Originally Posted by rzt:
“I don't think they expected 8-10m figures every single night, as you suggested. If they did, and we don't have any quotes from any representatives that they were hoping for those sorts of figures, I think they're deluded.”
Is there much evidence to suggest they aren't?
Quote:
“1. ITV knows that if they air a programme next to TXF on a Saturday night, it will most likely get ratings about 20% higher than if those shows don't air next to TXF. They know this from the experiences they've had with Family Fortunes/The Cube/Odd One In/Life Stories to name just a few shows from the last year. With this in mind, it was pretty much a guarantee that ROB would drop off from the 1st Saturday episode rating to the next 5 episodes which didn't have the luxury of airing next to TXF. Even if ROB had somehow managed to almost miraculously launch with 9m on Saturday, it probably would've dropped to 7m on the Sunday, outside your 8-10m zone due to what I've said. Even established shows like IAC drop from when they have an XF lead-in to when they don't, so I dunno why people think ITV were expecting its ratings to remain stable or even grow. If that had happened, it would've been unprecedented.”
Every weeknight its wrapped around Corrie, with either Emmerdale or Corrie before the 8pm show each night apart from Thursday. Its not like its lost out too badly from losing X Factor. You have to consider that if Corrie is getting 8m at 9pm then Red or Black should be guaranteed a high proportion of Corrie's audience just keeping ITV1 for the £1m spin.
Quote:
“2. There is no precedent for a new game show in the last decade to get 8-10m in their first series (or indeed any series). Yes, I'm perfectly aware that this was an expensive show to make compared to other game shows, however that doesn't automatically mean it would instantly get 8-10m. You could do the same kind of comparison with dramas: a series like Hustle costs about double per hour to make than a series like Waterloo Road. Do we expect Hustle to get double the no. of viewers that WR is getting? Of course, we don't. We can do the same sort of comparison with factual: a Sir David Attenbrough factual series like Life had a reported budget of almost £1m per episode compared to a factual show like DIY SOS which I suspect costs no more than £200k. Do we expect Life to have gotten 5x as many viewers as DIY SOS or 8-10m? No, we didn't. I could do those kind of comparisons for shows on any given channel.
Generally it's true, that the more money you spend on a show, the more chance you have of getting higher ratings. But the relationship between the two factors (cost and actual no. of viewers) aren't directly proportional to each other, and broadcasters are well aware of that.”
That point is bordering on patronising.
If ITV have spent so much money on a show that they honestly believed would only get the ratings they were getting or slightly better then ITV has worse problems than I thought.
Your earlier post about the ratings needed for the show to break even that DMN posted further on stated that they need 1.2m 16-34s to watch or just over 5m based on previous Syco show's demograhics. Surely they would have expected well over the break even point to even bother making the show.
Also, one of the main reasons given for making the show at such a cost was to have the chance to sell the show overseas as part of ITVS. I cant see that happening now.