Originally Posted by jonnyblack:
“+1 Channels really do open a can of worms when it comes to reporting figures. On the one hand you have the fact that if you lump the figures together then you are falsely stating the amount of people who were watching the programme at that time. But on the other hand, the presence of a +1 channel can cause some viewers who would watch the original showing to choose to watch the +1 channel.
There doesn't seem to be a universally adopted standard. As far as getting the most information available if you have the figures including +1 and the share and amount watching TV then you can work out how many were watching the main showing as +1 isn't in the share. Obviously the best solution is to give both figures separately and let everyone spin their own web out of the results.”
I think the test is very simple.
If ITV1+1 was called "ITV5", would anyone think of lumping together the ITV1 showing of Taggart and the ITV5 showing an hour later?
No.
The fact it's called ITV1+1 makes no difference. It's a repeat showing on a different channel.
So ITV1's first showing of Taggart attracted 2.6m viewers plus whatever the ITV1HD simulcast got (because
simulcasting in a different broadcast format is not repeat viewing. You can only watch one channel at any given time).
And then ITV1+1's repeat showing of Taggart attracted 200k viewers.
It does not follow that ITV1 got 2.8m (+HD) for Taggart. Doing that may count some people twice, and casuals who caught the repeat and didn't consciously choose to timeshift.
Phew...