|
||||||||
X Factor - Ratings Thread |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#251 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,278
|
I didn't realise there was a separate thread but I posted this in the general ratings thread yesterday. It didn't get a response and probably got lost, so I think this would be more appropriate here. If you've already read it, its a straight copy and paste if you want to skip past it.
It’s very easy to forget that the 2011 auditions, with the new judges, remain the most watched set of auditions since X Factor began. If a panel without Cheryl, Dannii and Simon can achieve that, then is bringing them back going to do anything, and are they really the reasons for the high figures to begin with? Probably not, especially as the return of Cheryl failed to boost last night’s figures and the loss has probably just made it more vulnerable to losing viewers rather than a direct cause. Likewise with Simon, BGT wasn’t up this year yet received a positive critical response. Which version made ITV the most money? Last year’s shows fell apart at the live shows because of the sheer length of each episode, some of them were touching on 3 hours long and it’s an issue that appears to have carried over to this year. I think the issues for X Factor are being overstated and over thought in this thread. The simple fact is, it’s going through a rough patch that ALL similar shows go through and the only way to fix it is to keep the programme consistent across a couple of years and get the right characters in terms of contestants. There are some contestants this year that are quite unique which should help. They just need to ride it out and it will correct itself. It’s caused by a combination of viewer fatigue, lazy/complacent production and greed from the channels (extending shows etc). I doubt it will ever get 15m again for a standard results show but it’s certainly possible to get it generally rating from 10-12m rather than 8-10m as this series seems to have settled at. What ITV need to do now is make the live shows the best they possibly can without jumping the shark or being OTT with twists because it is the part of the show that tends to grow the most. They also need to take on viewer feedback in terms of the editing and direction of the show. It seemed to have helped with the final few auditions. What works in America doesn’t work here. And probably an unpopular opinion but they have to keep the same panel of judges for next year. They simply can’t have the fourth judging line up in four years, perhaps unless Simon returns (but he won’t). They had 3 line ups for the first 7 series, there is no reason to have so many now. All of the judges are competent, the panel just lacks a bit of spark which they’d get if they put Louis next to Nicole. Mel B is a terrible mentor and I doubt she’d do anything for the show anyway, if she was that good (and if the ratings were genuinely driven by who is on the panel) then surely they would have risen during the auditions? In my opinion, the change in judging line up is not a significant issue in the drop in viewers and is just a tool to mask the real issues. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#252 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 16,578
|
I wonder how they will do that. They have a 140 minute first live show, how will they keep viewers stuck with it. Last years first live show which was of a similar length, averaged 10m, whereas the first live show in 2010 which was 150 minutes averaged 12m. They have said it will be getting a revamp.
They will need to do something spectacular to win back those viewers. 9 million at this point in the series is really bad, considering the line-up which is fantastic (apart from Rylan of course). |
|
|
|
|
#253 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The United Kingdom
Posts: 8,407
|
Quote:
I wonder how they will do that. They have a 140 minute first live show, how will they keep viewers stuck with it. Last years first live show which was of a similar length, averaged 10m, whereas the first live show in 2010 which was 150 minutes averaged 12m. They have said it will be getting a revamp.
They will need to do something spectacular to win back those viewers. 9 million at this point in the series is really bad, considering the line-up which is fantastic (apart from Rylan of course). Imo, considering how garbage the pre-recorded section of this series has been, I'm surprised the ratings aren't worse. |
|
|
|
|
|
#254 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 16,578
|
Quote:
9m is not bad at all. Most shows would kill for 9m. Sure, in comparison to previous years of XF, it's not as good, but I find it absolutely astonishing that people seem to think that ratings that aren't of 2010 standard are awful or a sign that the show is dying on its arse.
Imo, considering how garbage the pre-recorded section of this series has been, I'm surprised the ratings aren't worse. This is this however: http://www.metro.co.uk/showbiz/91378...ed-in-bath-tub I don't know how it's going to boost the ratings but I don't care as long as it does.
|
|
|
|
|
#255 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The United Kingdom
Posts: 8,407
|
Quote:
Well, a loss of 5 million in just 2 years (second JH ep in 2010 averaged 14m) is something to be sniffed at.
This is this however: http://www.metro.co.uk/showbiz/91378...ed-in-bath-tub I don't know how it's going to boost the ratings but I don't care as long as it does. ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#256 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 16,578
|
Quote:
It's easy to say they've lost 5 million in 2 years and make it sound as bad as possible, but in context - ie, the fact that series 7 was more than a bit of a TV phenomenon and did very, very well - it isn't half as bad nor should it be in any way unexpected.
As much as I hope they will pick up to at least last years levels, or even higher, I don't know what the likelihood of that is, unless there is a shock decision or stand-out performance. |
|
|
|
|
#257 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,278
|
Quote:
9m is not bad at all. Most shows would kill for 9m. Sure, in comparison to previous years of XF, it's not as good, but I find it absolutely astonishing that people seem to think that ratings that aren't of 2010 standard are awful or a sign that the show is dying on its arse.
Imo, considering how garbage the pre-recorded section of this series has been, I'm surprised the ratings aren't worse. Last years show started to fail during the live shows and the lost viewers haven't returned, whereas the main bulk of those who watched last years live shows have. The gap is much narrower now to last year than it was in August, and that is more telling of last years performance than this years. They just need to hope that the shows stabilise around 9m for the Saturday show and 10m for the results show. Then they have a good grounding for improvements next year. Messing with the panel again will only cause more problems. They shouldn't have any problems getting the current line up to return and that will be half the battle won. Viewers don't like inconsistency. |
|
|
|
|
|
#258 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 16,578
|
Quote:
It's still big, just nowhere near as big has its been but is still performing exeptionally well within the audiences that is needed for ad sales. People are predicting it will be axed next year- it won't. What will ITV air from 2014 onwards in the same slot?
Last years show started to fail during the live shows and the lost viewers haven't returned, whereas the main bulk of those who watched last years live shows have. The gap is much narrower now to last year than it was in August, and that is more telling of last years performance than this years. They just need to hope that the shows stabilise around 9m for the Saturday show and 10m for the results show. Then they have a good grounding for improvements next year. Messing with the panel again will only cause more problems. They shouldn't have any problems getting the current line up to return and that will be half the battle won. Viewers don't like inconsistency. Ratings for the performance show in previous years: 2008 - 10.4m (41.0%) *peak: 11.3m (49%) 2009 - 11.3m (43.8%) *peak: 12.9m 2010 - 12.2m (48.5%) *peak: 13.8m 2011 - 10.4m (40.3%) / 10.9m *peak: 12.1m / 12.7m And in terms of the clash with Strictly: 2008 - no clash 2009 - 75 minute clash 2010 - no clash 2011 - 35 minute clash Rating for results show: 2009 - 13.0m (46.4%) 2010 - 13.14m (46.3%) 2011 - 11.9m (41.1%) *peak: 13.9m (inc +1) And good thing is, there is no clash on Saturday so that'll help the ratings a bit. |
|
|
|
|
#259 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,278
|
The extra viewers won't be back this year and there is nothing they can do about it which is why they just need to make the live shows as good as they can. The show has been far too inconsistent so unless they can get Cheryl and/or Simon to replace Tulisa and/or Gary, they should leave the panel well alone. Strictly had a tough couple of years but just went with it and found a better cast. Thats all X Factor has to do next year, and produce the auditions better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#260 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 16,578
|
Reading the song choice spoilers, I wonder if anyone could pull of a great performance. Also, there haven't been any major makeovers so I don't think people will be switching off this year.
|
|
|
|
|
#261 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 16,578
|
Also, looking at the official ratings on Wikipedia, it has been growing every week since the sixth audition episode.
|
|
|
|
|
#262 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,454
|
Quote:
Also, looking at the official ratings on Wikipedia, it has been growing every week since the sixth audition episode.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#263 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 16,578
|
Quote:
Until it lost 400k at the weekend anyway, we'll see if the officials manage to change that.
|
|
|
|
|
#264 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 37,641
|
For the 2010 series of XF they were just very lucky in the way everything worked out really - Cheryl was absolutely dominating the headlines that year with her divorce and the malaria, plus they had an exceptionally strong panel, it was riding high on the back of the successful 2009 series, it had all the 'right' controversies and marmite contestants (Gamu, Wagner, Cher Lloyd, Katie Weasal). It just seemed to enter into the public consciousness in a way it never had before and it was hitting highs that the show was never, ever going to be able to maintain. It's unrealistic to ever expect it hit to those levels again.
The 2011 series was down although that decline was only really felt post-auditions. Up until then it was actually about level with the 2010 series, but there was very little momentum. Nevertheless I felt it had hit an acceptable level considering it was never going to scale the ridiculous heights of the previous series. I feel it is slightly disappointing that this series has declined again y-o-y although the figures have been looking healthier in recent weeks. I have noticed a lot of talk about the next series being the last - just look at the 18-49 figures that the show still gets and you'll see why that is complete rubbish. It is still the most commercially lucrative series on television and ITV won't let it go anywhere if they have their own way. |
|
|
|
|
|
#265 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,452
|
Any predictions on the ratings for Saturdays show?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#266 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,454
|
Quote:
Any predictions on the ratings for Saturdays show?
It also has the potential to be an utter trainwreck though, so this weekend will probably set the levels of interest going forward. If it is a trainwreck it better be an entertaining one. If they shoot for credibility like The Voice while everything around them is falling to bits it will probably start declining again after. |
|
|
|
|
|
#267 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 16,578
|
Also pointing out, the first live show is 140 minutes long. It could boost the average a bit, but I don't know if anyone will want to stay watching that long.
|
|
|
|
|
#268 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 16,578
|
Bump...
Reading everything, I have a feeling it could average at least 11 million. |
|
|
|
|
#269 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 16,578
|
Ratings for last night:
ITV1's The X Factor peaks with 10.3m (av 9.2m) for the first live show - figs inc+1 That is even lower than last year. Whether it can improve with the results show is beyond me. |
|
|
|
|
#270 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,454
|
It's dead Jim.
After last night it will only go down from here as well, it was abysmal. |
|
|
|
|
|
#271 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 16,578
|
The results always seem to rate better. It'll peak near around the 11.2m that it got last week but most likely not more. The performances will continue to rate at 8-9m.
I'm a bit confused, some people are saying XF beat Strictly in average + peak if you include +1 figures, but some people say the opposite. |
|
|
|
|
#272 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Essex
Posts: 20,603
|
Quote:
The results always seem to rate better. It'll peak near around the 11.2m that it got last week but most likely not more. The performances will continue to rate at 8-9m.
I'm a bit confused, some people are saying XF beat Strictly in average + peak if you include +1 figures, but some people say the opposite. X Factor - 8.69m (9.2m +1) Strictly - 8.72m |
|
|
|
|
|
#273 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,454
|
Quote:
The results always seem to rate better. It'll peak near around the 11.2m that it got last week but most likely not more. The performances will continue to rate at 8-9m.
I'm a bit confused, some people are saying XF beat Strictly in average + peak if you include +1 figures, but some people say the opposite. Even Ella is a problem because she is too obvious a winner, with only Jade really as a dark horse. And it's not worth putting yourself through the rest to see the ones you do like. 2 hours 20 minutes of it was painful, and to be invested in the results you have to be willing to put yourself through it again. If you are going to be a trainwreck at least be entertaining, even Rylan is about as entertaining as cancer. An already played-out overly forced stereotype we have seen too many times before already. |
|
|
|
|
|
#274 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 16,578
|
Bump...
Any other thoughts? |
|
|
|
|
#275 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wooler, Northumberlandiana
Posts: 21,728
|
Quote:
Bump...
Any other thoughts? The judging panel really misses Cowell, no matter how many fights or controversial comments they make, they are dull. It's just a bit 'meh' |
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:27.




