The BBC have a vast supply of shows they could very easily repeat. However they resort to showing the same handful of programmes over and over again. If they didn't keep selling their programmes to digital channels immediately after they've finished, their schedules would all but definetely look and feel stronger.

They have not shown the following at all on their main channels since broadcast:

Lark Rise to Candleford
Cranford
Life on Mars
Ashes to Ashes
Torchwood:Children of Earth
Planet Earth
All the Small Things
Jekyll
Sherlock
Little Island
Hustle

Along with many other recent productions, there are many shows that could rate well even as repeats. I sense the start of BBC1's decline, similar to that of the early 80's.

I believe it started at 10.15pm on New Year's Day (Saturday), but when it got stellar ratings, they moved it forward to 9.15pm - so pretty early really given the language and content.

I notice that Panorama's overnight was slightly higher than Motorway Cops' rating.

When was the last time Panorama beat what followed it at 9pm?

Indeed, has it ever beaten the 9pm offering?

They moved it forward because they have a late evening chat show that needs to start before 10pm

I wouldn't suppose Life on Mars or Ashes to Ashes or any of the dramas you cite would rate very well, repeats of serial dramas rarely do. It's alright repeating something like New Tricks because they're self-contained but with Life on Mars, if you couldn't be bothered the first time, you probably won't be bothered the second time, and they don't have much value as fillers because you're committed to the whole thing.

The summer before last they repeated the Christmas Doctor Who on Saturday primetime and it died on its arse, and that's a bloody big ratings smash. Aside from crime dramas I can't think of a successful drama repeat ever.

Series dont tend to repeat well. This assumption that dramas are endlessly repeatable and therefore work out cheaper than reality shows, doesnt really hold true apart from as you say, crime dramas.

It's generally not as big abroad as it is here - although it runs successfully in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands among several others - and the Danish version is apparently more popular than the UK one (in terms of audience share). Got Talent is successful all over the world to varying degrees - it's very big in Germany, apparently!

While I don't doubt that Cowell's performance as a judge (particularly in early series with the novelty of "Mr Nasty") significantly contributed to the rapid growth of the shows he appeared on, the fact that he might play a lesser role doesn't mean that everyone is suddenly going to switch off. Viewers will, at least, give it a chance. It's extremely rare to see an "overnight switchoff".


It would have to prove significantly less successful and while I'd expect some kind of decline this year (with or without Cowell judging) I doubt the ratings will fall by 50%. Plus, they'll save money on Cowell's judging fee.


And ITV knew that as well. Again, they bought rights to the formats, not the judges. Ultimately, they want to have both shows - Cowell or not. So it's not surprising that they signed a deal with Syco/Talkback for the shows seeing as Cowell's personal situation is clearly (and was always) going to take some time to resolve.

If they want to and can agree to keep Cowell on the shows, they'll pay an extra few million a year for that security blanket.

Obviously there's a possibility that they could have overpaid for the show. We don't know the numbers.

Depends who replaces Cowell (if he doesnt take part).

On the History of Light Entertainment last night on BBC4 they made the point that Larry Grayson got higher ratings than Bruce Forysth on the Generation Game after replacing him.

We only ever remember the replacements that dont work in the ratings folklore

Daybreak George ?

A successful drama can easily make a lot more revenue than a reality show. DVD sales, repeat fees on a multichannel, overseas sales etc will all add up very nicely.

some do, a lot dont. if drama was a sure fire money winner they'd make more!

TVAM =>>> GMTV, ftv?

For the 1st year it didnt work either. But they kept the faith, whilst some headless chickens were panicing.....

I see that the BBC are pushing Waking the Dead hard in trailers as being THE final series. Must attract a few wavering viewers keen to see how it ends.

ITV did promote Law and Order UK quite extensively in the week leading up (for those who argued earlier they didn't).

They also plugged it before and during the Corrie episode just before it.

Dawn Steele on Loose Women today said it was 'looking good' for a renewal of Wild at Heart but the cast were always the last to find out. Though this series will end on a cliffhanger as they are all so keen to carry on. Cannot see ITV allowing such a popular show not to get a resolution.

Several recent interviews with Peter Firth hint that the next series of Spooks will be the last - though nothing has been made official, he says.

I may be wrong, but wasn't that partly due to ITV putting Bruce out against Grayson's Gen Game with his massive ratings flop Big Night Out?

So it was more a case of big name star being poached by ITV and then bombing in the ratings, than replacement necessarily proving more popular.

And the "BBC hit flopping at ITV" is a trend to which there must be very few exceptions indeed, from Brucie (twice) through to Morecambe and Wise and then on to Chiles and Bleakley, including FA Cup and England matches too to boot.

Further proof that twitter activity is no predictive guide to ratings.

C4 Dispatches (900,000 viewers) was the No 1 trending subject in the UK last night.

Brucie wasn't a flop on ITV.

Brucies Big Night was a flop but more because the content was all over the shop. The format was a messy really and they made the mistake of indulging Brucie with big US stars

Although of course Brucie hosted many successful ITV shows.

Of course Phil Scofield and Ant & Dec sucessfully managed the transition.

So too did plenty others - Parkinson retired, so too did Des Lynam.

Did they tell people what hash tag to use again? The way Channel 4 have jumped on the social networking bandwagon has been one of the most cringeworthy exercises by any broadcaster in recent months.

The best shows get talked about at work the day next day, "watercooler tv" if you like. Channel 4 have made precious few of those recently, except Gypsy which worked because of the "freakshow" element and not because it was a particularly standout piece of television.

This rather desperate way they are trying to force something which should occur naturally is quite pathetic. If anything, people tweeting heavily about C4 shows more than shows on any other network says to me their audience is not actively engaged in the programme they are watching or giving it their full attention. It's not something to be particularly proud of, but C4 don't see it like that. They just love to be talked about, and don't care how much sensationalist drivel they have to broadcast to achieve it, as long as it raises their profile and the profile of the programmes in question. As such the good programmes get buried and missed, or don't generate enough Twitter buzz to get the C4 execs excited. It's a recurring problem.

In fairness Dispatches is a good programme but why do people feel compelled to "tweet" during the show? Are Channel 4 telling them to do it? Or are they trying to sound more intellectual to their group of "followers" perhaps? It doesn't really tell us much except there's no link to audience figures.

In short, Channel 4 needs to get a grip and stop wasting their time on Twitter. Their audience ambitions should extend beyond a few easily amused people on the internet that like writing in 140 characters or less. (I don't, clearly)

Check out the thread on the Law and Order UK American TV promo elsewhere on this page.

It is totally hilarious.

If genuine it is one of the best promos for a TV series I have ever seen.Even if it is a spoof it is funny.

Looks genuine to me. I agree, it's a fantastic promo and very funny.

Oh come on, George. Put the corporate loyalty to one side for a moment!

Schofe and A&D, yes. They were under-deployed by the Beeb, and got bigger ratings with ITV, although you'd have to say more down to the formats they happened to be presenting than because they as performers were massive draws.

But Parky was a fish out of water on ITV and his ratings plummeted, leading to him "retiring" (or being retired). Lynam was a flop, never at home in the ITV football studio, cutting to ad breaks and competitions, or to Townsend's Tactics Truck. The less said about The Premiership's ratings compared to MOTD the better.

And did Brucie ever get the 20m viewers on ITV during the 1980s that he got for the Beeb in the 1970s? Best I can think of is shows like Play Your Cards Right or You Bet! possibly getting 14m or so in their 80s prime, but the Gen Game these shows were not.

Nor will Slinger's Day, the two-series mid 1980s ITV sitcom, be the one thing Brucie will be remembered for above all else.

Sure, the second iteration of the Gen Game in the late 80s/90s wasn't the smash it once was, and did often come second best to Blind Date. But it still pulled 17m on Christmas Day 1989 and generally was a 10-11m banker against one of ITV's top shows at the time.

And Strictly, of course, has largely been a triumph, apart from the troubled 2009 series, continuing to grow and delivering audiences of 11-14m in the modern age.

I think Brucie's best days have been at the Beeb. No doubt about that.

How many millions was he getting for Sunday Night at the London Palladium, in the sixties?

I'm sure that's where many first remember him from, especially the 'Beat the Clock' game show segment.

I'm sure if you surveyed 100 people in the street (now there's an idea for a show...) and asked them to name the show you most associate with Bruce Forsyth, the Gen Game and Strictly would easily outrank SNATLP, by miles.

I bet Play Your Cards Right would too.

According to Attentional, Sky News HD should have started reporting. What happened?

They said the same about Channel 5 HD. Nothing materialised.

Maybe these figures are available separately to Attentional's clients if they want them, but are still automatically bundled into the figures for the main channels anyway.

FWIW I would expect the Sky News HD audience to be of miniscule proportions. A total waste of money.