But it still has a lot of younger viewers and ABC1 viewers. XF/BGT aside, it's probably the most attractive spot for advertisers.

The skew itself isn't particularly important - that's not what is measured in the US. It's about the actual number of viewers 18-49.

A bit late, but for those interested: http://youtubeukblog.blogspot.com/20...lion-live.html

I think the slot was fine for the sort of programme it was and it was shown twice within 24 hours.

Ratings-wise, it fared better than Paul O'Grady who wasn't on against the soap, although, saying that, Friday night ratings are slightly complicated by the fact that Friday 8.30 is where BBC1 Scotland currently show Holby City.(Although Holby may not do very well in Scotland as it changes slots pratically every fortnight. Trying to find it must be like the television equivalent of Where's Wally.)

Just to note, the 18-49 demo isn't actually a proper demo here in the UK. I just post it on here after manually calculating it as people are used to seeing 18-49 demo numbers due to looking at the US figures. The main demos commercial broadcasters here look at are: 16-34, ABC1, Housewives with Children. Advertising spots are usually sold based on one of those demos (or a variation such as 16-34 males), depending on whichever one a particular programme does best in.

For a rough guideline: on ITV1 a 30-second spot reaching 1000 people from the following demos costs about:

ABC1 Adults: £18
16-34 Adults: £42
ABC1 Men: £49
HWWC: £52
16-34 Men: £115

Source: ITV Media

Advertisers use 'credits' they've bought and have a campaign targetting a particular audience. So for e.g. they might say they want to reach 100 16-34 TVRs in a week or so, and their adverts are then distributed during programmes which total up to about 100 16-34 TVRs within 7 days. The raw cost to reach these viewers is roughly equivalent to the above, +/-15% depending on the time of year/advertising climate etc. Using those figures I've listed above and looking at the demos I post, you could probably do the math to get an idea on roughly how much ad revenue a particular show generates per hour.

I was thinking the BBC should approach Take That for next year's entry. It would give Gary Barlow a chance to take part in television's biggest singing contest.

Did you vote for Ireland last night?

The German figure really is huge but it was even a little higher last year (14.69m). However, this year's 13.83m is still the second highest Eurovision rating since 1984 (back in the days when we only had three channels ).


Bundesliga was actually not live, it was the regular weekly highlight show.

6 million would be a flop in peak time 20 years ago, but these days a rating like this is good. Doctor Who maybe has lost some viewers, but certainly isn't a flop and once timeshift and the I Player are taken into account it's up there with Eastenders.

Well Robbie, in the US (depite the damage done by Bush still widely regarded as one of the most democratic countries in the World):

California (population 37.3 million) has 2 senators
Texas (population 25.1 million) has 2 senators
Vermont (population 0.6 million) has 2 senators
Wyoming (population 0.6 million) has 2 senators

I am not aware of anyone describing this as corrupt. Nor am I aware of any organisation in the US campaigning to change the system.

The principle is identical to that used for Eurovision. And the US Senate is a somewhat more important matter.

Very good for Eurovision and it shows that the show still has a large following. BGT still held up quite well with 8.4 million, but I think next week it will be up to 10 million.

I wouldnt say it flopped but it doesnt seem to be commanding the schedule for the evening now where ever BBC1 place it. It seems to get slighly lost if there are bigger events happening on the same night.

Those numbers appear inconsistent with each other.

If an ABC1 Adult is £18 and an ABC1 Man is £49 then it implies an ABC1 Woman is negative.

ie Suppose you got 500 ABC1 Men and 500 ABC1 Women.

What would be the cost?

On the 1st basis £18 (for 1000 ABC1 Adults)

On the 2nd basis £24.50 (for 500 ABC1 Men) before you allow anything for the 500 ABC1 Women.

I think a lot of people can't get over David Tennant leaving. I noticed when Tom Baker was replaced by Peter Davidson ratings fell and moving the show around the schedules didn't help.

Well, there's an obvious reason why colour is better than black and white. There's not an obvious reason why HD is better than digital SD, especially when they've been used to decades of grainy analogue pictures. I think there's more of a leap from analogue to digital than there is SD to HD. Given loads people watch 4:3 stuff stretched to widescreen, I don't suppose they can tell the difference.


That's what they did two years ago. And of course Sundays happily flit between BBC1 and BBC2. Last night was a combination, no doubt, of the Beeb not expecting the title to be decided that day when they scheduled it, and maybe the idea it would do just as well on BBC1 late than on BBC2 opposite a huge-rating Eurovision, which seems to be the case.


I know we've confirmed that ITV got it from 2009, but just to point out that the 2002 Final was the first back on the BBC, and actually got a lower rating than the snooker final two days later.


I thought that was a rather imaginative choice of repeat, rather than than Only Fools again, and nice to highlight a part of his career that's maybe not so well-known. These comedy repeats are doing OK for BBC2 on Saturday, Dad's Army has been shown every week for about six months now. Much like how it was an easy ratings winner at teatime on BBC1 in the mid-nineties, beating Baywatch.


They didn't originally do a show for Friday Euromillions when that started, it was on Gold for a bit, of all channels, and Daily Play used to be on Challenge as well. If they do umpteen draws, they can't expect umpteen programmes. I wonder if any other channel would want the lottery, nobody seems that bothered about it. A long time since it held the nation spellbound.


And it was also how they used to do Record Of The Year, which allowed the Channel Islands and Scottish Borders to become Britain's top rock powerbrokers.

One final thing about Don't Scare The Hare (although it's convenient the football season is now over so they can keep dumping it mid-afternoon) - in that interview with Broadcast Mark Linsey says it was "a huge risk" as "it's co-hosted by an animatronic hare". It's not "co-hosted" by it, is it, the hare is just on the set. It does nothing that Dusty Bin didn't do. What's killed it is the exact opposite, it's the most bog-standard format ever made.

Ah, okay. If only the FA allowed the same over here last night with Match of the Day then we may have got a similar style figure.

I think Doctor Who would benefit from having fewer than 14 episodes a year. The current conveyor belt approach is possibly putting too much pressure on everyone involved with the show, and making aspects of the product a little less polished in places. Overnight ratings suggest fans are increasingly saying "Ah, we'll record it and watch it tomorrow."

If the BBC get a grip now, the series could still be a ratings winner in ten years' time. Carry on as things are now, and the series could be "rested" again in five.

1000 ABC1 Women costs £30 to reach. Advertising is sold on a specific demo which attracts the most revenue for a TV show. So in the above case, 30-second spots would be sold based on just ABC1 Men because 500 ABC1 Men costs more to reach than 500 ABC1 women. So for your "second basis" bit - you don't "allow for the 500 ABC1 Women" - spots would be sold based on just the 500 ABC1 Men (but this number also takes into account other viewers who are watching too). I'm not sure if I'm explaining it well.

Basically have a look at this table with examples: http://i54.tinypic.com/1zxqszl.jpg

It has the demos for each programme and the estimated revenue based on each particular demo. So for example, spots during Long Lost Family for example would be probably sold based solely on ABC1 Women because it does very well in that demo and that's where the highest revenue is made. You don't add the £942k for ABC1 Women up with the £660k for ABC1 Men - that's not how it works. The £30 cost to reach 1000 ABC1 Women takes those women into account as being the 'main focus', as well as the other people watching the TV show too.

Take the FA Cup into account - spots would be sold based on 16-34 Men watching as it does best in that particular demo. You don't add up the £2.33m for 16-34 Men with £773k for 16-34 Women to get an overall revenue, because the £2.33m already takes into account those other viewers watching the show as well as the 16-34 Men which is the main focus. I'm not sure if I've explained it well but if you have a look at the table, it might explain it better.

So going back to your example: spots would be sold based on the ABC1 Men. The reason why 500 ABC1 Men is better than 1000 ABC1 Adults is because Men watch TV less than women, so the Men have an added value.

One thing I will say after a quick glance at that is that Sing if You Can looks certain for a recommission. Never thought I would be saying that.

I should say, that was the first episode which had ~5.5m, so all of that data for it is quite a lot higher than every other episode which has rated at ~4m.

I'm not sure if SIYC will be renewed. It's averaged 4m (20%) so far this series, that's alright, but The Whole 19 Yards was axed and that had the same sort of average. ITV might've been hoping for more, for a TV show airing directly before BGT as BGT boosts programmes' ratings around it by +10%. Would SIYC be able to cope on its own? Like what's happened to The Cube, it would eventually have to air somewhere where it's not supported by BGT/TXF and I don't get the feeling it'd be able to hold up by itself. Also SIYC has mainly been up against easy opposition like So You Think You Can Dance most of its series and still not really been that much above the 4m mark, apart from the first episode.

11.5 Million viewers last week and people say BGT is flopping

I hope it gets the boot, it's almost as bad as Don't Scare The Hare.

It just seems that more people choose to use the many varied forms of timeshifting available to them these days (including narrative repeats). And why not. That's what it is there for.

"Must see" event TV is really being reserved for live events these days, which is probably why timeshifting is becoming more and more popular (why be forced to choose between two events when you can simply timeshift one of then?)

What have the Official Ratings Been For Britains Got Talent This Year?

Thanks for that!

I understand your point about the cost being based on the "main focus".

But can you explain how ABC1 Adults could ever be £18?

ABC1 Men are £49. ABC1 Women are £30.

Now the focus must be either Men or Women. So how could you only ever charge £18?

(I guess the split could be exactly 50:50 but that would be pretty unlikely. And even if it was it would seem illogical to only charge £18).

EDIT: The link confirms my point. The revenue based on the higher of ABC1 Men and ABC1 Women always exceeds ABC1 Adults.

Fantastic for Eurovision. I'd forgotten how poorly it did last year, but to be the best rating contest over ten years (even more!) is a fantastic achievement. There was a very real buzz about it this year, and no doubt the inclusion of Blue and Jedward helped boost interest this year. The UK would do well to follow a similar strategy for next year's entry.

Episode 1: 10.85m (inc +1: 11.42m)
Episode 2: 10.03m (10.60m)
Episode 3: 10.22m (10.66m)
Episode 4: 11.21m (11.69m)

Average: 10.58m (11.09m)