As formal Royal ceromonies* have to be, under Ofcom's rules. Thank goodness for that: "The Diamond Jubilee Carriage Procession is brought to you by Kwik-Fit"

* a ‘formal Royal ceremony’ means a formal ceremony or occasion of which the Sovereign or members of the British Royal Family enjoying the prefix ‘Royal Highness’ are the centre. It applies to occasions such as the State Opening of Parliament and Trooping the Colour - Ofcom

Which one is Stephen Fry, Kevin Marsh, Jonathan Dimbelby, Jonathan Ross and Austin Mitchell

I found the BBC Royal Wedding coverage slightly dull but I don't think they were aiming it at my demographic, if that makes sense. It wasn't bad, just different and my personal preference was ITV1's more light-hearted approach.

But as the BBC stuck with the ceremony and kept things on point it deservedly didn't get too much criticism...beyond the forum!

They're probably just annoyed that they weren't asked to present part of the day - everyone else was.

Bit rich to accuse others Dancc, considering that you and Agent F are trying to make out that the criticism is unprecedented. When It isn't a patch on the Queen Mother's funeral or Golden Jubilee criticism.


True

I think ITV's French Open tennis ratings put into perspective some of the criticism of the BBC for how it has treated the French and Australian Opens.

The truth is that there just isn't that great an interest in tennis in this country. BBC gets huge audiences for Wimbledon because it's Wimbledon - there's huge tradition and BBC present it brilliantly and most importantly suck in the casual audience with masses of promotion and cross-promotion etc. And with that a very large casual audience will watch.

But they won't watch another tournament for two weeks - they just are not interested enough.

It's also a little bit telling that Sky has never made a big bid for the French and Australian Opens. I know it was a bit complicated with the EBU (and the organisers want some terrestrial) but even so compare Sky's attitide to those two tennis grand slams with how it's paid absolutely megabucks to get just some of the US Masters exclusive.

I think the truth is they know there just isn't the level of interest to warrant it.

Coming back to the BBC - not showing extensive coverage of the French and Australian also helped to keep Wimbledon so special. If the French had been on BBC2 for two weeks then when Wimbledon starts it's not quite so special.

Id be interested to know if on these phone ins there was any suggestion about what the BBC should have done?
Surely just following the boat trains for 5 hours would have been dull and there was no peak moment to the event anyway. The sight of the orchestra singers absolutely drenched still banging away at Rule Brittania etc to an audience who were lost in the wind and the rain was a strange highlight and by then the whole process had become a shambles for viewing.
I think people were expecting far more than the event could deliver anyway, and the weather just made it even more disjointed and shambolic.

True, but surely they'd still make more by having it on ITV1 than on ITV4 and I reckon, demo wise, the tennis would be more attractive for advertisers than Midsomer Murders, Countrywise Jubilee and a repeat of the Royal documentary from Friday?

That ban only applied to the ceremony itself. IIRC ITV's entire coverage was advert free.

Maybe they could've taken the same approach as Sky News who appear to have got off relatively scott free criticism wise (except for Eamon 'dripping wet' Holmes becoming increasing unimpressed with the whole thing. )

One can only blame ITV1 for the reputation they have built up over the last 50+ years then. I understand ITV1 is advert financed but they take tackiness to a whole new level at times.

It's hard to shake off that image, unfortunately, even when they try to. And when you have a good reputation it's hard to lose it as well.

Did anyone watch the Sky presentation? Surely Kay Burley ensured a maximum 2% share on Sunday...

Unsurprising Daily Mail rant here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...g-inanity.html

Are people not meant to dislike things? People like things and people dislike things? Some people moan and some people don't. Especially in the world of social media, the Daily Mail could probably get an article out of just about anything nowadays.

Was he drenched too?

He should have joined in with Rule Brittania

agree with a lot of this, I think grand slams are amazing but neither the womens (nor the mens really) has the depth in strength to make the first week interesting enough for the casual viewer. also when you add in stuff that you can't do much about such as starttime of matches being pretty vague and you end up with a sport that is always going to struggle to obtain a big audience in this country.

Great rating with a very high lead-in. I'm still astounded by the people saying a 10m average in daytime is low. . A 55% share in daytime is superb, and a 12m peak is brilliant. In all honesty, the event was ruined by the rain and it didn't reach the crescendo we were all hoping for. I thought the BBC coverage was fine, but then I'm not critical enough of these things anyway.


Waily Fail as per usual.

Its like Lord Reith has risen from the grave

Just to qualify my opinion, I have watched ITV1 (Granada) since about 1974 (kids tv), they provided me with so many memorable programmes over the decades - I recall the 10 week strike in late Summer 1979!!

I just never rated their live events, mainly due to their choice of presenters and 'wacky' attempts at entertainment. Fast forward to 2012, viewers trust ITV1 with TXF or BGT, but for something like A Royal Wedding or State Procession of Parliament, viewers are smart enough to use their remote controls...

Now I wonder why Gary Barlow took tonight's Palace Party to BBC1, rather than his friends at ITV1/SyCo?

What ratings did Friday's episode of 'Friday Download' on CBBC get?

I will watch with interest when BBC and ITV go head to head tomorrow and we will be told the BBC coverage is rubbish by comparison with ITV and Sky will be all but forgotten.The evidence is absolutely indisputable that viewers turn to the BBC on these big occasions and do not share the opinions of various TV critics who have never produced a programme in their lives and people posting on DS who have an axe to grind.

The numbers for ITVs French Open in no way let the BBC off the hook.

The whole point is that these events don't get large audiences but for those who like them it's solid gold entertainment. That's right up the BBCs alley, minority interest.

-----
I don't know why a FTA network is bothering with non-mainstream sport, perhaps the decline of ratings in general has gotten to the point where cult viewing is the new growth area.

Hear!! Hear!!

I am just glad the Queen still has so much appeal after 60 years, I think when Charles takes over (age 72!!) the amount of viewers interested may be less so...

a news Spice Girls doc, yeah that will set the ratings on fire, not.

Royal Babies, talk about undue pressure on Wills and Kate, now not only are they having sex to produce a kid who will be about 75 by the time they get to be King (or Queen) , now they are having sex, so some tacky opportunistic ITV documentary can air to 4m viewers maximum.

Can someone start slipping Kate the pill?

Figures almost beyond reason for the boat race.

Something to do with the BBC paying for it, I think? A bit like the Party In The Park 10 years ago.