Originally Posted by Georged123:
“Everyone knows it's decline massively. If your only ever going to judge the show against the 10/11m it got at the start then there isn't much point in any discussion. It's like saying BGT did terribly this year because it was 7m below the 2009 final or Eastenders is doing very badly because its down 2m from a few weeks ago without any context.”
Why on earth wouldn't I judge it against the 10/11m it was getting a few weeks ago? How absurd to suggest that's not a legitimate point of discussion.
I don't think your comparisons are the same thing at all. EastEnders' ratings are cyclical. It's been on the air for years, we've observed the natural ebb and flow of its ratings pattern for yonks and we know these things tend to recover with big stories/dark evenings etc.
If BGT had lost 7m in the
same series then I'd see what you were saying, but it didn't, so I don't.
I will judge the show's performance against how it was doing at the start of the series, just as people would do the same if it was The X Factor, or as they did when it was Titanic for example.
ETA: When the show comes back next year, then I think that's when it's fine to wipe the slate clean. But in this context as a complete series I don't see why we should suddenly dismiss the decline it's experienced.