Doctor Who will always timeshift well. Reality shows like SYTYCD don't. It would have got even worse figures in the Doctor Who slot and with a prime time results show to support, it needs to get as many viewers as possible.

I think the problem with the QI repeats is that it's shown constantly on Dave as it is, in fact I've seen the same repeat on Dave and BBC at the same time before!

They need to repeat some of the older episdes, e.g. from Series A or B. Dave is showing the same recent(ish) episodes from series G, H, etc that the BBC does...

The AIs for the Royal Wedding coverage:

06:00 Breakfast 78.6
08:00 The Royal Wedding 88.2
14:10 The Royal Wedding 91.0

06:00 Daybreak 79.2
08:25 The Royal Wedding 91.8
10:45 The Royal Wedding 90.1
12:15 The Royal Wedding 91.3
13:30 The Royal Wedding 91.4

That's surprising, I would have thought that people who hated weddings and royalty would have also been watching and pushed down the average AI. (joke)

Maybe the concept of AI needs to be retired it doesn't seem to provide anything but high numbers, like Labours A-Level scam.

Did we ever get any figures for Chelsea v Spurs on Saturday, which appeared to dent Doctor Who so much?

Very good rating for the Snooker, clearly denting the ITV soaps. Providing Case Sensitive doesn't drop at the level The Reckoning did, then it should beat Exile tonight.

or just axe "So You Think.." and then not have to worry about supporting the results show.


im not saying dont repeat QI, but the BBC should focus on recent repeats, make it so its clear that only new or newer episodes will be on the BBC.

Easier said than done. It's an indie production, with contracts etc. The contract is for two more series, so that will no doubt cost the BBC, if they pull out.

But does it matter? It's getting 3m on a channel that shouldn't be ratings driven and my wife enjoys it!!

signing that contract was a big mistake, I assume it was signed after the lows of the first series.

Honestly I never saw why the BBC needed to spend the money on the So You Think... formatm they already did a very similar Strictly version of the show, they could have easily revived.

As for BBC 1 not meant to be ratings driven, true but Doctor Who is capable of better, and is loosing out in the scheulde, ratings or not, the show is preventing other shows preforming to the best of their ability, that shouldnt be encouraged

Dont Scare The Hare is at least tucked away where it cant do any damage.

Very true. It doesn't seem right, license payers lining the pockets of Simon Fuller.

Are you sure the contract is 2 more series of SYTYCD on BBC1? That's the first I've heard of that. Have you got a source for that info?

my views on the BBC and indie production companys, are well known on the Broadcast forum.

Any news channel figures from yesterday?

They should just edit out those awful promos. And the ones at the end of each episode as well which spoil all the big moments. Like the moment with Karl stripping off and walking in on Lyn the other week thinking it was Susan (which was hilarious by the way) was ruined somewhat by the teaser the day before.

And with Home & Away they should edit in some opening titles. Seven might not like them but UK viewers want to hear that classic theme tune!

Anyway, poor ratings for virtually everything on Channel 5 yesterday. The Gadget Show is in real trouble if its ratings don't pick up soon, and The Hotel Inspector rated low for its standards.

I dont watch the promos, either FFwd them or ive already pressed stop, and my TV has returned to normal TV, I confess I have not watched Neighbours live, since before it moved to Channel 5, its what I used to call a "floater" show, which meant that, it got recorded and watched when it suited my scheulde, but the term never caught on, and I had forgetten about it till just now.

As for Home & Away, I dont watch so, it doesnt mean a whole lot to me.

I agree The Gadget Show needs to buck its ideas up, becuase viewers have just deserted it, that animal vs tech episode was just AWFUL.

I should have mentioned, it was from Wiki but that info was sourced from the BBC.

To be fair to Daybreak, Breakfast was a good 4 or 5 share points down on its usual performance yesterday as well. Although still very healthy.

Daybreak was down by a bigger extent, say 6 or 7 share points, but this could be due to the earlier finish as George outlines. Still an 11% share is very poor and I'm not surprised people are highlighting it. But it's the same old story for Daybreak on Bank Holidays.

Fantastic peak for the Snooker, I would have expected the peak to be between 3-4m so 6m is a great achievement.

Exile held up pretty well too.


The AI system is pretty irrelevant and full of biased information. I struggle to see why people place so much emphasis on it.

I haven't watched it in weeks.

If me, a self-confessed tech-head and someone who watches Channel 5 more than any of the other networks isn't watching, then there's a problem.

It can still be saved I think if they get back on track but it's got too silly for me this series. The show needs a change of direction and fast. Some would argue it's the long runs which are hurting it most but I feel it's the content. The show is a shadow of its former self.

agreed I would runner a short series next time around, dont let viewers get tried of what can be a very predictable show

Part 1
Intro
Introducue Challance

Part 2
John tests something
Competition
Top 5
Challange Part 1

Part 3
Someone tests a mode of transport
Challange Part 2

Part 3
Conculsion of challange
plug for competition
next week on

That is off the top of my head

Some of the challanges can be fun, and the team are good people to watch (most of the time) but they do need to be scaled back, in both terms of time wise, and kept more on focus. Its when they do the 4 part challange episodes it really makes the point, its more like an episode of "Record Breakers"

From Kevin Bakhurst on Twitter,

BBC News Channel had a 2.11% share across the day yesterday. Sky News had 1.62%.

What biased information are you referring to? Although not a huge proponent of the AIs, they are in the main respects an internal service and required because there is little out there that offers a measurable level of quality or engagement in programming. The BBC is run on the basis of delivering against its Public Purposes, with quality being a major one, the AIs currently serve as a measure where audience ratings do not. ITV also run an AI service which I'm assuming is for alternative/commercial insight.

I have read a few times on forums where posters brag about giving certain shows a low score just to drag down the average down despite not watching any episodes of that show.

Daybreak regularly scores the lowest of all TV shows on AI. However, its ratings on normal weekdays are very consistent between 0.7 and 0.8m. If the people watching are giving it such low scores then why are ratings so consistent. Why do the unhappy viewers keep watching it if its that bad? It doesnt add up.

Also, the quality of a show is subjective and is formed of peoples opinions. I dont see why added credibility is given to the people who make up the AI panel. I dont know why such an index needs to be used when the BBC/ITV can read internet forums, twitter, facebook statuses for opinions on quality.

And as nearly always, ratings give you the most firm answer. If a show debuts with 6m one week but the next week only gets 4.8m then its clear a large chunk werent keen on it. Likewise, a show that consistently gets 1m every week is obviously well liked by the people who watch.

Ahh, so respondent bias. Unfortunately, as with any survey, respondents (indeed some who blog on these forums) can work out how to join a media panel and corrupt the data, this is especially the case for online self selective sample surveys like the AIs. What I would say is that these individuals would be a minority (the BBC AIs have a total sample size of 20,000 with around 9-10,000 responses each day so their 'real' impact is limited). Additionally, there should be various QC checks which would highlight individuals with dubious scoring behaviours and corrective action taken (one would hope).

The BBC have to use something like the AIs as it has to be representative, and the sample design and weighting structure will make it so. Twitter/social networks are notoriously not representative, and only representatve of a rather small sub section of society....what everyone else's opinion is, we don't know, because they don't post....hence the need for large scale and representative sample surveys. That said, I'm not denying the possibility of corrupt respondents, nor do I entirely understand shows that consistently achieve low AIs...it's like someone telling you they hate a show, and then the next day, watching it again and telling you they hate it again....stop watching it!!! So I take your point entirely on that one.

I think Breakfast shows typically have lower AIs than peaktime shows because there aren't many alternatives. In terms of live breakfast TV, there's only BBC Breakfast, Daybreak and Sunrise. So it's possible that people who watch Daybreak, for example, might not like it that much but will continue to watch it because there's not many alternatives out there, or the alternatives don't appeal to them as much as it does. Hence the low AIs for it but remaining at 0.7-0.8m most working days.