Originally Posted by Charnham:
“would someone like to translate that for me?”
“would someone like to translate that for me?”
"The BBC are fantastic; ITV are pathetic hahaha."
The Ratings Thread (Part 17)
121 of 122
Originally Posted by RobbieSykes123:
“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!”
“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!”
Why would it be embarrassing for ITV? They are interested in their ratings, not a completely different match that was televised months earlier on a different channel.
Originally Posted by Charnham:
“more back catalouge is hardly a plan for long term success.”
“more back catalouge is hardly a plan for long term success.”
Agreed and a lot of their current shows like IAC, TXF and BGT have no repeat potential in years to come.
Originally Posted by RobbieSykes123:
“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!”
“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!”
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.
Originally Posted by D.M.N.:
“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.”
“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.”
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.
Originally Posted by Brekkie:
“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.”
“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.”
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Glenn A:
“I have no objection to ITV showing football as it brings in a different demographic and makes money for them.”
“I have no objection to ITV showing football as it brings in a different demographic and makes money for them.”
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?
Is it complimentary scheduling this sat by the BBC. Rugby on BBC 1,
matt smith drama on bbc2 and Frankenstein live on BBC 3
matt smith drama on bbc2 and Frankenstein live on BBC 3
Originally Posted by Glenn A:
“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.”
“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.”
Who said ITV was to quit sport?
Recent discussions have been about the BBC and their sports funding, and what has a celebrity reality show got to do with anything?
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
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
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“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.”
“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.”
Does it matter if the general public cant name a few formula one drivers (although im sure most would know Hamilton/Button/Schumacher) compared to the England football team. Ratings are the only judge of how well the general public like a program/sport and F1 is getting some very good numbers.
Originally Posted by chris_bauer:
“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.”
“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.”
I cant speak for Robbie but im sure he has his reasons. I doubt he's going to change so you may be best to leave him be,
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“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?”
“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?”
Its probably the worst deal that a commercial channel has ever made in the industry. How Grade can try and justify it, I dont know.
Originally Posted by RobbieSykes123:
“Surely ITV would have wanted Man United v Man City as the Final?”
“Surely ITV would have wanted Man United v Man City as the Final?”
Depends on the kick-off time. If they can get a Saturday evening kick-off I suspect it would rate better than the same fixture in a 3pm final.
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“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.”
“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.”
It is a classic catch 22 situation for the BBC - undoubtedly a huge national interest in it, but also with football that interest also brings a huge commercial interest, so should the BBC spend such a large amount of itheir sport budget on it when they could be spending it on sports which may not be in the national psyche so much, but get so much more out of exposure on the BBC.
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“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.”
“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.”
Thanks for clarifying that - it seemed the logical conclusion, but means the pie chart is pretty meaningless in some respects - although it does reveal a bit of info. The Olympics come in around £56m for example (not sure if that's just the Summer games or Summer/Winter combined) - it would be a pretty big risk for a commercial channel to earn that back over the 2-3 week period of the games and I guess anyone else taking on the Olympics would kind of take it as a loss leader for the prestige of having the games.
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.
Much better as a semi, a nice warm up for the giant/minnow final.
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
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
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 FA will be desperate for the ITV deal to continue, given that the BBC are unlikely to bid.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by C14E:
“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”
“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”
Fox News' Greta Van Susteren has criticised CNN for sending out the ratings a day early in a 'crass' press release and in her view tastelessly bragging about ratings when the disaster is still unfolding.
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.
Originally Posted by C14E:
“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?”
“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?”
They can go one further than upscaling - I believe the first two seasons at least have been converted to HD for international broadcast. There was a thread on here about it recently and from the screengrabs I saw the difference is amazing.
EDIT: see here (HD) and here (SD).
EDIT 2: second link fixed.
Originally Posted by Dancc:
“They can go one further than upscaling - I believe the first two seasons at least have been converted to HD for international broadcast. There was a thread on here about it recently and from the screengrabs I saw the difference is amazing.
EDIT: see here (HD) and here (SD).”
“They can go one further than upscaling - I believe the first two seasons at least have been converted to HD for international broadcast. There was a thread on here about it recently and from the screengrabs I saw the difference is amazing.
EDIT: see here (HD) and here (SD).”
They really ought to do this, then. With a higher EPG postion now as well, I think they could draw in a good audience when it launches if they publicise it properly.
Btw, the SD link isn't working.
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.
Star Trek was remastered in HD so it is possible.
Originally Posted by square_eyes:
“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.”
“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.”
Too true. The BBC cuts are desperate news for the FA - there's much less money and almost no competition left in the FTA market now. Of course, they can sell more to Pay TV, but at least the England home qualifiers and most probably one FA Cup tie per round will have to stay FTA.
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...
121 of 122
