Ratings for Celebrity Big Brother: Live From The House?????
The Ratings Thread (Part 30)
63 of 123
Originally Posted by RobbieSykes123:
“Except it didn't get 4.9m, did it....
”
“Except it didn't get 4.9m, did it....
”
And indeed it didn't:
Originally Posted by rzt:
“Friday 13th January Overnights
BBC One
20:40- Fake Britain: 3.11m (12.6%)
21:00- Hustle: 5.07m (20.8%)
ITV1
21:00- Law and Order: UK: 4.55m (18.7%)”
“Friday 13th January Overnights
BBC One
20:40- Fake Britain: 3.11m (12.6%)
21:00- Hustle: 5.07m (20.8%)
ITV1
21:00- Law and Order: UK: 4.55m (18.7%)”
0.52m is a much more convincing gap in Hustle's favour.
Surprised Fake Britain didn't rate a bit better with the EE lead in and only a 15 minute real time clash with Corrie.
Originally Posted by Daniel:
“BB live feed had 315k (1.6%).”
“BB live feed had 315k (1.6%).”
Is that higher, lower or in-line with Wednesdays?
Originally Posted by RobbieSykes123:
“Except it didn't get 4.9m, did it....
That said BBC1 paying the price for tearing up its schedule last week, giving LAO a head start on Hustle. I still think people watching Corrie on catch up after EE will also have tipped the balance in LAO's favour. Still, it lost by about 0.5m in the overnights and probably a much bigger margin in the officials.”
“Except it didn't get 4.9m, did it....
That said BBC1 paying the price for tearing up its schedule last week, giving LAO a head start on Hustle. I still think people watching Corrie on catch up after EE will also have tipped the balance in LAO's favour. Still, it lost by about 0.5m in the overnights and probably a much bigger margin in the officials.”
Not exaclty. It actually got 4.917m, but we only had the rating to one decimal place at the time.
Hustle will be further ahead of LAO in the officials, but only because STV aren't airing LAO for some reason, instead opting for 3 year old episodes of Blue Murder they never got round to screening. I daresay they'll air LAO eventually, but to compare LAO and Hustle's official ratings LAO's will have to be adjusted using the 8% rule (I suspect it isn't making much of a difference in the overnights. If anything STV's share is probably slightly lower than the overall network's).
In completely unrelated news, Paddy McGuinness comedy panel show Mad Mad World (8x30') is recording in February and is destined for Saturdays, so may well get the BGT lead-in in the Spring. At least it's something new getting the slot and not Piers again!
Originally Posted by RobbieSykes123:
“
0.52m is a much more convincing gap in Hustle's favour.”
“
0.52m is a much more convincing gap in Hustle's favour.”
Well, stop moaning, then.
Originally Posted by RobbieSykes123:
“Surprised Fake Britain didn't rate a bit better with the EE lead in and only a 15 minute real time clash with Corrie.”
“Surprised Fake Britain didn't rate a bit better with the EE lead in and only a 15 minute real time clash with Corrie.”
Have you actually seen Fake Britain? God, it's depressing! And totally out of place on Friday night television, even in a 20 minute chunk. If people were recording Corrie to watch at 9pm or later or if they were watching on ITV1+1 as happened in thr household, I'm sure they could have found something better to have on as background whilst they waited. We turned to Challenge but I would have switched to analogue to avoid Fake Britain if necessary, even though the analogue signal was switched off in my part of the country last summer.
Originally Posted by myscrapbook2011:
“Is that higher, lower or in-line with Wednesdays?”
“Is that higher, lower or in-line with Wednesdays?”
Slightly lower, but over 300k is still a great rating for 5*.
Originally Posted by Score:
“Not exaclty. It actually got 4.917m, but we only had the rating to one decimal place at the time.”
“Not exaclty. It actually got 4.917m, but we only had the rating to one decimal place at the time.
”
4.55m actually...
I know the +1 debate will never be satisfactorily resolved, but surely the aggregators sense the unfairness in deciding "the 9pm hour contest" by lumping in the extra viewing for one channel's (only) 10pm hour?
The only way you can fairly score the 9pm drama hour contest is by comparing the overnight ratings for the 9pm showings - arguably if both channels had a plus 1 service you could say you are comparing like for like by adding both repeats in.
But they don't. So you can't.
Originally Posted by RobbieSykes123:
“4.55m actually...
I know the +1 debate will never be satisfactorily resolved, but surely the aggregators sense the unfairness in deciding "the 9pm hour contest" by lumping in the extra viewing for one channel's (only) 10pm hour?
The only way you can fairly score the 9pm drama hour contest is by comparing the overnight ratings for the 9pm showings - arguably if both channels had a plus 1 service you could say you are comparing like for like by adding both repeats in.
But they don't. So you can't.”
“4.55m actually...
I know the +1 debate will never be satisfactorily resolved, but surely the aggregators sense the unfairness in deciding "the 9pm hour contest" by lumping in the extra viewing for one channel's (only) 10pm hour?
The only way you can fairly score the 9pm drama hour contest is by comparing the overnight ratings for the 9pm showings - arguably if both channels had a plus 1 service you could say you are comparing like for like by adding both repeats in.
But they don't. So you can't.
”
Oh I agree that +1 shouldn't be included when directly comparing BBC1 and ITV1 (or BBC2 and C4 or whatever) in a slot, but I wasn't comparing LAO with Hustle, I was merely commenting on LAO's rating on its own, for which I do think +1 should be included (and indeed for comparing ITV1 shows with previous years etc I think it should be included). So basically I include it unless I'm comparing with another channel in the same slot, when I agree it's unfair (unless both channels have +1 ie. ITV1 vs C4). I think that's a pretty reasonable view on it.
CBB still giving a respectable showing for Channel 5. Actually the ratings aren't down that much on the last January series. I'm still of the opinion that while the civilian BB is on its last legs, the celeb one should be kept going. 2.2 million is more than many ITV1 shows got last year.
Originally Posted by Score:
“Oh I agree that +1 shouldn't be included when directly comparing BBC1 and ITV1 (or BBC2 and C4 or whatever) in a slot, but I wasn't comparing LAO with Hustle, I was merely commenting on LAO's rating on its own, for which I do think +1 should be included (and indeed for comparing ITV1 shows with previous years etc I think it should be included). So basically I include it unless I'm comparing with another channel in the same slot, when I agree it's unfair (unless both channels have +1 ie. ITV1 vs C4). I think that's a pretty reasonable view on it.”
“Oh I agree that +1 shouldn't be included when directly comparing BBC1 and ITV1 (or BBC2 and C4 or whatever) in a slot, but I wasn't comparing LAO with Hustle, I was merely commenting on LAO's rating on its own, for which I do think +1 should be included (and indeed for comparing ITV1 shows with previous years etc I think it should be included). So basically I include it unless I'm comparing with another channel in the same slot, when I agree it's unfair (unless both channels have +1 ie. ITV1 vs C4). I think that's a pretty reasonable view on it.”
So in your view, a factually accurate statement would be:
"Last night Hustle got 5.1m, LAO got 4.9m, therefore Hustle beat LAO by 0.5m"?
You're rewriting the laws of mathematics...
Originally Posted by Score:
“Oh I agree that +1 shouldn't be included when directly comparing BBC1 and ITV1 (or BBC2 and C4 or whatever) in a slot, but I wasn't comparing LAO with Hustle, I was merely commenting on LAO's rating on its own, for which I do think +1 should be included (and indeed for comparing ITV1 shows with previous years etc I think it should be included). So basically I include it unless I'm comparing with another channel in the same slot, when I agree it's unfair (unless both channels have +1 ie. ITV1 vs C4). I think that's a pretty reasonable view on it.”
“Oh I agree that +1 shouldn't be included when directly comparing BBC1 and ITV1 (or BBC2 and C4 or whatever) in a slot, but I wasn't comparing LAO with Hustle, I was merely commenting on LAO's rating on its own, for which I do think +1 should be included (and indeed for comparing ITV1 shows with previous years etc I think it should be included). So basically I include it unless I'm comparing with another channel in the same slot, when I agree it's unfair (unless both channels have +1 ie. ITV1 vs C4). I think that's a pretty reasonable view on it.”
Yep - after all we know that timeshifting overnight is quite popular. So can't be used as fair comparison but CAN be used to comment on a shows success or failure.
Same with iplayer - 'ah but look at iplayer!' doesn't mean its 'beating' anyone, only adding added value for BBC.
Only comparisons I think are fair are for soaps, as they all have same day repeats.
Originally Posted by Glenn A:
“CBB still giving a respectable showing for Channel 5. Actually the ratings aren't down that much on the last January series. I'm still of the opinion that while the civilian BB is on its last legs, the celeb one should be kept going. 2.2 million is more than many ITV1 shows got last year.”
“CBB still giving a respectable showing for Channel 5. Actually the ratings aren't down that much on the last January series. I'm still of the opinion that while the civilian BB is on its last legs, the celeb one should be kept going. 2.2 million is more than many ITV1 shows got last year.”
They should wait till the summer before they decide, BB12's ratings could have been because of CBB and being on in September when there's more on.
Originally Posted by grimshaw:
“Yep - after all we know that timeshifting overnight is quite popular. So can't be used as fair comparison but CAN be used to comment on a shows success or failure.
Same with iplayer - 'ah but look at iplayer!' doesn't mean its 'beating' anyone, only adding added value for BBC.
Only comparisons I think are fair are for soaps, as they all have same day repeats.”
“Yep - after all we know that timeshifting overnight is quite popular. So can't be used as fair comparison but CAN be used to comment on a shows success or failure.
Same with iplayer - 'ah but look at iplayer!' doesn't mean its 'beating' anyone, only adding added value for BBC.
Only comparisons I think are fair are for soaps, as they all have same day repeats.”
But how do you know how many +1 viewers are "timeshifting" and how many just happen to stumble on, say, the LAO repeat on a different channel, ITV1+1, when flicking around in a different timeslot at 10pm.
The +1s obviously do include genuine "catch up" viewing, but they also include "sweep up" viewing by people who just happen to find a show on a different channel and in a different slot. It's not fair to lump these "sweep ups" in with the main show overnights when programmes on commercial channels have that opportunity which is denied to competing programmes on the BBC.
Hello.
I wonder if anyone knows on Average what does 5* normally pull in?
you get the feeling its the weakest channel in the channel 5 stable.
Guessing the 300k BBlivefeed got last night is pretty high for 5*?
I wonder if anyone knows on Average what does 5* normally pull in?
you get the feeling its the weakest channel in the channel 5 stable.
Guessing the 300k BBlivefeed got last night is pretty high for 5*?
Originally Posted by Daniel:
“BB live feed had 315k (1.6%).”
“BB live feed had 315k (1.6%).”
I bet an hour of live feed on a Saturday and Sunday night would match or indeed beat the BOTS 5* episodes they have on at the weekend for a far lower cost.
Originally Posted by rzt:
“Just onto a wider point though, I think one of the reasons why ITV1 has lost so much ratings share in the last decade or so is that they've considerably reduced their programming budget in that time in order to adapt to a changing advertising market, the recession, increased multichannel competition etc - something which probably had to be done, though maybe not to the extent it has been. Since 2003, the main channel's annual budget has been reduced by -20% (after adjusting for inflation) which of course has had a major impact on the choice of programmes they now air and thus a knock-on effect of their ratings. They don't show anywhere near as much drama as they used to, which is the one genre that normally delivers the highest ratings for them on a daily basis (bar the soaps). They've had to seriously cut back on their Saturday night schedule outside of Autumn resulting in some poor schedules which just about have new programming between 7-10pm even though previously it would've been between 6-11pm. They used to show 3 hours of pre-watershed drama (besides the soaps) per week most of the year, now they don't really show any - they can't afford to. They hardly commission anything for post-10pm anymore. They've slashed their news budget, leading to poorer quality news coverage and many viewers switching to alternatives. All these things make a big difference from a ratings point of view because they've replaced those above things which normally have a high ratings-threshold level with generally filler and repeats that have a lower ratings-level. In the meantime since 2003, BBC One's annual programming budget has remained static so they've continued to invest in lots of quality programming for a lot more different timeslots (pre-7pm Saturday, post 10pm, slots up against the soaps etc). And so the ratings gap between the two channels has progressively got bigger and bigger - 8 years ago the two channels had a similar budget, now BBC1 has a 20% bigger budget.
I think ITV need to consider increasing their investment in programming otherwise their main channel ratings share will continue to decline at a pretty rapid rate. Moving the Champions League to Tuesdays isn't going to do anything overall for them ratings-wise, all that's going to happen is Tuesdays will rate better 15-weeks of the year but all the current cheap Tuesday programmes will move over to Wednesdays and Thursdays, the latter day of which will rate considerably worse than it is at the moment. If they want a serious chance of ITV1's ratings increasing or flatlining overall, they have to increase the programme budget and invest in more drama/sport/high-end entertainment. It's a bit like Channel 5 and Sky 1 at the moment, C5 are reportedly spending an extra £40m on their schedule than a couple of years ago to accomodate BB and it's helped them increase their viewing figures (certainly the CBB part anyway), whilst Sky 1's increased investment in original drama and comedy has seen their ratings go up too. If you invest more into your programmes, you'll get the ratings reward. The ITV shareholders would probably disagree with that as long as the company's turning a decent profit, they'd say what's the point in spending more money on programmes. But for the long term future of ITV1, it's surely a bad thing if their programme budget is kept so low compared to the major competitor as viewers will be driven away to other channels and their natural base audience (which used to be 30%, then 25%, then 20%, now more like 15-20%) will simply continue to decline, making it harder for them to launch new hit programmes and that'll bite them in the back in the future when the current set of big-hitters (bar Corrie and Emmerdale which I think will run and run but to slowly declining audiences) fall out of favour with the public and they have difficulty launching new hit programmes.”
“Just onto a wider point though, I think one of the reasons why ITV1 has lost so much ratings share in the last decade or so is that they've considerably reduced their programming budget in that time in order to adapt to a changing advertising market, the recession, increased multichannel competition etc - something which probably had to be done, though maybe not to the extent it has been. Since 2003, the main channel's annual budget has been reduced by -20% (after adjusting for inflation) which of course has had a major impact on the choice of programmes they now air and thus a knock-on effect of their ratings. They don't show anywhere near as much drama as they used to, which is the one genre that normally delivers the highest ratings for them on a daily basis (bar the soaps). They've had to seriously cut back on their Saturday night schedule outside of Autumn resulting in some poor schedules which just about have new programming between 7-10pm even though previously it would've been between 6-11pm. They used to show 3 hours of pre-watershed drama (besides the soaps) per week most of the year, now they don't really show any - they can't afford to. They hardly commission anything for post-10pm anymore. They've slashed their news budget, leading to poorer quality news coverage and many viewers switching to alternatives. All these things make a big difference from a ratings point of view because they've replaced those above things which normally have a high ratings-threshold level with generally filler and repeats that have a lower ratings-level. In the meantime since 2003, BBC One's annual programming budget has remained static so they've continued to invest in lots of quality programming for a lot more different timeslots (pre-7pm Saturday, post 10pm, slots up against the soaps etc). And so the ratings gap between the two channels has progressively got bigger and bigger - 8 years ago the two channels had a similar budget, now BBC1 has a 20% bigger budget.
I think ITV need to consider increasing their investment in programming otherwise their main channel ratings share will continue to decline at a pretty rapid rate. Moving the Champions League to Tuesdays isn't going to do anything overall for them ratings-wise, all that's going to happen is Tuesdays will rate better 15-weeks of the year but all the current cheap Tuesday programmes will move over to Wednesdays and Thursdays, the latter day of which will rate considerably worse than it is at the moment. If they want a serious chance of ITV1's ratings increasing or flatlining overall, they have to increase the programme budget and invest in more drama/sport/high-end entertainment. It's a bit like Channel 5 and Sky 1 at the moment, C5 are reportedly spending an extra £40m on their schedule than a couple of years ago to accomodate BB and it's helped them increase their viewing figures (certainly the CBB part anyway), whilst Sky 1's increased investment in original drama and comedy has seen their ratings go up too. If you invest more into your programmes, you'll get the ratings reward. The ITV shareholders would probably disagree with that as long as the company's turning a decent profit, they'd say what's the point in spending more money on programmes. But for the long term future of ITV1, it's surely a bad thing if their programme budget is kept so low compared to the major competitor as viewers will be driven away to other channels and their natural base audience (which used to be 30%, then 25%, then 20%, now more like 15-20%) will simply continue to decline, making it harder for them to launch new hit programmes and that'll bite them in the back in the future when the current set of big-hitters (bar Corrie and Emmerdale which I think will run and run but to slowly declining audiences) fall out of favour with the public and they have difficulty launching new hit programmes.”
rzt - superb, high quality post as ever.
However the question has to be - if ITV invested more in drama would it be profitable? A few thoughts:
1) Your overall summaries of monthly viewing shares vs prior year generally show quite a high level of stability - ie viewing shares (especially on the main 5 channels) don't change much despite all the individual successes and failures discussed on here. I think this shows viewing habits are highly ingrained. Which begs the question - if ITV1 (or indeed C5) invests a lot of extra money, can they gain enough extra viewers to make the extra investment profitable? Sure, viewing figures will rise, but will they rise enough?
2) Competition is still increasing so is it realistic to think that the overall viewing share of a main 5 channel could rise significantly? They are battling against the long term tide. I think recent viewing figures / results suggest a more effective strategy is to build up the digital channels. The budgets of ITV2/3/4 are all tiny compared to ITV1 yet ITV2/3/4 all seem to have a much lower cost per viewer than ITV1 so it may well be better to invest any extra money there rather than in ITV1.
3) Final minor point - is advertising minutage an issue? ie With more adverts during Emmerdale and Coronation Street then the revenue upside elsewhere is constrained.
The BBC may have a problem with the live darts. I can't see the first semi final finishing by 4.30pm. But they can't switch it to BBC2 as there is a film on until 5.30pm.
I can't see them dropping Final Score. Surely they aren't going to ditch the darts mid-match and refer people to the highlights show at 11.50pm for the end?
Surprised they haven't left contingency for an overrun...
I can't see them dropping Final Score. Surely they aren't going to ditch the darts mid-match and refer people to the highlights show at 11.50pm for the end?
Surprised they haven't left contingency for an overrun...
Originally Posted by RobbieSykes123:
“The BBC may have a problem with the live darts. I can't see the first semi final finishing by 4.30pm. But they can't switch it to BBC2 as there is a film on until 5.30pm.
I can't see them dropping Final Score. Surely they aren't going to ditch the darts mid-match and refer people to the highlights show at 11.50pm for the end?
Surprised they haven't left contingency for an overrun...”
“The BBC may have a problem with the live darts. I can't see the first semi final finishing by 4.30pm. But they can't switch it to BBC2 as there is a film on until 5.30pm.
I can't see them dropping Final Score. Surely they aren't going to ditch the darts mid-match and refer people to the highlights show at 11.50pm for the end?
Surprised they haven't left contingency for an overrun...
”
I think they're probably OK.
It's 5-3 now - won't overrun unless it goes to a final set which is only approx a 25% chance now.
Originally Posted by Digital Sid:
“They should wait till the summer before they decide, BB12's ratings could have been because of CBB and being on in September when there's more on.”
“They should wait till the summer before they decide, BB12's ratings could have been because of CBB and being on in September when there's more on.”
I think this is what will happen. If it dips below a million too often, then Channel 5 should say adios. I think this summer is when the contract ends.
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“I think they're probably OK.
It's 5-3 now - won't overrun unless it goes to a final set which is only approx a 25% chance now.”
“I think they're probably OK.
It's 5-3 now - won't overrun unless it goes to a final set which is only approx a 25% chance now.”
5-4 and there could potentially be 3 more sets to play.
Normally they would have had both semis with coverage starting on BBC2 at 4.30pm for the second one. With ESPN sharing the coverage this year, I think someone has cocked up in assuming it will be done by 4.30. I suspect they will just delay the footie results 10-15 mins if necessary. But not ideal.
Originally Posted by RobbieSykes123:
“5-4 and there could potentially be 3 more sets to play.”
“5-4 and there could potentially be 3 more sets to play.”
2 more!
Originally Posted by Score:
“... and Stella is doing well for Sky. Yet again, why aren't BBC1 or ITV1 airing this? I'm sure Ruth Jones would rather have her show on a more popular channel, but it seems like Sky are making much more of an effort than either with comedy.”
“... and Stella is doing well for Sky. Yet again, why aren't BBC1 or ITV1 airing this? I'm sure Ruth Jones would rather have her show on a more popular channel, but it seems like Sky are making much more of an effort than either with comedy.”
Didn't BSkyB go sniffing around for series three of Gavin & Stacey? I wonder if the possibility of nabbing the promised eventual reunion episode is a reason for all the work being flung at the writers?
63 of 123
