)
BBC3
22:00 - EastEnders - 848k (4.4%)
Conrats to EE for last night's ratings... the show has definitely kept up momentum from Christmas... I'm thoroughly enjoying every episode. Here hopes tonight's BIG episode keeps up the high ratings trend for EE.
Friday 13th January - Soap Overnights
BBC One
13:45- Doctors: 1.53m (22.4%)
20:00- EastEnders: 9.14m (37.2%)
ITV1
19:00- Emmerdale: 7.37m (34.0%)
19:30- Coronation Street: 8.76m (37.7%)
20:30- Coronation Street: 6.76m (26.7%) , +1: 254k (1.0%)
Channel 4
18:30- Hollyoaks: 933k (4.6%)
BBC Three
22:00- EastEnders: 862k (4.2%)
E4
19:00- Hollyoaks: 555k (2.6%)
Source: DS
Ratings include HD and are tape-checked where necessary
BBC One
13:45- Doctors: 1.53m (22.4%)
20:00- EastEnders: 9.14m (37.2%)
ITV1
19:00- Emmerdale: 7.37m (34.0%)
19:30- Coronation Street: 8.76m (37.7%)
20:30- Coronation Street: 6.76m (26.7%) , +1: 254k (1.0%)
Channel 4
18:30- Hollyoaks: 933k (4.6%)
BBC Three
22:00- EastEnders: 862k (4.2%)
E4
19:00- Hollyoaks: 555k (2.6%)
Source: DS
Ratings include HD and are tape-checked where necessary
Same day: (EastEnders)
2011 - 9.15m (0.01m > same day 2012)
2010 - 10.88m (1.74m > " " 2012)
2009: 8.95m (0.19m < " " 2012)
2008: 10.3m (1.26m > " " 2012)
2007: 9.5m (0.36m > " " 2012)
2006: 10.9m (1.76m > " " 2012)
So EastEnders is down on every year from '06, bar '09.
(N.B.: '>' means 'greater than'; '<' means 'less than'.)
2011 - 9.15m (0.01m > same day 2012)
2010 - 10.88m (1.74m > " " 2012)
2009: 8.95m (0.19m < " " 2012)
2008: 10.3m (1.26m > " " 2012)
2007: 9.5m (0.36m > " " 2012)
2006: 10.9m (1.76m > " " 2012)
So EastEnders is down on every year from '06, bar '09.
(N.B.: '>' means 'greater than'; '<' means 'less than'.)
Tuesday 17th January - Soap Overnights
BBC One
13:45- Doctors: 1.66m (21.7%)
19:30- EastEnders: 8.91m (38.3%)
ITV1
19:00- Emmerdale: 7.37m (32.9%) +173k on +1
Channel 4
18:30- Hollyoaks: 996k (4.6%)
Channel 5
13:45 Neighbours 698k (9.1%)
17:30 Neighbours 1.17m (6.8%)
18:00 Home & Away 784k (3.9%)
BBC Three
22:00- EastEnders: 766k (3.7%)
E4
19:00- Hollyoaks: 560k (2.5%)
5*
18:30 Home & Away 449k (2.1%)
DS
BBC One
13:45- Doctors: 1.66m (21.7%)
19:30- EastEnders: 8.91m (38.3%)
ITV1
19:00- Emmerdale: 7.37m (32.9%) +173k on +1
Channel 4
18:30- Hollyoaks: 996k (4.6%)
Channel 5
13:45 Neighbours 698k (9.1%)
17:30 Neighbours 1.17m (6.8%)
18:00 Home & Away 784k (3.9%)
BBC Three
22:00- EastEnders: 766k (3.7%)
E4
19:00- Hollyoaks: 560k (2.5%)
5*
18:30 Home & Away 449k (2.1%)
DS
Soap Viewing Figures- Monday, 16/01/2012
Coronation Street- 9.37m (39.1%) at 7.30pm and 118k (0.4%) on +1
9.58m (36.0%) at 8.30pm and 176k (0.7%) on timeshift.
EastEnders- 9.09m (34.7%) at 8pm
BBC Three's repeat- 648k (3.2%) at 10pm.
Emmerdale- 7.78m (34.5%) at 7pm
Hollyoaks- 1.12m (5.2%) at 6.30pm on Channel 4 and 509k (2.2%) for E4's first look at 7pm.
Neighbours- 724k (9.5%) at 1.45pm and 1.06m (6.1%) at 5.30pm
Home and Away- 890k (4.4%) at 6pm and 483k (2.2%) for 5*'s first look at 6.30pm.
Doctors - 1.76m (23.0%)
Given those figures for Corrie, both episodes of next Monday night's eps should be hitting well over the 9m mark with Steve and Tracy's wedding and Becky's exit.
Coronation Street- 9.37m (39.1%) at 7.30pm and 118k (0.4%) on +1
9.58m (36.0%) at 8.30pm and 176k (0.7%) on timeshift.
EastEnders- 9.09m (34.7%) at 8pm
BBC Three's repeat- 648k (3.2%) at 10pm.
Emmerdale- 7.78m (34.5%) at 7pm
Hollyoaks- 1.12m (5.2%) at 6.30pm on Channel 4 and 509k (2.2%) for E4's first look at 7pm.
Neighbours- 724k (9.5%) at 1.45pm and 1.06m (6.1%) at 5.30pm
Home and Away- 890k (4.4%) at 6pm and 483k (2.2%) for 5*'s first look at 6.30pm.
Doctors - 1.76m (23.0%)
Given those figures for Corrie, both episodes of next Monday night's eps should be hitting well over the 9m mark with Steve and Tracy's wedding and Becky's exit.
Thursday 19th December- Soap overnights
BBC1
13:45 Doctors 1.66m (20.5%)
19:30 EastEnders 8.92m (39.3%)
peaked at 9.4m
ITV
19:00 Emmerdale 7.6m (34.5%)
20:00 Emmerdale 7.62m (31.9%) +199k on +1
20:30 Corrie 8.7m (34.4%) +248k on +1
C4
18:30 Hollyoaks 1.09m (5.2%)
Five
13:45 Neighbours 681k (8.3%)
17:30 Neighbours 1.13m (6.8%)
18:00 Home & Away 886k (4.5%)
5*
18:30 Home & Away 487k (2.3%)
E4
19:00 Hollyoaks 499k (2.3%)
--------------------------------------------------
Big Three down on 2010 & 2011
EE continues to win the Thursday battle
BBC1
13:45 Doctors 1.66m (20.5%)
19:30 EastEnders 8.92m (39.3%)
peaked at 9.4m
ITV
19:00 Emmerdale 7.6m (34.5%)
20:00 Emmerdale 7.62m (31.9%) +199k on +1
20:30 Corrie 8.7m (34.4%) +248k on +1
C4
18:30 Hollyoaks 1.09m (5.2%)
Five
13:45 Neighbours 681k (8.3%)
17:30 Neighbours 1.13m (6.8%)
18:00 Home & Away 886k (4.5%)
5*
18:30 Home & Away 487k (2.3%)
E4
19:00 Hollyoaks 499k (2.3%)
--------------------------------------------------
Big Three down on 2010 & 2011
EE continues to win the Thursday battle
Friday 20th January - Soap Overnights
BBC One
13:45- Doctors: 1.71m (20.8%)
20:00- EastEnders: 8.48m (36.4%)
ITV1
19:00- Emmerdale: 7.22m (33.8%)
19:30- Coronation Street: 8.90m (39%) , +1: 118k (0.5%)
20:30- Coronation Street: 9.37m (39%)
Channel 4
18:30- Hollyoaks: 899k (4.4%)
Channel 5
13:45- Neighbours: 704k (8.5%)
17:30- Neighbours: 1.09m (6.3%)
18:00- Home & Away: 883k (4.6%)
BBC Three
22:00- EastEnders: 648k (3.1%)
E4
19:00- Hollyoaks: 421k (2%)
Ratings include HD and are tape-checked where necessary
Source: DS
BBC One
13:45- Doctors: 1.71m (20.8%)
20:00- EastEnders: 8.48m (36.4%)
ITV1
19:00- Emmerdale: 7.22m (33.8%)
19:30- Coronation Street: 8.90m (39%) , +1: 118k (0.5%)
20:30- Coronation Street: 9.37m (39%)
Channel 4
18:30- Hollyoaks: 899k (4.4%)
Channel 5
13:45- Neighbours: 704k (8.5%)
17:30- Neighbours: 1.09m (6.3%)
18:00- Home & Away: 883k (4.6%)
BBC Three
22:00- EastEnders: 648k (3.1%)
E4
19:00- Hollyoaks: 421k (2%)
Ratings include HD and are tape-checked where necessary
Source: DS
Originally Posted by Doctor Bench:
“8.5m?
”
“8.5m?
”
To be fair, it's not that low. The same episode last year had 9.0m so it's not down much y-o-y.
Originally Posted by dan2008:
“No for the first time ever most house holds now have more than 5 channels.
All of TV is down year or year and not the soaps. You do know that right?
You do understand the fact that Digital TV has taken over?
You do understand that EastEnders & Corrie are quite often the most watched TV shows of the day?
You can ask RZT or DMN or whoever but they will understand how Televison has changed and how you can't compare 2005 with 2011”
“No for the first time ever most house holds now have more than 5 channels.
All of TV is down year or year and not the soaps. You do know that right?
You do understand the fact that Digital TV has taken over?
You do understand that EastEnders & Corrie are quite often the most watched TV shows of the day?
You can ask RZT or DMN or whoever but they will understand how Televison has changed and how you can't compare 2005 with 2011”
Television has changed a lot in just 6-7 years. Back in 2005, there was no iPlayer, ITV Player and none of that, and the audience has become fragmented with the advent of such services. Also in 2005, there were quite a few clashes with Emmerdale which was doing very well during that era ratings-wise. EastEnders does timeshift reasonably well, and of course we have to factor in the BBC3 figures into that. If anything, the most concerning thing is the share - EastEnders has been below 36% a few times.To me, Tuesdays and Thursdays seem to be EastEnders' strong days, and Mondays less so as it seems to dip below 35/36% on Mondays (seems to be CS territory).
Also, 2005 is a little incomparable to 2011 because AFAIK (if anyone could correct me on this), there was a new BARB system introduced in January 2010, which accounted for a small ratings increase, if more light could be shed on this.
On the subject of soap ratings, Hollyoaks seems to have lost its momentum from the Silas story which is extremely disappointing, and Doctors' figures looks a tad underwhelming when it perhaps should be over 2m, but perhaps the lack of snow is having an effect.
Coronation Street drew 11.51m (44.15%) / 300k +1 for Becky Macdonald's exit. Peak: 12.07m.
Source: Michael Rosser
I think that will probably end up as the top rated soap episode of 2012. I can't see what else could beat that unless the Christmas Day EastEnders isn't up against DA.
Source: Michael Rosser
I think that will probably end up as the top rated soap episode of 2012. I can't see what else could beat that unless the Christmas Day EastEnders isn't up against DA.
Is that more than Pat Butcher got for her exit and funeral?
I knew Becky was popular but not that popular....
I knew Becky was popular but not that popular....
134 of 136
