|
||||||||
The Ratings Thread (Part 17) |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#3001 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 117,021
|
Quote:
would someone like to translate that for me?
![]()
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#3002 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 11,067
|
Quote:
And Man U vs Bolton or Stoke is hardly going to outrate the League Cup Final rating that BBC1 has banked this year - and that will be embarrassing for both ITV and the FA!
|
|
|
|
|
#3003 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: nr Peterborough, England
Posts: 48,127
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3004 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 16,967
|
Quote:
more back catalouge is hardly a plan for long term success.
|
|
|
|
|
#3005 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 187
|
Quote:
Surely ITV would have wanted Man United v Man City as the Final?
At this rate, there is a chance that City could beat United and ITV won't be able to show Man United playing in the FA Cup, and not being able to show Man United would be like the sky falling in... ![]() And Man U vs Bolton or Stoke is hardly going to outrate the League Cup Final rating that BBC1 has banked this year - and that will be embarrassing for both ITV and the FA! I wish you'd actually explain you're obsession with the BBC. |
|
|
|
|
#3006 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 17,162
|
Quote:
Strange, I'd put F1 in both categories - a major event, but it fills more hours than the majority of other sports. Just on BBC TV alone (excluding Red Button):
Formula 1 - 3 hours race - 2 hours qualifying - 1 hour highlights = 6 hours x 19 weekends ==> at least 114 hours* * excluding Asian session re-runs Wimbledon - 8 hours x 14 days ==> at least 112 hours Match of the Day - 1 hour 30 minutes Saturday - 1 hour Sunday = 2 hours 30 minutes x 38 weekends ==> at least 95 hours* * in theory not 38 weekends though as some games are mid-week Six Nations - 5 hours Saturday - 2.5 hours Sunday = 7.5 hours x 6 weekends ==> at least 45 hours In reality, for cost per viewer, as noted here, F1 and Wimbledon are the two that 'hit' every category (pg 35). And F1, for the record has a higher average audience than Wimbledon. 1) The reason MOTD is more important than F1, 6 Nations and Wimbledon is that football is our national sport. The level of interest amongst the public in football is massively, massively greater than any other sport. Most people don't have Sky so MOTD is the way most people watch the sport they are overwhelmingly most interested in. Now you may say "but F1 gets as good an audience as MOTD". The point is that it's a much more casual audience. Walk down the High Street and ask people to name footballers and racing drivers. Far more people will be able to name footballers (and far more of them as well). 2) On that BBC Trust report note that each sport did not have the same targets. Each had its own targets (which have been kept confidential). So a HIT does not necessarily mean a higher absolute score than a MISS. |
|
|
|
|
#3007 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 17,162
|
Quote:
Reading that report (although it's got all the juicy stuff cut out), page 18 suggests the top ten products are worth £1.4bn a year, and then suggests the World Cup makes up 10% of that. Now is that chart averaging out the cost of the World Cup over four years - because if that's the case each game costs £8.75m - which there is no way ITV would make back. Even around £2.2m assuming that's the total figure per World Cup is pushing it, although around the same rate as Setanta/ESPN paid per Premier League game.
EDIT: I see subsequent post said World Cup was £110m. That's a figure I recognise for 2010 - is the cost for 2014 definitely the same or could it be a bit more? Obviously there could be some rounding in the BBC Trust report (eg it could be 9.51% of £1.35bn = £128m). But anyway each WC game is in the region of £2m per match. |
|
|
|
|
#3008 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 16,967
|
I have no objection to ITV showing football as it brings in a different demographic and makes money for them. Also their sports coverage isn't as desperate as the early nineties when they were showing athletics meetings where half the athletes didn't turn up and Saint and Greavsie were rabbiting away about nothing. If ITV was to quit sport, then we know what might be put in their place: two teams of celebrities are sent to a remote location, etc, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
#3009 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 17,162
|
Quote:
I have no objection to ITV showing football as it brings in a different demographic and makes money for them.
Two years ago they had to make a provision of £50m in their accounts - the directors' best estimate of the total overall LOSS they would make on their football contracts. (Note that that was not just some inaccurate media report - that is the number in the official audited ITV company accounts filed at Companies House - a breathtaking humiliation compared to the bravado of when Grade announced ITV had won the FA contract). Obviously the ad market has improved since then but even so the football contracts must still be pretty marginal. They are paying approx £3m per CL game and an astonishing £4m per England / FA Cup game. So this weekend ITV spent £8m on football rights to show Man Utd v Arsenal and Stoke v West Ham - isn't that more than they pay Simon Cowell per year? |
|
|
|
|
#3010 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 728
|
Is it complimentary scheduling this sat by the BBC. Rugby on BBC 1,
matt smith drama on bbc2 and Frankenstein live on BBC 3 |
|
|
|
|
#3011 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 11,067
|
Quote:
I have no objection to ITV showing football as it brings in a different demographic and makes money for them. Also their sports coverage isn't as desperate as the early nineties when they were showing athletics meetings where half the athletes didn't turn up and Saint and Greavsie were rabbiting away about nothing. If ITV was to quit sport, then we know what might be put in their place: two teams of celebrities are sent to a remote location, etc, etc.
Recent discussions have been about the BBC and their sports funding, and what has a celebrity reality show got to do with anything? |
|
|
|
|
#3012 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 50,506
|
What Australia Watched: Sunday 13th March
Seven
18:00 Seven News 1.26m 18:30 Sunday Night 0.93m 19:30 Border Security 1.04m 20:00 The Force 1.08m 20:30 Bones (R) 0.90m Nine 18:00 Nine News Sunday 1.20m 18:30 A Current Affair 0.88m 19:00 Customs 0.79m 19:30 60 Minutes 1.15m 20:30 The Mentalist 0.90m Ten 18:00 Ten Evening News 0.36m 18:30 The Biggest Loser: Families 0.96m 19:30 Modern Family 0.93m 20:00 Bondi Rescue 0.90m 20:30 Hawaii Five-O 0.64m ABC1 20:30 Miss Marple 0.92m 7Mate 18:30 The Amazing Race 0.31m |
|
|
|
|
#3013 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,294
|
Quote:
Just a couple of points.
1) The reason MOTD is more important than F1, 6 Nations and Wimbledon is that football is our national sport. The level of interest amongst the public in football is massively, massively greater than any other sport. Most people don't have Sky so MOTD is the way most people watch the sport they are overwhelmingly most interested in. Now you may say "but F1 gets as good an audience as MOTD". The point is that it's a much more casual audience. Walk down the High Street and ask people to name footballers and racing drivers. Far more people will be able to name footballers (and far more of them as well). 2) On that BBC Trust report note that each sport did not have the same targets. Each had its own targets (which have been kept confidential). So a HIT does not necessarily mean a higher absolute score than a MISS. Quote:
Wow, you're tiresome, is there ANYTHING that you don't turn into an ITV bashing comment?!
I wish you'd actually explain you're obsession with the BBC. Quote:
It doesn't make them much, if any, money.
Two years ago they had to make a provision of £50m in their accounts - the directors' best estimate of the total overall LOSS they would make on their football contracts. (Note that that was not just some inaccurate media report - that is the number in the official audited ITV company accounts filed at Companies House - a breathtaking humiliation compared to the bravado of when Grade announced ITV had won the FA contract). Obviously the ad market has improved since then but even so the football contracts must still be pretty marginal. They are paying approx £3m per CL game and an astonishing £4m per England / FA Cup game. So this weekend ITV spent £8m on football rights to show Man Utd v Arsenal and Stoke v West Ham - isn't that more than they pay Simon Cowell per year? |
|
|
|
|
#3014 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Cymru
Posts: 12,702
|
Quote:
Surely ITV would have wanted Man United v Man City as the Final?
Quote:
Just a couple of points.
1) The reason MOTD is more important than F1, 6 Nations and Wimbledon is that football is our national sport. The level of interest amongst the public in football is massively, massively greater than any other sport. Most people don't have Sky so MOTD is the way most people watch the sport they are overwhelmingly most interested in. Quote:
It's per season / event - ie it is saying each World Cup is approx £140m - ie £2.2m per match which is actualy quite cheap vs the PL. (Sky now pay average of £5m per PL match).
EDIT: I see subsequent post said World Cup was £110m. That's a figure I recognise for 2010 - is the cost for 2014 definitely the same or could it be a bit more? Obviously there could be some rounding in the BBC Trust report (eg it could be 9.51% of £1.35bn = £128m). But anyway each WC game is in the region of £2m per match. |
|
|
|
#3015 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 24,405
|
The FA Cup is not Champions league where the idea of two big teams slugging it out is a big draw, it would actually be a bit dissapointing to have a Manchester derby as the final for most viewers.
Much better as a semi, a nice warm up for the giant/minnow final. |
|
|
|
|
#3016 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 30,110
|
CNN.com had more than 60m video views on Friday as a result of the Japanese tsunami. That's 5 times as many as the previous 12m record, set the day after the 2008 election.
Overall on Friday, CNN scored a rare win over FOX News in both total viewers and adults 25-54. They also lead in primetime among adults 25-54 while FOX News held a narrow lead in total viewers for the 3 hour period. MSNBC trailed a distant third in all measures. For total day ratings, CNN was up 405% in total viewers and 600% in adults 25-54 compared to their 2011 YTD average. http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/201...h-1-2011/85583 |
|
|
|
|
#3017 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,895
|
ITV could well be in a strong bidding position with the renewal of the FA deal.
The FA will be desperate for the ITV deal to continue, given that the BBC are unlikely to bid. |
|
|
|
|
#3018 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 50,506
|
I believe Sky News experienced a similar surge in traffic to its website - rather embarrassingly taking it offline for a time on Friday afternoon.
Not sure how much of a boost the channel itself will have received, but like CNN, viewers seem to gravitate towards it more than they normally do when there is a big breaking news story developing. The problem for CNN and Sky is that outside a select few strands they attract far fewer viewers than their rivals for the day-to-day rolling news. |
|
|
|
|
#3019 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 30,110
|
Just browsing through the multi-channel top 10's and a few things stand out.
Firstly, Comedy Central will be a bit concerned at the situation with Two and a Half Men. The two new episodes had 426,000 and 480,000 last Monday and provided a good platform for Mike & Molly which followed with 352,000. That's well ahead of their other shows. Friends coming in later this year should really help - I'd assume they'll keep it in its standard 5pm & 8pm timeslots. Can they upscale Friends to HD, btw? Might provide a good basis to promote it. And hopefully they'll use its arrival to launch some new acquired shows as well. The other one is that Watch must be disappointed at the cancellation* of No Ordinary Family. Its combined audience of 637,000 is 163% higher than their second highest rated show. On the other hand, Universal seem to have promoted Rookie Blue quite a lot (there's a few posters/billboards around here) and its 296,000 is well head of the channels other offerings. * No Ordinary Family isn't officially cancelled. But Michael Chiklis has signed up for another pilot. |
|
|
|
|
#3020 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 12,049
|
|
|
|
|
#3021 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,571
|
Quote:
CNN.com had more than 60m video views on Friday as a result of the Japanese tsunami. That's 5 times as many as the previous 12m record, set the day after the 2008 election.
Overall on Friday, CNN scored a rare win over FOX News in both total viewers and adults 25-54. They also lead in primetime among adults 25-54 while FOX News held a narrow lead in total viewers for the 3 hour period. MSNBC trailed a distant third in all measures. For total day ratings, CNN was up 405% in total viewers and 600% in adults 25-54 compared to their 2011 YTD average. http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/201...h-1-2011/85583 http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/t...f-cnn-if-true/ I understand where she is coming from but I don't think these press releases are anything we haven't seen before. Nonetheless they are strong figures for CNN - while MSNBC pays the price for being remarkably poor at covering big international stories. Of note was the 'Morning Joe' programme which carried on with political news and items about the new iPad while all other channels rolled with the Japan story. As far as the UK channels are concerned I suspect we will see a big win for the BBC News Channel, whose coverage has been pretty much non-stop. Sky's coverage has been solid - with the exception of the poorly executed and needless break bumper complete with dramatic sound effects. The best coverage I have seen was on C4, there were some remarkable reports on their hour long news special this evening. |
|
|
|
|
#3022 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 50,506
|
Quote:
Firstly, Comedy Central will be a bit concerned at the situation with Two and a Half Men. The two new episodes had 426,000 and 480,000 last Monday and provided a good platform for Mike & Molly which followed with 352,000. That's well ahead of their other shows. Friends coming in later this year should really help - I'd assume they'll keep it in its standard 5pm & 8pm timeslots. Can they upscale Friends to HD, btw?
EDIT: see here (HD) and here (SD). EDIT 2: second link fixed. |
|
|
|
|
#3023 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 30,110
|
Quote:
Btw, the SD link isn't working.
|
|
|
|
|
#3024 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 9,020
|
I alway thought Friends was filmed on videotape rather than film? I think ITV converted a lot of their backcatalogue into HD for test purposes as the ITC stuff was shot on 35mm film.
Star Trek was remastered in HD so it is possible. |
|
|
|
|
#3025 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,294
|
Quote:
ITV could well be in a strong bidding position with the renewal of the FA deal.
The FA will be desperate for the ITV deal to continue, given that the BBC are unlikely to bid. The BBC can't go bidding substantially - if at all - and in that context ITV are the only realistic game in town. And they won't want to write off another 50m. In fact, they'd probably quite like to recoup some of it... |
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:37.






